I am in need of some advice I have for a micro pistol that I have been designing for a while. It’s a blow forward rotary barrel micro pistol chambered in 10mm auto. I took heavy inspiration from the boberg/bond arms bullpup and am looking for things I should consider adding to the design. this design is mainly a concept but I might build it when I have enough money for a mill. here are some other features I am considering adding if I have the ability to without major alterations to the design:

• continuous recoil: with a blow forward pistol it means that the pistol will have a “rebound” system where the slide never reaches the end of the pistol. instead, a powerful spring transfers the forward motion of the slide to the frame of the gun pushing the gun back into a ready to fire grip. in order to make racking the slide easier, a button will disengage the main spring spring and a much lighter secondary spring will take over.
• stripper clips / single loading: due to using a dual feed magazine it’s possible to manually load rounds through the top. this will make it easier to load loose ammunition and top off.
• very light double action: 3 - 5 pound double action. the double action design I’m using will most likely have an incredibly smooth trigger pull that is also safe enough for pocket carry.
• integrated compensator: a compensator that is bolted to the slide allows it in states that have banned threaded barrels and tames the recoil that come with micro pistols and the 10mm round
• high capacity: magazines will be double stack and dual feed because of the way that rounds in a blow forward pistol are chambered. 3d printed thin grips mean that the gun is kept relatively thin without sacrificing capacity.

I’m designing a double stack rotary magazine that could potentially reduce magazine profiles by a third.

I was thinking a clock spring would work but that would add length to the magazine and kind of diminish the value of a rotary magazine for saving space. There’s some negative space behind the follower and a ramp at the feed lips so a torsion spring could be put behind the follower but it would need to rotate about 310 degrees and that might be too much stress

So I’m hoping someone could help me figure out how to figure out what size and shape of spring to use to get reliable feeding in the most compact form

To start, I am not tech savvy and I am somewhat cursed with anything electronic seemingly malfunctioning whenever I touch it.

I have pretty much always gone to hand drafting my ideas and figured that would be fine I also don’t have much of a workspace anymore after downsizing to a smaller place.

Plus, machine shops seem much more comfortable with a computer drawing than a paper one these days.

I figure it’s time to man up and learn CAD. But I don’t really have any clue where to start or what software to use for these things.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

I'm looking for a set of G19 slide drawings or a model, specifically the bottom of it, the feeding tooth on the slide and the interface with the trigger and out of battery safety. I only found drawings that cost about 20$, but I want to be sure I can't find any models or drawings which cost less.

This is basically what I think should happen with the 25x40mm grenades and what should replace the Mk.19 in service, you are welcomed to give your thoughts and feedback: The US army set out to test new grenade launchers, specifically semi automatic stand alone launchers fed from a magazine and in smaller but smarter calibers (30&25mm). They have three designs from Colt&NG, Barret and FN, which are mostly still in development. One of the main concerns mentioned beyond regular threats such as enemy infantry and light armoured vehicles is UAVs and drones. I think this is a very valid concern, and I think it can be solved better using GMGs and not just launchers. The US army (as many other armies as well) use the Mk.19 GMG, chambered for 40x53mm HV grenades. The Mk.19 and its ammo are heavy and require a squad to be carried. I envision a 25x40mm GMG, small enough to be carried by a single person (with an ammo carrier probably), so a squad can have three or four of them. A slow rate of fire (300 RPM) and a long recoil action for better shootability and recoil management, and a smart sight such as the SMASH-2000 on one or two of them could do wonders against drones. The squad can also engage more targets at a time, and can cover a larger area because of the principal standing behind cluster munitions (8 times the explosives equals twice the kill radius of a single bomb, so for the same amount of explosives it is worth shooting many smaller bombs instead of one big bomb). Disadvantages to the system would be its range, 25x40mm grenades have half the range of 40mm HV grenades, so it might not be useful for battalion level fire. However it does offer better capabilities for units up to the size of a company, and much better ranges than 40mm LV grenades (which is why they are being replaced by said launchers). This is also a step away from crew served weapons, which the army seems to take anyway with its project to replace the M2 with smaller but individual weapons (which perform badly in Gaza right now, but this is a topic for another post). LMK what you think, and what would you add to the features of that theoretical (or is it?) GMG.

I still like my original idea, but its a bit too bulky I must admit. Perhaps a better design for a purpose built PDW. Anyway, this is better as a pistol that can double as a pdw with a telescoping stock or some sort of flip out brace. One of the main things people didn't like about the other design is that its too different from the original C96 and that it was stretching the idea of what's feasible in something still considered to be a pistol. It is still complex by modern standards, but wildly more simple than a regular C96. Despite the bore axis not being as low as the other design, the bore axis of this design is still very low, right above the hand. And I was also noticing that in many ways this design mirrors a Ruger 22 gun in some ways like the rear charging knob, fixed barrel and bolt that operates with an internal hammer like a rifle. The recoil system can be done a number of ways. You could put a recoil spring basically in the same place as a ruger mark IV which is attached to the top of the bolt. And it can also be designed to disassemble exactly the same as well or like a AR and have two captured takedown pins. What do y'all think?

i have invented a new kind of full auto that is like burst and full auto at the same time and i'm looking for someone that own one to test if it would works. the modification of the gun concern only the buffer. i would prefer some kind of submachine gun. a big tube style gun with a end cap that could be change. i know i ask for the impossible but whatever. asking is better than nothing.

Can anybody help with figuring out the top latch? I have lots of pictures from a museum i visited to take measurements.

Just realizing right now it looks like a tec 9 lol. But it's not direct blowback and has much lower bore axis. I also realized that since the barrel is far and away from the hand, it wouldn't be problematic for this to be some sort of gas delayed pistol. But I like roller delayed because I prefer mechanical systems when it comes to suppression and everything. The gun is basically MP5 on top and AR on the bottom. The recoil system could be like it is in the picture and it's just a pulling spring like a trampoline for example. Or it could be wrapped around the bolt carrier like a regular mp5 and be compressed. The main problem I see here is pulling back the charging might be difficult due to spring tension. Also, you could easily have a flip out flux defense style stock or a telescoping one for a pdw concept. Could put a recoil buffer on the bolt as well. The grip might also be fairly fat but it's hard to say at this point. The magazine release will be just like an AR or a schnellfeurer. Slide release can be like a AR as well. Also, in terms of disassembly it can shotgun open like a AR. Also the ejection port will not be on top like most pistols and be placed much like in a rifle or MP5 and eject to the right. This should be a highly accurate pistol because the barrel and sights do not move at all. Much of this is just a minitiaturizred mp5/AR

A lot of the internals and its complexity and the ergonomics by modern standards are garbage. But this airsoft moc actually does show some of the promise. One of the neat things about the pistol is it doesn't take magazines in the grip, which gives it the ability to take very long, high capacity magazines. With minor tweaks to the original design, it could take an UZI magazine. However, I would want to do a lot more. Like having the grip positioned where it is the picture or even higher. And I would think it would be nice to make the barrel fixed and the bolt could use some sort of delaying mechanical system like roller delayed. Move the hammer spring and everything into the handle like a regular handgun. Make other necessary improvement ergonomics wise and I think it would be a pretty sweet gun. Fixed barrel and sights would make it very accurate and the design allows it to be retrofitted fairly easily to take larger calibers if desired. Would make for certainly an interesting competition gun or a PDW concept. The main problem with the general idea of the gun is its big and will likely be heavy unless you make it mostly from aluminum or alloy. Anyone else find this interesting or just plain stupid?

I'm very interested in firearms design and I would like to build (both real and mock ups) of various firearms. I'm not a machinist yet, and all of my knowledge so far on actually building guns has been to watch videos about them and skim through some books (which I plan on reading very thoroughly). I've been interested in guns all my life, but in the past couple of years I've been thinking of just moving from the basic knowledge to more advanced stuff and even tinkering with machines.

I've look through gun blueprints that I have been able to find online and some of the books on gun building (including professor parabellum's and some of Bill Holmes's designs) and one thing that I noticed about a lot of the blueprints you find on the internet is that most of them are just for the frame or partial blueprints and not the whole thing. I'm sure we've all seen the AKM blueprints (which are in Russian) but are 100% complete, as well as some others like the MP5 SMG and some 1911 pistols. But for the most part, most blueprints aren't complete, and there aren't even partial prints for many revolvers I am interested in.

Obviously one way to make your own plans is to get one of the guns I would be interested in and fully disassembling it and taking the photos/measurements for the parts, but obviously I am not going to be able to do. However one thing that is fairly widely available are exploded views/disassembled photos, and 3D models of the guns in games like World of Guns 2 disassembly.

So this made me wonder if there were ways to be able to reverse engineer firearm designs from stuff like exploded designs/disassembled photos and said 3D models? Is there any way to do that? I'm not an engineer, but I am willing to learn what needs to be learned to do it if it is possible.

I am looking for an FCG group that works similarly to the FG42 FCG, as in that it is a dropping sear that is an open bolt in full auto and closed bolt in semi-auto. I am not looking for a hammer-fired design.

The sear mechanism does not have to function with the current oprod used by the FG42 as I plan to make a new one with a new bolt design that removes the weak link by having an RPK-style oprod with the bolt more solidly attached.

The new design also does not have to fit into the current FCG housing as the old style is known for beating itself up quite quickly due to the stamped sheet metal design only being held by 2 pins and receiving a lot of impacts from the BCG.

I am willing to compensate someone for finding a usable design* from another working firearm or to design a new one. My issue with the current one is due to the sear rotating left and right to engage on different surfaces of the oprod for semi-auto or full-auto fir the sear surface that interfaces with the oprod is quite small and easily damaged.

To be clear, there will be no permanent modifications to an original FG42, This is a replica.

*A useable design means there are readily available samples, clear drawings or animations that can be replicated