| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 82: |
Line 82: |
|
| |
|
| :::Yeah, well it goes without saying they went for drama over accuracy, as she'd be far more likely to use a red dot or other similar reticle, or if she really wanted a projected beam she'd use IR so people wouldn't see it without night vision goggles, etc. The fact that she probably could have made the shot open sighted notwithstanding. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | | :::Yeah, well it goes without saying they went for drama over accuracy, as she'd be far more likely to use a red dot or other similar reticle, or if she really wanted a projected beam she'd use IR so people wouldn't see it without night vision goggles, etc. The fact that she probably could have made the shot open sighted notwithstanding. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
| :::: And of course you can't kill Richard Hatch in his very first appearance! My prediction- I expect Lee Adama to end up killing Tom Zarek, just to satisfy our sense of irony- "Apollo" killing "Apollo" (grins and drinks some coffee). [[User:Darthpaul|Darthpaul]] 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::::: Well, I was wrong- the firing squad killed Zarek ("Blood On The Scales"). But Lee/"Apollo" was there! [[User:Darthpaul|Darthpaul]] 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| == Speculations on the Season 1 Sidearm ==
| |
|
| |
| The operation of most of the weapons used on BSG are pretty self-explanatory, since they are just tricked-out/ futurized versions of a real-world weapon. The Season 1 sidearm (aka Colonial Clamshell) is a little different, since it is built around a standard revolver, yet the "shell" of the weapon hides almost all traces of the revolver cylinder and reloading mechanism, and makes it impossible for the cylinder to swing out to the side. Obviously, for filming, one would remove the shell, swing out the cylinder, load blank rounds, close it up and replace the shell- but in the world of BSG there wouldn't be time for that in the heat of a gunfight. Since we've never seen this gun being reloaded on screen, I have come up with some speculations on how it operates as a real weapon "in-universe".
| |
| The hinge on the bottom of the frame, forward of the trigger guard, is the key to the whole thing. It seems clear that this is a top-break revolver design, similar to the British Webley pistols. For reloading, an internal latch is released, the cylinder and barrel assembly of the weapon hinge forward bringing the cylinder up and out of the shell; empty cartridges would be ejected, fresh rounds inserted, and the whole thing swung back down to latch shut. The top rail would bring the cylinder up with it, disengaging it from the revolver mechanism.
| |
| I concluded that the main part of the shell must remain attached to the frame, or else there wouldn't be enough room to unload and reload. The cylinder (barely visible through a gap in the shell) must lift clear of the clamshell for reloading. The under-barrel launcher would swing down at the same time, as the whole thing is a solid assembly. As we have seen, the launcher is loaded by just stuffing a round in the front, so no further mechanism is needed there. There is a tiny metal protrusion on the frame just above the trigger, visible in the photo of the left side of the gun- this might be the cylinder latch, although it seems too small. We have seen (in Valley of Darkness) that the large switch on the upper shell is a safety- it might also be the cylinder release; perhaps it is a multi-purpose lever which can also select between the standard cylinder and explosive launcher?
| |
| I suppose we'll never really know, will we?
| |
| [[User:Darthpaul|Darthpaul]] 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Then again I could be wrong. I've just seen a working Season 1 sidearm prop where the cylinder swings out as normal for most modern revolvers, the clamshell is a 2-part affair with one part attached to the swing-arm in front of the cylinder. It swings out along with the cylinder for reloading. There's no in-universe reason that it couldn't work like this, I simply never noticed any gaps in the photos I've seen that would indicate where two halves met. Sign of a really well-made prop! [[User:Darthpaul|Darthpaul]] 14:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
| |
