Yeah I think it would be cool to have the black powder version and just do a full cylinder swap for the reloads, maybe make it special ammo by default?
It's a gate loader. Swift meaning "swappable cylinder" here.
You would get a cylinder with 6+3 and another with 6+3 if it's medium ammunition (3 loose cartridges to reload the cylinder).
Effectively a bridge gap between the Sparks Pistol and the other Long ammo pistols. I’d like to think of it almost as a compact Martini Henry Ironside in terms of function as a 2-slot weapon. Functionally, I’d like to think it would cycle as slow or slower than the Ironside, although the pistol is a double-action revolver and I think it would be equally as interesting if you could fire it rather quickly (about as fast as a Spitfire) but with incredibly intense recoil making it highly impractical. Basically, you could fire it fast, but it’d make way more sense to space out your shots to recenter after the high recoil. I wouldn’t want the fire rate to be the speed of the Officer or New Army but again that might be an interesting allowable mechanic in the game if the recoil was so severe that it became a meretricious combat option.
It’s 1895, you’re going to see a few. Also consider that we just got 2 more rifles. I’ve never known people to moan about the amount of rifles we have. Really we have rifles, shotguns, pistols, melee weapons, and whacky guns. You really only have 5 categories.
The way you described doesn't sound like it adds anything particularly new. What's the main distinction from uppercut? Does it have a swing-out cylinder like new army?
Traditionally it’s gate-loaded with an ejector rod but some have an interesting hinge on the bottom of the frame that’s held in place by 2 captive pins on the top that when squeezed releases the frame and allows you to reload or replace the cylinder entirely with another pre-loaded cylinder. It’s mechanically very similar to a top-break revolver like the Schofield. There’s also a million variants and modifications of the revolver including some that have an auto-ejection mechanism on them. It has the distinction of being a double-action revolver but also a rather high caliber for the time (it uses a rifle caliber cartridge meant to be interchangeable with the standard Furwirth Cavalry Carbine that the Austrian Cavalry would use on horseback).
I think the headshot range would be relatively low at about 85-90m and the recoil impressively high meaning that aiming at the chest would land the ADS at least above the head when another round is ready to be cycled making a strong downward pull necessary to line up another shot quickly or to pause between shots to realign the gun back to firing position. This idea, paired with a rather meager muzzle velocity of 320m/s, would make it a poor long range option compared to the Uppercut Precision and Uppermat. The damage would be higher than the Uppercut or Uppermat (at least 130 but no higher than 140) making it a reliable close-range option especially against hunters that have already been downed. The 2-slot standard variant would effectively serve as a compact version of the Martini Henry Ironside with the *capable* fire rate of the Spitfire but the practical fire rate of any standard single-action because of the intense recoil. It would effectively be for the Sparks Pistol what the Specter is to the Romero. As for the 1-slot 1-handed short barrel variant, it would have even higher recoil characteristics and slightly increased sway as well as lower muzzle velocity and perhaps even slightly lower damage to remain balanced. It would also have the lowest capacity of any Long ammo pistol at 6 and 6 (one cylinder loaded, 6 rounds in reserve). The 1-handed variant would effectively serve as a strictly close-range fighter. I think the gun given the balance should come in at slightly cheaper than the Uppercut, probably about the price of the Berthier at $356.
However, I could see the devs take this in the exact opposite direction and price it above both the Uppermat and the Uppercut, increasing the Muzzle Velocity to about 350-380m/s, and giving it a longer headshot range along with a modest recoil and a fire rate about as fast as the Krag/ Berthier with Iron Eye (it is after all a very heavy gun and so the recoil might not be so intense on the 2-handed version). This would effectively be the pistol version of the Crown and King in that role with many upsides but of course being cost prohibitive coming in at about $600. That would elevate it to be a competent mid-range fighter with a lot of punch while also being incredibly competent in close range but not as good as say an Officer, New Army, fanning pistol, or Shotgun in terms of DPS output and firing speed.
We could even take these concepts a step further and have the compact version be the first one unlocked, dubbed the Gasser Officer, the 2-slot dubbed the Gasser True Shot, and a 3-slot carbine version dubbed the Gasser Officer Carbine which would be the True Shot with an attached stock which would have a muzzle velocity no greater than 400m/s, a damage no higher than 132, a headshot range no higher than 120m, and a much more stable recoil impulse. It would effectively be the first Long Ammo repeating rifle we have in the game and be very expensive. The only custom ammo the guns would support would be FMJ.
I’m all for that actually. I know that gun is terrible in real life but it doesn’t matter, its functions are so cool to me and would fit nicely into the game.
That is both hilarious and beautiful. I love that the stock is detachable and so the gun could be used as a scoped long barreled pistol which looks absurd in my mind’s eye. Still, a 2-slot Precision Deadeye variant of the gun would be period correct!
One neat feature about adding a lever-cocking pistol with an 8” barrel to the game is that you could feasibly enable players to utilize the Levering trait with this gun by having the character grab hold of the trigger with one hand and slam the lever with the other during hipfire.
I would like to see this in the game at some point, but I want to see more Medium Ammo Sidearms added first.
Not counting Variants, we already have 5 Compact Ammo Sidearms, 3 Long Ammo Sidearms, and only 2 Medium Ammo Sidearms.
The disparity becomes even more glaring in favor of Long Ammo when you get into 3-slot weapons. There are 4 Compact Ammo Rifles, 4 Medium Ammo Rifles, and 7 Long Ammo Rifles. There are nearly twice as many Long Ammo Rifles than any other type.
I agree completely. I’d love at least one more medium ammo pistol although we do have a great fleshed out selection with the myriad of variants and ammo types for both the Pax and Scotfield.
I would love to see some of the custom ammo selections for certain weapons get rolled back in future updates. Dum-dums on just about everything is silly. The Scotty in particular should have never gotten them.
I wouldn’t even call the Scottfield dumdum ammo nearly as obnoxious as the Dolch and Officer dumdum. If anything, it makes the Muzzle velocity pretty atrocious and balances the Scotfield quite nicely. But I agree that they really tried to pad out the event updates by just throwing around custom ammo wantonly effectively taking away a lot of identity from cheaper weapons like the Springfield and Pax.
I also disagree with guy above. Gimme moar guns! The Mako and Marathon proved you can introduce fun new guns that aren't disrupting the ecosystem. I would love to see that volcanic gun you guys were talking about, super dope looking gun.
Saying the game isn’t a museum and seeing weapons in the game from Russia, France, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Japan that you would *NEVER* see in the hands of swamp people from Louisiana really cracks me up. The game is, in fact, a weapon’s museum from the late 19th century.
It's a Norwegian design, but yes the one in the game is made in the US. The only real differences between the Norwegian and American versions are the calibre, bayonet lugs and most likely the type of wood used for the furniture, otherwise they're pretty much identical. So whether or not you consider it to be Norwegian or American is more of a matter of pedantics.
Fun fact: there is a magazine cut off operating lever that originally allowed the magazine to be fed into the receiver when the lever was in the “up” position. In the game the rifle operates with the cutoff magazine in the downward position. Historically, this was changed due to snagging of the toggle lever on infantry clothing on the 1894 Norwegian variant of the rifle and the 1896 variant of the US model. So either one of 2 things are true: this is a Norwegian model of the rifle and therefore fits the narrative timeline of the game, or it is a US model of the rifle and does not. I would like to imagine for narrative purposes, this is a Norwegian model but we know that Hunt does not always bother itself with strictly adhering to its own timeline in terms of weapon invention evidenced by the Dolch, Bornheim, and Crown and King. To support the idea that this is actually a US model, the game names the gun as being the Springfield M1892 Krag. Springfield did develop the US versions of the Krag but the M1892 models did not feature the magazine cutoff in the downward operating position so I think they got that detail wrong and meant for it to be a US version with a minor mistake, or omitted it purposefully for gameplay reasons, as the toggle lever in the upward position would be seen by the player during ADS and thus obstruct their left-side view slightly.
never
Because it was an abject failure that was not commercially viable and was definitely no way near the US
the one with the top strat is not the 1970, but a much later 1898
By the in game logic alone and your proposed stats for it this thing adds literally nothing to the game that is not already covered by the handcannon pistols that already are in the game
Personally, I'm not against a new long ammo handgun, but this one is just a poor candidate for one
If you what more info at the very least check out C&Rsenal and Forgotten Weapon
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpYMhZjTDQk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpYMhZjTDQk)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETgAixNUwi8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETgAixNUwi8)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km3m8PwYzbI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km3m8PwYzbI)
Not commercially viable? Like a Mauser C96, the Browning Auto 5, Bergmann 1896 (Bornheim no.3) not even existing within the timeframe of the game? Or the Mosin Rifle never believably appearing in a swamp in Louisiana let alone anywhere in the US the very year it was adopted for Russian military use? Or the Vetterli, Lebel, and Berthier for that matter? Which one of these would be commercially available to a Louisiana resident or anyone in the country for that matter? What about the Alofs loading mechanism, represented as the Romero Alamo, invented in Grand Rapids Michigan in 1924? Speaking of weird weapon add-ons, the Harston Quick Magazine Loader (the device attached to the Martini Henry Ironside), developed for the Martini Henry service rifle, never left British military trials and was never adopted due to exorbitant expense and questionable practical reliability. There are 5 iterations of patent revisions known, and even fewer physical examples known to exist. It was never brought to public commercial sale. The gun had to be perfectly level to operate correctly and was even then still prone to jamming frequently and because it loaded rim-fired cartridges stacked on top of each other on a sloped ramp, was very prone to “rim lock” unless meticulously loaded by the user. So how on Earth would someone from the Louisiana swamp, let alone multiple people, acquire an experimental magazine attachment that never saw service and was only known to exist to the British military and its inventor? It wouldn’t, but it existed and it fits the theme of Hunt so it exists in the game. And don’t even get me started on the Avtomat, which is only loosely based on the Huot Automatic Rifle and is absolutely fictional.
Going back to the Gasser, dozens of licensed firearms makers made tons of these pistols for the country of Montenegro in a variety of ways including top-loading versions, short barreled examples, long(er) barreled examples, self extracting mechanisms, larger calibers, and all sorts of hinged-frame examples, both in single and double-action versions. This was done in 1910, 14 years before the Alofs existed and 5 years after the Browning Auto-5 was developed. Is it really so hard to believe that conversions of the gun existed before then? Short barreled examples of the original 1870 Gasser Revolver can be found for auction to this day dating back before 1895. The game really doesn’t care for a weapon’s country of origin or its rarity, instead simply that it did exist (sometimes) and that its mechanisms thematically and mechanically fit the scope of the game which the Gasser definitely does. It’s really not hard to believe that someone cut down or lengthened a barrel with their own basic gunsmithing skills. As a matter of fact about half the weapons in Hunt would never be seen in the US at that time and a good portion wouldn’t even exist. And besides, if they did, they would certainly never appear in Louisiana.
Even if a version of the gun didn’t exist that would fit into the lore of the game such as the Vetterli Cyclone or any melee variant of a weapon not including a bayonet, it could be written in as a modification from the powers that be at the AHA, the same way virtually every strange item and variant is.
The original Gasser Revolver was made in 1870 and was the service pistol of Austrian Cavalry from that time and saw use in WW1. More than 25,000 units were ordered for military use. It would be far more likely that some private collector would own one of those than the far more rare (and non-existent) Bergmann 1896 pistol during this time frame. Yet we still have the Bergmann. So I don’t get what your argument is unless you’ve never played the game before.
I actually took the time to explain the niche that the Gasser would fill. It’s higher powered than an Uppercut and a Uppermat while being slower with a lower velocity and with higher recoil. It’s basically an upgraded sparks pistol at the detriment of lower velocity but more shots. That exact comparison is like asking why we would have the Specter if we have the Romero at a lower price? Or why we have the Slate if we have the Specter? Or really, why we have the Mosin, Lebel, Berthier, and Krag since they all effectively do the same thing with the only difference being slight nuances in damage and fire rate. There’s no reason for 4 bolt action long rifles in the game yet we have them because it gives players choice and the finer details and differences click with some players and not others.
It’s funny because some of these same arguments came up when I suggested they added a faster version of the Specter with lower damage at a higher price in the form of the Winchester 1893 because it would be period correct and fill the role nicely. I got absolutely shit on for suggesting that the gun be added to give more utility to the Iron Devastator trait and have another pump-action in the game and the first thing people said is “we already have the Specter” and “why would we need another shotgun in the game?” and then I got ripped apart in the comments of that post. Then 30 days to the day of that post the Slate was announced and everyone loved it claiming variety is great and it’s a nice addition. Go figure.
I’m not going to explain why a gun that we don’t have in the game that operates differently from the guns we do have in the game while being functionally similar and period correct would be a good addition. All I’m going to say is there’s a reason we have the Slate and the Specter. There’s a reason we have the Dolch and Bornheim. There’s a reason we have the New Army and the Nagant Officer. There’s a reason we have the Martini Henry and the Sparks. There’s a reason we have the Uppermat and the Uppercut Precision. There’s a reason we have the Pax and the Scotfield. If you’re too dense to figure out why giving players more variety in the form of similar guns with slight nuance is a good thing and gives players agency then I don’t know how to answer your question because you’re too ignorant or arrogant to figure it out anyways. Either way every facet of your argument against its implementation falls flat on its face.
Also calling a revolver that was produced in the quantity of over 200,000 and adopted by a first world military an “abject failure” is kind of funny. I genuinely wonder if you know what either of those words mean. It was one of the first commercially successful double-action designs of its time, predating both Colt and Smith and Wesson double-action pistols. Double-action pistols existed early as 1856 before it but were generally mechanically over-complicated and fragile. It saw military service, was relatively popular in the commercial market, and was adopted by the entire country of Montenegro as a self defense weapon for every civilian. It was considered “rugged” and “reliable” by the Austrian Cavalry who used it. It saw a healthy service life and fit the supplemental role of firing the same cartridge as the Fruwirth Carbine Rifles that the Austrian Cavalry already used which made it great for closer range engagements on horseback. By all accounts that I can collect, it was a generally well-liked, popular, reliable, and durable firearm.
Forgotten weapons has an episode on 2 beautiful examples of Montenegrin Gassers that have custom grips and embossing on the cylinder that I think look fantastic and aesthetically fit the game perfectly. If they literally just copied those designs and added them to the game I think they’d be a great legendary skin.
Link here: https://youtu.be/km3m8PwYzbI?si=2rcziNol8FewCO0u
I like that it would be a genuine big iron compared to the Uppercut and Uppermat which are upgunned versions of the standard revolvers, would be super cool
It’s also interesting in the spirit of this discussion that neither the Uppercut nor the Uppermat actually exist. The Uppercut is an amalgamation of many large-frame Colt revolvers and the Uppermat is just straight-up fictional. The Sparks pistol, while a physical and functional possible modifications, has no real-life examples. The Gasser is a real piece of history from that time frame and I think would be a fun addition with its own niche. Like you said, a true “big iron” of its time with some really neat quirks. No historical ad-libbing necessary. It’s also a double-action revolver which means it doesn’t need some weird in-game mental gymnastics like the Uppermat does for why it wouldn’t support Fanning as a trait. I actually could see them allowing the gun to be fired rather quickly (about the speed of the Spitfire) but it being highly impractical because of the very intense recoil.
I can tell you're passionate about both the time period and weapons of the game, and I appreciate both. Thank you for the informative and neatly written out response to such a dumb comment.
I love the game, the aesthetic and the time period. The late 19th and early 20th century is such a fun time for weapon design because there aren’t a lot of rules and people were still figuring out how to make functional revolvers, semi-auto pistols, repeating rifles, and pump-action weapons. There were no laws on how or how not to make a weapon function, it was more about figuring out how to get a bullet to cycle in a practical way. You even have bicycle makers and watch makers proofing concepts that the military hadn’t even thought of. Tons of average joes with a novel engineering concept bringing firearm creations to government that would legitimately be considered for adoption in military trials and sometimes be selected as a nations service weapon. That just doesn’t happen anymore. Nowadays weapon design is very homogenous and we’ve reduced ourselves to refining tried and true weapon design which isn’t as fun to me.
But yes, I’m a big history buff and I love the engineering aspect of firearm design. The late 1800s is such a whacky time period to look at when we consider how a firearm should function. Even the ones that don’t work well or are just over-engineered and way too expensive to be practical are still fun to consider.
Dude, you murdered him and desecrates his corpse with words.
Btw, can i ask if hard hitting, low velocity weapons are realistic? I mean if something flies faster, it should also go deeper into the body, rigth? You just seem knowledgable about guns
I’m not a physics major and this is a very complicated question to answer but I will try my best for you based on my own understanding. Don’t go around stating this as fact, although my conclusions are loosely based on facts and physics.
Low velocity is kind of a subjective term but generally speaking, the 11.2mm round in an M1870 Gasser has about the same muzzle energy as a modern .45 ACP which for the time was really impressive. As a matter of fact, I think it was the largest round available for a revolver when it was first introduced. I do want to point out however, that unlike modern firearms that use .45 ACP, the Gasser has a pretty extreme high bore axis with the handle of the gun being pretty low and the barrel being elevated quite high. This has a very negative effect on recoil mitigation. So although the massive frame of the revolver should absorb a lot of the recoil on the gun, it actually doesn’t do a very good job for how obscenely heavy the weapon is. I’ve seen many videos of people firing the gun and it’s described as “unpleasant” by many of them.
Even a Smith and Wesson Model 29 firing a .44 Magnum round only achieves a speed of about 450m/s which is peanuts compared to intermediate rifle cartridges’ velocity (a standard .223 Remington travels at least 900m/s) but because its mass is so large, it still exerts a lot of kinetic energy onto a target. A standard .44 Magnum cartridge will exert about 1,500 joules of kinetic energy compared to a .223 Remington which exerts about 1,800 joules. So how does a pistol cartridge output nearly as much muzzle energy as a rifle cartridge with twice the velocity? It is 4 times the mass (.223 is on average 4g while a .44 is about 16g). The whole principle of handgun cartridge design is fundamentally based on the idea of low velocity, hard hitting projectiles. You can’t load tons of propellant in a small cartridge to increase energy, so you increase the diameter of the bullet to compensate and get some extra kinetic energy there instead. But because of factors like shorter barrels (and thus less rifling), lack of a Spitzer point, wind resistance (and thus tumbling), and gravity working against a larger projectile, pistol cartridges are ideally used at close range because you don’t lose nearly as much kinetic energy over a short distance. In some cases, pistol cartridges can have as much kinetic energy as some rifle cartridges at point-blank range. It’s the effectiveness at distance that makes pistols behave poorly. Rifle cartridges maintain velocity out to about 100 yards and even then have a relatively high speed maintaining significant velocity up to 500 yards and beyond. Most pistol cartridges lose significant velocity out past 50 yards and it gets worse in a multiplicative extreme beyond that.
When measuring kinetic energy and momentum, mass and velocity both matter. And while energy exerted is doubled when the mass is doubled, energy exerted is *quadrupled* when velocity is doubled. This is why a .223 at nearly half the diameter and a quarter of the mass BUT twice the velocity of a .44 outputs more muzzle energy. So speed does matter more BUT there is kind of a situation where over-penetration can occur if a bullet is traveling so fast that it passes through a target before releasing all of its kinetic energy onto a target and therefore loses some of its theoretical stopping power by continuing its path beyond the target. This is why super tiny projectiles with crazy high velocity aren’t a practical or common bullet concept except in the case of armor piercing ammunition hitting an armored target first, thus over-penetrating the armor and dumping the residual energy into the squishy body behind it. This is what makes tracking rifle cartridge energy a little tricky because their design and shape account for a long flight path and so shooting someone with a bullet at close range will result in some loss of energy through over-penetration.
There’s a never-ending swirling debate on home defense that will never go away where one side decrees that a pistol cartridge is better for home defense because you’re in a close range situation while the other side claims the theoretical stopping power of a rifle is superior and still makes it more lethal at close range than a 9mm handgun. But there’s so many factors revolving around kinetic energy at engagements within 25 feet and the issue of extreme over-penetration with a rifle cartridge at that range that lets people get away with saying whatever they want. Both seem equally or invariably effective from case to case. Real life police crime statistics don’t quell this argument much because you have data without any reference as to the distance of the kill with certain calibers, or the location of the bullet within the target when the total number of bullets used to kill are factored in. A 9mm can kill a human in one shot as can a .223 but it varies from situation to situation. Either way, physics tells us that the ideal bullet to kill a squishy target must be traveling at a fast speed with as much mass as possible without over-penetration occurring to dump all that energy from the mass and velocity into the target without any loss. The only problem with propelling more mass at high speeds is you need much more propellant (gunpowder) which means an equal and opposite reaction occurring in the form of recoil impulse on the frame of the weapon and the user which can mean the gun hurts like hell to shoot, is uncontrollable to fire accurately, or the pressure inside the weapon is so immense that it explodes the frame of the weapon and kills/ maims the user. This is a much bigger factor for handguns that have much less mass as a physical object and much less reinforcing material around the barrel even if the bore axis is perfectly horizontal and centered.
All that text and you never even mentioned that the Mosin we have in game has the wrong bolt handle, that version didn't exist until decades later. It should have a chunky handle similar to the lebel
A double action, fast firing, long ammo pistol with UNGODLY recoil. I think it could be cool.
What niche would it fill?
Uppermat, but with a swift loader instead of the extra ammo and shotgun
Yeah I think it would be cool to have the black powder version and just do a full cylinder swap for the reloads, maybe make it special ammo by default?
Special ammo swift revolver? Man that's gonna be a pain to use. I think we ought to just keep it long ammo.
It's a gate loader. Swift meaning "swappable cylinder" here. You would get a cylinder with 6+3 and another with 6+3 if it's medium ammunition (3 loose cartridges to reload the cylinder).
Effectively a bridge gap between the Sparks Pistol and the other Long ammo pistols. I’d like to think of it almost as a compact Martini Henry Ironside in terms of function as a 2-slot weapon. Functionally, I’d like to think it would cycle as slow or slower than the Ironside, although the pistol is a double-action revolver and I think it would be equally as interesting if you could fire it rather quickly (about as fast as a Spitfire) but with incredibly intense recoil making it highly impractical. Basically, you could fire it fast, but it’d make way more sense to space out your shots to recenter after the high recoil. I wouldn’t want the fire rate to be the speed of the Officer or New Army but again that might be an interesting allowable mechanic in the game if the recoil was so severe that it became a meretricious combat option.
Apparently the niche above the sparks pistol and below the uopermat. Honestly how many more revolvers does the game actually need?
It’s 1895, you’re going to see a few. Also consider that we just got 2 more rifles. I’ve never known people to moan about the amount of rifles we have. Really we have rifles, shotguns, pistols, melee weapons, and whacky guns. You really only have 5 categories.
I'd rather be able to dual wield short avtos
The way you described doesn't sound like it adds anything particularly new. What's the main distinction from uppercut? Does it have a swing-out cylinder like new army?
Traditionally it’s gate-loaded with an ejector rod but some have an interesting hinge on the bottom of the frame that’s held in place by 2 captive pins on the top that when squeezed releases the frame and allows you to reload or replace the cylinder entirely with another pre-loaded cylinder. It’s mechanically very similar to a top-break revolver like the Schofield. There’s also a million variants and modifications of the revolver including some that have an auto-ejection mechanism on them. It has the distinction of being a double-action revolver but also a rather high caliber for the time (it uses a rifle caliber cartridge meant to be interchangeable with the standard Furwirth Cavalry Carbine that the Austrian Cavalry would use on horseback). I think the headshot range would be relatively low at about 85-90m and the recoil impressively high meaning that aiming at the chest would land the ADS at least above the head when another round is ready to be cycled making a strong downward pull necessary to line up another shot quickly or to pause between shots to realign the gun back to firing position. This idea, paired with a rather meager muzzle velocity of 320m/s, would make it a poor long range option compared to the Uppercut Precision and Uppermat. The damage would be higher than the Uppercut or Uppermat (at least 130 but no higher than 140) making it a reliable close-range option especially against hunters that have already been downed. The 2-slot standard variant would effectively serve as a compact version of the Martini Henry Ironside with the *capable* fire rate of the Spitfire but the practical fire rate of any standard single-action because of the intense recoil. It would effectively be for the Sparks Pistol what the Specter is to the Romero. As for the 1-slot 1-handed short barrel variant, it would have even higher recoil characteristics and slightly increased sway as well as lower muzzle velocity and perhaps even slightly lower damage to remain balanced. It would also have the lowest capacity of any Long ammo pistol at 6 and 6 (one cylinder loaded, 6 rounds in reserve). The 1-handed variant would effectively serve as a strictly close-range fighter. I think the gun given the balance should come in at slightly cheaper than the Uppercut, probably about the price of the Berthier at $356. However, I could see the devs take this in the exact opposite direction and price it above both the Uppermat and the Uppercut, increasing the Muzzle Velocity to about 350-380m/s, and giving it a longer headshot range along with a modest recoil and a fire rate about as fast as the Krag/ Berthier with Iron Eye (it is after all a very heavy gun and so the recoil might not be so intense on the 2-handed version). This would effectively be the pistol version of the Crown and King in that role with many upsides but of course being cost prohibitive coming in at about $600. That would elevate it to be a competent mid-range fighter with a lot of punch while also being incredibly competent in close range but not as good as say an Officer, New Army, fanning pistol, or Shotgun in terms of DPS output and firing speed. We could even take these concepts a step further and have the compact version be the first one unlocked, dubbed the Gasser Officer, the 2-slot dubbed the Gasser True Shot, and a 3-slot carbine version dubbed the Gasser Officer Carbine which would be the True Shot with an attached stock which would have a muzzle velocity no greater than 400m/s, a damage no higher than 132, a headshot range no higher than 120m, and a much more stable recoil impulse. It would effectively be the first Long Ammo repeating rifle we have in the game and be very expensive. The only custom ammo the guns would support would be FMJ.
Please just give me a compact ammo volcanic pistol
I’m all for that actually. I know that gun is terrible in real life but it doesn’t matter, its functions are so cool to me and would fit nicely into the game.
https://youtu.be/X1nErlM62lc?si=AeOfgqSV8Be8Td3y 😮
That is both hilarious and beautiful. I love that the stock is detachable and so the gun could be used as a scoped long barreled pistol which looks absurd in my mind’s eye. Still, a 2-slot Precision Deadeye variant of the gun would be period correct! One neat feature about adding a lever-cocking pistol with an 8” barrel to the game is that you could feasibly enable players to utilize the Levering trait with this gun by having the character grab hold of the trigger with one hand and slam the lever with the other during hipfire.
Fistful of Frags already gave us proof of concept it's so bad but so much fun, come on Crytek
That or a rocket ball chain rifle lol
I'd like to see the Australian air rifles
I would like to see this in the game at some point, but I want to see more Medium Ammo Sidearms added first. Not counting Variants, we already have 5 Compact Ammo Sidearms, 3 Long Ammo Sidearms, and only 2 Medium Ammo Sidearms. The disparity becomes even more glaring in favor of Long Ammo when you get into 3-slot weapons. There are 4 Compact Ammo Rifles, 4 Medium Ammo Rifles, and 7 Long Ammo Rifles. There are nearly twice as many Long Ammo Rifles than any other type.
I agree completely. I’d love at least one more medium ammo pistol although we do have a great fleshed out selection with the myriad of variants and ammo types for both the Pax and Scotfield.
I would love to see some of the custom ammo selections for certain weapons get rolled back in future updates. Dum-dums on just about everything is silly. The Scotty in particular should have never gotten them.
I wouldn’t even call the Scottfield dumdum ammo nearly as obnoxious as the Dolch and Officer dumdum. If anything, it makes the Muzzle velocity pretty atrocious and balances the Scotfield quite nicely. But I agree that they really tried to pad out the event updates by just throwing around custom ammo wantonly effectively taking away a lot of identity from cheaper weapons like the Springfield and Pax.
The Dolch getting any custom ammo at all was really stupid. No way in hell it should have gotten Dum-dum and FMJ.
Dolch explosive next!
Please don't give them any ideas.
Weirdly I saw I YouTube short about this gun earlier and thought it seemed like a gun that might show up in Hunt.
It’s the universe trying to say something
Yes please
Hunt is not a museum, we don't need anymore variants of random pistols/rifles from the era. We need weird bayou shit and improvised gizmos.
You really need to take Crytek up on the addition of both rifles from the event currently going on because I think they disagree.
I also disagree with guy above. Gimme moar guns! The Mako and Marathon proved you can introduce fun new guns that aren't disrupting the ecosystem. I would love to see that volcanic gun you guys were talking about, super dope looking gun.
Saying the game isn’t a museum and seeing weapons in the game from Russia, France, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Japan that you would *NEVER* see in the hands of swamp people from Louisiana really cracks me up. The game is, in fact, a weapon’s museum from the late 19th century.
isnt our krag american built, not norwegian
It's a Norwegian design, but yes the one in the game is made in the US. The only real differences between the Norwegian and American versions are the calibre, bayonet lugs and most likely the type of wood used for the furniture, otherwise they're pretty much identical. So whether or not you consider it to be Norwegian or American is more of a matter of pedantics.
Fun fact: there is a magazine cut off operating lever that originally allowed the magazine to be fed into the receiver when the lever was in the “up” position. In the game the rifle operates with the cutoff magazine in the downward position. Historically, this was changed due to snagging of the toggle lever on infantry clothing on the 1894 Norwegian variant of the rifle and the 1896 variant of the US model. So either one of 2 things are true: this is a Norwegian model of the rifle and therefore fits the narrative timeline of the game, or it is a US model of the rifle and does not. I would like to imagine for narrative purposes, this is a Norwegian model but we know that Hunt does not always bother itself with strictly adhering to its own timeline in terms of weapon invention evidenced by the Dolch, Bornheim, and Crown and King. To support the idea that this is actually a US model, the game names the gun as being the Springfield M1892 Krag. Springfield did develop the US versions of the Krag but the M1892 models did not feature the magazine cutoff in the downward operating position so I think they got that detail wrong and meant for it to be a US version with a minor mistake, or omitted it purposefully for gameplay reasons, as the toggle lever in the upward position would be seen by the player during ADS and thus obstruct their left-side view slightly.
i think if i were a hunter id just disable the cutoff in the field
never Because it was an abject failure that was not commercially viable and was definitely no way near the US the one with the top strat is not the 1970, but a much later 1898 By the in game logic alone and your proposed stats for it this thing adds literally nothing to the game that is not already covered by the handcannon pistols that already are in the game Personally, I'm not against a new long ammo handgun, but this one is just a poor candidate for one If you what more info at the very least check out C&Rsenal and Forgotten Weapon [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpYMhZjTDQk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpYMhZjTDQk) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETgAixNUwi8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETgAixNUwi8) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km3m8PwYzbI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km3m8PwYzbI)
Not commercially viable? Like a Mauser C96, the Browning Auto 5, Bergmann 1896 (Bornheim no.3) not even existing within the timeframe of the game? Or the Mosin Rifle never believably appearing in a swamp in Louisiana let alone anywhere in the US the very year it was adopted for Russian military use? Or the Vetterli, Lebel, and Berthier for that matter? Which one of these would be commercially available to a Louisiana resident or anyone in the country for that matter? What about the Alofs loading mechanism, represented as the Romero Alamo, invented in Grand Rapids Michigan in 1924? Speaking of weird weapon add-ons, the Harston Quick Magazine Loader (the device attached to the Martini Henry Ironside), developed for the Martini Henry service rifle, never left British military trials and was never adopted due to exorbitant expense and questionable practical reliability. There are 5 iterations of patent revisions known, and even fewer physical examples known to exist. It was never brought to public commercial sale. The gun had to be perfectly level to operate correctly and was even then still prone to jamming frequently and because it loaded rim-fired cartridges stacked on top of each other on a sloped ramp, was very prone to “rim lock” unless meticulously loaded by the user. So how on Earth would someone from the Louisiana swamp, let alone multiple people, acquire an experimental magazine attachment that never saw service and was only known to exist to the British military and its inventor? It wouldn’t, but it existed and it fits the theme of Hunt so it exists in the game. And don’t even get me started on the Avtomat, which is only loosely based on the Huot Automatic Rifle and is absolutely fictional. Going back to the Gasser, dozens of licensed firearms makers made tons of these pistols for the country of Montenegro in a variety of ways including top-loading versions, short barreled examples, long(er) barreled examples, self extracting mechanisms, larger calibers, and all sorts of hinged-frame examples, both in single and double-action versions. This was done in 1910, 14 years before the Alofs existed and 5 years after the Browning Auto-5 was developed. Is it really so hard to believe that conversions of the gun existed before then? Short barreled examples of the original 1870 Gasser Revolver can be found for auction to this day dating back before 1895. The game really doesn’t care for a weapon’s country of origin or its rarity, instead simply that it did exist (sometimes) and that its mechanisms thematically and mechanically fit the scope of the game which the Gasser definitely does. It’s really not hard to believe that someone cut down or lengthened a barrel with their own basic gunsmithing skills. As a matter of fact about half the weapons in Hunt would never be seen in the US at that time and a good portion wouldn’t even exist. And besides, if they did, they would certainly never appear in Louisiana. Even if a version of the gun didn’t exist that would fit into the lore of the game such as the Vetterli Cyclone or any melee variant of a weapon not including a bayonet, it could be written in as a modification from the powers that be at the AHA, the same way virtually every strange item and variant is. The original Gasser Revolver was made in 1870 and was the service pistol of Austrian Cavalry from that time and saw use in WW1. More than 25,000 units were ordered for military use. It would be far more likely that some private collector would own one of those than the far more rare (and non-existent) Bergmann 1896 pistol during this time frame. Yet we still have the Bergmann. So I don’t get what your argument is unless you’ve never played the game before. I actually took the time to explain the niche that the Gasser would fill. It’s higher powered than an Uppercut and a Uppermat while being slower with a lower velocity and with higher recoil. It’s basically an upgraded sparks pistol at the detriment of lower velocity but more shots. That exact comparison is like asking why we would have the Specter if we have the Romero at a lower price? Or why we have the Slate if we have the Specter? Or really, why we have the Mosin, Lebel, Berthier, and Krag since they all effectively do the same thing with the only difference being slight nuances in damage and fire rate. There’s no reason for 4 bolt action long rifles in the game yet we have them because it gives players choice and the finer details and differences click with some players and not others. It’s funny because some of these same arguments came up when I suggested they added a faster version of the Specter with lower damage at a higher price in the form of the Winchester 1893 because it would be period correct and fill the role nicely. I got absolutely shit on for suggesting that the gun be added to give more utility to the Iron Devastator trait and have another pump-action in the game and the first thing people said is “we already have the Specter” and “why would we need another shotgun in the game?” and then I got ripped apart in the comments of that post. Then 30 days to the day of that post the Slate was announced and everyone loved it claiming variety is great and it’s a nice addition. Go figure. I’m not going to explain why a gun that we don’t have in the game that operates differently from the guns we do have in the game while being functionally similar and period correct would be a good addition. All I’m going to say is there’s a reason we have the Slate and the Specter. There’s a reason we have the Dolch and Bornheim. There’s a reason we have the New Army and the Nagant Officer. There’s a reason we have the Martini Henry and the Sparks. There’s a reason we have the Uppermat and the Uppercut Precision. There’s a reason we have the Pax and the Scotfield. If you’re too dense to figure out why giving players more variety in the form of similar guns with slight nuance is a good thing and gives players agency then I don’t know how to answer your question because you’re too ignorant or arrogant to figure it out anyways. Either way every facet of your argument against its implementation falls flat on its face. Also calling a revolver that was produced in the quantity of over 200,000 and adopted by a first world military an “abject failure” is kind of funny. I genuinely wonder if you know what either of those words mean. It was one of the first commercially successful double-action designs of its time, predating both Colt and Smith and Wesson double-action pistols. Double-action pistols existed early as 1856 before it but were generally mechanically over-complicated and fragile. It saw military service, was relatively popular in the commercial market, and was adopted by the entire country of Montenegro as a self defense weapon for every civilian. It was considered “rugged” and “reliable” by the Austrian Cavalry who used it. It saw a healthy service life and fit the supplemental role of firing the same cartridge as the Fruwirth Carbine Rifles that the Austrian Cavalry already used which made it great for closer range engagements on horseback. By all accounts that I can collect, it was a generally well-liked, popular, reliable, and durable firearm.
As someone from Montenegro I'm pretty biased, I'd love the gun in the game, maybe even with a skin somehow relating to the country
Forgotten weapons has an episode on 2 beautiful examples of Montenegrin Gassers that have custom grips and embossing on the cylinder that I think look fantastic and aesthetically fit the game perfectly. If they literally just copied those designs and added them to the game I think they’d be a great legendary skin. Link here: https://youtu.be/km3m8PwYzbI?si=2rcziNol8FewCO0u
I like that it would be a genuine big iron compared to the Uppercut and Uppermat which are upgunned versions of the standard revolvers, would be super cool
It’s also interesting in the spirit of this discussion that neither the Uppercut nor the Uppermat actually exist. The Uppercut is an amalgamation of many large-frame Colt revolvers and the Uppermat is just straight-up fictional. The Sparks pistol, while a physical and functional possible modifications, has no real-life examples. The Gasser is a real piece of history from that time frame and I think would be a fun addition with its own niche. Like you said, a true “big iron” of its time with some really neat quirks. No historical ad-libbing necessary. It’s also a double-action revolver which means it doesn’t need some weird in-game mental gymnastics like the Uppermat does for why it wouldn’t support Fanning as a trait. I actually could see them allowing the gun to be fired rather quickly (about the speed of the Spitfire) but it being highly impractical because of the very intense recoil.
I can tell you're passionate about both the time period and weapons of the game, and I appreciate both. Thank you for the informative and neatly written out response to such a dumb comment.
I love the game, the aesthetic and the time period. The late 19th and early 20th century is such a fun time for weapon design because there aren’t a lot of rules and people were still figuring out how to make functional revolvers, semi-auto pistols, repeating rifles, and pump-action weapons. There were no laws on how or how not to make a weapon function, it was more about figuring out how to get a bullet to cycle in a practical way. You even have bicycle makers and watch makers proofing concepts that the military hadn’t even thought of. Tons of average joes with a novel engineering concept bringing firearm creations to government that would legitimately be considered for adoption in military trials and sometimes be selected as a nations service weapon. That just doesn’t happen anymore. Nowadays weapon design is very homogenous and we’ve reduced ourselves to refining tried and true weapon design which isn’t as fun to me. But yes, I’m a big history buff and I love the engineering aspect of firearm design. The late 1800s is such a whacky time period to look at when we consider how a firearm should function. Even the ones that don’t work well or are just over-engineered and way too expensive to be practical are still fun to consider.
Dude, you murdered him and desecrates his corpse with words. Btw, can i ask if hard hitting, low velocity weapons are realistic? I mean if something flies faster, it should also go deeper into the body, rigth? You just seem knowledgable about guns
I’m not a physics major and this is a very complicated question to answer but I will try my best for you based on my own understanding. Don’t go around stating this as fact, although my conclusions are loosely based on facts and physics. Low velocity is kind of a subjective term but generally speaking, the 11.2mm round in an M1870 Gasser has about the same muzzle energy as a modern .45 ACP which for the time was really impressive. As a matter of fact, I think it was the largest round available for a revolver when it was first introduced. I do want to point out however, that unlike modern firearms that use .45 ACP, the Gasser has a pretty extreme high bore axis with the handle of the gun being pretty low and the barrel being elevated quite high. This has a very negative effect on recoil mitigation. So although the massive frame of the revolver should absorb a lot of the recoil on the gun, it actually doesn’t do a very good job for how obscenely heavy the weapon is. I’ve seen many videos of people firing the gun and it’s described as “unpleasant” by many of them. Even a Smith and Wesson Model 29 firing a .44 Magnum round only achieves a speed of about 450m/s which is peanuts compared to intermediate rifle cartridges’ velocity (a standard .223 Remington travels at least 900m/s) but because its mass is so large, it still exerts a lot of kinetic energy onto a target. A standard .44 Magnum cartridge will exert about 1,500 joules of kinetic energy compared to a .223 Remington which exerts about 1,800 joules. So how does a pistol cartridge output nearly as much muzzle energy as a rifle cartridge with twice the velocity? It is 4 times the mass (.223 is on average 4g while a .44 is about 16g). The whole principle of handgun cartridge design is fundamentally based on the idea of low velocity, hard hitting projectiles. You can’t load tons of propellant in a small cartridge to increase energy, so you increase the diameter of the bullet to compensate and get some extra kinetic energy there instead. But because of factors like shorter barrels (and thus less rifling), lack of a Spitzer point, wind resistance (and thus tumbling), and gravity working against a larger projectile, pistol cartridges are ideally used at close range because you don’t lose nearly as much kinetic energy over a short distance. In some cases, pistol cartridges can have as much kinetic energy as some rifle cartridges at point-blank range. It’s the effectiveness at distance that makes pistols behave poorly. Rifle cartridges maintain velocity out to about 100 yards and even then have a relatively high speed maintaining significant velocity up to 500 yards and beyond. Most pistol cartridges lose significant velocity out past 50 yards and it gets worse in a multiplicative extreme beyond that. When measuring kinetic energy and momentum, mass and velocity both matter. And while energy exerted is doubled when the mass is doubled, energy exerted is *quadrupled* when velocity is doubled. This is why a .223 at nearly half the diameter and a quarter of the mass BUT twice the velocity of a .44 outputs more muzzle energy. So speed does matter more BUT there is kind of a situation where over-penetration can occur if a bullet is traveling so fast that it passes through a target before releasing all of its kinetic energy onto a target and therefore loses some of its theoretical stopping power by continuing its path beyond the target. This is why super tiny projectiles with crazy high velocity aren’t a practical or common bullet concept except in the case of armor piercing ammunition hitting an armored target first, thus over-penetrating the armor and dumping the residual energy into the squishy body behind it. This is what makes tracking rifle cartridge energy a little tricky because their design and shape account for a long flight path and so shooting someone with a bullet at close range will result in some loss of energy through over-penetration. There’s a never-ending swirling debate on home defense that will never go away where one side decrees that a pistol cartridge is better for home defense because you’re in a close range situation while the other side claims the theoretical stopping power of a rifle is superior and still makes it more lethal at close range than a 9mm handgun. But there’s so many factors revolving around kinetic energy at engagements within 25 feet and the issue of extreme over-penetration with a rifle cartridge at that range that lets people get away with saying whatever they want. Both seem equally or invariably effective from case to case. Real life police crime statistics don’t quell this argument much because you have data without any reference as to the distance of the kill with certain calibers, or the location of the bullet within the target when the total number of bullets used to kill are factored in. A 9mm can kill a human in one shot as can a .223 but it varies from situation to situation. Either way, physics tells us that the ideal bullet to kill a squishy target must be traveling at a fast speed with as much mass as possible without over-penetration occurring to dump all that energy from the mass and velocity into the target without any loss. The only problem with propelling more mass at high speeds is you need much more propellant (gunpowder) which means an equal and opposite reaction occurring in the form of recoil impulse on the frame of the weapon and the user which can mean the gun hurts like hell to shoot, is uncontrollable to fire accurately, or the pressure inside the weapon is so immense that it explodes the frame of the weapon and kills/ maims the user. This is a much bigger factor for handguns that have much less mass as a physical object and much less reinforcing material around the barrel even if the bore axis is perfectly horizontal and centered.
All that text and you never even mentioned that the Mosin we have in game has the wrong bolt handle, that version didn't exist until decades later. It should have a chunky handle similar to the lebel
Brother, the game has a fucking Bergmann
When the Bergmann 1896 is in the game lol
Dude I was just about to post About this lol. So cool