docbuzzard
-
Posts
860 -
Joined
-
Quote:If you're going to backstab em in the face, do you have to spin their head to the rear first?Originally Posted by Zem
Take your Stalker blueside and just backstab people... in the face! Problem solved! -
I will have some villains go to good and more characters go to the middle. I don't expect to have anyone go from good to bad.
-
Quote:Well here's a rather dated data point for you. Back in the days of pre-ED I pretty much soloed my fire/em tanker to 50 by WLing (back with the original ridiculous Winter Lord) the early levels and then hazard zone hunting large groups with burn.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Basically, if no one can beat this, I move on to better calculations. If its beatable, I go back to square one.
That took 80 hours or so.
I'll say your number can't be beat. -
I'm game. I'll bring my Crab Spider.
-
Quote:This isn't true since you can shoot 20 mm guns. In fact the standard anti-armor weapon once upon a time was a 20 mm bipod mounted rifle (Lahti or Solothurn for example). They become obsolete with thicker tank armor at the start of WW II. Mind you there's isn't much practical reason to do this anymore since missiles are a lot more convenient.Originally Posted by uberschveinen
The thing about these sorts of rounds is that they need to be a certain size before it is plausible to carry a payload. .50 is the smallest round you can get where adding a payload will not be strictly worse, and even then the round not particularly more effective. The largest round of any practical use to a human firer isn't capable of proper payloads.
Or better yet, use a missile if you need to hurt something. There's a reason RPGs are so popular the world around.Quote:The solutions are simple. Either mount it on a platform, or deal with the recoil.
Your physics fu is weak grasshoppa. They follow the same ballistic path of bullets given their velocity. They just have a low velocity. A rifle round will follow essentially the same arc, it will just be longer (and there will be different effects of wind resistance). If you are shooting a pistol at a distant target, you have to aim well above the target, and your shot is clearly an arc, though every bullet shot is an arc to some degree.Quote:Grenade launchers follow the latter path in part. They greatly increase the size of the round to 40mm, big enough for a really nice payload, and then reduce the proportion of propellant to mass. They don't follow the same ballistic flightpath as bullets, which in this case is advantageous because you can arc the rounds to shoot over cover. They're still size-restricted because past 40mm the absolute minimum force to project the round needs more propellant than the recoil can take. -
Quote:Of you have to shoot through the horns and skull of a charging water buffalo, then I suspect no gun is too much.Originally Posted by uberschveinen
I still think it's ridiculous. There's no feasible practical use for that sort of round. If you're going to be ridiculous you might as well be properly ridiculous and just take a Karl Gustav and refuse the warhead for soft targets.
Elephants may get all the press, but the African water buffalo was the real threat. They rile really easily, and charge might fast. They also have very thick skulls with the horns adding extra protection from head on. -
Once upon a time they did make four bore rifles. These were black powder elephant guns. They shot a bullet of around 1800 grains at 1300 fps. The diameter of a four bore is about an inch. Yes, that would be 1 caliber, or 25 mm.
-
Quote:Yeah, if it's real cutting edge, we're not going to see anything as it will be classified. There might be something buried in a Jane's or AW&ST, but you can't get that stuff online.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Well, in terms of a tandem shaped charge warhead, that's easy: the RPG-29 is supposed to have one of those.
Precursor + Penetrator, that's much more difficult to find information on. I did find The Taurus KEPD 350 which is said to have, quoting from the article:
I might have to do some asking on the military discussion board I frequent. -
Quote:Actually reactive armor is very commonly employed. It's just employed by people who haven't been able to afford to develop the good composite armor in use by the U.S. and Western European nations. Reactive armor is pretty good against shaped charges, and given that all the missile threats out there use those, as do RPGs and a decent portion of anti-tank rounds, it's not a horrible bet.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I've actually heard of double shaped charges, myself. There was a programme on Discovery about the history of tanks which mentioned this, but it didn't leave me with the impression that those were practical or accepted. Then again, it was rather very old (maybe 10 years old now) and it didn't leave me with the impression that reactive armour itself was a feasible concept.
However, reactive armor isn't much good against APDS.
I have heard of tandem rounds which were designed to pop off reactive armor. They didn't use penetrators, just dual explosives like you say. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Four. The fourth type of round is the tandem round, or the tandem warhead, which typically features a precursor explosive charge designed to defeat various forms of reactive armor. Some use twin shaped charges, but some designs I've seen use an initial shaped charge followed by a penetrator.
Never seen those. Got a link? -
Quote:Bollocks. Stating how many days is between one issue and another is a verifiable fact.Originally Posted by Scarlet Shocker
Everything on these boards is opinion unless it is a fact stated by a Dev or forum mod but thanks for the heads up in exact and precise pedantry
-
Quote:There are three types of anti tank rounds:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Concussive ammunition is a term typically reserved for explosive rounds. Armor-piercing concussive ammunition sounds like an anti-tank projectile design adapted to making a mess of slightly softer targets.
Some anti-tank rounds use a high explosive charge combined with an armor-piercing penetrator. A scaled down version of that type of ammunition could conceivably be called an armor-piercing concussive round I suppose.
HEAP- high explosive armor piercing. These are the classic shaped charge rounds which use a cavity in the head of the explosive to form a penetrating jet of gas at the target on impact. They literally burn through the armor. There's no penetrator, unless you count the gas.
HESH- high explosive squash head. This is where the shell is basically just full of a plastic type explosive and on impact it spreads over the armor surface before detonating. The shock wave generated travels through the armor and spalls metal from the interior of the armor which acts like shrapnel on the crew. It is pretty much obsolete these days as armor tech has improved. It was useful as a general purpose round for explosions though. Again, no penetrator.
APDS- armor piercing discarding sabot- This is the penetrator round. You have a shell which contains a very dense penetrator held in a light sleeve (the sabot) which drops off as the round exits the barrel. The sleeve is there so that the fairly narrow penetrator can be fired from the fairly large tank gun barrel (120 mm these days as a rule NATO side). Basically these are pretty simple. You throw something very heavy, very fast and use the massive amount of kinetic energy to punch through the armor. In all cases a very dense(and hard) metal such as tungsten or depleted uranium is used to get as much mass as possible into the round.
Now as for small arm AP rounds, they are simply rounds with cores made of a hard metal, usually just hardened steel or maybe tungsten (the latter introduces complications as well as price issues, so is much less common). Since most ammo is made of lead with at most a soft copper jacket, it deforms on impact. By having the round be hard instead, penetration is greatly improved.
I believe people have looked into explosive rounds for small arms, but they were found to be pointless at anything below 20 mm since you can't pack in enough bang. The .90 caliber round in question is greater than 20 mm so it could be explosive. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Oh, and speaking of implausible weapons, I still love the Faust C-41 from Advent Rising. Yeah, yeah, there are other cool weapons in games and fiction, but the description of this one just makes me grin so wide I feel the top of my head will drop off. Just seeing something described as a pistol firing ".90 calibre armour-piercing, concussive rounds" makes my head spin, trying to imagine what such a thing would be like to actually fire. And what the hell is a "concussive round," anyway? Pure fiction?
Given the way momentum transfer works, shooting a .90 caliber round would be hell. I mean, snap your wrist like a twig hell. I've got a .44 mag myself, and have shot the .454 Casull and .50 S&W magnum. The latter two pretty much hurt to fire. Literally, they cause pain. While maybe it is possible that someone can get used to them, I can't very well imagine it. A .90 caliber weapon would be far, far worse. Just going by the change in diameter the bullet will be 3.2 times as heavy, though honestly it will likely be worse than that so the ballistic coefficient doesn't suck (it has to be reasonably long compared to diameter to not suck too much). Of course I suppose you could keep the velocity down to reduce pain, but even if you half it down to .45 ACP levels or so (a rather hot .45, but whatever), it will still be 1.6 of the impulse of the .50 S&W magnum, and you don't want to feel that. -
Oh, and on the topic of getting a list of firearms for dual pistol I'd pick up a copy of Jane's Guide. It will have everything and pictures of all of it.
-
Quote:By definition a submachinegun is a full auto weapon firing a pistol caliber round. As such those weapons are submachineguns. It doesn't matter if they have stocks or any accouterments.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
At this point I have to ask where pistol ends and submachine gun begins
I wanted to be fancy, but I couldn't find a YouTube video that was decent. Either they had unfolded shoulder stocks or crap screwed onto the barrel which made it a lot more obvious that this was a machine gun, rather than a pistol. That cute little pic I found makes it look like just an ugly pistol. It doesn't even have the mile long magazine
Though to be quite honest, functionally the difference between a semi-auto and a full auto is that the weapon is purposely restrained to stop after each shot. The mechanism by which a semi auto works can pretty much always make a full auto operation (I should be clear here, this does not mean any semi auto can be converted to full auto, that is both very illegal, and not a trivial machining exercise, but the basic mechanism by which the cartridge is ejected and ammo fed is compatible with full auto fire). In fact is it more difficult to machine a semi-auto weapon than a full auto weapon(more parts are needed). The cheapest guns(almost, but I won't get into zip guns and the like) ever made were the mass production submachineguns of WW II. Such things as the Sten, PPSH, and the M2 Grease Gun were made for just a few bucks.
Both the Mac 10(or 11) and Uzi are capable of single handed fire, but good lord you would not be hitting a damn thing past the first two shots. Neither of the weapons have a particularly good recoil mitigation system as they are both basically cheapo subguns.Quote:*edit*
Ah, and now I know why a Google search for "Ingram" throws up pictures of "uzis." Searching for Uzi revealed nothing, as apparently the Uzi is a silimar Israeli design, whereas the Mac 11 "Ingram" is an American design that ends up looking a lot like it, anyway. Interesting. -
Quote:Well it was something I heard a while back. May well not be true.Originally Posted by Panzerwaffen
I'm not too sure about that.. If I remember correctly, from when the Desert Eagle first showed up on the firearms scene, it was developed by a U.S. company who then sold the design to an Israeli company, Israel Military Industries for production. Despite their name, IMI is a private company, and the Desert Eagle was never intended to be anything more than a "sporting" firearm. I have never heard of any military or law enforcement unit anywhere in the world using them, although I think Saddam Hussein had a gold-plated one to go along with his gold-plated AK.
In any case, it's never been a bad marketing decision to sell "The most powerful handgun" even if only for a little while. There's always someone willing to spend a lot of money for that big bang, no matter how impractical. Heck, why else would the .500 S&W magnum exist? Those things are preposterous. I rented on once, and good lord that thing is excessive. -
Quote:Ok, I guess there's two sporting purposes where you'd be using a handgun. The first would be target shooting, and in that case until you are on the line aimed at a target, you should be transporting the gun completely unloaded. Most ranges don't allow you to bring guns in loaded (unless you have a carry permit, and even that's isn't universal).Originally Posted by Human_Being
To my reading, all of the actual discussion of firing handguns in this thread has been in the context of collectors and enthusiasts (unless I missed it). For sporting, prevention of accidents while having fun is more important than being able to defend yourself at a moment's notice.
For hunting purposes it's either pistol hunting or as a backup weapon, in which case you are going to want to ready to fire pronto also. Then again most handgun hunting it with revolvers, so it's rather moot. -
Quote:In that sense I suppose a car is more safe if you don't fuel it up, but it's not terribly useful for when you actually need it.Originally Posted by Human_Being
I say it is "inherently less safe" because it takes one less conscious action to proceed in discharging the weapon. To me it's in the same vein as "always treat a gun like it's loaded" and "never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot": don't make the weapon ready to fire unless you are about to shoot.
If you are carrying a gun for a reason, having it ready to go is rather important, and to be quite honest if something bad does happen, the gun is a hell of a lot less safe for you without a bullet in the chamber. -
Quote:Actually from what I've heard it was developed for the Mossad, not the military. The idea was to have a pistol which was pretty much guaranteed to punch through whatever vest someone might be wearing and get a kill.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
And what the hell would possess someone to even develop a weapon like the Desert Eagle? I mean, I can see why people by they, I can even see why some people fire them, and I can DEFINITELY see why they're so common in games and movies, but for something this seemingly impractical to be developed by a military force? How did that happen? -
Quote:Yeah, the only guns I know of with a recoil spring around the barrel are blowback designs. A former roommate of mine had a Makarov, and it featured a fixed barrel with recoil spring that went around it.Originally Posted by Tog
The spring is actually under the barrel, not around it. At least in a 1911. The width of the slide is to accommodate the bushing. -
Quote:Damn, I feel sloppy for forgetting to mention that. It's especially bad since I almost never fire my revolvers double action(and I only have one single action revolver).Originally Posted by Panzerwaffen
DA revolvers can also be fired by manually c0cking the hammer, similar to a SA revolver. This greatly reduces the amount of trigger travel and weight required to release the hammer and fire the gun. There are also what are known as Double Action Only revolvers, which can only be fired by pulling the trigger. There is either no exposed hammer to c0ck, or if there is an exposed hammer, it does not have a c0cking notch and will not stay in the c0cked position.
-
Quote:I would define the bolt as the back end of the chamber where there is a hole for the firing pin. The chamber in general is the area which confines the cartridge.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
See, I KNEW this would happen I knew that there would be people here with extensive knowledge of the subject, who could present it much more logically and comprehensively than any encyclopaedia I've seen. And I was right. So far, I love what I'm seeing like you cannot believe. One of the things I enjoy most in life is understanding things. It doesn't matter what that thing is, as long as I understand it, I'm a happy camper. In this case, weapon operations keep coming up time and time again even just in idle conversation here, and knowing about them will really help me make sense of discussions, as well as actually make sense of why guns look the way they do.
A few things I've picked up so far:
I do not know what a "bolt" is, exactly, though I have a few guesses. If I had to give my best one, I'd say it's the part which seals the back of the barrel during fire to confine cartridge gasses and direct the actual bullet forward, hence why an automatic's slide also technically works as a bolt. I think...
The bullets are forced up by the magazine spring. However there are 'lips' at the top of the magazines which prevent the spring from simply tossing bullets out. The slide action basically scoops the bullet forward past these lips and up into the chamber. There is generally a feed ramp which guides the bullet into the chamber.Quote:I love the purely verbal mental image of the slide sliding back and "scooping up" a new round to chamber. I don't know why, but I always kind of thought rounds were forced up by a spring in the magazine, and I mean ALL the way up into the barrel. As it stands, it seems like they're forced up just high enough for the slide to push them into place.
You pretty much always have start with the slide all the way back (slide, not slider) to load a semi-auto. If you do not, there is a significant chance of feeding not working and you get a jam.Quote:The hammer on an automatic only controls the striker, but does not have the ability to chamber a round, so inserting a new magazine would still require a slider pull. I'm not sure if that would require a slider pull all the way back or not, but just cocking the hammer and pressing the trigger would not produce a shot.
Along these lines, if you don't have a good grip on a pistol when firing it, you can do what is called limp wristing, which means you let the gun flop back too much in your hand and the recoil action gets botched. This can lead to misfeeds and jams.
Yes, it's a whole different story than in revolvers.Quote:Double-action automatics do exist, but the double action only sets the hammer and does not move the slide or chamber a round. Which kind of makes sense, given how solid the recoil springs really are.
This is pretty much correct. Both use springs of course, though the short recoil operation mechanisms use the mechanical action to mitigate recoil more so than the spring. Only blowback guns are all about the spring.Quote:Most contemporary guns use a recoil-operated mechanism to operate their auto reloading, essentially allowing a part of the gun to be forced back, which animates the rest of the gun. Gas-operated weapons, instead, use a gas chamber and piston to do the same thing and, I assume, rely less on heavy recoil springs.
There are two ways to put a semi auto back into battery. They all have a slide release (which is a button or lever which will release the slide forward and chamber a round), or you can simply pull the slide back and let it go.Quote:Automatic handguns remain half-self-loaded with the slide back, so that chambering a round is easier upon inserting the next clip. Instead of requiring a full draw on the slide, they just require that the slide be released forward, chambering a round and cocking the striker. Clever. The mechanism for achieving that, exactly, doesn't seem like it's too important, but the mechanism for releasing the slide might actually be.
As always, never assume some enthusiast hasn't done what you think impossible.Quote:Single-action revolvers need to be manually cocked every time, but can be fired really quickly by fanning the gun, just in case you weren't interested in actually hitting anything with the bullets you fire.
Try This
or this
Again, I can find a shooter to prove this wrong.Quote:Double-action revolvers do all actions on a single, heavy, long trigger pull, making the gun completely automatic, but making firing it repeatedly look like you're squeezing a lemon in someone's face. That explains why people firing revolvers in old cop movies looked so dang ridiculous.
here
It's said by the really high end wheelgun people that a heavy double action pull makes it easier to shoot fast since it means the hammer is working faster since the spring makes it cycle faster.
The real reason that old TV shows had crappy shooting scenes is that they never either got a firearm expert to advice at all, or the had a really bad one. To gun enthusiasts like myself, it is easy to tell when a show has hired someone to provide good advice.
Your first and easiest clue will be that nobody will have a finger on the trigger until they are on target and ready to shoot.
There was a semi auto revolver actually, you are right. Basically the idea was to use a revolving magazine with recoil to operate the mechanism of rotation and the resetting of the hammer. The ability of a rotary magazine to feed quickly and more precisely than a spring loaded magazine was the advantage. It didn't really catch on however since it was more limited in capacity. I read about it some time back in a gun magazine, though I'd be hard pressed to find a reference now.Quote:I'm still not sure what the heck a semi-automatic revolver is, but I know at least one exists. It may not be very important for real-life purposes, but ESPECIALLY for the sake of Dual Handguns weapon customization, it would be fairly important, specifically to satisfy BABs' requirement that the gun can shoot many bullets in rapid succession. This feels like the Pancor Jackhammer of handguns. Who cares if it's not a large-scale commercial success?
Oddly enough, submachineguns are often the cheapest and easiest to make.Quote:I'll have a look at the "How Machine Guns Work" (interesting topic, even if I couldn't spin it as being relevant here ) tomorrow. After spending two and a half hours with no power, waiting in the dark, I have a few things to take care of today, and it looks like it's a big read.
Well if you do decide to cross the pond sometime, you'd be welcome to try some real ones out here. I'm generally happy to teach people how to shoot and let them try some items from the collection.Quote:I actually think I understand a lot of what I was looking for right about now. I'll see if I still remember it tomorrow, but I feel like I'll be re-reading the thread several times over just to freshen up. I've never used a gun, and I doubt I ever will unless civil war breaks out here or something, but damn if I don't enjoy guns in video game. It's like the 90s kid said: "He's got the coolest super power of all, man! Guns!"
-
Quote:Do you know if they actually separate those from the other short recoil operation guns or not? Considering how different short recoil is between a 1911 and a Hi Power (to name 2 Browning guns), I could see the short recoil type being broad enough to cover it.Originally Posted by Walleye_
Further into the realm of "more info than is really necessary", but there is a fourth type of semi-automatic pistol action which was very popular in its day. The German Luger P08 uses a "toggle-locked" operation to disconnect the barrel from the rest of the toggle-assembly (for lack of a better term) as it recoils. I don't know of any other pistols that use it but it was very successful on the Lugers.
/w
The Luger was a fairly successful gun, but not brilliant. It is very finicky about ammo, and it's not as reliable as some other contemporaries (1911 comes to mind). It's also appreciable harder to manufacture than other models which is why the Walther P38 was developed. -
Quote:Didn't care for 1911s much initially myself (even though I bought one). However they have grown on me. There's so many varieties of them out there it is likely you'd find one which fit your hand better if you tried a bunch. However, in the end, the pistol which suits you is what fits your hand, and if the 1911 isn't your cup of tea, well there's lots of other options.Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
Very nice explanation.
I only have a very limited amount of experience with handguns. I had a membership to a gun range that allowed rentals for about a year, and got to fire a variety of different types.
Handguns I've had some experience with:
- .45 M1911. My least pleasurable experience because of a nub on the grip safety that kept getting hammered into the heel of my thumb.
Glocks I don't like because they simply don't fit my hand. I appreciate the design quality though.Quote:- 9mm & .40 Glock. Glocks are great guns...just not very sexy. I have gone akimbo with two .40...terrifying experience.
Picked up one of the .40 USPs back when they first came out. They are nice guns. Though to say they are military grade is stretching it a bit since actually they are a civilianized version of the SOCOM pistol designed for the U.S. Special Operations Command (hence SOCOM). The SOCOMs were later made available for civilian purchase, and if you want to see an expensive gun, check those out. They make USPs look cheap.Quote:- .40 & .45 USP - my favorite so far. Loved the .45, but felt the grip was too bulky. If I had the money, I'd buy a .40. Very expensive, military grade handguns.
Oddly enough, I've never shot an actual Walther, just knock offs of PPKs.Quote:- Walther P99
Not shot one of those myself, though I suppose I should.Quote:
Things that I have not fired, but would love to:
- Beretta 92F - Came very close to buying one of these from a show, but without having ever fired one I balked. I do have a very nice Airsoft replica because I think this gun is terribly sexy.
I assume you mean the P226 (checked their site, no P266 yet, while they do have a P25x series, no P26x series as yet). These are fine guns. I have one myself, and it's my favorite 9mm (though I admit, I don't like 9mms). It's the standard issue of the U.S. Secret Service. One thing about Sigs, is they are by far the easiest pistols to field strip I've ever owned, and my gun safe is a pretty crowded place.Quote:- Sig Saur P266
-
Ok, I'll start with some simple definitions:
Single action revolver: a revolver where the trigger pull is generally light (3-7 lbs) and will only drop the hammer and fire the weapon. It will not revolve the cylinder or push back the hammer. You have to retract the hammer using your thumb (or whatever) which also revolves the cylinder. An example of this would be a Colt 1873 Peacemaker.
Double action revolver: in this case the trigger pull does all of revolve the cylinder, pull back the hammer, and then drop it. The trigger pulls are generally fairly heavy (12+ lbs). Pretty much every modern revolver is like this (Colt Python for example).
Single action pistol (pistols are different than revolvers). This is generally on a semi-automatic weapon where the weapon is loaded by pulling back the slide which sets the hammer and loads the weapon. Then the trigger pull just drops the hammer. Then recoil from the weapon firing which run back the slide, eject the spent cartridge, load a new cartridge, and set the hammer for firing again (actually in some rare pistols the mechanism is gas operated rather than recoil operated, but the difference is in the inner workings and academic here). Pistols of this sort will continue to fire per trigger pull long as there is ammunition in the magazine. Examples: Colt 1911 , or Ruger 10/22. On a defensive firearm you will carry this sort of pistol c0cked(been trying to dodge that word) and locked which means hammer back and safety on.
Double action pistol: This is a semi-automatic pistol in which the hammer is drawn back by use of the trigger before firing. After the first round is fired, the weapon will generally go into single action mode where the hammer is back from the previous shot and only a short, light trigger pull is required to fire the weapon. Again firing will continue with trigger pulls as long as ammunition remains. There is a variant of this type of weapon which some people favor called the double action only (DAO), in which the hammer does not remain back when the weapon is fired and you need a double action pull for each shot. This is desired by some because it makes the trigger pull consistent for all shots unlike in a normal DA pistol where the first shot has a much heavier trigger pull. Most double action pistols will have a dec0cking level which allows the hammer to be lowered safely after loading so it can be carried with a round in the chamber. Examples of DA pistols are Sig Sauer P220, or Beretta 92F.
Ok, then you have some other variants. The main example of this would be the Glock (and some other imitators). It is a semi-automatic pistol using no exposed hammer. The striking mechanism is all internal. These will generally have a heavier trigger pull than a single action, but less than a double action (sometimes called 1.5 action).
Of course the above doesn't explain why sometimes there are exposed hammers and sometimes not. Well in every case there has to be a mechanism of some mass which strikes the firing pin and ignites the primmer. On most guns this is the hammer, while on the Glocks it is an internal mechanism. Why did Glock decide to design without a hammer? Well there are advantages in keeping a mechanism enclosed to avoid modes of failure from external sources. Also a hammerless gun will not snag on clothing if carried in a pocket or during a draw.
As for firing mechanisms, which I think you are curious about (hence the Desert Eagle question), there are only three mechanisms in semi-automatic pistols I can think of. There's the simple blowback mechanism where recoil simply slams the slide back against the recoil spring thereby ejecting, loading and resetting the hammer. The barrel is generally fixed to the frame. This was the first system in use, and is generally too hard on a pistol for any heavier calibers. It is rare to see it on anything higher than a .380 (9mm kurz) because the slamming back to the slide stops would be hard on the mechanism. An example of this would be a Walther PPK.
The next is the short recoil operation. This involves the barrel and slide both being mobile during the initial recoil with the barrel being locked into position after a short bit of travel. Then the slide continues back to finish the operation of reloading. This spreads the recoil impulse out over more time and parts making it easier on the mechanism. Most pistols these days use this method of operation.
The last, and least common method is the gas operation system. I can only think of two pistols where use this system. The Desert Eagle, and the H&K P7. In this case a port exists on the barrel by which some of the ignition gasses are shunted into a chamber where they push back on a piston which drives back the slide. Gas operation systems are very good for mitigating recoil (hence it being used on the Desert Eagle which fires a very powerful .50 caliber round). However they are harder to manufacture and clean so are not popular.
There are other mechanisms used in rifles, but we don't need to go into all that.