@@ProfessionalPregumin Yup. Loading orifice is on top, dirt/mud/drebris falls downward due to gravity, 1 + 1 = 2. '2' being more dirt and s**t getting into the tube and the loading mechanism.
The most effective firearm against zombies - whether terrestrial or alien - has always been the shotgun. This has been true for nearly every zombie game ever made; even the force gun-the closest analogue to a shotgun in Dead Space-is effective at ripping limbs off necromorphs. Btw there's a video on Tarran Tactical's channel showcasing how fast Keanu Reeves is at shooting steel targets in 2 gun. He has to flip his shotgun over to reload - that's one place I can see how having a top loading shotgun would be more effective than a traditional bottom loading one.
nothing is too op to use on the flood the flood are too op for the universe. halo(s) were only created to kill the flood which will also kill most other forms of life but at least life will have a chance somewhere.
Even as a young kid watching the reload animation in the first Halo game I was like "Wow that makes a lot of sense. Why don't they do it that way?" Now watching competition shooters and seeing the bizarre contortions they go through to speed load a traditional shotgun, I still think "Wow that Halo shotgun still makes a lot of sense. Why don't we do it that way?"
THIS. THIS! Exactly. I posed in the previous Forgotten Weapons M90A video a comment about making shotguns top-loaded with the ejection port shooting empty shells straight down so it'd have the advantage of being ambidextrous too, with a comparison to the old Ithaca shotgun. Someone replied by pointing out that the point of the Ithaca was to prevent dirt and dust getting into the action which would be defeated by a top-load design. But if that's the case, then put a dust cover or similar.
It feels like one of those things that fud Lori is keeping alive like oh everybody's too used to doing it this way so we can't possibly change it because that's scary
@@javierpatag3609 I mean.. are you shooting the gun while you're reloading? No? Then, just turn the thing upside down. Sounds like someone else in this thread literally already did that
In the context of Halo, the CAWS is canonically an 8 gauge shotgun. Magazines for 12 gauge semi auto shotguns generally tend to be more clunky or bulky compared to say, an AR or AK magazine. Now think about a mag that has to hold 8 gauge shells, not 12 gauge, and suddenly a t00b makes a bit more sense. The CAWS is also very obviously the go-to solution for incomprehensibly horrifying parasites and energy sword wielding invisible space lizards.
@@jagx234 I think that's more a symptom of the game being made first, and then bungie/microsoft backloading lore into the universe to fill it out. The innie conflict was not a thing in the first game, and I'm pretty sure wasn't part of the lore until after the game came out.
@@xon0930 Nope. The Innie conflict and Spartan's backstory in being created for it was first mentioned in the Fall of Reach novel which was released just before CE the game was. Gotta remember Halo was in development for a long time and Bungie as it was loved lore heavy backstories. I can't remember if it was the case but I think one of the discarded concepts did include them in the game.
@@Lamrett Huh, I was never aware of the books till a while after the game came out, so I didn't know the books came out first. Does make you wonder what they needed 8 gauge shells for vs innies though.
@@Lamrett If you want to get technical, the official website for the game prior to release had a rough timeline of the major historical events between the 21st-26th century that alludes to the Insurrectionist conflict, which also predated the novel. However I’m reasonably confident that Bungie was dimly aware of its content as they were much too busy actually making the game itself to worry about ancillary details like background lore. Most of this stuff was initially fleshed out by Microsoft’s publishing team, namely Eric Trautmann, based on rough documentation supplied by Bungie. Bungie begrudgingly accepted it and built off those plot elements in later installments.
In competition shotgun shooting, I believe its relatively common to invert the gun to have easier access when inserting the shells, so I think there would be some real merit in not needing to do that.
In three-gun, though, you won’t be surprised while reloading and need to take a snap shot. If I am walking the grass looking for rabbits, I don’t want to flip the gun over while I top off the tube. I want it in the ready position with my right hand close to the trigger the whole time.
@@randydewing7429 I'm not saying it wouldn't be niche, just that there *might* be some actual value in it. Enough to actually justify it being used over traditional designs? I don't know
@@ryelor123 I don't know if there are any regulations surrounding the design of competition shotguns, but I'd imagine there'd be some competitions that'd ban it, and others that wouldn't. A patent issue would be a whole other can of worms tho. I'm not sure it'd be very easy to patent a design that existed in fiction prior.
@@tovcFiction is almost never considered prior art in regards to a patent application. The invention must have been made available to the public or disclosed to the public with enabling detail-information that would allow a reasonably skilled person to make the product or duplicate the innovation. A description of what the invention does is not enough. I don’t have any idea what aspects of a top loading shotgun might be patentable. However, if you build a phased plasma rifle in the 40w range, your patent application can’t be challenged because your product was depicted in a movie or video game.
There is РМБ-93 "lynx" shotgun and her big brother GM-94(same thing but 43mm grenades) they loads from top, and also have cool design with moving barrel
It's almost like an opposite of a conventional pump shotgun. Moving barrel instead of the bolt, magazine and loading port under the barrel, and it even pumps forward instead of back.
The top tube of the GM-94 launcher benefits from a top tube because the shells are really a lot heavier than a shotgun shell. Being able to have gravity assist in the loading of a grenade cartridge solves a major problem with the China Lake EX-41. I've seen a couple EX-41 videos and it looks like there is a fair bit of effort required to pull the pump handle back forwards because it's having to lift a big heavy 40mm shell upwards to be breeched. One does wonder if the much heavier weight of grenade cartridges makes it more likely that a grenade could be fired in the tube if the gun is dropped. I'm not sure if the big domed head on a 40mm grenade could push in a primer pan, but there sure is a lot more in-line weight in a fully loaded tube of grenades.
For shotguns with a specific use like trap shooting, yeah that'd be neat. However, as a duck hunter I can tell you those foggy mornings can be extremely damp and even rainy, and I just don't like the idea of my action slowly filling with water as I wait.
Or a dog placing a muddy paw on the port while getting back in the boat, leaving you with a grit-filled action that may not function at all until you tear down the gun, clean it all out & lube it.
@@Darthdoodoo It's just a case of Glocks with garish, brightly colored paint schemes fixed with attachments to the gills lol. And one pink one for the wifey, supposedly.
If someone decides to make a clone correct m90, you will have two kinds people who buy it for the cool factor : "omg the shotgun from halo, so cool" And "omg a fucking 8 gauge shotgun, so cool !" I know of a guy in Kentucky who would love an 8gauge magnum pump action shotgun.
If the incentive to load shotguns faster developed before the box mag, I think there’s a decent chance we would have seen top loaders. Interesting alternative history.
we would have shotguns with vertical internal magazines and fed it from stripper clips most likely. Kind of reminds me of what winchester did when russians wanted a winchester for center fired cartridge. They ditched the tube mag and slapped a bolt action magazine onto a lever gun
Well, in 3 gun matches there's still a "need" for quick loadable tube fed shotgun, since magfed ones do fall under a different bracket and have penalties attached to them
@@franklynotyourbussiness9401 the win 95 was already a thing for a while tho, mostly because they wanted a product that could use spitzer projectiles without the chain fire risk
Depends specifically on the source of the need. For sport shooting the bead on the barrel rib is an important concern. We would probably do side loading gates like lever actions.
Ah, makes sense with the year designation and all. I knew of it due to its military use by russians, so made the logical assumption. Turned out incorrectly.
I hope that people say this to you regularly but even though some of your stuff is kind of boring, I love guns and you have become my generational Guru on firearms and you've gotten to handle and use some of the coolest guns in the world. You're smart and now you're making money basically living my dream. Thank you so much for everything you do
I mean every word of it, I send more money if I could but I'm really really grateful that there's a gun nerd Channel that I can watch. I work in social media I know how difficult it can be and I know how many people say stupid things or tell you that you're doing it wrong or you don't know what you're talking about but you sir are preserving knowledge of the history of firearms better than anyone else on the internet
Agreed. I prefer Ian's method. I remember more from his videos than anyone else. I also get more relevant information and greatly appreciate how comfortable Ian is with taking things apart. The only other gun guru I get excited to watch is Scott @ K.Ballistics. Albeit, for completely different reasons.
Yes, and the model 1901, same as the 1887 but stronger for smokeless powder I think was the difference. As long as we are on the subject, one of these was used in Terminator 2 by Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s character.
this is similar to how the QWERT keyboard layout is a vestigial design from old typewriter keyboards to prevent keys from jamming by putting common letter pairs that are typed together as far apart as possible. The bottom fed design in tube fed shotguns is essentially a vestigial design from the old lever guns that were tubefed, from which they trace their design roots from. So yes Ian, the answer is in front of you sort of, since the answer is, "well that's how these older guns were made and nobody seems to mind, let's just keep doing that".
While it’s commonly stated that the qwerty layout came from typewriters and the placement was intended to put certain letters as far apart as possible to avoid jamming it’s not actually how qwerty came to be. The layout comes from telegraph operators and the placement was evolved over time from an alphabetical ordered single row of keys, then an overlapping double row like a piano keyboard, eventually getting shuffled about to work better for transcribing Morse code. The layout was already developed before it was sold to be used in typewriters. Doesn’t change your point but fun fact.
@@richmondvand147so a way to get around from the chonk is to have an ovular handguard that is along the barrel and reaches up to the top tube for pump actions.
I would agree that the height over bore is the main reason against. Additionally the advantages of having a top load is mute with many speed loading techniques involving rotating the gun into your armpit to move the loading gate dorsally
I can't blame anyone for forgetting the flash-in-the-pan that was the ill-fated Utas UTS-15, which was not just a shotgun with the magazine on top. It was also a dual-tube, bullpup shotgun. The Kel-Tec KSG-12 flipped upside-down. It used a lot of polymer and was a Turkish piece of junk in the end, but there's your production, top-fed shotgun.
I almost picked up one of those Utas UTS-15's but decided against it due to it having some flex. I was eyeing a KSG-12 next and got laid off from work and had to reprioritize my spending lol.
@@eyywannn8601It was a jamtacular pile of crap that would fall apart if you looked at it funny like a lot of Turkshit shotguns but that one was made of flimsy plastic and used magnets to get out of putting proper detents on it. It was a raw deal for the premium price they were charging, the Keltec would drop down to almost half the UTAS' price on sale while actually being an okay shotgun for the most part.
The only thing I can think of would be the opening for reloading being more likely to get clogged with dirt since it is on top. When it is open to the ground stuff falls out of it, it does not "pool" inside of it.
Same thought. Not to mention water. Imagine all the water that would just pool with the internals while in the rain. Unless they had some to drain water out.
I thought of this too, however it does have a benefit too, spent shells can drop right out the bottom of the gun, and dirt might be able to drop out the same way
A solid point. But at the same time, it's not like there hasn't been any design with an open top and closed bottom before (which is, like, every bolt action ever made). Also, if you do get a bunch of sand into the action, you turn it upside down and now the opening is down
Actually, we have at least 1 shotgun with magazine over a barrel. It's russian RMB-93/RM-96 "Рысь" ("Lynx") anti-pump action. To chamber the shell, you need to cycle the barrel forward-rear (breech is fixed). So, obviously, it was easier to put the barrel on bottom and put a handguard on it. "Рысь" have some advantages (it is short and light, due to anti-pump construction), but it is not the most fastest or most pleasant gun to shoot.
It's only advantage is it's so funky and weird it always draws attention on the range. But it's horrible at being a shotgun for just about any application. I shot it, it's absolutely horrible in every aspect of being a gun.
Me explaining to the atf agent why i have such a thing. "Because i need it for home self defence against the Flood. just like the founding chief's intended. "
I've always wanted to see a front pump action on a shotgun. Not for any real practical reasons, I just see the potential for bump stock like rapid fire. But doing it that way would probably be hell for the shooters hands and wrists. And probably only doable for hip shooting so accuracy would be an issue as well. But then again. Stupidity have yet to stop gun nuts on the past. So... I guess it'd be inevitable regardless. 😅
@@jmalmsteni have one and accuracy and comfort of shooting is fine. Only disadvantage is fucking trapdoor on a loading window. Also its weeeery compact and also a 8+1 capacity!
The solution is obvious, five 8 round tubes surrounding the barrel in a star pattern with forward ejecting spent shells in case you missed with your 40 + 1 street howitzer
@paulis7319 Kentucky Ballistics shot a rare model of Benelli (maybe) that had several tubes. A major metal part cracked in two after a few rounds. No one was hurt except for his bank account.
Bear in mind. The Halo M90 Shotgun in Halo CE was something like a **6 Gauge** and most of the ones since 2 have been at least a 8 Gauge. The size of the shot-shells alone for the one in CE would result in bulky and decidedly unhelpful difficulty in storing said mags and even loading when you got a squad of Elites yelling "Wort-Wort-Wort" about 10 yards away, even more so if your trying to somehow shove said bulky extra large mag into the gun and the lead Elite has an Energy Sword. Within the context of the Game Universe's lore, the top feed tube makes quite a good amount of since. Purely from the stand put that were dealing with shell sizes and outright firepower to boot that render the idea of mag feeding difficult, and that's before you account for the fact that if a Marine or heaven forbid an ODST is in a situation were said Shotgun is being used, things have already likely gone far enough pear shaped that the last thing they need is to be fumbling with a mag that takes up literally half of their armor's ammo storage. However within the context of our universe it is a little confusing why Top Feed never became a thing, until you remember that 12 Gauge while bulky can still be shoved into a mag and it be perfectly serviceable and useable and is way faster, and holding anywhere from roughly 5 to 8 shells and still being short enough and small enough to easily carry and use, with 10+ shell count mags quickly reaching the point of being unusable outside of it being the starter mag or taking the piss at the range with your friends after a couple of beers.
This makes sense. A tube of 8 gauge shells would be of a wider diameter than 12 gauge, so having the tube on top means the size of the magazine doesn't matter and you can keep the size of the lower handguard and pump at the conventional size and thus is usable by everybody, not just 7-foot tall SPARTANs.
Yep. Excellent explanation. In essence, making the M90 tube-fed took the "bulk" of the magazine and extended it out in the direction of the barrel, which is somewhere with plenty of available space. A magazine that holds twelve, or even six shells sticking out the bottom of the weapon would be... uncomfortable.
@@brandonwise5170 Not quite. Having read Fall of Reach, The Flood, and First Strike. Halo CE is a 6 Gauge. Non-standard at the time. Same with the CE Magnum firing something like a .50AE HE round, and the fact all of the MA5s were B models which were being phased out shortly after the Spirit of Fire's battles at Harvest. Pillar of Autumn was also by the time of CE a super prototype, and the amount of non-standard weaponry onboard and used by Chief and the UNSC in Halo CE was due to the fact it was planned to be used in Operation: RED FLAG where all active Spartan--IIs would board the ship, and attempt to capture a Prophet to hold hostage to force a peace treaty or truce. Anyone that played Halo Reach or has read Fall of Reach would know why RED FLAG never took place. Remember Reach, my brothers. Edit: Should note that it is never outright stated, but more or less implied that the "Shedder" AP Rounds that were used in the Novels tended to perform better and have less problems in the MA5B than the newer MA5Cs. Also given the amount of enemies they'd face in RED FLAG, 60 rounds is better than 32.
As a Police Officer when on duty, I do often simply invert my pump and semi-auto shotty guns when filling the tube magazine. Our patrol vehile guns are SBS's with 3-round magazines. Excellent video!
One bad reason was +70 years back shells were most-often made of paper and top loading shotgun would let dirt/snow/rain-water just funnel directly in. One good reason today to make top loading shotgun is to have slightly less muzzle climb maybe??? Gonna need Ian to test that last one though. :D
Wouldnt matter.... Weight would still be in the same place , looking from a balance point of view. Muzzle climb would only be reduced if the tube would extend out further.
@@dannybax1982 Yes but the recoil impulse being more in line with your shoulder would mean less angle the barrel is over your shoulder, AKA less muzzle climb.
@@davefeil1522 But couldn't one just basically move that barrel and tube a little down relative to the stock, as to achieve that effect? I suppose the sights would have to be elevated as well... Point is, just like a top-loading shotgun is possible and feasible, getting the recoil under better control for bottom-loaders should be just as possible
@@davefeil1522unfortunately because of the M90’s design the bore axis WOULDN’T be more in line with your shoulder, because you effectively have three tubes now, one just for the pump to be mounted on, the barrel, and the mag tube on top. So instead of making something like the Chiapas Rhino where you have a weapon of roughly the same height as the average, but a lower bore, you just have a taller gun in this case. Muzzle flip would be exactly the same because the barrel is remaining right where it normally would be, and you’re just adding an extra tube on top. The extra weight would likely not make much of a difference, because it’s still a 12 gauge.
@@eosaeostre9242I don’t think that’s true at all. Just by looking at the thing in the video, you can see that the barrel is in line with the lower half of the stock. Every bottom loading shotgun has their barrel inline with the top of the stock. The axis is definitely different.
Growing up on a farm in the UK we had the usual double barrel 12 guages, except me who had (and I can't recall the make alas) a Greener EG Mark III style top loading single shot lever action 12 gauge. Overall it was a fantastic hunting weapon so long as you didn't need a second shot immediately - given most of my generation didn't have auto eject on their guns, using my under lever I could in fact get a better rate of fire with the lever flinging the cartridge out. Nighttime shooting when it was difficult to see where to lead, and on a bouncing truck bed and this was the gun of choice. Thanks for the distant memories!
The reason I bought a shotgun was for 3-Gun. A few years ago, I shot skeet with a friend of mine who has an over/under shotgun and he kept loading just the bottom barrel when he only had to take a single shot. I asked him why that barrel and he said that it had a more inline recoil impulse, which controlled muzzle flip a little more. That got me wondering why nobody made a tube-fed shotgun with the magazine above the barrel. When I started telling people about this notion everyone just thought it was weird. Now there a video about it! The "just use a box magazine" argument ignores 3-Gun gear divisions; box mags are only allowed in Open division under USPSA or UML rules. Tac Ops has (at least until recently) been the most popular division, which mandates a tube-fed shotgun. The division that's just been introduced is Modified which also requires a tube. All that being said, you're spot-on when you point out that fast reloading of a shotgun is really, really important in 3-Gun and somewhere between a lot less important and irrelevant everywhere else, so I'm not sure that we'll see any radical developments in tube fed guns any time soon.
Makes sense, and it's similar in theory to modern black powder rifles existing so that people can hunt in "black powder season". I also see a benefit for a top feed where you're you're going to be prone, or places where a box mag might get caught on stuff. Very much a case of picking the gun based on the match you're going to. I half expect someone to show up to a match with a 4 foot long bullpup shotgun with a top mounted tube mag so that he doesn't need to reload during a stage.
This was my first thought as well. Maybe it wouldn't be that big of a problem but it would necessarily open you up to debris and water and stuff getting in there.
I'd add the following to Ian's argument. You hold guns from the bottom, so that was the obvious place to stick a tube mag, where you have more options to wiggle/toggle/pump/tap things. Shotgun rounds resist magazine feed design, so they stuck with tubes, and tubes like to be near the hands. You might note we don't have a lot of tube mags in stocks, either; I'd say it's another case of ease of manufacture but also it's a hell of a lot easier to fish a round/spring/screw from a tube near my hands than fishing from the depths of the stock. It's also a really efficient thing to do with a handguard. You might note that in the HALO piece, it STILL needs a handguard, and that's wasted space if it's not a secondary tube.
The Sako Crossfire Mk.1 was a repeating combination gun. Shotgun piggyback'd on top of a rifle (w/compound receiver). The shotgun part fed from a detachable mag tube that was built into the stock. The rifle fed from AR/STANAG mags. Both the rifle and the shotgun were pump-action. It was a novelty gun that never caught on. One potential way to simplify this "M90-IRL" is to put a straight-wall vented heat-shield around the barrel, then have the forearm fit over it. The forearm should have a metal housing on the inside. So think Mossberg 500, not Maverick 88. If it was semi-auto, then the forearm could simply fit over the barrel. There'd be no need for that tube thing under the barrel in either case. Another option would be to make it ambidextrous straight-pull bolt-action. Could also make it a bottom-ejector. Could also put the loading port on either side. A side-loading bottom-ejector would be kinda like an inverted Winchester levergun (but not a Marlin).
As someone who isn't experienced in firearms (the only one I've ever fired is the Ak5C) but _is_ quite knowledgeable in engineering, I would guess that's _probably_ the reason why top-mounted tube mags aren't common. All of the ways I can think of to make such a design pump-action or lever-action (or self-loaded with pump or lever charging handle) would require a few more parts with more complex shapes in the mechanism requiring tighter quality, so it'd be more expensive for not that much of a benefit.
Take a look at the Russian RMB-93 shotgun (which works exactly the same as the GM 94 pump action grenade launcher). The top mounted tube enables you to use gravity feed and dispence with things such as the elevator and the moving bolt. By getting rid of those you shed complexity, weight and volume.
It's the Mateba Unica of shotguns. A lot of engineering and higher prices for an oddball gun that still has next to no advantages compared to its contemporary counterparts.
This one was interesting. I like the fact it's basically a weird middle technology where it's slightly better than what is typically available, but if people care about that, they can jump to an option that's far better than manual loading leaving it in limbo. It is neat though, and it needs to happen for that reason alone!
It's honestly a little worse because the barrel is on the top its a little harder to hit with. That's a big loss compared to the small gain of not having to turn your gun 90° to see the port.
@@johnm3907 That's only relevant to iron sights though. As long as the designers don't half ass the mounting, even a shitty red dot renders the issue largely moot. A shotgun is a close in weapon. It's not like you're not trying to hold zero at 800 yards.
@@dustinbrueggemann1875 true enough, but I just don't see any upsides with this gun except the lower bore axis for recoil that someone else said. It's just a futuristic looking gun.
@@johnm3907 With a top mounted tube it actually makes the option of an extended tube more viable in a tube fed magazine to follow more closely to the barrel length. You're not fighting the weight as much for racking the pump because of weight distribution.
Design consideration for the infantryman: A top loader with the loading port looking the way it does today means a big area on the top of the gun that traps rainfall into the action and magazine. Not a huge concern for catastrophic failures, but it could mean water in the tube spoiling your ammunition. And for a long maintenance schedule, it's important to keep what could be a lot of moisture that didn't have to be there from being trapped in the gun for long time. Anytime you can make the top of a gun more likely to shed water away from the action, the better.
I really don’t think that applies, especially if properly designed it really wouldn’t be an issue. That’s like saying bolt action rifles would have the same issue because when you think about it they are actually top loading rifles
@@enclavesoldier769 Right, but bolt action rifles tend to stay closed except when cycling. Shotgun loading ports are usually just kinda open cavities. Even loading gates like on the 870 don't have a total seal on the guts. You'd have to redesign the loading gate completely so it blocks all debris ingress.
In terms of water im sure you would just design that like a muffler or even a AR buffer tube to get rid of it. Dirt might be a bigger issue however think about our guys crawling through the mud with a traditional pump action. You would think with it being on the bottom you would get dirt all in there and with it on top you wouldn't. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you see it I haven't had the pleasure or displeasure to find out in that scenario.
Top-loading is decently common in weapons - provided they're crew served. Bren Gun/ZB-26: Loader grabs empty mag, places new one, slaps gunner who is still tracking targets to indicate loaded. MK-19/M2: Open top cover, position belt , close. 40mm Dual Bofors AA mount - loaders feed clips on the top, brass and holding clips fall out bottom. Conversely - you don't see shotguns operated by multiple people (yes, I know of punt guns, but I am trying to be somewhat reasonable) so making the action accessible to others isn't a priority.
Nah, the flak doesn't come out in pieces its a normal time/proximity fuse shell (Flak is short for the German Flugabwehrkanone - or aircraft-defense cannon) @@eyywannn8601
The main issue with mag-fed shotguns is that they tend to get very bulky very quickly. I remember the first time I saw a Saiga, and I saw a MASSIVE magazine attached to it. I asked how many rounds it carried, and the store owner told me "ten". Ten shots for a magazine that was about twice as long as you would want it to be. Talk about cumbersome. I look at Mossbergs mag fed shotguns and the only "reasonably sized" magazines hold 5 rounds. They are shorter than Saiga mags, but they are still VERY bulky. Honestly, mag fed shotguns (in a traditional layout) haven't seen much use in the military (AFAIK) because they are so much bigger than a "traditional" shotgun. Why add a massive box to the underside of your shotgun when a mag tube already holds 5-8 shells? (There is a mag-fed breaching shotgun, but it is solely used as a breaching tool, and everyone I have spoken to about it that has experience with it says it's hot garbage.) Assuming the "M90" could be built to work just as well as something like a R870, I see it as a straight upgrade. Either use sights or have a mag tube the same length as the barrel and put the front sight post there. A semi auto M90 that worked as well as a Benelli M4 would also be a straight upgrade. The problem is that shotguns are kinda falling out of favor with the military, in general. The new trend seems to be going towards smaller, breaching specific shotguns or alternative breaching tools.
Yep I actually get that question a lot, why don't I own a magazine fed shotgun. They're just so goddamn bulky. And I've never felt inadequate with a tubefed, if I've ever needed more than what the tube can hold I'm in real trouble and definitely should have had a carbine instead. And let's not forget, much like lever actions you can top off on the go or switch to a specialty load quickly.
They also aren't used much in the military because box magazines squish the shells to the point you can't chamber the rounds if left loaded. They didn't screw around with box mags for a hundred years even though when pump shotguns were invented they used full brass shells, paper and plastic hulls don't stand a chance if they couldn't get full brass ones to work.
I wonder if it would be possible to do the equivalent of stripper clips but for shotgun shells going into a tube. There’s have to be some small but durable material holding like 4 shells together perfectly vertically stacked on one another and the user can insert 2 of those into the tube, to get 8 shots out of it. That feels like an advanced solution but would need lots of testing first, and I can easily see it being a flop
The only other argument I can think over for bottom mounted ammo tubes over top mounted is that it having it on the bottom allows the tube to double as a forestock to hold onto/brace the weapon. Having the tube on the top means this part would need to be added separately which could increase the weight/cost of the product, and the alternative of leaving it off and holding directly on to the barrel is probably not the most ideal situation.
The only drawback I can think of for top loading is when walking in dense foliage debris could fall into the loading slot. Maybe this is a null since a simple dust cover could be attached like on ARs. Love the videos.
you could sidestep that issue using two already existing pump mechanisms the standard ejection port as seen on pretty much any pump shotgun like the 870 that only exposes the inside of the receiver to eject shells and making the loading port and ejection port the same opening like the ithica 37
Never played Halo games much, but this is an interesting question I never considered. Among so many youtubers who just repost old content, copy and paste memes, and other useless content consumerism bs, your channel is a constant flow of refreshing actual informative content. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with the world Ian. You have my respect for trucking on for so long and dropping knowledge for me to learn from.
Halo really popularized top-loading shotguns. Honestly, it'd be cool to see this design done in real life. Halo shotguns in real life would be so awesome if mass produced. Bonus points if it's chambered in 8 Guage.
@@aboveaveragebayleaf9216 my main issue with the bulldog is it's still a pump action despite being a more "realistic" tactical shotgun. I also find it ridiculous that it only has a 7 round capacity drum mag when it's chambered in 12 gauge while still being much larger than other shotguns that are mag fed.
@@aboveaveragebayleaf9216leftists don’t like conventional, realistic, logical, or cool weapons in their games. Makes sense why they would get rid of the M90 so they could replace it with something that doesn’t even resemble a gun
In a combat/rapid reload situation, it feels awkward to feed shells in from the top if you're attempting to maintain the shotgun high and ready. You break your sight picture with your hand, have to reach further, feel like you need to lower the gun, etc. Sliding shells in from the bottom maintains your feed hand closer to a ready position, and doesn't interfere with your view. Now, this could just be an artifact of what we're used to, and it could work quite well either way. We all tend to have a bias for how we learned and have repeated. Great video, and a nice prototype Halo shotgun!
But you could also load the shotgun without even having to look at it or be nearly as careful feeling your way underneath to insert the shell, you could have it down by your side/waist easily slotting in shells from the top while keeping your eyes peeked behind solid cover so you're not situational-awarenessly blind for the time it takes. Can also just learn to hold it up higher in your peripheral from below if you need to keep it in sight to make sure you load it properly, but I bet over time you'd get used to it and not even need to look down at the flap to load it.
@@KruggKruscherp if you’re familiar with your gun you can just as easily load it based on muscle memory alone, plus your ammo would likely either be in a vest (closer to the bottom of the gun) or if you’re bougie like me you just keep a buncha slugs in your pockets lmao
I think the main reason is we like the sights on the barrel. If you put the magazine tube on the top you automatically create a raised sight that adds one more complication that isn’t there with the tube on the bottom. “It’s a shotgun” you might counter, but still , now you’re aiming maybe an inch over your main spread and have to take into consideration at what distance does the center of the spread line up with your sights when your sighting it in. This is a non issue with a bead sight on the barrel.
I do think there is one more reason to not put the barrel under the magazine tube (specifically on a military style shotgun that's going to be fired a lot in rapid succession): Barrels get hot. Magazine tubes provide a natural buffer that helps prevent a shooter's hands from getting burned by a hot barrel, even if you miss the grip or your hand slips. WWI would have been a FANTASTIC opportunity to have an "upside down" shotgun for trench sweeping, since keeping eyes downrange and the action from getting dirty are important factors. However, that still goes back to barrels getting hot from firing them a lot.
I think you're absolutely correct. I could see one reason for top reload: consider using a shotgun in a prolonged gun fight. 1) you do want to reload as quickly as possible 2) you do not have a set course of fire (as you do in a match), so you want to top up as opposed to run dry and reload a whole magazine It's not a very compelling reason in practice. On the other hand, making a top-loading shotgun can be a product differentiator anyway. Just for the cool factor alone.
The most practical sense in which the top feed would make sense and be beneficial is in a combat shotgun. The tube load is preferred for reliability as well as the ability to change shell types without having to actually reload the entire shotgun. Probably will still never seen one make the mainstream but my inner halo fan would love it.
There is one top loader shotgun I can think of, the Winchester 1887. Of course the tube is still under the barrel and loading seems like it's a pain in the neck. I'm guessing when he designed the 1893 pump, John Browning decided it was better to move the loading port to the bottom than move the tube to the top.
You are correct they are in fact kind of a pain to load. If you you push too far downward with your thumb it will mousetrap it in there when you bump the shell stop and they all try to spit out of the magazine.
Folks who use the 87 in competition (and the only relevant one I can think of is Wild Bunch with the latest rules) shoot the 6 you can load in it, (5 in the tube and one on the carrier) then do NOT reload the tube if more shots are required... they "drop 2" in the top and shoot those...and repeat as necessary (although Ive never seen more than 8 shotgun required on a WB stage)
@@trooperdgb9722 regular SASS rules are 2 in the gun, full stop. Cannot use magazine in '87 for regular SASS, but ok for Wild Bunch, as you already said. I shoot a '97 (tho I haven't been to a match for awhile, and I'm trading both of my lever guns for some work on an LMG conversion build), and I think the faster guys usually just load one shoot one, no mag. I try to load two, shoot two, but it takes extra brain cells to remember to not pump, and that might be a technical rule violation to have a spent shell and two live shells in the gun. Loading two from empty with action open is SLOWWWWW.
Winchester demanded that JMB make it a lever action, which has obvious drawbacks, but it was an instance of marketing driving engineering decisions instead of letting brilliant engineering marketing itself (as we later saw with the 1897 being the godfather of repeating shotguns, with 1893 being kinda the beta test for it). I used to have a Chiappa replica 1887, and it's cool, but it's honestly kinda clunky without having an action job or the adapter kit that blocks the mag to make drop-two work smoothly every time.
Wdym he gave 3 very good reasons for why. Instinctive shooting, faster reloading is generally unnecessary and when it is necessary, cartridges are better
@@everythingknife8763 That's the reason why 90% of things in the world are the way they are. Humans tend to stick with the "good enough" solution, and it's hard to shake us from that decision. I took classes on entrepreneurship and innovation. One of the rules of thumb we were taught was that an innovation has to be about 10 times better, in at least one capacity, than the original to be properly successful. I scoffed at the idea, but the more I looked at which innovations caught on, and which failed, it seems to hold fairly true. Compare breach-loading shotguns to tube mag shotguns to box mag shotguns. Each step had significant improvements over the previous. Tube mag shotguns offer around three to four times the ammunition of a double-barrel _and_ they never have a problem with your bead being offset from your barrel. Box mag shotguns eliminate the need to fumble your shells into the gun entirely. These steps aren't quantifiably 10 times better than each previous step, but they are major leaps. As much benefit as there might be for a top-loading tube mag shotgun (for some shootists), it's not a significant enough innovation to make a big enough splash on the market to be successful.
@@irregularassassin6380 I think part of the reason the innovations have to be so much better is also a cost factor. Any new technology ends up costing a lot more than the iterations already present, because the manufacturing process and resources available have to be customized to the new technology. This means that consumers, (whether we're talking small scale home ownership, or large scale military), have to consider whether the improvements are worth that increased cost. If something is only a marginal improvement, the cost being higher will keep it from selling well. If it's a massive improvement though, it's a lot easier for the consumer to see it as being worth the additional cost.
I think a reason box mags wouldn’t work as well in Halo is because it’s 8 gauge. Those would be massive magazines. And I bet in-universe it being a pump (some models are pump-semi like a Spaz-12 or Benelli M3) would be the utility of different rounds of varying pressure from tear gas to armor piercing slugs. It is used for purposes like law enforcement and while inside a space ship after all. Plus, having the most rugged reliable gun possible would be good when on alien planets sometimes months away from help.
I think it's more that the reload animantion for a tube fed shotgun looks cooler, plus everyone expects a shotgun to rack and automatic shotguns don't do that and are boring as a result. Like it's definitely a game design choice similar to how a lot of the guns visibly display how much ammo they have left in order to avoid having it clutter up the HUD.
The tube can be used as the base for the handguard, especially pump action. So there is no need for a heat shield for the barrel reducing overall wait. You can see that on the m90 in the video it has three tubes instead of the more covenantal two.
One of the possible benefits I think off would be it would be easier to have the shells eject out the bottom like the Ithica 37 and make it more friendly to left hand shooters without needing some sort of conversion.
Ye, and there's also several reasons why no one made similiar design to that one Main one is that those things are pretty finniky to load, you don't have a loading gate, but literally just a hinged cover you need to open for loading The shells only have a small recess you have to manually push them into when reloading and you can really only load in one at a time Also at last, they're very complex inside and every time you reload you're basically opening the guts of the gun out
Exactly! One of my friends owns two of them. Handmade smokepowder shells were fun to shoot. The shoulderstock is somewhat uncomfortable. Oh and inverted pump-action takes time to get used to..
To be honest I figured one of the answers would be "having the loading port on top would make it easier for dirt and debris to get in the action", either by gravity or by being pushed in during loading. If the loading port is on the bottom, debris would tend to fall on the ground.
Add some rain and debris falling from nearby mortar impacts and a top feeder would be jammed up pretty quickly. The only quibble I have with the Halo gun is they should have used a Mossberg 500/590 action which doesn't have the spring loaded lever that needs to be depressed to stuff a round in the tube. Carrying 4 round reloading tubes is about as fast and convenient a solution that can be made and much less bulky and problematic than box magazines which can deform the shells due to the spring pressure when loaded.
Every military bolt action rifle, since forever, has been top loading. Even the mag fed bolt actions had provisions built in to them to load the magazine through the top of the action. I don't think dirt and debris is the issue that some think it is.
I'll admit I never really thought it through. I think you got the answer right. Your logic was spot on. I've been a bird hunter for years now and I've never needed to speed reload my gun.
I agree with almost everything you said except for the supposed downside of worse ‘instinctive shooting’ if the tube is above the barrel. Since most shooters actually tend to miss high when they’re off, many competitive shotgunners actually use an extremely elevated sight rail multiple inches over the barrel. I used to be a consistent 23/25 in trap and always shot the low barrel of my O/U for the same reason. Whether you prefer the elevated sight rail or not, a shooter will get the feel of where and how they’re missing and will subconsciously adjust their aim point. Even then, as you’re shooting a pattern and not driving a tack, being a tube diameter low on your target is pretty unlikely to alter the outcome of the shot anyways.
I am no way experienced enough to say I know better, but thought Ian's comment about sighting/instinctive shooting was not really such a big factor. Otherwise the OU shotgun's bottom barrel would be less than optimal. Thank you for your experienced thoughts sir.
Sight rail on a shotgun? I mean, I'm not a champion skeet shooter or anything, but Dad was a pretty damn good duck hunter and I could outshoot him at the range and I NEVER used the bead on a shotgun unless I was shooting slugs. You aim down the side of the barrel. Me and Dad took both the youth and adult trophies at Camp Powhatan (Boy Scout Summer Camp) a couple years for a family cleanout lol. We REALLY cleaned house the second year once we learned we were allowed to bring our family's Belgian A5. I got kicked out for skipping rocks on the pond, though, (for fucking real) so that was the last year we went together.
As someone who has spent 1000's of hrs on trap fields.... I have NEVER seen a shotgun with multiple inches of extended rail. 1 inch is pushing it. Look at a ruler, look at your shotgun, tell me how comically large a 2 inch offset on that rail would look.
Have you ever seen an ‘unsingle’ ie lower barrel only subbed onto an OU receiver? Sight rail is most definitely multiple inches vertically offset from the bore.
As demonstrated in The Library, the m90 proved itself effective during a severe flood outbreak. With is exceptional stopping power it tends to dismember flood combat forms with ease and I’m sure if you ask S117 the top load function is likely a non issue.
@@babytricep437 I've been killed by rocket flood maybe 3-4 times total tbh, what makes them horrifying is the sudden ball of light zooming your way, they usually miss in my experience though
I can only really think of gravity making debris fall into the action or rain getting inside. Since fast use became a thing we've also got speed loading tubes which might be a bit awkward coming in from the top, if i'm really stretching i could say topping off is a little more dangerous since you're probably tilting the gun upward to get the right angle, if you aren't strong enough to hold up the weight of the gun you might brace it against your thigh so if you're holding the pump you might move the action during the reload process yada yada.
I would think that a top loading action would lean towards more feeding issues as the shells would be spit out the tube by the spring, then have to drop down for the bolt to catch, align and chamber instead of being lifted and guided to the mouth of the chamber. I could also see where the action may need some longer linkages to “wrap” the mechanism around the barrel.
The most obvious reason on the top of my head are : 1-Rain and dirt can fall in the action, if a cover is added then it makes the reloading slow again. 2-Not being able to top load while aiming and being ready to shot at the same time, this is a deal breaker in my opinion. Then if it is a pump action then I would also add: 3-Overall heavier because of added structure to make the pump action works far away from the tube. 4-Pump grip being too close to potential hot barrel, a heat shield seems hard to incorporate with the pumping action.
But what if it’s like a m1 garand, I’m not a huge gun person but like after you shoot all the rounds doesn’t the slide stay open? Why not have that mechanic but with a top loading shotgun with a plate where you load the shots, it’ll close the slide once you pump it then opens again once you run out of shells or opened manually. In my head it might be too complicated to manufacture but still an idea
@@KruggKruscherp All shotgun front grip won't become very hot regardless of the design, only the barrel becomes too hot and this is why barrel heatshield exist. The headshield prevents you from burning your hand if touching the barrel mistakenly. With the reversed loading shotgun, chances of touching the hot barrel mistakenly is much greater since it is right next to the grip, and also it must be very hard (if not impossible) to incorporate a heat shield.
@@dominater124 My guess is they don't risk jamming since the mechanism is much tighter and there is no tube, plus shotgun shell are more sensitive to humidly (at least in the past when they used paper based shell).
@@dominater124 You'd likely just steal the existing mechanism -- the load gate is pushed closed by a spring, and you have to shove it open with a shell. A stiff spring is soooo much less complicated than the bars and leverage to attach the load gate to the pump/action. Further, imagine this scenario: Your pump or action cycles the load gate, which has something on top of it. That something slides between the load gate and magazine, preventing it from closing. Now you have a jam to clear, in the middle of shooting.
Reloading from the bottom seems a lot more comfortable when I have the weapon shouldered or holding it otherwise. It would be kind of awkward to reach over the top with shells in hand, with the possibility of dropping one increasing as well. If I fumble a shell while loading from the bottom then it naturally wants to fall back into my palm. It seems more natural to reload from the bottom because that is the shortest path between the magazine and wherever my shells are, unless I am literally shooting from the hip of course.
@@andreasmangs3131So that I don't have to reshoulder the weapon and reacquire the sights, important for certain types of competitions where shooting fast matters. Also, I may be shooting from a bench rest, and taking the rifle out of the rest to reload is slower.
If shooting from a bench rest I can understand, but do you need that for shotshells? I think its faster to move the Gun to reloading position and fill up with one or two quad loads and back to the shoulder, than to fiddle in several one by one and still holding it at the shoulder. And If its only one, you can have a safety shell in a holder next to the ejection port and slide in while still shouldering (or plan the stage better).
@@andreasmangs3131Hey man, whatever you're more comfortable with will probably also be your preferred, and therefore faster method to reload. What works for me might not work for you and the other way around as well of course. Personally, I'm faster and more used to slipping in two or three shells semi-shouldered should I miss a target on a stage or need a partial reload.
I second that - I use the 870 for trap shooting and bird hunting and have had to do field reloads, pretty quick to lower the gun only slightly and pop a shell or two in or fill the mag from a ready position. I have seen some people flip the gun over to completely load the magazine, so I am sure some folks will prefer top loading shotguns. Some company will make one eventually.
Nah, doesn't follow. The regular marines use it without powered armor. I imagine the gun was developed before the Mjolnir program was ever publicly shown
Game design-wise, it's probably because it looks cool. Lore-wise, it might be due to easier to load in the middle of a firefight, regardless if the person is wearing power armor or not.
The M90 shotgun uses a magnetorheological recoil buffering system to mitigate the extreme force of firing it on top of being extremely large for its role as a close assault weapon. While it certainly seems fit for a supersoldier, it was still ultimately designed to be comfortably used by unaugmented personnel such as Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, who are by necessity a highly mobile unit that specialize in deep infiltration behind enemy lines.
@@joshuaolson3537 There were power armor systems for centuries that never really saw widespread adoption for the usual reasons that mechanized infantry of any kind don't really work, namely mobility and power constraints. Most of the UNSC's infantry equipment is over a 100 years old or at least a direct iteration of very old designs. The MA5 series assault rifles have been in service for 165 years with minimal iteration. The M90 shotgun was used during the insurrection wars, so it's been around for a long time too.
I own box magazine fed shotguns. I absolutely love them. Ian is spot on. Top fed will never out perform box fed. I can do a full 10 shell reload in less than 3 seconds. Drop mag, slap in fresh, full mag, release bolt, and go back to work.
I appreciate the point of the practical rarity of speed reloading outside the competition realm. In all the police body-cam footage I've seen, I have never seen a long gun (shotgun or AR) be reloaded during a fight. The gunfight is always over in seconds within the duration of the magazine (be it tube or box). Even in military combat footage, I've never seen any speed reloads. While the rest of the unit is still firing, a soldier with an empty rifle gets behind the cover they were using, fumbles to get the magazine out, nearly misses the magazine well, and slams the magazine into the gun pretty inefficiently compared to competition shooters
Comparing us grunts with 3 gun masters isn't even close, nor really a valid one. Compare one massively practiced elite with another, not my 20 year old adrenaline dumped silly self! Anecdote - seeing Force Recon guys(pre-Raiders era) doing that was pretty impressive.
It's a very apt comparison. Like it or not, 3-Gun has more in common with video games than it does real combat or defensive shooting. Sure there is SOME similarly, but at the end of the day it's a game.
Originally as you mentioned with rifles, the idea was to keep the sights close to the bore axis for more accurate point of aim at any distance. Shotguns it isn't as important, but for those of us that hunt in any and all weather, I see this as a funnel giving rain and dirt a nice easy path into the gun. Mag fed shotguns have other minor issues loading, but as you mentioned are generally quick and even more so if they have a flared mag well. I have seen some incredibly fast reloads doing the 2/4 shell reloads as you mentioned. It takes a ton of practice but it is a work of art for those who have mastered it (I am getting better, but not there yet).
Granny could get shells in and out of her double barrel with efficiency it is top fed. Watching someone with decades of practice with any weapon is intimidating and awe-inspiring.
From a tactical standpoint Im always prefearing a tube feed shotgun over a magazine feed one It just gives me more flexibility of quickly loading a different round if I want to while still beeing able to shoot any moment if I need to Id love a pumpgun but unfortunatly here in austria they are prohibited so I only can have a semiautomatic one and several duble barreld ones for sport shooting
I love my saiga. If I was knowingly goin to a fight that’s my pick. But my 887 is so much more practical for stowing in or on a vehicle. A p ack or a sheath. So the gun that I’m going to have on me is the better gun. Also no sidesaddle or any accessories. You can stow an 18 inch tube gun almost anywhere.
I'd say in respect to normal shotgun use, its ergonomics. When the push shells into the magazine, you're pushing against the spring. When you're pushing it in from below, the shotgun is being pushed away from you. This is easy to resist because the grip isn't far off from the axis of the magazine, regardless of whether it's a conventional or pistol grip. The grip is designed to give you a good grip when the muzzle comes up, like when you're shooting. When you're loading from the top, I'd imagine the shotgun will try to roll forwards away from you. The axis of the magazine is now further away from the grip and the grip isn't ergonomically designed to the shotgun rolling forwards, this means youll need to have a tighter grip on something that isnt designed to be gripped that way. In terms of service weapons, a massive hole in the top is asking for problems. From a design standpoint, bottom feeding magazine tubes and mechanisms designed for them have been around for over a century. Why change it? I may be chatting out of my rear as I am by not means a shotgun expert, having only fired over unders, but this is why I think that pump action, tube magazine shotguns (unfortunately for us Halo fans) do not have top loading.
folks have presented some valid points about toploader weapons(rain/dirt catcher, sight alignment, ammo size, etc.), so i'd like to posit a compromise between toploader and bottomloader: side load, with the spent shell port being out the bottom of the gun. with the side load, you don't run the risk of rain or dirt piling up as easily with the toploader, but you still get the convenience of a faster reload for competition speed shooting.
@@khanayudash2475 valid point. in my(admittedly very narrow) experience, most bottom fed pump actions already fail ambidexterity due to the ejection port being on the right side of the gun. aside from manufacturing costs and "how the he'll do we make this work" design problems, there's not much stopping a sideloader shotgun from having two feed ports, imo.
The biggest reason I can see top-loading shotguns to be an issue is debris or rain falling into it. With the only area for anything to enter and the easiest place for it to drain or be removed being the cut out for the loading lifter being on top you'll have to make an intentional effort to flip it or leave the breach open to mitigate the issue
Debris can land in the well and stay there where it could possibly jam in the top loader. With a bottom loader gravity would tend to keep it clear with it constantly pushing it down and away from the well.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It would be a mess to use in the rain as the feed ramp is... a ramp. Its literally designed to help stuff get into the tube.
Without watching the video I can say that there are two different issues with top loading that make it an issue. 1) manual cycling. You don't need to move your hand to the top of the gun to cycle it or you don't need a larger pump grip. 2) sights. It moves any sights installed on the gun further from the barrel increasing the blind zone for the sights. Basically, it shoots a little lower than what would normally be expected by a bottom load gun.
I can’t think of a single time in the rainforest of southeastern Alaska that I hunted when it wasn’t raining or snowing. I can’t think of a single gun where “let’s let rain wash through this part of the action” sounds like a smart idea.
Obvious issues: Magtube doubles as a forearm so it serves two purposes. Top load and mag tube would be top heavy with the full loaded mag tube on top, and pump or forearm would require a separate 3rd tube and just be more heavy and complex. Normal shotgun utilizes the tube as the forearm or pump. Look at the prototype, it has a barrel, a mag tube, and a separate tube for the foreend. Otherwise you'd be holding the hot barrel, and would need something covering it. Just be a lot heavier with needless parts. And of course the offset sights not aligned on the barrel, and dirt/water/mud easier ingress in the big hole in the top.
I think your assessment is correct on why there are few top loading tube shotguns. If you need fast reloads, you can get a box mag fed shotgun and the top loader makes your height over bore for your sights an issue. I do strongly suspect quad loads would be really quick with that top loader though. I guess it might have an application in a competition that mandates tube fed shotguns.
And in combat, if you're reloading, you typically have a dozen or so other guys with you who can keep you safe... And have you seen the size of the bayonet used on the US Shotgun? Even the Enfield was jealous.
@@BleedingUranium Hah, I know it’s a ridiculous idea but I’d love to see what a static, top loading, crew served automatic 12 bore could send down a clay or skeet range. On that note, has anyone ever seen a belt fed shotgun? Other than one that looks like it was knocked up in a garden shed anyway. Again, it’s a ridiculous idea that would never be “optimal” in reality, but I’d love to see that shit tear apart a tree line at 100 yards.
Can you give an example of this? I've never heard of this practice at all, with the only two wars that saw large scale shotgun use for more than breaching and direct CQC (Beyond trench level) were WW1 and WW2. WW2 being only really in the Pacific theater with the Marines though. Jungle fighting actually being a valid point for running a shotgun because usually you're going to find each other at fairly short range before a firefight breaks out.
@@Meravokas Yeah, I meant “historic use” in terms of sport shooting. Like when you go grousing you usually take 2 double barrels and an assistant feeds them. In terms of the military I have no idea what they do, but like you I’ve never heard of anyone with a shotgun being given an assistant to help with loading.
So one thing I could see that would be a issue with a “top loading” shotgun is weather and debris issues. I could imagine getting a lot more chances of dirt, sand, water, hail, etc. with the loading gate faced upward. If you’re in winter environment you’re just having water go straight into the mag tube which can and will freeze unless you somehow make a perfect seal and nothing can get in (would love to see a Garand thumb torture test of that). Same if let’s say you’re getting shelled at with explosions all around you, you’re going to get a lot of debris potentially landing in that loading gate. I think if maybe we’re talking like shorty breaching shotgun, or even like a “shockwave” type thing it could work well. Were you’re expecting maybe only a handful of bad guys in a room, but maybe you just need to top off super quickly if you run out. But you’re less likely to have to be in a prolonged fight. Which at that point you’re going to go for something with more accuracy, rate of fire and ammo capacity
I think another con to top-loading is exposure to battlefield fouling, like dirt/mud/debris falling from above, as well as water logging during rain. I don't know if immediate jamming would really be the result, but I imagine it would make weapon cleaning and maintenance more frequent. I wonder this, because bolt-actions are top-loading, and rifles like my Enfield No.4 MK1* have detachable box mags for easier cleaning, and since you aren't gonna be getting powder residue in the mag like you would with a semi-auto like a AR-15, that leads me to believe top-loading systems are more prone to falling debris/liquids. I could be totally wrong about that, but out of the hundreds of rounds I've put through my Enfield, the mag is still clean, so whatever would soil it must be environmental, not your munitions. Of course, any gun that gets dropped or slopped in the mud is gonna need cleaning, regardless of where it's getting loaded or ejecting, even the AR platform with the dust cover probably won't have the dust cover closed during a firefight.
@@PapaLyser Yep. People forget that plastics are a relatively new technology. Heck, when my dad was in Vietnam, he was stationed on a Michelin rubber tree plantation; plastic/synthetic tires are very new. Now you got me wondering when plastic shot shells became common place. Also, plastic shot shells can still get ruined if submerged in water. Crimping isn't a guarantee that it's water tight. I suppose a simple remedy would be to drill some holes in the tube for water to drain, should waterlogging occur. Again, not sure how big of an issue this would be for a top-loading shotgun. Would need testing.
Isn't that Russian pump-barrel shotgun top loaded? Again, not exactly market dominating, but if it is a top loader, that's proof that the form factor has existed for at least a decade without taking off like wildfire.
top feed on a pump action is partly due to flex physics of making the pump arm go further off of it's centerline, similar to how a pistol grip on the pump grip causes angled stresses. On a semi-auto like the bernelli in theory it should work just fine, but added into the familiarization, ergenomics, and 'if iit ain't broke, don't fix it"
Something that this very channel has taught us, that the pursuit of making an unorthodox gun just for its cool factor lives on in history after utterly bankrupting its inventor or the company who tries to make/sell it
I believe there is a Russian shotgun that has a top tube, and is in production and sold as a combat shotgun. A few commercial variants actually made it to the US. I do seem to remember that the feed is from the side though instead of the top. Reportedly very good and strong design. I would buy one if I could ever find it.
Well, there was Russian shotgun named of RMB-93 "Rys'" (Bobcat), at least that was commercial name in Russian market. The feed was exactly from top, quality was poor, barrel had a backlash, as it was actually reversed pump-action gun, when you need to push barrel forward, and then back with high hope that the cartridge will not be jammed or will not jump-out. Mag feed window was with specific door cover, which needs to be opened for tube reload. This part was made from thin stamped steel sheet, easy to bend or to brake. Those ones were not produced in quantities, as design had no single advantage, only nice collection of flaws.
A moderate issue with top load, is the elevator. In bottom load gravity helps seat the shell within the elevator. In top load you would need additional components to prevent it from “falling” into the bolt/chamber prematurely, and inducing a jam. Especially when considering shot shells are rimmed. It’s totally doable- but just requires additional design work, which as Ian said, is more simply overcome with a box mag.
There is a existing solution for that problem, the example being the shell carrier of the Letter lying and some 22 rifles. In this case, it would rise up, a shell would be pushed into the carrier, it would drop down and the bolt would push it into the chamber.
With modern conflicts having new dangers of small, quick moving, airborne targets (drones with a grenade) I wonder if shotguns have a potential use there, and with that new “tactical” opportunities.
I can't remember if it was the Armourers bench or someone like that but they were talking about mossbergs being used in Ukraine to try and hit FPV drones
@@ripvanwinkle2002I don’t think that’s anything like always true. Currently a lot of the small drones only carry a warhead similar to a 40mm grenade. If you can stop it from getting really close to you or a vehicle/trench/bunker door then you can save yourself or save others.
One advantage I see for top loaders is the low bore axis, especially on shorter guns. Like the Marushin Mateba, the barrel is closer to the handle, which means, especially if the gun is very light like a Serbu Shotty, you will have less recoil. All of the top loader's benefits are ergonomics, both for loading and recoil.
5:00 the one time i ever need to speed reload my shotgun is super super fun but rare- when I am sitting in a field and if a massive flock of geese comes down into our decoy spread and the geese do what known in slang as a “tornado” where literally THOUSANDS of geese can decend onto your field and they swirl around in a circle while landing and you just shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot!!!!! And you get your limit of geese really really fast. Only happened to me once in my life goose hunting snow geese and I ran out of shells!😅 It is a sight to behold! Whether you are hunting or just observing nature it is a sight to behold! And you gotta rapid reload your shotgun.
@@littlehillsno no no. take extra boxes of shells!!! Two boxes of shells is usually plenty for an average goose hunt. But like I said we ran out! And the story I described is a completely unpredictable occurrence in goose hunting. And, weighing your bag down with extra boxes of shells is also annoying. And like I said it only happened to me once in 40 years. But yah extra boxes of shells is the only way around that. Wait no😅. I am a terrible shot. Haha. If i was a good shot and actually got one goose per shot, I’d not have run out of shells. But I am not a great shot so I get a goose about every 6 shells😅
@@jagx234yup! dumb regs. In my state we have a 3 shell limit. It is stupid. A bag limit is a bag limit. If you are poacher and take more than the legal bag limit of birds… ain’t no shell limit in the shotgun going to stop that. You can poach birds just as easily with a three shell limit in Texas where I am.
@johnm3907 In the context of the fictional shotgun presented in this video which is why Ian is talking about why it's not a common design. Though technically we do have spaceships.
@@insertname3977 Fair enough. Although I've lived in London (very urbanised) and it rains all the time. It just seems like a weakness that stuff can fall into the chamber. I was thinking (using a different example); if you're fighting and a grenade/shell goes off near you. Then dirt from the ground that was thrown into the air could potentially fall into the mechanism. I agree it's a very cool looking video-game gun, but it looks like a crap-magnet to me.
I think one consideration is that the gun becomes top heavy. A tube mag on the bottom doesn't try and tilt the gun one way or another with its loaded weight and changing weight as the gun fires rounds.
The only design I think that could see a big top load advantage would be some kind of integrated rotary box so you could feed shells via a strip clip, or an integrated vertical box that that might avoid certain laws restricting detachable mags.
most people who would use a "Combat" Shotgun now probably use a big drum magazine maybe a box magazine ... but i still would love to see more top loading shotguns they are just cool even if they are just a novelty item for most people at the moment ...
You’d be hard pressed to find a practical and reliable “combat” shotgun that utilizes a drum/magazine feed system. Too many variables to account for that decreases the reliability of a tube system shotgun like the M4.
I agree that from a sporting point of view, quick reloads on shotguns was not a priority. However, I beg to differ on when the need for quick reloading shotguns was created. Since the advent of the 1897 Winchester pump shotgun being use in WW1, I believe a use for quick reloading shotguns was spawned. However, when trench warfare fell mostly out of favor, the shotgun for military use was mostly relegated to guard duty. Fast forward to today and military Doctrine has relegated the shotgun to breaching doors despite its awesome capabilities in close quarter combat.
That last part is probably for a couple reasons. First is that buckshot ain't doing jack to near peer opponents with ballistic plates on em. Or at least won't be as effective as a rifle. Second is they're not as versatile as a rifle and shotgun ammo is significantly heavier. Why increase the burden on your troops and on your logistics just to gain a slight advantage in a niche combat scenario? Carbines do the job just fine at close to medium range. They can perform suppressive fire too, have light ammunition you can carry a lot of, and a good magazine capacity. All of which are infinitely more advantageous to a soldier and the military than having a gun thah can throw a bunch of lead with a single release of the sear. It's not like World War 1 where not only was the weapon selection limited given that there were zero models of assault rifle, only a handful of models of SMG that were hardly what I would call mass produced, and at most one or two types of machine pistols, but it was also a time where close quarters firefights were entirely to be expected within the trenches if the enemy had managed to get past No Man's Land. All that said, in civilian applications shotguns are awesome. Most criminals are unarmored, and you don't necessarily need suppressive fire capability or great magazine capacity. It's good for the typical distances in a house. The main drawback is that they tend to be longer to accommodate for the capacity in their tube magazines.
@McCaroni_Sup while near peer soldiers would likely be body armored, this is not the case in dealing with a counter insurgency and house clearing operation where breaching doors was common place and jihadies were typically not armored. Armored or not, a face full of 00 buck will ruin your day.
@@EruditeEnigmaStL True. By "not doing jack" I wasn't really referring to its combat effectiveness, but its penetration. You don't have to penetrate armor to score a disabling hit on target though. That said, I'm still unconvinced that it's worth it to put a shotgun in a main combat role even against Jihadis in CQB for the reasons I outlined earlier. Breaching sure, but I know I wouldn't want to be the one fumbling shells in combat.
I mean WWI is the only example of shotguns being widely used and even then the US was the only ones to use it and they played a fairly minor part in the war. After the war submachine guns very quickly replaced the little niche shotguns had and so they almost entirely fell out of favor, their only upside is that they are less likely to penetrate walls but other than that an SMG is usually better.
the only practical application for a top loading shotgun would be to be able to load it with a stripper clip/en bloc clip style of feeding, which i don't think would be easy to do with a tube magazine, and detachable box magazine-fed shotguns already exist, so it's pretty pointless
The practical application would be ALL loading, not just with speed loaders. There ARE, however, tube-fed speed loaders. They're a cylinder with several shells inside, in line with each other, with some kind of plunger or tab on the end that allows the user to push them all in very quickly.
I think tube fed shotguns are best for bird hunting; specifically quail in my experience. If you go walking across wide swaths of land to scare out cubbies, you want your gun to be relatively light so you can fire instinctively as quickly as possible. If you hit multiple cubbies or a big enough one you may want to quickly load shells on the go without having to pause. Semiauto tube-feds come into their element here since you can slip in a shell or two between cubbies and barely have to slow down at all if you have a good vest full of shells to pull from. It might be nice to have a more readily visible tube if something hangs up, but if you're comfortable with your gun, it's not really necessary.
seems like it could've gone either way? my best guess is keeping the hot barrel away from your fingers is probably desirable, so tube on bottom maybe makes more sense?
Actually my hometown of Tula designed and produced a top loading shotgun of sorts in the 90s. we called it the Rys (lynx) or the RMb-93 The working system of the RMb-93 is itself an odd slide-action operation called "Inverted Cycle", similar in concept to the one used in the South-African Truvelo Armoury Neostead shotgun (the only other mass-produced firearm to be based upon this system). The feeding tube is placed over the barrel rather than under it, and is accessed through a flip-up cover on the top of the receiver. Once the weapon is loaded, a shell is chambered by pushing the slide forward-then-backward, instead of the standard backward-then-forward motion of the forend found on most pump-action weapons. Having the RMb-93 a fixed breech face and movable barrel, the operation moves the entire barrel assembly. Once a round is fired and another is chambered, the empty shell falls downwards to the ground, pushed by its own weight. The design of the RMb-93 "Rys" carries several advantages: the ejection system makes the gun fully ambidextrous, and the magazine located over the barrel gives the shotgun a low center of mass and reduces upward recoil. The main drawback of the overall design stands in the fact that the weapon has a pistol grip with upfolding metal stock, which when folded finds itself right up the feeding tube. The RMb-93 thus can not be reloaded without extending or removing the stock, a disadvantage if it is being used tactically with a folded stock.
More of the "magazine on bottom" was because the original breaches on tube magazine firearms opened from the top and if it opened on bottom the cartridges would fall out before loading. Although the Ithaca loaded and ejected from the bottom, it had different parts than "convention". As a defensive shotgun, the tube on top would offer several advantages: lowering the bore reduces muzzle rise; the sight plane is less important, unless using slugs, and could be set for a 50 yard pattern center and the offset would not be too horrid at closer range; the loading gate could be on the side, just above the ejection port, similar to a lever rifle gate, which would reduce the effect of rainfall The main deterrents are the startup cost & overcoming "if it ain't broke" mindset. Minishells increase magazine capacity, but there are not a lot of offerings on that front either.
Kel-Tec will probably be the first company to make one
Depends how much coke is flowing around the r&d team! 🤣
Speaking of buying things just because they look neat, i love my bullpup KS7 😅
@@ericsfishingadventures4433we need to get them MORE.. lots more!
The russian RMB-93 was actually eariler
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the UTAS UTS-15 feed from the top as well?
When someone starts to ask "Why?" in relation to firearms the answer is almost invariably "Dirt." one way or another.
Dirt and gravitys relationship to it
I had this conversation months ago with somebody.
But what else are you going to catch all that thrown up debris from the grenade in?
"Dirt" and "Too expensive".
@@lainhyugatha3762 Don't forget too complicated, which is related to too expensive, but also relates to too easy to break.
@@ProfessionalPregumin Yup. Loading orifice is on top, dirt/mud/drebris falls downward due to gravity, 1 + 1 = 2. '2' being more dirt and s**t getting into the tube and the loading mechanism.
they'd be too op against the flood
translation, please.
The most effective firearm against zombies - whether terrestrial or alien - has always been the shotgun. This has been true for nearly every zombie game ever made; even the force gun-the closest analogue to a shotgun in Dead Space-is effective at ripping limbs off necromorphs.
Btw there's a video on Tarran Tactical's channel showcasing how fast Keanu Reeves is at shooting steel targets in 2 gun. He has to flip his shotgun over to reload - that's one place I can see how having a top loading shotgun would be more effective than a traditional bottom loading one.
“God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water”.. it’s the fire next time..
nothing is too op to use on the flood
the flood are too op for the universe. halo(s) were only created to kill the flood which will also kill most other forms of life but at least life will have a chance somewhere.
@billniederauer5599 it will be too powerful and too good of a firearm against the enemy in the halo video game. OP=overpowered
Flood=enemy in halo.
In soviet Russia we have top loading pump shotgun, it's called Рысь-К (RMB-93). It's pretty strange and not so ergonomic, but it's top loading!
They turned it into a grenade launcher, the GM-94. Kinda like a Russian China Lake.
It seems to work better for that.
in soviet russia. shotgun pumps you
It's not Soviet, genius...
@@miza6 i think this made me laugh harder than it had any business doing!
That’s the literal inspiration for the Halo shotgun
Even as a young kid watching the reload animation in the first Halo game I was like "Wow that makes a lot of sense. Why don't they do it that way?" Now watching competition shooters and seeing the bizarre contortions they go through to speed load a traditional shotgun, I still think "Wow that Halo shotgun still makes a lot of sense. Why don't we do it that way?"
THIS. THIS! Exactly.
I posed in the previous Forgotten Weapons M90A video a comment about making shotguns top-loaded with the ejection port shooting empty shells straight down so it'd have the advantage of being ambidextrous too, with a comparison to the old Ithaca shotgun. Someone replied by pointing out that the point of the Ithaca was to prevent dirt and dust getting into the action which would be defeated by a top-load design. But if that's the case, then put a dust cover or similar.
When I first loaded a shotgun, I flipped it to load, then I thought “why isn’t it like halo?”
It feels like one of those things that fud Lori is keeping alive like oh everybody's too used to doing it this way so we can't possibly change it because that's scary
@@javierpatag3609 I mean.. are you shooting the gun while you're reloading? No? Then, just turn the thing upside down. Sounds like someone else in this thread literally already did that
@@rrai1999 what a great idea.
Unless you drop it.
In the context of Halo, the CAWS is canonically an 8 gauge shotgun. Magazines for 12 gauge semi auto shotguns generally tend to be more clunky or bulky compared to say, an AR or AK magazine. Now think about a mag that has to hold 8 gauge shells, not 12 gauge, and suddenly a t00b makes a bit more sense.
The CAWS is also very obviously the go-to solution for incomprehensibly horrifying parasites and energy sword wielding invisible space lizards.
They invented it and used it on Innies first, though...
@@jagx234 I think that's more a symptom of the game being made first, and then bungie/microsoft backloading lore into the universe to fill it out. The innie conflict was not a thing in the first game, and I'm pretty sure wasn't part of the lore until after the game came out.
@@xon0930 Nope. The Innie conflict and Spartan's backstory in being created for it was first mentioned in the Fall of Reach novel which was released just before CE the game was. Gotta remember Halo was in development for a long time and Bungie as it was loved lore heavy backstories. I can't remember if it was the case but I think one of the discarded concepts did include them in the game.
@@Lamrett Huh, I was never aware of the books till a while after the game came out, so I didn't know the books came out first. Does make you wonder what they needed 8 gauge shells for vs innies though.
@@Lamrett If you want to get technical, the official website for the game prior to release had a rough timeline of the major historical events between the 21st-26th century that alludes to the Insurrectionist conflict, which also predated the novel. However I’m reasonably confident that Bungie was dimly aware of its content as they were much too busy actually making the game itself to worry about ancillary details like background lore. Most of this stuff was initially fleshed out by Microsoft’s publishing team, namely Eric Trautmann, based on rough documentation supplied by Bungie. Bungie begrudgingly accepted it and built off those plot elements in later installments.
In competition shotgun shooting, I believe its relatively common to invert the gun to have easier access when inserting the shells, so I think there would be some real merit in not needing to do that.
In three-gun, though, you won’t be surprised while reloading and need to take a snap shot. If I am walking the grass looking for rabbits, I don’t want to flip the gun over while I top off the tube. I want it in the ready position with my right hand close to the trigger the whole time.
Then it would be considered cheating. That, or one company would have a monopoly for a few years.
@@randydewing7429 I'm not saying it wouldn't be niche, just that there *might* be some actual value in it. Enough to actually justify it being used over traditional designs? I don't know
@@ryelor123 I don't know if there are any regulations surrounding the design of competition shotguns, but I'd imagine there'd be some competitions that'd ban it, and others that wouldn't. A patent issue would be a whole other can of worms tho. I'm not sure it'd be very easy to patent a design that existed in fiction prior.
@@tovcFiction is almost never considered prior art in regards to a patent application. The invention must have been made available to the public or disclosed to the public with enabling detail-information that would allow a reasonably skilled person to make the product or duplicate the innovation. A description of what the invention does is not enough.
I don’t have any idea what aspects of a top loading shotgun might be patentable. However, if you build a phased plasma rifle in the 40w range, your patent application can’t be challenged because your product was depicted in a movie or video game.
There is РМБ-93 "lynx" shotgun and her big brother GM-94(same thing but 43mm grenades) they loads from top, and also have cool design with moving barrel
It's almost like an opposite of a conventional pump shotgun.
Moving barrel instead of the bolt, magazine and loading port under the barrel, and it even pumps forward instead of back.
The top tube of the GM-94 launcher benefits from a top tube because the shells are really a lot heavier than a shotgun shell. Being able to have gravity assist in the loading of a grenade cartridge solves a major problem with the China Lake EX-41. I've seen a couple EX-41 videos and it looks like there is a fair bit of effort required to pull the pump handle back forwards because it's having to lift a big heavy 40mm shell upwards to be breeched.
One does wonder if the much heavier weight of grenade cartridges makes it more likely that a grenade could be fired in the tube if the gun is dropped. I'm not sure if the big domed head on a 40mm grenade could push in a primer pan, but there sure is a lot more in-line weight in a fully loaded tube of grenades.
For shotguns with a specific use like trap shooting, yeah that'd be neat.
However, as a duck hunter I can tell you those foggy mornings can be extremely damp and even rainy, and I just don't like the idea of my action slowly filling with water as I wait.
Yes, shotguns were born with hunting needs in mind, tactical applications didn't exist the the days of yore.
Exceptionally good point.
Or a dog placing a muddy paw on the port while getting back in the boat, leaving you with a grit-filled action that may not function at all until you tear down the gun, clean it all out & lube it.
I was just about to mention this in a separate comment!
Check out the RMB-93. It has a dust cover for its loading port.
Bro in my book "It's fucking cool" does most of the heavy lifting.
That describes over half of the guns I own.
The cool factor of this shotgun is vastly overlooked.
I can already imagine your collection 😂😂
@@Darthdoodoo It's just a case of Glocks with garish, brightly colored paint schemes fixed with attachments to the gills lol. And one pink one for the wifey, supposedly.
If someone decides to make a clone correct m90, you will have two kinds people who buy it for the cool factor :
"omg the shotgun from halo, so cool"
And
"omg a fucking 8 gauge shotgun, so cool !"
I know of a guy in Kentucky who would love an 8gauge magnum pump action shotgun.
That's why I bought the spas 12
If the incentive to load shotguns faster developed before the box mag, I think there’s a decent chance we would have seen top loaders. Interesting alternative history.
we would have shotguns with vertical internal magazines and fed it from stripper clips most likely. Kind of reminds me of what winchester did when russians wanted a winchester for center fired cartridge. They ditched the tube mag and slapped a bolt action magazine onto a lever gun
Well, in 3 gun matches there's still a "need" for quick loadable tube fed shotgun, since magfed ones do fall under a different bracket and have penalties attached to them
@@franklynotyourbussiness9401 the win 95 was already a thing for a while tho, mostly because they wanted a product that could use spitzer projectiles without the chain fire risk
Depends specifically on the source of the need. For sport shooting the bead on the barrel rib is an important concern. We would probably do side loading gates like lever actions.
Ah, makes sense with the year designation and all. I knew of it due to its military use by russians, so made the logical assumption. Turned out incorrectly.
I hope that people say this to you regularly but even though some of your stuff is kind of boring, I love guns and you have become my generational Guru on firearms and you've gotten to handle and use some of the coolest guns in the world. You're smart and now you're making money basically living my dream. Thank you so much for everything you do
I mean every word of it, I send more money if I could but I'm really really grateful that there's a gun nerd Channel that I can watch. I work in social media I know how difficult it can be and I know how many people say stupid things or tell you that you're doing it wrong or you don't know what you're talking about but you sir are preserving knowledge of the history of firearms better than anyone else on the internet
Agreed.
I prefer Ian's method.
I remember more from his videos than anyone else. I also get more relevant information and greatly appreciate how comfortable Ian is with taking things apart.
The only other gun guru I get excited to watch is Scott @ K.Ballistics.
Albeit, for completely different reasons.
John Browning's first repeating shotgun design, the Winchester 1887, was a top feed, bottom tube magazine.
Yes, and the model 1901, same as the 1887 but stronger for smokeless powder I think was the difference. As long as we are on the subject, one of these was used in Terminator 2 by Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s character.
@@omarcampbell1657 I am currently hi bidder for an 1887. Wish me luck.
My favourite gun of all time and never even crossed my mind, good point! I've got a repro, and had a UTS-15 so I'm up to two!
@@larkenkuznetsov3413 I bought the Chinese version. The stippled serial number is soooooooo ugly. 🤣
This was one of my first thoughts watching this
"How about topfeed bottom mag tube shotgun, would that be possible?"
Seems like it is
this is similar to how the QWERT keyboard layout is a vestigial design from old typewriter keyboards to prevent keys from jamming by putting common letter pairs that are typed together as far apart as possible. The bottom fed design in tube fed shotguns is essentially a vestigial design from the old lever guns that were tubefed, from which they trace their design roots from. So yes Ian, the answer is in front of you sort of, since the answer is, "well that's how these older guns were made and nobody seems to mind, let's just keep doing that".
there is also less chonk with a bottom fed since you can have parts overlapping, same reason the mateba is so chonky too (well taller)
Institutional inertia.
Also, nowadays: optics mounting.
While it’s commonly stated that the qwerty layout came from typewriters and the placement was intended to put certain letters as far apart as possible to avoid jamming it’s not actually how qwerty came to be. The layout comes from telegraph operators and the placement was evolved over time from an alphabetical ordered single row of keys, then an overlapping double row like a piano keyboard, eventually getting shuffled about to work better for transcribing Morse code. The layout was already developed before it was sold to be used in typewriters.
Doesn’t change your point but fun fact.
@@richmondvand147so a way to get around from the chonk is to have an ovular handguard that is along the barrel and reaches up to the top tube for pump actions.
TELL THAT TO THE COVENANT!
343rd like (reference to Guilty Spark not the failed company!)
Not a big fan of the covenant 30on30
W comment
Lol
@@Lofi.z34343 guilty spark never said that, though
I would agree that the height over bore is the main reason against. Additionally the advantages of having a top load is mute with many speed loading techniques involving rotating the gun into your armpit to move the loading gate dorsally
The height over bore isn't an issue. Most pro skeet shooters use over/ unders, so the lower barrel is right where a top- fed gun barrel would be.
I can't blame anyone for forgetting the flash-in-the-pan that was the ill-fated Utas UTS-15, which was not just a shotgun with the magazine on top. It was also a dual-tube, bullpup shotgun. The Kel-Tec KSG-12 flipped upside-down. It used a lot of polymer and was a Turkish piece of junk in the end, but there's your production, top-fed shotgun.
I almost picked up one of those Utas UTS-15's but decided against it due to it having some flex. I was eyeing a KSG-12 next and got laid off from work and had to reprioritize my spending lol.
And the Neostead 2000 that came before it...
What sucks is now I kinda want one because the pump shotgun in Helldivers 2 is basically a completely unmodified UTAS.
What was the reason for its failure?
@@eyywannn8601It was a jamtacular pile of crap that would fall apart if you looked at it funny like a lot of Turkshit shotguns but that one was made of flimsy plastic and used magnets to get out of putting proper detents on it. It was a raw deal for the premium price they were charging, the Keltec would drop down to almost half the UTAS' price on sale while actually being an okay shotgun for the most part.
The only thing I can think of would be the opening for reloading being more likely to get clogged with dirt since it is on top. When it is open to the ground stuff falls out of it, it does not "pool" inside of it.
My thoughts exactly, I was thinking of the military torture tests. Just an action full of sand with no were to go but out the barrel.😬
Same thought. Not to mention water. Imagine all the water that would just pool with the internals while in the rain. Unless they had some to drain water out.
I thought of this too, however it does have a benefit too, spent shells can drop right out the bottom of the gun, and dirt might be able to drop out the same way
A solid point. But at the same time, it's not like there hasn't been any design with an open top and closed bottom before (which is, like, every bolt action ever made). Also, if you do get a bunch of sand into the action, you turn it upside down and now the opening is down
@@mimicrymwot Yeah but why does it have to be closed bottom?
Actually, we have at least 1 shotgun with magazine over a barrel. It's russian RMB-93/RM-96 "Рысь" ("Lynx") anti-pump action. To chamber the shell, you need to cycle the barrel forward-rear (breech is fixed). So, obviously, it was easier to put the barrel on bottom and put a handguard on it.
"Рысь" have some advantages (it is short and light, due to anti-pump construction), but it is not the most fastest or most pleasant gun to shoot.
It's only advantage is it's so funky and weird it always draws attention on the range. But it's horrible at being a shotgun for just about any application. I shot it, it's absolutely horrible in every aspect of being a gun.
Still better than Cobray Terminatorm. I hope Ian will make a review on RMB Рысь someday
neostead 2000 is another example, and it's actually been covered on the channel
I recall that design was adapted into the GM-94 grenade launcher.
in terms of weird firearms, russians are just eurasian germans, change my mind
Me explaining to the atf agent why i have such a thing.
"Because i need it for home self defence against the Flood. just like the founding chief's intended. "
Cause I have a permit for it. My second fuckin amendment. That's all you tell the ATF 😁
We have one, but not in America, RMB-93 is top-loaded. Also pump-forward, and double-action, it's a stack of oddballs.
With awful top-folding stock too
Also uts-15 butnnobody has thought about those in a while
I've always wanted to see a front pump action on a shotgun. Not for any real practical reasons, I just see the potential for bump stock like rapid fire.
But doing it that way would probably be hell for the shooters hands and wrists. And probably only doable for hip shooting so accuracy would be an issue as well.
But then again. Stupidity have yet to stop gun nuts on the past. So... I guess it'd be inevitable regardless. 😅
@@jmalmsteni have one and accuracy and comfort of shooting is fine. Only disadvantage is fucking trapdoor on a loading window. Also its weeeery compact and also a 8+1 capacity!
Ah yes, the "inverse" shotgun.
The solution is obvious, five 8 round tubes surrounding the barrel in a star pattern with forward ejecting spent shells in case you missed with your 40 + 1 street howitzer
Damn, I was just 3D printing one.....have you patented it yet?
Another YTer attempted to fire something like you mentioned. It disassembled itself after only a few rounds! 😅
@@henryturnerjr3857Did it disassemble the shooter, too?
@@henryturnerjr3857 Which YTer? I haven't seen that one.
@paulis7319 Kentucky Ballistics shot a rare model of Benelli (maybe) that had several tubes. A major metal part cracked in two after a few rounds. No one was hurt except for his bank account.
Bear in mind. The Halo M90 Shotgun in Halo CE was something like a **6 Gauge** and most of the ones since 2 have been at least a 8 Gauge. The size of the shot-shells alone for the one in CE would result in bulky and decidedly unhelpful difficulty in storing said mags and even loading when you got a squad of Elites yelling "Wort-Wort-Wort" about 10 yards away, even more so if your trying to somehow shove said bulky extra large mag into the gun and the lead Elite has an Energy Sword.
Within the context of the Game Universe's lore, the top feed tube makes quite a good amount of since. Purely from the stand put that were dealing with shell sizes and outright firepower to boot that render the idea of mag feeding difficult, and that's before you account for the fact that if a Marine or heaven forbid an ODST is in a situation were said Shotgun is being used, things have already likely gone far enough pear shaped that the last thing they need is to be fumbling with a mag that takes up literally half of their armor's ammo storage.
However within the context of our universe it is a little confusing why Top Feed never became a thing, until you remember that 12 Gauge while bulky can still be shoved into a mag and it be perfectly serviceable and useable and is way faster, and holding anywhere from roughly 5 to 8 shells and still being short enough and small enough to easily carry and use, with 10+ shell count mags quickly reaching the point of being unusable outside of it being the starter mag or taking the piss at the range with your friends after a couple of beers.
The Halo shotguns up to Infinite are all 8 gauge, but they fire different types of buckshot.
This makes sense. A tube of 8 gauge shells would be of a wider diameter than 12 gauge, so having the tube on top means the size of the magazine doesn't matter and you can keep the size of the lower handguard and pump at the conventional size and thus is usable by everybody, not just 7-foot tall SPARTANs.
8 gauge and shoots .357 Magnum projectiles.
Yep. Excellent explanation.
In essence, making the M90 tube-fed took the "bulk" of the magazine and extended it out in the direction of the barrel, which is somewhere with plenty of available space. A magazine that holds twelve, or even six shells sticking out the bottom of the weapon would be... uncomfortable.
@@brandonwise5170 Not quite. Having read Fall of Reach, The Flood, and First Strike. Halo CE is a 6 Gauge. Non-standard at the time. Same with the CE Magnum firing something like a .50AE HE round, and the fact all of the MA5s were B models which were being phased out shortly after the Spirit of Fire's battles at Harvest.
Pillar of Autumn was also by the time of CE a super prototype, and the amount of non-standard weaponry onboard and used by Chief and the UNSC in Halo CE was due to the fact it was planned to be used in Operation: RED FLAG where all active Spartan--IIs would board the ship, and attempt to capture a Prophet to hold hostage to force a peace treaty or truce. Anyone that played Halo Reach or has read Fall of Reach would know why RED FLAG never took place.
Remember Reach, my brothers.
Edit: Should note that it is never outright stated, but more or less implied that the "Shedder" AP Rounds that were used in the Novels tended to perform better and have less problems in the MA5B than the newer MA5Cs. Also given the amount of enemies they'd face in RED FLAG, 60 rounds is better than 32.
As a Police Officer when on duty, I do often simply invert my pump and semi-auto shotty guns when filling the tube magazine. Our patrol vehile guns are SBS's with 3-round magazines. Excellent video!
At 71, I still get a grin from the questions and observation you show us. Good on you!
😂
Gun Jesus has, once again, made my morning at work less boring
It's a commute-home video for me (CET).
Currently in a portalloo getting paid to watch Ian. Love my life, hahaha
“Get the F back to work!” Boss....
Same here, although me, the boss, and a fellow mechanic are tuning in right now to this video. Gun Jesus gets priority over radio at work!
Do you work as the cameraman for forgotten weapons?
One bad reason was +70 years back shells were most-often made of paper and top loading shotgun would let dirt/snow/rain-water just funnel directly in.
One good reason today to make top loading shotgun is to have slightly less muzzle climb maybe??? Gonna need Ian to test that last one though. :D
Wouldnt matter....
Weight would still be in the same place , looking from a balance point of view.
Muzzle climb would only be reduced if the tube would extend out further.
@@dannybax1982 Yes but the recoil impulse being more in line with your shoulder would mean less angle the barrel is over your shoulder, AKA less muzzle climb.
@@davefeil1522 But couldn't one just basically move that barrel and tube a little down relative to the stock, as to achieve that effect? I suppose the sights would have to be elevated as well...
Point is, just like a top-loading shotgun is possible and feasible, getting the recoil under better control for bottom-loaders should be just as possible
@@davefeil1522unfortunately because of the M90’s design the bore axis WOULDN’T be more in line with your shoulder, because you effectively have three tubes now, one just for the pump to be mounted on, the barrel, and the mag tube on top. So instead of making something like the Chiapas Rhino where you have a weapon of roughly the same height as the average, but a lower bore, you just have a taller gun in this case. Muzzle flip would be exactly the same because the barrel is remaining right where it normally would be, and you’re just adding an extra tube on top. The extra weight would likely not make much of a difference, because it’s still a 12 gauge.
@@eosaeostre9242I don’t think that’s true at all. Just by looking at the thing in the video, you can see that the barrel is in line with the lower half of the stock. Every bottom loading shotgun has their barrel inline with the top of the stock. The axis is definitely different.
Growing up on a farm in the UK we had the usual double barrel 12 guages, except me who had (and I can't recall the make alas) a Greener EG Mark III style top loading single shot lever action 12 gauge. Overall it was a fantastic hunting weapon so long as you didn't need a second shot immediately - given most of my generation didn't have auto eject on their guns, using my under lever I could in fact get a better rate of fire with the lever flinging the cartridge out. Nighttime shooting when it was difficult to see where to lead, and on a bouncing truck bed and this was the gun of choice. Thanks for the distant memories!
The reason I bought a shotgun was for 3-Gun. A few years ago, I shot skeet with a friend of mine who has an over/under shotgun and he kept loading just the bottom barrel when he only had to take a single shot. I asked him why that barrel and he said that it had a more inline recoil impulse, which controlled muzzle flip a little more. That got me wondering why nobody made a tube-fed shotgun with the magazine above the barrel. When I started telling people about this notion everyone just thought it was weird. Now there a video about it!
The "just use a box magazine" argument ignores 3-Gun gear divisions; box mags are only allowed in Open division under USPSA or UML rules. Tac Ops has (at least until recently) been the most popular division, which mandates a tube-fed shotgun. The division that's just been introduced is Modified which also requires a tube. All that being said, you're spot-on when you point out that fast reloading of a shotgun is really, really important in 3-Gun and somewhere between a lot less important and irrelevant everywhere else, so I'm not sure that we'll see any radical developments in tube fed guns any time soon.
Just use a box magazine
@@temper.temper LMAO
Makes sense, and it's similar in theory to modern black powder rifles existing so that people can hunt in "black powder season".
I also see a benefit for a top feed where you're you're going to be prone, or places where a box mag might get caught on stuff. Very much a case of picking the gun based on the match you're going to.
I half expect someone to show up to a match with a 4 foot long bullpup shotgun with a top mounted tube mag so that he doesn't need to reload during a stage.
@@temper.temperTry reading his comment again slowly
@@SgtBeltfed I am now losing it at the thought of a top mounted double tube, KSG with a 30 inch barrel, thank you.
I would have thought it was to prevent dirt/water from entering from the top
That or the pump mechanism to go over the barrel is hard or fragile
Mud test!😛
Shotguns aren't used in prone very often, so I wouldn't worry too much about dirt. I don't see enough water getting in to be a problem.
This was my first thought as well. Maybe it wouldn't be that big of a problem but it would necessarily open you up to debris and water and stuff getting in there.
Dirt is on the ground, no?
I'd add the following to Ian's argument. You hold guns from the bottom, so that was the obvious place to stick a tube mag, where you have more options to wiggle/toggle/pump/tap things. Shotgun rounds resist magazine feed design, so they stuck with tubes, and tubes like to be near the hands.
You might note we don't have a lot of tube mags in stocks, either; I'd say it's another case of ease of manufacture but also it's a hell of a lot easier to fish a round/spring/screw from a tube near my hands than fishing from the depths of the stock.
It's also a really efficient thing to do with a handguard. You might note that in the HALO piece, it STILL needs a handguard, and that's wasted space if it's not a secondary tube.
The Sako Crossfire Mk.1 was a repeating combination gun. Shotgun piggyback'd on top of a rifle (w/compound receiver). The shotgun part fed from a detachable mag tube that was built into the stock. The rifle fed from AR/STANAG mags. Both the rifle and the shotgun were pump-action. It was a novelty gun that never caught on.
One potential way to simplify this "M90-IRL" is to put a straight-wall vented heat-shield around the barrel, then have the forearm fit over it. The forearm should have a metal housing on the inside. So think Mossberg 500, not Maverick 88. If it was semi-auto, then the forearm could simply fit over the barrel. There'd be no need for that tube thing under the barrel in either case. Another option would be to make it ambidextrous straight-pull bolt-action. Could also make it a bottom-ejector. Could also put the loading port on either side. A side-loading bottom-ejector would be kinda like an inverted Winchester levergun (but not a Marlin).
This is my first time seeing this channel and this is my first video. As an avid Floridian gun enthusiast. I'm so glad to be here now!! Thank you.
As someone who isn't experienced in firearms (the only one I've ever fired is the Ak5C) but _is_ quite knowledgeable in engineering, I would guess that's _probably_ the reason why top-mounted tube mags aren't common. All of the ways I can think of to make such a design pump-action or lever-action (or self-loaded with pump or lever charging handle) would require a few more parts with more complex shapes in the mechanism requiring tighter quality, so it'd be more expensive for not that much of a benefit.
Take a look at the Russian RMB-93 shotgun (which works exactly the same as the GM 94 pump action grenade launcher). The top mounted tube enables you to use gravity feed and dispence with things such as the elevator and the moving bolt. By getting rid of those you shed complexity, weight and volume.
>AK5
Hello Swedish friend, welcome to NATO!
It's the Mateba Unica of shotguns. A lot of engineering and higher prices for an oddball gun that still has next to no advantages compared to its contemporary counterparts.
This one was interesting. I like the fact it's basically a weird middle technology where it's slightly better than what is typically available, but if people care about that, they can jump to an option that's far better than manual loading leaving it in limbo.
It is neat though, and it needs to happen for that reason alone!
It's honestly a little worse because the barrel is on the top its a little harder to hit with. That's a big loss compared to the small gain of not having to turn your gun 90° to see the port.
@@johnm3907 That's only relevant to iron sights though. As long as the designers don't half ass the mounting, even a shitty red dot renders the issue largely moot. A shotgun is a close in weapon. It's not like you're not trying to hold zero at 800 yards.
@@dustinbrueggemann1875 true enough, but I just don't see any upsides with this gun except the lower bore axis for recoil that someone else said. It's just a futuristic looking gun.
@@johnm3907 With a top mounted tube it actually makes the option of an extended tube more viable in a tube fed magazine to follow more closely to the barrel length. You're not fighting the weight as much for racking the pump because of weight distribution.
Design consideration for the infantryman: A top loader with the loading port looking the way it does today means a big area on the top of the gun that traps rainfall into the action and magazine. Not a huge concern for catastrophic failures, but it could mean water in the tube spoiling your ammunition. And for a long maintenance schedule, it's important to keep what could be a lot of moisture that didn't have to be there from being trapped in the gun for long time. Anytime you can make the top of a gun more likely to shed water away from the action, the better.
I really don’t think that applies, especially if properly designed it really wouldn’t be an issue. That’s like saying bolt action rifles would have the same issue because when you think about it they are actually top loading rifles
@@enclavesoldier769 Right, but bolt action rifles tend to stay closed except when cycling. Shotgun loading ports are usually just kinda open cavities. Even loading gates like on the 870 don't have a total seal on the guts. You'd have to redesign the loading gate completely so it blocks all debris ingress.
Dude who built it was a grunt, cool dude. Has high plasma in his blood apparently
In terms of water im sure you would just design that like a muffler or even a AR buffer tube to get rid of it. Dirt might be a bigger issue however think about our guys crawling through the mud with a traditional pump action. You would think with it being on the bottom you would get dirt all in there and with it on top you wouldn't. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you see it I haven't had the pleasure or displeasure to find out in that scenario.
This is the why
所有開頂式裝備都會遇上的問題，就是在戰壕中會有土掉下來，然後卡住槍機
還會在 進口處阻止彈藥進出，甚至阻止槍管密閉、卡住進彈 導致炸膛
很多武器都逃不過這問題，所以現代武器都會選擇側面或下面填裝
Top-loading is decently common in weapons - provided they're crew served. Bren Gun/ZB-26: Loader grabs empty mag, places new one, slaps gunner who is still tracking targets to indicate loaded. MK-19/M2: Open top cover, position belt , close. 40mm Dual Bofors AA mount - loaders feed clips on the top, brass and holding clips fall out bottom. Conversely - you don't see shotguns operated by multiple people (yes, I know of punt guns, but I am trying to be somewhat reasonable) so making the action accessible to others isn't a priority.
All you've done is convince me that I want to see someone invent a crew-served shotgun now.
@@_spacegoat_I dunno much about firearms but isn’t that basically a flak cannon?
Nah, the flak doesn't come out in pieces its a normal time/proximity fuse shell (Flak is short for the German Flugabwehrkanone - or aircraft-defense cannon) @@eyywannn8601
@@_spacegoat_arguably that's what mortars or at least cannons are. Until they started rifling them.
@@_spacegoat_ i feel like a crew served shotgun would be very similar to a mk19 grenade launcher
The main issue with mag-fed shotguns is that they tend to get very bulky very quickly.
I remember the first time I saw a Saiga, and I saw a MASSIVE magazine attached to it. I asked how many rounds it carried, and the store owner told me "ten". Ten shots for a magazine that was about twice as long as you would want it to be. Talk about cumbersome.
I look at Mossbergs mag fed shotguns and the only "reasonably sized" magazines hold 5 rounds. They are shorter than Saiga mags, but they are still VERY bulky.
Honestly, mag fed shotguns (in a traditional layout) haven't seen much use in the military (AFAIK) because they are so much bigger than a "traditional" shotgun. Why add a massive box to the underside of your shotgun when a mag tube already holds 5-8 shells? (There is a mag-fed breaching shotgun, but it is solely used as a breaching tool, and everyone I have spoken to about it that has experience with it says it's hot garbage.)
Assuming the "M90" could be built to work just as well as something like a R870, I see it as a straight upgrade. Either use sights or have a mag tube the same length as the barrel and put the front sight post there. A semi auto M90 that worked as well as a Benelli M4 would also be a straight upgrade.
The problem is that shotguns are kinda falling out of favor with the military, in general. The new trend seems to be going towards smaller, breaching specific shotguns or alternative breaching tools.
Also keep in mind the m90 is actually 8 gauge in-game so those magazines will be even bigger.
Yep
I actually get that question a lot, why don't I own a magazine fed shotgun.
They're just so goddamn bulky.
And I've never felt inadequate with a tubefed, if I've ever needed more than what the tube can hold I'm in real trouble and definitely should have had a carbine instead.
And let's not forget, much like lever actions you can top off on the go or switch to a specialty load quickly.
Also plastic shotgun shells tend to squish when stacked vertically, as opposed to linearly.
They also aren't used much in the military because box magazines squish the shells to the point you can't chamber the rounds if left loaded. They didn't screw around with box mags for a hundred years even though when pump shotguns were invented they used full brass shells, paper and plastic hulls don't stand a chance if they couldn't get full brass ones to work.
I wonder if it would be possible to do the equivalent of stripper clips but for shotgun shells going into a tube. There’s have to be some small but durable material holding like 4 shells together perfectly vertically stacked on one another and the user can insert 2 of those into the tube, to get 8 shots out of it. That feels like an advanced solution but would need lots of testing first, and I can easily see it being a flop
The only other argument I can think over for bottom mounted ammo tubes over top mounted is that it having it on the bottom allows the tube to double as a forestock to hold onto/brace the weapon. Having the tube on the top means this part would need to be added separately which could increase the weight/cost of the product, and the alternative of leaving it off and holding directly on to the barrel is probably not the most ideal situation.
It also increases height over bore, but probably not by enough to be a problem.
I mean, it's a shotgun, HOB probably isn't that important compared to a rifle or weapons intended for longer ranges@@remielpollard787
The pump handle is the fore grip it wraps around the barrel
But have you considered how cool it would be?
This was my very first thought.
The only drawback I can think of for top loading is when walking in dense foliage debris could fall into the loading slot. Maybe this is a null since a simple dust cover could be attached like on ARs. Love the videos.
you could sidestep that issue using two already existing pump mechanisms the standard ejection port as seen on pretty much any pump shotgun like the 870 that only exposes the inside of the receiver to eject shells and making the loading port and ejection port the same opening like the ithica 37
Never played Halo games much, but this is an interesting question I never considered. Among so many youtubers who just repost old content, copy and paste memes, and other useless content consumerism bs, your channel is a constant flow of refreshing actual informative content. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with the world Ian. You have my respect for trucking on for so long and dropping knowledge for me to learn from.
Halo really popularized top-loading shotguns. Honestly, it'd be cool to see this design done in real life. Halo shotguns in real life would be so awesome if mass produced. Bonus points if it's chambered in 8 Guage.
Have you ever priced 8ga?
ua-cam.com/video/4JaoL6ijtjo/v-deo.html
It's a shame halo infinite doesn't have the classic style of shotgun.
@@aboveaveragebayleaf9216 my main issue with the bulldog is it's still a pump action despite being a more "realistic" tactical shotgun. I also find it ridiculous that it only has a 7 round capacity drum mag when it's chambered in 12 gauge while still being much larger than other shotguns that are mag fed.
@@aboveaveragebayleaf9216leftists don’t like conventional, realistic, logical, or cool weapons in their games. Makes sense why they would get rid of the M90 so they could replace it with something that doesn’t even resemble a gun
In a combat/rapid reload situation, it feels awkward to feed shells in from the top if you're attempting to maintain the shotgun high and ready. You break your sight picture with your hand, have to reach further, feel like you need to lower the gun, etc. Sliding shells in from the bottom maintains your feed hand closer to a ready position, and doesn't interfere with your view. Now, this could just be an artifact of what we're used to, and it could work quite well either way. We all tend to have a bias for how we learned and have repeated. Great video, and a nice prototype Halo shotgun!
But you could also load the shotgun without even having to look at it or be nearly as careful feeling your way underneath to insert the shell, you could have it down by your side/waist easily slotting in shells from the top while keeping your eyes peeked behind solid cover so you're not situational-awarenessly blind for the time it takes. Can also just learn to hold it up higher in your peripheral from below if you need to keep it in sight to make sure you load it properly, but I bet over time you'd get used to it and not even need to look down at the flap to load it.
bs
@@musicremixes847 would have to agree
@@KruggKruscherp if you’re familiar with your gun you can just as easily load it based on muscle memory alone, plus your ammo would likely either be in a vest (closer to the bottom of the gun) or if you’re bougie like me you just keep a buncha slugs in your pockets lmao
I'd wager sight picture with a shotgun is significantly less important than any other rifle lol
I think the main reason is we like the sights on the barrel. If you put the magazine tube on the top you automatically create a raised sight that adds one more complication that isn’t there with the tube on the bottom. “It’s a shotgun” you might counter, but still , now you’re aiming maybe an inch over your main spread and have to take into consideration at what distance does the center of the spread line up with your sights when your sighting it in. This is a non issue with a bead sight on the barrel.
I do think there is one more reason to not put the barrel under the magazine tube (specifically on a military style shotgun that's going to be fired a lot in rapid succession):
Barrels get hot. Magazine tubes provide a natural buffer that helps prevent a shooter's hands from getting burned by a hot barrel, even if you miss the grip or your hand slips.
WWI would have been a FANTASTIC opportunity to have an "upside down" shotgun for trench sweeping, since keeping eyes downrange and the action from getting dirty are important factors. However, that still goes back to barrels getting hot from firing them a lot.
I think you're absolutely correct. I could see one reason for top reload: consider using a shotgun in a prolonged gun fight.
1) you do want to reload as quickly as possible
2) you do not have a set course of fire (as you do in a match), so you want to top up as opposed to run dry and reload a whole magazine
It's not a very compelling reason in practice. On the other hand, making a top-loading shotgun can be a product differentiator anyway. Just for the cool factor alone.
The most practical sense in which the top feed would make sense and be beneficial is in a combat shotgun. The tube load is preferred for reliability as well as the ability to change shell types without having to actually reload the entire shotgun. Probably will still never seen one make the mainstream but my inner halo fan would love it.
Then again, mag fed shotguns would still be better to stay topped up.
There is one top loader shotgun I can think of, the Winchester 1887. Of course the tube is still under the barrel and loading seems like it's a pain in the neck.
I'm guessing when he designed the 1893 pump, John Browning decided it was better to move the loading port to the bottom than move the tube to the top.
You are correct they are in fact kind of a pain to load. If you you push too far downward with your thumb it will mousetrap it in there when you bump the shell stop and they all try to spit out of the magazine.
Folks who use the 87 in competition (and the only relevant one I can think of is Wild Bunch with the latest rules) shoot the 6 you can load in it, (5 in the tube and one on the carrier) then do NOT reload the tube if more shots are required... they "drop 2" in the top and shoot those...and repeat as necessary (although Ive never seen more than 8 shotgun required on a WB stage)
@@trooperdgb9722 regular SASS rules are 2 in the gun, full stop. Cannot use magazine in '87 for regular SASS, but ok for Wild Bunch, as you already said. I shoot a '97 (tho I haven't been to a match for awhile, and I'm trading both of my lever guns for some work on an LMG conversion build), and I think the faster guys usually just load one shoot one, no mag. I try to load two, shoot two, but it takes extra brain cells to remember to not pump, and that might be a technical rule violation to have a spent shell and two live shells in the gun. Loading two from empty with action open is SLOWWWWW.
Winchester demanded that JMB make it a lever action, which has obvious drawbacks, but it was an instance of marketing driving engineering decisions instead of letting brilliant engineering marketing itself (as we later saw with the 1897 being the godfather of repeating shotguns, with 1893 being kinda the beta test for it). I used to have a Chiappa replica 1887, and it's cool, but it's honestly kinda clunky without having an action job or the adapter kit that blocks the mag to make drop-two work smoothly every time.
It's weirdly refreshing to have an explanation be 'no reason, that's just how it happened to be'
Wdym he gave 3 very good reasons for why. Instinctive shooting, faster reloading is generally unnecessary and when it is necessary, cartridges are better
@@Gatitasecsii i consider rewatching the video
I see it as "It worked perfectly for it's originally intended function and if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
@@everythingknife8763 That's the reason why 90% of things in the world are the way they are. Humans tend to stick with the "good enough" solution, and it's hard to shake us from that decision.
I took classes on entrepreneurship and innovation. One of the rules of thumb we were taught was that an innovation has to be about 10 times better, in at least one capacity, than the original to be properly successful. I scoffed at the idea, but the more I looked at which innovations caught on, and which failed, it seems to hold fairly true.
Compare breach-loading shotguns to tube mag shotguns to box mag shotguns. Each step had significant improvements over the previous. Tube mag shotguns offer around three to four times the ammunition of a double-barrel _and_ they never have a problem with your bead being offset from your barrel. Box mag shotguns eliminate the need to fumble your shells into the gun entirely. These steps aren't quantifiably 10 times better than each previous step, but they are major leaps.
As much benefit as there might be for a top-loading tube mag shotgun (for some shootists), it's not a significant enough innovation to make a big enough splash on the market to be successful.
@@irregularassassin6380 I think part of the reason the innovations have to be so much better is also a cost factor. Any new technology ends up costing a lot more than the iterations already present, because the manufacturing process and resources available have to be customized to the new technology.
This means that consumers, (whether we're talking small scale home ownership, or large scale military), have to consider whether the improvements are worth that increased cost. If something is only a marginal improvement, the cost being higher will keep it from selling well. If it's a massive improvement though, it's a lot easier for the consumer to see it as being worth the additional cost.
I think a reason box mags wouldn’t work as well in Halo is because it’s 8 gauge. Those would be massive magazines.
And I bet in-universe it being a pump (some models are pump-semi like a Spaz-12 or Benelli M3) would be the utility of different rounds of varying pressure from tear gas to armor piercing slugs. It is used for purposes like law enforcement and while inside a space ship after all. Plus, having the most rugged reliable gun possible would be good when on alien planets sometimes months away from help.
Tube magazine also allows top up reloads. You can put one round in without taking the magazine out. It keeps the firearm ready.
@@shadowopsairman1583 If you mean those drum magazines, those are horrifically inefficient
I think it's more that the reload animantion for a tube fed shotgun looks cooler, plus everyone expects a shotgun to rack and automatic shotguns don't do that and are boring as a result. Like it's definitely a game design choice similar to how a lot of the guns visibly display how much ammo they have left in order to avoid having it clutter up the HUD.
The tube can be used as the base for the handguard, especially pump action. So there is no need for a heat shield for the barrel reducing overall wait. You can see that on the m90 in the video it has three tubes instead of the more covenantal two.
Overall wait for what?
@@r.b.rozier9692 I believe he meant "weight" and not "wait". Autocorrect is a fickle mistress.
@@aaa72317 Autocorrect -- ChatGPT's stupid brother.
@@aaa72317 oh, I was confused AF!
It has dual mag tubes. Need em both to fit all of those 8ga shells
One of the possible benefits I think off would be it would be easier to have the shells eject out the bottom like the Ithica 37 and make it more friendly to left hand shooters without needing some sort of conversion.
No firearm has ever been made with consideration of left handed shooters
If you want "top-loading" shotgun, just turn the gun upside down!
The russian RMb-93 comes to mind when it comes to real life examples of top mounted tube (and probably top loading) shotguns.
There is even the GM-94, a top loading pump action grenade launcher.
@@paleoph6168 - it is russian version of chinalake
Ye, and there's also several reasons why no one made similiar design to that one
Main one is that those things are pretty finniky to load, you don't have a loading gate, but literally just a hinged cover you need to open for loading
The shells only have a small recess you have to manually push them into when reloading and you can really only load in one at a time
Also at last, they're very complex inside and every time you reload you're basically opening the guts of the gun out
Exactly! One of my friends owns two of them. Handmade smokepowder shells were fun to shoot. The shoulderstock is somewhat uncomfortable. Oh and inverted pump-action takes time to get used to..
To be honest I figured one of the answers would be "having the loading port on top would make it easier for dirt and debris to get in the action", either by gravity or by being pushed in during loading. If the loading port is on the bottom, debris would tend to fall on the ground.
have it eject out the bottom. leaves both sides slick, simplifies manufacturing, and most small debris could just fall through as the action is worked
Add some rain and debris falling from nearby mortar impacts and a top feeder would be jammed up pretty quickly. The only quibble I have with the Halo gun is they should have used a Mossberg 500/590 action which doesn't have the spring loaded lever that needs to be depressed to stuff a round in the tube. Carrying 4 round reloading tubes is about as fast and convenient a solution that can be made and much less bulky and problematic than box magazines which can deform the shells due to the spring pressure when loaded.
that would be relevant for a military scenario, like the ww1 trenches where shotguns found more extensive use on the american side.
Every military bolt action rifle, since forever, has been top loading. Even the mag fed bolt actions had provisions built in to them to load the magazine through the top of the action. I don't think dirt and debris is the issue that some think it is.
Downward ejection could cover that
You missed the concept of 'topping up', that is an advantage of the tube magazine guns over box mags.
I'll admit I never really thought it through. I think you got the answer right. Your logic was spot on. I've been a bird hunter for years now and I've never needed to speed reload my gun.
I agree with almost everything you said except for the supposed downside of worse ‘instinctive shooting’ if the tube is above the barrel. Since most shooters actually tend to miss high when they’re off, many competitive shotgunners actually use an extremely elevated sight rail multiple inches over the barrel. I used to be a consistent 23/25 in trap and always shot the low barrel of my O/U for the same reason. Whether you prefer the elevated sight rail or not, a shooter will get the feel of where and how they’re missing and will subconsciously adjust their aim point. Even then, as you’re shooting a pattern and not driving a tack, being a tube diameter low on your target is pretty unlikely to alter the outcome of the shot anyways.
I am no way experienced enough to say I know better, but thought Ian's comment about sighting/instinctive shooting was not really such a big factor. Otherwise the OU shotgun's bottom barrel would be less than optimal. Thank you for your experienced thoughts sir.
Sight rail on a shotgun? I mean, I'm not a champion skeet shooter or anything, but Dad was a pretty damn good duck hunter and I could outshoot him at the range and I NEVER used the bead on a shotgun unless I was shooting slugs. You aim down the side of the barrel. Me and Dad took both the youth and adult trophies at Camp Powhatan (Boy Scout Summer Camp) a couple years for a family cleanout lol. We REALLY cleaned house the second year once we learned we were allowed to bring our family's Belgian A5. I got kicked out for skipping rocks on the pond, though, (for fucking real) so that was the last year we went together.
As someone who has spent 1000's of hrs on trap fields.... I have NEVER seen a shotgun with multiple inches of extended rail. 1 inch is pushing it. Look at a ruler, look at your shotgun, tell me how comically large a 2 inch offset on that rail would look.
Have you ever seen an ‘unsingle’ ie lower barrel only subbed onto an OU receiver? Sight rail is most definitely multiple inches vertically offset from the bore.
As demonstrated in The Library, the m90 proved itself effective during a severe flood outbreak. With is exceptional stopping power it tends to dismember flood combat forms with ease and I’m sure if you ask S117 the top load function is likely a non issue.
Unless the flood themselves have said shotgun... cant tell ya how many times I got one shot by those bastards lmao
@@fusionwing4208rocket flood are worse than jackal snipers
@@babytricep437 I've been killed by rocket flood maybe 3-4 times total tbh, what makes them horrifying is the sudden ball of light zooming your way, they usually miss in my experience though
I was more of a sabre grenade spamer
@@fusionwing4208Besides that one fucking rocket flood in that one hallway in two betrayals.
I can only really think of gravity making debris fall into the action or rain getting inside.
Since fast use became a thing we've also got speed loading tubes which might be a bit awkward coming in from the top, if i'm really stretching i could say topping off is a little more dangerous since you're probably tilting the gun upward to get the right angle, if you aren't strong enough to hold up the weight of the gun you might brace it against your thigh so if you're holding the pump you might move the action during the reload process yada yada.
I would think that a top loading action would lean towards more feeding issues as the shells would be spit out the tube by the spring, then have to drop down for the bolt to catch, align and chamber instead of being lifted and guided to the mouth of the chamber. I could also see where the action may need some longer linkages to “wrap” the mechanism around the barrel.
The most obvious reason on the top of my head are :
1-Rain and dirt can fall in the action, if a cover is added then it makes the reloading slow again.
2-Not being able to top load while aiming and being ready to shot at the same time, this is a deal breaker in my opinion.
Then if it is a pump action then I would also add:
3-Overall heavier because of added structure to make the pump action works far away from the tube.
4-Pump grip being too close to potential hot barrel, a heat shield seems hard to incorporate with the pumping action.
But what if it’s like a m1 garand, I’m not a huge gun person but like after you shoot all the rounds doesn’t the slide stay open? Why not have that mechanic but with a top loading shotgun with a plate where you load the shots, it’ll close the slide once you pump it then opens again once you run out of shells or opened manually. In my head it might be too complicated to manufacture but still an idea
The grip on the shotgun in the video isn't even quite touching the barrel, and it's thick polymer, it's not going to burn your hand through that.
@@KruggKruscherp
All shotgun front grip won't become very hot regardless of the design, only the barrel becomes too hot and this is why barrel heatshield exist. The headshield prevents you from burning your hand if touching the barrel mistakenly.
With the reversed loading shotgun, chances of touching the hot barrel mistakenly is much greater since it is right next to the grip, and also it must be very hard (if not impossible) to incorporate a heat shield.
@@dominater124
My guess is they don't risk jamming since the mechanism is much tighter and there is no tube, plus shotgun shell are more sensitive to humidly (at least in the past when they used paper based shell).
@@dominater124 You'd likely just steal the existing mechanism -- the load gate is pushed closed by a spring, and you have to shove it open with a shell. A stiff spring is soooo much less complicated than the bars and leverage to attach the load gate to the pump/action.
Further, imagine this scenario: Your pump or action cycles the load gate, which has something on top of it. That something slides between the load gate and magazine, preventing it from closing. Now you have a jam to clear, in the middle of shooting.
Reloading from the bottom seems a lot more comfortable when I have the weapon shouldered or holding it otherwise. It would be kind of awkward to reach over the top with shells in hand, with the possibility of dropping one increasing as well. If I fumble a shell while loading from the bottom then it naturally wants to fall back into my palm.
It seems more natural to reload from the bottom because that is the shortest path between the magazine and wherever my shells are, unless I am literally shooting from the hip of course.
Why would you still hold it against the shoulder when loading?
@@andreasmangs3131So that I don't have to reshoulder the weapon and reacquire the sights, important for certain types of competitions where shooting fast matters. Also, I may be shooting from a bench rest, and taking the rifle out of the rest to reload is slower.
If shooting from a bench rest I can understand, but do you need that for shotshells? I think its faster to move the Gun to reloading position and fill up with one or two quad loads and back to the shoulder, than to fiddle in several one by one and still holding it at the shoulder. And If its only one, you can have a safety shell in a holder next to the ejection port and slide in while still shouldering (or plan the stage better).
@@andreasmangs3131Hey man, whatever you're more comfortable with will probably also be your preferred, and therefore faster method to reload. What works for me might not work for you and the other way around as well of course. Personally, I'm faster and more used to slipping in two or three shells semi-shouldered should I miss a target on a stage or need a partial reload.
I second that - I use the 870 for trap shooting and bird hunting and have had to do field reloads, pretty quick to lower the gun only slightly and pop a shell or two in or fill the mag from a ready position. I have seen some people flip the gun over to completely load the magazine, so I am sure some folks will prefer top loading shotguns. Some company will make one eventually.
I figured the Halo shotgun was top-loaded because of it being used in power armor. No idea if that's canon, but it made sense to me
Nah, doesn't follow. The regular marines use it without powered armor. I imagine the gun was developed before the Mjolnir program was ever publicly shown
Game design-wise, it's probably because it looks cool. Lore-wise, it might be due to easier to load in the middle of a firefight, regardless if the person is wearing power armor or not.
The M90 shotgun uses a magnetorheological recoil buffering system to mitigate the extreme force of firing it on top of being extremely large for its role as a close assault weapon. While it certainly seems fit for a supersoldier, it was still ultimately designed to be comfortably used by unaugmented personnel such as Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, who are by necessity a highly mobile unit that specialize in deep infiltration behind enemy lines.
@@joshuaolson3537 There were power armor systems for centuries that never really saw widespread adoption for the usual reasons that mechanized infantry of any kind don't really work, namely mobility and power constraints. Most of the UNSC's infantry equipment is over a 100 years old or at least a direct iteration of very old designs. The MA5 series assault rifles have been in service for 165 years with minimal iteration. The M90 shotgun was used during the insurrection wars, so it's been around for a long time too.
Most users were regular humans in universe, so no, that's not why.
I own box magazine fed shotguns. I absolutely love them. Ian is spot on. Top fed will never out perform box fed. I can do a full 10 shell reload in less than 3 seconds. Drop mag, slap in fresh, full mag, release bolt, and go back to work.
I appreciate the point of the practical rarity of speed reloading outside the competition realm. In all the police body-cam footage I've seen, I have never seen a long gun (shotgun or AR) be reloaded during a fight. The gunfight is always over in seconds within the duration of the magazine (be it tube or box). Even in military combat footage, I've never seen any speed reloads. While the rest of the unit is still firing, a soldier with an empty rifle gets behind the cover they were using, fumbles to get the magazine out, nearly misses the magazine well, and slams the magazine into the gun pretty inefficiently compared to competition shooters
Comparing us grunts with 3 gun masters isn't even close, nor really a valid one. Compare one massively practiced elite with another, not my 20 year old adrenaline dumped silly self!
Anecdote - seeing Force Recon guys(pre-Raiders era) doing that was pretty impressive.
Well said. The halo crowd won't like that
It's a very apt comparison. Like it or not, 3-Gun has more in common with video games than it does real combat or defensive shooting. Sure there is SOME similarly, but at the end of the day it's a game.
I’m curious- is anyone shooting back at the competition shooters?
@@dondgc2298 That should totally be a thing. Oh wait...airsoft, paintball, and simunitions exist
Originally as you mentioned with rifles, the idea was to keep the sights close to the bore axis for more accurate point of aim at any distance. Shotguns it isn't as important, but for those of us that hunt in any and all weather, I see this as a funnel giving rain and dirt a nice easy path into the gun. Mag fed shotguns have other minor issues loading, but as you mentioned are generally quick and even more so if they have a flared mag well. I have seen some incredibly fast reloads doing the 2/4 shell reloads as you mentioned. It takes a ton of practice but it is a work of art for those who have mastered it (I am getting better, but not there yet).
Just add a dust cover... AR did it!
"Shotguns it doesn't matter as much"
Shotguns don't have as much spread as many would think.
Granny could get shells in and out of her double barrel with efficiency it is top fed. Watching someone with decades of practice with any weapon is intimidating and awe-inspiring.
a well lubricated break action with actual ejectors can be loaded pretty fast
Watch a good Cowboy Action shooter with a SXS.... and those don't HAVE ejectors...
This is easily my favorite channel to learn about firearms.
From a tactical standpoint Im always prefearing a tube feed shotgun over a magazine feed one
It just gives me more flexibility of quickly loading a different round if I want to while still beeing able to shoot any moment if I need to
Id love a pumpgun but unfortunatly here in austria they are prohibited so I only can have a semiautomatic one and several duble barreld ones for sport shooting
Pump action shotguns are illegal but semi-automatic shotgun are legal? That's pretty odd
I love my saiga. If I was knowingly goin to a fight that’s my pick. But my 887 is so much more practical for stowing in or on a vehicle. A p ack or a sheath. So the gun that I’m going to have on me is the better gun. Also no sidesaddle or any accessories. You can stow an 18 inch tube gun almost anywhere.
@@victoravril250 dond try to find a semsc in austrian gun law, there is none
I'd say in respect to normal shotgun use, its ergonomics. When the push shells into the magazine, you're pushing against the spring. When you're pushing it in from below, the shotgun is being pushed away from you. This is easy to resist because the grip isn't far off from the axis of the magazine, regardless of whether it's a conventional or pistol grip. The grip is designed to give you a good grip when the muzzle comes up, like when you're shooting. When you're loading from the top, I'd imagine the shotgun will try to roll forwards away from you. The axis of the magazine is now further away from the grip and the grip isn't ergonomically designed to the shotgun rolling forwards, this means youll need to have a tighter grip on something that isnt designed to be gripped that way.
In terms of service weapons, a massive hole in the top is asking for problems.
From a design standpoint, bottom feeding magazine tubes and mechanisms designed for them have been around for over a century. Why change it?
I may be chatting out of my rear as I am by not means a shotgun expert, having only fired over unders, but this is why I think that pump action, tube magazine shotguns (unfortunately for us Halo fans) do not have top loading.
folks have presented some valid points about toploader weapons(rain/dirt catcher, sight alignment, ammo size, etc.), so i'd like to posit a compromise between toploader and bottomloader: side load, with the spent shell port being out the bottom of the gun. with the side load, you don't run the risk of rain or dirt piling up as easily with the toploader, but you still get the convenience of a faster reload for competition speed shooting.
Losing ambidexterity is a pretty big deal tbh
@@khanayudash2475 valid point. in my(admittedly very narrow) experience, most bottom fed pump actions already fail ambidexterity due to the ejection port being on the right side of the gun. aside from manufacturing costs and "how the he'll do we make this work" design problems, there's not much stopping a sideloader shotgun from having two feed ports, imo.
The biggest reason I can see top-loading shotguns to be an issue is debris or rain falling into it. With the only area for anything to enter and the easiest place for it to drain or be removed being the cut out for the loading lifter being on top you'll have to make an intentional effort to flip it or leave the breach open to mitigate the issue
Debris can land in the well and stay there where it could possibly jam in the top loader. With a bottom loader gravity would tend to keep it clear with it constantly pushing it down and away from the well.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It would be a mess to use in the rain as the feed ramp is... a ramp. Its literally designed to help stuff get into the tube.
Without watching the video I can say that there are two different issues with top loading that make it an issue.
1) manual cycling. You don't need to move your hand to the top of the gun to cycle it or you don't need a larger pump grip.
2) sights. It moves any sights installed on the gun further from the barrel increasing the blind zone for the sights. Basically, it shoots a little lower than what would normally be expected by a bottom load gun.
Without reading your comment, I disagree with everything you said.
@@LysisAG nice troll. He did somewhat cover #2. However, he mostly covered usage and the fact that we have better magazine designs available.
1. Seems like it would be easily solved without moving hand on top to cycle.
@@andreasmangs3131 that's why I mentioned the larger pump grip for manual cycling.
@@ianbelletti6241 The grip doesn't need to be larger, only a thingy from the handle that connects up to the tube.
I can’t think of a single time in the rainforest of southeastern Alaska that I hunted when it wasn’t raining or snowing.
I can’t think of a single gun where “let’s let rain wash through this part of the action” sounds like a smart idea.
Good point
Top-feeding shotgun with dust cover lol.
I can't think of a single person who lives in the rainforest of Alaska
Obvious issues: Magtube doubles as a forearm so it serves two purposes. Top load and mag tube would be top heavy with the full loaded mag tube on top, and pump or forearm would require a separate 3rd tube and just be more heavy and complex. Normal shotgun utilizes the tube as the forearm or pump. Look at the prototype, it has a barrel, a mag tube, and a separate tube for the foreend. Otherwise you'd be holding the hot barrel, and would need something covering it. Just be a lot heavier with needless parts. And of course the offset sights not aligned on the barrel, and dirt/water/mud easier ingress in the big hole in the top.
@@dinkledord7026can you think of anyone who has ever hunted in the rain or snow?
I think your assessment is correct on why there are few top loading tube shotguns. If you need fast reloads, you can get a box mag fed shotgun and the top loader makes your height over bore for your sights an issue.
I do strongly suspect quad loads would be really quick with that top loader though. I guess it might have an application in a competition that mandates tube fed shotguns.
Can you do a close-up review of the M90 please?
Hunting-culling wild hogs is a situation where this might be useful. Scary stuff can happen with them, can easily leave the hunter in mortal danger.
then uh, maybe just become immortal???
@@james3414 I'd rather pick invulnerability, imagine being ripped apart and surviving...
@@MrPapamaci88 I didn’t think about that, except I’d still need to be vulnerable to spicy food otherwise life is not worth it
Historically, if you need to reload a shotgun quickly you have 2 shotguns and a loading assistant to make sure at least one is fully fed.
And in combat, if you're reloading, you typically have a dozen or so other guys with you who can keep you safe... And have you seen the size of the bayonet used on the US Shotgun? Even the Enfield was jealous.
An assistant loader? So what you're saying is we need shotguns with top-mounted magazines, like a Bren. :D
@@BleedingUranium Hah, I know it’s a ridiculous idea but I’d love to see what a static, top loading, crew served automatic 12 bore could send down a clay or skeet range.
On that note, has anyone ever seen a belt fed shotgun? Other than one that looks like it was knocked up in a garden shed anyway. Again, it’s a ridiculous idea that would never be “optimal” in reality, but I’d love to see that shit tear apart a tree line at 100 yards.
Can you give an example of this? I've never heard of this practice at all, with the only two wars that saw large scale shotgun use for more than breaching and direct CQC (Beyond trench level) were WW1 and WW2. WW2 being only really in the Pacific theater with the Marines though. Jungle fighting actually being a valid point for running a shotgun because usually you're going to find each other at fairly short range before a firefight breaks out.
@@Meravokas Yeah, I meant “historic use” in terms of sport shooting. Like when you go grousing you usually take 2 double barrels and an assistant feeds them.
In terms of the military I have no idea what they do, but like you I’ve never heard of anyone with a shotgun being given an assistant to help with loading.
So one thing I could see that would be a issue with a “top loading” shotgun is weather and debris issues. I could imagine getting a lot more chances of dirt, sand, water, hail, etc. with the loading gate faced upward. If you’re in winter environment you’re just having water go straight into the mag tube which can and will freeze unless you somehow make a perfect seal and nothing can get in (would love to see a Garand thumb torture test of that). Same if let’s say you’re getting shelled at with explosions all around you, you’re going to get a lot of debris potentially landing in that loading gate.
I think if maybe we’re talking like shorty breaching shotgun, or even like a “shockwave” type thing it could work well. Were you’re expecting maybe only a handful of bad guys in a room, but maybe you just need to top off super quickly if you run out. But you’re less likely to have to be in a prolonged fight. Which at that point you’re going to go for something with more accuracy, rate of fire and ammo capacity
I think another con to top-loading is exposure to battlefield fouling, like dirt/mud/debris falling from above, as well as water logging during rain.
I don't know if immediate jamming would really be the result, but I imagine it would make weapon cleaning and maintenance more frequent.
I wonder this, because bolt-actions are top-loading, and rifles like my Enfield No.4 MK1* have detachable box mags for easier cleaning, and since you aren't gonna be getting powder residue in the mag like you would with a semi-auto like a AR-15, that leads me to believe top-loading systems are more prone to falling debris/liquids.
I could be totally wrong about that, but out of the hundreds of rounds I've put through my Enfield, the mag is still clean, so whatever would soil it must be environmental, not your munitions.
Of course, any gun that gets dropped or slopped in the mud is gonna need cleaning, regardless of where it's getting loaded or ejecting, even the AR platform with the dust cover probably won't have the dust cover closed during a firefight.
shells were also made out of mostly cardboard untill the early mid-1900s.. so you really didn't want to get your shells wet
@@shadowopsairman1583 Yeah, I know, I said that, and I own one.
@@PapaLyser Yep. People forget that plastics are a relatively new technology. Heck, when my dad was in Vietnam, he was stationed on a Michelin rubber tree plantation; plastic/synthetic tires are very new.
Now you got me wondering when plastic shot shells became common place.
Also, plastic shot shells can still get ruined if submerged in water. Crimping isn't a guarantee that it's water tight. I suppose a simple remedy would be to drill some holes in the tube for water to drain, should waterlogging occur.
Again, not sure how big of an issue this would be for a top-loading shotgun. Would need testing.
Isn't that Russian pump-barrel shotgun top loaded? Again, not exactly market dominating, but if it is a top loader, that's proof that the form factor has existed for at least a decade without taking off like wildfire.
Yep. RMB-93
top feed on a pump action is partly due to flex physics of making the pump arm go further off of it's centerline, similar to how a pistol grip on the pump grip causes angled stresses. On a semi-auto like the bernelli in theory it should work just fine, but added into the familiarization, ergenomics, and 'if iit ain't broke, don't fix it"
Something that this very channel has taught us, that the pursuit of making an unorthodox gun just for its cool factor lives on in history after utterly bankrupting its inventor or the company who tries to make/sell it
I believe there is a Russian shotgun that has a top tube, and is in production and sold as a combat shotgun. A few commercial variants actually made it to the US. I do seem to remember that the feed is from the side though instead of the top. Reportedly very good and strong design. I would buy one if I could ever find it.
Well, there was Russian shotgun named of RMB-93 "Rys'" (Bobcat), at least that was commercial name in Russian market. The feed was exactly from top, quality was poor, barrel had a backlash, as it was actually reversed pump-action gun, when you need to push barrel forward, and then back with high hope that the cartridge will not be jammed or will not jump-out. Mag feed window was with specific door cover, which needs to be opened for tube reload. This part was made from thin stamped steel sheet, easy to bend or to brake. Those ones were not produced in quantities, as design had no single advantage, only nice collection of flaws.
A moderate issue with top load, is the elevator. In bottom load gravity helps seat the shell within the elevator. In top load you would need additional components to prevent it from “falling” into the bolt/chamber prematurely, and inducing a jam. Especially when considering shot shells are rimmed. It’s totally doable- but just requires additional design work, which as Ian said, is more simply overcome with a box mag.
There is a existing solution for that problem, the example being the shell carrier of the Letter lying and some 22 rifles. In this case, it would rise up, a shell would be pushed into the carrier, it would drop down and the bolt would push it into the chamber.
With modern conflicts having new dangers of small, quick moving, airborne targets (drones with a grenade) I wonder if shotguns have a potential use there, and with that new “tactical” opportunities.
I can't remember if it was the Armourers bench or someone like that but they were talking about mossbergs being used in Ukraine to try and hit FPV drones
by the time a drone is in shotgun range, youre already dead, you just dont know it.
@@ripvanwinkle2002sometimes but I've also seen slow drones. If I was out there I'd feel better with a shotgun
@@ripvanwinkle2002I don’t think that’s anything like always true. Currently a lot of the small drones only carry a warhead similar to a 40mm grenade. If you can stop it from getting really close to you or a vehicle/trench/bunker door then you can save yourself or save others.
reject anti-air missiles, return to trench sweeper
One advantage I see for top loaders is the low bore axis, especially on shorter guns. Like the Marushin Mateba, the barrel is closer to the handle, which means, especially if the gun is very light like a Serbu Shotty, you will have less recoil. All of the top loader's benefits are ergonomics, both for loading and recoil.
5:00 the one time i ever need to speed reload my shotgun is super super fun but rare- when I am sitting in a field and if a massive flock of geese comes down into our decoy spread and the geese do what known in slang as a “tornado” where literally THOUSANDS of geese can decend onto your field and they swirl around in a circle while landing and you just shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot!!!!! And you get your limit of geese really really fast. Only happened to me once in my life goose hunting snow geese and I ran out of shells!😅 It is a sight to behold! Whether you are hunting or just observing nature it is a sight to behold! And you gotta rapid reload your shotgun.
take a 2nd shot gun ?
Pita reloading a 2 round limited mag tube over and over. Dumb regs!
@@littlehillsno no no. take extra boxes of shells!!! Two boxes of shells is usually plenty for an average goose hunt. But like I said we ran out! And the story I described is a completely unpredictable occurrence in goose hunting. And, weighing your bag down with extra boxes of shells is also annoying. And like I said it only happened to me once in 40 years. But yah extra boxes of shells is the only way around that. Wait no😅. I am a terrible shot. Haha. If i was a good shot and actually got one goose per shot, I’d not have run out of shells. But I am not a great shot so I get a goose about every 6 shells😅
@@jagx234yup! dumb regs. In my state we have a 3 shell limit. It is stupid. A bag limit is a bag limit. If you are poacher and take more than the legal bag limit of birds… ain’t no shell limit in the shotgun going to stop that. You can poach birds just as easily with a three shell limit in Texas where I am.
Wouldn't it be easier for water and other matter to ingress? Like in a muddy rainy environment for example?
If I remember correctly it wasn't designed for that sort of warfare. It was designed for heavily urbanised and boarding starships combat.
@@insertname3977wait. The human race has starships?
@johnm3907 In the context of the fictional shotgun presented in this video which is why Ian is talking about why it's not a common design. Though technically we do have spaceships.
@@insertname3977 Fair enough. Although I've lived in London (very urbanised) and it rains all the time. It just seems like a weakness that stuff can fall into the chamber. I was thinking (using a different example); if you're fighting and a grenade/shell goes off near you. Then dirt from the ground that was thrown into the air could potentially fall into the mechanism. I agree it's a very cool looking video-game gun, but it looks like a crap-magnet to me.
I think one consideration is that the gun becomes top heavy. A tube mag on the bottom doesn't try and tilt the gun one way or another with its loaded weight and changing weight as the gun fires rounds.
Pistol grip.
The only design I think that could see a big top load advantage would be some kind of integrated rotary box so you could feed shells via a strip clip, or an integrated vertical box that that might avoid certain laws restricting detachable mags.
Thinking like a 12 gauge sks lol
most people who would use a "Combat" Shotgun now probably use a big drum magazine maybe a box magazine ... but i still would love to see more top loading shotguns they are just cool even if they are just a novelty item for most people at the moment ...
You’d be hard pressed to find a practical and reliable “combat” shotgun that utilizes a drum/magazine feed system. Too many variables to account for that decreases the reliability of a tube system shotgun like the M4.
I agree that from a sporting point of view, quick reloads on shotguns was not a priority. However, I beg to differ on when the need for quick reloading shotguns was created. Since the advent of the 1897 Winchester pump shotgun being use in WW1, I believe a use for quick reloading shotguns was spawned. However, when trench warfare fell mostly out of favor, the shotgun for military use was mostly relegated to guard duty. Fast forward to today and military Doctrine has relegated the shotgun to breaching doors despite its awesome capabilities in close quarter combat.
That last part is probably for a couple reasons. First is that buckshot ain't doing jack to near peer opponents with ballistic plates on em. Or at least won't be as effective as a rifle. Second is they're not as versatile as a rifle and shotgun ammo is significantly heavier. Why increase the burden on your troops and on your logistics just to gain a slight advantage in a niche combat scenario? Carbines do the job just fine at close to medium range. They can perform suppressive fire too, have light ammunition you can carry a lot of, and a good magazine capacity. All of which are infinitely more advantageous to a soldier and the military than having a gun thah can throw a bunch of lead with a single release of the sear.
It's not like World War 1 where not only was the weapon selection limited given that there were zero models of assault rifle, only a handful of models of SMG that were hardly what I would call mass produced, and at most one or two types of machine pistols, but it was also a time where close quarters firefights were entirely to be expected within the trenches if the enemy had managed to get past No Man's Land.
All that said, in civilian applications shotguns are awesome. Most criminals are unarmored, and you don't necessarily need suppressive fire capability or great magazine capacity. It's good for the typical distances in a house. The main drawback is that they tend to be longer to accommodate for the capacity in their tube magazines.
I'd bet this gun is no quicker to load than a bottom feed.
@McCaroni_Sup while near peer soldiers would likely be body armored, this is not the case in dealing with a counter insurgency and house clearing operation where breaching doors was common place and jihadies were typically not armored. Armored or not, a face full of 00 buck will ruin your day.
@@EruditeEnigmaStL True. By "not doing jack" I wasn't really referring to its combat effectiveness, but its penetration. You don't have to penetrate armor to score a disabling hit on target though.
That said, I'm still unconvinced that it's worth it to put a shotgun in a main combat role even against Jihadis in CQB for the reasons I outlined earlier. Breaching sure, but I know I wouldn't want to be the one fumbling shells in combat.
I mean WWI is the only example of shotguns being widely used and even then the US was the only ones to use it and they played a fairly minor part in the war. After the war submachine guns very quickly replaced the little niche shotguns had and so they almost entirely fell out of favor, their only upside is that they are less likely to penetrate walls but other than that an SMG is usually better.
the only practical application for a top loading shotgun would be to be able to load it with a stripper clip/en bloc clip style of feeding, which i don't think would be easy to do with a tube magazine, and detachable box magazine-fed shotguns already exist, so it's pretty pointless
The practical application would be ALL loading, not just with speed loaders. There ARE, however, tube-fed speed loaders. They're a cylinder with several shells inside, in line with each other, with some kind of plunger or tab on the end that allows the user to push them all in very quickly.
I think tube fed shotguns are best for bird hunting; specifically quail in my experience. If you go walking across wide swaths of land to scare out cubbies, you want your gun to be relatively light so you can fire instinctively as quickly as possible. If you hit multiple cubbies or a big enough one you may want to quickly load shells on the go without having to pause. Semiauto tube-feds come into their element here since you can slip in a shell or two between cubbies and barely have to slow down at all if you have a good vest full of shells to pull from. It might be nice to have a more readily visible tube if something hangs up, but if you're comfortable with your gun, it's not really necessary.
One thing not mentioned is that it adds unnecessary bulkiness to a pump shotgun to make the pump and tube not take up the same space on the gun.
Nothing stopping the action slide from encircling the barrel instead of the mag tube. Same same.
@@advil000 If someone could create a design to work that way then yes it would solve that.
seems like it could've gone either way? my best guess is keeping the hot barrel away from your fingers is probably desirable, so tube on bottom maybe makes more sense?
So the pump gets hot instead? You can keep your hand away from a hot barrel. You can't do that with a pump if it heats up
@@johnm3907maybe you misunderstood? im saying tube on bottom, in the pump, because otherwise you have to put the barrel in the pump, right?
Actually my hometown of Tula designed and produced a top loading shotgun of sorts in the 90s. we called it the Rys (lynx) or the RMb-93
The working system of the RMb-93 is itself an odd slide-action operation called "Inverted Cycle", similar in concept to the one used in the South-African Truvelo Armoury Neostead shotgun (the only other mass-produced firearm to be based upon this system). The feeding tube is placed over the barrel rather than under it, and is accessed through a flip-up cover on the top of the receiver. Once the weapon is loaded, a shell is chambered by pushing the slide forward-then-backward, instead of the standard backward-then-forward motion of the forend found on most pump-action weapons. Having the RMb-93 a fixed breech face and movable barrel, the operation moves the entire barrel assembly. Once a round is fired and another is chambered, the empty shell falls downwards to the ground, pushed by its own weight. The design of the RMb-93 "Rys" carries several advantages: the ejection system makes the gun fully ambidextrous, and the magazine located over the barrel gives the shotgun a low center of mass and reduces upward recoil. The main drawback of the overall design stands in the fact that the weapon has a pistol grip with upfolding metal stock, which when folded finds itself right up the feeding tube. The RMb-93 thus can not be reloaded without extending or removing the stock, a disadvantage if it is being used tactically with a folded stock.
ua-cam.com/video/19qzZ_oUY8g/v-deo.html
More of the "magazine on bottom" was because the original breaches on tube magazine firearms opened from the top and if it opened on bottom the cartridges would fall out before loading. Although the Ithaca loaded and ejected from the bottom, it had different parts than "convention".
As a defensive shotgun, the tube on top would offer several advantages: lowering the bore reduces muzzle rise; the sight plane is less important, unless using slugs, and could be set for a 50 yard pattern center and the offset would not be too horrid at closer range; the loading gate could be on the side, just above the ejection port, similar to a lever rifle gate, which would reduce the effect of rainfall
The main deterrents are the startup cost & overcoming "if it ain't broke" mindset. Minishells increase magazine capacity, but there are not a lot of offerings on that front either.