# were revolvers in ww1?

**URL:** <https://battlefieldforum.co/t/were-revolvers-in-ww1/102281>\
**Category:** General Discussion\
**Created:** [June 19, 2016, 2:44am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/were-revolvers-in-ww1/102281 "2016-06-19T02:44:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MegaloDorian](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@MegaloDorian](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/MegaloDorian)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 7:02am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/were-revolvers-in-ww1/102281/21 "2016-06-19T07:02:00Z")

</div>

Ah yes, speaking of single-action. . .

Anybody remember the “fire delay” with revolvers in Battlefield 4’s earlier days?

It was highly questioned by many, but the reason why it was implemented was to sync the gun’s animation with the time it fired. If a double-action revolver is fired the instant you push the fire button, the hammer co­cking animation and cylinder rotation animations wouldn’t be played until after the shot is fired. Hence why the delay was originally implemented.

I actually wouldn’t mind if most revolvers are fired in single-action in Battlefield 1 if it means accurate, synced animations while still being able to retain rate of fire (a single-action revolver can still be fired very quickly). It’d really just be a different, more synced animation and not any actual statistical changes. Although, the Webley-Fosbery would be an exception, due to its semi-automatic action.

[Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/were-revolvers-in-ww1/102281.md?page=1)