|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Apr 28, 2011 6:05:51 GMT
This is way out of my ballpark here, but for a novel I'm writing, muskets and similar weapons feature rather heavily. Seeing as I have very little knowledge of firearms in general and none pertaining to muskets (beyond that they're muzzle loaded single shots), I've come to our gun fans here on SBG. Which action is most reliable? Wheellock, flintlock, snaplock, matchlock, caplock? Just on what I have read online, caplock seems like it would be most reliable as there's no flint to lose, no powder pan to pour out your gunpowder if you hold it wrong, no spark to go out, and seems faster than a wheellock; I'd never actually heard of a snaplock until I went looking, so I have no idea of its pros and cons.
|
|
|
Post by LittleJP on Apr 28, 2011 12:43:15 GMT
Flintlock seemed to be the most common/cheapest, and much more reliable than the older wheellock and matchlocks.
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Apr 28, 2011 15:28:40 GMT
The first thing is where in history does the story take place. All the action you asked about were in different parts of history. The caplock of couse is the best. If you are going to include alot of firearms in your story, you need to do alot more reseach find out alot more than what you can get by going on here.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Apr 28, 2011 15:46:17 GMT
The story is complete fantasy with no parallels to history at all. It's a spiritual successor of sorts to my debut duet (none of which is complete; I just have to get this idea out of my head so I can move one), so I'm looking for the most reliable musket action there is. But, if I had to pick a time, it'd be about the the mid-1800s, so probably American Civil War era. Although, I'm trying to stick to single shots so as not to place too much emphasis on the firearms.
|
|
Talon
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,554
|
Post by Talon on Apr 28, 2011 18:00:17 GMT
in that case it has to be the percussion (snap cap) way more reliable,it isnt affected by rain or wind like a flintlock is,wheel locks are a work of art,but if they broke, you really needed accsess to a trained clock maker to repair them, yeah it has to be the percussion cap something like the enfield 1853 musket,or the springfield rifled musket would fit in you're time frame
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Apr 28, 2011 18:17:19 GMT
Thanks a bunch, Talon. One of the things I couldn't find in my searches (probably because it's obvious to everyone but me): I imagine the snapcap has to be replaced after each shot, correct?
|
|
Talon
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,554
|
Post by Talon on Apr 28, 2011 18:25:22 GMT
absolutely correct vincent,they're one shot deals,both the enfield and the springfield fired minie balls (think of a very large air rifle pellet),the bullet had a hollow in the base that expanded to fill the grooves of the rifling ,it made loading easier but also ensured the bullet would expand enough to grip the rifling ,giving a good seal and also impart spin (they caused devastating wounds)
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Apr 28, 2011 20:38:07 GMT
Just to be clear, the spinning of the Minnie ball (bullet) had virtually nothing to do with "devastating" wounds. There's just a slight spiral effect that stabilizes the bullet in flight (think "throwing an American football" kind of spiral effect). The nature of the wounds were caused by the diameter and weight of the projectile. And the increase in "wounding capacity" of rifled muskets firing Minie balls was due to the drastic increase in accuracy, which led to a lot more people be hit at longer distances.
There was a big change in military smallarms in the 1840-1860 timeframe. That period began with smoothbore muskets firing round balls, with pretty much the same accuracy and rate of fire since the late 1600s. And just 10-20 years later, with the growing prevalence of ammunition like the Minie ball and rifled barrels, the distance at which accurate small arms fire could be routinely delivered had gone from about 50-75 yards out to several hundred hards. So battle tactics changed dramatically during that short time.
|
|
Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Apr 29, 2011 2:55:48 GMT
I'll add my two cents.
AFAIK, Mike got it right. This new type of firearm made cavalry almost completely obsolete and strongly affected how war were waged. The Crimean War (in the early and mid 1850s), for example, was a sampling of WWI. I might add that I think that this also made melee weapons far less important on the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Apr 29, 2011 5:09:50 GMT
Flinters present their own unique challenges. However, when you are out of percussion caps, you are done. Stock up.
|
|
|
Post by Bogus on Apr 29, 2011 11:48:25 GMT
Same could be said of powder. Percussion cap is definitely the most reliable, but it was a rather late development that didn't come about until after all the famous "sword and musket" battles of the 17th and 18th centuries. Flintlock ruled those, and was generally pretty good but takes setup time and sometimes fails to touch off. Matchlock and the older and more exotic types were generally pretty worthless aside from the old adage that having any kind of firearm is better than not.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Apr 29, 2011 14:54:32 GMT
There is definitely a trend toward easier and more reliable ignition. However, in John Wayne's "The Alamo", there are a predominance of flinters. I think the movie is quite accurate in this regard. So, even this late into the 19th century, the flinter was a very popular choice. Stocking up ConsiderationsPercussion Caps: 7000 grains in a pound. 50 grains per charge for a 50cal round ball. --- 140 charges per pound. Let's say 150 percussion caps per pound (you might use a few to vent the flash hole after cleaning). Flints: Over at this muzzleloading forum posters say they expect to get about 50-60 shots per flint. Some of the better locks may not be as hard on flints and extend life of a flint. This works out to be about 2 flints per pound of powder all things being equal. I think it is much easier finding a non-custom caplock with reliable and fast ignition than a flintlock, which usually requires some extra effort to properly tune (see the above thread), thus reducing lock times and insuring more reliable ignition. Some Muzzleloader CandidatesI've been very pleased with the two caplocks I've purchased from Cabelas: Blue Ridge Percussion RifleKentucky Percussion RifleThey are made by Davide Pedersoli for Cabelas. You can spend twice this much for a low end custom rifle (and wait a year for delivery), or you can get a fine starter piece. Between the two I like the Kentucky rifle best: It is shorter, better balanced and has a more comfortable wrist. The Blue Ridge is a lovely piece--it looks good. The Kentucky feels good. Each comes with a set trigger which you can fire with a single long trigger pull, or set it and touch it off with a short, light pull. While you are playing with your Cabelas beater, you can make arrangements to have a smith build you a Hawkin or a classic RevWar Flinter.
|
|
|
Post by Bogus on Apr 29, 2011 18:44:49 GMT
Interesting. I've been wanting a flintlock pistol for a while, about all I've seen are DIY kits. On the plus side they aren't too expensive, at least compared to those rifles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2011 19:17:14 GMT
An interesting aside: In the days of flintlock usage, guns did not come assembled. You could buy the lock mechanism, the gunstock and the barrel as separate parts. But if you bought a whole gun, it came "lock, stock and barrel."
|
|
|
Post by Elheru Aran on Apr 29, 2011 23:31:22 GMT
Something worth considering may be what's called a tape primer. It's a design very similar to what's used in toy cap-guns-- basically a line of percussion caps encased within a thin strip of folded paper. It's rolled up and held in a compartment under the lock; pulling the hammer advances the tape upward, pull and it fires. The only other action you have to do is loading the main charge of powder and bullet into the barrel; eliminates the action of priming the gun. They tried this out a few times, but the main limiting factor of the time was making a small enough charge to fit into the paper strip with the powder of the times.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Apr 30, 2011 16:40:51 GMT
Do you know how often this occurred--purchasing parts rather than a fully assembled firearm? The assembly line production we are accustomed to, with interchangeable parts, is still a few decades off at this time. So, there is probably considerable work left for the individual who buys parts and not complete guns. But not beyond the skills of most. Today when one purchases a parts kit for a flinter, one purchases the lock, stock and barrel (plus numerous other smaller parts). Assembly is a tad challenging, but not "impossible". The stock, needs to be inlet for the lock and barrel tang. All the metal needs to be polished (brass) or blued/browned (steel). The stock is completely shaped. It is not a stock blank. It has been inlet to a great degree for a particular barrel profile, leaving you with final inletting which mates barrel tang and lock. One with a modicum of skill one should be able to complete such a kit and produce an honest to goodness flintlock or caplock. Track of the Wolf
|
|
tsafa
Senior Forumite
Posts: 3,309
|
Post by tsafa on May 5, 2011 16:56:44 GMT
Best??? Depends what you like. The Caplocks where the latest and give the best value and reliability. I like Flintlocks because I like the idea of not having to depend on industry for a primer, plus more challenging to shoot well.
Funny thing here is that Caplocks where not used with muskets. They were used with rifles or shotguns. The distinction here is that Caplocks came into use after the wide spread use of rifling and that at that point firearms had split into rifles or smothbore shotguns. This is just semantics as a point of interest.
For "most" of the age of Flintlocks all firearms were smoothbore. That is what I would consider a true musket. It was common to put either a large caliber ball or multiple small balls into it depending on what you wanted to shoot. When they started putting rifling into firearms around the time of the American Revolution, the guns changed to something else... Flintlock Rifles. The rifling technology was well established by the time caplocks came into use, so any caplock with a smothbore was a shotgun.
Shooting Flintlocks is very challenging and will improve your shooting because every shot is a Hang Fire (delay fire). There is a very perceptible delay between the time the flint makes a spank, the pan ignites and then the main charge ignites. You have to really discipline yourself to stay on target (follow through) though the whole chain reaction. It really helps to shoot from a supported position even at close range targets. Be sure to wear eye protection (as always) because there is a small explosion happening near your face as the pan lights up. When you develop the discipline to shoot accurately though all that, you will be a top shot with modern rifles.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on May 5, 2011 17:04:54 GMT
Tsafa: Thanks for the info. As I said in the OP, this is way out of my ballpark, so I'm rather clueless. And I meant best in the sense of most reliable for the novice shooter (since I know a trained gunner could be an equal shot with all types mentioned).
|
|
|
Post by MrAcheson on May 5, 2011 18:37:54 GMT
Actually they didn't. The Mexican-American War was in the late 1840s and used Napoleonic tactics and smoothbore muskets. Almost all of the high ranking officers in the US Civil War fought in the Mexican-American War. One of the reasons the US Civil War was so deadly is that they started the war still using the same Napoleonic tactics, but with rifled muskets and the minie ball. By the end of the US Civil War, they had moved to siege warfare using entrenchments and earthworks more like the First World War. Even after rifling and caplocks had come to dominate firearms construction, people still referred to full-sized rifles with long barrels as "rifled muskets" or often just muskets. Musket became a size category like carbine.There was no such thing as interchangeable parts prior to the 1800s. Even when militaries had standardized on a weapon pattern like the British with the Brown Bess, tolerances were such that a smith had to make parts fit. Military units had gunsmiths that traveled with them to act as armorers.
Around 1800, Eli Whitney took on the problem and supposedly beat it. Whitney had a famous demonstration when he was trying to get a contract to make muskets for the US military. He brought ten guns to the demonstration, broke them down into components, mixed the components up in a big pile, and then built ten working guns out of that pile. There is some question as to whether this was a staged demonstration and the guns were specially chosen so that they could do this. Most people agree that interchangeable parts didn't really become practical or possible until the modern milling machine was invented around 1820. Milling machines let you remove a lot of the artisan-to-artisan variation from weapon construction.
One thing with the caplock is that the mercury fulminates required to manufacture them are the result of relatively modern chemistry. If your fantasy world doesn't have industrial revolution levels of chemistry or machingin/manufacturing then flintlocks are a much better choice.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on May 6, 2011 3:35:53 GMT
That's good to know, but relatively pointless for my purposes; I'd intended all along to use a fantasy mechanism, but I needed a historical action to base it on.
|
|