1718 Puckle Gun

[Baxter]

"Gentlemen" often/usually bought their commissions with the understanding that the enemy would not kill or wound them in battle but, rather, understand that the common soldier of the force was their target. "Don't shoot me, I'm only my king's messenger." ? baxter

 

[Wes/Tex]

to whomever:
Think of what a "chain fire" would be like on that Puckle Gun!...not to change the subject totally, just semi-totally! :blah: :rotf:

 

[TFoley]

Wheel locks were far too complicated and delicate for the average soldier.

Notwithstanding that a wheel-lock pistol [for example] cost almost 40 times that of a matchlock, according to documentary evidence purtaining to the English Civil War.

tac

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Imagine the damage a troop of soldiers with 20-30 of them could have done!

I don't think since they are crew served weapons, And after nine volleys, a bayonet charge would take out the entire unit and capture the puckles, that field use would have been a good idea. However, mounted in a fortress.... you could wreck havoc on folks storming the walls, and would have protection for reloading... shipboard use would be good as well.

During the time period and long after there were rules of war that would have made using the Puckle gun comparable with modern army's using chemical weapons.

Things like that just weren't done.

UM actually as they note a different type of projectile for "Christian" enemies, the gun was very much usable in the warfare of the 18th century. If mounted on ships, you could do whatever you wanted vs. pirates, and the gun was patented the year the Blackbeard died.

The limited use, and the large expense, was probably what caused it's lack of adoption.

The LeMatt revolver is rather cool, but was very expensive and slow to manufacture, and buying a brace of them compared to buying four Colt Navy revolvers and a SxS shotgun, the Colt revolvers win. I submit this is a similar situation as the Puckle.

LD

 

[TFoley]

Imagine the damage a troop of soldiers with 20-30 of them could have done!

I don't think since they are crew served weapons, And after nine volleys, a bayonet charge would take out the entire unit and capture the puckles, that field use would have been a good idea. However, mounted in a fortress.... you could wreck havoc on folks storming the walls, and would have protection for reloading... shipboard use would be good as well.

During the time period and long after there were rules of war that would have made using the Puckle gun comparable with modern army's using chemical weapons.

Things like that just weren't done.

UM actually as they note a different type of projectile for "Christian" enemies, the gun was very much usable in the warfare of the 18th century. If mounted on ships, you could do whatever you wanted vs. pirates, and the gun was patented the year the Blackbeard died.

The limited use, and the large expense, was probably what caused it's lack of adoption.

The LeMatt revolver is rather cool, but was very expensive and slow to manufacture, and buying a brace of them compared to buying four Colt Navy revolvers and a SxS shotgun, the Colt revolvers win. I submit this is a similar situation as the Puckle.

LD

Hey! Don't aim your post at THIS boy - me, I didn't write ANY of that stuff! :nono:

tac

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Tac,

Nobody suggested that you did.

I merely hit the reply at the bottom of the thread as is common practice on this forum. Since you didn't write any of the quotes that I used, it was obviously not aimed at you as an individual, but merely a reply to the thread. In this reply, however, I have personally addressed you, so this is a reply to your post. I hope this doesn't confuse you further.

LD

 

[TFoley]

Tac,

Nobody suggested that you did.

I merely hit the reply at the bottom of the thread as is common practice on this forum. Since you didn't write any of the quotes that I used, it was obviously not aimed at you as an individual, but merely a reply to the thread. In this reply, however, I have personally addressed you, so this is a reply to your post. I hope this doesn't confuse you further.

LD

Hey, I get the blame for lots of things, so I didn't want anybody to think that I'd somehow put in something contentious that I later removed.

Not confused.

Just old and cranky. :surrender:

tac

 

[Grandpa Ron]

As I recall even in the Civil War era, some officers considered breech loaders a poor idea because the troops would waste too much ammunition.

I wonder what they will say about 21th century warfare techniques in the 24th century. :hmm:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

In the 24th century they will learn all they need to about our tactics and firepower from a few scraps of "A-team" reruns.

 

[Grumpa]

I had the pleasure of seeing a Puckle Gun some years ago, in the Tower of London.

 

[Coot]

As I recall, a study some years ago showed that the number of rounds expended per casualty has been going up at an exponential rate from war to war as industrial manufacture of munitions and the rate of fire of weapons continue to improve.

 

[Alden]

True.

At Gettysburg, the Union fired 4-1/2 million rounds of rifle and smoothbore ammo. Lee's killed and wounded by them: 24,000 (not including artillery). 'bout 188 shots per person. Lee shot over 3 million rounds causing 20,500 KIA/WIA/MIA or used more than 146 rounds per person.

By Vietnam it was 25,000 rounds per KIA.