Flintlock repeaters

Of course other old mechanisms count too, I mean guns before advent of metallic cartridges, until early 19th century. Of antique repeaters apart from multibarelled guns I found only Kalthoff, Lorenzoni and Cookson, but there is very little information about them, Kalthoff has its own wikipedia article, but no sketches of the mechanism. The other two types have even less information, Lorenzoni design having some wheel for transporting powder and ball. How much were they effective and what was the cost in terms of ordinary muskets of that age?

For the most part repeating flintlocks are essentially one long barrel with multiple charges and bullets, and multiple flintlocks along the side. Isaiah Jenning's repeating rifle is a good example:



Data is hard to come by for them, primarily because they were never used by troops (at least officially). Cost would be slightly higher than a standard musket, most of these were individually produced pieces by a particular craftsman.

As to how effective they were it's hard to say since they never saw any real use. Looking at the design it seems fairly obvious it would be prone to fouling, accuracy would be an issue and most designs required specific balls or powder to work. In terms of military use they're simply worthless, throughout the period a soldier would be alternating between bayonet and bullet so the ability to rapidly switch between the two (i.e. unfix a bayonet and ready the gun for firing) would be far more important than being able to fire several volleys without reloading; particularly since by it's nature it's going to take you longer to load eight rounds into the gun than one.

No repeating firearms were used by any nation's military until the advent of the metal cartridge to facilitate loading. Militaries then had the strange idea that soldiers would fire off all of their ammunition too quickly and thus preferred single shot breechloading rifles to magazine fed rifles for some time; the early Lee Enfield with a magazine cut-off is an example of a compromise between this (retarded) school of thought and the obvious advantages of having a magazine fed rifle.

Non-standard weapons were not used on the battlefield. All militaries, by the advent of mass-issuing firearms, would kill you for having a non-standard weapon. Why? Because then you didn't have the standard weapon, which means you (probably) sold it or at least abandoned it, which means you're going to a drumhead court martial and probably going to be executed. No soldier carries two longarms when he can carry one; this **** is heavy after a ten kilometer march.

Cost-wise, Xenir, they're even more expensive than your standard flintlock (let's say Tower Pattern) musket, which is already the most expensive piece of a soldier's equipment. They can be relied upon to be unreliable - good repeating actions don't come around until the bolt action system which has a much more reliable feed than the lever-action.

I'll ask an armourer-historian for you, but the quick search I've done of the books here reveals even less than what you've already stated: there's no sketch of the Kalthoff, no mention of the Lorenzoni, and only a bit on the Cookson which when I search Google, I find online as well.

The only reason soldiers these days don't fire off all their ammunition is because they have superior, modern training and, even more so, because it's part of modern doctrine to fire all day long. Suppressive fire is the tactic of 21st century so far.

Soldiers with the level of training they had in the 1700-1900 (and many conscripted) are ignorant, scared animals. Just like a young spider bite, at the first startle they would empty every bullet they had at an enemy.

AKM said:

No repeating firearms were used by any nation's military until the advent of the metal cartridge to facilitate loading.

Click to expand...

Caplock revolvers were being issued to officers from the 18th century onwards, though it depends on how you define a repeating firearm.

Militaries then had the strange idea that soldiers would fire off all of their ammunition too quickly and thus preferred single shot breechloading rifles

Click to expand...

Given battles were still decided by the bayonet up until the mid nineteenth century that would be an incredibly silly belief. The main obstacle to adopting repeating rifles was largely down to reliability and logistics. Plus of course it's not till the 20th century you have repeater rifles which can compete for single action rifles in terms of accuracy and power.

Non-standard weapons were not used on the battlefield. All militaries, by the advent of mass-issuing firearms, would kill you for having a non-standard weapon.

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. In fact during the Penninsula war it was common for troops to replace their standard issue Brown Bess with foreign guns, particularly light infantry who'd often trade their muskets for rifles. Same applies to the 95th, although ostensibly issued with a Baker it wasn't unusual to see Jager and even American designs being wielded by troops. Generally speaking, since the regiment's colonel was expected to equip his regiment out of his own pocket it was common for weapons to vary, particularly a regiment which had been in the field for any length of time.
Certainly having a different gun wouldn't be a capital offence. Even losing one's gun would only warrant a flogging at most (and far more commonly simply deducting the cost from the troopers pay). There's certainly no court martial I'm aware of where the accused was arrested for using a different gun to that he'd been issued.

nijis said:

I assume most of them would have the freedom to bring their own weapons to the muster.

Click to expand...

Not to mention dead men charge a lot less for their weapons than gunsmiths.

Archonsod said:

AKM said:

No repeating firearms were used by any nation's military until the advent of the metal cartridge to facilitate loading.

Click to expand...

Caplock revolvers were being issued to officers from the 18th century onwards, though it depends on how you define a repeating firearm.

Click to expand...

Did they make the bullets bigger?

No, but they were cruise control for awesome.

Austupaio said:

The only reason soldiers these days don't fire off all their ammunition is because they have superior, modern training and, even more so, because it's part of modern doctrine to fire all day long. Suppressive fire is the tactic of 21st century so far.

Soldiers with the level of training they had in the 1700-1900 (and many conscripted) are ignorant, scared animals. Just like a young spider bite, at the first startle they would empty every bullet they had at an enemy.

Click to expand...

Actually mate, fire discipline (controlling one's fire) has been a feature of warfare since the beginning of recorded history, otherwise battles would consist of all javelins being flung pell-mell instead of controlled volleys, as we know the Romans did and similar to how archers fired by command in the medieval. Modern doctrine does not state "fire all day long," and suppressive fires have in fact been falling out of vogue with modern counterinsurgency experience.

I happen to know a lot of conscript soldiers (Swiss and Finnish friends) and they're all good, well-trained soldiers in my opinion; my background is defence analysis, military history, and instructing small unit tactics. I know that earlier in history (1700-1900) soldiers were not as well trained, but battlefield tactics were considerably easier; most of it consisted of standardized drill manouevres and the loading and firing drills; again, firing to command.

Historically, interestingly, we see adoption of "Light Infantry" tactics and abandonment of controlled fire (loosened formations, use of terrain cover, firing by pairs etc) by all units with combat experience in the American Revolutionary War (Mark Urban, Fusiliers) and in the Peninsular Campaign (Light Division. See: Rifles, Mark Urban), but we see that these 'poorly trained' soldiers did not fire off all of their ammunition in the first contact. I cite Mark Urban since he's got very readable accounts of this, everything else is a bit turgid. In the offchance you happen to buy it, might as well have recommended a good book with the appropriate data rather than some pain in the ass historical tome, right?

And with the adoption of magazine fed rifles, the same soldiers who are believed to be liable to "fire off all of their rounds at first startle" by their own officers, don't. Boer War demonstrates this rather well, as it comes in on the tail of the whole "thou shalt not have a magazine fed rifle or thy troops will not have ammo after five minutes of battle" thinking - and the British Army did not change over the course of adopting various single shot and magazine fed rifles.

The only troops I am aware of to fire off all of their ammunition at "first startle" are American conscript soldiers in Vietnam issued the M16. Their fire discipline is demonstrably very poor. Soviet conscripts in Afghanistan had similar issues, so it's not a function of being in a jungle. It's a function of having a fully automatic weapon and poor leadership.

Nijis said:

Yes they were, all the time. Irregulars were involved on a large scale in the Seven Years' War, the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, and probably every other major conflict as well. I assume most of them would have the freedom to bring their own weapons to the muster.

Militaries fielded all kinds of experimental troops as well -- Austrian air-rifle jaegers,for example. With all the dozens and dozens of active militaries in the 18th and 19th centuries out there competing with each other, and watching each other, and fighting irregular forces, and experimenting, I doubt seriously that any genuine affordable battlefield-worthy repeating firearm would be excluded from use simply because of doctrine.

Click to expand...

My mistake, allow me to rephrase: No soldier spontaneously carries a new weapon*. Doctrine is God, especially in this era. A failure to understand this is a failure to understand the nature of warfare in this period. Irregulars are not soldiers; nor on the topic of this thread do I feel they would have access to very expensive experimental "repeating" flintlock designs - those who had enough money to own them had enough money to buy commissions in regular units or avoid fighting altogether. To my knowledge, none of these experimental designs - like the Austrian "Windbueschejaeger" or the British Rifle regiments with their Bakers - were adopted for limited issue use, which would be the second distinction.

* - Exceptions would be extenuating circumstances; if his lock mainspring breaks, pick up a French one or a fallen comrade's until you can have it repaired. If he's cut off from his unit, again, pick up and use what works; but importantly any weapon acquired in this manner is not official and cannot be considered widespread use. Almost every invention sees some use, but very little of it is historically notable. Repeating flintlocks, in the tune of this thread, don't see any use that I am aware of. As I explain to Archonsod below, any citations you can make to the contrary would be awesome for filling in gaps in my knowledge.

Archonsod: Repeating firearm is defined as a magazine fed manually or mechanically actuated firearm with a single barrel. That is to say, a lever-action rifle is a repeating firearm. The Lee Enfield is a repeating firearm, so is the SVT-40, M16 family, etc. Revolvers generally aren't included as they've multiple chambers, which seems to be interpreted by some as to mean 'multiple barrels' which I feel is crap. Good example with the caplock revolvers.

The main obstacle to adopting a repeating rifle was primarily ammunition. By the time mechanically fired breechloaders have superceded flintlocks, the only cartridges in use are still paper cartridges, not durable enough to survive mechanical loading. Adoption of the metal cartridge case enables this - once you've got a reliable breechloader, you've got a reliable repeating rifle if and only if the ammunition can stand up to being loaded mechanically. It's not reliability or logistics, it's simply that the ammunition of the time didn't handle being loaded mechanically. Given that a breechloading single shot rifle is identical mechanically to early magazine fed (repeating) breechloading rifles, and their recorded accuracies and v0s (muzzle velocities) match this, it's not a case of mechanical limitations due to the rifle.

Infantry rely on battalion trains (logistics train; not literally a railway train) for their ammunition. Non-standard firearms don't have ammunition carried for them. I'm not going to argue that battlefield pickup didn't occur, as it very clearly did from contemporary accounts. But your earlier logistics objection flies in the face of Light troops acquiring rifles for their own use through means other than official issue (which would only pertinent to some Jaeger and the Rifle regiments).

I'd really like to know your sources for where the 95th is wielding American or German rifles commonly. Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be confrontational; this is what I do for a living and if there's information I don't have I can't use it effectively, so cite me some sources here as a courtesy. I haven't heard it before. I have heard of - and no, I can't cite you back unfortunately as I don't remember which book it's in, but I will look through my collection and get you a full citation when I find it - redcoats (regular British Line Infantry) being executed by the more draconian Colonels for abandoning Her Majesty's property (issue musket) on the field. As to discipline in Napoleonic militaries, it depends largely on the regimental commanding officer and any general's standing orders issued: it certainly varies from flogging and being billed to being executed.

AKM said:

To my knowledge, none of these experimental designs - like the Austrian "Windbueschejaeger" or the British Rifle regiments with their Bakers - were adopted for limited issue use, which would be the second distinction.

Click to expand...

Ferguson's experimental rifle corps served in the American war under Howe, most notably at the battle of Brandywine.

The main obstacle to adopting a repeating rifle was primarily ammunition. By the time mechanically fired breechloaders have superceded flintlocks, the only cartridges in use are still paper cartridges, not durable enough to survive mechanical loading.

Click to expand...

It's not so much the loading as the calibre. With flintlock repeaters you usually muzzle load multiple rounds at once, and in order to actually fire them as a single round (rather than one shot sparking the whole bloody lot off) they often made use of novel bullet or cartridge designs (one American rifle even utilised square bullets). Not only is obtaining the ammunition in sufficient quantity going to be a problem with the contractor system used in the 19th century, but logistically it would be something of a pain in the arse to keep them supplied in the field since you're looking at specific bullets and possibly specific powder.
The other problem is maintenance. Firing eight shots in succession will foul up the barrel something chronic, and since you're not going to be loading it so often the odds on a blockage is fairly high.

Adoption of the metal cartridge case enables this

Click to expand...

Metal cartridges really weren't that much more hardy than the paper ones. One of the big issues with the early rimfire designs in fact, they have a tendency to bend under pressure.

But your earlier logistics objection flies in the face of Light troops acquiring rifles for their own use through means other than official issue (which would only pertinent to some Jaeger and the Rifle regiments).

Click to expand...

The Jager and Baker rifles use the same bullet. In fact Ezekiel was under strict orders to keep the bore the same, it allowed the British to retain the 1776 pattern rifle (itself a copy of the Jager) in active service while the new Baker models were phased in. Unfortunately Boneparte didn't have the manners to wait for them to re-equip before going to war.

I'd really like to know your sources for where the 95th is wielding American or German rifles commonly.

Click to expand...

There's several. Most notably simple maths; three companies of the 95th deployed to Spain in August of 1800; production of the Baker only commenced a few months prior to that, it's highly unlikely the 20 gunsmiths responsible for production of the rifle would have managed to produce enough to equip all three companies. There's also several accounts of them trading rifles with the Portuguese (I believe Benjamin Harris mentions it in his memoirs, certainly some of the officer's correspondence makes mention of it) similarly a lot of officers not only of the 95th but the various light companies and the other rifle regiments also make mention of it (in fact there's something of a debate over which rifle was best for field use throughout the period, though it's somewhat overshadowed by the arguments on the feasibility of rifle companies in the first place). The only thing to note is by "American" it's somewhat unclear if they're referring to American produced rifles or the 1776 pattern rifle which was used in the American campaigns.  Pretty sure in fact Urban makes mention of it in Rifles when discussing the relationship the 95th had with the Portuguese and Partisan forces they worked alongside.

As to discipline in Napoleonic militaries, it depends largely on the regimental commanding officer and any general's standing orders issued: it certainly varies from flogging and being billed to being executed.

Click to expand...

Any execution required a court martial which was signed by the commander and dispatched to London, and like I said I'm unaware of any court martial in the records for which a trooper was punished with death for the loss of a rifle. There's a few who were shot for selling their arms to the enemy, but that's somewhat different. I'd also be very suspicious about any citing an abandonment of her majesty's property, given the only female monarch of the era didn't take the throne till 1819 and arms were still considered the personal property of the soldier (who usually paid for it on enlistment) up until the reforms (when the government began paying for them).

AKM said:

I happen to know a lot of conscript soldiers (Swiss and Finnish friends)

Click to expand...

You happen to know conscripts from 17th-19th centuries?

My whole point was that modern soldiers are far more disciplined.

You give decent examples but they seem like they'd be more exceptions than the norm. Boer's were (from my limited knowledge) not just dumb soldiers, but experienced hunters and free shooters.

Some points:
Logistics is not just ammunition supply, it is spare parts supply as well.

Her Majesty is a modern reflex, sorry, mea culpa. His Majesty is what would have been cited in the documents; I will continue trying to find them. I know what I read, but it may turn out to be a case of having sold arms being interpreted by a historian as "lost" arms.

With regards to the mechanical specifics of it, I feel we may be talking at cross purposes. Your comment that metal cartridges aren't any hardier than paper cartridges is, simply, nonsensical. My discussion of metal cartridges and the requirement for them for the design of breechloading repeating rifles relates to breechloading repeating rifles as pertaining to your earlier comment "The main obstacle to adopting repeating rifles was largely down to reliability and logistics. Plus of course it's not till the 20th century you have repeater rifles which can compete for single action rifles in terms of accuracy and power." I'm putting it in historical-technological context, particularly the italicized section; this technology is available by the closing decades (at least since 1881 with the French Lebel rifle) but of course, by then, flintlocks are out of service and their relevance here is moot.

Flintlock repeating muskets or rifles have different technological requirements. Here you're entirely correct.

I will re-read Urban, as I don't recall seeing that reference before. Good data so far, thanks.

It remains that these weapons (flintlock repeaters) do not seem to have seen any battlefield use; if they have the records showing they saw use are rather difficult to find.

Austupaio: No. Illustrating that conscript soldiers are not necessarily less disciplined than regular soldiers, often their discipline is harsher. My point is that modern and contemporary (17th/18th/19th centuries) soldiers are not any more or less disciplined, just that the nature of the training has changed. This varies by nation, but to use one constant, the British Infantryman was subjected to essentially the same standards of discipline and is recorded to most definitely possessed "Fire Discipline" (as I discussed earlier) since the formation of the British Army.

Edit: Soldiers aren't dumb, first off. Boers were experienced hunters. This played into the tactics they chose to use; the British having discarded their Light Infantry tactics (yet again) with the recent "tactical reforms" that always seem to set the British back 20-30 years after useful combat experience. Happened after the American Revolutionary War and again after the Napoleonic War, for the record, and then again after WWII. As to the examples I've given, they're the better known examples of the era; they show what was the norm. They're not exceptional cases, though I can understand why they could be perceived that way.

AKM said:

Logistics is not just ammunition supply, it is spare parts supply as well.

Click to expand...

The flintlock had no field replaceable parts barring the ramrod. The only parts that would really suffer would be in the lock mechanism itself, requiring a trained gunsmith to repair. Usually a trooper with a malfunctioning weapon would simply replace it, the broken rifle usually being sent to a gunsmith contracted to the regiment to repair.

With regards to the mechanical specifics of it, I feel we may be talking at cross purposes. Your comment that metal cartridges aren't any hardier than paper cartridges is, simply, nonsensical.

Click to expand...

Not really. The worst a paper cartridge can do is tear, which is kind of the point in the first place. A metal cartridge will bend, and if it does so in the loading mechanism it will jam the gun, which again was a common complaint amongst the early rimfire rounds.

My discussion of metal cartridges and the requirement for them for the design of breechloading repeating rifles

Click to expand...

The Ferguson was a breech loader which utilised paper cartridges. The Lorenzi system also works without needing metal cartridges. All the cartridge does is store the gunpowder and projectile in a neat format, you don't require metal cartridges for breech loading, however it does make it easier to store them (though I suspect the use of a metal cartridge and mechanical loader would still be impractical without the percussion cap).

I'm putting it in historical-technological context, particularly the italicized section; this technology is available by the closing decades (at least since 1881 with the French Lebel rifle) but of course, by then, flintlocks are out of service and their relevance here is moot.

Click to expand...

I think that's where we're hitting cross purposes. My point is that repeating flintlocks tended to be less reliable due to their propensity to foul the barrel, and also less accurate since the length of the barrel will differ depending on where in the series the shot is. The primary problem is this means sustained fire is highly impractical, while accuracy per shot is much lower, which would make them virtually useless on the battlefield; I'd go as far to say that they would be even worse than a smoothbore.
Really their most likely use would be hunting, where the ability to shoot off three or four rounds without reloading would be useful while reloading time or sustained fire capabilities are more or less unimportant.

the British Infantryman was subjected to essentially the same standards of discipline and is recorded to most definitely possessed "Fire Discipline" (as I discussed earlier) since the formation of the British Army.

Click to expand...

Quite famed for it in fact, I think firing by section was a British innovation, along with the extended line formation.

Non-standard weapons were not used on the battlefield. All militaries, by the advent of mass-issuing firearms, would kill you for having a non-standard weapon.

Click to expand...

That isn't even true today.  Most soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have bought some custom kit for their M4s and M16s- better rails and sights, assault handles and the like; military tradition has always allowed some customization of personal weapons, and soldiers often have and carry personal arms that aren't issue, such as higher-power replacements for the Beretta or Glock.  And these aren't JSOC people or anything fancy.

firing by section was a British innovation, along with the extended line formation

Click to expand...

Nope.  It was invented by the Chinese, for crossbowmen, over 1000 years before the British, IIRC.

On-topic... I'd say that the first marques of repeaters to be in use in numbers were revolvers; I totally agree with Archonsod's description of the multiple-wad-and-ball weapons as rather prone to fouling, but worse... black powder weapons frequently leave residue from grains and wadding burning in the barrel, so I'd imagine that chain-firing (and detonation) would have been the result of using any of those weapons more than once without completely clearing them.

Archonsod: I haven't been able to find that reference we alluded to earlier in Urban's work Rifles. I don't have time to re-read the book in detail, sorry. We'll have to leave it.

Flintlock had a number of field-replaceable parts. Anything you break down for cleaning can be field-replaced; the mainspring, and the entire action except the pan can be replaced; the pan can't be because on most it's permanently attached to the mainplate which is not always removable. My point regarding logistics involving more than merely ammunition and ration supply still stands.

Metal cartridges are hardier than paper cartridges. Early rimfire cartridges had problems with the rim being made too thin, thus not having enough strength to withstand the impact of the firing pin and trip the firing compound (primer) in the rim. Early rimmed cartridges had problems with ejection when the casings were made of inferior metal, as the extractor would often damage the rim and cause a mechanical stoppage. But these are not relevant to repeating muskets because metal cartridges aren't used for repeating muskets, or for any musket for that matter.

Ferguson rifle is not a repeater; it is merely a breechloader. The distinction between a breechloading firearm and a repeating one is important.

Breechloading/repeating musket designs are less durable mechanically; even the Wikipedia (usually a ****ty reference) article on the Ferguson notes that there are no examples of a Ferguson that exist without the reinforcing plate affixed to the receiver. All the less reason for them to be used.

Please explain to me your logic here:
while accuracy per shot is much lower, which would make them virtually useless on the battlefield; I'd go as far to say that they would be even worse than a smoothbore.
Really their most likely use would be hunting, where the ability to shoot off three or four rounds without reloading would be useful while reloading time or sustained fire capabilities are more or less unimportant.
How is it that it's too inaccurate for use on a battlefield but somehow sufficient for hunting? I would posit that you've never been hunting, or you go hunting with a machinegun, because when hunting all you need is one accurate round to drop the game you've found. You don't need volume of fire unless you're doing it wrong. This is a nonsensical statement.

Xenoargh said:

That isn't even true today.  Most soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have bought some custom kit for their M4s and M16s- better rails and sights, assault handles and the like; military tradition has always allowed some customization of personal weapons, and soldiers often have and carry personal arms that aren't issue, such as higher-power replacements for the Beretta or Glock.  And these aren't JSOC people or anything fancy.

Click to expand...

Regulations have changed dramatically between the 18th and 19th centuries and today's military, as I hope you'd realize. Not all militaries or even units within militaries that do allow private purchase equipment to be used either; for instance the British Army 2001-2004 did not allow private purchase equipment to be fitted to service arms, while the Canadian military 2003-present does, but not in all regiments. The Princess Patricia's often use private purchase equipment, the Royal Canadian Regiment do not, though if there has recently been a change of policy in the RCR I could be wrong; this would be rather recent however.

What tradition allows customization of personal weapons? There's no photographs I've seen of troops in WWI or WWII with customized Enfields in Her Majesty's military, and were it a tradition, as you state, why would it be revoked for WWI/WWII when you have huge masses of personnel expected to use individual initiative (1917 on, not so much prior to that) under less strict supervision than their 17th/18th/19th century counterparts? I just don't see it, nor have I heard of it.

As to your concerns about chain-firing with black powder repeaters, consider that it's a risk with smoothbore muzzleloading muskets and an identified risk at that, hence being instructed not to put one's head over the muzzle while loading. Yet somehow this risk wasn't sufficient to cause the average British squaddie of the time to not fire less than two rounds per minute - their famed and well publicized training standard - and often more.

It's definitely a greater risk with repeating black powder firearms, but we know that these designs did exist, so evidently not an insurmountable problem. It would contribute to them not being issued to specialist units (e.g. Ferguson's Experimental Rifles) or seeing any sort of market success that would lead to them having a deeper historical footprint than they seem to have now.

There's no photographs I've seen of troops in WWI or WWII with customized Enfields in Her Majesty's military,

Click to expand...

That's because there were no modifications to make, at this time period the only real modifications you could make to a weapon would be to add a scope. This would be expensive and, for the average foot-slogger, purposeless. There were no fore-grips, extended magazines, lengthened barrels or red-dot sights like you can so easily add to more modern weapons.

Pre-WWI/I firearms were simple and unique so variations would, by nature, exist and are easily made. Post-WWII weapons are basically designed to be modified and small-scale modification technology (with guns becoming more interchangable, bells and whistles are more easily attached to any weapon due to inventions like the Picatiny) has advanced.

During WWII the guns were too complex to just modify with the ol' tools and craftsman knowledge and there was no technology (short of expensive scopes) to add to the gun.

AKM said:

How is it that it's too inaccurate for use on a battlefield but somehow sufficient for hunting? I would posit that you've never been hunting, or you go hunting with a machinegun

Click to expand...

Going hunting with a repeating flintlock would be the equivalent of going hunting with a machine gun.

because when hunting all you need is one accurate round to drop the game you've found.

Click to expand...

Good luck doing that with a smoothbore

That's because there were no modifications to make, at this time period the only real modifications you could make to a weapon would be to add a scope. This would be expensive and, for the average foot-slogger, purposeless. There were no fore-grips, extended magazines, lengthened barrels or red-dot sights like you can so easily add to more modern weapons.

Pre-WWI/I firearms were simple and unique so variations would, by nature, exist and are easily made. Post-WWII weapons are basically designed to be modified and small-scale modification technology (with guns becoming more interchangable, bells and whistles are more easily attached to any weapon due to inventions like the Picatiny) has advanced.

During WWII the guns were too complex to just modify with the ol' tools and craftsman knowledge and there was no technology (short of expensive scopes) to add to the gun.

Click to expand...

That, and in both wars, we're talking about total war scenarios, where a lot of recruits were issued the weapons they'd actually use sometimes weeks or even days before arriving... and once they were in-theater, they didn't have any opportunity to buy anything that would improve the weapons.

Moreover, part of it's cultural.  U.S. forces have often had a pretty laissez-faire approach to this subject; in the American Civil War, troops often bought personal arms, if they could afford to buy anything better than issue.  In both World Wars, this trend was a lot less, in terms of personal weapons, simply because of the the situation on the battlefields; whether we're talking about a trench or troops invading Iwo Jima, the troops had zero opportunity to do much to improve their weapons or get any other arms; the classic argument in a U.S. squad was who was stuck with the much-loathed BAR, a topic that may have been determined while they were in the States but tended to become very fluid in the field.

In Vietnam, modifications of issue arms was very common, starting with the basics, like welding a bit of ration tin onto M60s to improve the feed, but extending into all sorts of stuff; men carried around sawed-off shotguns as a backup piece fairly often, for example. 

This trend in field improvisation has continued, at least in the U.S. military; that's why we have all those guys running around with M4s and various shotgun kits for dealing with CQB and doors, of which at least a sizable minority weren't issue, and all sorts of rail kit... and when you look at photos of these folks, even in the non-JSOC crowds, you will rarely see two weapons that are exactly the same, or exactly as issued. 

It's a good thing, too; while standardization of ammunition and interchangeable parts makes very good sense, and I would argue that keeping the core bodies of arms standard is important, so does letting soldiers feel that they are in control of the weapon they are expected to kill with, even to the extent of making it very specific to their bodies.  I suspect that as sighting mechanisms and everything else about modern weapons require a bit more "dial in" to get set up for a given soldier, it will make more and more sense to let troops figure out what is most comfortable and useful for them.  I'm sure it'll give armorers the shivers, and make Pattons froth, but it really does make sense.  A soldier isn't a bullet; one size doesn't fit all, when it comes to small arms, and the weapons need to be an extension of his skills, body and training.  If the soldier finds he gets more shots in the ring with a weird foregrip, I know I'd rather see him carry around a 'weird' gun than not, if we're actually shooting at people.

Going hunting with a repeating flintlock would be the equivalent of going hunting with a machine gun.

Click to expand...

Naw.  A machinegun with a scope would be a beaut of a hunting arm- long barrel, flat trajectory.  I guess you can argue that depending on the RPM, it might be a pain, but even if we're talking high-RPM, the first shot will hit, but the rest of a burst would probably walk over your deer.  The only problem is that if use a HMG, ricochets or any shot that went over the horizon could kill people and things for miles around, lol.

Oh, and yeah, the Redcoats managed two shots in one minute, which is quite impressive, but it is not anything like 8 shots in one barrel, like that crazy piece at the start of the thread. 

That's really the distinction here, and why I think it was a fundamentally awful design- safety.  During that 30 seconds of reloading, the bore's both cooling a wee bit and the new wadding would have the salutary effect of putting out any remaining sparky bits.

I really think trying to lug one of those things around would be like carrying a pipe-bomb, frankly, and shooting one would be like playing Russian Roulette.  I'd rather be issued one of Stonewall Jackson's pikes.

Austupaio said:

There's no photographs I've seen of troops in WWI or WWII with customized Enfields in Her Majesty's military,

Click to expand...

That's because there were no modifications to make, at this time period the only real modifications you could make to a weapon would be to add a scope. This would be expensive and, for the average foot-slogger, purposeless. There were no fore-grips, extended magazines, lengthened barrels or red-dot sights like you can so easily add to more modern weapons.

Pre-WWI/I firearms were simple and unique so variations would, by nature, exist and are easily made. Post-WWII weapons are basically designed to be modified and small-scale modification technology (with guns becoming more interchangable, bells and whistles are more easily attached to any weapon due to inventions like the Picatiny) has advanced.

During WWII the guns were too complex to just modify with the ol' tools and craftsman knowledge and there was no technology (short of expensive scopes) to add to the gun.

Click to expand...

So how the **** is it that apparently troops are carrying around custom weapons when the technology to modify them is much less prevalent, in the 18/19th centuries? And by "customizations," you're aware we don't mean 'just' COTS modifications like the modern selection of RIS rails, vertical foregrips, stocks, and optics, right? It goes so far as to include handcarving stocks to be more comfortable, which we've seen on some period (19th c) hunting - but interestingly, not issued Baker - rifles; reshaping the stock with a knife to give it the typical Bavarian profile, for instance. Or tacking on a cheekpiece. Etc.

The WWI and WWII illustratives I used were for the purposes of:
i) Large military incorporating a wide segment of the population, all armed
ii) There's no demonstrable proof that there's a "tradition of modifying one's weapon"
iii) Therefore it can be concluded that it (as italicized above) didn't happen.

It has nothing to do with the technology of the time. Your thinking that WWI weapons are somehow mechanically simpler than WWII weapons is nothing less than fundamentally wrong: infantry weapons did not change greatly between the two wars. The fundamental weapon of all major combatants save the US was the bolt-action rifle, of a pattern very similar to those used by their fathers in WWI. And for the record, submachineguns, particularly certain automatic-only examples like STEN, PPS-43, and the like, are mechanically simpler than bolt action rifles. It's counter-intuitive but true, and has to do with the trigger sear arrangements, the most complicated part of almost any firearm.

Xenoargh:
Funny, the BAR is also referred to as being beloved in many memoirs. Obviously opinions on the BAR varied. Interestingly I have never seen nor heard of a sawn off shotgun being carried around in Vietnam as a "back up," though numerous shotguns were issued on a limited scale for use in Vietnam. You may be amused to hear of a Canadian volunteer in Vietnam, serving with a LRRP company who had his father ship him a bow (as in archery, yes) which he carried on patrol and used in combat. Sourced in Gary A. Linderer's "Phantom Warrior" series, book two, I believe. They're good books, I recommend both of them in any case.

COTS parts are not "field improvisations." Field improvisations are things like attaching a cut-down C-ration can to the feed tray of the M60 GPMG to keep the belt from snagging on the ****ty-by-design feed tray edge. "Masterkey" underbarrel shotguns are either limited issue items or COTS parts approved for use by the formation commander.

Soldiers are often allowed to **** with things that don't really matter on their weapons but only in some militaries, namely the American, Canadian, British and Australian crowds. They can commonly - certainly not always, especially for Brits and Australians - fit different sights, as those don't affect the mechanics of the rifle. New stocks and vertical foregrips attaching to various rails are fine provided they (in the case of new stocks on the AR15 [M16] action) use the same buffer spring assembly as the issue rifle. This is to "fit" the rifle to the soldier as you've mentioned. This is a very modern trend, begun only circa 2004-2005 in Line (Regular Force, non-special operations) units.

There is no "tradition" of modifying one's personal weapon. Aside from limited historical abberations like the American Civil War, where commanders apparently didn't care about personally-acquired firearms being used according to some posts here, one did not just go out and get their own musket as officers could often do with their sword. If they did it's interesting that there is no historical record of this happening, at least not that has been cited so far or that I've found looking for myself, so that I can improve my knowledge on this era and thus do my job (defence analysis, military history, et al) better.

--

I don't think any of you have an understanding of how militaries work. One does not, in the modern era, show up with your own weapon. You can cherrypick examples of this happening, but the trend is that every soldier carries the issued M4 (if American) or C7A2 (if Canadian) or AK-74M (if Russian) or QBZ-95 (if Chinese) for a reason: that is the issue arm. It is the regulation that he be armed with that weapon, unless he is a specialist armed with another weapon, in which case he carries *that* weapon. He does not have the opportunity to modify or purchase modifications for the weapon if the force-in-question's regulations do not allow modification of that weapon, and then only within certain limits. This was true in 1941, it is true in 2011. It has nothing to do with the mechanical limitations or strategic-technical limitations imposed by the era's technology or total war.

These limits may be set force-wide, or may be up to individual units. I am aware of units that have commander-imposed limitations (for instance, the only approved COTS reflex optic is the T3 Aimpoint; the only approved COTS magnifying optic is the Trijicon ACOG, etc) such as several Marine battalions and a few US Army brigades. He cannot drop in a 6.8mm SPC upper receiver or an HK416 upper because that would be against regulations, not because it isn't available commercially off the shelf (COTS).

I've given some of you the benefit of doubt, which was clearly misplaced. I'm done here.