AHC: 19th century assault rifles?

[Elfwine]

"Some sort" and "one worth the troubles it would create to use on a large scale" are two different things.

From the perspective of an army, having something that works reliably if used a few times a year is not good enough for the hassle involved.

 

[hairysamarian]

"Some sort" and "one worth the troubles it would create to use on a large scale" are two different things.

They are, but the OP hasn't actually insisted on massed formations of the things, although you might argue that it was implied. I would suggest that a weapon which was used primarily in small units, such as raiding parties, cavalry scouts, naval landing parties or for the 19th century equivalent of urban warfare, could become important enough to have an impact on history.

From the perspective of an army, having something that works reliably if used a few times a year is not good enough for the hassle involved.

I wasn't suggesting something that doesn't get used. Nor was I arguing with most of Dgharis's post; only that, IF the conceptual leap was made, engineering of the era was quite capable of making and assembling the parts. That leaves a whole host of other obstacles to be overcome, naturally.

 

[Elfwine]

They are, but the OP hasn't actually insisted on massed formations of the things, although you might argue that it was implied. I would suggest that a weapon which was used primarily in small units, such as raiding parties, cavalry scouts, naval landing parties or for the 19th century equivalent of urban warfare, could become important enough to have an impact on history.

Is it possible for "Assault rifles" as we know then to have been invented in the 19th century? After all, they had rifles, they had gatling guns, is really to much a stretch for someone to say "what if we put the fire-power of a gatling gun in the hands of a single rifleman?

That strongly implies that it's meant to be standard issue, or at least commonplace - not a few specific situations - as does the comment about "every modern military" finding it useful to have every rifleman having an assault rifle.

I wasn't suggesting something that doesn't get used. Nor was I arguing with most of Dgharis's post; only that, IF the conceptual leap was made, engineering of the era was quite capable of making and assembling the parts. That leaves a whole host of other obstacles to be overcome, naturally.

It's no good to be able to assemble the parts for something that will be called "unreliable" and "demanding a lot in the way of a logistics tail" most of the time.

So having something that some of the time is more useful is not a step up.

 

[dgharis]

Yes to 2) and 3), but I wouldn't overstate 1). The Sten Gun was no great marvel of precision engineering and yet it was enormously successful in certain roles. True, it had its issues; nevertheless the engineering of the 1850s and 1860s was well up to that standard at least (assuming someone got what would certainly have been a revolutionary idea). My family owns several firearms from that era, and there's some sweet and clean work in them. At the very least, the engineering skills and industry existed to produce some sort of automatic weapon, if the conceptual leap had occurred.

It's the steel and not so much the machining that is the issue here. While it might be possible to manufacture wrought-iron assault rifles their reliability would be low; too low for widespread military use. Mass production of steels did not really begin until the 1880s IOTL, so such weapons would be unlikely before then.

While I agree that manufacturing in the mid nineteenth century was often quite good and their products very well made they still don't measure up to later products. Compare a Colt revolver from 1850 to one from 1900; which has the better workmanship? The latter, right? Why? Because the materials available at the time were better for the purpose. Not just the materials in the weapon, but the materials in the tools and machinery used to make the weapon as well. Better tools mean closer tolerances and less variation, which permits the manufacture of more reliable and powerful weapons.

The mass manufacture of steels really was a game changer; it made mass production of automatic weapons, internal combustion engines, steam turbines, quick-firing artillery, submarines, skyscrapers, and a host of other items possible. It is impossible to overstate its importance.