Alternate gun shape

Suppose another culture found arquebus-equivalent before Europeans. Would the basic shape of that arquebus (crossbow-like trigger, armpit-stock, etc) still same as OTL?
 
Suppose another culture found arquebus-equivalent before Europeans. Would the basic shape of that arquebus (crossbow-like trigger, armpit-stock, etc) still same as OTL?

Form follows function.

To project a solid lump using powder as a propellant, you need a long, hollow stick, blocked up at one end, and open at the other. To get it pointed in the direction you want the projectile to go, you need to hold it level, and it's easier if your eyes are close to the firing end of the stick so you can best see the direction the projectile will travel. Luckily, your shoulder is in just the right position to rest this heavy stick against while you do this, and it's more comfortable with a stock at the blunt end.

To get the powder to go bang, you need to apply a flame to ignite it. It's not advisable to be twisting the bang-stick around while you apply flame, and you've got one hand busy holding the business end up such that the stick is pointing in the right direction. Having permanent flames and powder together is not the greatest idea anyone has ever had, so you want to keep them separate until you use the bang-stick for its intended purpose. Whether you apply a flame to a fuse, or use a flint to provide a spark, or some other cunning means of ignition, you want the thing pointed in the right direction from the instant it becomes active, and can be made active with one hand. That rather involves some form of trigger mechanism.

The only other alternative I can come up with would be to have fire teams, with one person holding the bang-stick, and a second person lighting the powder. That means one gun for every two people, and such an army is going to lose out to an army using one gun for every person.
 
No other alternative possible that's still practical? Like stock placed in shoulder instead of armpit (like modern day rocket launcher)? Or the different trigger mechanism?
 
No other alternative possible that's still practical? Like stock placed in shoulder instead of armpit (like modern day rocket launcher)? Or the different trigger mechanism?

Sure, you can tweak things here and there. A button rather than a switch, and so on.

Remember that the bang-stick has a recoil. Newton's 3rd Law tells us that if the bang-stick throws a lump of metal out in one direction, the bang-stick will be pushed back in the other. If the bang-stick is going to be effective, then this recoil will be significant. If the person holding the bang-stick can't hold it steady against the recoil, then by the time the metal reaches the end of the tube, that tube is going to be pointed God knows where, and the lump of metal will fly off into the wild blue yonder and do little more than make noise, smoke, and smell.

As a result, the person holding the bang-stick is going to need to have it secure against the recoil. Pushed against the shoulder with the firer braced to absorb the recoil works fine. Resting against, say, the chin isn't such a great idea, and if this is tried, new techniques will quickly be developed.

The science dictates the basic form - long tube, mechanism to initiate combustion that can be operated with one hand, means of holding the bang-stick securely. If a design doesn't take account these (and other) factors, then the design won't work very well (if at all). But any design that meets the factors is viable. In the case of the bang-stick, the factors driving design do tend to lead in one direction, which is why the arquebus is recognisable as the same sort of thing as a Lee Enfield.
 
Last edited:
Top