Alternate Muskets
- Thread starter Stephen
- Start date
That's an awful lot of denial for something minimal. Admit it, you blew half the kitchen into Sussex, didn't you?
Stephen
Banned
How would the lock function? Would the crystals be disposable (like percussion caps) semi-disposable (like flints) or intended to last the service life of the rifle?
As has been previously said industry not innovation is going to be your primary problem. The quartz has to be located, mined and refined for quartzlocks. Rifling is expensive. Nessler and Minne rounds can't be (to the best of my knowledge) made in a shot tower. This means in my opinion that these technologies will end up as a weapon for specialists and elite troops (like flintlocks , grenades, carbines and rifles all were at one point) until you reach a point that you are industrialized enough to produce them cheaply in quantity. I do see a role for them as the firing mechanism on naval guns if it is invented early enough. They won't have the randomness of a powdered quill and if you can pierce the cartridge with the leads you don't even need priming powder.
Anyway very cool idea. I would love to see piezoelectric grenades, rockets and revolvers in an American Revolution or Napoleonic Wars era TL. WWII circa 1812.
The quarts crystals in piezoelectric ignitors for barbeques and fireliters seem to last indefinately. So it will last a until it breaks. To arm it you should only have to pull the hammer back, avoiding all that fidling with flashpans or precusion caps. Quartz has been mined by neaderthals and has been used as a decorative stone ever since.
The shot tower was invented by William Watts in 1782 and produces small caliber balls for shot guns, musket balls have always been cast in molds and a Nosler bullets only requires the modification of these molds. During the Crimean war the Rusian soldiers notice the greater efectivness of the French bullets and modified there molds to produce nosler bulets instead of roundshot while in the midle of the war while deployed. In the scene in the Patriot where Mel Gibson melts lead soldiers into bulets he uses a historically acurate bulet mold, a tool that changed little between medieval times and the onset of mass production in the 19th century.
Having the spark gap on the end of a spike for penetrating cartridges is a good idea for faster loading, but it would need to be easily removable for sharpening and other maintainence.
Last edited:
Stephen
Banned
In this case it is likely because the piezoelectric effect was not discovered until the 1880's after metalic rimfire, and centerfire cartridges had made all muzle loading technology obsolete.
But a pizoelectric sparker dose not require any materials that cannot be made in a medieval clockmakers workshop. All it requires is a freak discovery.
Hello Folks,
More a lurker than a poster by any measure, and any quibbles I may have are usually answered by others before I get to the end of a thread. However one small quibble has remained here, that is the loading time of a rifle or rifled musket.
As another pointed out, there is no real issue with the propellent or means of ignition concerning the use of rifles. However, one point not brought up is that the type and size of the bullet is a real issue!
First: Before the Minie ball came along the vast bulk of rifles used a ball the same or near same diameter as the bore of the weapon, often using greased wads or patches to seat the ball, provide a sabot effect (not understanding why, but they knew it worked) and ease loading. Needless to say this caused a tight fit in any case or method used, particularly after a few rounds had been fired and the inevitable residue from the powder built up. In many regular rifle regiments a hammer for aiding ramming was standard issue! Of course civilians, who rarely fired four rounds a day much less forty didn't need one. In any case, one round a minute was the best to be expected and a determined regiment that moved fast could overwhelm entrenched riflemen if the distance to covered is under a hundred yards (how fast can you cover 100yds at a fast pace? Bet it's in under a minute!)
Minie balls changed the game. These little conical beauties are smaller than the bore, just like the ball for a smoothbore musket and thus easily slide down a barrel. Basically it loads just like a smoothbore: you ram a paper wrapped cartridge down the barrel bullet up! Thus rate-of-fire is again three to five (if you don't care about aiming) rounds a minute. The hollow, concave base of the soft lead round expands upon the powder ignition, causing the base to expand and the bullet to grip the rifling. It's not perfect and the grip rarely 100%, particularly after a dozen rounds. Loading also starts taking some effort, but this is normal for muskets as well and soldiers expected it. This fouling also leads to increased recoil, a problem not solved until smokeless powder. Also, though the troops now had weapons that could kill with some accuracy out to 200yds, combat ranges were often under 75yds since the smoke from the powder reduced visibility to these distances in minutes (and I can vouch for this).
Question: Since the fouling in a black powder weapon coat and clogs everything, and do mean everything, how dependable would a theoretical quartzlock be? Like to see someone with more time and engineering experience build such and see how it handles around 60 rounds. Then see how easy it would be to clean under combat conditions. After all, with a flint or caplock all you had to do was stick a wire through the touch hole or nipple and wiggle it around for a second or two to get the weapon to fire again.
For those wondering how I come by my knowledge, I have had no small experience using every sort of black powder weapon used in the continental US, from matchlocks (not as slow as many claim) to Old West weaponry, as well as owning at one time or presently many of this. I have used both on the range and (more commonly) at reenactments under the closest thing we can achieve to real battlefield conditions. This includes "tacticals:" Unscripted refereed battles modeled on modern military training battles that last for days. I also hunt extensively with most of these weapons as well, so I know how they do in nearly any weather condition and under primitive conditions for weeks at a time. Next to this is that I am a former Marine with experience and come from a five generations military and hunting family.
I have no engineering experience or same with chemistry beyond my mandatory college courses, however I'd like to think I have practical experience with these weapons and know their strengths, weaknesses and quirks rather well. I will stay out of the areas I lack knowledge of and just ask questions.
More a lurker than a poster by any measure, and any quibbles I may have are usually answered by others before I get to the end of a thread. However one small quibble has remained here, that is the loading time of a rifle or rifled musket.
As another pointed out, there is no real issue with the propellent or means of ignition concerning the use of rifles. However, one point not brought up is that the type and size of the bullet is a real issue!
First: Before the Minie ball came along the vast bulk of rifles used a ball the same or near same diameter as the bore of the weapon, often using greased wads or patches to seat the ball, provide a sabot effect (not understanding why, but they knew it worked) and ease loading. Needless to say this caused a tight fit in any case or method used, particularly after a few rounds had been fired and the inevitable residue from the powder built up. In many regular rifle regiments a hammer for aiding ramming was standard issue! Of course civilians, who rarely fired four rounds a day much less forty didn't need one. In any case, one round a minute was the best to be expected and a determined regiment that moved fast could overwhelm entrenched riflemen if the distance to covered is under a hundred yards (how fast can you cover 100yds at a fast pace? Bet it's in under a minute!)
Minie balls changed the game. These little conical beauties are smaller than the bore, just like the ball for a smoothbore musket and thus easily slide down a barrel. Basically it loads just like a smoothbore: you ram a paper wrapped cartridge down the barrel bullet up! Thus rate-of-fire is again three to five (if you don't care about aiming) rounds a minute. The hollow, concave base of the soft lead round expands upon the powder ignition, causing the base to expand and the bullet to grip the rifling. It's not perfect and the grip rarely 100%, particularly after a dozen rounds. Loading also starts taking some effort, but this is normal for muskets as well and soldiers expected it. This fouling also leads to increased recoil, a problem not solved until smokeless powder. Also, though the troops now had weapons that could kill with some accuracy out to 200yds, combat ranges were often under 75yds since the smoke from the powder reduced visibility to these distances in minutes (and I can vouch for this).
Question: Since the fouling in a black powder weapon coat and clogs everything, and do mean everything, how dependable would a theoretical quartzlock be? Like to see someone with more time and engineering experience build such and see how it handles around 60 rounds. Then see how easy it would be to clean under combat conditions. After all, with a flint or caplock all you had to do was stick a wire through the touch hole or nipple and wiggle it around for a second or two to get the weapon to fire again.
For those wondering how I come by my knowledge, I have had no small experience using every sort of black powder weapon used in the continental US, from matchlocks (not as slow as many claim) to Old West weaponry, as well as owning at one time or presently many of this. I have used both on the range and (more commonly) at reenactments under the closest thing we can achieve to real battlefield conditions. This includes "tacticals:" Unscripted refereed battles modeled on modern military training battles that last for days. I also hunt extensively with most of these weapons as well, so I know how they do in nearly any weather condition and under primitive conditions for weeks at a time. Next to this is that I am a former Marine with experience and come from a five generations military and hunting family.
I have no engineering experience or same with chemistry beyond my mandatory college courses, however I'd like to think I have practical experience with these weapons and know their strengths, weaknesses and quirks rather well. I will stay out of the areas I lack knowledge of and just ask questions.
Howdy,
Oh, and another thing that must be conquered (and partially was by the Minie Ball) is the need for separate ball and powder when loading (due to the need for a patched ball and all) thus adding a extra step to loading on the battlefield. Even the vaunted (and rightly so) Baker rifle had this problem due to it's special shaped (skirted) round ball. Lining that thing up with the notches at the muzzle while under fire and having a French column coming at you is the very definition of nerves! Something the "Sharpes Rifles" TV and book series never gave enough kudos to in my opinion. Point is, while the quartz lock solves 3/4 of the reliability problems and 100%, for all practical purposes if you can make the fouling problem a easy fix on the line, you have to come up with solid proof that some bright boy can solve the ballistics problem using the KISS method good 'ol Minie found. I see this as not too difficult as a friend with some engineering experience said many such inventions are "head slappers," i.e. the tools and ideas were floating around for some time, it just took some bright boy to say "Why didn't anyone see this before" and proceed to make it happen. But then, I'm no engineer nor a trained historian so I'll leave it up to you all to figure that part out.
Thus I see two problems to be solved: Ignition and ease of loading. Trust me on this: The Ferguson rifle is a military dead-end. Did range time with a gentleman who built one from scratch (quite the machinist) per blue prints taken from an original, right down to the metal quality. It's fine up to the 6th to 8th round then fouling make it a pain to screw and unscrew the breech for loading. It can be done, but loading time declines rapidly though it's never impossible to load that he's found so far. Poor to mediocre battlefield weapon, great for hunting big game however. For skirmishers, however, it might be the thing.
Oh, and another thing that must be conquered (and partially was by the Minie Ball) is the need for separate ball and powder when loading (due to the need for a patched ball and all) thus adding a extra step to loading on the battlefield. Even the vaunted (and rightly so) Baker rifle had this problem due to it's special shaped (skirted) round ball. Lining that thing up with the notches at the muzzle while under fire and having a French column coming at you is the very definition of nerves! Something the "Sharpes Rifles" TV and book series never gave enough kudos to in my opinion. Point is, while the quartz lock solves 3/4 of the reliability problems and 100%, for all practical purposes if you can make the fouling problem a easy fix on the line, you have to come up with solid proof that some bright boy can solve the ballistics problem using the KISS method good 'ol Minie found. I see this as not too difficult as a friend with some engineering experience said many such inventions are "head slappers," i.e. the tools and ideas were floating around for some time, it just took some bright boy to say "Why didn't anyone see this before" and proceed to make it happen. But then, I'm no engineer nor a trained historian so I'll leave it up to you all to figure that part out.
Thus I see two problems to be solved: Ignition and ease of loading. Trust me on this: The Ferguson rifle is a military dead-end. Did range time with a gentleman who built one from scratch (quite the machinist) per blue prints taken from an original, right down to the metal quality. It's fine up to the 6th to 8th round then fouling make it a pain to screw and unscrew the breech for loading. It can be done, but loading time declines rapidly though it's never impossible to load that he's found so far. Poor to mediocre battlefield weapon, great for hunting big game however. For skirmishers, however, it might be the thing.
I think when you were referring to the Baker rifle you were thinking of the New Brunswick rifle, as that weapon had a skirted ball. Rifles can actually be fired just as fast as smoothbores - so long as you use undersized balls. Of course you would lose accuracy and this would only be of use in an overrun situation.
So long as black powder is used fouling is unavoidable. Minie bullets solved this problem being undersized, but Nessler bullets did the same thing in a smoothbore since it also use a hollow butt which expands to fit the bore.
How well the piezo ignition would work under fouling, and indeed field conditions in general is a good question - and can only be answered through experimentation. What we're talking about is basically a spark plug, and spark plugs can become fouled. What is needed is a quick way of replacing the piezo spark plug. This shouldn't be difficult to do. If the meantime between failure of this system is fairly high, then the average soldier wont need to do any field repair during a battle.
So long as black powder is used fouling is unavoidable. Minie bullets solved this problem being undersized, but Nessler bullets did the same thing in a smoothbore since it also use a hollow butt which expands to fit the bore.
How well the piezo ignition would work under fouling, and indeed field conditions in general is a good question - and can only be answered through experimentation. What we're talking about is basically a spark plug, and spark plugs can become fouled. What is needed is a quick way of replacing the piezo spark plug. This shouldn't be difficult to do. If the meantime between failure of this system is fairly high, then the average soldier wont need to do any field repair during a battle.
I've just watched an episode of Weapon Masters on Discovery channel where the historic weapon expert Mike Loades challenges inventor Chad Houseknecht to improve old technology. It is an entertaining series sometimes the old technology is as good as it gets and no amount of modern materials and computer modeling can improve it and sometimes Chad comes up with a new twist and beats the old makers. He made a piezo ingnited duelling pistol that outperformed the flintlock in every respect.
He made two weapons both using identical barrels from a traditional gunsmith Greg Murray in Tennessee. One was an accurate replica of an 18th century flintlock duelling pistol and the other was fitted with among other things piezo electric ignition. The outcome was that the round from the electrically ignited gun, not having a vent hole for the flash pan, was more powerful and accurate with the same powder charge and fired instantly. So the round from the electric gun hit the target before the round from the flintlock left the barrel.
He made two weapons both using identical barrels from a traditional gunsmith Greg Murray in Tennessee. One was an accurate replica of an 18th century flintlock duelling pistol and the other was fitted with among other things piezo electric ignition. The outcome was that the round from the electrically ignited gun, not having a vent hole for the flash pan, was more powerful and accurate with the same powder charge and fired instantly. So the round from the electric gun hit the target before the round from the flintlock left the barrel.
The answer to me seems to be to have the quartz and spark gap assembly as a single device that can be unscrewed and replaced or cleaned it as needed. The problem with that of course is that it pushes the first wide scale use forward to the late 1700's/early 1800's when interchangeable parts and the American System become common. Which happens to be the point shortly before the percussion cap and metallic cartridges emerge. This also brings up the question of how the quartzlock will effect the development of the percussion cap. If memory serves a Scotish priest invented the caplock because he was irritated that the flash from the flintlock's pan alerted his game just early enough for it to move before the main charge ignited. If he has a quartzlock there is no flash and he doesn't have reason to invent the caplock. Thus butterflying the invention of the caplock and metallic cartridge to some point in the future.
I don't think that would be a problem, there could be a spark gap in each cartridge and the quartz generator in the breech mechanism instead of a firing pin.
Which solves the cleaning problem and leads to a world where electrically fired ammunition is standard. Cool.
Stephen
Banned
You would think so. This is a common 12 gauge shot gun slug:
In any case the Nessler was combat tested in the Crimea with the muskets of the day.
I went to see the Leonardo Davinci exibition. And one of the sketches diagramed bullets just like that one!
Stephen
Banned
Unfortunatly I did not tak a camera with me. But today I finally found a picture of them on the internet, in a cracked article:
http://www.cracked.com/article_1840...ve-leonardo-da-vinci-was-supervillain_p2.html
This gun is fun too:
http://www.maihaugen.no/en/Top-menu...orical-object-collection/Weapons-collections/
I should mention that the Crosstime Engineer series uses piezo-electric ignitors.
Stephen
Banned
A piezoeletric or battery powered spark plug in your musket will have an induction coil. And another aplication of induction coils is wireless telegraphy. So empires would have much better comuniction with there colonies and navies. The problem of Longitude would be solved and astronomers would be able to coordinate for more acurate measurments of the solar system.