Puckle Gun: Dead End or Missed Opportunity?

The Puckle Gun is an interesting weapon, so I was wondering if it truly had potential (perhaps being invented later when gunsmith's had better tools?), or if it was a branch of the machinegun family tree that would lead to ultimately the wrong route. What do you experts think?
 
I notice it said it was complicated to construct. Perhaps it sheds weight or is 'remastered' in a way beneficial to gun smiths, then it would be much more effective.

As For Butterflies, I mean, Think about it's original idea for use: To prevent ships from being boarded. Piracy is reduced as a machine gun would probably impede a Pirate's raid (along with adequate cannons of course...).

Now Modified, it's a different story. A Machine Gun meant a straight marching line would be mowed down piecemeal. The Seven Years War plays out with encampement battling encampment. Perhaps an earlier version of the Tank is invented to make the forces mobile. If it's horse mounted, well...that's a hell of a combatant on the battle field.
I would imagine A Bigger Brit-Wank, with any American revolution mowed down with the wonders of the Puckle Gun.

...or it fails completely and is bunched with Da Vinci's Flying machines in history.
 
IMHO, it had potential. The problem I see is that it was more complicated than its competitors and thus, at the least, more expensive. I somehow doubt it had many reliability problems, but I can't rule out the possibility, especially with maritime use. I would like to know more about how the charges were ignited. I've seen a very early flintlock revolver, and that was its downfall, because sparks could leap to the other pans and cause a multiple discharge. Maybe Puckle's design averted that.

Another point I just realised is that of, how much more effective would the Puckle have been than the guns already in service. This question comes up because I just (and I mean just now) learned about breach-loading swivel guns, that allowed several charges to be loaded and ready, thus allowing for firing nearly as fast as the Puckle with less complexity.

Picture at the end.
 
IMHO, it had potential. The problem I see is that it was more complicated than its competitors and thus, at the least, more expensive. I somehow doubt it had many reliability problems, but I can't rule out the possibility, especially with maritime use. I would like to know more about how the charges were ignited. I've seen a very early flintlock revolver, and that was its downfall, because sparks could leap to the other pans and cause a multiple discharge. Maybe Puckle's design averted that.

Another point I just realised is that of, how much more effective would the Puckle have been than the guns already in service. This question comes up because I just (and I mean just now) learned about breach-loading swivel guns, that allowed several charges to be loaded and ready, thus allowing for firing nearly as fast as the Puckle with less complexity.

Picture at the end.

I already knew about swivel guns, however they were quite wasteful, loosing powder while they sat there. Also, could they keep up the rate of fire as well as the puckle gun, they seem like they would be quick at the start, but then not as good. (Still gave me an idea though.)
 
Also, could they keep up the rate of fire as well as the puckle gun, they seem like they would be quick at the start, but then not as good. (Still gave me an idea though.)
The Puckle could have had more shots ready at a time, and shoot them faster, but once exhausted would take longer to reload. I speculate that given a couple of guys loading, one of the breechloaders could fire pretty much indefinitely, barring effects of heat build-up. From the pictures, it looks to me like the Puckle had a cylinder that could be removed fairly quickly. If so, that would give it another edge. Otherwise, I see a sizable pause in fire while the cylinder is exchanged, a burst of fire, &c.
 
Volley guns...

IIRC, the alternative was a volley gun, with multiple barrels, each hand-loaded per musket, then fired individually or all at once...

Think a couple of 'over and under' double-barrelled shotguns welded together...

The era's equivalent of duct-taping a couple of AK mags for quick change...

So, why did the puckel gun fail but the gatling succeed ? Perhaps, like Babbage's calculating machines, it was just invented too soon for the tech required...
 
Seems like it would be the predecessor to the Nordenfelt (also known as jizzing the enemy to death by jacking off five penises at once).
 
I think one problem is that until the Industrial Revolution weapons were only a small killer of troops, so in the grand scheme of thing Generals and the like didn't think to introduce more lethal weapons as a way to win battles. I had a thought that perhaps things like the Puckle gun and the Ferguson rifle could be adpoted and developed (these weapons are buggered without further development) by a small but wealthy polity to overcome manpower shortages.
 
I think one problem is that until the Industrial Revolution weapons were only a small killer of troops, so in the grand scheme of thing Generals and the like didn't think to introduce more lethal weapons as a way to win battles. I had a thought that perhaps things like the Puckle gun and the Ferguson rifle could be adpoted and developed (these weapons are buggered without further development) by a small but wealthy polity to overcome manpower shortages.
That fits with my plan fairly well.
 
IIRC, the alternative was a volley gun, with multiple barrels, each hand-loaded per musket, then fired individually or all at once...
Efficient way to break your shoulder, from what I've heard. Anyway, either puckles or breechloading swivel guns could be reloaded much faster than a volley gun and would not be put out of commision whilst reloading. Not to say that they wouldn't have similar roles, they might, but IMO volley guns wouldn't work as well.

So, why did the puckel gun fail but the gatling succeed ? Perhaps, like Babbage's calculating machines, it was just invented too soon for the tech required...
I'd like to know if there were any technical reasons. Otherwise, I'm going to guess for the same reasons that militaries consistently refused to adopt new technology, being that they don't understand it or don't want to spend the money. Also note that the Gatling wasn't accepted for service in the US Army until after the Civil War was over, even though it was available in 1861.

Seems like it would be the predecessor to the Nordenfelt (also known as jizzing the enemy to death by jacking off five penises at once).
Maybe, or possibly this toy of Henry VIII was:

903ba0143ebc885293b04f45e935_grande.jpg
 
Top