JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm not sure Gatling guns would have helped much due to the terrain , nature of the battle or the overwhelming numbers of Sioux , Cheyenne and Arapahoe warriors.
In any event ,Custer did feel that the guns would slow him down.
To play Devil's advocate most of Custer's fights , excluding the attack of Black Kettle's band in '68 were of the "Lets follow sign and hope they stop to rest so we can get 'em" kind of fights.
In his experience Gatling's were of no use in these previous battles.

As stated earlier the campaign of '76 had many faults. Some of which were:
Poor intel.
The Indian agents lied about the number they had on the reservations.
General Terry , the overall commander gave Custer vague orders.
The overall "command and control" of the campaign was weak.
The copper shell casings for the carbines often ruptured causing the case to get stuck in the breech.
A few weeks previous to the LBH battle these same warriors whipped General Crook to a standstill , they were "highly motivated" to say the least.
Not to forget that just 'cause the tactic you used once that worked really well , dosen't mean that it will work again.

But back to the OP's post. At one time we could own an actual military issue gun.
When the English marched to Concord to remove the cannon and powder that belonged to the people of Concord, the militia resisted with military issue or what passed for a "military standard" in the way of firearms.
Andy
How about this for an assault pistol?

antique firearms: 20 shot revolver (http://antiquefirearms.blogspot.com/2009/02/20-shot-revolver.html)
 
My Great Great Grandfather was A Revenue Cutter sailor stationed in the waters around Georgia and was part of the counter Blockade and Piracy force! He sent several letters home to My Great Great Grandmother telling about were he was and what he was doing and what he saw! Pretty awesome historical accounts! The family sent copies of those letters to the Coast Guard for the history of his experiences! He later moved the family to Astoria Or and served as a station commander for the Rescue Service!
 
The British were known for using a Buck and Ball load in the Brown Bess, that consisted of one .75 caliber round ball, together with 3 smaller .38 caliber Buckshot ( slightly larger than modern 000 Buckshot, which is .36 caliber ).

Now the question that I have is this: would you have more of a chance of surviving a hit from a Brown Bess, or an AR-15??

Which would you rather be hit by??

 
Woops, will get it cleared out! Have a look at the U.S.C.G. Eagle, and the Philly from that era! I know it's way later, but the early 1900's Coastal Monitors are also fascinating! My own pet project is the 6 Monitors built and deployed off the west coast during the early days of WW 1 and again during WW 2! There is very little if any history of these ships, I only know from an old neighbor who served as a gunner on one of them during WW 2! He had several pictures hanging on his wall in there home, but that and his stories were all I had to go on!
Amigo, the Full Inbox problem is on *my* end. :( Years long fight... doesn't help that this boardware doesn't give me an option to Logfile everything as a TXT backup.
 
DSZ_5815.jpg
The U.S.RC. Eagle
 
Classic illustration of the Topsail Schooner design with Eagle, IIRC. Usually I work with matters on full Ship Rigs anywhere from 28 guns up (frigates and Ships of the Line), but I've been trying to find ways they could get some of the larger brigs and sloops into the line.

Sadly, with the scale they've chosen they'd have to do a whole separate line for Lakers and other small-ship actions... at 1/1000 they an't do anything smaller than a 28-meter length on main deck.

The musket was the Revolutionary era's "assault weapon," and the Man o' War was its ICBM. And BOTH were widely privately owned and operated... :)
 
lance,
I've shot buck and ball loads from my original 1808 dated Springfield ( .69 caliber ) and from my North West trade gun ( . 20 gauge ) Both guns did well with those loads out to 40 yards.
A tightly patched ball will be hunting or combat accurate out to 75 yards.
Of course the military loads were a bit "Looser" for rate of fire rather than accuracy.
But then the object for them was to get as much lead into the air as fast and as often as possible.

Pretty cool pistol ZigZagZeke .... Need to get one for our museum LOL.
Andy
 
While reading recent biographies of notable Revolutionary characters I recall during the Constitution ratification process there was much discussion about the 2A to get it exactly right. There was no original intention to have a standing army. It is a two part statement, one about protecting borders and the second about individual rights. There was also discussion about the militia and the people having weapons capable of "throwing off a tyrannical government"!

Sounds exactly like the original intent was for "the people" to have weapons equal to the best that was available at the time.

And for the most part they did, thanks to B. Franklin and the French!

John, Retired LEO
 
Last Edited:
While reading recent biographies of notable Revolutionary characters I recall during the Constitution ratification process there was much discussion about the 2A to get it exactly right. There was no original intention to have a standing army. It is a two part statement, one about protecting borders and the second about individual rights. There was also discussion about the militia and the people having weapons capable of "throwing off a tyrannical government"!

Sounds exactly like the original intent was for "the people" to have weapons equal to the best that was available at the time.

And for the most part they did, thanks to B. Franklin and the French!

John, Retired LEO
That's exactly what I remember from various sources, that 1: there are no standing armies because 2: the people have the ultimate power over the government, and their defense, as insured and enshrined by the 2nd amendment.
 
The Puckle gun is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a manually operated[3] revolving cylinder; Puckle advertised its main application as an anti-boarding gun for use on ships. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). The cylinder held 6 to11 shots depending on configuration, and was hand-loaded with powder and shot while detached from the weapon.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun#cite_note-5[4]

According to the Patent Office of the United Kingdom, "In the reign of Queen Anne, the law officers of the Crown established as a condition of grant that "the patentee must by an instrument in writing describe and ascertain the nature of the invention and the manner in which it is to be performed.""[5] This gun's patent, number 418 of 1718, was one of the first to provide such a description. <broken link removed> remarked, however, that "James Puckle's patent in 1718 contains more rhetorical fervor than technical rigor."[6]

Two versions[edit]
Puckle demonstrated two configurations of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets. The square bullets were considered to be more damaging. They would, according to the patent, "convince the Turks of the benefits of Christian civilization". The weapon was also reported as able to fire shot, with each discharge containing sixteen musket balls.[7]
Puckle_gun_Photo.jpg
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top