1718 Puckle Gun

[Little Wattsy]

The original "Puff the magic dragon"??
http://www.weapon-blog.com/2014/01/puckle-gun/

In 1718, James Puckle of London, England, demonstrated his new invention, the “Puckle Gun,” a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock gun fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. This weapon fired nine shots per minute at a time when the standard soldier’s musket could be loaded and fired but three times per minute. Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design. One weapon, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets, which were believed to cause more severe and painful wounds than spherical projectiles. The “Puckle Gun” failed to attract investors and never achieved mass production or sales to the British armed forces. One newspaper of the period observed following the business venture’s failure that “those are only wounded who hold shares therein.”

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 patent that the inventor must in writing describe the invention and the manner in which it works.” James Puckle’s 1718 patent for a gun was one of the first to provide a description.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Interesting. Hope not going too far ff
Our founders were aware technology was changing would continue to change. They lived through the days of matchlock to some very sophisticated flintlocks. Other inventions were coming along at the same time. Good post even though it might get moved.

 

[Alden]

Wasn't the square-faced bullet version also know as The Saracen Gun and some deployed?

 

[Coot]

There have been some previous posts about the Puckle Gun. Supposedly round shot for christian enemies & square for heathen enemies. There is a Puckle on display at a small naval museum at Bucklers Hard in England.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Think you're right there. Do know it was advertised as ideal of corners, stairways and other tight places. Was rather a novel design: Boom!...crank to next chamber...re-prime...Boom! :thumbsup: :haha:

 

[mooman76]

Very interesting. I'd never heard of that one.

 

[cynthialee]

Imagine the damage a troop of soldiers with 20-30 of them could have done! Back them up with snipers and musket men a few cannons and have a field day.

Looks like a revolver on 'roids.

 

[tecum-tha]

Compared to a Kalthoff/Lorenzoni Repeating System gun, this is a pretty cumbersome repeater.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Looks like a revolver on 'roids.

That's basically what it was...but you know how ordnance officers can be..."We ain't never done that before!" :wink: It was kind of a specialty weapon but think what they could have done from the fighting tops on frigates or defending sally-ports. An idea ahead of it's time!

 

[cynthialee]

I have been informed by the better half that she would consider this weapon platform in the cannon category and not an acceptable item for our home.


I wonder why they never caught on with the concept. Especially if your soldiers had more than a handful of these.

 

[Zonie]

During the time period and long after there were rules of war that would have made using the Puckle gun comparable with modern army's using chemical weapons.

Things like that just weren't done.

Winning a battle or even a war wasn't enough. It was "how" the battles or war was won that was important.

 

[cynthialee]

Well that is understandable, but then what changed attitudes in global society and made it so Gatling and Maxim could market their guns to armies later on down the timeline?
I know it goes into off limits era's, just it is picking at the back of my mind allot today.

 

[Coot]

They were difficult & expensive to make given the technology of the times. Sort of like switching from bronze to cast iron cannon - cheaper production cost meant that you could have a whole lot more. That & the reload time had to be significant.

 

[Rusty_Nail]

I have been informed by the better half that she would consider this weapon platform in the cannon category aned not an acceptable item for our home.

Miss CynthiaLee, Didn't a cannon have a fuse back then? Or was it called a match? Maybe that could be the rebuttal to her to look into one? :grin:

 

[cynthialee]

:haha:
Yeah I don't really think that would fly....

 

[Wes/Tex]

During the time period and long after there were rules of war that would have made using the Puckle gun comparable with modern army's using chemical weapons.

Things like that just weren't done.

Winning a battle or even a war wasn't enough. It was "how" the battles or war was won that was important.

Way too true...sometimes to the detriment of the troops involved. The foremost example is the day of Fontenoy(May 11, 1745)when the 5th & 6th battalions of the Gardes-Francaises faced off the British Foot Guards at 60 paces, then it began:

"Please fire first, messieures la Francaise"
"No,no! Apres vous, messieures les Anglais"

So they go on bowing and holding hats across their abdomens till the British finally agree to shoot first...this is well documented by the wonderful painting by Philipoteaux with raised, plumed hats an the and the senior regimental Colonel out front with his halberd doing the proper bow and waddle! As silly as it sounds to us now, it was the "gentlemanly" thing to do! The result was over 400 officers and men of the Gardes-Francaises swept away in a moment. If it hadn't have been for a regiment of mad Irish "Wild Geese", France would have been in real trouble that day. It was however, the epitome of "good form" for that time!

 

[Alden]

Gentlemen officers -- can't live with 'em, can't frag 'em.

 

[Rifleman1776]

It was "how" the battles or war was won that was important.

Or lost. The men were disposable, all that mattered was the honor and careers of the officers.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Yeah, but standing up front tipping your hat got a bunch of them plowed. Back then, officers led from the front. "The regimental officers; may they all be killed, wounded, or promoted!" :haha: Philipoteaux's painting not only shows the senior officers out front, on horseback doing the hat-doff routine, but the NCO's a directly behind the rank lines with their halberds leveled across pushing and arranging the French 'Gardes' into nice even lines...gotta make it nice and pretty for the Anglais! :shocked2:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

As coot mentioned, the technology of the time wasn't sufficient to produce them cheap enough and reliable enough to make them attractive to the military. The simple soldier of the line, was hardly able to master the mechanics of a matchlock or flintlock. Wheel locks were far too complicated and delicate for the average soldier.

Yet, some amazingly forward thinking designed firearms do exist. Hand carved out of metal and extremely labor intensive. The idea of a revolving cylinder had been in existence for at least a century earlier. Breech loading matchlocks utilizing removeable cartridges existed.

One very early artillery piece had two breeches that intersected to a single barrel in an inverted "Y" design and fired removeable "breech pots" (cartridges)The idea of cartridges had existed since the 1300's.

There were also very notable lapses in the chivalrous rules of warfare. Knights were supposed to fight knights, yet in several notable battles, efforts were made to kill off the mounted knights to level the playing field. The use of long sharpened pikes to kill the horses and dismount the knights was shown in "Brave Heart" Peasant soldiers killing off knights was simply not done or expected. Even during the War of 1812, militia was sent in against militia. At the Battle of Lundy's Lane, the American Commander had sent in the seasoned regulars, dressed as militia, against the Canadian militia and quickly routed the British/Canadian forces.