David Weber: March to the Sea

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're making
matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon they don't
know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother making those
weapons when they'd be even less useful than they were on Earth. I can
see them still making cannon for siege weapons, because those would be
worth all the effort that would go into keeping the powder dry, but
matchlocks strike me as something they'd see as expensive and nearly
useless.

Lynn McGuire

2014-05-30 16:42:23 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they
were on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege weapons, because those would be worth all the effort that would go into
keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something they'd see as expensive and nearly useless.

Even if it rains 24x7, I'll bet that a matchlock can
be fired 2 or 3 times a minute. A poncho does wonders
for keeping things dry enough to fire.

Lynn

Bill Gill

2014-05-30 16:50:12 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're
making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother
making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they
were on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege weapons,
because those would be worth all the effort that would go into
keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something they'd
see as expensive and nearly useless.

Even if it rains 24x7, I'll bet that a matchlock can
be fired 2 or 3 times a minute. A poncho does wonders
for keeping things dry enough to fire.
Lynn

I'm not too sure about that firing 2 or 3 times a minute.
I think the load time is quite a bit longer than 30 seconds.
I'm not experience about that though. Do we have any muzzle
loaders around here? They fire muzzle loading muskets and
rifles regularly, although I don't expect there are many who
fire matchlocks.

Bill

Lynn McGuire

2014-05-30 17:38:29 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it
rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're
making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother
making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they
were on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege weapons,
because those would be worth all the effort that would go into
keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something they'd
see as expensive and nearly useless.

Even if it rains 24x7, I'll bet that a matchlock can
be fired 2 or 3 times a minute. A poncho does wonders
for keeping things dry enough to fire.
Lynn

I depends if you have premade cartridges for the
muzzle loaders or if you have a ball pouch and a
gunpowder pouch. Having a premade cartridge
(primerless) makes the process much faster.

Lynn

michael

2014-05-30 23:04:03 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
I'm not too sure about that firing 2 or 3 times a minute.
I think the load time is quite a bit longer than 30 seconds.
I'm not experience about that though. Do we have any muzzle
loaders around here? They fire muzzle loading muskets and
rifles regularly, although I don't expect there are many who
fire matchlocks.
Bill

I have quite a variety of muzzleloaders, including one matchlock.
Pretty much any muzzleloader is going to require a similar amount
of time to reload, although you can cut that cycle down a bit with
different reloading techniques. For most purposes, about once
per minute is a comfortable and safe rate of fire. Twice per minute
is pushing it a bit - no so much from the time required to go through
all the motions, but from the possibility of still smoldering
materials left either in the breech or in the primer pan. Putting
fresh powder in on top of such materials could be disastrous, and
I've seen a ramrod get shot out of the barrel when hammering down
a ball.

Speedloaders (yes, there is such a competition) can on occasion get
the fire rate as high as 4/min, though it can be dangerous. They
take a lot of special precautions, use nonflammable patches, etc.
to cut down on the risks.

Some of the later military uses of muzzleloaders involved the use of
premade cartridges, which were packets of paper with a bullet and
powder wrapped up inside. You bit off the end of the packet that
contained the bullet, poured in the powder, then inserted the bullet
with your teeth. The bullets were hollow based, and would flare to
engage the rifling when the gas pressure hit them - this allowed the
bullet to slide loosely down the barrel, thus requiring no patch or
ramming. Slamming the butt of the rifle sharply on a knee or the
ground was usually enough to seat the charge. Spinning the rifle on
its side and giving it a whack would allow enough powder into the
pan for priming (assuming you were using a flintlock), or if
percussion caps were to be used you just had to fit one on the nipple.
Total reload rates for this type of set up can be under 10 seconds,
though the danger of still-burning residues in the barrel are still
pretty high - especially if the weapon isn't perfectly clean.

The matchlock and the later wheel lock really didn't last very
long - they were finicky and failure prone, and anyone who had
enough metallurgy knowledge to produce a reliable barrel for
a rifle or musket pretty much had the ability to harden a frizzen (the
part of a flintlock that the flint strikes sparks against). The
moment that the first flintlock designs got around, it was pretty
much over for the other technologies.

Bill Gill

2014-05-31 01:34:13 UTC

Post by michael

I have quite a variety of muzzleloaders, including one matchlock.
Pretty much any muzzleloader is going to require a similar amount
of time to reload, although you can cut that cycle down a bit with
different reloading techniques. For most purposes, about once
per minute is a comfortable and safe rate of fire. Twice per minute
is pushing it a bit - no so much from the time required to go through
all the motions, but from the possibility of still smoldering
materials left either in the breech or in the primer pan. Putting
fresh powder in on top of such materials could be disastrous, and
I've seen a ramrod get shot out of the barrel when hammering down
a ball.
Speedloaders (yes, there is such a competition) can on occasion get
the fire rate as high as 4/min, though it can be dangerous. They
take a lot of special precautions, use nonflammable patches, etc.
to cut down on the risks.
Some of the later military uses of muzzleloaders involved the use of
premade cartridges, which were packets of paper with a bullet and
powder wrapped up inside. You bit off the end of the packet that
contained the bullet, poured in the powder, then inserted the bullet
with your teeth. The bullets were hollow based, and would flare to
engage the rifling when the gas pressure hit them - this allowed the
bullet to slide loosely down the barrel, thus requiring no patch or
ramming. Slamming the butt of the rifle sharply on a knee or the
ground was usually enough to seat the charge. Spinning the rifle on
its side and giving it a whack would allow enough powder into the
pan for priming (assuming you were using a flintlock), or if
percussion caps were to be used you just had to fit one on the nipple.
Total reload rates for this type of set up can be under 10 seconds,
though the danger of still-burning residues in the barrel are still
pretty high - especially if the weapon isn't perfectly clean.
The matchlock and the later wheel lock really didn't last very
long - they were finicky and failure prone, and anyone who had
enough metallurgy knowledge to produce a reliable barrel for
a rifle or musket pretty much had the ability to harden a frizzen (the
part of a flintlock that the flint strikes sparks against). The
moment that the first flintlock designs got around, it was pretty
much over for the other technologies.

Thanks, that's just the kind of information that I figured somebody
had. So we can figure a useful rate of fire of about 1 per minute.
That is a little higher than I thought, but certainly believable.

Bill

Jessica

2014-05-31 04:02:44 UTC

The
moment that the first flintlock designs got around, it was pretty much
over for the other technologies.

Mostly because mass-production of flintlocks was much cheaper than wheel
locks. The wheel lock is actually much more sophisticated and complicated
and therefore more expensive to produce.

michael

2014-06-02 01:57:44 UTC

Post by Jessica

The
moment that the first flintlock designs got around, it was pretty much
over for the other technologies.

Mostly because mass-production of flintlocks was much cheaper than wheel
locks. The wheel lock is actually much more sophisticated and complicated
and therefore more expensive to produce.

The biggest problem with the wheel lock was the relatively poor
springs they were capable of making. Their metallurgy and
manufacturing processes simply weren't up to the task, especially for
anything like mass production.

J. Clarke

2014-05-31 09:06:50 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@here.com
says...

Post by michael

Soldiers in a war are not in competition and are more afraid of the
enemy and their sergeant than they are of an accidental discharge.
Jomini says 3. Saxe says 4 in combat but up to 6 in training.

William December Starr

2014-06-01 19:43:44 UTC

Post by michael
Some of the later military uses of muzzleloaders involved the use
of premade cartridges, which were packets of paper with a bullet
and powder wrapped up inside. You bit off the end of the packet
that contained the bullet, poured in the powder, then inserted the
bullet with your teeth. The bullets were hollow based, and would
flare to engage the rifling when the gas pressure hit them - this
allowed the bullet to slide loosely down the barrel, thus
requiring no patch or ramming. Slamming the butt of the rifle
sharply on a knee or the ground was usually enough to seat the
charge. Spinning the rifle on its side and giving it a whack
would allow enough powder into the pan for priming (assuming you
were using a flintlock), or if percussion caps were to be used you
just had to fit one on the nipple.

I wonder whether those machinations were the historical origin of
things like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Drill_Platoon

(I was going to add "or parade majorettes," but apparently the
mock-rifle tossing ones I remember from a parade I saw as a child
were an extreme outlier; at least every set of majorettes whose
photos get returned by a Google Image search just use batons.)

-- wds

Kurt Busiek

2014-06-02 02:30:13 UTC

Post by William December Starr
(I was going to add "or parade majorettes," but apparently the
mock-rifle tossing ones I remember from a parade I saw as a child
were an extreme outlier; at least every set of majorettes whose
photos get returned by a Google Image search just use batons.)

Not too much of an outlier:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-4f63cb11/turbine/sfl-baton-twirlers-practice-for-switzerland-20-001/620

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

kdb

--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

William December Starr

2014-06-03 00:20:24 UTC

Post by Kurt Busiek

http://www.trbimg.com/img-4f63cb11/turbine/sfl-baton-twirlers-practice-for-switzerland-20-001/620
http://hmking82.com/Old%20Images/Sports%20and%20Snow%20Images/Brahma%20Band%20Rifle%20Corp.jpg
http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2012-03/113590540-16162345.jpg
http://jenontheedge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rife1.jpg

Thanks. The second one's apparently from the early 1980s, but of
course that still well postdates the mid-1960's parade I remembered.

What search criteria did you use?

-- wds

pyotr filipivich

2014-05-31 02:36:06 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it
rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're
making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother
making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they
were on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege weapons,
because those would be worth all the effort that would go into
keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something they'd
see as expensive and nearly useless.

Even if it rains 24x7, I'll bet that a matchlock can
be fired 2 or 3 times a minute. A poncho does wonders
for keeping things dry enough to fire.

OTOH - reloading a muzzle loader under a poncho ... not so fast.

As I recall the drill for matchlocks, it included a repeated
instruction to "blow on the match, lest it go out."

As I remember the drill for flintlock muskets:
ground musket - (put the butt on the ground, and hold with your
left hand)
handle cartridge (get it from the cartridge box, etc, rip it open,
pour powder down the barrel)
draw ramstick, and pack wadding (or seat the ball in the wadding
and ram the 'package' down the barrel.)
'return ramstick'
'cast about to bar' - (hold musket in left arm across your body,
with the frizzen and flash pan at your stomach)
'and present at half-cock' - (pull the part holding the flint
'half way back')
'open pan ..
... charge your piece' - (add powder to the flashpan)
...and close frizzen' - (cover the flashpan.)
"Present your piece at full cock..." - (bring your piece up and to
your shoulder, making sure you fully cock the hammer.)
"Aim and Fire!" - (pull the trigger and wait .... ) [Word to the
wise - do not fire directly into the wind. Or if you do, don't
inhale.]

Then check to make certain it went off, and the barrel has no hot
spots in it. Usually by blowing down the barrel. Then repeat the
above.
With Practice, you can get three rounds off in a minute. Trained
musketeers could do that as long as long as the cartridges held out.
You could fire faster, but you start cutting out safety steps.

tschus
pyotr

Post by Bill Gill
Bill

--
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another.
-- George Bancroft

Mike Dworetsky

2014-05-31 07:45:16 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where
it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're
making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother
making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they
were on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege
weapons, because those would be worth all the effort that would go
into keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something
they'd see as expensive and nearly useless.

Even if it rains 24x7, I'll bet that a matchlock can
be fired 2 or 3 times a minute. A poncho does wonders
for keeping things dry enough to fire.
Lynn

There are societies devoted to re-enacting the English Civil War (17th C)
and I have seen them using muzzle-loading matchlocks. If you watch the TV
series Sharpe's War set during the Napoleonic Wars the trained riflemen
could fire three rounds a minute, and the ability to achieve and sustain
that rate was the first objective of the training of new recruits. However,
that was set later and they may have had powder cartridges. They still had
to ram down the ball and wadding on top of the powder, however. I think
they had flintlocks by then.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

J. Clarke

2014-05-31 10:06:27 UTC

In article <***@bt.com>, platinum198
@pants.btinternet.com says...

Post by Mike Dworetsky

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where
it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're
making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother
making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they
were on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege
weapons, because those would be worth all the effort that would go
into keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something
they'd see as expensive and nearly useless.

Even if it rains 24x7, I'll bet that a matchlock can
be fired 2 or 3 times a minute. A poncho does wonders
for keeping things dry enough to fire.
Lynn

Those would have been Baker rifles, not smoothbore muskets. According
to the wikipedia entry, riflemen were expected to fire 2 rounds a minute
in combat vs 4 for musketeers, with the caveats that a highly proficient
rifleman could fire 3 rounds a minute and that a higher rate could be
achieved using an undersized ball at the cost of accuracy.

pyotr filipivich

2014-06-01 03:21:31 UTC

Post by Mike Dworetsky

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where
it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're
making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother
making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they
were on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege
weapons, because those would be worth all the effort that would go
into keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something
they'd see as expensive and nearly useless.

Even if it rains 24x7, I'll bet that a matchlock can
be fired 2 or 3 times a minute. A poncho does wonders
for keeping things dry enough to fire.
Lynn

The British army had "cartridge boxes" as standard issue by the
mid 1700's. These held paper cartridges, which were a "self
contained round" - ball, wadding and powder in one convenient package.
If memory serves, British Army standard issue was 38 - that's a lot
of shooting as well as a lot of fouling of the barrel. (One of the
drawbacks of BP is that it leaves deposits in the barrel. These can
accumulate to the point where ramming a ball home becomes difficult.
But that is an issue for a soldier who might find himself having to
fire off those 38 volleys without a chance to clean the barrel.)

--
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another.
-- George Bancroft

Robert Bannister

2014-05-31 02:17:46 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

In addition, those early arquebuses or hackbuts were very heavy and
unwieldy.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

pyotr filipivich

2014-05-31 02:19:46 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

They [I'm assuming the Mardukans) would make them for the same
reason humans did: they work, they're cool, I have one and you don't
(neener, neener, neener) and - most of all - because siege cannon were
essentially assembled in place, and were not very maneuverable,
especially in terms of aiming 'elsewhere'. With a "hand gonne" the
operator could aim his "hand cannone" first this way, then that,
taking shots around the battle field in a manner that could not be
done with regular cannone.
--
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another.
-- George Bancroft

David Johnston

2014-05-31 16:36:21 UTC

Post by pyotr filipivich

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

They [I'm assuming the Mardukans) would make them for the same
reason humans did: they work,

They _don't_ work. Not if it's raining that much. In all the parts of
Marduk they're fighting in, it's so wet that they'd think London was
semi-desert. In fact it's a plot point that the humans freak out the
barbarians by giving their enemies handgun and rifle technology that
works in the rain. Even assuming that they've never thought of the
crossbow, although they have metal working technology that would let
them make fine all-weather crossbows and having four arms would be great
for crossbows, they'd still be better off with spear throwers and
javelins then they are with matchlocks.

they're cool, I have one and you don't

Post by pyotr filipivich
(neener, neener, neener) and - most of all - because siege cannon were
essentially assembled in place, and were not very maneuverable,
especially in terms of aiming 'elsewhere'. With a "hand gonne" the
operator could aim his "hand cannone" first this way, then that,
taking shots around the battle field in a manner that could not be
done with regular cannone.
--
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another.
-- George Bancroft

Cryptoengineer

2014-05-31 17:16:17 UTC

Post by pyotr filipivich

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where
it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers.

You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking why they're
making matchlocks instead of some more sophisticated hand weapon
they don't know how to make yet. I'm asking why anyone would bother
making those weapons when they'd be even less useful than they were
on Earth. I can see them still making cannon for siege weapons,
because those would be worth all the effort that would go into
keeping the powder dry, but matchlocks strike me as something they'd
see as expensive and nearly useless.

They [I'm assuming the Mardukans) would make them for the same
reason humans did: they work,

They _don't_ work. Not if it's raining that much. In all the parts
of Marduk they're fighting in, it's so wet that they'd think London
was semi-desert. In fact it's a plot point that the humans freak out
the barbarians by giving their enemies handgun and rifle technology
that works in the rain. Even assuming that they've never thought of
the crossbow, although they have metal working technology that would
let them make fine all-weather crossbows and having four arms would be
great for crossbows, they'd still be better off with spear throwers
and javelins then they are with matchlocks.

For the historians out there:

Do we have records of battles fought in the rain during the matchlock
period? What happened?

Black powder is hygroscopic; 'Keeping your powder dry' is a major, major
issue, and powder horns and pouches are designed with that as a goal.

I have read (but can't confirm), that the cost of gunpowder was the
overwhelmingly largest expense in conducting warfare for quite a long
period.

pt

pyotr filipivich

2014-06-01 03:21:31 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by pyotr filipivich
They [I'm assuming the Mardukans) would make them for the same
reason humans did: they work,

They _don't_ work. Not if it's raining that much. In all the parts
of Marduk they're fighting in, it's so wet that they'd think London
was semi-desert. In fact it's a plot point that the humans freak out
the barbarians by giving their enemies handgun and rifle technology
that works in the rain. Even assuming that they've never thought of
the crossbow, although they have metal working technology that would
let them make fine all-weather crossbows and having four arms would be
great for crossbows, they'd still be better off with spear throwers
and javelins then they are with matchlocks.

Do we have records of battles fought in the rain during the matchlock
period? What happened?

The slow matches went out. Although I understand that the
Japanese are suppose to have made some very nice rain covers for their
matchlocks which kept things dry. For some values of dry.

Post by Cryptoengineer
Black powder is hygroscopic; 'Keeping your powder dry' is a major, major
issue, and powder horns and pouches are designed with that as a goal.

Yep.

Post by Cryptoengineer
I have read (but can't confirm), that the cost of gunpowder was the
overwhelmingly largest expense in conducting warfare for quite a long
period.

Yep.

Post by Cryptoengineer
pt

--
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another.
-- George Bancroft

Greg Goss

2014-05-30 16:58:48 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers. Primers contain a very special gunpowder
that is already oxygenated. All they need to fire
(combust) is a spark.

All gunpowder is already oxygenated and can be set off with a spark.
(see "flintlock"). I'm not sure what the key measurement is for the
things that can be set off by a shock wave.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

J. Clarke

2014-05-30 17:31:27 UTC

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers. Primers contain a very special gunpowder
that is already oxygenated. All they need to fire
(combust) is a spark.

Nearly all modern gunpowder is "already oxygenated". What's different
about chemistry used in primers is that it is impact sensitive but not
so much so as to make cartridges dangerous to handle.

Bob Casanova

2014-05-31 16:49:38 UTC

On Fri, 30 May 2014 13:31:27 -0400, the following appeared
in alt.books.david-weber, posted by "J. Clarke"

Post by J. Clarke

Why the hell would anyone manufacture matchlocks in a place where it rains every day?

Because they do not know how to manufacture cartridge
primers. Primers contain a very special gunpowder
that is already oxygenated. All they need to fire
(combust) is a spark.

Nearly all modern gunpowder is "already oxygenated". What's different
about chemistry used in primers is that it is impact sensitive but not
so much so as to make cartridges dangerous to handle.

A couple of points...

*All* gunpowder, including blackpowder, contains its own
oxygen source; in blackpowder it's potassium nitrate.

Primers don't use a "special gunpowder" (maybe he's thinking
of the fine-ground priming powder used in muzzleloaders,
which *is* "special gunpowder"). Early primers used
fulminate of mercury [HG(CNO)2]; these were replaced by
first, potassium chlorate, then by lead azide [Pb(N3)2] and
lead styphnate [C6HN3O8Pb] because potassium chlorate
residue is corrosive. IIRC there are replacements either in
existence or under development for the lead-based primers
due to environmental issues of lead dust.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Loren Pechtel

2014-05-31 02:50:34 UTC