Post weapons/ships/vehicles/equipment/whatever that was the ABSOLUTE PEAK... for all of 20 seconds.Example: Kropatscheks, Portuguese especially, were the absolute best rifles for a handful of years, and then rapidfire developments overtook it practically overnight.
>>65039885Rolling Block Rifles I guess.The AK-47s of the 1870s 1880s. Fuckin armed everyone from Argentina to Japan. Then magazined bolt actions became a thing and that was that.
Dreadnoughts and to a lesser extent, battleships as a whole. Don't get me wrong, they're cool ships, but they're easily outshined by carriers.
Pepperboxes were very popular for personal protection back in the day but once proper revolvers became a thing they disappeared nearly instantly. The interesting thing is that most of them were double-action so there really wasn't much of a technological leap to go from pepperbox to revolver.Most were fairly small caliber though there are some exceptions. This one is a whopping .577, which must have been quite the brick to carry.
>>65039917>ArgentinaDad had one and he lost it in a moving, 43 spanish is hard to come by though
1869 12 shot standard issue repeating bolt action1878/81 version pictured but fundemenally the same
Any of the early ignition systems, whether for cartridges or for muzzle-loaders. I.e. Teatfire, lipfire, pinfire, & cupfire cartridges. Pill-locks and tube-locks, etc.
>>65039938a revolver is just a pepperboc with the pepperbox barrels cut back to make a cylinder and a barrel affixed in front anonsee transitional revolvers pic random example
>>65039955>a revolver is just a pepperboc with the pepperbox barrels cut back to make a cylinder and a barrel affixed in front anonYes, exactly. That's my point. It's so simple mechanically, but in reality it took a while to get them working. In other words, transitional revolvers were around for far too long and it's surprising that they were even a thing at all.
gewher 1888floated by barrel shround, block loading magasine repeater, cock on open, automatic n block loader ejection or drop, 8mm mauserm twin locking lugs, safety catch, interchangeable parts.
>>65039960in practise these were my preference up until I stopped carrying guns, two of these, I never carrie a revolver but owned a cold an 1851 I think not the little one, but it was to large and too complex. Both barrels from this was preferable and thet git easilt i your overcoat pockets. I had two pepperboxes one by a man called cooper that broke after one evening trying it in the garden and a nice one that was gifted to me but I never used.
>>65039960fyi these briefy were around before the pepperbox, the whole barrel mechanism rotates around an axel to give you a second capped barrel but I did not like it much, too fiddely.
>>65039995Turnover guns are pretty cool. I love this example, owned by a Maharaja and built by Charles Lancaster. This has 4 barrels, you'd fire two then rotate the cluster to fire the other two.>>65039986tap-action pistols were also very common for a time for personal protection.
tap action by mortimer, the 'tap' is a sector on the aside that lets you choose which loaded barrel the primed pan will discharge. They wree VERY fashionable for a while towards the 1800s an just after. You just kept a few pinches pinch of pan powder power in a second snuff box
The so-called "Monk's gun" was a linear version of a wheel-lock, perhaps it should have been called a "file-lock"?
>>65040012
>>65040015
>>65040007The lancaster did not need the barrel manually rotated, they worked differently to those turn over barrel pocket pistols, they became very popular with military african types and indian officer types after the sudan much more a military thing. By then people had mostly stopped carrying guns at home and carried walking sticks with the occasional sword stick or sap. There was a whole think of men using their walking sticks to defend themselves for a while which made protective hats popular.
>>65040007Another interesting turnover piece. I spotted this one at auction and regret not bidding on it. This one is odd because it's a cartridge gun, and it's large-caliber too. Why not order that as a classic break-action howdah instead, that way you could get your second shot right away? Anyway, the brass in the pic is not correct for the gun, but it is a .450 BPE if I remember correctly.
>>65040032>The lancaster did not need the barrel manually rotated,That one did. It sounds like you're talking about the break-action 2 and 4-barrel guns like picrel, that's not the same thing. The one I just posted is a muzzleloader and you can see the catch for the barrels on the tang.https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/81/1310/charles-lancaster-four-barrel-percussion-rifle-with-two-actionsInterestingly, there is a modern knockoff of picrel, the COP Derringer.
underhammer buggey percussion pistol/poachers gunrandom example. Suprisingly accurate even if smooth bored due to the high pressure as the ball was swaged when the barrel was screwed on. The underhammer made aiming far more agreeable and was double action this one is apparently from a gunsmith in America 1860-80, they were very desirable and broke down into barrel action and near universally a detachable stock.
>>65040042yes that's the one very must an indian officers type of thing like chainmail epaulet and all that, where offcicers from agricultural families wound up surrounded by colonial what you would now call browns.
>>65039930>Dreadnoughts and to a lesser extent, battleships as a whole. Don't get me wrong, they're cool ships, but they're easily outshined by carriers.I appreciate the spirit of your statement but I don't think OP was talking about just normal tech development, like, sure an M16 is better than a musket, but that's a long time period. Carriers didn't come into their own until WW2, with Pearl Harbor arguably being the true paradigm shift moment, same as aircraft in general. Depending on how we measure "modern battleships" and dreadnoughts exactly that's a solid 30-50 years and a major world war from the time of bs/dreadnoughts until carriers, I'd call that a pretty reasonable run for a given approach in that time period. Carriers could not have come any earlier either because they made no sense as a center role until aircraft development got far enough.
>>65040052that one does not appear to be double action, my badmost were like the 'bar' pepperboxes
>>65040052>>65040064another example again American
>>65040052>buggy pistolthose are interesting.
Volley Guns. As I understand it there were basically two versions of this arm. The military type usually had 7 barrels, most famously the Nock Volley Gun used by the Royal Navy. There were also small-bore versions that were intended for hunting waterfowl, basically like a long-range shotgun.
>>65040052Composite Take-Down Under Hammer Percussion Gun, Irish
>>65040089The handguns had all sorts of interesting designs. The one on the top here is really strange, it is a percussion gun but has interchangeable breechblocks for rapid reloading. The one at the bottom is .22LR, loads with an en-bloc clip, and can fire either 4 or 8 barrels at once.
>>65040080they are and they were very useful guns but expensive. Short lived Often used by poachers and people up to no good in Europehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fUA_YCVkKs
>>65040089>Volley Guns.Kinda of interesting that VGs sorta came back, and then were instantly a bit too late/obsolete after 20 seconds, with the Metal Storm concept. There the idea was to blast out a huge amount of stuff into the rough direction of an incoming high speed missile or whatever, thus making up for not sufficiently advanced radar/guidance/control. But those got better faster then metal storm and were fundamentally superior in efficiency so MS never got into any actual deployment.
>>65040032>carried walking sticksGun-canes were a thing, including airgun versions.
Cape guns. These are a two-barrel combination gun, usually side-by-side. They were a thing for colonists in India and Africa as they could be used for general-purpose hunting, including large game. Interestingly, the English made loads of these but they almost never made 3-barrel combination guns while the German/Austrian tradition went heavily into that.These are usually solid built guns but you rarely find super nice ones, as a Gentleman would have a battery of different guns for his hunting excursions.
>>65039930A 30ish year run from 1906 to the mid-30s is pretty good.The Battlecruiser is a better example. It only has superiority until the other guy builds their own BC, at which point is becomes a bit of a red queen's race.
>>65040103yes often the underhammers ha the option of a right angled can handle along with the shouldser stock and an exterior sleeve an tip. as the ball was swaged by the barrel being screwed on little the older screw barrel pocket pistols you did not risk the ball moving and causing the barrel to rupture due to an air gap being created between the ball and change, a very dangerous situation with old black powder, in some cases the barrels were two stage so could also act as hunderhammer pistols with the walking stick grip attacked or with the full long barrel and shoulder stock as lomg guns, there were perfectly accurate up to 75 yards as well.I remember an unbrella pistol that worked in a similar way and you could innstall either the barrel or a short spike dagger in it. Walkinng stick guns really became quite common later with little 410 type shotgun cartridges or 9mmist cartridges. Their big downside was they had these rubber plugs protecting the end which with use tende to get stuck which was a bit of a nusance of you actually needed the thing. Even in their day though, the weapons I mention were reasonably rare such as the unbrella and really only used by people in special situations or circumstances as little rimfire black powder revolvers were very common and cheap by then abd much prefered by whoremongers and rent collectors.
>>65040173I saw all the ships lined up for the jubilee in 1897, quite an event and did a tour in a little pleasure boat around all the battleships with a very nice american man and his english fiancee who's name I have long forgotted but we had gin and tonic at a bandstand afterwards, there were ones from japan and germany and italy and an American one that was quite bizzare because it wa spainted entirely white. It was like a huge festival and there were people from all over the world there.. It was an amazing exhibition of power by the British Empire, the ships went on for miles and miles in rows.
The ball-and-shot gun was a popular thing from the end of the 19th century. These were shotguns with rifled chokes, with the idea being that they were optimized for shooting slugs but could also do a passable job with shot.These existed in all gauges, though there is a big jump in power between the 12-bore, which was a general purpose hunting gun, and the 10, which was much more powerful and suitable for dangerous game. The 12-bores were usually regulated for 3-4 drams, about the same as a normal shotgun, though I have seen 10-bore paradox guns regulated for 8 dram loads.
>>65041117All the big makers had them. H&H called theirs the Paradox, there was also the "Colindian" by Lang IIRC, Westley Richards had the "Explora" and "Fauneta", etc. Westley Richards made special ammo for these too, these are a high-velocity hollowpoint slug with a ballistic cap made of thin sheet metal on the front.
>>65041117Rifling destoys shot patterns and is to little to be effective in stabalising a bullet. Fowling pieces which is what I think you are discussing and were incredibly common halfstocked in percussion are universally smoothbore. They were also used for patched ball>>65041117>These were shotguns with rifled chokesNo.
>>65041125There was special incendiary ammunition made for these during WWI to shoot down zeppelins.
>>65041125>>65041117These were near uiversally used to fire big more dangerous game tier boolits. There were not at all commonn in the UK or Europe as bird guns
>>65041132He's describing paradox rifling which is the same as today's rifled choke tubes.It absolutely works for stabilising bullets and is short enough it didn't do too bad for shot. At the time chokes were still a new thing.
>>65041144Picrel.> Fowling pieces which is what I think you are discussing No. I'm talking about Fosberry's patent of 1895. go look it up if you're this ignorant.
>>65041145>These were near uiversally used to fire big more dangerous game tier boolits.Yes, I just said that they were optimized for shooting slugs.>There were not at all commonn in the UK or Europe as bird gunsOf course they weren't. Notice the names all imply their use in exotic faraway lands. The Jungle Gun, Colindian, etc, these were for rich people going to India or Africa.
>>65041183And speaking of slugs, they had some strange ones back in the day too. This thing was supposed to spin due to angled holes perforated through it.
>>65041249There were also explosive slugs for hunting. These actually dated back to the muzzle-loader era.>Among other weapons, I had an extraordinary rifle that carried a half-pound percussion shell—this instrument of torture to the hunter was not sufficiently heavy for the weight of the projectile; it only weighed twenty pounds: thus, with a charge of ten drachms of powder, behind a half-pound shell, the recoil was so terrific, that I spun around like a weathercock in a hurricane. I really dreaded my own rifle, although I had been accustomed to heavy charges of powder, and severe recoil for some years. None of my men could fire it, and it was looked upon with a species of awe, and it was named "Jenna-El-Mootfah" (Child of a Cannon) by the Arabs, which being far too long a name for practice, I christened it the "Baby;" and the scream of this "Baby" loaded with a half-pound shell was always fatal. It was far too severe, and I very seldom fired it, but it is a curious fact, that I never fired a shot with that rifle without bagging: the entire practice, during several years, was confined to about twenty shots. I was afraid to use it; but now and then it was absolutely necessary that it should be cleaned, after months of staying loaded. On such occasions my men had the gratification of firing it, and the explosion was always accompanied by two men falling on their backs (one having propped up the shooter), and the "Baby" flying some yards behind them. This rifle was made by Holland & Holland, of Bond Street, and I could highly recommend it for the Goliath of Gath, but not for the men of A.D. 1866.>>--Sir Samuel White Baker, The Albert N'Yanza, Great Basin Of The Nile
>>65041258....as well as steel-tipped AP slugs for hunting elephants.
>>65041264Tools for assembling said slugs.
>>65041269reproduction of one of the old molds, you can see how it casts both parts like #3 and #4 like in >>65041258, which are then swaged together to make the completed slug.
Anti-tank rifles & MGs. Something relatively portable that could punch through armor? Great! For the time period of late-WW1 to early-WW2.
>>65041275>Anti-tank riflesThat is an interesting topic. On the one hand, it wasn't very long until tanks became too heavily armored for a man-portable rifle to take one out, so the specific case of an "anti tank rifle" is indeed pretty limited. However the idea of a rifle whose size is near the limits of human capability has always been a thing. Wall guns and jingals were around for centuries. Dangerous game hunting rifles and market wildfowling guns tended towards the limits of human capability as well. Today we have anti-materiel rifles and extreme long range rigs. The idea of a big-ass-gun that someone can barely carry is very old and is still around. The thing that's changed is what people shoot them at.
>>65041183only idiots and nuts of people desperate for advancement went to africa and india, they died like flies from malaria and cholera and typhus. People who brought their wives with them and had kids lost children constantly, they were better off in boarding schools back in england. The wives died constantly as well.
>>65041338True enough. How ever they're used is how they're classified. I guess what makes them dedicated to the anti-tank role is also the ammunition used. Since you're getting into caps, jackets, tungsten core, etc. Stuff with a specific target & range in mind rather than purely long distance or knockdown power.
>>65039885Any late war superprop
>>65041264>>65041269>>65041273Wew. Wonder if it works. No way I'd have the balls to shoot an elephant with anything less than a .416 with solids.
>>65039885Any of the gunless jet fighters of the 50s and 60s. Technically they were the best of the best with their radars and missiles but those radars and missles just weren't good enough yet and nobody knew how to fight with a pure missile fighter either so everyone dumped them almost as quickly as they appeared. Though I feel it was more like a fad than a short-lived zenith of technology, like ram bows
>>65041731Forget hunting the elephants, I don't think I'd have the balls to load the gun. Imagine ramming a sketchy impact-sensitive slug full of HE down the barrel of a muzzleloader on top of a massive amount of gunpowder.
>>65041747Specialized ramming tips. There's a hollow so the rammer does not hit the sensitive area.
>>65041762Sure, sounds great. You can go first.
>>65041620the L variant—solved all high altitude problems of earlier variants, and boosted controls—arrived mid-1944, by which time jet propelled fighters were on the way. Finest single seat piston engine (twin turbosupercharged) fighter bomber reconnaissance aircraft ever. Cadillac of piston engined fighters.
>>65041769Mine is for even worse situations. To ram out a misfire with a live fuse.
>>65039885Always thought the Kropatschek was neat as fuck.>>65039917Also the rolling block, it's an insanely smart design for what it intends to be.>>65039955Proper revolvers allowed for much better practical accuracy, and a lighter and slimmer gun. This required good cylinder indexing and timing, whereas for a pepper box, this was less important.
>>65041275The interesting thing about them is that they became anti-materiel rifles instead, as tank armor got stronger during WW2, people would start using them for shooting at other things instead.Although, pic related was a really clever adaption to keep using them against tanks (if harsh on the shoulder).
>>65041949reminds me of this fine weapon
>>65041784I'd feel a lot better about that. I trust the safety features of a modern fuse a lot more than I trust 19th century impact primers fitted in a soft lead bullet. But still, there would be some pucker factor involved....
>>65041161> A combination of Barium peroxide and powdered aluminumI am frightened and aroused.
>>65041427Yeah and those that succeeded own huge deaths of land in Namibia and South Africa and basically have mini utopia.
>>65041747You're right that's even worse than I imagined.
>>65039885People don't give Japan the credit they deserve. In 1939 they were on the bleeding edge of aviation technology and many of their 1939 model weapons were world leading at their introduction.Yes they were completely leapfrogged across the board within a few years but briefly they held a strong hand. For example the Type 99 rifle was amazing feature packed for a bolt action gun, but everyone else moved on to semi-auto rifles and submachine guns pretty much immediately after.The Zero was so good that its range was thought to be physically impossible at its debut, but better allied planes showed up to challenge it within a few short years.
>>65042842Jap shit airpower was specifically designed, across the board, for surprise! we faster than you! by making their shit out of paper mache' and putting a big engine in it. They specifically designed their shit for an overwhelming surprise/invasion in secret, knowing that was the plan. Gee. I wonder who else has done that sort of underhanded shit before?
>>65042842I think WW2 Japanese small arms get shat on because:>1. The Nambu pistols aren't that great.>2. The anti-air sights on the Type 99 Arisaka sounds comically useless if you don't know how they're used (still debatable in a squad, mind).>3. The older Type 11 is weird and funky.>4. Barely any subguns.However, I think these things are worth considering:>1. Pistols were of more peripheral importance to infantry combat, even in WW2, and 8mm Nambu isn't AS weak as some people insist.>2. The Type 99 Arisaka rifle as a whole is basically on the same level as the K98k Mauser, only with an even stronger action.>3. The Type 99 light machinegun was REALLY good, as good as the Zb.26 and Bren, and better than the 1918A2 BAR.>4. Japan were not the only major power to foolishly neglect the subgun (see Britain and Russia), they just failed to course correct in time. IJN Marines fighting in China were strong proponents of subguns from experience, but weren't really listened to.
>>65042951Yeah its not like the Soviet Union not only had the best submachinegun of WW2 but also the second best submachinegun of WW2
>>65040228>World's oldest man browses /k/
>>65043013>Best SMG of WWIIWrong. Very wrong.
>>65042091The description for the fill of >>65041264is also exciting.>Take sulphuret of antimony and chlorate of potash, pounded separately in the mortar, mix carefully equal parts by weight with a bone knife on a plate or other smooth surface
>>65042951>I think WW2 Japanese small arms get shat onAgreed. Other factors were the shitty "last ditch" and training model Arisakas. The last ditch guns were mechanically sound but looked like shit. The training guns would blow up if you fired full-power ammunition through them but it's not like GI Joe could read the moonrunes.
>>65043013I would like to know what your idea for the "second best SMG of WW2II" is and why, because personal experience got me pretty solidly convinced that it is not a PPSh...>>65042951I really like jap HMG tripods. A lot of care and troop feedback went into designing them.
>>65043013>PPS users>23 world wide>Sten users>58 world wideHuh.....
>>65043013He was fairly obviously talking about pre-war. Where the Soviets made a few PPDs and only really learnt their lesson a couple years in, like the Brits (who had a few Lanchester and Thompson pre-war). Posting a gun from mid-war doesn't change that, certainly not the best of the war.>>65043375Beretta 1938 mogs. >>65044013He didn't post a PPSH.
>>65044024Neither the Sten nor the PPS are "good" SMGs, they're servicable and functional. The Suomi, Beretta 38, Patchett, Owen or Gustav M/45 (if you count it) are really the competitors for that.>>65044025I was wrong about Lanchester/Thompson because I got confused by some pictures and videos that I thought were pre-war but weren't. Britain didn't have either until 1940 durr.
>>65044024The Sten is really fucking cheap, and the British Empire was both large, and left a lot of remnants.>>65044033I'd rate the PPS43 above the Sten, Greasegun, MP40, etc. Stock is kinda eh, but the magazine is really good, and it works very reliably, which is great for a gun which is so cheap, fast, and easy to produce in large numbers.
>>65039885Bayraktar.Absolutely dominated early in the war, and having a lot more of them could turn the tide a lot more. But practically irrelevant a few months later
>>65042889The zeros actually weren't all that fast and Japanese engines of the time were kind of shit in both design and build quality. Their later war "super" fighters relied on licensed copies and variants of German engines. All the zero succeeded in was being long range, cheap, and very maneuverable at low to moderate speeds. Lord forbid you tried to maneuver after a dive in one of those
>>65044025>He didn't post a PPSH.Correct. He did post a PPS implying it's the No. 1.I inquired what the supposed No. 2 is and stated that if he thinks it's the PPSh, then he's fucking wrong.
