Would a flintlock Chassepot have worked? I know the bolt likely required far more precise machining than was possible at scale in the 17th/18th century (I imagine the fit of the bolt-head and the barrel would've been a big issue given precision lathes weren't a thing until the late 18th century, and the radius opposite the bolt handle would've been challenging to machine / forge without some kind of precise rotary table, the locking surfaces of the bolt would've also required a decent amount of precision) but I feel like the obturator design and the cartridge-ejecting bolt head would've made breachloading muskets far more practical than what was available at the time, which were mostly swing-out chambers that would only marginally speed up the reloading process. Rifling at scale was obviously not practical at the time so I imagine they'd have to be smoothbores.Would they have been practical? Would they have been possible? I suppose I might be overstating the precision requirements on the locking surface and the rest of the bolt, aside from the bolt head, and they may have gotten away with just casting them roughly and grinding those parts down to fit, but the bolt head I think would still be a challenge, even with the obturator taking care of most of the seal.If they were practical, would they have seen widespread adoption? I know there was resistance to rapid firing weapons, but at the same time, the fighting of the era basically relied upon rapid fire, so I figure there'd be officers who would've seen their merit, especially as a counter to cavalry charges.
>>65159007
>>65159035Google says that's a model of 1842T which is not really 17th or 18th century anon. 2 decades ahead of the chassepot, not 100.
>>65159044And yet it was made and worked.>Would a flintlock Chassepot have worked?No reason preventing a flintlock version from being made.
>>65159007So how are you planning to get the spark from the flint to the powder inside the paper cartridge? Hopes and wishes?
You'd have to flip the bolt to the left side, or have a left side charging situation. It could work, but it would be complex and if you can make that why not use a better ignition system?
>>65159473Not OP:With artillery you shove a pick through the touch hole to pierce the cartridge. Could have it so closing the bolt handle also pierces the paper cartridge. You'd probably still have to manually prime the thing before firing though.
Anon, I think it's best you keep those perverted thoughts to yourself
>>65159473Poke a hole through the touch-hole while priming the pan.>>65159048Yes but it was made in the 19th century, with 19th century tooling. The question isn't so much "is one physically possible" the answer to that is obviously yes, the question is "with the techniques of the 17th and 18th centuries, could a flintlock chassepot have been made in sufficient quantities to equip an army?"
>>65159477Mercury fulminate hadn't really been discovered until 1800 and percussion caps weren't a practical option prior to that.
>>65160161>with the techniques of the 17th and 18th centuries, could a flintlock chassepot have been made in sufficient quantities to equip an army?"Easily. With the exact same techniques used to make the guns already in use.The difference is in cost and time.
>>65160168Plus it took about another 15 or so years before percussion caps became reliable enough to justify converting over an entire inventory of muskets. Maybe sportsmen earlier on in its life were willing to gamble a bit more for convenience and water resistance, but it took longer for militaries to feel confident in them
>>65159007flintlock sharps would be cooler and more practical desuthe breech is already designed to cut off the rear of the paper cartridge exposing the powder without poking it. you'd still need to prime the pan but with an external powder case for that you'd be able to do some cool shit with it.
>>65160220Patent shenanigans and lawsuits took about 20 years to resolve.
>>65159473>So how are you planning to get the spark from the flint to the powder inside the paper cartridge? Hopes and wishes?Why, I'd use my peenus weenus of course you stilly. Haha, get it? My peenus weenus! I'd use my peenus weenus to penetrate the paper cartridge and "spark" it into action, haha!
>>65160230Kinda related little known fact about the Franco-Prussian War : When the newly established French 3rd Republic raised new armies to continue the fight, they didn't have enough Chassepot and mitrailleuses (early type of machine gun) to equip them. So people were sent to the US to buy Civil War surplusThat's how you had French troops battling the Germans in 1871 with Sharp rifles and Gatling guns
>>65160371unfortunately it didn't seem to help them much
>>65160230I guess, but sharps didn't really have a good gas seal and the falling block would require some pretty precise machining, while the obturator on the chassepot allows for lower tolerances.
>>65160684The obturator is very intelligent, but the heart of the topic, a bolt action lends itself much more poorly to being contorted into flint ignition than a Sharps as some have suggested.Cleverest needle gun, but weirdly, in videos (find me someone who owns these guns, I'd love to see personally) of Chassepots and Dreyses firing, it always seems like the Chassepot gums up first, whereas the admittedly quite sloppy Dreyse kept going without additional effort. On paper, I'd assume the opposite, but it's the best contemporary evidence I have, is videos
>>65160515Revenge for napoleon, quite justified.Also their problem was artillery, not rifles (as far as weaponry was concerned).
