this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
64 points (97.1% liked)

Forgotten Weapons

1594 readers
1 users here now

This is a community dedicated to discussion around historical arms, mechanically unique arms, and Ian McCollum's Forgotten Weapons content. Posts requesting an identification of a particular gun (or other arm) are welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/@ForgottenWeapons

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/

Rules:

1) Treat Others in a Civil Manner. This is not the place to deride others for their race, sexuality, or etc. Personal insults of other members are not welcome here. Neither are calls for violence.

2) No Contemporary Politics Historical politics that influenced designs or adoption of designs are excluded from this rule. Acknowledgement of existing laws to explain designs is also permissable, so long as comments aren't in made to advocate or oppose a policy. Let's not make this a place where we battle over which color ties our politicians should have, or the issues of today.

3) No Advertising This rule doesn't apply to posting historical advertisements or showing more contemporary ads as a means of displaying information on an appropriate topic. The aim of this rule is to combat spam/irrelevant advertising campaigns.

4) Keep Post on Topic This rule will be enforced with leeway. Just keep it related to arms or Forgotten Weapons or closely adjacent content. If you feel you have something that's worth posting here that isn't about either of those (and doesn't violate other rules) feel free to reach out to a mod.

5) No NSFW Content Please refrain from posting uncensored extreme gore or sexualized content. If censored these posts may be fine.

Post Guide Lines

These are suggestions not rules.

-Provide a duration for videos. eg. [12:34]

-Provide a year to either indicate when a specific design was produced, patented, or released. If you have an older design being used in a recent conflict provide the year the picture was taken. Dates should be included to help contextualize, not necessarily give exact periods.

-Post a full URL, on mobile devices it can be hard to tell what you're clicking on if you only see "(Link)".

-Posts do not have to be just firearms. Blades, bows, etc. are also welcome.

Adjacent Communities

If you run a community that you feel might fit in dm a mod and we might add your's.

Want to Find a Museum Near You? Check out the mega thread: https://lemmy.world/post/9699481

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

The first repeating rifle used in combat by a military force was a flintlock system developed by the Kalthoff brothers. It was adopted in the 1640s by the Danish Royal Guard, who purchased a bit more than 100 of the guns, and used them successfully in the Siege of Copenhagen in 1659. The Kalthoff is a .54 caliber flintlock rifle with a magazine of 30 balls under the barrel and a powder storage compartment in the buttstock. A lever under the action is rotated forward 180 degrees and then back to completely reload the rifle – this action loads a ball into the chamber, seats it fully in place, loads powder behind it, primes the pan, cocks the hammer, and closes the frizzen. This was an amazing amount of firepower in the mid-1600s, and the mechanism in the gun is brilliant.

The Kalthoff brothers (Peter, Mathias, Caspar, Henrik, and William) spread out across Europe working for many royal courts although it was in Denmark where their gun saw the most substantial military use. The system would lead to other repeating flintlock designs like the Lorenzoni, but these did not really meet the quality of the original Kalthoffs (in my opinion). However, the system was very expensive to make and rather fragile to use. By 1696 the Danes had taken them out of service in favor of simpler and more durable designs.

https://youtu.be/ghKrbNpqQoY

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago

Must have been a bit dicey to hold a wooden stock full of several charges worth of powder next to your face while firing it. Any hot gas blowback and that bad boy is a frag grenade.

[–] Boinkage@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

Thanks for sharing, this is one of the coolest boom sticks I've ever seent.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

It's interesting that we have examples like this but yet some people claim that the founders of the United States never could have imagined the firepower of semi automatic firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment today

But all that aside its an incredibly cool design

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

While revolutionary at the time, thris is still more in line with a bolt action than a semi auto. And other than some potential rich collectors these would have been in the hands of the military, not civilians due to their cost and complexity. Notice that they also switched back due to their lack of reliability. These clearly didn't work quite as well as people hoped.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That's fair. Even if the design wasn't entirely reliable you could see the potential of future designs.

Civilians have always been near the cutting edge of firearms stuff. In the civil war the Henry rifle was bought by soldiers to great effect. These days even budget ARs have free floated handguards with m lok attachment points, compared to the proven but dated design of M4A1s that most conventional forces use. We can do the experimentation that the military can't afford to do at scale.

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, I'd go a step further though and argue that even if the founding fathers could conceive of a modern high-rate-of-fire firearm, they probably never expected then to be readily available to the masses though, only the well to do. The question of "what they envisioned" is not just a technical puzzle, but a social one too.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

When you're talking about god given rights I think the idea is that social status is irrelevant, at least in intent

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, it definitely wasn't a given for the founders. There was a whole lot of talk about only letting landowners vote at one point.

Thomas Jefferson even invented a term for a specific type of political elite that he thought should be in power.

Look at the treatment of black people. Article one, section two of the Constitution counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person when determining congressional representation. Rights were definitely different based on who you are.

Heck, they still are... There are plenty of examples of modern subcultures with different rights. Gay marriage, etc.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

From my quick read of the Natual Aristocracy page it sounds like he describes two kinds of people, those who got power and privelage through personal drive and action (a person who starts a company, invents something, leads an organization, advances research) and those who inherit the status and money with little effort on their part (decendents of royalty, trust fund babies etc).

So the idea of finding people with talent and passion at all levels of society and helping them succeed through higher education isn't far fetched. It sounds a lot like how modern scholarships work to me. Yes their idea of "equality" is not the same but we've come a long way.

In that very article they quote him saying that gunpowder has armed both the weak and the strong. In context he's referring to the desire for physical strength/fitness but that can also go for cultural strength as well. The second amendment, here and now, allows the "modern subcultures" you mentioned to have firearms same as any other citizen.

Yeah his mindset didn't include women or people of color but it doesn't make the core idea invalid, which is that not everyone should have power, even if they are rich, but that everyone should have rights.

[–] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

"Yeah his mindset didn't include women or people of color but it doesn't make the core idea invalid"

I'm not sure how you could think that the founding fathers could exclude people and still mean everyone. "Everyone" specifically means not excluding anyone.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

So... a weapon from a hundred years before their time that had not made it anywhere near mass production is a sign that it is the future?

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It can be. They had electric vehicles in mines in the 30s and a few decades later here we are. The problem was the power source. Those vehicles were run with ridiculously long extension cords.

For guns the capacity was there, the problem was managing powder, caps and bullets. Cartridges came around and rapid fire was now easily achievable