Printable View
All the major British firearm manufacturers had at least a dozen models. Holland & Holland, Boss, Joseph Lang, Churchill, William Evans, and Purdey jump to mind. Some of them are very distinct in their styling and finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by NRSASD
If you want some insanity look into punt guns
One of the issues you're going to run into with this is that a lot of guns in this class were either not a mass produced thing (Britain in particular has and had a Reputation for made-to-order guns of superior quality and price) or else is a mass-produced thing sold under a hundred different brandings because every hardware store or catalog bought it from the manufacturer and stamped their name on it. There's seriously a massive community built around solving "this is my grandpa's gun, what is it" questions by extensive archive research and examination of proof marks. A friend of mine has a shotgun from the 1910s, for example, that's just stamped "Sears" - we have no idea who made it. Much as it goes against the grain for me, a generic approach would likely be best for anything but the semi-auto and pump shotguns already mentioned. Just make generic stats for "double-barreled shotgun" and "single-barrel shotgun", and give them a quality bonus based on the brand name.Quote:
Originally Posted by NRSASD
One thing to keep in mind, however, is the caliber. Nowadays, the only shotguns that see a lot of use are 12-gauge (.73", your default adult model), 20 gauge (.61", mostly used as a youth gun, or for people who don't need the full power of 12 for whatever they happen to be shooting at), and .410 (.410", originally intended for snakes and rats, inexplicably popular today despite being good at pretty much nothing). In the 1920s, however, larger shotguns were in more common use than they are today. 12 gauge was already the default, but 10 gauge (.77") was pretty common and 8 gauge (.83") wasn't unheard of (particularly in the UK). This is primarily because certain game animals (turkeys being the classic example, but not the only one) needed something heavier than birdshot (which is a huge number of relatively small pellets optimizing for spread, intended to knock lightly-built birds out of the sky), but more spread than buckshot (which is a small number of heavier pellets that have minimal spread but deep penetration, intended for larger animals such as deer). Nowadays, the preferred solution is to replace the lead shot with steel (which is less soft than lead and thus penetrates better) or titanium (which is not only harder than lead but also significantly heavier) as a specialized load for such purposes, but for a pure lead load the only practical solution is top make the gun bigger so you can fit in more of the bigger shot.
Speaking of ammunition, I’d recommend having slugs as an option. They have one big, bullet-shaped projectile instead of a bunch of small, spherical ones. The projectile may also have rifling on it, to impart spin for better accuracy at longer ranges. The longer range is easy enough to model. As for modeling the decreased number of projectiles, how do shotguns work in the mechanics of your system? I wouldn’t bother statting out bird shot, since it’s not very good against the sorts of enemies players need to worry about.
The problem I have with single-barrel, break action shotguns is that I’ve never seen a PnP game that made them a compelling mechanical choice. And the video games that made them worthwhile did so by having them somehow deal more damage than other shotguns firing the same ammunition. I’m not sure why the developers think putting two barrels right next to each other makes either one less effective. I’m not very fond of filling out tables with gear that PCs will never use. Nor am I a fan of bizarre, immersion-breaking design decisions.
The problem I have with semi-auto shotguns is the reverse, I’ve never seen a PnP game that implemented them without having them mechanically upstage all other shotgun options.
The big thing about semi-auto shotguns even today is that they're real picky about ammunition choice (the recoil and gas pressure, one or the other of which is key to operating a semi-auto, varies dramatically based on what kind of shell you put in), something few games bother to model - either there's only one Shotgun Shell ammo and thus there's no effect, or else they don't bother with a malfunction chance and there's no effect.
For supernatural settings like the one in the question (based on the other thread), shotguns have a very special mechanical use in that you can load them with non-standard rounds - garlic pellets, silver shot, rock salt, etc - to cover specific monster weaknesses in ways that rifles and pistols can't really do.
How strong do the rivets in armor need to be? Does the force from blows actually transfer through them?
Rivets are hearty and are used because of their ability to deal with vibration and shock. If something fails it's usually the material around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
Even the old soft steel mushroom style that are pinged flat aren't going to fail that often unless corrosion is involved.
When you up-armour to ships or tanks however, welding is generally better than rivets.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoutstien
In cheap lammellar reconstructions with some random string it's often the string that fails spectacularly,when the plate is almost untouched, so it's definitely important. When plate moves or gets deformed it will naturally exert force on a rivet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
It depends on relation between the rivet and the material around it, really. If the rivet is thin enough, and the material enough is thicker, at some point rivet will get torn instead. Also on the nature of impact.Quote:
Rivets are hearty and are used because of their ability to deal with vibration and shock. If something fails it's usually the material around it.
Even the old soft steel mushroom style that are pinged flat aren't going to fail that often unless corrosion is involved.
So, would using brass or bronze rivets in armor otherwise made of steel substantially diminish the protective value? Does the answer change depending on if the rivets connect one steel plate to another steel plate, versus if the rivets connects a leather strap to a steel plate?
Bonze, perhaps not, brass, absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
Brass and bronze could be used as a decoration above a steel rivet, however.
I mean, the rivet would still be broken/torn more easily than steel, but the leather strap would still be more fragile than both.Quote:
Does the answer change depending on if the rivets connect one steel plate to another steel plate, versus if the rivets connects a leather strap to a steel plate?
Both brass and bronze are good for leather on leather or unexposed leather to steel connections. I don't work much with bronze because you need to cast it (if you are working in from the forge a few degrees one way or the other makes it crumble like burnt toast) but they were used. Brass is more workable and if set properly they only way you are getting it off is cutting the strap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
You see in on armor in other places when they didn't have the ability to use steel. steel shank with bronze heads were common as well just to make it more confusing so it looks like bronze or brass but it's just a cap to protect the steel from moisture.
You have to remember that the ultimate goal of any armor is to let the wearer survive the battle- not the armor. Almost all armor, up to plate, will take damage in battle. You'll lose strings and plate from lamellar, links will break in chain mail, leather straps will tear, and rivets will pop or shear. Most of that would be easily repaired after combat. Maintenance for armor is expected. I don't think the material of the rivets would be considered a major reduction in protective value- and if the user thought it was, it wouldn't be the work of a day to replace them with whatever material they desired. If you look at most riveted plate armor, there's a lot of redundancy in the rivets. And the conditions that would cause a rivet to fail, a solid blow, a fall that put unusual stress on a point, or something of that nature, is likely to be quite localized. You're not going to see whole plates falling off because a rivet, or even 3 or 4 rivets popped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
Plate armor is a different story- if a plate gets punctured or fails, it is probably not getting fixed in the field, if it can be fixed at all. You're far more likely to be getting a new plate for that section of armor.
But then, if your plate fails with you in it, getting it fixed is probably the least of your concerns.
Can someone explain to me how this pauldron is attached? It appears to be pulling on the top strap of the brigandine, so I guess that's where it's attached, but I don't really get how you fasten a belt going crossways through a buckle like that.
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/6f/8f/8cunGq4J_t.jpg
Is that Shad from Shadiveristy in the picture? I actually don't think it is fastened to the strap even though it looks like. I think it's fastened to the arming doublet, but it also strapped to the arm along several points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
That is indeed Shad. I just can’t bring myself to believe there isn’t something pulling on that top strap to make it sit at that angle.
Is there any particular reason the loading gates of shotguns are almost always on the bottom?
Ask and ye shall receive (an answer)
-Gun Jesus (apoc.)
https://youtu.be/ZDyH03Whemw?si=XZYSQnvLtBzO5EMU
He makes a decent case for why only a couple of designs ever put the loading gate on top. But I was hoping for something that would explain why only a few designs put the loading gate on the side.
Looks like the pin from the brigandine's front-to back buckle is going through the strap from the pauldron, and said strap is being held down by the brigandine strap to stop it falling off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
I had a quick look at some of his videos and could not see him use that particular arm armour, but the other ones did not seem to be strapped to the strap either so I kinda assumed that is not how it attaches. He must have vid where he explains his armour though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
If I had to guess I would say it for the same reason bottom eject shotguns are a rarity. A lot of added mechanical complexity for no real tangible benefits. You would need a way to move the lifters on two planes rather than one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maat Mons
You can side load one in the chamber with most traditional bottom feed systems and bottom feed is largely ambidextrous.
Note that the model linked is a .410, which is the smallest shotgun shell by a large margin. A side loading gate big enough to fit a 12ga or even a 20ga shell would have to be considerably larger and likely would be very awkward to design around - a 20-gauge shotgun bore is .61" to the .410's .41", an increase of 20 percent.
What were the earliest versions of pistols/firearms, besides medieval (?) hand-cannons*?
How long did it take to go from that to firearms that could hold more than 1 bullet?
If it makes any difference... The reason for that question is for creating a story/setting very loosely based on 1400~1500 technology (i.e.: more or less when the Americas were "discovered").
*: I have no idea if "hand-cannon" is the right name. i'm going based on Age of Empires II here. :smallbiggrin:
First general comment on the whole "why do shotguns mostly load from the bottom?" question. The video answered it well enough, but IMO the guy wasn't super clear and kinda rambled off on other tangents a bit.
At the end of the day, for best accuracy, you want your sightline to be as close to where the shot comes out as possible. Which means that the barrel needs to be on top (cause your eyes are always going to be higher than the barrel, right?). So... If you are loading the rounds into a tube that lines up next to the barrel, the most obvious and convenent place to put that tube is on the bottom, right under the barrel. And since that is the case, by far the easiest and least mechanically complex location to put the loading port is also on the bottom.
It's actually intresting to study the development of various multi-round loading methodologies. The tube directly evolved from single shot cartridge mechanisms. A heck of a lot of the design requirements for fireams during this period of time was driven by the difficulty of building hinged/movable components that could stand up to the rigors of being fired (cause exploding firearm is not a happy thing!). Lever and pump actions worked well for this. On the pistol side of things, revolvers came along and worked, but you'll note that there were no (successful anyway) rifles using revolving cylinders. And that was (IIRC) directly due to the higher powder load on rifle rounds being too much for the revolver mechanism to hold together (see: exploding firearm note above).
This problem was eventually solved for rifles by going to various magazine, clip, or belt mechanisms and semi-auto to auto firing methods as well. But, as the video mentioned, there was really no drive for fast reloading of shotguns, so we don't tend to see them there. Hence why shotguns still mostly use the same loading mechanism that was common on rifles and shotguns like 150 years ago.
It took a long time. And the primary issue (which I kinda touched on above) was metallurgical capabilitiy and machining quality/consistency. For most of the time that firearms have existed (in any form), if you wanted more than one shot you used more than one barrel and load. Easiest way was "carry an extra pistol/rifle". There are some early concepts using multiple barrels on a single weapon, but as you can imagine that's hardly somethiing to easily carry around with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemmy
If you're using the 1400-1500 time period as a guide, then "single shot weapons" is about all that should be available, outside of maybe some crazy artisan hand crafting something (and that would be risky to use). Certainly if we're restricting ourselves to weapons that people might actually carry around with them and use.
Also note that cartriges were pretty much a 19th century invention. Everything prior to that had powder, ignition, and bullet separated in the mechanism. So not only were these weapons single shot, it took a fair bit of time to reload them. Also note that while rifling of barrels as a concept did exist as far back as the 1500s (possibly even earlier), it was yet another thing that was limited by quality and consistency of machining, and didn't become common on firearms until the 19th century (industrial revolution changed a lot of stuff!). So while one could assume some wonderful, high quality, hand crafted weapon, with revolving loads, that actually worked, that would be an extreme rarity. Most firearms would be designed to be "good enough" to withstand the forces involved, hand loaded with powder, hand loaded with a bullet and wadding (cause the barrel is "close enough" to the right size, but not perfect), and ignited via some method (flint, match, whatever). Then fired in the general direction of the target (cause accuracy isn't that great), then set aside and we fight using some other more tradional weapon.
Seriously. Accuracy with weapons in that era is measured in terms of feet. Your odds of hitting a standing still human sized target at about 20' is 50/50.
For this era, there's basically three major types of weapons in service, with two obsolete arms that might still exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemmy
The earliest gunpowder weapons, most common in China but present in Europe, was the huǒqiāng or "fire lance", which was essentially just a bomb on a pike or spear. It was lit and then thrust toward the enemy. Shrapnel from the wooden (later metal) casing combined with the small stones often added did significant damage and more importantly was very very scary at the time.
An evolution of this weapon was the "eruptor", a fire lance without the lance. The bomb was now strong enough not to burst except at the end, so troops could hold it. It was still a single-use weapon, and fairly short lived.
Both the eruptor and fire lance were out of common use by the 13th century, but examples might well still be floating around in the 14th.
The next evolution was the handcannon, handgun, or handgonne (this latter is the term most often used, because both "handgun" and "handcannon" have modern usages). This was a strengthened eruptor that was designed for repeated loading and firing, sometimes with a crude brace meant to stand against armor. The accuracy and fire rate of this weapon was not great, because aiming hadn't really been invented yet and the form factor didn't really allow for it.
All of these weapons were touch-fire - you held a bit of fire to a touchhole to fire it, there was no trigger or mechanism.
At some point, handgonnes were fitted with hooks to be braced against walls in a siege, which had the coincidental advantage of easier aiming. Not long after this, the "Haakbus" (Dutch for "hook gun") was fitted with a proper shoulder stock and the newly conceived matchlock firing system (which used a trigger system adapted from crossbows to hold a length of smouldering match and drop it into a pan of fine powder to fire) producing what became known as the "arquebus". This was the first true gun in a form we would recognize today. Loaded from the muzzle, aimed from the shoulder, and fired with a trigger. The only downside to them was a lack of standard bores - soldiers would generally have to cast their own ammunition from raw lead. It wouldn't be until the 16th century that armies would start trying to enforce standards.
The other limitation of the arquebus was that the ball lacked power - infantry armor at longer ranges, and cavalry armor at anything but "in-your-face" distance would hold it out. This was handled by scaling the weapon up to an awkward size that mandated the use of a rest (a pole stuck in front of the firer to hold it up) and slowed loading considerably, but could deliver reasonably accurate fire at extended ranges and have a reasonable chance of punching through a horseman's armor when it got there. This was called a "musket", and is a very late era weapon arguably beyond your time period (the first certain reference is from 1521, but that doesn't preclude earlier use).
Note that there are no "handguns" in the sense we use them (a relatively small weapon worn on the belt and fired with one hand) today until the mid 1500s. They were largely created as a weapon for cavalry in response to the threat of the musket. When those appear, they are still extremely large big-bore weapons and are not readily concealable. Small handy "hip guns" of the sort you think of today don't show up until the late 1600s and early 1700s.
At the very late end of your range, it is possible that wheel locks or flintlocks are appearing. Both of these systems use springs to strike something with metal and produce a spark, the primary difference being that a wheellock uses a coil spring and thus a spinning disk while a flintlock uses a swinging hammer. These appear in the early 1500s and have several advantages over matchlocks - there's no continuous flame to give away your position, you don't have to worry about a supply of match, the weapon works a fair bit more reliably in damp weather because you can keep the pan closed until it opens with a pull of the trigger (driven by the same spring force that makes the sparks, and ignition is faster.
A arquebus or musket could be rifled, but this was largely done with fancy civilian arms - for military purposes the decrease in rate of fire was too much of a problem.
There are also experiments even at this early date with breachloaders and a few kinds of repeaters, but such things were very rare until the 1600s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbaji
Much of this isn't quite right. Metallic cartridges as we know them today are a 19th century invention, as were their immediate paper and linen precursors that still contained ball, powder, and primer all in one. The latter is because they could only be made after the invention of the percussion cap. Civil War style paper cartridges, containing only ball and premeasured powder, however, date back to the the invention of firearms - there's literally known examples of such things being produced for handgonnes.
Rifling was also a lot more common than you think on civilian arms, even this far back. Civilians were much more likely to need high single-shot accuracy because they didn't have a hundred friends blazing away at the same target, and a bear or boar isn't going to give you the third of a second needed to reload even a smoothbore - the low rate of fire produced by a rifle was literally meaningless because you got only one shot no matter what.
Accuracy even on these early weapons was also much higher than popular images suggest. At least, theoretical accuracy. A clean bore with a tight-fitted ball was at least as accurate as a modern handgun, with greater firepower.
*minute, but we got that from context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnoman
As an addition:
Early snaphance and flintlock muskets usually also had a matchlock on them, as it was still more reliable under most conditions. So there would be two completely separate triggers connected to two separate mechanisms, but both would fire the gun.
There were also special metal boxes/covers for around the match in rainy weather, although that wouldn't have fixed the issue completely. It's just better to have a war on a dry day.
(The term snaphance is used for an earlier flintlock type mechanism that was a bit simpler and less reliable, but in terms of what the person firing the musket has to do they're the same thing.)
As for your (Lemmy's) question on guns with multiple shots: there are surprisingly early examples of pistols with multiple barrels, those could probably fit into your time range. If you google hard enough you might, might even find revolver-like designs that go back early enough. In practice though all of those multishot weapons were oddities closer to concept art than to a practical firearm. The kind of side note an excentric rich collector might fail to hit anything with in a comedic stretch of the campaign. A proper barrel was just too heavy, the firing mechanisms of the time were too cumbersome, and any "break" in the barrel (like how the chambers in a revolver are separate from the rest of the barrel, leaving some space in between) resulted in too much loss of power, not to mention structural weakness and thus risk of the gun blowing apart.
Yes. I was specifically speaking of the type of cartridge we normally think of today (loaded as a single object and fed/placed directly into the chamber for firing). I didn't want to get into details like percussion caps (the development and use of which is an entire topic by itself), but yeah, that's the key development for one-stop-shop style catridges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnoman
Right. But, details and labels aside, that still falls squarely into the "bullet, powder, and ignition" all being separately loaded into the firing mechanisms. Those old paper cartridges were not cartridges as folks only aware of modern firearms would call them, and leads to confusion. They were convenient packaging for all (most) of the separate components. By putting the ball and powder inside a paper package, you had powder, wadding, and bullet all in one package. But the packaging had to be torn open, powder poured down the muzzle, then flipped around, ball inserted into the muzzle, excess paper torn off, then rammed down. Then you still needed an ignition method. For Civil war era rifles, the user also had a bag with percussion caps, and would put one in place, then set the weapon for firing. For older weapons, this meant priming a firing pan with some of the powder (I'm assuming muzzle loading here of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnoman
Modern cartidges, which is what most folks will be familiar with, bundle everything in one container, so the whole thing can be loaded into the firing chamber (which could be accomplished in a variety of different ways), and then fired directly by striking it. I'm trying to avoid getting caught up in terminology and focusing on the fact that this type of "all-in-one round" would not exist in the time frame at hand.
Agreed. There's a definite distinction between what an individual could have (special custom built) versus what a standard musketeer or infantry soldier handed a weapon and told to point it at the enemy and fire would have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnoman
You're correct about the theoretical accuracy. But to get that accuracy required custom making your own bullets to fit your barrel (and getting the sizing right). This is something everyone would try to do, if possible. But with varying degrees of success. Dialing in the exact right sized mold (which is made by hand by an artisan) to produce balls that match the diameter of your barrel (also made by hand by an artisan) took time and was a trial and error process. The concept of going down to a gun store and buying rounds of a standard type/size and expecting them to work perfectly is just not a thing that will happen in this kind of environment.
So what you can't do is have your firearm weilding PCs run out of bullets, and then find a bag with bullets somewhere and say "ok. we'll just use those". Even if we assume some degree of standardization in the weapons (batch all built for use by a single group of soldiers/guards/whatever), there's still sufficient variation among them that 'standard rounds" would either just not be a thing at all, or would be intentionally "small" to ensure they would fire and not jam up the barrels, but would therefore also be noticiably less accurate. As you say, this might not be a big deal when we've got a line of soldiers all firing a volley at an enemy line of soldiers, but it'll really matter for that single person with a single shot, and they want to make it count.
So I guess a good rule of thumb is that weapons weilded by individual owners are more likely to be accurate than those handed out to soldiers on a battle field, but are much more dependent on the individual owner maintaining everything about them (including making the bullets). So even if your PCS find a really cool firearm with great accuracy, special features, whatever, they'd better also find all of the custom made equpiment needed to keep it operating, or it's not going to be of much use for long.
There have been some very good answers already to this question. Early arquebuses start appearing around mid-1400s. Note, however, that as late as the 1530s handgonnes (hand-cannon) were still preferred by some users in Europe, although by this point they looked like an arquebus but without a lock. They were still touched off by hand. One of the most fiddly operations of a matchlock is "cocking the match", i.e. placing the match into the lock. It must be removed after firing, and before loading, and replaced after loading, as you are getting ready to fire. The match can't be left in the lock for a long time, because it will burn down and need to be readjusted anyway. (And it's a tremendous hazard when loading).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemmy
When rushed at close range, I've been told, that soldiers would simply touch the match directly to the priming pan. Aiming was less important under these conditions. Some soldiers, especially skirmishers*, may have preferred to always fire a gun in this manner. Therefore making the lock an unnecessary expense.
Anyway, multiple loads are an idea that's quite early (many of the precursors to firearms, like fire trumpets, used them). But they always had some sort of limitation. Either multiple barrels were needed (think of a double barreled shotgun). They could be fired independently or all together in a volley. Or loads were "superimposed", multiple loads stacked on top of one another in the same barrel. Again, they would either be fired one at a time (with multiple locks/priming pans). Or fired automatically in sequence -- a la roman candle. A misfire in one of the leading shots can shut the whole process down (or result in a dangerous explosion). The idea of superimposed loads persisted for some time, the Lindsay Musket of the Civil War was one late, and not terribly successful, attempt at the idea.
Things like buck-shot, and bird-shot, are quite old (not exactly sure how old), and troops were known to sometimes simply fire two full-size balls at close range . . . but those are multiple-projectiles shot together, sharing a single powder charge.
Finally, revolver like designs date to the late(?) 16th century, but always suffered from issues with how to prime them. This isn't to say that there weren't some clever solutions to these issues, but they remained very rare. Not until the development of the percussion cap in the 1800s can the design really take off.
Wheellocks first appear in the early 16th century, and are the first type of lock that can "make it's own fire" (i.e. a firelock). They make pistols practical. Variants of early flintlocks start showing up soon afterward (mid-16th century), but the forms persist side by side until well into the 17th century. Matchlocks themselves, due to their simple, and inexpensive nature were used in Europe up to about 1700.
Breechloading weapons were tried from a very early date, and they were always around, although never in large numbers. Being easier and quicker to reload, and without the danger of having to place a hand over the muzzle. But tolerances were tricky, and getting a good seal, without an expanding metallic cartridge, was difficult. As the breech had to be made to open, danger of a failure of the breech when firing was more common, and designs and construction had to be very carefully considered. Again, the weapon would have to at least be primed after every shot, or a clever self-priming mechanism would have to be employed. Sometimes metallic cartridges were used, but these should not be confused with modern cartridges -- these old style cartridges were made of thick metal, designed to withstand the force of the explosion themselves, rather than expanding to the walls of the breech.
While improvements in metallurgy were important, in my mind, the big development that made modern cartridges possible was the percussion cap. This allowed a truly self contained cartridge. And the technology advanced very quickly. The first self contained cartridges were actually paper (a la the Dreyse Needle Rifle), but sealing the breech remained an issue. Metallic cartridges, in the modern sense, appear in the 1850s, and at this point not only does breech loading become much more effective, but magazine rifles quickly develop -- the Henry (immediate predecessor to the Winchester) and the Spencer rifle/carbine both appearing around 1860 (although there were antecedents with the Volcanic repeating weapons). Improvements in metallurgy and mass production (allowing tighter tolerances) also played into the ability to make such weapons feasible. Nevertheless, I consider the percussion cap to be one of the most significant developments in the history of firearms.
----
*See the Maruzio Arfaioli's work on the "Black Bands of Giovanni" for a detailed description of how skirmishes would fight at close ranges, relying on their nimbleness to avoid heavy cavalry! (Around the time of the battle of Pavia, 1525)
Thank you for all the great answers, everyone!
I must admit that I don't get some of it (I don't have the technical knowledge to truly understand all the difference between the weapons mentioned), but it certainly gave me a much clearer picture of these weapons to include and what was necessary for them to evolve to their next stage.
And it's good to know this kind of weapon lasted for a long while, so i can have stories happen over decades or even centuries without revolvers or the like showing up.
Seems like I might have to base the story/setting on a slightly more advanced time (late 1500' to mid 1600's) in order to include the type of weapons i want (muskets and early pistols)... But that can be explained by the existence of dwarves and magical means to make metallurgy a little more advanced than it should be.
Anyway... Thank you again for all your replies! I really appreciate it!:smallsmile:
Well, the fun can also be in imagining how magic and science could be combined (especially when there are Dwarves involved). The general progression of firearm technology was driven by metalurgy, chemistry, and um... "consistent artistry?" (later solved via industrialization). Early weapons were big, heavy, and bulky, because in order to make something capable of withstanding a blast strong enough to propel a reasonably sized projectile, required "thick metal". But, with sufficient metalurgical capability (removing impurities being a huge factor here, and also just knowing which blend of components lends to the correct type of strength characteristics), you can rationalize smaller and lighter weight firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemmy
And, of course, once you get into "magically enhanced metal items", the idea of making a strong firearm barrel via magic just seems kinda easy/obvious. And if you have magic in the world, how hard would it be to have some kind of triggerable spell that creates a small (very very small) flame/spark in a specific spot? You don't need a percussion cap if you can do this via magic. And it's basically the percurssion cap that opens up a whole lot of more modern fiream development.
So yeah. Have simple bulky/heavy firearms. But you could absolutely have some crazy dwarven artisan create a functional revolver using magic if you really wanted. It's more a matter of "do you want to introduce that into the game?" though. If you don't, then dont. Trust me, most fantasy focused games do not tend to do well if you introduce repeating firearms into the game. And also be aware that if you introduce something useful/powerful into a game setting, the players will get their hands on them, and will expect to build/obtain more. Firearms work in a fantasy setting as an oddity which is occasionally useful, but probably more expensive and effort than really useful. If the same effort to create a spell to trigger a revolver round to fire could instead be used to trigger a fireball spell, we're kinda going the long way towards ineffectiveness, right?
But it all depends on what you want in the game.
One other point (I'm not a historian so I can only skirt around the issue) - expect weapon types to be mixed rather than uniform force equippage (perhaps one of the more knowledgeable members can say how mixed).
The first recorded death by gunshot in a battle - Agicourt 1415 - a.k.a. the triumph of the longbow...
And an outlier, but one of the last uses of a traditional longbow in a battle is usually said to be Dunkirk 1940, but the outlier in quesiton said his bows had been crushed earlier so he was using his broadswoard (see Jack Churchill).