Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmm, I don't necessarily agree with Muskets being designed to defeat breastplates. Namely because at anything other than very close range they actually couldn't. They were more so adopted because they are relatively cheap and easy to train loads of unskilled conscripts with. And a man in armor on a horse might be immune to a single musket ball, but you're not just shooting him once and his horse definitely isn't immune.

Breastplates, and armor in general, went away not because they were useless vs guns at the time but because they were expensive to make. So armor slowly faded to disuse while guns became more powerful, mostly as a side effect of attempts to increase range and accuracy.

A flintlock musket, compared to a crossbow is cheaper. The gearing and springs are comparable, but the crossbow also requires very specific wood to make the arm and you need to manufacture the bolts. Bows require specially grown wood as well as craftsmen to make, meaning long lead times to make bows. A musket of course also requires an artisan to make, but its much more conducive to cranking out a lot of them. Ammo is also cheaper and easier to make for a musket than bolts or arrows. Bows also require years of training to make a soldier proficient.

So really the reason muskets rose to dominance was for logistical reasons more than specific mechanical advantages over the alternatives. Them being better than the alternatives arose after they had already replaced them.

I agree logistics was a huge factor. However, I think you are conflating late muskets with early muskets. As Catbarf pointed out upthread, they are practically different weapons.

Arquebus struggled to reliably penetrate good armour except at close range, and muskets were developed to deal with that and could penetrate armour at much greater ranges. These weapons were big- the ones that needed a stick to support the barrels. Later muskets were a convergence of musket and arquebus into one weapon in the middle.

Also, in the 16th century horses were often barded with proofed armour in heavy cavalry units. Shooting the horse was not likely to be any more effective against these units than shooting the rider. Hence muskets. In areas with greater use of armour (like Flanders) the proportion of early muskets vs arquebus increased.

This example is in the Wallace collection, London, but probably isn't complete and is likely a composite of components from several suits of armour.

Bullet proof armor certainly existed, but it was very heavy. As firearms began to dominate the field, you saw it evolve. The Polish Winged Hussars were the most successful armored cavalry formation, and by the 1600s their armor was concentrated . That's what they needed to fight, and what they had was effective at stopping a good deal of gunfire of the time. They often employed firearms themselves, as they conducted mass charges through the enemy. Frankly, I think they used highly polished armor partially because it made for an easy aiming point, and if they were going to be shot, they wanted it to hit the armor.

They're not what we'd think of as knights, but a hybrid of armored cavalry that was effective in the early gunpowder era, up until about 1700.

Winged hussars were the most successful in the 17th century, but they were not even heavy cavalry by 16th century standards.

In the 16th century proofed plate was the norm for gendarme style cavalry (direct successor to earlier knights) such as the Count's armour above and for cuirassiers (full plate with pistols). Economic reasons caused the downfall of plate armour with the quality peak being around 1590-1600 or so. By this point the volume of quality plate is pretty low in proportion to the number of combatants, with really only the royal armouries at Greenwich or Innsbruck producing top grade gear. This stuff wasn't stupidly heavy, we are still talking a weight of around 25-30kg for proofed plate.

Now proofed means against pistols, and you could only reliably expect a close pistol shot to be bounced by the breastplate or helmet, but arquebus could be stopped at longer ranges and even muskets wouldn't be effective at long range against proofed plate. These will actually stop a modern .45.

Low grade proofed breastplates were heavy and is part of the reason troop armour contracted over the 17th century as only a couple of key, heavy items were worn. A pikeman breastplate and helmet from 1600 probably weighs close to an entire suit of full proofed harness from 1600 from one of the royal armouries. But you could easily produce a few thousand thick breastplates compared to high quality plate.

I don't think the shinyness is a combat thing. Armour for the wealthy has always been finely decorated, sometimes even to the detriment of armour integrity. Rich people like to show off.

Steel body armour is still a thing, but schrapnell and poorer energy repartition make it dangerous, even with coating, as far as I've read. Plus they are really heavy.

However, since I never had such a plate to test on, I wonder whether a musket bullet would actually shatter itself or the plate nonetheless. Anyone tried something akin by himself?

Lead is incredibly soft, so I assume it would most likely splatter against anything modern - that might make for some nasty splash though, even with spall protection. Definitely wouldn't shatter a steel plate.

And the major upside to steel, that makes it worth wearing despite the weight comparison to ceramic, is its ability to absorb repeated shots - that's been decided against by most first world powers - it's easier to convince soldiers to wear plates if they're light, and you shouldn't be taking multiple hits, anyways - your day has gone very badly wrong if you are.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmm, I don't necessarily agree with Muskets being designed to defeat breastplates. Namely because at anything other than very close range they actually couldn't. They were more so adopted because they are relatively cheap and easy to train loads of unskilled conscripts with. And a man in armor on a horse might be immune to a single musket ball, but you're not just shooting him once and his horse definitely isn't immune.

Breastplates, and armor in general, went away not because they were useless vs guns at the time but because they were expensive to make. So armor slowly faded to disuse while guns became more powerful, mostly as a side effect of attempts to increase range and accuracy.

A flintlock musket, compared to a crossbow is cheaper. The gearing and springs are comparable, but the crossbow also requires very specific wood to make the arm and you need to manufacture the bolts. Bows require specially grown wood as well as craftsmen to make, meaning long lead times to make bows. A musket of course also requires an artisan to make, but its much more conducive to cranking out a lot of them. Ammo is also cheaper and easier to make for a musket than bolts or arrows. Bows also require years of training to make a soldier proficient.

So really the reason muskets rose to dominance was for logistical reasons more than specific mechanical advantages over the alternatives. Them being better than the alternatives arose after they had already replaced them.

I agree logistics was a huge factor. However, I think you are conflating late muskets with early muskets. As Catbarf pointed out upthread, they are practically different weapons.

Arquebus struggled to reliably penetrate good armour except at close range, and muskets were developed to deal with that and could penetrate armour at much greater ranges. These weapons were big- the ones that needed a stick to support the barrels. Later muskets were a convergence of musket and arquebus into one weapon in the middle.

Also, in the 16th century horses were often barded with proofed armour in heavy cavalry units. Shooting the horse was not likely to be any more effective against these units than shooting the rider. Hence muskets. In areas with greater use of armour (like Flanders) the proportion of early muskets vs arquebus increased.

This example is in the Wallace collection, London, but probably isn't complete and is likely a composite of components from several suits of armour.

Spoiler:

Yes, there was barding which was also bullet resistant. But again, very expensive. So while these individual units were still useful, in the long run they were getting less and less effective due to cost.

I would also point out that the horse's neck and legs are conspicuously vulnerable. But of course we all know that horses legs aren't a weak spot at all...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hmm, I don't necessarily agree with Muskets being designed to defeat breastplates. Namely because at anything other than very close range they actually couldn't. They were more so adopted because they are relatively cheap and easy to train loads of unskilled conscripts with. And a man in armor on a horse might be immune to a single musket ball, but you're not just shooting him once and his horse definitely isn't immune.

Breastplates, and armor in general, went away not because they were useless vs guns at the time but because they were expensive to make. So armor slowly faded to disuse while guns became more powerful, mostly as a side effect of attempts to increase range and accuracy.

A flintlock musket, compared to a crossbow is cheaper. The gearing and springs are comparable, but the crossbow also requires very specific wood to make the arm and you need to manufacture the bolts. Bows require specially grown wood as well as craftsmen to make, meaning long lead times to make bows. A musket of course also requires an artisan to make, but its much more conducive to cranking out a lot of them. Ammo is also cheaper and easier to make for a musket than bolts or arrows. Bows also require years of training to make a soldier proficient.

So really the reason muskets rose to dominance was for logistical reasons more than specific mechanical advantages over the alternatives. Them being better than the alternatives arose after they had already replaced them.

I agree logistics was a huge factor. However, I think you are conflating late muskets with early muskets. As Catbarf pointed out upthread, they are practically different weapons.

Arquebus struggled to reliably penetrate good armour except at close range, and muskets were developed to deal with that and could penetrate armour at much greater ranges. These weapons were big- the ones that needed a stick to support the barrels. Later muskets were a convergence of musket and arquebus into one weapon in the middle.

Also, in the 16th century horses were often barded with proofed armour in heavy cavalry units. Shooting the horse was not likely to be any more effective against these units than shooting the rider. Hence muskets. In areas with greater use of armour (like Flanders) the proportion of early muskets vs arquebus increased.

This example is in the Wallace collection, London, but probably isn't complete and is likely a composite of components from several suits of armour.

Spoiler:

Yes, there was barding which was also bullet resistant. But again, very expensive. So while these individual units were still useful, in the long run they were getting less and less effective due to cost.

I would also point out that the horse's neck and legs are conspicuously vulnerable. But of course we all know that horses legs aren't a weak spot at all...

The legs are definitely vulnerable, but they are relatively small, moving targets and early firearms usually fire high due to the way the powder burns slow (recoil kicks in before the shot leaves the barrel).

I've been fortunate enough to see this display in person at the Wallace Collection (well worth a visit if you are in London- free entry!). If I remember correctly, they think that some pieces of armour are missing, but this is still one of the most complete sets in the world (one of the others is in the same collection, an earlier set with mail on the neck). I can't find my pictures of the place though, so I'm going off my memory of the plaque. Even so, the horse would be ridden with the face down, so from the front that vulnerability is covered.

Fully agree that cost is why these full barding and harnesses faded away. Just not an economical troop type after the 16th century. Plus, all that investment is great against pike or arquebus, but means nothing to even a light field gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I do want to correct my statement above though. Barding was common at the beginning of the 16th century but it fell out of use much quicker than full plate for soldiers. It seems the loss of mobility on the battlefield and extra encumbrance of transporting barding was increasingly not worth it, especially as pikemen became more coordinated with shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Example of fuller neck barding:

If the image loads, a shooter spotted in an Outer Limits episode. Now I recognise the barrel cowling from somewhere else, but can’t think where.

But I’m also wondering if it’s more than just a sci-fi greebly, and perhaps serves an actual purpose?

Any chance you have a side shot?

If its a really long shroud it could be an integrated suppressor. If its normal pistol length than its just a greebly.

Just that one I’m afraid.

They’re also on submachine guns in the same episode.

I figured they might be for cooling, but I guess you’d had to really go some to need such a thing on a pistol with a standard magazine.

Pretty much under no circumstances would a gun that size need extra cooling since you'd never have big enough magazines to get a gun hot enough to need that. Just the time it would take to reload and how many extra mags you could reasonably carry would pretty much eliminate the possibility.

It does look a bit like a Maxim 9 somewhat, which is a pistol with an integral suppressor. And you could do a similar thing to an SMG.

Looks like the Genii pistols from Stargate Atlantis and those just had gribblies as far as I know.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Looks like the Genii pistols from Stargate Atlantis and those just had gribblies as far as I know.

Yeah, I think its the "Timecop Beretta" used in quite a few things.

https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/(Timecop)_-_Timecop_Beretta

 Haighus wrote:
Later muskets were a convergence of musket and arquebus into one weapon in the middle.

Adding on to this a bit, that convergence coincided with the gradual disappearance of body armor from the battlefield during the mid-to-late 1600s. Even by the Thirty Years War of the early-1600s fire was the decisive element of infantry tactics and body armor was rarely more than a cuirass (which would eventually be the only surviving element of cavalry armor, as well, into the 1700s). There's a bit of a feedback loop here- the rising capability of the common arquebus made effective body armor prohibitively expensive and heavy, which in turn reduced the proportion of body armor used across fighting forces, which in turn lessened the requirement for a man-portable weapon uniquely capable of defeating it.

Here's an excerpt from a book written by a former British soldier in 1598. He lays out the contemporary reasons for the adoption of arquebus and musket- greater effective range, greater accuracy, an ability to score hits far beyond the maximum range of a bow, more immediate lethality, significant psychological effect, and better performance against armor though noting 'except it be of prooffe' (ie, it will pierce most armor better, but bulletproof armor still existed).

In fact, he doesn't commend gunpowder weapons for ease of logistics, procurement, or training- on the contrary, he caveats 'But you must note this by the way, that the fierie shot, either on horsebacke, or foote, being not in hands of the skilfull, may do vnto themselues more hurt then good', to which the interviewer (who I suspect may be a fictional contrivance) retorts 'but our countrey people are loth to be at the charges of so many costly weapons'. Lots and lots and lots of contemporary sources that say the same things, from different times and places all across the world, but those myths run deep.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If the image loads, a shooter spotted in an Outer Limits episode. Now I recognise the barrel cowling from somewhere else, but can’t think where.

It's a dressed-up Beretta handgun, first created as a prop for the film Timecop, but also used in Stargate (both SG-1 and Atlantis) by the Genii.

Edit: Oops, beaten to it.

Went a-googling on that after, and yup.

It is quite a nice greebly. Not exactly a practical one, but at least it’s not “you blocked the barrel” type stuff.

Falcor update, I've applied the last coat of oil (I think it'll be the last) the the woods, as already with the 4th coat it got shiny after the mandatory 48h dry.

No photos yet, as I just did it and didn't even wipe it yet. The stock bears very visible marks of abuse, that I probably wouldn't have been able to clean off at my skill level yet, and I'm thinking I should have dyed the handguard and the buttstock as the former is way clearer in colour.

But that'll protect them adequatly anyway, probably won't look "bad" although maybe strange at first, and most importantly, i've gained a lot of understanding of how this process is supposed to work and look forward to my next try.

Next up, I'll try taking care of the barrel. I also plan on stopping by at a gunsmith shop to try and buy another buttpad, as the original one is... uncomfortable to say the very least.

Seeing the pistols above jogged one thing in my head I had meant to ask. My experience with handguns is mostly dry firing them and annoying the small arms repository guys (interestingly enough such side arms are pretty much extinct in Ukraine, with carrying more ammo better regarded than a backup pistol).

For those that have fired pistols with a very low bore axis (I have seen one that is pretty much in line with the top of the hand) is there a radical difference? Is it just easy to train to? Or is it a miracle of accuracy?

And a side note on stating security related employment - best not. This article sums up the sorts of reasons that drives people to share stuff, but even innocently enough here revealing what you are about opens you up to targeting.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/22/loneliness-epidemic-national-security-espionage-russia-china/
Keep to open source or opinions/info that can be found in open source.

It's helpful. It feels like there is less recoil, sort of, but the real help is less muzzle rise so follow up shots can be quicker. Not so much better accuracy as faster accuracy.

I didn't think carrying pistols as a side arm whilst also carrying a rifle has ever been the norm for frontline troops? Special forces and veterans sometimes do it but on an individual level.

You are correct. At least in the US military, pistols are issued by default to officers and support personnel. So the guy with the LMG or DMR and the officers will have pistols, as will anybody who is not doing direct combat stuff, the riflemen will not. Of course at the same time I don't think there is a rule prohibiting them from having one either.

Lower bore axis does make for less muzzle flip. There are no miracles, it's just easier to keep on target under recoil. My Mauser C96 has considerable muzzle flip despite being just a 9mm (though also in part due to the suboptimal grip). Meanwhile my Mateba Unica 6, with very low bore axis, has negligible flip and is quite a soft shooter even in .357.

This can come at the cost of a sharper recoil impulse into the web of the hand; not an issue for typical service handguns or competition pistols but with higher calibers or smaller guns it can matter. My CZ82 is a controllable handgun but that low bore axis and straight blowback action really beat up my hand.

 Grey Templar wrote:
At least in the US military, pistols are issued by default to officers and support personnel. So the guy with the LMG or DMR and the officers will have pistols

Yeah, or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. A couple of times I've encountered (Army) machine gunners packing carbines as backup (or just nothing) because the limited number of handguns in inventory gets hoovered up by officers first. You'd think foot patrol would have higher priority over the TOC, but such is not always the case. In the Marines it's apparently so pervasive that Terminal Lance did a strip about it.

Either way, echoing you and Haighus, for riflemen a few extra mags (or more water, or just less weight...) is a lot more useful than an expensive secondary weapon ineffective at typical infantry engagement ranges. That has always been the case, really.

Doorkickers have a different mission profile and different needs.

I can think of the niche of soldiers scouting/trench raiding in WWI would sometimes be issued pistols, but a revolver or semi-auto pistol does have more firepower than a bolt action rifle when you drop into a shell crater or trench and find 5 enemies facing you. Those were typically issued specially for the raid or bought privately though.

 Haighus wrote:
I can think of the niche of soldiers scouting/trench raiding in WWI would sometimes be issued pistols, but a revolver or semi-auto pistol does have more firepower than a bolt action rifle when you drop into a shell crater or trench and find 5 enemies facing you. Those were typically issued specially for the raid or bought privately though.

Literally what the Thompson was invented for...

 catbarf wrote:


Yeah, or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. A couple of times I've encountered (Army) machine gunners packing carbines as backup (or just nothing) because the limited number of handguns in inventory gets hoovered up by officers first. You'd think foot patrol would have higher priority over the TOC, but such is not always the case. In the Marines it's apparently so pervasive that Terminal Lance did a strip about it.

Either way, echoing you and Haighus, for riflemen a few extra mags (or more water, or just less weight...) is a lot more useful than an expensive secondary weapon ineffective at typical infantry engagement ranges. That has always been the case, really.

Doorkickers have a different mission profile and different needs.

I made a lot of friends as a HQ Company commander. I looked at the TOE and saw most of the staff ossifers were allocated a rifle. I refused to issue them a pistol and made them qualify on their assigned rifles.

 Haighus wrote:
I can think of the niche of soldiers scouting/trench raiding in WWI would sometimes be issued pistols, but a revolver or semi-auto pistol does have more firepower than a bolt action rifle when you drop into a shell crater or trench and find 5 enemies facing you. Those were typically issued specially for the raid or bought privately though.

Yeah, trench raiders usually brought pistols, grenades, shovels, knives, etc... There were actually smiths on the front lines making crude melee weapons for the trench raiders. Then the Americans showed up with shotguns...

Grey Templar wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I can think of the niche of soldiers scouting/trench raiding in WWI would sometimes be issued pistols, but a revolver or semi-auto pistol does have more firepower than a bolt action rifle when you drop into a shell crater or trench and find 5 enemies facing you. Those were typically issued specially for the raid or bought privately though.

Yeah, trench raiders usually brought pistols, grenades, shovels, knives, etc... There were actually smiths on the front lines making crude melee weapons for the trench raiders. Then the Americans showed up with shotguns...

And the Germans with MP18s. Those must have been terrifying.

Just Tony wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I can think of the niche of soldiers scouting/trench raiding in WWI would sometimes be issued pistols, but a revolver or semi-auto pistol does have more firepower than a bolt action rifle when you drop into a shell crater or trench and find 5 enemies facing you. Those were typically issued specially for the raid or bought privately though.

Literally what the Thompson was invented for...

Yup, didn't quite make it in time for WWI though.

 CptJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Yeah, or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. A couple of times I've encountered (Army) machine gunners packing carbines as backup (or just nothing) because the limited number of handguns in inventory gets hoovered up by officers first. You'd think foot patrol would have higher priority over the TOC, but such is not always the case. In the Marines it's apparently so pervasive that Terminal Lance did a strip about it.

Either way, echoing you and Haighus, for riflemen a few extra mags (or more water, or just less weight...) is a lot more useful than an expensive secondary weapon ineffective at typical infantry engagement ranges. That has always been the case, really.

Doorkickers have a different mission profile and different needs.

I made a lot of friends as a HQ Company commander. I looked at the TOE and saw most of the staff ossifers were allocated a rifle. I refused to issue them a pistol and made them qualify on their assigned rifles.

You were the hero we needed and deserved.

It's always comical how non-infantry units regard weapons. When I became a cook after getting my permanent profile, I had an instance where rifles were handed out randomly to people to clean. The look of shock on the LT's face when I yanked my rifle out of her hand and said "Nobody cleans my rifle but me." will be a treasured memory for the rest of my life. I also had to clean the Supply Sergeant's rifle during this, and it drove home how people needed to be held responsible for their own weapon maintenance as an E6 should never have let things get THAT bad.

Brother, on my tank I set the headspace and timing on MY .50, and I cleaned and loved her and sang her lullabies before putting her in the arms room. Always cleaned my own weapon and helped with the crew serves.

Heck, I also did maintenance on my vehicles.

Just visited my local antique bookshop to pick up something for Dad’s birthday. And they also had an antique firearm!

Wonder what pressure the barrels can take?