Ancient firearms

[tkdguy]

How would you handle ancient firearms (ie muskets and the like). I'm starting a campaign where the technology is similar to 17th century Europe, and I can't find any statsitics for weapons in that age.

 

I have thought about using the statstics for heavy crossbows or shotguns, but I don't like the feel oconversions.

[Snarf]

If I'm remembering the period correctly, you'll want to give them activation roll with jamming option. Something like -1 Jammed Roll(14-) would work.

[Tim]

They would also have an extra time limitation to show how long it took to reload. Extra time (1 turn) is probably max, as many soldiers who practiced alot could get off 5 to 6 shots a minute.

 

TimS.

[Vondy]

Big bullets .58-.75 caliber, so a good 2d6KA is likely

 

Slow to reload. A turn if your trained

 

Innacurate past a certain range (negative skill levels that kick in past point X?)

 

Heavy a big kick (str min)

 

Doubles as a two handed club

[Starwolf]

I would actually put the damage more in the 1d6 to 1 1/2d6 range. While the shot was larger the powder was not as effective as it is today. If I shoot you with a modern firearm of a fairly large caliber I could probably drop you with one shot, but back in the day almost as many targets died of blood poisoning or infection instead of the actual shot. I do agree with the delay rate on reloading, the str min, and the relative inaccuracy (up until you introduce rifling in the barrel).

[AlHazred]

It's true most targets died of secondary causes, as opposed to outright damage from the wound. On the other hand, they had a decent velocity leaving the barrel; the problem is that the round shot loses velocity much more quickly than today's aerodynamic rounds. Plus, you had to guess how much powder to put in there, the firing mechanism was prone to jams, etc. Some arquibusiers attempted to "overcharge" the firing chamber with powder for greater range or more damaging shots; this tended to increase the unreliability of the weapon.

 

I would put the weapon at RKA 2d6, 20 Boostable Charges (to represent overcharging any particular shot; +1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Required Hands (2 Hands; -1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4), Reduced By Range (-1/4), STR Min (11 to 14, Cannot Add/Subtract Damage; -1), Beam (-1/4), Activation Roll (Jammed, 15-; -3/4) plus -2 RMod; OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Required Hands (2 Hands; -1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) plus -1 OCV; OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Required Hands (2 Hands; -1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4). Total cost: 5 points. Pretty much your best bet is to fire at the people charging your position (and thus, closer to you at a poorer DCV); this was pretty much the standard tactic anyway.

 

Later guns, or guns of quality would eliminate the OCV penalty and maybe put a +1 on there, depending. Eliminating the RMod penalty requires rifling the barrel. Eliminating the Reduced By Range limitation requires at least Minie Ball rounds.

 

Depending upon your campaign, you may want to define the infection that sets in as well. It would probably be a poison RKA with an Activation Roll and Gradual Effect, although other forms are possible.

[BNakagawa]

I'm pretty sure that one episode of Mail Call involved a time trial of a reenactor who managed to get off two shots in a minute with a revolutionary era musket. (as was proscribed in the literature of the day)

[NuSoardGraphite]

I would probably use a combination of Reduced Pentrating and Reduced by Range, so that a close up shot has a very good chance of causing death or at least a terrible wound, but a distance shot is hardly more than an annoyance...

 

And Mail Call is a great show. Very informative.

[Snarf]

Hold on a minute there maggot =) ! Why is it fragile? These are guns you can beat people over the head or bayonet with! Hou-Rah!

 

That reminds me, I can't remember when they started being used, but don't forget to put bayonets on military style guns if it's the right time. I guess it would be an HKA included in the same item or maybe a multipower for those bayonets that cover the muzzle of the gun.

[Spence]

I’ve been working on a set of Blackpowder rules for my Hero game. Back on the old boards there was a good thread “Blackpowder Weapons†started by Usutha in April 2002, that had real good info. My hard drive crashed while I was deployed so I lost most of my “blackpowder†adaptation (remember! Back-ups back-up back-ups!!!). I am really slow on a keyboard so I am just going to paste in some items from my old posts.

 

Of all the periods, in my opinion the best to base a BP rule adaptation is the Napoleonic period. The two references I have found most helpful are Hughes' "Firepower" and Haythornthwaite's "Weapons and equipment of the Napoleonic Wars". While there are others, these two provide a good store of information and generally agree with eveything else. Also, please excuse my writing style. I tend to state the obvious. It is not intended to disparage anyone. It is more so anyone reading this can better understand what I “mean†as opposed to what I write.

 

When looking at BP weapons, I chose to break-up the different “characteristicsâ€.

First, smoothbore or rifled.

Second, type of firing mechanism.

Third, is whether the weapon is being used by civilian hunters or a military.

Fourth, training/experience of the user.

 

1) Smoothbore or rifled. Smoothbore’s are generally referred to as muskets, rifled as rifles (doh!). Muskets tend to be very inaccurate. The round will “tumble†down the barrel when fired, and general fly in “that general directionâ€. The only thing you can do is use a patch, which will increase range/power of the shot by reducing blow by and maybe add a fraction of accuracy. Unlike a musket, a rifles’ accuracy depends on the tightness of the bullet/ball in the barrel. While a musket ball (as used in the Napoleonic period) will simply roll down the barrel unless "patched", a rifle ball or "bullet" won't. It fits tightly and has to be forced in, with the use of a starter tool or even a small mallet to start. And then it must be rammed all the way down to seat the round and ensure the rifle grooves cut into the bullet. It is this tight fit that ensures that a good spin is imparted to the round when fired as well as reducing/eliminating blow by.

 

2) Type of firing mechanism. There were several different designs, but in general you had three basic “typesâ€. In the first, after loading, you would pour some powder into the touch hole and then use a “match†to light it off. Think “Matchlockâ€. Very inefficient and not generally used once the “flintlock†was developed so I will not dwell on them. The next was the flintlock. For this post I am going to use the term flintlock for any of the mechanisms that utilize a flint, a striker and a pan, wheelock, flintlock, snaphaunce, etc. Powder is placed into a pan which feeds the touch hole. A cover is snapped down to hold/protect the powder. A piece of shaped flint is held, usually by a “hammerâ€, which is powered by a “springâ€. When the trigger releases the hammer it will strike the flint against the pan cover, knocking it away and at the same time igniting the powder with sparks. These sparks fire the weapon. While this was years ahead of the previous methods, there were still many things that could go wrong. In the heat of battle it is easy for the flint to be knocked out of alignment or cracked, the powder to be knocked out or the touch hole fouled, and so on. The next development was the percussion cap. The entire pan/cover mechanism is replaced with a “nipple†which was a small tube screwed into the touch hole. A “cap†was then fitted on the nipple. When a hammer or pin struck the cap would explode a mini charge directly down the touch hole, firing the weapon. While it still has its own share of disadvantages, the percussion cap is light-years ahead and much more moisture resistant.

 

3) Whether the weapon is being used by civilian hunters or a military. Hunters rely on accuracy, especially with a muzzle loader. You will only get one shot. Knowing this, you would use a rifle if at all possible and if not you would very carefully load your musket with patch and wad. The weight and shape of the round as well as the exact measure of powder would all be carefully determined for each shot. In other words, loading was a careful and deliberate activity to achieve the best accuracy possible.

For a military, it was an entirely different proposition. Most armies developed their tactics based on the musket and even with the appearance of the rifle, they changed little. The physical characteristics between rifle and musket as well as the difference in the training requirements fairly well decided that the musket would remain the primary infantry weapon until well into the early industrial age. Insanely, tactics held on even after the rifle became predominant, as demonstrated by the horrendous losses in the American Civil War. But that is a topic for another time. Let’s talk about the musket. Unlike rifles, accuracy wasn't even a concern for troops firing muskets. Understanding the inherent inaccuracy of a musket, the thought trying to achieve any level of accuracy was abandoned. Rate of fire was everything. Even the definition of terms are different. An "aimed" shot simply meant the firing trooper could see the enemy troops and point in the general direction. In fact you didn't aim at a specific "man" you aimed at the formation and hoped it hit something. Picard in his "La Campagne de 1800 en Allemahne" states that a test against a target measuring 1.75 meters by 3.00 meters under battle conditions gave the following results:

Range.... Percentage of shots hitting

75meters(82 yards)....60%

150m(164y)........ ...40%

225m(246y)......... ..25%

300m(328y)......... ..20%

Muller in his "Elements of the Science of War, 1811" gives results against a target representing "a line of cavalry" by both "well trained men" and "ordinary soldiers":

Range.......Percentage of hits obtained

............Well trained.....Ordinary

100 yards...53%..............40%

200 y.......30%..............18%

300 y.......23%..............15%

Since rate of fire was the primary concern, several steps would be modified by "veterans" to increase their fire. A couple are skipping the priming step (non-percussion cap) and ramming the main charge in hard enough to force powder into the pan or discarding the paper altogether and just dropping in the ball. Also rate of fire was aided by the ammunition used. An example is the British using a "standard No. 11 bore" with a ball of "No. 14 bore" giving a 1/20th inch difference or gap between the sides of the barrel and the ball. This could allow the trooper to skip the ramrod altogether. Firing independently an experienced soldier could fire five shots a minute or while when in ranks firing "volleys" this would be reduced to 2 or 3. As the weapons become fouled with burnt powder these rates will decrease. I have read accounts where elite troops would urinate into the barrel to clear powder build up and maintain fire.

 

A repeating theme through-out all of my reading is the agreement that no one was ever killed in a period battle (in formations and such) by the man who "aimed" at him. In other words a soldier in ranks who aimed specifically at the eighth guy from the left in the advancing enemy line hand a snowballs chance in hell of actually hitting that guy. Now he had a good chance (at least 60% at 75 meters depending on your reference) of hitting “someone†in the enemy line.

Another thing is "misfires" I don’t have all my references and the only one I have on hand states 1 misfire in 6.5 shots, with a increasing misfire rates if the weather was damp, rainy and so on.

 

So in a nutshell we have a soldier able to load and fire 1 to 6 shots a minute (unless the 1 in 6.5 shot misfires) at a general target somewhere "over there" getting somewhere around 3 to 6 hits per 10 rounds actually fired. Not a really good ratio considering this assumes the firing trooper is standing in place and NOT MOVING.

 

Now to rifles. Unlike a musket, a rifles’ accuracy depends on the tightness of the bullet/ball in the barrel. While a musket ball (as used in the Napoleonic period) will simply roll down the barrel unless "patched", a rifle ball or "bullet" won't. It fits tightly and has to be forced in, with the use of a starter tool or even a small mallet to start. And then it must be rammed all the way down to seat the round and ensure the rifle grooves cut into the bullet. It is this tight fit that ensures that a good spin is imparted to the round when fired. It is the very mechanism which imparts the rifles range and accuracy which cut its rate of fire to the 2 to 3 rounds a minute by an experienced veteran. Which would be quickly reduced to 2 or even 1 round a minute as the barrel fouled. Of course a rifles accuracy would mean a much higher kill rate at range than a musket could ever hope to achieve at the same range. However a company of musket bearing soldiers would cut a company of rifles to shreds if they faced off in formation at 100 yards or less. At an optimistic 200 rds a minute for the rifles even if 100% hit, the 60% of 600 rds fired by the musket unit would still yield 360 hits. Of course this kind of face off probably never happened (at least I haven’t found a specific reference to a face off at less than 100 yds by a pure rifle unit vs a musket unit) as rifles were usually employed by skirmishers who tended to avoid the stand-up fight.

 

4) Training/experience of the user. This was a critical aspect. Training varied wildly. The majority of training involved dry runs. The soldier would execute the drill (formation marching) and perform the firing drill without powder. The other involved firing “blanks†(powder but no shot) and live rounds. For regulars (center companies) and levy none of their practice was versus a “markâ€. Usually firing at a mark (target practice) was reserved for skirmishers, some light units and rarely Grenadier’s (elite). In the period most commanders were paid by the “crown†and then in turn paid/equipped their troops. Any “saved†money was theirs to keep. The result was that on average 2 live rounds and 6 blanks a year was considered a lot for training regulars. Skirmishers might double that and some “rifle†companies were given up to 20 live rounds and 50 blanks a year. I have a reference that speaks of on army being “trained†on 1 live round and 5 blanks. Now all of my figures are a compilation of multiple sources. I have “split the difference†with many of them. The British gained a real edge when the government of the time changed the process to providing their troops with powder, rounds and equipment directly from the Crown rather than cash, bypassing the commander. This meant that British soldier, at the worst, doubled his practice ammunition. This allowed an increase in the use of targets in training across all troop types. Which in turn enabled British troops to reach their rightly feared accuracy and rates of fire.

 

I haven't rewritten my Blackpowder rules for FRED yet, but a 6 phase reload essentially means a rate of one round per 30 (36 but who's splitting hairs) seconds or 2 rounds per minute for a speed 2 character (actually 1 minute plus one turn (or about 72 seconds). In my version of BP weapons, smoothbore and rifled weapons require different familiarities. My list is familiarity with: smoothbores, rifles, matchlocks, wheelock and flintlocks. The familiarity with "locks" covers the maintenance and use of the firing mechanism. Smoothbore/Rifle covers proper loading and aiming of the used version. Having just the basic familiarity with a weapons type allows a load speed of 5 phases (one shot per minute) for smoothbores and a load speed of 10 phases (one shot per 2 minutes) for a rifle. I was using a "Rapid Fire" skill which could be bought to reduce load time allowing a "veteran" to be able to reach the 6 round a minute historical rate of fire, but FRED has a maneuver by that name so I have to do a little redesign.

All in all my rules tended to force the PC's to adopt "a fire once and drop it" approach to fire arms. A musket was powerful enough to drop pretty much anyone they came up against if it hit, but too slow and inaccurate to be relied on as a sole weapon.

Anyway, tell me what you think. Any input/constructive criticism would be most welcome

[CorpCommander]

How ancient are we talking?

 

Ancient fire arms go back a long way. Gunpoweder was known throughout the world by the middle ages. The Chinese were using black powder as far back as 11th century when the Sung Dynasty was using explosive projectiles in their "sitting tiger" artillery pieces.

 

The earliest man held guns go back to at least the middle ages. I've seen drawings from 1480 showing handgunners protecting castle walls. Back then you had a tube with a stock that was held on the shoulder (like a bazooka) while another fellow pressed a match into the vent hole to set it off.

 

As ingenuity and production inovations took hold eventually the match lock gun was invented. During the English Civil War matchlocks were common. Basically what you had was a trigger mechanism attached to a spring loaded arm that held a burning slow match. Pulling the trigger swung the match to the primer pan, setting off the weapon. These were really susceptible to all sorts of problems. "Sleeves" of shot units were often paried up with Pike units to cover the deficiencies in the other's arm. The Shot elements would fire upon charging enemies then fall back to allow the Pike elements to take the charge.

 

By the time of the American Civil War three other innovations came into play. Flint replaced burning matches. This was easier to use, more able to work when wet and less susceptible to failure (I'd give matches an activation check just to see if they worked!)

 

Another innovation of this period was standardized production. prior to this all guns were unique works, the parts of one not able to be used in another weapon. Now one could mass produce weapons and if there was a problem get a spare part. (Quarter Masters from then on had nothing but work, work, work!)

 

Finally, rifling was sucessfully implemented. Rifling allows one to use elongated bullets rather than just balls. Rifling imparts spin which develops torque which keeps the flight of the bullet true. Rifling also makes the bullet harder to load and thus the weapon is a bit slower. Later during the American Civil War as the transition from Smoothbore to Rifle was made it was discovered that units with smoothbores were able to produce more firepower than units with rifles.

 

Just prior to the American Civil War the invention of the percussion cap was made and applied to almost all gun designs. The percussion cap is a small capsule that goes on the firing pan. The hammer comes down and kicks off the charge behind the round. It required no maintenence like the flint in flintlocks required.

 

During the American Civil War the cartridge was invented. This combined the round and the gunpowder into one package greatly improving load times. Also invented was the Minne Ball which was shaped in such a way as to form a gas seal in the barrel thus capturing more energy from the expanding black powder. Another invention was the repeating rifle - a weapon able to fire several times before reloads. Rounds were put into firing position by a lever mechanism. One report I read commented that Green Units with repeaters had as much fire power as Veterna Units with standard rifles.

 

after that guns start to become much more like our modern ones. I hope this helps you design your gun rules. Seeing how technology progresses over centuries gives you a better feel, I think, for how to model stuff like this. Good luck, let us know what you come up with.

[CorpCommander]

Kick and shots per minute

 

17th century guns while shooting large rounds did so at subsonic speed and were heavy so the kick was pretty much absorbed by the gun.

 

2 shots per minute sounds right. It gets to 3-4 shots in the 19th century until repeaters come out then you see much higher rates of fire.

 

As a side note - because the shots are sub-sonic they tend to NOT cauterize the wound and actually are more capable of later killing someone of disease! The disease usually is on the soldiers clothing (staphalencocus if they have passed through farmland, for example.) I think the majority of deaths during the Civil War were caused by disease and not because the wound recieved was fatal.

[Spence]

Re: Kick and shots per minute

 

Originally posted by CorpCommander

17th century guns while shooting large rounds did so at subsonic speed and were heavy so the kick was pretty much absorbed by the gun.

 

Yes and no. IIRC while the kick was more substantial, but it was more absorbed by the shooter's shoulder. In a long duration engagement, in addition to fatigue, the resultant bruising could actually be severe enough that it would reduce a troopers combat effectiveness.

I have read accounts that speak of soldiers who were physically incapaciatated from bruising or actualy broke their collarbones. One of the standard British musket was a "Standard No. 11 Bore" or .76 caliber. The French of the same period used a .70 caliber.

 

Originally posted by CorpCommander

As a side note - because the shots are sub-sonic they tend to NOT cauterize the wound and actually are more capable of later killing someone of disease! The disease usually is on the soldiers clothing (staphalencocus if they have passed through farmland, for example.) I think the majority of deaths during the Civil War were caused by disease and not because the wound recieved was fatal.

 

The desease or the doctor. Battle field surgery was brutal.

 

But for my purposes I am going to conveniently ignore the grittier aspects for a more heroic feel

[AlHazred]

Right, forgot about the Extra Time. For playability purposes, I'd make it 1 Turn; Sharpe's Rifles has a scene where the men are taught to fire five rounds a minute, IIRC. I don't remember if they were using percussion cap or flintlock muskets, but that translates to about 1 Turn between firings, with some sort of Fast Draw (Early Firearms) skill allowing them the extra shot per minute.

 

These guns were definitely used as clubs, or even spears, in their time. A pistol-dagger was produced that could fire one shot up the blade, launching the point of the dagger just ahead of the round; a good surprise weapon, but not one I'd expect to use successfully too often. However, the firing mechanism of the gun was definitely fragile, and prone to all sorts of little problems; it was improvements in the firing mechanism that were the most dramatic advances made.

 

So, RKA 2d6, 20 Boostable Charges (to represent overcharging any particular shot; +1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Required Hands (2 Hands; -1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4), Reduced By Range (-1/4), STR Min (11 to 14, Cannot Add/Subtract Damage; -1), Beam (-1/4), Activation Roll (Jammed, 15-; -3/4), Extra Time (1 Turn; -1 1/4) plus -2 RMod; OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Required Hands (2 Hands; -1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) plus -1 OCV; OAF Fragile (-1 1/4), Required Hands (2 Hands; -1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4). Total cost: 3 points.

[CorpCommander]

Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute

 

Originally posted by Spence

One of the standard British musket was a "Standard No. 11 Bore" or .76 caliber. The French of the same period used a .70 caliber.

 

Yeah, some specific weapons were certainly less capable of absorbing recoil. I've used .58cal weapons (19th century standard) and the recoil is nothing to be afraid of. I can see the larger guns causing trouble. I'll search my ECW resources for the 17thC guns the original poster was looking for and see what I can find. One should further note that guns during those times had stands due to weight that helped keep up the accuracy and minimize the effects of recoil. The stand was basically a pole that was about 4' tall that dropped below the gun and allowed the gun to be fired from what was essencially a braced position.

 

In addition to the musket, many men would carry a secondary weapon, such as a sword or axe for close-quarters fighting. They did not get involved in fencing duels like you might see in some movies.

 

The musketeers wore twelve wooden cases, often refered to as the "twelve apostles", worn on a belt over the shoulder. These would each contain enough powder to charge the musket. In addition to these, a primer with powder for the pan would be attached to this belt. Typical problems were tangling of the belt whilst on the move. The sound as the boxes banged together made hearing orders as a regiment more difficult. A later innovation was paper wrapped charges which eliminated these problems, and sped up the rate of fire.

 

Originally posted by Spence

The disease or the doctor. Battle field surgery was brutal.

 

Ugh, no doubt. "Son, looks like you need to bleed a little in order to get better! Here, let me apply these giant river leaches..." Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Spence]

Re: Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute

 

Originally posted by CorpCommander

Yeah, some specific weapons were certainly less capable of absorbing recoil. I've used .58cal weapons (19th century standard) and the recoil is nothing to be afraid of. I can see the larger guns causing trouble. I'll search my ECW resources for the 17thC guns the original poster was looking for and see what I can find. One should further note that guns during those times had stands due to weight that helped keep up the accuracy and minimize the effects of recoil. The stand was basically a pole that was about 4' tall that dropped below the gun and allowed the gun to be fired from what was essencially a braced position.

 

In addition to the musket, many men would carry a secondary weapon, such as a sword or axe for close-quarters fighting. They did not get involved in fencing duels like you might see in some movies.

 

The musketeers wore twelve wooden cases, often refered to as the "twelve apostles", worn on a belt over the shoulder. These would each contain enough powder to charge the musket. In addition to these, a primer with powder for the pan would be attached to this belt. Typical problems were tangling of the belt whilst on the move. The sound as the boxes banged together made hearing orders as a regiment more difficult. A later innovation was paper wrapped charges which eliminated these problems, and sped up the rate of fire.

 

 

OK I get it.

 

I was confused until you mentioned stands. You're thinking of the 1600's. I'm thinking after 1700. Gustavus Adolphus had lightened (is this a word?) the musket and abolished the stand. Introduced the paper cartridge eliminating the soldiers need to prepare his own. Reduced the line to six ranks and had helped introduce the bayonet as a viable weapon. All around 1630ish (???) I really wish I had my books here.

 

The period I am leaning toward see's the total elimination of the pike from the battlefield. Most nations had adopted three ranks as the optimal depth of a firing line (except the British who had transisitioned to two ranks). Think American Revolution to mid 1800s. Valmy, Waterloo, Quatre Bras, and on our side of the pond, Alamo. Moviewise think The Patriot or Sharps Rifles.

 

For my campaign idea it will be pre-percussion cap, so the advanced weapons will be flintlock. Muskets will be the most numerous, but rifles will exist. My reasoning is this allows a firearm to be effective but limits them to the point the adventurers will need to fall back on blade weapons, swords and such.

 

The Pike and Musket era is also pretty interesting too. I just haven't spent as much time on it.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute

 

Originally posted by Spence

Yes and no. IIRC while the kick was more substantial, but it was more absorbed by the shooter's shoulder. In a long duration engagement, in addition to fatigue, the resultant bruising could actually be severe enough that it would reduce a troopers combat effectiveness.

I have read accounts that speak of soldiers who were physically incapaciatated from bruising or actualy broke their collarbones. One of the standard British musket was a "Standard No. 11 Bore" or .76 caliber. The French of the same period used a .70 caliber.

 

I've fired .50 cal civil war replicas and was surprised how light the recoil was, My .303 Enfield kicks much harder and I'd compare it to my Mini-14 in 5.56mm.

[Spence]

Re: Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I've fired .50 cal civil war replicas and was surprised how light the recoil was, My .303 Enfield kicks much harder and I'd compare it to my Mini-14 in 5.56mm.

 

I have a little .50 cal BP rifle, and you are right that its recoil isn't that bad. But the .58 cal I fired had a more substantial kick, more than I expected based on my .50. I never had the oportunity to fire anything BP .70 or better, but I have been told that it really packs a whollop. I would really like to hear from someone who has actually fired a .70 to .76 cal BP rifle or musket. Right now I am going by hearsay and reading, but nothing can replace first hand experience.

[CorpCommander]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute

 

Originally posted by Spence

I was confused until you mentioned stands. You're thinking of the 1600's.

 

Uh you DID say the 17th Century in your first post. The 17th Century starts in 1601 and ends in 1700. So You were thinking the 18th Century. This is the 21st century we're living in. I can understand the confusion - where's the flying cars popular science promised us back in 1962? Anyway, what you really want is 18th century guns which aren't ancient at all in comparison to what had come before.

 

I've enjoyed this thread.

[Spence]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute

 

Originally posted by CorpCommander

Uh you DID say the 17th Century in your first post. The 17th Century starts in 1601 and ends in 1700. So You were thinking the 18th Century. This is the 21st century we're living in.

 

I've enjoyed this thread.

 

Yup.....I think I'll go outside shoot myself now.

Did I mention I graduated high school in Arkansas........

 

This has been a good thread... and there were no arguments or politics either...wooohooo!!!