>Buy musket for home defense >Finally one night I hear a crash >Dawn my powdered wig and petticoat >musket is ready to fire >my home surround sound is also primed and ready to play “the royal hussars” >hit play >”TALLEY HO LADS” >run downstairs and into my living room >two men are carrying my tv >put a baseball sized hole in one >The other attempts to drop my tv and run >”AFFIX BAYONETS GENTLEMEN” >charge after him >Jam my bayonet into his anus as he tries to climb back through a broken window >call police >I have tea ready for them
i thought he was sarcastic, specially because he was looking so serious when saying it. I kept laughing and laughing and he didnt say that it was a joke which made it even funnier smh
@Bozkurt postuna bürünmüş yobaz AraB devesi uh, Hungarians wouldn’t need Austrians to force them to fight Turks, Turks occupied most of their country, they were fine with killing them.
@@user-ro9zf9kz1h Don't worry, we can understand you well. With practice you'll become perfect. I've certainly seen worse English from native speakers, to the point that I couldn't understand them. If it helps, a grammatically better way to say what you said would be: Well we have* got revolver cannons* like the M39, so it's not too* far fetched*. -That- Those* monsters* are used* on jets and fire about 1000 20mm rounds per minute.
Take a look at his video on the "Collier Repeating Flintlock Revolvers". A century later, handheld, surprisingly similar, and the inspiration for the early-modern revolver.
@Piss Muffin She would always say "Don't!... Stop!... Don't!... Stop!... I could never tell what she puckin meant. Don't Stop or Don't stop. It is really pucking confusing. Naaahhh... I knew what she meant.
We had a gunsmith here in the Pacific Northwest who made several of these after he’s saw one at the Tower of London. He brought them to several of our black powder events. They are a very interesting firearm to shot.
They had both guns on display at the tower when I was there in December of 1985. Bought a postcard featuring those on my way out and have been using it since then as a bookmark.
“Hey, you know how cannons suck?” “Yeah, you can only fire them once before needing to reload” “Yeah, but what if we just put like six mini cannons together, and made em spin” “Genius dude”
@@morganpriest7726 We have examples of matchlock revolving rifles with a single barrel dating back to at least the 15th century, that's not advanced at all.
@@morganpriest7726 Yeah, the cylinder is a very early firearm innovation, it just wasn't really popular prior to the invention of the percussion cap because of a phenomenon called "row ignition" where the spark from the flash pan sets off more than one chamber at once.
@@CruelestChris "row ignition" was an issue even in the American Civil War with some of their revolving rifles. Though the term used then was "chain fire."
In musket era the only way to get multi shot gun, is to have double barreled musket with 2 flintlocks. Ofc if you wanna achieve multi shot in non complicated way
"Think how many soldiers you can buy for the price of one of these guns" was probably one of the reasons they didn't go with it. It looks like a beautiful telescope.
@@danielaramburo7648 Or even a pistol type, It could be very usefull in close quarters. Just hold it in the general direction and than pu-pu-pum. It could have make those "line up"'s obsolete, where people would be rushing to get close in open fields. That would be interesting.
@T A euhm, sadly enough, yes that was precisely the logic in those days. Soldiers in the British Army held maybe 2 sets of practice shooting (and that was volley fire) a year, if they had any shooting experience at all before being sent to the battlefield. This was because the gunpowder, together with the musket, was seen as an accessory to the pike/bayonet-formation. It was only with the reforms of Frederick the Great the firearms horrible capacity was fully unleashed: under his reform, Prussian musketeers were drilled relentlessly, and mercilessly, to the point of perfection. A standard company of Prussian line-infantry was expected to fire AT LEAST 3 volleys a minute, and this was for greenhorns. Veterans got off up to 5 volleys a minute, which is... Completely insane, if you ask me, but it shows how much changed between 1718 and 1788. In Frederick the Great´s opinion the musket was clearly the deadliest weapon of all, capable of mowing down everything, from bears to armoured men, including their horses. So it was only to obvious to change the primary weapon from bayonet/pike to musket, and the bayonet-charge to finish off the job (if needed at all). And by 1798 a small Corsican general applied the same logic to the most powerful firearm he could find: Cannon, arranged into batteries instead of singular, fired by a battery commander/observer, firing volleys of death over many battlefields. I believe this Corsican/French general lost only 8 out of 70 battles? :-)
@@Beefyrulz This reminds of the Russian/Soviet Nagant M 1895 where the cylinder moves forward to seal the chambers and which used the unique cartridge where the case extends over the bullet.
Puckle's design seems a sound one. No doubt it was an extremely expensive weapon for the time, but his suggested uses as an anti-piracy naval weapon and for the defence of strategic positions like bridges sound like sensible and well-informed applications of the technology he developed. One possible factor in the commercial failure of the Puckle Gun that I've not seen discussed is that he was very unlucky in the historical moment he chose to begin promoting it. 1720 in England saw the peak of the 'South Sea Bubble' and its associated stock mania, during which assorted chancers and charlatans took advantage of an explosion of popular interest in the stock market to encourage people to buy into numerous crank business ideas, with the predictable results of the 'bubble' eventually bursting and thousands of people losing huge amounts of money. The landmark non-fiction classic 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' by Charles McKay (first published in 1841) contains a direct reference to the Puckle Gun being considered part of the 1720 Stock Mania- it briefly describes a series of satirical 'bubble' playing cards made at the time, including the following passage, which itself quotes one of the cards: "One of the most famous bubbles was 'Puckle's Machine Company, 'for discharging round and square cannon balls and bullets, and making a total revolution in the art of war.' It's pretensions to public favour were thus summed up in the eight of spades: "A rare invention to destroy the crowd Of fools at home instead of fools abroad Fear not, my friends, this terrible machine They're only wounded who have shares therein." A great many of the businesses promoted during the 1720 South Sea Bubble and stock mania were blatant, outright con jobs. 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions' even describes one that sold shares as "A company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is," whose owner apparently sold several thousands of pounds worth of stock and then immediately fled the country. It seems possible that Puckle's gun was widely seen as just another of these scams, blinding many to the advantages of his design. All this leaves me with the impression that had Puckle first attempted to promote his gun at almost any other time in history, he might have had a better chance of being taken seriously. If it weren't for that unfortunate historical coincidence, the revolver might well have become an established weapon of war a hundred years or more before Samuel Colt. It's also noteworthy that Puckle's gun was described as a 'machine' back in the 1720's- whilst it might not match the modern definition of a 'machine gun', it was definitely considered a 'machine gun' at the time of manufacture.
I will not say that you are necessarily wrong, but remember... he did actually secure funds for his company and managed to manufacture weapons. That may not even have been possible were it _not_ for that mania. And mania or not, the navy _did_ try them and didn't like them. That could be because they were ultra-conservative idiots, that the prototype version they saw had some teething problem that poisoned their minds against the gun or that the test didn't allow for proper training in their use... but it could also be as simple as them first being intrigued, then looking at the price tag and then all simultaneously turning around, going "Ooopsi daisy, would you look at the time!?!"
Well said Chris Ball. To me ( what do i know lol ) this seems like a great weapon for the purposes he mention. However id only sold to one man ? Regardless of price, how come this weapon was not popular ? I know the Brits never cared about the price of there huge ships, whats wrong with a expensive new lil cannon ? Im just wondering how come this weapon never took off ?
The gun also had a severe problem with the slightest wind blowing the priming powder away causing a misfire. Many of the old flintlock designs had this flaw. The gun might have been successful if percussion cap firing was available.
"Defending King George, your country and laws Is defending your selves and Protestant cause." I agree, with an engraving like that I could totally see it featured in Bioshock Infinite.
@@skeltonslay8er781 You'd need to be a Big Daddy to carry it. 9 rounds a minute, though, you can melee faster than that. Probably rocket spears or anything from the grenade launcher would be more use against pirate skiffs, and quicker to fire. Still that's the 1960s. Maybe the Puckle Gun will turn up in Bioshock 4. You'd fight people infected with mutated Bubonic Plague that gives them the ability to launch bees and shoot lightning from their fingers. At the end, you have to start the Great Fire Of London in a bakery, to wipe the plague out.
There are two representations of this gun in media that I am aware of, both video games: Empire Total War and Assassin's Creed Rogue. In both games this thing essentially functions as a slow-firing low capacity machine gun. In reality, it seems to be more of a repeating swivel gun, that has to be manually reset after every shot. Still way ahead of its time in terms of capability but definitely not a pew pew machine. :P
While it say 1 year idk how long for it could be nearly 2 years old but there's also now the game Atlas which sees this weapon as a placable weapon on shoreline fortifications (just not vessels yet). Hm the ones in Rogue seem to hVe been sped up an had larger cartridges instead of 9 you could have up to 24 shells.
You could throw this into a steampunk setting and it wouldn't look out of place. Maybe make it the equivalent of a MK. 19 though, since the typical Steampunk era has Maxims and Gatling guns.
I don't know much about production methods of the time, but this thing looks like it was very expensive to produce in 1718..Or even 1818 for that matter.
It was expensive! That's why almost nobody bought it :D The amount of brass...precission made parts, grinding,etc,etc.... This piece of art must have cost atleast "half a ship"
"Defending king George, your country and laws, is defending your selves and the protestant cause" i think edit: yeah ian reads it out at the beginning of the video (missed it the first time around >< )
What amazes me most is that the gun is named after its inventor, yet it looks pretty much exactly as you'd imagine something called a "Puckle Gun" would look.
There should be a name for that phenomenon, I feel like it happens all the time, where some random unique thing has the most perfect name by chance like that.
I believe the Death Star also had a problem with small craft, as its Turbo Lasers were too slow to track them. Perhaps some of these might've helped. Have a nice holliday, in whatever form it comes.
They did, but Lord Vader was told that the rebel fighters were too fast for the Turbo Lasers to track. It was an attempt at a comparative joke, which was apparently too slow to evade Turbo Lasers.
Funny how an Abrams of today can move a turret so fast that it'll break your leg if you're standing on the tank, but the turbo lasers can't track an X-wing. Plasma injected lasers (or something like that) that can destroy an entire planet? Check. Faster-than-light travel? Easy-peasy. Basic hydraulic motor technology? Impossible!
And like early airplanes (well, all airplanes, but it's more obvious in) 2-passenger tandem planes: you put the variable load (the passenger) right under the support. The lead ball/shot in the Puckle would be really close to the pivot point. Perhaps it balances perfectly when half loaded. i.e. a little back heavy when fully loaded and a bit front heavy as we see it here, unloaded.
I imagine that checking the religion of your target before you decide what ammunition you needed to use was a rather awkward exchange... "I say, good sir! By what religion do you place your faith in?" "I do declare that I am Christian, my good fellow!" "By Jove! Jolly good then! T'would appear that I shan't need to change the bore of my repeating Puckle firearm! I say, be a sport and stay right there while'st I rotate the chamber of my repeating Puckle firearm to a fresh projectile! For I plan to shoot at you post-haste!" "My word! That is rather rude of you! Would you not you agree, old bean?"
He probably didn't invent it, I've heard accounts of people putting other foods between slices of bread since the Romans, but he probably popularised it and gave it the name.
Impressive piece of engineering especially for it’s time. I’m sure this would’ve have been a game changer if the British Navy and even the British Army implemented it.
Putting a 3 cm big hole into a boat or person every 7 seconds and being able to do that 9 times must have been amazing in 1718. I imagine it would be even better balanced when it is loaded by the way.
Yeah this thing looks like it's from the 1800s rather than the early 1700s. I wonder if there were any more advanced guns made in between this and the Gatling gun.
This basically uses the very first fully contained cartridges. Bullet, propellant and "primer" all ready to go but not only that, it was mechanised for speed without reloading after every shot. This is basically a revolver without the cylinder but EXACTLY the same concept and a shitload more powerful.
The "machining" as in manual craftsmanship itself is impressive. The problem was always going to be mass production and this weapon is way too complex and time-consuming to ever be anything but a rare niche weapon during the 1700's. Here's the main problem: This complex weapon was made by specialist gun smiths and cost a fortune. Why? Because it was all personal, manual labor. The age of industrialism only started in the 1760's and even then it mostly revolved around *textile manufacturing* and spinning machines. Those were powered either by a large water wheel in a river or early steam machines. No, the real industrial revolution was the 2nd Industrial Revolution of the 1870's. You see at this time we saw a very important invention called *machine tooling* and the electric machine. The machine tooling is the "machining" you're thinking about. Mass-produced cheap steel was also very important and there was none before the Bessemere process in the 1860's. Thanks to the electric machine and machine tooling you could now mass-produce previously complex and time-consuming larger and smaller parts with milling and lathe machines. You could also build giant factories (thanks to the cheap steel) anywhere. This is also when the population went from majorly working in agrarian trades (farms, crops etc) and work in industrial production. But there were no milling and lathe machines powered by electric machines in the 1720's. Ergo the Puckle Gun was developed at a time there was no industry and no possibility to mass producing it. Every single complex part had to be cast or manually shaped with manual hand-tools. In short. This was an industrial age design which unfortunately pre-dated the 2nd Industrial Revolution by some 150 years. So no level of "machining" at all.
@@Morgomirable Owww you broke my heart. Your words can be true for most of us. But my dear friend I assure you some of us very good guys. As a Turk I don't like my race . We attacked almost everyone in our way. But you have to know, not any race was that good as historians said or bad alike.
On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note On a more serious note
If you managed to lure your enemies (like cavalry) into the range of them and made all units fire at the same time, they'd absolutely shred anything very fast.
Jimmy De'Souza They were given too short a range to be effective presumably in an attempt to balance the game; unrealistically short if I remember correctly.
The engineering on this is extraordinary for the early 1700s... I kept asking myself if perhaps he really meant early 1800s, it just seems so unreal that such high levels of machining and metals were even in existence in 1718...
@@justforever96 It was only like this in a tiny part of the world. Most peoples were still using swords, even besides their muskets at the time. Flintlocks were one shot pistols, not multi shot. This is incredibly advanced engineering for the time and most things didn't catch up until the 1800's. Watches existed, but they were for the upper echelons of upper class and society so for most people at the time, they didn't exist in society, they existed as a novelty you got to see from the richest and must influential people.
Fascinating. I can't believe they were doing that kind of metalwork that early. It looks like late 19th century. And the thinking behind it is quite advanced for the time. Looks like they might have been a bit more modern than we give credit for.
it's just that the history was changed a little and the dates were shifted. If they had told me that it was the end of the 19th century, then I would have believed it!
@@Blox117 water power and belts, then steam and belts. You'd have a central shaft then the machines could be looped onto it and gear ratio'd down to what was needed. Belt turners from the 20's still do a decent job. Useable for real manufacturing today? No, but they were for back when they were made.
@@davidc4983 And citizens who aren’t rich af cannot own miniguns, we’re fighting for the rights to own basic ass semi auto rifles. And that’s not the point, the point is people say all they knew were muskets. If they saw this thing from 80 years earlier, they could predict weapon advancement.
@@JohnW-yv6yp are we talking about the same people who, in their own lifetimes, would pass laws which prohibited loaded firearms in the home due to safety concerns? I'll grant you that the semi auto debate is fuckin retarded, but let's not pretend the founders were opposed to regulations either. I suspect if they thought about what firearms would like like in the future at all, they probably assumed, like the puckle gun, anything too dangerous would also be all but impossible for the common man to attain
@@davidc4983 You weren’t allowed to keep a musket loaded if you lived in town because the things were not as safe as modern firearms they could go off. They did not ban any firearms, there were new firearms being developed at the time. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was so that people could fight the government, taking away all infantry type rifles is therefore counter logical.
they couldn't. As impressive as this weapon is for its time, it's still severely slower than any modern automatic firearm. A submachin gun can hold 30 bullets and be reloaded in a matter of seconds, while also being lightweight and compact. The puckle gun not only takes really long to reload, it also requires priming powder and time to manually switch chambers.
@@MikhaelAhava not not talking about nuclear warheads. I'm talking about quick fire repeating weapons. A 14 year old could've bought 1 of these in 1718. I don't think they could imagine covid, mustard gas, microwaves, or a president that could use Twitter as a weapon.
The moment I saw those cover plates my thought was "Did he made a system for opening those or is it done by hand?" That is why I love guns - they are always a marvel of human imagination and engineering.
Regarding the ad Ian reads at the beginning, "passes" and "places" actually rhymed in the English of the time - they both had the "a" sound "pass" still has today. This also applied to other words, like "plate", "fate", "face", "gate", "late", etc.
Thank you for today's old English lesson, seems like it's just the French a (you pronounce it "hey" in English but in French it's "ha") which would make sense as French was more popular back then in Europe than it is today
You have to admit, it does look elegant. Many other "prototype" or "unused" advanced guns like this looked very bare bones or homemade. This one looks well crafted, with its smoothly operating revolver mechanism, the built in gas seals, and the mechanism snapping down in place once you prepare to fire each shot. Surprised it didnt go far, it definitely has looks to it.
You just have to imagine other people/companies wanting to sell their stuff instead, or price differences, or any kinds of outside factors. Same as in any other era. => It's not only about what's good, but also about competition, pricing, economic incentives to do other stuff, etc. Let alone corruption, malevolence, politics and so forth... (#ProgressNarrative vs #Reality)
Impressive! Beautifully made too. I love how back then people were true craftsmen and really put a lot into everything they made, all by hand of course.
If he did sell more, warfare would have evolved differently. If they were widely adopted, some country would have optimized their use on the battlefield. Imagine how portable field artillery would become; Advancing troops flanked by batteries of Puckles which start a number of volleys toward the defending troops line. Cavalry begins to position during the barrage and attacks immediately afterward. The foot soldiers would just be needed for cleanup.
This is amazing - it looks like an extremely large caliber Gatling gun. I can’t believe this came out in 1718. Also, it might be the most Steampunk weapon I’ve ever seen….
Proper Steampunk would be this weapon, but with a steam-powered mechanism that actuated the cycling process automatically. You'd have a water jacket behind the cylinder with a hose connecting it to the ships' main reservoir to receive power.
The principle of steam power was known a long time. However for most of that time their was no reason to develop it because the power of some humans or a couple horses was enough. Take this gun, having this system steam powered would make it bulkier, more complex and thus more unreliable and would require even more precise craftsmanship for only maybe a little advantage in rate of fire.
Just wondering: At what point in this video were you going to mention the fun fact that Samuel Colt almost certainly stole his revolving cylinder design from the Puckle Gun? That seems somewhat relevant.
Forgotten Weapons All right...I can admit when I'm wrong. Touche. BUT...didn't Colliers patent his revolver in England, the first year he moved there, while the Puckle was on display at the Tower of London? Sooo...if Colt was "inspired" by Colliers, and Colliers was "inspired" by Puckle, then aren't we only talking about degrees of separation?
I can see why they turned it down. It was too sophisticated, which means it will break when you really need it to not break. Put that thing on a naval vessel, salt water rusts it out. There are plenty of weapon systems today that are the wave of the future, but they're too complicated to be used.
If it were up to the ranks and files, we'd still be fighting with sticks and stones. Jarheads both low and hight are inherently hostile to inovations - common grunts because they'd have to learn how to operate a new complicated and expensive piece of equipment and officers cause they'd have to adapt and devise new strategies rather than just rehearse what they've read from the book in the academy. A big modernization of an army rarely comes without it first getting its shit pushed big time in a war against new more advanced technology or previously unencountered tactics.
@@gabrielgrimes8297 Ribauldequin used much more primitive way of amassing firepower though: increasing the number of barrels, which is not always the best idea due to the recoil, accuracy and reloading speed suffering greatly
Cube shotgun slug has been tested. Works fine, but I'm not sure it would provide much difference in damage unless you care about what shape bullet wounds you're generating. It seems a bit of a shame that this weapon wasn't more popular. Ridiculously impressive given the technology at the time. Given how viable it seems in theory, I'd like to know just what about it made it so undesirable.
Generally speaking, militaries don't like change. We've done it this way for decades and it works so were not changing now. Thats the short and sweet of it. You saw that mindset in WW1 with the machine gun, Generals still doing charges into full auto fire. Because it had worked before. Saw it with the Navy in WW2 berating the usefulness of air power over battleships. Militaries can be rather slowly changing organizations. And the more "new" or "radical" the idea the less they seem to like it.
+Pekka Rastas Aye I think this reason would be the most likely factor for it not being adopted. It'd be extremely difficult to keep that ammo stored conveniently all while keeping it dry. At sea, you can't really expect that; especially in harsh weather conditions.
not to mention the fact that THAT much brass/extra cylinders to reload this quickly is a fair amount of weight that would reduce the speed of the ship and less room for food etc.
It's just incredibly expensive. That much brass, plus the very detailed craftsmanship, requiring thousands of hours for every gun, simply wasn't practical on a large scale.
The biggest problem a navy would have with this is they'd be thinking of it in terms of "what will this be like when it's been at sea for a year and not handled particularly gently." And the answer would probably be "rusted solid with all the little components broken off." Sea spray washing unburned propellant out of the chambers and getting into the flash pans would be a huge problem, as would corrosion of the tiny screws in the lock and on the flashpan covers. You'd get gunk accumulating around the gas seal area and on the screw thread which would make forming a positive seal almost impossible after a while, and which could lead to row ignition. And getting into mass production rather than carefully hand-measured prototypes, you'd probably also end up hucking entire cylinders overboard after finding loosened tolerances meant they didn't actually fit. And this is for what? At the time, you had breech-loading swivel guns where the breech was a pot that you locked into the gun with a twist which could be loaded independently of it, allowing the gun to be fired rapidly for as long as you had spare loaded breeches. They weren't as heavy as the Puckle's cylinder and were mechanically very simple, being basically cast metal beer mugs. So a ship with one of those could keep up a constant rate of fire at a fraction of the cost. Though rare, there were also already faster-firing guns around, the Kalthoff and Cookson Repeaters, the former of which was a true lever-action rifle despite that nobody had invented the firearm cartridge yet. I'm fairly sure the reference to pirates wasn't about Turks, though: 1718 was the year of Blackbeard's death and the heyday of Western piracy. Essentially the Puckle Gun is the Metal Storm or TDI / KRISS Vector of its day, a technically interesting solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
It would have been high off the sea, covered, oiled, and impeccably maintained by the Royal Navy, under pain of near-fatal flogging and no rum ration. Study some history.
@@beachcomber2008 Being out on deck is going to screw it over with just the spray, the flintlock systems of RN guns were pretty easy to keep covered because they weren't the entire rear of the gun.
No, it didn't. You could equip 500 infantrymen with muskets for what this thing cost. They would put 1000 rounds a minute on target while this thing put 30 rounds a minute on target.
The machining must have been almost beyond state of the art for the time. The very concept of mass production of interchangeable parts was a new idea as well.
It's surprising what people could achieve in pre-industrial times. They found the bronze ram of a Roman-era warship off the coast of Israel. Scientists in Tel Aviv determined that the composition of the bronze put it on the same level as aircraft manufacturing of the mid-20th century in terms of the consistency of the alloy. And that was 2000 years ago.
@@ajvanmarle sounds like an isolated incident to me. Though bronze was well understood in the late Bronze Age. Kinda why that era got its name. Bronze metallurgy was the high tech of the time. That ram head was their ICBM. So not surprising they took care in crafting it.
@@1pcfred They did some tests and concluded that all rams would have to have been of similar quality, or they would shatter on impact. There is actually a lot of confusion as to how it was managed. We're talking about objects that were several meters long and would have had to be consistently heated throughout the casting process to avoid having airbubbles, or composition changes. It can be done, with the tech of that era, but it would not be easy and shows that they did a lot of experimentation to get it right.
