Lewis & Clarks Air Rifle

[Masherbrum]

well, you're a prime example of why the illiterate peasants shouldn't have anything more lethal than a wet noodle...

that air rifle was state of the are for the 18th/19th century...amazing thing is they wouldn't have let you touch it back then either.

       

[dedalos]

Actually, those air rifles are quite complex.  Would you trust a herd of illiterate peasants with rifles worth in the tens of thousands in today's money?

-Penguin

Um, no.  We only trust them to give their lives for us.

[Vulcan]

I think the reason why this weapon was not adopted was the same for which the fergusson rifle (or rifles in general) were not adopted: bureaucratic red tape and unwillingness in the army to spend money to re-arm their troops.
 

More like complexity and cost of manufacturing. When a war is on you need guns fast.

[Sonicblu]

Actually, those air rifles are quite complex.  Would you trust a herd of illiterate peasants with rifles worth in the tens of thousands in today's money?

-Penguin

How would a herd of illiterate peasants get rifles worth tens of thousands of dollars?

I recommend you find an appleseed shoot in your area and attend one. If you dont have a rifle I will have one provided for you for the event. Ill even buy your ammo.

Look up Morgans rifle company.

[mtnman]

muskets were horribly inaccurate down to 100 yards anyways. The black smoke blocked the view after the first volley so aiming was out of the question..not to mention recoil.
 

Those two sentences are far less accurate than a musket at 100yards.

For starters, black-powder firearms do not produce black smoke.  Recoil isn't bad either, compared to modern center-fire rifles.

I have a .75 Brown Bess musket, accurate to the year 1762.  Flintlock, with an atrociously slow lock, and firing hand-cast lead balls.  It easily shoots a 4" group at 75 yards.  Hitting a paper plate at 100 yards isn't that rough.  It's a fine gun for deer out to 75 yards.  Still deadly beyond that, but I'm not comfortable shooting further with it.

Loaded with shot, I've used it for several turkeys, ducks, pheasants, geese, rabbits and squirrels.

That gun is far less accurate than my flintlock rifle, which is also accurate for the Lewis and Clark time-period.

[ToeTag]

Actually, those air rifles are quite complex.  Would you trust a herd of illiterate peasants with rifles worth in the tens of thousands in today's money?

-Penguin

Don't we?

[PFactorDave]

Those two sentences are far less accurate than a musket at 100yards.

For starters, black-powder firearms do not produce black smoke.  Recoil isn't bad either, compared to modern center-fire rifles.

I have a .75 Brown Bess musket, accurate to the year 1762.  Flintlock, with an atrociously slow lock, and firing hand-cast lead balls.  It easily shoots a 4" group at 75 yards.  Hitting a paper plate at 100 yards isn't that rough.  It's a fine gun for deer out to 75 yards.  Still deadly beyond that, but I'm not comfortable shooting further with it.

Loaded with shot, I've used it for several turkeys, ducks, pheasants, geese, rabbits and squirrels.

That gun is far less accurate than my flintlock rifle, which is also accurate for the Lewis and Clark time-period.

+1  I have a replica 1777 Charleville musket, with patched balls it is much more accurate then you would expect.

[Vulcan]

patched balls eh... must be a yank thing 

[BERN1]

if you watch the video you will see that these guns were used in battle just not over here.
at the time black powder muskets were being massivly produced by every industrialized country,i suspect that cost and availability are the reasons that these were not used by us

[Tac]

k not black smoke but smoke. a cloud of grey/white, eye-stinging smoke coming from a line of foot volley will blind the shooter's aiming ability past the first round.

Cost definitely may have been a problem but when you think about it... its nearly 4 times the rate of fire (which was known at the time to be the deciding factor on a musketry fight) you would think that would be worth the re-armament cost. I suspect it was more an issue of politics and bureaucracy.

[68ZooM]

I found it to be very interesting thats why i posted it, but just imagine if we had access to these during our early years as a new nation, i wonder if the outcomes would of changed and/or changed history as we know it. 

[Penguin]

Don't we?

No, most soldiers know how to read, write and follow quite complex cleaning requirements.

-Penguin

[BERN1]

No, most soldiers know how to read, write and follow quite complex cleaning requirements.

-Penguin

you must be a soldier ...thank you for serving

[gyrene81]

No, most soldiers know how to read, write and follow quite complex cleaning requirements.

-Penguin

in the 18th/19th century? you should read more...assume less.

all the way through wwi illiteracy was a problem among the ranks of foot soldiers...officers were the educated ones...because their families were rich and could afford to be educated. during the time that air rifle was created, the average soldier could barely spell his name, let alone read an instruction manual (not that any existed)...it wasn't considered necessary for a foot soldier to be able to read, just fire the weapon as they were taught.

[Masherbrum]

you must be a soldier ...thank you for serving

I hear the sarcasm all the way on the east side of the State.