Triangle Gun & Triangle Cartridges

I'd love to get a tround for my collection but the shows around here do not allow sales of single rounds. So my collection has gone without any additions since I purchased a .56 Spencer round off of E-Bay.

Kaeto,
You might go out and give ths a try:
http://www.cartridgecollectors.org/f/forum.php

Dean

You can normally find a couple for sale at most cartridge-collectors shows; here's a page showing most of the larger shows in the US; http://www.cartridgecollectors.org/ctgshows.htm

How could anything "as versatile as a six-armed monkey" not have caught on?

I can't tell from the picture: is the bore triangular? Or is the triangular part the propellent and the projectile round? The "tround" looks like a sabot with a round projectile.

So...how'zit work?

that's right - in the second picture, you can see the round bullet and the triangular casing.

~tmm

How could anything "as versatile as a six-armed monkey" not have caught on?

Click to expand...

Good question. I think it actually seems to be a nifty concept, execution was probably horrid.

What if you made a modern, normal revolver accept "trounds"? In theory, couldn't you have 2x as many trounds in the same size cylinder? One tround pointing out, the next pointing in, the next pointing out, etc....? Or do I sound nuts?

Not really; the supposed advantage of the Dardick system was that the outside of each of the triangular chambers was missing, and that part of the RECEIVER formed part of the chamber when the round was in firing position. This meant that rounds could just be pushed into the chamber from the side (the triangular shape meant they'd automatically spin to the proper position, since one "point" was innermost), then the cylinder would spin to the firing position, the round could be fired, then when the cylinder spun to the next stage, the empty could just fall out of the cylinder. The handgun and rifle versions were built so that the topstrap formed the 3rd chamber wall of the chamber in firing position, and the cylinders only had 3 chambers.

Couple more pics for everyone.

Hello, new to the forum.
If anyone out there is interested I have a slew of original info on this gun. My father was plant superintendent at Dardick in Hamden. I was contacted a few years ago by someone writing a book on this gun and gave him some stuff. I never heard of the book ever being published though. Melvin Johnson did a lot there too. I remember him coming to the house when I was young. It was like looking up at a tree, he was a big guy.
I was looking through all of the files today and decided to see if there is any interest or what to do with it.

Do not click link!!!!!

DO NOT CLICK LINK OP SENT!!!!!!!! MY ANTI VIRUS JUST STOPED SOMETHING. Also I seen that gun picture before somewhere..

i always wanted a puckels gun, them square pegs had to be fun to shoot out of the round hole

Here's an interesting treatise on non-reciprocating firearms, including the Dardick.
The attached pictures are of the Fokker experimental "split-breech" from WW1 mentioned in the last paragraph of the article.
The pics are kind of poor (cell phone camera), but you can get the idea from the description.
I notice that the article doesn't include the Puckle Gun.
Probably because it wasn't a "full-auto".

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Split Breech.htm

Zack said:

DO NOT CLICK LINK OP SENT!!!!!!!! MY ANTI VIRUS JUST STOPED SOMETHING. Also I seen that gun picture before somewhere..

Click to expand...

My AV didn't even twitch (I use avast, in conjunction with Ad-aware and Spybot S&D). I also checked via the 2 other computers here in the house. I'd guess you already had something (likely one of the "fake antivirus" viruses) before you went to the site.

Why didn't it catch on?

Two reasons. First, Dardick was primarily interested in developing a military weapon in the .50 to 30 mm range. The pistol was merely a proof of concept and Dardick never seriously tried to promote it.

Second, it looked like a Weller soldering gun. Gun buyers are notorious for wanting their guns to look like guns. If there had been serious intent to market it the styling might have been spiffed up.

The concept itself worked very well and was probably quite practical. It much simplified the design of belt fed weapons as no reciprocal motion was required.

I always liked the SALVO or Terra-Drill rounds.

In a gimmicky impractical SPIW CAWS OICW sort of way.

You guys have it all wrong! The Gooberment secretly shut it down because *gasp* IT CAN BE TURNED INTO A RIFLE!!! Oh no! In all seriousness, that is one of the strangest things I've ever seen and must say it probably died because it's a bit radical for most people's tastes (including mine...)

The really basic need for success is that the product fill a real or perceived need. Now a maker with a good product can create a demand by advertising (look at all the electronic gadgets being sold), but still the product has to do something better than whatever it is designed to replace. The Dardick gun just didn't do things enough better. The design worked, but the gun was bulky and awkward, and not enough better than conventional guns to be accepted. Not least of the disadvantages was that massive changes would have to be made in ammunition production, a serious concern for any consideration for military use.

Jim

Some of you need to realize that his thread is 4 years old, and was bumped up 2 days ago.