1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Repeating firearms before the U.S. Revolution

Discussion in 'Activism' started by gopguy, Jan 1, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gopguy

    gopguy Member

    Jun 16, 2005
    S.W. Ohio
    Could not have possibly envisioned the guns we have today as they only had single shot firearms... That is RUBBISH!

    Repeating arms existed but were not common. The gun that really puts the lid on these anti gun arguments that the Founders could not have envisioned the repeating guns we have today is this masterpiece, The Puckle Gun of 1718. Made and used by the English the also sold some to Russia. They predate our revolution by decades and technology wonks like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were keenly aware of them. When our Constitution was ratified in 1791 I guarantee they were well aware of this already well aged arm. Examples still sit in museums in the Tower of London and as I recall they had one on display at the Hermitage in Russia. They were misdeployed as short range artillery, where they were viewed as underpowered and short of range. The designer clearly viewed it as an anti personnel weapon, suggesting they use round shot for Christians and square shot for Turks. It was clearly the inspiration if not the evolutionary great grand daddy of the machinegun. So next time some fool tells you the Founders could not have possibly foreseen what we have, tell the ignoramus to google a Puckle gun.

    Here is a modern miniture model being fired with a match...


  2. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Member

    Jan 6, 2011
    Hastings, Michigan
    I was thinking about this myself. They saw technological advances in firearms. They were using flintlocks, not match lit hand cannons.
    They understood and were aware of the evolution of firearms technology, from the hand cannon to the matchlock to the wheel lock to the flintlock. Experimental flintlocks with multiple barrels were around in the 1600s. Experimental breach loadin weapons were already in existence, as well.

    People who use this argument fail to realize that the founders did not live in a vacuum, and theirs was not the birth of firearms technology.

    Pointing out technological advances related to the rest if the Bill of Rights is only icing on the cake.
  3. CmpsdNoMore

    CmpsdNoMore Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    I was recently reading the District of Columbia v. Heller opinion written by Justice Scalia. He made the comment, as some others have mentioned, that other parts of the constitution have been applied to modern things such as telephones and cars.

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
  4. dcarch

    dcarch Member

    Oct 2, 2010
    The Hawkeye State
    Very cool!
  5. Kush

    Kush Member

    Feb 23, 2010
    How about the Cookson volitional repeating flintlock, able to fire 12 rounds before reloading from around 1750, with rifles with similar actions dating back to the late 1600s, could also be considered an "assault weapon" in New York soon under their new definition of "assault weapon" if they consider muzzleloaders firearms:


    Here is a pistol based on the same action from the 1680's, holds 7 rounds:


    How about a flintlock revolver, also from the 1680's, think it holds 8 rounds, and would also soon be considered an "assault weapon" in New York if the consider muzzleloaders firearms:


    Here is a less complicated repeating flintlock pistol from 1814 (I have seen some from before 1776, there is just a video for this one), where the lock slides on the barrel and the powder and balls are loaded like a Roman candle or one of those metalstorm guns, this one holds 5 rounds:

  6. bainter1212

    bainter1212 Member

    Sep 17, 2012
    I believe when the antis are making this argument, they are saying that the writers of the constitution could not have envisioned civilians having weapons comparable to what the military uses. They use this argument to try to paint the AR as some fearsome military weapon. I call this the "disparity of force" argument.
    The truth is, civilians around the time of the revolution posessed arms that were much more of a match for what militaries carried at the time. Militaries had few advantages, those being: numbers, artillery and organized cavalry forces. If you compare the AR to what a modern soldier has at his disposal, the disparity is much greater. A modern military has drones, bombers, rocket launchers, cruise missiles, satellites and any number of ridiculously destructive weapons. Thus the "disparity of force" is much greater now than at any other time in our history. A militia regiment fighting a British line regiment in 1779 had a much better chance than a modern AR armed militia would have against a modern military force today.
  7. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Sep 4, 2011
    breech loading Furgeson rifle fired 3x's the normal rate of fire...let's see, a 10rd mag vs a 30....3x's..:).

    pepperbox (evil:evil: repeating pistol)

    and Lewis & Clark had some type of fast loading air rifle, the stock was a brass air chamber. 100yd repeatable accurate fire. Circa 1780-90ish I saw the video clip on youtube I think.
  8. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Jul 26, 2004
    Nock Volly Gun fired seven shots one after the other with a single pull of the trigger.
    It was one of the first true "Machineguns"...
  9. pendennis

    pendennis Member

    Aug 6, 2011
    The only thing bad about the pepper box was its propensity to chain fire.

    OUCH!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
  10. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Dec 17, 2012
    How about the Girandoni air rifle used by Lewis and Clark? It held enough air to fire 20 .46 caliber balls in 30 seconds! I just learned about this cool rifle, and it certainly is more advanced than some musket. I don't know how to post a link, but here is the text version. Anti's have no argument against this:


    Oh, I guess I DO know how to post a link :)
  11. Sharps-shooter

    Sharps-shooter Member

    Nov 7, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page