Most Influential Gun In History

RuggieBear

tbh original_psycho and Stevenw should be banned from this forum for going off topic....lads, i've contributed to a few on topic threads regarding gun control and the like....go dig'm up...

anyway....pity you aren't including bigger weapons and assuming you aren't including artillery ....coz various cannons have been very influetial down thru the ages...

otherwise i reckon it's the ak series too....

Irishglockfan

Irishglockfan wrote:

The Maxim machine gun is credited with the most kills in the trenches of ww1
In a pure slaughter no it still holds the record.
The AK in the sense of simplicity of use,manufacture and availability.

That would make it the most destructive gun in histroy, not the most influential. Civ Def had it right when he mentioned the ammo, that influenced the development of guns,

But the rest of you seem to think that barbaric slaughter and buthchering is "influence" - again, think of the rep of Irish shooting.

stevenw

civdef wrote:

Ardent - I agree this thread is drifting seriously, holding off on closing it because the original topic was a worthwhile one, and there have been good contributions.

Stevenw - I take it from your pronunciation on my username that you haven't the foggiest what Civil Defence is (here's a hint - nothing at all to do with guns). It seems that you've chosen to cast doubts on whether I'm "well-balanced" or not based on an ignorant assumption. To put it bluntly you're talking ****e, and that needs to stop.

In my last message, I didn't cast an aspersion on you character. I said that the list of names of contributors to this forum, didn't read like a list of well-balanced athletes. This is a different statement from which you can't infer "an ignorant assumption".

I am fully aware of the function of civil defense. However, without wanting to get caught up on a minor detail, my previous point alluded to the fact that in the sphere of politics and media perception is reality. The phrase "civil defense" can be interpretted many ways and with a literal interpretation it fits neatly alongside IrishGlockFan and Eagle, contributing to the perceived image.

I concede that this thread has moved off topic, but this is something for which IrishGlockfan is equally responsible. I questioned (I concede, innarticulately) the nature of someone whose apparently instinctive choice for "most influentual gun" was something in the context of a dark, sinister period of human history. He could equally have chosen something positive, such as something related to UN peacekeeping duties, but he chose not to. He then used the thread to question my age and my reasons for ribbing him, which I should be entitled to responded to.

Interesting debate never occurs in predictable circumstances. I can guarentee that a thread on this subject would fall flat on it's face and become naught more than a mutual appreciation society. If the contributors to this thread are unable to rationally and objectively defend their viewpoints then perhaps it is because their viewpoints are undefendable and their arguements weak. The ability to defend an opinion is proportional to its validity. If the powers that be feel that banning me and psycho is the only way to defend their opinions, then so be it, but that clearly says more about fragility of their opinions, than it does about the appropriateness of our comments.

civdef

If the powers that be feel that banning me and psycho is the only way to defend their opinions, then so be it,

With all due respect to Ruggiebear - he isn't the "powers that be". Neither of the section mods have mentioned banning anyone, so don't go developing a persecution complex just yet.

I still don't accept your point about my username either- you're very clearly struggling to come up with a justification for your rash statements. What's the negative connotations of "Eagle" you're so worried about, by the way?

If I get back to the core of this thread, you seem to have a problem with understanding the concept of "influential". Look the word up in a dictionary maybe. You're taking people to task for not defining influential as being something that makes people feel all warm inside, have I got that right?

Irishglockfan

OK Psycho,play it your way.
Seeing that you seem to be pissed with me because i didnt agree with your" liscense further and appeasement is the answer to prevent further gun bans".which BTW was on a different thread to this,which you introduced here on some sort of petty spite.
You have to resort to chacter slander and insults to get your point across,and pretty poorly at that.In one post you tell somone to "shut up"because they had the adaucity to disagree with you.Further in the Glasgow airgun tragedy you claim that I advocate killing kid drug users.Where I was actually stating a political/social FACT of life of China .Where did i suggest that we should shoot drug dealers/users in that????.Next you blather on about a tradition not being a right and i point out that unfortuneatly you are wrong and give an example of common law that applies in Ireland and I am only too well aware of as a landowner.We can also include in this the right to roam arguement as this is as coming under common law as well.

Next sir,you accuse me of "worshipping" a gun to wit an AK47.For your information I own a semi automatic version of one it is called the MAK 90,which is currently in the USA.I do not worship any gun.And if i did what the Hell is it anyones busisness what my religion is??
Nor is it a "weapon of mass destuction," that for your information is a nuclear bomb or such like.
Well,i'll excuse on that one maybe you are just getting too emotive. Unless the irish peole have been totally asleep for the last 20plus years and never watched the news local and national,even the most jaded ignoramus will know an AK47.The fact is i dont want, or ever want a full auto AK,a semi auto rifle in a Ak configuration is a totally different matter.for your information there are also target rifles [which is what i have]based on the Ar15 and AK actions that look NOTHING like their original military parents.If you dont want one ,FINE.But there are some of us who might want one or a different type of rifle or handgun.Who the Hell are you to say what we can or cant have?We have put up for 35 years with being told what we can or cant have,and if it wasnt for an "outspoken" person who finally got up and belled the bloody cat,we would be still proably just sitting here talking theory,and going abroad to shoot anythin bigger than a 270!!.
You sound EXACTLY like the appeasers in the UK.Dismiss one type of gun or shooting because you didnt like it,and sold it down the swanee to save your paticular little niche.Not that it saved their treachous hides,they were hung up to dry as well by their govts,and voters who decided all guns are bad.

Next sir you have the teremity to call me Arrogant??Going by the way you have been posting here,and looking at some of your replies I would suggest you look to yourself before casting asperations on others!!! you are so arrogant to even consider that I am totally irish.it just shows you dont even read my posts properly,as i have stated in a few of them i am irish german american.so now you have two reasons to hate me more.i am a dam "furiner".
For your information sir,i have sent letters to the media alot stronger than anything posted here.Loooooog before this board was set up or the internet existed and wonders of wonders,no other guns were banned here in Ireland.Nor did the gaurds come and take me away,or were my liscenses,and as a matter of fact most people actually agreed with me and i was interviewd twice on radio about it,with most people that phoned in being in agreement with my views.Pity i dont have the tapes anymore as i could upload them as a audio file.Oh boy!if you think I am radical or outspoken you really ought to check out some of the US boards or even the European ones.I am a quiet conservative compared to some.

if i had the time and incliation sir i would consider taking legal action against you for posting such defamatory remarks on an open board.as these comments originated in ireland I will remind you and stevenew that you are resident in Ireland as we all are and therefore are obliged under irish libel law,which applies to the internet as well,as we all are to gaurd our tounges and writings!But i am not such a person to do such.i have more better things to do with my time,and i dont fight unarmed opponents.

Stevenew.
My title is Irishglockfan.Or MISTER Glock to you.!!
Well,lets see,your first post on the board is "your weird!"Hmmm care to quantify that statement??do you know me personally?Are you a qualified psychologist to make such weighty judgements?? if not i would advise you not to make such juvenile statements in a first post,so [1] you dont look like a complete idiot[2]people dont mistake you for a troll,which i possibly did,maybe.Maybe it would be smarter to say ,hi new here,what do you mean by the obscure statement?

For your information and psychos,as this thread was about the most influential gun in history.
I would consider that the Maxim machine gun used by the central powers in ww1,with it's appaling butchers bill of 14million dead of which it is estimated one quater of such was caused by machine gun fire of the maxim,i would consider that as quite an influence on the history of mankind and the history of warfare.! as little wig who started this thread suggested it is to be broken down into different subsections.
Two. being part of the problem or the solution is intresting .part of the problem as I see it is we have NOT been ouspoken enough here in ireland about shooting!we took 35yrs of BS lying down,and finally got off the ground this year and are tentaively moving on.good,and not to say that is wrong,but i think we have to be abit bolder.Being a cap in hand please sir can I have my pistol back attitude got us nowhere for that time frame.we had to kick the govt in the courts and i think if we occasionally show teeth it does not hurt us.As for curious journalists,that boogeyman that seems to scare some people on this board.After studying to be one many years ago,and decideing I couldnt stand parrotting back inaccury and being told how to propagandaise certain issues.i can tell you most will write any old tat that comes to mind when it comes to guns.you want to influence the media ,we should have a spokesperson from our umbrella sport groups,that makes it a point of informing any and every paper and Tv station that if the press have a quiery about somthing contact them.it is called a PR person.the antis have had them for years,why do you think it is the same sad face commenting on "bloodsports" year in and out on RTE?

Bad public relations are caused by morons shooting kids with airguns or shooting at busses or ambulances.Or idiot teen kids dressed as "wiggas" [white ni$%£ers a term coined in the LA ghettos by the african americans to describe white teens aping AFA culture,dress and music.see rap singer enimen] with an airsoft shoota showing it off to their pals and threatning doormen with such.
That is your bad Pr because then these young thugs are made out to be innocent little socially deprived [or depraved] darlings who access to nasty guns.S o that any further little lambs dont do anything silly.Lets ban ALL the nasty guns and knives etc.hark back to Gb after a shootout in a birmingham hairdresser with a full auto Mac 10 that had been reactivated.the hue and cry was for the brocock airpistols to be banned or put under sect 1 firearms category.Brocock air weapons contain a air pressurised air cartridge,and stimulate a real gun in that they make the actions work,etc.They had nothin to do with the incident but were demonised because some reporter claimed the brocock could be reconverted to fire live ammo!Ergo it was on the Tv so therefore it is true.Ban or liscense it! that is the truth of it.

now may i suggest somthing further.i suggested to psycho to take this off board and PM me if he had a problem with me.i suggest this again for any members who have a problem with each other.this he refused to do rather drag this onto an open forum,for whatever reaons of his.
If i dont like a certain thing in life,i generally find it best not to read,watch it,useit or in people to converse with them.if anyone has a problem with what i post.DONT READ THE DAMN THING!Discuss and disagree with me it in a civilised manner with me and i will respond with same.Insult me ,accuse me,expect the same in return.But i will be damned if i wil be told what line to toe by anyone here.[except by the moderators of course,as both Sparks and Civdef do own this board and I wouldnt show them such discourtsey.]

To the rest of you members I apologise for having to hijack this intresting thread to have to answer somones spitefulness and bile,and for you having to read what should be a PM.
Sermon over. I bid you all a good day.
Irish Glock

civdef

except by the moderators of course,as both Sparks and Civdef do own this board and I wouldnt show them such discourtsey.]

'Fraid not - I'm just another freeloader. If I did own the place I'd be charging higher rents!

Boards.ie history:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2370368#post2370368


Influential guns:

Dreyse Needle Gun - first design using the bolt-action principle.

Sparks

Okay you lot, settle down, and glock you can't take legal action against anyone here, you can't even prove that what you posted is what you posted to the satisfaction of a court of law in this country, let alone what anyone else posts. (I ought to know, I had to go look it up after that "outspoken person" you refer to - assuming we're thinking of the same dublin-based lad - threatened to sue me for stuff posted in here).

To those commenting on the usernames, yes, several of them are a bit daft, but you can't go about using your real name as a username for two reasons; one, many people feel more comfortable in here with anonymity (with notable exceptions) and two, if you had a real name as your username, how do we know that it's your real name? So long as it's not obscene, I don't think it matters much, this place is a sounding board and discussion forum, not a place where national level policy is officially decided upon!

And on the original topic, it's a sad, sad fact of human history that much of it is shaped through the deaths of people as much as through their acts. The deaths caused by the machine guns in WW1 and WW2 shaped the course of future years as much as did the acts of people in the peacetime in between the wars. Answering an academic question like the one the title poses necessitates a certain temporary abandonment of moral condemnation - in other words, we must read the book before we burn it...

Sparks is right - this has become to heated, partly due to me.

To this end, i propose to let it end, right now. no last words and if anyone has anyproblems, PM me.

we are all on the same side here, lets not forget that - i know i did

Citizen_Erased

It is true basicaly about every gun, many models flash by but they are basically the same, the same is true about just about everything in production.

What about the Origional Deringer, used to kill Lincoln.
What did the Kennedy man use again, The one in the depository that is :rolleyes:

PS Ireland Is Not The Country To Be A Gun Nut In, it causes bad naughty things

PPS IGF - use to think you were a bit out of touch reading whole books on Lugers etc.. - Now I can see your reasons I relise thats pretty cool (IThought you were pure Irish)

Citizen_Erased

RuggieBear wrote:

anyway....pity you aren't including bigger weapons and assuming you aren't including artillery ....coz various cannons have been very influetial down thru the ages...

If u think you can make a valid point, be my guest

RicardoSmith

Would have to be the maxim. Though you have the Paris gun, the 88mm, the 20mm Oblerkon (spelling?)

Citizen_Erased

Alot of people have now said the Maxim. But your choice aren't just limited to how many they have killed. Though on a differant note it was very innovative.
What about steyr AUG - they are completely modular or the The H+K advanced combat weapon - I dont wether this was actually finished but it could fire three shot bursts so quickely and in a manor that the firerer only felt it as one recoil. It also useses a caseless round. So did the Bernelli submachine gun - the powder was held in a skirt which followed the bullet and therefore nothing had to be extracted.
Successful or not , these guns were pretty advanced.

Sparks

Advanced, yes LW (and the H&K did make it to production but the H&K G36 was chosen over it for cost and standardisation reasons), but "most influential in history"? I mean, history offically begins about a few decades ago; some of those guns weren't even invented back then...

Citizen_Erased

Yes, I realise now the title is a bit off. Though I cannot also call it the best gun in history because , personnal preferences aside, modern guns would dominate.

RicardoSmith

Influential is the criteria. The Maxim basically changed how wars can fought. Both on the ground and in the air. Few guns have had that effect.

RicardoSmith

Little_Wing wrote:

Yes, I realise now the title is a bit off. Though I cannot also call it the best gun in history because , personnal preferences aside, modern guns would dominate.

Why? What do you mean by "best" ?

Citizen_Erased

Yes I cant quite get the name right. Also it should be "of all time" instead of history. I suppose you could get a number of forums out of it such as the biggest technical leap, the ultimate, most successful etc...

Irishglockfan

Psycho and I have aired our differences in PM,and I think both of us agree to retire from this field of conflict.It is ENDED HERE!

Little wing
the gun used to kill Kennedy was a mannlicher carcano.Good calibre ,POS gun
hence much speculation as to how Oswold actually shot Kennedy with it giving much rise to other assanins[sic] being there..

For oddities,how about the gyrojet rocket propelled bullet and it's launcher[cant really call it a gun can you?]it was promoted in the James Bond film live &let die,[i think] triangular in shape called "trounds" they actually worked,but never were very accurate.

If we are going to cannons.Well,how about the French quickfire breech loading cannon of ww1.first hydraullically dampned recoil system,which allowed it a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute.
Or the Paris gun of ww1.German built it was able to lob quater ton shells 80 to 90 miles plus, into Paris from the German front lines.Only to be suceeded in WW2 by the THOR railway mortar.This threw TWO and a half Tonne shells somthing like 4miles and demolished the more impregable than the Maginot line Russian fortress of Sevastopol to rubble within a week.Apprently it is/was the most powerful active service non nuke weapon on the planet.no one seems to know what happened to it.

Or its somwhat bigger sister the DORA railway gun this monster was supposedly able to lob FOUR Tonnes to 140 miles!!! it was supposedly only fired ONCE.As it was so huge it was impractical to do anything with,and eventually the Russians nabbed it.it's fate is unknown as well.These were the most powerful non nuke weapons using powder as propellant on the planet.
Of which it is belived the Iraqui supergun would have been the only modern competitor in surpassing them in range.Or there was the US nuke cannon the Dragon.It was 155mm and designed to lob a nuke shell somthing like 20 miles.Sent to korea it was fortuneatly never used in that conflict.
point is alot of their recoil system designs have been integrated into HD style shock absorbers,etc ,and there is talk of using big guns for the space programme as a cheap alternative for satellite launching.Surely they have had an influence on human history for once in a peaceful manner if they will be used for the space programme.

Barry Aldwell

Irishglockfan wrote:

Or there was the US nuke cannon the Dragon.It was 155mm and designed to lob a nuke shell somthing like 20 miles.Sent to korea it was fortuneatly never used in that conflict.

You'll find that nuclear rounds have been produced in 155mm and 203mm by the yanks, and in god knows how many calibres by the russians. The guns weren't specifically nuclear, they could fire standard HE, illum etc. rounds

Citizen_Erased

Irishglockfan wrote:

For oddities,how about the gyrojet rocket propelled bullet and it's launcher[cant really call it a gun can you?]it was promoted in the James Bond film live &let die,[i think] triangular in shape called "trounds" they actually worked,but never were very accurate.


Or its somwhat bigger sister the DORA railway gun this monster was supposedly able to lob FOUR Tonnes to 140 miles!!!

Oh, yeah i read about that Gyrojet somewhere, not to succesful for obvious reasons.

Think I may have heard of that large gun, but did they actually fire it , i cant remember?

Sparks

Citizen_Erased wrote:

Oh, yeah i read about that Gyrojet somewhere, not to succesful for obvious reasons.

Possibly in science fiction, Larry Niven used to have it as a prop in most of his fiction.

Think I may have heard of that large gun, but did they actually fire it , i cant remember?

Yeah, but it took a crew of over a hundred people! 'Twas intended for the Maginot line as were most of those guns, but was never used on them.

BTW glock, the idea of firing shells into orbit hasn't seen much development since the lad building the "supergun" for Hussein got assassinated, he was the one working on it, though the idea's been around since at least Jules Verne and probably for much longer...

RuggieBear

Citizen_Erased wrote:

If u think you can make a valid point, be my guest

well, i'll admit i don't know the make or model, but didn't the Ottoman turks use cannons to capture Constantinople in the 15th Century....that's a pretty influential event in European (world) history....

Rovi

Irishglockfan wrote:

For oddities,how about the gyrojet rocket propelled bullet and it's launcher[cant really call it a gun can you?]it was promoted in the James Bond film live &let die,[i think] triangular in shape called "trounds" they actually worked,but never were very accurate.

The Gyrojet and the Tround are (were?) two different things.

The Gyrojet range of firearms fired (launched?) a 12/13mm solid fuelled rocket projectile, and actually saw some use in Vietnam.

The 'bullets'-


More info and pics here


David Dardick's 'Tround' gun was a sort of hybrid semi-automatic pistol/revolver.
More info here and here

"The year was 1954, and David Dardick had "completed" five long years of
development work on his unique handgun design. His design had a
magazine like a semi-auto, and a "cylinder" much like a revolver.

The "chambers" in the cylinder were not round holes. They were
full-length v-bottomed gouges, open at the outer circumference of the
"cylinder."

The cartridges, called "trounds," were shaped like slightly squashed
triangles in cross section. They could fit into the gouge three ways,
because they had three V-shaped angles. When a "tround" reached
firing position, two sides were supported by the "cylinder." The third
side was supported by the top strap of the frame. The "cylinder" had
three such grooves.

Each "tround" was exactly the same in cross-section from end to end, so
it could be loaded backwards if you were not cautious. Embarrassing!

For ease and cost, he used .38 Special cartridges, each inserted into a
polycarbonate plastic sleeve that brought them up to "tround" size and
shape.

When one pulled the trigger, or cocked the hammer, the "cylinder"
rotated. The top "tround" in the magazine would flop into a V-gouge,
and be rotated toward the firing position. While travelling, it would
be kept in place by a sideplate.

With a "tround" in firing position, or rotating toward firing position,
the Dardick fired like any other single-action/double-action revolver.

Cocking again or pulling the double-action trigger would again rotate
the cylinder, the "cylinder" would rotate, bringing a fresh cartridge
into firing position. The empty "tround" would move to an opening --
and fall out.

The 3" barrel "Model 1100" held 11 "trounds," and the 6" barrel "Model
1500" held 15. In 1960, a Dardick cost $99.50, while a Colt Trooper
sold for $74.60 and a S&W Military and Police would cost you $65.

The Dardick had a rather fragile and unreliable trigger mechanism. It
was very homely to look upon. Dardick went out of production in the
1960s."

The mechanism-


Interesting stuff!


There's a video file of a guy firing one somewhere on the Innernet, but I can't find it at the moment


.

Sparks

I'm curious as to what he thought the advantage of the "tround" system would be.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

I'm curious as to what he thought the advantage of the "tround" system would be.

A couple of quotes from an old Firing Line thread-

Jim Keenan (thefiringline) wrote:

The Dardick worked technically, but not commercially. Two different things.

The tround was reloadable and there were also trounds that were simply shells into which conventional cartridges were placed. Reloading the tround would have been easy, since there was no case expansion and no need for resizing or crimping. Simply replace the primer, load the powder and press the bullet in place. An internal ridge in the case held the bullet and provided enough resistance for powder burning.

The Dardick had several disadvantages, one of them being that (in spite of claims) the magazine held no more rounds than a conventional magazine of the same size - in fact less due to the thicker case of the tround. Another was that pressure (and hence power) was strictly limited.

Its real disadvantage was that there was no real advantage. It was a case of a solution to a problem that didn't exist. As a concept, it was interesting. As a technical project, it worked well. As a commercial product, it was a failure.

and

SDC (thefiringline) wrote:

One thing that the Dardick design DID offer over other conventional "revolver" designs was in rate of fire; he had several aircraft cannon in 20mmm that worked on the same principle, and as long as the cylinder kept spinning, you could keep firing without any of the problems of extracting or ejecting spent rounds. If he'd presented the same idea in the '40s or '50s, I'm sure he would have had lots of takers, but at the time when he was experimenting, the "mini gun" Gatling was just coming into use, and the multi-barreled Gatling produced GREATER rates of fire with not as much over-heating.

.

Citizen_Erased

most useless gun -the Liberator me thinks, less than one shoot a minute, smooth bore and reloaded using the state of the art 'poke with a twig' method :cool: And only $2.10 a piece, thats right, you can own this fabulous piece of precision engineering for only $2.10!! Orders yours now.


Ps Terms and conditions apply.Citizen Erased does not accept any reponsibility for those burned, captured or mamed while operating the liberator. Product and colours may vary. Copyright Pending.

Irishglockfan

try about $4000 for a liberator pistol in good nick.
The concept was that the liberator was a glorified "zip"gun.you were supposed to shoot a enemy with it at close range,grab their [obvisouly] much better weapon and ammo and run like hell!! It was designed to be simple so that any illliterate peasent could arm themselves instantly and cause havoc to an occuyping army.Hence the instructions are drawn not written,which is still used to this day on alot of equipment in day to day life.the idea of making it reloadable was that you could pass it on to somone else to go and do likewise .A brilliant concept,that was taken further with the vietcong who made alot of their own zip guns which were even more primitive for exactly this purpose.The liberator was made in a two shot version as well,even rarer and a silenced version.All in all a not to be underated $1.25 tin toy gun.

Rovi

Some info on the liberator pistol



More info and pictures here

And here

Oh, oh, oh...... here's the instruction sheet-



Thanks for reminding me about it Glock and Citizen, it's certainly an intesting piece of kit.

Don't think it sits too well with the thread title, though

.

Citizen_Erased

Well obviously they are worth more now but that is how much it cost to make each one back in their day.

Irishglockfan

Obvisouly not much point in spending a fortune on a throwaway weapon@$1.25 per copy.only one more expensive was the STEN at $5 a copy.