# Not Your Daisy Red Ryder



## RJSakowski (Dec 4, 2015)

Here's an interesting video for all you gun enthusiasts.

Bob


----------



## bpratl (Dec 4, 2015)

Thanks for sharing, I found this write-up to be most interesting and amazed at the early introduction of an air rifle.


----------



## Silverbullet (Dec 4, 2015)

Pretty hard to believe that much air gun way back when.


----------



## FOMOGO (Dec 4, 2015)

Pretty amazing weapon for the day. I imagine those 1500 strokes on the pump kept you in good shape (my kingdom for an air compressor) . Mike


----------



## Eddyde (Dec 5, 2015)

Thanks Bob,
Here's a link to a page that explains how it works, fascinating to see the technology of that era. 
http://www.beemans.net/lewis-assault-rifle.htm


----------



## JPigg55 (Dec 5, 2015)

I've been looking at these for awhile. Very cool air rifle.
Here's another link with complete pictorial breakdown of it:
http://www.beemans.net/Austrian airguns.htm

Also a link to ashort Youtube video of animated version of it:


----------



## Terrywerm (Dec 5, 2015)

Amazing stuff! I had heard of them but never knew any of the details until now.  Thanks for posting!


----------



## RJSakowski (Dec 5, 2015)

As I viewed the video, I began wondering why this technology hadn't been adopted by the military.  At that time, prevailing battle strategy involved forming ranks and files with the front rank firing,  then falling back to reload while the next rank advanced and fired.  A rifleman with the ability to fire 20 rounds in as little as 35 seconds would have been akin to bringing the M16  to the Revolutionary War.

Thinking that the performance may have been exaggerated, I did some calculations.  Assuming the stated 800psi and 45 caliber ball.  The diameter of the ball would be .451"and its weight would be .313 oz. or 138 gr.  Assuming a 5% loss in energy due to friction in the barrel, the muzzle velocity would be 1142 ft/sec and the muzzle energy would be 382 ft-lbs.  While this is meager compared to modern rifles, it compares favorably with some 45 caliber handgun rounds. (.45 APC, 230 gr. , 780 ft./sec., 310 ft-lbs.).

So the question remains: "why wasn't this technology adopted?

Bob


----------



## John Hasler (Dec 5, 2015)

RJSakowski said:


> So the question remains: "why wasn't this technology adopted?


Cost.  At that time devices of that complexity were hand made one at a time at great expense.


----------



## Terrywerm (Dec 5, 2015)

I was thinking the same thing, Bob. One thing that I can think of is that it may have had a shorter effective range. Sending more lead at the enemy doesn't do any good if you can't get it to them while you are having to endure a hail of lead from them simply because they had the ability to send their lead farther.

Don't know any of this as fact, just making an educated guess.

John has a great point also. High cost and low availability due to the time required to manufacture hand crafted rifles.


----------



## RJSakowski (Dec 5, 2015)

John Hasler said:


> Cost.  At that time devices of that complexity were hand made one at a time at great expense.



John, we all know that when it comes to the needs of the military, cost is no object.

Another reason could be the lack of machines and competent machinists to make the parts.  A good blacksmith could make a flintlock rifle.  Years ago, I had watched a local blacksmith demonstrated how he had made several and I had the opportunity to fire one of his.


----------



## RJSakowski (Dec 5, 2015)

terrywerm said:


> I was thinking the same thing, Bob. One thing that I can think of is that it may have had a shorter effective range. Sending more lead at the enemy doesn't do any good if you can't get it to them while you are having to endure a hail of lead from them simply because they had the ability to send their lead farther.
> 
> Don't know any of this as fact, just making an educated guess.
> 
> John has a great point also. High cost and low availability due to the time required to manufacture hand crafted rifles.



Terry, considering the APC for the .45 Automatic was adopted by the US Army in 1911, I would guess not.  The way battles were fought even into Civil War times largely involved close combat.  ("don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" and all that). 

I also thought there would be severe limitations on range and questioned the ability to put a ball through a 1" board at 100 yds.  After going through the calculations, it certainly looks feasible.

I don't have any info regarding muzzle velocities and ballistics for muzzle loaders.  Perhaps some of you black powder guys can enlighten us?

Bob


----------



## JPigg55 (Dec 5, 2015)

If I remember correctly, it was a combination of cost and craftsmen capable of making them. The tolerances on the slide were very tight.
Range may have been a factor, but fighting style then was close lined ranks. Even black powder guns had a fairly limited range and accuracy at the time, but were cheaper and easier to produce.


----------



## JPigg55 (Dec 5, 2015)

RJSakowski said:


> I also thought there would be severe limitations on range and questioned the ability to put a ball through a 1" board at 100 yds.  After going through the calculations, it certainly looks feasible.
> Bob


There's another video on YouTube somewhere that shows a guy who built a reproduction on this air rifle. He shoots tatgets out to 80-100 yards with great accuracy and penetration.
I'll see if I can find the video again and post the link.


----------



## John Hasler (Dec 5, 2015)

RJSakowski said:


> Another reason could be the lack of machines and competent machinists to make the parts.


That's another way of saying "great expense".  Cost is always an object.  If you can equip fifty soldiers with muzzle-loaders at the cost of one repeating air rifle...


----------



## JPigg55 (Dec 5, 2015)

Here's the link to that video.


----------



## Silverbullet (Dec 5, 2015)

RJSakowski said:


> Terry, considering the APC for the .45 Automatic was adopted by the US Army in 1911, I would guess not.  The way battles were fought even into Civil War times largely involved close combat.  ("don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" and all that).
> 
> I also thought there would be severe limitations on range and questioned the ability to put a ball through a 1" board at 100 yds.  After going through the calculations, it certainly looks feasible.
> 
> ...


One thing to note most Indian wars or fights were with clubs and bows and arrows at the time of Lewis and Clark . Imagine them seeing animals shot dead with no sound hardly beyond there bow range and with more accuracy . It more then likely scared them at first. The power of the white man .


----------



## eeler1 (Dec 5, 2015)

These guns were used by the military, Austria in particular.  Aforementioned cost and craft, but the real problem was the seal material, leather.  These guns leaked and were inefficient to pump..  If they'd had synthetics, or even rubberlike material, back then, things might have been different.  

Plus, wars were making great strides in weapons and ammo.  As powder burners got better, why bother with air?

That's Martin O. in the video, he is a machinist type and makes these replica guns as a hobby.  I got to shoot one a few years back, not that one, but a .50 cal.  With modern tools and materials, shows what could have been done if they'd had better materials back in the day.


----------



## RJSakowski (Dec 5, 2015)

eeler1 said:


> .....but the real problem was the seal material, leather.  These guns leaked and were inefficient to pump..  If they'd had synthetics, or even rubberlike material, back then, things might have been different.


That makes sense.  Technology getting ahead of its time.  I can see the resistance to having to stop every fifteen or thirty minutes to recharge a leaky weapon.


----------



## Terrywerm (Dec 5, 2015)

RJSakowski said:


> That makes sense.  Technology getting ahead of its time.  I can see the resistance to having to stop every fifteen or thirty minutes to recharge a leaky weapon.



Not to mention the time it would take to recharge. From zero to full charge took in the neighborhood of 1500 pump strokes. That is going to take some time no matter how you do it.

As for the muzzle velocities for muzzleloaders, the numbers vary GREATLY.  Humidity, powder type, volume, and granulation play a huge role, as well as whether you are shooting patched round balls, min-balls, or sabots. The numbers can vary, going as low as 500 FPS and up to over 2200 FPS.

In the early 1800's, round balls were the norm, and various calibers were used. With the powder available then and using .50 caliber as an average, muzzle velocities of 1200 to 1400 FPS were probably pretty common with 100 grains of powder. At 100 yards, the velocity would drop to about 850 FPS and 300 ft-lb of energy.  There are many factors that can change those numbers, so do not take them as gospel. They do however show a reasonable number under the circumstances.


----------



## eeler1 (Dec 5, 2015)

Here's  another video with Martin, starts about 3:15 in.


----------



## derf (Dec 6, 2015)

From the research I've read, the seals were made from cow horn, probably the closest thing to plastics we have today.


----------

