If you get back to say, roman times, what would be the easiest

>>32028690
A flintlock musket at best.

There's really no good source of material nor the tools to make great steel.

>>32028707
If you can have steel/iron to make musket's barrel, why can't we make shotgun barrel and receiver again?

>>32028742
Because the metallurgy available at the time of the roman empire is shit.

The idea of expending metallic cartridges would be seen as ludicrous because of the expense. Oh yeah, and have fun inventing priming compound without any kind of base for chemistry. Do you know how to make mercury fulminate or where to get the shit needed to make it?

The best you could make is a gunbarrel (probably smoothbore), a lock (probably a flint-lock), and a stock. Metallurgy at the time isn't going to allow for you to make things like good springs for things like extractors, cartridge lifters, magazines, etc.

>>32028791
You underestimate the average anon. All dem infographic threads have taught them all the necessary skills.

File: 1437339976856.png (204KB, 800x750px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 800x750px

>>32028898
I would love to see the average /k/ommando try to make a working weapon with no powertools, no ready made springs, shitty metal, etc.

I mean have you even considered that a cartridge firearm has to be headspaced and shit, are you gonna hammer out a fucking barrel and then very carefully hammer it to have proper headspace for your completely custom cartridges?

The logistics for what you want to do was not a thing at the time.

>>32028992
How loud of a whoosh does a tornado make?

>>32029045
None. It's the silent killer.

>>32028791
Matchlock, not flintlock. Flintlocks require springs and good metallurgy.

>>32028690
Cannon.

>>32028791
On top of the problem of ancient metallurgy and production methods being a complete joke compared to what we have today, a matchlock musket as could potentially have been made with ancient technology would be perceived as an effectively useless weapon when it comes to real-world applications.

They're unreliable even in the best of circumstances, require that your soldiers stay in close proximity to a source of fire, are prone to accidents because they require that your soldiers handle their gunpowder in close proximity to a source of fire, cannot be used in the rain, have a very long reload time, have a shorter effective range than bows due to their terrible accuracy, can't be concealed, and require a tremendous amount of effort and money (by classical era standards) to produce.

Just as happened with the primitive ancient steam engine, the ancients would ask, in response to someone showing off a hackjob matchlock musket, "What can this do that current technologies do not, and are the costs of adopting this worth the advantages it brings?"

On the other hand, while small arms would be a waste of time, bombards and other types of large cannons would have been seen as extremely valuable. Considering how much trouble the Romans had to deal with in laying siege to strong fortifications like those at Jerusalem or Masada, they would have gladly appreciated anything that could have reduced a 6 month siege to a 10 day siege instead.

>>32028690
Honestly dude, even if you had the knowledge, you wouldn't have the materials or tools to make 20th century small arms.

At best you could make a cast iron or bronze cannon which would be fired via lit piece of cord wrapped on a rod.

You'd be better off making grenades and large bombs to sell to legion.

>>32029181
This

Best thing you are going to make is cannons. They have range, power and versatility. Stayed relevant through past the American civil war
Not sure when church bells became a thing but if they have decent bell makers casting a primitive cannon barrel wouldn't be too hard.

Flamethrower. You might actually be able to figure out what Greek fire is and make a pressurized sprayer like they did.

Bonus smart-ass option, AIDS in the brothels