Sup, anon from /tg/ here. Would it have been theoretically possible

The Ferguson rifle was a flintlock breechloader. Don't see why it couldn't be made as a matchlock.

There were some breech-loading flintlock weapons. It would have been possible, but they would've been unique status item for royalty and wealthiest nobles rather than actual useful field weapons.

>>33348782
That verticle foregrip makes it an assault matchlock.

File: aa1db2d0d7d57c3e084bb2ec2883245c.jpg (188KB, 920x597px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 920x597px

>>33348782
This is from the first half of the 16th century. Don't know about it's reliability as its one of a kind.

Main problem will always be hand-manufacturing. You could mass-produce guns in the modern period, but safe that's another thing... I suppose that the possibility was well known and taken for granted, same with naval guns who blew up regularly and were expected to. That's how they were.

Breech-loading guns before the 19th century (end of the 18th c. at least) would have been a particularly industrious affair, you would need a small army with a lot of money to do that, or a crazy rich noble with a liking to guns.
The girandoni gun was an example of a very complicated and highly advanced weapon that was just too good for the period, it's just more useful to get 10 muskets (random number here of course) for every "super-rifle".

>>33348782

There really wasn't much of a problem with early breechloaders. The accidents you're talking about were more common with early revolvers, which chain fire was a serious concern. There is also no need for metal cartridges, as even the first bolt action rifles, like the Dryse Needle Gun and the Chassepot, used paper cartridges.

The real issue is just a lack of industrialization. All guns were handmade from scratch, yet armies were far larger than from medieval times. Gunsmiths could not spend the time making complex breechloaders with tight tolerances when their customers needed many guns for cheap.

>>33348830
Fun little fact

The only british unit to field this rifle was a Scottish Rifle company, this same company ended up face to face with a mounted George Washington, who promptly turned his back on them

The short answer OP is yes. Matchlocks were in limited use as far back as the 1500s, and there were much more advanced designs like Wheellocks that were almost never used on the battlefield due to their complexity and expense. Firearms development was not as dead-end as many people believe in the Renaissance era

>>33349083
>t's just more useful to get 10 muskets (random number here of course) for every "super-rifle".

Not to mention the greater staying power of 10 dudes with muskets

File: artillery breech interrupted threads.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>33348782
>Would it have been theoretically possible for safe, breech-loaded matchlock guns to have been invented in the 16th or 17th centuries?

yes. I have wondered why they were not many times. They were able to cut standardized threads at that time which would have allowed for an artillery style interrupted thread breech to be made. This could easily work with a paper cartridge just like the Dreyse rifle did a few 100 years later.

File: Hinterlader-Stangenbüchse, GESPIEGELT!.jpg (148KB, 523x763px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 523x763px

Breech loading for handheld guns goes back at least to the mid 15th century, possibly even further. The illustration here can be no younger than 1455, as that's when the guy who made it died. Breech loaded cannons appear to have been reasonably common for much of the 15th century.

The cannons would have removable chamber pieces, usually with multiple chambers per gun, kept pre-loaded. And while I haven't seen multiple chambers for a handgun at this time, it seems reasonable that they'd do the same there as well. So we have something quite close to cased ammunition, though the pan will have to be primed separately.

With this, a breech loaded matchlock gun could have been made as soon as the matchlock turns up, which would be the late 15th century I think.

For such a weapon to be safe is mostly just a matter of quality. If you can have a skilled craftsman spend enough time on it, the weapon will be safe as long as the user doesn't fuck up.

>>33349243
>and there were much more advanced designs like Wheellocks that were almost never used on the battlefield due to their complexity and expense.

Every cavalry pistol around was a wheel lock until the flintlock eventually took over (somewhere in the second half of the 17th century IIRC).

File: Hinterlader-Bronze-Stangenbbüchse, Park Lane Arms Fair 2007. 7a kl.jpg (177KB, 980x921px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 980x921px

A gun very similar to the one in the illustration, though a bit younger.

File: eyyyyyyyy.png (106KB, 707x935px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 707x935px

>>33348830
>>33349050
>>33349063
>>33349083
>>33349172
>>33349208
>>33349243
>>33349270

I think I should browse /k/ more often, I wasn't expecting such quality responses here. Thanks a bunch, gentleman.

While I was interested in their general usefulness, I was mostly wondering about the plausibility. I'm running a GURPS campaign, so having an expensive but superior gun would probably be something the party would want, when the alternative is waiting 60 to 45 turns to reload a smoothbore muzzle-loader.

File: popcorn.gif (484KB, 275x210px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 275x210px

>>33349347
>>33349392
>>33349404

And I'll be damned, they just keep coming.

File: DSCN1112.jpg (193KB, 907x540px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 907x540px

Naval gun, the oak stock from the late 15th century, barrel possibly older. Found on a shipwreck made with wood cut down 1523/24.

Note the small rack with spare chambers. The mismatch in calibre between chamber and gun suggests to me that the chamber simply held the gunpowder, with the projectile (solid iron or stone balls, bar or chain shot, or suitably flimsy wooden boxes full of sharp stone shards acting as fragmentation shells) being inserted separately into the barrel before the chamber was put in place.

The chambers were found loaded.

File: DSCN1103.jpg (188KB, 842x542px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 842x542px

Another gun from the same ship.

>>33349408
GURPS has one second turns, right? you can reload a muzzle loader in 20 seconds or so if you have skills that pay the bills

https://youtu.be/SJMbxZ1k9NQ

File: DSCN0604.jpg (438KB, 1236x872px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1236x872px

A few more small, breech-loaded cannons. These were on display at the Army museum in Stockholm some years back. The museum sign dated the top two to the early 16th century, third undated, and most interestingly the bottom barrel to ca 1400. If correct that'd be damn early for a breech loader, though I've seen that dating doubted by someone who usually seems to have a good idea of these things.

>>33349408
Is that a lot of turns? Skilled soldiers were expected to reload 2-3 shots per minute. Some did spit and tap loading which decreased loading time considerably.

File: Hochgotische Stangenbüchse~1400, Schwammhahn u. Haken~1430. 6 kl.jpg (64KB, 1200x432px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1200x432px

Handgun, ca 1400, to show off what would be cutting edge for locks at that time. A spring-loaded serpentine lever, which means that when loaded and ready to go you could in a pinch even use it one handed.

Ergonomics have improved a bit since then.

>>33349408

It's certainly plausible, and its existence wouldn't be much of a surprise either.

But depending on how much realism you have in the campaign, there are some other practical issues. A breechloader would be like a modern $4000 bench rest rifle. It's too valuable for someone to be comfortable bringing it to fight monsters in mucky swamps and caves.

Also, even regular matchlocks would take about 30 seconds at the least. That's 5 turns.

File: CodexVindobana_1411.jpg (17KB, 215x271px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 215x271px

>>33349579

>>33349600

Fuck me, I didn't realize it was GURPS.

>>33349475
>>33349485
>>33349537
Naval artillery is quite a different concept from hand held guns since it's breech-loading only because there weren't enough room for muzzle-loading ones. They are heavy and slow as fuck and only advantage you get is that you don't have to pull the whole gun out of the embrasure and push it back again to load it.

File: N Italy triple barrel, ~1530.jpg (35KB, 970x230px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 970x230px

As for other landmarks in early firearms history the first sign of cannons in Europe would be 1326, the first hand-held guns taking a decade or two after that, the earliest "pepperbox" I've heard of is this one from ca 1530 (probably not self-indexing, or even self-rotating), and revolvers (almost never pistols early on) start showing up by the end of the 16th century, at which time they could have snaphaunce locks.

File: DSCN1106.jpg (189KB, 907x519px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 907x519px

>>33349629
>you don't have to pull the whole gun out of the embrasure and push it back again to load it.

Take a closer look at the stocks, those are swivel guns. Quite smell as well.

Tossing in a pic of the "fragmentation shells" while I'm at it.

>>33349486
>>33349551

To be fair, flintlocks and paper cartridges had a massive advantage over matchlock doctrine. You didn't have to fiddle around with a loose match cord, and reach around your kit to find the priming flask, powder bandoleer, and musket balls. Those tiny motions add up, especially in the panic of battle.

>>33349734
paper cartridges were used with matchlock guns as well, though

>>33348782
Before the invention of metallic cartridges, that would be very hard to do safely and practically.

>>33351979
Dreyse needle rifle, sharps, there are a number of safe and practical weapons from before metallic cartridges, it depends on what you want and what your budget is.

>>33349600

To be captain obvious here: Because of the player-to-character disconnect, PCs obviously don't share the same values a sane person would. Since the players get their enjoyment from rolling well, having good equipment, etc., but can't feel the things that a normal person would, like pain or pleasure, they see nothing wrong with bringing an incredibly expensive fuck-meister of a gun to hunt bandits with, in a murky forest, and then returning to a cheap-ass in, where they live like vagrants.

>>33349551

Turns are 1 second each. Matchlock guns, according to the book, take 60 seconds to load. This time can be reduced through the Quick Reload Technique, but I've never had a combat scenario in GURPS that has lasted long enough for such a gun to be reloaded.

>>33355048
flintlocks take 15-20 secs to load, I'd add another 5 secs max to wind the clockwork mechanism

>>33355244

Just going by what the book says, maybe it was wrong. Never fired one myself.

>>33355321
try looking at a GURPS supplement for stats