Chain shot for self defense?

T

TXAZ

New member
I noticed in the US Revolutionary and Civil Wars, "Chain Shot, 2 semi-hollow half spheres connected by a chain, were used to take down rigging or sometimes anti-personnel. Apparently grapeshot was a better choice for many but not all anti-personnel engagements.

I have to believe in a medium range engagement, that chain shot would be a very devastating round, likely having a very large entry wound.

Obviously that's wrong, or it would be a popular round today. Anyone know why it isn't?
 
The chain shot you are referring to was used in cannons, against a ship's rigging as you mentioned. Grapeshot was also a cannon round, and was for anti personnel applications.

We don't use these anymore simply because combat has evolved. No Tall Ship of the past could hold up to modern artillery, on the receiving end or from the firing end.

Our modern artillery is used and designed for an entirely different type of target.

I have heard of an idea of loading shotgun shells with lead fishing weights attached together with leaders, but I imagine that would get a person crucified in court. Not to mention, it could be dangerous to the user.
 
There is flechette ammuniton. I believe the artillery experimented with it in Nam. I have no idea whether it is still in the military arsenal or not.

If you look it up on the internet, there is some sources and references to it in shotgun ammo. I can not see a practical use for it.
 
I think there is some 12ga chain shot available somewhere.

As previously mentioned the type you are talking abot was more like a 20 pound_ cannon ball cut in half with chain reconnecting it. Fired over a ship to destroy the sails and ropes holding them(rigging). My understanding is it could also take the mast of small ships.
The grape shot was musket balls in a canister usually.
 
All of these odd-ball shotgun loads like "Dragon's Breath" fire loads, Flechettes, chain shot, etc are sold only by those weird little companies and intended for kids and people who either don't know any better or think they're really gonna blow a bad guy to absolute bits or make him really sorry.

I once saw a test of some of the chain shot shotgun loads.
Most of it broke the line joining it which caused the pellets to spread wildly and the number of hits on target was greatly reduced while stray pellets sailed off in dangerous directions.
Those that stayed joined and actually hit the target actually penetrated LESS due to the line spreading the force and limiting penetration.

This odd ball stuff isn't sold by any reputable company and no one in his right mind uses it. No military or police department will use it or allow personnel to use it.
There's a reason: It doesn't work anywhere near as good as standard buckshot or slugs, IF it works at all.
In many areas some of this junk is illegal, and all of it will get you some very uncomfortable feeling looks in a court room.

To date, no one has managed to come up with anything that is more effective and reliable from a shotgun than standard buckshot or slugs.
Whenever I see someone with some of these weird shotgun loads I stay away from him. He's either a kid or a fool who thinks he's being cool.
 
If I were going to revive a Revolutionary War era load, it would be "buck and ball."

A full bore round ball with a few 00 or 000 pellets.

Wouldn't be great for HD, but would have potential woodland use.
 
Mleake, that's pretty much already been revived with those 410 loads and their "defensive discs" or whatever the heck they're called. That's the general concept, three large bore projectiles plus the shot in each round.

And not to nit pick or step on any toes, but I believe the original buck and ball load was referred to with the old BP SXS shotguns, one barrel loaded with a ball and the other loaded with buck.
 
You're not stepping on my toes, but the first time I saw anything about buck and ball, it was in an article about black powder hunting loads in olden days, with an illustration of the round ball with buckshot, loaded in a Brown Bess type musket.
 
It very well could be a misunderstanding on my part. Probably is. Definitely wouldn't be the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
 
I saw the piano wire chain shot demo on one of the History/Military channel shows. It didnt work. Very inaccurate. A normal shotload is fairly accurate so you gain nothing.
Also buck and ball was used in muskets at Shiloh in the early years of the Civil War. A show was tracking troop firing lines based on the buck and ball they dropped.
 
Cannon balls chained together were in wide use during the 30 years war (1618-1648), both against cavalry and infantry. The method used was to fire the cannon almost parallel to the ground and make the two cannon balls skip wildly along the ground slinging the chain between them.

The chain did a very good job of taking out troops, and taking out horses, the chain cut them off at the knees. Depending on the size of the cannon used and the length of the chain, and teh distance between....this could clear a pretty good sized path through the type of infantry formations they tended to use back at that time.
 
Those are from the days of solid lead shot. Explosive shells didn't come into use until the early 19th century. Chainshot and grapeshot were originally naval rounds, designed to destroy sails and rigging, yardarms, and clear the decks of men. Canister is similar to grapeshot, but larger shot is used. It was also used in land warfare when armies lined up shoulder to shoulder and duked it out. Chainshot was commonly used against cavalry charges.

Originally, in the 15th century, the chainshot round was loaded into two cannons, the chain between the semispheres running out the muzzle and connecting the two halves of the round. However, simutaneous firing of both cannon was problematic, and quite dangerous to the crews, so it didn't take long before the full round was fired from a single barrel.

All the rounds were cruel in application. Chainshot amputated and maimed everything in front of it, canister was a group of about 40mm diameter balls, and grapeshot was hundreds of musket balls in a small pattern. Even the small musket balls, being soft lead, would shatter bones completely, instead of a clean break, so amputations were the rule. Being struck by just a few grapeshot in the extremities was certain death for most.
 
Athens Georgia has a double barreled cannon developed for chainshot.
They made only one and left it at the armory.
'nuff said.
 
Originally, in the 15th century, the chainshot round was loaded into two cannons, the chain between the semispheres running out the muzzle and connecting the two halves of the round. However, simutaneous firing of both cannon was problematic...
Click to expand...
I can believe they might have tried this once, but I can't believe it ever worked. That was back in the era of blackpowder and either fuses or touchholes. Synchronizing the shots would have been obviously impossible and anyone with any experience with cannon probably wouldn't have even tried it

Even with modern electronics, synchronizing an event like firing two guns to the point that you could fire two cannon balls from separate guns at the same time down to the accuracy required to not create a catastrophe if the balls were connected would be a formidable problem due to the minor variations in ignition time from one gun to the next and from one primer/powder charge to the next.

Finally, running a chain down the barrel of a cannon in front of a cannon ball seems like a really bad deal. It would bunch up during the firing procedure in front of the ball and end up being a bore obstruction and causing an explosive incident. Even if it didn't blow up the gun, it seems likely that it would tear up the bore after a few shots.

Typical chain or grapeshot loadings were called cannister shot because they were usually loaded into a cannister or sabot before being rammed down the bore.
 
They not only tried it more than once, but double cannon was the standard for more than a few years in several campaigns. It took failures in various armies before they learned across Europe what worked and what didn't. They learned pretty fast, but not every army learned at the same rate or at the same time. It did work, but not very often, using a single barrel became the standard in a short time, for all the reasons you mentioned. Even measured priming loads and simutaneous firing using a single pole, lit on both ends, firing the touch holes was not a solution, due to the different burn rates in each load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top