Muzzleloading semi-auto/full auto concepts.

[Bill Akins]

Here's a similar concept MODERN five & six shot chamber, muzzleloading harmonica pistol that was made in the Czech republic. Similar to my idea, but not semi-auto nor full auto. Still a muzzleloading modern harmonica pistol though with interesting features. Hard to find much about it online though.
My understanding is that these were made in the Czech Republic for shooters in England because of their draconian English gun laws. Check the articles and videos out. Pretty easy loading with his off the gun press.

(Scroll down for the videos at this article. Videos could use improving though, but adequate for us to evaluate.)
http://www.glossover.co.uk/blog/?p=426

Not much at this article, mostly about the projectile it fires, but then it's hard to find out much online about this harmonica pistol.
http://www.westernshootingsupplies.com/page37.htm

After watching those videos of the muzzleloading pistol firing and having to have the "bolt" handle MANUALLY recocked after each shot,....now imagine that the block had zig zag slots in it which along with the stationary bolt riding the slots of the zig zag slots, indexing it to the next chamber as it recoiled to the rear, compressed a spring, cocked the hammer, then the harmonica block went back forward again ready for the next shot as a semi-auto...or even as a full auto muzzleloader. Then make it much larger, tripod mounted with a 100 round harmonica bar.....with an assistant at the ready to insert another harmonica bar as soon as the other bar was ejected.

It's never been done before and that's what intrigues me about it so. I've been thinking about my design for this for years. A semi-auto/full auto, machinegun that isn't a firearm nor a machine under Federal law. Could be mailed to your doorstep, no regs or papers to fill out. Much less weight, easier and cheaper to build than a Gatling or Gardner gun. But could have comparable firepower. If the barrel gets too hot, stick a pretty brass waterjacket on it like the Gardner gun. Can you visualize it?

Marketability for my design concepts in this thread? Who knows, because it would no doubt have a very small niche market in the muzzleloading community. Almost not worth the effort for a demographic that small. But I'd love to make several for myself. Just for fun. Then if others wanted me to build them some few on a small basis, I'd entertain that idea. But I've got other projects going on right now and don't think I have time for building this one. Still, if someone could work with me making some CAD renditions and plans machine shop ready, I might consider it. Right now it's all in my head.

Anyone here have a CAD program and who knows how to use it? Love to work with someone like that so we could CAD the design up and animate it as if it was firing. Anyone here with a CAD program interesting in doing some work with me on it? Send me a PM.





.

 

[kozak6]

The whole gas seal thing seems complicated and unnecessary if it's going to be fired from a tripod. If you just put some spade grips on it, all of your body parts would be out of the way and it would save a ton of machine time.

Does the harmonica really need to feed horizontally? If it moved vertically, gravity would help, although you'd need Bren style offset sights.

I've had some similar thoughts about an automatic harmonica gun. What I've been thinking about is a scaled down version using bb's and those plastic strips of 209 primers.

 

[Hawg]

Why not make it belt fed?

 

[Rifleman1776]

I did not, and don't plan to, read all of your very lengthy posts.
You are in the wrong forum. Those are not muzzle loaders. They are old and have a resemblence to some muzzle loaders but for the most part the guns like the 'harmoicas' are breech loaders. Just using black powder does not make them muzzle loaders.
If the concept was feasible they would have caught on and been used extensively. Bad concept, no working life except as history's curiosities.
There is also a CW era bolt action muzzle loader. I held one. It really was a muzzle loader but also just impractical for bp.

 

[noelf2]

You are in the wrong forum. Those are not muzzle loaders.

I think he's in the right forum for Black Powder guns whether it's breech or muzzle loading. I find the thread interesting, even if not practical. That's exactly what brings me to this forum because, IMO, no black powder muzzle or breech loading gun is practical when compared with modern technology, but they all interest me.

 

[Hawg]

You are in the wrong forum. Those are not muzzle loaders.

The forum is black powder and cowboy action shooting, not muzzle loading. So if it shoots black powder whether it be real muzzle loaders, cartridge guns or even *cough* *hack* inlines it goes here.

 

[Bill Akins]

Rifleman 1776, the entire thrust of my thread has been about a MUZZLELOADING BLACK POWDER harmonica weapon design idea of mine. My very first picture in this thread was of a MUZZLELOADING BLACK POWDER harmonica rifle made for General Sam Houston. I showed some pictures of a BLACK POWDER pinfire harmonica pistol to show its design attributes pertinent to the muzzleloading black powder harmonica gun idea of mine that is the subject of this thread. The last modern harmonica pistol I showed pics and videos of that was made in the modern Czech republic is also a BLACK POWDER MUZZLELOADING pistol.

Perhaps if you HAD read my "very lengthy posts" you would have realized your complaint was misplaced.



.

 

[batjka]

This is an interesting subject. I have thought about a muzzle-loading semi-auto before.

That British pistil you have shown is used in competitions and is in .32 caliber. Nice, interesting, but expensive and is not a semi-auto.

I have come up with a conceptual design for a muzzleloading semi-auto after reading about the above pistol. In my design, the "chambers" would be stacked up in a grip and pushed in alignment with the barrel by a magazine spring. Just like in a modern pistol. The "chambers" will eliminate the need for a slide since they can withstand the pressures on their own. A pull of a trigger would allow the chamber to move up and fire. On release of the trigger after firing the lower chamber would push the fired one out of the action through a window in the top. I believe this can be built pretty easily. The only problem would be the weight of the loaded chambers and finding a strong enough spring to be able to lift them into position.

 

[Bill Akins]

Kozak 6 wrote:
The whole gas seal thing seems complicated and unnecessary if it's going to be fired from a tripod. If you just put some spade grips on it, all of your body parts would be out of the way and it would save a ton of machine time.

Good point Kozak. If I were only concerned about it spitting lead and burnt powder at the cylinder to barrel gap. But I was also thinking about sealing it as best as possible to maximize the rearward thrust against the cylinder (if a revolver) or the harmonica block, to give maximum thrust to the rear.

Kozak 6 wrote:
Does the harmonica really need to feed horizontally? If it moved vertically, gravity would help, although you'd need Bren style offset sights.

It's possible to feed the harmonica block vertically instead of horizontally and with the aid of gravity would even be easier. But unless one's tripod was a very high anti-aircraft tripod, which would not be in the Victorian timeline of this fictional but viable design (unless one were shooting at civil war balloons), a long 50 or 100 round vertically fed harmonica block would likely strike the ground before it finished feeding.

Kozak 6 wrote:
I've had some similar thoughts about an automatic harmonica gun. What I've been thinking about is a scaled down version using bb's and those plastic strips of 209 primers.

I'd like to see that Kozak. Sounds interesting.




.

 

[Bill Akins]

Hawg Haggen wrote:
Why not make it belt fed?

For several reasons Hawg.

1. Belt fed has already been done since the days of the crankfired Bailey gun (which was the very first belt fed gun) and some later belt fed versions of the still crank fired Gatlings as well as a later belt fed version of the Gardner gun.

Crankfired Bailey gun. First belt fed gun in history.....

Bailey gun feed mechanism....

Bailey gun cartridge belt. Look carefully at this and the above pic. The holders for the cartridges on the belt actually doubled as strong pressure holding chamber supports for the cartridges and were inserted into the barrel's chamber along with the cartridges!

A pic of a rare, belt fed version of the normally hopper fed Gardner twin barrel crankfired gun that was known as "The Robertson"...but it's still a Gardner. You see the drum holder for the belt but the belt appears missing from the picture. Gardner's were single and twin and even five barreled versions. Sometimes the twin barrel version was watercooled. The first waterjacket cooled gun in history. This is a pic of an air cooled twin barrel belt fed model. Pretty rare version. Not too many Gardners made in belt feed.

2. If I made my design idea belt fed it would be a cartridge fed FIREARM instead of a non firearm muzzleloader and would fall under the NFA. Even the Union Auger coffee mill gun would be viewed by the BATFE today as a cartridge gun even though it is crankfired. As a crankfired gun, the Auger is not a machinegun but it is a firearm since it uses a self contained cartridge. Because it used a steel charger with a percussion cap inserted in its end. An early version of a self contained cartridge....ergo a cartridge gun....ergo A FIREARM under the National Firearms Act (NFA). I want to stay away from that and keep it a muzzleloading harmonica block fed NON firearm weapon. No mistaking that for a cartridge FIREARM. There is a provision in the NFA exempting certain cartridge guns if their cartridges are obsolete and not normally in commercial manufacture, but a case COULD be made by the ATF as to what the word "normally" means. And a liberal judge that knows next to nothing about firearms and doesn't care what the congressional NFA says (don't get me started ) might be inclined to agree with them. So staying with a muzzleloader if one is even thinking of making a full auto version or even a semi-auto for that matter, since by being a muzzleloader it cannot be classified as a firearm under the NFA.....is the safest way to go.

3. If I made it belt fed and it was a cartridge fed FIREARM, then I couldn't make it full auto like I could if it remained a NON firearm muzzleloader.

4. The whole idea is to keep it a Victorian style muzzleloading harmonica gun design that could have been and had the unrealized possibilities of being a semi or full auto, but never was....until now. Chiefly because standard black powder is too fouling. But modern black powder substitutes get around that fouling problem for the most part. Part of the fun is putting yourself in the time of the percussion only era designers (only with the advantage of available non fouling black powder substitutes) just as we do in our standard muzzleloading shooting today.



.

 

[Bill Akins]

batjka wrote:
I have come up with a conceptual design for a muzzleloading semi-auto after reading about the above pistol. In my design, the "chambers" would be stacked up in a grip and pushed in alignment with the barrel by a magazine spring. Just like in a modern pistol. The "chambers" will eliminate the need for a slide since they can withstand the pressures on their own. A pull of a trigger would allow the chamber to move up and fire. On release of the trigger after firing the lower chamber would push the fired one out of the action through a window in the top. I believe this can be built pretty easily. The only problem would be the weight of the loaded chambers and finding a strong enough spring to be able to lift them into position.

I laud your inventiveness batjka, and I hate to tell you this, but you have just described a semi-auto self contained cartridge fed pistol.

According to your description, you use separate SINGLE steel "chambers" exactly like the civil war era Union Auger coffee mill gun. But according to the ATF and the NFA, it would be no different legally than any other semi-auto cartridge fed firearm.

The fact that the separate chambers you described might be made out of steel instead of brass or copper is irrelevant. The fact that they might have a nipple taking a percussion cap like the Union Auger coffee mill gun is irrelevant. If placed on a nipple of a SINGLE self contained "charger", a percussion cap is no different legally than a modern primer in a modern cartridge case.

If they are a self contained single cartridge, steel "charger" with a percussion cap on the nipple..... they are still a cartridge. You have to get away from a single self contained cartridge and get to a cylinder or large block that cannot by any means be construed as a SINGLE self contained cartridge in order to be exempt from the NFA.

You could build it in semi-auto but not full auto (unless you were an SOT), but even if just a semi-auto it would still be classified as a cartridge using FIREARM because your steel "chamber" or "chargers" are separate and single and not attached to each other as in a muzzleloading cylinder or muzzleloading harmonica block.

Sorry to rain on your idea batjka, but that's the way the unconstitutional NFA works. Now some may see why I like the muzzleloading harmonica block idea so much as a platform for a semi auto or full auto. There is NO WAY it can be construed as using any type of SINGLE self contained cartridge, thus it is not a firearm under the NFA, and if it isn't a firearm, it could not be a machine gun under the law. (With whatever good the actual "law" does us these day if the "authorities" want to ignore it.)



.

 

[Stephanie B]

I'm not what you would classify as a "Steampunker" at all. I've read a bit about it and find some of the Victorian/Vernian things built by Steampunk fans to be very inventive and imaginative (but usually fake, inoperative and strictly for looks). I didn't intend for my ideas in this thread to be "Steampunk"....but they no doubt fall into that category.

I hadn't thought about that, but your gun design would be all the rage of the Steampunkers. If you can design it for serial production, you might could make some money from this.

 

[batjka]

Thank you for describing the legalities to me. I didn't realize that having separate chambers makes my design a "firearm" in the eyes of the law. By same standards a loaded muzzle loader can be considered a "firearm" because the muzzle loader in itself is a "self-contained cartridge". But who am I to argue with NFA? Guess I won't be building my pistol after all.

 

[Bill Akins]

Sorry Batjka, I hated to rain on your idea. I know how that feels. But you needed to know.

The NFA and all gun laws are unconstitutional and are designed to control the people rather than make them safe. But it is what it is.
I personally agree that a loaded muzzleloader is in itself a self contained loaded cartridge. The difference is that although it is a single self contained loaded cartridge by its self once it is loaded with loose powder and ball, it doesn't USE a separate self contained cartridge that is inserted into it via a case or charger. Also muzzleloaders are exempted from the NFA by the language of if it uses a primitive ignition system such as flintlock, percussion cap, etc. Yeah, I know, a primer for a CARTRIDGE is almost exactly like a percussion cap so which one is a "primitive" ignition system? It's all B.S. and we know it and they know it. But the abuse of power and of our 2nd amendment sadly continues. It's ancient Rome exerting its power and controlling the peasants.



.

 

[JN01]

Completely needless innovation for an obsolete weapon?

All of these things make me say : give it your all! I'd love to see it

Coming up on the next episode of "Sons of Guns: Blackpowder"

Gotta love outside the box thinking.

 

[arcticap]

I'm not sure why the harmonica feed mechanism would need to be dependent on recoil energy to operate the mechanics of its movement.
For instance why not just rely on battery power and/or a micro processor program turning some gears to move the harmonica "magazine" along?
Or something like a solenoid or another method that hasn't been considered?
Could the firing pin be operated by an electromagnetic switch or relay?
Or why not use an electrode to ignite the powder rather than percussion caps?
It just seems that the basic method to achieve the concept could be updated by using newer technology which could make the project more feasible, if not more interesting.
There may be more than one way to make the concept work besides trying to harness recoil energy by capturing it with a mechanical design.
Ask 10 students or 10 design teams to build a new type of gun and 10 different designs may be produced that will accomplish the same result.
In that way various types of engineering students may even be interested in working on such a project and would be free to come up with their own unique ideas and designs about how to best accomplish it.

 

[kozak6]

Congratulations, batjka. You have just invented the tround .

EAA almost released a pistol that used the same idea, the Witness FCP. They ended up shelving the idea for unknown reasons.

 

[Bill Akins]

Kozak 6 wrote:
Congratulations, batjka. You have just invented the tround .

It's been many years since I last read about it as well as once saw a rare one at a gun show, but wasn't the "tround" the three sided, plastic cased, rocket propelled projectile used in the Dardick pistol? But Kozak is right in a way, because although the tround was a three sided affair, and the Agar coffee mill gun used a cylindrical "charger" cartridge, they still had one thing in common....
they both loaded into a revolving open chamber.

The difference is that the tround was supported around its three sides by the revolving surfaces of what amounted to an open revolver cylinder and the top of the receiver closed in and added support for the top of the tround once the tround was rotated inline with the barrel. So the tround was supported at first by an open on one side revolving cylinder and then fully supported all the way around by the addition of the receiver over the tround once the tround was rotated inline with the barrel. Like this...

The above pic and further explanation from this below link....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround

The difference between the tround and the individual "chargers" that Batjka was describing (which are exactly like the civil war Agar coffee mill gun's "charger" CARTRIDGES, are this.....

The tround eventually had 360 degree support once it was rotated in line with the barrel. But Batjka's percussion cap "chargers" being exactly like the civil war Agar coffee mill gun's thick steel "chargers" is that those chargers ARE the sole support all the way around the charger case except for a rising wedge that kept the "charger" CARTRIDGE from blowing rearward. The sprocket that carried those "chargers" from the hopper to line up with the breech of the barrel, was not a pressure support for the explosion. The thick steel chargers were their own explosive pressure vessels.

Both in the Agar coffee mill gun and in Batjka's description of his idea, the thick steel "charger" cartridge case held the pressure without any support on one side. The rotating sprocket of the coffee mill gun was just to pick up and rotate the charger from the "coffee mill" hopper to be inline with the barrel. Then a wedge rose up to hold the charger from being propelled to the rear when it fired. I believe that is the exact same idea Batjka was describing in his idea.

A below quote of a description of the way the Agar's chargers worked from this link....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar_gun

"The Agar machine gun fired .58 caliber cartridges. Standard paper cartridges were loaded into re-usable metal tubes. A separate percussion cap was fitted to a nipple at the rear of this re-usable tube, and the loaded tubes were placed into a funnel shaped hopper, which gave the weapon its "coffee mill" appearance.[3]
The weapon was fired using a hand crank, located at the rear of the gun. The crank would feed rounds into the weapon from the hopper, and would fire them one by one. A wedge shaped block would rise up and lock the round in place, and a cam operated hammer would strike the percussion cap, firing the round.[4] The empty metal tubes would then be collected in a pan located under the weapon. The metal tubes would then be reloaded and placed back in the hopper.
The Agar machine gun had a single barrel. This design proved to be vulnerable to overheating, especially during periods of sustained fire. The overheating problem was solved somewhat through the use of replacement barrels which could be swapped out when the barrel in use overheated. Two spare barrels were typically carried with each gun. Agar also added a cooling mechanism to the barrel, which consisted of a metal jacket through which air was forced to provide cooling. The air came from a turbine, which was powered by the same hand crank that was used to fire the weapon. This cooling air also tended to blow away any pieces of unburned paper from the cartridge that happened to be near the barrel. The rate of fire was also
limited to 120 rounds per minute, which helped to prevent overheating."

Another quote from the same site....

"The single barrel design proved vulnerable to overheating, and the weapon was also prone to jamming. The special steel tubes used to hold the cartridges were heavy and expensive, and were often prone to loss. Later cartridges would use brass, but this was not widely available during the time that the Agar machine gun was used."

The writer of the article got it wrong. The steel tubes (with percussion cap nipples) weren't used to HOLD the cartridges.....they WERE the cartridges. Lol.

Actually in addition to being cartridges, the chargers were actually also multiple individual chambers, because their thick steel walls held against the explosive pressure without any external support....making them in effect chambers themselves, just like little individual percussion fired cannons themselves.

For cooling they should've stuck a water jacket on it like David Gardner did his gun, that would have solved the problem with less complication. Or used the same method Lewis did on his Lewis gun to force air over the barrel by using a long tube and cooling fins and creating a slight vacuum from the muzzle blast to draw cool air from the rear over the barrel/cooling fins. By the way, I LOVE the Agar gun in spite of its limitations due to the pressure limitations of its chargers and the fact that they did not make a great gas seal at the barrel breech. But what a great advancement it was in rapid fire in the black powder era. The oldies like the Agar and the Gardner inspire me.
Heck the Gardner inspired Maxim!

Kozak 6 recognized that the tround and the steel tube with percussion cap nipples "charger" had similarities in that they both loaded into an open sided rotating cylinder. But the tround was externally partially supported by the rotating cylinder walls and eventually by the top of the receiver (once inline with the barrel) when it fired, while the Agar and Batja's steel "chargers" with its thick steel cartridge walls.....was its own explosive pressure vessel, unsupported externally against pressure except for the rising wedge holding it against the barrel.

It's hard to find a closeup online of the rotating sprocket area that rotated the Agar's "chargers", but I did find one closeup. Look carefully below the brass hopper at the rotating sprocket that the chargers fell into from the hopper and were then rotated to be inline with the barrel, where a wedge then rose to hold them tightly against the barrel for firing.....

Couple of more pics....

The Agar's "chargers" actually partially used a very old concept from ancient cannons known as "beer mug" cannons. There was a cutout in the breech of the cannon that the "beer mug" loaded with black powder fit into. The "beer mug" was so called because it looked like a beer mug and had a handle like a beer mug.

First a cannon ball was loaded into the BREECH of the cannon, then the gunpowder loaded "beer mug" (which also had the touchhole for the fuse) was inserted behind the cannonball. Then a wooden wedge was hammered in place behind the mug to hold it tight against the breech. Almost the same idea as the Agar coffee mill gun, only the beer mug didn't hold the projectile like the Agar's chargers did. And the beer mug cannon was set off using a fuse or touching a torch to the touchhole unlike the Agar's percussion cap chargers. Similar basic idea though.

"Beer mug" cannons.....

I love the very ancient and also Victorian black powder weapons. Once you understand them, you realize a lot of the "modern" weapons aren't as "modern" a concept as we may have thought.



.

 

[Bill Akins]

Arcticap wrote:
I'm not sure why the harmonica feed mechanism would need to be dependent on recoil energy to operate the mechanics of its movement.
There may be more than one way to make the concept work besides trying to harness recoil energy by capturing it with a mechanical design.

You're correct Arcticap. But recoil and blowback energy would be the simplest, take less parts, and decrease weight. But it could also be done using a crank (ala Gatling or Gardner) to retract the firing pin or hammer and advance the harmonica block with gearing as you suggested. But that would make it heavier and more complicated. If using less fouling pyrodex, it could also be gas operated using direct impingement or a piston to either drive the harmonica block rearward or actuate its advancement to the next chamber.
Some later Victorian Gatlings were made that used gas operation to rotate the barrels while still using the crank too. The gas operation made the cranking easier for the operator.

As you recognized, there are other options on how to advance the harmonica block, but I believe the simplest and lightest would be recoil/blowback forces utilizing the Webley Fosbery style zig zag slots in the harmonica block to advance its next chamber to the barrel.

Arcticap wrote:
For instance why not just rely on battery power and/or a micro processor program turning some gears to move the harmonica "magazine" along?
Or something like a solenoid or another method that hasn't been considered?
Could the firing pin be operated by an electromagnetic switch or relay?
Or why not use an electrode to ignite the powder rather than percussion caps? It just seems that the basic method to achieve the concept could be updated by using newer technology which could make the project more feasible, if not more interesting.

That would be possible if not for the National Firearms Act (NFA). We must remember, the NFA says muzzleloaders using primitive ignition systems are exempt. Battery power, micro processor programs, electrical solenoids, electrodes to ignite the powder,....are not primitive ignition systems.
You could use those if you didn't mind making a FIREARM instead of an unregulated muzzleloader. But you could only make it semi-auto and not full auto (unless you are an SOT) even though it would be a muzzleloader. Because you wouldn't be using a primitive ignition system.

Arcticap wrote:
Ask 10 students or 10 design teams to build a new type of gun and 10 different designs may be produced that will accomplish the same result.
In that way various types of engineering students may even be interested in working on such a project and would be free to come up with their own unique ideas and designs about how to best accomplish it.

Very true and to be encouraged.

No doubt one of those students would realize that if overheating became a problem if multiple 50 or 100 round harmonica blocks were available for it, how could that be addressed? You could put a water jacket on it like the crankfired Gardner gun (first waterjacket cooled gun in history), or....another way to keep it cool (if you really wanted to "Steampunk" it out and over complicate it just for the pure design fun of it,) you could use multiple rotating barrels like the Gatling.

That would of course require perhaps a gearing synchronizing of the barrels to the harmonica block so that a barrel was properly aligned when the harmonica block reached its forward position after it recoiled and then went forward again. But then recoil/blowback forces or gas operation, or a complicated combination of all those forces may or may not be enough power to turn the barrels, retract the firing pin/hammer AND advance the harmonica block and you would probably have to go to a manual cranking system. But a muzzleloading, horizontally fed harmonica block weapon design that resembled a Gatling would be mechanically interesting and no doubt possible, but overly complicated. But then again it would still mostly look like and be mistaken for....A Gatling. And the Gatlings have been done and overdone.

But if one is enamored of the multiple barrel system for cooling, would it be the lightest, least complicated and require less parts than just using one barrel and putting a water jacket on it? That's the same conclusion David Gardner came to with his single and double barreled air cooled and water cooled Gardner guns, no doubt after studying Gatling's more multiple barrels design.

Interestingly, Hiram Maxim's recoil operated machine gun IS basically the Gardner gun design.....only recoil operated instead of crank operated. That is obvious and it is obvious that Maxim HAD to have closely studied the Gardner gun when contemplating his recoil operated design version. The Gardner was an improvement over the heavier and more complicated Gatling and the recoil operated Maxim was an improvement over the crank operated Gardner. An example of exactly what you said Arcticap, about how there are various different design ways of achieving the same result.....rapid projectiles downrange.

All of which shows as you correctly mentioned, there are various ways of achieving the same desired result with various different designs. But which designs are lightest, least complicated, easiest to make and take the least parts to achieve the same desired result and which designs take into account the legalities of the NFA? That's what I try to keep in mind and engineering students might want to keep in mind also. Of course I'm taking into account that my harmonica block recoil/blowback design idea is not the simplest, lightest or least complicated way to rapidly throw rounds downrange compared to modern firearms. But I do think it may be the simplest muzzleloading, primitive ignition system way of doing it.



.

 

[Bill Akins]

Stephanie B wrote:
I hadn't thought about that, but your gun design would be all the rage of the Steampunkers. If you can design it for serial production, you might could make some money from this.

Gosh, I just don't know Stephanie. You might be right but I just don't know. Even though I'd try to design it as uncomplicated and with as few parts as possible, it would still require a lot of machining. So it would no doubt be expensive to produce (although nowhere near the expense of a reproduction Gardner or Gatling gun.) And would the small niche market it attracted, support that endeavor enough to make it financially worthwhile? How many people would actually spend a lot of money for a muzzleloading, tripod mounted, semi-auto or full auto harmonica fed weapon? See what I mean?

You might be correct, but I just don't know. In this depression being a muzzleloader it would be inexpensive to shoot not to mention a hoot of fun. No cartridge cases to buy. Just propellant, projectiles and percussion caps, all of which in a pinch you could make yourself. And it would be unregulated. So it has all that going for it. If I ever do build one it would be with the idea that it was just for my own enjoyment without any intentions of manufacturing it for market. Then if I got enough people asking me to build one for them and they didn't mind the expense it would cost....then maybe.

Right now it's just a (I believe viable) rapid firing muzzleloading design concept I'm enjoying sharing and discussing with y'all here. I've got other unfinished cartridge firearm projects I'm currently involved in so I can't start a new project right now. Maybe later. But I wouldn't mind working as a designer/consultant with someone else who was interested in making them. As long as it didn't eat up too much of my time I need to invest in my other current firearm projects that I'm already behind on.



.