davidklecha: Listening to someone else read the worst of my teenage writing. (Default)
davidklecha ([personal profile] davidklecha) wrote in [community profile] writerstorm 2009-06-21 01:59 pm (UTC)

The obvious advantage one might imagine over US Civil War era weaponry would be automatic cyclic action--that is, the automatic feeding of fresh ammunition into the chamber after firing. There was, in the 1860, such a thing as a "repeater" or repeating carbine (that is, short-barrel rifle), but it had a relatively small magazine compared to modern weapons.

So, think of the difference between a weapon that has to be reloaded after every shot with one, like an M-16, that can fire thirty before it needs to be reloaded, and in which reloading is a relatively fast and simple procedure. Someone with such a weapon would be able to produce a much higher volume of fire than even a large number of folks armed with period-appropriate arms.

One could also posit a boost in range and lethality. The difference, for instance, of lead slugs versus modern, jacketed rounds. Any modern Marine should be capable of regularly hitting a man-sized target at 500 yards, a feat reserved for specialist marksmen in earlier days. And our specialists (snipers) these days can nail targets upwards of a mile away.

If you have any questions or want any clarifications, just ask. I'm a former Marine machine gunner and I wrote the capstone paper for my history degree on the gunpowder revolution.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting