Quote:
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.
.