>average Napoleonic War era soldier was a 5'5" gigamanlet
>let's give him a 5 foot long musket with a 20" bayonet
Who the fuck thought this was a reasonable idea?
>average WW1/WW2 soldier was still 5'5"
>let's give him a bolt action rifle with a 25" barrel and a 17" bayonet
How the fuck did these cunts even aim a rifle which was longer than them? It's not like they were doing volley fire in square formations, individual marksmanship and manoeuvre warfare was a requirement in all of the major campaigns
>average height soldier during the Cold War is still only 5'7"
>let's give him a FAL with a 21" barrel

>>63966398 (OP)
big bullet longah barrel more bettah

because

Mej back then could charge at enemy fire full of volleys using only thwie bayonets and win

>>63966398 (OP)
It's easy to fall into the trap of range trumping everything else without consideration to other battlefield variables. Just look at the navy.

because short is objectively worse if you value performance.

But then Clapistan military had to perform police action for ~20 years and a lot of young burgers grew up with carbines in their hands.

>>63966398 (OP)
>who the fuck thought this was a reasonable idea
Every soldier who didn't want to be ridden down by cavalry and butchered, anon. The fully-realized flintlock musket with bayonet was the weapon that replaced both the pike and arquebus of the prior era. The gun has to be long enough to deter cavalry when in formation. As for caliber, muskets were smaller in bore than the earlier heavy arquebuses, around .70 caliber rather than almost 1 caliber in diameter. You needed a big projectile to make the most of the black powder charge, maximizing energy wherever possible.

>>63966398 (OP)
Is OP from an alternate universe where carbines have not existed for centuries or is he just a faggot?

>>63966739
>kar98k
>carbine
>23" barrel
yeah still gigantic
>Lee Enfield No.5 Mk 1 "Jungle Carbine"
>20" barrel
Literal broomstick levels of long

>>63966398 (OP)
>Why did it take so long for short barrels and intermediate calibres to become popular?
because they are really really stupid
>>63966398 (OP)
>>let's give him a bolt action rifle with a 25" barrel and a 17" bayonet
That's because the eprson with the longer reach wins in a bayonet fight. Why do retarded pricks liek OPalways assme that people in the ww1 era or napleonic era were stupid just because OP is

>>63966403
I hope for your sake that's shit b8 beacuse otherwise you are in the box marked stupids
>>63966600
based and wise

>>63966398 (OP)
>How the fuck did these cunts even aim a rifle which was longer than them?
Dense and strong muscles and hands?
Generally grip strength and strength overall has declined sharply in the past 50 years amongst men globally.
We were a lot closer to the monkey a few decades ago than we are now apparently.

>>63966919
As with everything else its less a total decline and more a split.gymbros/pyschos/rednecks ext might be stronger than ever due to them having access to modern equipment and nutrition while conversely you have more total pussies. Same thing with obesity, once you account for age and race it hasn't changed for whites since 1985, an how much is that to guys on vitamin S?

>>63966398 (OP)
I'm confused at why you think height matters this much for handling a rifle

>>63966398 (OP)
>aim a rifle
They were smoothbore muskets, not rifles. Standard loads were buckshot or buck-and-ball. They didn't even have sights.

>>63966495
>because short is objectively worse if you value performance
the shorter length has almost no affect on velocity or accuracy (what there is of it in a smoothbore musket). Meanwhile the shorter barrel length makes loading faster. But you do lose reach when it comes to sticking things with the bayonet unless you want to carry around a 4-ft-long bayonet to put on the 16-inch barrel on your musket.

>>63966398 (OP)
the length of barrels correlates heavily with the need to stab a nigga

>>63966868
>50% of deaths in WW1 caused by artillery
>trenches were hundreds of metres apart with soldiers from opposing armies taking pot shots at each other all day
>trench assaults and close combat famously done primarily with grenades, shovels, and later submachineguns like the MP18

>>63966398 (OP)
it's like inertia and retards. The napolian stuff makes sense, they wanted long muskets because longer guns work better with black powder, more time for the powder to burn, longer bayonet for holding off horses and bayonet fighting and a longer musket makes it easier to get the front out in front of the guy ahead of you when you fire in ranks so you didn't burn or deafen him. They wanted all the power they could get because horses
>WWI
they were still firing in lines and were worried about horses leading up to the war. the bongs actually adopted a longer bayonet specifically because they were worried about the nazi reach being longer
>WWII and the FAL
really no excuse for using long barreled .30 cals at that point other than they were too poor to replace the guns for WWII and for WWII and the cold war they wanted one round they could use in both rifles and machine guns for logistics

>>63966495
>t. no gunz
even with a FAL or a WWI/WWII rifle they weren't regularly hitting each other beyond 300 yards

>>63966919
they also weren't holding the guns up for extended periods of time to aim since they were single shots and didn't have very good sights. you do also see, at least with like shootzen shooters, stances similar to modern high power stances where they used the curved buttplate and their left hip to carry a lot of the load

>>63967218
black powder loads benefit from longer barrels, or at least guys at the time thought they did, see kentucky long rifles and button mag lever guns with extra long barrels

>>63967343
yeah, it sounds retarded, but going into the war most battlefield deaths from 1866 to 1913 were via rifle fire because canon tech didn't catch up with rifle tech until WWI. Go look at most of the conflicts after the civil war but before WWI, it's literally Napoleonic era stand in a line and fire tactics using indirect fire and single loading with magazine cutoffs. .30-40 krag is basically the same as .303 bong and after the spanish Ameircan war and boar war both the US and bongs were seething about 7mm mauser, hence the US adopting the .30-03 and later .30-06 and 1903 and the bongs trying to get the 1914 enfield with some new round.
They weren't retards, they were just erroneously expecting WWI to go the same way as every other conflict since the frogs invented smokeless powder

>>63967702
Skill issue

>>63968719
>just hit what you can't see

>>63967722
>black powder loads benefit from longer barrels
No more than smokeless loads do.
>guys at the time thought they did
This is probably true, but they didn't have electronic chronographs so their fuddlore was especially suspect. They also thought that the longer barrels meant more accuracy, and that the longer sight radius was much more important than it really is. They also thought that ultra-tiny rear notches and front blades also improved accuracy significantly. All fuddlore.

>>63971395
BP is so much lower velo than smokeless I'd think the longer barrels are needed

>>63966495
t. someone who is also mad about the spear

>>63971427
You'd think wrongly if you did. Black powder (a) has a much lower detonation velocity than smokeless powder and (b) doesn't react well to having the chamber be larger diameter than the bore (in case you were wondering why BP cartridges didn't really do the whole bottleneck thing), so the longer barrel length just doesn't really do much for velocity. Cutting a .577 rifle musket down from a 39" barrel to 16" only drops the velocity by about 100fps. It's not nothing, but it's not much. Which is why when they wanted to improve "stoppin powah" they went to a bigger bullet.

>>63971505
so then why were the kentucky long rifles so fucking long? Why were there so many long as fuck lever guns, to the point where they started to evolve into half/button mag with 24 inch barrel, not unlike a shotgun, style guns once the injuns were defeated?

>>63971562
because of fuddlore. longer barrels do improve velocity, just not very much. longer barrels do improve sighting radius which helps with accuracy, just not very much. also fun fact, roughly 4/5ths of the kentucky "rifles" were in fact smoothbores. This is born out by surviving examples as well as the sales receipts from period gunsmiths.

>>63971631
weird. I knew about fowling pieces/trade guns but I thought the kentucky guns were rifled

>>63966495

>>63971657
Some were. Most weren't. They all looked the part though. For a long time people just assumed the rifling near the muzzle was just worn out from the ramrod and cleaning, once we had good bore scopes and could examine deeper we found out that nope, they just didn't have any rifling at all, not even a hint. Then people went back through the surviving sales records from that era, and found that they really were mostly smoothbores.
>>63971631
Rifling was extremely time consuming, doing a simple (by modern standards) 2-groove barrel would nearly double the price of the gun. Meanwhile a tightly patched round ball was very nearly as accurate as a rifle out to about 75 yds, which was pretty much the effective range of a .40ish round ball anyway due to the utterly shit ballistic coefficient of said ball.

>>63967735
>conflict since the frogs invented smokeless powder
But they didn't. Germans did (or German-Swiss) with guncotton. The Bongs then improved on it. Poudre B was made by the French, yes but for the Lebel Rifle, but wasn't the first smokeless powder for weapons. The Bongs didn't like it or guncotton (after exploding several of their factories) so invented Cordite. There was also Ballistite by Noble. Which the Bongs then improved on and Noble tried to sue but lost because he didn't use specific terms and words.

So true smokeless powder was German unless you wanna say Noble invented it first with 'dynamite'. The particular formulation of Poudre B was also modified by pretty much every state anyway.

>>63971672
wow. good post
>>63971699
frogs had the first smokeless rifle, nazis were too busy inventing trannies at the time.

>lol carbinelets

>>63967735
>>63967343
>>63966398 (OP)
Because musket ruled the battlefield and big bullet longah barrel more bettah.
WWI artillery slaughter and trench warfare caught everyone by surprise.

>>63972838

>>63972838

>>63971699
Germans did not.
The Austrians were the first to use guncotton firearms with the Lorenz. They did not use a powder. Until Poudre B there was no other widespread use of nitrocellulose as it was considered too unstable.

>>63971395
>they didn't have electronic chronographs
No they had mechanical ones, and they were very accurate.
They weren't stupid and from the 18th century on there was a lot of very scientific testing done.
Now if we're talking America, fuddlore and guesstimation ruled supreme. They didn't have a school of musketry until after their civil war when actual muskets were well obsolete.

>>63971672
Maybe the accuracy of smoothbores improves with longer barrels.

>>63966398 (OP)
I have googled a bit, early black powders (that is through most of the 18th century) were burning slower than later recipes and benefitted more from longer barrels.

>>63971672
>.40ish round ball
Muskets are more like 600-700.

>>63971505
>BP cartridges didn't really do the whole bottleneck thing
The Martini-Henry, the Gras, the Mauser 1871, the Vetterli 1870, used bottlenecked cartridges. The angle isn't as pronounced as in smokeless, but it's quite visible.

>>63976312
.303 started off as a BP cartridge. 1850 fps IIRC.

>>63976369

They weren't faggots and had strong hands and strong bodies from a lifetime of labor. Pound for pound they were magnitudes stronger than you, zoomer.

>>63967735
>canon tech didn't catch up with rifle tech until WWI.
That happened earlier, we have reports from the Franco-Prussian War about artillery units single handedly destroying infantry formations.
>When the head of the column became visible over the hill, our trial shots reached it at a range of 1900 paces, and my guns opened rapid fire.
>The enemy's infantry was enveloped in the thick smoke which the shells made as they burst. But after a very short time we saw the red trousers of the masses which were approaching us through the cloud. I stopped the fire. A trial shot was fired at 1700 paces range; this was to show us the point up to which we should let them advance before reopening the rapid fire; we did the same for the ranges of 1500, 1300, 1100, and 900 paces.
In spite of the horrible devastation which the shells caused in their ranks, these brave troops continued to advance. But at 900 paces the effect of our fire was too deadly for them; they turned short and fled; we hurled shells after them as long as we could see them.

>Go look at most of the conflicts after the civil war but before WWI it's literally Napoleonic era stand in a line and fire
That is overly reductive and thus inherently wrong. They not only did way more complex stuff than that it also changed quite often.
>the Germans reluctantly accepted the principle of dispersion. It became strictly forbidden for troops to be exposed to enemy fire in closed formations at ranges under 1500 meters. German troops now advanced in loose, widely spaced lines where the individual made ill possible use of cover.
>Swarms of skirmishers advanced in alternating rushes, supporting each other by fire. The new methods reduced casualties, but how much the German success was due to their superior method ot to a poorer quality of French soldier was questioned.

>>63976889

>>63966600
Imagine being there.
Imagine knowing your only job is to hold the pointy stick.
Imagine understanding the only reason you aren't being ran down is not because of your pointy stick, but because the man running the horse does not want to be poked by not the two guys besides you who he will also run through, but the two guys beside them.

Now thank your god of choice for carbines, artillery, air support, and drones.

>>63971662
Source. Souuuurrrccceeee.

>>63978661
168cm Iroha-kun wa Jinken ga Nai by komezawa

>>63966398 (OP)
Because back in the day there weren't as much buildings and stuff in Europe. Most of the important areas were still mainly large open fields, so capabilities on range were way more important. It wasn't until after WW2 that European cities became the concrete wasteland they now are, where the longes clear sight range you have is 300m.
Also single shot muskets take a longer time to reload and so when the enemy comes near, the gun with it's bayonet becomes a spear, and no matter how large the soldier is, the longest spear wins.

>>63978884
Oh not what I expected. Why did I expect a comedy manga.

>>63979602
I have no clue. Imo that style basically screamed porn.

>>63976889
They weren't able to do indirect fire, the bongs didn't try indirect fire until the 1890s.
>4am post
yeah, you're a no gunz yuro

>>63966398 (OP)
Short barrels are cool. But we must return to long barrels. They are based. WE NEED MORE VELOCITY.

>>63979765
>They weren't able to do indirect fire,
You know, ignoring that mortars were a thing since the early 17th century and used to shoot behind fortifications, so what? That doesn't change shit.
Military tactics after the acw changed often and the militaries of the time had a pretty good idea of how WW1 would look like.
Whether or not they were able to use indirect before the 1890s has no bearing on it.
>no gunz
Which too has no relevance aside from maybe being a worthless attempt not to engage with any argument I make.
Were talking about history here, the amount of people on this board that served in a 19th century is, hopefully, nonexistent and the amount of people that fired period accurate cannons of that time will be marginally larger.
It does not change the quotes about the Franco-Prussian War.

>>63979949
so you admit you are a no gunz, got it. thanks

>>63979957

>>63966398 (OP)
Soldiers usually have low IQ.
A bigger weapon makes it harder to lose them.

>>63972838
What's the source of your image? It seems like it would be an interesting read.

height doesn't have anything to do with strength, there are manlets build like dwarves with broad shoulders.

>>63967069
testosterone levels are in an all time low since they are recorded and show a clear decline. Only the most based retards who take test can out strength our manlet but high test ancestors.

>>63978884
wtf its gay porn?!

>>63980553
the title of the paper is at the top of the image

>>63980750

>>63981235

>>63978641
>image knowing your only job is to sit in the trench

>>63983943

>>63983943

>>63983943

>>63983943

>>63966398 (OP)
I've always wanted to make a really low caliber musket, like a 22 or 25, that could handle a huge proportional load of BP to play around at the speed limits of the propellant.
An old reloading manual I read once said that the record for any black powder shot was 2400 fps, well past the point of diminishing returns.

Mach 2 round ball squirrel gun to play around with.

>>63988716
check out Kentucky long rifles or shootzen guns, they had long barrels and comparatively small calibers, I think the shootzen ones are really small caliber

>>63979805
some of us have returned to musketmaxxing already but the trend must continue to grow

>>63989062

>>63989062

>>63989062

>>63989062

>>63966398 (OP)
5.56 is dogshit (100% wars it fought it lost) and short barrels are dumb too.

>>63995908
what are you sliding?

>>63995941
Poor bait

>>63995941

>>63996485

>>63996485

>>63996485

>>63996485

I just assume shorter barreled rifles are becoming more popular because of the increasing amount of urban warfare and door to door combat

>>63966398 (OP)
>>average WW1/WW2 soldier was still 5'5"
Anon, the average German soldier was 6 feet, it's why the G3 has such a length of pull, its measurements were based on WWII averages.

>>64004448
I mean, kind of how the STG-44 developed, as a counter to red army Oops all SMGs battalions in Stalingrad

>>64004579

>>63967702
>>63967722
>>63971427
>>63971562
>>63971657
WTF? All mods need to be murdered.

>>64006271
Yeah, really weird amount of deleted posts. Some are obvious spam, but many are decent posts that contributed to the discussion.
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/63966398

>>64006271
>>64006351
yeah

>>64007050

>>64006351
>>64007050
The guy was probably just banned.

>>64007783
shalom janny

>>63966398 (OP)
They weren't shooting point targets in a lot of cases. They were shooting formations which could be engaged at longer ranges. In various 19th century conflicts, outranging the other guy's small arms was often important. Sometimes rifles outranged yesteryear's field artillery, which made the difference.

>>64009123

Why does someone keep necro bumping this thread and then deleting his bump post?

>>64010151

>>63967218
In modern firearms the shorter barrel has less affect but in muskets that's not true, black powder is much slower burning than modern powders
Black powder pistols usually have huge fireballs because the barrel length isn't long enough to make use of the powder and that greatly affects velocity

>>63966398 (OP)
Also, the material science wasn't there. The USN actually experimented with this with the 6mm Lee Navy, and they had a hard time making ammo that passed QC in the 1890s.

>>63971436
Isn't it actually a piece of shit though

>>63972838
>WWI artillery slaughter and trench warfare caught everyone by surprise.
Did trench warfare only catch on during WW1 because machine guns were still primitive during the Franco Prussian war?

>>63976889
>>the Germans reluctantly accepted the principle of dispersion. It became strictly forbidden for troops to be exposed to enemy fire in closed formations at ranges under 1500 meters. German troops now advanced in loose, widely spaced lines where the individual made ill possible use of cover.
Lmao I assume 'reluctantly' here refers to the brass and not the rank-and-file?

>>Swarms of skirmishers advanced in alternating rushes, supporting each other by fire. The new methods reduced casualties, but how much the German success was due to their superior method ot to a poorer quality of French soldier was questioned.
Which do you think? Also what text(s) are you citing?

>>64013168
I think a big part is they didn't want to drag the guns around like custard had gatling guns but didn't want to drag them to little bighorn

>>64013197
Well that's the thing isn't it? Mass trench warfare being the response to highly portable machine guns which made attacking anything just plainly more difficult.

>>63966398 (OP)
Along with the other reasons mentioned the weapons were really long to facilitate firing in ranks. You don’t want to muzzle of the guy behind you’s musket going off right over or behind your head.

>>64013168
No, it happened in the Russo-Japanese war, especially the integration of effective indirect artillery fire.

It was just kinda ignored as "lol dumb slavs" and the attention was focused on the naval battles, especially Tsushima.

>>64013263
>No, it happened in the Russo-Japanese war, especially the integration of effective indirect artillery fire.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mukden
>610,000 combat participants and 164,000 combatant casualties
>The Japanese side alone fired 20.11 million rifle and machine gun rounds and 279,394 artillery shells in just over ten days of fighting (yet the Russians still fired more), matching the ammunition consumption of the German army in the entire 191-day Franco-Prussian War[9] and more than the British had fired during the entire Second Boer War.
Wow.

>>63966398 (OP)
Black powder burned slower than modern powders. It took a while for doctrine to catch up.

>>64014231
>Black powder burned slower than modern powders
Incorrect. blackpowder burns much faster than smokeless, but blackpowder generates much less heat& pressure than smokeless

>>64013263
It also happened in the Mexican Civil war right before WW1 but everyone went, lol dumb spics

>>64014242
Oh. I feel silly now.

>>64013924
Russians slaughtered numerically superior Japanese and inflicted higher deaths on the Japanese. Japan suffered more dead and Japan outnumbered the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nanshan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Port_Arthur

>>64014461

>>64014461

Are you doing this just to see how long you can keep a thread up before a janny notices

>>63966398 (OP)
>Who the fuck thought this was a reasonable idea?

Black powder ballistics require longer barrels

>>64018688

>>63980558
A difference in height, within normal ranges, simply represents scale. E.g. the average 6 foot tall man is a slightly scaled up version of the average 5’9” man. So yeah, it does confer strength. I am aware that there exist tall weaklings and short strongmen, but on the whole, taller = stronger. I don’t think this is true pound for pound though, I think manlets win in this regard. Like their mass/volume will go down by the cube of some multiplier but their strength will only go down by the square of it.

>>64004448
And theyre lighter, far easier to manipulate, and with a center of gravity in a more desireable place closer to the shooter. Just way easier, less taxing to use.

I assume, ofc, never shot anything longer than 16”, don’t even want to.

>>63966398 (OP)
because until WW1, and even a bit during it, riflemen also had to double as pikemen against calvary charges

>>64020223
why do you keep bumping this thread?

>>64020722

>>64013256
questions

>>63979602
yeah bro what the hell that was clearly porn

>>63978884
thanks for the new fetish. literal dehumanization over height. pretty gud.

>>64025709

>>63966398 (OP)
Technology and doctrine (to say nothing of advances in one effecting the other) hadn’t conspired to make such a development viable until the mid-20th C. On the tech side, small bore, high velocity small arms require adequate metallurgy for containing greater pressure and resist wear, the mfg capability to make fast enough twist rifling to stabilize high velocity projectiles in short barrels, the ability to make jacketed projectiles to ensure the bullet can withstand those twist rates, and smokeless powder to prevent your small bore getting fouled up in short order + achieve adequate velocities to ensure adequate velocity out of shorter barrels and provide adequate terminal ballistics despite the small caliber. Even if those and probably more are achieved, you still have institutional inertia to overcome to implement the whole package and doctrinal necessity making it desirable to do so. Other anons have already covered a lot of the doctrinal reasons behind why infantry rifles were so long for centuries.