An old ancestor of Kalashnikov? Kalthoff repeater

65
An old ancestor of Kalashnikov? Kalthoff repeater
Peter Kalthoff's straight lever shotgun. By Jan Flock, Utrecht, around 1670. Total length: 1 mm. Barrel length: 505 mm. Weight: 1 g. Originally this weapon belonged to Charles XI. Royal Arsenal, Stockholm


And you'll go crazy
what your eyes will see.

Deuteronomy 26: 34




People and weapons. As you know, the rate of fire of a modern Kalashnikov assault rifle reaches 40 rounds per minute with single shots, 100 shots is the combat rate of fire in bursts, and finally 600–650 is the technical rate. Of course, the owners of XNUMXth-century flintlock muskets never even dreamed of anything like this. But…

Nevertheless, there were also people among them who sought to increase the rate of fire of the weapons of that time at any cost. And this was done by one of the representatives of the Kalthoff family of gunsmiths from Solingen in Germany, who proposed a multi-charge flintlock gun around 1630.

Moreover, this “offer” was then embodied in metal and began to be produced not only by representatives of this family, but also by other masters. So, several copies of both rifles and pistols of this system have survived to this day.

Moreover, at least nineteen gunsmiths are known to have made weapons based on Kalthoff's design. Moreover, some early guns were still wheeled, but most of the rest already had a flintlock percussion lock. The magazine capacity varied from 5 to 30 rounds, which was certainly a great achievement for those years.

Instead of numerous manipulations, it was only necessary to move the trigger guard back and forth. It could be completed in 1–2 seconds, and the weapon was already ready to fire. The caliber of Kalthoff's rifles and pistols usually varied between 0,4–0,8 inches (10–20 mm), although very small-caliber samples with a caliber of 7,6 mm are also known.

After 1630, members of this family dispersed across countries to other regions of Europe, including Denmark, France, the Netherlands, England and even Russia. But the very first patent for the Kalthoff system was received from King Louis XIII in 1640 by a certain Guillaume Kalthoff. The patent stated that it was issued for muskets and pistols capable of firing 8-10 shots without replenishing the supply of gunpowder and bullets, while maintaining the weight, length and ease of handling inherent in standard firearms.


Kalthoff gun lock with curved lever. Royal Arsenal, Stockholm

A year later, in 1641, another Kalthoff, Peter, received a Dutch patent for a rifle with a rifled barrel that could fire 29 shots without reloading. This patent did not indicate which mechanism provided such an unprecedented rate of fire for those years, but it was mentioned that Peter could improve the design even more within a year.

In the same year, another Dutch patent was received by a certain Hendrik Bartmans. It described a pistol with two separate magazines for powder and bullets, a total capacity of 30 rounds, and a trigger guard that had to be turned to reload it. Then Bartmans, around 1642, manufactured a rifle according to his patent, that is, his development went quite far.

In 1645, Peter Kalthoff also made his repeater with a wheel lock. Moreover, the text Das Erste (the first) is engraved on it, which raises some questions that, alas, will most likely remain unanswered. In 1646, another sample followed, on the barrel in front of the breech there is an inscription that indicates the ammunition capacity of 30 rounds.

It is interesting that the weapons of representatives of this family, made by them in different countries, were somewhat different. Thus, the guns Peter made had a smooth, rounded trigger guard held in place by a trigger. But the weapons of Matthias Kalthoff from Denmark had a straight trigger guard, and a straight rod was used to hold the lever. He also produced pistols that date from 1650 to 1679.

In 1649, a pair of pistols from a gunsmith named Kalthoff was sent as a gift to King Frederick III. And today two such pistols are indeed kept in the National Museum of Denmark, but there is no confirmation that these are the same pistols and not some others.


Alexander Harding repeating rifle, c. 1670 Royal Arsenal, Stockholm

In Germany, magazine pistols similar in design were made by gunsmith Heinrich Habrecht around 1645 and 1650.

In Holland, gunsmith Alexander Harting worked on similar weapons.


Peter Kalthoff repeater gun lock by Jan Flock, Utrecht, circa 1670. This weapon originally belonged to Charles XI. Royal Arsenal, Stockholm

Caspar Kalthoff made a percussion flintlock gun in London between 1654 and 1665. In 1658, Caspar made a rifle with a capacity of seven shots.

Pistols of the Kalthoff system were also produced by Jan Flock from Utrecht and put up for sale in 1668. The price for one such pistol was no less than £260.

But Kaspar Kalthoff Jr., the son of Kaspar Kalthoff, made such repeating weapons in Russia, where he arrived between 1664 and 1665, and there in 1665 he made one such repeating gun.

The production of such weapons continued subsequently. So, in 1710, Charles Cousin in France produced a gun using the Kalthoff system with 15 shots.

There were two varieties of the Kalthoff system.

The first had a rectangular breech with two or three chambers, a powder magazine in the butt and a total capacity of up to 30 charges.

The second type had a vertical cylindrical bolt, the gunpowder was stored under lock and key, and the container for it allowed up to 10 shots to be fired. A magazine with round bullets could be located in a cylindrical cavity, both in the butt and under the barrel.

Many Kaltohoff pistols used an under-barrel magazine equipped with a coil spring located in the ramrod cavity. Moreover, its plug was designed in the form of a ramrod head. A magazine of this type for a gun was about 1 m long and could hold more than 60 bullets with a diameter of 14 mm. But when fully loaded, these bullets weighed about 1 kg, which greatly changed the center of gravity.

Square breech pistols had a flat spring that flexed to the right as the breech moved.

The gunpowder in the magazine could be reloaded through a locked hatch. On guns with a magazine in the butt, it was loaded through a hole covered with a retractable lid. Most guns contained enough gunpowder (up to 5 cc per shot) for both the main charge and the charge on the powder shelf.

Such a weapon was loaded like this: the barrel was raised up, the trigger guard was turned approximately 155° to the right and back, after which it was already possible to cock the hammer (or wind the wheel) and fire a shot.

And here it should be noted that Kalthoff’s guns, as they say, worked.

In 1648, Frederick III ordered his guards to be equipped with his guns. This order was carried out by Peter and Matthias Kalthoff (and possibly several other gunsmiths) and the guns were produced in 1657. The Guardsmen received about a hundred guns (some of the surviving guns are numbered by engraving on the butt, No. 108 and 110) and are believed to have been used at the Siege of Copenhagen (1658–1659) and in the Scanian War.

In 1659, during the siege of Copenhagen, they were armed with the bodyguards of Charles X, but by 1696 they were removed from service. The Royal Armories inventory of 1775 still listed 133 Kalthoff pistols, but by this time they were already considered antiques.


Pistols of the Kalthoff system. Royal Danish Arsenal Museum, Copenhagen

It should be noted that, despite the surprisingly high rate of fire for that time, this design at that time could not claim mass production. The mechanism required great skill and care to maintain, and took much longer to assemble than a conventional muzzle-loading musket or pistol.

All parts of the mechanism were interdependent. So if any gear broke or jammed, the entire weapon became unusable. And only a specialist gunsmith could fix it. Clogging with even slightly damp powder could cause the mechanism to simply jam.

Also, the use of black powder led to the formation of soot, which made it more difficult to control with the lever with each shot.

And the technology of that time did not allow organizing its mass production in large quantities. So only rich people and elite soldiers could buy such guns and pistols.

So it turned out that a system with separate loading (gunpowder and bullets separately), although quite workable and really allows for a high rate of fire, due to imperfect production technology does not allow making such weapons cheap and widespread.

Well, then no one wanted to spend money on improving it either, and it’s understandable why that was so. Society is not yet ripe for new views...
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    22 March 2024 04: 11
    It's just like laughter. To ignore Fedorov’s contribution to the emergence and development of the concept of an assault rifle/assault rifle, but to add some ancient super-complex shooter to the glory of Kalashnikov - it must be “Caliber” ...
    1. +14
      22 March 2024 04: 44
      Of course, Kalthoff is far from Kalashnikov in terms of reliability, but the concept was advanced for that time. The only thing missing in the article is the design diagrams for the muskets and pistols of the Kalthoffer family.
      Thanks to Vyacheslav for the article!
      R.s. Vladimir, don’t hesitate to write about Fedorov’s role in the development of automatic weapons, otherwise it’s somewhat modest based on publications on VO.
      Good day to all !!!
      1. -5
        22 March 2024 04: 55
        Of course, Kalthoff is far from Kalashnikov in terms of reliability.
        Not in terms of mass production, not in terms of accessibility, not in terms of popularity, not in terms of anything...

        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        otherwise it’s somehow modest based on publications on VO

        However, so do you. And whatever it is, it’s all mine.
        1. +7
          22 March 2024 05: 59
          However, so do you. And whatever it is, it’s all mine.

          I don’t argue, but I don’t “kick” Authors for no reason.
          1. -5
            22 March 2024 06: 13
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            I don’t argue, but I don’t “kick” Authors for no reason.

            Good joke about "for no reason." Did you miss the Caliber articles about Sturmgever?
            1. +9
              22 March 2024 07: 04
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
              I don’t argue, but I don’t “kick” Authors for no reason.

              Good joke about "for no reason." Did you miss the Caliber articles about Sturmgever?

              It was not me, but other participants in the discussion who explained everything to you in the comments. And about the machine gun and about the cartridges for it. But you, with tenacity worthy of better use, continue to “stand up” for Fedorov, whom no one offended. Write an article about the machine. Since you understand everything. It will be both interesting and useful to everyone. Fortunately, you can take a lot from the comments to the stormtrooper. Try it! Everyone will just thank you.
              1. -7
                22 March 2024 07: 31
                Quote: kalibr
                It was not me, but other participants in the discussion who explained everything to you in the comments. And about the machine gun and about the cartridges for it.

                With a rather weak argument.

                Quote: kalibr
                But you, with tenacity worthy of better use, continue to “stand up” for Fedorov, whom no one offended.
                So, this is not about protecting Fedorov’s assault rifle, but about your natural servility before the West.
                Because okay Fedorov, but to include this shooter in the ancestors of Kalashnikov weapons:
                An old ancestor of Kalashnikov? Kalthoff repeater


                - this is like laughter (I repeat).
                1. +4
                  22 March 2024 08: 21
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Inscribe this shooter into the ancestors of Kalashnikov weapons:

                  That's right - funny. But no one writes it in. This is a comparison and nothing more, clearly showing how far military technology has stepped forward. There's even a "?" specially placed there for... the not-so-judicious. Now, if only it were approved. Then the sign would be like this "!". Why do you take everything so literally? Like a child, really. This is impossible... This is a purely journalistic technique, designed to activate the attention of readers and that’s all.
                2. +6
                  22 March 2024 08: 24
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  kowtowing to the West.

                  It’s funny to talk about this when considering the history of Russian weapons before 1917.
                3. +7
                  22 March 2024 08: 27
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  With a rather weak argument.

                  Provide a strong point in your article.
              2. +4
                22 March 2024 21: 52
                Hi, Vyacheslav! smile
                Interesting article and well written. Thank you!
                Write an article about the machine.

                But he won’t write for one simple reason - he can’t, because he doesn’t know how. And to hell with it, such is the karma for him... I won’t write further, otherwise they’ll ban me again. And you will understand everything anyway. drinks
                1. +2
                  22 March 2024 22: 01
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  And you will understand everything anyway

                  Thank you, Konstantin! And as for “he won’t write”... We must not lose hope. Suddenly, you never know what happens in the world!
                  1. +3
                    22 March 2024 22: 47
                    Suddenly, you never know what happens in the world!


                    It happens that crocodiles fly...
                    "Tilki low-low" (c) laughing
                2. -3
                  23 March 2024 05: 03
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  But he won’t write for one simple reason - he can’t, because he doesn’t know how. And to hell with it, such is the karma for him... I won’t write further, otherwise they’ll ban me again.

                  Oh, cat, you’re not writing because you have paws, right? I have at least three articles, but what do you have?
                  1. +1
                    23 March 2024 21: 33
                    ...what do you have?

                    And here's what I have. laughing
                    1. 0
                      24 March 2024 12: 39
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      And here's what I have.
                      Powerfully ...
                      Can this be regarded as signs of a descent into childhood?
                      1. 0
                        24 March 2024 13: 15
                        Well, you better know where you are running into... fool
                      2. 0
                        24 March 2024 14: 08
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Well, you better know where you are running into...

                        You in the picture!!! a childish, not particularly funny joke is presented... I’m definitely not falling into childhood here.
                        Although maybe you demonstrated the level of the article you could write... request
                        Powerful too! laughing
                      3. +1
                        24 March 2024 14: 46
                        Even flooding with you is uninteresting and boring.
                        All the best. soldier
                      4. 0
                        24 March 2024 15: 13
                        Have you run to write an article? laughing
                      5. 0
                        24 March 2024 23: 16
                        Don’t judge by yourself, and there’s little interesting in where you run to write.
                      6. +1
                        25 March 2024 03: 19
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Don’t judge by yourself, and there’s little interesting in where you run to write.

                        Of course I will judge, I wrote and posted articles, unlike you, how are your paws? Run around the corner?
                      7. 0
                        25 March 2024 23: 06
                        I have at least three articles,

                        Three articles is certainly a great achievement. laughing
                        Continue in the same spirit, by the thirtieth year there will already be four. good
                      8. +1
                        26 March 2024 08: 44
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Three articles is certainly a great achievement. laughing
                        Continue in the same spirit, by the thirtieth year there will already be four.

                        Boast at least one.
                        At least a remade alien...
                        But you won’t be able to do it, your paws can only run around the corner.
    2. +3
      22 March 2024 06: 56
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It's just like laughter. To ignore Fedorov’s contribution to the emergence and development of the concept of an assault rifle/assault rifle, but to add some ancient super-complex shooter to the glory of Kalashnikov - it must be “Caliber” ...

      There was already my material about Fedorov’s rifle and assault rifle here. There will be a second one, but later, within the framework of the theme of the appearance of the first automatic rifles. As for the contribution... for Russia it certainly took place. But in global terms, this was only one of many examples, and not the very first.
      1. -4
        22 March 2024 07: 38
        Quote: kalibr
        There was already my material about the Fedorov rifle and assault rifle here.

        Yes, there was, and there were these words:
        Already in 1922, the Red Army began to form separate companies armed with Fedorov machine guns. And it was a phenomenal breakthrough in the field of military affairs.
        1. +3
          22 March 2024 08: 18
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: kalibr
          There was already my material about the Fedorov rifle and assault rifle here.

          Yes, there was, and there were these words:
          Already in 1922, the Red Army began to form separate companies armed with Fedorov machine guns. And it was a phenomenal breakthrough in the field of military affairs.

          And what else do you need?
          1. -6
            22 March 2024 08: 42
            Quote: kalibr
            And what else do you need?

            So that you can decide:

            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            And it was a phenomenal breakthrough in the field of military affairs.

            or
            Quote: kalibr
            As for the contribution... for Russia it certainly took place. But in global terms, this was only one of many examples, and not the very first.

            Otherwise, you write down the shooter as your ancestors, and suddenly the “phenomenal breakthrough” has nothing to do with the concept of machine guns.
            1. +3
              22 March 2024 09: 31
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Otherwise, you write down the shooter as your ancestors, and suddenly the “phenomenal breakthrough” has nothing to do with the concept of machine guns.

              I don’t want to be in the position of the hero of the fable ELEPHANT PAINTER. You can't lump everything together. Various topics... But I’m saying once again: don’t waste your words on comments. Write your own material, where you present everything the way you think is correct. And your verbiage in the comments is of no use.
              1. -1
                22 March 2024 14: 55
                Quote: kalibr
                I don’t want to be in the position of the hero of the fable ELEPHANT PAINTER. You can't lump everything together. Different topics...

                Funny... Especially how it was piled up in the article about Sturmgever.

                Quote: kalibr
                Write your own material, where you present everything the way you think is correct.
                Unfortunately, the material is not up to the length of an article, because I don’t have the skills to copy other people’s articles, but as an original note, it’s fine.
                1. +1
                  22 March 2024 15: 57
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Unfortunately, the material is not up to the length of an article, because I don’t have the skills to copy other people’s articles, but as an original note, it’s fine.

                  What does “full-fledged article” mean in your opinion? The normal length is 8000 characters. What about “turn over”? Yes, all the historical articles here are taken from somewhere. Only “opinions” and “memories” are completely 100% free from borrowing - after all, everyone has their own. And everything else was certainly taken from somewhere. And you cannot avoid this either, unless the Lord God puts some knowledge directly into your head, in addition to what is taken from books, in an extra-sensory way, so to speak. So pray, what if it works? Well, for now we will consider the mention of 8000 characters as an application for your first and original material on VO. So let's wait!
                  1. -2
                    22 March 2024 16: 02
                    Quote: kalibr
                    Well, for now we will consider the mention of 8000 characters as an application for your first and original material on VO.

                    What kind of cheap scam is this? Not counting the fact that I have three articles, completely original, one was deleted by the administration three weeks later, due to the harshness of the wording.


                    Quote: kalibr
                    And you cannot avoid this either, unless the Lord God puts some knowledge directly into your head, in addition to what is taken in books, so to speak, in an extra-sensory way.
                    An example of verbiage.
                    1. +1
                      22 March 2024 16: 05
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      An example of verbiage.

                      Weak brains have difficulty perceiving deep thoughts, this is known. Well, since you had three articles, let this be the 4th. So I have experience, which makes me happy. Let's sit down and write!
                      1. -4
                        22 March 2024 16: 08
                        Quote: kalibr
                        Weak brains have difficulty perceiving deep thoughts, this is known.
                        Is this a deep thought?! laughing
                        Quote: kalibr
                        And you cannot avoid this either, unless the Lord God puts some knowledge directly into your head, in addition to what is taken in books, so to speak, in an extra-sensory way.

                        And she also has a neon inside her! laughing
            2. +5
              22 March 2024 09: 33
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              So that you can decide:

              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              And it was a phenomenal breakthrough in the field of military affairs.

              or
              Quote: kalibr
              As for the contribution... for Russia it certainly took place. But in global terms, this was only one of many examples, and not the very first.

              When there will be an article entirely devoted to the Fedorov assault rifle, everything will be sorted out there. And yes - for Russia it was a breakthrough. For the rest of humanity... another step into the future among many.
    3. +1
      22 March 2024 11: 43
      He’s talking about Thomas, and he’s talking about Jeremiah....why take everything so literally?
      1. +3
        22 March 2024 11: 49
        Quote: Lamb
        why take everything so literally

        This is his form of fight against Shpakovsky. If I don’t take it away, I’ll at least take a bite!
      2. -5
        22 March 2024 14: 57
        Quote: Lamb
        He’s talking about Thomas, and he’s talking about Jeremiah....why take everything so literally?

        It’s a pity that you are one of those who “has”...
        1. +2
          22 March 2024 15: 59
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          who "has"...

          People "gobble up" There’s no need to offend people you don’t know, who haven’t personally done anything bad to you here...
          1. -4
            22 March 2024 16: 04
            Quote: kalibr
            People "gobble up" There’s no need to offend people you don’t know, who haven’t personally done anything bad to you here...

            What does it mean to offend, this is a statement...
            The man clearly did not understand what you “fed” him.
  2. +3
    22 March 2024 05: 41
    In 1974, I, being so literate, showed up at the Hermitage. Naturally, first of all I rushed to the ancient weapons. I look: on display are two multi-shot guns from the era of Peter I. There was no more information on those guns on the stand. I turned to the granny, the caretaker of this hall, for advice. It turned out that she had no clue about any kind of weapon. I couldn’t even suggest who I could consult with. It’s still a shame that I was never able to satisfy my curiosity. Therefore, the question for experts is: what is stored in the Hermitage? Kalthoff guns or something else?
    1. +3
      22 March 2024 07: 00
      Quote: Old electrician
      Kalthoff guns or something else?

      Kalthoff. Yes. But... To get permission to use their photo, you need to write a letter there. Then get permission, then...an envelope with paper. The photo itself will not be of high quality. You have to pay for quality. All this, as you understand, discourages the desire to work with the Hermitage.
    2. +2
      22 March 2024 07: 07
      Quote: Old electrician
      It’s still a shame that I was never able to satisfy my curiosity.

      Go to the Hermitage website. Weapons section. There will be a photo and description.
  3. 0
    22 March 2024 07: 36
    Thanks to the Author, it’s interesting for me, since I knew very little about repeating shotguns of the “pre-cartridge” era. However, they were apparently used very little.

    True, I would not draw analogies with the AK, whose main advantages are simplicity, cheapness and reliability, and not rate of fire and accuracy. Here, probably, Brown Bess would be more suitable (or suitable) as a predecessor :)
    1. +2
      22 March 2024 08: 26
      Quote: S.Z.
      Here, probably, Brown Bess would be more suitable (or suitable) as a predecessor

      And you too, Sergey. Well, what are these predecessors? The fastest-firing unit of that time was taken... and... it is clearly visible how far military technology has come in this area.
      1. +1
        22 March 2024 09: 37
        “And you’re there too, Sergey. Well, what kind of predecessors are these? The fastest-firing unit of that time was taken... and... it’s clearly visible how far military technology has come in this area.”

        :) But the rate of fire is not an advantage of the AK. And if we talk about reliability and simplicity, then rather Brown Bess.

        If, of course, we say that this thing is the progenitor of all machine guns, repeating rifles and submachine guns, then, of course, you are right, the progenitor is.

        Of course, you can see how she stepped. There are, however, more ambitious steps - for example, you can compare the first grenade with an atomic bomb :)

        But if you compare, for example, the first wooden hoe with a modern plow, the difference will not be so significant.

        The rapid development of murder weapons compared to all other weapons makes the phrase homo sapiens much shorter. :)
        1. +2
          22 March 2024 09: 44
          Quote: S.Z.
          The rapid development of murder weapons compared to all other weapons makes the phrase homo sapiens much shorter.

          Ha! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  4. +2
    22 March 2024 11: 09
    Thank you for the article, author, but I would like to know more about the technical structure of these weapons, which were certainly far ahead of their time.
    1. +2
      22 March 2024 11: 47
      Quote: KSVK
      I would like to know more about the technical device

      Me too!!!!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +4
      22 March 2024 19: 32
      1. Animation showing the loading cycle of a Kalthoff repeater with a cylindrical breech.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater#/media/File:Kalthoff_Repeater_Cylinder_Breech_Operation_Animation.gif

      2. Animation showing the operation of a Kalthoff repeater with a sliding shutter box.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater#/media/File:Kalthoff_Repeater_Box_Breech_Animation.gif
  5. +3
    22 March 2024 13: 36
    It is quite clear that such a weapon, due to its price and difficulty in operation, could not become widespread, and therefore widely known. Surely, the owners of these weapons did not load and clean them themselves, but this was done by some personal specialist - a gunsmith. The skill of the gunsmiths who created these weapons is at the level of watchmakers.
  6. +1
    22 March 2024 14: 06
    a system with separate loading (gunpowder and bullets separately), although quite functional and really allows for a high rate of fire, due to imperfect production technology does not allow making such weapons cheap and widespread.
    Well, then no one wanted to spend money on improving it either, and it’s understandable why that was so. Society is not yet ripe for new views...

    Perhaps his congenital defect was revealed very soon - associated specifically with separate loading. As far as I understand, the gunpowder in such weapons was dosed directly at the time of loading, and before that it was stored in the store in loose form. Obviously, this is a very unreliable and unstable point in the system. By the way, how did the gunpowder end up on the shelf? So the design idea smoothly led to the need for a paper cartridge in multi-charge weapons, but before the invention of the capsule, a full-fledged multi-charge system did not develop.
    1. +3
      22 March 2024 16: 01
      Quote from cpls22
      By the way, how did the gunpowder end up on the shelf?

      There were two channels and two containers with gunpowder. When the loading unit handle was rotated, the gunpowder poured first into the barrel and then onto the shelf. The system was workable, but required extreme precision in the manufacture of parts. And then... powder soot. This led to the fact that it became increasingly difficult to operate the lever.
      1. +2
        22 March 2024 17: 35
        Quote: kalibr
        When the loading unit handle was rotated, the gunpowder poured first into the barrel and then onto the shelf.

        The bottleneck is this gravity flow of gunpowder. Not to mention the possibility of it becoming damp, it was necessary to hold the weapon in a certain position so that the gunpowder would fall correctly.
        And the carbon deposits were most likely very annoying due to the fact that to prevent the powder flask from igniting, the gaps were minimal or the thick lubricant mixed with the gunpowder and ceased to perform its functions. In any case, gunsmiths are not fools, and since they abandoned this concept, it was not because the accuracy was not enough.
        1. +2
          22 March 2024 17: 59
          Quote from cpls22
          In any case, gunsmiths are not fools, and since they abandoned this concept,

          Of course!
  7. +1
    22 March 2024 21: 36
    Quote: Lynnot
    The skill of the gunsmiths who created these weapons is at the level of watchmakers.

    Yes, the pairing of parts that prevent the breakthrough of powder gases in such a complex system and with that level of technology.... I would like to take my hat off to the masters. If I could twirl it in my paws live, I wouldn’t mind paying money for such an opportunity.
    1. +1
      22 March 2024 22: 04
      Quote: KSVK
      If I could twirl it in my paws live, I wouldn’t mind paying money for such an opportunity.

      And I...
  8. +1
    23 March 2024 12: 01
    Does Kalash fire single shots 40 rounds per minute? 1 shot in one and a half seconds? what
    Have you ever held a Kalash in your hands? Did they shoot from it?
    1. +1
      23 March 2024 12: 59
      Quote: Rage66
      Does Kalash fire single shots 40 rounds per minute? 1 shot in one and a half seconds? what

      In general, in the reference literature this is exactly the combat rate of fire that is indicated.
      1. +1
        23 March 2024 13: 02
        From a Kalash you can quite safely conduct aimed fire with single shots per second....
        I personally took part in test firing at the range... Yes
  9. Lad
    +1
    23 March 2024 20: 11
    Comparison with Kalash certainly hurts the eyes. Is this just to remind you of the Kalash once again? Kalash is a standard, ordinary, cheap, mass-produced weapon for an unprofessional soldier, but it was a brilliant breakthrough, an expensive weapon for special forces and other elites. Completely different niches. Kalash must be compared with the most popular weapon of that time. With weapons from the same niche.
  10. 0
    23 March 2024 21: 36
    Why then did this miracle not become widespread like “kaklash” then? Just don’t talk about the high cost of iron.
    Ceterum censeo Washingtago delendam esse
  11. 0
    April 13 2024 20: 25
    Idk, maybe the author should have given a sane description of the circuit? I'm already silent about the drawing...
  12. 0
    April 23 2024 23: 49
    600–650 – technical.

    The rate of fire seems to be called...
  13. 0
    April 23 2024 23: 51
    All parts of the mechanism were interdependent. So if any gear broke or jammed, the entire weapon became unusable.


    Probably still NOT interchangeable!