The question that I have is what was more reliable, accurate, faster to reload, etc. A Single-Shot Firearms or Multi-Shot Firearms (breech loading)? And if you had to choose one of the types, what would it be? :?:

Could you be more ambiguous, please?

You're going to have to be more specific. By multi-shot, do you mean something like a revolver, a weapon with a magazine (Simiautomatic, bolt action, fully automatic, lever action...), or something like a double barreled musket, or even an organ gun?

M.

I know what I would choose, breech loaded has made such a difference in the austro prussian wars that muzzle loading was almost instantly outdated, and multi shot has proven its worth as well. I think this is a moot point however, it is quite clear that tactical options favour the most modern guns.

reliable: single shot breech loaded best
accurate: single shot breech loaded best
fast reload (per shot) multi shot breech loaded best

Sorry about that! When I was speaking about Breech Loading Multi-Shot Firearms, I meant firearms with 2 or more barrels (not repeaters, semi or fully automatics). I should have said Multi-Barrelled Breech Loading Firearms instead. I hope that clears things up.

That was a good $0.02, Lin.

I think the big question is how you plan to use the firearm. If you're planning to hunt dangerous game, then the double-barrel would be the logical choice between the two (single or double barrel breech-loading). For all other uses, the single-barrel would be my choice, primarily because I'm not fond of the idea of regulated sights. As Lin indicated, double-rifles are regulated at a specific range. The greater the variance between the distance you're shooting and the regulated range, the more lateral compensation you're going to have to incorporate into your sighting adjustments. This is hardly the recipe for accuracy. ;)

With a single barrel rifle, life is simpler. You'll have a much wider variety of sight options (from aperture to optical), easier adaptation to different ranges, and at the end of the day, only one barrel to clean. This is aside from the fact that for the price of a good double rifle, you could probably purchase several single-barrel models.

Good luck!


David

Agreed Lin's 2 cents is pretty on target (sorry for the topical humor)...
although I've never used one, his comments about the standard double-barrel (side by side) arrangement caused me to pause and ponder the over/under arrangements I've seen on a few weapons. Perhaps those make better sense in light of the aim issues with side by side barrels? Never been a fan of either, but have to admit to a fondness for the Sharps rifles.

During one period that grabs my interest, the first half of the 18th century gentleman riders had the option of three distinct pistols. Flintlock-, wheellock single barrels and flintlock double barrel.
The top of the range was without doubt the wheellock and more common by far the single barrel flintlock.The double barrel wás used but ever handled one? The are véry heavy and frontheavy too. No way you would want hat from the saddle.

What I find most striking is that the difference betwen militairy pistols (and rifles) and private ones is húge. The former ones can be called sprayguns compaired to the far more accurate private guns.

Apart from fast reloading thus fire-pówer hitting 'any' target, accuracy actually hitting 'the' target is a completely different strategy.

Peter

True as far as cavalry use was concerned but you can find wheellock mechanisms manufactured up to the 19th century.
The mechanism may be more delicate and the loss of a key a problem but then I was not talking about a battlefield but the gentleman's options. Also a key was quite frequently incorporated in a powder flask or other tool.

I was not referring to double barrel as standard issue either, but as the gentleman's option.

More accurate tolerances increase accuracy enórmously and most definitely make for a marked difference between one tube and the next.

It simply is a matter of 'strategy' depending on what the gun needs to do.

A fine gentleman's blunderbuss may have been as nicely made as anything but still would have been a blunderbuss meant to do wide damage on short range as opposed to incredibly accurate hunting rifles and both a militairy blunderbuss and rifle were different tools meant to do a different job.

Peter

Here is a quote from the book " SMALL ARMS " by Frederick Wilkinson, © 1965. Page 96:

" By the mid-sixteenth century the wheelock had become fairly common among the wealthier members of society, but by the middle of the seventeenth it had been displaced by the cheaper, more robust, flintlock. In Germany, however, hunting and target rifles utilizing the wheelock continued to be made well into the eighteenth century. "

So maybe not into the 19th in any significant quantities or popularity but then one could say that they are still being made today, if rather rare and very hard to find. Early Victorian reproductions or very very late production might overlap ?

So one could ask when do wheelocks or any other weapon becomes the last of the period weapons or the first " modern "
reproduction of an obsolete weapon ? Just a grey zone question ? I would think it would depend on whether the two overlap in time or if there is a significant period of time of zero production.

I think Peter might actually be referring to certain rifled carbines and pistols that were privately procured by some 18th-century officers. These would have had significantly greater accuracy than the general-issue smoothbores. In this sense they were both "military" and "private" but definitely not "common."

Specialty items? Definitely. If I'm allowed to make a conjecture, I'd even say that they might have lasted because they allowed certain forms of decoration that would have been difficult or impractical to do on a flintlock.

Just a conjecture, though. ;)