Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveS
|
Elite troops can indeed work marvels, but by definition they tend to be very much in the minority. 300 yards is noted as extreme range for Murphy's weapon (other source say he could hit a 7" target at 250 yards) and he did take 3 shots before he hit. This is still a remarkable feat, but given he was able to achieve this without a laser sight I am not sure how it would have helped him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveS
That's a stronger argument against them. But I think they would be a very advantageous tool in middle ranges, far enough that aim is useful, but not so far that weapon accuracy exceeds ability to aim.
|
I think the money spend on a laser sight for a flintlock would be better spent buying a better rifle instead (plus as a merchant you create a market for ammunition). A laser sight might enable quicker target acquisition (which is why they often appear on pistols and sub-machine guns), but with weapons with a long reload time, you might prefer your troops to take aim rather than risking a hasty shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveS
The problem there may have been expense rather than absence of value in aim. Short of a field test with a telescope and rifle made with 18th century optical manufacturing techniques, I'd say either argument is speculation.
|
Once you start talking about laser sights on flintlocks you opened the gates to speculation ;) 17th century muskets were fitted occasionally with tube sights (no lenses, just a tube). These were primarily hunting weapons as in this period actually aiming at people was considered bad form as it was tantamount to murder (rather than letting God decide where the bullets fell).