Lorenzoni Lock TL4 Firearms

[Godogma]

I mentioned these in the "[DF] I can haz gunpowderz" thread and would like someone with more experience than myself to look over my information and actually help me get game stats for Lorenzoni pattern firearms for use in GURPS games instead of theory in my head that I have to go over with a GM. I'm reposting the information I have there in this new thread to try and get some help.

On the issue of the repeating firearms problem; in the early sixteen hundreds there were already rifled barrels and repeating firearms of both rifle and pistol types.

Kalthoff and Lorenzoni both made repeating pistols of that time although Kalthoff mainly focused on long arms. Lorenzoni pistols had a capacity of six or more shots depending on the caliber ball it fired. (Louis L'amour owned one or perhaps a brace which had a capacity for 12 shots upon which he based the firearms Jubal carried in Jubal Sackett.) These weapons were still being manufactured up until sometime in the 1800s by various manufacturers.

Granted these were said to have a fairly delicate mechanism (with essential steel and/or magical techniques this definitely could be ameliorated) and had a tendency to explode if the user didn't make sure to wind the powder magazine properly into the closed position. (Perhaps a -4 or -6 unfamiliarity penalty or the like in game terms until someone has carefully went over the system and learned its intricacies?).

The mechanism worked as follows; charges of powder and ball were carried in tubular magazines in the butt of the pistol the openings closed by a revolving breechlock into which were cut two chambers. To load one simply pointed the pistol toward the ground and rotated a lever on the side of the gun. This dropped a ball and a measure of powder into one chamber sealing off the chamber and primed and closed the flash pan.

(A much simpler way of handling it would be to simply carry a three or four barreled pistol or rifle, which have been manufactured nearly as long as other firearms to mitigate the very RoF issue we speak of).

For proof to my claims you can check a book entitled "Pistols: An Illustrated History of Their Impact" by Jeff Kinard or a google search will turn up more information.

Here is a link to an auction for a later (1799-1806) nine shot flintlock pistol of the Lorenzoni type:
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/l...jectID=4833569

Here is one for a rifle with far less detail provided dated to 1750:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=189638544

Here is a *28* shot Lorenzoni 17th century magazine long gun:
http://www.antiek.net/bolkantiques/s...6&the_start=45

Of course these weapons would likely be considered TL4+1 or TL5 weapons, they are flintlocks and the earlier versions could well qualify for TL4... Perhaps not technology wise, but date of production wise.

The nine shot Lorenzoni pistol I linked earlier is 16 3/4" long (42.6cm), and likely weighs around 3-4 lbs, with a RoF of 1 shot every two rounds perhaps (1/2), with an estimation of approximately 2d-1 pi+ damage, with a malfunction of around 15/16 perhaps? I'd estimate it costs more than a broadsword, somewhere around 1000-1500 range... But for a gunfighter of TL4+1 or TL4 its an excellent option to actually make firearms in DF useful.

In the one response I got to my earlier post, it was suggested that the design was likely finicky.

I actually have my doubts that the design was all that finicky, it was probably more along the lines of user error since I've seen Lorenzoni pattern firearms by four to six different makers and all of them were the same in major details spanning a period of over 120+ years (not all the links function anymore and at the time I wasn't savvy enough to save all the websites) so I think the design was likely quite solid since everyone from the Italians to the English to the Turks to the Germans and even a little place in Boston run by a man named Cookson made them up into the 1800s.

The Cookson family in England also made rifles with the pattern, so its likely those two are directly related. A design that spanned nearly 200 years without major changes it likely was severely ahead of its time more than being finicky.

[pyratejohn]

My reply that they were probably finicky is an extrapolation of how well I believe the lock would work, over time, based on my experience using black powder weapons. After each firing, powder residue will build up around the lock. The residue accumulates over time. At some point enough residue will collect on the moving parts of the lock that it might jam, hang-fire, misfire, etc.

When I look at this pic, I see a great deal of pitting in places that, to me, seem like problem areas.

As for the action itself, I think it is brilliant. Given a "fantasy" non-fouling powder (which is something Paraj and I had discussed via email earlier this year), it could have been a true history changer.

[Godogma]

Another problem modern black powder users don't realize is that black powder weapons in olden days needed far less cleansing than modern ones do - the barrels and actions were actually cured much like a fine cast iron skillet. I've actually seen the process before although as I wasn't and generally don't fire my black powder firearms very much I've never attempted it myself though I know it works.

The action also seems to have a few screws which could be removed and then the weapon cleaned in any case - so I don't see it to be all that finicky myself, with either the curing process or a better powder/combination of all of the above.

Although thank you for the interest in the thread, I figured no one would even answer me.

[pyratejohn]

I know a guy who makes flintlocks. He was the first guy I ever reenacted with who I saw let his musket go brown. There are techniques that can be used to prevent pitting and rusting, but when black powder burns, it leaves behind residue.

I thought this was an interesting quote, "In one test, 82 grains by weight left 42 grains of solid residue. It should come as no surprise that about half of the fouling produced by blackpowder is typically left in a front-loader's barrel."

And you are welcome. I'm quite keen on late TL4 firearms, though not so much from the DF aspect. When LT hits the shelves I plan on using it to do an Infinite Worlds pirate campaign, so one could say I'm collecting as many thoughts as possible for use in that game.

[Godogma]

I'm quite anticipating Low Tech as well, as many things are off about the lower tech stuff... Especially prices and armor weight methinks.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Godogma

Although thank you for the interest in the thread, I figured no one would even answer me.

Sorry I ignored the (DF) Gunpowder thread and missed the Lorenzoni mention.

However, I do have an old article (early 70s or so) about a Lorenzoni pistol in very good shape. I'm afraid it's well before Internet time though and I can not give you a url.

Anyway, it has much better pictures than any links provided in this thread. This includes a nice series of the lock in operation.

I was struck by how well made it was. Truly beautiful workmanship (decorated too). Especially impressive considering it was probably all done by hand. The price should be (by my estimate at least) rather higher than a simple broadsword and probably higher than a Fine or perhaps even Very Fine one.

It is this level of workmanship (even discounting decoration) that I believe was at least the first limiting factor on production.

Even with this genius level workmanship there is still the materials strength issue. A serious problem with the Girandoni system air rifles of similar date....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&a...iw=800&bih=417

and I believe also the Ferguson breechloader (of which I know much less).

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/museum/fire...ech-loader.htm

When you compare this delicate workmanship with the ugly (but heavy) build of the early Colt revolvers I judge the metal to be just too lightly made for repeated use of heavy charges. Especially given that as many as 10% of the Walker Colts (made with the metals of 50 years alter) may have burst in use.

I also believe that I noted this problem in pictures of the Puckle Guns. Their construction also looked too light to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Puckle

http://www.4to40.com/Science/index.a...ne_Gun&k=Feldi

There was just a lot of trial and error necessary in the development of repeating firearms.

A problem not mentioned with the powder residue is not just the carbonized soot that causes most fouling but that black powder is 10 to 15% sulfur by weight. You're going to get a witch's brew of acidic compounds in burned powder and this is going to eat away at the metal no matter what.

Even with more practice with making repeaters and even metallic cartridges you still might be at a dead end after you make a practical gun. I point you to the Spencer carbine used in the US Civil War.....

http://www.civilwarsignals.org/pages...s/weapons.html

...... which used a generically similar mechanism to the Lorenzoni. Certainly a functional gun but also a dead end as to further development.

A Lorenzoni-like mechanism might well figure in a divergent (and possibly magically enhanced) tech tree but I do not believe it constitutes a genuine "if/but for" moment in our own technological development. Just too many issues in precision machining and materials strength.

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by Godogma

I'm quite anticipating Low Tech as well, as many things are off about the lower tech stuff... Especially prices and armor weight methinks.

True, true. More than anything else I'm looking forward to the new list of firearms, and what sorts of new black powder firearms rules it will introduce, if any. Btw, when I say finicky, I think I'm in the same ballpark as you with respect to malf numbers.

[Godogma]

The materials strength was the main issue I believe, but the barrels are the same quality as any other weapon at the time or even better due to their worksmanship...

As for the price, there's a reason I was asking for opinions and how to make workable stats for the weapon. Another opinion on the matter was that it would be two to three thousand plus for a Lorenzoni pattern firearm due to the engravings and the technology behind it.

The English and Bostonian copies I've seen are much less elaborate and look to have heavier actions all around; perhaps because of sensibilities in those places but perhaps for added strength.

Walker Colts were notorious for having a run of poor steel in their cylinders as well as the troops mistakenly loading the picket bullets BACKWARDS into the chambers.

[pyratejohn]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I found this guy's description of his Ferguson breech-loader rather interesting.
http://johno.myiglou.com/ferguson.htm

[Fred Brackin]

A little more searching turned up this page.....

http://swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53313

....where several people discuss the old book where I first stumbled across the Lorenzoni. A couple of useful jpg frpm that article are linked to.

There is also the suggestion that the book is still available from online services at reasonable prices. It might be. I picked up my copy on a remainder table for a couple of bucks

They also talk about an article on an early Italian wheellock concealed in a large dagger blade. Very interesting.

There's a good article on the Girandoni in it too and many other things. I've gotten my money's worth out of it many times over.

Specific notes on this particular Lorenzoni (which appears to have actually been made by that person).

The powder was in a tube under the barrel rather than in the pistol butt. It was believed that this was safer for the user in case a spark got into the powder magazine.

Rate of Fire was estimated at 12 per minute. That would come to something like working the lever for: Ready(shot), Ready(powder charge) , Ready (seal breech), Ready (cock) and then, Fire.