I Have This Old Gun: Dreyse Needle Rifle

[@willambonney]

Hard to believe bolt action came so early.

[@crabman732]

Had to start somewhere

[@tmclaug90]

That's what she said

[@rafaelcapuano8280]

I wonder why the armies in the civil never though of using it.

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

​@@rafaelcapuano8280They looked into it prior to the war, but given its issue with gas leakage and fairly limited range compared to the rifled musket they decided not to opt for it. That was the same decision made by the British, mind you. Its firepower was appreciated, but military thinking hadnt realized yet how devastatingly powerful that was. When the Civil War actually began the Union Army had to expand from 10,000 men to hundreds of thousands within a few years. Arming all these with just the existing rifled muskets was hard enough, let alone a completely new arm. And the Americans had equal and better guns than the Dreyse, such as the Sharps, the Spencer and the Henry. By the end of the war the Union army had issued over 200,000 breechloaders, which was almost as many as the Prussians had.

[@dsan94]

​@rafaelcapuano8280 ammunition production capability, cost, and rapidity of fire. Is it better to have all the muskets and ammo you will need, or have not enough guns, not enough ammo, and a higher rate of ammo consumption while spending more? Also, the dreyse was lower power than conventional smoothbores and rifles of the time. The point of the rifle at the time was to increase hit rate at longer ranges. The dreyse had even more bullet drop due to the lower power which makes it even more difficult to shoot at longer ranges due to the increased accuracy necessary in range estimation.

[@ChodaStanks]

Got a couple of these, worth a fortune now

[@DIY_DISASTERZ]

if you've shot it I'd like to ask, how powerful and accurate are they generally?

[@MrPh30]

A man named Pauly which invented the self contained cartridge and weapon to fire it ,bith small caliber and artillery were turned down ny Napoleon as the system was mew and unproven. Pauly had two apprentices working for him, Casimir Lefaucheux and von Dreyse .

[@atune2682]

Epic!

[@betoneiracromadarebaixada8187]

no fucking way those two were pauly's apprentices. that guy is probably one of the most important gunsmiths is history and almost nobody knows he even existed, that's insane

[@Dorgon_HetuAla]

While the Chinese were still using matchlock guns, Europeans had already begun to use Dreyse Needle Rifle to conquer North Asia and North America. Industrial Western countries conquered almost the entire world.

[@Haoan1124]

It wasn't so much as "Europeans moving on to use Dreyse rifles", but Europeans using bolt action systems in general. At the time, the Qing dynasty was perhaps three hundred years behind the Europeans in terms of firearm technology.

[@fishyc150]

I also laugh at people who claim "the Chinese invented gun power" when they never had guns. That's like saying the Celtish tribes invented tanks because they used iron.

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

​@@fishyc150They did have guns, what gave you the idea that they did not? Both the Ming and Qing militaries in the 16th century had arquebus as good as European ones.

[@kendrick6740]

@@fishyc150 It's pretty well-documented knowledge that the Chinese invented gunpowder. The earliest known documentation of the formula for gunpowder is from the Tang Dynasty in 808 AD. Mongol conquests to the West expanded knowledge of gun powder in the 13th century with the earliest written formulas for gunpowder appearing in the Middle East and Europe FROM China, by Hasan Al-Rammah (1240) and Roger Bacon (1267). Not only is there a direct link established as to how gunpowder came to Europe from China, but the earliest known discovery of gunpowder in China predates the earliest known discovery in Europe by at least 400 years. Gunpowder was initially used for fireworks, rockets, and later cannons. There's also documented use of arquebus-style firearms/hand cannons by the Ming dynasty around the 1300s, around 100 years before the first documented uses in Europe or the Ottoman Empire. Not only is it false to say that the Chinese didn't have guns, it's even more false to say that not having guns doesn't mean you couldn't have invented gunpowder. Just because it's called "gun" powder doesn't mean it's exclusively restricted to being used for modern day small firearms as we know them. You might be surprised to learn that "horseradish" is not a radish in any way grown by, from, or for horses. The accusation you COULD level against the Chinese is that their firearms technology stagnated compared to the Europeans from roughly around the 1500s or 1600s. There are several theories for this, but the major theories are that 1. The main military threat faced by the Chinese were horse nomads or guerilla forces, which firearms (of the time) were not particularly effective against. 2. The production of firearms was mostly driven by the public rather than private market, so there was less need for innovation especially if there wasn't a threat that required it. 3. Chinese wall fortifications were built with rammed earth rather than stone and mortar, with walls that were easily 10-20 metres thick, compared to contemporary European walls which were at most 2-4 metres thick. Earthen walls are extremely resistant to artillery, with the Japanese documenting even in the 1930s the relative ineffectiveness their modern artillery had on 600-year old walls. Because artillery was not as effective as a siege weapon in China as it was in Europe, this meant there was little incentive to develop firearms technology.

[@Thomasnoone-lu7jg]

@@fishyc150I think you need to learn history more, they did used muskets.

[@felixthecat265]

I really do question the assertion that the needle was a serious weakness.. I have shot over 100 rounds with the same needle and it shows no signs of wear. It does get fouled, but a wipe with a wet finger and thumb every 5 or so shots clears it. I agree that the needle is probably the most likely component to fail, but I contend that it was not a major weakness. From my own experience, Dreyse needles and Chassepot obturators have roughly the same life span! Another supposed weakness with the Dreyse is the gas leakage at the breech, and I remember being told that the Prussians preferred to shoot them from the hip to stop getting gas in the face. I have never found this a problem as any leaking gas gets blown forwards and not back. The later "Beck" conversion added a rubber seal to the breech and this did give greater range, but not significantly. I did find that the "egg" bullet very difficult to achieve accuracy with however. In common with most sabot ammunition, getting the sabot to separate cleanly is not easy. Firing round ball out of the rifle is generally more accurate, although the range is less... Interestingly the Germans cannot use the egg bullet round in modern times because the German firearms laws forbids the use of sabot ammunition where the bullet does not touch the rifling.

[@TheGrenadier97]

It's interesting to note that by the 1850s the Dreyse was obsolete by the new Minié rifled muskets, like the austrian Lorenz, american Springfields, bavarian Podewils and british Enfield. The reason was, although faster, the Dreyse struggled past 250 metres, when fire against formations was still practiced. Besides the small cartridge and large bore, the Dreyse had a problem well know since the late 1400s, an improper sealing of the breech. The prussians had headaches against the bavarians in 1866 and much worse ones against the french Chassepot in 1870, which utterly outclassed the Dreyse: the fast, mobile german columns were sniped en masse at up to 1000 metres the germans could close the range and spread in skirmish lines. Only superior german tactics and training versus a french talent to miss opportunities brought victory for the germans in most bloody attacks.

[@robert-oq9jq]

These experts don't know what they're talking about they weren't using Flintlock , smooth for muskets, that's 1700s technology by the 1840s and 50s they were using rifled barrels and cap ignition that's what these bolt actions replaced not Revolutionary War era muskets

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

Actually they were quite correct. When Prussia adopted the Dreyse needle rifle in 1842 they and the other major military powers in Europe were still using smoothbore muskets, mostly with caplock ignition. Britain did not adopt the rifled musket as standard issue until 1853, France not until 1857, and the United States not until the Civil War. Many second rate powers like Russia and the Ottoman empire continued to cling to the flintlock until the 1850's. Even the Prussians transitioned to the Dreyse at an extraordinarily slow pace; its not until the 1860's that most of their army were armed with it!

[@mahersalthomas1739]

Why didn’t America us this in the civil war??

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

​@@mahersalthomas1739 ​​They looked into it prior to the war, but given its issue with gas leakage and fairly limited range compared to the rifled musket they decided not to opt for it. That was the same decision made by the British, mind you. Its tremendous rate of fire was appreciated, but military thinking hadnt realized yet how devastatingly powerful that could be. When the Civil War actually began the Union Army had to expand from 10,000 men to hundreds of thousands within a year. Arming all these with just the existing rifled muskets was hard enough, let alone a completely new arm. And by then the Americans had equal and better guns than the Dreyse, such as the Sharps, the Spencer and the Henry. By the end of the war the Union army had issued over 200,000 breechloaders, which was not far behind what the Prussians had in 1866.

[@beersmurff]

@@mahersalthomas1739 They did test it and decided not to as introducing a new cartridge and firearm system would be logistically hard in the midst of a war. Plus they proved less reliable and accurate than what you had. I imagine the fact you can kneel and crouch to load wasnt enough or fire faster. Remember, soldiers in 1860's had limited ammunution with them. They didnt have huge wagon trails at hand, so higher fire rate isnt always better. The Dreyse rifle winning the Prussian wars is a myth anyways. It was high levels of training and discipline and a superior officers corps and their rifled long range artillery that won them the wars vs Denmark and France and Austria. All wars mostly fought with trenches, fixed positions and very few open engagements where a muzzle loader is just as effective as you can load behind cover.

[@Flips2105]

​@@HaNsWiDjAjA the capandball channel got a video about the dreyse vs lorenz rifle. He got a different opinion about the system. Its interesting to see, that both rifles were accurate, gas leakage isn't a problem and its faster to load with the dreyse.

[@DonVitosLazyEye]

Would've loved to see how it was loaded from beginning to end..

[@matthewishunting]

right?!

[@UnholyLia]

Okay, stay with me. You open bolt, put cartride in, close bolt, fire

[@GizmoDuck_1860]

There's about a dozen videos out there, have a gander and you'll find them. To start you pull back the charging handle/striker/firing pin from the rear of the bolt, this cocks the action. The bolt is opened an a paper cartridge is loaded. The bolt is closed and the charger is pushed forward back into the bolt leaving the firing pin cocked

[@GizmoDuck_1860]

​@@UnholyLiaYou sound like the type of person who doesn't return their shopping trollies to the trolly bay after loading their car

[@farpointgamingdirect]

The Nadelgewehr was ahead of its time

[@parzival9307]

During the 2nd Schleswig war, the prussian armys needle rifles decimated the Danish army. Their superior rifles allowed them to cut down the Danish army which was fighting in line formations was getting cut down by their needle guns. That and the artillery. We never stood a real chance.

[@valorwarrior7628]

imagine, these were license-produced by Springfield and Harpers' Ferry Corp in the 1850s, and were caught by Samuel Colt, what could be the outcomes of the US Civil War?

[@patriot9455]

A bolt action rifle that could be fired 3 times as fast as the current technology battle rifle. Would our ATF have loved to call it a weapon of mass destruction and ban it because it can shoot so fast compared to the current technology of a smoothbore muzzle loader.

[@Account_abandoned-q7m]

1860s ATF when the Spencer carbine rolls in:

[@tomservo5347]

Amazing how the horrendous battle casualties during the American Civil War were caused by the rifled musket which was new, but still required the soldier to remain bolt upright to effectively reload. One side still had to attack and had to mass to bring superior firepower but the rifle gave the defender in trenches a huge advantage. A very old ordinance department general stuck with muzzleloaders on the premise the soldier would just waste ammunition if they were able to rapidly reload and fire without taking care to aim. (He wouldn't be the one having to stand up to massed volley rifle fire). The industrial North could have easily built repeaters on a mass scale but they didn't. (One also wants a war to last as long as possible to maximize war profits.) Nothing new under the sun.

[@thomasbaagaard]

American mythmaking at its finest. First of all rifle muskets had been around since the mid 1840ties and by the late 1850ties was the normal firearm in European armies. It was in no way a new thing by 1861. And plenty of armies where on their 2nd generation rifle musket. (that is what allowed the European powers to export like a million+ firearms to North America in 1861-63... ) 2nd. Using a rifle musket outside of point blank range require well trained marksman. Civil war soldiers where not trained in marksmanship at all. Most men didn't even fire their gun, before first using it in combat. And the result is that the typical combat range during the war was about 100yards. that is well within the range of smoothbore muskets. Extremely bad marksmanship is the exact issue, that resulted in the creation of the NRA postwar. 3rd. The federal government gave contracts to make Springfield riflemuskets to basically anyone who would take one. Less than half the ordered weapons where ever produced, and all of them where delivered way later that agreed. Not until mid 1864 had the main federal armies gotten rid of the huge numbers of old worn European guns and managed to only use Enfields and Springfields for the infantry in the main armies. And making a Springfield was a lot easier and like 3-5 times quicker than a repeater. The north did in no way have the industrial capacity to make repeating firearms in any relevant number. (no one did at this point in history... it took the prussians 20 years to produce the dreyse in sufficient numbers to arm their infantry with it)) And even if they had, there was no way to produce the metal cartridge needed in real numbers. Even with the limited number of repeating firearms used by the federal cavalry, most cavalrymen that had been armed with a spencer, where carrying fewer rounds than a infantryman with a Springfield. I will recommend the youtube channel www.youtube.com/@papercartridges6705 (it is run by a servicing US army officer (currently deployed), so its hard to claim a European bias. ) He cover the riflemusket and its lack of any real influence during the civil war in this vid. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4bQlolnmp2UgLM

[@caleblebaron1179]

prussian empire? what?

[@addictions_games2640]

It threw me off as well ahah. Sat here like wtf since when lmaooooo

[@hannesromhild8532]

It's an 1827 design and got adopted in 1836. maybe spend more then 5min on research!

[@thebasedspectre3048]

the french chassepot was better than the Dreyse

[@raftai665]

Way better. A pity the French didn't match the Prussian Krupp guns.

[@flyingpotatoe1]

True, but the Dreyse was intructed in 1841 The Chassepot came in 1869 And only after the Dreyse won the wars agains Denmark in 1864 and Austria in 1866 the rest of the world woke up

[@thomasbaagaard]

@@flyingpotatoe1The wars in 1864 and 1866 was won despite of the dreyse, not because of it. It had a bad effective range, it was less accurate, less reliable, the ammo was way more delicate. The only thing it got going for it was a higher rate of fire, that was only really relevant at 100yards or less. The prussians knew this and was seriously worried about their men engaging in a long range firefight that was ineffective and resulted in them firing away all their ammo. To avoid this they had a serious focus on fire control, and only a close range and at the critical point in a fight was "schnellfeure" allowed. Luckily for the Prussian they first fought a minor power of Denmark. IT simply did not have the money or population to have a large well trained army. So way to often danish units tried to close with the bayonet... playing the the one advantage that the dreyse gave. And the typical Prussian battalion was simply way better trained, better disciplined, had its full number of nco's and sergeants, with only 80% of the privates giving the Prussians a clear upper hand in a theoretical 1-1 fight between two battalions. And in the end the Prussian rifled siegeartillery was the one thing that gave the decisive edge during the siege at Dybbøl. And the same is the case in 1866. Operational decisions was critical for Prussian success. Tactical flexibility at the lower levels was similar critical. And because of cost and the whole issue with a multiethnic empire, the Austrians had after their was against France in 1859 gone back to a tactical doctrine based around the bayonet. Again playing directly to the one advantage the dreyse had over the Lorenz riflemusket. Had the prussian been using a good riflemusket comparable to what was in common use, they would have managed just fine... especially considering that at point blank range a bullet from a large caliber riflemusket could hurt more than one guy. and the Austrians loved their tightly packed assault columns.

[@beersmurff]

@@flyingpotatoe1 The Dreyse rifle winning the Prussian wars is a myth anyways. It was high levels of training and discipline and a superior officers corps and their rifled long range artillery that won them the wars vs Denmark and France and Austria. All wars mostly fought with trenches, fixed positions and very few open engagements, places where a muzzle loader is just as effective as you can load behind cover. There is noted one single smaller engagement in the 2nd Schelswig war, where it is speculated that the bolt action made a difference. After the prussians landed on Als near Kær a danish detachment tried charging a Prussian smaller force in cover behind a stone fence. The Danes were slaughtered. All the major engagements were using storm trenches against fixed fortifications where artillery slowly battered the defenders as the Prussians had longer range and the final assault was done over shiort distance with no benefit to the bolt action. On the contrary, the Danish used Krag-joergensen could shoot further and more precise and was more reliable. And they had loaders and secondary rifles in the embankments allowing for just as fast a fire rate. The Prussians just overwhelmed the Danes and the Danes did a series of misfortune mistakes that cost them high casualties.