Interesting Confederate Gun

Saw this at a reenactment up the road the other day. Wasn't familiar with it. Called a Williams Gun. This is a firing replica that the owner had made. He was understandably quite proud of it.

As you can see, the gun can be swiveled left and right, and up and down. It's resting on its stop, but lifts off easily. The gun sights have the shooter holding it at roughly shoulder level. By crouching and swaying, the gun is moved.

According to the owner, one of these may be the first anti-aircraft gun, as there is a story of one shooting down a Union balloon.

It fires a 1 lb slug and uses a 1/4 lb powder charge. Breech loading, with recoil opening which supposedly makes it essentially recoilless (I did not see it fire, so I can't offer any comment on this) With the crew it can fire upwards of 60 rounds per minute. The cycling action is by the rotating crank on the right. Though it requires basically three people at least for crewing at that rate. One or two on the right to load in the slugs and powder, one on the left for the primer, and then the shooter.

Quite an interesting piece! Apparently very few were made and very little action was seen by them. But if more had been built, it could have been quite a game changer for the Confederates.

I did civil war reenactments and was heavy into civil war history for about 10 years, but I have never seen one of those before. I assume it was a late war innovation.

Super cool. It looks like an adaption of a burnside carbine/sharps style breech to a cannon. Neato.

Very cool! There are several videos on Youtube showing the firing mechanism:

Link 1

Link 2

In reply to foxtrapper:

From what you saw do you really think it could fire at "upwards of 60 rounds per minute"? I can't imagine how all the firing process could be accomplished in 1 sec. or less no matter how many men were in the crew. UNLESS there's a "clip" or magazine that's not shown. I'd surely like to see it!

Ask and you shall receive. Good ole youtube. Here's a good video of it being fired. Definitely less than 60 shots per min but still impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-3Fsjf1iwE

Graefin10 wrote: In reply to foxtrapper: From what you saw do you really think it could fire at "upwards of 60 rounds per minute"? I can't imagine how all the firing process could be accomplished in 1 sec. or less no matter how many men were in the crew. UNLESS there's a "clip" or magazine that's not shown. I'd surely like to see it!

I came late, so I missed the show and didn't see it being fired. Could a well practiced crew achieve a 60 rounds per minute firing rate, under ideal conditions? Possibly. Maybe even probably. In "real life", no.

Very interesting find. The Civil War seemed to have been a huge leap forward in weaponry. And it seems like for all the real leaps forward, there were a ton of other what-if weapons that seemed to fall into two categories:

1. If they'd been built in larger quantities and people figured out suitable tactics for them, make you wonder how the course of history would have been different.

2. Were way beyond the technical capability of their time, and came up with some truly spectacular (and often horrifying) ways to fail.

Cool to see an example of the former in action.

I'm glad that I didn't fight in the Civil War.

I used to have a Civil War Calvary gun that was a 72 caliber carbine. It had a detachable stock that turned it into a pistol. I shot it once like that and it pretty much knocked me down. I can't imagine shooting it on a horse, nor why you needed a caliber that size. It shot a HUGE chunk of lead and if I remember correctly, something like 100 grains to get it out of the barrel.

I found a picture of what it looks like to get hit by one:

We had one at the museum at work. Interesting breech block design considering it came from an agricultural society. The North had better industry and they didn't think of it. With the metallography available at the time, that's an impressive piece.

Dan

racerdave600 wrote: I used to have a Civil War Calvary gun that was a 72 caliber carbine. It had a detachable stock that turned it into a pistol. I shot it once like that and it pretty much knocked me down. I can't imagine shooting it on a horse, nor why you needed a caliber that size. It shot a HUGE chunk of lead and if I remember correctly, something like 100 grains to get it out of the barrel.

72 sounds pre-civil war. Not that it couldn't have been used, but .72 was more common in Mex war and earlier.

http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/springfield-1855-pistol-carbine-us.htm <-- most Civil war muzzle loaders were .577 or .58 by the end of the war.

In the beginning, it was anything that could push lead even old War of 1812 flintlocks converted to percussion were still around.

That looks like it! Thanks for the pics and info. I have never seen another since I sold that one many years ago. The years could very well be true, the story I heard about mine and others was that the confederate Calvary used them. Agreed on the .58cal, I had one of those as well, a Springfield I believe. At one point I had a lot of black powder guns, but they all left a little at a time to fund race tires! I even had a Napoleon III 12 pounder that I pulled behind my Jeep.

Thanks again Fueled.

Wow.

Very neat. I grew up around Civil War history and don't remember that one. My personal favorite cannon from that era was the Witworth.

There were a number of 'advanced' weapons of the time that could have possibly shortened the war if the North had pushed their use. Breach-loading rifles, repeating rifles, etc. Even the Henry (similar to the Winchester) was around back then. Why the North still pushed using muzzle-loaders has been a subject of debate for decades.

914Driver wrote: We had one at the museum at work. Interesting breech block design considering it came from an agricultural society. The North had better industry and they didn't think of it. With the metallography available at the time, that's an impressive piece. Dan

To me the greatest irony is the North had access to all kinds of advanced weapons and was so reluctant to use them, like the Spencer carbine, Henry rifle and the gatling gun, because they would "waste ammunition".

Second greatest irony is the army that freed the black man went west after the war to eliminate the red man.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:

I have an original 1861 Springfield and a reproduction(euro arms)Enfield that had been previously used for reenacting but have sat for about 15 years. Any advice on any clean up they might need before being used again and where to find the appropriate consumables?

neon4891 wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: I have an original 1861 Springfield and a reproduction(euro arms)Enfield that had been previously used for reenacting but have sat for about 15 years. Any advice on any clean up they might need before being used again and where to find the appropriate consumables?

I'm happy to help. I love smoke poles. What are the issues? What do you need for cleanup? I can help more after work.

I used to buy a great deal of my uniform and kit from http://www.regtqm.com/. Another good source is http://dixiegunworks.com/ if you want just black powder related items.

spitfirebill wrote: To me the greatest irony is the North had access to all kinds of advanced weapons and was so reluctant to use them, like the Spencer carbine, Henry rifle and the gatling gun, because they would "waste ammunition".

Early war, yes. Spencer's and the like weren't available at scale(some were not even invented and the production volume was low). Many of these arm's like Burnside's and Sharp's and spencer's all required unique and hard to get ammunition. While a mini ball and powder was always available.

End of the war there were whole units equipped with Spencer's and Henry's.

Don't even talk about berdan. The man was a chump and coward.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: To me the greatest irony is the North had access to all kinds of advanced weapons and was so reluctant to use them, like the Spencer carbine, Henry rifle and the gatling gun, because they would "waste ammunition".

Early war, yes. Spencer's and the like weren't available at scale(some were not even invented and the production volume was low). Many of these arm's like Burnside's and Sharp's and spencer's all required unique and hard to get ammunition. While a mini ball and powder was always available. End of the war there were whole units equipped with Spencer's and Henry's.

I forgot to add that some units bought their own weapons. Bulldog Butler bought his own Gatling Guns.

Question about the usefulness of the originally posted gun:

It seems impressive, but is it really that useful? I mean, it shoot a rather large projectile, but no where near the size of a cannonball and is almost certainly not explosive. Effectively its a huge rifle. It seems reminiscent to the later anti-material / anti-tank rifles.

Yes, it would mess someone up if it hit them, but so does a rifle ball. I am certain it has a longer range, but sniping with it at range seems unlikely. It seems to me the real usefulness of it over a rifle would be the ability to punch through a number of people in a firing line, although, realistically, that probably pretty unlikely. Maybe punching through obstacles?

Also, if you watch the video. Does it bother anyone that they look to be pointing this rather powerful weapon (shooting blanks I am sure) almost DIRECTLY at some people? Heck, most will find pointing unloaded weapons at people a very bad idea, so pointing and firing a cannon?!?!

In reply to aircooled:

The reenactment people are very, very, careful about that sort of thing, IIRC they don't even allow ramrods on the field.

Woody wrote: I'm glad that I didn't fight in the Civil War.

Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.

spitfirebill wrote: To me the greatest irony is the North had access to all kinds of advanced weapons and was so reluctant to use them, like the Spencer carbine, Henry rifle and the gatling gun,

Gatlin was a Doctor and was sad to see so many wounded soldiers headed home with missing limbs etc. He invented the most terrifying gun ever to end all wars.

Too bad it didn't work ....

Kenny_McCormic wrote: , IIRC they don't even allow ramrods on the field.

Nope. they are allowed, but not allowed to be drawn. Maybe this has changed, but I was at all the big 135th reenactments and some of the big 140th.

Don't draw a bayonet as well.

It's a dangerous game. I've seen people get thrown from horses, officers nearly kill themselves with their own swords, old fat guys fall over and die from heart attacks(running, overweight, 95 deg heat, 4 layers of wool), pleople shot with cannons, and a drum pierced with a flying tompion.

<-- basically a barrel plug to keep out moisture. Those aren't allowed on the field anymore.