the blunderbess (blunderbuss) as eye candy and some history

 

1. Thank you Peiper, for reminding us that United States vs Miller, 1939, was inherently flawed and based on obviously false information. 72 years later that decision has yet to be overturned. A truly bold SCOTUS would have thrown out Miller with the DC v. Heller decision of 2008, which was exactly OPPOSITE the Miller finding. ("The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.")
   

   “It appears to me that Light Blunderbusses on account of the quantity of shot they will carry, will be preferable to Carbines, for Dragoons, as the Carbines only carry a single ball especially in case of close action.”

   George Washington, 1779 (see also this)

   So from the very beginning, the short barreled shotgun had a real, and an official, role in the US Military. Handy length shotguns continued to be used by horse mounted troops right up to the Civil War and far beyond - the postwar 1873 Springfield rifle had a “forager” shotgun version, built and issued to western troops on the orders of General Sherman, which was still being issued to troops as late as 1906. The various repeating scatterguns that were used from the 1880s until after WWI (Winchester models 93, 1897, and 12). All of these militarized guns had fairly short barrels, longer than what the troops really wanted, but since the guns used tubular magazines under the barrels, a little longer barrel gave you room for a couple extra shells in the magazine.

   Short barreled double barreled guns were used extensively by mounted troops in the Civil War. Unfortunately almost all of these were privately owned weapons, not military issue.
   After the war these handy little guns became known as coach guns, because they were used to defend stage coaches against robbers. Some had barrels less than a foot long.

   So on at least two points Miller‘s logic was completely wrong. GCA 68 and the BATFE’s prohibition against short barreled weapons stands ONLY on the Miller case; both are extension’s of that Socialist bastard FDR’s National Firearms Act of 1934, a bit of knee-jerk reactionary politics that still plagues us today. Note that that same Act also curtailed any number of firearms as “not having a legitimate sporting purpose” as if the 2nd Amendment was about duck hunting, EVEN THOUGH the Miller decision 5 years later was based solely on the idea that the only “legal” firearms were those with valid military use. It was another case of the Democrats having it both ways, using whatever viewpoint worked to their advantage at one moment in time, while blissfully ignoring the opposing viewpoint.

   Posted by Drew458       11/26/2011  at  12:48 PM  



2. The Union did a better job of quickly upgrading and standardizing volunteer weaponry, while the Confederacy fielded units equipped with as many as 20 different kinds of weapons at a time. This resulted in logistical problems involving ammunition procurement throughout the war, and officers complained about having to acquire myriad calibers just to keep their units equipped.

   And that wasn’t all the South lacked. And still .... it took the North 4 long bloody years, augmented by troops from foreign shores, to defeat the South.

   Posted by peiper       11/26/2011  at  01:40 PM  



3. Interesting site.

   If you are using the Fire Fox browser you can click on - View - then Page Style - then No Style to get a cut and past version of the page.

   My last MS version is IE-6 and in that one you can view the page source which is not a great way to cut and paste but will work in a pinch.  A newer IE may have better options.

   Posted by Wes       11/26/2011  at  03:11 PM  



4. I don’t think they were really trying Peiper. Or else it took until July 1863 for them to get serious about things. After that ...

   Posted by Drew458       11/27/2011  at  07:44 PM  



5. Oh, Don’t know about not trying. They (northern aggressors) were out generaled for awhile and those young Southerners were almost raised in a saddle and were after all, fighting for and on home ground. Young boys on both sides seeking glory before the gore but I never believed the northern troops in general were in it for any more then the perceived glory and the fight. Not too many fellows in north would have signed up and risk life an limb on behalf of slaves, who they were not all that well disposed toward as a people. As for the Reb., not very likely he would risk life and limb just so a few privileged aristocrats could enjoy their old bad habits. I’m speaking of the rank and file of course.

   Hey ... coincidence we’re on this subject here.  Radio program tonight at 8pm on the Confederate flag. BBC Radio 4. You might be able to catch it in 24 hours if interested.

   Posted by peiper       11/28/2011  at  11:44 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.