Talk:Armstrong gun

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / British / European B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Different guns?

I was under the impression that "Armstrong gun" referred specifically to the innovative design of of the RBL (rifled breech loaders) that Armstrong designed and which the UK government abandoned after using them 1859 - 1870. The muzzle-loaders built by the Elswick Ordnance Company, while technically designed and built under the Armstrong umbrella, were a different type of gun altogether. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, though I have seen Armstrong muzzle-loaders referred to as Armstrong guns. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. What info I can find calls the muzzle loaders built using the Armstrong method of compound barrel construction (as these muzzle loaders are) Armstrong guns. User:Shoka not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.67 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement guns

This article needs to discuss the reasons for the introduction of the 7 inch RML to replace the Armstrong 110-pdr after Kagoshima. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Disappearing Gun

No mention of the Armstrong Disappearing Gun of which there are several preserved in New Zealand; see Disappearing gun Hugo999 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guns bursting

The article claims the guns were safe, commenting that none burst when fired. I can't say whether that is true or not, but the problem with them seems to have been the breech locking mechanism. cc penrose Fitzgerald in his memoirs described the 40 pounder breech loader as 'two muzzle guns, what shoots inwards' with a reputation amongst the crew as being dangerous. the article on the RBL 7 inch Armstrong gun has a couple of quotes on the point. It was suggested that failures were due to crews improperly operating the guns, but then arguably a difficult gun to operate is anyway an unsafe one. Sandpiper (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Armstrong BL guns were apparently "safe" if operated and maintained to parade-ground standards. The barrels themselves did not burst, but that appears to have been as much a function of their low power as their sound consatruction technique. What was missing were what later came to be accepted as necessary built-in safety checks which prevented a gun from firing if it had not been correctly loaded and the breech correctly secured. Also missing was a level of gunner training and technical awareness necessary to safely maintain and operate breechloaders - higher standards were required than for muzzle-loaders. Sucessful combat operations of breechloaders required both, and the builtin-safety issue was addressed in the 1880s generation of breechloaders, but it took longer to change the prevailing culture to one of technical excellence. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision needed

I believe myself to be a good reader, but I was confused by the "see below" in "it was not uncommon for cast iron muzzle-loaders to burst (see below)". I cannot identify what this is referring to, since I cannot see any other reference in the entire article to how common it was for muzzle-loaders to burst. Was there a section that has since been removed? 2601:441:8380:586:843F:BFE:B106:43CC (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armstrong Gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713065737/http://www.ringmar.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=814%3Aengels-qof-rifled-cannonq-1860&catid=98%3Awonders-of-technology&Itemid=142 to http://www.ringmar.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=814%3Aengels-qof-rifled-cannonq-1860&catid=98%3Awonders-of-technology&Itemid=142

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armstrong Gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong terminology

The wrong terminology is used under the heading "Return to muzzle-loading guns". The "hang fire" should be "fail to fire". Opening the breach to clear a hang fire would result in the combustion of the powder in the gunner's face. The link to "hang fire" clearly describes the action of a DELAY in firing.