1730s flintlock grenade launcher - GIF

1730s flintlock grenade launcher.

<video controls autoplay loop>
<source src="https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/tooltalk_17231428404978.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>


Previously:

Grenade cut in half - photo
Grenade launcher-launched drone - photo
Grenade training demonstration fail - GIF
Grenade volley gun - GIF
Honeywell hand-cranked grenade launcher - GIF

You can built your own:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6N2IJccZy4

I would have expected a little more recoil from it. Must be the slower burn of the black power and to demonstrate, as smaller firing charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albertq

I would have expected a little more recoil from it. Must be the slower burn of the black power and to demonstrate, as smaller firing charge.

---

There isn't a tight fit of the grenade to the barrel, so some of the expanding gas will escape and negate the felt recoil. The grenade, when fired, didn't go very far, so your observation on small firing charge is reasonable. Yes, black powder doesn't burn as fast as smokeless powders, but it is all well converted to expanding gas in a small fraction of time, before the grenade exits the very short barrel. If it were still burning, there would have been flames exiting or a smoke cloud when fired.

Notice that he carefully set the grenade into the barrel. You don't want to crush the powder nor compact it. Crushing the powder makes it have much more surface area so it burns faster. Compacting the powder makes the gases build more pressure and the combustion chamber (the tube before the large diameter tube at the end of the launcher - good view at 0:25 when he is polishing) is not thick walled, so it isn't designed for much pressure.

We don't get to see how much powder he loads, but my guess is not that much, maybe the size of a ball load for a rifle (just judging by powder tipping time at 2:53). The second powder charge is for the pan at 3:00.

For the short range he managed, a simpler, safer mechanical device might work as well. Something like the arbalest, a cross bow on steroids.

For comparison, the Olympic women's shot weighs 4 kg. and throw distances exceed 70 feet. A practiced infantry man might be able to throw the grenade 50 feet or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

For the short range he managed, a simpler, safer mechanical device might work as well. Something like the arbalest, a cross bow on steroids.

For comparison, the Olympic women's shot weighs 4 kg. and throw distances exceed 70 feet. A practiced infantry man might be able to throw the grenade 50 feet or so.

---

Well, those will work, but grenades go back to the 700's (recorded uses, including but not only Greek Fire). Those first grenades were thrown by hand or were used in slingshots and trebuchets and like. The first mortars recorded were in the 1400's. The idea of combining grenades with a hand held mortar like device would be a natural progression. The idea of using a propellant to make the projectile go further would have been attractive.

I'd bet that they designed the hand held grenade launcher to toss the grenade far further than this fellow was going to show on his video.

Then the tools progresed to the Congreve Rocket (a rocket propelled grenade or a rocket bomb) in the 1800's. (the rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air, ...)