Why firearms took centuries to improve
Metallurgy, chemistry and ammunition: why the arquebus took centuries to evolve, from 1521 to the 19th-century metallic cartridge
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The arquebus's long stagnation: metallurgy, chemistry and ammunition
In 1521, the chronicles of the French commander Monluc record a skirmish at Fuenterrabía: his crossbowmen could not pierce the Spanish armour, while the enemy arquebusiers carried 40 bullets and powder. The crossbowmen had barely 10 bolts. The lesson: the problem was not the rate of fire (a bow shoots more arrows per minute), but the capacity to carry ammunition and peine power. That paradox – slow but lethal weapons – persisted for almost four centuries.
The metallurgical and chemical bottleneck
Until the late 19th century, handheld firearms were muzzle-loaders. Each shot required two minutes of reloading: cleaning, measuring powder, inserting the bullet. Metallurgy could not produce barrels able to withstand higher pressures; iron ones burst and bronze ones were extremely expensive and heavy. Black powder, moreover, generated less pressure than the smokeless powder that would come later. Without reliable barrels or powerful propellants, there was no room for innovation.
The shape of the bullet also held back development. A sphere is easy to manufacture but very un-aerodynamic; modern bullets require manufacturing precision that did not exist. Internal rifling – which improves range and accuracy – was not viable until homogeneous steels were mastered.
The silent revolution of the metallic cartridge
The real leap came not from the weapon but from the ammunition. Paper cartridges were already used in the Napoleonic wars, but still required muzzle-loading. The metallic cartridge – a small disposable percussion musket – appeared in the mid-19th century. Once standardised, everything else trinc: repeating firearms, revolvers, bolt-action rifles. The Dutch had already taken the step around 1630 with interchangeable parts and minimal tolerances, but mass production and modern chemistry (guncotton, smokeless powder) were the trigger.
A final irony is pointed out by one fact: with guncotton, the battlefield was clear after the first volleys. You could see the result. And there were far more deaths. But that is another story.
Most shared
Related discussions in the forum
In 1521, the chronicles of the French commander Monluc record a skirmish at Fuenterrabía: his crossbowmen could not pierce the Spanish armour, while the enemy arquebusiers carried 40 bullets and powder. The crossbowmen had barely 10 bolts. The lesson: the problem was not the rate of fire (a bow shoots more arrows per minute), but the capacity to carry ammunition and peine power. That paradox – slow but lethal weapons – persisted for almost four centuries.
The metallurgical and chemical bottleneck
Until the late 19th century, handheld firearms were muzzle-loaders. Each shot required two minutes of reloading: cleaning, measuring powder, inserting the bullet. Metallurgy could not produce barrels able to withstand higher pressures; iron ones burst and bronze ones were extremely expensive and heavy. Black powder, moreover, generated less pressure than the smokeless powder that would come later. Without reliable barrels or powerful propellants, there was no room for innovation.
The shape of the bullet also held back development. A sphere is easy to manufacture but very un-aerodynamic; modern bullets require manufacturing precision that did not exist. Internal rifling – which improves range and accuracy – was not viable until homogeneous steels were mastered.
The silent revolution of the metallic cartridge
The real leap came not from the weapon but from the ammunition. Paper cartridges were already used in the Napoleonic wars, but still required muzzle-loading. The metallic cartridge – a small disposable percussion musket – appeared in the mid-19th century. Once standardised, everything else trinc: repeating firearms, revolvers, bolt-action rifles. The Dutch had already taken the step around 1630 with interchangeable parts and minimal tolerances, but mass production and modern chemistry (guncotton, smokeless powder) were the trigger.
A final irony is pointed out by one fact: with guncotton, the battlefield was clear after the first volleys. You could see the result. And there were far more deaths. But that is another story.
Most shared
Related discussions in the forum
- The war propaganda thread · 174 replies
- War paintings: my blog of war painting and military illustration · 501 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (14 replies).
More summaries
-
European beauty isn't accidental: it's capital, history, and climate
European beauty isn't a whim: wealth, the Industrial Revolution, and climate explain the aesthetics of the old continent. An analysis with figures and...
-
Dresden 1945: The Firestorm the Allies Never Explained
The 1945 bombing of Dresden: 4,000 tons of bombs, a firestorm, and an eternal debate over whether it was a war crime or military necessity.
-
Romania: the golden age that an earthquake brought down
Romania's golden age: territorial expansion, oil and Art Deco. An earthquake in 1940 and communism buried that splendour.
-
ETA and GAL: two arms of the same Gladio network in Spain
Investigation linking ETA and GAL as arms of the same NATO Gladio network, with drug trafficking funding and CIA control.
-
Cape Verde: the independence that still stings in Portugal
Should Cape Verde have remained Portuguese? The debate over the archipelago's independence, central to colonial nostalgia and historical resentment.
-
How Frankish migration reshaped medieval Spain
The massive arrival of Franks in the Middle Ages left an administrative and cultural model that endures today: provinces, autonomous communities and a hybrid institutional DNA.