Food for thought?

[cmgee67]

I have been thinking about this and decided to take it to the forum.

How much different do you think the battle
Of the Alamo would have been if 20 of the men inside had Ar-15's and a Glock 19?

[C-dub]

I also think about odd stuff like this from time to time.

What if there would have been one or two people like Chris Kyle with his rifle back in the American Revolution? Picking off the officers back then was devastating to an army more than than now.

There was even a movie made about stuff like this, but on a larger scale. The Final Countdown The USS Nimitz back in WWII.

20 guys with ARs and enough ammo might have been able to stop Santa Anna right there since they would have been able to engage them beyond the range of any of their rifles and far more accurately within the range of their rifles. IMHO

[MeMelYup]

If the people inside had AR's why wouldn't the people outside have them also. It was the 1830's. The revolver hasn't been invented yet.

How about AR's in the civil war?

[JustSomeOldGuy]

For those that like this sort of read, I recommend;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-GB and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_the_South
The "Grantville Series" from Baen books by Eric Flint and others is also entertaining and thought provoking.

[C-dub]

If the people inside had AR's why wouldn't the people outside have them also.

Because 20 Texans went back in time to mess with History. It's one of those time travel things that hurts my head if I think about it too much.

[pushpullpete]

If the people inside had AR's why wouldn't the people outside have them also. It was the 1830's. The revolver hasn't been invented yet.

How about AR's in the civil war?

Actually, revolvers were invented in the early 1800's (not sure when but before 1830) it was a flintlock revolver.

[Dadtodabone]

If the people inside had AR's why wouldn't the people outside have them also. It was the 1830's. The revolver hasn't been invented yet.

How about AR's in the civil war?

Actually, revolvers were invented in the early 1800's (not sure when but before 1830) it was a flintlock revolver.

There were revolving cylinder firearms, both practical and not, as far back as the 17th century. An Italian inventor came up with the cap and ball design in 1833, though he declined to file for patents. Sam Colts virtually identical design received U.S. patent approval in 1835, with production beginning in 1836. First revolver with metallic cartridge, 1854.

[pushpullpete]

Ok, I couldn't let it go. My OCD kicked in & I had to go online and make sure I was remembering correctly. (I heard it somewhere.) Now, we all know that if it's online it must be true hahaha but this is what I found.

The first revolver patent that I can find reference to (wikipedia) was in 1814 by Elisha Collier. It was a flintlock. It also says that the first known revolvers were made in the late 16th century in Europe (I had no idea).

[pushpullpete]

Dadtodabone, thanks. I figured someone smarter than I would know. While you were posting I was still checking & typing. Very slow typist is an understatement.

[cmgee67]

I personally think we could have won the Alamo had just a handful hand modern weapons with unlimited ammo

[The Annoyed Man]

It was either Carlos Hathcock or Chuck Mawhinney that single handed held up, and then turned back, an entire NVA battalion with accurate long range rifle fire. The Kentucky long rifles of the day, while certainly being about as accurate as the technology allowed for at the time, had nowhere near the accuracy and range of a modern .308 bolt gun. A qualified sniper might have been able to decapitate the Mexican leadership by sniping Sanata Ana himself, a few of his higher ranking officers, and the crews serving his artillery, and thereby breaking the will of his army to press the attack. Tracer rounds fired into powder kegs would have had an interesting effect. Even an AR15 has a greater effective range than an infantry musket of the day, so if the Mexican soldiers could be picked off before they could get in musket range, yeah, it could have ended differently.

[karder]

This last Saturday I visited Gonzalez, Texas and saw the famous "come and take it" cannon. Weapons have certainly come a long way in a very short time. From everything I have read about the Alamo, but the time the Mexicans made their final assault, Col. Travis and his men had exhausted the bulk of their powder, bullets and balls and were shooting rocks and scrap metal out of their cannons. The 13 day siege without the needed reinforcements had the defenders low on just about everything. Considering the slow nature of reloading the rifles and cannons of the day, it would have been hard for the defenders to repel the thousands of Mexicans who were storming them even if they had adequate supplies, but I believe it is nearly certain that given their entrenched position, if they had auto-loading rifles and a healthy supply of ammo, they would not have been overrun...Unless the Mexicans had modern weapons as well, of course.