Okay, unusual mercenaries. Got it.
Incidentally, what nationality would most of them be? Germans seem promising, but WWI is looming at this point. Locals?
And for perimeter defenses: At this time, it was still giant trees and branches hauled around the camp, right?
A fairly popular competitor of the Gatling gun in the last quarter of the 19th century, particularly outside the US, was the Nordenfelt gun.
Regarding grenades – Grenades as we think of them today (a standard bomb, ready for use, just pull the pin and throw) were a WWI invention. The concept had been around since the middle ages, though, as something resembling the round black bomb traditionally seen in cartoons. An expedition could potentially whip up something similar if needed – filling a flask with black powder, or simply flinging bundles of dynamite.
I’ll agree with Scumpup that most scientific expeditions of the time would have found standard rifles and pistols to be sufficient for their purposes, and vastly more mobile than the automatic weapons of the era, which were big enough to usually be carriage mounted. The overwhelming tendency of the era would be to underestimate the threat posed by “uncivilized” forces until a few massacres of Little Big Horn or Isandlwana proportions would force them to take notice.
That said if the expedition were facing a hostile and fearless force of Zulu proportions, or were run by someone sufficiently bellicose and wealthy, there’d be no real legal obstacles to deploying weapons up to light artillery size, just cost and weight.
Perimeter defense in the era, even against rampaging tribes, was typically people keeping watch all night with rifles (see the story of the maneating lions of Tsavo for a potentially inspirational scenario). Barbed wire fencing might not be out of the question for a permanent base, but would be heavy to lug in and time consuming to set up. The mines that Thrash mentions were fortress defense weapons, and not intended to be portable.
And what about pulling barbed thorns and trees around the perimeter?
If you’re placing this in central Africa, you’re not terribly far from Ottoman Turk territory. Why not have your expedition simply hire some veterans from the Ottoman army before venturing into the hinterlands? Or, your expedition can hire some really cool veteran officer, he can be pretty much any nationality that would tickle you, and he recruits/drills his own men.
What about hiring a Great White Hunter? I know they come into play around the early 1900s, but this is only a couple of years from then. And the expedition is wildlife based, so…
How educated about nature were scientists back then? Would they make rookie mistakes like camping by water, or on a game trail, or leaving food out at night?
Defense of your perimeter is where the training pays off. As shown in the movie “Zulu,” a greatly outnumbered force armed with breechloading single shots can effectively defend themselves from makeshift fortifications by dint of training and discipline.
And would scientists make rookie mistakes as above? From movies, it seems they do.
Depends on the scientists. Some were accomplished outdoorsmen. Others not so. Just like today. Write it whichever way suits you. You’ll have to account for why bush-savvy locals and guides would allow them to make really poor choices, though.
They won’t. I was just going to use bad decisions to highlight how oblivious the “smart” scientists can be.
Back on topic: If I choose to use one of the GWH, what’s a good example of a famous hunter who can be referred to in the story?
Is your scientific expedition expecting… unusual dangers? Like Carl Denham bringing along a stock of gas bombs? If what you’re looking for is what an 1895 expedition to some sort of Lost World could arm themselves with, then pretty much what’s been suggested: military breechloading rifles for merely man-sized opponents, heavy game rifles for tougher creatures, and large-caliber revolvers for if things get ugly up close. Maybe the very earliest prototype semi-automatic handguns existed, but would have serious reliability issues. Some sort of automatic weapon such as a gatling or maxim would be available, but would depend heavily on transportation issues: going upriver in a steam launch is one thing, traveling through heavy jungle on foot is another. Barbed wire and mines would be just too much to carry except to an established outpost through a cleared and secure route. Grenades simply hadn’t advanced beyond the anarchist’s shell and fuse, or dynamite with blasting caps.
Just a note about shooting elephants in the head: Don’t.
The massive skull has a lot of sinus that absorbs the shock of a round, regadless how large, and provides a bit of cover for the brain.
The kill shot on an elepahnt is the shoulder, where a large number of nerves and blood vessels mean that most wounds will induce shock quickly while encouraging a fairly quck bleed out.
Very good, Lumpy. It seems you hit the nail on the head.
Or rather, shoulder.
Tomndebb, could this be applied to other large animals with thick skulls? Say, Hippos? Rhinos? Do we aim for their shoulders, too?
And stuff that’s bigger than an elephant?
And what might a seasoned hunter’s reaction be to an unreliable prototype semi-automatic pistol? Probably mockery at its problems, right?
I just happen to have that elephant factoid floating around. I have no idea where the kill shots for other beasts are. (Nothing is going to have the same massive sinus structure of an elephant, so head shots might do OK. The traditional movie method of dispatching hippos is to shooot down their throats, but then they are always attacking with their mouths wide open. No idea what reality is like.)
A traditional hunter of the era wouldn’t have had much of an opinion one way or the other on the new automatic pistols. Handgun hunting is largely a product of the 20th century.
Okay, thanks for all the help guys! I think I just about exhausted weaponry, although if anyone wants to share something interesting…
And as for the best ways to kill large animals: I believe this topic deserves its own thread, complete with an over the top scientific title.
"commonly available? “explosives”?
As far as being available, an American citizen could buy any weapon in the world until late 1934 when the first gun law taxed/outlawed short shotguns, machine guns, and a few other things.
Prior to late 1934, anybody in America could legally buy a machine gun if you wanted one, no questions asked, no forms to fill out, and we could even do it all by mail.
Prior to 1934, civilians could, and did, own just about any weapon there was, and typically, civilians were BETTER armed than our US Army. I know my own family owned repeating handguns and repeating rifles decades before they were issued to most United States soldiers. My family owned repeating Winchesters, Henrys, and Colt revolvers just about as soon as they were invented in the 1800’s, while United States soldiers typically used single shot rifles until well into the 1900’s.
As far as explosives, mortars, bazookas, etc , they were not outlawed/taxed until 1968. In 1968 I could have bought a mortar for $19.99, or a bazooka for $59.99, with rockets/shells costing about $5 each, and ordered them thru the mail. I almost did, except I didnt know what I would do with it.
In the war of 1812, American civilians owned battleships/warships (the most powerful weapon in the world at the time), and various early presidents of the United States frequently asked civilians for help.
Dynamite was not federally controlled until 1970, prior to 1970, anybody, including my family , could, and did but dynamite at the local hardware store. My family used dynamite, that we bought from the local hardware store, to blow up stumps on our property.
The “real” answer to your question, is that, until very recently (1934/1968) an American citizen could have any weapon he wanted if he had the money to pay for it.
Here’s my guaranteed historically-accurate-only-by-accident dialogue contribution: "Pistol? Pistol? Look, matey, you just give me a decent rifle and backup and nothing’s going to come close enough to be able to hit with a pistol. " <Goes off muttering about idiot scientists who want to invite the lion close enough to shake hands before trying to defend themselves…>