# Puckle Gun Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 29, 2026, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461 "2026-09-29T05:38:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/21 "2026-09-29T15:32:56Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > Except in this design, because the breech cylinder for square shot has explicitly square cross-section chambers, so there’s no way to wad to the full circular diameter. Understood but, keep in mind, it was “this design” that I am looking at. Also, some seem to agree with my guess that you would have a “knuckleball” for a bullet. I read that the square bullets were highly impractical. Their sharp edges and uneven shape caused them to tumble and spin unpredictably in flight, making the gun very inaccurate. I’m guessing that’s why they were never mass produced or used in combat. Having said that, I’d be remiss in not acknowledging that you, with your modern advanced knowledge of firearms and ballistics, could produce a better functioning Puckle Gun. It would be interesting to play with it on a firing range. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/22 "2026-09-29T15:34:08Z")
> [@Dorjan](#): > > Why, triangle bullets, of course. Damn, I’d need even more wadding! LOL ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/23 "2026-09-29T16:15:37Z")
A modern take would use a sabot to encase the round all the way down the barrel, and probably some kind of fin stabilization to help prevent tumble (I don’t know of rifling spin would help much). In other words, more like a fin-stabilized discarding sabot antitank round where the “arrow” has a square cross-section. But a modern take would be as pointless as the original idea. You can engineer around the obvious flaws, but you can’t engineer a good answer to the stated requirement itself. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/24 "2026-09-29T16:20:29Z")
I believe the original question was not “should it be done, and how”, but “has anyone else tried to create a version of this square bullet gun?”. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/25 "2026-09-29T16:22:48Z")
The lack of answer is the answer. Apparently, the idea was sufficiently dumb at first glance that not only was it never done again, it was never done the first time. The only two prototypes built were normal round-shot models. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/26 "2026-09-29T16:26:00Z")
In the past, “dumbness” has not been the deciding factor when it comes to whether something should be made and/or has been made. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/27 "2026-09-29T16:30:54Z")
“Dumbness” is a colloquial engineering term. It is generally used in a requirements context to mean “insufficient functional value to justify the effort required to implement it.” Especially when the stated reasoning is spurious, such as the religion bigotry in this case. If I’m designing a terror weapon, I still want it to be a decent weapon. The performance compromises necessary to make a “square bullet” work would reduce the range and accuracy of the gun, and “hurting non-Christians” matters nothing if your objective is just outright kill them. Hence, “dumb”. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/28 "2026-09-29T16:33:02Z")
Witness the Edsel! LOL I’m afraid that, in this case, the motivation for production was for “them loving Christians” to torture and maim “them Musim heathens”, thus showing them how a “religion of love” should be expressed. Fortunately, that production never happened. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/29 "2026-09-29T16:47:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In the past, “dumbness” has not been the deciding factor when it comes to whether something should be made and/or has been made. True in the cases where something we now think of as dumb in @gnoitall 's sense was tried. Or at least tried on paper. You’re right that enough of that went on that we still have the records, patent and otherwise, to prove it. Fanciful flying machines, ridiculous carriages, perpetual motion machines enough to fill a _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ warehouse, etc. But there are almost certainly millions more of dumb inventions that were never tried. The first contact with reality stopped the inventor in their tracks. My view is Puckle’s square-section gun barrel and ammo was an example of such. Absence of evidence of other square-section guns is not logical _proof_ of their nonexistence. But at some point the lack of evidence becomes preponderant. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/30 "2026-09-29T17:05:56Z")
As a side note, here is a video of a punt gun shooting cubes: [Bing Videos](https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=guns%20that%20shoot%20square%20bullets&mid=88C2866F0F55969511B988C2866F0F55969511B9&ajaxhist=0) ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/31 "2026-09-29T17:20:45Z")
> [@Dorjan](#): > > Why, triangle bullets, of course. The actual **bullet** is round, but triangular rounds exist(ed). More specifically, a rounded-off Reuleaux triangle, which is the other shape in the trivia question “besides circular, what shape can you make a manhole cover so that it can’t fall into the hole?” > **[Dardick tround](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround)** > > The Dardick tround, or simply tround (triangular round), is a unique firearms cartridge developed by inventor David Dardick for use in his open-chamber firearms. Named for its convex triangular shape, the tround allowed the firearm's chamber to be open on one side, removing the requirement for reciprocating motion when chambering and ejecting a cartridge. It was used in several revolvers: the 10-tround Dardick Model 1100, the 11 or 15-tround Model 1500—and the 20-tround Model 2000. Dardick (an a... ---
**Author:** ![jnglmassiv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f07891/32.png) [@jnglmassiv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jnglmassiv)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/32 "2026-09-29T18:03:49Z")
Snicker, as though Puckle wasn’t funny enough, from the wiki: > a Puckle gun at [Buckler’s Hard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckler's_Hard "Buckler's Hard") ---
**Author:** ![Humbagger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/db5fbb/32.png) [@Humbagger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Humbagger)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/33 "2026-09-29T19:05:33Z")
> [@Chelonaut](#): > > The square bullets were considered to be more painful and would cause greater severe wounding. > [@Chelonaut](#): > > If square bullets were really more effective, wouldn’t you want to use them against all kinds of enemies. Not if your mind is the kind of cesspool that holds the opinion that some of your enemies are worthy of some form of compassion, and possibly even mercy, whereas others are worthless and deserve to suffer horribly before dying. In other words, racism ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461/34 "2026-09-29T19:48:46Z")
Yep. The difference between shooting humans and sub-humans appears quickly to certain kinds of minds. Lotta that going around these days. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/puckle-gun-question/1033461.md?page=1)