When is the earliest date military technology transfer by time travel should work?

They had “machine guns” in the Civil War. They weren’t true machine guns (hence the quotes) but they did have hand cranked weapons like the Gatling Gun that you mentioned, as well as a handful of lesser known weapons like the Agar Gun, and a few other oddballs that weren’t hand cranked.

There were two major issues, though.

The first issue is that brass was difficult to make, and making enough cartridges to feed a machine gun was extremely difficult and extremely expensive. Cartridge weapons really took off after the Civil War due to advances in brass production that occurred in the 1870s. Without the ability to produce cheap brass cartridges, machine guns were too expensive to operate. There were a few weapons with a high rate of fire that were shown to Abraham Lincoln, and while the President was very impressed with them, the Army turned them down and refused to adopt them because they knew it would be too much of a logistical strain to field any of them.

The second issue, which is somewhat related to the first, is that they didn’t know how to use machine guns. Because ammunition was so expensive, they didn’t use them on the battlefield. Instead, they used them to guard choke points like bridges and passes, where their high rate of fire could be maximized against the enemy. As such, the few “machine gun” type weapons that were fielded saw very little real use during the Civil War and overall didn’t have much of an effect on the battlefield.

When they finally stared using the Maxim Gun on the battlefield, it changed the nature of war dramatically, ushering in the era of trench warfare.

It’s not enough to teach them how to make a machine gun. You have to teach your Civil War era ammunition producers how to make cheap brass if you want the weapon to be practical. Otherwise your machine gun is just an extremely expensive weapon that they can’t afford to field in any significant numbers.

And if you do somehow teach them to make cheap brass, you also have to convince them that the weapon is actually a game changer on the battlefield and shouldn’t just be used defensively at choke points.

This was a big issue, even during the Civil War. During the 1840s and 1850s they had been continually advancing the ability to manufacture interchangeable parts. But while most Civil War muskets were produced with parts that were supposedly interchangeable, if you look at actual surviving weapons from that era they were still doing a lot of hand fitting and fiddling to get all of the parts to work. So even through parts were supposed to be interchangeable, they often weren’t.

In the 1400s they were still using matchlocks. The flintlock hadn’t even been invented yet. Wild West era rifles would seem like magic to them.

Speaking of Harry Turtledove. In his Guns of the South a large part of the story has the
confederates trying to replicate ammunition of the AK-47 in the 1860’s.

Weirdly enough, I thought of what I believe is the same article when I was reading the OP. I remember one of the other things discussed was the 1920s engineers trying to identify the metal used to construct it.

John W. Campbell’s editorial “No Copying Allowed” (I think) - from 1948

This is almost the premise of A Rebel in Time, by Harry Harrison. A guy goes back to just before the US Civil War, because he wants to help the south win.

He doesn’t bring an assault rifle, though, he brings a WWII era Sten Gun. The Sten Gun was intended to be very simple, so that it could be manufactured in bulk without a lot of specialized equipment.

Yep. A recoil action is vastly more approachable than a gas-operated one.

Which brings up a larger point.

If you want to boost somebodies’ tech, don’t bring them something magically advanced. Bring them something just barely out of their current reach.

And even then, the knowledge of how to make the thing and make its materials is probably more valuable than knowledge of the existence or design of the thing itself.

We are far enough past flint-knapping now that most of the secret sauce of 2025 [whatever] isn’t in the thing. It’s in the vast supply tree (not chain; the fan-out is enormous) of prerequisite tools and materials.

I wonder how far back you could take the metal can and can opener. It isn’t a gun, but can be considered vital military technology, I think.

Canned food was invented 50-some years before the can-opener, so a time-transferred can-opener would be a great help to folks

If we aren’t restricted only to modern technology, an example that comes up in fiction is stirrups. Simple enough that they could be made by even a Stone Age society (they just need to know leather-working), but greatly increases the effectiveness of mounted warriors.

A real game changer.

Modern can-openers are designed to open modern cans with modern ends. They are definitely designed to work together to a common standard. Heck, even church keys require a certain type of can edge so their fulcrum is able to get purchase & deliver leverage.

What sort of ends were common in those early cans? Or where they all different? I’m young enough to remember when cans did not need openers; they each came with a key soldered onto the bottom and a peel off seam that fit the key.

I’m sure early cans were not that sophisticated. But my point is that modern can openers are sorta an interim tech between different generations of self-opening cans.

How much extra value is a can opener over a bayonet. Sure, one might be easier, but they both get the job done.

This is the key. A matchlock gunsmith could easily copy a flintlock, somebody making plug bayonets would understand the value of a socket model and be able to make one.

For interchangeable parts the secret sauce is more in the machine tools to make them than in the parts themselves. Same for the deep drawn brass cartridges.

Showing up in say 1600 with a pedal lathe and a hand cranked shaper and the knowledge to run them could do more to build up a country’s weapons industry than just showing them a finished gun.

I recently read a novel about one of these “go back to Rome and teach them everything” stories.

They made a point about Type 1 and Type 2 inventions. Type 1 were where just the idea was enough. The locals could immediately see the point, and know how to replicate it with their own skills and equipment. Type 2 were where there was some key enabling technology that they lacked, like metallurgy or the like.

Yeah. I laughed at this tech boosting scene in the MCU movie Eternals. A real head-scratcher, one of many in that film that made me dislike it.