So in the midst of looking up weird weapons for a story I may or may not write, I came across information about this combination boarding ax/rifle. It’s apparently workable (though you obviously couldn’t run around with it ready to fire whilst fighting). My question is, could you remake it with a more modern shotgun/rifle inside the handle? Or would something like the kick make it unwieldy? I don’t know anything about guns.
Well, there is the shotgun axe:
Guns made from or hidden within pipes, canes, and other tubes are nothing new. See this Wiki page on “cryptic firearms” and also the pen and pipe gun sections on the same page. There’s no reason you couldn’t have the same basic design in an axe handle especially with modern techniques. It will be less accurate for multiple reasons but is also intended to be fired at close range.
Such weapons are usually designed as a single-shot affair before needing to be reloaded (or discarded in the case of cheaply made last-resort weapons) but reloading a shotgun shell is easier these days than reloading a flintlock weapon. Even easier if you’re not trying to disguise the weapon’s firearm use and can have obvious access to reload it.
To go in the other direction (mainly gun but also useful for melee), you just attach a bayonet. Not as cinematic as a viking axe but better than swinging your gun around to chop with it. Plus, a standard gun probably makes for a terrible axe grip but is fine for poking.
But would the power of a more modern gun make wood not as durable or clumsy for a weapon? I don’t know how much kick that axgun had.
You’d either have a metal axe handle or core out the wood and have metal inside. The examples you show have the metal barrel running along the top of the shaft (clearer in this photo). Wood for the remainder wouldn’t be a problem; it’s still used in a lot of rifles and shotguns after all.
The “kick” of modern combat firearms is not that big of a deal. Lotsa ways that can be ameliorated with modern design.
Arguably the old ones kicked more violently, and just used sheer weight as their only mitigation.
IMO there’s lots dumb about a modern boarding ax/gun, but the recoil ain’t one of the dumbnesses.
Not that much kick to a small shotgun shell. That ax/gun with a modern firing mechanism might be good enough as is to use with a shotgun shell, and I assume could have been used as is loaded with black powder and shot.
It seems that the loading mechanism would become a significant weak spot in the haft. For instance, you wouldn’t want a break-open breech to break open while making an axe stroke.
I’m a little confused. Is the axe meant to disguise the fact that you have a gun? If so, wouldn’t the axe bring a lot of unwanted attention just as well?
The idea would be to get in a single lethal shot at the scurvy dogs while you are still some metres away, and then charge at whoever is still standing with the axe. Ideally there would be lots of you (and less of them), so gaining attention should not be their main concern.
You could hold fire until you were actually man-on-man, but if your opponent was armed with an old school axe and was intent on remodelling your head, you would not want to be taking time to find the trigger and holding it still and get it pointed right
The idea seems less than convincing. A Thor hammer / Taser combo on the other hand suggests itself as what we should be buying for WWIII.
Ah, I see. What about an auto loader shotgun so that you could fire several shots? Too bulky?
Sticking to FQ - yes, absolutely, you could make something much more workable. The question is, outside of the possible short story, is why?
You’re going to seriously compromise both the gun or axe component (in terms of cost, weight, structural stability and functionality) for what advantage?
Most of the historical combo firearms were from an age where the firearm was a novelty as it were, slow to load and fire, and finding their way into use. Improvements in reliability, tactics and combined arms mean that such combos were impractical outside of novelty and concealed weapons by the point of most modern firearm givens (repeating cartridge based firearms).
Now, if I was writing a short story about a one-way trip to the past with a nigh-unlimited budget, where I wanted to create a weapon with a hidden ace but would mostly be used as an axe (since I wouldn’t have a good source for new cartridges), or some isekai one-way world travel story where I could only carry a limited amount, then it works better as a story element, but still makes more sense to carry a reliable semi auto carbine and as much ammo as I can manage, then procure an axe locally. 
Of course, even then the classic swashbuckling model was to have a couple single-shot pistols on you to fire before you close distance.
As noted, I suspect most of the linked weapons were more “Because we can” as a novelty or wealth/tech flex than because they represented an improvement over having two weapons.
Yes, except for barrel loading it would need a sturdier means of loading the gun.
I think it was on Pawn Stars that they showed a Coach Gun with 2 barrels and a bayonet that would spring into place to use once the 2 barrels have been fired.
Yes, it was on Pawn Stars and this Coach gun had 2 rifled barrels and the bayonet.
Yeah, I mean surely you’re going to be a more formidable opponent if you just have a revolver or automatic pistol, plus a parang or kukri or something.
I think that the idea is, in a closing-for-battle situation, every second counts, and you don’t want to waste precious seconds swapping from your ranged weapon to your melee weapon. It’s the same argument behind the bayonet. But it’s obsolete now for the same reason that the bayonet is: Modern firearms are good enough now that you don’t need a melee weapon; you just keep on firing at anything right next to you.
Until you’re out of ammo, but modern combat tactics don’t seem to take that much into consideration. Modern firearms don’t even make good bludgeoning weapons any more.
Were they ever that great? Sure, a heavy musket could make a decent club, but wouldn’t the other guy likely carry a piece of tree branch just effective at clubbing as that musket? Maybe even a pointy stick a little longer than a musket? I can see bayonets, axe heads and other edged weapons being useful once the ammo runs out, much less so with using an unloaded gun as a club.
But that’s part of the equation (the out of ammo). Most armies tend toward using lighter weight carbines because of the rest of the load the infantry carries. With a lighter platform, firing an intermediate round (5.56 being a common example) you can carry more, other “stuff” and a much higher quantity of ammunition.
So if I had a one kilo battleaxe (on the lighter side) as a side weapon, or attached to a heavier framed rifle, or (the OP) a custom built hybrid platform, leaving everything else out, I could have traded that weight for nearly 100 rounds of 5.56.
Unless you’re in a circumstance (such as the ones I mentioned for stories above), or you’re already built like a Viking berserker, you’re more likely to defeat more of your enemies with another 100 shots than with the battle axe.
Of course, things could/can be different in CQC (Close quarters Combat) such as house to house fighting, the trenches of WW1, or any number of fictional scenarios, where you could make a case for a heavier, more melee friendly platform, but even then, it’s not generally the norm for extended melees to break out, more fend off one person and shoot them immediately, or use other options for clearing the area.
I would argue that if you get into close quarter combat, an ax is not the best tool. Big swings become obstacles in confined spaces. I guess the design of those axes allow thrusting as an option, sort of a clumsy spear.
I would want to know more about the scenario. First, why do you need an alternate weapon? What kind of combat do you imagine shifting from quick rifle fire to an ax?
I’ll give one, just for comparison. The “Furiosa” movie has a scene where a character is trying to escape a slew of opponents. She has a really good rifle, but is beginning to run out of ammo. This is post apocalypse, after all.
She sets an ambush in a tight canyon with only one opening at each end. This allows her to make short with of the first half dozen to come into the canyon. However, then she’s out of ammo, and being flanked around the canyon.
She manages to use the rifle as a club on a couple people before being overwhelmed and taken down. The rifle was a large solid sniper type, so it had some heft, but clearly it was a desperate situation, not something that was good practice.
Movies have made a pretty good show of swapping quickly from rifle to pistol for close up work. I’m not sold that the time to swap weapons is a real obstacle. Maybe make sure the rifle has a solid frame in case you need it for a defensive block, with a bayonet attached.