Two flintlocks is fine, especially if we can carry a musket or blunderbuss.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=141928.msg6386721#msg6386721">Quote from: Angel Eros on 04-06-2012, 01:16:19</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I think two's a fine limit; one for each hand if you really wanted, why would you need more? Plus you'd need ammunition and power and such that would take up more space...<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>The reason for more is two fold.  As was suggested quick firing, and that basically they were inaccurate, misfired often, and took forever to fire.  So the more you had the more shots you had in a fight.   You wouldn't carry extra ammunition or powder into a fight because it was highly unlikely that you would be able to reload.<br/><br/>It should also be noted that the flintlock is inaccurate by today's standards.  If they were as inefficient as what's being described above, they would not have been as highly a prized or sought after weapon in the 1700s.