Video

Hope they add this to guts and blackpowder

His name is properly spelled John MOSES Browning. His designs are still in use, for example ever successful pistol in common use has his tilting barrel design.

I was not aware of your employment with the Smithsonian. I’ve seen your work on the NRA curators corner. You should make a video on your resume. Thank you

I think my distant cousin John was being humble when he said this.

Blasphemous, saying that about John Browning, even if it's himself that does it, now I must shower.

Sam Colt’s marketing was even more creative than his firearms. 😅

The Sharps Carbine was a repeater supplied to Cavalry. Cavalry continued to supplied with these carbines until and after the adoption of the 1873 Springfield. While the carbine is not technically a rifle and standard infantry were not issued them, it’s still a government issued repeater. I agree with the rest of your comments.

Interesting video. I had no idea that those extreme tolerances were even allowed.

Great content Logan, all I knew about Mr Pederson was his WWI device. Thanks for sharing!

Love your channel I watched this video again. I learned so much! I’m a large Colt fan. Which means I’m a JMB fan!!

You are Hi sir JMB was the greatest man and gun designer there ever was. Get a grip sir.

Aaa! You had me there for a minute. You need longer videos in more depth. Suggestion from a fan! Best regards

It's hard to find a more interesting time than kicking a hornet's nest....

You know who was underrated? Bethel Revelli, the man gave us the first SMG.

You better back that clickbait up right now!

If I remember correctly John Browning died at the workbench designing a double stack, 9mm, single action only pistol. Those features seem to be the same on the best of the best pistols today. Very forward thinking man.

Two great men.

Awsome.

False

I just had a boomer try to use this video as proof that Mattel rifles existed.

Joe biden just stated you couldnt own a cannon during the civil war, which is a lie. Citizens couldnt own a cannon during the revolutionary war due to rule of england, but patriots could

What an excellent video. Amazing mechanization. Thanks for sharing this.

One my family members is entombed in that ship. I am fortunate enough to have paid my respects to him twice

I own an ott-6 Springfield with a serial # well below the 500.000 mark. Also, I reload for it and use 46.2gr of Dupont 3031 powder 165gr projectiles. I've had one problem with it. I chambered a round that was difficult to close the bolt on. I knew the pressure wasn't dangerously high, so, I touched it off and was pelted with fragments of something. (Wear your safety specs) Upon opening the bolt, I discovered the primer was GONE!! The primer pocket was much larger! Well, that was exciting! I don't know what happened, any thoughts on this, please advise. According to the serial#, this rifle was built in 1911.

Safety third! LOL

What did it COST you????

That's awesome!

My dad was a flight engineer on a C47 after the war.

My 7th GGF AND Uncle's Black powder rifle is in there. Meshach Browning, Marylands most famous frontiersman, hunter trapper. I'm bringing my son when he visits me from IL. to view the rifle soon. Im excited.

А на русский можно перевести, хотя бы титрами?

Imagine how the war would have went if it was fully adopted. Line battles wouldn't be a thing that's for sure.

Brigadier General James Wolfe Ripley, the original Fudd.

The logistics of supplying more ammo when it's being hauled either by man, horse, mule, or wagon was a major concern. Would I want to carry a bunch of .58 caliber bullets, or 5.56? Which is lighter?

It never fails to amaze me how stupid people actually were back in the day, if you have a tool that does the same job multiple times faster you *USE* it. And if soldiers waste ammunition faster then you just get more ammunition, because your net wins in battle will grant you better economy. It's easy to explain it away with "Oh it's what they were used to, they had THEIR standards", but i genuinely think that many people back in the day weren't actually capable of critical thinking. We see it as a luxury because we have school today, but i also think that some people back in the day were actually just stupid, yet somehow due to luck held very specific titles.

Just a minor nitpick, but the OSS isn’t similar to the SOE but rather the other way around. Us Yanks actually take a lot of inspiration from the British for our units, including the SOE. Great video though, thanks!!

From the inscription in the gun case “…on behalf of the preservation of species….” they gave him a gun to shoot them.

bad historical work. The north did not even have the industrial capacity to arm their men with springfield riflemuskets and had to important hundred of thousand of guns from Europe. More than half the Springfields ordered was never actually produced. And every single one made, was delivered way way later than originally agreed too. By the end of the war about half of federal infantry was still using imported guns. And making repeaters ways way way way more complicated and time-consuming then a riflemusket. Even if they had been able to make the guns, the ability to make the metal cartridge's was even worse. Had he ordered a federal infantry to be armed with repeating firearm, the north would have lost the war thanks to a lack of guns and lack of ammo. Also he did support arming the cavalry with first breechloaded carbines and then repeaters... so claiming that he was against repeaters in general is simply not correct. He realized the limitations of industry and of the guns themself... and made the correct decision to arm the infantry with riflemuskets and the cavalry with breechloaded carbines first and then repeaters.

He wasn't entirely wrong in a sense. Something I like to point to when debates about the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment come up is this thing called the Kalthoff Repeater. These had existed for decades by the time of the American Revolution, and if I'm not mistaken were the first repeating firearms in the world. Early examples were wheel-locks, though most later ones used flintlock mechanisms to help simplify an already complex design. The rifle was a breech-loading musket of sorts. Musket balls and powder were stored inside the gun, the balls in a compartment on the side and the powder in the buttstock, which was hollow inside. Cranking a lever to the side, the gun would load the ball and powder into a rotating chamber, and spit out a little powder into the firing pan for the flint to set alight. The main reason this wasn't adopted by any armed forces was its price. This was an obscenely expensive weapon, both to purchase and to maintain, and the cost of not maintaining it properly was an explosion. The power being stored right where you'd have your face, right arm, and shoulder up against means that an explosive failure would probably cost you your life if a failure of that sort occurred. But mostly it was the price. To equip one man with one Kalthoff, you could equip 20 or 30 men with conventional muskets. Many rich families across Europe owned Kalthoffs, but other than some noble officers or particularly rich mercenaries, these wouldn't have been seen on the battlefield. These more modern repeaters would have been similar. Yes, you could fire faster, but at the cost of a much more expensive weapon, and you'd need to provide one for everyone. That, plus the fact that metallic cartridges were so new that you'd need to set up totally new facilities for making the ammunition, means that you could expect a slower adoption to begin with. It's possible that the US could have begun a slower process to adopt these, but then you had guys like Ripley claiming they were totally useless due to doctrines that were slowly becoming outdated. Similar men still existed in European militaries in Ripley's day, many claiming that soldiers would waste all their ammunition in a panic. It's why early Lee-pattern rifles had a magazine stop so they could function as single-shot rifles, it was to fit in with existing doctrine while trying to prove this new concept to higher-ups with their heads stuck in the past.

This is just further proof that "cranky old people prefering old thing over new thing" happens throughout history, not just in the present.

Ahh, he hated winning.

Roosevelt's son was called Kermit? That's funny. Nice video, great gun.

We had a similar problem in Chile. In 1888 the government bought 20 thousand Mannlicher m1886 rifles to replace the Comblain II of 1870 (a single shot lever action) and the Gras m1874 (single shot bolt action). The Mannlicher had a 5 rounds internal magazine and was overall better, but many senior officers were against its adoption, arguing that just four years ago they had won a war using the other two rifles, and this new one was unnecessary, criticizing the magazine, as soldiers didn’t need that much ammo at once. In the Civil War of 1891 the Congressional Army had a brigade of 3600 men equipped with the mannlicher, and its rate of fire and range (in addition to modern infantry tactics) proved fundamental in defeating the Presidential Army. The reason why the government didn’t used the mannlicher in the Civil War is because they bought the rifles but no ammunition for them.

They chose the cheaper guns is all.

On one hand, we want to save taxpayer dollars. On the other hand, sometimes you get what you pay for. Can't win. Heavy is the head

Such a weird thing to hate for someone I've never even heard of until 2 mins ago.

I'm new to using revolvers. Should I put oil on the cylinder to minimize the lines?

Fuck gun control

Sharpes looks just like Layne Staley

I see his reasoning and completely understand his point of view. Just look at the ammo usage in Vietnam when the M16s started being issued and look how much ammo they wasted on one dead fighter in Afghanistan.