@@lidlett9883 see I agree they but that was the equivalent of a lever action rifle I can fit a Gatling gun in my pocket it's called an Uzi a tech nine a Glock 18 Mac 11 Russian scorpion I can go on
This could be the weapon in a reboot of The Rifleman (starring Chuck Connors). Call it "The Musketman" and make it about a Dutch immigrant to the American West of the 17th century (So somewhere around Schenectady NY?) upholding the law against criminals and scofflaws while trying to navigate the colonial system of varying reciprocity of laws.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Sure, why not. It sounds cooler than "the musketeer" and would probably do waaay better than what passes for "entertainment" today, just keep the wokies away from it and you got a winner. Good luck.
For people who are gonna ask why this didnt become the norm. Its easy, they were expensive to produce and expensive to maintain. Always remember one simple rule, the more moving parts, the more of a pain it is to build and repair...
Especially before mass industrialisation and even more especially so before there were machines that could accurately mill time after time with little to no change in the shape or quality of that milling.
Also getting a gas seal with production methods of the time would have been next to impossible. Even today we need a brass casing to expand for the split second at detonation to keep burning hot gasses from venting back into the shooters face.
@@I_Stole_A_BTR-80and the fact that the industrial revolution changed it from a highly skilled craftsman making that by hand to an extremely less skilled factory worker making parts of it using machines on a production line
that and there were basicaly only like 20 people total in the world that could make them and generally they were all bespoke rifles due to the time it took to make them
"The founding fathers could have never predicted automatic rifles" The puckle gun. 1717 Harmonica gun. 1750 Cookson gun. 1690 Chalembrom magazine repeating rifle. 1780 John Shaw's volitional repeaters. Advertised in the Boston Gazette in the 1750's. They had plenty of concept.
@@Yingyanglord1 the thing is, the founding fathers wanted citizens to have the same right to defense as the nation did. So if the government has a weapon the citizens should have it as well. Obviously the US government has majorly backtracked as most government firearms are never offered to the public, i.e full auto machine guns made in the 21st century, explosives, etc.
what war? they edited their comment, so I will too. Original comment said "the war," and I was making a jab at Americans being self-absorbed. ...As a self-absorbed american myself :p
I get his argument but it still doesn't hold a bunch of water, considering 40 to 60 rounds a min is bolt action speed. Try 800 to 600 rounds a min for your average full auto gun. Thats a lot fuckin more than 60. Even semi auto is way more than a bolt or flint. There's also the fact they didn't have rpgs or nukes back than either.
I'm a gunsmithing student and i can say that there is a lot of firearms that the general population doesn't know about. People assune that there were only slowly loading muskets and we somehow just jumped to using metallic cartridges.
Dreyse needle gun arguably the first bolt action rifle used paper cartridges instead of brass because they hadn’t been invented their is a reason that basically everyone adopts a bolt action in 1886 because pretty much everyone came out with a bolt action design that year all roughly based on the design of the dreyse with improvements like smokeless powder brass cases and so forth It could have been adopted earlier but until that point trapdoor rifles like the martini Peabody and so forth were good enough
Dreyse needle gun arguably the first bolt action rifle used paper cartridges instead of brass because they hadn’t been invented their is a reason that basically everyone adopts a bolt action in 1886 because pretty much everyone came out with a bolt action design that year all roughly based on the design of the dreyse with improvements like smokeless powder brass cases and so forth It could have been adopted earlier but until that point trapdoor rifles like the martini Peabody and so forth were good enough
One walk through a museum and suddenly anyone would see so many interesting variations. Multi barrel rifles, rifles with large drums like a revolver, pistols with many barells etc
Not really, but Muskets were the old reliable: easy to make, standardise and train with, we can see plenty of more "outlandish" guns throughout the modern age while the musket was dominant, but they were expensive as hell, complicated and experimental. When all the principles such guns had could be mass produced and were now thoroughly tested, they got in the mainstream. It's not surprising that muskets were used on mass up to half of the 19th century, in conflicts such as the prussio-austrian War and the American Civil War. Why throw away something that was perfectly viable and cheap to produce?
That’s what that weird lookin rifle is called ? I never knew the name or it’s capacity but man is that cool , they probably had it in case of an ambush or an attack from wildlife like wolves or the like since they were few in number , they made up for it in one hell of a rifle for their time
@@marakalos3838 Zero clue, but wikipedia says .30in - .80in. imagine levering a .50cal shot, that's an instant shoulder dislocation if you're not careful.
@@SkyNinja759 Modern weapons .50 caliber is damaging to the shoulders. The black powder flintlock or wheellock won't be that bad at all. .30 to .80 means that has a variety of calibers to be potentially chambered for so that's actually quite cool
Hell leonardo da vinci was coming up with concepts for cannons that could be reloaded veryfast/hold multiple rounds back in the 1400's, the idea has existed for as long as firearms have, the tech just wasn't there
@@alfsleftnut9224wasn't there, and wasn't possible to be there. Modern guns are a product of industrialization and are made with tools that would have been entirely impractical a few hundred years ago
@@jendubay3782 that's funny, "other countries" are violent as Hell. Find better news sources my guy. There's all sorts of killings going on everywhere.
Remember: These were the same people who when asked; said that it was totally legal to not only own a cannon, but a fully functional state of the art warship.
To clarify: I’m talking about the founders. Specifically Madison. He was asked if a cannon was protected by the 2nd amendment. He said yes. Same thing with warships. In fact, up until the civil war people would buy warships, then sell them to the navy.
@@danjudex2475 yeah because the second amendment was created so people could defend a country with no centralized military. For being only one sentence long a lot of people miss the first part.
There was a farmer by the name of Samuel Whitmore at Lexington who had several muskets loaded up for an ambush. He fired on redcoats marching through the street. As I remember it, the volume of fire and concealment of the smoke had the Regulars assuming it was an ambush by several people, so they simply returned (mostly) ineffectual volleys in his general direction before charging his position. He drew his sword and fought back, but was overwhelmed. After being shot in the face, he was bayoneted nearly 20 times. The gigachad survived this ordeal, despite being in his 70's at the time. After the revolution he went back to farming and died at the age of 93. They don't make em like they used to, eh? Being a patriot meant something a lot less cringe back then, heh. Edit: thanks to @Dawson Barrett for reminding me of Sam's identity so that I could fix the errors in my recount
@@CetomimusGillii Friendly reminder that most of the people were British, so the common misconception of the "British" in the colonial era were actually known as "The Regulars"
I bet you also have a cannon at the top of your stairs and a bayonet for your musket for when your flintlock pistol fires and misses because it is smooth bore and nails the neighbors dog. Have at thee ruffians!
@@asheblackflight1720 they had full auto muskets back then look up chambers flintlock machinegun on forgotten weapons channel on youtube it looks like an old day minigun cause it has 7 barrels thats the home defense musket
*POP* [15 seconds] *POP* “Fully automatic fire is disallowed, lad.” “That was not fully automatic fire.” “T’was not?” “Nay, this is:” *POP* [2 seconds] *POP*
these weapons DID exist, but they were extremely uncommon due to being expensive and generally less reliable due to the added moving parts and lack of automatic precision machining which we now take for granted.
in fact these things were so expensive, time consuming to make, and one thing breaking rendered the entire gun unusable until a specialist gunsmith repaired it. this may have convinced people in Europe and by extension the founding fathers that this is NOT viable, it's also still not automatic as if you pull the trigger only one bullet comes out
The point is that they existed. And the founding fathers knew that technology would continue to push forward until those types of weapons were available. I'm certain at least Benjamin Franklin did if not many of the others. Really if someone wants to argue against the 2nd amendment it should be about it being a well regulated militia. Basically it shouldn't guarantee rights that everyone owns a gun. It guaranteed that people with training should be able to own a gun and form groups that continue that training and can be called upon in times of need. I think the government avoids this because they don't want anyone asking for the same deal as the National Guard. At some point the National Guard took over for the militias across the country. If someone setup a group that competed with them potentially they could request government funding and access to things like tanks, artillery, fighter jets, etc. That is a can of worms the government doesn't want to mess with. Better to just argue about whether people should own semi-automatic rifles and ignore that they could be asking for some serious military equipment.
Well... Joseph Chambers did get the navy to adopt at least 53 flintlock runaway full auto machine guns during the war of 1812 (224 rounds in 2 minutes) At least 2 still exist one in the possession of the Us Navy Museum, and one in Belgium. Joseph Chambers also made full auto rifles and pistols using the same basic concept. Ian McCollum from Forgotten Weapons has a video on it.
You can't wipe out dozens of children in school with a private battleship. People aren't just talking about the power of the weapon, but proliferation of them too A battleship lets you take on other naval vessels, a high capacity, high fire rate, high accuracy weapon to take out people
@@nigeladams8321 1. You fucking can. "Shore Bombardment" is the word. 2. Any weapon suitable for fighting another combatant is also suitable for massacres. It's harder to design around someone fighting back than it is to design around someone **not** fighting back. 3. When it comes to massacres, rifles (even automatics) aren't the best option. Improvised explosives can be made (from completely unregulated components) more easily than a repeating firearm can.
You just have to convince EA to make a 1600s era shooter. Than you'll be forced fed all the prototype , paper , and cool designs you can ( or can't ) stomach.
There was a civil war first person shooter. It had lever guns I think muskets. Good luck finding it though. It must be 18 years old by this point. Found it! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Channel:_Civil_War_%E2%80%93_A_Nation_Divided
That shit must be a prototype and really complicated to make in mass. So instead they mass made muskets that were more simple. There were many different semi autimatic musquets and guns but they wer etoo complex.
@@clothar23 literally any company other than ea please, I don't want to pay 20$ to get my repeating musket on top of the 60$ it would be for the game. Don't get me wrong EA still makes decent enough games but they are always p2w (at least in recent years).
@@notme1639 I found one that Activision made. I remember playing it in highschool. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Channel:_Civil_War_%E2%80%93_A_Nation_Divided
You have a weapon that shoots slow, has one shot, and is inaccurate People really are out here thinking that the idea of getting rid of these major issues was simply a concept beyond Fathers
All of them were gunsmiths pretty much, and a fair number of them invented some repeater prototype or another. It was literally the grail that every gunsmith at the time was chasing
It just goes to show how arrogant modern people are when they don't read and actually understand our history. They may have had a hard time grasping what was and how electricity would influence everything once it was discovered, but something like an aiutomatic weapon was very much on everyone's minds
@Zach calm down, sweetheart. It's just a lighthearted joke. Oh that's right I forgot that Californians don't know what those are. /j (because it's obviously needed)
Technically no, Exempt from both federal and California law are "antique firearms" and "curio or relic" firearms. California uses the GCA definition of antique firearms as those manufactured before 1899 or replicas thereof.
@@matthewgateoperators2406 yeah Ik, I just think it’s funny that that one specific exception is the only thing stopping California from banning it, and if it wasn’t under antique protections it would be banned
Don’t forget about the Chambers runaway machine gun. Literally presented to the multiple Founding Fathers during Revolutionary War. Load 7 rounds, once you pull that trigger, by God you WILL fire 7 rounds, you cannot stop it. And then they put bigger version on ships for War of 1812, that had 7 barrels and 20+ rounds apiece. Check forgotten weapons if you don’t believe me
"The founding fathers could have never predicted automatic rifles" The founding fathers were mostly scientists, they knew that shit was getting better with time
The really awesome thing is they acted like it was a "no shit" scenario. "Why would you not be able to have cannons? Have you read the second ammendment?"
I’m not even a dad and the phrase “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” comes outta my mouth more often than the average bear might expect Still not a lot, but more than average
They also had warships, cannons and lethal air rifles too. George Washington was also very interested in the "Puckle gun" which was essentially a form of artillery that took the shape of a large mounted revolver. Unfortunately the Continental Army lacked the funds at the time.
Forget the kalthoff, people owned warships, the founding fathers wrote the declaration of independence believing that a US citizen should have the right to own what is equivalent to a destroyer.
Thine. *"...in the blink of thine eye!"* "thy" is "you" or "your" based on context, "thine" is "your" when the next word begins with a vowel. "Thy skill is unmatched." versus "Thine art is without equal."
Don't forget the repeating Precharged Pneumatic Rifles in production too! Or that nifty "machine gun" aka the Puckle Gun. Or that (expensive) F You anti-boarder musket the Nock Gun. The list keeps going...
@@Uajd-hb1qs well yes and no, for military’s they wanted the best so they got the best. Civilians usually got last generation, also crossbows are still commonplace in fact I own a crossbow Edit: I get it! I’m wrong, okay? I based this off one google search and that was stupid of me
Some people tend to forget that most of the founding fathers were massive military arms nerds that'd collect any example they could get their hands on of exactly this kind of firearms. Not only could they anticipate the way it was developing, they were doing their utmost to help it along.
Even if the founders had heard of this gun, it would've been super expensive and complicated to make. Probably why it is mostly unknown outside of Denmark........
@@BHuang92 there was also breech loading guns and look up the chambers repeater. Used in early 1800s (most were still alive by its conception) and it was a Roman candle with bullets. Full auto
I hate dorks that say the "founding fathers" did write the 2nd amendment with modern guns in mind. It's like..tbose people are talking a about semi auto guns... Not even autos, since those aren't legal(some are). Yes they can understand that in the future a semi auto might exist. "right to bare arms" not muskets for a reason
They also answered via letter that people were most definitly allowed to put cannons on their ships. As that fell under the second ammendment. Warships my friend. You have the right to own warships and some asshoke wants to quibble about a semi-automatic rifles. XD
@@delanovanraalte3646 as written, I mean.. yeah. The 2a just says 'arms,' which includes all weapons without limits - so if we followed it exactly, yes, civilians could own nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons alongside other arms
No, no they didn’t. Someone claimed he could and then they never even saw his prototype. Matter of fact, the Kalthoff repeater was used in literally a single war in Denmark on the other side of the ocean, and it’s not crazy to think they had no idea it existed.
The researched answers got 3 likes. The lie got 300. On my favorite page … “The Belton flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, conceived by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The musket design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777. There are no records that indicate that the gun was ever supplied, and it is uncertain if or how exactly the Belton improvement operated.” -Diamant, 2004via wiki
I mean the Vietnam war was literally about locals fighting for their freedom from an imperialistic colonial empire and its allies. I would hope the founding fathers would be able to see the parallels.
The Founding Fathers could EASILY have predicted that firearms would eventually reach this point. They might not have imagined the specific form they took, but repeating arms have existed for a really long time.
Of course, you only have to feed that one guy though, and train him to the point of being exceptional, he can be absurdly effective as a shock trooper. And as the number of people willing to die decreases and the amount of money increases.. well, you can see how the US military got where it is.
@@dinoblacklane1640 Sometimes it's worth dealing with the problems that come with it, sometimes it's not. When they were introduced, guns were unreliable, cumbersome, inelegant, slow to reload. But they still beat crossbows, because the advantage of easily piercing heavy armor was just THAT big.
As a weapon historian there is also an American/British musket that used the chamber to hold 16 shots. The flintlock mechanism would move to each spot fire off that round then by secondary trigger pull move to next notch. The tube/chamber could be removed and replaced with a fresh one that was already loaded…aka a magazine fed breach loading flintlock. It was called the Belton flincklock repeater. There is a few videos and things out there if you are interested. It would compete with this design possibly
The inventor of the gatling gun was dead sure his invention would end wars as a concept, because in his eyes it was so deadly and fearsome. Remember, it was a hand cranged turret the size of a canon that could shoot 1 volley each rotation. To no surprise his weapon only maximised the amount of lead in the air and not the duration of peace.
The only weapons scary enough to stop massive wars are the potentially apocalyptic nukes, and they only stop the really big wars, so it's kinda funny to look back and see him thinking his early machine gun would scare people into stopping the fighting
@@williamking6787 even nukes aren't unique anymore like their most special effect is the EMP they could do all the other effects with other weapons pretty much. well I guess project Orion deserves a mention too
@@lorekeeper685 And then there's Project Pluto that took the idea of nuclear-powered ramjet engines in a cruise missile to turn it into a nuclear-carpet bombing, radiation polluting, death machine. Thankfully the project was scrapped.
What's also worth pointing out is that a friend of Ben Franklin had invented the Belton Fusil Flintlock, which could theoretically fire 8 rounds in 3 seconds, and Ben enthusiastically suggested to George Washington that it be contracted for the continental army. There were lots of such weapons in the 18th century.
Honestly that was probably preferable to having the barrel blow up and rip your arm to shreds so that you suffer horribly in constant pain and confusion as infection sets in.
You taking about something hitting it? Then it would've hit your chest anyway and bye you go. You talking about it malfunctioning? It was probably still much safer then the common musket, and definitely gave you way better odds of survive when you could fire 30x times what your enemies could. We both know if they made you choose between a normal ass muskey and this beauty before going to battle, you choose this 10/10 times.
@@lucasmitchell9027 Chain-fire, the explosion ignites other ammunition, in this case, the powder stored in the rear, the residual powder that sticks to surface is enough to cause it.
With all the jamming and reloading, the sustained rate of fire was ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶i̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶“̶r̶a̶p̶i̶d̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶e̶”̶. Edit-I stand corrected, it did meet the technical definition of "rapid fire", but still was a kind of a bulky and dinky rapid fire weapon.
@@augusthoglund6053 it still defeats the whole " they never conceived of full auto weapons" or the "the 2nd ammendment only covers flintlocks" when in fact it covered anything up to and including cannons
@@robkrieg8301 No, because there were no weapons that could sustain full-auto fire. It's simply not viable without smokeless powder or electric motors which were invented about a whole century later. The Puckle gun was not full-auto.
@@augusthoglund6053 the puckle gun wasnt the only one btw. There were repeated fire weapons around well before 1776 and all were known to the writer of the 2nd ammendment and the people who ratified it. So you're wrong. Full auto means you pull the trigger once and it fires more than once so youre wrong.
the Chinese back in 6th Century had repeating crossbows. I know it's not a bow and arrow but still a crossbow that could fire up to five to eight shots before having to be reloaded with an actual magazine.
@@marlborobean798 “oh you are good at puzzles? try to open this weird 18th century French repeater of which only one was made and fought in ten wars, uses weird old French screws, reload it, and fire. All while I explain it’s potential use by the elbonian military” A bit more Ian-y
@@marlborobean798 👋 hi guys, 🫵 Ian here, ☝️ today we are taking a look at 🫴 this beauty, here 🙏 at the 🤚✋ rock island armory auction house. ☝️ now I know what 🫵 you are thinking, is that a French bull pup? Well yes, but more interesting is… it’s ammunition 🫴🎯. This rifle ✋actually isn’t a rifle at all 👉, it fires flechette projectiles 🎯👌. Etc
There's also the fact that they specifically clarified that actual honest to god cannons were all fine. This being an era where the cannon was the god of the battlefield. Traditional thought was that victory overall was a literal impossibility without them.
So that thing means they definitely predicted we’d have flying guns that can shoot rounds nearly the size of your head 50 times in a second, decimating the general area.
People forget the Right to Bear arms was to protect ourselves from the Government both Foreign and Domestic. This was written at a time when the people were facing oppressive taxes, laws, and policing and never again wanted to be defensless against such ruling again. Its a good thing we havent seen times like that since then
@ewelinanajgebauer8862 seeing anecdotal evidence of the brown bess having a similar recoil to a 12ga shotgun. I don't think George Washington would mind the recoil from a M4
Don’t forget the Girardoni air rifle, while not a firearm in the traditional sense, was another repeating rifle, contemporary with the Founding Fathers, that was even used in the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Also it was adopted into military service with the Austrians.
Yes and it was very expensive and it sucked too. If the enemy was not within a few yards it didn’t have the power to be deadly. Since the main battle formation at the time was two opposing firing line using volley fire at about 50 to 80 yards from each other, it was a big pricey BB gun, compared to true firearms throwing .60 to .75 caliber lead balls a 900 FPS.
@@rollotomasislawyer3405 whether it was as effective as other rifles of the time doesn't mean as much when speaking of rate of fire and ammunition capacity. It may not have been a great rifle for war but it was far ahead of its time.
@@Ian-yk4pk I agree, it was a very cutting edge idea for the time period. I said what I said but I definitely would never want to be shot with one either.
@@greytodoroki9479 I don’t know what it was. Regarding the question why - Google randomly censors anything they don’t like. Could be that they used a "forbidden" word or they expressed an idea that Google doesn’t like. I commented here so whoever commented actually knows because Google doesn’t even tell them :)
Even before guns the Romans and the greeks had the Polybolos, a repeating ballista capable of shooting several bolts per minute. This was also installed on chariots or carts for rapid movement on the battle field.
People forget most founding fathers were military men and knew technology would continue to advance. Or that Franklin was a prolific inventor, so the idea of a multiple cartridge weapon system was more than feasible once machining tech advanced
sure, but i don't think in thier wildest dreams could they have imagined a gun that can fire 100 rounds a second with little to no training, be so inexpencive to make you could get one for the equivilant of 10 usd back in thier time, could fire in the rain and didn't blow up if you hit the gun wrong
@@kman9884 the "repeating gun" in thier time was a dutch made gun that was super fiddley and would have been worth the equivilant amount of money of a moden day rocket launcher it was also smooth bore, didn't work if it was wet and could blow up in your hand if a spark got into the gunpowder chamber i very much doubt they could imagine the shear destruction a single modern firearm could cause i know they weren't dumb, and they probbly did imagine a world were a gun would be able to fire more projectiles easily in the future, but the diffrence between a single shot smooth bore rifle and a modern Automatic rifle would be like trying to compare a Stick to a light saber
The Girardoni air rifle was a 22-shot, magazine-fed, nearly silent .46 caliber repeating rifle adopted in 1780 by the Austrian Army. Jefferson gave Lewis and Clark the same rife for their exploration. So they definitely knew about repeating rifles. They reason they didn't issue it to troops is because they were highly expensive. Also most of milita brought their own guns, which were hunting rilfes.
Also should add the level of difficulty fixing those bastards to really they could understand repeaters but I still don't think they could predict the guns we have now with what the guns were like in making function and cost back then
@cdeer17 Look at Da Vinci's Organ Gun, or the Volley Gun that's been around since 1339. One trigger pull for multiple rounds was a common theory and want for years. Nuclear weapons, yes, but machine guns they could see.
Key and Peele had a sketch where a dude takes 2 machine guns to the past to warn the founding fathers and all it did was make it so the present had more advanced weapons
To be fair it was never about the effectiveness of the weaponry, the founding fathers just never wanted the government to have all the weapons and the civilians had none, so that there wouldn’t be a dystopian society like they thought the colonies were.
The Gatling gun was made in the 1800s. I think maybe you are talking about the Puckle Gun I think which came in around the same time or so with the founding father, but I'm pretty positive that the congress at the time did definitely want it, John Adam's wanted to use it for the new American Navy he was planning to be built.
Hey all don’t forget you check out my history page as well and my video on australias war on rabbits czcams.com/video/hsLj8AyvXQk/video.html
You could have pointed out the Puckle gun as well. While it was a lsmall deck gun the ability to see repeated fire was going to happen.
It should be expensive thus it wasn't mass produced. Also the design doesn't seem to me reliable enough.
You could own a cannon or a hand mortor, but now a days you can't get your hands on automatic weapons.
Not to sound ungrateful cause I do love what you create, but how come we can't get more stuff on the Podcast man??
@@lidlett9883 see I agree they but that was the equivalent of a lever action rifle I can fit a Gatling gun in my pocket it's called an Uzi a tech nine a Glock 18 Mac 11 Russian scorpion I can go on
The only reason armys weren't equiped with repeating weapons is because they were crazy expensive
And had about a dozen different parts that could fail and would have a build-up of gunpowder after use that'd need cleaning out
Hence the 3 round burst
And deeply unreliable in the field. Very cool though.
@@_cloudface_ yea but being able to shoot 5-10 shots instead of one at a time is definitely worth it
And they weren’t very reliable
"Hey is your right arm bigge..."
"IT WAS A KALTHOFF"
Im gonna have to stop right there ✋
This could be the weapon in a reboot of The Rifleman (starring Chuck Connors).
Call it "The Musketman" and make it about a Dutch immigrant to the American West of the 17th century (So somewhere around Schenectady NY?) upholding the law against criminals and scofflaws while trying to navigate the colonial system of varying reciprocity of laws.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I’m pretty sure only the danish used it
@@willfakaroni5808 Sorry, DANISH immigrant lawman in Schenectady NY.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Sure, why not. It sounds cooler than "the musketeer" and would probably do waaay better than what passes for "entertainment" today, just keep the wokies away from it and you got a winner.
Good luck.
For people who are gonna ask why this didnt become the norm. Its easy, they were expensive to produce and expensive to maintain. Always remember one simple rule, the more moving parts, the more of a pain it is to build and repair...
Especially before mass industrialisation and even more especially so before there were machines that could accurately mill time after time with little to no change in the shape or quality of that milling.
Also getting a gas seal with production methods of the time would have been next to impossible. Even today we need a brass casing to expand for the split second at detonation to keep burning hot gasses from venting back into the shooters face.
@@I_Stole_A_BTR-80and the fact that the industrial revolution changed it from a highly skilled craftsman making that by hand to an extremely less skilled factory worker making parts of it using machines on a production line
That's why I love EVs.
that and there were basicaly only like 20 people total in the world that could make them
and generally they were all bespoke rifles due to the time it took to make them
"The founding fathers could have never predicted automatic rifles"
The puckle gun. 1717
Harmonica gun. 1750
Cookson gun. 1690
Chalembrom magazine repeating rifle. 1780
John Shaw's volitional repeaters. Advertised in the Boston Gazette in the 1750's.
They had plenty of concept.
Underrated comment right here
I think an argument could be made couldn't predict widespread adoption of man portable automatic firearms
@@Yingyanglord1 nah they weren't that stupid
@@Yingyanglord1there were private, rich citizens with these weapons
@@Yingyanglord1 the thing is, the founding fathers wanted citizens to have the same right to defense as the nation did. So if the government has a weapon the citizens should have it as well.
Obviously the US government has majorly backtracked as most government firearms are never offered to the public, i.e full auto machine guns made in the 21st century, explosives, etc.
Fun fact during the Revolutionary War George Washington was attempting to equip troops with these repeaters but they were just too expensive
what war?
they edited their comment, so I will too. Original comment said "the war," and I was making a jab at Americans being self-absorbed.
...As a self-absorbed american myself :p
I’m assuming American revolution,the war of 1812 or the French and Indian war
@@somebody6886 George Washington died before 1812 and we would have had no say on the weaponry in the 7 years war.
@@iwanttwoscoops We Americans tend to call the American War for Independence (1775-83) just the Revolutionary War.
@@jamesroybal8855 haha I gotchu. I was making an American ethnocentrist joke
"powder stored in the butt of the musket"
I'm not surprised the rifle with a bomb stock didn't catch on
Out of ammo? Just whack your enemies and boom! No more enemies!
@@TheGameRazorOffical or yourself
@@boopjackrex7598 2 birds with one stone eh?
@@christopherthompson5400
Wood shrapnel.
Rather pleasant.
I get his argument but it still doesn't hold a bunch of water, considering 40 to 60 rounds a min is bolt action speed. Try 800 to 600 rounds a min for your average full auto gun. Thats a lot fuckin more than 60. Even semi auto is way more than a bolt or flint. There's also the fact they didn't have rpgs or nukes back than either.
I'm a gunsmithing student and i can say that there is a lot of firearms that the general population doesn't know about. People assune that there were only slowly loading muskets and we somehow just jumped to using metallic cartridges.
You say we don’t know, but I’m pretty sure there’s guns people would like to remain forgotten.
Dreyse needle gun arguably the first bolt action rifle used paper cartridges instead of brass because they hadn’t been invented their is a reason that basically everyone adopts a bolt action in 1886 because pretty much everyone came out with a bolt action design that year all roughly based on the design of the dreyse with improvements like smokeless powder brass cases and so forth
It could have been adopted earlier but until that point trapdoor rifles like the martini Peabody and so forth were good enough
Dreyse needle gun arguably the first bolt action rifle used paper cartridges instead of brass because they hadn’t been invented their is a reason that basically everyone adopts a bolt action in 1886 because pretty much everyone came out with a bolt action design that year all roughly based on the design of the dreyse with improvements like smokeless powder brass cases and so forth
It could have been adopted earlier but until that point trapdoor rifles like the martini Peabody and so forth were good enough
One walk through a museum and suddenly anyone would see so many interesting variations. Multi barrel rifles, rifles with large drums like a revolver, pistols with many barells etc
Not really, but Muskets were the old reliable: easy to make, standardise and train with, we can see plenty of more "outlandish" guns throughout the modern age while the musket was dominant, but they were expensive as hell, complicated and experimental. When all the principles such guns had could be mass produced and were now thoroughly tested, they got in the mainstream. It's not surprising that muskets were used on mass up to half of the 19th century, in conflicts such as the prussio-austrian War and the American Civil War. Why throw away something that was perfectly viable and cheap to produce?
not to mention that lewis and clark had an italian air rifle that had like a 20 shot capacity .
The Girandoni air rifle, dear future comment-readers
🤌
@@PhantomP63 Yeah, Forgotten Weapons has a video on it. If anyone in the future is also reading this.
That’s what that weird lookin rifle is called ? I never knew the name or it’s capacity but man is that cool , they probably had it in case of an ambush or an attack from wildlife like wolves or the like since they were few in number , they made up for it in one hell of a rifle for their time
And Lewis and Clark were outfitted with that by Thomas Jefferson who may or may not have had a hand in writing the constitution
"We have a lever action at home."
**The lever action at home**
What caliber lead ball do you think that fires?
@@marakalos3838 Zero clue, but wikipedia says .30in - .80in.
imagine levering a .50cal shot, that's an instant shoulder dislocation if you're not careful.
@@SkyNinja759 Modern weapons .50 caliber is damaging to the shoulders. The black powder flintlock or wheellock won't be that bad at all.
.30 to .80 means that has a variety of calibers to be potentially chambered for so that's actually quite cool
I have a 100 year old plus wax bullet gun that hasa rapid fire function
dawg that shit is cooler than a lever action
Bro , back then , people had privately owned Battleships .
they aren't muskets
@@UH-60_Blackhawk they were much more than just muskets lol
@@beaub152 doesn't change the fact they aren't muskets
@@UH-60_Blackhawkwhat are they? Pls tell me
@@UH-60_BlackhawkYou don't need an AR-15 when you have a 16-gun sail ship capable of destroying your city hall.
“The founders could never predict modern weaponry”
*Laughs in Puckle gun*
Hell leonardo da vinci was coming up with concepts for cannons that could be reloaded veryfast/hold multiple rounds back in the 1400's, the idea has existed for as long as firearms have, the tech just wasn't there
@@alfsleftnut9224wasn't there, and wasn't possible to be there. Modern guns are a product of industrialization and are made with tools that would have been entirely impractical a few hundred years ago
They can't seriously think the founding fathers were that short-sighted.
If they saw this amount of casual violence, they likely would regret it, compared to other countries. So yes, they were short sighted.
@@jendubay3782Just no
@@jendubay3782blame the blacks for that
@@jendubay3782 that's funny, "other countries" are violent as Hell. Find better news sources my guy. There's all sorts of killings going on everywhere.
Taking away guns won't stop people from killing each other. The problem is a social one.@@jendubay3782
Remember: These were the same people who when asked; said that it was totally legal to not only own a cannon, but a fully functional state of the art warship.
It is I don't understand your comment.
To clarify: I’m talking about the founders. Specifically Madison. He was asked if a cannon was protected by the 2nd amendment. He said yes. Same thing with warships. In fact, up until the civil war people would buy warships, then sell them to the navy.
Gotcha, Roger that.
I think that’s still legal 😊well except good luck getting your hands on a SOTA warship nowadays. Maybe a decommissioned one though.
@@danjudex2475 yeah because the second amendment was created so people could defend a country with no centralized military. For being only one sentence long a lot of people miss the first part.
I like to think that at least one of the founding fathers went “If one musket is slow why not tape multiple together?”
Look up the Pepperbox, John Adams apparently carried one as a Derringer-Type pistol. Shit-posting since ‘76 bitch
There was a farmer by the name of Samuel Whitmore at Lexington who had several muskets loaded up for an ambush. He fired on redcoats marching through the street. As I remember it, the volume of fire and concealment of the smoke had the Regulars assuming it was an ambush by several people, so they simply returned (mostly) ineffectual volleys in his general direction before charging his position. He drew his sword and fought back, but was overwhelmed. After being shot in the face, he was bayoneted nearly 20 times. The gigachad survived this ordeal, despite being in his 70's at the time. After the revolution he went back to farming and died at the age of 93.
They don't make em like they used to, eh? Being a patriot meant something a lot less cringe back then, heh.
Edit: thanks to @Dawson Barrett for reminding me of Sam's identity so that I could fix the errors in my recount
@@CetomimusGillii Friendly reminder that most of the people were British, so the common misconception of the "British" in the colonial era were actually known as "The Regulars"
They already had machine guns patented 50 years before the revolution. It was called the puckle gun
@@AchievementDenied actually no British came in 16th century. the revolutionary war was in 17 century. most people were American.
I own a musket for home defense because that's what the founding fathers intended
Four ruffians break into my house
So fun fact. Muzzle loaders were not the pinnacle of firearms technology at that time. They were just the only thing anyone could afford.
"I own a musket for home defense"
I bet you also have a cannon at the top of your stairs and a bayonet for your musket for when your flintlock pistol fires and misses because it is smooth bore and nails the neighbors dog. Have at thee ruffians!
^ The musket for home defense
@@Lego_Spartan99 Tally ho lads!
@@Lego_Spartan99 😒🤦🏻♂️😑
@@asheblackflight1720 they had full auto muskets back then look up chambers flintlock machinegun on forgotten weapons channel on youtube it looks like an old day minigun cause it has 7 barrels thats the home defense musket
"No full auto in buildings!"
"That's not full auto."
"That's not full auto?"
"Nah, this is:" *BRRRRRRRRT*
Daaaaaaaaamn bro.....
A man of true culture is here.
*POP* [15 seconds] *POP*
“Fully automatic fire is disallowed, lad.”
“That was not fully automatic fire.”
“T’was not?”
“Nay, this is:”
*POP* [2 seconds] *POP*
@@georgeofhamilton You Hath Won this Round Mr Hamilton.
I understood that reference
these weapons DID exist, but they were extremely uncommon due to being expensive and generally less reliable due to the added moving parts and lack of automatic precision machining which we now take for granted.
in fact these things were so expensive, time consuming to make, and one thing breaking rendered the entire gun unusable until a specialist gunsmith repaired it. this may have convinced people in Europe and by extension the founding fathers that this is NOT viable, it's also still not automatic as if you pull the trigger only one bullet comes out
The point is that they existed. And the founding fathers knew that technology would continue to push forward until those types of weapons were available. I'm certain at least Benjamin Franklin did if not many of the others.
Really if someone wants to argue against the 2nd amendment it should be about it being a well regulated militia. Basically it shouldn't guarantee rights that everyone owns a gun. It guaranteed that people with training should be able to own a gun and form groups that continue that training and can be called upon in times of need. I think the government avoids this because they don't want anyone asking for the same deal as the National Guard. At some point the National Guard took over for the militias across the country. If someone setup a group that competed with them potentially they could request government funding and access to things like tanks, artillery, fighter jets, etc. That is a can of worms the government doesn't want to mess with. Better to just argue about whether people should own semi-automatic rifles and ignore that they could be asking for some serious military equipment.
"The founding fathers didn't mean automatic rifles."
Meanwhile. On the deck of his private battleship;
Well... Joseph Chambers did get the navy to adopt at least 53 flintlock runaway full auto machine guns during the war of 1812 (224 rounds in 2 minutes) At least 2 still exist one in the possession of the Us Navy Museum, and one in Belgium.
Joseph Chambers also made full auto rifles and pistols using the same basic concept. Ian McCollum from Forgotten Weapons has a video on it.
You can't wipe out dozens of children in school with a private battleship. People aren't just talking about the power of the weapon, but proliferation of them too
A battleship lets you take on other naval vessels, a high capacity, high fire rate, high accuracy weapon to take out people
@@nigeladams8321 Haha. Tell me you didn't even watch the short without telling me you didn't even watch the short.
And then piss off. You spoon.
@@nigeladams8321costal bombardment:
@@nigeladams8321 1. You fucking can. "Shore Bombardment" is the word.
2. Any weapon suitable for fighting another combatant is also suitable for massacres. It's harder to design around someone fighting back than it is to design around someone **not** fighting back.
3. When it comes to massacres, rifles (even automatics) aren't the best option. Improvised explosives can be made (from completely unregulated components) more easily than a repeating firearm can.
Okay, I have one question... WHY THE HECK IS THAT NOT IN A GAME ALREADY? I WANT MY SPEEDY MUSKET OF DOOM AND HAND CRAMPS! GIVE!
You just have to convince EA to make a 1600s era shooter. Than you'll be forced fed all the prototype , paper , and cool designs you can ( or can't ) stomach.
There was a civil war first person shooter. It had lever guns I think muskets. Good luck finding it though. It must be 18 years old by this point.
Found it! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Channel:_Civil_War_%E2%80%93_A_Nation_Divided
That shit must be a prototype and really complicated to make in mass. So instead they mass made muskets that were more simple. There were many different semi autimatic musquets and guns but they wer etoo complex.
@@clothar23 literally any company other than ea please, I don't want to pay 20$ to get my repeating musket on top of the 60$ it would be for the game. Don't get me wrong EA still makes decent enough games but they are always p2w (at least in recent years).
@@notme1639 I found one that Activision made. I remember playing it in highschool. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Channel:_Civil_War_%E2%80%93_A_Nation_Divided
I am *_absolutely positive_* that the founding fathers believed that we would advance a little farther than a musket also.
You have a weapon that shoots slow, has one shot, and is inaccurate
People really are out here thinking that the idea of getting rid of these major issues was simply a concept beyond Fathers
Exactly
All of them were gunsmiths pretty much, and a fair number of them invented some repeater prototype or another. It was literally the grail that every gunsmith at the time was chasing
It just goes to show how arrogant modern people are when they don't read and actually understand our history. They may have had a hard time grasping what was and how electricity would influence everything once it was discovered, but something like an aiutomatic weapon was very much on everyone's minds
Some of them were on lists to receive Gatling guns after all
“Remember guys, none of this counts once technology advances”
If they couldn’t of predicted more advanced guns than the internet is out of the question hahah
The best part is that in California this is considered a high capacity assault musket
"high capacity assault musket" is not a phrase i ever expected to see
Hur dur cali bad! This musket would not be considered a firearm anywhere in the US.
@Zach calm down, sweetheart. It's just a lighthearted joke.
Oh that's right I forgot that Californians don't know what those are.
/j (because it's obviously needed)
Technically no, Exempt from both federal and California law are "antique firearms" and "curio or relic" firearms. California uses the GCA definition of antique firearms as those manufactured before 1899 or replicas thereof.
@@matthewgateoperators2406 yeah Ik, I just think it’s funny that that one specific exception is the only thing stopping California from banning it, and if it wasn’t under antique protections it would be banned
Well shit, this is going in my D&D pirating campaign
What do you mean "the Dutchman have 29 bonus actions"?
I'd love to see the stat block for this.
I had the same idea
I'm Glade I'm not alone with my forever DM brain.
Gunslingers around the world:
Don’t forget about the Chambers runaway machine gun. Literally presented to the multiple Founding Fathers during Revolutionary War. Load 7 rounds, once you pull that trigger, by God you WILL fire 7 rounds, you cannot stop it.
And then they put bigger version on ships for War of 1812, that had 7 barrels and 20+ rounds apiece.
Check forgotten weapons if you don’t believe me
"The founding fathers could have never predicted automatic rifles"
The founding fathers were mostly scientists, they knew that shit was getting better with time
My Dad loves bringing up the fact that the founding fathers signed for a US citizen to put cannons on his ship.
Love the Mastodon pfp!
The really awesome thing is they acted like it was a "no shit" scenario.
"Why would you not be able to have cannons? Have you read the second ammendment?"
How old is your dad??
I’m not even a dad and the phrase “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” comes outta my mouth more often than the average bear might expect
Still not a lot, but more than average
“You can’t buy a cannon”
-Joe Biden
Imagine being the one dude who can really say "fuketh around and finding out ye laddy"
Underrated comment right here
This took me tf out 🤣
Omfg I'm dieing
@@GodDustSnas *dying
*Deez nuts
@@pyroisafemboy6994 bruh GRAMMAR SHARK
Imagine a 1700s gangster having one of these while shooting at his opps like it's a mac10
They also had warships, cannons and lethal air rifles too. George Washington was also very interested in the "Puckle gun" which was essentially a form of artillery that took the shape of a large mounted revolver. Unfortunately the Continental Army lacked the funds at the time.
"Pull the lever Kronk", just got a whole lot darker
wow🤦🏻♂️😒😑
"We'll Yzma just tossed me this gun and asked me to, y'know..."
"Wrong leveeeeeer..."
Yzma, with a pained grimace and a tear dripping down her cheek, looks to Kronk one final time…
*Sniffles.
Pull the lever, Kronk.
@@pirateswiggity5278 🤦🏻♂️😑😒
You’re hilarious if you think George Washington wouldn’t ride into battle with dual m16s and an m249 on his back
No he wouldn't. He'd ride a tank out and attach wagons to the sides for M249 machine gunners. He'd keep a single M16 and an MP5 as a side arm.
@@LegendStormcrow an m16 as a sidearm
That image made me smile so much
@@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii Maybe that variant they made up on MGS3, but actually useable.
president herbert mt dew comacho did!
Imagine being the one dude that had one of these on the battlefield. Top of the leaderboard for sure
Forget the kalthoff, people owned warships, the founding fathers wrote the declaration of independence believing that a US citizen should have the right to own what is equivalent to a destroyer.
If you dont think that George Washington would have been absolutely thrilled by the idea of an M60 then you dont know American history
or a m134
Or a saw or a kalash or literally anything lmao
I thought you were referring to the tank for a sec
Yeah he was a genocidal maniac. Of course he's love it.
@@BlackSabbath628 don't forget how many tribes he could genocide!
"Thirty round magazine? I can slay thirty ruffians in the blink of thy eye!"
💀💀💀
Ah canister shot lol
Thine. *"...in the blink of thine eye!"*
"thy" is "you" or "your" based on context, "thine" is "your" when the next word begins with a vowel.
"Thy skill is unmatched." versus "Thine art is without equal."
"As I grab my powdered wig and flintlock pistol"
unless its smoothbore!
Every rifle back then was a work of art.
Learning gunsmithing/being a gunsmith was a life of success.
Don't forget the repeating Precharged Pneumatic Rifles in production too! Or that nifty "machine gun" aka the Puckle Gun. Or that (expensive) F You anti-boarder musket the Nock Gun. The list keeps going...
If this was created in the 1600s, this was around when matchlocks and even crossbows were still being used in military service.
?
@@KrrakoReal !
Matchlock was 16th century and crossbows were in the BCs
@@TheDailyKnife009 They would have still been common place throughout Europe in the 17th century.
@@Uajd-hb1qs well yes and no, for military’s they wanted the best so they got the best. Civilians usually got last generation, also crossbows are still commonplace in fact I own a crossbow
Edit: I get it! I’m wrong, okay? I based this off one google search and that was stupid of me
Some people tend to forget that most of the founding fathers were massive military arms nerds that'd collect any example they could get their hands on of exactly this kind of firearms.
Not only could they anticipate the way it was developing, they were doing their utmost to help it along.
I was about to say that lmao
Even if the founders had heard of this gun, it would've been super expensive and complicated to make. Probably why it is mostly unknown outside of Denmark........
@@BHuang92 Washington wanted to equip the army with it but couldn't because it was so expensive he did know of it
@@BHuang92 there was also breech loading guns and look up the chambers repeater. Used in early 1800s (most were still alive by its conception) and it was a Roman candle with bullets. Full auto
I hate dorks that say the "founding fathers" did write the 2nd amendment with modern guns in mind. It's like..tbose people are talking a about semi auto guns... Not even autos, since those aren't legal(some are). Yes they can understand that in the future a semi auto might exist. "right to bare arms" not muskets for a reason
Chambers flintlock: “60 rounds a minute? Thats cute”
That's still semi-auto, not full auto, so his joke is still valid.
Some of the founding fathers also owned private ships loaded with canons. So they'd probably be cool with you having a few artillery pieces too
They also answered via letter that people were most definitly allowed to put cannons on their ships. As that fell under the second ammendment. Warships my friend. You have the right to own warships and some asshoke wants to quibble about a semi-automatic rifles. XD
@@irontemplar6222 what about a nuclear rocket?
@@irontemplar6222hold on I’m going to see if Raytheon will sell me a battleship real quick…
@@delanovanraalte3646 as written, I mean.. yeah. The 2a just says 'arms,' which includes all weapons without limits - so if we followed it exactly, yes, civilians could own nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons alongside other arms
Private companies build the nuclear missiles currently so during production have them.
Let’s not forget that the founding fathers commissioned a gunsmith to build them repeating muskets
Which didn't happen. The guns available to civilians weren't repeaters and wouldn't be for a century.
@@jaytotheareokay Unlike now adays guns are cheaply made in a factory, so they aren't that expensive.
No, no they didn’t. Someone claimed he could and then they never even saw his prototype. Matter of fact, the Kalthoff repeater was used in literally a single war in Denmark on the other side of the ocean, and it’s not crazy to think they had no idea it existed.
The researched answers got 3 likes. The lie got 300. On my favorite page …
“The Belton flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, conceived by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The musket design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777.
There are no records that indicate that the gun was ever supplied, and it is uncertain if or how exactly the Belton improvement operated.”
-Diamant, 2004via wiki
@@aquilajedi every time I bring up this argument, I get ignored. They don’t have a counter to it.
if you explained the Vietnam war to the founding father they would probably joined the protests.
I mean the Vietnam war was literally about locals fighting for their freedom from an imperialistic colonial empire and its allies. I would hope the founding fathers would be able to see the parallels.
The Founding Fathers could EASILY have predicted that firearms would eventually reach this point. They might not have imagined the specific form they took, but repeating arms have existed for a really long time.
The founding fathers would literally drool over the guns we have now
Stop being sexually attracted to guns.
@@neonrelmsproductions4224 I refuse. I will keep playing girls Frontline.
@@humbleguardsman5578 whose you’re favorite tdoll
@@Wickedsloppy They're a French pistol, Pa 15? I think... Yes PA 15 I looked it up while writing this comment
@@neonrelmsproductions4224 You cant stop me
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword has clearly never encountered a Kalthoff rifle."
the ultimate weapon: a pen shooting rifle
@@scratthesquirrel5242 wouldn't that make the typewriter a repeating pen?
@@EchosTackyTiki A fully-semi-automatic assault pen
@@pangboi3453 is that California compliant?
Edit: asking for a friend
@@pangboi3453 with a pump-fed high capacity 5 shot clip
Scout would go crazy over this
So they basically made a bolt-action musket... I WANT IT
The common quote as to why they didnt adopt it was "Good sir, if I had 1 man with 30 shots, I might as well hire 30 good men with guns"
Or I like to call overly Posh general syndrome
Of course, you only have to feed that one guy though, and train him to the point of being exceptional, he can be absurdly effective as a shock trooper. And as the number of people willing to die decreases and the amount of money increases.. well, you can see how the US military got where it is.
@@robertallan8035 Shock troopers as we know them didn't really become a thing till WW1
@@robertallan8035 Until the overly complicated and difficult to fix or replace gun breaks
@@dinoblacklane1640 Sometimes it's worth dealing with the problems that come with it, sometimes it's not. When they were introduced, guns were unreliable, cumbersome, inelegant, slow to reload. But they still beat crossbows, because the advantage of easily piercing heavy armor was just THAT big.
I own a musket for home defence since that’s how the founding fathers intended
As a weapon historian there is also an American/British musket that used the chamber to hold 16 shots. The flintlock mechanism would move to each spot fire off that round then by secondary trigger pull move to next notch. The tube/chamber could be removed and replaced with a fresh one that was already loaded…aka a magazine fed breach loading flintlock. It was called the Belton flincklock repeater. There is a few videos and things out there if you are interested. It would compete with this design possibly
The inventor of the gatling gun was dead sure his invention would end wars as a concept, because in his eyes it was so deadly and fearsome.
Remember, it was a hand cranged turret the size of a canon that could shoot 1 volley each rotation.
To no surprise his weapon only maximised the amount of lead in the air and not the duration of peace.
The only weapons scary enough to stop massive wars are the potentially apocalyptic nukes, and they only stop the really big wars, so it's kinda funny to look back and see him thinking his early machine gun would scare people into stopping the fighting
@@williamking6787 even nukes aren't unique anymore like their most special effect is the EMP
they could do all the other effects with other weapons pretty much.
well I guess project Orion deserves a mention too
@@lorekeeper685 And then there's Project Pluto that took the idea of nuclear-powered ramjet engines in a cruise missile to turn it into a nuclear-carpet bombing, radiation polluting, death machine.
Thankfully the project was scrapped.
Your spelling errors ended my peace...
It’s peace not piece. 👍
I love when I hear "you couldn't own a cannon" you most certainly could own a cannon.
You can still own a cannon. It isn't even classified as a firearm. Completely unregulated. Order it on Amazon. Make one yourself. Go ham.
@@ootdega I got it sent via 1 day shipping.. the lack of understanding of existing laws is so frustrating.
hell, you can STILL own a cannon
@@ootdega The ammo is regulated, to my knowledge.
@@matthewjones39 It is not. It's just black powder and a metal ball. Or whatever else you want to launch out of a cannon.
What's also worth pointing out is that a friend of Ben Franklin had invented the Belton Fusil Flintlock, which could theoretically fire 8 rounds in 3 seconds, and Ben enthusiastically suggested to George Washington that it be contracted for the continental army. There were lots of such weapons in the 18th century.
"ThE FoUnDiNg fAtHeRs cOuLdNt FoRsEe-"
*gatling gun*: hey
*puckle gun*: howdy
*canons*: whats up?
That sounds like an exploded torso waiting to happen
Honestly that was probably preferable to having the barrel blow up and rip your arm to shreds so that you suffer horribly in constant pain and confusion as infection sets in.
You taking about something hitting it? Then it would've hit your chest anyway and bye you go.
You talking about it malfunctioning? It was probably still much safer then the common musket, and definitely gave you way better odds of survive when you could fire 30x times what your enemies could.
We both know if they made you choose between a normal ass muskey and this beauty before going to battle, you choose this 10/10 times.
@@lucasmitchell9027 Ever heard of Chain-fire
No more so than the black powder canteens they poured their grains down the barrel from
@@lucasmitchell9027 Chain-fire, the explosion ignites other ammunition, in this case, the powder stored in the rear, the residual powder that sticks to surface is enough to cause it.
“They never could’ve predicted rapid fire weapons!!!”
Puckle Gun: “allow me to introduce myself”
With all the jamming and reloading, the sustained rate of fire was ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶i̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶“̶r̶a̶p̶i̶d̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶e̶”̶.
Edit-I stand corrected, it did meet the technical definition of "rapid fire", but still was a kind of a bulky and dinky rapid fire weapon.
@@augusthoglund6053 it still defeats the whole " they never conceived of full auto weapons" or the "the 2nd ammendment only covers flintlocks" when in fact it covered anything up to and including cannons
YESS! THANK YOU! I FINALLY REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE FUNKY OLD MACHINE GUN THANKS TO YOU!
CZcams comments are a blessing...
@@robkrieg8301 No, because there were no weapons that could sustain full-auto fire. It's simply not viable without smokeless powder or electric motors which were invented about a whole century later.
The Puckle gun was not full-auto.
@@augusthoglund6053 the puckle gun wasnt the only one btw. There were repeated fire weapons around well before 1776 and all were known to the writer of the 2nd ammendment and the people who ratified it. So you're wrong. Full auto means you pull the trigger once and it fires more than once so youre wrong.
Brother, that’s not a musket!
That’s a musket-et-et-et. 😦
They did actually anticipate machine guns; that's why they chose the word "arms".
“Yea I removed my 30round stock for a 60 round stock on my musket today”
Jefferson: “how about bows and arrows?”
Yes
the Chinese back in 6th Century had repeating crossbows. I know it's not a bow and arrow but still a crossbow that could fire up to five to eight shots before having to be reloaded with an actual magazine.
@@brandonw9635 4th century bc
@@HistoricalWeapons I was close I just knew it was before the 12th century.
Which were faster, more accurate, and longer range then a musket
And in 1779, just 4 years after the start of the Revolutionary War, repeating rifles saw their first military use.
Ah yes, of course the founding fathers expected that in the future everyone would have a rapid fire repeater.
Anyone else feel like Ian from Forgotten Weapons and the Lockpicking Lawyer would be really good friends?
"if you're so good, lock pick this AR-15"
@@Epic-pf8od Ian would never touch such a thing
@@marlborobean798 “oh you are good at puzzles? try to open this weird 18th century French repeater of which only one was made and fought in ten wars, uses weird old French screws, reload it, and fire. All while I explain it’s potential use by the elbonian military” A bit more Ian-y
@@marlborobean798 👋 hi guys, 🫵 Ian here, ☝️ today we are taking a look at 🫴 this beauty, here 🙏 at the 🤚✋ rock island armory auction house. ☝️ now I know what 🫵 you are thinking, is that a French bull pup? Well yes, but more interesting is… it’s ammunition 🫴🎯. This rifle ✋actually isn’t a rifle at all 👉, it fires flechette projectiles 🎯👌. Etc
I think Karl from InRange knows DeviantOllam
There's also the fact that they specifically clarified that actual honest to god cannons were all fine.
This being an era where the cannon was the god of the battlefield. Traditional thought was that victory overall was a literal impossibility without them.
So that thing means they definitely predicted we’d have flying guns that can shoot rounds nearly the size of your head 50 times in a second, decimating the general area.
People forget the Right to Bear arms was to protect ourselves from the Government both Foreign and Domestic. This was written at a time when the people were facing oppressive taxes, laws, and policing and never again wanted to be defensless against such ruling again. Its a good thing we havent seen times like that since then
Seen them.....hell were living it currently.
@@dagnabbitt1158 Yes, yes we are. We are at stage 1 rn. Disarm
Now I'm thinking of Gorge Washington weilding a M4A1
He'd have an aneurysm 💀
Not because "DEAR ME, WHAT IS THIS UNHOLY ABOMBINATION", but because the recoil, even if light, would break his braincells lol
Does he drive a hellcat too?
@ewelinanajgebauer8862 seeing anecdotal evidence of the brown bess having a similar recoil to a 12ga shotgun.
I don't think George Washington would mind the recoil from a M4
@@ewelinanajgebauer8862He'd have dopamine overload.
i wanna see abraham lincoln reacting to the A10 warthog and Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS
My D&D character is definitely getting a musket upgrade.
YO THIS IS PERFECT FOR MY GUNSLINGER!
You're forgetting that the founding fathers fully intended for you to own artillery
Don’t forget the Girardoni air rifle, while not a firearm in the traditional sense, was another repeating rifle, contemporary with the Founding Fathers, that was even used in the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Also it was adopted into military service with the Austrians.
I came here to say this
Yes and it was very expensive and it sucked too. If the enemy was not within a few yards it didn’t have the power to be deadly. Since the main battle formation at the time was two opposing firing line using volley fire at about 50 to 80 yards from each other, it was a big pricey BB gun, compared to true firearms throwing .60 to .75 caliber lead balls a 900 FPS.
@@rollotomasislawyer3405 whether it was as effective as other rifles of the time doesn't mean as much when speaking of rate of fire and ammunition capacity. It may not have been a great rifle for war but it was far ahead of its time.
@@Ian-yk4pk I agree, it was a very cutting edge idea for the time period. I said what I said but I definitely would never want to be shot with one either.
@@rollotomasislawyer3405 Nope. .46 caliber at 1000 fps and could reach out past 100 yards.
They did however predict governmental tyranny. That was the point.
They predicted it and still made a government system to result in it? Ok...
The first reply to this comment is shadowbanned
@@FlorianWendelborn what was the first reply and why are they almost always not shown
@@greytodoroki9479 they are almost never shown
@@greytodoroki9479 I don’t know what it was. Regarding the question why - Google randomly censors anything they don’t like. Could be that they used a "forbidden" word or they expressed an idea that Google doesn’t like. I commented here so whoever commented actually knows because Google doesn’t even tell them :)
My favorite era of guns is when they still used musket rifles but they had actual bullet cases for ammo.
Even before guns the Romans and the greeks had the Polybolos, a repeating ballista capable of shooting several bolts per minute. This was also installed on chariots or carts for rapid movement on the battle field.
*points at crater* "What happened there?"
"Chainfire."
"oh, well i think you're gonna like the grapeshot then"
I need to see one working now.
Probably never will. Unless someone finds the schematics in there mother's Attic. Ir we can somehow rebuild one.
This came around the civil war.
The fact that people make that argument freely on a computer let alone a hand held device without a second thought boggles my mind
when you give the artificer your musket and he gives it the repeating infusion
The world isn't filled with enough d&d nerds.
im new to dnd but this is funny i think
People forget most founding fathers were military men and knew technology would continue to advance. Or that Franklin was a prolific inventor, so the idea of a multiple cartridge weapon system was more than feasible once machining tech advanced
We are not even pretending the could have predicted how fast it would develop due to ww2....like these people were morons
@mickey marr It's a good thing we still make amendments. They expected amendments and updates.
sure, but i don't think in thier wildest dreams could they have imagined a gun that can fire 100 rounds a second with little to no training, be so inexpencive to make you could get one for the equivilant of 10 usd back in thier time, could fire in the rain and didn't blow up if you hit the gun wrong
@@jonathonellis5604 As most of them were military officers and saw that a repeating gun existed… yes, they could’ve. They weren’t dumb.
@@kman9884 the "repeating gun" in thier time was a dutch made gun that was super fiddley and would have been worth the equivilant amount of money of a moden day rocket launcher
it was also smooth bore, didn't work if it was wet and could blow up in your hand if a spark got into the gunpowder chamber
i very much doubt they could imagine the shear destruction a single modern firearm could cause
i know they weren't dumb, and they probbly did imagine a world were a gun would be able to fire more projectiles easily in the future, but the diffrence between a single shot smooth bore rifle and a modern Automatic rifle would be like trying to compare a Stick to a light saber
Army Logistician: *Having a stroke*
Alright I've been convinced, magnetic rail guns and lasers for everyone
Don't forget the plasma cannons!
Private DEATH STAR
@@WildmanTrading I'll do you one better, a pocket death star!
The Girardoni air rifle was a 22-shot, magazine-fed, nearly silent .46 caliber repeating rifle adopted in 1780 by the Austrian Army.
Jefferson gave Lewis and Clark the same rife for their exploration. So they definitely knew about repeating rifles. They reason they didn't issue it to troops is because they were highly expensive. Also most of milita brought their own guns, which were hunting rilfes.
Came here to mention the Giradoni but glad you beat me to the research ;-)
Also should add the level of difficulty fixing those bastards to really they could understand repeaters but I still don't think they could predict the guns we have now with what the guns were like in making function and cost back then
@@garyblack8717 I came down to comment the same thing. He even knew the Lewis and Clark tidbit.
Such a cool idea for a gun.
@cdeer17 Look at Da Vinci's Organ Gun, or the Volley Gun that's been around since 1339. One trigger pull for multiple rounds was a common theory and want for years. Nuclear weapons, yes, but machine guns they could see.
@@Laskadeo remember that people thought da Vinci was a bit nuts
Key and Peele had a sketch where a dude takes 2 machine guns to the past to warn the founding fathers and all it did was make it so the present had more advanced weapons
The guy also came back to the future being destroyed
Thats a pretty smart design.
That Metal Slug question needs answering
The first lever action
the 1st boog yeehaw
Technically yes.
“Heads of Dutchmen with 6 foot 9 long swords”
That comment cracked me up
What video was it on
@@jazrivvaz1282 this one
I’m putting one of these bad boys in my D&D campaign.
To be fair it was never about the effectiveness of the weaponry, the founding fathers just never wanted the government to have all the weapons and the civilians had none, so that there wouldn’t be a dystopian society like they thought the colonies were.
“Ha ha ha! No one has ever beat me in a duel! And you dare to- OH MY GOD IS THAT A KALTHOFF?!?!”
duels are usually a single shot, using this weapon would most likely be against the rules or at least dishonorable.
Don’t forget the puckle gun, a very early Gatling gun
That was obscure and only one guy ever used them for an unsuccessful expedition
The Gatling gun was made in the 1800s.
I think maybe you are talking about the Puckle Gun I think which came in around the same time or so with the founding father, but I'm pretty positive that the congress at the time did definitely want it, John Adam's wanted to use it for the new American Navy he was planning to be built.
You mean the one where the flintlock ignition didn't work so they had to 'discontinue' it lmao
Wasn't that the one that had a cylinder for square rounds that were specifically and only for shooting turks?
Hutchkiss revolving cannon as well
That many moving parts that early in time must have been a nightmare of jamming.
“Pardon me sir, would you mind *repeating* that one more time?”
"So anyway, I started rippin that lever" 😂