What other countries that are, um, let's say allowing citizens to own, carry & use firearms? England it's for hunting only & they have to be kept at an Armory until one wants to use it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tho there & other European countries are having problems with criminal elements having stolen weapons. I wonder if those Fast & Furious guns worked their way overseas.
It would have been interesting to include a mention of the Lematt revolver, which was unusual in that it combined a traditional revolver with an second smoothbore 20 gauge barrel. I'd love to see a modern take on this sort of concept, though federal regulation would restrict much of its appeal.
There are some points people seem to gloss over in regards to the henry and spencer rifles. The henry was loaded using loose cartridges while the spencer used detachable magazines and had a magazine carrier that held 48 magazines. The henry could fire 15 rounds quicker but for sustained rate the spencer was superior. The spencer was also more dependable. Soldiers started to buy rifles with their own money and the rifle they were buying was the spencer. As a side note ammunition for the spencer rifle was still being sold by sears in their 1900 catalogs.
The repeating rifle got a boost when they replaced the copper cartridge casing with the brass casing. Sherman's boys in the Carolinas used Henry rifles that they purchased.
@@BA-gn3qb i am saying he was not even in command of the regiment certainly not the brigade commander strong vincent was senior to chamberlain being a full colonel its like the difference between a leutenant and a second leutenant ,Adelbert Ames was the brigade commander at the time if memory serves me right meade was the their core commander before the 28th of june when he was made general in charge of the army of the potomac a position he held until wars end longer than all the previous generals
Eh . Answer #1 - Jacketed bullets per se are just one part of the evolution of firearms generally from this era to the 1890's . It was interrelated advances in metallurgy, chemistry , firearms design to combine for high velocity , flat trajectory , repeating rifles . Answer #2 - In the context of the era , Cavalry was ahead of the curve with greater prevalence of Revolvers and Breachloading Carbines . Answer #3 - As it were , firearms were not particularly a limiting factor . By and large the tactics weren't keeping up with the technology then in use . Sure ,it's a cliche concept in Alternative History fiction about What If .... Certain units or larger forces had this or that more modern weapons . Or more mundanely , that Henry / Spencer/ Sharps / other breechloaders , or combination there of , should have been the standard , or at l east predominant . But there were several reality checks : They were Expensive . The war effort on both sides was staggering , and bang for the buck was important . Logistics . Concerns about ammunition usage weren't * just * old fuddy duds who couldn't understand progress . Logistics really was an important concern . The railroad networks were both important for their shipping capacity , and their strategic value to interdict . But for at least part of the distances , both sides already struggled to keep their troops supplied with food , shelter , clothing , medicine etc . To suddenly require ten times more ammunition just wasn't possible . Small elite units , maybe could be juggled in the supply chain , but nothing anywhere near a majority of rank & file .
These are good for learning but the man who is showing the guns is wrong alot for instance revolvers were called Army or Navy because the Army contracted for a .44 caliber pistol while the Navy contracted for a .36 caliber pistol, even the Colt 1860 Army had a Naval battle screen on the cylinder.
its ok as a broad entrance to the subject from an american perspective - but you are right: generally .36 cal colts were called navy and .44 cal. colts were called army - although i'm not so sure if this was already common practice at the time.
The Springfield 69 cal was originally a Charleville French muscat invented around 1715 . I have one and it was one of the most reliable muskets of the era. Many of these guns found service in the American Revolution, used by the colonists and supplied by France. Later 10,000 of them were sold to the American government by a relative of Eli Whitney. Finally, by 1820, these guns were converted to percussion firing.
@@erikgriswold5273 Thanks for letting me know. The Charleville was a superior musket. I have shot one for 15 years. The secret is not just those springs but it also has a heavy and reliable lock.
@@erikgriswold5273 No, I was a reenactor. I collected and also made items from the 1700s. This is a replica made in Japan (also in Italy and Spain). They have found actual pieces of these guns but only pieces!
@@johnbrown2163 How can the government take an inherent, unalienable Right that they did not "grant" or "bestow" on the People? Are We the People not the Masters of this country, and the government our servants? Are we Free Men or Subjects of the government?
Colt's major mistake was letting White's patent of the drilled through cylinder for pistols slip through his hands. Remington capitalized on that patent.
@@killerkraut9179 to some degree yes, but a Sharps rifle for example is just as reliable as a Springfield musket. The main issue really was logistics. That was also the main concern that led the french army to adopt the Chassepot with a paper cartridge in 1866 when rimfire and even central fire metallic cartridges had already been tried and tested. It wasn't that easy to produce modern metallic cartridges in the numbers needed and within the required specs to supply a whole army back then (just compare the wide tollerance range in bore diameter of the same rifle type in the "same" caliber of the time). There were but a few factories that could produce metallic cartridges and what if they fell into the enemy's hand early on? Bullets were considerably larger and heavier than today. Carrying 20 rounds of cal. 58 will have much more impact on you than the same amount in cal .223 Remington if you carry them from Washington to Richmond or over the Khyber Pass on your feet. Even if they are stored in the supply train - horse drawn carriages on rocky roads are not lorries on motorways. That's why armies were so concerned about having their officers control their units rate of fire. That's why they kept the practice of volleyfire even into the age of smokeless powder and that's why almost all magazine rifles that were adopted prior to WW1 still had a magazine cutoff that enabled them to be loaded with single shot while retaining a full magazine at the ready.
@@killerkraut9179 exactly - the sharps was just single shot as almost all standard infantry armament worldwide up to the mid/late1880's to early 1890's (with a few exeptions like Switzerland for example) - and yes, you are correct. logistical problems often were the main reason for reliability issues. Making weapons, their spare parts and ammunition as close to specs as possible isn't a small feat. By the mid 19th century, industries were just about getting somewhere where parts interchangebility became practical, yet far from perfect and nowhere from what we know today. Bores still varied widely, even with the latest and greatest repeating rifles or revolvers well up into the 1870's. That's why reloaders who want to reproduce ammunition for their old guns are always advised to slug their bore first, so they know what diameter the mould for their bullets should have.
Whichever cavalry unit was equipped with both the Army Colt and the Henry rifle, both loaded with the .44 caliber brass cartridges, would have been the most formidable unit on the field. But keeping them supplied with ammunition could have been a challenge. 32:22
@@arifeliciano1275 Well, the Prussians kept their new rifle so secret that they didn't even hand it to their regualr troops until it was throuroughly tested and produced in enough quantities to make sure no potential enemy would be alarmed early enough to try to catch up with them so they could actually use their advantage when needed, what they eventually did in 1864 and 1866 resp. Therefor, although the weapon was first tested and approved by prussian authorities in the 1840ies, almost no prussian soldier actually saw one until the late 50ies and it then took foreign agents another couple of years to smuggle one example to their countries for evaluation. The british had one and tested it, the french did, the swiss and probably a few others too, but I don't think that anyone got an example before 1860. By that time - even IF one example would have managed to cross the atlantic - US industries had equal or better solutions to offer. Maybe that is why the concept of the bolt action did take somewhat longer to establish itself in the US (Berdan's post war rifle beeing quite the exeption for some time afaik)
No . The Adams was Double Action . ie , it fired by simply pulling the trigger , vs the hammer being separately pulled back, before the trigger being pulled . Both designs have advantages and disadvantages , and revolvers of both types are still used today .
No , they had a single physical trigger , just two operating modes . Colt's London operation did not meet expectations , and subsequently closed . But by no means was Colt's Patent Mfg Co put out of business . Colt continued to sell US mfg product internationally . For that matter so did British pistol makers . " Bulldog " type revolvers did have a modicum of sales in the US , most famous of which was Col Custer at his infamous Last Stand . And in retrospect with modern gun enthusiast perspective , some of the compact British revolvers in .442, .450, and .455 were ahead of their time . But most of the " Bulldog Type " revolvers sold here were small caliber Belgian knockoffs , that ranged from decent quality to absolute junk .
@@peterforden5917 the model with two triggers is the Tranter - very similar to the Adams as both designers knew each other and were good friends. The Tranter had a separate, lower trigger outside of the triggerguard with which the shooter could cock the hammer while the first trigger inside the trigger guard acted in a conventional fashion to fire the gun. Both triggers could be pulled simoultanously acting like a double action design. The Adams on the other hand was the first true double and single action revolver basically as we know it today - the Beaumont-Adams of 1856 that is (the first Adams model of 1851 was double action only). Percussion cap Robert Adams Revolvers usuall were 5 shot (later metal cartridge John Adams Revolvers were 6 shot, at least in theory). Early Adams revolvers also had some kind of hammer recess safety, allowing them to be carried with all cylinders loaded and primed (unlike the later 6 shot cartridge models who - in the same manner as metall cartridge Colts of the 1870's - usually were carried with the hammer resting on an empti chamber for safety measures). Adams Revolvers were also imported to the US and license produced by the Massachusets Arms Company, if I remember correctly. There was also a third british design that was popular especially in the south: the Kerr Revolver (fun fact: Kerr was also related to Adams in some way). This unique design used a sidelock for ease of maintenance and increased reliability since it was much less prone to failure due to fouling (which is a real issue with blackpowder). That Revolver also had a double action style trigger, but it would only rotate the cylinder when pulled with the hammer down (which had to be cocked manually). All three models had a closed, solid frame like the 1858 Remington Beals - and like the latter they were preferred to the Colt by many due to that. There was a fourth Revolver of british production that saw widespread use during the civil war: the Le Mat. It was actually designed by a french man, but mainly produced in Britain for export to the Confederacy. Continental europe was going for cartridge revolvers pretty much from the start. There it was the Lefaucheux design pinfire Revolver types, mainly produced in Belgium, France and Spain that entered the market there simoultanously with cap&ball revolvers, replacing the latter pretty early on.
The museum guy, when giving the loading procedure for the 1860 Colt revolver, left out greasing the chambers mouths. Skip that, and you will start to have problems after the third or fourth reloading. Lead balls need lube.
The loading instructions that came with colts revolvers didn't say anything about greasing the chambers. What kind of trouble do you have after the third or fourth reloading? I don't grease my chambers. I've read that it keeps the fouling soft but I've never figured out why you need to keep the fouling soft. The fouling dissolves easily in water. Why do you think that lead balls need lube? My revolvers bores don't lead. I could understand needing lube if you're shooting lead bullets from a rifle or center-fire handgun. I shoot 200 grain conicals through my uberti colt Walker and eventually the cylinder will become difficult to rotate. I just take a rag, pour a few drops of water on it and wipe off the cylinder arbor and it's good as new.
@@brianwilson4861 I find that moving parts start getting stiffer without lubing the chambers. Back when I used those wonder wads, that's what happened. When I switched to greasing the chamber mouths, that disappeared, and I could load up as many as I wanted without developing a stiff action.
The williams ball was called the cleaner not due to it functioning as a cleaner, but because it had a tighter fit. The tighter fit prevented gasses from escaping around the bullet and fouling the barrel.
You lost me at "...the smaller caliber conical mini bullets...". They were not mini bullets, they were conical Mene bullets, named after their French inventor.
Don't be "that guy," Paul. You know, the same guy who freaks whenever he hears someone refer to a magazine as a "clip"? Americans can't pronounce French names for shit, everyone knows that. Another example might be the the M1 Garand, named after its French-Canadian inventor, whose name is pronounced, "Gah-rawnh." Instead it's known in the USA by the twangy, "Guh-ray-unnd."
Wild bill Hickok killed a fellow with a single shot at somewhere around 70 yards with his 1851 colt revolver. It would take a lot of skill to do that with a modern handgun. But that wasn't a lucky shot that wild bill made. The revolvers were accurate. Colt knew how to make accurate revolvers and they were made to tolerances that are as tight as they are today.
@@brianwilson4861 I have used, made, and studied guns for 50 years and you just told me that those pistols who had poor fixed sights, a short barrel compared to a rifle, and no real rifling to spin that bullet, was accurate. WOW...fairytales do come true if you believe the BS! I don't!
There is a problem here about searching for weapons. There was little searching by the South in Europe. England had plenty of cotton mills but not enough cotton. So England who had NO slavery by 1860 supplied the American South, fighting to maintain slavery, with their Enfield rifles. If you look carefully at the Enfield. They now copied the French design of holding the barrel with rings not pins (see Brown Bess muskets).
I always wondered, if we hadn't broken away from England, or at the least, not fully but maintained good terms, etc, what would have happened with the South once England gave up slavery entirely. And this would have been in around the 1830s or so, I think.
Very good series....it would be better if it were more universal than centred on America alone
Well the history of America kinda is intertwined with the evolution of small arms
Can you give me universal examples??
What other countries that are, um, let's say allowing citizens to own, carry & use firearms? England it's for hunting only & they have to be kept at an Armory until one wants to use it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tho there & other European countries are having problems with criminal elements having stolen weapons. I wonder if those Fast & Furious guns worked their way overseas.
It would have been interesting to include a mention of the Lematt revolver, which was unusual in that it combined a traditional revolver with an second smoothbore 20 gauge barrel. I'd love to see a modern take on this sort of concept, though federal regulation would restrict much of its appeal.
There are modern reproductions that you can buy, and revolvers designed for .410 shells.
There are some points people seem to gloss over in regards to the henry and spencer rifles. The henry was loaded using loose cartridges while the spencer used detachable magazines and had a magazine carrier that held 48 magazines. The henry could fire 15 rounds quicker but for sustained rate the spencer was superior. The spencer was also more dependable. Soldiers started to buy rifles with their own money and the rifle they were buying was the spencer. As a side note ammunition for the spencer rifle was still being sold by sears in their 1900 catalogs.
The repeating rifle got a boost when they replaced the copper cartridge casing with the brass casing. Sherman's boys in the Carolinas used Henry rifles that they purchased.
28:15 "It's faster changing to your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and/or 5th pistol than reloading"
Thank you for uploading these. I love firearms and I love history.😊 a good day
Vets be careful with the V.A. loan refine ads on this site
I'm getting V.A home loan, is this best choice?
My solution is this. If you advertise on CZcams, I don't trust your product and don't want it either.
“Buck and ball”, the 12 ga. Winchester PDX round uses the same principle.
Why during civil war the are bot use brass copper bullet?
No mention of the Whitworth rifle?
I'm waiting for the next chapter!
Not a bad video.
Until it said Chamberlain was a General during the defense of Little Round Top.
He was a Colonel then.
a lt colonel, strong vincent was the regimental colonel
@@williamsteele1409 - So you're saying: He was a Colonel.
🤦♂️😖
@@BA-gn3qb i am saying he was not even in command of the regiment certainly not the brigade commander strong vincent was senior to chamberlain being a full colonel its like the difference between a leutenant and a second leutenant ,Adelbert Ames was the brigade commander at the time if memory serves me right meade was the their core commander before the 28th of june when he was made general in charge of the army of the potomac a position he held until wars end longer than all the previous generals
23:34 that was a really cool special effect
Technology had come of age in the Civil War.
#Steampunk.
Eh .
Answer #1 - Jacketed bullets per se are just one part of the evolution of firearms generally from this era to the 1890's . It was interrelated advances in metallurgy, chemistry , firearms design to combine for high velocity , flat trajectory , repeating rifles .
Answer #2 - In the context of the era , Cavalry was ahead of the curve with greater prevalence of Revolvers and Breachloading Carbines .
Answer #3 - As it were , firearms were not particularly a limiting factor . By and large the tactics weren't keeping up with the technology then in use .
Sure ,it's a cliche concept in Alternative History fiction about What If .... Certain units or larger forces had this or that more modern weapons . Or more mundanely , that Henry / Spencer/ Sharps / other breechloaders , or combination there of , should have been the standard , or at l east predominant . But there were several reality checks :
They were Expensive . The war effort on both sides was staggering , and bang for the buck was important .
Logistics . Concerns about ammunition usage weren't * just * old fuddy duds who couldn't understand progress . Logistics really was an important concern .
The railroad networks were both important for their shipping capacity , and their strategic value to interdict . But for at least part of the distances , both sides already struggled to keep their troops supplied with food , shelter , clothing , medicine etc . To suddenly require ten times more ammunition just wasn't possible . Small elite units , maybe could be juggled in the supply chain , but nothing anywhere near a majority of rank & file .
These are good for learning but the man who is showing the guns is wrong alot for instance revolvers were called Army or Navy because the Army contracted for a .44 caliber pistol while the Navy contracted for a .36 caliber pistol, even the Colt 1860 Army had a Naval battle screen on the cylinder.
its ok as a broad entrance to the subject from an american perspective - but you are right: generally .36 cal colts were called navy and .44 cal. colts were called army - although i'm not so sure if this was already common practice at the time.
Very interesting !! Thank you, and could also be used as a candleholder!
The Springfield 69 cal was originally a Charleville French muscat invented around 1715 . I have one and it was one of the most reliable muskets of the era. Many of these guns found service in the American Revolution, used by the colonists and supplied by France. Later 10,000 of them were sold to the American government by a relative of Eli Whitney. Finally, by 1820, these guns were converted to percussion firing.
I think they mentioned that musket in Episode 2
@@erikgriswold5273 Thanks for letting me know. The Charleville was a superior musket. I have shot one for 15 years. The secret is not just those springs but it also has a heavy and reliable lock.
@@johncipolletti6139 do you mean you have an original 18th century musket?
@@erikgriswold5273 No, I was a reenactor. I collected and also made items from the 1700s. This is a replica made in Japan (also in Italy and Spain). They have found actual pieces of these guns but only pieces!
“.50 cal are Mini bullets” well shit
The 2nd Amendment. 🇺🇸
Preserving, Assuring, and Protecting American Freedom & Liberty for 230 years.
I guess you guys not get the memo. We lost our 2A rights and you're next. All Americans guilty for not defending thy neighbor.
@@johnbrown2163 How can the government take an inherent, unalienable Right that they did not "grant" or "bestow" on the People? Are We the People not the Masters of this country, and the government our servants? Are we Free Men or Subjects of the government?
10:24 that goofy voice for the confederate commander was silly.
this is really entertaning
Colt's major mistake was letting White's patent of the drilled through cylinder for pistols slip through his hands. Remington capitalized on that patent.
Also, no mention of the Colt 1855 revolving rifles and shotguns.
Can’t believe that the technology of the Henry existed whilst they were using muskets
logistics is the magic word here....
Reliability could be a Factor as well .
@@killerkraut9179 to some degree yes, but a Sharps rifle for example is just as reliable as a Springfield musket. The main issue really was logistics. That was also the main concern that led the french army to adopt the Chassepot with a paper cartridge in 1866 when rimfire and even central fire metallic cartridges had already been tried and tested. It wasn't that easy to produce modern metallic cartridges in the numbers needed and within the required specs to supply a whole army back then (just compare the wide tollerance range in bore diameter of the same rifle type in the "same" caliber of the time). There were but a few factories that could produce metallic cartridges and what if they fell into the enemy's hand early on? Bullets were considerably larger and heavier than today. Carrying 20 rounds of cal. 58 will have much more impact on you than the same amount in cal .223 Remington if you carry them from Washington to Richmond or over the Khyber Pass on your feet. Even if they are stored in the supply train - horse drawn carriages on rocky roads are not lorries on motorways. That's why armies were so concerned about having their officers control their units rate of fire. That's why they kept the practice of volleyfire even into the age of smokeless powder and that's why almost all magazine rifles that were adopted prior to WW1 still had a magazine cutoff that enabled them to be loaded with single shot while retaining a full magazine at the ready.
@@JosipRadnik1
The sharps i Think is just a One shot Weapon ?
And logistics can Destroy Reliability as well .
@@killerkraut9179 exactly - the sharps was just single shot as almost all standard infantry armament worldwide up to the mid/late1880's to early 1890's (with a few exeptions like Switzerland for example) - and yes, you are correct. logistical problems often were the main reason for reliability issues. Making weapons, their spare parts and ammunition as close to specs as possible isn't a small feat. By the mid 19th century, industries were just about getting somewhere where parts interchangebility became practical, yet far from perfect and nowhere from what we know today. Bores still varied widely, even with the latest and greatest repeating rifles or revolvers well up into the 1870's. That's why reloaders who want to reproduce ammunition for their old guns are always advised to slug their bore first, so they know what diameter the mould for their bullets should have.
Guns are cool.
Whichever cavalry unit was equipped with both the Army Colt and the Henry rifle, both loaded with the .44 caliber brass cartridges, would have been the most formidable unit on the field. But keeping them supplied with ammunition could have been a challenge. 32:22
The Austrian musket was a copy of the 1715 Charleville (1800 Springfield) flintlock.
which one? the lorenz???
Wonder why they didn't show the Gatling Gun.
The Gatling gun wasn't really that prominent in the American Civil War, even though it was invented at the same time as the conflict.
No mention of the needle rifle, Dreyse, since 1841 with the Prussian Army, breach loading, self contained paper cartridge.
wasn't really used in the civil war as the prussians wouldn't sell them
I see, I thought it would not limit the developments to what was used in the civil war.
@@arifeliciano1275
Well, the Prussians kept their new rifle so secret that they didn't even hand it to their regualr troops until it was throuroughly tested and produced in enough quantities to make sure no potential enemy would be alarmed early enough to try to catch up with them so they could actually use their advantage when needed, what they eventually did in 1864 and 1866 resp. Therefor, although the weapon was first tested and approved by prussian authorities in the 1840ies, almost no prussian soldier actually saw one until the late 50ies and it then took foreign agents another couple of years to smuggle one example to their countries for evaluation. The british had one and tested it, the french did, the swiss and probably a few others too, but I don't think that anyone got an example before 1860. By that time - even IF one example would have managed to cross the atlantic - US industries had equal or better solutions to offer. Maybe that is why the concept of the bolt action did take somewhat longer to establish itself in the US (Berdan's post war rifle beeing quite the exeption for some time afaik)
@@arifeliciano1275 sorry, I misread your post - well... anyway ;-)
Unless I’m mistaken the british had the adams revolver at this time which was not only 6 shots but also semi automatic
No . The Adams was Double Action . ie , it fired by simply pulling the trigger , vs the hammer being separately pulled back, before the trigger being pulled .
Both designs have advantages and disadvantages , and revolvers of both types are still used today .
@@filianablanxart8305 it was both SA and DA having two triggers in europe they put colt out of buisness
No , they had a single physical trigger , just two operating modes .
Colt's London operation did not meet expectations , and subsequently closed . But by no means was Colt's Patent Mfg Co put out of business .
Colt continued to sell US mfg product internationally . For that matter so did British pistol makers .
" Bulldog " type revolvers did have a modicum of sales in the US , most famous of which was Col Custer at his infamous Last Stand . And in retrospect with modern gun enthusiast perspective , some of the compact British revolvers in .442, .450, and .455 were ahead of their time . But most of the " Bulldog Type " revolvers sold here were small caliber Belgian knockoffs , that ranged from decent quality to absolute junk .
@@filianablanxart8305 Well the one I have seen and handled had two triggers each for a different mode of firing (SA andDA)
@@peterforden5917
the model with two triggers is the Tranter - very similar to the Adams as both designers knew each other and were good friends. The Tranter had a separate, lower trigger outside of the triggerguard with which the shooter could cock the hammer while the first trigger inside the trigger guard acted in a conventional fashion to fire the gun. Both triggers could be pulled simoultanously acting like a double action design. The Adams on the other hand was the first true double and single action revolver basically as we know it today - the Beaumont-Adams of 1856 that is (the first Adams model of 1851 was double action only). Percussion cap Robert Adams Revolvers usuall were 5 shot (later metal cartridge John Adams Revolvers were 6 shot, at least in theory). Early Adams revolvers also had some kind of hammer recess safety, allowing them to be carried with all cylinders loaded and primed (unlike the later 6 shot cartridge models who - in the same manner as metall cartridge Colts of the 1870's - usually were carried with the hammer resting on an empti chamber for safety measures). Adams Revolvers were also imported to the US and license produced by the Massachusets Arms Company, if I remember correctly. There was also a third british design that was popular especially in the south: the Kerr Revolver (fun fact: Kerr was also related to Adams in some way). This unique design used a sidelock for ease of maintenance and increased reliability since it was much less prone to failure due to fouling (which is a real issue with blackpowder). That Revolver also had a double action style trigger, but it would only rotate the cylinder when pulled with the hammer down (which had to be cocked manually).
All three models had a closed, solid frame like the 1858 Remington Beals - and like the latter they were preferred to the Colt by many due to that. There was a fourth Revolver of british production that saw widespread use during the civil war: the Le Mat. It was actually designed by a french man, but mainly produced in Britain for export to the Confederacy. Continental europe was going for cartridge revolvers pretty much from the start. There it was the Lefaucheux design pinfire Revolver types, mainly produced in Belgium, France and Spain that entered the market there simoultanously with cap&ball revolvers, replacing the latter pretty early on.
I have a replica P53 Enfield I use for civil war reenacting.
The first musket with interchangeable parts was the Charleville musket that became the Springfields.
The museum guy, when giving the loading procedure for the 1860 Colt revolver, left out greasing the chambers mouths. Skip that, and you will start to have problems after the third or fourth reloading. Lead balls need lube.
The loading instructions that came with colts revolvers didn't say anything about greasing the chambers. What kind of trouble do you have after the third or fourth reloading? I don't grease my chambers. I've read that it keeps the fouling soft but I've never figured out why you need to keep the fouling soft. The fouling dissolves easily in water. Why do you think that lead balls need lube? My revolvers bores don't lead. I could understand needing lube if you're shooting lead bullets from a rifle or center-fire handgun. I shoot 200 grain conicals through my uberti colt Walker and eventually the cylinder will become difficult to rotate. I just take a rag, pour a few drops of water on it and wipe off the cylinder arbor and it's good as new.
@@brianwilson4861 I find that moving parts start getting stiffer without lubing the chambers. Back when I used those wonder wads, that's what happened. When I switched to greasing the chamber mouths, that disappeared, and I could load up as many as I wanted without developing a stiff action.
The williams ball was called the cleaner not due to it functioning as a cleaner, but because it had a tighter fit. The tighter fit prevented gasses from escaping around the bullet and fouling the barrel.
ahh... isnt the english language fun? cleaner: something more clean, or that actively does cleaning
Then technically it was a cleaner.😕
Interesting series, too bad they FAILED to mention the most used revolver of the civil war! The 1858 Remington Revolver!
You lost me at "...the smaller caliber conical mini bullets...". They were not mini bullets, they were conical Mene bullets, named after their French inventor.
The pronunciation in America is minie, as it is spelled, but the style mostly used was the burton ball.
Don't be "that guy," Paul. You know, the same guy who freaks whenever he hears someone refer to a magazine as a "clip"? Americans can't pronounce French names for shit, everyone knows that. Another example might be the the M1 Garand, named after its French-Canadian inventor, whose name is pronounced, "Gah-rawnh." Instead it's known in the USA by the twangy, "Guh-ray-unnd."
I mean, compared to the earlier .69 caliber smoothbore muskets earlier in use, .58 caliber IS a smaller diameter...
Minie.
Dont you know truth no longer matters
And the dieing!
Handguns (still black powder and ball) carried 6 shots that could be rapidly fired. Accuracy was still not great. It was best used at close range.
Wild bill Hickok killed a fellow with a single shot at somewhere around 70 yards with his 1851 colt revolver. It would take a lot of skill to do that with a modern handgun. But that wasn't a lucky shot that wild bill made. The revolvers were accurate. Colt knew how to make accurate revolvers and they were made to tolerances that are as tight as they are today.
@@brianwilson4861 I have used, made, and studied guns for 50 years and you just told me that those pistols who had poor fixed sights, a short barrel compared to a rifle, and no real rifling to spin that bullet, was accurate. WOW...fairytales do come true if you believe the BS! I don't!
There is a problem here about searching for weapons. There was little searching by the South in Europe. England had plenty of cotton mills but not enough cotton. So England who had NO slavery by 1860 supplied the American South, fighting to maintain slavery, with their Enfield rifles. If you look carefully at the Enfield. They now copied the French design of holding the barrel with rings not pins (see Brown Bess muskets).
by the 1850 barrel bands were pretty much standard throughout the world. The brits were a bit late though, therefor you are right
I always wondered, if we hadn't broken away from England, or at the least, not fully but maintained good terms, etc, what would have happened with the South once England gave up slavery entirely. And this would have been in around the 1830s or so, I think.
Take a shot everytime the guy with the weird tie who talks about the muskets say "uhhh" you'll get alcohol poisoning
Standardize
I'm sorry but lining up and shooting at each other is stupid..😅 no thanks
damn ken burns for popularizing people reading old writings with fake accents to "bring history to life"
I was interested in the evolution of firearms, not actors and reenactment bullshit