100% one of the best "modern " western movies and one of Eastwoods best performances too!

Hell of an interesting story there! Thanks for sharing :)

I remember having read, that the french got a load of rolling blocks and spencers in 1870

@@mikehoare6093 They bought Spencers and rolling blocks for the war with Prussia.

​@@mikehoare6093 We bought 5000 spencer New model carbines and 1000 rifles. I'm currently in a the making of a documentary regarding that topic. And I have one of those 5000 carbine. What a cool story

@@thefrenchgunsmith6488 I´m looking forward, mate !

faster than modern swing-out-cylinder revolvers too IMO. I don’t know why we regressed back to swing-outs from break-action revolvers, but we did...

@@crazysilly2914 From what I've been told, break action revolvers are an inherently structurally weaker design because the frame isn't solid. The fact that they leave a gap to allow the revolver to break open means they're subject to warping from pressure and heat.

@@crazysilly2914 Autoloading pistols reload even faster. The reason why revolvers still stick around today (besides hobbyists and Fudds) is that they work better for firing magnum pistol cartridges than semi-autos. As break-action revolvers have weaker frames than swing-out cylinders, you can see why they fell by the wayside since the whole appeal of revolvers was the ability to fire magnum cartridges. As for faster reloads, semi-auto pistols already have that covered. And since your average semi-auto pistol has much higher capacity than your typical revolver, the break-action design offers little utility compared to a stronger swing-out cylinder. The strongest frame, of course, are fixed-cylinder revolvers with a loading gate. This of course comes at the expense of extremely slow reload speeds, but those types of revolvers nowadays are firing some very powerful cartridges that you probably won't be banging off in rapid fire due to recoil and the cost per round! The only break-action revolver I know if chambered in a magnum caliber was the MP-412 Rex, but it was apparently never produced since Slick Willy made a gentleman's agreement with Boris Yeltsin to ban importation of Russian firearms into the U.S.... because we can't have nice things. So I have no idea of how well the MP-412 actually worked, or whether it was an unsafe piece of junk that risked a catastrophic failure with some spicier .357 Mag loads. That said, I could see break-action revolvers making a comeback in places where semi-auto pistols are heavily regulated or impossible to get. I personally hope to never live in a place like that, though, since I have little experience with revolvers, and I definitely wouldn't want to take a five or six-shot revolver against a criminal assailant armed with a Glock 19 or even a Hi-Point Yeet Cannon :P

@@Schwarzvogel1 With modern metallurgy and manufacturing techniques and tighter tolerances, I bet you could make a break-action revolver that is just as strong as a swing-out. (might have to be a pepperbox design though with the six cylinders each having their own separate barrel)

You'd appreciate that loading gate if you have to reload on a moving horse and a slight jolt puts all your rounds in the dirt

Another one is it’s rear sight is actually visible on the gun, rather than a set of 2 nubs that could be mistaken for the sides of a screw. The One thing no one talks about is how nice a good set of iron sights can be. This is especially true on revolvers where often it’s still a set of black on black irons with the most generous often being competition style rather than tactical.

A 3rd cousin of mine posed with his gang (yep), and he's holding a Schofield. No NOT Jesse James BTW. Pretty sure he's trying to show he's as bad-ass as James, but also he has the money to get a nickel-plated one. Schofield's were more expensive than the Colt series, partly why they did not catch on the other being availability of ammo...

That is kind of neat. Modern styles are a bit flimsy or weird.

@@tamlandipper29 Not to mention too big.

Probably. There is almost no denying that the Schofield was the superior pistol particularly for cavalry use; it could be reloaded in half the time and with less hassle. If it had been chambered in .45 Colt, or if the .45 Schofield had been the longer cartridge, the Smith & Wesson Model 3 probably would have risen to prominence while the Peacemaker was left in the dust. But that's just what _I_ think, and I don't know anything.

I don't believe the original Schofield could handle the pressures of 45 colt.

I own an Uberti copy with about a 3-3 1/2" barrel chambered in. 45 Colt, positively one of my favorite guns to shoot

@@jeffturnbull9661 Did you pay over $1k for the pistol? I've been doing searches and the demand appears to far out weigh the supply.

Are you going to ignore the fact that the Army preferred the .45 Schofield round over the .45 Colt? It was a classic case of Army logic: Get rid of the Schofield revolvers because they don't take .45 Colt ammunition, then get rid of their .45 Colt ammunition because they don't fit in Schofields.

yes agree, its almost boring to say this again and again about your content Karl,....but heh yawn. However are there figures as to the cost of these surplus weapons in comparison to more modern alternatives? could the choice to use military surplus weapons be based on the experience of having been in the civil war so very comfortable with the usage? Rather than simply cost? cheers, jj

Best part is when the scores are done, and someone else scored lower while having modern technology. It's happened in plenty of previous matches with video.

That's the stuff dreams are made of I read a story about Bannermans in a Dixie gun works catalog that has to the greatest surplus dealer ever

Remember, even in the late 1800’s, most frontier men had muzzle loaders, a muzzle loader double barreled shotgun if they were lucky. Henry’s/Winchester’s were INSANELY expensive as well. Something CHEAP military surplus like the Spencer that is MULTI-SHOT would be a GODSEND. We speak from a very privileged viewpoint...

@@crazysilly2914 That is true. Heck, if I remember my Horace Khepart correctly, he mentioned a LOT of folks were still using caplocks in to the early 20th century when he was writing. Not that muzzel loaders are "bad" or "wrong" mind you. I quite like them myself (I'm into minimalism), but a breach loader like a Sinder, Springfield or even a breach loading repeater like the Spencer just bring up the convenience factor to the level where it's hard to ignore.

@@dwi2921 Waaaay quicker reload times. Which could save your life when you are up against a charging longhorn, Indian raid, or bandit gunslingers...

@@crazysilly2914 Indeed. Though I wonder if we some times play up the value of repeating firepower to something that it isn't. Still I'd rather have it than not have it.

@@dwi2921 Obviously, a Henry, or even a single-shot breech loader might be a little better, but those were very expensive, at least in the early days of the Wild West 1866-1875. Later on the became cheaper though. But since the Spencer’s were surplus, they were comparatively cheap.

Honestly, they remind me of the speed loaders for 22 rimfire tube feds.

Dents to the tube would block cartridges from sliding out. Given how thin the metal the tube is made of... they work fine for someone who leaves the tubes in a drawer by the front door of their house. For field use it was simply not a good idea to put your life on the line using the tubes. There is a reason that it is incredibly difficult to find original examples. Nobody liked them.

He said that they were not yet available as surplus, as they were still military arms at the time.

The 50-70 "trapdoor" Allin conversion rifles were not a robust, reliable design in Civil War-era Springfield rifle muskets, rebarreled from .58 caliber.

yes, also 3:10 to Yuma

@@colinfinnell2673 I need to rewatch that one. KZfaq keeps telling me to. :P It played once while I was having beers with friends but I think it's time to really watch it. And now there's a Hollywood drought anyway. I wanna compare the kid in it to the obnoxious kid in Old Henry.

The Schofield was also more expensive, and a little more complex. But the primary reason was its cost.

Thank you so much!!

@@randymagnum143 true, but I think the metallurgy of today could certainly handle it. Also any original would be well over 100 years old and who knows what kind of life it lead.

I wonder if that method improves or gets worse if you actually practice throwing things at targets?

@@tamlandipper29 No clue. I only just started testing it. I put an 18" circle at 15 yards and count anything in the circle as a hit, without regard to grouping or hit location. I figure if anything is truly intended to be "minute of man," this is it.

If possible? Centerfire conversions. Large caliber rimfire are not really a thing if you want to actually shoot it. Major manufacturing of these types of cartridges ended during WW2, and reloading for them is not really viable or practical.

Large caliber single shots or revolvers are doable with conversion cases as you describe, you just have to manually index the cartridge when loading so the off-centre primer mates up with the firing pin. Not really feasible in repeating rifles like the Spencer, because you have little or no control over cartridge orientation as it gets fed out the mag into the chamber. Best bet is a conversion bolt or breech piece depending on the design. Either a modified original bolt or a new production one. I myself shoot a Swedish military Rolling Block rifle, made in 1873, that was originally rimfire. The caliber is nearly identical to the American .50-70 except for having a smaller rim diameter, so centerfire brass can be made from either .50-110, .50 Alaskan or .348 Winchester. Or .50-70 if you have a lathe to modify the rim. I use .50-70 dies. The centerfire conversion was done ages ago, probably way back when the rifle was originally surplused out in the 19th century. The common way to convert rimfire Rolling Blocks was to peen over the original firing pin tip so it got stuck in place, file or chisel it flat at the breech face, and drill a new centered firing pin channel through the old pin and the breechblock. Make a new firing pin, with a notch for the retainer screw, and shorten said screw since a centerfire firing pin channel intersects the middle of the screw hole on an originally rimfire block.

Yes i'm aware of both of these, but why hasnt anyone just made rimfire casings?

Demand aside, just as like a hobby or something

@@gunslingerfromwish4656 Because that requires expensive custom made tooling which cannot be used for any other purpose, and there isn't enough commercial demand to make it viable. And forget hobby level stuff, building a case drawing press with all the parts needed to make one caliber of rimfire case is something like a hundred times more difficult and laborious than converting a breechblock to centerfire. It's doable, but takes a serious amount of engineering and machining work. And then there's the priming compound, and the handling thereof. We're talking about a shock sensitive high explosive that you cannot simply go and buy in hobbyist level quantities, and which requires special care in handling so it doesn't kill you. Historically, people working with this using older/easier priming chemistry didn't have a great life expectancy. Lots of nasty accidents, plus some of the older compounds were highly toxic. So don't make your own, it's doable but dangerous and it took industry several decades of high-risk experience to figure out how to do it safely. Centerfire primers are fairly safe because a factory with proper safety precautions has taken care of the dangerous bit with loose priming compound in bulk for us, with known stable chemistry that won't go off on its own. The amount in each primer is low enough to not pose a major explosion hazard, but if you're going to prime even a dozen large caliber rimfire cases then you're handling at least a spoonful of loose compound. That's easily enough to blow your fingers off if you mess up.