phlegmatised means "spit on"... sure it's become a new thing, wetted fuse burns slower

You went into great detail very good, but anyone I know knows a cook off comes from a smoking hot barrel not straight faulty ammunition just going off thats hella scary, but i believe it people are dumb and ASSume way to much.

@@edwarddailey21 isn't this why they call it "cook-off",because the hot barrel "cooks" the ammo til the bullet goes boom?

@@redstar96gr57 yes lol

Modern ammo still cooks off pretty easily when the chamber and or barrel gets to hot and the most scary time for them to happen is when your clearing a stoppage and have the chamber/feed cover open and they explode back and up and all over!, had this happen with a SAW (MINIMI F89) in Australian service.

❤❤❤

Sounds like Ian needs a flight to Ireland!

Fired with a compressed air bottle.

Bogs usually preserve things pretty well since they have very little oxygen

Peet bogs are great for preserving some things because there is no oxygen, but they're at the same time slightly acidic, so some materials break down faster than others. It's why there are bodies from the early iron age (ca 300 BC) found with the skin so well preserved that you can see the stubble on the chin, but the skeleton has been more or less completely dissolved. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollund_Man

@@ginosko_ *Ian

@@dariusdragonvale9809 the guy is trolling, constantly calling him ethan and that he is surprised that he didnt review X gun in the "gray room"

Hahahaha

I wouldn't fancy being on the wrong end of eight of these!

My old neighbour used to help provision these for the RAF during WW2. Their department was moved out of London to get away from the bombing.

Early Typhoons had 12 too.

I've heard stories that Brits still find the little metal ammo links on their roofs, a result of all those air battles! Anyone else heard this story?

@@RUBIZEN Heard of incendiary bombs being found inside the roof (loft) of houses. Probably had a few slates replaced and not found I expect untill recently.

Makes one appreciate the importance of actually paying attention to what ammunition one is using. It matters more than we tend to think when we are kids and see people throwing what looks like any old bullet into a gun and it works. Had a friend with an old Imperial German Luger, 1916 manufacture, and he threw modern 9mm into it because it was all "9mm Luger." Didn't work very well, but he then got some 9mm actually made to Imperial German Military Specification and the gun ran flawlessly. Being young men mostly learning guns on our own back in the day, we had no idea that cartridges were more than just their dimensions, that the grains and powder mattered too.

I have always thought it cool how you can read a newspaper through the side plates of the aircraft guns.

@@genericpersonx333 A lot of that has to do with most commercial 9X19 mounting a 115 grain pill, as opposed to the 124 grain projectile the Germans preferred. (And a lot of commercial 9X19 is loaded a tad on the "limp" side.)

@@jballew2239 Yeah, and damned if no one mentioned that back in the day. I can get why a cartridge, like 30-30, used mainly by civilians at first would vary a lot over time and place, but how cartridges that were used almost exclusively by a handful of military firearms ends up being so diverse is a bit harder to get. Before the 1960s, only a few specific military guns were really using 9mm, and arguably most 9mm in civilian hands were ex-military weapons. One would think any company making new ammunition would want to match the mil-spec so they could be sure it would work in the military guns that would be eating most of it. Somehow that is not the case. What a wacky world we live in.

J Ballew NATO spec 9mm is still 124gr and boarders on +p, where most standard 115gr bulk stuff is super mild. I prefer practicing with NATO spec just because it’s closer to the 147gr standard pressure in my subcompact or 124+p in my P09

8 of these going at it would put quite a bit of lead into it too lol.

@@FrontSideBus6 or 8 x .50 ( P51, P 47) would really make a mess......

@@roelkomduur8073 How about 2 .50's and two 20 mm Hispanos? Either option be quite unpleasant to have directed in one's direction lol.

That is true especial big bomber planes turned out to be a hard nut to crack. WW2 fighters were more "fragile". What is some of the reason that the mustang did not have 20 mm cannon. Because they was meant to ward of German fighters when escorting Allied bombers. 6 or 8 .50 cal was more than enough.

Really is, it's represent well in sim game too. I play Hawker hurricane and shooting fw 190 and i have to empty half of my full ammo load to take him down..

I'd love to see Ian get his hands on a ShkAS or UB MG from the soviet aircraft industry in WW2. WW2 Air guns are always fun, weird projects.

Saturday shooting video?

I wouldn't be surprised if Ian slowly gets together a collection of all the various armaments used by the RAF in WW2. In 5 years we'll see a "What Would Mitchell Do?" project where him and Karl build their own Spitfires

@@marmite8959 Molins Gun shooting video?

@@matthewspencer5086 The 57mm? Now that would be something to see!

Speak for yourself. I got a pinch behind my lip right now. Goes good with my earle grey and dual monocles.

Not gonna stop me

Lmao

...but...one of the sacred mysteries of Pastafarianism.

@@someguy2741 the primary ingredients in cordite are Vaseline, Collodion & nitroglycerin... Vaseline is a lubricant... Collodion is a nitro-cellulose solution which forms a rubbery film when applied to skin & is used medically to make liquid bandages. Nitroglycerin has medical properties as a vasodilator to reduce high blood pressure, and associated conditions (such as erectile dysfunction). So Cordial is a mixture of a gelatinous lubricant, a spray on rubbery coating, and a drug that treats erectile dysfunction...

Oooh Dev is a fellow disciple of gun Jesus!

@@aaronholmes8568 hah, indeed. Ian is just as nice and kind in person as you would think from watching him on the channel, but the way. 👍😊👍

So you're into this kinda penetration as well, eh?

Yea I thought it might be a transport plug to keep it clean while not being used. I love our gun Jesus. He is so consistent, non political, thorough, and knowledgeable. I'm super glad he is having a successful career with his channel

Two things you don't want to bet your life on: British engineering and Russian hostage rescue skills.

I think the later MkII Gladiator may have had four Browing guns, Mk I had a mixture, including Lewis Guns.

Do you think that a 3006 Machine gun is far more effective? Its a noticeably heavier bullet and higher velocity. I guess my question is hypothetical, but would a 3006 have made a difference in the battle of Britain or would the jump have had to be to .50 Cal to have made a difference?

@@BallisticCoefficient it would have meant making 30.06 rounds for these guns rather than using the standard rifle .303 that was in plentiful supply. It would have been a logistical nightmare. This is why (apart from the 75mm tank gun) British and American ordnance was kept separate. As for the .50 cal, the British preferred the 20mm. The argument as to which is better will continue to be argued. Cannon or hmg. You choose

​@@BallisticCoefficient Answering the second part of your question. I think .50 BMG would have resulted in more German aircraft being destroyed rather than only damaged, with more Luftwaffe pilots killed or captured as a result. But not many more. Consider the fact that the RAF fought the Battle of Britain with simple reflector gunsights that didn't compensate for deflection shooting (pulling lead on a target). Now consider that by the end of the BoB, the RAF had lost many trained pilots, and didn't have time to fully train replacements. A more powerful gun doesn't do any good if the inexperienced replacement pilot (with only ~10 hours of training in Spitfires or Hurricanes) can't hit anything with it, especially when you consider that larger rounds mean the plane can carry less ammunition, making accuracy even more important.

@@BallisticCoefficient They did tests in the mid thirties to determine what was best, including testing the .50" BMG against the .5" Vickers. Although the .5" Vickers only had 2/3 the power of the .50" BMG, the damage done to actual aircraft structures was about the same and the .5" Vickers was lighter, used lighter, cheaper ammunition and had a higher rate of fire (less bolt travel.) They decided the Vickers might be better (the Italians and Japanese did indeed use the export version of the cartridge) but neither was as good as a 20mm! Some of this would apply to the .30-06" and the .303" MK VII. By the time they started to mass produce the .303" Browning in this video, they already knew that they would need 20mm cannons for fighters at least. (These took longer to develop and get into mass production, because the ammunition was new, used explosive shells and the guns were bigger and also more completely new than the Browning.) 4x 20mm became the standard for fighters from the Whirlwind onwards. With turret-mounted guns for bombers, the .303" remained the standard until after the war, although some .50" BMGs were installed on British-made bombers and American-made aircraft generally came with them as standard. There were difficulties fitting 4x 20mm into a Spitfire wing, so the standard there became 2x20mm and 4x.303, with some having 2x20mm and 2x.50" BMG. The RAF only used .30-06" when it was already fitted to aircraft they had purchased, but the calibre was in use in the army (as was 7.92x57) and this didn't cause any huge problem, but it wasn't seen as having any advantage, either. The attraction of the .50 BMG was that American factories were tooled up for it, but the .5" Vickers did see a lot of use on MTBs and MGBs with coastal forces. British factories made ammunition for all three of .303", 30-06 and 7.92x57mm; the latter until the 1960s as it was the standard for tank co-axial guns. The .30-06 Browning _did_ become a post-war standard for British armoured cars, some lasting into the era of the 7.62mm NATO. Some Shackleton maritime patrol aircraft, postwar, had turreted 20mm guns. The wartime British bomber with the lowest casualty rate was the Mosquito with no guns at all, but the ability to outfly German nightfighters.

Sweet, always wondered what those red patches were

I believe they also had the secondary benefit that ground crews could see before the aircraft touched down whether they should be ready with fresh ammunition to reload the guns. Red patches, just fuel and wipe the windshield; black holes, prepare to put in new belts.

The very first Gladiator rolled out had two modified Vickers Maxim guns low down in the fuselage. Modded like the later Browning by lightening some parts and beefing up others, air cooling not water etc. However, under each wing was a tray holding a Lewis gun. The idea was to swap the Lewis for Vickers K/GO in due course. In trials the Vickers K/GO, with its Berthier ancestry, proved more reliable than either the Lewis or Browning as well as offering a higher RoF. However, belt feed (if reliable) wins out over pans and drums for very practical reasons (see the early history of the Beaufighter NF for a related tale of woe).

I'm glad you posted this, I always wondered what those red squares were about. TIL. I even have a nice scale model a hurricane right next to my PC desk on a bookshelf with those exact red squares but with the holes where presumably bullets passed through. Any idea why specifically red though? Why not just brown or green fabric covering the gun ports until fired?

@@-Zevin- As it says above, for quick and easy identification of status, anyway muzzle flash made short work of the patches. For amusement it is worth repeating the notice on Manston BoB Museum's Hurricane: "Please do not touch, we cannot source the Irish Linen these days". Of course I am cheating a bit, Manston's beautiful bird is a Mk IIc with four mean looking 20mm Hispano cannon - i.e. no need for gun port patches there.

Now that's taking the mud test to a whole another level!!! 🤠👍

There was a third advantage I've heard of as well, they jammed less in the extreme cold of high altitude, problem was with the grease lubricant thickening in the cold, for some reason the open bolt .303s weren't phased by this, Luftwaffe had this issue the most with their cannons in the high altitude variants of the FW-190, the figured it was due to temperature as wing mounted guns froze up but the center gun mounted between the cylinder heads of the engine still fired as it was much warmer from it's proximity to the engine.

Remember seeing them on Alouettes while on duty as an infantryman

The Rhodesian Air Force also mounted them on their Alouettes as well.

I thought the top was reversible also, moving the axle pin to the other side, like yo say you take one gun and reconfigure it to any side, no extra bits needed.

It's fascinating getting to these videos early. The first hundred comments are a mixture of weird bot-driven spam about "ethan" and borderline-incoherent jokes like the above. Within a few hours they'll all be buried under a flood of hopefully more interesting comments.

@@AshleyPomeroy I'm sorry, we are just trying to have a little fun here...

@@AshleyPomeroy You sound mad?

Good for the contractors making ammo for sure.

@@AshleyPomeroy dont forget weird salty comments about other people comments

Weren't tail turrets 4-gunned? Very early marks of Wellingtons had two guns but not for long.

There's a few in the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington, along with an extremely interesting catapult...

@@handpaper6871 There are a few at the BBMF visitor centre at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire as well including a brace of them in a mounting, all behind glass and all suffered a full EU spec hack and weld job.

@@ginosko_ Where is the Grey room? I just mentioned the BBMF as it's in the next county down from the Yorkshire Air Museum in the UK and at the moment I know both could probably do with some shameless plugs, I work at the BBMF hehe.

Rapidly replaced with Hispano 20mm cannons which were far more effective.

@@PaulA-ed8xs I think he means the HK Grey Room - the HK US reference collection of their own guns, so chances of a Colt being there are pretty slim. He seems to make the Ethan/Grey Room comment any time Ian covers any MG from any manufacturer.

@@ginosko_ "Ethan"... 🤦😂

The composition was different too, not just the shape. The shape affects the rate of burn so perhaps it was essential for that rather racy formula. The first smokeless propellant was "Poudre B" which was a monobasic powder, Nobel patented Ballistite which itself was a get-around Poudre B.

@@ginosko_ it’s Ian 😉

Wondered why the English did it thank you for answering

Think it was a bit more complicated than just the form Neil but it was a fudge to get round the patent. It is quite interesting from a chemistry point of view and the legal nicety when it came to court and ultimately to the House of Lords. There are some interesting books on the subject. Unfortunately the best is in Swedish.

not quite a ma deuce more of a baby deuce.

@@justindunlap1235 Ma Deuce was more of a dialed-up M1919; this weapon is more of a close cousin to the M2.

@@ginosko_ Ian. How can you keep getting this wrong.

British M1919.

@@wierdalien1 Dude’s spamming the same comment.

@@ginosko_ something is wrong with you. posting the same thing multiple times.

@@ginosko_ Weird bot

@@ginosko_ Ah how compelling. Reported for spam.

"I'm a distant cousin because I've been heavily modified. But, I also drink tea."

@@atfyoutubedivision955 name fits

Parsimony wasn't the issue. By the time they've paid for an aircraft and fuel, the price of the ammunition is basically irrelevant. The weight and bulk of it, on the other hand, was an issue; aircraft could only carry so much, and the more weight and bulk they carried, the more it hurt their performance.

@@discerningscoundrel3055 I agree with you in principle, but if you read around the subject you will find examples of the stupidest penny-pinching decisions both by the Air Ministry mandarins and by the War Office. The AM was probably worse, occasionally they got it right (thank goodness), even a stopped watch is right twice a day!

There's a British training film having Thompson gunners firing in semi to conserve ammo

@@demonprinces17 Have you got a link? I love watching old training films.

@@discerningscoundrel3055 no it popped up in suggestions

There is a T-6 Harvard in the Sintra Air Force museum with two pods of 7.7 mm machine guns (as well as rockets and bombs), the guns look like Brownings and I'm pretty sure they came from France where they were used in Algeria and Indochina in similar roles. To answer your question, they were probably put in storage and sold.

Remember that for jet powered planes that use kerosene, every six pounds you save is another gallon of fuel that you can carry.

@@robertweller1137 I believe that Jet A is a little heavier than 100LL AvGas. It's closer to 7 lbs per gallon.

@@cinedelasestrellas What!? It's a pedantic off! FIGHT. Well Mark. Of course it would be closer to 7lb. 6.66lb to be accurate. I already knew this and absolutely did not Google it! HOWEVER! 1930 Royal Airforce aeroplanes did not use 100 LL AvGas. But crapy old 87 octane! So your 6lb per gallon is also wrong! So nah!

@@robertweller1137 Wow. Sorry to upset you so much.

@@cinedelasestrellas I'm not sure I can get over it Mark. I fear I relationship will never be the same again!

A lot of it comes down to advances in airframe construction; the wings of a WW1 fighter were too lightly built and too flexible to mount MGs steadily enough for accurate fire, but the engine mountings already had to be strong, so mounting the MGs near the engine made a lot of sense but required synchroniser or interrupter gear to fire safely through the propeller arc. The stressed-skin cantilever wings of fighters introduced in the 30s were radically stronger, allowing for stable mounts for machine guns, and thicker, too, giving room to store the ammo. Once it was possible to mount the guns in the wings, there wasn't really any particular reason to use synchronisation gear, and it came with downsides - not just restrictions on the use of open bolt guns, but if the gear malfunctioned it could be rather bad for the propeller

@@discerningscoundrel3055 Also, all synchro gears reduce rate of fire.

They were fired by compressed air, Possibly you could use the compressed air supply for the truck brakes.

When it comes to militaries, cost and nepotism is usually at the forefront.

They had millions of leftover rounds to use up

The 20mm Hispano was better than the 0.50cal.

@@JohnyG29 Yeah but you could carry thousands of rounds of 50 compared to hundreds of 20cal ammunition in a single seat fighter. P47D-28s had over 3000 rounds IIRC

The later model Spitfires had two Hispanos and two .50 Brownings. Ammunition load was 240 rounds of 20mm and 400 rounds of .50. To my knowledge the ammo boxes were about the same size in all four inner wing gun bays, so it seems that the .50 gives you a bit less than double the ammo in the same space. 20mm HEI is probably more than double the destruction of .50 API however. The P-47 is so enormous that it could carry a truckload of ammo of whatever kind you liked. IIRC consideration was given to fitting it with six 20mm, which is an utterly absurd level of firepower.

Guy Martin has a good video from earlier this year where he got the Paras to fire 8 GPMGs simultaneously at a Messerschmitt-sized target to try and simulate the effect. Much lower cyclic rate, but still sounded incredible!

@@slightlyagricultural Ah yes. See, that’s exactly what made me think as seeing that and knowing that the RoF was slower on a Gimpy compared to the Browning by a significant amount. I imagine it’s probably more of a tearing sound than the boom-boom-boom.

I think they just parket the aircraft in some pre-set area and zeroed it exactly once, and then you could adjust it. I know for sure it was customisable by ground crew to have different guns firing at different ranges of convergence.

I saw something years ago. The planes were parked in firing spot and each gun was adjusted to hit an target downrange. Not so much as zero but to hit an area.

IIRC, Military Aviation History has a video on this: Basically, the MGs and cannons were on different triggers, the guns were not all zeroed to the same point, although they were zeroed several hundred yards away. The guns were set up such that they created a pattern instead of all firing straight ahead; this made it easier to hit more parts of an aircraft.

Here is a video detailing the gun harmonization: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hbScm9WVr9XIn5s.html

@@ginosko_ Please stop. Go spam facebook. Or get a job.