That is an incorrect generalization. In Soviet Union, inventor has no control over his invention - it's up to State to decide whether and how to use it; however, if he registers it (for free) and it does get used, he would receive royalties! At least that's how it was down the road, 60ies and later - not sure whether this applied back in the 40ies - all i have my hands on now is a very vague quote, which could just as well be interpreted as if he didn't care enough rather than had no possibility. As an engineer in a capitalist country, you don't get to get rich off your super popular inventions! Because to engineer, you need means of work, which are provided by a guy with money, a capitalist. He risks his money, he gets rich, or he loses money, perhaps goes broke. You do work for hire. None of the intellectual property you produce belongs to you - it belongs to the capitalist, because that's what the contract says, what it has to say in order for capitalist to offset his investment risk. Now, i don't care enough, i'm fine living on a salary, but hey, gotta be honest about it - the bias is just sickening.

Siana Gearz The difference is in one the government is dead set to get involved and the other is a willing act of two different parties. Don't want to do work and someone else gets the credit? Then use your own money

He never lost the rights he did it as a patriot with no intent of personnel gain. The American engineer that perfected the radio after Marconi sort of got it to work gave up all his patents to the US government never receiving a penny for his ground breaking work

TheTabellarius the same applies to the man who desinged the m1 garand, he was paid 1200 dollars for his invention, and died poor ( he asked for less pay, even when john browning was asking for money for his designs ( not to say he was greedy, he gave away many desings in the past))

He worked in the Ishmash factory recently even I bought a Saiga 12 and he was still there when it was produced. They changed the name of the factory to Kalishnikof now.

Especially when he's setting those fields on fire........

'toolbar???'

@@gregtaylor6146 toolbag

@@gregtaylor6146idiot

​@@gregtaylor6146toolbar 🤣

I know I know, replying to a 2 year old comment here, but honestly that's like high school chemistry and physics.

I wouldn't call pvc pipe launching potatoes a "gun"

@@lkristoff5142 Well by definition, it is.

@@gunnerzz1008 you go ahead and carry that. I'll stick with 9mm

Why is that awkward? Did you expect the knowledge was top secret? Anyone can learn this in a library ... just don't try it at home or you might make a very big mistake

I like telling people we never stopped throwing rocks at each other, We just do it way faster now, and the rocks are very refined.

... ballistas* (plural, no apostrophe, just like all the other plurals you mentioned)

@@einundsiebenziger5488 ballisti

@@kaptein1247 right, but let's not get "too Latin".

@@einundsiebenziger5488 or too ballistic

That is true. Even though he sais a *lot* af wrong stuff, he still is amusing to watch ^^

This is very well made. He has great observations.

Music at 14:56?

@@warthunder9155 Sandstorm, by DaRudé

Jeremy is sheer CLASS !!!

Says the anonymous infantile clward!

without the gun the black teens in LA and CHICAGO would have a very boring existence!

No matter how much or how little you have..... There's always been someone out there willing to take it away from you.... And until the advent of the repeating firearm that was available to the average person's use.... It was always the biggest and strongest person who won the battle, kept there land or took the other guys home, or food, or livestock or woman.... Or made the difference on who was the SLAVE and who would be the MASTER❓🤔❓ Or who lived and who died‼️ But after the entrance of the Revolver, and all throughout the years of improvements since.... The 98 pound weakling could meet the 200 pound Bully, robber, or tyrant on an equal playing field (or battle field) in a ONE on ONE fight with any hope of victory.... That is until governments got involved with their BULLSHIT anti self-defense laws.... Fortunately, America is coming back to our constitutional 2nd Amendment that our Founders, in their wisdom, laid down to limit our Government's power to infringe on our God given rights that the Government hasn't the authority to mess with‼️🇺🇲‼️

Unfortunately most guns are in the hands of very much less intelligent individuals

​@@PhilipFear You forget that the 200 pound Bully/Robber/Tyrant can also use guns. And if he decides to use his first...where is your "leveled playing field" then? But of course - your nick gives all away already: "fear"...the #1 feeling of the US American. They fear everyone, because everyone around them has guns...

Oliver North would agree completely

G= GOD'S U= UNHOLY N= NEMESIS

@@nerinavshrestha3338 You forgot.... BS=BULLSHIT

And all that jingo on freedom and you elected trump.

And 11,000 deaths a year is worth that?

@@ponymalone3636 when will america understand indiscriminate gun ownersjp equals a lot of gun crime

@@ponymalone3636 Yes, why should the living have to pay for what has happened to the dead?

I'm a proud British gun owner. 8 of them, all legal

"Lock, stock and barrel" is another one which originated with guns.

Sure enough but there were also quite some factual errors/wrongful depictions, like stating that smgs cqme too late for ww1

@@kmit9191 This documentary has some problems, i don't think it was made by experts rather someone researching from books and forums. Also the fact that Clarkson isn't exactly the most knowledge when it comes to history.

@@Stroke999 clarkson is just a presenter so that's not his fault. But there were some problems yeah

@@kmit9191 I suspect Clarkson saw more than a few opportunities to take "artistic license". For example, when he was firing the AK47 I wouldn't be surprised if the gun was loaded with blanks. If I see Clarkson present something, I'm expecting entertainment more than real information because he likes to put a little bit of misinformation in there every so often.

let me guess, browning and stoner

GODDAMN IT PROHIBITIONISTS

I hope you can again in these 20s and 30s

I mean they were unbelieveably high priced, like absurdly pricey

Ya, they were around $300 at the time while many others were going for $50

Why go to the hardware store when you could mail order it from a catalog and have it sent straight to your house

nonsense. there were breech loading cannons centuries before the dreyse needle gun. read a book!

The biggest thing that was completely missed was the invention of smokeless powder, semi/full auto weapons were not very practical with black powder since it burns very inefficiently and causes a massive amount of fouling that usually makes self loading weapons start to malfunction after very few rounds.

fuck I am old

I completely agree with you

@@TristanGimson you know the comment you agreed with is 6 years old yes?

Foes it matter?

@@davidelliott5843 it does matter because the 6yr old commenter may be dead or not using youtube.

@@dannythomson5239 Well I'm reading the comment, with an addition. These comments are for everybody on utube to discuss, they're not private.

+DemonicSquid I'd say the Wileys Jeep of guns.

+John Smith Nah, Toyota Hilux is a much more accurate comparison. The Willys* Jeep was influential, sure but not nearly as widespread and commonly used all over the world as the Hilux, especially in 3rd world countries. If we're comparing guns to cars, then the Willys Jeep fits better with a Thompson, imo.

either way it's not a submachine gun like he said, it's an assault rifle by definition. fires rifle ammo and has a select fire

top gear reference lol

+chas wiley There is an AKSU version, shorter barrel with folding stock designed as a smg version of the AK.

Very interesting! I used to own a STEN . I was impressed with the engineering. It was fun to shoot, but it cost way too much to feed, and I sold it and bought a car with the proceeds. Mulrimillionares may be able to afford to shoot machineguns for fun, but a session can cost $1000 to $10,000 per session. And masking and scrubbing, throwaway clothing are essential. Lead vapors.

@@markedwards3647 Bro, 9mm is like 0.27 a round. If you were dropping 4k-40k rounds per a session and complain about it being expensive that’s stupidity. It’s not like it was an exotic expensive caliber.

​@Mrjohnnymoo1 also not seeing the lead fumes thing. You're not melting the lead. Don't lick it and you'll be fine.

@@enveng4279 I did not see that, but yes, pretty much.

​@@Mrjohnnymoo1might be that price in America but certainly isn't in my country sub machine guns are fun to shot but that fun can certainly be expensive especially when you can blast off twenty five rounds in a few seconds

hosted by a man called "The Orangatang."

Bill..... Jones 🤣🤣

It would be the “best phone book…… in the world”

And I‘d listen and hope for snarky remarks every now and then…

@@davideyres955 I know hat you did there, and I couldn’t help but reading it…. In Jeremy’s voice ….. in my head.

They were just getting warmed up...

Yeah but electronic guns won't stop people making ak47s and cheap mechanical guns

By that logic not a single drug has ever killed anyone.

DIY noob

cmon dude even the orang-utan from top gear knew how to make that

you can make them so easy this was my teen days man, of shit...., fucking 12 midnight shoot up in the air wait till we hear something go THUD OR glass smashing hahahahha

no production staff hired a guy to make it, a simple research could have told you that, lost cause.

Too bad Jeremy Clarkson went along with lib BS... guns are merely a tool... like the earlier arrow... and the even earlier spear... and the earliest club... or rock... it's ADDICTIONS such as evil religion addiction and evil drug addiction that actually fuel all the hating, hurting, killing and wars... but the hidden powers profiting from addictions never allow that truth to come out...

There is no evidence that Colt ever knew about the Puckle gun. And it was the Winchester rifle that won the West.

@@mcmax571that wasn’t the point. The point was that multi barreled and revolving barreled firearms were not a new concept by the time of Sam Colt’s Revolver.

To be fair, clarkson said Colt stole it from Springfield, not that Springfield was first.

Jeremy clarkson try not to give the English credit for everything challenge

Nope NOT ANYMORE! IN INDIA, CHINA, RUSSIA, MIDDLE EAST ...in every majority non-white country calling the kettle black is normal.

Hoards. Lol. Where are they kept?

ah the 90's

Still keeps us free.

And eleminates the need for bigger schools

@@kasperkjrsgaard1447 Only an idiot blames the tool for the person who misuses it.

@@georgesakellaropoulos8162 misuse? It keeps the population down. Good deed of the day.

@@kasperkjrsgaard1447 Oh look! It's an ignorant foreigner repeating whatever her heard in the news.

Colts main contribution was interchangeable parts allowing the production line, which he taught Ford.

Firearms with revolving cylinders have Been around since the 1500s .

+Antonio Ferrer Daniel Craig is immortal confirmed

he'll pick a new identity after we're all gone hahaha

007 couldn't get enough action undercover so he joined up to fight Germans.

How has no one else noticed the james bond theme song shortly after that part?

It's actually his grandfather who was later killed at Arras. If you look up one of bios, you'll find a still from the clip of him.

No,guns are made for cowards to feel tough.Their for pussies

James Taylor yeah, I kind of wondered how they missed that. And no real mention of the Minie ball at all

Well, most Martini Henry Rifles were chambered for the .455/577 Cartridge.

Never heard of the .75 Martini Henry, they were 577-450 MH , but I get your point.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more certain I become that breech loading was more significant than rifling the barrel.During the Napoleonic wars, the rifle was well known, but with a rate of fire around 1/3 that of the musket, it needed all the range it could get! Allowing the round to be loaded from the breech increased the speed of fire enormously, and the invention of the minie ball - increasing the muzzle velocity even more. Also,of course, m/c guns could never have been made without breech loading. Sorry, Jeremy, I think you missed a trick there!

In a documentary lasting less than an hour, things were always going to be missed.

There were manuals for how to load a musket lying down written by the British from around the time of the american war of independence

It's really a non-issue in the UK. Brits don't worship their weapons, unlike some others that come to mind.

@@terrapin7801 It's an issue anywhere there are humans that want to control other humans, where humans want to hurt other humans, where humans are in danger from animals. In other words, Everywhere! What mental gymnastics are you performing in order to justify denying such a precious human right as self-defense?

@@remyllebeau77 Definitely explains why there's something like .001 as many gun deaths per year in the UK as in the US. Something something self defense Yada Yada yada...

@@terrapin7801 Comparing apples and oranges. You don't have the same population, history, society, and human rights. You focus on comparing deaths from certain weapons but ignore other weapons and violence. You conveniently ignore that most of the deaths in the USA are from self-deletion. Your logic doesn't go past the high school level.

@@remyllebeau77 I didn't specify, which is my bad, but that .001 was gun deaths per capita, not total. The total difference is actually far steeper, but I didn't use those numbers for the reasons you describe. And I really don't think the society argument works because both countries tend to have pretty similar values and cultural sticks and carrots. They even have fairly similar percentages by population of religious and political affiliation, so your excuse as to why Americans are so obsessed with killing each other kinda falls flat. Even just now, you seemed get very excited at the prospect of using guns on someone who is trying to "control humans", meanwhile you're typing these responses on some of the most controlling devices ever devised by man. I'd reflect on your own logical conclusions before insulting those of others.

LOOK WHAT GUNS ARE DOING NOW AND IN LAST 30 YEARS ITS HORRENDOUS IN USA. KEEP TALKING SHIT LAD. OTHER COUNTRY DONE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NORMAL PEOPLE WITH GUNS GOING MENTAL LOL

British

It is not actually a fully automatic weapon as the barrels have to be revolved mechanically.

Wasn't that great of an advance, just an incremental advance.

@@SnoopReddogg plus it was a dead design for more than a hundred years and is still no he today

Gatling gun is about the only black powder machine gun that was practical due to the insane amount of fouling black powder caused, although yes it is technically not full auto since it's hand cranked. There was a naval version with an electric motor though, although I believe they had switched to the smokeless powder .30-40 cartridge at that point.

Yeehaw

Первые револьверы вообще-то появились ещё в конце 16 века. Их легко можно найти по музеям Европы от Лондона до Москвы. Можно ещё упомянуть магазинные пистолеты и ружья Микеле Лоренцони, это самое начало 18 века. Вот то, что в конструкции Кольта сошлись вместе патроны, несколько зарядов, простота и надёжность конструкции и дешевизна производства - это и привело к появлению оружейной легенды. Хотя по нынешним меркам его револьверы были откровенно плохими. С шансом попасть на 30 шагах в корову, зато 6 раз подряд) The first revolvers actually appeared at the end of the 16th century. They can be easily found in museums in Europe from London to Moscow. You can also mention Michele Lorenzoni's magazine pistols and rifles, this is the very beginning of the 18th century. Here is the fact that cartridges, several charges, simplicity and reliability of the design and cheapness of production came together in the Colt's design - this led to the appearance of a weapons legend. Although by today's standards, his revolvers were frankly bad. With a chance to hit a cow at 30 steps, but 6 times in a row)

@@aleksnight5406 Alright, I gotta weigh in here... First, everybody seems to be forgetting the the Girandoni air rifle -- arguably a prime factor in the success of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. It was, for its time, a "military class" rifle holding 22 rounds and capable of sending those down range at a rate of fire it would take ten men with contemporary muzzle loaders to equal... Second, where do you get "with a chance to hit a cow at 30 steps..."? At "30 steps" (< 40 feet), a good pistolero with a Colt SAA or a Smith and Wesson .44 Russian (which, from the language of your original post, should be something you can track down in your own country :-) ) could reliably shoot two-inch or smaller groups; an "average" fellow could place shots you could cover with your hand. I shoot black-powder revolvers -- replicas of the generation before the SAA and the S&W Russian, and even I can do that well. Family Story: My wife's Grandfather was buying a drink in a Montana Saloon right around 1920, when an Eastern Drummer came in wearing a store-bought suit and a bowler hat. As he came through the door, he took off his hat and said, "I heard you boys can shoot. I'll give a dollar to anybody who can put a hole in my hat before it hits the floor." So saying, sailed his hat across the bar room. There were five cowboys present and the Drummer lost six bucks that evening -- my Wife's Grandpa hit the hat twice. (Yeah, I know, the Drummer promised a buck per person, not a dollar per hole; but, seriously, would you argue with the fellow who just ventilated your hat twice while he still has three rounds left?)

@@flyinglpranch3886 Спасибо за хорошую историю. Я не забыл про ружья Жирардони, но они были духовыми и их производство зависело ровно от одного человека - изобретателя. С его смертью производство угасло. Мы же говорим про пороховое оружие. Второе - я говорил про револьверы середины 19 века. В концу 19 века точность и качество оружейного производства возросли очень серьёзно. Причём настолько, что редко попадающиеся мало использовавшиеся винтовки, произведённые до Первой Мировой войны, показывают точность, сравнимую с современными снайперскими винтовками. Настолько, что хорошо сохранившиеся образцы винтовок Маузера, Мосина и Манлихера иногда получают современное ложе и новейшие прицелы. У вас, в Америке, такое любят) Так что, револьвер, сделанный перед войной Севера и Юга, револьвер который был в кобуре деда твоей жены и современная реплика револьвера - три совершено разных револьвера. Разные подходы к производству, разные параметр точности, разные материалы. Thanks for the good story. I have not forgotten about Girardoni guns, but they were air guns and their production depended on exactly one person - the inventor. With his death, production faded. We're talking about gunpowder weapons. Secondly, I was talking about revolvers of the mid-19th century. At the end of the 19th century, the accuracy and quality of weapons production increased very seriously. Moreover, so much so that rarely seen little-used rifles produced before the First World War show accuracy comparable to modern sniper rifles. So much so that well-preserved samples of Mauser, Mosin and Mannlicher rifles sometimes receive a modern bed and the latest sights. In your America, they love this) So, a revolver made before the war of the North and South, a revolver that was in the holster of your wife's grandfather and a modern replica of a revolver - three completely different revolvers. Different approaches to production, different accuracy parameters, different materials.

​@@aleksnight5406 Before I start in on the technical aspects of my response, I should like to compliment you on a couple of things. First, it seems obvious to me that you are an intelligent person and generally apply that intelligence to your conversations. We may or may not agree on all points when we are done with this interaction, but I can definitely respect someone who raises valid points and proceeds logically from them. I may not agree with the conclusions reached, but would attribute such differences in opinion to differences in experience and available information, rather than an inability to reason or the mindless advocacy of a personal agenda. Frankly, it is refreshing to find someone who applies some mental effort to these conversations. It is also refreshing to find someone who maintains a civilized demeanor. Lots of times, when there are differences of opinion even over trifling matters, I see people disparage those who disagree with them. I appreciate the civility with which you have approached our conversation. Even more rare than the "intelligent" commentator, or the "kind" commentator, is the person who embodies both qualities. Often, those who show the highest degree of intelligence in their reasoning -- no matter how flawed their conclusions -- "look down on" those who do not reach the same conclusions that they reached. (Bad Input + Good Reasoning = Worse Output than you get from Good Input feeding Bad Reasoning.) By contrast, those who are the most kind in their interactions often do not "think very well." Of course, there are those who couple bad reasoning with bad attitude. While this combination of attributes is the hallmarks of a "Troll," many are simply "uncouth people." You, sir, seem to belong to the fourth category: Those who proffer reasoned opinions with equanimity. That these attributes make it all the way through the process of a language translation is nothing short of miraculous! Agree or not at the end of our discussion, I fully expect to enjoy it! ===== And to that end, I owe you an apology and an explanation. First comes the apology. My comments about the Girardoni air rifle were not directed at you; nor, were they in response to or triggered by anything you said. Rather, they were part of an observation about the whole tone of the original video and most of the commentary; but, even as such, that observation required context I did not provide. In this case, I simply got lazy and pasted part of a separate discussion into my response to your post -- simply because I already had that response started. That addition was out of place and confusing; I apologize for introducing a half-formed thought into what would, otherwise, have been a more erudite discussion. ------- Speaking of erudition and clarity, I should say that the phrase which made me respond to your post in the first place was your comments about "With a chance to hit a cow at 30 steps, but 6 times in a row." I took this to be the expression of an opinion that Colt's Revolvers were not only inaccurate, but wildly inaccurate. Upon sober reflection, I realize there may be the translation of an "idiomatic expression" involved in my interpretation. For example, in America, when we want to disparage someone's marksmanship, we might say, "He can't hit the broad side of a barn!" If we want to say the person's accuracy is REALLY BAD, we might say, "He can't hit the broad side of a barn -- from inside the barn!" Unfortunately, I speak no Russian. Even if I did, I probably would have poor understanding of the cultural idioms associated therewith. Is "hitting a cow at 30 steps" the equivalent of "hitting the side of a barn from inside of the barn"? I do not know -- so I am stuck with responding to that comment as though it were a literally "true" statement of opinion instead of hyperbole. With that in mind, here's how I would respond to the "cow comment" on a literal basis. For starters, I was born and raised on a working Cattle Ranch in the Western United States. I am -- much to my dispair when I was younger -- quite familiar with the "size" of a cow. You can figure the "average" cowhide is about 50 square feet. Since you only see one (1) side of a cow at a time, that would make about 25 square feet per side. Figuring a bit of "loss" for the curvature under the bell and over the top of the cow, I would say that about 20 square feet is the area of an average "cow side." Another term that may be mistranslated is "30 steps". Despite FitBit and other "personal training devices," in our part of the world, "pace" will be the more common metric. One "tempo" is now equal to two (2) steps. (If you start walking with your left foot forward, you count "one step" every time your left foot touches the ground.) I think something may have been lost in translation. Indeed, when I translated the phrase “A step is equal to two steps” into Russian using Google Translate, and then copied the resulting text and ran it in reverse order (from Russian to English), I got “One step is equal to two steps”. This leads me to believe that "step" and "step" may be the same term in Russian; although they are not in English! And, since our conversation may be limited by the accuracy of the translation, I cannot explain the discrepancy in size, because from your side of the translation, two different words come out the same. So, in trying to explain it in a way that the interpreter doesn't change the meaning, I'll say that you will need to say "60 steps" on your side of the conversation to get the translation "30 steps". steps" on my part. We have two different words, and I think you have one. (Or we have a translator who doesn't know the difference between pitch and tempo.) Regardless, my initial calculation of your distance to the cow was 22.2 meters (73 feet). It is possible, the specified distance was more like 45 meters (146 feet). Either way, I believe the statement on inaccuracy to be inaccurate; but, obviously, the latter interpretation of "Cow Shooting" is less so.

@aleksnight5406 The other part of your statement with which I took issue was "Although by today's standards, his revolvers were frankly bad." When I initially read this, I coupled it with the "Cow Shooting Reference" to indicate a focus specifically upon the accuracy of these firearms. While I strongly disagree with your conclusions regarding the accuracy of these firearms, we may well have other areas of this discussion in which we DO agree. Let us start again with your initial statement... > Although by today's standards, > his revolvers were frankly bad." If you are talking about the metallurgy of these firearms, I agree -- there's no contest with what they can do with modern materials... If you are talking about their longevity, I agree -- the older firearms were more susceptible to rust and corrosion than the modern versions... If you are talking about certain mechanical failures (burst cylinders, broken springs, et cetera), I agree -- not only did metallurgy (see above) play into that, there were significant design changes as well (for example, the substitution of coil springs for leaf springs). If you are talking about the function of a 10 year old revolver, I agree. Modern cleaning solvents and modern lubricants and modern ammunition mean that a revolver carried for 10 years in this century, under the same circumstances as a similar design of revolver carried for 10 years in the 19th Century, will function better (including be more accurate than) its 19th Century Counterpart. Even if you are talking about the accuracy of say, the 24th shot after the last cleaning, I would agree -- with the sentiment that the 19th Century guns were inferior to their 21 Century counter parts in terms of accuracy; though, I would disagree that the difference would be all that much. Much of the "inferiority" of the 19th Century Revolvers can be attributed to inferior ammunition. The blackpowder was less consistent and more corrosive. The primers were more corrosive. The cleaners and lubricants did less to protect against corrosion (some were corrosive themselves); and the guns were less resistant to corrosion than their modern counterparts. However, if you are talking about the "fit and finish" of the firearms, I must disagree. ("Finish" here refers to the final touches on the mechanical finishing, not to "coatings" that may have been applied.) In this, I refer to "production revolvers" as they left the factory headed for the customer. Why do I say this? Well, despite the fact that our modern machining is better, it's not that much better. Most all of the guns were "hand fit" at the factory. Did they have a higher failure rate? Maybe, but they also had rigorous testing before they departed the factory. Even if they had ten times as many manufacturing rejects as the modern processes do, the rejects did not get sold. Further the functional specs of the first generation guns were the same as the "replicas" I presently shoot -- right down to the point where the "modern replicas" suffer from the same failure modes as the original versions did. And, if you are saying that the first (1st) shot from a "factory fresh" 19th Century Colt was less accurate than that the first (1st) shot from a 21st Century Replica, then I must Strongly disagree. But, to explain why I disagree, I'll need to delve into some common misconceptions about the older firearms. Accuracy tends to come down to the suitability of the barrel, the suitability of the sights, and the suitability of the ammunition -- and that's before you factor in the skill of the shooter or the influence of environmental conditions. For the purposes of discussion, I am going to define "accuracy" as the ability of a particular combination of firearm and ammo to put bullets in exactly the same place when it is loaded with exactly the same ammunition and pointed in exactly the same direction. First, let us talk about what level of accuracy could be obtained from firearms in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Keep in mind, these reports subsume both environmental influences and shooter skill. I shall start with the "American Dueling Code of 1838" which suggested a dueling distance of 10 to twenty paces. Again, we will encounter the English to Russian Translation difficulty; so I shall convert the distance to meters: 14.8 to 29.6 meters. You will note this is roughly two thirds of the range to the "Cow" in your initial comment. While a "30 step Cow" is farther away than a "20 step Human," they are also Larger. Remember, the cow presents a 20 square foot (1.86 square meters) target while the Human is an 8.5 square foot (0.79 square meters). This gives you a target less than half the relative size at more than twice the distance. Most of these duals were fought using single shot, muzzle loading, percussion cap pistols. Enough folks were wounded or died in such events that, I think the accuracy exceeded the "30 Step Cow" threshold. But, we can look back even farther. In the American Revolutionary War, American Sharpshooters were able to "hit a sheet of notepaper at a distance of 80 rods" about 60% of the time. That would be a target of about 8 inches wide by 10 inches high -- at a distance of 440 yards (1/4 mile); or in modern terms, an accuracy of better than two minutes of angle (2 MOA). That was achieved with hand-forged barrels with "cut" rifling, using hand-cast lead balls hand loaded into the rifle with inconsistent powder and aligned on target with "open" sights. At Harpers Ferry in 1775, American Marksmen shooting from the "American Side" of the river, using flintlock rifles, killed three British Soldiers on a Ship docked on the British Side. I mention this because, shooting over a known body of water, the range (approximately 900 yards) cannot be misrepresented. According to the detailed story, the first casualty was a British Officer. The second and third casualties were the "aides" who rushed to his assistance. That is important because it demonstrates these were not simply "lucky shots." All this shows that significant accuracy could be obtained using hand-forged and hand-rifled barrels. I have other reports of even greater accuracy, but I am skipping those in order to use only the reports for which I can provide ready literary citation. Nevertheless, when Colonel Colt started his revolver production with improved manufacturing processes, accuracy became better, not worse. I now turn to addressing the specific points you raised. To make it easier to match my response to your point, I am repeating individual lines from the English Translation of your post so that you can match my response to your individual point. > Secondly, I was talking about > revolvers of the mid-19th century. Perfect! Let us talk about those... > At the end of the 19th century, > the accuracy and quality of weapons > production increased very seriously. Agreed -- at least with the "quality" assertion... > Moreover, so much so that rarely > seen little-used rifles produced > before the First World War show > accuracy comparable to modern > sniper rifles. > > So much so that well-preserved > samples of Mauser, Mosin and Mannlicher > rifles sometimes receive a modern bed > and the latest sights. > In your America, they love this... That is all correct... While we are mentioning this, particularly with reference to "sniper" rifles, let us not forget the "Legendary Sharps Rifle"! In particular, I refer you to the "Second Battle of Adobe Walls" which occurred in 1874. In that battle, Billy Dixon used a borrowed .50-90 Sharps (called a "50 Sharps 2-1/2 Inch" at that time) Buffalo Rifle to kill an Indian Leader at a range of 1,538 yards (1406 Meters). While that does not seem "all that far" compared to some of the shots we hear about today, remember it was made under "combat conditions," not on a "target range" -- though the target was close to a "pile of rocks" that had been a frequent ad hoc target during previous visits to the location. Further, November of this past year, that distance put Billy's shot in 14th place for overall long-distance sniper kills (he is now in 15th place). Even more important to our discussion, he was in "first place" until 1967 -- a record that stood for 92 years. So, yeah, they made some excellent firearms in the 19th Century. Billy Dixon made his shot with a Rifle manufactured some time after 1872.

What?

S SC To put it delicately, or as delicately as I care to, this video is extremely biased in it's basic assumptions, cringeworthy in it's grasp of the development of firearms, and overall the exact opposite of what I really expected to get when I looked for an interesting documentary on guns.

+James Kachman I know the feeling. It is the same feeling I get whenever I watch a documentary about the middle ages, or in general most historical documentaries...

As I recall, the inventor of Mercury Fulminate, the basis of modern priming systems, was also a monk.

Hugo Schmeisser was taken prisoner by the Soviets and placed in camp in the same town as the Kalashnikov factory. He was forced to ‘help out’ ….

​@@gerhardgotzmann8880 he wasn't, thats a myth. He was held at a totally separate facility and there is no evidence he had anything to do with the AK design.

Probably more gun shops than McD's.

1851*

Yeah no it was definitely the 1851 used in that movie, the 1861 is far less iconic but was pretty popular though.

Was written in a time they literally thought the UK would invade again...

@@silver4831 Also written in a time they were afraid the central government would become too powerful and disregard the peoples wants and needs. Sort-of like what it has actually become.

@@silver4831ye, and these days America’s Enemies carry automatic weapons, rocket launchers, tanks and aircraft. And not all of them are Foreign either… Seems the Ability for the American People to be as readily armed with the best equipment available is as important as ever before.

@@Beuwen_The_Dragon 🤦🏼‍♀️ Yes because machine guns win modern nuclear wars.