That's a very good point. Often when I am shooting I cannot tell where my bullet hit the target until the smoke clears and that is outdoors. In buildings or ships it must be terrible.

Not to mention what firing something like that would do to your ears in an enclosed space!

Black powder isn't quite as hard on the ears as smokeless. It's a different sort of boom, lower in frequency. Still a serious problem, though.

Yes, black powder does seem to have more of a BOOOOM! type of sound, as opposed to the smokeless "BANG!" or "KRAK!". I know it doesn't go anything like "KRAK!" but for some reason it felt appropriate

Yet incredibly he had to close his London factory because Adams' revolver was basically better and out-sold Colt's.

He got kinda crazy in the early 1850s, and was known to fire people for suggesting improvements to his designs. He also spent way too much money on wining and dining potential clients.

Some of the guns he gave as presents to influential people in that period are incredible. Whatever the technical virtues and problems of the Colt 1851, I find it a great looking thing.

heh, i'm not saying he's perfect : ) just that he had a pair of important entrepreneurial skills that don't typically go together in people.

Usually the most memorable people, such as Nobel prize winners, are excellent at both their particular field and in the skills required to present themselves.

Yes absolutely. There are even accounts of soldiers shot in WW1 and WW2 falling over thinking they were dead. Only to then stand up and carry on after realising that they were basically fine, despite having had a bullet travel through a non-vital part.

scholagladiatoria Use of Force training in the modern era concentrates on that very concept. "Stay in the fight," is a common saying that is short hand for not giving up assuming that you are dead.

It has nothing to do with exposure to guns and everything to do with adrenaline and/or drugs. There have been numerous stories throughout history of people being shot in combat and not realizing that they've been or that they were really badly wounded. Most of the time it's because there's so much adrenaline pumping through their veins they don't feel the pain initially. This reminds of two stories, one is during the Phillippine insurrection and stories of how US soldiers would shoot at the rebels only to find that their .38 revolvers were having little effect on them. They would deliver lethal wounds but they weren't necessarily immediately fatal and this was often enough for the attacking rebel to close and attack the soldier. Supposedly, this is what prompted the US to adopt the .45 ACP cartridge, they wanted something with more knockdown power, the idea being that even if you don't deliver an instantly fatal wound the power of the round would knock your opponent down giving you time for a follow up shot. The other story that comes to mind is during what's commonly known as the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia. According to some of the Rangers and Delta Operators who were there they sometimes had a hard time taking down attacking Somalis even after having shot them multiple times. The reason being was due to two things, one being that most, if not all, were high on khat (a popular narcotic) and really didn't feel any pain. The second factor was the ammunition they were using, the bullets being used were designed with a hard core to make the round more effective against body armor but when used against an unarmored individual all it would do was go completely through the person leaving only a tiny 5.56mm hole. What you want to happen is for the bullet to expand on impact and creating a much larger wound and doing more tissue damage.

What Matt said about WW1 and WW2 is a big thing, but also consider the kind of ammunition that was used in the early black powder firearms. Round lead balls depending on whether its a smoothbore or rifled barrel isn't the most accurate type of projectile and then compound that with the type of projectile (lead ball) and lower muzzle velocities especially in short barreled pistols. With the propellants of today bullets can be pushed out of a pistol at good velocities but it wasn't that great back then. So when a relively slow round lead ball that's typically smaller than a rifle lead ball hits a person it may not do a lot of harm. In some cases most of the energy even gets absorbed by layers of cloth or even stopped entirely (especially when wearing things similar to a gambeson/brigandine). And if it does deal fatal damage by internal bleeding the opponent may have enough time to deal a mortal wound himself. The sights on a lot of early pistols based on what I've seen on antiques from forgotten weapons so far have typically been horrendous too, all too often only really a tiny front post. Probably suitable for their purpose but less than ideal to say the least.

Brain or spine and you are not staying in the fight. A gunshot wound to the heart and I believe the standard is you will stay conscious anywhere from 5 to 15 seconds. Very large (shotgun slugs) or very high velocity (hunting rifles) projectiles tend to knock someone down and out but the evidence for this is of course difficult to cite. Most people will shut down if they believe they are fatally wounded.

Several U.S. police officers have exchanged gunfire and been hit in their vest while their adversary took one in the chest (and died). Kind of a parry. There are actually videos of this on KZfaq.

Obviously Matt has never played Bloodborne

vests do absolute wonders for staying alive. But... FBI did an amazing study a few years ago looking into what does it actually take to kill a person using a firearm. They found that absent of a direct hit on a major organ such as the heart or brain, instances of death is related only to blood loss...but interestingly psychological trauma seems to be a major factor as to why some people die and some do not. The will to live seems to be a major factor in surviving.

(in regards to FBI vest study) When youre bleeding out your body will compensate by constricting vasculature and increasing heart rate (sympathetic nervous system) among other things to make sure your body is making the most of what blood it has. I wonder if by 'accepting death' youre encouraging the opposite, your parasympathetic nervous system which will relax your vasculature and slow your heart rate and thereby let you fall into decompensated shock. Correlation isnt causation though and since both are autonomic you cant explicitly choose to be in either. I dont know enough about psychology to be confident if it has any impact but its interesting :)

Wait, you mean anime series like "Cowboy Bebop" were lying to us? :)

His guns survive somewhere?

Back in the 80's, I saw a military display on the Indian Mutiny in England, remember the name.

The was another Hugh Gough. To be specific, Field Marshall Hugh Gough. Field Marshall Gough was the commander of British forces in India in the 1840s, before the Indian Mutiny. He was already retired and in Britain when the Mutiny happened. It is possible the display you viewed was from the other Gough.

I too would be very interested in your thoughts on the Flashman series.

The difference in experience between America and Britain with revolvers is both well documented and bizarre. There are lots of examples from British accounts of people being shot with even the .36 and it not stopping them. I have an account where an attacker was shot several times in the chest with a .36 and then went on to cut down and kill the gunman. There are of course other accounts where one shot proved fatal though.

There is much variation in black powder revolvers. A greater degree of it than most enclosed cartridge firearms because of a less uniform format. With different loading practices; different weights of bullets, shapes of bullets, types of powder, measures of powder, lubricants and patches, the ballistic performance and thus the practical effectiveness of the shot can be affected. Of course, debates about stopping power began in those days and have not yet ended, so this is clearly not a discussion with clear unequivocal answers.

All very true.

Bizarre is the best word. The subject matter shows that each bullet wound is a unique event and predicting the effects are problematic. Generally though, a .31 caliber lead pellet passing through the brain is going to be instantly incapacitating- just like a .36 or a .44 or .58 or a Brown Bess musket ball. And in the mid-19th century the probability of surviving a gunshot wound to the abdomen was extremely low and so the .22 pistols of the day were taken quite seriously.

If you ever get a chance, check out the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts. Really nice museum and part of the US National Parks system. It was in continuous operation from like 1780 to 1970 (ish).

*ubatr. Learn to spell Josh

perhaps the hardness of the lead used in the different areas were not the same? or the climate they were used was different? (smaller calibers will often penetrate slightly more so if there's winter clothing...)

While I agree that it is a great revolver, I'm not really a fan of the grip shape and it is still only single action. Although modern shooters like to swap out cylinders, I have yet to see a period account of anyone doing that. Happy to hear about a period example if one exists though!

Yes it's very big - about 0.72 calibre, so bigger than some muskets.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Henry_Gough

And what did he say? My understanding was that Colt was out-competed by Adams.

And that happened because the Colt was playing catch-up, what the single-action only Colt has to offer at the time was really unimpressive for the European market compared DA/SA of the Adams and other European design.

Yes the Remington is clearly better than the Colt. Though I'd argue that the Beaumont-Adams is better than both, due to the double-action. The fast-changing cylinder on the Remington is a great feature in theory, but I have yet to find a period example of anyone actually doing that - do you know of any period accounts of people changing cylinders on a Remington mid-fight?

There are no period accounts I know of. Buying "extra" cylinders may, for whatever reason, not have been done either. So it is just a theory and I am assuming it was probably done by some innovators- but I could be wrong. As for the double-action only argument, it is hard enough hitting anything with a pistol single action and double action is for just out of arms length. For use against multiple native insurgents who are in knife range of course it was going to be "better." But deliberate aim at someone 30 feet or farther away and the double action is going to be found wanting. I owned a couple revolvers over the years and after several thousand rounds through them I can attest that a double action pull is only going to hit accurately with exquisite care at any distance over a few dozen feet. Unless you are one of these pistol champs that have specially tuned up guns and literally hundreds of thousands of rounds fired in practice.

www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/archive/index.php/t-9898.html These guys say it was not done- only in the movies (especially "Pale Rider.")

Having owned and shot a replica of the Remington revolver, I have my doubts about swapping cylinders, also. There are a couple of problems with it. First, keeping a loaded and capped cylinder in a pouch or a loop is a great way to end up with some of the caps loose or missing. This would be bad in the middle of a fight, the equivalent of having a jam or misfire on a modern weapon. Second, the cylinder pin can become fouled with black powder residue, making the removal of the cylinder difficult enough to require tools. Third, putting the cylinder back in is somewhat fiddly and irritating during normal cleaning. I can only imagine how difficult it might be during a fight. Fourth, the extra cylinder would be expensive. It is one of the most involved bits of machining on the weapon, with exact dimensions on the length, bore diameters of each chamber and the cylinder pin bore, and the depth of each chamber. The locations of the chambers have to match up exactly with the locations of the teeth at the back of the cylinder, or the chamber won't line up with the barrel. Then the nipples have to line up with the chambers and the threads for the nipples have to be cut to the right depth.

Clint Eastwood makes it look so easy. I would argue it was probably done by a few people simply because they wanted more immediate firepower than loading the weapon one chamber at a time with the loading system on the gun. First, keeping it in a properly made rigid and lined device would make it no more likely to lose caps than on the weapon. Second, after just six shots the cylinder was not that difficult to remove. Third, practice. Fourth, the parts are interchangeable. So yes, it is a theory and just a theory but no need to beat me over the head with it.

Not in British sources - Colts were only referred to as Colts and by 1860 Adams had basically beaten Colt out of the British trade.

This is the Uberti model, rifled.

I know the Colt repro is. My question was: in the sentences after the Colt sentence. THE SINGLE SHOT muzzle loading pistol? Will you be doing a video on it?

Ah, that's a .72 smoothbore.

Wow, that is definitely a man stopper. It looks brand new.

Although these existed they were incredibly rare and weren't really effective so I doubt that they would've done any treatise on them which is what mat easton bases his work on so I would doubt that he would examine them much.........Closest you will get is the Rifle Bayonet combination which is everywhere and still part of modern military training today (although its use is rare in actual combat there have still been cases)

The pattern welding is still visible. The most modern firearm type I own is the .303 Lee Enfield I'm about to get.

makes that firearm even more awesome! good luck finding good sized 303. ammo they are usually smaller diameter for civilian use compared to military .303, had a buddy with a jungle carbine and that gun really didn't like the low pressure stuff.

rosko14 it's quite easy to find in the UK. There was still WW2 surplus around here until a few years ago.

Glad to hear it.

IEnjoyBeingNaked - shooting, building lego castles and fencing = recipe for the perfect life

I think it's a comon war strategy. Shoot from distance, throw lego bricks infront of you to slow down advancing troops, fight them with swords when they manage to close. :-)

Throwing lego bricks on the ground is an age old strategy of wounding advancing or following foes, as there is no other product that will make a hardened soldier hop around shouting "fecking 'ell!" than Lego. Cowtrops are a poor imitation

I think it's a triathlon joke

I'm pretty sure substituting Lego bricks for caltrops is considered a war crime under the Hague Convention...

This kind of sword is called "Small Sword" - you can find it on Wikipedia. It comes from XVII-XVIII century and is primarly intended to be a civilian weapon - something you can carry on you in daily life, with normal clothes, both as a kind of adorment and self-defence implement.

Nice!

Fakir

I think I tried every spelling but that. Thanks a ton, it struck my interest.

Deceneu by natives not by British troops. Burmese and Fuzzy wuzzy

Usually 54 bore for infantry officers (.44-.45) and sometimes larger 38 bore for cavalry officers (.50).

scholagladiatoria Thank you! I had seen some really gnarly .50 caliber revolvers and I wanted to make sure whether they were like actually used often or just like a weird thing that some officer carried when he felt like he wanted to have bigger numbers than the other guys.

Bit of a followup question. Did cavalry officers carry those big dragoon revolvers in belt holsters or did they still use saddle holsters? Did infantry officers have belt holsters?

You got a whole video made in reply to your comment; neat! :P

I just saw that. Had a look through here and I think I was the only one to comment on it. Think I should get on him for his use of "a few" in reference to one? Kidding, completely kidding. Matt, if you see this, that was just a joke.

Yes.

Thank you!

From my understanding, there aren´t as many good repros of 19th century swords, because so many of the originals are still around.

I don't really know anyone making replicas of 19th century swords that I could recommend. If you want something vaguely of the right type for cutting or suchlike then Cold Steel are okay, or something custom from Danelli Armouries or Swordsmithy.

That's what I feared. :( Thanks for the honesty!

Yes I have seen quite a few originals - they seem to have been more common in the late-18th century than this late, though as you say there were a few revolvers joined to knives and swords. I think generally that they were curiosities and basically fun - I don't know of a single historical account of one being used. And if they were used, I'd expect in civilian rather than military context.

"Curiosities and basically fun." That was what I assumed about them, but it's always good to hear from an expert on the topic. You occasionally see things like that in video games and the like, but I didn't know if there were any fun accounts of them being used historically. Apparently not. In any case, thanks a lot for the reply. As always, thanks for the great videos! I appreciate your work.

No idea. Hope someone will help... And apart from that, mighty informative video. Thanks to Mr. Easton once again. :-)

Shoot (miss - or just stagger target), brick yourself, draw sword.

I understand that logic, but a year or so back I tried to find examples of British officers using/owning the .44 Colt Dragoon and I found basically no evidence. The .36 Navy seems to have been quite common in British service. But the difference between .31 pocket models and the .36 Navy is more than just calibre - the Navy has a fairly long/deep cylinder, so there is a lot more powder behind the bullet and it travels much faster. Therefore the .36 is notably more powerful than the .31 pocket models.