Footwear is one of the most interesting aspects of historical gear. Modern footwear is often very different from historical ones and you often have to learn how to walk completely differently depending on what kind of shoe you have. There's a reason why you very seldom see accurate shoes in medieveal/fantasy movies...

Agreed. One of my favorite things about this channel. Even when they’ve not been nearly as authentic in their gear and clothing like with the M1 matches, they’re still pretty well functionally equivalent.

Oh my god ! He killed Kenny!

If each hit represented a casualty then this match would represent the killing of roughly a platoon's worth of men by Karl- in less than 8 minutes.

@@donaldengelmann6906 Comparably easy when the enemies dont fight back 😉

My uncle (who taught me how to load, fire and use cap-and-ball revolvers) called BP "the devil's flea powder.

it was shook

My trapdoor rifle is more accurate than the carbine

I can not find the reference of a 'hostile' being shot with a 1873 springfield rifle at about 800 yards. I am trying to recall the story. It might have been an officer with the name of crosman. He fired the gun and at the muzzle flash the native american would move maybe by diving/ jumping to the side and would move prior to the slow 45-70 500 grain arriving on target. What Crosman did was to aim where he figured the indian was going jump to and nailed the unfortunate. I think it was in the 1880's. Good story even if I can not find the source to confirm it.

Hear! Hear!

Pretty much what it sounded like to me, given the description.

Thank you!!!

@@InrangeTv No, thank you for sharing this, it really is a pleasure to watch. You've discussed the firearms, but any details you can share about the knife you use to "kill" the "white-eye long knife" please? Keep up the great work!

Why the hate on the M16? And I must ask, thoughts on the AKM?

I have to agree with you there. I grew up among a lot of Aussie WWII and Vietnam vets who bemoaned the loss of shooting accuracy that the M16 and 5.56 brought, but I came around to 5.56 at least when I got to spend time at the range on a couple of rifles chambered in it. Honestly though, 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 are accurate enough for today's riflemen, when you are needing to train in other skills beyond merely shooting. I've shot roo's with it, and frankly, if you can take down a Kangaroo at 200m with the round, a decently placed shot won't struggle with humans. Those things are built tough. I just remembered an anecdote told to me by a former ADF sniper, which lends more credence to your change of use theory. He was attached to US Rangers and other infantry. He was in his hide, observing, and he was ordered by the commander of the US infantry he was attached to fire several rounds into the building to try and provoke a response. Considering he was not a regular rifleman, he was a bit annoyed at having fire without a target in sight. No response was observed though.

The 50k number is all amunition divided by number of kills. It includes ammunition spent on training, stockpiling etc. It's not the amount of ammunition fired in combat at enemy.

its also incorrect because they compared and entire war to one battle vastly different time frames, number of combatants, methods of attack, number of battles, etc. you cant compare rounds expended in on battle vs the entire Vietnam conflict.

I wonder what the stats for Ww1 were, considering the Germans were useing machine guns for area denial and suppression nearly every hour of every day during the major battles. They would fire them until the cartridge cases spilled out of the pillbox and had to be shoveled away.

I have to hope that some of the YT bias is due to public pressure. We can do our part by representing an interest in firearms in an open and positive fashion. Might see attitudes change. Might.

@@tamlandipper29 I don't believe it's public pressure. I believe it's Communistic tech oligarchs trying to control the narrative.

And I'm going to my local book shop on my lunch break.

S. C. “Qwynn or gwynn”is the author

i thought that one was about the Comanchee rather then the Apachee?

Mostly about the Comanche but speaks a lot about the Apaches as well. Especially in the period when the Comanches first showed up from the north. Comanches in a few years drove the Apaches almost completely out of their former territory in eastern NM and most of TX. Apaches were so afraid of the Comanches they actually sought shelter from the Comanches in Spanish presidios and were asking their former Spanish enemies for treaties.

That’s about Comanches but it is an amazing book. “The Apache Wars” is a much better source for this era.

"Sergeant, i broke my stone." "Four days in the brig, trooper!"

*furiously checks rock serial number*

@@philips.5563 this Rock was a German Rock, hence it has the last four digits of its number in each side plus name and date of approval for military aceptence plus the exact unit to which ist was issued and the nessecary rack-number. But all of it is in nicely deep embossed letters on precice attached brass plaquetts.

Anti Tank Rock

@@taktikbegeistert8506 if you'd like to buy this rock for yourself, come by Rock Island Auction House's spring stone arms auction

I knew it was dirty stuff, but I didn't realise it was *that* dirty.

Spot on. Statistics always require consideration of the circumstances to be valid and comprehensible. Otherwise, they are just numbers that may misinform. In the 1870s, the troopers were force to shoot firearms that (at most) fired 20 rounds a minute, and usually much less. Also, the troopers at the Battle of the Little Bighorn did NOT engage their enemies at 1200 yards. Read the accounts of the battle from the court-martial proceedings and you realize that any range greater than 300 yards has no basis in fact. I'm not sure where people get that number but it's not from the official accounts of the battle. Moreover, anyone who has been on a 1000 yard range knows that most people (with 20/20 vision no less) cannot see anything smaller than horse at that range, if even that. A human being is going to be no bigger than a dot, assuming one can distinguish them from the background. At 300 yards, the average 19th century trooper would just pick out the silhouette of a person with clarity and fire at the center mass with a decent chance of getting a hit.

very true, however I believe the point he was trying to make was more geard towards how few rounds the soldiers even had available to expend, moreso than how accurate they where per round. They were just discussing how poorly trained the soldiers where in the 19th century

If i remember correct in vietnam for snipers it was 1.5 rounds per hit, just to add another statistic. With the invention of MGs also came the invention of supressive firing or area denial fire. Wasn't a thing in the area depicted here. So "easy" to waste less ammo.

@@wayneparker9331 I did not know the battle of the little big horn. But troops do not have to able to see a specific individual to direct effective antipersonal fire over a particular area. I have read of tactic in the sudan mahdi rebellion of remington rolling blocks shot like a howitzer to fire over the crest of rise of hill and heavy to slugs to hit people behind the hill. If hundreds are firing, the technique if the range is set correctly could be effective.

Exactly. Most of those 50,000 rounds wouldn't have killed someone, but would have still served their purpose. Destroying cover, suppressing the enemy, the psychological effect stopping advances dead in their tracks, etc. And, on top of that, if you only have a single shot before reloading, you'll be much more hesitant to fire when you doubt you can make the shot. If you have a 30 round box magazine and full auto, you'll be much more inclined to fire a burst at a running enemy that you'd normally wouldn't have attempted.

..and, unfortunately, generate the least views.

@@InrangeTv Yeah well, it's what gets me to subscribe on patreon when I have the dosh.

@@InrangeTv Think of mud testing a trapdoor? In all seriousness, great content and loved seeing on the clock shooting.

I would also like to know who makes the boots :D

And medical advances.

also if you watch Vietnam footage, you see troops having to engage unseen enemies at close range in the jungle. Fire superiority is more important that accurate fire in that kind of ambush.

@@dennis2376 Right. It is interesting the most recent archaeology on it how they could map the flow of battle as it were by cases and projectiles and guns recovered

Glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you like them!

MacKenzie was 10X the Indian fighter Custer was and yet is hardly known today. He was the one officer who was able to bring the Comanches, perhaps the most fierce and effective tribe in the West, to defeat. Even less known is he then went on to defeat the Sioux after Custer’s death using the same tactics as against the Comanche.

Thanks!