SHOGUN TV Show Big Historical WEAPON ERROR! Review 

Hurrah! I was not certain of the pattern from the trailer and thought it better not to say at all than not be certain. It's great to know the certain answer from the best person to know!

Thought so too, they look like the heavy Sea-service pistols of the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars.

Whoa, it's Jonathan Ferguson, keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history

It may as well be one of those "BANG!" flag guns. @@scholagladiatoria

​@scholagladiatoria don't you know? Tanegashima gun

Really?! Wow... I must have missed that.

I was just in the middle of typing the same thing.

Good on you eagled-eyed readers.

@@thinusconradie4297 I'm nearly 58, my mother bought it for me when I was about 12, I think I have read it more than any other book, apart from Asterix the Gaul, now there's a topic.

Weren't plug bayonets a thing by that point? Those were in general use by the 1640's so the concept may have been around earlier.

Such a good movie (and books). So well done. My only complaint was that they took away Inigo's moment of heroism when Alatriste is let loose, which I was so looking forward to.

I like gun shows

We see what you did there.

Except, a linguistic pedant will tell you that 'gun' is pronounced like 'goon' in Japanese.

TBF given how finicky and high-maintenance _those_ were you probably wouldn't want to sail around the world with the buggers. Matchlocks and the assorted proto-flintlocks were comparatively sturdy and reliable (and _much_ cheaper).

Yup, I was just writing out the same thing..... I'm glad some mentioned it....

Interesting. I'd never heard of a Doglock before.

The guns are still clearly 1700s

@@HyperboreanAnchovy44 Yeah those looked like sea service pistols with a few minor modifications

close but no cigar, as Matt pointed out the overall shape of the pistol is totally wrong and would be like a Colt python at the OK corral. There is no excuse for this as there are excellent reproductions of the English dog lock on the market.

I’m sure that with all the replica/reenactment swords, armours, crossbows etc around these days, there must be someone out there who makes replica late 16th century wheellock pistols, especially in the USA. Edit: there is a guy on RU-vid, Capandball (I think) who has a pair of functioning replica 17th century wheellock pistols.

Hah. Might take a month or two, but they are available.

@@hishamgYes and he buyed them from a maker in eastern Europe.

A friend of mine, a fellow re-enactor, has a pair of reproduction dog lock pistols made by Pietta I believe. and the cost of them was not excessive.

I loved the 80s version with Richard Chandlerian. His version of the Bourne Identity was far better too.

@@TheduckwebcomicsFunny you should mention Bourne. Somehow I missed it when I was younger and only learned about it, and watched it, last week. I find it hard to say which is best because they're almost different genres. Damon's version is far more of an action film, whereas the 80s was a thriller. As well as there being some very important differences in the core plot, such as what Treadstone is and Bournes's mission.

I’m only seeing references to the book in the latest reviews, with the huge impact of the 80’s Richard Chamberlain miniseries seemingly forgotten. It had such an impact that there was even a computer game release in ‘86.

@@sam1812seal It's an adaptation of the book. That's a bit like asking where the influence of Bakshii's LotR adaption was for the Jackson movies.

I suspect that this particular "gun" was likely a rubber ducky with no moving parts ... Actors are just not handed real firearms unless absolutely necessary..

Also remember, we haven't seen the episode yet. The fact that the guns are not cocked and/or not loaded MIGHT be addressed in the episode.... I'm not wildly optimisitic about it, but i'm just saying, let's hold judgement until we see the full ACTUAL clip.

​@@robertsmith4681Well they don't want him to go off half cocked

@@robertsmith4681 well at least not if they're named Baldwin...

@@The_Reality_Filter Especially after the Baldwin debacle ... Nobody wants an actor to go anywhere near a real firearm unless absolutely necessary...

It's from book I guess. Clavell wrote about "unusual" one-coloured (Brown or Gray) "uniforms" of Toranaga's army.

Congrats on finishing your paper on armor! Excited to hear your input on the show

@@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699 Many thanks I hope it was an enjoyable reading!!

Is there a film or series you recommend that gets the armour 100% right?

@@wattlebough I do not think there are perfect ones but the old Seven Samurai of Kurosawa is probably the closest you can get. The advisor of that movie was a member of the Myōchin family, a lineage of armor makers, so some real armors were used in that occasion.

I'd love to!

@@jonathanferguson1211 Make it about the differences between doglocks, snaphaunce, miquelot, etc. :)

@@jonathanferguson1211 well... You mentioned the sea, now Drachinifel needs to be part as well 😉

@@jonathanferguson1211 You might have to get that not-Jonathan fellow from your channel to lure Matt in with pointy sharp things.

Good idea @@ArcanisUrriah

its a common issue. In the Danish "1864" series most Danish soldiers use replica M1842 Springfields muskets. Since that is an "evolution" of late 18th century French muskets and the Danish army did use the French 1822 (converted to percussion and uprifled) they do look rather similar. But in some of the shoots with a lot of extras, you can find replica P1853 enfield and carbine versions of the enfield. And even a few Austrian Lorenz rifle muskets. And the Danish officers use replica colt 1860 revolvers. Now one specific Danish officer did in fact own one, but to the extant that the rest of the officers even had revolvers, they would have been European designs. Clearly the production simply didn't have sufficient numbers of the right guns.

I've seen long lee enfields with the magazines removed in the zulu movie , but never noticed mausers, have I missed something 🤔?

@@johngreen-sk4yk I can't remember, maybe they were what you said.

@robertrobert7924 I had a look at a still photo earlier, definitely charger loading long lee enfields with no magazine and socket bayonets somehow fitted , I suppose they had to get by with what they could 🙂👍

its really common for the extras to have guns are that wrong or are dressed up.

The original TV show was great so this one has big potential.

Fucker got arrogant and lazy, Blames us for his sloppy work.

Coming out this Friday, I think, on Hulu.

That whole film was just an error. Also, weird for Ridley (who hasn't made a good film in 15-20 years at this point) to make a film about a subject he hates. He's openly stated how much he dislikes Napoleon...solid reason to make a film.

@@oskar6661Money!

😮 but going backwards in time isn't feasible forwards possibly according to theoretical physics 😁

​@@dave_h_8742It's a joke. I'm talking like a Hollywood producer and trying to make the worst possible 🎉version of every novel-turned-movie. Forward in time would take some serious sailing skills... I guess they have solar sails on board.

I'll watch this sequel!

@@MichaelCorryFilms "It'll be like The Final Countdown, but in 1600!" That's how it was pitched. 😆

A weird time in history when al colour was drained from the world, possibly by the singularity which caused the wormhole...

I vaguely remember it being on when I was a kid, but haven't seen more than a few clips as an adult.

@@scholagladiatoria OMG Matt! You simply MUST find the original Richard Chamberlain Shogun miniseries (do not watch the movie short version)! I would love to get your commentary on the classic series, then the new version!

@@scholagladiatoria, the 1980 mini-series was widely watched in the US at the time. My mother was able to translate the spoken Japanese for me, so that added to the experience for me. Anyone familiar with Akira Kurosawa films would recognize Toshiro Mifune.

Clavell did not *direct* the series, though 🤨

@@scholagladiatoriaThe entire series is watchable on the internet archive and it's worth a look (if only for Toshiro Mifune as the titular character). Unlike the FX remake it was filmed entirely in Japan, and got a LOT of people interested in Japan's culture and history.

I loved it when I watched it as a kid in the 80’s.

Good point!

Thanks - as I said in the video, I think that these could be overlooked as being doglocks, based on the quick glimpses I've been able to get from the trailer and posters. But the main problem is the overall outline of the pistol, like having a Broomhandle Mauser in the Crimean War. They just don't look right for 1597-1600.

@@scholagladiatoria interesting, Thanks for the insight.

They are British Pattern 1716 (at the earliest - they could be Pattern 1801) Sea Service pistols.@@kyuken893

Matchlock firearms were popular in Japan from the mid to late16th century due to the Portugese trade.

Well then you will be missing a fantastic series. Hiro Sanada, the main Japanese character, is a co producer of the film and he and the crew went to great pains to be authentic with respect to Japanese arms, customs and costumes. Ok fine they missed the pistol thing but that's only a small tiny piece of this show.

@@FrankinDallas Just watched the first two episodes. A fantastic and faultless production to my mind!

I had to stop watching Vikings as the armour was grating on me too much. With any tv show or play you are suspending your disbelief. Your imagination is a vital part of it. If you see something that triggers your logical brain to react and interrupt that suspension of disbelief it can be very hard to override it.

This, however, is a 1700s British sea service pistol 😊

It's basically a flintlock but with an external catch safety when on half-cock called the "dog" that prevented the flint from falling forward when you primed and loaded the weapon. You'd then put the gun on full-cock which would make the dog rotate out of its position and then you could fire. True flintlocks have an internal sear on the locking mechanism instead so that you don't have to fiddle with anything to make the gun safe to load. You just pull the cock back halfway and then you're ready to flip the frizzen and prime it.

@@MisterKisk Thanks but doesn't a normal flintlock have a half cock ?, I guess it's just internal on flintlocks.

@@one_schizfreudYes, and it's held by an internal sear. The dog is an external catch that you have to manually put in place. So to make a doglock safe to load, you have to fiddle with that small catch first. That's one of the reasons why the later true flintlock was a better design, because it was made safe automatically by putting it on half-cock because of that internal sear.

Cool thanks for the explanation I get it now.

get a life

"matchlocks were not really used anymore by that era" Uh, what are you talking about? The primary infantry firearm arm of the first half of the 17th century was the matchlock musket(see the Thirty Years War, English Civil Wars, Polish-Muscovite War, Kalmar War, Hapsburg-Ottoman Wars, etc.), and they continued to be used in irregular service long beyond that period even within Europe. Wheellocks had been around since 1504, but they aren't a "form of flintlock", they operate on a completely different mechanism. There isn't clean evolution from Matchlock to wheellock to flintlock. Wheellocks were expensive to make and slow to load but have a superior lock time compared to flintlocks that replaced them. The reason matchlocks existed in service long after the invention of wheellocks was a case of economics, wheellocks cost more but were necessary for dynamic combat associated with cavalry, where tending to a slow-match would be an impossibility. The economic and reliability benefits of dog-locks, Snaphance and later flintlock mechanisms replaced both eventually but we still see matchlock in service with large European military formations as late a the 1690s and beyond. The Battle of Boyne saw the Irish Jacobite forces of James II largely equipped with matchlocks facing off against Williamite Dutch, Huguenot, and Danish fusiliers armed with more modern flintlocks and socket bayonets.

@@colbunkmust I consider wheelocks to be an early form of flintlock simply because of the way they operate, using pyrite stones scraping against a spinning steel wheel. And yes, I'm aware that less technologically advanced nations used matchlocks much longer than European powers such as the British or French did, some were still in use in primitive societies well into the 20th century. I personally have owned a number of each over the years although I detest having too deal with loose powder and thus prefer cartridge firearms..

Wheel locks are not considered any part of the flintlock family, even though the flintlock and it’s predecessors like the miquelet lock used some of the same elements, such as the dog like holder for the flint being based on the dog like pyrite holder. But the whole spring loaded rotating wheel makes it it’s own branch on the developement tree. I think it sad they couldn’t get someone to build more period correct pistols for this. I love the line of them with the shallow angled grip and ball butt for striking with. Plus, how the hell did no one notice they weren’t cocked! It completely renders the scene comic… Can you imagine the character he’s trying to dominate just casually brushing them aside and bitch-slapping him….

@@evanmorris1178 In all fairness turn-of-1600 Japanese almost certainly would _not_ be familiar enough with such weapons to know they're basically fancy paperweights with the cock down... and if any of them had encountered a wheellock at some point they'd likely just assume they're looking at one of those. Remember, for people unfamiliar with them guns are just about black magic. Went double back in the days when Everyone & Dog, Inc. took the supernatural for granted.

@@robertsmith4681 "And yes, I'm aware that less technologically advanced nations used matchlocks much longer than European powers such as the British or French did, some were still in use in primitive societies well into the 20th century." Ok, but that's not the issue with what you said above. Circa 1600, the matchlock is at its *height* of its usage amongst most gun-armed soldiers of the period. That is completely contrary to what you originally said with "matchlocks were not really used anymore by that era...". In 1600 the "British" didn't even exist and both the English and French at the time were fielding thousands of matchlocks in their arsenals and armies.

wheel locks were also around that time too but matchlocks were most prevalent.

Flintlocks first appear in the 1540's, the snaplock.

Wheellock pistols appear in the early 16th century. There is one in the Royal Armouries that dates to about 1520 (ish). By the late 16th century wheellock pistols are relatively common in Western Europe and are usually used by cavalrymen. From about 1560 to 1600 Western European pistols have a distinctive shape with a noticeable “angle” between the barrel and the handle (grip? I don’t know much about firearms), a large spherical butt or pommel and usually a relatively short barrel. There are plenty of photos on the Met Museum and Royal Armories websites.

@@hishamg They had just about entirely replaced the ole lance as the cavalry shock weapon by the late 1500s. Main reason they weren't more common was the complexity of the mechanism, essentially a simple clockwork, and due high cost (around the Thirty Years' War a pair cost about as much as a shot-proof cavalry cuirass) and reliability issues in field conditions. (They also inspired some of the first laws against concealed carry as rulers not unreasonably started worrying about would-be assassins with pistols in their pockets.) But getting rid of all the hassle associated with burning slowmatch was _w o r t h_ particularly for mounted men - horses understandably don't like burning things dangling around their ears. Once the assorted teething problems of the diverse early flintlocks got sorted out in the mid-1600s (the French basically consolidated all the good ideas into one sound design) the rather decidedly simpler, cheaper and more reliable lock quickly relegated the fancy wheellock to curio status. As an aside one major use for the assorted early flintlock guns (sometimes known by the umbrella term "firelocks" AFAIK) was the infantry detachments attached to artillery batteries for close defence. Nobody wanted any more lit matches than absolutely necessary near such concentrations of gunpowder after all.

Matt Easton and Richard Hammond are Americans who got switched at birth and raised in England.

Yes! A very early 16th century revolver (the cylinder is turned by hand after each shot I believe).

Fabricating a credible-looking prop _really_ shouldn't be too much trouble tho. Just throwing in 1700s naval pistols and calling it a day says they just couldn't be bothered. And as far as wheellocks go, historically those were expensive, difficult to maintain and notoriously unreliable in field conditions. Not sure you'd want to sail them across the globe (salty sea air being rather corrosive) and then bet your life on the buggers...

@@broadbandislife Considering how meticulous this production has been I highly doubt that they just threw in some 1700 naval pistols without caring. Practicality and safety does need to be considered when we are talking about the use of guns in a television or film production forcing compromises to be made. In the end reproduction dog locks are extremely rare and niche in shooting circles. I shoot black powder and have never seen one myself. The vast majority of the audience would not be able to recognise the difference between a 1600 dog lock and a 1700 flint lock pistol. Reproduction 1700+ flint lock pistols are widely available and affordable. They are also a known equation when it comes to safe operation and if you look carefully the pistols appear to have a percussion cap conversion in some shots which is probably for safety and reliability of operation on set.

This is a replica British sea service pistol of the 1700s...

First proto-flintlocks appeared already by about 1520, but it took quite a while (until the mid-1600s) to refine the concept to the point it could replace the complex and expensive wheel-lock and the dead simple and reliable matchlock. The very first ignition system is referred to as "cannon-lock" and literally consisted of applying the match (or smouldering stick or similar) to the touch-hole by hand. Pretty quickly the lever system of the crossbow was adapted to hold the thing instead thus freeing both hands to support the weapon and allowing for proper aiming down the barrel. Springs were then gradually added to improve the operation of various parts of the system.

Eh that is all down to taste. I like wheelock pistols etc as well personally.

there was a Dutch flint based firing mechanism in the mid 16th century, it is the Snaphaunce or snapchance but was usually found on long arms due to the size of the lock and the lack of a sprung cover for the primer.

Oops have not heard. Darn autocorrect. 😊

Europeans brought a _lot_ of stuff with them to Japan, like now firearms in general. Not really the point here tho.

Well to be pedantic he could have been running around with a Beretta as the Beretta family have been making firearms since the late 15th century. sorry I just couldn't resist it