Testing Slamfire: Sneaky Advantage or Useless Hype? 

Home-Offense weapon

A bayonet is a really good choice for home-defense, because most people live in places where they can't safely shoot in some directions. Like, you're not gonna put a load of buckshot through your kid's bedroom wall bayonet charging a guy into said wall in your living room.

@@user-lx5iv5cw1w #6 birdshot is great for this

​@@user-lx5iv5cw1wit could work people did it but man I feel like I'd probably get shot down charging the guy.

*slaps heat shield*

You were writing while I was watching. I was thinking the exact same thing, though. Off to nuke a comment.

Yeah I don't understand the point of the comparison at all if there is no non-slamfire on the trench gun

@@Pat4ever. I feel it would show just what impact modern ergos have to performance. Just a better hand guard may be better then slamfire,

Yep definitely an unequal and unfair test here. The modern gun should not have even been included in the test, it had no relevance whatsoever other than showing modern ergonomics improve handling. The question was "Does slamfire make a difference?" so the test should have been a run using slam fire and a run not using slam fire by releasing the trigger, but using the same trench gun on each test. This showed nothing but modern ergonomics saves time.

It's also the fact that the 870 is something he is more familiar with, and was faster just through training alone I think this test was somewhat bungled

Yeah, it'd be nice if they got actual experts instead of the nearest overweight american who's used great uncle gandpappy's old trench gun to go frog giggin' back in the summer of '82

The biggest takeaway to me was that he had more experience and time behind the modern shotgun. If you had given him equal time on the trench gun it would have been a fairer comparison. End of the day, pick a system you're comfortable and quick with and train train train.

Practice makes perfect!

Same thought. If you ever see how those guys with lever action rifle do fast shooting, they do it without hiccups, and they're accurate. They also don't load before shooting. They rack the level back when they shoot

@@thedesignerblacksmith5953 Can you do this with leveraction rifles as well? How? I can´t do it on mine, because my trigger finger is on the hand that rocks the lever... However, I can pull that trigger instantly when the lever comes back..

Watch Kentucky Ballistics video on slamfire shotguns. He does a short comparison on the fire rate of regular pump vs slam fire and it's a bit more of an equal comparison.

It reminded me of the time Miculek had some trouble running a Colt Python because he would pull the trigger again too quickly before it was fully reset

I have a 1933 Winchester 97 that's still so solid in its mechanical function that you'd have a hard time believing its almost a hundred years old. They're just so dang robust

good guns stay good

@@adamniehaus5835 the handguard is not, so be carefull with that

That 1897 kept up pretty well with that fully kitted out and ported vang comp 870 considering it's 100+ year old ergos. Cowboy actions guys can be incredibly fast with the 1897. I have an 1897, slamfiring is extremely fun if nothing else. I think it does have an application in close quarters, like a WWI trench.

​@slade9372 well maintained and properly stored guns stay good. I've seen rusted quality doubles from just a few months in a too damp basement safe without desiccant

Imagine coming out of a dugout, knowing that your trench is under attack, and hearing wham-wham-wham-wham from just around the corner. You'd be perturbed.

​@@AshleyPomeroy "Perturbed", lol! Indeed...

Not to mention that someone mentioned (I believe it was Ian in his video) that the Europeans weren't all that familiar with buckshot as the Americans were. I can see it being a shock to the system to see the damage a shotgun can make when you might be used to just using birdshot.

​@@aggrodkreg4321Europeans definitely knew what buckshot was 😂 it's more that the wounds shotguns create are horrendous to fix, which is why the Germans complained.

I do not think that external observer is able to distinguish slam fire from just a quick trigger finger.

The Ithaca 37 was available both with and without the Disconnector mechanism.

He should retitle the video modern pump not significantly better than 120 year old pump design

@@testermonkey2304 Exactly pump action still as reliable as it was over century ago. Probably would have been as effective as the modern one if the dude had any training on the 97

I think this video was a way to combat the people that over exaggerate the slam fire to such an extent that they shun the modern firearms as obsolete and that the 1897 slam fire is the best firearm to this day. That’s what this video disproves but I agree they could have done it better and more genuinely

If you really want to test it vs. a modern rifle, try a semi-auto... How fast can you move your trigger finger? I don´t really understand the US thing with the pump action. They´re perfectly fine with semi-auto rifles, why won´t they move on with the shotguns?

semi auto shotguns jam a lot and cost 5x without making you shoot all that much faster. Difference is like .17s to .26s @@olenilsen4660

I agree in theory that you should keep the variables to a minimum. But I think that muscle memory would cause the test to be flawed.

The trench '97 is just a civilian '97 with mods. I don't think John Browning designed the gun to have slam fire. I think he decided to NOT add a disconnect. I also think the Military grabbed the '97 because it was already in production and just needed a few mods to put into service, not because it was capable of slam fire.

And as others have suggested, probably should get an 1897 expert to run it. An upgraded 870 wasn't really an option in the first world war.

It's somewhat akin to the publics fascination with full automatics, glock switches, drum magazines, and 33rd mags in their glocks.. even in full on close combat war scenario it is of very limited practical benefit, and mostly a hindrance or weak link in the chain. Yet the myths persist amongst gun store commandos everywhere.

​@@RUBIZENstop being realistic

Yeah a fat middle aged guy vs a fit lean and mean 19 year old in a do or die scenario.

@@ieuanhunt552 The fat part helps him a lot, a lighter man would have much more trouble absorbing the recoil of 5 12g shots in such a short time.

​@@Vercingetorix45underrated comment.

@@ieuanhunt552 Considering the conditions and physical activity levels of most 19 year old's today, it's funny that I'd think the middle aged fat man (IF more physically active despite being fat) is in much better fighting shape. In the end weight matters but not as much as performance. In the end whether heavy or light....how long does it take you to run a mile?

@Mr.Brewer83 7-8 minute mile. Did the Cardiff Half Marathon in under 3 hours. Below average I'll admit but I'm happy with that.

That's what they were intended for.

grandfather would never go out hunting with more then 3 cartridge's in his pocket, always came back with a buck.... but that was to feed the family back then, his motto was if you needed more then one round to kill... your not a very good killer.. he was also in the "black death" squad of ww1... ground of snipers that wreaked havoc on enemy stickin theyre head outta trenches........

The issue with this though is that slam-firing can be somewhat hard on the locking surfaces. I've definitely tried it a few times just for fun on my Model 12s, but I've been told it can cause premature wear if it's done regularly. Especially on the Ithaca 37s, they have a small part called the "slide stop" which can get worn and fail if slam-firing. When that happens the gun can fire slightly out of battery and it is rather brutal on the lock-up surfaces.

@@1lovesoni Sample size one but, my 1959 Model 12 has been slamfired by my father and now myself all it's life, and still shoots like a new one. Even if it broke tomorrow i would simply fix it and be good for another 50+ years haha.

@@1lovesoni I have literally 10s of thousands rounds slam firing a 97 in competition and still working just fine.

I had a friend who much preferred to carry a slamfire shotgun when he was point on patrol in the VN jungle. It shredded bushes much better than a M-16.

Sorry to say, your 870 did not have slam fire.

@@billpoynter108 probably was an Ithaca 37. Those did not have a trigger disconnect like the Winchester.

We had a few various models in my unit over in Korea back in 89-90. All could slam-fire. It would be useful in a defensive situation.

I have a 1957 wingmaster that was a police gun and it cannot slamfire

Was just about to say this. And there's not much stress higher than storming an enemy trench

The problem is that a novice is also the one most likely to have a negligent discharge with a slamfire-capable shotgun.

Yeah, my understanding is hobbyists/enthusiasts typically have more practice than the average soldier

​@@RedXlVnegligent discharge is less dangerous than failing to fire at someone charging you with a knife or bayonet

@@RedXlV novice shotguner, maybe best if they are competent with firearms safety in general. Anyway my main contention is that what is demonstrated here us not typical for a Doughboy from ww1 and to that point it would be very difficult to recreate that in a lab setting.

​@@spikykittnot so hard, if one had the time and inclination. You would need say 10 volunteers with little to no firearm experience. Put them through WW1 basic training (I'm sure a historian could put together a reasonable approximation from training manuals of the day) You could skip all the physical training etc, just focus on the shooting bit. Split them into two groups of 5, have each of them face the same tests, one group being told to use slam fire, the other told to use the weapon in the usual way. Compare results. What you don't do is give a guy a gun he's trained with for dacades, fired in the normal way, and then compare that to the same guy with a strange gun and ask him to shoot it in an unfamiliar manner. That's not science, thats a straw man. It's the kind of test you design when you think you know the answer already, because it doesn't tell you anything and if they genuinely wanted to find out they would have noticed that.

Nerf guns trained every young man how to slam fire.

Slamfire in NERF guns is practically useless in my opinion, you can still fire fast the normal way with better "accuracy". Horewer, I won't deny that it is fun as hell to slamfire all of your darts when I am just shooting at target!

slamfire is questionable on the dart-firing ones, however it was very cool on the Pyragon due to its discs ricocheting off walls.

You guys were spoiled. Only had beans/glove finger guns and slingshots when I grew up 😂

You can totally fan the hammer action revolvers though and that stuff is cool as hell.

#couldntagreemore

The issue, however, is that having the hammer and bolt exposed like that makes it more prone to fouling, which is why later shotguns like the Model 1912 and the Ithaca 37 have the hammer and bolt housed within the frame.

Or big disadvantage because they accidentally slamfire.

Who on earth does that now 🙄

​@@alangordon3283very few shotguns can do it. Thanks to lawyers and ATF.

uh no? it would be the opposite for raw recruits because weapons need to be idiot proof. and slamfire shotguns are definitely not.

@@dolsopolar exactly. If you are exposed to the repetition of training then the old common saying of "falling back to your training as second nature" is real. Slam firing is nowhere in any POI i've ever seen and as such should be chalked up to fudd lore hype.

ANY Winchester will work more reliably, accurately and safely than ANY remington ever built...I have had ZERO issues with any Winchester I've ever personally used or owned. The only gun I have ever had an unintentional discharge (at a range, pointed downrange, all safety rules observed, finger nowhere near the trigger) was a remington 700 in .270 Winchester. It just went off unexpectedly, without even being close to the trigger. My Dad claimed I was full of bologna (expletive deleted) and he asked to try it, then it did the same to him. I have never gotten rid of any gun I have ever owned besides that P.O.S. remington. It was the first and last one I will EVER own. I told the gunsmith at Gander Mountain when I traded it in that it was incredibly unsafe and needed serious attention. He said "Yeah ,remingtons arent known for having good triggers, you can have a Timney trigger installed, that helps." A trigger that cost more than the rifle...Any other firearm, (handgun, rifle, shotgun) from any other reputable manufacturer I have ever used has not ever fired without intentionally pulling the trigger. Buy a Winchester, a Ruger, a Colt, a Beretta, a Smith and Wesson, a Mossberg, a Savage, hell even any surplus military rifle. They are much safer and do not go bang unless you ask them to. remington makes decent ammo, but their guns totally suck ass

Not in close quarters urban pacification situations or residential interiors. That long barrel will get you disarmed quickly.

I’d like to see a shotgun course with targets out to 100 meters in general. See how and when shooters choose to swap to slugs on the clock or take their their chances. 35 meters? 45 meters? Too often shotguns are limited to a few extremely close range shots in competition. You’d have to dissuade shooters from running the course with all slugs.

Beretta 1301 would like a word

@@bigguy7353 Benelli M4 Tactical then. 18.5" instead of the 30" of the Winchester 1897 Standard. Shown in this video is, however, is the 1897 Trench, with 20". Close enough to the M4 Tactical. Whatever. To see the difference between a pump gun and a semiauto, just watch the late Tom Knapp. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ajRydkuRPlg.html TL;DR version: Pump shotgun (Benelli Nova Pump): 8 clay targets in 1.87 seconds Semiauto (Benelli M2 Field): 10 clay targets in 2.2 seconds. Semiauto (Benelli M1 Super 90): 9 clay targets in less than 2 seconds. With extended magazine tubes, obviously.

@@-John-Doe- Effective range is typically 50 meters with regular shot and maximum range is typically 150 meters with solid slugs (assuming typical competition shotguns).

​@@markcarrell8053nice.

"We're being hunted...." "....clever girl." **gunfire / screaming**

As much as I like the M37, I would NOT trust it to not jam due to the ease of short stroking that bottom eject. As the clock showed, slam fire matters very little to the end results.

That would've been Capstick in Death in the Long Grass.

I have used Ithaca 37s since childhood, and I am in my 60s now. I consider it the most reliable shotgun ever made, short stroking is not a defect of the gun, but the operator, by your standard no pump gun is reliable. I have one 4 feet fromme as I write, loaded with buckshot it has been my home defense gun for a long time.@@ringding1000

I think with regular loads Matt would trounce them. CAS competitors' power factors are absurdly low, less than half the minimum power factor for any current shooting sport with modern firearms. They won't go nearly as fast when they have to negotiate with the real deal.

@@Seseous Very valid point. That fore grip adds much in the way of power factors being a problem.

But if we add single loading in the mix, the CA shooter might pull back ahead. With the single loading, we are acquiring target as we pull the action bar towards the target in a pointing motion and are on target as it fires from achieving battery.

Exactly my thoughts, cowboy action shooters would have to be the ones with most experience with Slam firing 97s. The one I use for CAS is made in 1900

@@Seseousnot in my club.

While it sounds sexy, I've never had a good functioning gun fail to set off a primer, factory or reload. Only issue I've had is weak hammer spring on a well used gun. Barring rimfire ammo, of course. And those I've never had a hangfire.

An exposed hammer is another potential failure point from dirt and mud too

It seems to me that the need to restrike the primer means you've got crap ammo - which case, you've got bigger problems.

Honestly, hang fires aren't really a thing with modern centerfire ammo that has been handled with *anything* approaching "sanity". I've had some hang fires with .22LR that was old enough the box had a three character state abbreviation and no zip code on the company address. Amd I've had hangfires on some.1950s Pakistani production milsurp that looked like Indiana Jones would shout, "That belongs in a museum!"

@@geodkyt Glad its not just me with the Paki hangfires! Got an 8mm Mauser years ago an it "came with ammo" so I figured it'd be a good afternoon with a few buddies. Well, old mate behind the counter holds up two full bags of ammunition - all of it Paki milsurp. This stuff was comically bad with some hangfires almost the same delay as a flintlock. Click - BANG! Haha... good times.

@@justforever96The way I see the advantage of this is not about accuracy or speed, but eliminating a complication on a stressful situation (circling and synchronizing the trigger).

​@justforever96 but the autos are preferred generally BECAUSE they have extra capabilities. I'd rather have capabilities in my gear that I can't take advantage of, than have my skill capped by less capable gear.

@@justforever96 I know of at least one cowboy shooter out there who doesn't consider slam-firing a "trick shot". It's just how you shoot a 97. There's no trick about it when that's how you learned to shoot it.

@@Shadow__133 Reduces reliability the same reason bump fire and binary triggers reduce reliably.

@@SilverStarHeggisist Something you wouldn't need on a WWI scenario, where you'll most likely die before the gun does.

This. Plus from my understanding you "hip" fired. because this was a case of First one that put bullets down range wins ether by hitting or shaking them so that they drop the gun, fumbles the action, or just loses there ability to aim beyond wild hip fire into the roof. you had a buddy behind you that would sweep in if you missed one (that usally was ether leeping for cover or wildly shooting at nothing).

Nope. Under the duress you are much better doing what you practiced more. Using different techniques on a range and in combat is not very productive.

​@@tutzdesYT WTF? Who's on first?

@@tutzdesYT In the context of WW1 they had barely practiced at all. The average US infantryman had like 6 weeks of training with outdated techniques, and it showed - we had some of the worst trained, least experienced troops on the Western front.

​​@@browncoat697Did it? I mean, when I think of the US in the western front, I think of things like the Battle of Belleau Wood, the 82nd, the Harlem Helfighters, the battle of the Argonne, the US troops out advancing the rest of the armies to such a degree that their flanks became exposed, "Retreat? Hell, we just got here!" The US had 6 months of training prior to WW1, not 6 weeks. I couldn't find any concrete numbers for training duration for the Germans or French during 1918, but I'm gonna go with it's significantly less, just because they have their borders being fought over.

Reason Why I had to buy a 1911 and pump too. Had Colt 80 series but not orig WW 1. Style 😊

That's what I was thinking. Conditioning, and of course the stress of your life actually being on the line would/could infact motivate one's brain and muscle memory to learn to be better, faster with a feature like slamfire. This test should also have been conducted in a trench setting; not open ground.

They sure as hell lasted more than the lifetime of the nazis & imperials on the other side of it ☠

To be fair, if you actually need a gun and it breaks the results likely mean it pretty much lasted your lifetime!

I'm sorry, I'll never hear "Police Academy" and not think of that movie series with Steve Gutenberg.

So I think what Ian was explaining was ww1 where it was said the shotgun when slam fired could put 5 shots down range in less than 3 seconds, it was also that shotgun that made Germans fear it and during ww1 Germany tried to claim shotguns were a war crime (while they used mustard gas)

@@lockinhinddanger934 Except people are all overlooking one thing. The ammunition. In 1917 and 1918 shotgun ammunition was not the same as it is now, specifically when it comes to the casing. It ws a form of stiff waxed cardboard, it was NOT plastic as modern shotgun cartridges are. And THAT is where the problems lay, and why most US troops actually issued with the shotguns tended to 'lose' them in fairly short order and replace them with Enfield 1917's or Springfield 1903's. Have many of you been to North Western Europe? It rains here, a lot, even during the summer. Without specialist ammunition containers (which the American troops were NOT issued) the ammunition would get damp. Carried loose in the pockets it would also get deformed as troops took cover. Ammunition in the magazine like ammunition carried in the pockets would get damp. In short, the misfire rate was horrendous. Slamfiring into a trench ONLY works if all your shells go boom, if most of them fail to do so what you have is not a weapon useful for clearing trenches but a damned liability. In ALL of the attempt on YT and in literature to claim how useful those shotguns were in in WWI ALL of them use MODERN ammunition. NONE of them use the ammunition ACTUALLY supplied. It is why every single one is wrong.... There was nothing wrong with the shotgun, but the ammunition was temperamental and prone to misfires in the conditions found on the Western Front. This ide that the Americans and only the Americans had figured out to use shotguns in the Trenches is, I am afraid, also a myth, both the British and French experimented with them but those experiments never got beyond testing at home. They were all failures, because of the ammunition....

​​@@alganhar1Shotgunners were issued full brass shells

​@@ironiso411not all were, cardboard was the usual in 00buck but some got brass case in the early years.

You can still fire the Winchester standard = rack then pull the trigger.

@@warrenharrison9490 this doesn't answer my question, it only enhance it :D

Dirty boy.

Yeah, because a modern 870 wasn't actually available during WW1.

Whole thing is flawed you have the shooter running a weapon their intimately familiar with vs a weapon they clearly haven't even had a full range day on. There's really no conclusions you can pull form a test like this other than the shooter is slightly better with a system they're familiar with which is like no shit sherlock.

@@n00bist723 Funny enough I think a better example of a standard Pump vs Slam fire experiment is Kentucky Ballistics video on slamfire shotguns. Scott uses shotguns a lot but he's not a wizard that's as skilled as Matt so the comparison between shotguns is more even. Scott uses a standard Mossberg, an Ithaca, and a Winchester Model 1912. Here's the times Scott got for the comparison: Mossberg: 3.96 seconds Ithaca (Slam Fire): 2.28 seconds Winchester (Slam Fire): 3.28 seconds Scott messed up racking one of the shots for the Winchester also but still got a slightly higher speed than the Mossberg. Keep in mind this is done as a pure speed test rather than aiming for targets.

Yeah but the while point of the video was testing slam fire

@@CrazyMegaOmega That's exactly his point. You have to shoot the 1897 normally in order to have a control sample.

I agree and Ian should have been shooting because he's less experienced than this guy, that would have made a difference too.

The problem is that to not slamfire you have to be sure you release the trigger before you slam the slide back forwards, and that will slow you down more than using a non-slamfire capable gun unless you've had lots of practice.

@@CrazyMegaOmega Which they didn't achieve at all, they straw manned slamfire by putting the shooter on a weapon he's intimately familiar with vs a weapon he clearly hadn't ran before.

I used to have people trying to tell me slam fire was faster then semiauto

@@SilverStarHeggisistI bet those same people are fans of the .22 bounce around 100% death round too

@@alexanderren1097 yup, they were, while also decrying the 5.56 as too under powered.

Except pumping of action will restore, somewhat, point of aim unlike full that climb upward and at an angle due to pivot point of recoil.

Yeah not a out of shape white guy

Two words: Paul Harrell (who proves your statement 100% correct).

this.

FACT. It's conditioning. This guy isn't a good example of what the gun - or shooter - is capable of.

@@josephspringer7432 And...in a WW1 trench...you wouldn't be shouldering the gun. From the hip only.

I dont know i think quite the opposite, i have a model 12 that slamfires, and out of stubborn determination i wanted to get good at it, It can be quicker than conventional shooting but only with alot of practace, because in the process of bringing the pump forward its easy to throw your aim. after sacrificeing many cases of cheap birdshot, i can say comfortably my slamfire times are infact faster, but it requires far more concentration to aim and kind of requires a shooting form of its own. Only real practical use i could see would be bird hunting, because the thing is while it is quicker, its not *much* quicker, and it requires focus that i cannot imagine youd have while being shot at also doing it accurately at any kind of distance requires shooting from a stand still, which again, does not seem conducive to surviveing a war.

I recall him saying he got quite a few scars, despite wearing a jacket reinforced with strips of aluminium.

Underated comment. Also someone more with a Forgotten Weapons + malnourished body build, with rotting feet.

Or a side by side comparison with a cowboy action shooter who is proficient in slam fire to remove some of platform training bias Might have reached the same conclusion, but I'd trust it more coming from someone who's used the technique on the clock for more than 3 runs previously

@@cupajoe7258 yes when CAS running 97s are running in the 4 sec range including loading.

cue Lee Marvin

Haveing a model 12 that slamfires and immediately going about testing this after my purchase, with practice via haveing 3 man sized targets about 20 yards off fireing to hit each one twice in one run, slam fireing is marginally faster. but the key is you need to practace the motion enough that your not throwing your aim when you do it, theres a wierd motion and cadence about it where your basically pushing the gun down into the pump so you end up at roughly the point you started before recoil. how practical that would be when getting shot at? dont know, probably was useful for birdhunting back before semis where super commonplace

If they have limited training, they're probably mostly feeling panic, and aiming by panic seems like a recipe for disaster.

@@TheMadalucard panicking and slam fire sounds like a working combo

Exactly why they were favored for night sentry watch. Fill the darkness you heard a stranger with a screen of buckshot.

Slamfire = spray-and-pray = loser

I thinks that slamfire add simplicity to use of shotgun. When you are in a hurry and under stress lack of need to releasing trigger is making thing easier to operate.

No

No

The MKA1919 is a pump action turned into a semi auto, hmm the AFT will be after that next

That's a fair point. We're so well fed in the US that about half of Americans are obese (as of latest census). America turn of the 1900's was not an overweight society.