Why was the Enfield Revolver such a huge flop? With firearms and weapon expert, Jonathan Ferguson 

It could become a bloody mess if they wouldn't get along. ;)

@@Wernerrrrr I think there's a script for a dark comedy in there somewhere...everyone pausing to explain things about what they are shooting, were just shot with, or blew up in their hands. Stuff like that.

@@iDEATH Just put a thumb in it :)

Agreed. The firearm owning community has had (in my personal experience) some of the most considerate people in it compared to all of the other communities I've sampled. Firearms are something we should all be able to enjoy as long as we are respectful of the raw power that they embody! It's a great hobby and a great community.

Aw Luv-too spot on! Gives us a wee kissypoo!

I guess those arms were so useless that not even Elbonia adopted them :)

Douglas Adams lived in a small English home smoked and drank excessively until moving to California where he ate “healthy” quit smoking and died exercising. Bwahahaha

@@bobthompson4133 “I take my only exercise acting as a pallbearer at the funerals of my friends who exercise regularly.” ~ Mark Twain

🍻

He's not wearing a towel though. I guess it's okay as long as he knows where his towel is.

alternately, or to augment this, get a nice smooth program compressor like Kotelnikov by Tokyo Dawn Labs and have it gently push the levels together.

and we've got stereo audio for some reason when that's needless to say, not really necessary. Just downmix to mono for things like this, stereo audio gets distracting.

@@Rehteal yes, he's right. generally if you want stereo, let the stereo echo linger in the left and right channels but make sure the speaker's voice is dead centre; same volume in both channels. we tend to orient our heads to people who speak to replicate that effect irl.

@@sleepCircle Right, but if you can't do that consistently/ easily as the person recording, have the editor or someone just make it mono instead. Bad stereo is much worse than none at all.

@@Rehteal true enough. i suppose it'd be a question of is there too much of his voice in the room ambience to let the lapel mic ride comfortably in mono without interference. i THINK it should be doable but i'm not sure.

It's such a strange gun for something that should be pretty straightforward for a revolver, but I guess trying to make it too future proof damned it into a horrible design.

@@darranhirose8153 it is like how the colt 1900 automatic looks normal. It only looks normal to us because it set the mold, in the same way there are tons of ways to make a revolver. That the layout of all modern ones fits the mold is a result of many attempts at other ways and them failing.

Ha, I do feel bad saying these things you know. It's the same with the video game guns - a lot of people put their heart and soul into things and people like me come along and criticise...

Didn't expect to relate so hard to a revolver.

I thought I just had .........

Othias and Mae's episode will drop in a week. You'll find the answer then ;)

@@LukeBunyip I've just watched in its Patreon pre-released edition. So it looks like patents were not an issue but the S&W design was seen as in need of improvement due to being seen as too flimsy. British military designs by committee - or even just overseen by committee - all too often seem to suffer from too much complexity and trying to innovate too quickly.

Nah, it was a combination questioning the long-term reliability of mechanisms like the No 3 and someone's bright idea about not wasting unfired rounds (ie if you fired three shots and went to reload, you could just reload the three spent cartridges with this rather than all six as with the No 3). The latter was a terrible idea in practice, but I can see why people new to cartridge firing revolvers would find it appealing and it wasn't the only time it was tried (Merwin and Hulbert did something similar). In the end, as problematic as the Enfield revolver is, it was still better than a lot of contemporaries and at least the British were forward looking (insisting on double action and simultaneous ejection) unlike, for example, the Germans with the Reichsrevolver adopted at the same time.

I think it's bc the clip on mic is so low. Whenever Jonathan bow down to his left, the audio is perfect, bc he's also way closer to the mic

The Lancaster howdah pistol. Ian has a nice video about them.

Colt's M1917 and S&W's M1917 are two fairly different revolvers. They were made for the same reason (WW1 armaments) but if you look at pictures of both revolvers, they're very much patterned to their company's specifics (Colt a pull latch, unsupported ejector rod, CW rotation; S&W's a push button, supported ejector rod, and CCW rotation). EDIT: Found a good picture of them both. www.americanrifleman.org/media/nsropbas/1917rev.jpg

@@JackalRelated Yes, I'm aware of that, thank you.

They were and the only stipulation was that it accepted the standard service cartridge.

Mind, the primary purpose of the pistol for cavalry was engage enemies at short distances, under fifty feet, that one wanted dead sooner than could be done by riding over and stabbing them with a sword or lance. Basically, your pistol was what you would whip out to shoot a bad guy about to stab your comrade at 30 feet, not the weapon you'd be using to fight all your enemies around you (sword is better for that in general). Thus, a reliable gun that always goes bang is arguably more important than a lot of bullets in reserve, and revolvers in the 1870s had a lot of misfires still as ammunition and gun design was still working out the bugs in both systems.

It was also Dr. Watson's service revolver in 1965's "A Study In Terror," a hypothetical "Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper" film. This is actually one of the few films with a service revolver Watson could have plausibly used, since he was famously wounded at Maiwand in 1880 and invalided out the next year.

It's a mix of design by committee, design by officer, design by the last guy to design whatever the thing is, and design by mad old lord in a shed. Which one will actually provide you with a quality product this time is a game of roulette, and each of them has an option to force their particular vision through whatever you spin.

@@danghostman2814 Well said!

_Someone_ wanted to keep a gate loader... for god knows why.

They shot high so you have to aim low even using .455 which is not quite as powerful as the .476. A higher front sight would have been beneficial. The New Service is leaps and bounds ahead even in the more powerful Colt .45 as opposed to the .455 Webley round. I also had a S&W in .455 but I opted to carry the more powerful Colt in .45.

I suspect 'handgun' is a term Americans invented to encompass revolvers and semi-automatic (self loading) pistols after they were told that the word 'pistol' could no longer be applied to revolvers.

@@mikemichaels9590 Shame if so, but rest assured that _this_ American will continue using the term pistol without distinction

I believe (subject to correction) that the Lancers also carried swords. However, unlike the other mounted units, they didn't carry carbines. Conversely, the other mounted units didn't carry pistols. I suspect the idea was to give the Lancers at least a little bit of the same capability as the other cavalry.

@@itsapittie Lancers were defined by the carrying of a lance, but they were otherwise armed with pistols, swords, and may have carbines as well, depending on the time and specific unit. Note that European lancers were not like traditional steppe riders and others who specifically eschewed close melee combat whenever possible. Rather, European lancers were expected to get stuck in after using their lances to make a shocking first strike. After making this strong charging blow, lancers would switch to swords and pistols like most other cavalry, as swords were much quicker to wield against close opponents, both mounted and on foot, on both sides of the rider without having to swing a long pole over the horse's body in the process. Pistols, meanwhile, were on hand as a way to engage opponents at short distances more quickly than could be done by riding over with a sword or lance. Put another way, Lancers and most all other cavalry of the era wanted pistols to shoot that guy about to stab their comrade 30 feet away. Sources: www.nam.ac.uk/explore/cavalry-roles#:~:text=Lancers,sabres%20and%20pistols%20or%20carbines. I also recommend books like the "History of British Cavalry" in four volumes by Henry Paget. They detail just how similar all the British cavalry formations were during the 19th century, despite the names and theoretical differences. They all wore flashy uniforms, held themselves as more prestigious than the line infantry, and saw swords and pistols as their practical weapons, even if they had a nominal weapon like the lance or carbine.

Please see my comment to Kelton Oliver in case youtube doesn't notify you. It might clear things up a little.

At times lancers have even stopped carrying lances at all, it's a confusing term, like dragoons it largely depended on the fighting fashions of the time. Interestingly the last lance I know of being developed was the version used in poland 1939, although I'm sure there were others later on as well, that's just the most famous.

Firearms appear in cavallry in 1520s as wheellock pistols. I am german, Brittas boyfriend, and born 1965. As far as i know, in 1520s the Lanzierer ( Gendarmes/ men at arms) simply added one or two pistols to be modernized. But the Kürisser ( cuirassiers) , a new created category of heavy cavallry , used 3/4 armour and two or more pistols and used ,caracole'' tactic. This meant ,they attacked in rolling salvo tactic, similar to tactic of rowed mediterranean warships. At this time, carbines had been rare, but as longer as 16th century lasted semiarmoured ,light' cavallry appeared and Dragoner ( dragoons) appeared as mounted infantry with badest riding horses. In 18th century , there came a switch. Armour was nearly out of use, cuirassiers used still cuirass (often only breastplate) and a leathervest, the head was rarely protected by a helmet, but more wore a hardened hat , strengthened with sheetmetal and thick wires. This caused a change in pistols. The caliber/ bore was enlarged for logistics reason, the Barrels became shorter with thinner walls, and Powder Charge was reduced, so armour Penetration was reduced. In 18th century HRE , i am german, the Dragoner had been used often as heavy cavallry , second Attack Wave, their armament was heavy cavallry sword, often only one pistol, Not the usual pair ( in german Paar), and a Dragonergewehr, a slightly shortened musket, for the case of fighting as infantry. Prussian King Frederik ll wrote: Don't forgett infantry Training of Dragoner! They are mostly used mounted, so the Training must Not have quality of line infantry. In 18th century heavy cavallry used only few carbines, carbines had been used by cuirassiers, lancers, Gendarmes in small Numbers, mostly only for guard duties. But light cavallry, Hussaren/ hussars had mostly a carbine. Why? In Germany a ,Husarenstück' ( outdated) is a heroic adventure , like the events modern Elite/ Commando troops. So the hussars did a lot of Things in ,small war' , where they had to be on foot, so for them the carbine was important. In 18th century HRE lancers had been rare, May be few units formed by hungarian/ polish mercennaries.

Exactly. Dud rounds were more of a problem then, so it would be more of a problem.

This one was adopted a year after the battle depicted in the film. They used the Adams revolver in real life battle but in the film they used Webleys as stand-ins

Almost like language evolves and words change. Suppressor is a perfectly fine name.. does what it says on the tin.

It could have been a Tranter or Adams pistol as they pre-date the Enfield. Depends on the setting date though.

SCAMMER!!