Repeating Flintlock Rifles?!?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.พ. 2025
- ATTENTION! If you appreciate unusual designs, mechanical oddities, and supremely rare firearms, today's video is for you. Seth walks us through the mechanism for two flintlocks that challenged the period's limitations on rate of fire.
The Chelembrom repeating flintlock dates back to 1781! With a quick twist the Chelembrom cocked the flint, primed the pan, closed the frizzen, loaded the main powder charge, and placed a ball all in VERY short order. Several of these fascinating mechanisms can be found in some of the world's top museums.
The Ellis-Jennings four-shot flintlock rifle borrows elements from the better-known Beltom repeating flintlock. However, the Ellis-Jennings can claim acceptance as a U.S. martial arm. 521 of the Ellis-Jennings rifles were purchased by the federal government for use by the New York militia.
Follow us!
Facebook: / rockislandauctioncompany
Twitter: / riauction
Instagram: / rockislandauction
Maybe it's just me, but just acknowledging the existence of these firearm patterns thrills me in a way I cannot fully describe.
The idea of some inventor coming up with ideas such as these in an era where most firearms were only capable of firing a single shot and required a lengthy and complex reload process just makes me happy.
It's not about "how fast you can kill things", it's about the complex engineering and the brilliance of creative problem solving!
These have to be the most interesting firearms I have ever seen, and trust me when I say I have seen a lot, especially from the 1600s and 1700s, which is where the most fascinating designs come from (in my opinion at least).
Thank you for showing us these designs, silly old me thought the Lorenzoni was the only "practical" repeating flintlock and I was very wrong.
This video actually made my day a lot better!
ikr. But then, once you've created a complex design, it's a matter of durability testing it for combat afterward.
@@CHRF-55457 And that's where most people would loose interest, but not me.
As stated, I don't really care if a weapon is considered inappropriate for combat, the only thing I care about is how brilliant and original the design is.
What fascinates me about these designs is not their capability to reliably kill, but rather the brilliantly thought of designs and the inventive behind them :)
@@Flintl0ckI agree flintlock repeaters not very durable and they are not really practical but I don't care. They are FREAKING awesome and their very look screams "I'M FROM WARHAMMER"
These guns would be perfect for guns in fantasy game
Sounds interesting
Definitely using them in mine!
Yeah
absolutely, I'm trying to create what i call a "musket punk" type game and this is perfect
Some really great flintlock ASMR in this video. Thank you for sharing these fine flintlocks.
The 1781 Chelembrom. There's a long gone Frenchman who used that and must have had a 'Je sais ce que vous pensez, six coups ou seulment cinq?' moment!
That's got to be the most niche joke I've laughed at.
only if we are feeling lucky
Not strange that a NY militia had those at all! The war of 1812 was fresh and NY was frontline in any war with British Canada. After all, the US had invasion plans into the very late 19th century for Canada. Ottawa is where it is, in part, to help defend it from an invasion.
I remember seeing a picture of a lever-action repeating musket. Thought it was cool as heck.
Love the design
What a beautiful guns
I would love it if there was a company that made more reproductions and made these.
That's a whole lot of liability, these guns do have some dangerous set backs.
@@gunslingerfromwish4656 like?
@@gunslingerfromwish4656 like?
@@gunslingerfromwish4656 like?
@@gunslingerfromwish4656
dislike?
Can I see when you can fire it, if not can you do 2D xray Video if you can.
Good lord those most have been hard to find!
Ok… now I have to add a repeating flintlock to my dream list. Also shatters my understanding that the founders didn’t have access to fast action type guns. Single shot would likely have been most common to the Everyman, but obviously some wealthy and well connected like them knew they existed when writing second amendment. While I am open to some gun control measures (and marketing) the argument revolving around being able to shoot in rapid succession or imagine even greater engineering seem to be destroyed.
These were made before factories existed, meaning these things were expensive
Both of these weapons were made in the 19th Century, not before the Bill of Rights. And both of these are still FAR slower than a standard semi auto we have these days - let alone full auto.
You obviously didn't watch the video. The one in the back is dated 1781. He also notes that some MAY have been used during the revolutionary war.
Wow, the complexity of these is off the chain. An easier concept that they totally overlooked was a Metallic Cartridge.
It's genious! ❤
Well this is awkward for those politicians who keep saying single shot muskets were the only things around when the Constitution was written and that the founders never imagined such innovations.
Slide bolt flint lock? 😮
MUSKETPUNK INTENSIFIES
Nice
How much did these sell for?
"The 2nd amendment was only for muskets"
the muskets
These were both made in the 19th century, after the Bill of Rights, they were both quite rare and expensive, and they were both far slower than any semi auto we have today.
@isaiahayers1550 the belton flintlock was invented in 1777. The argument is that the founders knew gun tech would advance. They also let people own cannons. Which are at least equivalent to an AR 15 if not more. The inventor even tried to sell them to congress. Trust, they knew about guns and still said ya go ahead.
@@crisco362 there is no evidence that it ever existed except written correspondence. If it did exist, there's no way to prove it shot as many rounds as the inventor claims.
An AR-15 is far more capable of fast, efficient, mass casualties than a cannon.
Yes, they knew guns existed but had zero idea of anything like what exists today.
Actually what they said was "yeah, we don't want to support a professional, standing army, so form militias to defend the free State (against other States) with a well regulated militia.
@@isaiahayers1550 the dude literally said they were made in the 1780’s, which means the designing was happening years before. Also, you mean to tell me that military leaders and private citizens weren’t thinking about arms advancements? Makes zero sense.
@@isaiahayers1550 Didn't the Chambers repeating flintlock system demonstrate the roman candle technology of the Belton only a few decades later? Belton was describing a roman candle system as well as a superposed system which had been around for centuries in various forms and was adopted by the U.S government in the form of the Ellis-Jennings during the administration of founding father James Monroe. They ordered at least 500.
Maybe it's too late to ask a question; I just saw this video in Oct. '24. In the Jennings, does the ball of the 2nd shot prevent its charge from being ignited when firing the first shot, and so on as you move rearward? Just curious, not exactly sure how that works.
Correct. On most "superposed load" muzzle-loading designs, the subsequent balls/bullets are meant to provide the gas seal to prevent multiple shots from going off simultaneously. This is part of what kept them from being very widely adopted. If the next patched round ball is too loose, it will not provide a gas tight seal, and the hot gas then can leak backwards when the rifle is fired and ignite the next powder charge with potentially catastrophic effects. The Lindsay two-shot rifle-musket, for example, was built under U.S. contract during the Civil War, and there were reports from soldiers issued the guns of double discharges being common and destroying several of their rifle-muskets. Adding a tightly fit over the powder wad might add a little more security, but the overall length of the total charge had to be kept consistent to keep the powder charges lined up with their respective touch holes.
@@S.Isaacson OK, thanks for the response...I appreciate it. That's exactly what I was thinking; an undersized round could lead to a pretty nasty chain fire.
This need to be in guts and blackpowder
That is a great repeat rifle, however not technically a "firearm" the Ghiradoni air had the ability and capacity of 22 .50 caliber lead balls over 100 PSI SO 22 shots in less than 22 seconds zero recoil 😊because air pressure shoots the bullet because air pressure not a rapport shoots the ammunition easily up to 500 yards!! And zero sound!!! After pumping the stock full you can easily reload 3 times without losing distance before pressure drops!!
Actually, the Ghiradoni has significantly recoil and is rather noisy.
But no smoke to speak of.
When someone claims they had no "repeaters" when the 2nd amendment was written" you can show them this.
And you can show them this comment too. The 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 and these rare, expensive firearms were invented decades later.
Try again.
@@isaiahayers1550 Sorry kid, but the Pukkle gun was well known to the fouding fathers. In fact they said "these weapons will only get more efficient over time" they knew full well that invention and innovation would leave far more powerful weapons in the hands of the citizens. Nothing you anti-freedom traitors can say, will erase historical fact.
@@isaiahayers1550 not even close. First one made in 1781…Constitution was signed when? 1789. The second rifle is only 30ish yrs after. Designing takes years, and to think military leaders and private citizens weren’t wanting or thinking about developing weapons is ridiculous. Go read a basic military arms book.
What all you Democrats miss is, if the writers on the 2nd wanting to only allow certain types of firearms, they would have said so. "The right to keep and bear muskets for hunting shall not be infringed".
They didn't say that because the 2nd is the idea that we must be allowed to have arms to overthrow our own government or an invader if our government chose not to defend the country. Cannons were privately owned at the time the 2nd was written. They could have easily set a limit on what the 2nd covered. Such as, nothing larger than shoulder fired or normally carried by a single man.
They didn't because the 2nd was the idea.
Sane as freedom of speech. They didnt say what was comsdered free speech and what shouldn't be allowed. It was an idea.
As for military weapons, the civilians used hunting firearms as military weapons. Even in modern times the US government will civilian firearms off the retail shelves for the armed forces. Untill only recently, the standard military sniper rifle was an off the shelf civilian deer rifle.
@@isaiahayers1550 One of the first repeating firearms ever developed was the Kalthoff repeater. Developed in the 1630's. For reference the first permanent English settlement in America was in 1607. The Bill of Rights was drafted over a century later.