You are not alone mate. Forgotten Weapons is my first port-of-call when I play a new video game that is interesting enough to make me want to know the firearms history.
I have one of these. My dad bought it in 1974 for 700 dollars and mom and dad fought over that purchase for over a year! We still have it and shoot it. In fact dad and my grandpa a machinist, bought a separate breech block and converted it to center fire before Dixie started selling them. He made cases out of .348 Win. He spent 30 years researching the gun. Fun fact Ian didn't mention, the forearm on these guns were for rolling block 50-70's but inlet and shaped for 2 band instead of 3 band.
whenever I see a spencer I always think to myself how happy I would be to have one if I were back in the times when they were relevant military hardware. Heck, I'd be happy to have one today, but my my- that case hardening, and just the elegant simplicity of it, magazine cutoff, guts levering out the bottom and all. Beautiful
As always, a great video! Thank you Ian for your work, very much appreciated. As I watched your video, I had My Chiappa reproduction Sharps rifle in hand to see it's variances. For you history buffs that can't really afford an original, and the advantages of having a repro that you can shoot and play with, without the dangers of harming an original. You have to get one of these, they are affordable and fun to shoot.
I imagine cavalry troopers who'd served with Custer in the late 1860's on up to Little Big Horn were cursing in their last moments the government who had taken away their Spencers in place of the Springfield trap doors!
Would also have helped if Custer hadn't left the Gatling guns back at the fort but don't get confused. Custer's biggest asset to his bosses was he would charge bleep with a bucket of water. In other words he was a reckless fool with a staggering amount of raw energy and endurance who would cheerfully undertake tasks that caused sane men to blanch. He needed to be a hero to make up for some recent (predictable?) errors of judgement so he broke just about every rule in the book and disobeyed orders trying to be a hero and got himself and his men killed.
Dwight E Howell You are right Dwight about Custer's willingness to be in the thick of it. I;ve read many accounts of Custer and of the Little Bighorn battle. Most if not all have to rely on some amount of speculation as the troops Custer actually rode with were killed to the last man. No one will ever know for sure how it all played out. Most books are critical of Custer, but there are a few that aren't quite so critical. Most acknowledge that his record showed he was a good cavalry officer with a good grasp of tactics, thus the reason for his advancement in the Civil War despite his flashy and egotistical ways. It is easy to criticize his splitting his force, but that is done all the time and recognized as often working out quite well. Reno was to cross the river and hit their right flank and was not supposed to stop until he was in and among the village. Custer in turn would hit them head on which in actuality would have been another flanking attack as the Indians would have been heading to Custer's left to react to Reno's charge into that end of the village. Some stories say that when Custer got to the river the bank was high and there were a slew of Indians on the other side shooting. Other accounts say it was crossable there and there were only a few Indians ready on the far shore. Most accounts agree that after a couple of men were killed on the riverbank, the unit withdrew up hill into the coulees. An interesting account I read recently, which referred to an Indian account from one who was present and who had no idea who he had shot from his side of the river, turns out to be maybe a good possibility to have been Custer himself leading the charge. This would explain that portion of the 7th retreating in disorder...partly because they likely would not have been aware of the tactical plan as Custer was not wont to share those details out with his subordinate officers.(very bad move!)...In fact Benteen either did not want to obey Custer's order to come up with his men and ammo...or quite possibly didn't understand the order in relation to what he knew about the battle plan...which once again was pretty spars. Anyway, Custer makes for fascinating literature which I am sure many more generation will be enthralled and mystified by!
Spoken by a pompous jackass. I've read several accounts of this man's life. That doesn't mean I know him but both his weaknesses and his virtues were obvious.
His mistake was thinking he could ride down and kill the entire Sioux nation plus a bunch of related warriors from other tribes and they'd just fold their hands and let him. He and his men were pretty much as good as dead from the point he decided to disobey direct orders and launch the attack on his own. If he had survived he should have been put before a firing squad and shot.
A few items: The US Navy actually made the first orders for the Spencer in 1862. They were all rifles with the Navy sabre bayonet. When the order for 700 arrived the Army promptly took it. After using the Spencer in reenactments for years, lever motion is important. Sharp, strong action will eject rounds better and reduce double feeds. I always carry a falttened wire with me because the extractor is unreliable - if it gets around the cartridge rim (which it does with annoying frequency), you must have a tool to get it out.
I recall an old American Rifleman issue featuring the Spencer Carbine showing charger tubes carried by soldiers for reloading 7 rds into the butt of the carbine sort of a charger clip at that time , also the bag was shown but I don't recall if the article mentioned how many charger clips was carried.
I'm watching this nearly 10 years after it came out. I've been following this channel for a long time, but I doubt that I'll ever get through all of Ian's videos.
In the case of George Armstrong Custer and other US cavalry units at the Little Big Horn, Rosebud etc, the Spencer rifles would have helped a lot better than the Springfield trapdoors. However at the time experience seemed to make the transition make sense, but sometimes the "unknown factor" come into play. Great video as always Ian.
Spencer carbine is a good rifle for the time. A good friend of mine had one. He had a large collection of pistols and rifles. He was a lawyer out of Huston Texas. He even had full size cannons. We shot them on his farm in Sinclair Texas. . We did not shot the Spencer because of no ammunition. He had a few of the rimfire rounds for showing. I really miss Roland. He was a true rifleman and a American.
I agree with that comment 100%! Custers troops cursed the day the military decided to take away their repeaters for single action Springfield 45-70. The Spencer was under estimated in the first place. It fired a 56-56 pre-1865, and in 65 new versions were produced with 50-50 cartridges which is still twice the power of a Winchester or Henry. Which are the guys that the Indians used to slaughter Custer and his men.
I remember reading that the cartridges would not truly eject from the rifle. They would sort of tumble out and the rifle would have to be tilted back to clear the spent round from the action.
Duelist1954 has a video on his channel where he shoots the Armi Sport replica of the Spencer Carbine made by Chiappa Arms in Italy. His model was chambered in .44-40, and it seemed to cycle fairly reliably, with only a few tilts. Granted that's a modern replica and not the original, but the Italian copies of older designs are fairly faithful.
I own a 1963 Spencer Carbine (56/50) a 1863 "Baby Spencer " Carbine (52 cal) and also this one, a 1865 Spencer Rifle with the Stabler Cut Off. Also own a Modern Repro (Armi- Sport) in 56- 50. Even though I have never fired my Originals Live, I have put original rounds (7) through the magazine and breach block into the breach,. Besides firing my repro with both Live Ammunition and 56-50 brass and plastic blanks. On a Spencer, you REALLY have to pump the loading lever FAST or the following round with start feeding also causing the breach block to jam. The Originals had a "ejector" for the spent casing (as shown) which did work well, while the repros have a extractor, which does not work as well. The US Army was short sighted, as they should have gone with the Henry Rife instead of the Spencer. Both were patened in 1860. One by Christopher Spencer, the other by Henry and Winchester. Time showed that the Henry was a far better weapon, as it was followed by the 1866 Winchester, 1873 Winchester and 1894 Winchester. ALL following the Original Henry design and owned by Winchester.
can you take a look at a Winchester model 1887 repeating shotgun because it is quite unique as lever actions aren't usually seen in shotguns and I have never really been able to find any video or form of media explaining the gun in depth
@@poldpoldecki7171 well it shows up in a number of video games, the terminator films, and many other places and yeah id like to see a video looking into it he did an entire series on Winchester's lever rifles so why not their lever shotgun
In the post Civil War era before 1873 I think if I were a cavalry trooper given a choice, I would be hard pressed to choose between the Sharps .50-70 conversion carbine or a Spencer carbine. I do note that after the Fetterman Massacre Ft. Kearney requested Spencers, but at that early date they probably didn't know the 50-70s were coming.
Good video and an interesting weapon. I read some books on the Indian wars and the Spencer was pivotal in a cavalry squad battle that occurred in west Texas. The after action report stated the patrol was ambushed and made it to a riverbed island were they successfully repulsed several attacks from superior enemy numbers. They also had something called a Blalock tube re-loader? Some type of speed loader. Could you elaborate. Thank you.
+Wyoming Horseman The Blakeslee cartridge box was designed to work in concert with the Spencer. The cartridge box contained between six and thirteen tin tubes, said tubes holding seven bullets each. Not exactly a "speed loader", but faster than a muzzle loader and probably faster than loading a Henry.
greenhornet111 Thank you. A lot faster than stuffing cartridges in one at a time. I used to have A .22 rim-fire semi auto Winchester that loaded thru the stock. A tube loader would have been great. In combat it would have been, and was decisive. And it was in the a fore mentioned cavalry action, according to the after action report. Try reading Terry Johnson's "The Plainsman series". He includes the after action reports and maps of the actions. Very entertaining light reading.
Hey duelist1954 has a video entitled "Armi Sport 1865 Spencer Carbine" that has good pictures of a Blakeslee cartridge box with the tubes. I think that the Spencer beats everything before it, but in speed of loading I still see it second to a traditional Henry or Winchester. One hand on the gun, one hand on the detachable follower, one hand on the Blakeslee tube, yeah you get the argument. Thank you for the reading suggestion.
greenhornet111 Still faster than one cartridge at a time. I grew up hunting with a 94 Winchester 30-30. I also had a 63 Winchester .22 that loaded through the stock. Good thing I didn't have a Blakeslee loader for that! Every jack rabbit and chisler in the valley would have been doomed. :)
A very interesting video. There is a museum in Illinois, whose Curator did a video on an ex-Civil War, long-rifle. He was even able to name the Illinois, soldier to whom it was issued. One question, the extractor does not look too good. Do you have data on breakages or extraction failures?
Great video. Thanks for all the details. The am always amazed by those who are able to engineer such devices. Guess that's why I went into psychology lol.
I own an original 1865 Spencer, and I know that before cycling the loading lever the hammer has to be on half or full cock to allow the firing 'wedge' (not really a pin) to be re-positioned so the hammer will strike it when the trigger is pulled. What I don't know from watching the action is what mechanism moves the wedge to this position (and keeps it there) when the loading lever is closed, as the wedge can then be easily slid by finger-touch in its slot in the breech-block to where the hammer wouldn't strike it. Anybody know the answer ?
I'm answering my own question - after studying the action again slowly, it's the rim of the rim-fire cartridge loaded in the breech that moves the firing wedge back (and keeps it there) so that the hammer will strike it when the trigger is pulled. If there is no cartridge in the breech and the action is cycled, it's only gravity that moves the firing wedge back, and only if the carbine is not pointing down. This being the case, it would seem that the hammer would still have to be on half or full cock before cycling the action, to allow the firing wedge to move freely back to the 'fire/battery' position, as otherwise it would block this movement.
Local re-enactors of the 1990's had a centerfire breech alteration and used the then cheap, readily available 8x56R Portuguese Kropatcheck black powder blank, either dropped in breech as a single shot, or cut, altered and crimped to a ersatz Spencer-like blank. At the time you were true hot sh_t if you were a Spencer Armed re-enactor.
When the hammer is down after firing, would it not have to be half or full cocked to allow space the rim of the case to 'reset' the firing pin. With the hammer down it looks like the force of the spring would hinder the closing of the action?
Some months ago one of it in excellent condition was sold at an auction in Montevideo, Uruguay, South America, for less than 800 bucks. Didn't buy it because it is almost impossible to find any kind of ammo for it.
Do you know what kind of grease is visible in the action at 5:38 ? I have been looking for a good preservative grease that can also be used as a functional lubricant, and this seems to be doing that nicely. I have cosmoline for long term storage, but I've been looking for years for a good grease that will preserve as well as lubricate- you of all people I thought could give me a hand in this direction. I bought some soy derived grease which promised to do just what I needed, but although incredibly lubricious, the oleic compounds do not appear to be a good preservative. Thanks in advance, from myself and all my C&R guns.
The decision to switch to a single shot sure put a hitch in George Custer's Get-A-Long. But of course George wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree, he had the opportunity to pull a couple of Gatling Guns along with him but declined, he didn't need no stinking fast firing weapon (actually the reason most given was he didn't want to bother hauling them around).
@@Titus-as-the-Roman That was mainly due to demerits, but to insult him as you did , as a soldier that DID graduate from W.P., GAC is far from dumb or stupid. I suggest you spend some time reading his personal letters or the fact he was the youngest Major General of the Civil War and a man his superiors always turned to when they needed a tough job done. You would find him to be far from the insults you have tossed his way.
@@Titus-as-the-Roman and McClellan finished near the top of his class and we know how he turned out. and by the way No Calvary units took their gatling guns with them. The Indian wars were wars of movement. gatling and Cannon just slowed them down.
I own a 1865 new model carbine model. I have replaced the breachblock with a center fire breach block. Using 50-70 brass that has been modified. It shots very well. Yes half cock first, then work the lever.
Looks like if you open the action without cocking, the cock would press on the firing pin while you close whole block. Would it be dangerous or effect in accidential discharge?
Interesting question; I didn't think about that. I suspect it would not cause discharges, because the pressure of the rim and firing pin pushing the hammer back would not be energetic enough to trigger the priming compound. Having the hammer down on a live round would put you at risk to have the gun fire if dropped on the hammer, though.
1860 Henry, not so much. It fired a much less powerful cartridge, and was prone to picking up dirt through the open slot in the magazine tube. The tab on the magazine follower moved through the space you would be holding the barrel with your off hand, so you had to shift grip at least once to fire a full magazine. The Henry had to be loaded one round at a time, Spencer came with special reload tubes that let you slide a full magazine load of cartridges into the magazine at once (sort of like a stripper clip), and reloaded at the butt end instead of the muzzle which was particularly helpful to cavalry. The Henry magazine held a bunch more rounds (16 rounds vs 7), and the lever cocked the hammer back so you didn't have to do that manually. Bottom line is Spencer is harder hitting, Henry could dump more cartridges downrange in a mad minute before you had to reload, other differences were pretty minor. In the long run the Henry (renamed Winchester) had much more room for development. The 1866 introduced a receiver loading gate and did away with the exposed magazine slot and its moving tab. The 1873 was chambered for .44-40 which had hitting power comparable to the Spencer, and later models were even more powerful, leaving the Spencer in Winchester's dust.
In an interesting historical side note, Christopher Miner Spencer, who was a prolific inventor outside the area of firearms as well, fathered a son quite late in life who grew up to become a notable aircraft designer. seabee.info/spencer.htm
These rifles were used all around the whole american continent and europe in the years after the American Civil war. It proved decisive in the Paraguayan War for the allies in south America
Forgotten Weapons So the more...interesting time of firearm development, ha. Everyone was trying new things during that time. Some wonderful leaps in firearm technology, others interesting...ideas.
Forgotten Weapons HAH! That's actually the years I generally say when talking about my preferences. I consider it to be the Golden Age of firearm development. To be more specific, generally 1886-1957. Repeating bolt actions, revolvers, LMGs, semi auto pistols, semi auto rifles, select fire battle rifles, and the three early examples of assault rifles (Federov Avtomat, STG44, and of course AK47). Oldest firearm I own is an 1896 No.1 Lee Enfield (Serial number under 8000), and out of all of my collection (roughly 30), only 3 were made after 1956, one of which is a 1982 CZ75 Pre-B. I'd say a good 1/2 of my collection is WWII, with 2 examples of WWI (one of which is present in basically my most-viewed video "Speed of the SMLE"). Gotta love the classics ;) To history, cheers!
DFX2KX Not EXACTLY... I was simply going for blatant speed, accuracy be damned. Just wanted to showcase how FAST the bolt can be worked, and how quickly it can be 'rapid fired'. Yes I just used the term 'rapid fire' for a bolt action. The fastest I managed, if you were to time it, is roughly 4 shots in 2 seconds, then 4 shots in about 1.5 seconds. If I had been a little bit more rhythmic and fluid in my boltwork, and carried on shooting for the whole 10 rounds at those speeds, then the first mag would have been emptied in 5 seconds, and the 2nd magful of .303 would have been gone in less than 4 seconds. That's a rate of fire of 120-160 RPM or so. If I were to shoot and reload like this as quickly as possible, performing roughly 4-5 second reloads with 2 clips at a time, then I might have managed 50-70 shots downrange in a minute, depending on how well I kept up the rhythm. Keep in mind, this is not aimed, this is just bang-bang shooty-shooty. Still, if you have a shooter who can get the sights back on target quickly enough after every work of the bolt, it makes it possible to imagine 25-30 aimed shots in a minute. There are some who claim that Snoxall's record of... 32 hits in a minute, was it? Anyways, some say that not only did that never happen, but there was never a Sgt. Snoxall. I believe it is not an impossibility. In the year 2000, most people probably would have thought being able to hit a man sized target at 2300m+ with a rifle was impossible, even a .50 cal one, ESPECIALLY not with a .33-.34 caliber rifle lol Well exactly that happened during the Afghan War, roughly 2,340m or so using a McMillan Tac-50 rifle in .50 BMG by a fellow Newfie Canadian; Cpl.Rob Furlong. This was later beaten by a British fellow, though I can't remember his name or the distance, however he used an L96 in .338 Lapua Magnum I believe. So what I'm getting at is, for most people, yeah, it's impossible. I don't think I'd EVER be able to hit something with a rifle beyond 1200m, let alone nearly 2.5km. Firing 20 aimed shots in a minute at 300m? I nearly did that on my first try at the Mad Minute; 17 aimed shots in 60 seconds... only 9 hits, granted, but it was my first attempt, also basically my first try shooting at 200m. Given more practice, obviously I would inevitably be able to stretch it out to 300m, as well as get MORE shots off, along with MORE hits. Also, I didn't even have my rifle properly rested, just had my elbows on the table, and the gong I was shooting at started swinging violently after just a few hits. That right there are two issues that affected the speed at which I could get back on target, and of course my ability to hit the target itself because it was moving side to side. So if some 21 year old kid with no formal training, or even informal training (I'm completely self-taught), could manage 17 aimed shots with 9 hits on a 200m 18" MOVING gong, on his FIRST time at shoot 200m away, then imagine how well a man in his 30s or 40s could shoot who has DECADES of experience, has put tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange, and has made the Lee Enfield an extension of his body. 30 hits in a minute with a bolt action rifle is definitely impossible for most shooters, however for ALL shooters? No way. The human body is capable of amazing things when given enough practice.
the spot on the Spencer rifle showed the manufacturer was the Burnside co. what about a spot on the Burnside rifle? I handled one years ago and was surprised at its simplicity. I understand that general Burnside made a fortune from sales to the union.
I'm surprised that you failed to do some homework, the Spencer needs to be half cocked BEFORE the action is levered to feed another Cartridge. Why ? Because otherwise the sliding Firing "Pin" can be damaged.
That might sound like a dumb question, but would it have been possible (theorically) for a soldier to carry several pre-loaded tube magazines to reload faster so they could drop tangos/slay bodies/dispence lead/bust them/whatever the new buzzword is longer?
Yes, and such a system was used during the war: www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_blakeslee.html www.virginialighthorse.freeservers.com/custom2.html www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=39205.0
Not only possible, but it was actively done. They were called Blakeslee loaders, and were basically tubes holding 7 cartridges that could be quickly dumped into the magazine. Versions were made and issued in over-the-shoulder boxes holding between 6 and 10 such tubes.
ahahah awesome. That must have been an absurd amount of firepower at the time. Was there any battle report saying "we basically won thanks to being able to shoot 7 times faster than them" or was individual firepower still considered an extremely minor concern for the brass?
+Dominico Carapella Additionally could unstuck a stuck case or anything acidentally lodged in the barrel. Its even present on the AK47 family of rifles.
While the Henry could be fired and reloaded more quickly than the Spenser that rifle was superior to the Henry as a military weapon disposing of greater power at longer ranges
An under powered rifle that cant reach out and touch an indian across the plains would have its limitations in plains warefare, this might have been a consideration to go with single shot. The ability to have multiple rounds in closer combat would be a huge plus. In hollywood people shot from the saddle. Just try to aim at anything farther than a few yards on a moving horse or even offroad vehicle and you can see how impossible it actually would be.
I did a quick comparison. He said a 350 gr bullet (huge) with 1200 fps velocity. That's 1,119 ft-lbs of energy leaving the muzzle. A .308 Win 175 gr leaving the muzzle at 2,600 fps would have 2,626 ft-lbs of energy. Maybe a 16 gauge slug is the closest I can find for bullet weight. Federal's 16 gauge slug weighs in at the same 350 gr but the muzzle velocity is higher at 1,600 fps for a muzzle energy of 1,989 ft-lbs. In terms of just pure muzzle energy, maybe its a little less than an AR-15. Federal's .223 Remington at 77 gr has a muzzle velocity of 2,720 fps for a muzzle energy of 1,265 ft-lbs.
I bet that General Custer's boys wished they had been issued that old obsolete rifle instead of the troublesome trapdoor. Not that it would have changed much probably, just a few less Indians heading for Canada after the big fight at the greasy grass.
Doubtful. The Springfield was a superior rifle in range and accuracy. If Custer's troopers had rimfire repeating rifles, their problems would only be exacerbated by a lack of range or accuracy. Their issue was keeping a numerically larger foe at distance, and a rimfire cartridge with less powder behind the bullet would not help in that regard.
Does anyone make a rim fire cartridge for that gun today? Does anyone make cartridges for ANY of the old rim-fires today? I'm wondering how guns of that era performed. Specifically, I'd like to know what kind of muzzle energy and velocity they had/have. It would seem to me that those old rim-fires were extremely weak by modern standards although I have to admit I don't want to be shot with a .22 short. I'm wondering exactly how they performed against cap and ball and then center fire.
Brennen Beck I'm guessing at one point or another, someone shot some period ammo through a chronograph. Rimfires have the bad reputation of all being weak. That is definitely not the case. Many were quite powerful. IIRC, some 45-70s were rimfires. I have a gun chambered in 41 Swiss which was originally a rimfire. I converted it to centerfire so I could actually shoot it. It can fire a 310gr bullet at 1350 FPS.
I would just like to tell everyone that if you like Ian's video's you really need to check out "In Range TV" on full30.com, I am just a subscriber but the episode on the exploding ammo from WW2 was an awesome bit of history/science and just plain gun fun. You will not be dissapointed and I can't wait for the next episode.
Cg262 Google auto-spams anything that has a link in it. Ian can change it, but has to catch it himself, something that is not particularly easy if you have a bigger channel.
Cg262 Man google sucks, I really enjoyed the In Range TV show and just wanted to help promote it, for sorta selfish reasons, I want to see more. Exploding ammo from WW2, Who would not want to see that?
Having had several relatives in WW2 (including paratroopers,who obviously were on a very familiar basis with the M1 Carbine!) informed me decades ago that BOTH pronunciations were/are used an correct!
WTF? The Spencer is the first mass produced repeating infantry rifle? How about the Prussian Dreyse M/41 about 30 years earlier? I think the Prussian needle guns are vastly underrated in the english speaking countries.
Googled Spencer Rifle after playing Red Dead Redemption 2 - was not disappointed that Ian had made a video on the rifle
You are not alone mate. Forgotten Weapons is my first port-of-call when I play a new video game that is interesting enough to make me want to know the firearms history.
I have one of these. My dad bought it in 1974 for 700 dollars and mom and dad fought over that purchase for over a year! We still have it and shoot it. In fact dad and my grandpa a machinist, bought a separate breech block and converted it to center fire before Dixie started selling them. He made cases out of .348 Win. He spent 30 years researching the gun.
Fun fact Ian didn't mention, the forearm on these guns were for rolling block 50-70's but inlet and shaped for 2 band instead of 3 band.
whenever I see a spencer I always think to myself how happy I would be to have one if I were back in the times when they were relevant military hardware. Heck, I'd be happy to have one today, but my my- that case hardening, and just the elegant simplicity of it, magazine cutoff, guts levering out the bottom and all. Beautiful
They sell them at Taylor firearms. Not cheap but they do sell them, replicas I assume
As always, a great video!
Thank you Ian for your work, very much appreciated.
As I watched your video, I had My Chiappa reproduction Sharps rifle in hand to see it's variances.
For you history buffs that can't really afford an original, and the advantages of having a repro that you can shoot and play with, without the dangers of harming an original. You have to get one of these, they are affordable and fun to shoot.
I imagine cavalry troopers who'd served with Custer in the late 1860's on up to Little Big Horn were cursing in their last moments the government who had taken away their Spencers in place of the Springfield trap doors!
Would also have helped if Custer hadn't left the Gatling guns back at the fort but don't get confused. Custer's biggest asset to his bosses was he would charge bleep with a bucket of water. In other words he was a reckless fool with a staggering amount of raw energy and endurance who would cheerfully undertake tasks that caused sane men to blanch.
He needed to be a hero to make up for some recent (predictable?) errors of judgement so he broke just about every rule in the book and disobeyed orders trying to be a hero and got himself and his men killed.
Dwight E Howell You are right Dwight about Custer's willingness to be in the thick of it. I;ve read many accounts of Custer and of the Little Bighorn battle. Most if not all have to rely on some amount of speculation as the troops Custer actually rode with were killed to the last man. No one will ever know for sure how it all played out. Most books are critical of Custer, but there are a few that aren't quite so critical. Most acknowledge that his record showed he was a good cavalry officer with a good grasp of tactics, thus the reason for his advancement in the Civil War despite his flashy and egotistical ways. It is easy to criticize his splitting his force, but that is done all the time and recognized as often working out quite well. Reno was to cross the river and hit their right flank and was not supposed to stop until he was in and among the village. Custer in turn would hit them head on which in actuality would have been another flanking attack as the Indians would have been heading to Custer's left to react to Reno's charge into that end of the village. Some stories say that when Custer got to the river the bank was high and there were a slew of Indians on the other side shooting. Other accounts say it was crossable there and there were only a few Indians ready on the far shore. Most accounts agree that after a couple of men were killed on the riverbank, the unit withdrew up hill into the coulees. An interesting account I read recently, which referred to an Indian account from one who was present and who had no idea who he had shot from his side of the river, turns out to be maybe a good possibility to have been Custer himself leading the charge. This would explain that portion of the 7th retreating in disorder...partly because they likely would not have been aware of the tactical plan as Custer was not wont to share those details out with his subordinate officers.(very bad move!)...In fact Benteen either did not want to obey Custer's order to come up with his men and ammo...or quite possibly didn't understand the order in relation to what he knew about the battle plan...which once again was pretty spars. Anyway, Custer makes for fascinating literature which I am sure many more generation will be enthralled and mystified by!
Dwight, you really know next to nothing about the topic you wrote of! You display the ignorance of a lazy man.
Spoken by a pompous jackass. I've read several accounts of this man's life. That doesn't mean I know him but both his weaknesses and his virtues were obvious.
His mistake was thinking he could ride down and kill the entire Sioux nation plus a bunch of related warriors from other tribes and they'd just fold their hands and let him. He and his men were pretty much as good as dead from the point he decided to disobey direct orders and launch the attack on his own. If he had survived he should have been put before a firing squad and shot.
A few items:
The US Navy actually made the first orders for the Spencer in 1862. They were all rifles with the Navy sabre bayonet. When the order for 700 arrived the Army promptly took it.
After using the Spencer in reenactments for years, lever motion is important. Sharp, strong action will eject rounds better and reduce double feeds. I always carry a falttened wire with me because the extractor is unreliable - if it gets around the cartridge rim (which it does with annoying frequency), you must have a tool to get it out.
I recall an old American Rifleman issue featuring the Spencer Carbine showing charger tubes carried by soldiers for reloading 7 rds into the butt of the carbine sort of a charger clip at that time , also the bag was shown but I don't recall if the article mentioned how many charger clips was carried.
Never really understood how this firearm worked until now. There's always something to learn, isn't there?
I'm watching this nearly 10 years after it came out. I've been following this channel for a long time, but I doubt that I'll ever get through all of Ian's videos.
In the case of George Armstrong Custer and other US cavalry units at the Little Big Horn, Rosebud etc, the Spencer rifles would have helped a lot better than the Springfield trapdoors. However at the time experience seemed to make the transition make sense, but sometimes the "unknown factor" come into play. Great video as always Ian.
Excellent and very informative video. Thank-you for posting and the great presentation.
Spencer carbine is a good rifle for the time. A good friend of mine had one. He had a large collection of pistols and rifles. He was a lawyer out of Huston Texas. He even had full size cannons. We shot them on his farm in Sinclair Texas. . We did not shot the Spencer because of no ammunition. He had a few of the rimfire rounds for showing. I really miss Roland. He was a true rifleman and a American.
I agree with that comment 100%! Custers troops cursed the day the military decided to take away their repeaters for single action Springfield 45-70. The Spencer was under estimated in the first place. It fired a 56-56 pre-1865, and in 65 new versions were produced with 50-50 cartridges which is still twice the power of a Winchester or Henry. Which are the guys that the Indians used to slaughter Custer and his men.
I remember reading that the cartridges would not truly eject from the rifle. They would sort of tumble out and the rifle would have to be tilted back to clear the spent round from the action.
I haven't done any shooting with a Spencer (yet), but from looking at the action that wouldn't surprise me.
Duelist1954 has a video on his channel where he shoots the Armi Sport replica of the Spencer Carbine made by Chiappa Arms in Italy. His model was chambered in .44-40, and it seemed to cycle fairly reliably, with only a few tilts. Granted that's a modern replica and not the original, but the Italian copies of older designs are fairly faithful.
I own a 1963 Spencer Carbine (56/50) a 1863 "Baby Spencer " Carbine (52 cal) and also this one, a 1865 Spencer Rifle with the Stabler Cut Off. Also own a Modern Repro (Armi- Sport) in 56- 50. Even though I have never fired my Originals Live, I have put original rounds (7) through the magazine and breach block into the breach,. Besides firing my repro with both Live Ammunition and 56-50 brass and plastic blanks. On a Spencer, you REALLY have to pump the loading lever FAST or the following round with start feeding also causing the breach block to jam. The Originals had a "ejector" for the spent casing (as shown) which did work well, while the repros have a extractor, which does not work as well. The US Army was short sighted, as they should have gone with the Henry Rife instead of the Spencer. Both were patened in 1860. One by Christopher Spencer, the other by Henry and Winchester. Time showed that the Henry was a far better weapon, as it was followed by the 1866 Winchester, 1873 Winchester and 1894 Winchester. ALL following the Original Henry design and owned by Winchester.
Very cool vid, always nice to see history such as this.
Thanks for the video, I never knew that they had these rifles in the Civil War. Learned something new today :)
can you take a look at a Winchester model 1887 repeating shotgun because it is quite unique as lever actions aren't usually seen in shotguns and I have never really been able to find any video or form of media explaining the gun in depth
Just say plainly, that you have played RDR2 and want to see a video about it :-P .
@@poldpoldecki7171 well it shows up in a number of video games, the terminator films, and many other places and yeah id like to see a video looking into it
he did an entire series on Winchester's lever rifles so why not their lever shotgun
In the post Civil War era before 1873 I think if I were a cavalry trooper given a choice, I would be hard pressed to choose between the Sharps .50-70 conversion carbine or a Spencer carbine. I do note that after the Fetterman Massacre Ft. Kearney requested Spencers, but at that early date they probably didn't know the 50-70s were coming.
Are the Walmart employees stockpiling all the 56 Spencer too?
They must be - I've never managed to find it on the shelf! :)
You can shim a .22 in the Spencer chamber with some newspaper, you'll be fine.
hahahahahaha is that a reference to actual internet "advice"? xD
You can get a reproduction chambered for a center fire round.
Thank you Ian!Great informative video.
I always found this carbine very ugly, but in the rifle format it's beautiful
And to think that they are still fishing Spencer rifles and carbines out of the bogs and lakes all around the US...Such a shame...Very neat rifle.
It truly is...
Ive Been Looking For
A .45 Long Colt Version,
So Far, No Luck...
Do you think you could do a video on the beautiful colt 1855 revolving shotgun that they have at the auction?
Sorry, but I didn't have a chance to do that one on this trip.
Was it obsolete because of the “weak” cartridge it fired or because there was something superior to its design made at the end of the war?
Good video and an interesting weapon. I read some books on the Indian wars and the Spencer was pivotal in a cavalry squad battle that occurred in west Texas. The after action report stated the patrol was ambushed and made it to a riverbed island were they successfully repulsed several attacks from superior enemy numbers. They also had something called a Blalock tube re-loader? Some type of speed loader. Could you elaborate. Thank you.
+Wyoming Horseman The Blakeslee cartridge box was designed to work in concert with the Spencer. The cartridge box contained between six and thirteen tin tubes, said tubes holding seven bullets each. Not exactly a "speed loader", but faster than a muzzle loader and probably faster than loading a Henry.
greenhornet111
Thank you.
A lot faster than stuffing cartridges in one at a time. I used to have A .22 rim-fire semi auto Winchester that loaded thru the stock. A tube loader would have been great. In combat it would have been, and was decisive. And it was in the a fore mentioned cavalry action, according to the after action report. Try reading Terry Johnson's "The Plainsman series". He includes the after action reports and maps of the actions. Very entertaining light reading.
Hey duelist1954 has a video entitled "Armi Sport 1865 Spencer Carbine" that has good pictures of a Blakeslee cartridge box with the tubes. I think that the Spencer beats everything before it, but in speed of loading I still see it second to a traditional Henry or Winchester. One hand on the gun, one hand on the detachable follower, one hand on the Blakeslee tube, yeah you get the argument. Thank you for the reading suggestion.
greenhornet111
Still faster than one cartridge at a time.
I grew up hunting with a 94 Winchester 30-30. I also had a 63 Winchester .22 that loaded through the stock. Good thing I didn't have a Blakeslee loader for that! Every jack rabbit and chisler in the valley would have been doomed. :)
stewie6096 has a homemade spencer carbine speedloader video that is very interesting.
I honestly really like the old intro, and hope he goes back to it at some point
A very interesting video. There is a museum in Illinois, whose Curator did a video on an ex-Civil War, long-rifle. He was even able to name the Illinois, soldier to whom it was issued.
One question, the extractor does not look too good. Do you have data on breakages or extraction failures?
Been looking for a vid on this underlever repeater
An old favorite of mine.
love the Spencer carbine just never got to own one this looks an amazing piece
Interesting, Ian...
You look so much like Billy Dixon!
Thanks for the fine videos...
Mike F.
Great video.
Thanks for all the details. The am always amazed by those who are able to engineer such devices. Guess that's why I went into psychology lol.
Great video as usual but I've got to say, the next purchase you should save up for should be a clip-on mike.
Very interesting rifle!
Hell I miss this intro, so cool
Very cool gun. This definitely the beginning of bigger,and better things!!! Wasn't this the rifle that was featured in the movie,Unforgiven?
yup
+James Basler Also known the Rebs as that "Damn Yankee rifle that you loaded on Sunday, and fired all week."
+Anon Nymous I'm sure that was the Henry Rifle.
Interesting rifle thanks for sharing.
Awesome thanks
I own an original 1865 Spencer, and I know that before cycling the loading lever the hammer has to be on half or full cock to allow the firing 'wedge' (not really a pin) to be re-positioned so the hammer will strike it when the trigger is pulled. What I don't know from watching the action is what mechanism moves the wedge to this position (and keeps it there) when the loading lever is closed, as the wedge can then be easily slid by finger-touch in its slot in the breech-block to where the hammer wouldn't strike it. Anybody know the answer ?
I'm answering my own question - after studying the action again slowly, it's the rim of the rim-fire cartridge loaded in the breech that moves the firing wedge back (and keeps it there) so that the hammer will strike it when the trigger is pulled. If there is no cartridge in the breech and the action is cycled, it's only gravity that moves the firing wedge back, and only if the carbine is not pointing down. This being the case, it would seem that the hammer would still have to be on half or full cock before cycling the action, to allow the firing wedge to move freely back to the 'fire/battery' position, as otherwise it would block this movement.
Local re-enactors of the 1990's had a centerfire breech alteration and used the then cheap, readily available 8x56R Portuguese Kropatcheck black powder blank, either dropped in breech as a single shot, or cut, altered and crimped to a ersatz Spencer-like blank. At the time you were true hot sh_t if you were a Spencer Armed re-enactor.
When the hammer is down after firing, would it not have to be half or full cocked to allow space the rim of the case to 'reset' the firing pin. With the hammer down it looks like the force of the spring would hinder the closing of the action?
beautiful rifle
Some months ago one of it in excellent condition was sold at an auction in Montevideo, Uruguay, South America, for less than 800 bucks. Didn't buy it because it is almost impossible to find any kind of ammo for it.
a Spencer rifle can be seen in the movie "Unforgiven" by clint eastwood, in the ending bar shooting scene.
I thought Ned used his Spencer when he killed one of the cowboys at the gulch too?
Do you know what kind of grease is visible in the action at 5:38 ? I have been looking for a good preservative grease that can also be used as a functional lubricant, and this seems to be doing that nicely. I have cosmoline for long term storage, but I've been looking for years for a good grease that will preserve as well as lubricate- you of all people I thought could give me a hand in this direction. I bought some soy derived grease which promised to do just what I needed, but although incredibly lubricious, the oleic compounds do not appear to be a good preservative. Thanks in advance, from myself and all my C&R guns.
get a product called RIG '' rust inhabiting grease '' it's like a sore pecker hard to beat
You made this video again 4 years later lol
Another interesting video, thanks.
The decision to switch to a single shot sure put a hitch in George Custer's Get-A-Long. But of course George wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree, he had the opportunity to pull a couple of Gatling Guns along with him but declined, he didn't need no stinking fast firing weapon (actually the reason most given was he didn't want to bother hauling them around).
Custer was a very smart man and very brave, stay in your lane buddy.
@@Jay_Hall So smart that he was Last in his class at Westpoint. I said nothing that wasn't true
@@Titus-as-the-Roman That was mainly due to demerits, but to insult him as you did , as a soldier that DID graduate from W.P., GAC is far from dumb or stupid. I suggest you spend some time reading his personal letters or the fact he was the youngest Major General of the Civil War and a man his superiors always turned to when they needed a tough job done. You would find him to be far from the insults you have tossed his way.
@@Titus-as-the-Roman and McClellan finished near the top of his class and we know how he turned out. and by the way No Calvary units took their gatling guns with them. The Indian wars were wars of movement. gatling and Cannon just slowed them down.
@@armoredinf McClellan was an A$$-Hat, as was Custer
I own a 1865 new model carbine model. I have replaced the breachblock with a center
fire breach block. Using 50-70 brass that has been modified. It shots very well. Yes half cock first, then work the lever.
7:23 That magazine cutoff seems to be the VERY FIRST! Or am I wrong?
It is not .56 cal. It is .52 cal and the round was called "Type 56" or "Type 56-56". I have a 1860 SAR, SN 14XX - one of the first Copeland Spencers.
Could these rifles be retooled to fit a 44-40 round? Centrefire.
i look a spencer rifle 1871 very cool can push the cartridge from the chamber can push the lever
I would rather have this than the trapdoor springfield in a combat situation... A gun like this would be perfect for most situation IMO
Yo Ian a big thank you from all the rdr2 fans out there!
The little deal that limits the bolt traver is to allow it to be fired single shot .......!
What about the rod under the barrel ? If it is not a muzzle loader what whas it used for ? You are amazing btw Ian!!
It's a cleaning rod. Black powder leaves a lot more residue in the bore than smokeless does, and it's more important to clean the bore frequently.
Ah yes of course that makes sense! Thanks
very good gun carabine
Looks like if you open the action without cocking, the cock would press on the firing pin while you close whole block. Would it be dangerous or effect in accidential discharge?
Interesting question; I didn't think about that. I suspect it would not cause discharges, because the pressure of the rim and firing pin pushing the hammer back would not be energetic enough to trigger the priming compound. Having the hammer down on a live round would put you at risk to have the gun fire if dropped on the hammer, though.
Forgotten Weapons Thank you for your answer! I love your channel and how you present your expert knowledge. And of course guns, arrrr :)
Voice is too low. My volume setting is at 90%.
Great!
We said!
Am I right in saying then that the henry 1860 and the consecutive Winchester rifles were better
Yes, definitely.
1860 Henry, not so much. It fired a much less powerful cartridge, and was prone to picking up dirt through the open slot in the magazine tube. The tab on the magazine follower moved through the space you would be holding the barrel with your off hand, so you had to shift grip at least once to fire a full magazine. The Henry had to be loaded one round at a time, Spencer came with special reload tubes that let you slide a full magazine load of cartridges into the magazine at once (sort of like a stripper clip), and reloaded at the butt end instead of the muzzle which was particularly helpful to cavalry. The Henry magazine held a bunch more rounds (16 rounds vs 7), and the lever cocked the hammer back so you didn't have to do that manually. Bottom line is Spencer is harder hitting, Henry could dump more cartridges downrange in a mad minute before you had to reload, other differences were pretty minor.
In the long run the Henry (renamed Winchester) had much more room for development. The 1866 introduced a receiver loading gate and did away with the exposed magazine slot and its moving tab. The 1873 was chambered for .44-40 which had hitting power comparable to the Spencer, and later models were even more powerful, leaving the Spencer in Winchester's dust.
.44-40 was almost exactly the same as .44 Henry rimfire it was just centerfire also the reload tubes of the Spencer were not widely used
In an interesting historical side note, Christopher Miner Spencer, who was a prolific inventor outside the area of firearms as well, fathered a son quite late in life who grew up to become a notable aircraft designer. seabee.info/spencer.htm
Oh, how I wish I had the money for one of those... Even if it were just a reproduction...
Threy are being reproduced
These rifles were used all around the whole american continent and europe in the years after the American Civil war. It proved decisive in the Paraguayan War for the allies in south America
Do you collect firearms of any kind of area, such as military or "Forgotten weapons".
My interest is primarily military arms from about 1880-1960.
Forgotten Weapons So the more...interesting time of firearm development, ha. Everyone was trying new things during that time. Some wonderful leaps in firearm technology, others interesting...ideas.
Forgotten Weapons HAH! That's actually the years I generally say when talking about my preferences. I consider it to be the Golden Age of firearm development. To be more specific, generally 1886-1957. Repeating bolt actions, revolvers, LMGs, semi auto pistols, semi auto rifles, select fire battle rifles, and the three early examples of assault rifles (Federov Avtomat, STG44, and of course AK47).
Oldest firearm I own is an 1896 No.1 Lee Enfield (Serial number under 8000), and out of all of my collection (roughly 30), only 3 were made after 1956, one of which is a 1982 CZ75 Pre-B. I'd say a good 1/2 of my collection is WWII, with 2 examples of WWI (one of which is present in basically my most-viewed video "Speed of the SMLE").
Gotta love the classics ;) To history, cheers!
NormanMatchem
Speed of the SMLE, now I'm going to go watch this. The name has 'mad minute' written all over it.
DFX2KX Not EXACTLY... I was simply going for blatant speed, accuracy be damned. Just wanted to showcase how FAST the bolt can be worked, and how quickly it can be 'rapid fired'. Yes I just used the term 'rapid fire' for a bolt action.
The fastest I managed, if you were to time it, is roughly 4 shots in 2 seconds, then 4 shots in about 1.5 seconds. If I had been a little bit more rhythmic and fluid in my boltwork, and carried on shooting for the whole 10 rounds at those speeds, then the first mag would have been emptied in 5 seconds, and the 2nd magful of .303 would have been gone in less than 4 seconds.
That's a rate of fire of 120-160 RPM or so. If I were to shoot and reload like this as quickly as possible, performing roughly 4-5 second reloads with 2 clips at a time, then I might have managed 50-70 shots downrange in a minute, depending on how well I kept up the rhythm. Keep in mind, this is not aimed, this is just bang-bang shooty-shooty. Still, if you have a shooter who can get the sights back on target quickly enough after every work of the bolt, it makes it possible to imagine 25-30 aimed shots in a minute.
There are some who claim that Snoxall's record of... 32 hits in a minute, was it? Anyways, some say that not only did that never happen, but there was never a Sgt. Snoxall. I believe it is not an impossibility. In the year 2000, most people probably would have thought being able to hit a man sized target at 2300m+ with a rifle was impossible, even a .50 cal one, ESPECIALLY not with a .33-.34 caliber rifle lol
Well exactly that happened during the Afghan War, roughly 2,340m or so using a McMillan Tac-50 rifle in .50 BMG by a fellow Newfie Canadian; Cpl.Rob Furlong. This was later beaten by a British fellow, though I can't remember his name or the distance, however he used an L96 in .338 Lapua Magnum I believe.
So what I'm getting at is, for most people, yeah, it's impossible. I don't think I'd EVER be able to hit something with a rifle beyond 1200m, let alone nearly 2.5km. Firing 20 aimed shots in a minute at 300m? I nearly did that on my first try at the Mad Minute; 17 aimed shots in 60 seconds... only 9 hits, granted, but it was my first attempt, also basically my first try shooting at 200m.
Given more practice, obviously I would inevitably be able to stretch it out to 300m, as well as get MORE shots off, along with MORE hits. Also, I didn't even have my rifle properly rested, just had my elbows on the table, and the gong I was shooting at started swinging violently after just a few hits. That right there are two issues that affected the speed at which I could get back on target, and of course my ability to hit the target itself because it was moving side to side.
So if some 21 year old kid with no formal training, or even informal training (I'm completely self-taught), could manage 17 aimed shots with 9 hits on a 200m 18" MOVING gong, on his FIRST time at shoot 200m away, then imagine how well a man in his 30s or 40s could shoot who has DECADES of experience, has put tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange, and has made the Lee Enfield an extension of his body. 30 hits in a minute with a bolt action rifle is definitely impossible for most shooters, however for ALL shooters? No way. The human body is capable of amazing things when given enough practice.
the spot on the Spencer rifle showed the manufacturer was the Burnside co. what about a spot on the Burnside rifle? I handled one years ago and was surprised at its simplicity. I understand that general Burnside made a fortune from sales to the union.
I daresay the .45/70 carbine load wouldn't have had much of a power advantage over the .56-50.
I'm surprised that you failed to do some homework, the Spencer needs to be half cocked BEFORE the action is levered to feed another Cartridge. Why ? Because otherwise the sliding Firing "Pin" can be damaged.
muy bueno, interesantisimo
That might sound like a dumb question, but would it have been possible (theorically) for a soldier to carry several pre-loaded tube magazines to reload faster so they could drop tangos/slay bodies/dispence lead/bust them/whatever the new buzzword is longer?
Yes, and such a system was used during the war:
www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_blakeslee.html
www.virginialighthorse.freeservers.com/custom2.html
www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=39205.0
Not only possible, but it was actively done. They were called Blakeslee loaders, and were basically tubes holding 7 cartridges that could be quickly dumped into the magazine. Versions were made and issued in over-the-shoulder boxes holding between 6 and 10 such tubes.
ahahah awesome. That must have been an absurd amount of firepower at the time. Was there any battle report saying "we basically won thanks to being able to shoot 7 times faster than them" or was individual firepower still considered an extremely minor concern for the brass?
tehgreatvak Supposedly there was a Confederate saying about the Spencer: "Them Yankees got that rifle that you load on Sunday and shoot all week."
Whats the point of the ramming rod appearing thing ,or is it just a ramming rod?
that would be a cleaning rod, used to clean the bore out in the field, a lot of the old military rifles have one
***** ok cool man just asking your a boss!!!!
+Dominico Carapella Additionally could unstuck a stuck case or anything acidentally lodged in the barrel. Its even present on the AK47 family of rifles.
While the Henry could be fired and reloaded more quickly than the Spenser that rifle was superior to the Henry as a military weapon disposing of greater power at longer ranges
Broadly, a great many of your videos would be improved by brightly colored 3d printed dummy rounds to demonstrate actions.
Doing some research on mine. Anyone know the cartouches MMJ and DAP? I know their names, but does anyone know who they actually worked for?
General Custers 620 troops could have used this at the big horn
An under powered rifle that cant reach out and touch an indian across the plains would have its limitations in plains warefare, this might have been a consideration to go with single shot. The ability to have multiple rounds in closer combat would be a huge plus. In hollywood people shot from the saddle. Just try to aim at anything farther than a few yards on a moving horse or even offroad vehicle and you can see how impossible it actually would be.
How much would one of those recoil ?
He gave bullet mass and velocity. momentum = mv
Bill T Recoil is not simply the bullet's momentum.
I did a quick comparison. He said a 350 gr bullet (huge) with 1200 fps velocity. That's 1,119 ft-lbs of energy leaving the muzzle.
A .308 Win 175 gr leaving the muzzle at 2,600 fps would have 2,626 ft-lbs of energy.
Maybe a 16 gauge slug is the closest I can find for bullet weight. Federal's 16 gauge slug weighs in at the same 350 gr but the muzzle velocity is higher at 1,600 fps for a muzzle energy of 1,989 ft-lbs.
In terms of just pure muzzle energy, maybe its a little less than an AR-15. Federal's .223 Remington at 77 gr has a muzzle velocity of 2,720 fps for a muzzle energy of 1,265 ft-lbs.
Thanks you guys
***** What is it then? change in momentum equals the impulse = force * time applied. What else are you looking for?
I bet that General Custer's boys wished they had been issued that old obsolete rifle instead of the troublesome trapdoor. Not that it would have changed much probably, just a few less Indians heading for Canada after the big fight at the greasy grass.
Unfortunately I don't think any of them lived long enough to have regrets that specific. D:
Jerry Ericsson There was a Company that survived the Little Big Horn, but they were up on the hill not down in the valley.
Doubtful. The Springfield was a superior rifle in range and accuracy. If Custer's troopers had rimfire repeating rifles, their problems would only be exacerbated by a lack of range or accuracy. Their issue was keeping a numerically larger foe at distance, and a rimfire cartridge with less powder behind the bullet would not help in that regard.
Почему без самовзвода?
Googling this rifle after watching Unforgiven movie
Does anyone make a rim fire cartridge for that gun today? Does anyone make cartridges for ANY of the old rim-fires today? I'm wondering how guns of that era performed. Specifically, I'd like to know what kind of muzzle energy and velocity they had/have. It would seem to me that those old rim-fires were extremely weak by modern standards although I have to admit I don't want to be shot with a .22 short. I'm wondering exactly how they performed against cap and ball and then center fire.
Brennen Beck I'm guessing at one point or another, someone shot some period ammo through a chronograph.
Rimfires have the bad reputation of all being weak. That is definitely not the case. Many were quite powerful. IIRC, some 45-70s were rimfires. I have a gun chambered in 41 Swiss which was originally a rimfire. I converted it to centerfire so I could actually shoot it. It can fire a 310gr bullet at 1350 FPS.
Mosin Nagant The .45-70 was always a centerfire cartridge, as was the interim cartridge it replaced, the .50-70.
I just checked. Your right. I was thinking of the early benet inside primed 45-70s which look a lot like rimfires.
www.oldammo.com/november04.htm
hey, do you have a one shot duel pistol?
it have the power of a pump shotgun
...no, no on so many levels
what the fuck
would this be the first, or one of the first, bullpup rifles then?
Thomas McAteer no, since the action is still in front of the trigger (mostly). The magazine is behind the trigger, but that doesn't make it a bullpup
uh thanks for clearing that up, so it's kinda like a halfway point between the two ? cool gun nonetheless
Thomas McAteer pretty much, yeah
I would just like to tell everyone that if you like Ian's video's you really need to check out "In Range TV" on full30.com, I am just a subscriber but the episode on the exploding ammo from WW2 was an awesome bit of history/science and just plain gun fun. You will not be dissapointed and I can't wait for the next episode.
Who or why would this post be marked as SPAM?
Cg262 Google auto-spams anything that has a link in it. Ian can change it, but has to catch it himself, something that is not particularly easy if you have a bigger channel.
Cg262
Man google sucks, I really enjoyed the In Range TV show and just wanted to help promote it, for sorta selfish reasons, I want to see more. Exploding ammo from WW2, Who would not want to see that?
Even thou he save the U.S.He was a fool.
I love all the vids but carbine is pronounced car-bine like pine needles not car-beeeen. Lol
donoghue666 Both pronunciations are correct.
Having had several relatives in WW2 (including paratroopers,who obviously were on a very familiar basis with the M1 Carbine!) informed me decades ago that BOTH pronunciations were/are used an correct!
my gretgranpa invented spencer Rifle
+April Spencer Is that so?
April Spencer tapes or it didn't happen
Most great grandfathers of people today were born maybe 1900? The inventor of this rifle was an adult in 1860. Sooooo, doubtful claim at best.
svagesquad savage squad
Looking at your channel he must be turning in his grave
WTF? The Spencer is the first mass produced repeating infantry rifle? How about the Prussian Dreyse M/41 about 30 years earlier? I think the Prussian needle guns are vastly underrated in the english speaking countries.
The Dreyse didn't have a magazine, so not a repeating rifle.The Dreyse is a single shot breech-loading rifle.
MrFakebogus you sir, were trolled. Report to the principals office immediately.
Repeating as in holding multiple rounds in the gun.
MrFakebogus first in the world bolt action
FPS Poland Look here it could have started some where awful so be glad it started with that gun
wow thats cheap
First
This rifle, I recently found out, is from my family.