Yes yes indeed my wife and I are also very willing to adopt a Maxim or two. We’re a very loving family and bringing even several Maxims into our family has always been a dream.
That would be very confusing. How will you separete them when needed? Are you just call them Maxim1, Maxim2 or something more subtle like Max and Maximillian?
Por que sera que hacen comentarios tan ESTÚPIDOS. Es una pagina seria sobre armas y esta ametralladora es un exponente absoluto de Hiram Máxim sin dejar atras al gran fabricante que es COLT. Hay gente que da lastima. Saludos desde Uruguay.
@@TheEpictrooper This is indeed exactly why nobody really was able to make a functional machine gun, or really any non-revolving repeating firearm, until the invention of smokeless powder
@@TheOriginalFaxon There ought to be an experiment with an AR15 firing black powder loaded cartridges.... Take bets on how many shots before it is disabled by crud.....
On some level, I have to admire the pure blind confidence it takes to receive a tech package for a machine you've never seen before, look it over, and decide, "Well, all these tolerances are _wrong._ Must have used Budge, I don't know why they keep reprinting his books."
It's "government think". If the department merely approves the specs, someone might start wondering if the department is even needed, and shut the place down to save money for taxpayers. We can't have that, can we?
In "The Wild Bunch" the machinegun was supposed to the 1904 but the props people couldn't find one in working order. So the M1917 Browning in that movie represents the 1904.
It makes sense with The movie taking place in 1913, I always find interesting those movies that take place in the first 2 decades of the 20th century with clash of the old west versus the New century and new technology
And to think at the beginning of the 20th century they hooked up an electric motor to a Gatling gun getting the rate of fire up to 3000 rpm. It was ignored. Imagine those being used in WW1 during trench warfare.
@@Oct14cya That'd be roughly the same as the effect on target than an M134 minigun has today, only more difficult to feed properly since the feeding system that the M134 uses, took a lot of development work to get functional. I can see why they opted not to put them on the front lines in WW1, rotary machine gun tech just wasn't quite there yet for that kind of front line service, except in extremely niche emplacements like on top of old school forts with gun ports and shit.
The ammount of solid brass is mind boggling. The brass ID plate alone is more intricate and probably more expensive to manufacture than a whole modern gun
Nice to see military thinking hasn't changed much. "How can we make it heavier?" "Solid brass on the handles, not hollow?" "I love it, actually fill the gaps with lead."
So, am I understanding this correctly? For a period of nearly 20 years, the only men in the US Army willing to make actual decisions about the adoption of a machine gun were a group of Ordnance Dept draughtsmen who thought it was a good idea to give changed tolerances on a Maxim gun design to Hiram Maxim and the god-tier weapons manufacturer he'd teamed up with?
It’s mind boggling! The British had used the Maxim all over the world in colonial wars, with great effect and reliability. I think Ian said that in the US trial it fired 20,000 rounds? What problem was the new tolerances meant to solve? Or the super heavy barrel…in a water-cooled jacket?
Just wait until you find out what the US army ordnance corps did to Eugene Stoner's designs, or the NATO standard caliber/rifle program. This kind of thing was a running theme with the ordnance corps.
@@lancerd4934 Oh, I'm still holding a grudge over the EM-2. And how someone didn't end up on the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad for the shithousery employed in the deployment of the M-16 is still a mystery to me.
He is credited with inventing and marketing the first silencer, but the idea came to him because he wanted to fire his guns without disturbing his neighbors. A simple Google search can corroborate that claim.
@@dense_and_dull pretty sure he isnt serious about the reason why he got the idea, think it's just a bit of a joke because Maxims are loud, and I mean LOUD
@@dense_and_dull spare me the sarcasm, there are degrees of loudness, and while yes all machine guns are loud, the Maxim is loud even for a machine gun
John Henry "Gatling Gun" Parker wrote the US Army's first machine gun book after the Battle of San Juan Hill--Parker had experience with both the Gatling gun and the Colt M1895. Thanks for the interesting Maxim Model 1904 history.
It isn't the sort of thing we'd build today, but if you've got one, it's a really good option for mounting on a pickup truck or similar. It's exceptionally reliable, there isn't any need to worry about barrel changes, and if it's a 1910 Russian Empire/Soviet Union example then it comes with a shield to protect the gunner and it takes the same ammunition that a bunch of other guns that are still in service use. In parts of Ukraine where the frontline's still roughly where it's been for eight years, there's a lot of well dug in positions where mobility isn't so important, but the shield and the reliability are both useful, and on a pickup truck the weight stops being a problem.
You can see it's an early model because there's only a single machinegun on a carriage that can easily fit 6 guns, excluding 2 firing to the rear and 1 for anti-aircraft work and general target plinking.
I had the opportunity to renovate a pre-depression era estate in Litchfield County Connecticut that had a cellar shooting range in the main house. The walls were peppered with .38 and .32 rounds. There was even an old rusty spinner target still cemented into the floor.
It has historically always been hard to get the US Army Ordinance Division to adopt new technology. New technology means new logistics to supply the weapon and ammunition to the troops in the field. Too many officers who didn't understand the technology had their fiefdoms and didn't want to surrender their power to someone else.
Imagining the engineers at Vickers seeing the American draftsmen screw up their carefully specified dimensions and just going "wow, the American military is run by idiots".
I'm just astral projecting through time imagining how baffled the chief engineer must have been when he got back the plans that he was expecting to just get rubber-stamped and instead it's copies with revisions on them.
I think many military organizations are suffering from NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome that makes them do things like that, just interfering with a well designed gun. But sometimes it helps, the Parker Hale sniper rifle that the Swedes had input to and it was as success as the AW version, the FNC which after evaluation in Sweden got some modifications and became the Ak5, a robust system that works well in the North. The Hellfire missile converted to coastal Defence. The F-104 which the Germans got right in the end.
@@ScooterFXRS Or as in the Imperial British Army, in the older days, You could buy a Officers Commission, probably with the same reasons the wealthy Americans did send their non so productive offspring, but if they had to start at the bottom, they probably learned something on the way up.
You are touching upon something important to FW, and us. It is industrial art. It is a beautiful creation of human hands. Outside of its purpose. Fine Arts accept certain models, and restricted mediums. Ordinary people can see the effort and creativity of everyday objects.
As an aerospace machinist, I absolutely cringed hearing about the US Ordinance designers going through and arbitrarily changing tolerances like that. For anyone that hasn't had the pleasure of dealing with something like this, -.003 of an inch doesn't seem like much but fitment wise in can make a huge difference especially with something critical like guide rails for a bolt or pressure bearing surfaces.
.003" tolerance range back then was def a pain. Pretty amazing how precise we can be now, as long as the engineers don't overdesign and inspection can inspect at least as well as a machinist : )
.30-03 is 220grain lead, 45grain powder, ~13gram brass, X3000= ~106 pounds of dakka Adding 142 pounds of shoota, and guessing 100 pounds in the truk wheels alone, for 348 kerb weight Now, A bushmaster 25mm is 262 pounds, with a 70 round ready-box is ~333 pounds
and then in 69 the moon landing. A single lifetime and a completely different world. Kind of makes you realize how little the world changed in the subsequent generation.
@@Mrcaffinebean The fact that you're typing this comment underneath a video you can watch at any time, to somebody you will probably never meet in real life, possibly from a phone and computer you can fit in your pocket, would have been unthinkable in the 60s. Technology's growth has been exponential for a very long time now and shows no signs of slowing down.
@@mastercat381 it feels to me like it has slowed down. More refining and improving than new paradigm changing advancement. To go from first flight to being in space in 60 years seems more dramatic. I wonder if it’s just the perspective of being in the time, growing accustomed to the commonplace marvels.
A little bit about the US Army's coast defense program 1885-1906: In 1885 the Endicott Board recommended a vast new system of guns, mortars, and mines for harbor defense at over 25 harbors, in permanent, fixed defenses. Most of this was eventually implemented. However, it being peacetime, progress was slow, especially as everything had to be designed from scratch. By the Span-Am War of 1898, only a few weapon emplacements had actually been completed and armed. The fear that the Spanish (or anybody else) could bombard US ports pretty freely caused a major acceleration of funding and construction. The program was substantially complete by 1906, and the Coast Artillery Corps was formed in 1907 to garrison the forts from existing coast artillery units. Significant consideration was given to land defense at a few forts early in the program; somehow this interest waned circa World War I. Some mobile 6-pounder guns were acquired circa 1898, and later these machine guns. I'd say that from 1899 through the US entry into WWI in 1917, the coast artillery was the Army's top funding priority.
The more I learn about general Crozier and the US Army WWI ordnance department, the better I understand why the Chau-Chau was adopted over the Lewis, the Maxim was never fully embraced by the US military and why US small arms designs prior to and during WWI were sadly lacking-John in Texas
When I started my Army career , I was offered a TOW gunner position... I had visions of lugging around TOW rounds and the rest of the kit... ( No body told me they were mounted on M 151s 1/4 Ton truck ...haha ) .. I went for Leg Infantry... although I later became a M60 gunner.
I've seen a couple of Vickers machine guns - the UK's version of the Maxim - and they're impressive things. Very, uh, industrial. BIG chunks of steel, all overbuilt.
I'd love to see what the guy who decided on the one-inch barrel had to say when the Central Powers were mowing down the french and british with half-inch barrels, non stop, day and night, for months.
You're right! Sometimes you have to think about how humans have been killing other humans for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. And wonder, why don't we find more ways of helping humans understand each other. Instead of inventing tools to kill. Because the tools are problematic, not the impulse to kill. 😂
I am pretty sure these were used against the sleeping miners and their families at Ludlow Massacre, Ludlow, CO in 1914. The National Guard and Pinkertons opened fire on the tents where the miners and their families slept at 2am April 20, 1914.
@@Lambdadelta-kyo Those ammo cans do not fit 6 apiece on each side, the mount is not wide enough. There is one ammo can shown, then you see that there is no way that 6 fit on one side.
I recently saw a short video of Ukrainian soldiers using a Maxim in combat. It was a thing of awe to watch and the rounds that were impacting a doorway about 50 yards away, were hitting so hard they looked like .50 BMG rounds. What a lethal thing of beauty!
It really has stood the test of time. To think a some of the greatest machine guns designed at the turn of the century are still being used for front line service after100 years. That easily could be still in working order in another hundred years. Not a lot of things designed in late 1800s have stood that test. Oddly enough the many of the first self propelled carriages were electric in late 1800s and now over 100 years later there is the push for them again. That machine gun design was already being produced on assembly lines before gasoline or diesel powered vehicles.
@@Njazmo Quite possibly one of the best cartridges for one or the German Mauser 8mm. Damn now I need to go look at a captured German one from WW1 on display.
Depending on the wind direction the team for that beast may have required two spotters. The noise would have been deafening so they used ?flags? to show where the fire stream was to be sent as the person firing the weapon couldn't see a damn thing.
About 30 odd years ago the USA military (Navy?) decided that they didn't like 1/8, 1/4, 3/8 and such inch measures. So drawings were converted to 0.125, 0.250, 0.375 and such. The next year's bid for materials tripled. From common sheet aluminum to precision plates. The drawings were converted back as fast as change orders could be written.
@@salvadorsempere1701Versions of the Colt M1895 were used by Canada (.303 British), Italy (6x52mm Carcano), and Imperial Russia (7.62×54mmR) during WW1.
With a smooth outside it can only transfer heat so fast into the water. Making the barrel thicker still allows it to get hotter before it warps or becomes a problem.
There is a Gatling gun like gun in Charleston SC, 21 South Battery Street or White Point Gardens from USS Maine shoots one inch diameter round. Google map shows it's still there.
Military 'inspectors' cause so many more problems than they fix. I think that the best way to use them is give the inspector a hammer to smack the fuses on the nose of shells as a quality check.
No, completely different organization. In those days the Army and Navy were separate institutions to a degree that is hard to imagine nowadays.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +1
10:44 "You'll see that on some of the other military Mxim guns..." Yeah, I'll try and keep that in mind for the next couple of 100+ year old Maxim machine guns I come across. :D
I think the heaviest rifled machinegun ever fielded Is the Perino M1908 weighting (gun and tripod) at 83 kg (183 Pounds). The tripod also doesn't have wheels.
Did anyone notice something float up from the gun’s wheel on the left side of the screen at around 09:20? Did you feel any “presence” while making this one. LOL! Never know with an old military gun like that one.
For heavier rifle-caliber machine gun, I offer for consideration Finland's 7,62 ITKK 31 VKT. It's double-barreled, but the 126-pound mount doesn't help reduce the overall 229-pound weight of a complete system.
"Remember, 1903, this is a period in American history where we're not going abroad in search of monsters to slay; the American Army is there to defend the United States coastline and shores and borders..." Why is this such a radical concept in 2022?
What I don't get is how Madsen(LMG), Colt 1895(MMG) and Maxim(HMG) were part of the same trial and weren't adopted by separate services. Also the story surprisingly lacks two pages of pain about actually choosing a cartridge that would be standardized when talking about higher ranks not putting their career at stake over buying MGs. It wouldn't be just a cost of MGs, it would be a decision that would decide main cartridge for all US branches of the military if they had to do that, which was impossible for them to make. Or am I getting it wrong?0_o
It wasn't obvious at first how to use machine guns. Clearly, they could be deadly, but they were often thought of as a type of light artillery for use on troops in close order, and hence quite specialised. The use of machine guns as area denial weapons wasn't generally understood until 1914, and the amount of ammunition you had to expend for that would not have made any sense to the US army of 1902, with their limited budgets.
Looking at Pom-Pom and then at Maxim, it's very uncharacteristic of memes about US army to choose a smaller option. Idk, 40mm heavy machine gun sounds like absolutely logical option to me... and that's only partially a joke considering how boers handled the brits with the help of those autocannons.
@@franciszeklatinik889 they proved awesome! I especially like the idea of automatic fuze setter used on it. It's a pity that during interbellum navies had gone away from it to lower calibers with higher velocities and fuze setter was completely dropped instead of refined. And then in 1943-1945 we see navies all over the world return to 40mm with Bofors anyway(Brits still used some Pom-Pom "orchestras", but those were more of an exception). Refining fuze setter would have allowed them to use those autocannons in manner similar to nowadays programmable fuze ammo on SPAA in calibers that are too small for VT fuzes. Sadly for many sailors and thankfully for many pilots, it wasn't done.
@@hafizfirliansyah7784 A lot of machine guns at the time had water cooling, doesn't mean they're the same. Internally the Browning and the Maxim have different mechanisms.
@@hafizfirliansyah7784 Yep, but the action is different. I have no doubt Browning looked long and hard at the Maxim, but came up with his own ideas. Consider as well that except for the heavy air-cooled barrel, the M1919 is virtually the same as the M1917.
Yes yes indeed my wife and I are also very willing to adopt a Maxim or two. We’re a very loving family and bringing even several Maxims into our family has always been a dream.
That would be very confusing.
How will you separete them when needed? Are you just call them Maxim1, Maxim2 or something more subtle like Max and Maximillian?
@@XtreeM_FaiL by last two digits of number
@@alexsoklakov7454 That makes sense.
Por que sera que hacen comentarios tan ESTÚPIDOS. Es una pagina seria sobre armas y esta ametralladora es un exponente absoluto de Hiram Máxim sin dejar atras al gran fabricante que es COLT. Hay gente que da lastima. Saludos desde Uruguay.
@@ricardoM113 your own comment contributed absolutely nothing to this video. At least his made a few people smile, yours is a waste of space.
I never thought, in my entire life, I would hear about a Maxim gun in black powder .45-70
The first smoke machine 🤪
A friend did a dissertation on the early history of Maxim Machine Guns. But I'd never heard of one in blackpowder, at all!
Can you imagine how gunked up it would get? I wonder how many rounds it could handle before just getting so gummed up something just stops. XD
@@TheEpictrooper This is indeed exactly why nobody really was able to make a functional machine gun, or really any non-revolving repeating firearm, until the invention of smokeless powder
@@TheOriginalFaxon
There ought to be an experiment with an AR15 firing black powder loaded cartridges....
Take bets on how many shots before it is disabled by crud.....
On some level, I have to admire the pure blind confidence it takes to receive a tech package for a machine you've never seen before, look it over, and decide, "Well, all these tolerances are _wrong._ Must have used Budge, I don't know why they keep reprinting his books."
...and a complete lack of understanding of gunsmithing. In a military man!!
It's "government think". If the department merely approves the specs, someone might start wondering if the department is even needed, and shut the place down to save money for taxpayers. We can't have that, can we?
@@williamromine5715go to Dracheninfil for the saga of the Mark 14 torpedo.
In "The Wild Bunch" the machinegun was supposed to the 1904 but the props people couldn't find one in working order. So the M1917 Browning in that movie represents the 1904.
Neat! I didn't know that.
It makes sense with The movie taking place in 1913, I always find interesting those movies that take place in the first 2 decades of the 20th century with clash of the old west versus the New century and new technology
And to think at the beginning of the 20th century they hooked up an electric motor to a Gatling gun getting the rate of fire up to 3000 rpm. It was ignored. Imagine those being used in WW1 during trench warfare.
@@Oct14cya That'd be roughly the same as the effect on target than an M134 minigun has today, only more difficult to feed properly since the feeding system that the M134 uses, took a lot of development work to get functional. I can see why they opted not to put them on the front lines in WW1, rotary machine gun tech just wasn't quite there yet for that kind of front line service, except in extremely niche emplacements like on top of old school forts with gun ports and shit.
@@TheOriginalFaxon They could always have put on a reduction gearing system to drop the RoF to a reasonable 1000RPM...
The ammount of solid brass is mind boggling. The brass ID plate alone is more intricate and probably more expensive to manufacture than a whole modern gun
That ID plate is easy. It's just a casting, with all the lettering as part of the mould.
I'm quite sure that would be done as a casting. Not too expensive to make.
^
I would hate to be the trooper who has to polish all that brass all the time.
@@sejembalm I would love to be the trooper who had to polish all that brass all the time
The wheeled carriage would be pretty much essential to sell that weapon to anyone who did not have a personal staff of weightlifters.
Imagine hitching it up to a truck
@@jmjedi923 OK on grass, but imagine the noise on concrete.
Nice to see military thinking hasn't changed much. "How can we make it heavier?" "Solid brass on the handles, not hollow?" "I love it, actually fill the gaps with lead."
So, am I understanding this correctly? For a period of nearly 20 years, the only men in the US Army willing to make actual decisions about the adoption of a machine gun were a group of Ordnance Dept draughtsmen who thought it was a good idea to give changed tolerances on a Maxim gun design to Hiram Maxim and the god-tier weapons manufacturer he'd teamed up with?
It’s mind boggling! The British had used the Maxim all over the world in colonial wars, with great effect and reliability. I think Ian said that in the US trial it fired 20,000 rounds? What problem was the new tolerances meant to solve? Or the super heavy barrel…in a water-cooled jacket?
Just wait until you find out what the US army ordnance corps did to Eugene Stoner's designs, or the NATO standard caliber/rifle program. This kind of thing was a running theme with the ordnance corps.
@@lancerd4934 Oh, I'm still holding a grudge over the EM-2. And how someone didn't end up on the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad for the shithousery employed in the deployment of the M-16 is still a mystery to me.
That's US Ordinance for you
When I was a child I wanted to believe Maxim magazine was named after Hiram. Designer magazine for gun manufactures and how they dress.
But a Maxim is a belt fed gun
@@strongback6550 … Named after the guy who designed it Hiram Maxim…
@@strongback6550 it was designed by Hiram Maxim
@@strongback6550 Ha, ha, ha. That's a dad level joke right there.
I do remember seeing the occasional "babes with guns" callandars back in the day ('90's)
His, son Hiram Percy Maxim invented the Silencer because his father went deaf perfecting the Maxim Machine gun.
He is credited with inventing and marketing the first silencer, but the idea came to him because he wanted to fire his guns without disturbing his neighbors. A simple Google search can corroborate that claim.
@@dense_and_dull pretty sure he isnt serious about the reason why he got the idea, think it's just a bit of a joke because Maxims are loud, and I mean LOUD
@@Woodrow512 A machine gun, loud?! Who would have ever thought? I think you may be onto something here...
@@dense_and_dull a bio I read had his father's deafness first neighbor second
@@dense_and_dull spare me the sarcasm, there are degrees of loudness, and while yes all machine guns are loud, the Maxim is loud even for a machine gun
John Henry "Gatling Gun" Parker wrote the US Army's first machine gun book after the Battle of San Juan Hill--Parker had experience with both the Gatling gun and the Colt M1895.
Thanks for the interesting Maxim Model 1904 history.
So interesting. The beeping in the background kicked on my "did I leave the fridge open" panic response but it was very informative!
Crazy to think there are variants of maxims on the battlefield today
It isn't the sort of thing we'd build today, but if you've got one, it's a really good option for mounting on a pickup truck or similar. It's exceptionally reliable, there isn't any need to worry about barrel changes, and if it's a 1910 Russian Empire/Soviet Union example then it comes with a shield to protect the gunner and it takes the same ammunition that a bunch of other guns that are still in service use. In parts of Ukraine where the frontline's still roughly where it's been for eight years, there's a lot of well dug in positions where mobility isn't so important, but the shield and the reliability are both useful, and on a pickup truck the weight stops being a problem.
Being able to fire continuously as long as someones feeding it is never going to be obsolete.
Y’all saw the one (might have been a dual mount) with an EOTech in Ukraine?
There are ? Battlefield not some Asian jungle.
@@CHMichael Ukraine.
You can see it's an early model because there's only a single machinegun on a carriage that can easily fit 6 guns, excluding 2 firing to the rear and 1 for anti-aircraft work and general target plinking.
Solid brass handles must be nice to use in the winter...
I had the opportunity to renovate a pre-depression era estate in Litchfield County Connecticut that had a cellar shooting range in the main house. The walls were peppered with .38 and .32 rounds. There was even an old rusty spinner target still cemented into the floor.
the good ol' days!
It has historically always been hard to get the US Army Ordinance Division to adopt new technology. New technology means new logistics to supply the weapon and ammunition to the troops in the field. Too many officers who didn't understand the technology had their fiefdoms and didn't want to surrender their power to someone else.
A feature not only seen in US Service!
you could say that about literally any military throughout history though
@@warshipsatin8764 True that.
Imagining the engineers at Vickers seeing the American draftsmen screw up their carefully specified dimensions and just going "wow, the American military is run by idiots".
I'm just astral projecting through time imagining how baffled the chief engineer must have been when he got back the plans that he was expecting to just get rubber-stamped and instead it's copies with revisions on them.
I think many military organizations are suffering from NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome that makes them do things like that, just interfering with a well designed gun. But sometimes it helps, the Parker Hale sniper rifle that the Swedes had input to and it was as success as the AW version, the FNC which after evaluation in Sweden got some modifications and became the Ak5, a robust system that works well in the North. The Hellfire missile converted to coastal Defence. The F-104 which the Germans got right in the end.
American military, where the influential wealthy placed their lack luster offspring to keep them from mucking up the family business.
@@ScooterFXRS Or as in the Imperial British Army, in the older days, You could buy a Officers Commission, probably with the same reasons the wealthy Americans did send their non so productive offspring, but if they had to start at the bottom, they probably learned something on the way up.
@@dmg4415 H&K G3 --> Ak4
FNC --> Ak5
As a Manufacturing Engineer, with a background as a Machinist, I'm smacking my forehead, 🤦with the tolerances!
Machinist here…..same!
Right?
Even just coming from a family who runs a machine shop, despite not knowing much or being very involved in it, I'm baffled at the random changes.
I don't care if its heavy, that metalwork is a thing of beauty
There's just something about brass parts that just look gorgeous on certain guns
You are touching upon something important to FW, and us. It is industrial art. It is a beautiful creation of human hands. Outside of its purpose. Fine Arts accept certain models, and restricted mediums. Ordinary people can see the effort and creativity of everyday objects.
I think the US Army needs to bring back wagon-wheel based weapons.
We also need water cooled machine guns since it's still ripping people apart to this day, even in Ukraine.
Everyone needs a wagon-wheel manualy crancked machine gun in their lives
@@Tohan_Gaming why? They are pointless and are only used today due to desperation
@@tattoos9246 pretty sure it’s a joke
@@kowell Unfortunately this is a fully automatic gun, not a Gatling gun.
Maxim guns have to be my favorite firearms, Would be great if you did more videos on different variants of it!
As an aerospace machinist, I absolutely cringed hearing about the US Ordinance designers going through and arbitrarily changing tolerances like that. For anyone that hasn't had the pleasure of dealing with something like this, -.003 of an inch doesn't seem like much but fitment wise in can make a huge difference especially with something critical like guide rails for a bolt or pressure bearing surfaces.
.003" tolerance range back then was def a pain. Pretty amazing how precise we can be now, as long as the engineers don't overdesign and inspection can inspect at least as well as a machinist : )
Colt Model 1904: Who are you?
08/15: Ich bin du, aber tragbar.
9:31 How does 6 cans of 250 rounds add up to 3000 in total? Seems like 1500 to me.
.30-03 is 220grain lead, 45grain powder, ~13gram brass, X3000= ~106 pounds of dakka
Adding 142 pounds of shoota, and guessing 100 pounds in the truk wheels alone, for 348 kerb weight
Now, A bushmaster 25mm is 262 pounds, with a 70 round ready-box is ~333 pounds
Did you have a stroke?
love me some kerbs
21,000 rounds. That's a nice day at the range.
You've got to hand it to the US, adopted the Maxim gun in 1904, 41 years later are dropping an Atomic bomb....impressive evolution.
OOOoof. Great comment. You put it in a nutshell.
and then in 69 the moon landing. A single lifetime and a completely different world. Kind of makes you realize how little the world changed in the subsequent generation.
@@Mrcaffinebean The fact that you're typing this comment underneath a video you can watch at any time, to somebody you will probably never meet in real life, possibly from a phone and computer you can fit in your pocket, would have been unthinkable in the 60s. Technology's growth has been exponential for a very long time now and shows no signs of slowing down.
Great point. Just had to take this comment and make a Facebook post about it. Really makes you think.
@@mastercat381 it feels to me like it has slowed down. More refining and improving than new paradigm changing advancement. To go from first flight to being in space in 60 years seems more dramatic. I wonder if it’s just the perspective of being in the time, growing accustomed to the commonplace marvels.
A little bit about the US Army's coast defense program 1885-1906: In 1885 the Endicott Board recommended a vast new system of guns, mortars, and mines for harbor defense at over 25 harbors, in permanent, fixed defenses. Most of this was eventually implemented. However, it being peacetime, progress was slow, especially as everything had to be designed from scratch. By the Span-Am War of 1898, only a few weapon emplacements had actually been completed and armed. The fear that the Spanish (or anybody else) could bombard US ports pretty freely caused a major acceleration of funding and construction. The program was substantially complete by 1906, and the Coast Artillery Corps was formed in 1907 to garrison the forts from existing coast artillery units. Significant consideration was given to land defense at a few forts early in the program; somehow this interest waned circa World War I. Some mobile 6-pounder guns were acquired circa 1898, and later these machine guns. I'd say that from 1899 through the US entry into WWI in 1917, the coast artillery was the Army's top funding priority.
I love it when the rear sight is held down by one screw that wears in such a way that it loses its accuracy after 2 adjustments.
What a day, The History Guy just posted a video on his visit to the Colt museum.
The more I learn about general Crozier and the US Army WWI ordnance department, the better I understand why the Chau-Chau was adopted over the Lewis, the Maxim was never fully embraced by the US military and why US small arms designs prior to and during WWI were sadly lacking-John in Texas
The Maxim Gun. An outstandingly reliable weapon.
US Ordnance Board: "No... no, we need to change all that."
When I started my Army career , I was offered a TOW gunner position... I had visions of lugging around TOW rounds and the rest of the kit... ( No body told me they were mounted on M 151s 1/4 Ton truck ...haha ) .. I went for Leg Infantry... although I later became a M60 gunner.
Very nice video, as always.
Every time I think he's done it all, Ian pulls out another one.
Excllent work!
What a wonderful and aestheticly pleasing, bloody great machine gun!
Look at that muzzle booster! Very cool, not used to seeing that on a Maxim :)
Love to see a Maxim gun in person. Never had the chance to see one
I've seen a couple of Vickers machine guns - the UK's version of the Maxim - and they're impressive things. Very, uh, industrial. BIG chunks of steel, all overbuilt.
The fact that the water jug is white and the spare parts jug is blue is a missed color coordination opportunity
I'd love to see what the guy who decided on the one-inch barrel had to say when the Central Powers were mowing down the french and british with half-inch barrels, non stop, day and night, for months.
@@thecommissaruk True. But the success of the Maxim machine gun must've been big news in American newspapers.
Just imagine the number of deaths from just this invention by Maxim. Sometimes you just have to look at the impact as well as the awesome mechanics.
You're right! Sometimes you have to think about how humans have been killing other humans for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. And wonder, why don't we find more ways of helping humans understand each other. Instead of inventing tools to kill. Because the tools are problematic, not the impulse to kill. 😂
someone else would have figured it out anyway
The Behind the Bastards podcast did an episode on Maxim a little while ago. An interesting chap to be sure.
Isn't that glorious?
@@cleanerben9636 there's nothing glorious about death.
I am pretty sure these were used against the sleeping miners and their families at Ludlow Massacre, Ludlow, CO in 1914. The National Guard and Pinkertons opened fire on the tents where the miners and their families slept at 2am April 20, 1914.
Hi Ian, great presentation. 6 times 250 rounds makes for me 1500 rounds, I guess
There's six ammo cans on each side of the gun on the carriage mount.
@@Lambdadelta-kyo Those ammo cans do not fit 6 apiece on each side, the mount is not wide enough. There is one ammo can shown, then you see that there is no way that 6 fit on one side.
@@oliverschurr46 Unless you double stack them... And then you'd have to strap them in as well.
I recently saw a short video of Ukrainian soldiers using a Maxim in combat. It was a thing of awe to watch and the rounds that were impacting a doorway about 50 yards away, were hitting so hard they looked like .50 BMG rounds. What a lethal thing of beauty!
7.62x54R is no joke, and I've used Maxim too in the 90's (Finnish military).
It really has stood the test of time. To think a some of the greatest machine guns designed at the turn of the century are still being used for front line service after100 years. That easily could be still in working order in another hundred years. Not a lot of things designed in late 1800s have stood that test. Oddly enough the many of the first self propelled carriages were electric in late 1800s and now over 100 years later there is the push for them again. That machine gun design was already being produced on assembly lines before gasoline or diesel powered vehicles.
@@Njazmo
Quite possibly one of the best cartridges for one or the German Mauser 8mm.
Damn now I need to go look at a captured German one from WW1 on display.
"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim Gun, and they have not."
-Hilaire Belloc, _The Modern Traveller_ (1898)
@@DB-yj3qc forgive me sir but its not an electric powered feed gun ..
Depending on the wind direction the team for that beast may have required two spotters. The noise would have been deafening so they used ?flags? to show where the fire stream was to be sent as the person firing the weapon couldn't see a damn thing.
Forgotten weapons should always have copious amounts of brass!
The random beep in the background had me checking all my smoke alarms in my house.
I'm really digging this morphys trip, it's got such an OG forgotten weapons feel to it
A machine gun that creates its own smoke screen? Niiiiiice!
Are you going to do another Q&A? I loved those!!!!
This would have made the Wright brothers' Flyer a whole lot safer - "Yep, taxi as fast as you like, it still won't take off." : )
Well to be boringly technical..the Wright Flyer couldn't taxi anyway as it had no wheels...I suppose it could sit on that gun carriage? LOL
@@trooperdgb9722 - Good point! - not fast enough to need retracts either - another weight saving! : )
@@loddude5706 Indeed!!!
@@trooperdgb9722 Wright flyer had to be catapult launched as the engine was not powerful enough to ROG.
About 30 odd years ago the USA military (Navy?) decided that they didn't like 1/8, 1/4, 3/8 and such inch measures. So drawings were converted to 0.125, 0.250, 0.375 and such. The next year's bid for materials tripled. From common sheet aluminum to precision plates. The drawings were converted back as fast as change orders could be written.
I think the Colt M1895 was better, it was much lighter and easier to mass-produce. They were used heavily in WW1.
AS far as I know, not a single potato digger see use in WW1.
@@salvadorsempere1701Versions of the Colt M1895 were used by Canada (.303 British), Italy (6x52mm Carcano), and Imperial Russia (7.62×54mmR) during WW1.
Man the price of this just went up 1000% dayum
Anybody else think their smoke alarm was going off with the beeps in the video?
I was about to go check my coffee pot for a malfunction. Glad to know the VA wasn't going to need to issue me a hearing aid!
The massive barrel seems to reflect a lack of understanding of how water cooling works
What do you mean? There is a radiator and a pump.
With a smooth outside it can only transfer heat so fast into the water. Making the barrel thicker still allows it to get hotter before it warps or becomes a problem.
All those 2-gun matches got Ian's hands lookin pretty rough!
I'm surprised they didn't just put them into some random fort.
Constantly amazed at what can come up at auction. That is pretty cool
Ive just come straight from watching Ian’s video about the PPS and PPS-43, which is a wonderful contrast!
There is a Gatling gun like gun in Charleston SC, 21 South Battery Street or White Point Gardens from USS Maine shoots one inch diameter round. Google map shows it's still there.
Military 'inspectors' cause so many more problems than they fix. I think that the best way to use them is give the inspector a hammer to smack the fuses on the nose of shells as a quality check.
Love the look of aged brass
Was that the same wonderful Bureau of Ordnance that many years later gave the U.S. Navy the mark 14 torpedo?
No, completely different organization. In those days the Army and Navy were separate institutions to a degree that is hard to imagine nowadays.
10:44 "You'll see that on some of the other military Mxim guns..."
Yeah, I'll try and keep that in mind for the next couple of 100+ year old Maxim machine guns I come across. :D
Wow no shield at all. This must be when they thought of them as artillery pieces more then direct fire.
"My face is my shield!"
-Victorian machine gunner
Surprised it's not "2600 Maytag Washing Machines"
Thank you , Ian .
🐺
Ian has been waiting years to use the word “galavanting” in a video.
I would love to see you try this out at the range!
Thanks
Tomorrow at range ?😃
Thank you Ian.
Dang! That setup put the MAX in Maxim. It should've been called the Maximum, as in weight! No wonder none of the troops wanted to use it!
I love all the brass parts and plates
Wow great video professor👍
I think the heaviest rifled machinegun ever fielded Is the Perino M1908 weighting (gun and tripod) at 83 kg (183 Pounds).
The tripod also doesn't have wheels.
Did anyone notice something float up from the gun’s wheel on the left side of the screen at around 09:20? Did you feel any “presence” while making this one. LOL! Never know with an old military gun like that one.
For heavier rifle-caliber machine gun, I offer for consideration Finland's 7,62 ITKK 31 VKT. It's double-barreled, but the 126-pound mount doesn't help reduce the overall 229-pound weight of a complete system.
WOW thanks Ian....NEVER heard of this...EVER!!!
Why was the barrel made so heavy? With water cooling Maxim's only need a light barrel.
"Remember, 1903, this is a period in American history where we're not going abroad in search of monsters to slay; the American Army is there to defend the United States coastline and shores and borders..."
Why is this such a radical concept in 2022?
Thanks Ian.
What I don't get is how Madsen(LMG), Colt 1895(MMG) and Maxim(HMG) were part of the same trial and weren't adopted by separate services.
Also the story surprisingly lacks two pages of pain about actually choosing a cartridge that would be standardized when talking about higher ranks not putting their career at stake over buying MGs. It wouldn't be just a cost of MGs, it would be a decision that would decide main cartridge for all US branches of the military if they had to do that, which was impossible for them to make. Or am I getting it wrong?0_o
It wasn't obvious at first how to use machine guns. Clearly, they could be deadly, but they were often thought of as a type of light artillery for use on troops in close order, and hence quite specialised. The use of machine guns as area denial weapons wasn't generally understood until 1914, and the amount of ammunition you had to expend for that would not have made any sense to the US army of 1902, with their limited budgets.
Another story about how dealing with the American Ordnance Department is somehow less pleasant than pulling your own teeth.
'Whatever happens, Morphy's has got,
The Maxim Gun,
And others have not."
A wheeled carriage for a machine gun seems just a little anachronistic.
Looking at Pom-Pom and then at Maxim, it's very uncharacteristic of memes about US army to choose a smaller option. Idk, 40mm heavy machine gun sounds like absolutely logical option to me... and that's only partially a joke considering how boers handled the brits with the help of those autocannons.
The US had the hotchkiss autocannon
@@islaymassive1530 which didn't get a bad reputation if I recall right. So why haven't we seen interest in an improved product then?
Was good enough I guess
and they also proved to be good weapons aboard large Warships as an Anti-Aircraft weapon
@@franciszeklatinik889 they proved awesome! I especially like the idea of automatic fuze setter used on it. It's a pity that during interbellum navies had gone away from it to lower calibers with higher velocities and fuze setter was completely dropped instead of refined. And then in 1943-1945 we see navies all over the world return to 40mm with Bofors anyway(Brits still used some Pom-Pom "orchestras", but those were more of an exception). Refining fuze setter would have allowed them to use those autocannons in manner similar to nowadays programmable fuze ammo on SPAA in calibers that are too small for VT fuzes. Sadly for many sailors and thankfully for many pilots, it wasn't done.
was M1917 Browning .30 cal a direct to Maxim Gun?
No, the M1917 is a completely different design.
@@petesheppard1709 but, M1917 HMG has a water cooled barrel as the Maxim/Vickers/Spandau HMG family.
@@hafizfirliansyah7784 A lot of machine guns at the time had water cooling, doesn't mean they're the same. Internally the Browning and the Maxim have different mechanisms.
@@hafizfirliansyah7784 Yep, but the action is different. I have no doubt Browning looked long and hard at the Maxim, but came up with his own ideas. Consider as well that except for the heavy air-cooled barrel, the M1919 is virtually the same as the M1917.
"...we're not going abroad in search of monsters to sly." 👍
As a machinist for the navy, I'm just sitting here, facepalming at the mucking about with changing the dimensions and tolerances all willy-nilly.
Ian sounds like he is just talking about things he likes to talk about. The whole video series looks non scripted.
Next time I think the M240B I'm carrying is too heavy, I'll remember that this thing existed and that it's all a matter of perspective.
thanks for sharing, didn't know this one existed
Why is the alarm system going off ? Did Ian break in ?
Two things about this video. I keep hoping C&Rsenal will do a video on this. I wish he had done this video on a Friday.
Beautiful piece of machinery, despite its shortcomings.
When the native shaman puts a curse on you but, you have a maxim
9:37 Wouldn't this be 1500 rounds?