Having explored the Code Duelo as applied in the United States, I always wondered if “dueling pistols” was actually a bastardization of “duo” or “dual” pistols. The simple fact was, in most cases, honor was satisfied by merely showing up, not fighting. The Second’s main purpose was to prevent the duel, usually by negotiating an equitable solution to the slight.
@@nobody8717 "I have given the matter some thought. You can't fight if you're in different places. Physical impossibility. And you can't fight if you're of a different rank. Breach of discipline. And you can't fight if we are at war. Duels of nations take absolute precedence. So, keep away from him, keep ahead of him, and put your trust in Bonaparte." - Dr Jacquin
I think people tend to think of marketing as a modern thing, but I can totally see 'duelling pistol' being the 18th century version of 'tactical' or 'military grade'
Advertising goes back thousands of years. They've discovered signs painted on the walls of buildings in Pompeii that were the equivalent of "Grab Yourself A Cold Beer At Pete's Bar After The Burning Of Christians Tomorrow"
I love how this dignified properly British historical firearms expert is always willing and ready to admit when something is done just because it's cool or awesome
The Rule of Cool being a thing with firearms in the 1700s should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with how people dressed and what art was like at the time.
Even for the well off gentleman, a pair of pistols explicitly for dueling is a bit excessive. I'm sure most "dueling" pistols were owned in pairs for traditional self defence on the highways or in town. Pairs allow follow up shots and look badass. The dueling function is likely an afterthought to some degree. Besides, if you can afford a nice pair of pistols, why would you have an inferior set for daily use and a fine set set at home?
@@michaelkensbock661 not exactly a good comparison. A target pistol and an excessive overkill "I think I'm John Wayne" pistol are very different. Between flintlocks there wasn't such a disparity between the effect of these pistols and any other budget offering. Even the calibre wasn't much of a concern as at the ranges a flintlock pistol would be used a .32 and a .75 ball would do equally well stopping Dick Turpin.
My grandfather owned some lovely antique flintlock pistols, but in the 2000s he sadly had them deactivated thinking he needed a license to own them (which apparently you NOW do need, but didn’t at the time). However, he and I fired them a few times before he did that. It was the first time I had ever fired a gun, and wow! The blast of fire and smoke was incredible! I even managed to wing our target a couple of times 😂. I will never forget that day, it’s one of my favourite memories of him. Great video as always by the way!
I was under the impression the recent changes to the laws regarding black powder firearms only applied to ones that used a self-contained cartridge. I'm nowhere near being an expert, though. Do muzzle-loaders now require a license?
@@peterclarke7240 I believe the new law change was due to criminals exploiting the Antique Firearms laws. Surely, UK gun laws were already effective enough if criminals were being forced to use single shot, muzzle loaded, flintlock antiques 😂 but I guess not! Either way, my grandpa decommissioned them all over a decade ago which is sad. My uncle sold them off for very little a few years ago after both my grandparents and my mum were gone, but I wish I could have kept one (active or not) because they were beautiful, cool and meant something to me, particularly the one I personally shot!
@@peterclarke7240 I'm not au fait with the very latest amendments to the laws relating to antique firearms, but nothing much has changed with regard to original muzzle loaders: If you simply like to cover your walls with them, you're fine. If you want to shoot one you need to get it listed on your FAC beforehand and lock it away after use (and would need an additional explosives licence to possess black powder). If you have a modern functional copy of the same gun things are different. You must have an FAC before aquiring it and must keep it under lock and key when not in use. If it's a long barrelled smoothbore, which you intend to use only with small shot, you may be ok with a shotgun licence - your local constabulary will advise, but again, you must have the relevant permit before buying. HTH!
@@davidpowell5437 Thank you, that's perfect! It was always my semi-joking response to an American friend who used to say the UK had given up it's right to own guns: No we haven't, we just like things Old School.🤣
@@davidpowell5437 The laws around antique firearms are so vague. It doesn't mention anywhere whether you're allowed to shoot them or not (although I totally agree that whatever the case, you would need an FAC or at least shotgun cert to do so). Always thought it was daft too that you can freely buy blanks or fireworks (which both contain blackpowder), but to buy black powder on its own, you need an explosives license.
Random historical trivia: the logic behind "a gun firing is very dramatic, a blade might cause multiple wounds" extends further. In 17th century Poland, which had a lot of minor (often to the point of "in name only") nobles, there were some sermons against carrying blunt weapons - these were not used for duelling of course, but in a case of a brawl, they were even worse than blades, because they could do serious damage without visibly drawing blood. One example of such a weapon was an obuch - basically a walking stick topped with a hammer - an elegant accessory to an older noble's attire, but equivalent to a golf club in the hands of someone bad tempered.
The obuch sounds like the cane I go out with-- solid 36" of mahogany haft capped with a billiard ball; I'm fair certain if I *needed* to, I could drop a person with the billiard end.
This was a really fascinating video! Not only did we get some great information about the beautiful pieces you showed off, but it was great to also have a lesson on the etiquette, rules and history of dueling!
I always thought that the idea behind these pairs of pistols being for dueling is that you would need a matching pair of guns for duel to ensure that no one is handicapped by inferior weapon. But sure, it does make sense than in the era of relatively unreliable single-shot pistols, you would like to have at least two of them in any other application like self-defense or target shooting...
Really interesting, thanks very much Jonathan and team. Whether duelling or shooting for other purposes, I've found that some grip shapes are much better than others for bringing the sights into view as soon as the pistol (or revolver) is raised to the line of sight. For me, it was a friend's Webley No. 5 (like PR.3340) that worked best (indeed amazing well) for this. Arguably a fine example of more modern 'duelling' pistol would be something like VII.12114, the Walther GSP in .32 S&W wadcutter, as optimised for the 'duelling' stage of the UIT centerfire course that we used to shoot in the 1980s.
Superbly informative video. Thanks, Jonathon. I've learnt a lot not only about the pistols but it also got me re-evaluating what I thought I knew abour duelling.
The Duke of Wellington forbade dueling in his officer corps because he didn’t want to lose key men. Then in 1829 he got called out by George Finch Hatton, 9th Earl of Wnchelsea. He had to do it, but both men agreed to deliberately miss. This got out and the duel was mocked in the press as the “Grand Pigeon Match.” I’m thinking that there were a lot of quiet agreements to mutually have bad aim.
I recall that there's some rumor about that duel that Wellington only claimed to deliberately miss later but had tried to aim for hit but was such a bad shot that he just missed.
@@GhostEye31 I think they were both reluctant to draw blood. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. As a gentleman, Wellington couldn’t passively accept a public insult. The Earl couldn’t ignore his challenge. As a major political figure he couldn’t commit murder, especially after condemning dueling. The Earl didn’t want to kill a national hero.
One of my very favourite YT (or indeed anywhere) presenters. Great friendly style, great knowledge. I'll watch on any topic he wants to discuss. Excellent.
Fascinating that dueling pistols were not supposed to have sights for accurate shot placement, and that pistols were considered more humane than thrusting swords. Thanks for showing these beautiful pistols.
If the inscription on the sword is "toto, toto" it can only really mean "All of Everything" although a more modern and in context translation may be "Give it (everything) your all" or "to the hilt."
Dueling pistols: pistols used used in duels. I remember French small sword dueling where the object was ‘first blood’, and the last duel in France, in 1967, used these rules. I also recall more than one English duel, including Royal Navy officers, who both fired their pistols into the air or the ground. I think that may have been cases of were insults were inferred by others, and both duelist were showing contempt for the supposed ‘insult’ In one case I read, the duel was conducted with ‘sticks of meat’ (salami?).
A pair of pistols may not especially have been intended for duelling as such. More for personal protection to give two shots. A fine maker could ensure the pair were absolutely identical on every respect, including the bore. I am not sure about bore size, but for protection why not use multiple shot? So long as you put your assailant on their arse. I thought that a formal duel was more about facing death nobly & the shedding of blood to satisfy honour.
I'm of the mind that the pace's they stepped off were in part determined by the ability of the pistols envolved range. Each took any where from 10 to 20 steps in opposit directions, turned aimed and then when each was ready, fired. As you state it wasn't performed to kill one another, thus the distance as well as the aiming was done using to twart one being only injured which on occasion may have lead to their death, but wasn't the intent. When it was as it was originally, by gentlemen.
The one-on-one duel replaced the "murderous affray", whereby persons of rank in dispute with another would simply hire a gang of thugs from the lower classes to physically waylay and attack their opponent to settle the score, and it was getting out of hand so a one-on-one dual, with the intention of proving one's bravery and honour and not engaging the lower classes in the affairs of the middle and upper classes. During the English Commonwealth it was decreed anyone who killed during a duel would be charged with murder. As explained pistol duelling was actually more "humane" than sword duel and certainly the murderous affray in settling disagreements.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries It really works bud. Love your stuff with early black powder weapons. I spent ten years performing living history at Southsea Castle in Portstmouth as a tudor soldier telling people all about matchlocks and cannon.
Re rifling the first half of the barrel. Lord Cardigan of charge of the Light Brigade, was, accused in court of having used a Manton with half rifling not visible from the muzzle in a duel. As I recall it was proven, but he denied any guilt saying they were not his pistols. See “The Homicidal Earl”.
apologies for being something of a pedant; "The Homical Earl", by Saul David, Chapter 8, "Intent to Murder" and, in my copy p182 "A rumour had begin to circulate in the press that they ahd rifled barrels, thereby giving Cardingan an unfair advantage over Tuckett. But, when Page put his finger into the muzzle, he could feel only smooth metal. 'You see they are not rifled' said Cardigan. 'Yes, I perceive they are not,' Page replied. According to Roger Baldick, author of A History of Duelling, rifling flouted the duelling code' and 'was stricly forbidden, but unscrupulous duellists circumvented the ban by using pistols which were rifled at the breech end but not at the muzzle'. Inspected by an amateur, such weapons would escape detection. Page was well aware of this and to be certain he asked Inspector Busain to send one of each pair to Mr Parker, a well-known Holborn gunsmith. With Parker away, the examination was carried out by his deputy, John Field. Once in possession of the results, Busain wrote to Page: "Capt. Tuckett's are of the commonest and plainest type of duelling pistols. His Lordship's, on the contrary, are of the best kind, with stop locks, hair triggers and French Rifled barrels, rifle from the breech to about an inch from the muzzle, and will hit with unerring precision when fired by a steady hand"
The other point about the shift from dueling with swords to dueling with pistols is that it was seen as more egalitarian (which gets at why sights were seen as poor form). It takes years to learn the sword, as well as consistent practice to keep those skills up, and if I've put in those years while you were learning to build bridges or play the violin or something else useful, you won't stand a chance against me. So sword-to-sword, you have no recourse if I insult you... and paradoxically, if you give me the lie, *my* recourse is limited as well. Sure, I can force you to apologize, or stab you until you do. But the mark of upper-class courage at the time was to endure danger rather than simply to kill. Since I was never in much real danger, I haven't done anything to prove my courage, and hence my honor is somewhat notional. Since pistols, under dueling conditions, could quite easily be deadly in unskilled hands, a duel with pistols was open to all. No matter how good I am, it's still very possible for a total novice to kill me if we 'go out.' (He might get the shot off first and get a lucky hit, we might both hit each other, or I might miss or delope and he might hit me.) So now an expert CAN prove his courage, because he is at much greater risk than a skilled swordsman would be. And a novice can call out a better shot without being laughed at or setting himself up for certain defeat.
Also feel that by then we were starting to lose the element of Aristocracy or landed gents all being of the "gentlemen blooded in battle" types. What I mean is that maybe Daddy or Grandpapa fought in a great battle but many of the pistol wielding duellists will likely just have been extras from Downton Abbey, as such with no more class or martial ability than a pistol would allow for. Gentlemen by wealth but not demeanour nor tradition beyond a generation.
The small sword you referred to was known as the court sword and the hand guard as the coquiel (spelling may be wrong).They were point only weapons..........................................
interesting take. Honestly it was the case that typically sold it as a 'dueling' set, or otherwise so ornate that I couldn't imagine actually carrying them on a daily basis. That said, a pair of nice guns in a case does have a certain appeal even in modern times (The "Hitman" series of games does this with the main character's silenced 1911's, they show up in a case at least once if I recall, as they do in the movie adaptation.). Using multiple guns (3+) was pretty common well into the western-expansion period in the US. Firearms and ammunition where not always reliable in those days, and grabbing a second gun or even third gun is far quicker than clearing a jam or trying to empty and reload a peacemaker.
The Alexander Hamilton duel and the pistols used are well known in the states. My question is; what are your thoughts about the "set Triggers" on those pistols?
I was under the impression that the challenged party had the right to determine the weapons to be used in a duel. Because of that, to make the encounter fair, once pistols were chosen, the challenged party offered a set of identical pistols from which the challenger would draw one, and the challenged party the other. Then the pistols were loaded either by the seconds, or under their direct observation, to ensure no hanky-panky was introduced to the bores instead of powder and shot. Then the gentlemen could go to their required places and happily blaze away at each other. When Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, Burr shot to kill after Hamilton had fired his pistol high to miss. In a statement made after the duel, Burr admitted that he had intended to kill Hamilton at all times, and was not going to engage in deloping as Hamilton had done. This killing, by a sitting US Vice President, ended Burr's political career (he had been a candidate for the US Presidency), as he was rightly vilified for it, and began the demise of the Federalist Party because of the distributed shame over the duel. The pistols in this duel were a matched pair of Wogdon and Barton dueling pistols fitted with set and hair triggers. They belonged to Hamilton's brother-in-law. These pistols clearly had sights.
Hamilton and Burr had a long bad history before the duel. Hamilton did achieve his goal of keeping a man he considered without honor from being President.
I love that he speaks 2 sentences and then abruptly goes “What am I goin on about?” Someone should remind him we’re all here to listen to HIM. So Jonathan, do please go on about any of it.
If I may make a slight criticism of the video, it's the lack of close up when the butt plate, trigger guard, lock plate and locks are having the decorative features pointed out.
That almost looks like the flintlock pistol that the Elder Predator gives Harrigan Danny Glover's character from the 2nd Predator movie towards the end
That's Raphael Adolini's pistol. The Elder Predator them says to Harrigan "Take it" Raphael Adolini said that to him in the 1700's during a naval mutiny.
I've always wanted a cased set of "dueling pistols," probably due to my Southern (USA) heritage and our tendency to fight duels up until well after they were quite illegal. BUT, now I guess I'll be looking for a cased set of Gentleman's pistols. ;) Really, this was a most excellent video with great information. Thank you.
Surely one reason why duels would be fought with a pair of pistols, would be to give each duellist an identical weapon. They presumably came in pairs at first because there was a holster each side of the horse,
John Atkinson's book on the British Duelling Pistol is a MUST-read if you have any interest in the subject. There were four distinct generations of them, if you include the later cartridge guns used on the continent. The UK rather dropped out of the making of duellers at around the time when percussion ignition came into general use. I'll add that the four British duellers in my own collection (Wogdon & Barton, Durs Egg, Sanders, and Clarke) all have front and rear sights. They are quite accurate if you can hold them - but a flintlock is a post-graduate education in shooting technique.
Fascinating to have my fiction based ideas about duelling revised though for some time now I have had one or two doubts about the idea of a cased pair being for duelling I mean, if I was expected to fight a duel I would definitely want to be holding a familiar pistol - not some geezer's state of the art thoroughbred with a superlight set trigger that would have me firing into the air as soon as the shakes set in! I thought it interesting that all the pistols you show here have ramrods mounted. Most of the modern reproduction target / duelling pistols currently favoured for competition do not. This seems perfectly rational - there is no need for an attached ramrod if the pistol will always be loaded from a bench. On the strength of that observation, I'm not sure that I would have identified any of the guns shown here as duelling pistols, despite the very high quality and being in pairs. Thats just my current idea - I'd love to know if you think it has any merit. Also, a detailed exposition of that trick gold pan liner would be of some interest... Any chance?
The standard for "dueling pistols" really boils down to them being standardized. When they replaced the "small thin thrusting swords" like the Rapier, the guns didn't have sights and were smoothbore, which necessitated short fire distances ("paces"). By the time Dueling was effectively outlawed, pistols were rifled with basic sights, and firing distance was maxed in yards, not feet. It should be noted that the impotence of identical swords or pistols was that theoretically, it meant Even Odds to both challengers. It did little to address natural skill vs ineptitude.
I don’t think the gun replaced the sword as the weapon for the duel I think it added to the armoury . For instance the last dated duel I could find was from 1967 with epees, in France. Mussolini took part in a duel in 1921 with swords. Your point as to duelling guns being technology dependent is well made though, most of the US duels I can find use revolvers for instance.
How many people actually fought duels? Of those how many times in their lives would they fight one? So how many people bought a pair of really expensive pistols just in case they might fight a duel? People who fought duels with swords used the swords that they wore, so why not with pistols? Use what you’ve got.
Male nobles did. Nobility would be 1-1.5% of the total population (at least in XIX century). To how many duels one can have... here's an example. Russian famous poet Pushkin, being a noble with a well-known biography, was called or has called for a duel 29 times in his life. 5 of those duels happened. On the last one he got shot to death and died in 1837, being 37 years old. Lermontov (another famous Russian poet) participated in an actually happening duel twice, died on the last of them in 1841 being 26 years old.
Just how common were duels? What % of “gentlemen” agreed to duel, what % actually fired on each other (ie, weren’t reconciled by the 2nds), % hit, % died?
There is a very good book - strangely tilted " The Duel"- covering the history of this particular Act of Honor. Interesingly, the French concept was that the Seconds would also Duel, and were most Discomforted when Doing so against the British, as the British Second tended to have Two Pistols and Declare that they would Shoot anyone who Interferred in the Main Bout. Also, after the Fall of Napoleon and the Invasion of Paris, French Officers would Call Out the Officers of Opposing Nations, usually with Swords, in a method of Payback. Apart from the British... because Rather than Seeking to Humble and Demean their Foe with Swordplay, British Officers were Ignorent of the European View of the Duel and went into it as into Combat: no Swordplay but Brutal Efficiency.
I have a family member who has two crome Desert Eagles in .50AE that have serial numbers that run together (example 3&4 I don't know the actual numbers) and he keeps them in a fancy wooden box that holds both pistols, two magazines, fourteen rounds, a cleaning rod, and a siver plate with his last name engraved on it. It's displayed on a wall on a shelf behind a glass case. He calls them his dueling pistols (eventhough they're not). I swear he's a little crazy but I'm all for it.
The pistols are very cool, but I admit that I kept looking at the case and hoping you would get into that. I have a woodworking background, so I was very curious what kind of accommodations the case maker would have made. Was this case for display or would it have needed to be brought into the field? What kind of affordances for transport? Locking? Humidity? Cool stuff!
I love the reasoning and story behind duelling pistols and satisfying honour. There is no rifling, no sights. No deliberate aiming. Without actual bloodthirst and killing. I wish we could have a pair of pistols from the art nouveau period. I wonder why the gentleman of the time rarely used double-barrel pistols. The sword looks like an absurdly capable cutter. I would like to see this sort of renaissance blade with a more developed guard. Maybe thumb covered with flourish motif hilt. This one looks amazing but still kept in the old middle ages geometry.
Dual Pistols or duelling pistols ? personally I think they were just matched saddle pistols and or target pistols , whatever they were called they are all beautifully made and I really think they are things of beauty .Thanks Jonathan catch You next episode .
I think it would have been nice to have had a set of "true" duelling pistols to compare, with all of the technical attributes required. But a great video ... thanks
@@WildBillCox13 I've not done enough shooting with elderly surplus ammo to encounter one myself, but I'm led to believe that most hangfires with cartridge firearms are a matter of "click-bang" where the delay after the striker/hammer falls is only a fraction of a second - just long enough to be unnerving and significantly reduce accuracy. Usual advice if something doesn't go bang when expected is to keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction for a while and then eject the offending cartridge and try to figure out what happened... including checking the bore in case you've had a squib.
I have a Tatham and Egg saw handled Flint pistol with a gold flash hole which appears to be badly worn, why did they use gold, which is a soft metal , for flash holes?
No wonder dueling was optimally banned, if even 1/10 of the dueling pistols were actually used in duels, England would have run out of artistocrats REAL quick. So, they showed up and honor was restored, matters were then resolved civilly with mediating 3rd parties etc, enter all the 16-7-18th century slice of life rich people TV shows. Only in extreme and ultra rare cases, where stakes were too high for one or both parties, did they actually go through with it, and even then, they were largely amateurs with no prior martial experience. I for one, can't imagine someone coming back from the Napoleonic wars (Spain for instance) having barely survived the ordeal by sheer luck and chance, and decide to fight a duel over minor squabbles. Add to that, hitting at 10-20 paces with all that hangover & adrenaline was no easy task. Those with prior experience in martial affairs did everything they could to avoid them (which is why the whole "showing up and then working things out" thing was invented lol).
The pistols that Hamilton provided for his duel with Burr were target pistols that had a secret set trigger. Which may explain why he fired prematurely missing Burr who then could take good aim undisturbed.
6:41 - 7:15 i think theres been some kind of editing mistake here? you start talking about lock time out of nowhere and then conclude the thought with "so, the roller reduces the friction" without any explanation of what "the roller" is or what "friction" you're talking about, or what that has to do with lock time. felt like i was going crazy relistening to that section multiple times trying to understand what youre were talking about Also a few moments like at 16:33 where youre clearly trying to show the close up camera a small feature but the camera angle never changes so we can't see what you're talking about.
Blackbeard, or Edward Treach, is said to have gone into combat with a row of pistols across his body. You can just imagine what it's like to jump between ships with that much weight hanging across your body.
@-Royalarmouries Hallo and many thanks for the consideration! I have some trouble picking you up on Telegram in spite of trying out a few permutaions of the possible channel name.
The duelists would also be 20 paces apart and not 20 steps. Therefore the antagonists are about 40 yards apart, a difficult prospect for rifled barrelled pistols, let alone smoothbore pistols
I would actually prefer the term "Ballard Pistol" as the primary purpose was to grace the Ballard room. Duels were more of a Dixie practice as honor was usually found though frivolous law suits in the North.
According to Barrington, dueling was part of the culture of his times (late 1700's). If a gentleman sought the hand of a lady her parents would ask if the gentleman had "blazed" (fought a duel) or not. Barrington discussed pistols in his book, nothing specific other than the pistol could not be rifled and only one projectile could be loaded (no buck and ball loads).
I think in some areas of Europe, they were more keen on killing each other in duels. My gut feeling is that these pistols are merely a set of pistols. Could be used for target shooting on the range. Could be used in a duel. Could be used for protection. Or they could have just been given as a gift to a business associate that sat on a shelf, bought by someone who didn't know anything about pistols. I don't subscribe to the idea that they had to have a sole purpose. I feel like that's a mistake a lot of archeologists make, assigning a very fancy purpose to every single relatively mundane object. "Oh that coin on the ground was part of a religious ritual! Oh that cave was a religious cave! Oh that potsherd was a religious potsherd!" 😂
Remember, like today, you only want to kick someone's ass immediately after an altercation. Usually, ten minutes later, you've come down and are ready to go for a beer with the guy. That's why in a duel that occurs at least days later, mostly everyone has come down and wants to sweep everything under the rug and move on without bloodshed.
What kind of altercations are y'all having that you're best buds after the fact? Must not have been worthy of an altercation in the first place. Why are so many men ruled by our anger? It's wielded too often and at such inane things... If you're going to be angry, be angry over something worth that energy.
@@TheSuperRatt I didn't say I was like that; I meant your average bro type. They've always existed in some form; regular, well-balanced men weren't going to duel usually.
@@TheSuperRatt I've known a few folks who got into proper fist-fights with people that they then ended up befriending. Beer and Liquor have started quite a few fights, and shed no shortage of blood. And depending on area and time, Duels where considered something of an obligation too. Your reputation as a noble *did* hinge on your honor in ways that it simply doesn't these days. A lot of them ended in people just shooting the dirt, because yeah they where insulted so had to show up and save face (lest their position in court get threatened) but it otherwise wasn't worth the hassle or risk. And in few cases, people who *did* draw blood or have their own drawn learned how dumb the original argument was... in some cases while dying, but there's a handful of folks who survived the duel that buried the hatchet later.
That was really interesting. There's something I've often wondered; what is the purpose of the half cock position on a flintlock ? Is it only flintlocks that have them ?
It's an early version of a safety. A gun on half cock can not be fired, allowing you to keep it loaded and have it ready to use. It was also used on a lot more types of guns than just flintlocks, it stayed around much later than that system.
At full cock the nose of a component called "the sear" holds the hammer against spring tension by resting against a step cut into the edge of the shaft on which the hammer (or cock) is fitted . At half cock that step is undercut, forming a notch which traps the nose of the sear. The trigger can no longer flick it out of the way, the hammer must be pulled back, against the spring, to release it, hence half cock is a "safe" condition. In a flintlock at half cock the flint will be clear of the frizzen so that the pan can be opened, primed and closed. In a percussion lock the cap can be placed in position or removed. In a cap and ball revolver the half cock position also allows the cylinder to rotate for loading.
On whether rifling was used in dueling pistols. The 7th Earl of Cardigan (who led the famous or infamous Charge of the Light Brigade), in 1841 wounded a certain Captain Harvey Tuckett in a duel. The evidence of 2 gunsmiths established Lord Cardigan had used a pistol with the unsporting rifled barrel. Somehow Lord Cardigan got away without conviction based on a legal technicality.
I always thought the idea of having a pair is your seconds loaded them placed back in the case, then each of the duellers selected from the case, i always loved the story of ' The Judas Pair'.
Just an uninformed guess as to potentially one reason why non-duelling pistols might also be sold in sets of two: If people see duelling pistols sold in sets of two, they may want a set of two "general purpose" pistols simply because duelling pistols are available as a set of two. Duelling pistols come as a set of two, two is more than one, so why wouldn't I want two general purpose pistols? I know that's maybe a bit unscientific! I'm just thinking in terms of how I might think if I was an 18th century (presumably well-to-do) gent shopping around for a new pistol. If I saw or was aware of pistols of any kind being sold as a set of two, I think my first question when buying a pistol would be "can I get these in a set of two?" regardless of what type of pistol it was I was buying. Presumably, it also benefits the gunsmith to encourage people to buy two pistols rather than one by presenting pistols as a set.
I wonder how related duelling pistols are to the later duelling revolvers of wild west? And how while dueling died down in Europe, America kept the tradition and transitioned to revolvers specifically designed to be drawn fast to get the first shot?
Having explored the Code Duelo as applied in the United States, I always wondered if “dueling pistols” was actually a bastardization of “duo” or “dual” pistols.
The simple fact was, in most cases, honor was satisfied by merely showing up, not fighting. The Second’s main purpose was to prevent the duel, usually by negotiating an equitable solution to the slight.
If you haven't seen it, Ridley Scott's The Duellists (1977) touches on some of this concept. And it also has some very good swordplay.
They all have the same Latin root
@@nobody8717 interesting that the final duel starts with both duelists having -a brace of- dual pistols!
@@nobody8717
"I have given the matter some thought. You can't fight if you're in different places. Physical impossibility. And you can't fight if you're of a different rank. Breach of discipline. And you can't fight if we are at war. Duels of nations take absolute precedence. So, keep away from him, keep ahead of him, and put your trust in Bonaparte." - Dr Jacquin
And "you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd." - R. Miller
Dueling pistols or not, they're all beautiful weapons and good that they're being preserved by people who care.
Amen! 😊
I agree, but not by Jonathan please..😣
I think people tend to think of marketing as a modern thing, but I can totally see 'duelling pistol' being the 18th century version of 'tactical' or 'military grade'
it just needs a picatinny rail under the barrel for attaching a wax candle.
Advertising goes back thousands of years. They've discovered signs painted on the walls of buildings in Pompeii that were the equivalent of "Grab Yourself A Cold Beer At Pete's Bar After The Burning Of Christians Tomorrow"
I love how this dignified properly British historical firearms expert is always willing and ready to admit when something is done just because it's cool or awesome
The Rule of Cool being a thing with firearms in the 1700s should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with how people dressed and what art was like at the time.
@@Darwinist my pistol better be as fancy as my waistcoat or i'm rioting
his hair definitly isnt dignified though
Even for the well off gentleman, a pair of pistols explicitly for dueling is a bit excessive. I'm sure most "dueling" pistols were owned in pairs for traditional self defence on the highways or in town. Pairs allow follow up shots and look badass. The dueling function is likely an afterthought to some degree. Besides, if you can afford a nice pair of pistols, why would you have an inferior set for daily use and a fine set set at home?
For the same reason a modern target shooter would never even consider using his target pistols for home defence.
@@michaelkensbock661 not exactly a good comparison. A target pistol and an excessive overkill "I think I'm John Wayne" pistol are very different. Between flintlocks there wasn't such a disparity between the effect of these pistols and any other budget offering. Even the calibre wasn't much of a concern as at the ranges a flintlock pistol would be used a .32 and a .75 ball would do equally well stopping Dick Turpin.
My grandfather owned some lovely antique flintlock pistols, but in the 2000s he sadly had them deactivated thinking he needed a license to own them (which apparently you NOW do need, but didn’t at the time). However, he and I fired them a few times before he did that. It was the first time I had ever fired a gun, and wow! The blast of fire and smoke was incredible! I even managed to wing our target a couple of times 😂. I will never forget that day, it’s one of my favourite memories of him. Great video as always by the way!
I was under the impression the recent changes to the laws regarding black powder firearms only applied to ones that used a self-contained cartridge. I'm nowhere near being an expert, though. Do muzzle-loaders now require a license?
@@peterclarke7240 I believe the new law change was due to criminals exploiting the Antique Firearms laws. Surely, UK gun laws were already effective enough if criminals were being forced to use single shot, muzzle loaded, flintlock antiques 😂 but I guess not! Either way, my grandpa decommissioned them all over a decade ago which is sad. My uncle sold them off for very little a few years ago after both my grandparents and my mum were gone, but I wish I could have kept one (active or not) because they were beautiful, cool and meant something to me, particularly the one I personally shot!
@@peterclarke7240 I'm not au fait with the very latest amendments to the laws relating to antique firearms, but nothing much has changed with regard to original muzzle loaders: If you simply like to cover your walls with them, you're fine. If you want to shoot one you need to get it listed on your FAC beforehand and lock it away after use (and would need an additional explosives licence to possess black powder). If you have a modern functional copy of the same gun things are different. You must have an FAC before aquiring it and must keep it under lock and key when not in use. If it's a long barrelled smoothbore, which you intend to use only with small shot, you may be ok with a shotgun licence - your local constabulary will advise, but again, you must have the relevant permit before buying. HTH!
@@davidpowell5437 Thank you, that's perfect!
It was always my semi-joking response to an American friend who used to say the UK had given up it's right to own guns: No we haven't, we just like things Old School.🤣
@@davidpowell5437 The laws around antique firearms are so vague. It doesn't mention anywhere whether you're allowed to shoot them or not (although I totally agree that whatever the case, you would need an FAC or at least shotgun cert to do so). Always thought it was daft too that you can freely buy blanks or fireworks (which both contain blackpowder), but to buy black powder on its own, you need an explosives license.
These videos inspired me to take my trip to the UK 1.5 weeks back. Visited the London and Leeds locations and they were both absolutely wonderful.
You should see the back stacks.
@@capt.bart.roberts4975 what do you mean
@@KarazAnkor The back stacks are the items they have in storage and not currently on display.
@@simonhibbs887 Oh yeah I can imagine they have plenty of good stuff back there.
Random historical trivia: the logic behind "a gun firing is very dramatic, a blade might cause multiple wounds" extends further.
In 17th century Poland, which had a lot of minor (often to the point of "in name only") nobles, there were some sermons against carrying blunt weapons - these were not used for duelling of course, but in a case of a brawl, they were even worse than blades, because they could do serious damage without visibly drawing blood. One example of such a weapon was an obuch - basically a walking stick topped with a hammer - an elegant accessory to an older noble's attire, but equivalent to a golf club in the hands of someone bad tempered.
The obuch sounds like the cane I go out with-- solid 36" of mahogany haft capped with a billiard ball; I'm fair certain if I *needed* to, I could drop a person with the billiard end.
This was a really fascinating video! Not only did we get some great information about the beautiful pieces you showed off, but it was great to also have a lesson on the etiquette, rules and history of dueling!
Respect to Jonathan Ferguson for being straight up and honest
I always thought that the idea behind these pairs of pistols being for dueling is that you would need a matching pair of guns for duel to ensure that no one is handicapped by inferior weapon. But sure, it does make sense than in the era of relatively unreliable single-shot pistols, you would like to have at least two of them in any other application like self-defense or target shooting...
ahh, the idea that one of the participants brings pistols for both. pistols of the same making to be sure that the duel is fair and equal.
Really interesting, thanks very much Jonathan and team.
Whether duelling or shooting for other purposes, I've found that some grip shapes are much better than others for bringing the sights into view as soon as the pistol (or revolver) is raised to the line of sight.
For me, it was a friend's Webley No. 5 (like PR.3340) that worked best (indeed amazing well) for this.
Arguably a fine example of more modern 'duelling' pistol would be something like VII.12114, the Walther GSP in .32 S&W wadcutter, as optimised for the 'duelling' stage of the UIT centerfire course that we used to shoot in the 1980s.
Superbly informative video. Thanks, Jonathon. I've learnt a lot not only about the pistols but it also got me re-evaluating what I thought I knew abour duelling.
Having two pistols for “casual” target shooting makes the match faster. While you’re shooting your servant can be reloading for the next shot.
The Duke of Wellington forbade dueling in his officer corps because he didn’t want to lose key men. Then in 1829 he got called out by George Finch Hatton, 9th Earl of Wnchelsea. He had to do it, but both men agreed to deliberately miss. This got out and the duel was mocked in the press as the “Grand Pigeon Match.”
I’m thinking that there were a lot of quiet agreements to mutually have bad aim.
I recall that there's some rumor about that duel that Wellington only claimed to deliberately miss later but had tried to aim for hit but was such a bad shot that he just missed.
@@GhostEye31 I think they were both reluctant to draw blood. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. As a gentleman, Wellington couldn’t passively accept a public insult. The Earl couldn’t ignore his challenge. As a major political figure he couldn’t commit murder, especially after condemning dueling. The Earl didn’t want to kill a national hero.
One of my very favourite YT (or indeed anywhere) presenters. Great friendly style, great knowledge. I'll watch on any topic he wants to discuss. Excellent.
Fascinating that dueling pistols were not supposed to have sights for accurate shot placement, and that pistols were considered more humane than thrusting swords. Thanks for showing these beautiful pistols.
Hi Mr. Jonathan! Thank you for all your work. These vids are always reliably entertaining and informative and just a joy to watch. Stay safe!
“The purpose of the duel was not to kill.” Quick someone tell Aaron Burr…….oh too late.
Would the Swamped Barrel also work to balance the Gun in the hand to make it easier to shoot ?
Yes! Something I actually meant to mention. Like a muzzle extension on a modern target pistol.
It was very enlightening, thanks for clearing up this issue.
0:57 I could easily see that disagreement regarding what is a Duelling Pistol ending in a duel.
A brace of pistols, surely?
This has come up before - brace is historically correct, for whatever reason in arms and armour world we tend to say "pair".
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I shall bow to your expertise in the face of my eccentricity.
@@bobdrooples No not at all - in fact I had intended to start using 'brace' more :)
Yes they are. And don't call me Shirley.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries A fine choice. You won't regret it.
Gorgeous pieces.
Legitimate question and/or video idea. Please explain the organization system for the firearms in the background.
If the inscription on the sword is "toto, toto" it can only really mean "All of Everything" although a more modern and in context translation may be "Give it (everything) your all" or "to the hilt."
Dueling pistols: pistols used used in duels. I remember French small sword dueling where the object was ‘first blood’, and the last duel in France, in 1967, used these rules. I also recall more than one English duel, including Royal Navy officers, who both fired their pistols into the air or the ground. I think that may have been cases of were insults were inferred by others, and both duelist were showing contempt for the supposed ‘insult’ In one case I read, the duel was conducted with ‘sticks of meat’ (salami?).
A pair of pistols may not especially have been intended for duelling as such. More for personal protection to give two shots. A fine maker could ensure the pair were absolutely identical on every respect, including the bore.
I am not sure about bore size, but for protection why not use multiple shot? So long as you put your assailant on their arse.
I thought that a formal duel was more about facing death nobly & the shedding of blood to satisfy honour.
Back to back starts are part of the French duelling codes.
Ah, interesting. My frame of reference does tend to be rather Anglo(phone)centric.
I'm of the mind that the pace's they stepped off were in part determined by the ability of the pistols envolved range. Each took any where from 10 to 20 steps in opposit directions, turned aimed and then when each was ready, fired. As you state it wasn't performed to kill one another, thus the distance as well as the aiming was done using to twart one being only injured which on occasion may have lead to their death, but wasn't the intent. When it was as it was originally, by gentlemen.
The one-on-one duel replaced the "murderous affray", whereby persons of rank in dispute with another would simply hire a gang of thugs from the lower classes to physically waylay and attack their opponent to settle the score, and it was getting out of hand so a one-on-one dual, with the intention of proving one's bravery and honour and not engaging the lower classes in the affairs of the middle and upper classes. During the English Commonwealth it was decreed anyone who killed during a duel would be charged with murder. As explained pistol duelling was actually more "humane" than sword duel and certainly the murderous affray in settling disagreements.
Man that shirt! Back to the 80's :) Love it.
The cut is a little 80s, you're right :) The spiderwebs were the main draw.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries It really works bud. Love your stuff with early black powder weapons. I spent ten years performing living history at Southsea Castle in Portstmouth as a tudor soldier telling people all about matchlocks and cannon.
great video once again, love how Jonathon makes the links between fashions and styles of the time, and the pistols
oh and if Jonanthan would ever want to make a video talking about his archeology background, please do so!
Re rifling the first half of the barrel. Lord Cardigan of charge of the Light Brigade, was, accused in court of having used a Manton with half rifling not visible from the muzzle in a duel. As I recall it was proven, but he denied any guilt saying they were not his pistols. See “The Homicidal Earl”.
apologies for being something of a pedant;
"The Homical Earl", by Saul David, Chapter 8, "Intent to Murder" and, in my copy p182
"A rumour had begin to circulate in the press that they ahd rifled barrels, thereby giving Cardingan an unfair advantage over Tuckett. But, when Page put his finger into the muzzle, he could feel only smooth metal. 'You see they are not rifled' said Cardigan.
'Yes, I perceive they are not,' Page replied.
According to Roger Baldick, author of A History of Duelling, rifling flouted the duelling code' and 'was stricly forbidden, but unscrupulous duellists circumvented the ban by using pistols which were rifled at the breech end but not at the muzzle'. Inspected by an amateur, such weapons would escape detection. Page was well aware of this and to be certain he asked Inspector Busain to send one of each pair to Mr Parker, a well-known Holborn gunsmith. With Parker away, the examination was carried out by his deputy, John Field. Once in possession of the results, Busain wrote to Page: "Capt. Tuckett's are of the commonest and plainest type of duelling pistols. His Lordship's, on the contrary, are of the best kind, with stop locks, hair triggers and French Rifled barrels, rifle from the breech to about an inch from the muzzle, and will hit with unerring precision when fired by a steady hand"
Is the article available online? I’d be very interested in reading it.
The other point about the shift from dueling with swords to dueling with pistols is that it was seen as more egalitarian (which gets at why sights were seen as poor form). It takes years to learn the sword, as well as consistent practice to keep those skills up, and if I've put in those years while you were learning to build bridges or play the violin or something else useful, you won't stand a chance against me. So sword-to-sword, you have no recourse if I insult you... and paradoxically, if you give me the lie, *my* recourse is limited as well. Sure, I can force you to apologize, or stab you until you do. But the mark of upper-class courage at the time was to endure danger rather than simply to kill. Since I was never in much real danger, I haven't done anything to prove my courage, and hence my honor is somewhat notional.
Since pistols, under dueling conditions, could quite easily be deadly in unskilled hands, a duel with pistols was open to all. No matter how good I am, it's still very possible for a total novice to kill me if we 'go out.' (He might get the shot off first and get a lucky hit, we might both hit each other, or I might miss or delope and he might hit me.) So now an expert CAN prove his courage, because he is at much greater risk than a skilled swordsman would be. And a novice can call out a better shot without being laughed at or setting himself up for certain defeat.
Also feel that by then we were starting to lose the element of Aristocracy or landed gents all being of the "gentlemen blooded in battle" types. What I mean is that maybe Daddy or Grandpapa fought in a great battle but many of the pistol wielding duellists will likely just have been extras from Downton Abbey, as such with no more class or martial ability than a pistol would allow for. Gentlemen by wealth but not demeanour nor tradition beyond a generation.
The small sword you referred to was known as the court sword and the hand guard as the coquiel (spelling may be wrong).They were point only weapons..........................................
I wonder how many more arguments where handled boxing at the clubs than with pistols.
Beautifully made pieces!
interesting take. Honestly it was the case that typically sold it as a 'dueling' set, or otherwise so ornate that I couldn't imagine actually carrying them on a daily basis. That said, a pair of nice guns in a case does have a certain appeal even in modern times (The "Hitman" series of games does this with the main character's silenced 1911's, they show up in a case at least once if I recall, as they do in the movie adaptation.). Using multiple guns (3+) was pretty common well into the western-expansion period in the US. Firearms and ammunition where not always reliable in those days, and grabbing a second gun or even third gun is far quicker than clearing a jam or trying to empty and reload a peacemaker.
The Alexander Hamilton duel and the pistols used are well known in the states. My question is; what are your thoughts about the "set Triggers" on those pistols?
Why buy one when you can buy two for twice the price?
Two for the price of two sees like a fair deal. Throw in the pineapple peeler - a fifty dollar value - _absolutely free of charge_ and I'll bite.
You're no gentleman sir - you're a salesman 😁
I was under the impression that the challenged party had the right to determine the weapons to be used in a duel. Because of that, to make the encounter fair, once pistols were chosen, the challenged party offered a set of identical pistols from which the challenger would draw one, and the challenged party the other. Then the pistols were loaded either by the seconds, or under their direct observation, to ensure no hanky-panky was introduced to the bores instead of powder and shot. Then the gentlemen could go to their required places and happily blaze away at each other.
When Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, Burr shot to kill after Hamilton had fired his pistol high to miss. In a statement made after the duel, Burr admitted that he had intended to kill Hamilton at all times, and was not going to engage in deloping as Hamilton had done. This killing, by a sitting US Vice President, ended Burr's political career (he had been a candidate for the US Presidency), as he was rightly vilified for it, and began the demise of the Federalist Party because of the distributed shame over the duel.
The pistols in this duel were a matched pair of Wogdon and Barton dueling pistols fitted with set and hair triggers. They belonged to Hamilton's brother-in-law. These pistols clearly had sights.
Hamilton and Burr had a long bad history before the duel.
Hamilton did achieve his goal of keeping a man he considered without honor from being President.
That's what I always understood the "matched pair of dueling pistols" to be for, too.
I'm not really sure a bunch of traitors are a great example.
@@chaimafaghet7343
It's not our fault that mad George violated the colonial charters.
@@calvingreene90 Of course it isn't - you have no relation to those people, because the traitors replaced their population with foreigners.
I love that he speaks 2 sentences and then abruptly goes “What am I goin on about?” Someone should remind him we’re all here to listen to HIM. So Jonathan, do please go on about any of it.
Quite interesting. Thank you!
If I may make a slight criticism of the video, it's the lack of close up when the butt plate, trigger guard, lock plate and locks are having the decorative features pointed out.
THIS. I find this to be a constant problem with this channel. =/
That almost looks like the flintlock pistol that the Elder Predator gives Harrigan Danny Glover's character from the 2nd Predator movie towards the end
That's Raphael Adolini's pistol. The Elder Predator them says to Harrigan "Take it"
Raphael Adolini said that to him in the 1700's during a naval mutiny.
@@robertpatter5509 thx for reminding me as I'm not a hardcore fan of the franchise and history wasn't my strong points
I've always wanted a cased set of "dueling pistols," probably due to my Southern (USA) heritage and our tendency to fight duels up until well after they were quite illegal. BUT, now I guess I'll be looking for a cased set of Gentleman's pistols. ;)
Really, this was a most excellent video with great information. Thank you.
24:25 I believe Toto is an iffy band from the late 70's, and 80's.
many duels ended in both participants simply firing their pistols into the air and dispersing
If people know you've got the best duelling pistols they may be less likely to challenge you.
Surely one reason why duels would be fought with a pair of pistols, would be to give each duellist an identical weapon. They presumably came in pairs at first because there was a holster each side of the horse,
John Atkinson's book on the British Duelling Pistol is a MUST-read if you have any interest in the subject. There were four distinct generations of them, if you include the later cartridge guns used on the continent. The UK rather dropped out of the making of duellers at around the time when percussion ignition came into general use.
I'll add that the four British duellers in my own collection (Wogdon & Barton, Durs Egg, Sanders, and Clarke) all have front and rear sights. They are quite accurate if you can hold them - but a flintlock is a post-graduate education in shooting technique.
Wonderful video, thank you. Do you have a recommendation for a book on the history of duelling?
Fascinating to have my fiction based ideas about duelling revised though for some time now I have had one or two doubts about the idea of a cased pair being for duelling I mean, if I was expected to fight a duel I would definitely want to be holding a familiar pistol - not some geezer's state of the art thoroughbred with a superlight set trigger that would have me firing into the air as soon as the shakes set in!
I thought it interesting that all the pistols you show here have ramrods mounted. Most of the modern reproduction target / duelling pistols currently favoured for competition do not. This seems perfectly rational - there is no need for an attached ramrod if the pistol will always be loaded from a bench. On the strength of that observation, I'm not sure that I would have identified any of the guns shown here as duelling pistols, despite the very high quality and being in pairs. Thats just my current idea - I'd love to know if you think it has any merit.
Also, a detailed exposition of that trick gold pan liner would be of some interest... Any chance?
The standard for "dueling pistols" really boils down to them being standardized. When they replaced the "small thin thrusting swords" like the Rapier, the guns didn't have sights and were smoothbore, which necessitated short fire distances ("paces").
By the time Dueling was effectively outlawed, pistols were rifled with basic sights, and firing distance was maxed in yards, not feet. It should be noted that the impotence of identical swords or pistols was that theoretically, it meant Even Odds to both challengers. It did little to address natural skill vs ineptitude.
I don’t think the gun replaced the sword as the weapon for the duel I think it added to the armoury . For instance the last dated duel I could find was from 1967 with epees, in France. Mussolini took part in a duel in 1921 with swords. Your point as to duelling guns being technology dependent is well made though, most of the US duels I can find use revolvers for instance.
Great video
Now that’s a brace of barkers!
How many people actually fought duels? Of those how many times in their lives would they fight one? So how many people bought a pair of really expensive pistols just in case they might fight a duel? People who fought duels with swords used the swords that they wore, so why not with pistols? Use what you’ve got.
In the day the word 'expense' meant very little to the kinds of people who might have fought a duel with their own pistols.
Male nobles did. Nobility would be 1-1.5% of the total population (at least in XIX century).
To how many duels one can have... here's an example. Russian famous poet Pushkin, being a noble with a well-known biography, was called or has called for a duel 29 times in his life. 5 of those duels happened. On the last one he got shot to death and died in 1837, being 37 years old.
Lermontov (another famous Russian poet) participated in an actually happening duel twice, died on the last of them in 1841 being 26 years old.
Those are mechanical lead projectors.
Powder-actuated, in fact.
@@nobody8717 mechanically detonated, powder actuated, lead yeeter.
I suspect the 'dueling pistol' was a matched set acquired by the challenged second that is unfamiliar to both parties.
Just how common were duels? What % of “gentlemen” agreed to duel, what % actually fired on each other (ie, weren’t reconciled by the 2nds), % hit, % died?
Great video and by the way, I think you were the best Dr Who.
There is a very good book - strangely tilted " The Duel"- covering the history of this particular Act of Honor.
Interesingly, the French concept was that the Seconds would also Duel, and were most Discomforted when Doing so against the British, as the British Second tended to have Two Pistols and Declare that they would Shoot anyone who Interferred in the Main Bout.
Also, after the Fall of Napoleon and the Invasion of Paris, French Officers would Call Out the Officers of Opposing Nations, usually with Swords, in a method of Payback.
Apart from the British... because Rather than Seeking to Humble and Demean their Foe with Swordplay, British Officers were Ignorent of the European View of the Duel and went into it as into Combat: no Swordplay but Brutal Efficiency.
I have a family member who has two crome Desert Eagles in .50AE that have serial numbers that run together (example 3&4 I don't know the actual numbers) and he keeps them in a fancy wooden box that holds both pistols, two magazines, fourteen rounds, a cleaning rod, and a siver plate with his last name engraved on it. It's displayed on a wall on a shelf behind a glass case. He calls them his dueling pistols (eventhough they're not). I swear he's a little crazy but I'm all for it.
The pistols are very cool, but I admit that I kept looking at the case and hoping you would get into that. I have a woodworking background, so I was very curious what kind of accommodations the case maker would have made. Was this case for display or would it have needed to be brought into the field? What kind of affordances for transport? Locking? Humidity? Cool stuff!
I love the reasoning and story behind duelling pistols and satisfying honour. There is no rifling, no sights. No deliberate aiming. Without actual bloodthirst and killing. I wish we could have a pair of pistols from the art nouveau period.
I wonder why the gentleman of the time rarely used double-barrel pistols.
The sword looks like an absurdly capable cutter.
I would like to see this sort of renaissance blade with a more developed guard. Maybe thumb covered with flourish motif hilt. This one looks amazing but still kept in the old middle ages geometry.
Dual Pistols or duelling pistols ? personally I think they were just matched saddle pistols and or target pistols , whatever they were called they are all beautifully made and I really think they are things of beauty .Thanks Jonathan catch You next episode .
I think it would have been nice to have had a set of "true" duelling pistols to compare, with all of the technical attributes required.
But a great video ... thanks
Second pistol in case of hangfire on the first?
No
In case of missfire, yes, partly, I mention this. A hangfire is a delayed shot that still happens, but when you don't expect it :)
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I thought it a general term for "almost and still dangerous".
@@WildBillCox13 I've not done enough shooting with elderly surplus ammo to encounter one myself, but I'm led to believe that most hangfires with cartridge firearms are a matter of "click-bang" where the delay after the striker/hammer falls is only a fraction of a second - just long enough to be unnerving and significantly reduce accuracy. Usual advice if something doesn't go bang when expected is to keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction for a while and then eject the offending cartridge and try to figure out what happened... including checking the bore in case you've had a squib.
I have a Tatham and Egg saw handled Flint pistol with a gold flash hole which appears to be badly worn, why did they use gold, which is a soft metal , for flash holes?
I need to drop into the museum next time I'm in Leeds
I always thought you had a set of two pistols because, to make it fair, each of the two duelists would use one pistol from the same set.
Thank you. Very cool.
Yes, it is childish. But 16:31 really made giggle.
No wonder dueling was optimally banned, if even 1/10 of the dueling pistols were actually used in duels, England would have run out of artistocrats REAL quick.
So, they showed up and honor was restored, matters were then resolved civilly with mediating 3rd parties etc, enter all the 16-7-18th century slice of life rich people TV shows.
Only in extreme and ultra rare cases, where stakes were too high for one or both parties, did they actually go through with it, and even then, they were largely amateurs with no prior martial experience.
I for one, can't imagine someone coming back from the Napoleonic wars (Spain for instance) having barely survived the ordeal by sheer luck and chance, and decide to fight a duel over minor squabbles.
Add to that, hitting at 10-20 paces with all that hangover & adrenaline was no easy task.
Those with prior experience in martial affairs did everything they could to avoid them (which is why the whole "showing up and then working things out" thing was invented lol).
I believe the inscription 'Toto' was referring to the reign in Africa
I think it's all down to who owns a particular pair of pistols and one day they decided that they will do for a duel on that day they were challenged.
The pistols that Hamilton provided for his duel with Burr were target pistols that had a secret set trigger. Which may explain why he fired prematurely missing Burr who then could take good aim undisturbed.
Do the Wogdons have set triggers?
6:41 - 7:15 i think theres been some kind of editing mistake here? you start talking about lock time out of nowhere and then conclude the thought with "so, the roller reduces the friction" without any explanation of what "the roller" is or what "friction" you're talking about, or what that has to do with lock time. felt like i was going crazy relistening to that section multiple times trying to understand what youre were talking about
Also a few moments like at 16:33 where youre clearly trying to show the close up camera a small feature but the camera angle never changes so we can't see what you're talking about.
These appear to be weapons that only a very wealthy man could afford. How common were they?
Blackbeard, or Edward Treach, is said to have gone into combat with a row of pistols across his body. You can just imagine what it's like to jump between ships with that much weight hanging across your body.
My favourite scene was in Highlander, when Connor had a duel while drunk.
Confusion reigned upon the opposition.
@-Royalarmouries Hallo and many thanks for the consideration!
I have some trouble picking you up on Telegram in spite of trying out a few permutaions of the possible channel name.
It would seem obvious that you don't really find matched three pistol sets because . . . folks only got two hands! 🤲
The duelists would also be 20 paces apart and not 20 steps. Therefore the antagonists are about 40 yards apart, a difficult prospect for rifled barrelled pistols, let alone smoothbore pistols
I would actually prefer the term "Ballard Pistol" as the primary purpose was to grace the Ballard room. Duels were more of a Dixie practice as honor was usually found though frivolous law suits in the North.
Ah what a disappointment I was hoping to see 2 Jonathans
Sh... the cloning technology is still supposed to be a secret.
Jonah Barrington wrote about dulling with considerable detail in his Sketches.
According to Barrington, dueling was part of the culture of his times (late 1700's). If a gentleman sought the hand of a lady her parents would ask if the gentleman had "blazed" (fought a duel) or not. Barrington discussed pistols in his book, nothing specific other than the pistol could not be rifled and only one projectile could be loaded (no buck and ball loads).
'Dueling was always illegal'
In French territories and states, it was at most a small fine.
I think in some areas of Europe, they were more keen on killing each other in duels. My gut feeling is that these pistols are merely a set of pistols. Could be used for target shooting on the range. Could be used in a duel. Could be used for protection. Or they could have just been given as a gift to a business associate that sat on a shelf, bought by someone who didn't know anything about pistols. I don't subscribe to the idea that they had to have a sole purpose. I feel like that's a mistake a lot of archeologists make, assigning a very fancy purpose to every single relatively mundane object. "Oh that coin on the ground was part of a religious ritual! Oh that cave was a religious cave! Oh that potsherd was a religious potsherd!" 😂
Remember, like today, you only want to kick someone's ass immediately after an altercation. Usually, ten minutes later, you've come down and are ready to go for a beer with the guy. That's why in a duel that occurs at least days later, mostly everyone has come down and wants to sweep everything under the rug and move on without bloodshed.
What kind of altercations are y'all having that you're best buds after the fact? Must not have been worthy of an altercation in the first place. Why are so many men ruled by our anger? It's wielded too often and at such inane things... If you're going to be angry, be angry over something worth that energy.
@@TheSuperRatt I didn't say I was like that; I meant your average bro type. They've always existed in some form; regular, well-balanced men weren't going to duel usually.
@@TheSuperRatt I've known a few folks who got into proper fist-fights with people that they then ended up befriending. Beer and Liquor have started quite a few fights, and shed no shortage of blood. And depending on area and time, Duels where considered something of an obligation too. Your reputation as a noble *did* hinge on your honor in ways that it simply doesn't these days. A lot of them ended in people just shooting the dirt, because yeah they where insulted so had to show up and save face (lest their position in court get threatened) but it otherwise wasn't worth the hassle or risk.
And in few cases, people who *did* draw blood or have their own drawn learned how dumb the original argument was... in some cases while dying, but there's a handful of folks who survived the duel that buried the hatchet later.
the double Jonathan in the thumbnail made me laugh
That was really interesting. There's something I've often wondered; what is the purpose of the half cock position on a flintlock ? Is it only flintlocks that have them ?
It's an early version of a safety.
A gun on half cock can not be fired, allowing you to keep it loaded and have it ready to use.
It was also used on a lot more types of guns than just flintlocks, it stayed around much later than that system.
At full cock the nose of a component called "the sear" holds the hammer against spring tension by resting against a step cut into the edge of the shaft on which the hammer (or cock) is fitted . At half cock that step is undercut, forming a notch which traps the nose of the sear. The trigger can no longer flick it out of the way, the hammer must be pulled back, against the spring, to release it, hence half cock is a "safe" condition. In a flintlock at half cock the flint will be clear of the frizzen so that the pan can be opened, primed and closed. In a percussion lock the cap can be placed in position or removed. In a cap and ball revolver the half cock position also allows the cylinder to rotate for loading.
@@Malagar1 Thanks.
@@davidpowell5437 Thank you too, for the explanation.
How often did duelists use dedicated duel pistols and how often did they use guns they had just on hand?
On whether rifling was used in dueling pistols. The 7th Earl of Cardigan (who led the famous or infamous Charge of the Light Brigade), in 1841 wounded a certain Captain Harvey Tuckett in a duel. The evidence of 2 gunsmiths established Lord Cardigan had used a pistol with the unsporting rifled barrel. Somehow Lord Cardigan got away without conviction based on a legal technicality.
I always thought the idea of having a pair is your seconds loaded them placed back in the case, then each of the duellers selected from the case, i always loved the story of ' The Judas Pair'.
Just an uninformed guess as to potentially one reason why non-duelling pistols might also be sold in sets of two: If people see duelling pistols sold in sets of two, they may want a set of two "general purpose" pistols simply because duelling pistols are available as a set of two. Duelling pistols come as a set of two, two is more than one, so why wouldn't I want two general purpose pistols?
I know that's maybe a bit unscientific! I'm just thinking in terms of how I might think if I was an 18th century (presumably well-to-do) gent shopping around for a new pistol. If I saw or was aware of pistols of any kind being sold as a set of two, I think my first question when buying a pistol would be "can I get these in a set of two?" regardless of what type of pistol it was I was buying.
Presumably, it also benefits the gunsmith to encourage people to buy two pistols rather than one by presenting pistols as a set.
Please talk about swords in the same/similar format. Please also do more stuff from your collection - armour, cannons etc.
The former MoD Pattern Room Collection, home of Jonathon, covers 'small arms' up to 20mm calibre - no armour or cannons.
@@tacfoley4443 what's the channel name?
@@dylanmilne6683 What channel?
How many people who drive sports cars actually do any racing?
I wonder how related duelling pistols are to the later duelling revolvers of wild west? And how while dueling died down in Europe, America kept the tradition and transitioned to revolvers specifically designed to be drawn fast to get the first shot?