Interesting coincidence: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (in the USA) was known for having some of the best German gun smiths in the colonies around the mid 1700's. So much so that the rifles made there where called "Lancaster Rifles." Later they would be called the American Long Rifle or Kentucky Rifle.
Thanks Jonathan and team. That is a really interesting firearm. Given the relatively low level of decoration I think it was intended for serious use and not just for showing off. The firing sequence looks to be a rotating, dual striker variant of the more common rotating single striker used by Thorn. I bet there are a pair of "hammerless locks" in the mechanism and a cunning design that rotates a striker plate 90 degrees when the action is recocked by the underlever. It is also great to see that the sequencing of the barrels fired by the two triggers (sort-of) complies with the general rule for two trigger side-by-sides that the front trigger fires the right barrel. As Paul Harrell says "you're either right out front or you're left behind".
Thank you for explaining the reasoning behind the firing sequence! I was wondering why one wouldn't just use a single rotating striker as seen in the original Lancaster design.
@@F1ghteR41 My guess is that the buyer liked double trigger shotguns and rifles and requested a similar mode of operation from the gunmaker. As the majority of four-barrel Lancasters seem to be pistols, the long guns were probably bespoke items for well off customers. Welding up four barrels to shoot to a common zero at rifle ranges must have been a far from easy tasks. We'll never know, but as the sights go out to 400 yards, I wonder how well it would have grouped at that range.
@@derekp2674 This is a very sound explanation indeed, thank you. To be fair with you though, I don't think it was really expected of this rifle to be fired at such range as 400 yd., given its configuration. Maybe at an elephant or a rhino, if those were hunted in India, but that's a target big enough that with such a potent round (as Jonathan pointed in another comment, the case length would be c. 70 mm) one shouldn't worry too much about the grouping. What I would worry however is how does it work at very close ranges, where one can both spot and shoot a tiger. Heavy recoil means that aim recovery would be rather slow, and near misses doesn't impress tigers at all, as far as I'm aware. If one fails their four chances to hit a cat, the only hope would be in retainers' accuracy, or else the fatal tiger leap would come into play.
@@derekp2674 Jokes aside, as far as I'm aware, sniping a tiger is easier said than done. If the beast doesn't want to be seen, hell if you'd find it before it'll be too close for sniping. You might remember a video that went around 15 or so years ago, depicting a tigress attacking an elephant with riders somewhere in India. The quality being what it was at the time, it's still pretty easy to see that one can hardly spot a motion in the grass until it's all too close. So if we cast our minds back to the time this rifle was made, a noble hunter would likely have an elephant at his disposal, but even with such an observation platform, as the aforementioned video demonstrates, one would find it hard to locate the tiger precisely, even if the tracks lead to the area. Unless, of course, you suggest using one of the trackers or pathfinders as a bait for the beast.
I just love the backgrounds on this channel. This is a fascinating firearm no doubt. I can imagine a fellow high up in the hierarchy of the empire traipsing around in the bush somewhere in India with his servant carrying this artillery piece close behind him. While visualizing this fellow and his rifle I am,however, seriously distracted by the rows of EM2’s behind Jonathan.
So if, looking in the direction of fire, we name the barrels 1/2 (left/right) on the top and 3/4 on the bottom, I get it that the first position would fire 2, then 3, and then revolve clockwise to then fire 4 and 1. If we would cycle the rifle again now, would it continue going clockwise, making the next shots be rifle 3 first and then 2? Or does it somehow "click back" like a ballpoint pen where you do the same external motion (click the top/cycle the lever) , but it reverses internally? I guess that'd be more of a question to Ian to test it. Then again - would it be possible to just fire the striker pins on this one, our would that risk damage to the museum piece?
The 1st time I came across this gun, or at least the idea of this gun was in the game Fallout 76. I still remember the 1st time I found it in the game, it was called "The Dragon" and it was considered quite rare & powerful back then, and I found it to be a very cool design, and was so happy to have picked it up. However, the game meta evolved quickly away from slow firing guns, so it never became popular in the game, what a shame.
Gentleman's hunting rifle - your servants set up your chair and a barrel rest, the owner sits down & waits until game is driven within range...try not to hit one of the beaters.
No. This is for hunting dangerous game in India or Africa. Mostly India as Lancaster made most of his sales to officers and civil servants destined for the colonies. The classic tiger hunt was done from the back of an elephant on a large saddle called a Howda. Which is where the Howda pistol comes from.
It can use normal bullets, but spherical ones woud be pointless with rifling, so these days they're oblong and generally round-nosed. It's not some arcane technology, by the way, it's still made and relatively available in Russia due to some past legal loopholes. You can search for .366 TKM or 9.65x53 Lancaster to see the rounds for yourself.
3:198:58 The stock is crafted gorgeously! 6:00 That would be 6.52 kg in metric terms, for those interested. With some cleverness one can make a GPMG the weight of this barrel block alone. 6:05 How would this term be used differently with regards to edged weapons? Damascening means basically the same thing for them, as far as I'm aware, that is to say, pattern-welding. Wootz is quite another thing, I grant you that, but it also doesn't look the same. 6:50 Could you enlighten us on how one would come to the conclusion that the gun came with that finish, and it wasn't simply corrosion? I would - in my ignorance - presume that if one would like to show damascening, than acid job and some polishing is required, not browning, which would hide the pattern, most observable on this gun on the upper barrels, like 7:27 or 13:57. 10:24 Brits have really mastered the time-travelling technology in and around academia, I see. First was Matt Parker, now Jonathan as well! 😁
Ah but I'm not talking about damascening, I'm talking about the so-called "damascus" steel barrel. Which is different to true Damascus (Wootz/crucible) steel as used in edged weapons.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Fair enough, but with edged weapons one can also see the use of pattern-welding (from the Royal Armouries itself that would be things like IX.1427 or IX.2629), which is also often called Damascus steel. And the Damascus steel barrel manufacturing process seems to be an offshoot of the same pattern-welding technology.
Yes, but the term 'damascus' meaning pattern-welded comes from the 19th-20th century firearms world and is simply incorrect in terms of edged weapons. The term got transposed from blademaking because Wootz steel blades had a 'watered' pattern that resembled pattern welding. But they were NOT pattern-welded.@@F1ghteR41
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Firstly, pattern-welded blades were labelled as 'damascus' in the nineteenth century just as well, I'm having it on good authority of Sebastian Szukalski from the International Wootz Society. Moreover, as far as I'm aware, the confusion of crucible and pattern-welded swords under the name 'damascus' is very old, maybe as old as the term itself. Arab authors weren't terribly exact, and people tend to infer a lot from al-Kindi despite him lacking solid archaeological support in this matter, since Damascus itself wasn't a major steel manufacturing centre, but a large trade hub, as far as I get from the whole debate. Then there's also an old practice of passing pattern-welded blades as wootz, which complicates matters further. In any case, the patterns aren't that much alike, and also it seems to me that no self-respecting material culture historian these days would call any Medieval steel 'damascus', whether it is pattern-welded or crucible, basically for the aforementioned reasons.
I don't doubt your first point and haven't said otherwise. I said it was different from "true damascus", which is correct in the context of the modern study of the subject. This isn't my area, but I believe the logic is that calling pattern-welding "damascus" without qualification is confusing, regardless of how far back the confusion exists. Period terms are important to study but standardised terminology for common understanding in the field is more important. E.g. 'snaphance'. Ironic that I mentioned the difference in order to try to limit confusion, but seem to have caused more instead @@F1ghteR41
Proprietary 20 bore. I called it a necked-out Snider case but I believe it's what's now known as 20/.577 Henry which is a much longer (70mm case) or a predecessor of that cartridge.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries As I'm sure you know, in terms of nominal diameters, 20 bore comes out as 0.615" while 24 bore is 0.579". The old revolver chambering of 54 bore comes out as 0.442" I expect this rifle was originally delivered in a fitted case with accessories, which may have included reloading tools and a bullet mould if it was a very non-standard cartridge. The again, his Highness may have just ordered his ammunition in large batches from the gunmaker.
Hence I said "or a precursor of it", although if you follow Wiki's first cite, that directly contradicts their 1895 claim, saying it was created in 1882. I haven't had a chance to try to bottom this out. @@F1ghteR41
Although this piece is very interesting and does indeed look very intimidating, my heart will always go to the H&H paradox gun. Maybe because I have a bias for Mr George Vincent Fosbery kek
@@F1ghteR41 I think what he meant to say is that Fallout 76 one is a muzzle loader, while the one in the video is a cartridge based breech loading rifle.
@Jonathan Ferguson Having watched your demo of the makeshift full auto 1911, I wonder if you could answer a similar question. Say you were a non state actor, and all you had access to was an RPG-7 set against modern tanks. Is there a way to modify the existing warhead to increase lethality against such hard targets, in a way that would not negatively affect flight characteristics, save for decreased range? Is this a dumb idea?
I'm not Ferguson... but as an amateur with some knowledge of how these things work, I think modifying the stock ammunition will be quite difficult without throwing off the balance and thus stability of the projectile. You'd need quite a bit of knowledge and equipment to do it. The current state of the art vs vehicle armor is focusing on aim, I believe - weapons which hit the target very accurately in weak areas of armor or which pop up and then dive down on the target from above. This would introduce an alternate reason to be close for your fictional actor - they need to be close (perhaps on a hilltop or building to give access to upper attacks) in order to have a chance of hitting something that they can damage.
@@Khrrck Yes I know current gen weapons systems perform dive attacks. The Javalin comes to mind. Keep in mind, in this fictional scenario, it is a matter of desperation, making do with what you have.
hi there. trying again. does anyone know of good ressources when it comes to guns, ammo and so on. so books, videos (besides this channel of course), and so on. I'll take whatever information I can get. thank you.
I believe I've left a reply on a similar comment a few episodes ago, but my recommendation would generally stay the same. For videos, I would recommend watching C&Rcenal, of which our dear Jonathan is a helpful supporter and friend. As for books, this is a very broad topic and depends heavily on what exactly would you like to find out, and also on what languages you speak. Various encyclopaedias generally lack in accuracy when it comes to certain pieces, and may also have limitations coming from author's viewpoint. E.g., Ezell's _Handguns of the World_ reads very differently with the knowledge of revolver patents as discovered & presented by the aforementioned C&Rcenal. More narrowly focused publications tend to cost a fortune when they're worth reading, so one can hardly be mistaken when purchasing anything labelled 'Collector Grade', when the price is cheap. The cheaper books drastically fall short on quality. Not to throw shade on Jonathan's book on C96, which I haven't read, but I would warn you against Osprey's _Weapon_ series, which on the whole tends to be poorly researched and full of myths. The exception here would be books by Headstamp Publishing, like Ian McCollum's _French Military Rifles 1866-2016._ Finally, there are also academic publications, which can sometimes be found for free, like Matthew Ford's _The British Army and the Politics of Rifle Development, 1880 to 1986,_ which I thoroughly recommend.
Great reply. You're not wrong about Osprey 'Weapon' - you have to know which authors know their stuff. Some of them are rather... "phone it in", others quite meticulous. I'd also suggest searching our library catalogue (easier to Google it than link it) as this has been built up over decades and is one of the best firearms and arms & armour libraries anywhere @@F1ghteR41
The answer will depend on what sort of guns you are interested in. I see Waterstones lists an interesting selection of books on their website. I think, for more general gun books, to get ones written by proper gun experts (including shooting journalists) but not just written by jobbing authors assigned for a few weeks to write something about guns. I find many useful articles on Wikipedia, but anyone can edit that, so it can be good to corroborate information there against other sources. For all things to do with old British rifles, the website rifleman org uk is very good. For historic American firearms I really like the Duelist1954 TH-cam channel. I'm also a big fan of Paul Harrell's TH-cam channel which presents a lot of firearm and ammunition reviews, from the perspective of an American outdoorsman.
I would love to see Mr Ferguson show off the Ferguson Rifle
Ideally while demonstrating it's ability to fire six rounds a minute in any weather.
Because, as we all know, that's soldiering!
😊
Interesting coincidence: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (in the USA) was known for having some of the best German gun smiths in the colonies around the mid 1700's. So much so that the rifles made there where called "Lancaster Rifles." Later they would be called the American Long Rifle or Kentucky Rifle.
Is this on display at the museum? I live in Leeds so love to go down and look at stuff that I actually understand thanks to this series!
Good to know that you can detach the barrels and throw it at the enemy to end them rightly.
Thanks Jonathan and team.
That is a really interesting firearm. Given the relatively low level of decoration I think it was intended for serious use and not just for showing off.
The firing sequence looks to be a rotating, dual striker variant of the more common rotating single striker used by Thorn. I bet there are a pair of "hammerless locks" in the mechanism and a cunning design that rotates a striker plate 90 degrees when the action is recocked by the underlever.
It is also great to see that the sequencing of the barrels fired by the two triggers (sort-of) complies with the general rule for two trigger side-by-sides that the front trigger fires the right barrel. As Paul Harrell says "you're either right out front or you're left behind".
Thank you for explaining the reasoning behind the firing sequence! I was wondering why one wouldn't just use a single rotating striker as seen in the original Lancaster design.
@@F1ghteR41 My guess is that the buyer liked double trigger shotguns and rifles and requested a similar mode of operation from the gunmaker.
As the majority of four-barrel Lancasters seem to be pistols, the long guns were probably bespoke items for well off customers.
Welding up four barrels to shoot to a common zero at rifle ranges must have been a far from easy tasks.
We'll never know, but as the sights go out to 400 yards, I wonder how well it would have grouped at that range.
@@derekp2674 This is a very sound explanation indeed, thank you.
To be fair with you though, I don't think it was really expected of this rifle to be fired at such range as 400 yd., given its configuration. Maybe at an elephant or a rhino, if those were hunted in India, but that's a target big enough that with such a potent round (as Jonathan pointed in another comment, the case length would be c. 70 mm) one shouldn't worry too much about the grouping.
What I would worry however is how does it work at very close ranges, where one can both spot and shoot a tiger. Heavy recoil means that aim recovery would be rather slow, and near misses doesn't impress tigers at all, as far as I'm aware. If one fails their four chances to hit a cat, the only hope would be in retainers' accuracy, or else the fatal tiger leap would come into play.
@@F1ghteR41 I agree, one doesn't snipe tigers or elephants it's just not sporting, old chap.
@@derekp2674 Jokes aside, as far as I'm aware, sniping a tiger is easier said than done. If the beast doesn't want to be seen, hell if you'd find it before it'll be too close for sniping.
You might remember a video that went around 15 or so years ago, depicting a tigress attacking an elephant with riders somewhere in India. The quality being what it was at the time, it's still pretty easy to see that one can hardly spot a motion in the grass until it's all too close. So if we cast our minds back to the time this rifle was made, a noble hunter would likely have an elephant at his disposal, but even with such an observation platform, as the aforementioned video demonstrates, one would find it hard to locate the tiger precisely, even if the tracks lead to the area. Unless, of course, you suggest using one of the trackers or pathfinders as a bait for the beast.
Future Johnathan explained that mechanism perfectly.
Phew! Let me tell you, past Jonathan definitely didn't :D
Stunning piece. Elegant & understated.
I just love the backgrounds on this channel. This is a fascinating firearm no doubt. I can imagine a fellow high up in the hierarchy of the empire traipsing around in the bush somewhere in India with his servant carrying this artillery piece close behind him. While visualizing this fellow and his rifle I am,however, seriously distracted by the rows of EM2’s behind Jonathan.
"Don't quote me on that" - J.Ferguson
"4th horseman" in Destiny 2
"Boom and your head falls off."
That is a amazing looking boomstick.
0:27 Elephant gun??
Awesome, unique firearm with a cool story behind it!
what an amazing piece of kit, the game he must have stalked . thanks for another great video
This needs to be in a game
Killing Floor 2, Doomstick
When a single, double, or triple barrel Lancaster jsut isn't enough.
Sgt. Harper starts breathing heavily.
You my friend have a dream job for someone that love and respect guns. Thanks for the video
Hunt Showdown's next weapon?
Ooh! Good idea!
6:19 could this style barrel stand up to modern smokeless shotgun loads?
Patrick Harper would snear at 4 barrels.
The Dragon from fallout 76 !.
No no, it's The 4th Horseman from Destiny 2. lol. GG!
So if, looking in the direction of fire, we name the barrels 1/2 (left/right) on the top and 3/4 on the bottom, I get it that the first position would fire 2, then 3, and then revolve clockwise to then fire 4 and 1. If we would cycle the rifle again now, would it continue going clockwise, making the next shots be rifle 3 first and then 2? Or does it somehow "click back" like a ballpoint pen where you do the same external motion (click the top/cycle the lever) , but it reverses internally? I guess that'd be more of a question to Ian to test it. Then again - would it be possible to just fire the striker pins on this one, our would that risk damage to the museum piece?
Another Great Video💯 Thank you Jonathan 💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
Reminds me of the 4 barrel rifle from the 1983 New Zealand movie "Utu".
The 1st time I came across this gun, or at least the idea of this gun was in the game Fallout 76. I still remember the 1st time I found it in the game, it was called "The Dragon" and it was considered quite rare & powerful back then, and I found it to be a very cool design, and was so happy to have picked it up. However, the game meta evolved quickly away from slow firing guns, so it never became popular in the game, what a shame.
Very fine , more for machan use or from elephant platform , not for moving hunts .
Fantastic!
Gentleman's hunting rifle - your servants set up your chair and a barrel rest, the owner sits down & waits until game is driven within range...try not to hit one of the beaters.
That sounds boring AF
No. This is for hunting dangerous game in India or Africa. Mostly India as Lancaster made most of his sales to officers and civil servants destined for the colonies. The classic tiger hunt was done from the back of an elephant on a large saddle called a Howda. Which is where the Howda pistol comes from.
13:31 Seems relatively clear to me.
For when you literally need quad damage.
Did the Lancaster rifling require special (oval) bullets, or would it squish normal (round) bullets when fired?
It can use normal bullets, but spherical ones woud be pointless with rifling, so these days they're oblong and generally round-nosed. It's not some arcane technology, by the way, it's still made and relatively available in Russia due to some past legal loopholes. You can search for .366 TKM or 9.65x53 Lancaster to see the rounds for yourself.
3:19 8:58 The stock is crafted gorgeously!
6:00 That would be 6.52 kg in metric terms, for those interested. With some cleverness one can make a GPMG the weight of this barrel block alone.
6:05 How would this term be used differently with regards to edged weapons? Damascening means basically the same thing for them, as far as I'm aware, that is to say, pattern-welding. Wootz is quite another thing, I grant you that, but it also doesn't look the same.
6:50 Could you enlighten us on how one would come to the conclusion that the gun came with that finish, and it wasn't simply corrosion? I would - in my ignorance - presume that if one would like to show damascening, than acid job and some polishing is required, not browning, which would hide the pattern, most observable on this gun on the upper barrels, like 7:27 or 13:57.
10:24 Brits have really mastered the time-travelling technology in and around academia, I see. First was Matt Parker, now Jonathan as well! 😁
Ah but I'm not talking about damascening, I'm talking about the so-called "damascus" steel barrel. Which is different to true Damascus (Wootz/crucible) steel as used in edged weapons.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Fair enough, but with edged weapons one can also see the use of pattern-welding (from the Royal Armouries itself that would be things like IX.1427 or IX.2629), which is also often called Damascus steel. And the Damascus steel barrel manufacturing process seems to be an offshoot of the same pattern-welding technology.
Yes, but the term 'damascus' meaning pattern-welded comes from the 19th-20th century firearms world and is simply incorrect in terms of edged weapons. The term got transposed from blademaking because Wootz steel blades had a 'watered' pattern that resembled pattern welding. But they were NOT pattern-welded.@@F1ghteR41
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Firstly, pattern-welded blades were labelled as 'damascus' in the nineteenth century just as well, I'm having it on good authority of Sebastian Szukalski from the International Wootz Society.
Moreover, as far as I'm aware, the confusion of crucible and pattern-welded swords under the name 'damascus' is very old, maybe as old as the term itself. Arab authors weren't terribly exact, and people tend to infer a lot from al-Kindi despite him lacking solid archaeological support in this matter, since Damascus itself wasn't a major steel manufacturing centre, but a large trade hub, as far as I get from the whole debate. Then there's also an old practice of passing pattern-welded blades as wootz, which complicates matters further.
In any case, the patterns aren't that much alike, and also it seems to me that no self-respecting material culture historian these days would call any Medieval steel 'damascus', whether it is pattern-welded or crucible, basically for the aforementioned reasons.
I don't doubt your first point and haven't said otherwise. I said it was different from "true damascus", which is correct in the context of the modern study of the subject. This isn't my area, but I believe the logic is that calling pattern-welding "damascus" without qualification is confusing, regardless of how far back the confusion exists. Period terms are important to study but standardised terminology for common understanding in the field is more important. E.g. 'snaphance'. Ironic that I mentioned the difference in order to try to limit confusion, but seem to have caused more instead @@F1ghteR41
Big John's Shotgun
Would this have fired 57 Snider ammunition or did it use a proprietary cartridge ?
Proprietary 20 bore. I called it a necked-out Snider case but I believe it's what's now known as 20/.577 Henry which is a much longer (70mm case) or a predecessor of that cartridge.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries As I'm sure you know, in terms of nominal diameters, 20 bore comes out as 0.615" while 24 bore is 0.579". The old revolver chambering of 54 bore comes out as 0.442"
I expect this rifle was originally delivered in a fitted case with accessories, which may have included reloading tools and a bullet mould if it was a very non-standard cartridge.
The again, his Highness may have just ordered his ammunition in large batches from the gunmaker.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Didn't 20/.577 Henry only arrive in 1895? Would it perhaps still be .577 Black Powder Express?
Hence I said "or a precursor of it", although if you follow Wiki's first cite, that directly contradicts their 1895 claim, saying it was created in 1882. I haven't had a chance to try to bottom this out. @@F1ghteR41
@@F1ghteR41unlikely with the barrels being 20 bore
Wouldnt you cycle the gun wrongly if you are under pressure?
No
Although this piece is very interesting and does indeed look very intimidating, my heart will always go to the H&H paradox gun.
Maybe because I have a bias for Mr George Vincent Fosbery kek
Johnathon, do you have any "Cape Guns"?
I remember that gun from Fallout 76...
Lovely seeing it IRL.
Oh never mind. The one I'm thinking of is black powder... this is waaay cooler!
In 1885 this rifle was certainly black powder as well.
@@F1ghteR41 I think what he meant to say is that Fallout 76 one is a muzzle loader, while the one in the video is a cartridge based breech loading rifle.
@@hyperturbotechnomike ah yes, a muzzle loader. That is what I was attempting to convey.
@@hyperturbotechnomike I see, thanks for correction. I'm unfamiliar with Fallout 76 aside from it being a massive scandal.
4th Horseman!
*QUAD DAMAGE*
I’m just looking at the EM2’s behind you.
Poor tiger!
I wish someone would make a 4 barrelled 4 bore rifle.
And fire all four at once
Interesting rifle, wouldn't the caliber be .577 Snider?
Literally doomstick from killing floor 2
One bite in the butt from that thing would’ve turned Forest Gump into Lieutenant Dan in short order.
0.577" = 14.65mm. thicker than a 50 cal. This is getting into artilery territory
12 gauge is 18.5 mm or so, yet no cannon. 😉
Would that fire .577 Snider, or .577 Black Powder Express?
@@indigohammer5732 Check out Jonathan's reply to Robert Smith's comment down here.
I would love to completely obliterate my shoulder with this. It commands respect when your target is a smoldering hole.
@Jonathan Ferguson Having watched your demo of the makeshift full auto 1911, I wonder if you could answer a similar question. Say you were a non state actor, and all you had access to was an RPG-7 set against modern tanks. Is there a way to modify the existing warhead to increase lethality against such hard targets, in a way that would not negatively affect flight characteristics, save for decreased range? Is this a dumb idea?
I'm not Ferguson... but as an amateur with some knowledge of how these things work, I think modifying the stock ammunition will be quite difficult without throwing off the balance and thus stability of the projectile. You'd need quite a bit of knowledge and equipment to do it.
The current state of the art vs vehicle armor is focusing on aim, I believe - weapons which hit the target very accurately in weak areas of armor or which pop up and then dive down on the target from above. This would introduce an alternate reason to be close for your fictional actor - they need to be close (perhaps on a hilltop or building to give access to upper attacks) in order to have a chance of hitting something that they can damage.
@@Khrrck Yes I know current gen weapons systems perform dive attacks. The Javalin comes to mind. Keep in mind, in this fictional scenario, it is a matter of desperation, making do with what you have.
Wow, I think you'd have to bring back the shooting stick from ye old matchlock days in order to just aim this thing standing
His Highness presumably had heard that the local wildlife had started forming gangs?
Four barrels mean four chances to drop a dangerous prey.
He's bigger than Hitlaar
its the fourth horseman from destiny
Does Scott know about this gun yet?
!? Wasn't. 577" the Snider calibre Jonathan? No need to "neck it out" as you put it as it was already a standard, & popular, cartridge.
ok, but what about 5 barrels?
hi there. trying again. does anyone know of good ressources when it comes to guns, ammo and so on. so books, videos (besides this channel of course), and so on. I'll take whatever information I can get. thank you.
I believe I've left a reply on a similar comment a few episodes ago, but my recommendation would generally stay the same. For videos, I would recommend watching C&Rcenal, of which our dear Jonathan is a helpful supporter and friend. As for books, this is a very broad topic and depends heavily on what exactly would you like to find out, and also on what languages you speak.
Various encyclopaedias generally lack in accuracy when it comes to certain pieces, and may also have limitations coming from author's viewpoint. E.g., Ezell's _Handguns of the World_ reads very differently with the knowledge of revolver patents as discovered & presented by the aforementioned C&Rcenal. More narrowly focused publications tend to cost a fortune when they're worth reading, so one can hardly be mistaken when purchasing anything labelled 'Collector Grade', when the price is cheap. The cheaper books drastically fall short on quality. Not to throw shade on Jonathan's book on C96, which I haven't read, but I would warn you against Osprey's _Weapon_ series, which on the whole tends to be poorly researched and full of myths. The exception here would be books by Headstamp Publishing, like Ian McCollum's _French Military Rifles 1866-2016._
Finally, there are also academic publications, which can sometimes be found for free, like Matthew Ford's _The British Army and the Politics of Rifle Development, 1880 to 1986,_ which I thoroughly recommend.
Great reply. You're not wrong about Osprey 'Weapon' - you have to know which authors know their stuff. Some of them are rather... "phone it in", others quite meticulous. I'd also suggest searching our library catalogue (easier to Google it than link it) as this has been built up over decades and is one of the best firearms and arms & armour libraries anywhere @@F1ghteR41
The answer will depend on what sort of guns you are interested in. I see Waterstones lists an interesting selection of books on their website. I think, for more general gun books, to get ones written by proper gun experts (including shooting journalists) but not just written by jobbing authors assigned for a few weeks to write something about guns.
I find many useful articles on Wikipedia, but anyone can edit that, so it can be good to corroborate information there against other sources.
For all things to do with old British rifles, the website rifleman org uk is very good.
For historic American firearms I really like the Duelist1954 TH-cam channel.
I'm also a big fan of Paul Harrell's TH-cam channel which presents a lot of firearm and ammunition reviews, from the perspective of an American outdoorsman.
@@F1ghteR41 Try looking for anything by Geoffrey Boothroyd or Bill Harriman. Books only I believe, I don't thing they ever have done videos.
Come on, Crytek.
A "steam punk "master piece! 👍👌(^_-)
tbf all measurements in th's of an inch are ridiculous by default.
If it's a rifle without rifling, is it an Ovalfle? Or Ovalcaster? I mean, you could call a Glock a Polyglock, right? Right??
Uh I thought musk renamed Twitter x
What beautiful killing machines.