M1860 Spencer vs M1861 Springfield: an historic comparison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.พ. 2020
- Could the course of the American Civil War have been changed if Union troops were given repeating rifles, instead of the older single shot musket? We compare the Model 1860 Spencer repeating rifle against the main infantry arm of the American Civil War, the muzzleloading M1861 Springfield rifle-musket. As the first magazine fed repeating rifle adopted by any military, the Spencer rifle had enormous potential, but just how much better was it when compared to the Springfield rifle-musket? Was the new repeating rifle’s capability worth the additional expense?
This is a long time ago, but I'm so glad you put it up with all the technical problems. Content is more important than production values.
I wouldn't apologize for the long range segment: It's a 4-500yd shot on a (I assume man-sized target), standing, off-hand. These are not exactly easy shots with an iron-sighted modern rifle let alone a M1861 Springfield.
Getting hits at all is demonstrative of skill and the technology working together.
Thank you for putting this together though, I appreciate the work and the testing of some very sound hypotheses. I discovered you guys from Rob at Victorian Muzzleloaders and bought Brett's book on his recommendation. I then discovered Paper Cartridges through Facebook as your posts and videos have cropped up all over the reenacting community and I liked the cut of your collective jib. Then I realized Brett is among your number lol.
A note on the penetration testing: White Pine has a Janka hardness of 380 lbf, Douglas Fir is 620 lbf. Classic hardwoods like Cherry and Walnut are both around 1,000 lbf, so you're shooting at quite the hard target, so to speak.
Wood is harder around branches. This might have caused the round to change its direction @35:25.
There was also a branch when Capandball tested the Army Colt vs a Remington New Army Model and came to the illogical conclusion that the Remington has a higher velocity, but the Colt a better penetration.
The Spencer at 200 yards was a true army rifle;"Left ... right ... left ... right ...".Fascinating video,as a useless piece of information many years ago I was doing target duty in the butts on a range day for our club,the neighbouring set of target frames were being used by muzzle-loaders who were shooting mostly P53's.The sound of those slugs passing overhead was both awesome and chilling,the strike into the stop was frightening and I thought about 19th century battlefields and standing in a 'Thin red line' with thousands of these missiles flying around as in the Crimea.
I'm really enjoying yaw's videos. Glad to see some younger men getting into our beloved muzzle loading sport/hobby to hopefully carry on the tradition.
Glad you enjoy them! makes it worth the effort of making them.
@@papercartridges6705I noticed that your Spencer rifle was a lot less fiddly and clunky compared to Ian's and Karl's of InrangeTV, the smoothness of operation almost equaling that of a Henry/Winchester. Their replica seems to lack extraction powers, the spent cases often landing back om the breech, while yours seem to hurl it away quite adequately. Any thoughts on why that might be the case? Was yours an original and theirs a reproduction?
Pleasure to watch you two handle your weapons, it's as I would expect a soldier in 1864 to handle his weapon having been round the block a few years at that point. Hands black, actions smooth from use and able hit.... close to the target in case of the Spencer. Glad I found your channel and thanks for your work.
The cost and delays in re-tooling and then mass producing the Spencer plus the monumental ammunition quantity required are really telling. Not forgetting that some of the soldiers who joined up would have been familiar to an extent with musket type loading.
Really interesting comparison testing.
I don't mind the buzzing perfectly. I just enjoy soaking in your content
Awesome video. Just learned about the Spencer and how Col. Wilder's brigade used them to great effect against superior numbers at Chickamauga. I was wondering why the Union didn't make it the standard infantry rifle. But after watching this, the old muzzle loaders could still be effective if tactics were changed. If at Chickamauga, Confederates moved further back, out of range of the Spencers, and concentrated well aimed shots on Union rifle men, perhaps the odds may have been evened somewhat.
The union also did not have the industrial capacity to produce them in large numbers...
(Not until 1864 did the US model "Springfield" become the most used rifle musket by the union)
And similar did not have the capacity to produce the brass cartridges in millions and millions that would be needed if it had been issued earlier and in larger numbers.
It's often said wars are fought with the last war's tactics, and the Union Army never even adopted an official drill to maximize the Spencer's tactical advantage in firepower (beyond the basic ad hoc solution of pulling the trigger as often as possible). My great grandfather's 46th Ohio was re-armed with Spencer rifles in 1864 when it re-enlisted as the 46th O.V.V.I. Its extremely effective regimental commander Charles Walcutt wrote his own manual of arms for the Spencer's deployment, but that was of little use when he was ordered to conduct a head-on assault against rebel rifle pits at Resaca! Eventually mayor of Columbus, Walcutt ended the war as a brevetted major general.
As Brett said, its doubtful that the Confederate army has the necessary training to use the rifled musket at the long range neccessary for them to outgun the Spencer. Shooting those low velocity rifled muskets at hundreds of yard was challenging to say the least, requiring serious ability in range estimation, even if the target was battalion-column sized. Brett and Chris here are very practiced shots, and would have amounted to experts compared to the vast majority of either armies in the Civil War.
Fantastic job, Brett.
The Henry rifle may have been able to fire faster than the Spencer, but it's handicap may be in its method of reloading, unless some kind of similar tube charger device was available. But, the Henry used a smaller and lighter bullet, but also held 15 of them. As cavalry weapons, both the Spencer and Henry were excellent.
The Calvin cameo is my favorite part.
Maddymoiselle was that the lil doggie?
I’ve been recently enjoying your videos lately including the presentation on the Crimean War. Great job! Yeah, audio can be a pain in the you know what! I’ve been a videographer/editor for many decades and it’s likely that buzz was a ground loop feedback possibly from a plug or antenna not fully seated. Something could have gotten hit during the wind and I have also shot in the windy desert. Fun times.
These old videos were so primitive with terrible audio. My newer videos are slightly less primitive with slightly better audio.
The buzzing was caused by my old iPhone. It was just old. Cleaned the ports carefully and it didn’t help. I still use my iPhone to take all the video for the channel. Someday I might get an actual camera…
Nice work guys, The modern centerfire 56-50 Spencer cartridge cannot hold the 45 grains of powder of the original rimfire. The most I can cram in mine is 35 grains. That can make a big difference. I realize that's as close as we can get these days. I have yet to see an Armi Sport Spencer shoot or function as well as an original. Thanks for making the video.
Love to see you use other Repeaters… especially the 1860 Henry. I own 3 of them. 13,000 Henry’s made during CW, 11,300 sold before April 1865. Spencer’s sold 110,000 to US Military… much bigger round 54 cal vs 44 cal Henry. Powder was 60 grains while Henry’s had 30 to 35 grains (two types of copper case ammo .. tall and standard case). Great point that a Henry would not stop a horse with a single shot…. Since the power of a Henry is a pistol (Army 44 cal) Round in a long barrel. Still makes a great Assault gun at close range. Spencer has 7, Henry hold 16 (plus one in chamber). Some hand written letters call them “seventeen shooters” or “Sixteen shooter”. The Repros using 44/40 are 13 plus one in chamber… so a 14 shooter.
Awesome! And informative. Please provide details on the Spencer and ammo used
I would love to see a video on load development for the Spencer. Especially in terms of trying to reproduce the historical ballistics.
Great video, very informative and well produced accept for the microphone.
That was several years ago. The audio was terrible on my old videos. I have much better microphone now!
Very informative!
The reproduction are less accurate than the originals because they have a HUGE free bore, much bigger than on originals ones.
This is a issue the first Sharps 1874 and Winchester 1892 produced by Armi Sport have faced too, but was fixed later for them.
I constated this huge free bore on a Spencer from Armi Sport side by side with an original but this was 15 years ago.
I really hope they fixed it now, but i don't think so.
I'm was a member of the cast bullet association and the large free bore has a huge effect on accuracy ,especially with unjacketed lead boolits. I always chamber cast and slug the barrel of a gun I want to dial in with cast boolits.
The only birgade armed with the spencer that I'm aware of was "Wilders lightning Birgade" western theater...At Hoover gap, and actions at Chickamauga, the spencer rifles massed had overwhelming effect on confederate troops...at ranges under 300 yds...Keeping in mind that troops advancing at the double can travel 200 yds in just over 1 minute on good level ground... less than 2 minute even in broken ground.. depending on terrain with the springfeild you'd get at best maybe 4, likely less aimed shots... with the Spencer perhaps 14 most certainly 10...And stopped Hoods Texans cold...yes, individual regiment's made good use of the Spencer... But on must wonder what it effect could have been systematically applied...
Wilder was unique because his men were mounted infantry, and were armed through their own action, both Halleck and Stanton refusing to offer Rosecrans (Wilder's C.O.) repeating arms even after he repeatedly asked for them. So Wilder, with Rosecrans' approval, sought them on his own, and purchased them because he could get enough Spencers for his brigade. Rosecrans was severely underequipped with cavalry, despite having to face the likes of Forrest, Wheeler, and Morgan in his field of command at various times. So Wilder's brigade was one attempt to counteract that discrepancy. However Wilder's brigade was not the only one armed with Spencers. They were used throughout the cavalry (mainly the carbine, but occasionaly the long rifle) in both the east and west from mid 1863 onward.
FYI, all, the 4 companies that comprised the 1st Battalion Ohio SHARPSHOOTERS were equipped with SPENCERS. The Ohio SHARPSHOOTERS used their SPENCERS to great effect. Particularly at the Battle of Chickamauga, as they provided the defensive cover that permitted General Rosecrans’s safe escape to Chattanooga. Under heavy rebel Confederate assault, a contingent of the Ohio SHARPSHOOTERS safely escorted commanding General George H. Thomas to Horseshoe Ridge/Snodgrass Hill where they and the 88th Ohio Infantry equipped with the COLT Revolving Rifle, repulsed repeated charges by the division commanded by rebel Confederate General Bushrod Johnson. That combat action permitted 60,000+ U.S. troops to safely escape north to Chattanooga, TN. Additionally, a contingent of the 1st Battalion Ohio SHSRPSHOOTERS were ordered defend the makeshift hospital at Chickamauga where the wounded were being treated as well as defending Crawfish Spring, the only supply of WATER. As the rebel Confederates overran and overwhelmed much of the U.S. forces, the Ohio SHARPSHOOTERS were commanded to retreat from headquarters at the widow Glenn House to line both sides of Crawfish Spring Rd., permitting the safe escape of 60,000 I.S. troops north to Chattanooga. 🫶🏻🇺🇸🫡 🤨
The original Spencer round held 45 grains of powder and shot a 350 grain bullet. The original load reached 1,300 Feet Per. Second. This cannot be achieved with the new 56-50 brass due to the thicker base of the new brass. I will not mention the actual load; but using 2400 smokeless powder I can achieve the proper 1,300 feet per second. In my youth I hit human size targets all the time at 300 yards; and often at 500 yards. I have shot Spencer's sense the Mid 1970's.
You make me feel better about my reloads! I tried to make three rounds a minute but I’m about 35-40 seconds per reload so I’m a minute and a half for three rounds though I’m grabbing off a table as I don’t have a cartridge case or a cap box.
The men of The lightning brigade, western theater, EARLY users of the Spencer Rifle, not the carbine. reported reliable hits at 300 yrds...Colonel Wilders Spencer is on display at the
Chickamauga Battlefield visitor center, note the sights as opposed the reproductions available... Custers Michigan brigade (cavalry) found the carbine Spencer VERY usable at 200t
to 250 yards...Note both unit commanders and their troops felt the Spencer gave them a real edge in combat...
It's not possible to duplicate the load that was used back then with modern brass. There's less case capacity so you can fit less powder, which means a lower velocity.
I saw a video of a guy shooting a Spencer at fairly long range and he was cleaning up, he had his dialed in.
I thought the boot explanation was very worth while. I had been wondering how loading on the battlefield would have worked as loading mine I am always fumbling, but now it all makes sense. However is there a cavalry model 1 band method of loading that is out there? Since the carbine is shorter
It may have helped that the carbine was hanging from a shoulder strap, leaving both hands free to manipulate ammo.
I noticed that your Spencer rifle is a lot less fiddly and clunky compared to Ian's and Karl's of InrangeTV, the smoothness almost equaling that of a Henry/Winchester. Their replica seems to lack extraction powers, the spent cases often landing back om the breech, while yours seem to hurl it away quite adequately. Any thoughts on why that might be the case?
While not historically correct, the Blakesley Box works brilliantly for 1860 Henry's.
This is the first time i see a full length infantry spencer, i though there were carbines only during the civil war
I was buzzing with excitement the whole video. Maybe your mic too? Well done gents! Science!
Brett, this is information from InRangeTV. I've learned that the Williams Cleaner bullet was cleaner than the Burton bullet not actually a bullet that cleans. Of course it would scrape off a little bit of fouling, but according to Karl in InRange, the effect was not major. Therefore, the cleaning effect was more of a misunderstanding of the word "cleaner". Isn't this true?
Very good video Brett, Of course I’m curious where you were shooting because it certainly wasn’t Gettysburg. It looked more like California’s Mojave desert/Joshua Tree area. I did a very similar test with my ‘53 Enfield at a range near Thurmont, MD in the late 1980s/early 1990s during my reenacting years with also very similar results (although untimed). Well done. Tom KC3QAC
That was CA high desert north of Victorville. Great place to shoot long distance! It's one of the few things I miss about CA...
Not sure why 1F powder? Maybe an Audio-Typo? Not sure 1F would burn correctly.
I use 3 F for my Henry rounds I make and purchase. 200 grain bullet.
4 boards is actually 6", Each board is 1-1/2" thick. Yes, Douglas Fir is denser than White Pine.
It seems to me that the Spencer would make a good weapon for the sergeants, kind of like how they used to carry halberds instead of muskets.
I’d love a comparison of the 53 Enfield with a Pritchett ball, 61 or 55 Springfield using the minie and the Lorenz using the compression bullet. I have a 61 Springfield and type 2 54 Lorenz and I prefer the Lorenz with the compression bullet.
Pillar-breaches are rare here in the UK (well, I've never seen one and I've been shooting fore 15ish years). How much of a whack do you have to give the bullet to compress it? Also, how do you work out the load? Too much and you cover up the pillar, too little and you create an air gap.
37 years between the Spencer and the SMLE
Now you need to use the sharpe rifle for a happy medium.
Did they not consider adding 10 to 20 percent Spencer's to a unit. Much like a light machine gun in a rifle squad. Firepower to stop charges and the cheapness and range of the rifled muskets.
Then there would be supply issues. You might not think so, thinking in todays mind, but back then, ammo resupply was different and could be complicated. Some regiments already had a variety of different caliber weapons, so it could be that some soldiers received no ammunition, for their guns.
Are Blakeslee Boxes reproductions still around? I'm curious about sourcing one and I can't find much on the internet about them.
They are occasionally done as limited runs. But they aren’t easy to find, you need to keep an eye out and snatch them up when they appear.
Size lyman old style down to .574? They really come out .580 around 500 grain out of lyman 575213-OS, even tho box says .575 460 grain. My 1861 bore is .580 I size them to .578.
I guess that loading a powder bag down the bore and ramming it and then ramming a minie is not safe as would attaching the powder bag to the base of the minie? Hence the reason they poured powder down the bore so that if there was an ember it would not have the rod or a minie in the bore with your hand in harms way? I am not sure just guessing.
Why didn't the Union Army equip more rifle squads with the 1860 Henry Lever Action rifle which could hold many more rounds than the Spenser rifle? Henry rifles cost $50 back then.
I think you just answered your own question; it cost $50 back then, which was 3 months pay for a Union private. Its also more expensive compared to the Spencer ($40) and obviously the 1861 Springfield ($15).
Is 1-F black powder the most accurate modern powder to reflect what was being used during the civil war?
In a very broad sense, yes. In tests, the Ordnance Department found that large grain musket powder worked best in the 58-cal rifle musket, instead of the finer rifle powder used in the 1841 Mississippi. Similarly, the English used a Rifle Fine Grain powder of grains larger than 12-mesh and smaller than 20-mesh. This is approximately a mix of modern 1F and 2F. I do not recommend mixing powders, and I use 1F in all my rifle-muskets. Keep in mind, this is with the service charges; 1F will probably not give you very good results with reduced charges, if you're trying to get good short range bench rest accuracy.
Paper Cartridges thank you so much. I’ll keep this in mind. I don’t shoot but a handful of rounds a year but I’ll look into getting 1F for accuracy sake. I’ll also probably purchase some of your ‘reenactor rounds’ for the same purpose. I don’t know if you remember but you suggested to me years ago using model railroad coal as an inert replacement to accurately simulate gunpowder. I’m to the point in my LH career where I’m learning more about cartridges and will start attempting to construct arsenal packs. Do you have a suggestion on what type/brand of model coal to get to represent 1-F powder?
Interesting video. Learned something. Does anyone know exactly why the Spencer was/ is so inaccurate? Was it just poor quality of the rifling of the barrel, bullet design?
The rifle was good quality, but the issue was the short, stubby bullet. Ballistics of short stubby bullets are very poor at long range. For accurate shooting at longer ranges you need a longer bullet with a better ballistic coefficient.
I would like to see a comparison of the Spencer rifle with the British Martini-Henry of the Zulu Wars.
As I'm watching this video, about 29mins in. I'm wondering how things would have panned out on the battle field if General Ripley would have utilized repeating rifles for 5%-10% of a regiment. You would then get the effective range from the Springfield and the rate of fire from the repeating rifle (Spencer). This leads into more of a squad based tactic that would later be developed, but makes you wonder how this would have changed the outcome of some of the battles of the Civil War and later.
do the same for the Springfield 1873 Carbine and the Winchester and/or Henry repeaters.
Did the Spencer ever evolve to hammer-cocking when levering in a round?
No, they sadly never had the chance. Within a few years after the end of the ACW the US government dumped their tens of thousands of surplus Spencers into the civilian and foreign military market. This pretty much killed any opportunity for new business for the Spencer company, and it soon went belly up.
Douglas fir is actually a hardwood. So it is much more dense than White Pine.
If Chris wouldn’t flinch so hard he might be able to hit something.
What powder brand are y’all using
I don’t remember what I used then, but today I use almost exclusively Swiss brand powder
Same reason the US Army airforce put carburettors on its aircraft instead of fuel injection (which was better, more fuel efficient and held a tune better), because the changeover was expensive, required retraining, rendered obsolete or necessitated parallel supply, when they knew they would win anyway.
The Spencer is actually amazing, imagine if had been further developed.
“What were you smoking” 😂😂 In respect of Chris’s safety and loading procedures, is the firing pin floating? If not then levering a round into the chamber might fire a round with the hammer down. Please forgive my ignorance.
Those speed loaders worked well on the Spencer. How about putting the trapdoor Springfield against a Snider?
My money would be on the Springfield since it has a extractor, while the snider has to be manually extracted. I don’t have a trapdoor so I’d have to borrow one…
@@papercartridges6705 The Snider I saw would extract but not eject. You have to tip the rifle to drop the case. The Martini Henry was superior to the Trapdoor in my opinion. The SMLE was a great battle Rifle. I have a 1952 Ishapore number I MKIII that is just as fast and smooth as when it was built.
It is odd that after the Civil War the US Army discontinued the use of the Spencer and continued with a single-shot for another 40 years with the trap-door rifles,
Military minds of the time were very leary about repeaters and the wasting of ammunition. Post war, out west, whatever amount of ammo you had was it and possible for a long time, so making your shots count was important. Also, post war western soldiers were not provided with much marksmanship training, if any at all, because of ammunition constraints.
@@jason60chev I wonder if Custer regretted those single-shot rifles?
@@Purvis-dw4qf The 1873 Springfield is what the Army adopted. I don't think Custer could do anything about that, except for maybe arm his men with Henrys, 1866 or even new '73 Winchesters, at his own expense. He left behind a couple of Gatling guns that were offered to him.. The ammo of the time used copper cases, which did not rebound in the chamber after firing, like brass does. There are documented incidents of the extractor of the rifles breaking, because cases were stuck in the chambers, then the soldier having to pry them out with knife tips.
@@jason60chev I understand Custer did not select the weapons but he did turn down a Gatlin gun.
Wasn't the Girandoni Air Rifle the first magazine fed repeating rifle to be adopted by a military? The Austrians used them for about 10-20 years after they adopted the rifle in 1780.
WHEN YOU BUY THAT NEW MIC GET A DEAD CAT FOR IT
21 st. Ohio at Snodgrass hill, Chickamauga. Colt revolving rifle.
88th Ohio Infantry were completely equipped with the COLT Revolving Rifle. They used them to great effect defending Snodgrass Hill/Horseshoe Ridge at the close of the Battle of Chickamauga.
@@bradleyhajost7161 Wasn't the 21 st. Ohio ?
Seems to me rifled muskets with rainbow trajectories are best suited to highly trained sharpshooters, not poorly trained conscripts. Likewise, keeping the Spencer's running in adverse conditions was not a job for poorly trained conscripts as they would start jamming in prolonged engagements. The Springfield 1842 smoothbore musket loaded with 'buck and ball' was likely best for general issue use by poorly trained troops, while the Sharps 1859 rifle was likely best for highly trained sharpshooters.
Yep, I agree with you. For the Civil War, buck and ball would have been perfectly suitable for 90% of units.
The soldier with a Spencer would neither stand-and-deliver nor stand-in-any-way. They would crouch down, preferably behind something like a tree, log, or fence. Once the firing started, they would move swiftly closer, knowing that they had an excellent chance--even against many opposing men--of moving up 'between the Confederates' shots. By the time the fighting around St Petersburg emerged from the stalemate (because of the Spencer's--nothing else had changed; the same Generals, the same tactics, the same everything) the Union soldiers would have known to run, duck, and shoot. Once they got close, the number of rounds per second--not the numbers of soldiers, but rounds per second--would have been overwhelming. (I also wonder if the number of Southern desertions would have increased because of the deadliness of the Spencer's. Desertion statistics are probably the most inaccurate of any numbers kept in the War. Probably many, many Southeners deserted without any notice to save their honor.)
careful when leaving a new round . I have had a round go off with the hammer in the down position Allways charge a new round with the hammer at halfcock
HUZZAH
Edit: 21:17 Lol would have been interesting to put in vocal only foley here
Edit 2: 31:38 Just noticed the box filled with 303 there; maybe a video on that soon?
Edit 3: 47:01 Oh wait jk
Well keep in mind modern reproductions of Spencer rifles are far less accurate than period rifles likely were
Well done boys! Shooting into the sun doesn’t help any either. 🤷♂️👍
We have to shoot in the early morning... otherwise way too dang hot to wear wool!
The long range stuff with muskets is contradicted by WWI and WWII data the vast majority of ground combat occurred within 300 yards or so. That’s with MUCH better rifles/assault weapons (MP-44), and better trained soldiers.
Nobody knew that though and even the M-14 and FAL in the late 40s, early 50s, after the whole WWII experience, they were STILL expecting infantry to have to engage targets 300+ meters.
It’s easy to sit in the 21st century, look back, and call them stupid.
We are so far behind the curve with autonomous vehicles and drones now, in 150 years they’re going to laugh at us. “Geez they thought tanks were still a good idea in 2024! What idiots!”
The rifle was proven effective in the American revolution war far before any Crimean war. Most of general Green's men had rifles, and put the British to shame on Kings mountain.
you start with musket loaded
Test 1 ..Spencer wins...... 4 out of 10 in 1 minute 18 seconds gives enough time to reload another 2 .. 3 times if your good.. equaling 8 to 12 more traitors to drop plus the 4 rebs on the 1st magazine. for maximum 16 enemy soldiers shot ..... as long as ranges were tmat rge average engagement distances... i believe that closing the distances between the longer rages the rebs could began shooting .... that distances can be closed quickly
Why doesn’t your 1861 Springfield have a clean out screw and a nipple bolster. Have you cheated and used an 1863 Springfield.
Eh? It has the clean out screw, what are you talking about? You can even see it in the thumbnail for the video.
California? I can buy 44/40 ammo and no “license” is required. Since 2020, new law. One pay $1 each time you buy ammo to be recorded you bought ammo and type… they ask for ID. Like a micro background check. Painless… no worries.😮
What happens if confederates had two MG-42 machine guns in Gatlinburg battle field.
Great video guys i thought you would have tested the British armys first mag fed rifle the Lee Metford issued in 1888 with an 8 or 10 round mag rather than the Lee Enfield nit picking i know! Great video none the less thanks guys!
I’ve been looking for a real Lee Metford with original Metford rifling with a good bore for 10+ years. And have not found one.
This video shows the crap-shoot nature of Italian repro quality more than the performance of civil war Spencer’s.
A friend has an original Spencer that he has converted centerfire and has got running smoothly, with a very nice bore. I should do this comparison over again with the original. One insurmountable problem is the case volume, since the original Rimfire cases held more powder, and gave a good bit better ballistic performance than the modern boxer primed centerfire cases we have to use today. Somebody needs to produce the original Rimfire cases…
whats more annoying than the microphone is the gum chewing and breathing in the microphone😐🤦♀️
You definitely don’t need any license to buy 56-56 rimfire in CA!!! You need a background check cavity search and to to consent to be spit on by any available children or old woman…. However where the hell does all this license nonsense come from???
Spend some money on a set of good microphones. Every video you make, I can barely hear you - partly because you don't look at the microphone in action. You look down, around, etc - stop it.
Vietcong used Spencer rifles to drop choppers and bombers out of the sky over Poo Tang.