Another fun fact: the saying" the whole 9 yards" come from the fact that how ammo you could put in the ammo bays of the RAF spitfire. It also has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS VID!
And another fun fact... The officer who supplied the later troops (in ww 1 or 2) with cars and trucks, GENERAL MOTORS, has nothing to do with this video either. (Sorry but I couldn't resist)
He was also passing friends with two great generals who've been in virtually every war you can name: The Right Honorable General Mergatroid J. Disorder, and his cousin, Brigadier General John Jacob Jingleheimer Miscommunication III. They pop up every time the military tries to do... basically anything, really.
I would like to say I am so very glad your volume is always the same, your sound quality is superb and your editing makes watching always entertaining. Much appreciated, seldom mentioned :)
For me it's the piecemeal array of small arms, they ways they acquired those arms (blockade running, homegrown crude manufacturing, and smuggling across the Mexican border from French forces) plus the customizations individuals and units made along the way. It makes logistics an absolute nightmare but it makes for a lot of interesting footnotes in books, wikis, and videos.
Indeed the prusso-francian war and subsequent unification from the top, in the context of the failed 1848 bourgeois revolution, came a few years later.
only real kings know that the Franco-Prussian war led to the development of the bicycle industry in Coventry, Birmingham and Sheffield, setting the gears in motion for bicycle rise as a popular vehicle in Britain and beyond
It's kind of irritating how history books refer to people who came from for principalities that would become Germany as just German. While at the same time people of northern Britain will f****** rage if you refer to them as British
@@christianweibrecht6555 I have friends from Argentina whose families emigrated from Swabia during the late 1920s (he was born in Argentina, the family went back to Germany when he was very young, then back to Argentina around 1930; all his uncles and cousins who stayed in Germany ended up on the East Front, and none survived), he, at least, tends to refer to German relatives as being from whichever state they're from. Maybe it's just him/his family.
That's the easiest way of adjusting for inflation but there were a few gold rushes around that time and gold is now used in electronics as well as jewellery. So it's probably quite a bit less than $3200 but still expensive.
Beautiful carbine. By the way Ian, are you planning to review the Astra A-60 .380 caliber auto pistol, in Spain 9 corto? It had a low production and is well known for its quality, ammunition capacity and performance. I've been looking for information about the model on the web and there is very little information about it. Greetings from Spain, a country where you have a large number of followers who appreciate your interest in our weapons and your efforts to speak more than correct Spanish.
He's repeatedly said that he will do a video on _every_ firearm if he has the chance. When depends on how notable it is and how available it is to him. As to information, though, I think his other videos on Astra pistols mention a book he used, and he may have even done a book review (see that playlist on his channel) on it.
Ian put into two sentences, the argument historians make as to why the south never stood a chance to win the civil war in the first place. Also, the argument why it was the first "modern" war, won by industrial production capabilities and logistics, and why all the big European powers were watching it like hawks...
It’s sad how they watched like hawks and then literally forgot everything they saw in the the next few wars.. Although that might be also partially due to generational gap and how quickly zeitgeist changes and not entirely negligence..
If you look at a lot of the modern historiography they will argue the South actually had the advantage during the war. While the North did have the manpower and industrial advantage, that isnt everything or the US would have won in Vietnam too. The South did not need to win, they could fight to a draw. This meant the North had to attack, and they had to conquer an area the size of several European nations while the South had the advantage of fighting on the strategic defensive. In battles like Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, and Harper's Ferry we see how effective static defences could be at this time, abd fighting on the defensive and choosing where to fight your battles the Confederacy could have fought the entire war this war. But they didn't, and lost because of this, not because they never stood a chance in the first place.
@@DTOStudios Well there's also the devaluation of american cotton to consider & of which the British declined to intervene. The initial Japanese strategy of attrition is all well & good until at some point it becomes completely moot due to all the "factors" involved
@@blakexu4943 Devaluation of American Cotton? Um.. What? The American South were pretty much the sole supplier of the entire world's cotton. Once they got blockaded cotton prices rose by a factor of more than 10. Looking at the pre-war value for the metal, an ounce of silver was the equivalent of just 1 lb of mid-war cotton. That means a standard 500 lb bale of cotton was worth 31.25 lbs of pre-war silver or put in a slightly more relatable way, that 1 bale of cotton could buy you 21,000 lbs of flour. Sure the British weren't directly willing to intervene on the side of the South but there were plenty of economic concerns who were willing to do just about anything in exchange for the insanely valuable cotton. The warships CSS Alabama, CSS Florida, and CSS Shenandoah were all built in Britain for the South despite Britain having laws directly forbidding the building of warships for warring parties. You also have to consider that at the time there was already an established abolitionist movement in control of the British government as well. By the time of the US Civil War, the Africa Squadron had been interdicting the slave trade for 50 years. There really was no way that the British government was going to directly support the slavery side in a war resulting from the question of the existence of slavery. Before someone corrects this, I know that Lincoln wasn't originally planning on freeing the slaves, but one of the South's primary reasons for their succession was the belief that the North's majority control of the government would result in the loss of their slaves.
Confederate arms are always interesting. With a bit more attention to detail, a fully case hardened lock, and a good simple 2-position flip sight for 100 and 200 yards, that would have been a pretty effective carbine. I wonder about the service life of an iron barrel vs a mild steel one. Any engineers or metallurgy experts out there? Great video as always. Thank you
As a conf civil war reeanactor its always amazing to see confederate weapons that people have never of I use this kind of weapon for my re-enactments excellent video!
Hay I do Union are there a lot of guy reluctant to go out and reenact the gray these days My group was discussing this in one of the few times we got to go out this year
@@LordEvan5 Back in the eighties we in the South saw so many Confederate reenactors that many had to pack extra uniforms to fill Union ranks. I couldn’t hang with the local NSSA unit , unfortunately.
is it possible to do a video on the drip rifle that the ANZAC's used during the evacuation of Gallipoli? even if its just one of your video's explaining who came up with it how it worked, how it was implemented and if it was successful or not? i think it would be a very interesting video about something that is not really known about by many people and is definitely "forgotten"
I wonder if the trigger guard has been removed and re-installed backwards? The rings are at the front/forward facing position on the guns I am familiar with.
It's interesting that they case hardened not just the tumbler, but the bridle and the sear too. I'm not sure about the hammer, but the way its chipped at the lip, I'd bet they hardened that too. Wrought iron has a fiberous structure. While steel has a grain structure. If you case harden the hammer, you're putting a skin of steel around the piece of iron. The iron gives it toughness while the steel case gives it hardness, resulting in little chips around the lip instead of deformation of the hammer itself. By the way, I'm a blacksmith who makes flintlock and percussion firearms. Have a good day all.
I'm curious, what _was_ the best candidate for a quality firearm that could be made in large numbers by the Confederacy? Like, if they had found a way to consolidate on one rifle, what _should_ it have been?
I was always wanting to find out more about why the company regressed from their very interesting breach-loading carbine to the later muzzle-loader. Never thought about pricing issues for the armaments issues facing the confederate states at the time, though I've never been much into financing. Was very much hoping to see a breach-loading model on this channel as my second favorite carbine model after the morse. Though considering these things are as rare dinosaur turds, I'm more than happy to see its little brother find the spotlight at last.
The carbine you are talking about in the beginning, the breach loader that is. Do you have any more information about it for me? I inherited a cavalry carbine from my grandma, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is, and it sounds quite similar to what yoy described...
Curious about the other numbers on the lock, looks like 88 with another character of some sort above or below. It looks like there is an 8 on the sear, so more assembly numbers?
hey ian, i was wondering if a modern smokeless powder breech loading percussion firearm would be viable in this time. purely as a target fun gun of course. i was thinking of a 'volcanic' kind of cartridge in the shape of an airgun pellet but with the need of an extra percussion cap
Ian, you failed to mention the OTHER numbers on the lock plate (visible at the far right of image at 8:09, and already noted in comments). Do you know what these may indicate ?
South had to use things like that while the North had Winchester and Spencer multi shot repeating rifles. Technological difference between the two sides was huge to say the least.
the number of henry' guns used was minimal And spences did not show up in any real number until 1864... and then usually i the hands of Cavalry. The main infantry firearms for both sides during the first half of the war was imports from Europe. Both modern Enfields and modern (but used) Lorenze's. And a lot of old, well used smoothbores, that was uprifled before shipment. For the later part of the war US made "springfields" and the british enfields was the typical rifle musket used by both sides. (they where very good at giving each other guns. Most of Grants men had old smoothbroes until the capture of Vicksburg. where they rearmed themselves with modern Enfields that was captured)
Very interesting information about the weapon and the efforts of the Confederacy to arm itself. But it perpetuates the myth that the South was industrially primitive. Indeed, in 1861 the CSA had the third largest number of railroad mileage of any nation on earth. Even though it had less than half the mileage of the Northern states, it led slightly in per capita mileage. I haven't looked into it closely, but I suspect that (except, perhaps, for mining) the Confederacy was more industrialized than any nation outside of Europe except for the US. Yes, the Confederacy was predominantly agrarian but it was well on its way to industrialization before the destruction of the War and subsequent economic policies and practices (think railroad differentials and the limitation of the high quality coal needed for manufacturing) strangled development.
And yet they weren’t able to manufacture anywhere near the amount of materials they needed. Hell they didn’t even have a single facility for making cannons. Railroad mileage was far far far behind the north. The Confederacy was an agrarian society, not an industrialized one.
@@baneofbanes The Tredegar Works produced about 1,100 pieces of artillery, www.nps.gov/articles/tredegar-iron-works-ironmaker-to-the-confederacy.htm#:~:text=Tredegar%20proved%20invaluable%20to%20the,plating%20for%20Confederate%20naval%20gunboats.. A little research will find that other foundries produced smaller quantities. It was not enough but not bad for an agrarian society.
@@baneofbanes This is the third time I've tried to reply to your comment. This time I'll try without including links. The Tredegar Works in Richmond produced some 1,100 artillery pieces during the War. A Google search will find other Southern foundries producing small quantities. It wasn't enough but it was pretty good for an agrarian society.
@@mohammedimran3670 I don't think they used wrought iron on small arms.they did use it on cannons because of pressure.thats some civil war cannon you see have a band around the breech.wrought iron would have taken too long to process for small arms
I find it weird very few if any American troops used needle rifles during this war, I believe they would have been a great middle ground between muskets and advanced rifles
I find it a tragedy the the Union did produce more Henry rifles during the war and issue them to their states regiments, instead of staying with the muzzle loading springfields and Enfield’s.
You know what's hard? Waking up in the UK knowing that nothing awaits me other than life as a corporate drone until lunchtime when Gun Jesus reminds me that I'm not the only Briton to enjoy firearms.
@@itsmannertime the war wasn’t over slavery though. The Morrill Tariff act of 1861 (passed) and the Corwin Amendment was approved on March 2nd, 1861. The Corwin Amendment reads “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State” This is proof the “Civil War” was about taxation (and economic differences) over the freeing of slaves. Abraham Lincoln approved of this amendment and rather have made more profit than freeing slaves. (Source: The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861-1865 Book by Barbara Long and E. Long) Lincoln showed his support for the amendment and stated “Holding such a provision [the legality of slavery] to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe. By Thomas J. Dilorenzo) The preliminary emancipation proclamation also gave the CSA the chance to join back into the union and keep their slaves (100 days before the emancipation proclamation). The introduction of the 13th amendment also didn’t necessarily guarantee slave freedom. If the Southern states joined back even as late as months before the war ended, they could’ve stopped the passing of the 13th amendment. Lincoln even knew this and acknowledged that possibility.
@@factsoftheconfederacy7151 I recommend reading "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles Dew, it's an excellent book full of primary sources that show the war was very much about preserving slavery and white supremacy. It is true that Lincoln at one point was open to letting the slave states back into the union even without getting rid of slavery but that does not mean the war was not about slavery. The slave system was not going to be allowed to expand to the west, the republican party was going to choke slavery out eventually and there were a lot of people in the north who wanted to straight up abolish it and did not agree with Lincoln's slow approach. The reason the slavers didn't take Lincoln's deal is that they knew this. They knew forming an independent slavocracy was their only hope for preserving slavery, and they talked about using the war to preserve racial hierarchy openly. The idea it was not about slavery came about strongly well after the war ended and is again being discarded as historians look at the topic honestly
It is noted in the science of politologs, that those usually are the wealthiest and most developed provinces, who try to break free and start separatist movements, which makes sense, as: 1) to them it feels like the rest of a country is a burden, that keeps holding them back; 2) if you don't have resources and influence, any attempt to break away might fail. CSA was a failure at both of these, yet they were dumb enough to start the conflict themselves, which is sort of hilarious.
There was a strong feeling of the second American revolution in the south, and that war was fought in a similar situation. Helps to explain the reasoning for attempting to win a impossible war
@Graf von Losinj To an extent, but remember the original symbol of the united States was the Phoenix, not the Eagle. If you understand that, you will find a lot of the reasons why all this happened as it did.
Considering that at that time in Europe we already had percussion needle rifles with first type of cartrdige though i think only paper this is amazingly crude as you say. :D I mean the French Army had better rifles than the Prussian Army, too. That however was not much use to them because of low morale and cohesion and bad drill. Cheers. :)
Ever since I started reading books about the civil war I've been wandering why were the overwhelming majority of American troops equipped with muskets when needle rifles existed ,already proven to be superior ,and we're not insanely expensive
@@christianweibrecht6555 Expensive is a relative word. Per unit not so much. But considering both the Union and the Confederates would have had to either buy manufacturing rights or individual rifles then ship them from European powers..Not so much. Plus there is the psychological aspect to consider. American rifles for American soldiers and all that.
@@clothar23 For the first half of the war, both sides used more imported European firearms than American made firearms. Not until 1864 do the US made "springfield" start to be the standard firearm for both sides... with the Enfield the other one.
@@thomasbaagaard Yes but a muzzle loading musket is still going to be cheaper than a needle firing rifle even if both are coming from Europe. And while the difference isn't likely that substantial per rifle the fact the was a difference matters. Especially when you're both buying in bulk and rapidly trying to arm a military force.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact: Theodor Bilharz, the Badish physician who discovered the schistosomiasis parasite in the 1850s, had nothing to do with this carbine.
Another fun fact: Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik (BASF) had nothing to do with this carbine either.
I haven’t heard the word schistosomiasis since my parasitology lectures with Dr Henk Braig in 2016
Another fun fact: the saying" the whole 9 yards" come from the fact that how ammo you could put in the ammo bays of the RAF spitfire. It also has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS VID!
@@robertgriffin662 The phrase predates WW1 never mind WW2. First used in January 30, 1855.
And another fun fact...
The officer who supplied the later troops (in ww 1 or 2) with cars and trucks, GENERAL MOTORS, has nothing to do with this video either. (Sorry but I couldn't resist)
Major Downer? Seriously?! He sounds like a happy chap.
It was Captain Happy you had to watch out for, ornery old bastard that he was.
And of course there's the softest guy on base, Corporal Punishment
Don´t forget their pedantic boss: General Chaos.
Major Asshole is a actually a nice guy.
Are they all outranked by General Disarray?
Arms inspector was like "this is junk, I'll take every one you can make!"
When your options are junk guns or no guns at all, it's a pretty obvious choice.
Confederate rifles go from "crude hunks of junk" to "Literal record setting marksman rifles" There is no in-between.
The Whitworth rifle was an import, so I don't think it's fair to lump the domestic stuff in with it.
@@sauv01 Very true, but an impressive range of weapons fielded nonetheless.
most of their good guns are foriegn made accept for the morse
and cs richmond
@@Cristian-nn5jj The Whitwort wasn’t issued by the Confederacy, it was a privately owned weapon.
Wasnt Major Downer the adjutant of General Depression?
👍
He had a cousin in the navy, Admiral Failure
@J H you forgot their manservant, corporal punishment.
He was also passing friends with two great generals who've been in virtually every war you can name:
The Right Honorable General Mergatroid J. Disorder, and his cousin, Brigadier General John Jacob Jingleheimer Miscommunication III.
They pop up every time the military tries to do... basically anything, really.
didnt he have a wife named Nancy and her maiden name was Negative?
I would like to say I am so very glad your volume is always the same, your sound quality is superb and your editing makes watching always entertaining. Much appreciated, seldom mentioned :)
Something about confederate arms are so interesting. Maybe its because it was harder to manufacture.
Yeah I understand what you mean
For me it's the piecemeal array of small arms, they ways they acquired those arms (blockade running, homegrown crude manufacturing, and smuggling across the Mexican border from French forces) plus the customizations individuals and units made along the way. It makes logistics an absolute nightmare but it makes for a lot of interesting footnotes in books, wikis, and videos.
@@hendriktonisson2915 The Confederate's crudeness in firearms are very interesting.
@@presidentlouis-napoleonbon8889 True
Major Downer, father of Deborah.
I am slayed.
I've recently read about this carbine and the Hall company in an Osprey Publishing book. Very pleasing to see an additional video of Ian.
Wow you got to disassemble a weapon to this extent . . . brilliant. I stand in awe.
Awesome, love the Confederate carbine reviews.
Beautiful camera work! Thanks!
"It was not Germany at the time". Gun Jesus is a well educated man of culture. How many people are aware of that history tidbit?
Indeed the prusso-francian war and subsequent unification from the top, in the context of the failed 1848 bourgeois revolution, came a few years later.
only real kings know that the Franco-Prussian war led to the development of the bicycle industry in Coventry, Birmingham and Sheffield, setting the gears in motion for bicycle rise as a popular vehicle in Britain and beyond
As a german, i know this !
It's kind of irritating how history books refer to people who came from for principalities that would become Germany as just German.
While at the same time people of northern Britain will f****** rage if you refer to them as British
@@christianweibrecht6555 I have friends from Argentina whose families emigrated from Swabia during the late 1920s (he was born in Argentina, the family went back to Germany when he was very young, then back to Argentina around 1930; all his uncles and cousins who stayed in Germany ended up on the East Front, and none survived), he, at least, tends to refer to German relatives as being from whichever state they're from. Maybe it's just him/his family.
$45 in 1860 is about $3200 today, going off the price of gold.
The one inflation calculator I could find that would let me go back to 1860 gave me a value of $1,409.19
That's the easiest way of adjusting for inflation but there were a few gold rushes around that time and gold is now used in electronics as well as jewellery. So it's probably quite a bit less than $3200 but still expensive.
Keep in mind the Confederacy issued its own currency, a Confederate Dollar was worth less than a US Dollar.
@@Hawk1966 honestly, gold seems to work better for inflation before the 1930s. Gold was $20 an ounce from the founding of the US till 1933, IIRC.
45 CONFEDERATE dollars, which in 1863 was about 6 cents in gold due to the hyperinflation, making it more like $200 per gun.
The alliterarion in the title truly tantalizes!
Beautiful carbine.
By the way Ian, are you planning to review the Astra A-60 .380 caliber auto pistol, in Spain 9 corto?
It had a low production and is well known for its quality, ammunition capacity and performance.
I've been looking for information about the model on the web and there is very little information about it.
Greetings from Spain, a country where you have a large number of followers who appreciate your interest in our weapons and your efforts to speak more than correct Spanish.
He's repeatedly said that he will do a video on _every_ firearm if he has the chance. When depends on how notable it is and how available it is to him.
As to information, though, I think his other videos on Astra pistols mention a book he used, and he may have even done a book review (see that playlist on his channel) on it.
Crude, yet cool & cute little carbine! As always, I love the historical background you provide in your videos!
Thanks for all the fresh content Ian.
Ian put into two sentences, the argument historians make as to why the south never stood a chance to win the civil war in the first place.
Also, the argument why it was the first "modern" war, won by industrial production capabilities and logistics, and why all the big European powers were watching it like hawks...
I suppose if they were a narco state they might have had a snails chance.
It’s sad how they watched like hawks and then literally forgot everything they saw in the the next few wars..
Although that might be also partially due to generational gap and how quickly zeitgeist changes and not entirely negligence..
If you look at a lot of the modern historiography they will argue the South actually had the advantage during the war. While the North did have the manpower and industrial advantage, that isnt everything or the US would have won in Vietnam too. The South did not need to win, they could fight to a draw. This meant the North had to attack, and they had to conquer an area the size of several European nations while the South had the advantage of fighting on the strategic defensive. In battles like Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, and Harper's Ferry we see how effective static defences could be at this time, abd fighting on the defensive and choosing where to fight your battles the Confederacy could have fought the entire war this war. But they didn't, and lost because of this, not because they never stood a chance in the first place.
@@DTOStudios Well there's also the devaluation of american cotton to consider & of which the British declined to intervene. The initial Japanese strategy of attrition is all well & good until at some point it becomes completely moot due to all the "factors" involved
@@blakexu4943 Devaluation of American Cotton? Um.. What? The American South were pretty much the sole supplier of the entire world's cotton. Once they got blockaded cotton prices rose by a factor of more than 10. Looking at the pre-war value for the metal, an ounce of silver was the equivalent of just 1 lb of mid-war cotton. That means a standard 500 lb bale of cotton was worth 31.25 lbs of pre-war silver or put in a slightly more relatable way, that 1 bale of cotton could buy you 21,000 lbs of flour. Sure the British weren't directly willing to intervene on the side of the South but there were plenty of economic concerns who were willing to do just about anything in exchange for the insanely valuable cotton. The warships CSS Alabama, CSS Florida, and CSS Shenandoah were all built in Britain for the South despite Britain having laws directly forbidding the building of warships for warring parties. You also have to consider that at the time there was already an established abolitionist movement in control of the British government as well. By the time of the US Civil War, the Africa Squadron had been interdicting the slave trade for 50 years. There really was no way that the British government was going to directly support the slavery side in a war resulting from the question of the existence of slavery. Before someone corrects this, I know that Lincoln wasn't originally planning on freeing the slaves, but one of the South's primary reasons for their succession was the belief that the North's majority control of the government would result in the loss of their slaves.
Confederate arms are always interesting. With a bit more attention to detail, a fully case hardened lock, and a good simple 2-position flip sight for 100 and 200 yards, that would have been a pretty effective carbine. I wonder about the service life of an iron barrel vs a mild steel one. Any engineers or metallurgy experts out there? Great video as always. Thank you
As a conf civil war reeanactor its always amazing to see confederate weapons that people have never of I use this kind of weapon for my re-enactments excellent video!
Thank You for your service, sir.
Thank you for your reenactment of service...
Hay I do Union are there a lot of guy reluctant to go out and reenact the gray these days My group was discussing this in one of the few times we got to go out this year
@@LordEvan5 Back in the eighties we in the South saw so many Confederate reenactors that many had to pack extra uniforms to fill Union ranks. I couldn’t hang with the local NSSA unit , unfortunately.
Just for fun: the "z" in Bilharz is pronounced like a "ts" in german, not like in english where you would pronounce it like a "s".
Also just for fun: The "z" in Bilharz is pronounced like a "ts" in German, like in English where you would pronounce it like "zz".
is it possible to do a video on the drip rifle that the ANZAC's used during the evacuation of Gallipoli? even if its just one of your video's explaining who came up with it how it worked, how it was implemented and if it was successful or not?
i think it would be a very interesting video about something that is not really known about by many people and is definitely "forgotten"
Thank you for a little RVA history. Nifty carbine.
i think that ram rod holder is the neatest feature
I wonder if the trigger guard has been removed and re-installed backwards? The rings are at the front/forward facing position on the guns I am familiar with.
Awesome Appealing Alliteration
Ooo its only a half hour since this video came out. Great video, cant wait to see more cool stuff from you
For my birthday Ian? You shouldnt have!
Happy Birthday!
I've never seen any Civil War re-enactors try loading a Civil War era carbine on horseback and then firing it.
It can be done.british manuals of the era show how to do it.
Thank you , Ian .
It's interesting that they case hardened not just the tumbler, but the bridle and the sear too. I'm not sure about the hammer, but the way its chipped at the lip, I'd bet they hardened that too. Wrought iron has a fiberous structure. While steel has a grain structure. If you case harden the hammer, you're putting a skin of steel around the piece of iron. The iron gives it toughness while the steel case gives it hardness, resulting in little chips around the lip instead of deformation of the hammer itself.
By the way, I'm a blacksmith who makes flintlock and percussion firearms. Have a good day all.
There appeared to be an extra "I88" serial number on the back of that lock plate.
I had a lovely Ahh moment when Ian pointed out that assembly no's are given after hand fitting and before heat treating etc.
I'm curious, what _was_ the best candidate for a quality firearm that could be made in large numbers by the Confederacy? Like, if they had found a way to consolidate on one rifle, what _should_ it have been?
Literally wouldn’t have mattered.
Kid: mom can we get *1855 Cavalry carbine* ?”
Mom: “we have *1855 Cavalry carbine* at home”
1855 Cavalry carbine at home:
🤔🤭
I was always wanting to find out more about why the company regressed from their very interesting breach-loading carbine to the later muzzle-loader. Never thought about pricing issues for the armaments issues facing the confederate states at the time, though I've never been much into financing.
Was very much hoping to see a breach-loading model on this channel as my second favorite carbine model after the morse. Though considering these things are as rare dinosaur turds, I'm more than happy to see its little brother find the spotlight at last.
The carbine you are talking about in the beginning, the breach loader that is. Do you have any more information about it for me? I inherited a cavalry carbine from my grandma, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is, and it sounds quite similar to what yoy described...
It kinda feels like the barrel maker is the unsung hero here.
Wow I literally just finished watching a civil war documentary on tv. What are the odds I'd find this in my sub box
At 8:19ish, couple of additional markings at the end of the lock plate?
2:22 nice shot!! :)
I would really enjoy a review of the C7E
I joined GOA today and I feel good about it 😎
There are still living a lot of Bilharz here in Baden
Curious about the other numbers on the lock, looks like 88 with another character of some sort above or below. It looks like there is an 8 on the sear, so more assembly numbers?
I would love to see you get your hands on the ks23 shotgun, I mean who wouldn't want to see a six gauge shotgun.
I'm a simple man. I see a Civil War carbine, I press Like
Yes, you are.
Did you say “Baden?”
My family is from that area.
Only thing with watching gun jesus drunk: i may have to watch it again tomorrow, twice the enjoyment lol
I was just wondering if the .950 jdg was bigger or more powerful than a 2 bore rifle.
The intro got my Like.
hey ian, i was wondering if a modern smokeless powder breech loading percussion firearm would be viable in this time. purely as a target fun gun of course. i was thinking of a 'volcanic' kind of cartridge in the shape of an airgun pellet but with the need of an extra percussion cap
I hope he gets to see more rebel made guns like the palmetto 1842 the richmond the fayetvile and the tyler texas all very interesting guns
I had a small bet with myself about whether it would be a crude copy or a crude gun and Ian went and spoiled it in the first 3 seconds!!
Ian, you failed to mention the OTHER numbers on the lock plate (visible at the far right of image at 8:09, and already noted in comments). Do you know what these may indicate ?
Please do more 17th century weapons
South had to use things like that while the North had Winchester and Spencer multi shot repeating rifles. Technological difference between the two sides was huge to say the least.
the number of henry' guns used was minimal And spences did not show up in any real number until 1864... and then usually i the hands of Cavalry.
The main infantry firearms for both sides during the first half of the war was imports from Europe.
Both modern Enfields and modern (but used) Lorenze's. And a lot of old, well used smoothbores, that was uprifled before shipment.
For the later part of the war US made "springfields" and the british enfields was the typical rifle musket used by both sides.
(they where very good at giving each other guns. Most of Grants men had old smoothbroes until the capture of Vicksburg. where they rearmed themselves with modern Enfields that was captured)
Look good to me, at least handy... don't know about the shape of that stock and the accuracy of it; but i like it's shape.
Hard is making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
That was very interesting thank you for sharing
If you can no longer reload your weapon on horseback the gun dose not become useless it just turns into a hi-tech club
By that time you use the horse to get the heck out of there.
A CCCCC? Cool.
If you dropped the ramrod, the gun wouldn't be totally useless, you would still have a club.
It looks like the lowest quality flintlock rifle you can get in Fable II.
I always liked that dragon wheellock pistol myself.
Very interesting information about the weapon and the efforts of the Confederacy to arm itself. But it perpetuates the myth that the South was industrially primitive. Indeed, in 1861 the CSA had the third largest number of railroad mileage of any nation on earth. Even though it had less than half the mileage of the Northern states, it led slightly in per capita mileage. I haven't looked into it closely, but I suspect that (except, perhaps, for mining) the Confederacy was more industrialized than any nation outside of Europe except for the US. Yes, the Confederacy was predominantly agrarian but it was well on its way to industrialization before the destruction of the War and subsequent economic policies and practices (think railroad differentials and the limitation of the high quality coal needed for manufacturing) strangled development.
And yet they weren’t able to manufacture anywhere near the amount of materials they needed. Hell they didn’t even have a single facility for making cannons.
Railroad mileage was far far far behind the north. The Confederacy was an agrarian society, not an industrialized one.
@@baneofbanes The Tredegar Works produced about 1,100 pieces of artillery, www.nps.gov/articles/tredegar-iron-works-ironmaker-to-the-confederacy.htm#:~:text=Tredegar%20proved%20invaluable%20to%20the,plating%20for%20Confederate%20naval%20gunboats.. A little research will find that other foundries produced smaller quantities. It was not enough but not bad for an agrarian society.
@@baneofbanes This is the third time I've tried to reply to your comment. This time I'll try without including links. The Tredegar Works in Richmond produced some 1,100 artillery pieces during the War. A Google search will find other Southern foundries producing small quantities. It wasn't enough but it was pretty good for an agrarian society.
What kind of metal was used in making the barrel was it some kind of steel or iron?
Probably iron
@@robertallen9095 do you think it's wrought iron
@@mohammedimran3670 I don't think they used wrought iron on small arms.they did use it on cannons because of pressure.thats some civil war cannon you see have a band around the breech.wrought iron would have taken too long to process for small arms
@@mohammedimran3670 p.s colt used something they called spring steel in his pistols but I doubt the south had the means to forge it
Sweet !
45 USD or CSAD ?
Naturalized in 1859, so Bilharz might have been a Fourty-Eighter.
Somebody needs to put a little clp and oil on that thing
Not the brother of Theodor Bilharz?
An unseen Forgotten Weapons video? My Bad, sorry.
I find it weird very few if any American troops used needle rifles during this war, I believe they would have been a great middle ground between muskets and advanced rifles
No real need too do so.
Of all the breech loader designs tested and used during the civil war, needle fired would have been the worst.
I find it a tragedy the the Union did produce more Henry rifles during the war and issue them to their states regiments, instead of staying with the muzzle loading springfields and Enfield’s.
Does it still smell like defeat?
45 dollars sounds pricey for what it is....assuming that's in csa dollars
Well. When somebody says that the Confederacy could've won the Civil War, show them this.
Show them Chicago or Detroit today.
Oslona spustu odwrotnie zamontowana 😀
Wait, $45 for a rifle in 1860's??
$45 in the 1860’s was a lot of money. An average working man’s days wages was often $1.
I find Confederate crude manifacturing almost as interesting as Nazi last ditch crude manufacturing. Two very interesting topics
@RocketSurgeon exactly the reason why I like them.
"...numbers above E" 🤔???
$45 for a gun in 1863? Made by guys really named, Bubba? What a bargain! 😏
Lol
Well, sometimes we have to choose between whats hard and whats easy.
Wanna know a secret?
Im both right now
Breech plug witness mark doesn't line up....Must. Control. OCD......😄
The intro made me nervous.
Wow. Downer's review of this gun is pretty depressing.
You know what's hard? Waking up in the UK knowing that nothing awaits me other than life as a corporate drone until lunchtime when Gun Jesus reminds me that I'm not the only Briton to enjoy firearms.
Better than your modern-day bubba
Nice
God Bless the Confederate soldier that fought and died fighting the war of Northern aggression.
Bless the ones who managed to escape and avoid fighting the rich slavers' war for them
@@itsmannertime the war wasn’t over slavery though. The Morrill Tariff act of 1861 (passed) and the Corwin Amendment was approved on March 2nd, 1861. The Corwin Amendment reads
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State”
This is proof the “Civil War” was about taxation (and economic differences) over the freeing of slaves. Abraham Lincoln approved of this amendment and rather have made more profit than freeing slaves. (Source: The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861-1865
Book by Barbara Long and E. Long) Lincoln showed his support for the amendment and stated “Holding such a provision [the legality of slavery] to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable”
(Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe. By Thomas J. Dilorenzo)
The preliminary emancipation proclamation also gave the CSA the chance to join back into the union and keep their slaves (100 days before the emancipation proclamation). The introduction of the 13th amendment also didn’t necessarily guarantee slave freedom. If the Southern states joined back even as late as months before the war ended, they could’ve stopped the passing of the 13th amendment. Lincoln even knew this and acknowledged that possibility.
@@factsoftheconfederacy7151 I recommend reading "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles Dew, it's an excellent book full of primary sources that show the war was very much about preserving slavery and white supremacy. It is true that Lincoln at one point was open to letting the slave states back into the union even without getting rid of slavery but that does not mean the war was not about slavery. The slave system was not going to be allowed to expand to the west, the republican party was going to choke slavery out eventually and there were a lot of people in the north who wanted to straight up abolish it and did not agree with Lincoln's slow approach. The reason the slavers didn't take Lincoln's deal is that they knew this. They knew forming an independent slavocracy was their only hope for preserving slavery, and they talked about using the war to preserve racial hierarchy openly. The idea it was not about slavery came about strongly well after the war ended and is again being discarded as historians look at the topic honestly
@@jackalope323 Slavery was planned to be abolished in the South
libertyclassroom.com/slavery-and-the-civil-war-revisited/
@@factsoftheconfederacy7151the confederate government disagrees with you.
most expensive POS you'll find
That has yet to be made.
People, do we really need to get salty about the fact the CSA existed?
Wait until the current set up breaks apart and pass the salt for that one.
Carbeen? Carbine? Carben? Is the pronounciation a regional thing?
No, Comedy is hard!
I'm a simple man. I see Civil War era guns, I watch. I see Confederate in the title, I like.
Last time I was this early Gettysburg was a little town nobody had heard of.
The answer to the initial question is me at the range shooting .50 BMG.
It is noted in the science of politologs, that those usually are the wealthiest and most developed provinces, who try to break free and start separatist movements, which makes sense, as:
1) to them it feels like the rest of a country is a burden, that keeps holding them back;
2) if you don't have resources and influence, any attempt to break away might fail.
CSA was a failure at both of these, yet they were dumb enough to start the conflict themselves, which is sort of hilarious.
There was a strong feeling of the second American revolution in the south, and that war was fought in a similar situation. Helps to explain the reasoning for attempting to win a impossible war
@Graf von Losinj To an extent, but remember the original symbol of the united States was the Phoenix, not the Eagle. If you understand that, you will find a lot of the reasons why all this happened as it did.
@DOUG HEINS Paronia- fear of that which does not exist. Do the bankers exist? Of course they do, so your argument is invalid upon it's face.
@DOUG HEINS Lol!, you study history not so well at all it seems. Imagine my shock..
@DOUG HEINS Sad. I am a student of history, you are acting juvenile. Thrust parried and return, en ripsote.
23.976 FPS, explains the jitter.
Oh I though Ian just had a little too much coffee this morning
Considering that at that time in Europe we already had percussion needle rifles with first type of cartrdige though i think only paper this is amazingly crude as you say. :D I mean the French Army had better rifles than the Prussian Army, too. That however was not much use to them because of low morale and cohesion and bad drill. Cheers. :)
I if I remember correctly the French had not managed to reequip all units with the Chassepot rifles by the time of the Franco-Prussian war.
Ever since I started reading books about the civil war I've been wandering why were the overwhelming majority of American troops equipped with muskets when needle rifles existed ,already proven to be superior ,and we're not insanely expensive
@@christianweibrecht6555 Expensive is a relative word. Per unit not so much. But considering both the Union and the Confederates would have had to either buy manufacturing rights or individual rifles then ship them from European powers..Not so much.
Plus there is the psychological aspect to consider. American rifles for American soldiers and all that.
@@clothar23 For the first half of the war, both sides used more imported European firearms than American made firearms. Not until 1864 do the US made "springfield" start to be the standard firearm for both sides... with the Enfield the other one.
@@thomasbaagaard Yes but a muzzle loading musket is still going to be cheaper than a needle firing rifle even if both are coming from Europe. And while the difference isn't likely that substantial per rifle the fact the was a difference matters. Especially when you're both buying in bulk and rapidly trying to arm a military force.