This is just random trivia, I wonder if there was any particular reason they started playing "Heart of Oak" (anthem of the British Royal Navy) around 8 minutes, 30 seconds in when they were talking about the Kentucky Rifle and the American Revolution...
@heavyarms01h Not really a reply, but to add to the trivia - they played Lillie Bolero, for a long time the introductory tune for news bulletins on the BBC World Service, around the 8th minute.
@longfootbuddy The biggest reason was economic. The south had the vast majority of the major ports in the country and it was felt the north couldn't lose control of them.
@Primeda americans should have never let goverment into their lives... and now after hundreds of years of slowely being enslaved and conditioned to accept it, most americans not only dont mind their slavery to goverment, the theft of their labors and property, the total control over their lives.. but they dont even notice it... they defend it all as if its a fact of life... as if men cant live without a goverment lording over them and giving them permission to take a shit.. they are truly sheep
@Primeda and to profit off of the souths more vast and abundant agricultural land. just a Q. If the south had the vast majority of major ports then why did they lack any decent naval defense for them? were they unprepared or where ports really a large enough issue for such a violent war?, I understand the south was less industrious and hence for less wealthy so a competent navy was more of a dream than a reality.
@Primeda and to profit off of the souths more vast and abundant agricultural land. just a Q. If the south had the vast majority of major ports then why did they lack any decent naval defense for them? were they unprepared or where ports really a large enough issue for such a violent war?, I understand the south was less industrious and hence for less wealthy so a competent navy was more of a dream than a reality.
@Primeda The south was selling the cotton to the English for double what they was selling it to the north. So the north put a stop to and the south was forced to sell it to the north at a loss. The war was never about slavery, not to start with. Lincoln saw he was loosing the war, so he mad it an issue, with the emancipation Proclamation. The south was wining battle after battle, and gain ground on all front because the north was just not willing to fight, and he had not men enough!
@longfootbuddy The only reason secession came up in the first place was the issue of slavery. So arguably we can conclude that it DOES have its roots in the issue of slavery.
@sirjustin511 youre wrong.. obviously.. the southern people were fed up with the unfair taxes, and general tyranny of the union over them..lincoln knew this and passed his slavery laws because he knew the south were at their breaking point, and about to try to break ties with the union.. he then could claim the south left because of the slavery laws..and then he baited them to attack the union troops by refusing to withdraw them from a southern fort..learn real history that hasnt been doctored
@sirjustin511 besides, lincoln himself said very clearly that his intensions were to preserve the union, and in his own words, said that he would do this goal whether it meant that he freed all black slaves or none.. the only reason he passed the slave laws was to weaken the souths production, and make his tyrannical war to deny the south's freedom, look like a noble deed.. most southern men didnt own slaves obviously, they fought for freedom, and lost
@sirjustin511 obviously, if it was lincolns goal to free slaves (which it wasnt), he couldve freed the slaves and then allowed the south's secession... but thats not what his goal was.. i understand that the majority of people have been fed a load of crap in goverment run schools, but there comes a time when people need to wake up and realize that lincoln denied the south's independence, just as the brittish denied the colonist's independence from their tyranny
because US weapons designers are constantly improving designs. Our rifles have been on the front lines since early 1890s non stop. We've seen more action, thus our weapons systems have gone through more evolving based on obstacles that came up.
We started using semi autos on a widescale in 1938 and were designing assault rifles at the time the UK service rifle was still of 18th century design.
No, its because UK has always had a poor small arms development community.
This went as far as adopting Czech made LMGs and using WW1 model Maxim guns for their 2nd world war.
The only weapon made by the British from the ground up was the Sten and that was considered the cheapest made SMG with the clunkiest mechanism of the war. Inferior even to the PPSH and US grease gun
the 13 colonies signed their own indepence in 1776, before that we ran our own show. We were the only people in the empire that wouldnt take shit from the king or accept taxation.
You havent been back since 1815 New Orleans, and you might want to look up the reason why
the british empire ruled america, dont know when they did or when they lost it, its not somthing we cover in school, or i diddnt (you may even be a descendant from a brit or someone from Europe). btw i read your youtube description, if i diddnt know better id say you were neo nazi ?
no Im a third party, Im South African so I could give a fuck less.
Its simple knowledge that after the 1815 treaty of Ghent, UK didnt fuck with the US anymore. A number of the territories were given back to the US after the Royal Navy's defeats on lake Erie and at the defeat at Plattsburg. By 1859 UK was actually asking for US' assistance on the battlefield.
im going to be honest, I dont know alot about south africas history, tbh i dont really care, im tired and were argueing over a stupid us tv show (most of its BS anyway) so im going to be the bigger man and treat this like my mattress...and sleep on it.
@Sturmmann Yep. Even the Enfield basic design was designed by a Scottish-Canadian that moved to Canada at age 5. Who was living in America and working for Remington when he designed it.
@Primeda And the Garand was invented by a Canadian, your point? And the Bren had already been replaced by the FN MAG in British service circa Falklands. Sure there was some in use but that was because they were lighter. Enfield has a superior rate of fire to any other Bolt-Action, simple fact of life. Cock on Close > Cock on Open. And if it wasnt for the Americans, the British would have had Assault Rifles in 1950s... but the stick in the mud Americans distrusted low powered rifles.
how are the Americans guilty for the weapons the British picked in the 50s?
The British were always behind on small arms development. Brits had absolutely no clue in the light MG department and making things lighter for the assault role, let alone upgrading from 19th century rifles after 1945.
@Sturmmann Because the Americans insisted on 7.62NATO for standard ammo in NATO. Even when there was piles of evidence that lighter rounds would work just as well for 99% of infantry applications. And they used their influence to force through the way too high powered for automatic fire 7.62. Belgium and the UK were already working on assault rifles. FNFAL was intended for .280 British and the EM-2 was the gun the .280 British was designed for.
@Sturmmann And, the Americans had no clue on Light MGs either. -Points at BAR and M1919 and laughs-
Americans didnt get a proper light MG until the M249 in the 1980s. M60? Don't make me laugh, its a Medium MG, also horribly unreliable. M1919? Way too heavy. BAR? Too heavy, 20 round under loaded magazine, useless. Bren was honestly the 2nd best LMG from WWII after the MG34/42.
all i can say is even though i am english i have to say german guns over the years have proven to be a big hit on the world as we know it.
my family have served in ww1 and 2 like my late grandad who was in the 67th who was one of the brave souls that faught on d-day he personally used a springfield bolt action rifle but as soon as he was out of ammo sorounded by germans he picked up a kar98k and he said it was the best bolt action rifle he had ever shot.
Actually this is 1 of the only ONLY gun show I admit Its correct. By far, M16s M14s Hk 416 AKs arnt supposed to b catogerised as rifles bucause rifles fired full power ammo like the .303 and 30.06 rather than 5.56mm
@Primedaif its already on youtube why bother? we all want to see ones not yet on youtoube. im not being rude or anything, just wanted to share my thoughts
My grandma has a springfield trapdoor gun. Also the Spencer repeating rifle. They are very cool.
tehreviewer01 2 weeks ago
they shouldve mentioned the sturmgewehr 44
elvee88 1 month ago
in the smith and wesson won it ses a lot of difrent stuff
chickenfarmer296 1 month ago
Amazing documentary
nicolasmauser 2 months ago
This is just random trivia, I wonder if there was any particular reason they started playing "Heart of Oak" (anthem of the British Royal Navy) around 8 minutes, 30 seconds in when they were talking about the Kentucky Rifle and the American Revolution...
heavyarms01h 2 months ago
@heavyarms01h Not really a reply, but to add to the trivia - they played Lillie Bolero, for a long time the introductory tune for news bulletins on the BBC World Service, around the 8th minute.
htolas 2 months ago
Timothy Murphy: American Hero.
potosinodelcerro12 3 months ago
At 9:19, wasn't that shown at the shotgun episode? are they using it over and over again?
someone2Utoo 4 months ago
im really digging these 1 part documentaries
67mustangreg 4 months ago
the civil war wasnt fought to end slavery, it was to deny the south's secession
longfootbuddy 6 months ago 8
@longfootbuddy The biggest reason was economic. The south had the vast majority of the major ports in the country and it was felt the north couldn't lose control of them.
Primeda 5 months ago 5
@Primeda americans should have never let goverment into their lives... and now after hundreds of years of slowely being enslaved and conditioned to accept it, most americans not only dont mind their slavery to goverment, the theft of their labors and property, the total control over their lives.. but they dont even notice it... they defend it all as if its a fact of life... as if men cant live without a goverment lording over them and giving them permission to take a shit.. they are truly sheep
longfootbuddy 5 months ago
@Primeda I agree.
Primeda 5 months ago 5
@Primeda and to profit off of the souths more vast and abundant agricultural land. just a Q. If the south had the vast majority of major ports then why did they lack any decent naval defense for them? were they unprepared or where ports really a large enough issue for such a violent war?, I understand the south was less industrious and hence for less wealthy so a competent navy was more of a dream than a reality.
skizzerbo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Primeda and to profit off of the souths more vast and abundant agricultural land. just a Q. If the south had the vast majority of major ports then why did they lack any decent naval defense for them? were they unprepared or where ports really a large enough issue for such a violent war?, I understand the south was less industrious and hence for less wealthy so a competent navy was more of a dream than a reality.
skizzerbo 5 months ago
@Primeda The south was selling the cotton to the English for double what they was selling it to the north. So the north put a stop to and the south was forced to sell it to the north at a loss. The war was never about slavery, not to start with. Lincoln saw he was loosing the war, so he mad it an issue, with the emancipation Proclamation. The south was wining battle after battle, and gain ground on all front because the north was just not willing to fight, and he had not men enough!
isamtator 3 months ago
Another thing, Sulfur, Saltpeter, and nitrate.
isamtator 3 months ago
@longfootbuddy The only reason secession came up in the first place was the issue of slavery. So arguably we can conclude that it DOES have its roots in the issue of slavery.
sirjustin511 5 months ago
@sirjustin511 youre wrong.. obviously.. the southern people were fed up with the unfair taxes, and general tyranny of the union over them..lincoln knew this and passed his slavery laws because he knew the south were at their breaking point, and about to try to break ties with the union.. he then could claim the south left because of the slavery laws..and then he baited them to attack the union troops by refusing to withdraw them from a southern fort..learn real history that hasnt been doctored
longfootbuddy 5 months ago
@sirjustin511 besides, lincoln himself said very clearly that his intensions were to preserve the union, and in his own words, said that he would do this goal whether it meant that he freed all black slaves or none.. the only reason he passed the slave laws was to weaken the souths production, and make his tyrannical war to deny the south's freedom, look like a noble deed.. most southern men didnt own slaves obviously, they fought for freedom, and lost
longfootbuddy 5 months ago
@sirjustin511 obviously, if it was lincolns goal to free slaves (which it wasnt), he couldve freed the slaves and then allowed the south's secession... but thats not what his goal was.. i understand that the majority of people have been fed a load of crap in goverment run schools, but there comes a time when people need to wake up and realize that lincoln denied the south's independence, just as the brittish denied the colonist's independence from their tyranny
longfootbuddy 5 months ago
@longfootbuddy State's rights was a big issue also, but one could argue that the south's secession was there way of exerciseing state's rights.
pawpawno1 1 month ago
@sturmmann you have to see some lee enfield videos on YouTube
chapwilliams 6 months ago
hahaha love how union soldiers were the only ones getting shot during rifled musket segment
arizonateadrunk 6 months ago
38 shots in one minute at a target 300 yards...and they mock it for accuracy, lee Enfield deserves more credits I think ?
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
that figure has been inflated beyond all serious credibility.
Modern vintage rifle shooters have trouble shooting 10 rds in 60 sec into a 12in target at 300yds.
38rds out of a bolt action in 60 sec is beyond the rate of aimed fire capable of a semi auto M1 at that range.
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann something the le Enfield is famous for- speed
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
speed yes, accuracy at 300yds no.
No bolt action ever beat a semi auto gas operated rifle in rate of fire period
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann well yes, but the bolt action in more accurate due to less moving parts.
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
you have never fired the M1 my friend.
The M1 is a match capable rifle, the enfield isnt.
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann then i wonder why it served longer than the m1 ?
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
because US weapons designers are constantly improving designs. Our rifles have been on the front lines since early 1890s non stop. We've seen more action, thus our weapons systems have gone through more evolving based on obstacles that came up.
We started using semi autos on a widescale in 1938 and were designing assault rifles at the time the UK service rifle was still of 18th century design.
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann
Maybe we stuck to it because, it worked (if it aint broken, dont fix it)
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
No, its because UK has always had a poor small arms development community.
This went as far as adopting Czech made LMGs and using WW1 model Maxim guns for their 2nd world war.
The only weapon made by the British from the ground up was the Sten and that was considered the cheapest made SMG with the clunkiest mechanism of the war. Inferior even to the PPSH and US grease gun
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann
yea its called innovation (and its cheaper to adopt than start from scratch)
jeeze people like you who wont listen and always must have the last word pissed me off.
if your not going to at least take in what i say, dont bother even righting back
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
a 19th century bolt action with a 10rd mag and 18th century sights is not what I consider innovation.
there is nothing impressive behind the enfield except the people that praise it
in the time that the US military had 3-4 different purpose MGs the british were still using the mag fed bren (1980s falklands)
you people havent invented shit
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann
lol we ruled your ass for how long may i ask
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
you did? when?
the 13 colonies signed their own indepence in 1776, before that we ran our own show. We were the only people in the empire that wouldnt take shit from the king or accept taxation.
You havent been back since 1815 New Orleans, and you might want to look up the reason why
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann
the british empire ruled america, dont know when they did or when they lost it, its not somthing we cover in school, or i diddnt (you may even be a descendant from a brit or someone from Europe). btw i read your youtube description, if i diddnt know better id say you were neo nazi ?
nutterforever 6 months ago
@nutterforever
no Im a third party, Im South African so I could give a fuck less.
Its simple knowledge that after the 1815 treaty of Ghent, UK didnt fuck with the US anymore. A number of the territories were given back to the US after the Royal Navy's defeats on lake Erie and at the defeat at Plattsburg. By 1859 UK was actually asking for US' assistance on the battlefield.
Sturmmann 6 months ago
@Sturmmann
im going to be honest, I dont know alot about south africas history, tbh i dont really care, im tired and were argueing over a stupid us tv show (most of its BS anyway) so im going to be the bigger man and treat this like my mattress...and sleep on it.
nutterforever 6 months ago
@Sturmmann Yep. Even the Enfield basic design was designed by a Scottish-Canadian that moved to Canada at age 5. Who was living in America and working for Remington when he designed it.
Primeda 5 months ago
@Primeda And the Garand was invented by a Canadian, your point? And the Bren had already been replaced by the FN MAG in British service circa Falklands. Sure there was some in use but that was because they were lighter. Enfield has a superior rate of fire to any other Bolt-Action, simple fact of life. Cock on Close > Cock on Open. And if it wasnt for the Americans, the British would have had Assault Rifles in 1950s... but the stick in the mud Americans distrusted low powered rifles.
VhenRaTheRaptor 5 months ago
@VhenRaTheRaptor
how are the Americans guilty for the weapons the British picked in the 50s?
The British were always behind on small arms development. Brits had absolutely no clue in the light MG department and making things lighter for the assault role, let alone upgrading from 19th century rifles after 1945.
Sturmmann 5 months ago
@Sturmmann Because the Americans insisted on 7.62NATO for standard ammo in NATO. Even when there was piles of evidence that lighter rounds would work just as well for 99% of infantry applications. And they used their influence to force through the way too high powered for automatic fire 7.62. Belgium and the UK were already working on assault rifles. FNFAL was intended for .280 British and the EM-2 was the gun the .280 British was designed for.
VhenRaTheRaptor 5 months ago
@Sturmmann And, the Americans had no clue on Light MGs either. -Points at BAR and M1919 and laughs-
Americans didnt get a proper light MG until the M249 in the 1980s. M60? Don't make me laugh, its a Medium MG, also horribly unreliable. M1919? Way too heavy. BAR? Too heavy, 20 round under loaded magazine, useless. Bren was honestly the 2nd best LMG from WWII after the MG34/42.
VhenRaTheRaptor 5 months ago
all i can say is even though i am english i have to say german guns over the years have proven to be a big hit on the world as we know it.
my family have served in ww1 and 2 like my late grandad who was in the 67th who was one of the brave souls that faught on d-day he personally used a springfield bolt action rifle but as soon as he was out of ammo sorounded by germans he picked up a kar98k and he said it was the best bolt action rifle he had ever shot.
tureka21 6 months ago
1 person failed history class
brianthao102 7 months ago
28:33 Is a perfect test of wether or not you hasve a sick mind.
VADanielAV 7 months ago
15:38 The truth hurts.
VADanielAV 7 months ago
Actually this is 1 of the only ONLY gun show I admit Its correct. By far, M16s M14s Hk 416 AKs arnt supposed to b catogerised as rifles bucause rifles fired full power ammo like the .303 and 30.06 rather than 5.56mm
MrLolx2u 7 months ago
Its on the German Small Arms of WW2 episode. Its on youtube already in parts but I'll eventually upload as a full video.
Primeda 8 months ago 6
@Primedaif its already on youtube why bother? we all want to see ones not yet on youtoube. im not being rude or anything, just wanted to share my thoughts
lovelock512 8 months ago 2
I was like wtf no stg 44! But then i remeberd that the show was American...
ImIronManYhea 8 months ago