Brown Bess Musket Demo...3 in 46 sec's

[legomasterkyle]

There was no need for him to aim for 3 reasons:

1 they usually lined up and fired at the same time

2 brown bess muskets didn't have sights because it was considered disrespectful to aim at another officer

3 he's trying to break a world record

[wojsport]

exellent loading

[loveryoda]

can some one explain to me why brown bess always has trouble after 2 shots?

[TheSyndicateGreece]

@BombshellBill its the truth.... smoothbores fired an undersized ball, wrapped with the cartridge paper so it wouldnt fall of the barrel when pointing downwards..... so besides the lack of rifle spinning and the lack of aerodynamics, the ball when fired was bouncing on all sides while travelling inside the barrel, so the final destination of it was unknown... to make it simple: at 50 meters range and further, you couldnt hit the white house if you life depended on it

[BombshellBill]

great he can shoot 3 times in under a minute. he didn't aim or have any targets it looks like.

get it in under a minute, and be accurate...

[TheSyndicateGreece]

@BombshellBill you dont aim a brown bess musket, you just fire and hope

[BombshellBill]

@TheSyndicateGreece sounds about right, haha, cool stuff either way!

[stebbieranch]

That's nothing, Chuck Norris can fire 46 in 3 seconds.

[t1t296]

I think you'll find that a hell of a lot more "Americans" died than British because the Brits won most of the battles

[LutzDerLurch]

I advise some proper training of the Man. Firing off the Piece before even presenting properly, that would be quite stupid with a ball in the cartridge.

[austinash9704]

gay

[ewbecht]

why does every video devolve into arguements about national pride, we're allies, let's be frinds

god bless america and god save the queen

[mdog917]

@ewbecht ikr

[MajBlood]

@ewbecht Um what the fuck? No. As a member of the British Empire it is our sworn duty to hate the traitorous Americans, our natural enemy France, and sometimes Spain.

[ewbecht]

@MajBlood I am a "traitorous" American", oh, and you welcome for all the supplies, manpower, millitary aid in ww1-2

[MajBlood]

@ewbecht Ha! In World War 1 you showed up late and barely did anything. In World War 2 you still showed up late but even I will admit that was one of the useful things you did in history. You still showed up after we were on the brink of destruction, leaving us to handle things when we needed help the most, which we did. You were our sidekicks in World War 2. However, you can consider it even from when we beat your sorry ass in 1812, yet we still spared your pathetic lives

[ewbecht]

@MajBlood um, we didn't lose 1812, and it is because of a combined effort that WE won ww1 and 2, in fact many of the materials you used before we entered ww2 came from the U.S., but that's ok if you can't swallow your pride, oh and in 1814, there's this little batlle at New Orleans, might want to check it out, oh, and we destroyed your Great Lake fleet, we were not at your mercy

[MajBlood]

@ewbecht Psh. No offense, American, but you did indeed lose the War of 1812. Yes the Battle of Orleans was a nice victory on your part, because of that bastard, Jackson, but winning a few battles doesn't mean you won the war, which you didn't.

Also, while your help was probably essential in World War 2, we must definitely did not need your slack-jawed idiots helping us in the first World War.

[ewbecht]

@MajBlood that's ok if you can't swallow your pride, and yes, since the Russians left the war, our involvement was much more than a mere convenience

[ewbecht]

@MajBlood after the russians left ww1, our entrance was more than a mere convenience

[MajBlood]

@ewbecht Yes it was a good help I will admit, but it was too late too change the outcome. We would have won regardless. The Central Powers were no match for the combined might of Canada, Italy, France, and the British Empire.

[ewbecht]

@MajBlood oh yea that reminded me, you had to force the Indians, Canadians, and what other people native to your colonies to fight for you,over a million fresh troops suddenly entering a war on your side generally does the trick

[MajBlood]

@ewbecht I can tell you that Canada and Canadians in general were proud to fight in the wars for the good of the British Empire and all of its people. A Canadian who did not want to fight was just as likely as a British person not wanting to fight. I am sure the Indians too were proud to be a member of the Empire and give us all of their resources, if it were not for that rogue rebel Gandhi.

[ewbecht]

@MajBlood how do you know they wanted to, did you ask them, conscripts in general don't really want to fight, and India had problems with rebellion long before Ghandi, plus there were many other people groups

[danuk500]

@ewbecht your right rather pointless fighting over history both nations are great we are both allies and very similar in culture we even have the same language and not to forget some americans are related to some british people now so we shouldn't really fight about mistakes in the past.

[visserootjers]

not every one knows this but holland is the only land who has stolen your flagship the Royal Charles. and take it back to holland by Michiel de Ruyter a dutch sea hero

it whas happend in 1667

[kumagamesclan]

holy shiz, no hesitation just doing it

[NominusTheWise]

being a former british colony is great, god save the queen.

[Treize69]

I'd like to see him shoot live ammo like that. The recoil would have knocked it right out of his hands on the first shot- he barely even brought it into the hollow of his shoulder, and a Bess kicks like a twelve gauge firing slug ammo. He'd have probably hit the guy behind him with the butt.

[yasashii89]

he would have been a lot faster if he didnt have to put that stick thingy back every time

[gtaisawesome87]

@yasashii89 you have 2 things wrong with that:

1, the ''stick thingy'' is called a rammer/ram rod

2, if u didn't return the rammer, u wouldn't be able 2 reload again

[yasashii89]

@gtaisawesome87 yea but he could have held it in the other hand or something maybe, it just looked to me like it took up a lot of time having to fit it back inside the rifle every time.

[rattinox]

That is truly impressive!- and I've been shooting muskets a very long time indeed!

[sugokuuuuu]

what a pain in the ass. i cant imagine what its like to spend more time reloading the damn thing then shooting it.

[ILOVETHE1700s]

P.S. I know one of the reasons we lost is becuase of the french and spanish

[ILOVETHE1700s]

Nice musket, If it wasent for the misfire he would have beet 46 seconds and be better than some of the best british soldiers of then. P.S. I saw what you were talking about, in my opinion it seems a shame that we lost but I am amazed at America for beating britain, becuase they were simply a colony and we were a mighty nation. Even though I am actualy british myself.

[nomorenigsplease]

Bah, the British were involved in many wars at that time, a pesky Colony crying for it's independence is nothing. Over 30,000 American soldiers died while facing the British forces, the British only lost under 10,000.

[reidawg312]

@nomorenigsplease LMAO get your facts right dude. the british actually lost way more then 10,00 and they actually lost more soldiers than the american did. Im damn proud to be an american where im free britain can go to hell fuck the british

[Henners1991]

@reidawg312 Still, you'll always have to live with the knowledge that it was the French who won it for you ;)

[reidawg312]

@Henners1991 ahhh ok. you got me. cant argue with facts.

[pavs04]

@nomorenigsplease Actually, about 7200 American colonists died in battle, 10000 died from disease or exposure and 8500 died in British prisons. So only 7200 died in battle against the British.

[looneycrewvideos]

@nomorenigsplease That proves nothing more than that were far better than you

[stinkyskunkedmonkeys]

@looneycrewvideos how?

[looneycrewvideos]

@stinkyskunkedmonkeys well we can stay alive, were better trained, you just go out and get yourself killed.

[stinkyskunkedmonkeys]

@looneycrewvideos haha soz i thought u were american :P lol

[looneycrewvideos]

@stinkyskunkedmonkeys lol

[link000000]

@nomorenigsplease bull shit The Brirish lost far more then 10,000 toops during the American Recolution. I take it you live in england or something cuz it makes sense they would say they only lost that meny but really Great Britain suffered great loss during end of the war the colonist out numbered the Brirish toops by alot some Colonys didnt even take part. Yes they where better armed but it took to long for them to men and resource to the new world one main reason they could not keep fighting.

[danuk500]

@link000000 look it up on wiki though you could argue it's not true but oh well - america had more killed but the brits had alot who deserted

[link000000]

@danuk500 Wiki is not the best Source to go by...

[danuk500]

@link000000 i know, why do you think i said you could argue it's not true...

[link000000]

@danuk500 I agreed with you

[cromwell300]

@nomorenigsplease the revolution was Britain's Vietnam. Basically if a rebel force breaks the occupying force's will to fight then the rebels win

[MrDeano324]

@nomorenigsplease

Yeah, the Americans didnt even win anyway. They were losing decisivley before the entrance of France, Spain and Holland into the war. Spain was ravaging Britiains European colonies forcing the British to fight on two fronts. While France defeated Britain at Chesapeake stopping all British supplys to America. And Holland was ravaging British trade routes to India , and the caribbean. The Americans were insignificant in the war. They sat and watched while Europe defeated Britain

[MrDeano324]

@nomorenigsplease

Then claimed the victory as their own. Typical America...

[Rexanglorum]

@nomorenigsplease That is true but part of that is because early in the war, American Generals went riht as well trained red coats and the Britsih deaths were reduced because they had the sense to surrender at Yorktown and avoid a horrible blood bath.

The Red Coats were truly formidable and while they were fighting to prevent the independence of a nation they were still from a very liberal and free country and freemen tend to make excellent fighters, especially as disciplined infantrymen.

[AlienTechProductions]

LOL couldent give 2 fucks im proud to be britsh ans thats it i wouldent want to be anything else.

Look history up you pair of gerry wankers !!!

[UDI1995]

that was great! stupid missfire...

[SimpleStuff31]

Funny how in the description he says best in the 18th century and now still but they lost to us and our kick ass farmers then and are our bitches now:)

[Marnerbanana]

ur gonna make so many british friends saying that sort of thing mate :S

especially as the colonial british were massively outnumbered and in a different continent (must...restrain...from...deta­iled...historical...argument)

[SimpleStuff31]

But seriously we were just farmers and merchants and managed to win against the 'best' in the world. And I'm not trying to be a smart ass but I here it everywhere that Great Britain is our bitch.

[Marnerbanana]

you outnumbered us massively, raised your own armies that had decent equipment and ex-british soldiers and generals, and had mobs of militia that did exactly that, mobbed british positions until we got booted. oh and the french helped you a bit but i won't argue with that, it bankrupt them into their own revolution

[Marnerbanana]

and like hell we're your bitches, we joined you in Iraq for the oil (and the fact we used to run it), Afghan to stop terrorism (we got bombed too) but when it comes down to it we can give you the two-fingered salute, like when we let u lose in 'nam :D

[SimpleStuff31]

We didnt lose nam we backed out instead of fighting a useless war.

[Marnerbanana]

of course, just like how we backed out of America instead of fighting apointless war :|

[iSorrowproductions]

in the end you still got your ass handed to you in 1812

[SimpleStuff31]

In the end (which is now) you are our BITCHES.

[iSorrowproductions]

In what way is that then? Nobody here cares about you.

[laxer0605]

after the war ended! they also razed washington d.c. we also needed the help from pirates. seriously im american at least i have some respect for our modern ALLIES.

[zackhanscom]

doesn't matter if his form or procedure is bad. he'll shoot your balls off.

[2ndpadrummer]

now try being a prussian and getting 5 shots off in a minute (which i doubt is possible)

[MauserKar98k]

There is no doubt that the Prussians could load and fire incredibly fast, up to 8 rounds a minute with blanks during training.

Makes the Austrian army average of one round a minute at the the same time period (Seven Years War) look pathetic.

[scottishconfederate]

Yeah all sorts of odd rumors about the Prussians firing more shots than I tend to believe is possible. I think it was just a rumored scare tactic. The Prussians were masters of scaring the shit outta their opponents.

[domas663]

It wouldnt be much more faster to put the ram rod on the ground but to stab it in the ground.

[whowantsabighug]

ground might be damp, although i still dont know why they dont keep the rod out, i live on Jersey yay! redcoat jersey fellas!

[Darthbelal]

part of the discipline in firing a musket was returning the ramrod back to where it belongs, if you were to lay it down or stab it in the ground and had to retreat, you just disarmed yourself....

[KingdomsOfficial]

he could go faster if he lay his muzle loader on the ground

[TyonKree]

then he would be in some problems when the officer told to advance or retreat ;)

[KingdomsOfficial]

well yea but if hes standing still. it would be easier hell thats what i do during civil war reenactments

[ActaSanctorum]

No he couldn't, then he would have to pick it up again. three rounds in 46 seconds is effectively as good as it gets. One might be able to get 5 in one minute, but they would be firing as sloppily as this lad does

[Octavius0]

Add in spitting the bullet and it would take a few secs more,

plus, try and do that with thousands of other muskets firing, artillery pounding the earth, half blind from the smoke and in fear for your life.

Would take considerably longer than 46 secs.

Not to detract though, nice video.

[Obraxes]

Of course its real time, i know the guy and have had a 'duel' loading race with him, was good fun, he's fast! Its a shame i won, woop woop. I dont mean to be harsh.

And again from a long time re-enactor and very experienced flintlock user, you shoot en masse with lots of lead, i believe the modern term is 'DODGE THIS!'

[umjackd]

Just asking: He's firing high because of what would be the drop of the bullet?

[ActaSanctorum]

no he's just being sloppy. They were expected to level their guns, perhaps a slight elevation depending on the range of thier target, but not much

[phillipaj]

Excellent work- they didn't need to aim, it was simply intended to throw a lot of lead en masse at the enemy, aiming as was possible, that was left to skirmishers and the like

[Alexdark73]

Someone who understands history, thank you.

[AussieMaleTuber]

Cool comments.  David.

[splat4]

I have a relica 1766 Charleville, made by Pedersoli. Really damned expensive, but absolutley worth it! I haven't fired ball through it yet, only black powder and paper.

[xxxxdukexxxx]

This guy is fine with the loading and all, but in reality he would have gotten his ass chewed for firing so quickly without aiming. And speaking of experience with muzzleloaders, it takes a second to squeeze that trigger, to be accurate. It's not like instant firing, like shotguns. :)

[pavs04]

Actually, the French would be running away.

[kewlboy567]

Close but no they would march forward but when they pulled the trigger on their weapons a little white flag woudl pop out and they wouild wave it around.

[lostinspace013]

"Actually, the French would be running away." - such a nonsens ! WHY you Americans hate so much the French ? During Napoleon times, french army was absolutely the best of the world. In fact - the Brits lost war in America beacouse they needed entire army close to England to prevent French invasion. So you should be thankfull to frenchman...

[kewlboy567]

we dont like them because after we help them out a ton in WWII they do what? They sell a nuclear factory to Saddam which Isreal had to destroy. Then in the war in Iraq they dont help us after the help we gave them.

[antoriamemphis]

Wait, who was it who beat Napoleon again?

[lostinspace013]

Russia,Prusia,Great Britain. World needed 3 powerfull imperia to beat the French.

[Benfordius91]

prussia wasnt powerfull u tit, they had a good military, but that was it and russia didnt help when the mainland war with europe began.

[scottishconfederate]

Eskimo warriors armed with sleeping pills and assault rifles.

[bbl11]

I dont think many americans hate the french... the british lost the war because they weren't fighting for a cause but because they were forced to (it was their job) the french did supply the americans which helped a lot

[Ajax151]

I didn't know you needed a "cause" to win or fight well...

[splat4]

Americans don't hate the French, only Neo-Cons, and Young Republicans do. With their revisionist history and blind hatred for evrything French, they've been spitting on the French since 10 minutes after Lafayette left US shores. The real Americans recognize the sacrifices of France and do not shit on the memories of her dead. I'm speaking as the son of a WW 2 US pilot who was shot down and saved from enemy capture and imprisonment by the French Resistance in 1943, so he could fight again.

[scottishconfederate]

Neo-Cons and Young Republicans. What a typical generalized uneducated statement. Congratulations on a completely failed attempt to make a point by spouting generalizations and hatred.

[splat4]

Failed? Hardly. Take a look at any Consevative blog and see what "nice" things they say of the French. Republicans have all developed an anti-French psycosis, it's part of their thinking. It's not generalization if it's true, and I think you've just proven my point very well.

[scottishconfederate]

And the French should be thankful to the USA as it was the US Marines who stopped the German offensive short of Paris in WW2 and we headed the attacks in WW2 France that pushed Germany back out. Not to say others including the French weren't involved and I am not downing the French either. Simply saying no one owes anyone anything truth be told.

[splat4]

First, there were no Marines in France in WW 2. Second, don't talk about gratitude to the French, they show more respect to WW 2 vets than most Americans. I had the extreme fortune of being at both the 2004 D-Day anniversary and the 225th anniversary at Yorktown. At one I found an outpouring of gratitude, at the other only mild interest. US park department will not even allow a French flag to be flown on the French cemetery there.

[scottishconfederate]

I made a typo in typing WW2 sir. I meant WW1. Where the US Marines did indeed aid in stopping the German offensive. Secondly, I said the French should be grateful to the USA not vice versa. You misread my statements and I made a typo mistake.

[splat4]

I don't think I misread anything. Of course, God forbid should the US be grateful for anything.

[scottishconfederate]

Sir, you did misunderstand my words. I am not insulting or bashing on the French. No one owes any one anything. No one need be grateful to any one. The French, Dutch and Spanish did not commit any forces in support of the American Revolution until our victory was a complete certainty. The war was only shortened by French forces. The Amer. Rev. was VERY unpopular in England and Parliament was screaming for its end.

[splat4]

You may want to brush up on your history. The war was no where near a sure thing until French forces arrived, and even before then it was sustained mostly by recieving massive amounts of money, muskets, powder and other materiel, thanks to the efforts of Silas Dean. Also, until very late in the war, much of the population, especially in the cities, were still pro-Tory. Claiming Washington was winning before the French arrived is common mythology. Without France, the Revolution would fail.

[scottishconfederate]

You sir not only need to brush up on your history but your understanding of military principals such as logistics. Britain could never win the American Revolution they were fighting against a large nation over seas with too little support there and at home. The English were screaming for an end to the war long before the French entered the war. I did not claim Washington was winning. He was not. He was a horrid commander. But the fact is we were already winning. Thats why the French committed.

[SirDodds]

this is fairly quick however it must be said.

try doing even one cycle while men are dropping all around you and the french are matching towards you screaming viva la france.

British Redcoats Rule!

[Haydz01]

forgot to load at the end so had to correct that, other than that very good. stood gentlemen liek too look at the feet. traditional.

[sensejengi]

That guy's ain't aiming. what's the use of speed if you can't actually hit the target?

[balderdashandpiffle]

THe guns themselves were not accurate so you pointed it at a massed target and fired- aiming was a waste of time - rate of fire was paramount.

[Fumaki2]

They have cheated...it is clear that this video was in fast forward, because he just couldn't do this in only 46 seconds...

[gunitsean]

if this was fast forward, why wasnt the guy behind him moving fast and there are other videos of 3 in 46 secs

[landrecce]

he's not moving fast you fucking retard.. get a life

[landrecce]

that is real time!

[landrecce]

for those of you that say this is on fast fwd... GET A LIFE

[SuperPingvinen]

well I belive a dead man cant use a computer

[3rdconfederate]

I was really surprised to find that loading a flintlock is faster because you don't have to fumble around for a percussion cap. I've done a little live firing, and ramming a bullet, even a minie ball, does slow you down,especially when the rifle starts getting fouled.

[milnerjon]

I liked how fast he loaded the musket, cheers on that mate. However his present and fire seemes slopy and dangerous. Also it is not very smart to reload a musket so soon after firing, as there could be some stuff at the bottom that is still hot.

[Obraxes]

srry, it came up twice!

[Obraxes]

Yes it would be faster to put the ramrod in the ground, but in 'tourniments' and speed fire exersices you put it back to show your a good soldier by doing everything properly. 46 seconds is good, but i still beat him in a 1-on-1 at waterloo, hahaa, hes a good guy, GOOD FIRING DUDE, KEEP IT UP, (not the miss fires though.HEHEHE)

[Obraxes]

Yes it would be faster to put the ramrod in the ground, but in 'tourniments' and speed fire exersices you put it back to show your a good soldier by doing everything properly. 46 seconds is good, but i still beat him in a 1-on-1 at waterloo, hahaa, hes a good guy, GOOD FIRING DUDE, KEEP IT UP, (not the miss fires though.HEHEHE)

[hwkvoltigeur]

Its a good presentation BUT, imagine doing this with live rounds(which can make the ramming bit a little tougher), while exhausted, hungry and getting shot at. That being said, this guy still has quite a bit of skill there. European soldiers were not thought highly of in the 18th century though, Im sure some brits on here have heard the saying from the time: "A dog before a soldier".

[Talbot6832]

They were not thought of highly in the US either, an armed militia was preferred.

[hwkvoltigeur]

well, it depends, during peace time they most certainly werent, especially early on in our history because they were essentially a police force during peace time. They also drained money from the treasury. During wartime though things were a bit different.

[IForgottenHopeI]

Neglected and thought of as scum in peace, as heroes in War

Rudyard Kipling certainly knew the infantry best, unlike many others in Victoria Britain, where it was thought as sometimes even shameful for an individual to join the army.

[WTR1982]

Does video get horribly slow for anyone else at points? Either way, it does look like a good demonstration.

[Maz1989]

wouldnt it have been faster to put the loading stick on the ground?

[Crazyoldmerc]

It does look like a pointless bit of flummery to have it put back into the hole under the barrel. Looking at the movements there must be more sensible places to hold it between shots. I don't think teh ground would be a good idea though. Very tiring to keep stooping to pick it up.

[bayruun]

"What a shame, forty-six!" I'd be very happy with firing off three shots in forty-six seconds. Maybe these guys have higher expectations, but I don't see how much faster one could load...

[matt2house]

thank god that u know of who monash is, cos some people out there dont

[matt2house]

in which monash conducted

[matt2house]

yes but he could've achieved that back in 1916, General Allenby would've done a better job and same with Monash who had a great grasp over all things mechanical (since monash got a degree in science & engineering at the university of melbourne). Haig on the otherhand was only a cavalry officer during the boer war which he knew a lot more on cavalry tactics than infantry or armored tactics.

[matt2house]

i wouldnt say the british army was the best in the world, i would the prussians was the best cos they could maneuver massively big divisions in attack columns. most european armies feared the prussians most than the british.

[Talbot6832]

Possibly during the 7 Years War but most certainly not during the Napoloenic Wars. The British Army was never beaten in a set piece battle.

[matt2house]

tru but then again the british were lucky to have a such a commander like wellington unlike field marshal haig later on in the first world war

[LordJespersen]

Well, having fired flintlocks myself (I'm a re-enactor)i can tell you that one of the things that gives him speed is the fact that he does not use a bullet..

That shaves a few seconds of each time..

Bu yes, they were that fast, and there are even acounts of a good redcoat beeing able to fire 5 rounds a minute (making it one shot every 12 seconds)..

But then again, they were well trained, beeing the only army to actually train with live amunition...

[TakNSDAP]

"Best in the 18th century in the world....and still are !!!"

I don't know, you guys did lose to a 'bunch of farmers with pitchforks...'

*chuckles*

- Tak

[PieBeNice]

I don't know, you are a "retard"

[TakNSDAP]

Certainly nothing compared to the retardation that is the entire British royal family. Hell, Diana was that one fresh gene, but them Brits just wasted her.

You know the difference between president Bush and Prince Charles is? Bush became a dimwit after smokin' too much pot while in college, but Chucky? He was just born dumb.

[Talbot6832]

Actually by 1777 the Rebels had a fully fledged Continental Army. You Yanks mostly lost but hey hoo I'd much rather lose to the French/Spanish/Dutch and Rebels combined than lose to a bunch of 4 foot 7 jungle trotters in Vietnam.

[TakNSDAP]

Oh please, Vietnam was taking out the trash for the French, because the French can never clean after themselves.

As for you, the British track records consist of losing an entire colony to a hungry, barely clothed figure of a man of Indian origin. Sometimes I don't know the phrase "surrendering monkeys" should be attributed to, the French? Or the British?

Speaking of trotters, I need not remind you of Singapore.

[lardmonk]

i shall have you know, that is treason!!! LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!

[hquinny]

excuse me but i am extremly interested in buy this sort of equipment does anyone know where to buy it or what websites it is on. not just the muskets but the kit aswell

thankyou

[kings8thpvt]

hoozah.....what fort is that?