It's great how he also pointed out the gun brought up so many "unvoluntary" advances in technology. The gun is an inevitable step in a world with an intelligent bunch of individuals.

Philip Fear

28 күн бұрын

No matter how much or how little you have..... There's always been someone out there willing to take it away from you.... And until the advent of the repeating firearm that was available to the average person's use.... It was always the biggest and strongest person who won the battle, kept there land or took the other guys home, or food, or livestock or woman.... Or made the difference on who was the SLAVE and who would be the MASTER❓🤔❓ Or who lived and who died‼️ But after the entrance of the Revolver, and all throughout the years of improvements since.... The 98 pound weakling could meet the 200 pound Bully, robber, or tyrant on an equal playing field (or battle field) in a ONE on ONE fight with any hope of victory.... That is until governments got involved with their BULLSHIT anti self-defense laws.... Fortunately, America is coming back to our constitutional 2nd Amendment that our Founders, in their wisdom, laid down to limit our Government's power to infringe on our God given rights that the Government hasn't the authority to mess with‼️🇺🇲‼️

Clarkson is never boring in what he makes...

ʟɛɛ ʝǟʍɛֆ

Ай бұрын

Agree

jack Watson epic

2 ай бұрын

I watch anything with Clarkson in it I like the segment when he was pointing out the bullet holes on the target 🎯 lol 🤣😂

Sheepsfoot2

2 ай бұрын

Battle of Agincourt was in 1415 lol .. but anyway top show who doesn't like blasting away with black powder guns !

Leon Odoherty

2 ай бұрын

Agreed! But he is a knob. :)

Whu Dhat

2 ай бұрын

@Julian Waugh that is his allure sir

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson, third US President

Rebel Scum Speed Shop

4 күн бұрын

@Flaphammer my partner is a former London police officer and he says British gang gun crimes is the dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about

Bill Hoeft

29 күн бұрын

@Pony Malone I presume you are one of those that blame the gun rather than the shooter. Those that hate guns and believe they should outlawed can easily relocate to another country where they are outlawed, like Mexico or China or Russia then you'll be absolutely safe.

Charles Drumm

Ай бұрын

@Pony Malone yes, it is worth it. But it’s definition. Freedom makes it easier to do bad things that doesn’t mean that freedom itself is bad.

The problem with Joseph Whitworth's rifle was that the barrel fouled much more than the Enfield, because of its tighter fit standard, and it costs almost 4 times as much per rifle. It was very expensive for its time.

DoNot Touch

19 күн бұрын

@David Elliott It foesn't matter.

H Sharma

Ай бұрын

@Danny Thomson you know it doesnt matter right? You dont respond to comments to support the author directly. You comment or thumbs up to show support for the idea...to others. That's timeless.

D P

Ай бұрын

@Danny Thomsonso what?

Danny Thomson

2 ай бұрын

@Coz McWillie all cool my friend.

"Wouldn't be the last time drugs money paid for firearms" Jeremy Clarkson, savage as always

Nerinav Shrestha

2 ай бұрын

G= GOD'S U= UNHOLY N= NEMESIS

Wilfred Prins

2 ай бұрын

Oliver North would agree completely

I will never tire of Jeremy Clarkson being an absolute toolbar with professionals in their own fields. LOL

greg taylor

2 ай бұрын

'toolbar???'

Nick Maclachlan

2 ай бұрын

Especially when he's setting those fields on fire........

To all the people complaining that they didn't mention their favorite company/designer/gun. They only had an hour to cover the entire history of the gun.

And to think you could buy a Thompson fully automatic from a hardware store back in the 1920s and early 30s.

Amateur Astronaut

13 күн бұрын

​@Kasper Kjærsgaard you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Sergeant NerfsALot

Ай бұрын

Heyull yeyuh

Pirate

Ай бұрын

@Smogdanoff ah, but they weren't unlawfully regulated.. yet.

bobfall

2 ай бұрын

@duncanmil1 No. You could never get a full auto Thompson at Walmart

duncanmil1

2 ай бұрын

Now you have to go to Walmart!

There were many multi shot guns going back to 1700s. The colt wasn't the first reliable multi shot gun. It was the most available and most affordable. Also, the puckle gun was well known in America long before Colt visited England.

Aleks Night

2 ай бұрын

@FlyingLP Ranch Thank you for your kind words and detailed answer. A discussion with a polite person is always pleasant, even if the points of view differ. I will explain my point of view. 1. In Russia, there was an outdated measure of the length of "arshin", which is about 71 cm. It is still accepted that a man's step has about this length. 2. The fact is that I know the history of European weapons better (which is logical) through the prism of weapons that were popular in Russia. It so happened that in the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, with the advent of revolvers, a flood of all kinds of European-made models poured into Russia. The American Colt and Smith-Wesson were less common before the adoption of one of the models of the second company. The quality of such products was very diverse. From solid Webley and Nagan products to incomprehensible samples from Belgium and Spain, in which sometimes there were barrels made of cast iron (!!!). There is a wonderful encyclopedia of small arms under the authorship of A.B.Zhuk, where most of the samples of weapons from the second half of the 19th century to 1992 inclusive are presented. Very entertaining reading and most importantly - good images of all samples. Based on this, I am inclined to assume that a good, expensive, weapon that has passed through the hands of a good gunsmith will work no worse than modern samples in the hands of a professional. On average, there were many samples of cheap weapons, weapons that had survived poor care. And as you correctly noted - modern steels, coatings and weapons care products have stepped far ahead. So we differed on what and how people could use. 3. From my experience, I know that a distance of 400-500 meters is the limit for shooting with an open sight. It becomes impossible for the human eye to distinguish the figure of the target - it is covered by a front sight. Probably in the story about the shot at 1600 yards, the sight on the rifle was of a different type or specially modified. Well, or the shooter was unique. In the shooting of the 18th century from rifles on black powder and hits are hard to believe. However, a century later, the Enfield rifle of 1853 also fired at a distance of more than a kilometer using black powder, but the aiming range was still less. With respect...

Aleks Night

2 ай бұрын

@FlyingLP Ranch Благодарю за тёплые слова и подробный ответ. Дискуссия с вежливым человеком всегда приятна, даже если точки зрения расходятся. Объясню свою точку зрения. 1. В России была устаревшая мера длины "аршин" это примерно 71 см. До сих пор принято, что шаг мужчины имеет примерно эту длину. 2. Дело в том, что мне лучше известна история европейского оружия (что логично) через призму оружия, бывшего популярным в России. Так получилось, что во второй половине 19 века и начале 20 века, с появлением револьверов в Россию хлынул поток всевозможных моделей европейского производства. Американские Кольт и Смит-Вессон были менее распространены до принятия на вооружение одной из моделей второй фирмы. Качество же подобных изделий было самым разнообразным. От солидных изделий Веблей и Нагана до непонятных образцов из Бельгии и Испании в которых порой попадались стволы из чугуна (!!!). Есть замечательная энциклопедия стрелкового оружия под авторством А.Б.Жука, где представлено большинство образцов оружия с второй половины 19 века до 1992 года включительно. Очень занимательное чтение и главное - хорошие изображения всех образцов. Исходя из этого я склонен предполагать, что хорошее, дорогое, оружие, прошедшее через руки хорошего оружейника будет работать не хуже современных образцов в руках профессионала. В среднем же было много образцов дешёвого оружия, оружия пережившего плохой уход. А как вы верно заметили - современные стали, покрытия и средства ухода за оружием шагнули далеко вперёд. Так что мы разошлись в том, что и как могли применять люди. 3. Из своего опыта я знаю, что дистанция 400-500 метров это предел для стрельбы с открытого прицела. Человеческому глазу становится невозможно различить фигуру цели - её закрывает мушка. Вероятно в истории про выстрел на 1600 ярдов прицел на винтовке был другого типа или специально доработан. Ну или стрелок был уникумом. В стрельбу 18 веке из винтовок на чёрном порохе и попадания верится с трудом. Впрочем веком позже винтовка Энфилда 1853 года тоже стреляла на дистанцию более километра с применением чёрного пороха, но прицельная дальность была всё же меньше. С уважением...

FlyingLP Ranch

2 ай бұрын

@aleksnight5406 The other part of your statement with which I took issue was "Although by today's standards, his revolvers were frankly bad." When I initially read this, I coupled it with the "Cow Shooting Reference" to indicate a focus specifically upon the accuracy of these firearms. While I strongly disagree with your conclusions regarding the accuracy of these firearms, we may well have other areas of this discussion in which we DO agree. Let us start again with your initial statement... > Although by today's standards, > his revolvers were frankly bad." If you are talking about the metallurgy of these firearms, I agree -- there's no contest with what they can do with modern materials... If you are talking about their longevity, I agree -- the older firearms were more susceptible to rust and corrosion than the modern versions... If you are talking about certain mechanical failures (burst cylinders, broken springs, et cetera), I agree -- not only did metallurgy (see above) play into that, there were significant design changes as well (for example, the substitution of coil springs for leaf springs). If you are talking about the function of a 10 year old revolver, I agree. Modern cleaning solvents and modern lubricants and modern ammunition mean that a revolver carried for 10 years in this century, under the same circumstances as a similar design of revolver carried for 10 years in the 19th Century, will function better (including be more accurate than) its 19th Century Counterpart. Even if you are talking about the accuracy of say, the 24th shot after the last cleaning, I would agree -- with the sentiment that the 19th Century guns were inferior to their 21 Century counter parts in terms of accuracy; though, I would disagree that the difference would be all that much. Much of the "inferiority" of the 19th Century Revolvers can be attributed to inferior ammunition. The blackpowder was less consistent and more corrosive. The primers were more corrosive. The cleaners and lubricants did less to protect against corrosion (some were corrosive themselves); and the guns were less resistant to corrosion than their modern counterparts. However, if you are talking about the "fit and finish" of the firearms, I must disagree. ("Finish" here refers to the final touches on the mechanical finishing, not to "coatings" that may have been applied.) In this, I refer to "production revolvers" as they left the factory headed for the customer. Why do I say this? Well, despite the fact that our modern machining is better, it's not that much better. Most all of the guns were "hand fit" at the factory. Did they have a higher failure rate? Maybe, but they also had rigorous testing before they departed the factory. Even if they had ten times as many manufacturing rejects as the modern processes do, the rejects did not get sold. Further the functional specs of the first generation guns were the same as the "replicas" I presently shoot -- right down to the point where the "modern replicas" suffer from the same failure modes as the original versions did. And, if you are saying that the first (1st) shot from a "factory fresh" 19th Century Colt was less accurate than that the first (1st) shot from a 21st Century Replica, then I must Strongly disagree. But, to explain why I disagree, I'll need to delve into some common misconceptions about the older firearms. Accuracy tends to come down to the suitability of the barrel, the suitability of the sights, and the suitability of the ammunition -- and that's before you factor in the skill of the shooter or the influence of environmental conditions. For the purposes of discussion, I am going to define "accuracy" as the ability of a particular combination of firearm and ammo to put bullets in exactly the same place when it is loaded with exactly the same ammunition and pointed in exactly the same direction. First, let us talk about what level of accuracy could be obtained from firearms in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Keep in mind, these reports subsume both environmental influences and shooter skill. I shall start with the "American Dueling Code of 1838" which suggested a dueling distance of 10 to twenty paces. Again, we will encounter the English to Russian Translation difficulty; so I shall convert the distance to meters: 14.8 to 29.6 meters. You will note this is roughly two thirds of the range to the "Cow" in your initial comment. While a "30 step Cow" is farther away than a "20 step Human," they are also Larger. Remember, the cow presents a 20 square foot (1.86 square meters) target while the Human is an 8.5 square foot (0.79 square meters). This gives you a target less than half the relative size at more than twice the distance. Most of these duals were fought using single shot, muzzle loading, percussion cap pistols. Enough folks were wounded or died in such events that, I think the accuracy exceeded the "30 Step Cow" threshold. But, we can look back even farther. In the American Revolutionary War, American Sharpshooters were able to "hit a sheet of notepaper at a distance of 80 rods" about 60% of the time. That would be a target of about 8 inches wide by 10 inches high -- at a distance of 440 yards (1/4 mile); or in modern terms, an accuracy of better than two minutes of angle (2 MOA). That was achieved with hand-forged barrels with "cut" rifling, using hand-cast lead balls hand loaded into the rifle with inconsistent powder and aligned on target with "open" sights. At Harpers Ferry in 1775, American Marksmen shooting from the "American Side" of the river, using flintlock rifles, killed three British Soldiers on a Ship docked on the British Side. I mention this because, shooting over a known body of water, the range (approximately 900 yards) cannot be misrepresented. According to the detailed story, the first casualty was a British Officer. The second and third casualties were the "aides" who rushed to his assistance. That is important because it demonstrates these were not simply "lucky shots." All this shows that significant accuracy could be obtained using hand-forged and hand-rifled barrels. I have other reports of even greater accuracy, but I am skipping those in order to use only the reports for which I can provide ready literary citation. Nevertheless, when Colonel Colt started his revolver production with improved manufacturing processes, accuracy became better, not worse. I now turn to addressing the specific points you raised. To make it easier to match my response to your point, I am repeating individual lines from the English Translation of your post so that you can match my response to your individual point. > Secondly, I was talking about > revolvers of the mid-19th century. Perfect! Let us talk about those... > At the end of the 19th century, > the accuracy and quality of weapons > production increased very seriously. Agreed -- at least with the "quality" assertion... > Moreover, so much so that rarely > seen little-used rifles produced > before the First World War show > accuracy comparable to modern > sniper rifles. > > So much so that well-preserved > samples of Mauser, Mosin and Mannlicher > rifles sometimes receive a modern bed > and the latest sights. > In your America, they love this... That is all correct... While we are mentioning this, particularly with reference to "sniper" rifles, let us not forget the "Legendary Sharps Rifle"! In particular, I refer you to the "Second Battle of Adobe Walls" which occurred in 1874. In that battle, Billy Dixon used a borrowed .50-90 Sharps (called a "50 Sharps 2-1/2 Inch" at that time) Buffalo Rifle to kill an Indian Leader at a range of 1,538 yards (1406 Meters). While that does not seem "all that far" compared to some of the shots we hear about today, remember it was made under "combat conditions," not on a "target range" -- though the target was close to a "pile of rocks" that had been a frequent ad hoc target during previous visits to the location. Further, November of this past year, that distance put Billy's shot in 14th place for overall long-distance sniper kills (he is now in 15th place). Even more important to our discussion, he was in "first place" until 1967 -- a record that stood for 92 years. So, yeah, they made some excellent firearms in the 19th Century. Billy Dixon made his shot with a Rifle manufactured some time after 1872.

FlyingLP Ranch

2 ай бұрын

​@Aleks Night Before I start in on the technical aspects of my response, I should like to compliment you on a couple of things. First, it seems obvious to me that you are an intelligent person and generally apply that intelligence to your conversations. We may or may not agree on all points when we are done with this interaction, but I can definitely respect someone who raises valid points and proceeds logically from them. I may not agree with the conclusions reached, but would attribute such differences in opinion to differences in experience and available information, rather than an inability to reason or the mindless advocacy of a personal agenda. Frankly, it is refreshing to find someone who applies some mental effort to these conversations. It is also refreshing to find someone who maintains a civilized demeanor. Lots of times, when there are differences of opinion even over trifling matters, I see people disparage those who disagree with them. I appreciate the civility with which you have approached our conversation. Even more rare than the "intelligent" commentator, or the "kind" commentator, is the person who embodies both qualities. Often, those who show the highest degree of intelligence in their reasoning -- no matter how flawed their conclusions -- "look down on" those who do not reach the same conclusions that they reached. (Bad Input + Good Reasoning = Worse Output than you get from Good Input feeding Bad Reasoning.) By contrast, those who are the most kind in their interactions often do not "think very well." Of course, there are those who couple bad reasoning with bad attitude. While this combination of attributes is the hallmarks of a "Troll," many are simply "uncouth people." You, sir, seem to belong to the fourth category: Those who proffer reasoned opinions with equanimity. That these attributes make it all the way through the process of a language translation is nothing short of miraculous! Agree or not at the end of our discussion, I fully expect to enjoy it! ===== And to that end, I owe you an apology and an explanation. First comes the apology. My comments about the Girardoni air rifle were not directed at you; nor, were they in response to or triggered by anything you said. Rather, they were part of an observation about the whole tone of the original video and most of the commentary; but, even as such, that observation required context I did not provide. In this case, I simply got lazy and pasted part of a separate discussion into my response to your post -- simply because I already had that response started. That addition was out of place and confusing; I apologize for introducing a half-formed thought into what would, otherwise, have been a more erudite discussion. ------- Speaking of erudition and clarity, I should say that the phrase which made me respond to your post in the first place was your comments about "With a chance to hit a cow at 30 steps, but 6 times in a row." I took this to be the expression of an opinion that Colt's Revolvers were not only inaccurate, but wildly inaccurate. Upon sober reflection, I realize there may be the translation of an "idiomatic expression" involved in my interpretation. For example, in America, when we want to disparage someone's marksmanship, we might say, "He can't hit the broad side of a barn!" If we want to say the person's accuracy is REALLY BAD, we might say, "He can't hit the broad side of a barn -- from inside the barn!" Unfortunately, I speak no Russian. Even if I did, I probably would have poor understanding of the cultural idioms associated therewith. Is "hitting a cow at 30 steps" the equivalent of "hitting the side of a barn from inside of the barn"? I do not know -- so I am stuck with responding to that comment as though it were a literally "true" statement of opinion instead of hyperbole. With that in mind, here's how I would respond to the "cow comment" on a literal basis. For starters, I was born and raised on a working Cattle Ranch in the Western United States. I am -- much to my dispair when I was younger -- quite familiar with the "size" of a cow. You can figure the "average" cowhide is about 50 square feet. Since you only see one (1) side of a cow at a time, that would make about 25 square feet per side. Figuring a bit of "loss" for the curvature under the bell and over the top of the cow, I would say that about 20 square feet is the area of an average "cow side." Another term that may be mistranslated is "30 steps". Despite FitBit and other "personal training devices," in our part of the world, "pace" will be the more common metric. One "tempo" is now equal to two (2) steps. (If you start walking with your left foot forward, you count "one step" every time your left foot touches the ground.) I think something may have been lost in translation. Indeed, when I translated the phrase “A step is equal to two steps” into Russian using Google Translate, and then copied the resulting text and ran it in reverse order (from Russian to English), I got “One step is equal to two steps”. This leads me to believe that "step" and "step" may be the same term in Russian; although they are not in English! And, since our conversation may be limited by the accuracy of the translation, I cannot explain the discrepancy in size, because from your side of the translation, two different words come out the same. So, in trying to explain it in a way that the interpreter doesn't change the meaning, I'll say that you will need to say "60 steps" on your side of the conversation to get the translation "30 steps". steps" on my part. We have two different words, and I think you have one. (Or we have a translator who doesn't know the difference between pitch and tempo.) Regardless, my initial calculation of your distance to the cow was 22.2 meters (73 feet). It is possible, the specified distance was more like 45 meters (146 feet). Either way, I believe the statement on inaccuracy to be inaccurate; but, obviously, the latter interpretation of "Cow Shooting" is less so.

This guy could speak for an hour about the story of how the spoon was invented it would still be interesting

Guns were advancements of cannons, which were advancements of ballista's, which were advancements of crossbows, which were advancements of long bows, which were advancements of spears, which were advancements of throwing rocks. So, if you think about it, a gun is just a really expensive, high tech rock thrower.

That awkward moment when the BBC teaches us how to manufacture gunpowder and firearms

dr. doc🐍

23 күн бұрын

@Zach i know i know i know, replying to a 6 hour old comment. but dawg it joke. please get a funny bone.

Be Kind To Birds

Ай бұрын

@Ken H I am well away of all of that, times have changed back and forth before

Ken H

Ай бұрын

@Be Kind To Birds The BBC is a state controlled channel that has pushed specific ideologies or some may say propaganda for generations. One of the big pushes from the BBC was a pro gun control and anti gun stance. The awkward part is Clarkson gives a glimpse of the reality of how simple guns are and how any moderately indigent person could make a viable firearm even with out access to firearms parts or ammunition.

stephen luke

Ай бұрын

@L Kristoff if you make one in australia the cops will charge you for manufacture of a firearm.

Theodor Bergman had his sub macnine gun - The MP18 in service before Thompson. Thompson's design was supposed to be a counter to it. The MP 18 was copied by Britain as the Lanchester, and was subsequently follwed by the STEN and Sterling range, blowback , side emounted magazine. The STEN and STERLING being designed to be cheaper and easier to manufacture.

Mrjohnnymoo1

3 күн бұрын

@enveng427 I did not see that, but yes, pretty much.

enveng427

3 күн бұрын

​@Mrjohnnymoo1 also not seeing the lead fumes thing. You're not melting the lead. Don't lick it and you'll be fine.

Mrjohnnymoo1

Ай бұрын

@Mark Edwards Bro, 9mm is like 0.27 a round. If you were dropping 4k-40k rounds per a session and complain about it being expensive that’s stupidity. It’s not like it was an exotic expensive caliber.

Mark Edwards

2 ай бұрын

Very interesting! I used to own a STEN . I was impressed with the engineering. It was fun to shoot, but it cost way too much to feed, and I sold it and bought a car with the proceeds. Mulrimillionares may be able to afford to shoot machineguns for fun, but a session can cost $1000 to $10,000 per session. And masking and scrubbing, throwaway clothing are essential. Lead vapors.

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry

The body 'armour' was ECBA or Enhanced Combat Body Armour. It's designed to stop minor shrapnel wounds, but generally it'll keep your guts inside you until you're casevaced and seen to at the trauma unit.

The AK47 is the Toyota Hilux of guns.

Chris Burnsed

Ай бұрын

Maybe in Haiti .

greg taylor

2 ай бұрын

How appropriate that there are (Jan 23) '47' replies ............. oh shoot!! 😄

Nerinav Shrestha

2 ай бұрын

G= GOD'S U= UNHOLY N= NEMESIS

John

2 ай бұрын

​@CW Ja , eine sturmgewehr

Robert Dore

Жыл бұрын

It's more like the Honda C90 Moped

I could listen to Clarkson read the phone book.

Axel Gieck

2 ай бұрын

@David Eyres I know hat you did there, and I couldn’t help but reading it…. In Jeremy’s voice ….. in my head.

Axel Gieck

2 ай бұрын

And I‘d listen and hope for snarky remarks every now and then…

David Eyres

2 ай бұрын

It would be the “best phone book…… in the world”

helen chelmicka

Жыл бұрын

Bill..... Jones 🤣🤣

Clarkson makes the best programmes ever! Always interesting and never boring!

Would love to have seen the auditions for Whitworth and how happy the actor was who played him! Casting: “Yes we thought you were baboonish enough for the part.” Actor 💭grrrrrr “oh thank you, it’s the part I was born to play.”

Jason Rhodes

2 ай бұрын

hosted by a man called "The Orangatang."

The comments on the early flint lock pistol are slightly inaccurate. Many of them had barrels made out of twirled metal wire, which meant they could expand slightly. This not only made it possible to fire a snug fitting ball, but also any metal shrapnel you could find if you ran out of ammunition.

Loved this - what a great way to get kids interested in history, & engineering. Seems picky, then, to suggest that an influence on the battlefield, equal to the accuracy & range of the rifled barrel, was breech loading. This meant, obviously, that apart from increasing the rate of fire, the infantier could now fire from cover, or lying down. The result was the 'deserted battlefield' with which we are all familiar.

Sumvs

2 ай бұрын

There were manuals for how to load a musket lying down written by the British from around the time of the american war of independence

S S

8 жыл бұрын

In a documentary lasting less than an hour, things were always going to be missed.

George Payne

9 жыл бұрын

Actually, the more I think about it, the more certain I become that breech loading was more significant than rifling the barrel.During the Napoleonic wars, the rifle was well known, but with a rate of fire around 1/3 that of the musket, it needed all the range it could get! Allowing the round to be loaded from the breech increased the speed of fire enormously, and the invention of the minie ball - increasing the muzzle velocity even more. Also,of course, m/c guns could never have been made without breech loading. Sorry, Jeremy, I think you missed a trick there!

I couldn't stop laughing at Jeremy reaction after firing the canon!!!!

fun fact of the day Hiram Maxim made the maxim machine gun one of the loudest firearms his son came back to design the 1st suppressor XD

How does this compare with driving silly cars around a track? You present very well, as you know. It has always been good to have a certain smattering of your peculiar humour. This situation obviously cuts down on the correct opportunities. Nonetheless the whole video was interesting and informative. Well done, thank you.

On Agincourt ( 6:00 -ish) it's interesting to note that we had a lot of gunpowder weapons too - as auxiliary weapons placed on the flanks. There's even evidence for a Ribauldequin!

Colt's 1861 navy (in the cartridge conversion) has the honor of being wielded by "Blondie" in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, since it was a recognizable American revolver that wasn't anachronistic (considering the film is set during the later stages of the Civil War.)

Scott Fisher

27 күн бұрын

1851*

Why didn't they mention Gatling? His revolving cannon was the first "full auto" weapon deployed on any battlefield.

SnoopReddogg

2 ай бұрын

Wasn't that great of an advance, just an incremental advance.

Roger Smith

2 ай бұрын

It is not actually a fully automatic weapon as the barrels have to be revolved mechanically.

Squirlius DcMolen

4 ай бұрын

British

Clarkson... what an unparalleled entertainer

Colt isnt technically known for the first resolving cylinder gun, that had been around for a while. He linked the cocking of the hammer to the revolving of the cylinder in one action.

Matthew Charles

2 ай бұрын

Firearms with revolving cylinders have Been around since the 1500s .

Ted Moss

2 ай бұрын

Colts main contribution was interchangeable parts allowing the production line, which he taught Ford.

Interesting Story, like that a lot. But, he forgot mentioning one very important new technology in the improvement of the guns: The switch from loading a gun/rifle from the front to loading from behind and, in connection with that, the invention of the cartridge, where powder and the bullet and the igniting device is all in one cartridge, what makes the modern machine gun possible. The developer was a German company, the Dreyse company back in the 19 the century.

The reason Kalashnikov didn't earn any money was because he was in a communist nation. He lost the rights to his own invention the second he thought of it.

im not creative enough to make a username

24 минут бұрын

*Socialist

Jesus Christ

Ай бұрын

@Zorin Toto thank authoritarianism for a specific firearm?

Zorin Toto

Ай бұрын

Glory to the union . It's OUR ak47

Jesus Christ

Ай бұрын

@DC GEEKED id always suggest having more than just that as a source though ;)

If interested in this topic, the late Chris Kyle of American Sniper fame wrote a book called American Gun about the ten most influential firearms in US history. It's a very interesting read with some fabulous anecdotes about some of the most infamous guns ever. Highly recommended.

Actually the submachine gun was invented and used by the Imperial German Army in 1918 during the *Kaiserschlact' for the 1st time. It was very effective in breaking the trench stalemate as was the UK and French Tanks of the same period.

This was another one of his fantastic documentary’s. Superb

All I know is, I want to make make documentaries like Jeremy Clarkson, what an awesome bit of history

“When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death.” ― Thomas Hobbes

Michael Wall

2 ай бұрын

@Ted Moss Some nations are getting smaller some are not that is the problem

Ted Moss

2 ай бұрын

Good quote, just wrong problem, we are getting smaller, not larger.

I want that spud gun.

05Rudey

Ай бұрын

@Michael King I'm not good at building things, probably end up blowing my own spuds off.

Michael King

Ай бұрын

@BuzzLOLOL My take exactly, I detected a very serious anti gun slant.

Michael King

Ай бұрын

Make one yourself.

I like how he boils down the battle of Againcourt to a single sentence.

I do believe the rationale behind bishop's urine being the best was that they were often drinking sacramental wine, and thus the nitrates found in the grapes.

Simply fascinating video! Gun argument aside the information about other inventions that were brought about because of guns was amazing! I watched this vid because I am pro-gun but really got interested when I learned of the other inventions and the reason they came about either because or in spite of guns. A must watch no matter what side of the gun debate you are on.

Great video! Miss shows like this.

The best tool ever invented and as harmless as any other tool, in the right hands. The hammer, the shovel, the knife, and the Gun, all tools that on their own never harmed a fly.

Monk, Scholar, and Explosive expert? That man is a badass. Peace and explosions.

finalascent

2 ай бұрын

As I recall, the inventor of Mercury Fulminate, the basis of modern priming systems, was also a monk.

42:02 Jeremy Clarkson wonderfully demonstrating the usefulness of those pointy metal bits at the end of the barrel known as "sights" =P

It is the classic example of once invented, a thing cannot be un-invented.

Only Jeremy Clarkson would make a documentary on how to make a gun.

Jeremy can talk about drying paint and still make it sound very interesting...

It is true, with Clarkson’s shooting. You are perfectly fine as long you stay right in the front of the target

Apparently Puckle's gun came in two varieties (or perhaps it had interchangeable barrels, I can't remember). The one that fired more - or - less regular bullets (intended for use against Christian adversaries), and the one firing _square_ bullets (for 'The Turk'!!)

The electronic gun is a scary thought, imagine a world where the only people who have guns are the government, thats great if the government isn't corrupt, but I mean common how many governments have lasted more then a decade without doing something abominable.

SadWings Raging

2 ай бұрын

They were just getting warmed up...

"...the most popular gun...on Earth." That actually made me a little sad lol was expecting "...in the world." Oh well, even Jeremy gets it wrong sometimes.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson

Not the best quality but definitely watchable - thank you!

I love how they used the theme from 28 days later. What a great song.

Richie Hoyt

2 ай бұрын

But Boy - Did it ever get flogged to death in the decade or so that came after..! (Edit - like here I suppose!)

I am surprised they didn't mention that early rifling was intended to make a channel to give lead fowling a place to go. They twisted it to make a longer channel. Spinning the projectile & increased accuracy was an unexpected side effect. The original idea of cutting a channel to give lead fowling a place to go never worked as intended. Like so many things, rifling was discovered by accident while trying to invent something else. That's well known gun HX, I am surprised they left that out.

Richie Hoyt

2 ай бұрын

Forgive the 'necroposting' but I think it's worth pointing out that since time immemorial, archers have favoured fletching on their arrows that has a twist 'built~in' to impart rotation when in flight, so while I don't say you're wrong in contending that rifling was a counter~measure for fouling, I would be surprised if the spin so imparted to bullets was entirely unexpected, or even unintended, by experimenting gunsmiths.

That was really interesting. I actually didn't expect to watch it all in one sitting

Colt's was the first to use percussion caps, and Smith & Wesson invented the cartridge revolver. A flintlock revolver (Collier's idea) is really not that much better than a flintlock pistol.

Thank you Jeremy for teaching me how to make a potato cannon

Clarkson at 38:22 makes this whole show great.

The AK47 owes its existence to a WW2 German gun, just as the Uzi owes to a Czech gun. There are many historians who believe Kalashnikov was selected from the team to be a poster child for the AK. Would have thought the Gatling Gun (which itself was pre-dated by other weapons) was worth mentioning if only to explain the Maxim?

Nicolae Ceausescu

Ай бұрын

thank you! the Gatling Gun is certainly missing here

This video is pretty informative but there are a few inaccuracies. The Colt made it in time for the American Civil War but a handgun didn't make much of a difference at the ranges involved. (Also, there were ~23,000 CASUALTIES at Antietam, not 26,000 deaths as Jeremy claims.) Also, the Thompson wasn't the first SMG; the Germans made one just in time for the end of WWI. Edit for fellow history nerds: Some "repeating" rifles existed during the Civil War as well, but they were much more expensive than conventional muzzleloaders and most officers didn't want them. This was obviously shortsighted, but from their perspective it was hard enough to supply armies in the field with ammunition for single-shot rifles and muskets, so development focused on single-shot breechloaders. Repeaters were used in numbers by cavalry units, though (since it was hard to reload muzzleloaders on horseback), and to a lesser extent by infantrymen late in the war. It's worth noting that there was little standardization at the time, especially in the Confederate army.

Julian Waugh

2 ай бұрын

Also apparently at Rourke's drift the English did not lose they used a Martini henry rifle breach loaded a high rate of fire but after five rounds the barrel would overheat hence the tactic of giving pause to the firing line to reload and not overheat the rifle this enabling three ranks to maintain constant fire . That clarksob misquoted shows that he doesn't know shit and is just an annoying mouthpiece I see some people like this git but he is so full of himself I fail to see his appeal

The one kind of thing I love to collect. Just something about the power behind a firearm.

I would give my right arm to see this documentary series in a resolution higher than a pocket calculator.

That voiceover at the very end is unintentionally hilarious.

The concept of the Revolver has been around as long as firearm. Just none were safe or practical. The Puckle gun was not really a Revolver, except to the extent it had something that revolved. It was really just a multi Chambered light cannon. The cylinder was held down by a course screw... the user would unscrew the chamber, pull it back, rotate it, push it back in, and screw the chamber lock back in. They meant to refer to the Collier revolver... which, while a pistol, had to be revolved by hand, and would blow up. Colts Revolver was safe, and cocking the pistol also rotated the cylinder. Also, the assembly line and mass production was developed by Eli Whitney... in the 1830’s.

mcmax571

Жыл бұрын

There is no evidence that Colt ever knew about the Puckle gun. And it was the Winchester rifle that won the West.

Given what the BBC has done to Jeremy Clarkson in recent weeks videos like this have in my mind become infinitely more valuable. Top Gear as a whole has essentially just died. Also does anybody know if they make reproductions of the Whitworth rifle?

Pika

Жыл бұрын

This legend replied to himself 2 years later. 😎

ultrajd

6 жыл бұрын

Liam Patchett I want one. I collect black powder weapons.

Bantabury

6 жыл бұрын

ultrajd I think they do.

I love Top Gear and really respect Jeremy Clarkson, but with the green military face paint on, he looks like a British ninja turtle. haha, love ya Jeremy.

jeremy clarkson, always good!

Colt didn't rip off the British. The Puckle gun's cylinder had to be moved from the barrel, manual rotated, and pushed back into the barrel. Even if colt saw it, he did not rip it off. He made a rotating cylinder that was turned with nothing but a hammer pull

Eli Sorrells

Ай бұрын

Not to mentioned the puckle gun was very rare and was designed and made over 100 years before Colt made it to England

Whitworth also developed the first standardized fastening system. It's aptly named "Whitworth"-John in Texas

Very surprised that the Gatling Gun didn't feature in this video..!! I would have placed that as a very major milestone in the development of automatic weapons.

Analog Man

Ай бұрын

Major, yes. Milestone, perhaps. Automatic, not. Auto-loading, aka repeater, yes.

Just love how they used like 10 songs out of Fight Club and some out of 28 Days Later 👍🏻

in this series JC managed to explain the biggest inventions of all time mentioning not a single non-british inventor. Well almost. Still very funny. Sadly it stopped before he could explain which british engineer invented the wheel.

getting Clarkson to talk about guns is like getting a German to explain love.

@AVKnecht Just remember the main Battle Rifle the US used in WW2 was nothing but a glorified hunting rifle, so yes a rifle coupled with other military arms and armor have the ability to stop an invading force. I don't know if you come from the US or not but I used to live in Canada *note special circumstances I'm a Natural Born American*. Canada is under British rule, look up Ian Thompson. The man was punished by the British Crown run Court for defending his home from a fire bomber using a gun.

11:55 we were close to seeing Clarkson explaining on Top Gear how he lost his finger.

Fedorov Avtomat and ak47 are both assault rifles, while the thompson is a submachine-gun. Fedorov Avtomat is the first to be used but not the first automatic rifle. Cei-Rigotti also a rifle was developed in Italy in 1900 and also tested, but was not used.

Love this man, faults and all. I'll always listen to what he has to say

Wow, sure misses the reality of history when it comes to Rorke's Drift. The Martini -Henry .75 caliber, breech loader kept those men alive against 4000 + Zulus.

Englishman French

Жыл бұрын

Never heard of the .75 Martini Henry, they were 577-450 MH , but I get your point.

taggartlawfirm

4 жыл бұрын

Well, most Martini Henry Rifles were chambered for the .455/577 Cartridge.

taggartlawfirm

5 жыл бұрын

James Taylor yeah, I kind of wondered how they missed that. And no real mention of the Minie ball at all

It's all about how well you can throw a rock in an effort to kill something. That's the historical trail you have to follow. Start with throwing rocks at prey and follow improvements in technique and technology and you go through spears and arrows and eventually arrive at a firearm. Follow it further and you get to irmproved accuracy in the form of a rifled barrel. But in the end, it's all about throwing rocks.

from the 28 days later soundtrack. Great album!

It's clear with all the random explosion effects in the video that Jeramy Clarkson was somehow involved in directing the EFX for this video 💁🏻‍♂️😂

I started watching this because I thought it was about Clarksons inventions that changed the world 😂

Clarkson messing about with guns? Why do I feel uncomfortable? 🤣

9:39 Batman theme starts playing. Great timing too.

Humorously, I first started dabbling with pyrotechnics, 40yrs ago, after a family trip to the Smithsonian exposed me to a display showing the ingredients used in ancient Chinese fireworks. Back then, Walgreens had Sulfur and Potassium nitrate, on the shelf, and sold some to a 10yr old!

Wow the producers used the most obscure Nine Inch Nails music, B side tracks from a remix album. Fuckin perfect

Anyone know the source of the footage at 12:57 ? That's insane stuff.

just stumbled upon this... watched it before. Low quality video, but then I watched all of it without realising. Just points out how good of a documentary and great presenter Jeremy is.

No shotgun covered?! Wtf?! That's like the most important gun to have vs aliens and zombies!

Jezza gets to feel like an American for once. Being a citizen instead of a subject

That closing line is fucking hilarious. Tech support would be like, "Have you tried turning your gun on and off again?"

Well clearly the stove is the one that's always on Clarkson's mind.

The house to house combat he takes part in haha xD

Clarkson needs to do a newer series covering the same technology

Clarkson covers an ENORMOUS lot of ground here.

"I could hit a man 500 yards away [with an AK-47]. No problem.". Jeremy: Put your money where your mouth is.

Crash

2 жыл бұрын

@A regular Person production in afghanistan for aks is pretty terrible.

A regular Person

2 жыл бұрын

@James maybe but the rifles used by the Afghans are old and the rifling is probably gone

bigmoney jackson

4 жыл бұрын

@James the Vietnamese beat you with that "piece of junk"

de4th1snt3nough

4 жыл бұрын

You doubt a short barrel mid cartridge capability at 1500 feet?! Lol maybe he meant he could hit a vehicle at that distance if he just sprayed enough in that general direction, lol

tom, jones

4 жыл бұрын

James, AK-47 also have a lots of knock off. You got to find yourself a real top shelve made in USSR/Russia AK-47.

The documentary is actually much older I remember the "safe gun" part from the late 90's.

41.57 если британцы и правда так стреляют то я в шоке! ))

Cool, I love guns almost as much as I love when I find new clarkson tidbits, (which dosent happen often, thanks O.P.!)