I remember way back in 2002 - 2003 viewing the History Channel tales of the gun I seen most of the episodes twice to three times in a row so I can retain the information they speak about and use it for my personal choice if I was to buy a firearm This video is extremely informative and it has great information historical information

@21:03 - The .30 M1 carbine cartridge is NOT a pistol cartridge as was stated (twice). It was developed from the .32 Winchester self-loading rifle round as a long arm cartridge. It was not until many years after WWII that Ruger chambered a single action revolver in .30 M1 caliber.

@garyK.45ACP

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. Saved me the trouble. 👍

@vincentlavallee2779

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps he should have said that is was in the style of handgun ammo, in that it does not have the typical bulge for the powder (it is the same diameter all the way down the cartridge), which almost NO handgun ammo has. It does look like a handgun round, and in fact, it has a little more power than my .357 high end ammo, so it is a lot less powerful than the .30-06 shot in the M1 (or from any rifle).

@garyK.45ACP

Жыл бұрын

@@vincentlavallee2779 Case shape (the shape you are referring to is called "bottlenecked") has nothing to do with whether it is rifle of handgun ammunition, neither does the rim type (rimmed, rimless, rebated, semi-rimmed) there are many examples of every type in both handgun and rifle cartridges. Neither is the power level a factor. Many of the older rifle cartridges do not exceed the .357 Magnum in power. The classification of whether it is a rifle or handgun cartridge is based on what gun it was designed for. The .30 M1 Carbine was developed for a rifle, it was based on another cartridge, the .32 WSL, also a rifle cartridge. It is, therefor, classified as a rifle cartridge. Oddly enough many early cartridge handguns were chambered for rifle cartridges, making them "rifle caliber pistols" long before there were any "pistol caliber carbines"

@garyperdue5702

Жыл бұрын

pistol cartridge

@rangerup1804

Жыл бұрын

@@garyK.45ACP Me too. That clown at the NRA museum doesn't know shit about the M1 Carbine.

That museum "expert" doest know squat. Actually gives out wrong information. The .30 carbine round was not a pistol cartridge and that was a 15 round magazine, not 20. And he needs ahaircut!

@sweetkiller9696

2 жыл бұрын

Thx for pointing it out I thought I misunderstood him especially for a quite popular weapon like that I know it had 15 or 30 round magazines

31:14 : that's Vietnamese Police and Female Militia using PPSH against the 1979 Chinese Invasion in Northern Boder of Vietnam, not North Korean soldier

I can understand no mention of the STEN gun, as iconic as it is as a desperation design. However, no Sturmgewehr? I guess the next episode will be the development of the assault rifle.

@jonsouth1545

3 жыл бұрын

BAR but no BREN or any of the Czech designs that revolutionised the designs of squad level light Machine guns

@rogernicholls2079

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonsouth1545 american bias.

@Make_Boxing_Great_Again

2 жыл бұрын

The Sturmgewehr is not an icon, it’s a pioneer, there is a difference.

@Make_Boxing_Great_Again

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonsouth1545 It’s an American programme, therefore non-American stuff is unlikely to get a mention unless it’s exceptionally mentionable. That’s how Americans think you see, Americans have an inflated opinion of all things American.

@HRHtheDude

2 жыл бұрын

@@Make_Boxing_Great_Again A successful pioneer becomes an icon.

So no mention of gernman MP18?

@hovorka21

2 жыл бұрын

I was waiting for MP 18 too, but no.... We have to see BAR again, just for case that we missed it in previous episode...... And mg42? This machine gun was killed pretty lot of americans.... Maybe thets the thing🤔

Thank you for posting this series.

@joejoe2928

Жыл бұрын

🌞WATCH 23MINUTES IN HELL BY BILL WIESS SUPERNATURAL NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE.DOES LIFE EXIST AFTER PHYSICAL DEATH.WATCH THIS THOUGHT PROVOKING STORY AND FIND OUT 👑

the standard straight box mag for the M1 carbine holds 15 rounds my curator friend 🤠

@thomasholohan4090

2 жыл бұрын

Correct! An egregious error for an "expert".

@hidhshsj123

2 жыл бұрын

I was looking for a comment like this .

@radwayb

Жыл бұрын

Correct. I laughed so hard at that part wondering how he got the job!

@mikewithers299

Жыл бұрын

Yup. The 20 round mag was curved

Thank you very much 😑🙏🏼

22:15 Christopher Ruff and the 20 round box magazine of the M-1 Carbine, 31:41 Jungle Combat in Korea?

@georgesakellaropoulos8162

2 жыл бұрын

I watch this channel for the misinformation.

Forgot the No 4 and No 5 Lee Enfields

Amazing

Not blaming the uploader but at :031 in they are talking about US WW1 rifles and showing the M1903A3 which is a postwar version. It’s not like finding a picture of a M1903 would be that difficult...

👍 excellent

💥When I was a kid (I'm 64 now) I saw a lot of people hunting with .303 Enfields 1903 Springfields & 8mm Mausers but no Mosin or Arisaka rifles... I'll be nice and leave it at that.

I wasn’t aware they fought in jungles in Korea......

@ptt619

3 жыл бұрын

Ikr, korean war was mountain warfare, not jungle necessarily

The Beltway Bandits Mat 👍

LOL @ the guy(s) not actually shooting the 50 in video but attempting to mimic experiencing recoil from 9:55-10:30

this is such a great series of videos thanks for the history lesson.

@Ghatbkk

Жыл бұрын

They'd be better if they were more accurate.

Basically, a series of documentaries made by the USA about US Firearms. Everyone else is just a footnote.

Why is this mainly focused on American arms ? The great inventions of this area came mostly from Europe, especially Germany.

@vincentlavallee2779

Жыл бұрын

I think for some reason you think this should talk only about firearms only used or invented in the US. But this is nearly impossible since Europe had gone thru many wars, and thus was forced to develop and design firearms. One example is the move towards the Springfield 1903, which came from the Mauser, a German designed rifle. But this IS an American gun, although not totally designed by Americans, but far better mainly because it shot the 30-06 round, which is far more powerful that anything the Europeans used. Another example is the creation of the American Infield rifle, which shot the .30-06 instead of the very weak British .303. To continue, the M1 is NOT European, nor is the M1917 machine gun, nor is the 911 .45 ACP, nor is the BAR, nor is the .50 cal Ma Deuce. So, what show are you listening to?

@mart_en

Жыл бұрын

@@vincentlavallee2779 That's exactly my point, all those weapons were NOT European. However most of the best and most advanced guns of the first half of the 20th century came from Europe, Germany to be precise. But they are not mentioned in the documentary. And using a stronger cartridge does not make it a better gun. For instance the Mauser 98k is regarded as the best bolt action rifle ever made. On top it's 7.92 mm cartridge was super strong and could penetrate an oak tree from a 100 yards. But penetration power wasn't even important at that time anymore, firepower and modern technology was ...

Which do you like better? The 1921 Thompson (50 & 100 rd drum mag, fore grip, Chicago typewriter ) or the 1927 Thompson (wood furniture, stick mag, Band of Brothers style) ??? For shooting give me the WW2 Era Thompson but for a full auto, history& artistry I’ll take the gangsta gun 😉

@VaxlandMapping101

Жыл бұрын

1927, it’s easier to load and the mags are easier to carry.

10:32 What gun is this? It sure doesn't look like a Ma-Deuce. (Answer: I found it out it's an early Maxim Pom Pom 37mm gun) Thanks to Forgotten Weapons, and Ian for the info.

Talks about the tompson, forgets about the MP18.

So no mention of the stg44 or the mg42? Also towards the end of this, did you really make the comparison for accuracy of the m1 garrand vs the ppsh41? Those arent even remotely in the same category of guns lol

M1918A2 BAR, it’s only got two fire modes: full auto and fuller auto

@Nooziterp1

Жыл бұрын

Two selectable rates of fire. 350 or 550 rpm.

@rcstl8815

Жыл бұрын

@@Nooziterp1 That's what he said! lol

1.75 speed makes this easier to listen to. Unless you were in the marines.

@danielyuzu1631

2 жыл бұрын

You mean 0.75?

The Garand being the first ordnance rifle? Yes, and John Paul Jones discovered America... Have you ever heard about the "Sistema Mondragón Modelo 1908" rifle?

A Thompson is considered light? I guess compared to a machine gun, but they're over 10lbs when empty.

@soulknife20

2 жыл бұрын

I know this is like a year old comment but technically a light machine gun is able to be operated by one person. So yes. A Thompson is a light machine gun. Or in the case of the Thompson, sub machine gun (a term coined by Thompson himself).

Pro-Tip. Don't drag the machinegun off through the jungle, either disable it with a couple rounds from your Garand into the feed tray, or just pull the pin and take the feed tray with you. The armorer would cuss to high heaven if you shot it, but that's better than letting it be used on your fellow Soldiers. Either way, these men are ALL HEROES in my book. SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours

M-1 carbine has 15 round box magazine not 20 round

Not the knee mortar

Just going to skip over the STG44? If there was any new type of gun to come out of WWII it would be the assault rifle. Eh perhaps it will get mentioned when they bring up the AK.

@ronaldyoungberg9933

Жыл бұрын

I have this whole series on DVD and they do a episode on the assault rifle and mention the STG44.

M1 Carbine can be considered America's first Personal Defense Weapon

@budgibson185

3 жыл бұрын

Love that weapon

@alvinksmith3

3 жыл бұрын

America's 1st 'personal defense weapon' just like Humanity's is NOT a Firearm to begin with... Its the brain... I love guns just like everyone else... But let's be real

@behindthespotlight7983

2 жыл бұрын

Nah. It’s either the Colt Patterson or the 1846 Colt Navy for America’s first personal defense weapon

@carsoncasmirri3874

Жыл бұрын

And part of the inspiration for the development of 5.56 NATO

10:55 well half-cocked sure made up for his family legacy

It is kinda hilarious that with the Russian invasion of Ukraine there is now another war over 120 years after it’s creation that the Mosin Nagant has been fielded in any capacity with a standing army. Between that and the Ma-Deuce and the 1911, which has fought in every US war for over a hundred years, it’s a testament to either the desperation of people to have any kind of weapons or just the sheer reliability and skilled design of them. Also there are some M2’s in service today that are over 70 years old. If that ain’t a testament to the abilities of John Moses Browning then I don’t know what is.

Funny how they call the PPSh select fire. It has two modes, on and off. Very rarely can you get a single shot off.

@AlexShavkunov

2 жыл бұрын

They have a lot of BS in this episode. When I heard that M1 carbine was using "handgun rounds", I was like - wait, wha...? And of course my memory did not fail. The .30 Carbine (7.62x33) is a CARBINE round, as the name implies, and was a development of an earlier .32 round, also designed for a carbine. "Select fire" PPSh... Direct comparison of an SMG (PPSh) against an automatic rifle (M1 Garand)... Like, every 10 min of this video I had a cringe. IAnd I am by no means a firearms specialist. Sloppy job.

That's this episode, Jon. Chill.

Is it just me or does the narrator kinda laugh when he says fiercely erect at 7:27

👍😁🙋

This should be renamed Evolution of American Firearms as 25 min into the video and not a single non American weapon has been mentioned.

@TheEvilmooseofdoom

3 жыл бұрын

And zero about their actual evolution..

@HRHtheDude

3 жыл бұрын

Definitely a flag waving show.

@Fujiapple

3 жыл бұрын

@@HRHtheDude yup, they're mostly jerking off stories about individual soldiers and how many they killed. With minimal technical details about the actual guns

@psilvakimo

2 жыл бұрын

No mention is made of the German sturmgehwer.

@ray.shoesmith

2 жыл бұрын

The whole series is the same.

60 to 1 !

@N.A.X.

3 жыл бұрын

85 to 1

Who narrates this. His voice sounds familiar. I want to say Charleton Heston. But I think I'm wrong.

@marc260267

2 жыл бұрын

I think it's Henry Fonda

@subroaolcom

2 жыл бұрын

Coby Batty, who was in Legends and Lies.

@TexasDog3

2 жыл бұрын

@@subroaolcom Thank you.

The Chicago typewriter

Why so many adverts?

You forgott the Stg 44

This hole series is about the US/American Colonies seen through the weapons used by the people of and those who fought for the US MILITARY.

Use it as a club

At 15:58... Wow, imagine being on the American side in WW2, and having the name Adolf!😃

90% defense *good, that's what the federal government us supposed to do, not police us with Rouge agencies

The jungle battlefields of Korea?

there was the short m/38. Get you facts right

well, we all know that jpn, had the worst weapons in ww2, also total junk weapons as well, tanks were that way and the only effective weapon was out there was kamazies and that my opinion.

@Kylemathews1

3 жыл бұрын

Idk, I feel like maybe some other countries had shittier weapons. Maybe China, Greece, France or Italy, i feel like but I'm not sure.

@nikolaivasilev7371

3 жыл бұрын

...You have no clue what you are talking about ! Aside of their pistols,they had both great bolt action riffles and machine-guns. This is not even disputed by todays weapons historians(of any real importance and creditability ). You can find even today's tests (with weapons that went through a lot),just showing how good they were.Arisaka riffles were extremely good and the only downside later on was making Type 99 in 7.7x58 and its variations,which were mostly used again in jungle warfare.They were still great,but problem was that it had a far more noticable muzzle flash and recoil was felt a lot more by a Japanese soldier,while it had far worse trajectory of 6.5 Arisaka catridge.This was due to Japanese wanting to unify their cartridges due to logistics,as they saw that machine guns required more than just 6.5. Also,another myth that keeps going on is about Arisaka sights being used to shoot airplanes...Which is true and bullcrap at the same time.IT was misinterpeted by US in WWII,put into informative and training videos for the troops and later got into documentaries ..while ignoring Japanese sources. The models that did have them,were meant to be used in group fire together,basically volley.The idea was that some bullets that way may also hit airplanes,especially less maneuverable fighter-bombers carrying torpedos and bombs.It had its merits,thou quite limited,as it required the aircraft to be at few hundred meters height and having a relatively straight flight. But over all, firearms were top notch ! Even on tanks your idea is wrong,that one is far more justified due to their show of inferiority compared to Sherman and others(tank destroyers mostly,thou in some cases even Stuart) . Again,far from being junk,just outdated and build for different reasons. They were not of low quality at all.Problem was that their doctrine was based on the 30s and most of the designs...and for that time they were AHEAD of US ! With neccessity for lighter designs for marches and jungles, limitation for transport(especially due to how much of finished military products was also going back to China),focus on navy and the fact that in China they did not need anything better,their tanks did not change much in their requirements. So that is far more complicated...Later ,even after realizing that tank doctrine,requirments and design need drastic changes,their industry had to give priority to Navy and what was needed to keep China under some control(also interesting fact,but technically they spent more resources and men on fighting in China than US and Commonwealth together).So it was prioritization.They made some nice designs(thou nothing spectacular, but still good enough) ,but made in too few numbers to be of any importance.That being said,their armored vehicles were a different story and they kept on with changes ,even making some spectacular ones...but again,fewer in numbers due to prioritization of what was most important. As for ACTUAL Kamikazi unites(not to be confused with other unites who tried to crash into ships as their last ditch effort in a battle),their success fast became low and it still cost them their best pilots,making the whole kamiazki tactics just harmful to Japanese wareffort ...literally having little effect quite soon,while costing them their best pilots. Wont even go into ships and submarines,as they are a story of their own and again,quite far from junk...Not to mention aircraft. Also,this documentary has little to do with gun evolution,as they really focus on US side,while ignoring important(even revolutionary ) design developments of British,Germans,Czech,Japanese, Italians,Belgian and USSR. Not to mention full of misinformation and malpresentation in this video,which I have seen many pointing out as well

@dauntless0711

2 жыл бұрын

No good weapons/vehicles? Have you never heard of the A6M Zero, the best carrier aircraft of its day? It's true, they were obsolete by the end of the war, only useful as kamikazes. This is NOT unusual. By the end of the Civil War, almost all the weapons the Americans bought to fight it were obsolete.

@JnEricsonx

Жыл бұрын

@@nikolaivasilev7371 My grandfather brought back a Nambu pistol from Japan. I didn't know it was called for years.

American yeah

What no .303

Given recent events I think it is important to mention that Lyudmila Pavlichenko was NOT Russian. She was Ukrainian.

@juiced0202

Жыл бұрын

That's like the same thing.

@garyK.45ACP

Жыл бұрын

@@juiced0202 Ask Russians being killed by Ukrainian snipers today if it's the same thing.

Pointy sticks

Why didn’t we send the Russian’s rifles ? Machine guns ?

Ok

@samueldocski4426

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for a useless comment. Helps the algorithm nonetheless

Ak47???

This is all American rifles kinda a let down syil intesting

Go cyclic

This is legit more about American guns and America than about everything else, why not talk about German and Russians and so many more guns

Not to nitpick, but, you mispronounced the name of the M1 rifle and it’s inventor…. His name was Garand, pronounced Garann…. Sounds like ‘Karen’ with a G at the the beginning…. I know,, like the difference between tomatoes and tomataas……. Just wanted to let everyone know

For a minute it sounded like you started the making of this with reading too many Bonnie and Clyde story's. Included them takes validity from the video. Lame.....

@meinkamph5327

3 жыл бұрын

Plus this video is all war story's. We all know guns are used in war. You kinda forgot to add the Evolution of firearms. You just show who was using what. Who made these guns, how were they tested. Were they by woman or children. What condition were they built in. Were the guns a newer design of an older design. You suck as a historian... Ur a story teller.

Change the name this episode

Vietnam had to beat the French first

Too much BS inthe first 3 minutes. T down and closed!

Not the best vid of the series.

Everything you said was right on the money, UNTILL your very last sentence !!! I would never own one of those piece of crap m-16s ! I would rather have either an M-1 or M-14 than a full auto .22 cal. varmint rifle !!!!

@Kylemathews1

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah M14 is pretty heavy though. I had an airsoft gun m14 that was the same weight as the real thing (11 lbs, without ammo) and it gets tiring running around with it and holding it up to shoot. I was still a kid then, so maybe it's not that bad if you're decently strong, but I still feel like m-16 would be better if you're on the move, but m14 would be better when more stationary.

@vigunfighter

3 жыл бұрын

if 6oubthink the M1or M14 is a better weapon than the M16 then you are a fool. There is averaged reason that the M14 only served a few short years and the M16 has been in service for almost 60. If 6ou think the 5.56 cartridge isn't effective then you are a double dipped fool

@sumvs5992

3 жыл бұрын

The .223 is pretty good in general though, as you aren't engaging targets beyond 100 meters, and the smallet bullet is going to cause more internal damage in a body than an over penetrating bolt action's cartridge. Not to mention you can carry about 2 .223 for every large cartridge a bolt action would use. Not to say it doesn't have its uses in a modern military, but it doesn't seem very smart for a modern soldier to be lugging round a rifle that can only hold 15 to 20 rounds in the magazine.

could have been a great vid.. but the acting is so bad

This doc is full of bs