I mean, I can sort of understand it, from a general's perspective. You need to consider the cost and logistical strain a new, mechanically more complex, weapon could put on your supply lines. You have to weigh whether it gave enough of an advantage to warrant replacing battle-tested equipment of the time. It's a very common theme for a revolutionary new tech to lose out to something that is more reliable, simpler, or just cheaper. Until it becomes more feasible or necessary. The inventer also sounds like a bit of an eccentric that hops between what is interesting. So that probably doesnt help either. Which is probably why some of the people who worked for him had more success with it.
@@piranhaplantX You've never tried to take apart a musket have you? I've got a reproduction Brown Bess and there's quite a bit more to her than you think. She's easily more complicated than my 20 gauge break action. Depending on how the cartridge itself was made it might actually be less of a hassle than paper cartridges (Which are quite the pain in the ass even when you cheat and use glue sticks rather than tying them off), but even if it was a major pain going from 1-3 rounds per minute up to 10-12 would more than justify the trouble. Generals and the like aren't always the smartest of lads and can be very fickle, (Just remember how much fuss Crozier made regarding the Lewis Gun as well as how stubbornly the US Army stuck to the Trap-Door Springfield despite how outgunned they were against the Native tribes). I am very curious about what could have been if this was adopted though.
@@piranhaplantX Yes but that wasn't it. Logistical chains weren't near as easy to manage. Most commanders were literally in fear of the guns. They thought it was dangerous to have all the functional things that make a gun go boom in one place with only one action needed to make it go boom. They were worried it would lead to a decrease in combat discipline and would lead to waste of ammo, the irony only more palpable considering that most rounds fired at the time never met their mark.
Not really, there are much older guns in better condition. This one is barely mint, which reflects the "low" price of $5,535 that it ended up selling for. I have seen Pauly guns still having their blueing and gold gilding sell for crazy amounts
That gun is the master ghost gun. It fires in fully semi automatic and clearly has a high capacity clip magazine box fed. It's essentially sub semi auto single fire Machine handgun.
Yeah, you don't tend to EF with a country which has almost every citizen armed with the most advanced weaponry of the day . . . the survival rate caught in that kind of crossfire would be pure suicide.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Actually the Swiss model of conscripted civilian service didn't begin until 1815 and is still in use today with some modifications. A pretty successful strategy if the history of the country is an gauge.
As a Scottish person i take great offense at the claim it is always raining in Scotland, just last year, for a solid 12 minutes, the sun came out, it was glorious!
Napoleon is somewhat known for turning his nose up at what would become revolutionary technologies. "You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under it's deck? I have no time for such nonsense." -Napoleon Bonaparte.
@@patkelley4071 Well the pope said the same thing about crossbows because it allowed any present to kill a noble when the noble needed training with a longbow. The view on technology in war changed a lot. I mean now we use any underhanded tactic that doesn't break the Geneva convention but back then it was made up "honor." Personally, I think gorge Washington was a sign of "honor" dying. His crossing the Delaware was literally him attacking an army when they were drunk and asleep on Christmas. Plus he knew there general was distracted with a whore, so he literally had his pants down.
@@rolay7730, are you sure it wasn't the opposing army, who were passed out drunk, while their commander was bedding a whore, that was a sign of "honor" dying?
Not drunk, just parasitic. They make no content, they profit from content creators, but at the same time they 1)don't do anything to protect the rights of people, who bring in their profit in; 2)they created a great system to starve their own content creators. I haven't seen many examples of companies, who had figured a way to piss off both the left and the right and their variable views on economic policies, but Google had somehow done it:D
This is where we've reached. The CEO is in bed with every big outlet regardless of how they denigrate those that make UA-cam/Google/AlphabetSoup money and scumbags with brown mouths run around striking videos with copyright infringements. It's a business UA-cam fully supports seemingly by their lack of interest in solving their pathetic copyright system. Soon enough, you won't even be able to exist as a person because you'll strike some copyright quota. The whole system should be burned to the ground and CEOs of bigCorp in the industry hunted and jailed for their crimes. Those scummy f***s only exist to leach off of everyone, be they music, text, or video.
I love the low-key, sometimes unintentional hilarity of this channel. Just something special, in the transition from explaining that Pauly was a visionary who would go on to influence the entire world of firearms with one of the biggest developments imaginable, to "that's a duck"
This gun is insane. More than 50 years ahead of its time, simply because of the ammo it uses. Hilariously enough I thought that the little ringed lever that rests on the stock was meant for a sling, so it blew me away when Ian lifted it up to reveal the chambers. Truly amazing. :D
It is the same here with many quite innovative guns. Remember at the same time there was the Ferguson Rifle (which was not as far ahead of time) or the Girandoni Wind Rifle, all of which were capable of increasing the rate of fire. However you should always consider the difficulty and cost of producing such weapons on a large basis. If you produce expensive rifles to replace those you have already got, what other things won't you get. And will you be able to produce and transport enough of those cartridges and two separate powders?
A lot of the "missed" technologies we think about were inappropriate for the time due to cost, complexity, reliability or supporting technologies. Take naval steam engines for instance. In the early 1800s they were incredibly inefficient, large, heavy, dangerous and unreliable even in civilian use. This is before the invention of the screw propeller, don't forget. Naval ships were made of wood, linen, tar and hemp, stuffed to the gunwales with men, guns, food and powder already, and the first ball to nick the boiler would have turned the crew into paté and made the ship dead in the water. Where would you put all that extra machinery, fuel, freshwater and paddlewheels that wouldn't completely ruin the fighting ability of the ship? The protective ability of naval armour didn't overtake the penetrative power of a big arse muzzleloading cannon for another half century. So I think I forgive Napoleon for saying "non" to reducing the firepower and crewspace of his already mediocre navy. As much as a brass cartridge breechloader, even a single shot, seems like a huge advantage to us today, imagine the difficulties involved in mass producing them to military specs. Fully interchangeable parts weren't quite on the scene yet but mass production made flintlock muskets pretty damned close so an armourer could replace parts with a minimum of gunsmithing work. Tough enough for an illiterate conscript who has probably never operated a machine more complex than a cart in his life to maintain in the field for months or years at a time when the primary cleaning fluid was piss. Solid enough to club the living tar out of a Ros Beef and then be able to fire at the relief column. Ammunition would have to be made to such toleranvlces that it always fitted the gun and went bang, which itself would have been a very advanced technology at the time (and no chance of improvising from locally scrounged materials when on campaign). I'm sure that there were plenty of whackadoodle ideas offered to old Boney as well as the ones that eventually bore fruit too! Just think about the death rays that various governments were told about during WW2, and aircraft sound locators before RDF/RADAR matured. We remember penicillin, tanks, assault rifles, helicopters, atom bombs and sonar because they eventually worked after a lot of development and supporting technologies developed. All of these seemed outlandish at some point, and were probably proposed/theorised/offered as military technologies before they were feasible -- just as caseless ammunition, jetpacks and man portable railguns are today.
Pauly really sounds like one of those "once in a generation" inventors. Absolutely fascinating how he made something so revolutionary in what sounds like a side project
We could have reached modern infantry tactics almost a century before World War 1. Dear God, imagine how different history could have been today if this had been more successful.
You can with a muzzleloader too, just slide the rifle down to where the muzzzle is near you and the butt by your feet. Like come on, let's think for a minute here mates.
@Mr-Trox Just no. Had this been "more successful" and adopted it would have been a failure, probably used by one unit in two battles, either being forgotten or dismissed as being bad. The technology has teething problems, and has crazy cost and logistics. But no of course hindsight is clearly not a real thing apparently
That guy Pauly was severely ahead of his time. Imagine Napoleon taking an interest into his invention, and that of Robert Fulton. Europe and the entire world could have been very different today.
that or one of the other major nations at the time, even if they wouldn't adopt it, putting time and effort into researching it would've been an incredible leap in firearms technology, similar to the revolution that was Smokeless powder
I was thinking just he same thing. Do you imagine being able to put 6.5 times more volleys into your enemy? any empire with any semblance of ambition could have very, very much changed the history of the world if it had emplyed this gun.
It would have taken a couple of years to actually test it and make it a service gun. And like Ian said, it was made in 1812 so Napoleon would have had bigger problems at that time than just a new weapon for his army
Nah theres definitely sun in Scotland. They had a news report last time it happened so that must be proof? It might just be that the last time it happened the sun was hidden by the midgies?
@@Otokichi786 listen to “I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Major General” it explains quite clearly why a board of officers is about as useful as a soldier who is lame, blind, deaf and dumb.
@@ronal8824 I get why Napoleon rejected the gun, it became more expensive because of the two powder thing, BUT, the advantages of the gun far outweigh the costs, its literally a gun that can vert well change the history of human kind. They just were a little too rational and logistic
People really didnt seem to understand the Obvious advantages of firing rate until the Franco Prussia War, and I dont understand why they didnt understand that.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Arrogance, because of the superior scariness of your own national army. Like US and other mercenaries are being carved up now in the Ukraine --- basically by the same derided, "obsolete" unguided weapons the Soviets used to defeats the nazis back in WW2.
It already is a crime. It is illegal to file a false DMCA takedown notice, and that includes filing a takedown notice without considering if something is "fair use". The problem with youtube is that it gets a bit hazy as if you are monetising a video through youtube then it is generally seen as commercial use rather than educational so it cannot really be considered "fair use". That is why they do the thing that somebody else can claim the monetisation on a video if it uses their copyrighted material as it cannot really ever be a true case of "fair use". If Ian had the video monetised then if he used a copyrighted image then it is actually correct that the copyright holder can either claim the monetisation or issue a takedown notice. Assuming that the image in question was a patent document as others have said, I am not certain if this was a genuinely copyrighted image anyway, and if the claim/takedown was issued for something that a company does not actually have a copyright on then it is a crime whether the video is monetised or not.
@@commando552 Ian says he doesn't monetize any of his content on here anymore and hasn't for some time now in an attempt to avoid such issues. I watched this video a couple days ago and all I remember seeing was the standard fare, Ian a table and the object of affection for this particular vid.
@@indydurtdigger2867 Last I remember he said that he was still monetising Forgotten Weapons and would continue to do so until they stopped letting him, it was just the InRange content that was demonetised pre-emptively.
It wasn't a false copyright strike, it was one from a photographer who (allegedly) took photos of an original Pauly cartridge. Ian featured this photo in the video, presumably because it's the best picture of one. I understand the photographer wants to control his content, but they're both trying to educate on firearms history so it's a bit puzzling why he'd go after Ian, who has the same goal.
If you were the french at the time you would probably consider the cost of the gun , which must have been far more than those already in existence . Also the ammunition is probably built for this gun alone and very different from was the norm at the time. Let's not forget that this is new technology and there is every possibility that it might have failed ( or so the french would think at the time ) . Last but not least while this gun is tooled to perfection mass production by far more unskilled smiths would likely produce worst guns . Still the thought of a french army marching to victory with these guns is a very fine start to an alternative history book .
A break action, breech loader does not require tooling perfection, or the highest quality steel. It was do-able for the time period. Napoleon (and any other military leader) should have done what eventually became the norm. Order 10 of them, do some high intensity range testing for one month. Change a couple of things, order 100 of them, outfit a company, and test them in the field for 6 months. The French Army had vast numbers, and vast resources. The testing would be a drop in a bucket, and could have led to a revolution! (little pun?)
@@Redmenace96 Cartridges probably would've been the issue, as we've seen in the 1900's, where mass produced cartridges at times weren't up to the standard they should be, but besides that I agree with your statement, even if this design wouldn't get adopted, pouring Research into it could've lead to a gun far ahead of it's time that is up to Military standards
I remember when I watched the history documentary show called Tales of the gun bullets and ammo. And it was the first time I learn the existence of Pauly’s pattern ammo.
Fantastic to see this pivotal guy highlighted, who I never heard of! And someone so pivotal to cartage development and the first big, well known step, the "needle gun." Wow! I've enjoyed this channel for some time, but this one is special. Thanks very much.
@@Isegawa2001 A good thing because the percussion cap system is just an upgraded flintlock system where you still have to insert the gunpowder and ammo from the muzzle and squeeze them tightly which takes time, unlike cartridge system.
@@reillyc7605The greater death toll of deadlier weapons is a forbidden topic in the comments of gun-nerd channels. The dogmatically accepted ontology is a crude inverse of the worldview of a gun-terrified expunctionist: instead of an evil gun that aims and fires itself, your model is a shooter connected to the person shot, not by a weapon and its projectile, but by the angelic absence of one. Unless you're selling the gun or ammo, then it exists
Absolutely LOVE your videos!! Every single one of them are so informative and done in such a way that anyone can easily understand every aspect of the guns you are talking about. Currently one of my favorite gun channels on UA-cam. Keep up the amazing work!!
That is one amazing firearm!! I love the locking mechanism! Being a mechanical engineer I love the really odd/unique styles of mechanisms that go into making firearms go BOOM!
Imagine going to the past with revolutionary engineering ideas for the military and everyday life that would change history itself but not getting any funding for it.
Thanks to your channel and work my interest in history of firearms grows steadily. More than that - I started to understand and appreciate design and craftsmanship of these tools.
Thank you for your great channel and professionally presented content! Doesn't matter when we watch them, because they're timeless and always relevant.
It’s amazing how even in the early 1800’s, were looking for a faster and much more convenient way to shoot. It’s these developments that leads to the modern firearms we enjoy today.
I always like your way to explain, the historicization of the weapons and the tone calm and precise. You show your passion in every weapon presentation!
Copyrighted image? Related to a 200 and more years old design (when even actual copyright laws were not in every place)? In an educational video? Why not dispute the strike, there is a Fair Use article or what?
That sculpting on the cheek-weld (!?) on the left side of the stock is pure sex. Aside from the artistic value of this piece, this video deserves to be mandatory viewing for studying the history of Western Europe and the Americas. If this had been adopted in a timely manner, it would've had a direct influence on the course of the Napoleonic Wars clear through to the American Civil War. And like others, I'm shocked that this had an auction value lower than, say, $50,000.
No, it would no have had a direct effect on the napoleon wars! Why does everyone in this thread think this way? Hitler's ambitions were ruined by investment into new tech that wouldn't see fruition until years after his military defeats and here people are saying napoleon should have done the same! He was already on the march to St Petersburg, Alexander had already taken finland, there was already war in spain! A rifle was never going to help him. He invested extremely wisely, that is why he had canned food and not this rifle. Because he didn't need more firepower, he needed *food* This is just people wishing for a repeat of the Ferdinand! And how do people look back at those kinds of innovations? They call the Nazis fools! But change the details a bit and now every single person in this video is lining up to make the *exact same kind of logical mistake* No. This rifle wouldn't have helped. And neither would the steam engine. If they had both had years of development put into them they could have helped but you are talking about a man in a tent in the field thousands of miles from France making the decision to start experimenting with new muskets. When he had never had a problem with enough musket firepower and musket firepower hadn't won him europe up to that point. Steph curry doesn't need to learn to tackle game 6 of the finals and if he does, it ain't going to help.
I feel like $5k is low for this thing. I feel like the age, the technology, and everything (especially the duck) should make it go for quite more. There will be some half-built 1905 gun that never worked and it'll go for $50k or something. And this beauty went for only $5k...boo
Real professional video. Love the detail I spent 8 summers working for Parks Canada in the historic guard unit. They had a dedicated research library to all things from about the English Civil War to the American civil war. All my spare time was spent in that glorious room. There was the Ferguson rifle that was demonstrated to fire something like 12 shots a minute, while walking, in the rain. It did have mechanical difficulties but largely it was resistance to change that ended it. A single rifle corp let by Ferguson was used in the Battle of Brandywine, but he got shot and his rifle died with him. There was also the Desagulier loader that featured a "cartridge" for cannons. A sabot and stick were attached to the ball. The stick functioned as a loader, you threw it all down the barrel. The cannon was drilled with a vent parallel to the barrel and a hot poker was rammed in through the hole with guaranteed instantaneous detonation. It could fire 26 rounds a minute. Never adopted. The most embarrassing was the Spencer carbine during the civil war. At 20 shots a minute with a 7 round clip it faced more enemies in Washington than on the battlefield. If you look up its history it seems that the resistance to it was so pig headed that the enemies of the weapon were either stupid or in the pay of rivals. Lincoln had to intervene to get the rifle in use, and even that didn't work. The deliberate handicaps thrown at the rifle were: The rifle had to be used in single shot mode with the clip bypassed to stop wasted ammo. This was the mode it had to be used in to be tested against the Springfield. The rifle had to be soaked in muddy salt water and left on a tin roof for 24 hours and fire without cleaning just like a muzzle loader. [did these people insist when cars came out that they must be able to spend a day in the hay field like a horse and be able to derive sustenance from that?] Finally some officers insisted that the rifle would be too heavy to carry with seven rounds in the butt. I even encountered some references to frustrated soldiers ordering the rifle and ammo through parcel post to the battlefield. I'm just imaging an Amazon driver bringing delivery to soldiers in the middle of combat! Eventually the person/persons blocking the Spencer rifle had to be removed because of their determination to destroy the rifle [here my memory fails to give me their name]. So in the case of the Spencer rifle it seemed to me that someone was being paid off to keep the Springfield musket the dominant weapon. Even after the war the US military went cheap and ordered those god awful trapdoor conversions of the Springfield rifle. Why spend $40 on an amazing rifle, when for $5 you can convert crap to be less than half the capability? For perspective the price differential was about two months pay for a soldier at the time. Seems not only cruel, but foolish mathematics as well.
I would love to see a modern reproduction of this in 20ga w/18 inch barrels and without all the embellishment. It would make an awesome coach gun or home defense piece!!!
Yes, I was thinking that. Why don't modern manufacturing company's come out with some reproductions of these old types of technology. Some company's are making reproductions, but its limited. I have seen even some BB gun manufacturers like Umarex are making reproductions of older firearms like the Henry lever action, Colt .45 revolver and WW2 weapons like the the MP40, Luger, Thompson.
Omg! That gun is awesome! I love learning about forgotten weapons that were way ahead of their time. Thanks for making the video Ian. :) BTW Nice catch at the end. 14:55 ^_^
Greetings from Scotland Ian. That was all excellent. What a unique firearm. It is unbelievable the amount of innovations that were rejected by people who did not understand what they were looking at. The Admiralty being a good example. Ferguson's breech loader turned down because arrogant fools believed ordinary soldiers could not operate the weapon. The gun you just highlighted would have been a game changer.
Awesome video. This guy Pauly, who no one ever heard of, basically - single-handedly invents the modern firearm. He should be more famous than John Moses Browning. lol
Gun Jesus was so last year... I'm officially trying to start a new moniker for Ian. Gun Gandalf. It's got alliteration and also Ian McKellen, Ian McCollum... Thoughts
Гопник задира hmmm... Gun wizard? Lol I would totally pay a pretty penny to see Ian as Gandalf the grey for Halloween... And if you're listening Ian I mean literally a nice shiny penny... I'm not rich sadly
Being from Switzerland I feel a sense of pride that Pauli has basically invented the cartridge, man that's so cool I wish I could do something revolutionary like that
It was Napoleon’s second mistake that he didn’t choose Pauly’s design. If Napoleon adopts this rifle to against Russkis and Brits, the history of France and Warfare might be changed...
Yeah, everyone knows that you can feed your army and keep it warm with muzzle-loading guns! So good Hitler didn't know this, otherwise he might have... wait.
Like other breechloaders of the time, I doubt they could had produce it in the number it will take to matter. Manufacturing technology was the limiting factor, and Napoleon probably saw this.
This is one of the most beautiful firearms I have ever seen. Elegant, understated, exquisite craftsmanship, [even the screw heads are engraved!] however it's beauty is dwarfed by it's historical significance. Modern weaponry starts here. I have learned so much by watching your videos. I do suggest for those who want to learn about the development/ progression of firearms that you organize into threads your videos of the evolution of say, the bolt action rifle, or the auto pistol, or the submachine gun, into "chapters" that one can follow logically from inception to current service weapons. As someone just beginning to discover the magnificent technology of firearms I must stress that you do not leave out the obvious. I think you may pass over the M1 Garand or SMLE as old hat, but there are those of us that watch your videos of obscure versions of common guns just to assemble a full understanding of the actual "common" Bren or Luger. You have already done the excellent videos, just give us order of evolution. A sequential series that explains how and why things happened and the human story of the inventors and the real world pressures that effected what they created. Thanks for your excellent work!
Imagine revolutionizing firearms and everyone ignores it for like 40 years
I mean, I can sort of understand it, from a general's perspective. You need to consider the cost and logistical strain a new, mechanically more complex, weapon could put on your supply lines. You have to weigh whether it gave enough of an advantage to warrant replacing battle-tested equipment of the time. It's a very common theme for a revolutionary new tech to lose out to something that is more reliable, simpler, or just cheaper. Until it becomes more feasible or necessary.
The inventer also sounds like a bit of an eccentric that hops between what is interesting. So that probably doesnt help either. Which is probably why some of the people who worked for him had more success with it.
Smokeless powder and the manufacturing technology to produce cartridges wasn't there at the time, so it is understandable.
@@lordmanatee439 Yes there was. What about paper cartridges? It's the same thing with needle-fire weapons.
@@piranhaplantX You've never tried to take apart a musket have you? I've got a reproduction Brown Bess and there's quite a bit more to her than you think. She's easily more complicated than my 20 gauge break action. Depending on how the cartridge itself was made it might actually be less of a hassle than paper cartridges (Which are quite the pain in the ass even when you cheat and use glue sticks rather than tying them off), but even if it was a major pain going from 1-3 rounds per minute up to 10-12 would more than justify the trouble.
Generals and the like aren't always the smartest of lads and can be very fickle, (Just remember how much fuss Crozier made regarding the Lewis Gun as well as how stubbornly the US Army stuck to the Trap-Door Springfield despite how outgunned they were against the Native tribes). I am very curious about what could have been if this was adopted though.
@@piranhaplantX Yes but that wasn't it. Logistical chains weren't near as easy to manage. Most commanders were literally in fear of the guns. They thought it was dangerous to have all the functional things that make a gun go boom in one place with only one action needed to make it go boom. They were worried it would lead to a decrease in combat discipline and would lead to waste of ammo, the irony only more palpable considering that most rounds fired at the time never met their mark.
For a 207 year old gun, it is in remarkable condition.
It's a work of art too.
@@meme4one Aye, it is.
Not really, there are much older guns in better condition. This one is barely mint, which reflects the "low" price of $5,535 that it ended up selling for. I have seen Pauly guns still having their blueing and gold gilding sell for crazy amounts
@Joe Dirt but he's not wrong tho.
@Joe Dirt Wow, unnecessary ad hominem much?
In my opinion $5500 is one hell of a deal for a beautiful piece of history such as this.
That's a steal tbh.
Someone got a bargain and no mistake
It was a pivotal piece of technology. What a great video as well.
Yes
The woodwork on the stock alone is pricey enough, considering the historical worth this piece has i can fully approve your opinion
12 shots per minute?! Who needs THAT kind of firepower. Really, a blunderbuss is all you need for homestead defense.
When days count, the duke's men-at-arms are only weeks away.
That 2 magazine clip is made for war I tell you!
plus you can chuck in any broken bottles you have kicking around
That gun is the master ghost gun. It fires in fully semi automatic and clearly has a high capacity clip magazine box fed. It's essentially sub semi auto single fire Machine handgun.
@@Vayne18X Y'all are cute, you don't really even understand the slogans you're trying to mock
*"He joined the artillery corps of his local militia, as one does in Switzerland."*
Yeah, you don't tend to EF with a country which has almost every citizen armed with the most advanced weaponry of the day . . . the survival rate caught in that kind of crossfire would be pure suicide.
One does indeed...
Not artillery tgough, that's no fun.
switzerland is always neutral. No true enemies... but also no true friends. Gotta have a detterent.
@@richardtroell6407 Unless it's 1803 and you're Napoleon.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Actually the Swiss model of conscripted civilian service didn't begin until 1815 and is still in use today with some modifications. A pretty successful strategy if the history of the country is an gauge.
1812 and it was self-contained AND a hammer center-fire? the man was a mad genius or what?
Seriously.
I cannot believe that England's military didnt snap this up after being sent packing by the Colonists.
no no, he's just swiss
@@GameplayBitFlipper is there a difference?
He's a time traveler
@@bilelayedi8194
"I guess it's a little ahead of your time, but your kids are going to love it."
As a Scottish person i take great offense at the claim it is always raining in Scotland, just last year, for a solid 12 minutes, the sun came out, it was glorious!
12 whole minutes eh?!😂
@@ommsterlitz1805 As a more enlightened English person I agree stay out of here it's become a race to the bottom
😄
Ha!
I live in Scotland. I left for a wander around North America. It was raining when I flew off, and it was still raining months later when I came back.
Crazy to think that when the Titanic sunk, that gun was already 100 years old.
Over 200 years old today
Not really
208 years old now
Sank
@@Doggieman1111 nobody likes a grammar nazi, go away
Napoleon is somewhat known for turning his nose up at what would become revolutionary technologies.
"You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under it's deck? I have no time for such nonsense."
-Napoleon Bonaparte.
What a boomer
excellent and apropos.
Napoleon also rejected the idea of a submarine, as a sinister and unmanly form of combat.
@@patkelley4071 Well the pope said the same thing about crossbows because it allowed any present to kill a noble when the noble needed training with a longbow.
The view on technology in war changed a lot. I mean now we use any underhanded tactic that doesn't break the Geneva convention but back then it was made up "honor." Personally, I think gorge Washington was a sign of "honor" dying. His crossing the Delaware was literally him attacking an army when they were drunk and asleep on Christmas. Plus he knew there general was distracted with a whore, so he literally had his pants down.
@@rolay7730, are you sure it wasn't the opposing army, who were passed out drunk, while their commander was bedding a whore, that was a sign of "honor" dying?
Copyrighted still image.
On a completely recorded video?
UA-cam you're drunk!
Not drunk, just parasitic. They make no content, they profit from content creators, but at the same time they 1)don't do anything to protect the rights of people, who bring in their profit in; 2)they created a great system to starve their own content creators. I haven't seen many examples of companies, who had figured a way to piss off both the left and the right and their variable views on economic policies, but Google had somehow done it:D
TheArklyte Exactly. They are like patent trolls, except with much more fail. -70B market cap thanks to their mismanagement.
I *think* around the 6 minute mark, there was previously a diagram of a cartridge from patent documents which no longer appears in this reupload.
@@nemoleamzi3172
Actuall usefull information :)
Thank you!
This is where we've reached. The CEO is in bed with every big outlet regardless of how they denigrate those that make UA-cam/Google/AlphabetSoup money and scumbags with brown mouths run around striking videos with copyright infringements. It's a business UA-cam fully supports seemingly by their lack of interest in solving their pathetic copyright system.
Soon enough, you won't even be able to exist as a person because you'll strike some copyright quota.
The whole system should be burned to the ground and CEOs of bigCorp in the industry hunted and jailed for their crimes. Those scummy f***s only exist to leach off of everyone, be they music, text, or video.
I love the low-key, sometimes unintentional hilarity of this channel. Just something special, in the transition from explaining that Pauly was a visionary who would go on to influence the entire world of firearms with one of the biggest developments imaginable, to "that's a duck"
IT HAS LITTLE FEET!!
"I'm gonna start here... that's a duck!
The original "birdshead" grip?
That looks so rediculously "modern" and well thought out, even without considering the time it was conceived. Genuinely impressive.
This gun is insane. More than 50 years ahead of its time, simply because of the ammo it uses.
Hilariously enough I thought that the little ringed lever that rests on the stock was meant for a sling, so it blew me away when Ian lifted it up to reveal the chambers. Truly amazing. :D
Beautifully made and with very little adaptation the design could work today with modern cartridge's.
I'll just reupload my thumbs up.
Between this and steam engines for ships, Napoleon did not have the best track record for military inventions, it seems.
Napoleon had lots of technical foresight, though, he was known as an innovator. Strange.
Napoleon despised the rifles too
@@gregmodelle7343
No one can get everything right.
It is the same here with many quite innovative guns. Remember at the same time there was the Ferguson Rifle (which was not as far ahead of time) or the Girandoni Wind Rifle, all of which were capable of increasing the rate of fire. However you should always consider the difficulty and cost of producing such weapons on a large basis. If you produce expensive rifles to replace those you have already got, what other things won't you get. And will you be able to produce and transport enough of those cartridges and two separate powders?
A lot of the "missed" technologies we think about were inappropriate for the time due to cost, complexity, reliability or supporting technologies. Take naval steam engines for instance. In the early 1800s they were incredibly inefficient, large, heavy, dangerous and unreliable even in civilian use. This is before the invention of the screw propeller, don't forget. Naval ships were made of wood, linen, tar and hemp, stuffed to the gunwales with men, guns, food and powder already, and the first ball to nick the boiler would have turned the crew into paté and made the ship dead in the water. Where would you put all that extra machinery, fuel, freshwater and paddlewheels that wouldn't completely ruin the fighting ability of the ship? The protective ability of naval armour didn't overtake the penetrative power of a big arse muzzleloading cannon for another half century. So I think I forgive Napoleon for saying "non" to reducing the firepower and crewspace of his already mediocre navy.
As much as a brass cartridge breechloader, even a single shot, seems like a huge advantage to us today, imagine the difficulties involved in mass producing them to military specs. Fully interchangeable parts weren't quite on the scene yet but mass production made flintlock muskets pretty damned close so an armourer could replace parts with a minimum of gunsmithing work. Tough enough for an illiterate conscript who has probably never operated a machine more complex than a cart in his life to maintain in the field for months or years at a time when the primary cleaning fluid was piss. Solid enough to club the living tar out of a Ros Beef and then be able to fire at the relief column. Ammunition would have to be made to such toleranvlces that it always fitted the gun and went bang, which itself would have been a very advanced technology at the time (and no chance of improvising from locally scrounged materials when on campaign).
I'm sure that there were plenty of whackadoodle ideas offered to old Boney as well as the ones that eventually bore fruit too! Just think about the death rays that various governments were told about during WW2, and aircraft sound locators before RDF/RADAR matured. We remember penicillin, tanks, assault rifles, helicopters, atom bombs and sonar because they eventually worked after a lot of development and supporting technologies developed. All of these seemed outlandish at some point, and were probably proposed/theorised/offered as military technologies before they were feasible -- just as caseless ammunition, jetpacks and man portable railguns are today.
"allegedly copyrighted" Ian's not happy about having to re-upload this.
yeah i'm not sure anyone would be happy with having to re-upload vids
Oh,so that's why I can't find comments i remembered were there. Right
Pauly really sounds like one of those "once in a generation" inventors. Absolutely fascinating how he made something so revolutionary in what sounds like a side project
Not only did this advancement allow for 10x the rate of fire, it allowed a shooter to reload from the prone position and remain behind cover.
We could have reached modern infantry tactics almost a century before World War 1.
Dear God, imagine how different history could have been today if this had been more successful.
That's a really good point
You can reload a muzzleloader in the prone position, its just more difficult.
You can with a muzzleloader too, just slide the rifle down to where the muzzzle is near you and the butt by your feet.
Like come on, let's think for a minute here mates.
@Mr-Trox Just no. Had this been "more successful" and adopted it would have been a failure, probably used by one unit in two battles, either being forgotten or dismissed as being bad. The technology has teething problems, and has crazy cost and logistics. But no of course hindsight is clearly not a real thing apparently
That guy Pauly was severely ahead of his time. Imagine Napoleon taking an interest into his invention, and that of Robert Fulton. Europe and the entire world could have been very different today.
that or one of the other major nations at the time, even if they wouldn't adopt it, putting time and effort into researching it would've been an incredible leap in firearms technology, similar to the revolution that was Smokeless powder
I was thinking just he same thing. Do you imagine being able to put 6.5 times more volleys into your enemy? any empire with any semblance of ambition could have very, very much changed the history of the world if it had emplyed this gun.
Well...
They say that God works in mysterious ways.
It would have taken a couple of years to actually test it and make it a service gun. And like Ian said, it was made in 1812 so Napoleon would have had bigger problems at that time than just a new weapon for his army
yeah, moscow would probably be speaking french right now
"...Scotland,where it's always raining..." Can confirm. How do you know when it's Summer in Scotland? The rain is warmer! Alba gu breath!
Nah theres definitely sun in Scotland. They had a news report last time it happened so that must be proof?
It might just be that the last time it happened the sun was hidden by the midgies?
It’s insane to think that someone in 1812 invented a double barrel shotgun, AND NO ONE THOUGHT OF USING IT MILITARILY.
Like the U.S. Board of Officers during the Civil War complaining about soldiers "wasting ammunition" while mowing down the enemy in record time.
@@Otokichi786 listen to “I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Major General” it explains quite clearly why a board of officers is about as useful as a soldier who is lame, blind, deaf and dumb.
@@ronal8824 I get why Napoleon rejected the gun, it became more expensive because of the two powder thing, BUT, the advantages of the gun far outweigh the costs, its literally a gun that can vert well change the history of human kind. They just were a little too rational and logistic
People really didnt seem to understand the Obvious advantages of firing rate until the Franco Prussia War, and I dont understand why they didnt understand that.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Arrogance, because of the superior scariness of your own national army. Like US and other mercenaries are being carved up now in the Ukraine --- basically by the same derided, "obsolete" unguided weapons the Soviets used to defeats the nazis back in WW2.
:> it's an upside down duck.. the cocking hammers are feet, the barrel is a long tail and it's farts are deadly...
Upside down duck? So a dead duck? Makes sense for a hunting rifle
put down the bong my man lolol
Wow this is very underrated Samuel can literally jump tech tree's. I can see why many people were inspired by him.
This is getting ridiculous, its going to come to a point where false copyright strikes need to be prosecuted as felonies.
It already is a crime. It is illegal to file a false DMCA takedown notice, and that includes filing a takedown notice without considering if something is "fair use". The problem with youtube is that it gets a bit hazy as if you are monetising a video through youtube then it is generally seen as commercial use rather than educational so it cannot really be considered "fair use". That is why they do the thing that somebody else can claim the monetisation on a video if it uses their copyrighted material as it cannot really ever be a true case of "fair use". If Ian had the video monetised then if he used a copyrighted image then it is actually correct that the copyright holder can either claim the monetisation or issue a takedown notice. Assuming that the image in question was a patent document as others have said, I am not certain if this was a genuinely copyrighted image anyway, and if the claim/takedown was issued for something that a company does not actually have a copyright on then it is a crime whether the video is monetised or not.
@@commando552 Ian says he doesn't monetize any of his content on here anymore and hasn't for some time now in an attempt to avoid such issues. I watched this video a couple days ago and all I remember seeing was the standard fare, Ian a table and the object of affection for this particular vid.
@@indydurtdigger2867 Last I remember he said that he was still monetising Forgotten Weapons and would continue to do so until they stopped letting him, it was just the InRange content that was demonetised pre-emptively.
@@commando552 Ahh, I remember him saying that but must have forgotten that it was on the other channel.
It wasn't a false copyright strike, it was one from a photographer who (allegedly) took photos of an original Pauly cartridge. Ian featured this photo in the video, presumably because it's the best picture of one.
I understand the photographer wants to control his content, but they're both trying to educate on firearms history so it's a bit puzzling why he'd go after Ian, who has the same goal.
This is like finding the Wright brothers space shuttle!
Are you serious?
No, he’s jk. The the Wright Bros. used an f-18 SuperHornet
I have Gutenberg's original laser printer in my attic. I'll sell it to you if the price is right.
Or Bachs E-keyboard
@@LucasIsHereYT It's called a simile.
Why did such an artifact sell for only five grand?
Possibly because it takes 15 minutes to describe why it's important :'(
@@Doggieman1111 Its the first gun ever to use cartridges... that alone should make the value sky rocket.
Condition
Maybe it's just a replica?
@@wildman510 no
If you were the french at the time you would probably consider the cost of the gun , which must have been far more than those already in existence . Also the ammunition is probably built for this gun alone and very different from was the norm at the time. Let's not forget that this is new technology and there is every possibility that it might have failed ( or so the french would think at the time ) . Last but not least while this gun is tooled to perfection mass production by far more unskilled smiths would likely produce worst guns . Still the thought of a french army marching to victory with these guns is a very fine start to an alternative history book .
Logisticaly adding more varities of ammo would also strangle supply chains
A break action, breech loader does not require tooling perfection, or the highest quality steel. It was do-able for the time period. Napoleon (and any other military leader) should have done what eventually became the norm. Order 10 of them, do some high intensity range testing for one month. Change a couple of things, order 100 of them, outfit a company, and test them in the field for 6 months. The French Army had vast numbers, and vast resources. The testing would be a drop in a bucket, and could have led to a revolution! (little pun?)
@@Redmenace96 Cartridges probably would've been the issue, as we've seen in the 1900's, where mass produced cartridges at times weren't up to the standard they should be, but besides that I agree with your statement, even if this design wouldn't get adopted, pouring Research into it could've lead to a gun far ahead of it's time that is up to Military standards
Yes it would be extremely expensive. Screws were hard to make, there were no factories yet, and now they would need tons and tons of mercury.
@@qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqw I might have missed it, why would they need mercury?
I remember when I watched the history documentary show called Tales of the gun bullets and ammo. And it was the first time I learn the existence of Pauly’s pattern ammo.
I loved that show back in the day but some of those Tales they told were embellished or just plain wrong.
5535 $ for that gun is way to low. I expected extra 0 at the end of that price.
Apparently compared to other guns of this type, it's in kind of iffy condition. Still REALLY good, mind you, but not ideal.
Fantastic to see this pivotal guy highlighted, who I never heard of! And someone so pivotal to cartage development and the first big, well known step, the "needle gun." Wow! I've enjoyed this channel for some time, but this one is special. Thanks very much.
If he had spent a little more time we would never have had percussion cap guns.
Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
@@Isegawa2001 A good thing because the percussion cap system is just an upgraded flintlock system where you still have to insert the gunpowder and ammo from the muzzle and squeeze them tightly which takes time, unlike cartridge system.
@@emperorfaiz I think he was talking about the fact that you would have been able to kill more people.
@@reillyc7605The greater death toll of deadlier weapons is a forbidden topic in the comments of gun-nerd channels. The dogmatically accepted ontology is a crude inverse of the worldview of a gun-terrified expunctionist: instead of an evil gun that aims and fires itself, your model is a shooter connected to the person shot, not by a weapon and its projectile, but by the angelic absence of one. Unless you're selling the gun or ammo, then it exists
Wonderful job of putting this in its historical context as well as connecting it with later developments in cartridge weapons.
Leave gun jesus alone copy strikers
I renounce the in the name of firepower
I wonder whether the anti-gun algorithm came into play. YT has been overtly hostile not just to independent creators, but doubly so to gun channels
His content will be gone very soon, he's considered right wing by the Internet police. They will take this channel down.
Probably socialist bots doing that.
Gun Jesus shall die for our sins
Yay! Thank you, that was one of the most surprising and historically significant videos in your portfolio!
By far! One of my favorite episodes!!! The greatest advances also tend to be the most overlooked. Love this gun!!!
guys...we're looking at the g11 of 1812
More than that. Were looking at the first mass issued semi auto rifle in bolt action days level of change. It changes everything.
Absolutely LOVE your videos!! Every single one of them are so informative and done in such a way that anyone can easily understand every aspect of the guns you are talking about. Currently one of my favorite gun channels on UA-cam. Keep up the amazing work!!
That is one amazing firearm!! I love the locking mechanism! Being a mechanical engineer I love the really odd/unique styles of mechanisms that go into making firearms go BOOM!
I love how, whenever I read a Loius L'mour book. The gun mentioned are always in a forgotton weapons video.
if Ian reuploads all his videos then i guess ill just have to watch them all again
It's a beautiful gun to watch twice.
Perhaps the most important man in recent history, allowing killing to become more efficient then ever before.
An incredible piece of history and a really beautiful piece of engineering, thank you for bringing this piece of history to life for us!
Imagine going to the past with revolutionary engineering ideas for the military and everyday life that would change history itself but not getting any funding for it.
This is why I love this channel Ian really puts across just how amazing this gun was at the time.
Look on the bright side: Napoleon's loss was Tchaikovsky's gain.
Pauly: "perhaps twelve shots per minute..."
Jerry miculek: "gimme that! Get some! Hahahahaha!" 😆
Thanks to your channel and work my interest in history of firearms grows steadily. More than that - I started to understand and appreciate design and craftsmanship of these tools.
Thank you for your great channel and professionally presented content! Doesn't matter when we watch them, because they're timeless and always relevant.
It’s amazing how even in the early 1800’s, were looking for a faster and much more convenient way to shoot. It’s these developments that leads to the modern firearms we enjoy today.
Thank you for this important piece of history! let's hope Paulys name will be better known in the future, he deserves it
It’s insane that this got overlooked in my opinion. Definitely deserves to be looked at and highlighted.
I always like your way to explain, the historicization of the weapons and the tone calm and precise. You show your passion in every weapon presentation!
Copyrighted image? Related to a 200 and more years old design (when even actual copyright laws were not in every place)? In an educational video?
Why not dispute the strike, there is a Fair Use article or what?
Who could even claim ownership to have the right to file a takedown? Never mind that diagrams become public domain as part of the patenting process...
As someone else said, it could be a photo owned by someone else. We just don't know.
Incredible design, love history. Keep up videos mate
Thank you Ian. Great hommage. Love your work
You have a gift for telling interesning stories, Mr. McCollum. These presentations are quite valuable in both the historical and engineering sense.
That sculpting on the cheek-weld (!?) on the left side of the stock is pure sex. Aside from the artistic value of this piece, this video deserves to be mandatory viewing for studying the history of Western Europe and the Americas. If this had been adopted in a timely manner, it would've had a direct influence on the course of the Napoleonic Wars clear through to the American Civil War. And like others, I'm shocked that this had an auction value lower than, say, $50,000.
Whoever won that weapon got it as a steal. Lucky bastard.
No, it would no have had a direct effect on the napoleon wars!
Why does everyone in this thread think this way? Hitler's ambitions were ruined by investment into new tech that wouldn't see fruition until years after his military defeats and here people are saying napoleon should have done the same!
He was already on the march to St Petersburg, Alexander had already taken finland, there was already war in spain!
A rifle was never going to help him.
He invested extremely wisely, that is why he had canned food and not this rifle.
Because he didn't need more firepower, he needed *food*
This is just people wishing for a repeat of the Ferdinand! And how do people look back at those kinds of innovations? They call the Nazis fools!
But change the details a bit and now every single person in this video is lining up to make the *exact same kind of logical mistake*
No. This rifle wouldn't have helped. And neither would the steam engine.
If they had both had years of development put into them they could have helped but you are talking about a man in a tent in the field thousands of miles from France making the decision to start experimenting with new muskets.
When he had never had a problem with enough musket firepower and musket firepower hadn't won him europe up to that point.
Steph curry doesn't need to learn to tackle game 6 of the finals and if he does, it ain't going to help.
One word: Shrapnel. British invention.
This shotgun is so fancy and beautiful that if Ian have said it fires diamonds i would belive him...
Jacketed diamond-core bullets sound pretty hardcore.
...Now there's a fancy exotic round for Taofledermaus to try.
I feel like $5k is low for this thing. I feel like the age, the technology, and everything (especially the duck) should make it go for quite more. There will be some half-built 1905 gun that never worked and it'll go for $50k or something. And this beauty went for only $5k...boo
@@extragoogleaccount6061 You're goddamn right...
Real professional video. Love the detail
I spent 8 summers working for Parks Canada in the historic guard unit. They had a dedicated research library to all things from about the English Civil War to the American civil war. All my spare time was spent in that glorious room.
There was the Ferguson rifle that was demonstrated to fire something like 12 shots a minute, while walking, in the rain. It did have mechanical difficulties but largely it was resistance to change that ended it. A single rifle corp let by Ferguson was used in the Battle of Brandywine, but he got shot and his rifle died with him. There was also the Desagulier loader that featured a "cartridge" for cannons. A sabot and stick were attached to the ball. The stick functioned as a loader, you threw it all down the barrel. The cannon was drilled with a vent parallel to the barrel and a hot poker was rammed in through the hole with guaranteed instantaneous detonation. It could fire 26 rounds a minute. Never adopted. The most embarrassing was the Spencer carbine during the civil war. At 20 shots a minute with a 7 round clip it faced more enemies in Washington than on the battlefield. If you look up its history it seems that the resistance to it was so pig headed that the enemies of the weapon were either stupid or in the pay of rivals. Lincoln had to intervene to get the rifle in use, and even that didn't work. The deliberate handicaps thrown at the rifle were: The rifle had to be used in single shot mode with the clip bypassed to stop wasted ammo. This was the mode it had to be used in to be tested against the Springfield. The rifle had to be soaked in muddy salt water and left on a tin roof for 24 hours and fire without cleaning just like a muzzle loader. [did these people insist when cars came out that they must be able to spend a day in the hay field like a horse and be able to derive sustenance from that?] Finally some officers insisted that the rifle would be too heavy to carry with seven rounds in the butt.
I even encountered some references to frustrated soldiers ordering the rifle and ammo through parcel post to the battlefield. I'm just imaging an Amazon driver bringing delivery to soldiers in the middle of combat!
Eventually the person/persons blocking the Spencer rifle had to be removed because of their determination to destroy the rifle [here my memory fails to give me their name].
So in the case of the Spencer rifle it seemed to me that someone was being paid off to keep the Springfield musket the dominant weapon. Even after the war the US military went cheap and ordered those god awful trapdoor conversions of the Springfield rifle. Why spend $40 on an amazing rifle, when for $5 you can convert crap to be less than half the capability? For perspective the price differential was about two months pay for a soldier at the time. Seems not only cruel, but foolish mathematics as well.
This was probably the one of the coolest, if not the coolest, videos you have done
wow this Pauli fella is one of the great forgotten engineers of the early "Modern" era.
Pauly was an absolute genius!
An amazing piece with a Very beautiful stock. That is some crazy looking wood in the stock!
Thanks Ian for your excellent commentary on this amazing talent ..Pauley
This is one of the sleekest, and prettiest guns I've ever seen.....
I would love to see a modern reproduction of this in 20ga w/18 inch barrels and without all the embellishment. It would make an awesome coach gun or home defense piece!!!
Yes, I was thinking that. Why don't modern manufacturing company's come out with some reproductions of these old types of technology. Some company's are making reproductions, but its limited.
I have seen even some BB gun manufacturers like Umarex are making reproductions of older firearms like the Henry lever action, Colt .45 revolver and WW2 weapons like the the MP40, Luger, Thompson.
Truly amazing. Thanks for bringing this to us.
If anyone could be called 'The Professor' of firearms, it is Ian. Thank you for this important history of guns. Peace be unto you.
Wonderfully sleek and elegant. I wish you had had a cartridge to show.
Try Samuel Pauly on freemycollection.com. It is a shame that Ian can not show them. They are remarkable.
“That, is s duck”
Yes ian, yes.
Dear god!
Another excellent video! I had no idea that this even existed. Again, great job!
I love how simple it looks. Indeed, master engineering is when it is the most straightforward
Is there a book on Pauly? He sounds fascinating...
Did you ever find a good book on this guy? This seems like something that would be extremely interesting to read in detail about.
He deserves his own chapter in the Illustrated History of Firearms.
It is not always raining is Scotland !
It only rains most of the time :)
Indeed & when it's not the rainy season, it's the midge (no-see-um) season. ;-)
Beautiful and engineered so cleanly.
Bet it handled like a dream.
Very nice review and even nicer history lesson! Thank you :)
It's not always raining in Scotland. Sometimes we get snow.
Omg! That gun is awesome! I love learning about forgotten weapons that were way ahead of their time. Thanks for making the video Ian. :)
BTW Nice catch at the end. 14:55 ^_^
Greetings from Scotland Ian. That was all excellent. What a unique firearm. It is unbelievable the amount of innovations that were rejected by people who did not understand what they were looking at. The Admiralty being a good example. Ferguson's breech loader turned down because arrogant fools believed ordinary soldiers could not operate the weapon. The gun you just highlighted would have been a game changer.
Awesome and interesting presentation! Thank you!
I believe Napoleon perfected the use of skirmishers.
Imagine if he'd had the foresight to adopt this for them as a trial?
14:13 Was Lefaucheux a common surname in France or are those actually the same guys from the over under shotgun and the 20-shot pinfire revolver?
Yes, Ian said that is the same Lefauchet that worked on the pinfire.
The level of craftsmanship on that gun for its time period is exquisite. What a story!
Excellent video Ian!
"Its a little bit loose today, but it is 200 years old."
Explain my ex then...
3'000'000 miles on her undercarriage.
Why has no one made a replica of this to fire? C'mon firearm people wtf
Wow. That is really really cool. Thanks Ian!
"I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it."
Re- uploaded ?
Awesome video. This guy Pauly, who no one ever heard of, basically - single-handedly invents the modern firearm. He should be more famous than John Moses Browning. lol
Not gonna lie, I'm a little envious of who ever acquired this. What a fascinating and well preserved peace of firearm history.
What an absolutely gorgeous piece.
Gun Jesus was so last year... I'm officially trying to start a new moniker for Ian. Gun Gandalf. It's got alliteration and also Ian McKellen, Ian McCollum... Thoughts
Gun jesus is better.
Гопник задира hmmm... Gun wizard? Lol I would totally pay a pretty penny to see Ian as Gandalf the grey for Halloween... And if you're listening Ian I mean literally a nice shiny penny... I'm not rich sadly
I have one - Gun Buddha. 😅
Lanola Bombalock is that intentionally ironic? If so I think I dig it. Lol
Being from Switzerland I feel a sense of pride that Pauli has basically invented the cartridge, man that's so cool I wish I could do something revolutionary like that
Quite a piece of craftsmanship.
It was Napoleon’s second mistake that he didn’t choose Pauly’s design. If Napoleon adopts this rifle to against Russkis and Brits, the history of France and Warfare might be changed...
Yeah, everyone knows that you can feed your army and keep it warm with muzzle-loading guns! So good Hitler didn't know this, otherwise he might have... wait.
Like other breechloaders of the time, I doubt they could had produce it in the number it will take to matter. Manufacturing technology was the limiting factor, and Napoleon probably saw this.
This is one of the most beautiful firearms I have ever seen. Elegant, understated, exquisite craftsmanship, [even the screw heads are engraved!] however it's beauty is dwarfed by it's historical significance. Modern weaponry starts here. I have learned so much by watching your videos. I do suggest for those who want to learn about the development/ progression of firearms that you organize into threads your videos of the evolution of say, the bolt action rifle, or the auto pistol, or the submachine gun, into "chapters" that one can follow logically from inception to current service weapons. As someone just beginning to discover the magnificent technology of firearms I must stress that you do not leave out the obvious. I think you may pass over the M1 Garand or SMLE as old hat, but there are those of us that watch your videos of obscure versions of common guns just to assemble a full understanding of the actual "common" Bren or Luger. You have already done the excellent videos, just give us order of evolution. A sequential series that explains how and why things happened and the human story of the inventors and the real world pressures that effected what they created. Thanks for your excellent work!
Amazing weapon history, thanks! I'm happy YT finally recommended it to me, lol.
What a truly beautiful piece!
Truly amazing how this was so far ahead of its time!!