Pistols, revolvers and swords in the mid-19th century

Firearms were not a solution to prevent hand-to-hand combat in the 19th century and here we look specifically at pistols and revolvers.

[@patio87]

As a gun enthusiast and shooter I can tell you from experience that even hitting a target accurately and consistently from 7 yards away is not easy. Now pretend you're sitting on a horse, firing at a moving target, while completely stressed out. Good luck.

[@electronkaleidoscope5860]

+patio87 i can second this. People tent to think that its just "point and fire!" but then you realize humans freaking suck at pointing :p

[@Xandros999]

+The HolyWafflePowder Untrue! Humans are very good at pointing fingers!

[@electronkaleidoscope5860]

Xandros999 :P pointing accurately specifically

[@manictiger]

+patio87 It's easy, but you have to breathe and stay calm. That's why it's advised to get your heart rate up before shooting if you want to become consistently accurate. 99.99% of succeeding in anything in life is all about psychology.

[@JulianWeaver]

@@manictiger Angry masses of tulwar wielding men tend to ruin ones zen-like calm...

[@gungriffen]

I like swords a lot, I prefer Rapiers a lot..... but the Texan in me can't break eye contact of that revolver....

[@effigytormented]

+Gungriffen Use both.

[@NonApplicable1983]

Get a rapier with a pistol built into the hilt.

[@migkillerphantom]

+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) Pistol & rapier sounds like a fairly probable historical combination. The pistol makes for a workable off-hand parrying tool as well.

[@brucetucker4847]

One thing to remember about firearms in combat is that from the earliest handguns to today's assault rifles, the vast majority of shots fired miss their target. It's not a question of how many people one man with a revolver could kill, it's how many people who fired off twelve shots from two revolvers could expect to hit even one enemy soldier, and the answer is probably somewhere between one in three to one in ten, depending on the circumstances. Even today you read plenty of accounts of police officers (who probably get more target practice than the average 1860s officer did) firing 17 shots from a modern semiauto 9mm at a suspect 10 feet away and missing with all of them. Shooting under that kind of stress is *very* difficult. I'm sure killing someone with a sword in battle is difficult too, but the big difference is that if your attack with a sword is clumsy or not aggressive enough because of the stress of combat, or you find (as many do) that you just can't bring yourself to shoot or stab another human being in the face even when he's right in front of you trying to kill you, you're still left with a perfectly good weapon with which to defend yourself.

[@mikesweeney5244]

I believe everything you said is true. I have a pair of replica 1851 army revolvers and a Cold Steel cutlass. Thanks from California.

[@GunFunZS]

You were firing on all cylinders there. Another thing that is relevant is the pistol shooting doctrine of the day was largely based around the assumption that your gun would not be accurate, and that you would probably be mounted. So they used a one handed stance, generally were trained to ignore the sights and basically stand bladed and point. Some people with a great deal of practice can shoot well like this for close encounters, but most cannot. It is also fairly slow, even if the caps do not cause problems. As for ballistics. It really depends on the caliber, and charge weight. MAC (tim) of the Military Arms channel did a test of the standard loads with the 1860 colt army revolver and found it's ballistics to compare favorably with modern ammunition. We would actually consider the load to be overpenetrative- a problem shared by military FMJ ammo today. See here: Ballistics testing: M9 vs.1860 Army

[@scholagladiatoria]

Cool thanks.

[@GunFunZS]

Welcome. I've learned a lot from you, so it's nice to be able to share something. Obviously they also had issues with quality and availability for both powder and shot. The British had better quality black powder than most nations, in that it was more consistent. However, if your shot was undersized, the pistols were vulnerable to absorbing moisture, and worse chainfire. If significantly oversize, they simply wouldn't fit.

[@jeffthebaptist3602]

I don't know about the Adams revolvers, but the sights on a Colt are very rudimentary and aren't practically regulated. There is a front sight blade and a rear sight notch carved into the hammer that is only useful when the gun is cocked. I believe they are zeroed for something like 50 or 100 yards which is not a meaningful engagement distance with a pistol. So soldiers were often point shooting because that was their only option.

[@GunFunZS]

That was somewhat true up through even the 1950s military handguns. I will say, using modern techniques even with old tiny fixed sights still yields much better results than the point shooting methods. The equipment changed to comply with updated technique for elite groups, and then the main military and police bodies took a few more decades to really catch up.

[@MRWDL800]

Good to see the over penetration brought up. My pistol that fires .45 colt penetrates way too much for a human body. Same with .44 magnum and even 5.56. And everything back then was ball, afaik. They didn't have hollow point, for sure.

[@itsamemario333]

A few pointers from your colonial cousin. I want to start out by saying I have learned a LOT about swords and other medieval weapons from you. I enjoy your channel very much. But I seem to have a little more experience in firearms as I am a Marine but I have also taken up blackpowder as a hobby years ago. Black powder doesn't really have much to do with accuracy. It's the rifling of the barrel and characteristics of the bullet. That is 99% of the accuracy. Of course blackpowder requires more powder than modern "smokeless" powder but that's a pretty well understood fact. If you load a .357 cartridge with black powder, you're going to fill it to the rim. If you're loading it with smokeless powder, well you've got to be a lot more careful and you're going to load it a specific grain weight. That has a lot to do with the fact that if you have an air space in a black powder firearm, you have a bomb and it will explode in your face. But smokeless powder NEEDS an airspace to perform. As well as many cartridges were made with black powder in mind and are made with the cartridge being the blackpowder measurement in itself. But in the end, they're going to have about the same accuracy. In general, smokeless powder will give you more energy on target considering the amount of powder used to create the general effect, but your body and weapon can handle a LOT more black powder than smokeless powder. Black powder is a slow push wrather than a pop and exserts much less energy on its surroundings all at once. The only thing black powder has to do with accuracy is you have to swab the barrel from time to time. But if you're in a sword and pistol situation, chances are, you won't have time to swab the barrel or reload so a Colt 1860 is about as good as a Colt 1873 as long as you loaded it before battle. Even if a black powder pistol (most likely cap and ball) is less accurate at 100 yards than say a Colt python, well I'm a pretty good shot at 50 yards with an 1860 and I don't think I'll be doing any sniping with a Python. And keep in mind, conical bullets were VERY common in cap and "ball" revolvers. Ball is just a generalization. In the Marine Corps, we call FMJ, or Full Metal Jacket ammunition, ball ammunition. Just because it's not a hollow point or more likely a tracer round.

[@manuls23]

I love the amount of detail in your history, great vid!

[@TheHumanSynthesisProject]

Thumbs up for trigger discipline!

[@JimFortune]

You always seem quite relieved to have finished each video.

[@justice3188]

I've seen a few guys change an 1858s cylinder quick, but they weren't hearing the agonizing screens of thier friends dying while they did it. Combat stress changes everything

[@keithlocke2205]

Just want to mention that in the American civil war, it was not uncommon for Mounted cavalry raiders to carry 6 or more revolvers!! They'de tie a brace of them to cords worn across the neck and as each brace ran dry just drop it and grab another pair and keep firing. By and large, these guys gave up on sabres entirely.

[@DefZen343]

Learned alot. Thank you sir :) please keep up the great work :)

[@SmokeRingsPipeDreams]

Modern military thinking has been that bayonets are obsolete and no longer needed. Then there was the Falkland island war in which some British soldiers ended up fighting with bayonets on their rifles at one point. I think edged weapons will always play a roll in combat, both military and civilian.

[@SusCalvin]

You have to compare that to the amount of times when they didn't. The Japanese imperial army tries this during nighttime raids. Four guys jumping into your foxhole with daggers at night would be pretty scary. They're maybe not killing a lot of people and making the line fall, but you try sleeping well if you know this is a possibility. The times when they attempt this scaled-up looks like abject failiure though. People trying to run up against a squad with BARs don't do very well.

[@jasonofcompsci]

Gun guy here. Yep, every point you made is accurate. Can I add few more. Using a gun requires fine motor skills. Not something you can rely on when several men are coming at you with swards knowing your aim and timing needs to be exactly on so that the very second you pull the trigger they are lined up taking into account trigger pull effects. So you either kill them or you don't, sort of. If unhurt they are completely unhurt and they have a sword and you are screwed. It's sort of like trying to fight a guy with a sword with a pair of dice. On the other hand a sword can be defensive and can prohibit their access to you. Two, even modern bullets are not as lethal as people think. You need to hit brain, lungs or an unaimed at artery for it to be a sure kill. That actually excludes most of the head. I'm you hit the jaw, the nose, graze the side, that's a big nothing. Bullets produce wound channels. For slow velocity bullets that stay whole while making the channel that wound cavity will only be about as thick as the bullet itself. That's damaged tissue but it does close back in on itself. Movies have made us think that guns always hit, that it doesn't require any focus and that a shot anywhere is deadly. The truth is that low velocity handguns are finicky, way more finicky than I think most gun owners are brave enough to admit to (and the gun non-owners are living in lawlaw land about how awesome they are). I'm actually considering switching to a sword for my EDC (I can do that in my state). I actually think it will fit more comfortably with less printing. (I don't suggest it for everybody. Law is a tricky thing. You need to read all the concealed weapon laws and weapon ownership laws and follow through with any licensing needed if needed for your state.)

[@Forde1980]

I'd definitely like to see more firearms videos from you.

[@scholagladiatoria]

I'm afraid that I'm not a firearms expert at all - I only really know stuff about firearms dating to before about 1890.

[@dphitch]

21 Foot Rule - The 21 foot rule states that the average person with a knife or sword can get to and cut a person in about the same time that the average person can draw and fire a handgun. In the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.

[@paullytle246]

This is even worse then as they used flap type holsters not modern ones

[@joelsanders984]

...... first katanas now guns is there no magic left in the world

[@benjaminbreeg6214]

Don't worry, there are still some ridonkulous ninja weapons yet to be debunked by Matt.

[@darksames]

Benjamin Breeg You mean a ninja star to the chest doesn't instantly kill you?!

[@benjaminbreeg6214]

KHeyndels Of course not. Unless it was thrown by a man in black pyjamas that walks around with a non-existing sword type slung across his back.

[@darksames]

Benjamin Breeg Don't forget the man has to be alone, if there are multiple men in black pyjamas throwing they will all surely miss.

[@commander31able60]

The magic of pommels will never die.

[@madjack3944]

Hey Matt, just wanted to say that I found your KZbin channel a few months ago. I have to admit that I have been binge watching your videos.since then, just wanted to say that I really like your well informed videos. Good job appreciate the quality and effort.

[@Echo4PapaBravo]

In the 1860s in the US, during the Civil War, many of the Confederate mounted irregulars carried between 2 and 6 cap and ball revolvers and didn't carry swords at all. The reason being, you could kill or wound 6, 12, 20 people in guerrilla style attacks on columns and supply trains, as each pistol went dry you just grabbed another. "On 1st April, 1865, in thick woodland near Maplesville, Alabama, two bodies of horsemen fought a short and bloody skirmish. The Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his immediate staff were outnumbered four to one by the Federal trooperswho rode boldly at them, sabers drawn. Yet this hectic mêlée among the trees wasdominated by the cracking reports of the Navy Colts carried by the Rebel troopers. Forrest suffered a glancing blow to the head from a saber cut, but shot his assailant fromthe saddle. Six of his entourage were also wounded, but, it was said, some thirty Union cavalrymen had been killed in the encounter, and a larger number still were wounded. The day belonged to the revolver. Indeed, for many civil war cavalrymen, the day of coldsteel was altogether over. John S. Mosby recalled that ‘we had been furnished with sabers… but the only real use I ever heard of their being put to was to hold a piece of meat over a fire. I dragged one through the first year of war, but when I became commander I discarded it.’" - www.academia.edu/205649/Sabre_versus_Revolver_Mounted_Combat_in_the_American_Civil_War

[@scholagladiatoria]

Papa Bravo Yes, multiple revolvers would of course have been very effective, but outside of the cheaply mass-produced American revolver market, in the rest of the world revolvers were still quite expensive and hard to get hold of at that time. Many British officers in the Indian Mutiny could not afford revolvers and had to ask relatives to send one out to India (one was expensive enough). Secondly, Indian, Afghan or Sudanese opponents seem to have been more dangerous than US cavalry - there are many accounts of such enemies being shot multiple times and still cutting down an opposing soldier before dying. This is why British revolvers tended to come in larger calibres than American revolvers - the Colt .36 Navy was found totally insufficient in British colonial warfare and the sword was often trusted more! Many officers chose large bore single or double-shot pistols instead of revolvers. Also, remember that a pistol or revolver cannot parry a sword that has already been swung at your head. The swordsman may die, but the sword will keep on travelling!

[@Echo4PapaBravo]

scholagladiatoria "Secondly, Indian, Afghan or Sudanese opponents seem to have been more dangerous than US cavalry - there are many accounts of such enemies being shot multiple times and still cutting down an opposing soldier before dying." Well, maybe they should have worked on accuracy a bit? Its not how many times you shoot someone, but where you shoot them that matters. Wild Bill Kickock was famous for carrying 2 Colt 1851 Navy, and in 1865 shot a man in the heart at 75 yards during a main street duel over a watch. I think tactics and proficiency have a lot to do with it, the British were used to fighting up close and personal with swords once their single shots went dry, so they were using the same close in tactics that would allow them to get within sword range, where revolvers were accurate even out past 50m. And to put an opponent out of the fight before they even had a chance to close would be optimal. I think that may have been where the issue lies, tactics and proficiency. Especially if such weapons were as difficult to obtain as you say, that would make them very difficult to become proficient with. I think you have to take into account that most American males of that time were used to using handguns and rifles to hunt, so were already very proficient with firearms by the time the war came around. By no means am I saying that any handguns were the main weapons of the time for the majority of soldiers on either side of the war, but they were widely available from multiple manufacturers, including the Beaumont Adams, for between $20-40. And many were obtained as battlefield trophies. Proficiency is always a factor in combat, and range always lends an advantage. I'm almost positive that few Americans, outside of the officer corps. would have been able to stand toe to toe in a sword fight, even if they were using their rifle and bayonet, though nearly everyone was issued a sword or bayonet. But you add in mounts and firearms, and creating distance necessary to kill a good swordsman becomes easier. And I would also point out that drawing, pointing, and firing a revolver from horseback would be faster and easier than drawing, closing the distance, and swinging a sword. Much as you point out in your video about the myths of smaller blades being faster to attack with than longer blades, as portrayed in video and role play games. A bullet closes distance faster than a man, mounted or on foot, and a trigger finger is always faster than a sword arm. Edit: I also have to wonder how many people each soldier killed on the battlefield on average during most battles of the time, not including the wounded who died hours and days later. I'm guessing fewer than 5 per man, judging by the battfield reports of the time. Also if the British were using their handguns in their off hands then that would also account for their poor accuracy, along with their lack of opportunity to train with the weapons. I would have rather used my handgun in my dominant hand and used my sword to parry. But again, I think the tendency to favor the sword made them more likely to disregard this style of handgun use. Whereas today we know that if someone has a gun and the other guy has a sword, the guy with the gun wins 99.999% of the time, when both are aware of the other, are of equal proficiency with their respective weapon, and are able to manipulate the distance. Also, Colt Navy came in .36 and .44 calibers. Semper Fi

[@mooneyes2k478]

Papa Bravo "Well, maybe they should have worked on accuracy a bit? Its not how many times you shoot someone, but where you shoot them that matters." The duel in question, as famous as it is, isn't really applicable here. First, it's a static duel. Both men stood still, sides turned towards each other, and fired one round. Second, that Hickok hit his opponent in the heart is a complete fluke. There is no way that he would have expected to hit anything beyond 'man-sized' at that range using that model gun. Sure, it sounds good, "Hickok hit a man in the HEART at 75 yards!" but that's dime-novel, cowboy movie myth-making. And third, even with Tutt being hit in the heart, he STILL managed to shout out that he was hit, as well as run onto the porch of the courthouse, and then back into the street, before collapsing. This rather invalidates the 'where you shoot him' argument, as well as HOW you shoot them, as a non-moving target that you can, calmly and collectedly fire at, is rather easier than a running man in a battle-type situation. "most American males of that time were used to using handguns and rifles to hunt" Rifles, I will give you, but then, the mass of the British armies were well used to the rifle, as well, and probably more so, being a professional army. Handguns? I have to say I don't buy that one. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. "But you add in mounts and firearms, and creating distance necessary to kill a good swordsman becomes easier." Certainly a point, in certain situations. While the firearms thing is a bit of a iffy thing, in that the guns, at least the handguns, are not THAT much better than the previous one- or two-shot deals, beyond having, well, more shots, the distance is certainly something to consider. Of course, there is the point where you can't MAKE distance. Have you seen the hills of the northern parts of India, or what Afghanistan looks like? It's a pain TODAY...imagine what it would have been like in the 1800s. Ambush country! So, when you suddenly don't have ANY chance of making that distance...well, you're in trouble. You'd best know how to swing a blade. "And I would also point out that drawing, pointing, and firing a revolver from horseback would be faster and easier than drawing, closing the distance, and swinging a sword." "A bullet closes distance faster than a man, mounted or on foot, and a trigger finger is always faster than a sword arm." That's not entirely the case. Certainly, a bullet is faster than any man, but that might not matter. The police of today are commonly taught the 21-foot rule, and often a 30-foot rule. Given no other circumstances, an assailant armed with a knife or other similar close combat weapon can close the distance of 21 feet in the amount of time it takes you to pull, sight and fire your handgun twice at center mass. That's when fairly calm and collected. A sword, being about 3.5 feet of sharp steel, would extend this even further. Now, you're ambushed, out of the woods come a group of madmen, raving and frothing at the mouth, swords in their hands, roaring at the top of their lungs that they're going to rip your head off, defecate down your neck and then do unspeakable and perverted things to your corpse. At that point, your hindbrain is SCREAMING at you, your blood is about 253% adrenaline and your shock is sending all sorts of interesting signals through your nervous system. Even getting your gun up at that point is a chore, and if you manage, getting yourself to hit anything smaller than the broad side of a barn with any reliability is a crap-shoot at best. Add to that the fact that you won't necessarily stop him even if you DO hit him(I know of a guy, off the top of my head, that's been shot 9 times and he's still alive), and that, as noted, even if you shoot him dead, if he'd had time to start his swing...well... The US soldiers in the Moro uprising noted many occasions where their guns didn't do nearly enough damage to stop a man, even with multiple hits, too, particularly since they used the .36 rounds. "Also, Colt Navy came in .36 and .44 calibers." No, it didn't. While the Colt revolvers, as a whole, came in several different calibers, the Navy models, specifically, came only in .36. And, incidentally, was quite common among the cavalry, too, and not only the navy.

[@screwtape2713]

***** First, a minor nitpick: The Colt Model 1851 "Navy" revolver was called the "Navy" revolver NOT because it had any actual Service connection to the US Navy (or anybody else's navy for that matter) but because the roll engraving on the cylinder showed a scene of a naval battle. (I believe the naval battle in question took place between the Mexican Navy and the Navy of the Republic of Texas.) OTOH, the Colt Model 1860 "Army" revolver WAS called the Army revolver because the calibre had been boosted from .36 to .44 in response to a military procurement requirement from the US government. The main point is that the Colt "cap-and-ball" revolvers by the time of the American Civil War were available in a larger .44 calibre identical in size and "stopping power" to the British service revolvers. Secondly, and more generally, to both you and PapaBravo, I believe the reason the American cavalry on both sides of the Civil War pretty much abandoned the sword by the end of that conflict (and the US cavalry didn't carry them during the subsequent Indian Wars) while the British cavalry continued to carry swords until WW1 had more to do with an earlier American recognition of the need for a change to cavalry doctrine in the era of repeating firearms. Essentially, by the end of the Civil War, the American cavalry - especially on the Union side - had already completed the transition into mounted infantry, while the British cavalry only began to acknowledge this new fact of life 40 years later during the Boer War (and the German and French cavalry didn't until WW1.) This can be seen not only with swords but with lances: the Americans never bothered to adopt them; the British abolished the use of the lance in 1903 or thereabouts; the German Uhlans rode into Belgium carrying them in 1914, where they clashed with equally lance-armed French cavalry. (And then the same German Uhlans rode into British cavalry scout units, which promptly dismounted, took a knee, and shot them down with accurate rifle fire from well beyond either lance OR sword range...) But the impetus behind the earlier American change of doctrine was not so much the revolver as the adoption of the Spencer and Henry repeating carbines by the US cavalry. (The REASON those Confederate cavalrymen were carrying 4 to 6 cap-and-ball revolvers apiece was because they didn't have access to the repeating carbines they actually WANTED to be carrying: they were attempting to match the firepower of the Spencer-armed Union cavalry with what they had available.) The British cavalry, by contrast, continued to be armed with single-shot Enfield percussion carbines, and then single-shot Snider carbines, followed eventually by single-shot Martini-Henry and then Martini-Enfield carbines. It wasn't until the adoption of the Lee-Metford in 1888 that they finally got a repeating rifle. That makes a BIG difference to the utility of a sword for your cavalry...

[@Echo4PapaBravo]

screwtape2713 I agree completely with almost everything you said here. I was just pointing out that the Confederate cavalry forces tended to carry multiple pistols instead of sabers. I would argue only one point, that being that Confederates carried braces of pistols because they didn't have access to repeating rifles is a bit inaccurate in that they carried them in lieu of sabers instead of in lieu of rifles, pointing out that the Henry and Spencer repeating rifles were widely available by 1864. "(Confederate forces were able to use captured breechloaders but were unable to duplicate the metallic cartridges needed by the Spencer.)" "Pistols, which Southern cavalrymen generally preferred over sabers, were usually six-shot revolvers, in .36- or .44-caliber, from Colt or Remington. They were useful only in close fighting since they had little accuracy. It was common for cavalrymen to carry two revolvers, for extra firepower, and John Mosby's troopers often carried four each." Semper Fi

[@frankharr9466]

There are so many people who think they're magical. It makes things hard.

[@spineyrequiem]

There's also the fact that people often survive even shots from modern guns, including enormous great rifle rounds, at least long enough to get close and inflict a mortal blow on you. So you might well empty six rounds into your opponent's chest and face and still have him stab you in the throat. Sure, the same thing can happen with a sword, but as you said the sword doesn't run out of shots, and you can keep blocking them until they keel over from blood loss.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yep. I'll be referring to some original accounts of this happening in future videos. The examples are surprisingly numerous - especially when facing fanatical, desperate and sometimes drugged-up opponents.

[@norwegianwiking]

scholagladiatoria look into the 1986 Miami FBI shootout. reasonably well documented, and youtube has several documentaries, one film adaptation of the shootout and the FBIs own reenactment available.

[@swtorPaladin]

Awesome. This vid has a ton of stuff I've never even thought of... Still very relevant even to this day and regardless of which country you're in. Thanks!

[@GigaBoost]

I suppose this is why the bayonet became popular as well, firearms were too unreliable and slow, so they stuck a great big knife on the end. How is fighting with bayonet? I'd imagine it must be similar to using a (albeit heavy, unbalanced and somewhat short) spear?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes, pretty much exactly like a very heavy and quite short spear.

[@lughfiregod16]

He's posted these videos on bayonets. :) /watch?v=2Nc7UNFN3bM /watch?v=8hiJOnkvdnU

[@nutyyyy]

Its like a less effective spear, because its heavier, shorter and not as quick, still better than using the Musket or Rifle as a club.

[@dajolaw]

The socket bayonet (which allowed the musket to be loaded and fired with the bayonet attached) was one of the developments that phased out the era of "shot and pike" warfare. It allowed musketeers to fight both at range and in close quarters (esp. to ward off cavalry); no need for pikemen if every gunner also had a spear. It coincided with more reliable triggers (flintlocks) and a greater availability of gunpowder and gunsmithing (allowing more men to be equipped).

[@SpiritCock]

dajolaw This guy has it solid. Bayonets were used as a way to standardize musketeers and pikemen into a single unit.

[@charlesw5919]

My favorite dual-weapon combo: rapier and submachine gun. :P

[@carloparisi9945]

Now, Matt you make a very good point here, which I support as well, swords, within their range, are much easier hit with, when your opponent and or you are in motion, as a matter of fact, usually in fencing you are both in motion. I add to that that a sword can parry a sword better than a pistol can parry a sword.

[@jackhazard4526]

I really like that straight saber mate.

[@lutherpatenge6313]

It also bears mentioning that revolvers in that era didn't use the 'brass cartridge' system of today. Reloading individual, paper, hand rolled stacks of cap, gunpowder and bullet was a time consuming business. This is why so many American cowboys and gunslingers carried two revolvers, nobody had time to reload during a fight.

[@great769]

During the Civil War Moseby, Bill Anderson and Quantrill's Troopers used multiple revolvers with great effect.

[@SusCalvin]

What happens when you scale up revolvers in a unit? Something silly like 40 guys with revolvers firing as a unit.

[@BladeFitAcademy]

Great video as usual. Speaking from personal experience, shooting a pistol with the weak hand while moving is more prone to missing than hitting. I'd imagine if you managed to hit someone it would be a maximum of 15 yards away, probebly more like 7 yards. At that it would not be a clean shot and you'd be dispatching the wounded foe with the saber any way, depending how motivated they'd be to keep advancing.

[@Duchess_Van_Hoof]

I suspect there was a self-reinforcing cycle with this, as many cavalrymen and officers considered their sword or saber to be their main weapon, and thus relegated the pistol to their offhand and as such were even lousier shots and learned not to rely too much on it. And by the time revolvers entered the scene this was a habit across continents.

[@13bravoredleg18]

I dig up .36 caliber pistol bullets from the American civil war with a metal detector. I find a lot of them had been dropped and never fired. That tells me it was stressful and soldiers fumbled upon reloading.

[@nateP82]

A correction on your observation on American revolvers: the first colt revolver(1836) was a 5 shot .36 cal. The next major innovation was the Walker-Colt a 6 shot .44 cal. However most cowboys would only load 5 of the 6 chambers for fear of accidental discharge from riding around with the hammer down on an loaded chamber. I'm not sure how much of a problem that actually was, but from what I've read that was the conventional wisdom of the time.

[@IcEye89]

I'm fairly certain you always leave one chamber empty in a revolver as the gun has no safety to speak of and you don't want to shoot yourself (or someone around you) by accident. So it would be effectively 4 shots for the British Revolver and 5 for the US version. But I am by no means a gun-person, so take this with a pinch of salt and hope someone else elaborates on that subject.

[@scholagladiatoria]

It depends on the exact revolver - some you keep one chamber empty, others have a resting place for the hammer between two chambers. Incidentally, many early revolvers do have safety catches, preventing either the cylinder from revolving or stopping the hammer touching the cap/nipple.

[@IcEye89]

Interesting, that earlier weapons had this feature more commonly than later ones, thanks.

[@KageRyuu6]

Verdunveteran That's a bit of a misconception, not every double action revolver is capable of single action fire, which is why you see abbreviations like SAO or DAO, or even DA/SA. Though I do admit I can't name a period revolver that wasn't SAO or DA/SA.

[@scholagladiatoria]

***** It's a bit different with percussion revolvers because the hammer rests against the percussion cap - therefore knocking it hard, dropping it etc, could cause the percussion cap to go off and fire the gun. This is why one safety measure is to rotate the cyclinder so that the hammer is resting between two chambers - when you pull the trigger (or hammer if single action) then the cylinders re-align themselves thank to the mechanism.

[@Verdunveteran]

scholagladiatoria This is maybe a bit off topick but still. After I had read your last post above, Matt. I made a little test just for the fun of it. I took my Husqvarna-Nagant M/1887 revolver and my replica Colt Navy 1860 and dropped them several times on a mattress from diffrent hights. And every time both landed on the side. Not once did any of them land muzzle or butt first or on it's hammer. I guess the weight distribution on a revolver causes it to land on it's side when dropped. Anyone else who have noticed this or had any diffrent experience when dropping a revolver?

[@GroundWalkerTw]

I agree with all your points but one. I think balls fired from guns with black powder as propellant are not necessarily less lethal than modern-day pistol cartridge. Firstly, the caliber is roughly at or even larger than 9mm. Secondly, even if the energy is not as large, which is of doubt because more powder can be filled in to compensate, it's enough. Thirdly and perhaps most important of all, the ball is mostly composed of lead with no jacket, which helps it expand, whereas many modern bullets are FMJ. And if a ball doesn't penetrate, it's usually even better because the kinetic energy is transferred to the body and not wasted. P.S. I really enjoy the contents of your channel. :)

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yeah I agree - at close range I think a black powder pistol is just as lethal as a modern pistol. However the black powder has much less muzzle velocity and the round bullet loses speed quicker, so at longer ranges the black powder rounds are more likely to lose penetration (there are even accounts of musket balls bouncing off heavy winter clothing).

[@GroundWalkerTw]

scholagladiatoria Thanks for your reply and I agree with you. Yet, I guess, for many users, their accuracy with a modern pistol and with a black powder one may not differ too much beyond, say, 20 meters.

[@scholagladiatoria]

GroundWalkerTw Indeed! The first step is actually hitting the opponent in the first place. I have a funny historical account about that, which I'll put in a future video.

[@bigmanfoamy4589]

it should be noted that most officers would leave a chamber empty has revolvers didn't and to my knowledge don't have safety switches

[@x42brown33]

I can't see a pistol as being the best thing to parry with either.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Indeed! Someone waving a sword in your face can still be very dangerous, even with bullets in them.

[@bobsallee1245]

During the American Civil War many cavalrymen just started carrying more revolvers in addition to or in lieu of a saber. Carbines and Shotguns were also used. Apparently 2-4 revolvers was quite common and I've read accounts of western confederate bushwhackers carrying half a dozen revolvers each.

[@txgunman1829]

As much as I love my guns I know my bladed weapons are very useful in some situations. A knife is more effective against a attacker in a vehicle, in a confined space, or in a crowd. In pre modern combat especially before revolvers and percussion cap firearms bladed weapons were still very much useful. Flintlocks were not nearly as reliable as percussion, black powder, or smokeless powder firearms, due to this bladed weapons were very much relevant and have remained so.

[@christosvoskresye]

@4:22 "You've got six shots, are you going to kill six people? Well, how good a marksman are you?" Forty shots rang out, Forty people fell. Patti and the killer missed each other But they shot that town to hell. -- Jim Stafford

[@christosvoskresye]

Mackenzie Benedict That means at least one of the shots hit someone he was not aiming for. It might have been a lucky shot anyway (just don't mention that to Commander Kruge), but it would be nothing but luck.

[@Theidmet]

It doesn't mean that... If you have a gun and two people are charging you in a straight line, it's pretty intuitive to know that if you shoot the one in front, you'll also hit the one back. You've aimed for both of them and hit both of them with one shot. I mean hell, we even have the saying "Two birds with one stone."

[@christosvoskresye]

Cernnunos5 Ah. You're imagining a situation like in one of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, where the rabbit mafia lined up all their heads so they could all commit suicide with the same bullet. For some reason, that scene is often cut from the cartoon these days. Charging attackers might not go to pains to make it easy for you, though.

[@kubaspicak5387]

I love these vidoes, plenty of stuff to learn :)

[@Dyddda01]

only Thing that i would mention too, even if you hit someone leathal he normal doesnt just fall down flat instandly (shots in the belly are pretty leathal but that guy might still run to you and behead you be for the is dead because of blood lose)

[@CorySee]

Matt, are there any historical accounts of blades being accidentally shot (by others), and what happened? I'm sure the blades broke and everything but I'm curious if their are any interesting tidbits, like a sword getting shot, breaking, and injuring the carrier? For some reason I really want to hear about that happening, haha.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Cory See Yes as it happens, there are a few accounts of swords getting broken by bullets and I have seen an antique sword myself that had a bullet hole through it and the scabbard. There are also accounts of guns getting hit and broken by bullets.

[@bbbengunnn]

Cory See Yes, I have a sword, French Cavalry 1822 patern, and there is a hole in the scabbard, brass filled in; judging by the shape of the opening, there is no other stuff but bullet, me thinks, that might have caused it. On the other hand, there are no any visible damages/dents, etc on the blade. wondering ...

[@philipbriney4430]

I had a ancestor in the Confederate cavalry and his writting say that he and his comrades would carry 4 to 6 revolvers not one like they were issued. I own 2 1851 colt replicas and 2 1860 colt replicas and they are far more reliable than you think. Also extra loaded cylinders were carried and you can swap them fast. I have dropped whitetail deer with my 1860s. One shot.

[@adameugenedonaldson7688]

That is accurate about the Colt 1851 Navy: the safety mechanism was a notch in the base of the hammer, meant to rest on a small peg, which would allow safe carry with all chambers loaded. Unfortunately, that notch also tends to "grab" spent percussion caps and pull them off the nipple, allowing them to fall down and jam the mechanism. I much prefer the Remington design, which has a solid frame, a larger caliber, and does not jam. A fix for the Colt is to fill in or file away the notch...I'm not sure if this was done on period weapons, so I'd be curious to find out if it was.

[@clubtcb]

I have seen some civil war era new model army colt revolvers where the bottom of the hammer seemed to have been battered to the point where the notch was barely visible. It tought this was because of dry firing but who knows ? It might well have been done intentionally

[@TheOriginalEntz]

Thanks for the talk on revolvers and swords :) I want to mention that there appears to be a smudge on the camera lens. You may already know this of course.

[@frost1977]

a lot of times with the colt at least, reloading in a fight was a matter of carrying multiple cylinders, preloaded. at least civilians like bill hickcock were prone to do that. those cap and ball revolvers (even the modern replicas) were also capable of chain firing where the side flash from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel would set of 1 or more of the others at the same time, which could cost you your hand if the bottom one goes off and has no place to go... idealy from the ones I have fired the bullet should be just a bit over sized, IE the .44 cal rep. of a Remington army that I have had used a .454 diameter ball, and it would shave a little ring off the ball when you pressed the ball into the cylinder, and a bit of wax in after that to avoid the chain fire.

[@itznoxy7193]

Is there HEMA Sword & Pistol?

[@billp3337]

A little late for this discussion but here goes. Since Colt cap and ball revolvers a topic here. The U.S. Navy adopted the .36 cal. and the Army the .44 cal. in all the various models. Both were 6 shot revolvers. Both carried six rounds safely because the hammer was lowered on the half nock between the cylinders. Colt did away with this feature in the 1873 Army. Black powder produces a large amount of smoke, after a few shots it's hard to see through the cloud unless there's a wind . The U.S. Civil war pretty much was the death knell of the saber as a combat tool . Relegating it to pomp and ceremony. Not saying Sabers weren't used in combat during the civil war but it was not the weapon of choice.There were a couple of Calvary clashes where sabers came into play.Many officers and NCOs preferred to leave them at home. the Bayonet was far more useful and is still used today.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Just a couple of clarifications - in 1851 the Colt Navy was popular for both US Navy and Army officers and was in 0.36. The larger .44 dragoons were generally only carried by the cavalry in the 1850s. I think you're mostly referring to the Colt 1860, but I was talking about the 1851. Secondly, close combat (even with bayonets) was very rare in the US civil war. However the sabre was in no way obsolete for countries with overseas colonies in Asia and Africa, such as Britain and France. Swords, lances and bayonets were still very important weapons in colonial warfare until the 1890s. A revolver is not much use in a melee after your 5 or 6 shots are gone, but a sword is. US forces were notorious at avoiding close combat (it was one of the problems the militias faced when fighting British and Canadian forces). But of course that wasn't terribly important with the advantages of fighting on home turf and French naval assistance.

[@billp3337]

great response. yes I was referring to the Colt 1861. Yes bayonet charges were rare and success was even rarer. The second day of Gettysburg when the Confederates assaulted Little Round Top for example. On the world stage I didn't realize that edged weapons were still a big part of the tool chest for European armies. thanks for the history lesson.

[@akatsukami9578]

As Dorothy Sayers wrote, "A bullet can go anywhere, but steel has go somewhere" >:-)

[@Urkie1979]

Cool video. Informative. While I appreciate that sweet revolver you were handling (with excellent trigger discipline, I might add), I have to ask what model of saber were you handling?

[@adameugenedonaldson7688]

For below: the Colt Navy did not come chambered in .44 caliber. That waited until the model of 1860, the Army model, which had a redesigned barrel with a ratchet-style loading lever. Modern makers (mostly Italian like Uberti and Pietta) produce .44 caliber Navy revolvers, but they are not historically accurate.

[@colmhain]

A point on accuracy. Comparatively speaking, any period black powder gun was generally (there are exceptions) less accurate than a modern counterpart. However, are you trying to light matches from fifty feet, or are you trying to kill a man before he kills you? If you can consistently hit a pie plate at the expected range of engagement, then you are shooting accurately enough. Though I've never fired any English made cap-and-ball revolver, I'm not sure Colt's alleged better accuracy was a significant advantage given the effective range of most black powder pistols (again, a few exceptions) until smokeless powder came along.

[@DeathLordFhyeg]

Do you have any videos dedicated to great swords, claymores?

[@VTPSTTU]

I've heard mixed reviews on the ballistics of cap-and-ball revolvers. Some say that they had enough power that a ball could penetrate one person and go into another person. If the people attacking are fairly bunched, I wouldn't be surprised if some shots wounded multiple attackers. I wouldn't expect to kill anyone immediately, but I would expect my six shots to cause some impairment to six people if they were approaching in large numbers. While hitting someone in the leg wouldn't cause an immediately fatal wound, I would expect a leg shot to take a man off his feet. If he's off his feet, then he's no longer an immediate threat to me. In a battle, that's good enough for my purposes. If I were in that situation, I'd want a sword as a backup, but I'd be very happy to have the revolver available.

[@clubtcb]

visit the channel: "cap and ball" if you want to see how lethal these weapons were and how well they still perform after 160+ years

[@justsomeguy3931]

You can potentially kill WAY more than six with a revolver because bullets (especially FMJ) can pass through multiple human bodies

[@WalkaCrookedLine]

Given that officers had to buy their own weapons, cost must have been an issue for many of them. What did a revolver plus ammunition cost compared to a single shot pistol or a saber?

[@Treblaine]

A .36 Colt Revolver fired an 80 grain bullet at only 1000fps, about the same as a .380 ACP from a pocket pistol. Today that would be considered barely powerful enough and that assumes rapid consecutive hits. Such a hit would be devastating, but not immediately totally debilitating.

[@Roddyoneeye]

Not to mention a 10-20% "Failure to Fire" rate (Moisture, Poor Powder, Caps Failing or Falling Off....) Large bore single or doubles could carry multiple balls, or "Goose Shot" for close in work.

[@RVM451]

Good Presentation. There is also the case where the client has been shot once or twice through the torso-and indeed will go down within 10-20 Seconds-but having a sword in hand gives you something to block his sword or bayonet thrusts while you wait for him to fall. Jeff Cooper said that Quantrill's Raiders generally carried 4 six-shooters and a pair of single shot pistols (I can only assume because Single Shots were cheaper and lighter...) The assumption was that a man who couldn't handle a cavalry harge with 26 round probably couldn't handle it with anything. Some of Quantrill's troops carried far more than the minimum number of revolvers. Revolvers were still quite expensive. Quantrill's men, as Raiders, got to pick from the cream of their deceased client's weapons. This was a Singular Point in History where the Pistol reigned as the supreme battlefield Small Arm. To return to Cooper once more-He theorized that If The War of Northern Aggression had lasted much longer, there might have been large scale cavalry charges featuring large groups of combatants. Curiously though, there are accounts from the East-at least in the early stages of the war-of JEB Stuart's Troopers being extremely reluctant to carry any firearms at all-preferring to rely on the Saber. I just can't quite imagine British Soldiers firing a Revolver in each hand and carrying several spares. It just doesn't seem like a British thing. Who knows though? They might have, given the option. .....RVM45

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes, they may have if it was possible and/or suggested. But I have never seen a single example of a British officer or cavalryman carrying more than one revolver (pairs of single or double-shot pistols, yes, but not revolvers). I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the fighting - if you have a Afghan, Zulu or Indian enemy force attacking you they are not going to stay 30 yards away and keep shooting, because they know on that basis the British force will win on firepower. If they have got close enough for you to use a pistol then they will close as fast as possible to hand-to-hand combat distance and at wrestling distance a sword is a better friend than a pistol against multiple opponents with no chance to reload.

[@jeffthebaptist3602]

"I can only assume because Single Shots were cheaper and lighter..." Quantrill was a Confederate and their standard revolver was likely the .36 caliber navy. Among other things, that's light for a horse pistol meaning a pistol you would use to shoot and kill a horse. Horse pistols weren't just used in combat, but also to euthanize a horse that might have been shot or broken its leg. Single shot pistols of the day could be much larger calibers than the repeaters, up to .54 caliber at least.

[@jeffthebaptist3602]

Also most of the records of Americans (either Union or Confederate) carrying multiple revolvers were cavalrymen where they could have their horses do the work and heavy lifting.

[@effigytormented]

But the question is are there any treatises on hand positions while wielding sword and pistol?

[@Boredout454]

Just a little info for you here bud, generally they would only load 5 rounds into the cylinders so you could leave the hammer down on a empty cylinder (because if you dropped it or hit the back of the hammer hard enough it would discharge the firearm and probably shoot yourself). So 5 rounds was generally always loaded unless you where going to do battle immediately. Also the American firearms like the Colt Dragoon and Colt Walker fired a .44 and was the most powerful handgun in the World until the .357 magnum came out in the 1930's. Because it loaded a large amount of black powder.

[@schizoidboy]

My question is what kind of training did British officers or any officer for that matter have with basic pistol marksmanship? I know that duelists probably were the best shots with pistols, but until the time where revolvers became easier to reload and shoot in combat situations were there any real techniques taught to anyone?

[@Walkerboh300]

I feel like if you're relying on a single person to have to take on 5-6 people alone you've got bigger problems than the chance your gun will misfire...

[@edi9892]

How often did it happen that someone would place the muzzle directly on the target in a swordfight and shoot from point blank? For me it sounds not very practical, but its hard to miss like that.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes it happened and I have original accounts describing it. However, at that distance the sword may end up being a better friend than the pistol - at least you can parry their attacks with a sword, whereas with the pistol they may still cut you down.

[@GroundWalkerTw]

scholagladiatoria I've heard that this is to increase accuracy, and even if it doesn't hit or doesn't fire, you still have a sword, and the pistol can be used as a shot club. After all, you can only fire once with a pistol before the lengthy reloading, and considering the effective range, it may not be a bad idea to use it very close in.

[@scholagladiatoria]

GroundWalkerTw There was another side-effect of shooting people that close with black powder - it sometimes set their clothes on fire. I have an original account of that happening as well. I'll try and dig it out and stick it in a future video.

[@edi9892]

scholagladiatoria I heared that pirates used their pistols as shotguns loading them with lead debris.

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

edi Interestingly, in 17th century cavalry warfare in Europe a lot of military writers advocated just that, placing the muzzle of the pistol on the opponents body before pulling the trigger. This was probably due to the prevalence of body armor as much as accuracy, aiming from horseback being a very uncertain thing.

[@UnHellequined]

I think in common perception there seems to be this odd line when it comes to firearms. People understand muzzle loaders were slow, but tend to think of revolvers as a modern gun. I'm guessing western movies and the like are to blame, as they very rarely show anyone reloading a revolver with either percussion caps or even later ones which had cartridges but still used a push rod. So I think there's this strange idea that all revolvers could be reloaded with a swing-out or break top, when of course those didn't come for some time.

[@harjutapa]

Unless, of course, you're carrying multiple revolvers. I don't know how common it was in the British armed forces, but US cavalry of the period commonly carried two, and sometimes as many as 4-5 (though that was remarkably rare). I'm guessing this was because American cavalry soldiers were not as likely to be as skilled with a sword as a British officer or cavalryman, though that's only speculation.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Anthony Ridgway The main reason was that revolvers were both far more numerous and also cheaper in the US (because Colts were mass manufactured there). In other places revolvers were pretty expensive and therefore even by the 1860's non-American officers were lucky to have one. I have never found an example of a European officer with more than one revolver.

[@harjutapa]

scholagladiatoria Ah, thanks for the answer. That makes sense, I suppose. I wonder if maybe I'm getting the cause/effect mixed up. Perhaps the reason why swordsmanship wasn't as commonly practiced in the US in that time period was due to the relative inexpensiveness of the revolver.

[@SeraphimRoad]

English Officer during World War I "Tank driver! Drive me closer. I want to hit them with my sword"

[@SusCalvin]

WW I tanks are slow. You can walk alongside a WW I tank at a leisurely pace. Tanks have little firing ports for pistols in case the crew needs to shoot at people trying to climb the tank or walk around the back of it.

[@p.b.7717]

How do you feel about the straight trooper sabre vs the rapier or other swords? - when dismounted.

[@SusCalvin]

This is probably a silly idea. But revolver firing line? Or any situation where a group of folks with revolvers are facing something, including other guys with revolvers. With one line of guys with single-shot rifles and one line with revolvers walking towards eachother on a field in Virginia, I think I know who'd come out better. What's the big reason officers carried pistols and revolvers? A pistol is a lot lighter than a battle rifle. You can do things like driving, writing, holding maps etc without having a big rifle to put down or sling on your back. Or officers are expected to direct the volume of fire, not add to it, so they only really need a personal defence weapon?

[@sharpie443]

To bad the British never got the Remington 1858. They were excellent revolvers. I've owned the colt and the Remington and i vastly prefer the Remington. Still like the colt but if i had to fight with one I would want the Remington.

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

sharpie443 Hmm, the British had access to all kinds of firearms, back in the 1800's they were the preeminent economic power of the world. If they didn't adopt the 1858 it was not because they couldn't get it, but because they didn't think it was such a good piece of kit. Remember that the British issue revolver of the 1860's were already a double-action weapon, while the Americans would stick to single action ones (such as the 1858) for three more decades. In fact the British had a tendency to look down on American mass-produced weapon as being cheap and poorly finished.

[@sharpie443]

John Huang Well the American revolvers were certainly not cheap or poorly finished. Actually some of the colts were produced in London. However you are correct. The Beaumont-Adams revolvers were excellent double action only cap and ball revolvers. They were probably some of the best cap and ball revolvers ever produced. I would love to get my hands on a reproduction. However at the time double action was not necessary better than single. That sounds odd but it’s due to the realities of cap and ball and the military thinking of the time. double-action only revolvers are inherently less accurate due to the very long trigger pull. It’s also much easier to blow threw the cylinder and leave yourself with an empty gun and a long reload time. Not good if you didn't hit everything you were aiming at. A very good shot might be able to compensate for the trigger pull but in a fire fight that's probably not going to be the case. So lots of misses and a long reload time are not good combinations. Not great for military uses. A KZbin by the name of duelist1954 did some testing with an American double-action only revolver called the Starr revolver. The American military and many European military didn’t trust troops with fast repeating arms. That’s why rifles like the label rifle had a magazine cut off so that the rifle could be loaded with only one round at a time. I imagine that’s why the American military was so stubborn about single action even though American companies were making double-action revelers for the civilian revolvers. It probably also has to do with America not getting involved in many serious wars for quite a long time.

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

sharpie443 Correction: the early Adams revolver was double action only, but the Beaumont-Adams which became a standard issue in the British military in 1860 had an external hammer that could be manually cocked, so the theoretical issue of inaccuracy did not exist. At any rate in modern defensive revolver shooting one was taught to always employs the double action, and with practice it is by no means inaccurate. So to say that it is unsuitable for military use is certainly wrong.

[@sharpie443]

We'll no single action is always more accurate. I carry a gun for a living and although I use a auto loader on the job I carry revolver when not working. The reason we use double action is for speed. If I needed to make an accurate shot I will always use single action. It doesn't matter how much you practice you will always be more accurate with using single action. The trigger travel will create more movement regardless of how good you are. In any case I didn't know about the single action Adams but as I argued before with a cap and ball revolver it probably was not a huge advantage. Especially with the way armies fought back then. Hitting the guy on the other side of the field was more important than shooting fast. Maybe for Calvary since they wouldn't have to cock the revolver while trying to ride they arn't going to be all that accurate anyway. I would like to get an Adams revolver.

[@sharpie443]

We'll no single action is always more accurate. I carry a gun for a living and although I use a auto loader on the job I carry revolver when not working. The reason we use double action is for speed. If I needed to make an accurate shot I will always use single action. It doesn't matter how much you practice you will always be more accurate with using single action. The trigger travel will create more movement regardless of how good you are. In any case I didn't know about the single action Adams but as I argued before with a cap and ball revolver it probably was not a huge advantage. Especially with the way armies fought back then. Hitting the guy on the other side of the field was more important than shooting fast. Maybe for Calvary since they wouldn't have to cock the revolver while trying to ride they arn't going to be all that accurate anyway. I would like to get an Adams revolver.

[@whowantsabighug]

I was reading about the Tottenham Outrage that occurred in 1909, and even then it says that bullets were being stopped by heavy coats, although I'm not sure if I'm willing to believe that.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Fascinating and shocking! - I just finished reading the Wiki page about it - I'd never heard of it before. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham_Outrage

[@Regolith86]

Looking at the pistols used - an FN Browning M1900 and a Bergmann 1894, chambered in .32 ACP and either 7.5mm Swiss Revolver or maybe 5mm Bergmann, respectively, that isn't a huge surprise. While quite capable of killing someone, all of those cartridges are on the very low end of the scale in terms of power. A pistol chambered in a military cartridge would be five or six times more powerful, in terms of kinetic energy.

[@mooneyes2k478]

Firearms are not necessarily a solution to preventing hand-to-hand combat TODAY...there is a reason police are taught the 21-foot rule, which, in the case of a sword or similar longer-reach weapon, should be notable longer.

[@penttikoivuniemi2146]

Here's something I'm curious about: is there any evidence of a bayonet, probably a light one, being put on the pistol so that when you run out of ammo or have to face off with people who are trying to hit you, the pistol can be used in a way similar to a parrying dagger? Admittably, I know next to nothing of this type of warfare, but to me it would make sense for the pistol that you are already wielding in your off-hand to be equipped with a blade to give it a second way of use.

[@Alva_Lombax]

do you have any videos about lances ?

[@klaasvanvelzen4964]

could you do a video about sword-pistol hybrid, (where the used, did they even ecxist)

[@scholagladiatoria]

They did exist - I'll have a think about it thanks.

[@klaasvanvelzen4964]

nice

[@deektedrgg]

I remember seeing images of axe-pistols and mace-pistols too.

[@flous666]

I love hybrid wepons, I've seen quite a bit of them in museums, the most common ones I encountered was kind of single shot shotguny piece paired with and axe and i've seen an abolute masterpiece having a single-shot pistol in a smallsword

[@edi9892]

I have seen multiple examples, but in general they were less usefull than a gun with a bayonette.

[@SwordAndWaistcoat]

Are many of the accounts you're referring to in D A Kinsly's book?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes, many of them.

[@paulocezarcezar3651]

nas forças auxiliares aqui no brasil nós as utilizamos ., policias militares , corpos de bombeiros , cadetes usam espadim e aspirantes e demais oficiais sabres .

[@umcarainteressante]

+paulo cezar Cezar Que foda, não sabia disso. Legal ver brasileiros aqui, aliás :)

[@kefkaZZZ]

And these are some of the many reasons why modern soldiers still carry knives and bayonets.

[@SusCalvin]

Unlearning to use the bayonet on a battle rifle is part of WW I trench warfare. A sword-bayonet designed to be a long but slightly clumsy spear that we fence with on a field is less useful when we are fighting in a dugout. Or we just throw grenades. I carry a sack of grenades and you heave them in front of us and into every dugout we see. We have two guys with rifles and bayonets covering us but it's the bombs that do the work.

[@paullytle4943]

look at the shoot out at the OK corral guns aren't necessarily atomaticly lethal

[@paulocezarcezar3651]

na verdade meus amigos essas armas brancas com o passar do tempo eram usadas basicamente para adorno , ou seja , enfeites , como parte histórica do fardamento ., é tanto que até hoje são usadas .

[@Aaron.Reichert]

2:37 Well there is that problem.

[@darkdragonsoul99]

Well I'd like to argue that ball ammo does more damage to the target. modern FMJ ammo goes in and comes out the other side penetration is not the most damaging thing a projectile can do ball ammo example old musket balls would go in hit a bone and bounce around inside the target. It wasn't uncommon for someone to get shot in the leg and have the ball stop inside their chest or even brain.

[@Regolith86]

That myth has been floating around for ages, though it's usually said about the .22LR or 5.56mm NATO instead. Put simply, it's a load of BS. Bullets of all kinds do sometimes deflect off bone and end up in some weird places, but none of them do it that much.

[@Tomartyr]

I'm sure this has been answered before but why don't you hear about swords being used in the american 'wild west'? Only exception to this I can think of is US cavalry sabres vs native americans. Basically why no 'sabre duel at the O.K. corral'?

[@commando552]

A lot of these cap and ball revolver, including the Beaumont Adams, could be relatively quickly reloaded by swapping out the empty cylinder for a new reloaded one, and in some cases the revolvers were even sold cased with several spare cylinders. However, do you know if this was ever actually done much in combat? I can imagine it being a bit of a fiddly operation in the heat of battle, particularly with the original Beaumont Adams which I believe had an un-captive cylinder pin and retaining screw. I cannot see it happening much myself, particularly due to the fact that reloading means putting your sword in the scabbard so at this point you are totally defenceless.

[@scholagladiatoria]

The Beaumont Adams cylinder pin is captive, but no I have never seen a historical case of that happening outside of the US. British officers and cavalry troopers generally had one pistol either stuffed through the belt or kept in a holster and didn't have anywhere to keep extra cylinders. I think in that 10 yard engagement distance that revolvers, swords and bayonets would generally get used at there would not generally be time to swap cylinders anyway.

[@jeffthebaptist3602]

One of the issues doing this with a percussion revolver is that loaded and capped percussion cylinders are not generally drop-safe. Anything striking the percussion cap with enough force will fire and potentially chain-fire all the rounds in the cylinder.

[@CrudeConduct666]

Remington new army ftw

[@PhunkyMunky10]

MAYBE you will kill 3 or 4 with the revolver in such scenarios. Balls were round rather than conical, which makes it less accurate than one might wish to rely on. Also it takes forever under pressure to reload those things. And finally, that black smoke also obscured your view of the battle. Even muskets of the day, when they hit you, caused a nasty mess with the soft lead impacting. When the mine' ball came out it was even worse, because now the muzzle loaders were more accurate, although I believe most long arms were still smooth bore back then. Less accurate, but with a conical bullet you had a better chance of hitting. I don't think they made these for quite some time for revolvers, but I could be wrong. So I suspect it was imperative that you carried a saber/cutlass if your only firearm was a revolver, as was the practice among Officers of the day. A musket could fix bayonets and you'd have a sort of short "Pole Arm" from that. LOTS and LOTS of have 2 hand type combat back then when lines clashed.

[@leondillon8723]

3:47) Jammed on the NIPPLES. Not in the chambers.

[@lt.branwulfram4794]

This really isn't discussed enough among the HEMA community, but I wanna ask this question: Is it plausible to dual wield both a sword and a gun at the same time? If yes, awesome, if not, eh, you can't have everything in life.

[@moreparrotsmoredereks2275]

On the subject of reloading, what about multiple cylinders? I know that for Colts the cylinder was completely detachable, so you could potentially reload almost as fast as a modern semi-auto handgun. I don't know if people did this often, or how expensive cylinders on their own are, or how easy/safe they are to carry when loaded. I've never actually heard of someone doing this, but it seems that it would provide a significant advantage in a fight. Also, if you have the money, why not carry two revolvers? I know they were heavy and expensive, but you could then have a backup if you empty your first revolver.

[@PJDAltamirus0425]

I don't know if it was done historical, but is certainly possible. There is man that shoots old west style revolvers and manages to get of accurate shoots at a rate of fire similar to a machine gun in part because he utilizes moon clips.

[@bakters]

On cap&ball colts you can't easily detach a cylinder. You'd need to strike out a wedge which connects both, not lose it and so on. Impractical. Even on later colts using cartridges you had a small screw which was necessary to unscrew and keep. But of course you could carry more guns. There are pictures of cavalrymen with four pistols each. The fact that the horse was carrying all this weight surely helped.

[@scholagladiatoria]

I have never seen a historical case of that happening outside of the US. British officers and cavalry troopers generally had one pistol either stuffed through the belt or kept in a holster and didn't have anywhere to keep extra cylinders. I think in that 10 yard engagement distance that revolvers, swords and bayonets would generally get used at there would not generally be time to swap cylinders anyway - in reality it was generally a case of fire all your shots as best you could and immediately go to sword. No time to reload or fumble about with fiddly equipment.

[@Regolith86]

Philip Dyer Moon clips only work with metallic cartridges. They also require a top-break revolver or one with a swing-out cylinder, which are design features that are pretty much exclusive to cartridge revolvers. Cap and ball revolvers (as well as older cartridge revolvers, such as the Colt Single Action Army), utilize a fixed cylinder. You can only reload one cylinder at a time, and when you're loading a cap and ball pistol that can take a while.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Reddokk Fheg Well said :-)

[@LarsaXL]

If you could carry two single shot pistols, you could carry two revolvers. It would have been very expensive of course, but even if you have a sword in the other hand, you've essentially doubled your number of shots. If you think it is unlekely that you will have time to fire six shots, draw a second pistol and then fire another six shots before they get close to you, remember that a small gun is also a leathal offensive weapon at close range as well. If you have the sword to defend yourself with you might be able to kill people in a melee with your firerarm as well. I am guessing this was done in history even if it was rare and expensive.

[@Dunkleosteusenjoyer]

LarsaXL Yes it was. More so by mounted people, especially those that weren't soldiers such as lawmen that didn't carry swords too often. As metallic cartridges grew in popularity and reliability, people started carrying less and less backup handguns. Now, police or civilians will sometimes carry a backup gun, but most of the time it's just one handgun.

[@joshketum1046]

I like my Ar-15...

[@Captain-Electro]

Fast forward to modern day America, where I keep my .32acp NAA guardian pistol under my pillow at night and a cold steel machete leaned up against the wall. I have a better chance of crippling my attacker with the pistol then using the machete for a resolution. I do have larger firearms, but none that are easy to carry. If the machete gets stolen while I'm at work, I haven't lost much. Still a big advantage to the edged weapon in modern day society.

[@ryanmulherin2682]

It should be stated that flintlocks were very inaccurate and you would miss....often

[@scholagladiatoria]

Ryan Mulherin Actually not true - this is a Hollywood myth. A flintlock rifled pistol can be just as accurate as a modern handgun and in some cases even more accurate if you compare a long-barrelled example with a modern snub-nose or suchlike.

[@ThePeacemaker848]

scholagladiatoria key word is 'rifled'. Usually when people refer to flintlock they are referring to the smoothbarrel kind.

[@warhawke223]

I think the biggest thing you miss is TIME. It take months or years to wield a sword with any degree of skill but I can teach a novice to use a pistol competently in an afternoon. This was especially the case in the time-frame of which you speak as there were so many people who had worked to acquire skills with the blade and knew the level of dedication required why bother with all that when a pistol is simple and easy to use instead? Likewise today in military and police contexts is the reduction or elimination of hand to hand skills, why bother? A gun (or taser for cops) beats 99.9% of people you will ever face in the streets, so why bother expending time and effort developing anything else? No saying they are right but that is a part of the thought behind the loss of the sword as an actual weapon.

[@mukku88]

warhawke223 There is no way a 19th Century army would buy pistols for all it's infantry where they loose or damage them. As a foot soldier you were cannon fodder, as long you were a killing machine, skills didn't matter.

[@isodoublet]

What about pistol swords? Were they actually used or just a novelty item?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes they were used, but they were far from common.

[@Rosstafa]

scholagladiatoria Any information on how they were used/who used them etc?

[@festusmaximus4111]

thas gotta be a replica. uk weapon laws state that replics based upon modes pre 1870 are legal, so that fits. furthermore getting a liscence for such a weapon (not a shotgun on a farm or for hunting) would be such a cnveluted rocess and he would not even be allowed to shoot it anywhere near where he says he lives (south of london) so that is a replia methinks i hope i am right and not talking BS

[@scholagladiatoria]

festusmaximus Under UK law antiques are exempt from firearms laws, unless you use them to shoot. This is an antique dating to around 1860, which I do not shoot. Though you can put an antique pistol on a firearms licence in the UK, if it uses 'obsolete calibre ammunition' (as in the case of this muzzle loader).

[@festusmaximus4111]

scholagladiatoria thanks! so i wasnt totally wrong then....

[@diktatoralexander88]

Black Powder weapons, to my understanding, penetrate far deeper than modern weapons do. People do gelatin tests here on KZbin, the black powder weapons penetrate surprisingly deep. And when I'm on the range, the bullets from the modern guns are easy to recover because they are usually on the surface. But the bullets fired from black powder weapons it is rare for me to recover, I think they penetrate deep into the ground.

[@benm5913]

This is too broad a statement to be considered well. In general, no. That said, if you compare an anemic modern round like the 25 acp vs the original loading of a Colt Walker...then yes, that Walker would penetrate deeper.

[@Norman7283]

Maybe we can put it this way... the wounds you'd get from a black powder weapon would rather be more fatal than if you catch for example a 9mm bullet. Those bullets were bigger and... ahh english is not my mother language, sorry... the channel you know where the bullet hits you would be "straight" and more clean from a modern weapon than from an old black powder weapon. The shot from a black powder gun wouldn't be as "clean" as from a modern gun and in many ways more fatal. Do you agree?

[@diktatoralexander88]

I must say I understand and agree with your point.

[@robertkeick6843]

Actually it was more of a problem, that big slow lead bullets would increase the chance to pull in parts from your clothing and dirt, which made the wounds get infected. Infections were the main cause of death from not immediately letal gun wounds. But I would say there is not much difference between getting hit by 9 mm Luger or an old low power .44 revolver bullet, if they hit the same spot and both create an exit wound. In both cases you would survive, if the bullet misses a vital organ or you would die, if not. The .44 of course has a higher chance of getting stuck, so it would give you more complications, if you survived.

[@MsTokies]

can you please mock demo this? pretty please. also can you dual wield demo? falchion.

[@scholagladiatoria]

In my club we have discussed trying out some melee games where we each have a one-shot airsoft gun :-)

[@TheKittenish]

Even in close range combat I can't see how anyone could manage to kill 6 men with 6 shots... It's not impossible of course but that's really pushing it. You'd probably average 1 man per full cylinder.

[@charlesw5919]

Yeah, that's extremely improbable. You have to be an extremely good marksman, and the 6 guys have to be moving extremely slowly.

[@Mikeanglo]

+TheKittenish Special forces, specifically snipers, are trained to kill their target with one shot. Requires patience, and they may lose their opportunity. Once the shot is fired, targets duck for cover and start looking for you. Better to NOT fire on your target if conditions are bad than to miss or not get a good kill shot.

[@John2r1]

Jamming issues with the Colt navy was more of a result of lack of cleaning of the pistol hence the American gun fighter / lawman at one point a sheriff and at another point a US Marshal name James Butler Hickok nicknamed wild bill, had a daily routine in which he started his day by cleaning his two 1851 Colt Navy revolvers. And guess what he never had a jamming problem or misfire that was recorded. So the problem was the users lack of routine maintenance on the behalf of those British officers who where using them. Of course even American officers have had the same problems hence why cavalry carry sabers up into the 19th to early 20th century.

[@Dunkleosteusenjoyer]

John2r1 That is a good point. Black powder is very dirty, one day of practice could ruin your gun if you didn't clean it over night and fought the next morning. That being said, it's much easier for Wild Bill to clean a gun in his house than it is for soldiers in a dirty tent or next to a campfire.

[@John2r1]

Douglas Paulson at the time there wasnt to big of a defference in cleaning a weapon we today have to clean our weapons in the field ... we dont wait until we get back from the field. even the cleaning kits are basically the same. and yes i am in the military

[@Dunkleosteusenjoyer]

John2r1 I don't are if you're military or not. Cleaning weapons that use smokeless isn't the same as black powder guns. You don't clean a weapon in the field as well as you do in a clean room. You can use a dirty modern gun pretty well. I have a handgun that I haven't cleaned since I got it and I've put about 2,000 rounds through it. A friend of mine has a black powder Smith and Wesson model 1 reproduction that will stop working well after about 30 rounds. Cleaning the weapon was the same, not cleaning it was very different.

[@John2r1]

Douglas Paulson Depends on the weapon actually and no cleaning a modern weapon like an M16 for example will jam the reason carbon build up in the weapon. I have an Ak-47 I haven't clean in 8 years and it still fires every time. So for modern firearms it depends on the weapons operating system the M16 or civilian AR15 has a direct gas operation system which is the reason you have to clean them often after firing them.. Carbon builds in the gas operation system of either an M16 or AR 15 causing the weapon to jam. The AK is a piston driven system where the gas hits a piston that cycles the weapons rounds ejecting the casing and loading another round so doesn't jam often if ever. But I would suggest you clean your weapon after putting 2000 rounds through it. The results of not cleaning a black powder weapon is carbon build up which is the same result you get if you don't clean a smokeless powder weapon in the field ... That's actually what happened to Jessica Lynch in Iraq .. she didn't clean & maintain her weapon properly and it jammed. She got capture due to her weapon jamming. There is a big difference between you shooting at targets at a range and shooting at enemies that are shooting back at you. that black powder S&W model 1 is a good example of a popular weapon although it was never issued by the military of the time ironically. and soldiers on both sides of the civil war bought them. but back to cleaning a weapon in the field the only deference then and now was the enticement you are cleaning your weapon in.. The cleaning kits where all the same no matter where you where in the world and cleaning a revolver is easy compared to modern weapons. And yes I have had to field strip my weapon , clean it , put it back together. Its not that difficult to do. The hard part is disassembly & reassembly. Cleaning any weapon is pretty straight forward.

[@Dunkleosteusenjoyer]

John2r1 Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're just saying what you've read on other youtube comments. A AR will still work much better than a smokeless gun when dirty. AR's aren't nearly as unreliable as people seem to thing, just like how AKs and revolvers aren't nearly as reliable as people seem to think, especially when dirty. Taking the gun apart is part of cleaning, if you can't take it apart very well you'll have problems cleaning it.