Springfield Model 1795 Musket: America's First Military Production

[@mcqueenfanman]

The real, real, real M-1.

[@andrewreegs6319]

Garand in shambles

[@BigBoiBleu]

@@andrewreegs6319 🤣🤣 Springfield is clear

[@ra_alf9467]

Musket 1

[@HistoricalWeapons]

Probably a mace was the first m1

[@evangraham]

M negative

[@victoreem2]

You can't miss when your barrel goes over the field and is touching the enemy

[@m1994a3jagnew]

It goes acrroooooooooosssss the room. And proceeds to drink your milkshake.

[@sellsjeeps]

Tag you're it!

[@andrewromig9753]

18th Century smoothbores: "Challenge accepted!"

[@Ngutovi]

😂😂😂

[@sindarpeacheyeisacommie8688]

Hell yes you can miss. Shooting one of these was more a test of who's unlucky today.

[@sh4dowchas3r]

"Our musket iusn't quite long enough as it is. Can you do something about it?" "Why yes we can. We'll permanently attach the bayonette"

[@wtr2235]

Size doesn't matter, length does!

[@mikepette4422]

OH and use lots of Bronze when affixing it so as to make sure it's even heavier

[@hisstatus]

@@kenbrown2808 How many people had the balls to actually reload that damned thing with it’s bayonet. I’d rather rip it off and risk dying standing there and putting it up then slitting open my hand

[@overboss9599]

@@hisstatus we're talking about the late 1700s here. Balls and a healthy dose of luck were required to survive childhood.

[@509Gman]

@@hisstatus bayonets of the period were triangular spikes meant for stabbing, little to no danger of cutting yourself on one.

[@jaytrock3217]

I was part of the Commander in Chief guard A Co of the Honorguard in DC. I used to have wear wigs, and carry muskets. We had a couple originals muskets in our armory. I never thought my first duty station in Infantry I would be assigned a musket, M-14, and M-4.

[@anonymbenutzer1269]

Thank you for your service.

[@brentfriendshuh1852]

Cool! How did the musket feel and handle in drill and ceremony as opposed to more modern arms?

[@jaytrock3217]

@@brentfriendshuh1852 It was a pain. We did firing demos and also marched in the DC parades. It was heavy and long with the bayonets marching since you hold it vertical by the trigger guard one handed. Parade rest wasn't to bad though. It was fun sometimes when the musket didn't fire at demos on first charge and you drop another charge in afterwards. As long as you didn't pepper the guy next to you. It was big bang with the second charge coming out. The worse was the uniforms, and wigs in DC summers. Itchy and sweat through. I would take dress blues and Arlington fire party any day over it. The worse part of A Co is that u still did all the same duties as the other units, but always had to do extra the parades and other things. We also used to do Twilight Tattoo at the ellipse. Where we would dress in every uniform from early days to modern day with weapons in the Summer. Our Armory has lots of forgot weapons. Cool thing to say you were in the Oldest Unit in the US Military though. DC is an Awesome first duty. Got air assault Belvoir and marine sniper school at Quantico. Took 4 years to get my slot for ranger school. Guess the Old Guard recruiter saved me from going to 82nd since they screwed me on my contract for Airborne Ranger.

[@firstconsul7286]

I'm a volunteer for a living history site, and I'm one of the guys there that gets dressed up in Civil War blues, so I feel a bit of your pain. I've also been to DC in the height of summer so I couldn't imagine wearing the early wool coats there, I feel lucky that my site is off of a lake so there's a constant breeze to cool you ever so slightly down. Respect to you for that, and for serving in our nation's military unlike me who just gets dressed up as infantry from long ago.

[@zachv1942]

Wigs actually where not common in anyway in the field or even on parade.

[@sarjim4381]

You could still buy the 1795 musket that was "sporterized" and mostly converted to shotguns from the Sears catalog in the 1920's. They were a cheap hunting gun and were apparently pretty popular at $5.00 to $8.00 each. If nothing else, using a 130 year old converted musket as a shotgun in 1928 shows the durability of the musket.

[@TheGM-20XX]

that's like $100 in todays money to show how cheap that is.

[@2adamast]

If based on a Charleville that's 1717

[@erikdingman9806]

It also displays our often poor appreciation for our own history.

[@sarjim4381]

@@erikdingman9806 Why? What exactly was a poor display of our appreciation of history? 80,000 of these muskets were produced, and many of them were converted to percussion long before they were declared surplus. All the ones that were converted to shotguns were these previous percussion conversions. There are over 100 of the originals flintlocks still around and thousands of the percussion guns. What do you think should have been done with them?

[@erikdingman9806]

@@sarjim4381 I would have liked to see more of them preserved as museum pieces. Also, admittedly selfishly, I'd like to see more available on the collector's market.

[@oatka01]

Re: the "unusual" front sight: Back in the '60s I belonged to the Brigade of the American Revolution and used M1840s French .69 cal Charleville flintlocks in competition (was surprised they were still making flints that late) - beautiful workmanship. We had one guy who was consistently more accurate with his musket and we thought it was just an exceptionally bored weapon. Finally, he fessed up. He let the thumbnail on his right hand grow long, then cut a notch in it. When he sighted (we just pointed) the gun, he used that notched thumbnail as a crude rear sight. That method was accurate enough to beat all the rest of us. I wonder how much more effective a line of musketeers with notched thumbnails would have been in those days. :-)

[@User_Un_Friendly]

It’s hilarious that right behind Ian is obviously a .50 cal barrel, which is a smaller caliber than the .65 cal flintlock musket.🤣

[@rocekth]

Sadly that's only in name, shoot something with a .65 cal musket and you'll get a much different result than shooting it with a .50 cal

[@shilopnamreg6468]

@@rocekth no one’s saying the musket can go through walls and vehicles, it can ruin your day though.

[@rocekth]

@@shilopnamreg6468 I'm fully aware of what they do, I'm just saying that they're not comparable

[@omartorres5688]

Don't forget the MG42 and the M60 in the background as well

[@User_Un_Friendly]

@@omartorres5688 Those are a few of my favorite things, and then I don’t feel...so sad! 😛

[@joshuabessire9169]

"The French copies no one. No one copies the French." Model 1795: "Allow me to introduce myself."

[@AixlaachenPax1801]

More like all of the world armies copied the French especially in the 18th and 19th century

[@genericpersonx333]

@Cam Furey To be fair, the French really made it hard on themselves by paddling the British so often on land that the British had to go full propaganda to save their bruised egos, so you must forgive the occasional person who still buys into the Black Legend of the French as losers in war. It takes a long time to deconstruct a myth so large.

[@benholroyd5221]

@@genericpersonx333 examples? I can't really think of any examples of land campaigns that both have played a major role that the British lost. The American war of independence?

[@Zakuznapper]

@@genericpersonx333 “the French copy no one and no one copies the French” is apparently an adage concerning “modern” weapons design (smokeless powder and forwards) that Ian has referenced earlier. I don’t think it has anything to do with the “cheese eating surrender monkey”-prejudice.

[@Zakuznapper]

@@benholroyd5221 neither can I, possibly he’s misremembering the statement that the French armed forces supposedly are the most successful in Europe having taken part in the most conflicts since the Middle Ages and won most of the ones the participated in. If I’m remembering that correctly.

[@1südtiroltechnik]

Oiled wood is so good, 220 years later its still in good condition.

[@SirSaladhead]

This video is 8 minutes old, so that's...about 24 shots a well trained musketman could do in that timeframe. Why'd I bring that up? Comment for the algorithm of course.

[@infernaldaedra]

He probably still gets demonitized just for saying guns and weapons sadly.

[@gaylordpantamime]

Godbless

[@CaersethVarax]

They might be able to shoot three shots a minute, but can they STAND?

[@SirSaladhead]

@@CaersethVarax If the smell of garlic doesn't become too overwhelming, yeah.

[@traktorsajt]

"Three a minute?! The South Essex can fire two on a good day!" Sir Henry Simmerson

[@Love_rainy_days]

That is why the U.S. Army "Combat Infantryman Badge" superimposed a Springfield Arsenal Musket, Model 1795 on it . The CIB is the most coveted badge for the U.S. Army Infantryman. I love your videos about guns.

[@stevailo]

“I can’t flip it, because I don’t have another five feet of the table on the other side”

[@Guhonter]

It continues to blow my mind to see these weapons from the past still being around and very well preserved. Wish they could tell their story...

[@brittakriep2938]

Some noblemen have weapons from late middle age in good condition.

[@pyroavok]

"Once upon a time; pew pew pew pew pew pew. The end."

[@ROBERTN-ut2il]

When I was in elementary school, my town library had CB Colby's "Musket to M14", which began with M1795. I DEVOURED that book!

[@Kerithanos]

3:50 "Holy moly, these guys are long!" - Ian McCollum 2021 Also, 69 caliber? Nice.

[@boomanh63]

There is a story in my family of a great Uncle renovating his home in Mass in the 1950's. Breaking open a wall in his basement, that had no doorway but was in the middle of the basement, and coming across several crates of still wrapped in burlap Springfield muskets. I always wondered what ever became of them. It would have been nice if a few had stayed in the family and passed down. Perhaps it might have been some of these stashed away as a JIC for the local militia back in the day they were sealed in that hidden room.

[@TrueOpinion99]

The branch insignia of the US Army infantry is a silver 1795 Springfield Musket set on a blue-field and surrounded by a silver border. This insignia set in a silver wreath designates an infantryman who has engaged the enemy in combat; it's a badge of honor and point of pride for those who have earned one.

[@herbertliedel7019]

One of the things my father was proud of was his CIB France WW2.

[@troy9477]

Darn right. I hear most good officers think the CIB is the only decoration that means much. I know some officers or soldiers wear only that on their daily uniforms, and only wear the ither stuff in full class A or dress blues

[@MrDgwphotos]

That's not the branch insignia, that's the CIB. The branch insignia is a pair of crossed muskets.

[@danielbeck9191]

@@MrDgwphotos Which are ALSO Model of 1795 Muskets.

[@UkrainianPaulie]

He's refering to the EIB and the CIB.

[@wtr2235]

No field stripping? No mud test? Perhaps a WWSD 1800 (what would Springfield do) in a future video? No worries, mate, I see myself out.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

that's more Carl's area of expertise

[@SafetyProMalta]

Ichabod Crane would love it!

[@martyg5156]

Idk if it can stop the horseman tho lol

[@enricopaolocoronado2511]

"0.69 caliber" *N I C E*

[@trepan4944]

Nice

[@LRP-e1m]

Nice!

[@AndersonNSilva-mw7kl]

Nice

[@jonlong2663]

The last reproduction I'll be putting in my collection (main rifle of US infantry from every war/era). This is the musket on the Army CIB/EIB.

[@kosmxrankin1526]

As well as the Infantry Cross Rifles

[@n147258noah]

@@TheOriginalShoneBoyOnYT Considering a lot of these guns are over 220 years old...I think you can catch him a break. Repros are probably the only way to get them without them being a few grand. I checked Morphy's, and its low-end estimated price is $3000. If you get a couple guys who really want a genuine article 'first American flintlock', then that number could easily be exceeded.

[@simmerinzimmerman8751]

@@TheOriginalShoneBoyOnYT Better to use and abuse a repro rather than an original

[@jonlong2663]

@@TheOriginalShoneBoyOnYT will probably be the only repro, mainly because I want to shoot it. Kinda cool to take friends to the range and show them a little walk through history... but, to each their own.

[@andersjjensen]

@@TheOriginalShoneBoyOnYT My compliments! It exquisitely highlights your social status when you effectively execute on an opportunity to liken casually obtainable options to feces. Dreaded be the day where lowly plebs can enjoy such heresy against authenticity without proper scold from their betters! Now, could I trouble you, good Sir, to swiftly test the penetrating power of one of your GENUINE antique Colts against your right temple? I should be very delighted to hear of the result!

[@3ducs]

Apparently Walmart wasn't yet selling screwdrivers, the screw heads on this piece are un-buggered.

[@ristoalanko9281]

This musket is quite rough, "preserved in its own juice" as the Estonians say. It has had a long rest, undisturbed. And then some bubba is going to dig up the wire wheel...

[@3ducs]

@@ristoalanko9281 That dust probably still has anthrax in it.

[@dmk0210]

Someone did however take a hand cranked Dremel to the stock behind the lock plate.

[@ZaMonolith1986]

Nothing like morning coffee and a new Forgotten Weapons video.

[@duwop544]

Heh, my habit is to watch in the evening with a different sort of beverage. Whatever works!

[@BigBoiBleu]

Good to see other cultured folks like myself.

[@keithallardice6139]

Came for the weapon, stayed for the history - a perfect combination in my eyes! Thanks...

[@maxwellclark6992]

Mmmmmmmyeeeeeeesssssssss mooskets, I hope Ian goes through the whole family 1795, 1816,24,42 so on and so forth

[@caprise-music6722]

Snaaaaaaaaaaaaaake...

[@dominicvucic8654]

And the 55 61 and 63

[@drdoom-skull2244]

I shot the French Charleville. An original one. It kicks! And it wasn't even loaded full charge due to its respectable age!

[@drdoom-skull2244]

You'll have to trust me!

[@AndrewAMartin]

@@drdoom-skull2244 My dad has (or had, he might have sold it by now) a reproduction Charleville musket that he used to shoot at matches at the Daniel Boone Homestead here in Pennsylvania. One of the requirements was that you had to dress in period garb... It's a beautiful musket, with the dark wood and steel left 'in the white'...

[@drdoom-skull2244]

@@AndrewAMartin That's super cool!

[@AndrewAMartin]

@@drdoom-skull2244 He hasn't done that in years, decades even. The more I think about it, the more I think he sold it. He's getting older, and shooting hard recoiling muskets is not an option any more. He still shoots though...

[@jonasstolberg2802]

Wait, they were stamped in 1899? I'm guessing you meant 1799, or were these in stock longer than I expected?

[@randomprojectsusa5196]

I thought the same thing lol

[@philips.5563]

That there was one of them minor misspoken moments.

[@AppalachianTemplar]

I think he misspoke and missed it.

[@nor0845]

6:28 Ian said 1799 just as the stamp indicates. 🤔

[@MrSplic3r]

Flub in audio is corrected in subtitles

[@bad74maverick1]

I deer hunt with mine. It's relatively accurate at about 120 yards. Mines still original flint and the type II model, manufactured at Harpers Ferry 1811.

[@nonsibi1087]

It's a small detail often missed, but Springfield Arsenal (est. 1777) also incorporated the US ARMY's first and only government bronze [called brass] field artillery manufacturing center in 1782, known as the National Foundry. Until the foundry was closed in about 1800, the ARMY's 3 Pdr & 6 Pdr guns as wellas 5 1/2" & 8" howitzers were cast, machined, and mounted at Springfield. The National Foundry paved the way for the later (est. 1794) National Armory at Springfield.

[@mikeblair2594]

As someone who custom builds muzzleloading rifles, fowlers, pistols and muskets by hand, I can tell you honestly the work and time that goes into making one of these beautiful works of functional art. These were made in a day when a gunsmith was truly a smith. He would put hammer to iron and create all or most of the parts and all of his tools. Just inletting the barrel is a pain and is the longest process in making any firearm. When its done with chisels and then scrapers it takes a person with patience, because you have to get it exactly right. Of course I don't have a shop full of workers doing each individual process to create a musket, its just me. But with only hand tools and no distractions I can stock a long gun in a week. If one wants me to forge the barrel and lock and furniture add another two hundred and twenty five hours. Oh and another seven to eight grand. Good work/art costs.

[@OriginalWarwood]

The Smithfield Armory Museum is a pretty interesting place to check out, if you find yourself near Springfield, MA

[@johnsweeney4257]

Springfield....

[@STho205]

Excellent presentation. As to replicas of this musket nobody has come as close as the older Navy Arms imports of the Miroku 1766 Charleville pattern. I had one side by side comparison with a 1795 type Springfield and a c1802 HF in a collector's table. The size, contours of the stock, banding, lock elements and above all thickness of barrel and overall weight was uncanny. The later commonly sold replicas were substantially heavier with overly thick walled barrels. The only major deviation was the nose band. It was cast a bit thick and loose fitting. Both originals, like this one, that band looked like thin sheet metal wrapped tightly. Even the rounded head screws holding the lock were accurate to this piece shown here. My comparison was to see what I had to change to perfect the impression for the 7th US Infantry issue. All i did was blank the lockplate removing the script stamping and French inspection marks. I determined it better not to stamp it as the gun was more versatile to use for earlier impressions and many armory pattern muskets were constructed before the stamping process started.

[@mikebrase5161]

I earned my 1795 with a wreath in Baghdad in 04.

[@nunyabeeswax2575]

......... Elaborate please?

[@halo7oo]

@@nunyabeeswax2575 The US military's Combat Infantry badge has the rifle's silhouette on it.

[@nunyabeeswax2575]

@@halo7oo figured something along those lines but best to ask and not assume. Thanks for your service btw Yank 😉 and glad you got home.

[@erikdingman9806]

I treasure the one that I wear on my chest, but I'd love to have one of them on my wall as well.

[@googi577]

@@halo7oo I don't mean to be pedantic, it's a musket. Not a rifle.

[@brycehenry7445]

My grandfather has a musket with a harpers ferry mark and its pretty neat

[@HasturT]

Ian: 250 years ago in the year 1799... Me (confused shouting): What year is it?

[@atthebrink74]

It just feels like 250 years because of 2020/2021

[@NickRatnieks]

Well, at 5:00 he says that the Springfield mark began to be used in 1899. We know what he really means.

[@zupperm]

Imagine gun manufacturer turning down a US Government deal today in preference to private sales.

[@sheerluckholmes5468]

Given the current shortage of firearms , in particular handguns and the willingness of people to pay over and beyond the MSRP I would say that quite a few manufacturers would possibly go for it.

[@jcorbett9620]

I can quite understand it, tbh. The private market would pay immediately and take anything they were offered. The military would mess about trying to reach some sort of common specification, then change it half way through, then change it again and again and again, constantly delaying payment because the firearm "is not the spec we want"! Given the choice between money now and money "some time in the future but god knows when", which would you pick, knowing you have expenses and wages to pay? :-)

[@51WCDodge]

Ever tried getting payment out of any Goverment? :-)

[@yosarianilivestech4018]

Since you do so few videos on old musket loaders it's always a sign that there's an interesting story behind one if you covering it

[@PsychoDad89]

Officer: "Fix Bayonettes!" Soldier: "Sir, they're permanently fixed"

[@AreGeeBee]

*BLAM* I said affix bayonets!

[@erikdingman9806]

Lieutenants never change...

[@STho205]

General Jackson ordered the smiths to braze on the bayonets for companies with removable bayonets at New Orleans defense lines in the last week of December. He was not going to withdraw. Most of his men were equipped with this type weapon, both militia and regulars.

[@jesseusgrantcanales]

Also I happened to have come into ownership of a model of this gun, I bought on Sept. 24 an Eli Whitney Contract musket! M1812 type, not totally sure if it was in time to serve in the War of 1812 or not, this gun has been places, condition is decent but not as rough as this gun Ian has, it can shoot but not sure if it can handle bullets anymore, need a gunsmith to inspect it.

[@SNOUPS4]

Even if muskets aren't quite your cup of tea, I hope that maybe we'll one day see more videos on the Charleville patterns of muskets here! :)

[@michaelwright2986]

Small typo: at about 5:10 you say "1899" when you mean "1799." I know you like to be meticulous and will want to put a correction on screen, and also this comment does you good on KZbin, I do believe. Thanks for all the videos.

[@crabgnome5388]

"general these rifles are too expensive" "easy, we'll just make them spears instead"

[@ratscoot]

Yes they´re long. The French military considered a musket primarly a stick to put on a bajonet.

[@herbertliedel7019]

Three lines deep you still had the muzzle past the front line.

[@PitFriend1]

I would tell a joke about the Springfield Model 1795 musket, but it’s too long.

[@jesseusgrantcanales]

Actually the Armory was established 1794, production took a while to commence, in the naming system the Mark 1 Springfield was the ones made in '99, before that they were not even considered early marks according to some experts, there is in fact guides behind the history of the gun and how to tell when a Springfield or Harper's gun was made and the Marks 1 through 4 before they become the '16 model. Wild fact: During the Battles of Fort Donelson and Fort Henry, when the Confederates surrendered, some were armed with THIS model Springfield! As Ian said these soldiered on long after they were obsolete, I think even at the Battle of Perryville, some rebels were again armed with this or slightly later models; to be honest even the Union was using flinters, because guns were scarce at first, they even used the 1809 Prussian musket inspired by Napoleon's Imperial Guard muskets, nicknamed "Pumpkin Slinger" cause of the caliber.

[@richardlahan7068]

Collectors just love their models, subvariants and typologies.

[@charlesadams1721]

It's interesting to contrast this firearm with another US production firearm that also came out of the US arsenal system, the Hall 1819 rifle that Ian covered some months back - kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKG6YWhqmLuZfsU. Whereas the Springfield 1795 was based upon a pretty much mid-1700s French pattern firearm, the Hall was, for the time 'cutting edge'.

[@RexyRonin]

Great video Ian! Hopefully one day I can get my hands on one of these!

[@Easy-Eight]

I'd argue the basic lines of the 1795 was kept until the 1873 model .45-70 Trapdoor infantry rifle. In modern army terminology the 1795 musket would have been designated the 1795H45. Basic 1795 model, 8th design, 45 caliber.

[@mntmn4228]

Ian should check out the musket collection at Fort Ticonderoga. Many examples of French, British, and American muskets and cannons there.

[@zachv1942]

Many cannons. Alot actually are Spanish if I'm not mistaken.

[@boba9253]

It would be interesting to see follow up on the various flintlock to percussion conversions done by the federal armories in the 1840s / 1850s. Owner of a family 1832 Harper's Ferry with Belgian conversion.

[@shooter575]

I have a 1828 Springfield H&P conversion that I shoot quite a bit. Love that musket,

[@jacknelson8601]

Looks similar to the 1777 Charleville to my untrained eye. What a beautiful weapon and priceless piece of American history! Great video.......thank you Ian. Helmet.

[@terry7907]

Yes, you would have thought they would have used the more modern 1777 as a model, although the 1766’s were what the Revolutionary Army used.

[@mikekean8344]

@@terry7907 I am an 18th Century, living historian. The 1766's were indeed what we had. The French never sold us any of their 1777's, at least not during the Revolution. Hence the reason we could not copy them. There are some who argue that the "later variations" might have been knock offs of a 1777 which may have been obtained later on. I'll leave that for others to decide. I own and use a replica 1766 Charleville myself.

[@connorjones755]

Ian is my favorite person because he can have an engaging informative video with an m2 browning an mg 42 or similar and an m60 on the rack right behind him😂

[@petebeatminister]

I find it astonishing how long that flint lock system was used. Not sure when it came out first, but it must been about 250 years earlier. And during all that time nobody had a better idea...

[@halo7oo]

It portrays just how massively influential the industrial revolution was, compare a 1790's musket to a 1300's arquebus and the difference is apparent, yet not that striking and is the logical evolution. Meanwhile, compare a 1790's musket and an 1890's machine gun or bolt-action rifle. Compare 1976 with 1776, someone could have seen combat with an M16 and their great-great-grandfather could have used this.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@CountArtha ... Scott was a good commander but he was a little incorrect on the logistics issue. The pre-packaged .69 musket ammo was issued in packs of 20 with extra percussion caps. Anyway, post 1850 ammo logistics was not a problem. The issue became *rate of fire* and that was not really solved until the repeaters of the post 1870 time. Post "Custer" the US Army got around this by attaching a Gatling gun to the units. It's called blasting yourself out of trouble.

[@2adamast]

@@halo7oo The industrial revolution being the period 1750-1850 the Charleville 1777 (up to 1840) with its interchangeable parts and millions produced is a perfect child of the industrial revolution

[@AndrewAMartin]

@@CountArtha Percussion caps do not use gunpowder, they use fulminate of mercury. Using a flintlock DOES require gunpowder in the pan, but that is present in the paper cartridges of the day (no army used loose powder and balls like a civilian would). I can see where running out of caps can become an issue, rendering an otherwise loaded musket inoperable, while a flintlock can be fired as long as you have ammunition.

[@laurisikio]

It's the first time ian didn't bother to do subtitles. Please keep doing them, they're much better that the automatically created ones.

[@shawnr771]

Very cool that it survived.

[@lloritoovidexequield.8609]

I guess this kind of firearm would be appropriate for the time period that Mister Townsends (the nutmeg connoisseur) in 18th Century Cooking portrays, yes? =)

[@andreweden9405]

He drives me nuts because he'll be dressed "period correct" from the waist up, but he refuses to wear the proper pants! What I'm talking about is that he'll take the time to put on a tri-corn hat and fine waistcoat, but won't wear knee-breeches and housings! I don't know, maybe I'm too picky, but there's a lot of other stuff that drives me crazy about him as well.

[@mikekean8344]

@@andreweden9405 There's no one else out there with the guts to do it, so why don't you cut him some slack, friend? If you think you can do better, then step up!

[@hjelsethak]

Wait, 4:55 You said 1899? Surely, it must have been 1799? All in all great content, Ian!

[@davidbrennan660]

The French features please Ian’s firearm soul.

[@Mossy500A]

Shotguns are definitely a huge part of American history. Cool video.

[@acratone8300]

From the little I read on internet the model 1795 is best smooth bore musket ever made in the US. Later models were design changed to save money but they were not as good.

[@aaa72317]

4:00 Nice.

[@1248dl]

Nit-picky details made interesting. Good one, Ian.

[@bonespur2728]

2k likes, 8 dislikes. i would not bet on any other channel having a better ratio than that. you guys are doing an amazing job.

[@TheOhgodineedaname]

I always wondered about the iron vs. wood ramrod you hear about. I've seen iron ramrods in 15th century art and later wooden ramrod quite often have iron heads. What was it about the mid 18th century iron ramrods that made them stand out? Would love to see a video about this, ideally with original ramrods!

[@azuritet3]

4:01 Nice!

[@chubbycatfish4573]

4:57 We know what he meant...

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

One improvement the Americans made over the French Charleville was in the stocking. Charlevilles were awkwardly stocked, by that I mean it's hard to get your cheek down on the buttstock for a good sight picture with a Charleville, downright uncomfortable in fact. This wasn't important to the French but it was VERY important to the Americans. All the American Springfield and Harpers Ferry .69 cal muskets are very comfortably stocked, not too much different from a modern shotgun. This is the first I've heard of bayonets being permanently brazed to the barrels, but if Ian says it I supose it's so.

[@SuperCrazf]

Damn, American firearms have come a long way, from humble beginnings to the technological marvels of today and tomorrow

[@zachv1942]

This example has features that where adopted into British arms as time advanced.

[@bwayne40004]

.69. My favorite caliber.

[@sammaxgoof8507]

4:01 Nice

[@rogerlafrance6355]

The bigger story is that this is the start of manufacturing in the US. England was no longer making us buy British and we had financial problems that reduced trade. Even today, some countries start by making copies to bootstrap local industry. I would guess that many of the later gun designers got their start as boys working in these shops.

[@richardsharp6875]

That was fascinating and excellent documentation, great history lesson, thank you

[@509Gman]

I was just thinking yesterday that there hasn’t been very much flintlock content lately.

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

Anthony Wayne's Legion of the US wants thier gun back!

[@nickbuckley4371]

This is what the history channel failed to continue quality interesting and cool stuff

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

Does the Springfield Armoury have surviving payroll records that allows you to track what the production cost pr. gun actually was? Possibly rearward deductions as to how much time was spend producing a gun on average. Deliveries should be possible to determine? What I am after is the mass production benefits. There is an economic law - or rather a rule - that claimes that the unit cost is reduced with a somewhat fixed percentage pr. dobling of production number, and as guns have a tendency to be identified with a number or slight variation then we can refer the payroll to a definate production lot. If you have complex manufacture like aircraft the cost reduction pr. doubling is approximately 20% from example nr. x to example no. 2x

[@kurtiseschofield]

Ian, great video. Is the musket you were showing in original flintlock condition? There are many Springfields out on the market that were converted to percussion (as you pointed out), but then reconverted to flintlock by collectors. I've been out the antique arms business for many years but IIRC the original flintlock condition muskets demanded a much higher price. Is that still true today?

[@troy9477]

I never knew the barrels were so long. I would think 30" or so would be enough, even by the standards of the time. Of course, bayonet doctrine has a lot to do with that, and u don't want ti give up 12" or 14" of reach to an enemy, but they had to be unwieldy. Anyway, what a find. Great history lesson as always. Thank you

[@richardlahan7068]

Both 1766 Charlevilles and 1795 Springfields are 5 feet long (without the bayonet).

[@JohnDoe-zs6gj]

Do they have any m-lok on the front for a flashlight?

[@jonasstolberg2802]

Well, there's a ring you could hang a lantern from I suppose, does that work?

[@cyth5366]

@@jonasstolberg2802 I just imagined some 18th century operator hanging a bullseye lantern from the front ring and raiding some British encampment

[@saltymcginger2027]

@@cyth5366 'EVERY MAN ON THEE FLOOR, YEE SCALLIONS!'

[@51WCDodge]

@@saltymcginger2027 With the length of that thing, you'd have to shout so the guy on the other end could actually hear you :-)

[@keithskelhorne3993]

@@51WCDodge congratulations, you sir has won the inter-web for today!!

[@xmarkmechanic1]

Heck this is a relatively short barreled flintlock. Some of the older French guns had way longer barrels.

[@jcodym13]

Springfield 200 years ago: Our rifles are made of good American Steel and beautiful wood harvested from our great nation's forests. Our guns will outlive the company and it's employees for generations to come. Springfield now: cROwaYsHuN pLAmsTiC

[@lasertoothtiger]

4:01 nice.

[@jefferypowell9885]

You can see on the lock where I frezen notch has a brass filler in it

[@koningeenoog6207]

1:28 that went on-line in 1800. Did i miss some history about early stages of internet. Thought that came in 1980's :D

[@giuseppe4909]

I love these old guns. Such history !

[@sonickiller360]

4:58 1899...

[@alanevans5892]

I'm so glad someone else noticed

[@jarheadpig8912]

4:01 nice

[@loupiscanis9449]

Thank you , Ian .

[@bami2]

69 cal? nice

[@charles_wipman]

Nice piece of history; it's in great condition for it's age imo.

[@littletweeter1327]

really love the Charleville design

[@bobbylee2853]

Oui oui!

[@Kevin-mx1vi]

Ian: Talks about 1795 like it's ancient history. Me: (living in town founded by Vikings) Laughs in British. 😁

[@ForgottenWeapons]

The difference between Europeans and Americans is that Americans think 200 years is a long time and Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance.

[@remcodenouden5019]

Lol true the church in my town is like 800 years old and there's dozens of buildings 300-500 years old

[@DoctorSinister1]

@@ForgottenWeapons Exactly this.

[@brittakriep2938]

In 1077 the oldest document, in which the name of my village appears , was written . In late 1960s some alemannic graves from 5th/6th century habe been found , also the village name , Settlement of ...s men' seems to show this era.

[@BigboiiTone]

I think most Americans are uneducated about history so 200 years seems like a "long time." Im really interested in history and 200 years seems like "slightly a bit ago" to me

[@2jay490]

I want to see a run n gun with flint lock smooth bore muzzle loaders n dragoon pistols, Brit vs French

[@devinhutman3435]

Nice caliber

[@darrellburnside9368]

Great series a lot of weapons I've read about but never seen. I know is a movie gun but how about a video the pistol Jim Hawkins used in treasure island? I would love to learn more about it and if it still exist.

[@LUCNUKEM]

Ian's living in the future, or has traveled back in time.

[@SerenyMor]

I see that the musket in this clip has one very important omission from the "Model 1777" (and later) Charleville Musket? It does not have the "cut away" in the left hand cheek of the stock which permitted your French fusilier (and his American counterpart) to nuzzle their cheek into the gun before firing and look straight down the barrel to that front sight. In all other aspects, less those US originated "embellishments", this 1795 Springfield is a complete clone of the Charleville . . . but this omission of that cut away, does it indicate a difference between French and US musket drill? I spent some years as a "French Napoleonic Battle Re-Enactor" and my Charleville, made by Davide Pedersoli in Italy, was (maybe) my best friend. It was a constant source of frustration and amusement to me that my fellow "Redcoat" re-enactors were for ever whining on about the superiority of the "the British soldier" and the majesty of their equipment? Yet all I needed to do was lay my Charleville by the side of a "Brown Bess" musket, point out the cheek cut-away and the fore-sight and then inform them of the "skirmishing drill" taught to ALL French line fusiliers whereby whole companies broke down into pairs of fusliers, one behind the other, either harassing an advance or covering a retreat and the very obvious way in which these physical features helped turn that average fusilier into a trained marks-person. For that "cut away" to be missing from a young army priding itself on individual prowess is . . . odd.

[@stevencacs]

I have been watching your content for some time - this one was ... doctorate material

[@AndrewAMartin]

Aside from a couple of flubs in the delivery... Apparently, math on camera is not Ian's forte ;-)