I love how the various firearms youtubers are so good with each other and collaborate and cooperate making content, hyping each other up and so on. It makes for such a lovely community.
@@Wernerrrrr I think there's a script for a dark comedy in there somewhere...everyone pausing to explain things about what they are shooting, were just shot with, or blew up in their hands. Stuff like that.
Agreed. The firearm owning community has had (in my personal experience) some of the most considerate people in it compared to all of the other communities I've sampled. Firearms are something we should all be able to enjoy as long as we are respectful of the raw power that they embody! It's a great hobby and a great community.
The 1856 pistol "Almost useless", the enfield revolver "mostly useless"? Keeping things on a douglas adams theme...It makes sense that Jonathan knows his "Hitchikers guide to the galaxy"! Keep up the good videos!
Douglas Adams lived in a small English home smoked and drank excessively until moving to California where he ate “healthy” quit smoking and died exercising. Bwahahaha
Jonathan, if I may make a suggestion to improve the quality of your mic audio? Move the mic up on your jacket just a bit. Whenever you lean your head over to your left to look at your notes, your voice becomes substantially clearer and louder because you're both closer to the mic and facing it more directly. I had to double my speaker volume for your voice to be clearly audible up until that point, and the difference is like the voice channel going from rear or side channel speakers to front and center.
and we've got stereo audio for some reason when that's needless to say, not really necessary. Just downmix to mono for things like this, stereo audio gets distracting.
@@Rehteal yes, he's right. generally if you want stereo, let the stereo echo linger in the left and right channels but make sure the speaker's voice is dead centre; same volume in both channels. we tend to orient our heads to people who speak to replicate that effect irl.
@@sleepCircle Right, but if you can't do that consistently/ easily as the person recording, have the editor or someone just make it mono instead. Bad stereo is much worse than none at all.
@@Rehteal true enough. i suppose it'd be a question of is there too much of his voice in the room ambience to let the lapel mic ride comfortably in mono without interference. i THINK it should be doable but i'm not sure.
It's such a strange gun for something that should be pretty straightforward for a revolver, but I guess trying to make it too future proof damned it into a horrible design.
@@darranhirose8153 it is like how the colt 1900 automatic looks normal. It only looks normal to us because it set the mold, in the same way there are tons of ways to make a revolver. That the layout of all modern ones fits the mold is a result of many attempts at other ways and them failing.
The actual development of these was fascinating. There's a very long and convoluted story involving the War Office, Owen Jones, Jean Warnant, Stanton, Thornton de Mouncie, Michael Kaufmann, Walter Scott and others. I actually own one of the early Thornton revolvers whose modified lockwork ended up in the Enfield.
Thanks Jonathan and team. It was really interesting seeing this. I wonder if Owen Jones and/or Enfield needed to avoid just copying the S&W No.3 revolvers, as those seem to have been a much better design and probably influenced the development of Webley's slightly later designs.
@@LukeBunyip I've just watched in its Patreon pre-released edition. So it looks like patents were not an issue but the S&W design was seen as in need of improvement due to being seen as too flimsy. British military designs by committee - or even just overseen by committee - all too often seem to suffer from too much complexity and trying to innovate too quickly.
Nah, it was a combination questioning the long-term reliability of mechanisms like the No 3 and someone's bright idea about not wasting unfired rounds (ie if you fired three shots and went to reload, you could just reload the three spent cartridges with this rather than all six as with the No 3). The latter was a terrible idea in practice, but I can see why people new to cartridge firing revolvers would find it appealing and it wasn't the only time it was tried (Merwin and Hulbert did something similar). In the end, as problematic as the Enfield revolver is, it was still better than a lot of contemporaries and at least the British were forward looking (insisting on double action and simultaneous ejection) unlike, for example, the Germans with the Reichsrevolver adopted at the same time.
Ha, I do feel bad saying these things you know. It's the same with the video game guns - a lot of people put their heart and soul into things and people like me come along and criticise...
Leaving aside the diferences in opening the action in practical use this Enfield and the American Merwin Hulbert revolver work the same kind of loading and unloading action with a fix axis in witch the cilinder moves forward and the star (enfield) or the lip (merwin hulbert ) stays in place to extract the empties , in theese two guns the live rounds stay in place and only the expended cases come out but i guess the MH just works better in a round up action . nice to see what C&R senal has to say about it , cheers!!
Always wondered what's the deal with this monstrocity, thanks, Jonathan! 1:01 Like the revolver itself! 5:38 Wilkinson - as in Wilkinson Sword company? Was it Henry Nock's legacy still going strong with the new owners? 6:49 Wait a second, which ones are you talking about? M1917 revolver was made by both Colt and S&W, while the latter also made the so called Victory Model in .38Spl, which is notably not .45ACP.
Colt's M1917 and S&W's M1917 are two fairly different revolvers. They were made for the same reason (WW1 armaments) but if you look at pictures of both revolvers, they're very much patterned to their company's specifics (Colt a pull latch, unsupported ejector rod, CW rotation; S&W's a push button, supported ejector rod, and CCW rotation). EDIT: Found a good picture of them both. www.americanrifleman.org/media/nsropbas/1917rev.jpg
I have always wondered, if British officers were expected to purchase their own side arm out of pocket, were there any rules or restrictions they were required/advised to follow? Only asking because the embellishments on the revolver cylinder are an odd detachment of reality for a military weapon to receive such things (excluding examples such as the PO8 lugers gifted to Himric Himmler).
Got a feeling that I've read in an Ian Hogg book of a four barrel saddle pistol that was made in British Army calibre for consideration when officers had to buy their own sidearm, maybe Lancaster? wouldn't have been all that odd considering we are talking about such early revolver days.
Actual comment made at Enfield during the development, "A stick, what kind of crazy fools would use a stick as an ejector? That's just lunatic talk isn't it Hans?"
Excellent stuff, as always. Big thanks to Jonathan and the team at the Armouries. Minor overall point of critique: maybe slightly increase the volume next time? With these videos I usually have to crank my speakers up to a point where any sudden notification is liable to cause me physical pain. Anyways, love ya to bits, keep up the awesoem work.
Excellent video Jonathan. I would love to visit the physical Royal Armouries; I got to the Tower, and was disappointed not to see all the things in Howard Blackmore's books; I got to the Victory and the Mary Rose; if ever I get an opportunity to come to the UK again I will come to Leeds!
It would be greatly appreciated if you normalised the volume on these clips before posting - they're massively more quiet than most RUclips clips. Cheers!
I get that it would have made unloading live or dud rounds a pain, but couldn't the idea behind that unusual ejection mechanism have been that if you had fired some shots but not others, you could eject only the fired cartridges, to save time on reloading? I think Forgotten Weapons had a video with a revolver with a similar ejection system (Merwin and Hulbert, I think- but I might be wrong) and that was said to be a benefit.
It was also Dr. Watson's service revolver in 1965's "A Study In Terror," a hypothetical "Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper" film. This is actually one of the few films with a service revolver Watson could have plausibly used, since he was famously wounded at Maiwand in 1880 and invalided out the next year.
I own two revolver PISTOLS, a .22 Ruger single-six and a 1974 Colt Troop .357 magnum. I love to say, 'I produced my pistol'. Super geeky, yes, but they are my guns and I can say what I want. And great show!
I have a pair of Tayler Schofield replicas for my SASS shooting. If the conversation had ever come up I would have thought the British army had similar firearms by the early 1870’s. There are a couple of scenes in the movie Zulu that would of been interesting if they had used period firearms. Great vid, first time I’ve seen this channel. New subscriber as of now.
When it comes to the rifled cylinders, I wonder if it had something to do with fear that fouling would gum things up in loading and the rifled part was "intended" to somewhat remedy that by building in channels for that fouling to go..
Thanks for the video once again sir. The Enfield MkII was the standard sidearm of the Royal North West Mounted Police from 1882 until 1905 when the Colt New Service replaced it. Depending upon whose history book you're reading, the constables in the field loved or hated it.
They shot high so you have to aim low even using .455 which is not quite as powerful as the .476. A higher front sight would have been beneficial. The New Service is leaps and bounds ahead even in the more powerful Colt .45 as opposed to the .455 Webley round. I also had a S&W in .455 but I opted to carry the more powerful Colt in .45.
If the inventor calls something what it is, that's what it is. Sam Colt called it a pistol, then it's a pistol. Mr Maxim called it a silencer, then it's a silencer. Not a suppressor.
if you do as i do read a lot of pre 1940 crime fiction especially by english authors the term revolver is used generically to mean any handgun regardless of type.churchill for example was using a mauser c96 during his time in the army in the sudan and was a bit of a firearms buff owning many weapons but even he in describing his fight with the dervishes says i drew my mauser 10 shot revolver!
I was just watching the Forgotten Weapons video correcting his video on the #2 revolver. In that video he says "The "list of Changes" for a firearm is a Copywrited document. My question is why copywrite ?
I imagine the Lancers were particularly interested in an improved pistol since they depended on the lance for shock, and needed a melee weapon for after the charge, while the other cavalry regiments relied on their “cold steel”.
I believe (subject to correction) that the Lancers also carried swords. However, unlike the other mounted units, they didn't carry carbines. Conversely, the other mounted units didn't carry pistols. I suspect the idea was to give the Lancers at least a little bit of the same capability as the other cavalry.
@@itsapittie Lancers were defined by the carrying of a lance, but they were otherwise armed with pistols, swords, and may have carbines as well, depending on the time and specific unit. Note that European lancers were not like traditional steppe riders and others who specifically eschewed close melee combat whenever possible. Rather, European lancers were expected to get stuck in after using their lances to make a shocking first strike. After making this strong charging blow, lancers would switch to swords and pistols like most other cavalry, as swords were much quicker to wield against close opponents, both mounted and on foot, on both sides of the rider without having to swing a long pole over the horse's body in the process. Pistols, meanwhile, were on hand as a way to engage opponents at short distances more quickly than could be done by riding over with a sword or lance. Put another way, Lancers and most all other cavalry of the era wanted pistols to shoot that guy about to stab their comrade 30 feet away. Sources: www.nam.ac.uk/explore/cavalry-roles#:~:text=Lancers,sabres%20and%20pistols%20or%20carbines. I also recommend books like the "History of British Cavalry" in four volumes by Henry Paget. They detail just how similar all the British cavalry formations were during the 19th century, despite the names and theoretical differences. They all wore flashy uniforms, held themselves as more prestigious than the line infantry, and saw swords and pistols as their practical weapons, even if they had a nominal weapon like the lance or carbine.
At times lancers have even stopped carrying lances at all, it's a confusing term, like dragoons it largely depended on the fighting fashions of the time. Interestingly the last lance I know of being developed was the version used in poland 1939, although I'm sure there were others later on as well, that's just the most famous.
Firearms appear in cavallry in 1520s as wheellock pistols. I am german, Brittas boyfriend, and born 1965. As far as i know, in 1520s the Lanzierer ( Gendarmes/ men at arms) simply added one or two pistols to be modernized. But the Kürisser ( cuirassiers) , a new created category of heavy cavallry , used 3/4 armour and two or more pistols and used ,caracole'' tactic. This meant ,they attacked in rolling salvo tactic, similar to tactic of rowed mediterranean warships. At this time, carbines had been rare, but as longer as 16th century lasted semiarmoured ,light' cavallry appeared and Dragoner ( dragoons) appeared as mounted infantry with badest riding horses. In 18th century , there came a switch. Armour was nearly out of use, cuirassiers used still cuirass (often only breastplate) and a leathervest, the head was rarely protected by a helmet, but more wore a hardened hat , strengthened with sheetmetal and thick wires. This caused a change in pistols. The caliber/ bore was enlarged for logistics reason, the Barrels became shorter with thinner walls, and Powder Charge was reduced, so armour Penetration was reduced. In 18th century HRE , i am german, the Dragoner had been used often as heavy cavallry , second Attack Wave, their armament was heavy cavallry sword, often only one pistol, Not the usual pair ( in german Paar), and a Dragonergewehr, a slightly shortened musket, for the case of fighting as infantry. Prussian King Frederik ll wrote: Don't forgett infantry Training of Dragoner! They are mostly used mounted, so the Training must Not have quality of line infantry. In 18th century heavy cavallry used only few carbines, carbines had been used by cuirassiers, lancers, Gendarmes in small Numbers, mostly only for guard duties. But light cavallry, Hussaren/ hussars had mostly a carbine. Why? In Germany a ,Husarenstück' ( outdated) is a heroic adventure , like the events modern Elite/ Commando troops. So the hussars did a lot of Things in ,small war' , where they had to be on foot, so for them the carbine was important. In 18th century HRE lancers had been rare, May be few units formed by hungarian/ polish mercennaries.
Is the prototype with mismatched finishes serialed/numbers-matching? Ian recently did a video on S&W revolvers that had mismatched finishes to use up the spares (he doesn't exactly say it as such, but I assume they made complete sets of parts in of each finish the same volume, and then they had leftovers when some of x assembly in y finish failed quality control, and just put the orphaned good parts together at the end of a run.)
Mind, the primary purpose of the pistol for cavalry was engage enemies at short distances, under fifty feet, that one wanted dead sooner than could be done by riding over and stabbing them with a sword or lance. Basically, your pistol was what you would whip out to shoot a bad guy about to stab your comrade at 30 feet, not the weapon you'd be using to fight all your enemies around you (sword is better for that in general). Thus, a reliable gun that always goes bang is arguably more important than a lot of bullets in reserve, and revolvers in the 1870s had a lot of misfires still as ammunition and gun design was still working out the bugs in both systems.
Another excellent revue, and in the movie "ZULU", Stanley Baker in the heat of battle was nervously trying to reload his revolver, would this revolver you demonstrated been the type used in the Zulu wars?
This one was adopted a year after the battle depicted in the film. They used the Adams revolver in real life battle but in the film they used Webleys as stand-ins
The ROF/Enfield had produced some excellent stuff, e.g. SMLE, No.4, Sten, Bren etc., so how did they manage to produce so many turkeys like the SA80 and these pistols?
It is interesting how British procurement tends to be a mix of absurdly conservative and innovative, with some positively archaic weapons persisting for ages while they often leap at new technologies almost before anyone else. A year after even the parsimonious Habsburg Empire is footing the bill to issue double-action revolvers to many enlisted men, Britain offers a state-of-the-art pistol for the 1840s in the 1870s. Meanwhile, they have jumped on the breechloading rifle using metallic cartridges revolution almost immediately, having functional Sniders on hand almost before 1866 is out. Fast forward a generation or so, ca. 1887, you have the British marching around with single-shot Martini-Henry rifles years after the Germans, French, and even the parsimonious Habsburgs have adopted magazine rifles. Same time, the British had the Webley Mark I, one of the better revolvers of its day, coming fresh off the assembly lines. Really no consistency to British arms, is there?
It's a mix of design by committee, design by officer, design by the last guy to design whatever the thing is, and design by mad old lord in a shed. Which one will actually provide you with a quality product this time is a game of roulette, and each of them has an option to force their particular vision through whatever you spin.
I suspect 'handgun' is a term Americans invented to encompass revolvers and semi-automatic (self loading) pistols after they were told that the word 'pistol' could no longer be applied to revolvers.
12:41 Yep, unloading uder stress is fairly critical, can't imagine to do "the safe manipulation exam" for czech firearms licence with this beast. (The only ocassion one has to unload under serious stress from presence of an examiner...)
In 2006 I bought one of these in Kabul thinking it was an interesting Khyber Pass pistol. But now I think it way be original because would any self-respecting gunsmith copy this design?
I've seen those and really liked the style however I was under the impression that at some point the British forces may have had an issue of US 1911 .45s.
The Enfield Mk.I is a revolver that looks as if it was designed in the Ministry Of Silly Walks. The piece might actually be the origin of the "steampunk aesthetic".
Excellent information, pleasant presentor, but I wonder if he wrote out what he said here, he'd see how many times a line of thought, or even a sentence, is interrupted by a footnote, sidebar, or a comment which interrupts a smooth presentation.
Ah yes, the Insufficient Mk.1 and Mk2, it looks pretty and well made, I'll give it that. But were I a fighting man I would have rather had it's somewhat aged-looking predecessor, Adams Mk.III (cartridge). The Adams didn't look as elegant, no break-open or star extractor etc, but notably it didn't get it's owners killed. By all accounts a decent service revolver, with enough power to spare.
Who wins the Dennis Moore award for the most backtracking, qualifying, revising, amending... Ferguson or Matt Easton? It must be a British thing. Dennis Moore: Let that be a warning to you all. You move at your peril, for I have two pistols here. I know one of them isn't loaded any more, but the other one is, so that's one of you dead for sure...or just about for sure anyway. It certainly wouldn't be worth your while risking it because I'm a very good shot. I practice every day...well, not absolutely every day, but most days in the week. I expect I must practice, oh, at least four or five times a week...or more, really, but some weekends, like last weekend, there really wasn't the time, so that brings the average down a bit. I should say it's a solid four days' practice a week...At least...I mean...I reckon I could hit that tree over there. Er...the one just behind that hillock. The little hillock, not the big one on the...you see the three trees over there? Well, the one furthest away on the right..
So you have all the disadvantages of a solid frame, loading gate style revolver with the added complication of a top break and sliding cylinder design. Genius!
In ,weaponry german' you can call a Revolver ,a Pistole', but Not the other way. Pistole is the older word, and the Revolver was invented to have a pistol with a Higher firepower.
If you want to demonstrate the difference in corrosion and other wear between the two finishes the mixed manufacture does make sense especially if you did it both ways.
The Mk2 ended up being marginally more successful, but ultimately ran into the problem that all those complex moving parts contributed to rapid wear and tear even when properly maintained. As parts got loose, accuracy and reliability suffered greatly, which was more or less the final straw for this thing.
There is a female youtuber, who works for a shop that refurbishes and sells antique and historic firearms, who reviews older guns in minute long videos titled "A Minute of Mae" her name being Mae. She reviewed the Enfield, and had a restored version that she was able to fire. Several of her notes was that the trigger pull was really uneven and clanky, compared to other pistols from the time, and that it was not a comfortable pistol to shoot This is a girl who enjoys shooting Webley Revolvers so it isn't too much gun for her. Now take with a grain of salt, because those older pistols may be a bit worn from age, and in rougher condition than when new, much her insights on weapons, especially with weapons from World War One which seem to be her biggest interest is fascinating. She also seems to stay away from politics, which is refreshing in gun reviews.
It was a First Generation design, like so many it contained Great Ideas that seemed Great at the time, then experience led to better ideas, better designs. People found out what worked-and didn't work.
how manly of the those guns in Royal Armouries are fully functional? i understand not firing the real old/ antiques guns. ps got any cool top break revolver to show off?
Many years ago I inherited the Mk II version of this Enfield, together with a Luger, a Luger snail drum magazine and 3 Mills hand grenades. They were in a sealed steel box buried in my grandfather's garden, the location of which he disclosed shortly before his death and were items he had brought back from Normandy at the end of WWII.
I thought US military acquisition at the time was absurd. Once again, our English cousins have surpassed us by a great amount. They could have purchased S&W or Schofield revolvers and had them in the hands of the troops in a year or two at most rather than the decade they spent piddling around with domestic products.
This definitely had some design features not ideal for a military weapon but might have been something that would have done better in a civilian context where cool designs often trump practicality.
I love how the various firearms youtubers are so good with each other and collaborate and cooperate making content, hyping each other up and so on. It makes for such a lovely community.
It could become a bloody mess if they wouldn't get along. ;)
@@Wernerrrrr I think there's a script for a dark comedy in there somewhere...everyone pausing to explain things about what they are shooting, were just shot with, or blew up in their hands. Stuff like that.
@@iDEATH Just put a thumb in it :)
Agreed. The firearm owning community has had (in my personal experience) some of the most considerate people in it compared to all of the other communities I've sampled. Firearms are something we should all be able to enjoy as long as we are respectful of the raw power that they embody! It's a great hobby and a great community.
Aw Luv-too spot on! Gives us a wee kissypoo!
The 1856 pistol "Almost useless", the enfield revolver "mostly useless"? Keeping things on a douglas adams theme...It makes sense that Jonathan knows his "Hitchikers guide to the galaxy"!
Keep up the good videos!
I guess those arms were so useless that not even Elbonia adopted them :)
Douglas Adams lived in a small English home smoked and drank excessively until moving to California where he ate “healthy” quit smoking and died exercising. Bwahahaha
@@bobthompson4133 “I take my only exercise acting as a pallbearer at the funerals of my friends who exercise regularly.” ~ Mark Twain
🍻
He's not wearing a towel though. I guess it's okay as long as he knows where his towel is.
Jonathan, if I may make a suggestion to improve the quality of your mic audio? Move the mic up on your jacket just a bit. Whenever you lean your head over to your left to look at your notes, your voice becomes substantially clearer and louder because you're both closer to the mic and facing it more directly. I had to double my speaker volume for your voice to be clearly audible up until that point, and the difference is like the voice channel going from rear or side channel speakers to front and center.
alternately, or to augment this, get a nice smooth program compressor like Kotelnikov by Tokyo Dawn Labs and have it gently push the levels together.
and we've got stereo audio for some reason when that's needless to say, not really necessary. Just downmix to mono for things like this, stereo audio gets distracting.
@@Rehteal yes, he's right. generally if you want stereo, let the stereo echo linger in the left and right channels but make sure the speaker's voice is dead centre; same volume in both channels.
we tend to orient our heads to people who speak to replicate that effect irl.
@@sleepCircle Right, but if you can't do that consistently/ easily as the person recording, have the editor or someone just make it mono instead. Bad stereo is much worse than none at all.
@@Rehteal true enough. i suppose it'd be a question of is there too much of his voice in the room ambience to let the lapel mic ride comfortably in mono without interference. i THINK it should be doable but i'm not sure.
C&Rsenal's Primer video should be public next week, It just went out to Patrons yesterday (22/11/22)
It's such a strange gun for something that should be pretty straightforward for a revolver, but I guess trying to make it too future proof damned it into a horrible design.
@@darranhirose8153 it is like how the colt 1900 automatic looks normal. It only looks normal to us because it set the mold, in the same way there are tons of ways to make a revolver. That the layout of all modern ones fits the mold is a result of many attempts at other ways and them failing.
The actual development of these was fascinating. There's a very long and convoluted story involving the War Office, Owen Jones, Jean Warnant, Stanton, Thornton de Mouncie, Michael Kaufmann, Walter Scott and others. I actually own one of the early Thornton revolvers whose modified lockwork ended up in the Enfield.
Thanks Jonathan and team. It was really interesting seeing this. I wonder if Owen Jones and/or Enfield needed to avoid just copying the S&W No.3 revolvers, as those seem to have been a much better design and probably influenced the development of Webley's slightly later designs.
Othias and Mae's episode will drop in a week. You'll find the answer then ;)
@@LukeBunyip I've just watched in its Patreon pre-released edition. So it looks like patents were not an issue but the S&W design was seen as in need of improvement due to being seen as too flimsy.
British military designs by committee - or even just overseen by committee - all too often seem to suffer from too much complexity and trying to innovate too quickly.
Nah, it was a combination questioning the long-term reliability of mechanisms like the No 3 and someone's bright idea about not wasting unfired rounds (ie if you fired three shots and went to reload, you could just reload the three spent cartridges with this rather than all six as with the No 3). The latter was a terrible idea in practice, but I can see why people new to cartridge firing revolvers would find it appealing and it wasn't the only time it was tried (Merwin and Hulbert did something similar).
In the end, as problematic as the Enfield revolver is, it was still better than a lot of contemporaries and at least the British were forward looking (insisting on double action and simultaneous ejection) unlike, for example, the Germans with the Reichsrevolver adopted at the same time.
“The history of this revolver is sort of a history of being deemed insufficient in various ways” Damn dude it’s trying it’s best.
Ha, I do feel bad saying these things you know. It's the same with the video game guns - a lot of people put their heart and soul into things and people like me come along and criticise...
Didn't expect to relate so hard to a revolver.
Such a lovely looking piece when its fully black/blued, good stuff Jonathon
Very interesting piece of history, keep up the great videos, they are really informative and cool.
Leaving aside the diferences in opening the action in practical use this Enfield and the American Merwin Hulbert revolver work the same kind of loading and unloading action with a fix axis in witch the cilinder moves forward and the star (enfield) or the lip (merwin hulbert ) stays in place to extract the empties , in theese two guns the live rounds stay in place and only the expended cases come out but i guess the MH just works better in a round up action . nice to see what C&R senal has to say about it , cheers!!
The Merwin Hurlbert revolver also had a sliding cylinder. On it the fired cartridges would fall free and leave the unfired in the gun.
Huzzah for collaborations! Always a joy to hear that yet more of the channels I watch are working together.
The audio in this video is so low. Please turn up the audio in editing. Tnx for the good work BTW.
i could listen to jonathan explaining things about guns for hours
I thought I just had .........
I find him rather irritating, with the constant giggles.
The Enfield revolver story is so cool, especially with you and Othais telling it.
Always wondered what's the deal with this monstrocity, thanks, Jonathan!
1:01 Like the revolver itself!
5:38 Wilkinson - as in Wilkinson Sword company? Was it Henry Nock's legacy still going strong with the new owners?
6:49 Wait a second, which ones are you talking about? M1917 revolver was made by both Colt and S&W, while the latter also made the so called Victory Model in .38Spl, which is notably not .45ACP.
Colt's M1917 and S&W's M1917 are two fairly different revolvers. They were made for the same reason (WW1 armaments) but if you look at pictures of both revolvers, they're very much patterned to their company's specifics (Colt a pull latch, unsupported ejector rod, CW rotation; S&W's a push button, supported ejector rod, and CCW rotation).
EDIT: Found a good picture of them both. www.americanrifleman.org/media/nsropbas/1917rev.jpg
@@JackalRelated Yes, I'm aware of that, thank you.
Always extremely interesting. Love how you cooperate with other fire arm channels like Forgotten Weapons and C&Rsenal
I have always wondered, if British officers were expected to purchase their own side arm out of pocket, were there any rules or restrictions they were required/advised to follow?
Only asking because the embellishments on the revolver cylinder are an odd detachment of reality for a military weapon to receive such things (excluding examples such as the PO8 lugers gifted to Himric Himmler).
They were and the only stipulation was that it accepted the standard service cartridge.
Got a feeling that I've read in an Ian Hogg book of a four barrel saddle pistol that was made in British Army calibre for consideration when officers had to buy their own sidearm, maybe Lancaster? wouldn't have been all that odd considering we are talking about such early revolver days.
The Lancaster howdah pistol. Ian has a nice video about them.
Actual comment made at Enfield during the development, "A stick, what kind of crazy fools would use a stick as an ejector? That's just lunatic talk isn't it Hans?"
Excellent stuff, as always. Big thanks to Jonathan and the team at the Armouries. Minor overall point of critique: maybe slightly increase the volume next time? With these videos I usually have to crank my speakers up to a point where any sudden notification is liable to cause me physical pain. Anyways, love ya to bits, keep up the awesoem work.
Excellent video Jonathan. I would love to visit the physical Royal Armouries; I got to the Tower, and was disappointed not to see all the things in Howard Blackmore's books; I got to the Victory and the Mary Rose; if ever I get an opportunity to come to the UK again I will come to Leeds!
It would be greatly appreciated if you normalised the volume on these clips before posting - they're massively more quiet than most RUclips clips. Cheers!
I think it's bc the clip on mic is so low. Whenever Jonathan bow down to his left, the audio is perfect, bc he's also way closer to the mic
A very interesting video of a pistol that I was not aware of. Thank you for sharing.
Great stuff Jonathan, looking forward to C&R's in depth vid now :)
I get that it would have made unloading live or dud rounds a pain, but couldn't the idea behind that unusual ejection mechanism have been that if you had fired some shots but not others, you could eject only the fired cartridges, to save time on reloading? I think Forgotten Weapons had a video with a revolver with a similar ejection system (Merwin and Hulbert, I think- but I might be wrong) and that was said to be a benefit.
Exactly. Dud rounds were more of a problem then, so it would be more of a problem.
Outstanding presentation! May I be so bold as to suggest a 4K camera and a ring light? You have such beautiful historical weapons!
Thank you very insightful.Heard of this weapon , but never seen a presentation on it.😃
Tower of London Armoury was very cool to tour when I studied abroad in London in 2010
Interesting early double action revolver. John Cleese's character is seen using one in the western Silverado, although I think that was a Mark 2.
It was also Dr. Watson's service revolver in 1965's "A Study In Terror," a hypothetical "Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper" film. This is actually one of the few films with a service revolver Watson could have plausibly used, since he was famously wounded at Maiwand in 1880 and invalided out the next year.
I own two revolver PISTOLS, a .22 Ruger single-six and a 1974 Colt Troop .357 magnum. I love to say, 'I produced my pistol'. Super geeky, yes, but they are my guns and I can say what I want. And great show!
I have a pair of Tayler Schofield replicas for my SASS shooting. If the conversation had ever come up I would have thought the British army had similar firearms by the early 1870’s. There are a couple of scenes in the movie Zulu that would of been interesting if they had used period firearms. Great vid, first time I’ve seen this channel. New subscriber as of now.
Oh my, a C&Rsenal call out, sweet!
Always great,just the best stuff,thanks so much.
When it comes to the rifled cylinders, I wonder if it had something to do with fear that fouling would gum things up in loading and the rifled part was "intended" to somewhat remedy that by building in channels for that fouling to go..
Thanks for the video once again sir. The Enfield MkII was the standard sidearm of the Royal North West Mounted Police from 1882 until 1905 when the Colt New Service replaced it. Depending upon whose history book you're reading, the constables in the field loved or hated it.
They shot high so you have to aim low even using .455 which is not quite as powerful as the .476. A higher front sight would have been beneficial. The New Service is leaps and bounds ahead even in the more powerful Colt .45 as opposed to the .455 Webley round. I also had a S&W in .455 but I opted to carry the more powerful Colt in .45.
Great collab!
If the inventor calls something what it is, that's what it is. Sam Colt called it a pistol, then it's a pistol. Mr Maxim called it a silencer, then it's a silencer. Not a suppressor.
Almost like language evolves and words change.
Suppressor is a perfectly fine name.. does what it says on the tin.
Voice record quality is so much better when Jonathan speaks looking under the table though.
The unloading mechanism is reminiscent of the Merwin & Hulbert revolvers.
I'd love to have one of those, maybe a modern reproduction with a little more movement in the cylinder for easier reloading
if you do as i do read a lot of pre 1940 crime fiction especially by english authors the term revolver is used generically to mean any handgun regardless of type.churchill for example was using a mauser c96 during his time in the army in the sudan and was a bit of a firearms buff owning many weapons but even he in describing his fight with the dervishes says i drew my mauser 10 shot revolver!
I was just watching the Forgotten Weapons video correcting his video on the #2 revolver. In that video he says "The "list of Changes" for a firearm is a Copywrited document. My question is why copywrite ?
I imagine the Lancers were particularly interested in an improved pistol since they depended on the lance for shock, and needed a melee weapon for after the charge, while the other cavalry regiments relied on their “cold steel”.
I believe (subject to correction) that the Lancers also carried swords. However, unlike the other mounted units, they didn't carry carbines. Conversely, the other mounted units didn't carry pistols. I suspect the idea was to give the Lancers at least a little bit of the same capability as the other cavalry.
@@itsapittie Lancers were defined by the carrying of a lance, but they were otherwise armed with pistols, swords, and may have carbines as well, depending on the time and specific unit. Note that European lancers were not like traditional steppe riders and others who specifically eschewed close melee combat whenever possible. Rather, European lancers were expected to get stuck in after using their lances to make a shocking first strike. After making this strong charging blow, lancers would switch to swords and pistols like most other cavalry, as swords were much quicker to wield against close opponents, both mounted and on foot, on both sides of the rider without having to swing a long pole over the horse's body in the process. Pistols, meanwhile, were on hand as a way to engage opponents at short distances more quickly than could be done by riding over with a sword or lance.
Put another way, Lancers and most all other cavalry of the era wanted pistols to shoot that guy about to stab their comrade 30 feet away.
Sources: www.nam.ac.uk/explore/cavalry-roles#:~:text=Lancers,sabres%20and%20pistols%20or%20carbines.
I also recommend books like the "History of British Cavalry" in four volumes by Henry Paget. They detail just how similar all the British cavalry formations were during the 19th century, despite the names and theoretical differences. They all wore flashy uniforms, held themselves as more prestigious than the line infantry, and saw swords and pistols as their practical weapons, even if they had a nominal weapon like the lance or carbine.
Please see my comment to Kelton Oliver in case youtube doesn't notify you. It might clear things up a little.
At times lancers have even stopped carrying lances at all, it's a confusing term, like dragoons it largely depended on the fighting fashions of the time. Interestingly the last lance I know of being developed was the version used in poland 1939, although I'm sure there were others later on as well, that's just the most famous.
Firearms appear in cavallry in 1520s as wheellock pistols. I am german, Brittas boyfriend, and born 1965. As far as i know, in 1520s the Lanzierer ( Gendarmes/ men at arms) simply added one or two pistols to be modernized. But the Kürisser ( cuirassiers) , a new created category of heavy cavallry , used 3/4 armour and two or more pistols and used ,caracole'' tactic. This meant ,they attacked in rolling salvo tactic, similar to tactic of rowed mediterranean warships. At this time, carbines had been rare, but as longer as 16th century lasted semiarmoured ,light' cavallry appeared and Dragoner ( dragoons) appeared as mounted infantry with badest riding horses.
In 18th century , there came a switch. Armour was nearly out of use, cuirassiers used still cuirass (often only breastplate) and a leathervest, the head was rarely protected by a helmet, but more wore a hardened hat , strengthened with sheetmetal and thick wires. This caused a change in pistols. The caliber/ bore was enlarged for logistics reason, the Barrels became shorter with thinner walls, and Powder Charge was reduced, so armour Penetration was reduced. In 18th century HRE , i am german, the Dragoner had been used often as heavy cavallry , second Attack Wave, their armament was heavy cavallry sword, often only one pistol, Not the usual pair ( in german Paar), and a Dragonergewehr, a slightly shortened musket, for the case of fighting as infantry. Prussian King Frederik ll wrote: Don't forgett infantry Training of Dragoner! They are mostly used mounted, so the Training must Not have quality of line infantry. In 18th century heavy cavallry used only few carbines, carbines had been used by cuirassiers, lancers, Gendarmes in small Numbers, mostly only for guard duties. But light cavallry, Hussaren/ hussars had mostly a carbine. Why? In Germany a ,Husarenstück' ( outdated) is a heroic adventure , like the events modern Elite/ Commando troops. So the hussars did a lot of Things in ,small war' , where they had to be on foot, so for them the carbine was important. In 18th century HRE lancers had been rare, May be few units formed by hungarian/ polish mercennaries.
Is the prototype with mismatched finishes serialed/numbers-matching? Ian recently did a video on S&W revolvers that had mismatched finishes to use up the spares (he doesn't exactly say it as such, but I assume they made complete sets of parts in of each finish the same volume, and then they had leftovers when some of x assembly in y finish failed quality control, and just put the orphaned good parts together at the end of a run.)
It’s kind of curious that the Lancers would accept a double barrelled pistol over a revolver in 1872. It demonstrates how entrenched militaries can be
Mind, the primary purpose of the pistol for cavalry was engage enemies at short distances, under fifty feet, that one wanted dead sooner than could be done by riding over and stabbing them with a sword or lance. Basically, your pistol was what you would whip out to shoot a bad guy about to stab your comrade at 30 feet, not the weapon you'd be using to fight all your enemies around you (sword is better for that in general). Thus, a reliable gun that always goes bang is arguably more important than a lot of bullets in reserve, and revolvers in the 1870s had a lot of misfires still as ammunition and gun design was still working out the bugs in both systems.
Another excellent revue, and in the movie "ZULU", Stanley Baker in the heat of battle was nervously trying to reload his revolver, would this revolver you demonstrated been the type used in the Zulu wars?
This one was adopted a year after the battle depicted in the film. They used the Adams revolver in real life battle but in the film they used Webleys as stand-ins
The ROF/Enfield had produced some excellent stuff, e.g. SMLE, No.4, Sten, Bren etc., so how did they manage to produce so many turkeys like the SA80 and these pistols?
I really want to know what thought process went into thinking that that sliding cylinder was somehow a better idea than a top break system.
_Someone_ wanted to keep a gate loader... for god knows why.
It is interesting how British procurement tends to be a mix of absurdly conservative and innovative, with some positively archaic weapons persisting for ages while they often leap at new technologies almost before anyone else. A year after even the parsimonious Habsburg Empire is footing the bill to issue double-action revolvers to many enlisted men, Britain offers a state-of-the-art pistol for the 1840s in the 1870s. Meanwhile, they have jumped on the breechloading rifle using metallic cartridges revolution almost immediately, having functional Sniders on hand almost before 1866 is out. Fast forward a generation or so, ca. 1887, you have the British marching around with single-shot Martini-Henry rifles years after the Germans, French, and even the parsimonious Habsburgs have adopted magazine rifles. Same time, the British had the Webley Mark I, one of the better revolvers of its day, coming fresh off the assembly lines. Really no consistency to British arms, is there?
It's a mix of design by committee, design by officer, design by the last guy to design whatever the thing is, and design by mad old lord in a shed.
Which one will actually provide you with a quality product this time is a game of roulette, and each of them has an option to force their particular vision through whatever you spin.
@@danghostman2814 Well said!
Is the sliding cylinder a way of trying to minimise the cylinder gap - linked to the original idea of rifling the chambers?
This was cool, as always.
Side note: please add an apostrophe to the thumbnail, if it's not too much trouble...
At 4:15 I would frankly expect lancier cavalry itself to be antiquated technology by 1872, not to mention muzzle-loaded pistols.
Hi,any chance on a vid on the 1856 Enfield pistol? Thanks.
Regarding 1:03: we aren't calling rifles _shoulderguns_ nor knives _handblades_ and so the term _handgun_ seems to be fruitless
I suspect 'handgun' is a term Americans invented to encompass revolvers and semi-automatic (self loading) pistols after they were told that the word 'pistol' could no longer be applied to revolvers.
@@mikemichaels9590 Shame if so, but rest assured that _this_ American will continue using the term pistol without distinction
HMS Excellent is a shore establishment BTW.
12:41 Yep, unloading uder stress is fairly critical, can't imagine to do "the safe manipulation exam" for czech firearms licence with this beast. (The only ocassion one has to unload under serious stress from presence of an examiner...)
Great video. Really interesting. Could you maybe do one on the Lebel rifle if it's possible? Thanks great videos :)
In 2006 I bought one of these in Kabul thinking it was an interesting Khyber Pass pistol. But now I think it way be original because would any self-respecting gunsmith copy this design?
Please can you do a video on the Sterling .38/.357 revolver of the early 1980s.
I've seen those and really liked the style however I was under the impression that at some point the British forces may have had an issue of US 1911 .45s.
This is gonna sound like a weird suggestion but could you have a dedicated mic for the gun actuation noises.
The Enfield Mk.I is a revolver that looks as if it was designed in the Ministry Of Silly Walks.
The piece might actually be the origin of the "steampunk aesthetic".
Beautiful weapons but I think I would rather carry a Colt SAA.
Something is very off with the sound. It's unbalanced and there's a lot of echo.
Excellent information, pleasant presentor, but I wonder if he wrote out what he said here, he'd see how many times a line of thought, or even a sentence, is interrupted by a footnote, sidebar, or a comment which interrupts a smooth presentation.
Reminds me of my Merwin Hulbert which has the same problems.
Give this man some more quality audio please!
Just a suggestion but you guys really need a light ring and a 4k camera for the close up table shots. To dark.
2 things, the improvement needed on light and sound, please try to improve these 2 things. The rest is very good!
I tried to watch this, but the volume output is too low. You need to boost it somehow or get closer to the microphone.
Ah yes, the Insufficient Mk.1 and Mk2, it looks pretty and well made, I'll give it that.
But were I a fighting man I would have rather had it's somewhat aged-looking predecessor, Adams Mk.III (cartridge).
The Adams didn't look as elegant, no break-open or star extractor etc, but notably it didn't get it's owners killed.
By all accounts a decent service revolver, with enough power to spare.
"I'll stop teasing and get to it".
"Oooo, you awful thing, we like YOU". /MrHumphries
We've always call a handgun with a revolving cylinder a "revolver" and a pistol for semi-auto hand guns.
Were they trying to get around existing successful design patents? It does look like it would make a good club.
Who wins the Dennis Moore award for the most backtracking, qualifying, revising, amending... Ferguson or Matt Easton? It must be a British thing.
Dennis Moore: Let that be a warning to you all. You move at your peril, for I have two pistols here. I know one of them isn't loaded any more, but the other one is, so that's one of you dead for sure...or just about for sure anyway. It certainly wouldn't be worth your while risking it because I'm a very good shot. I practice every day...well, not absolutely every day, but most days in the week. I expect I must practice, oh, at least four or five times a week...or more, really, but some weekends, like last weekend, there really wasn't the time, so that brings the average down a bit. I should say it's a solid four days' practice a week...At least...I mean...I reckon I could hit that tree over there. Er...the one just behind that hillock. The little hillock, not the big one on the...you see the three trees over there? Well, the one furthest away on the right..
So you have all the disadvantages of a solid frame, loading gate style revolver with the added complication of a top break and sliding cylinder design. Genius!
the RCMP got saddled with this monstrosity
In ,weaponry german' you can call a Revolver ,a Pistole', but Not the other way. Pistole is the older word, and the Revolver was invented to have a pistol with a Higher firepower.
If you want to demonstrate the difference in corrosion and other wear between the two finishes the mixed manufacture does make sense especially if you did it both ways.
Mechanically that prototype sounds gorgeous with its clicks and snaps.
The Mk2 ended up being marginally more successful, but ultimately ran into the problem that all those complex moving parts contributed to rapid wear and tear even when properly maintained. As parts got loose, accuracy and reliability suffered greatly, which was more or less the final straw for this thing.
In Sherlock Homes films, Watson sometimes uses his "service revolver".
What would this have been?
It could have been a Tranter or Adams pistol as they pre-date the Enfield. Depends on the setting date though.
SCAMMER!!
There is a female youtuber, who works for a shop that refurbishes and sells antique and historic firearms, who reviews older guns in minute long videos titled "A Minute of Mae" her name being Mae. She reviewed the Enfield, and had a restored version that she was able to fire. Several of her notes was that the trigger pull was really uneven and clanky, compared to other pistols from the time, and that it was not a comfortable pistol to shoot This is a girl who enjoys shooting Webley Revolvers so it isn't too much gun for her. Now take with a grain of salt, because those older pistols may be a bit worn from age, and in rougher condition than when new, much her insights on weapons, especially with weapons from World War One which seem to be her biggest interest is fascinating. She also seems to stay away from politics, which is refreshing in gun reviews.
S&W Model 3 was a vastly better system.
I from Enfield not proud of that pistol .But i do remember as a kid hearing them testing out there machines guns in the 70s from my bedroom
It was a First Generation design, like so many it contained Great Ideas that seemed Great at the time, then experience led to better ideas, better designs. People found out what worked-and didn't work.
how manly of the those guns in Royal Armouries are fully functional? i understand not firing the real old/ antiques guns. ps got any cool top break revolver to show off?
Many years ago I inherited the Mk II version of this Enfield, together with a Luger, a Luger snail drum magazine and 3 Mills hand grenades. They were in a sealed steel box buried in my grandfather's garden, the location of which he disclosed shortly before his death and were items he had brought back from Normandy at the end of WWII.
Man I wonder how it would look like to have a 4k camera and a ring light to better show the fire arms....
I thought US military acquisition at the time was absurd. Once again, our English cousins have surpassed us by a great amount. They could have purchased S&W or Schofield revolvers and had them in the hands of the troops in a year or two at most rather than the decade they spent piddling around with domestic products.
A revolver is a kind of pistol but a pistol isn't a kind of revolver....much as a toad is a kind of frog but a frog isn't a kind of toad 🐸!
Cross promotion with C&Rsenal
How about target pistols and rifles?
"Hmmmmm: I prefer the Webley." -- Zed
Great! I want to hea what happened to the weberly…
Cool 👍
This definitely had some design features not ideal for a military weapon but might have been something that would have done better in a civilian context where cool designs often trump practicality.
I was expecting you to say it leaked oil like the other Enfields
I mean just look at it.