I highly appreciate that Adam’s first priority was to get the camera person and the camera out of harm’s way before protecting himself. Just shows the type of man he is, and I love that
Despite what was said, wounding the enemy and making them take cover is more effective than actually killing them. It will stop an attack, plus it takes one or two men to rescue each of the injured. However, that machine is far too unwieldy for anything but a static defensive position and the clouds of steam (and smoke, from the heat source) would make them a clear and obvious target for conventional artillery fire.
This was the civil war.. they didnt have "conventional artillery weapons" the most they would have is a fuking cannon which was even heavier and more unwieldy to move than this thing is and WAY less accurate
@@richardgrace4500 Cannon were exactly what I meant by 'conventional artillery'. They were more accurate (some of them rifled by that period), longer ranged and often used for counter-battery fire. Plus cannon were not that hard to handle in the field - certainly compared with something having a great steam boiler attached.
Ask any military doctor or body armor expert: often the blunt force trauma causes a kill rather than a pierced skin. This big ball causing internal trauma, bleeding, broken bones. The medicine at the period could not deal with many of said injuries. Now imagine this at a fixed position, lobbing these balls with somewhat accuracy and range towards a rank...you will cause more damage (more so on morale) than any cannon or firing line...
it's just the accuracy isn't all that good and all so you are only going to get a couple of hits on one target which will cause injuries but probably not death. If the rounds were denser and smaller this might have worked. Still tho, that thing is certainly going to lower the enemy morale lmao
@@literallyafuckingspoon8801 yea its scary as hell, imagine having a bunch of these stationed just flinging iron across the battle field. Probably can't immediately tell the difference between that and a regular bullet if you get hit by one anyway, so you gotta get a medic quick either way
Unfortunately, after every firing round, you'd have to go and fix the thing. It may be scary the first few uses, and effective at wounding soldiers, but it doesn't seem very practical, and it could miss fire and kill one of the men working with it
That's not very correct, the most often lethal event is piercing the body and striking blood vessels and organs. Blunt trauma to the head can be incredibly lethal, and it can also be lethal against the torso, but it has to be quite severe to actually kill a person who isn't already wounded.
If the spinning barrels of the machine gun were longer, than it would increase the lethality of the bullets. The longer the barrel, the faster the end of the barrel spins, and the rounds also have more time to accelerate, thereby making them faster, and capable of full body penetration. PLAUSIBLE, at the very least.
That would require a vastly more complicated machine, that would have to be tuned to fire at the precise moment that will allow for the projectile to be leaving the barrel at the point of aim. It's not even feasible for the technology at that time. The reason why the barrels are shorter is because it has to fire AND leave the barrel at the point of aim.
@@polymathicperturbations1476 seriously? You are aware in 200yrs are mechanics of a firearm hasnt changed that much from what it was during civil war times right? We have just basically upgraded it but the actual mechanics,are the exact same
Richard Grace but they didnt have the manufacturing methods of our time, i dont think its realistic than the gun every worked, otherwise we would have heard more of it after the war.
Hm... The round war FOUND at 700 yards on paved road. The bullet used is a sphere shape, perfect for rolling.. I'm leaning more towards the 500 yard prediction on the range that was said earlier.
M-16:I have an effective range of 300-400 yards and I can pierce ar500 steel This gun: SPIN ME RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND WWWWEEEEEEE BOuINgk Free falling... When u try ur best but you can't succeed...
Agreed, cause they’ll be shooting as well. Few guys go down to the muskets but they see something firing tons and tons of bullets automatically they’re not gonna wait around to figure out it’s not that effective.
This shows that they did not hate each other at all. They probably just got tired of working someone else's way because they have both become so experienced that they each have their own specific way.
i wonder if the camera men had to figure out how much time they needed fill for that riding off into the sun set shot, calculate how much they needed to speed up the film, and then measured out the distance adam and jamie needed to ride side by side. or if they just did it by the seat of their pants and like "just ride off over there until we tell you to stop."
Just like almost everyone else I was excited to see this in action and wanted to see how much damage it would do but on reflection it is crazy what lengths we will go to to maim each other and usually in the most diabolical way possible.
A kill shot takes out one combatant from the battle. A shot which causes a serious wound takes out an additional two or three combatants from the battle as they quit fighting to take the wounded comrade for medical treatment.
@@SgtRock-et7zl That's a good point but iirc it would have less penetrative forces especially since they don't move as fast as real bullets. so the deformation would soften the blow more than anything.
@@SgtRock-et7zl You've said it yourself, Actual lead bullets that goes likely 5-10x faster than those balls. There's a massive difference there. plus how small the bullets are, they have an easier time penetrating soft tissues
Just wait until you find out how coal powers power plants. Seriously though, the steam age never died, we just started burning things other than coal and wood.
Check out the vertical triple expansion steam engines that powered ships until steam turbines came around. They basically look like an inline ICE but the bore of each cylinder is different. Large, medium and small cylinders. Check out Drachinifel's bit on boiler technology if youre interested.
+Mohammad Shameoni Niaei in this case, a larger bullet would do more damage. If the device is still rotating at the same speed the projectile will fly at the same speed regardless of mass. Higher mass will do more damage given the same speed. I'd say give this thing a longer barrel and a lower rotating speed to increase reliability and durability while maintaining the same velocity.
+k moods I loved longer barrel.I didn't think about angular speed. Nice point. But I have to clarify with saying smaller I meant the shape of bullets. "Smaller but in same mass". So you have same energy. More pressure.
Mohammad Shameoni Niaei i knew what you meant, ;) and technically you're correct. I just think this type of idea would work better as a blunt force weapon.
@@biancat7761 Considering the weight of the spinning barrel, I can't imagine that a lead bullet would slow down the spin much compared to a steel bullet. A lead bullet would probably go the roughly same speed as a steel bullet in this case.
I think it’s pretty effective tbh. Think about it the we’re using muskets. So metal balls being flung at you and could possibly hit you in the head. And the people behind the gun can get a little time to reload and such
Id be scared as hell if the enemy had one of those. And you cant determine reliability on a prototype. Im sure it would have been redesigned a few times.
That shot on the pig would’ve definitely broken pretty much any bone in a human and, seeing as this was a civil war era weapon and medicine was severely lackluster, I’d say if you got hit by this thing you’re toast. Whether it be from the immediate impact or residual injury you’re definitely at least losing an arm or a leg.
During the Civil War the common ammo was 'mini balls', much smaller than those the Mythbusters used and with greater mass. That would have made a massive difference on penetration and 'kill' factor?
There's a song called soldiers joy. The tune was written in the early 1700s but the lyrics were rewritten during the civil war to become a euphemism for the hundreds of cases of morphine addiction. The lyrics go something like Give me some of that soldiers joy, I think you know what I mean Give me some of that soldiers joy my leg is turnin green.
Lead balls would give a larger punch, and perhaps larger? Like small cannon balls? A somewhat longer barrel could also make a big difference. Could be lethal, although probably not very practical.
The contraption is really interesting. As are the comments in this video. But what's more interesting, is the sick barbecue that happened at Jamie's House that weekend.
They should have used lead shot. Lead penertrates soft material far better at similar velocities because of its higher density. Lead would also have been more historically accurate.
Notice how the paint scuff marks on the metal collar are grazing shots rather than linearly? Thats because the hole in the metal collar is in the wrong place.the bullet exits tangentially to the barrel
I was not advocating it's practicality as a field weapon, simply it's projectile lethality. Tp expand on my "Slow? Sure." comment, an injury like broken ribs, ankles or arms (or any major parts really) could result in a lack of participation in a following skirmishes or even possible decline into death over the next few hours/days/weeks. Yeah when compared against a period slug there's case against using a legit gun, but even bullets sometimes had the same effects I described above back then.
I think really it could be a more scare tactic I mean think of it seeing and hearing that back in civil war a lot would be pissing thier pants no doubt
Actually even according to them it was 50%accurate and effective at 50yds which back in civil war times was highly impressive considering that not even your average musket or other firearms were 50% accurate and effective fron 35-40yds which is why most battles the firing didnt start until they were around 30-40yds out and even then out of all the shots that went off in a volley of thousands of bullets maybe 10people might actually fall, you had to be withing 25yds for a civil war musket to be anywhere near 50%accurate so technically that machine back then would have absolutely butchered the enemy and on top of that back then they used lead ball wherein in theis video they are using steal ball...lead is WAY heavier meaning it would carry WAY more velocity when getting flung and leaving the barrel
How far did the ball roll after being shot should be the real question shouldn't it? Ive seen Golf balls bounce pretty impressively far on concrete!!!!
The cannon specs specify 500 on distance, they shot 700, but the impacts weren't lethal enough But why would they use steel shot? They should have tried lead. Lead balls would be heavier and slower to accelerate. If a projectile accelerates slower, it spends more time in the barrel. Adjust the timing of the feed and use the heavier lead balls, your range could drop to the 500 mark and at close range you might get the more lethal result you want.
Jeremy hanna Yeah, there’s plenty of soft spots that would be heavily damaged by the gun like your eyes, face, genitals, hands, shins and the list goes on. Even if it doesn’t kill you it would sure as hell hurt.
standard musket calibre and that would have been lethal, also you have to take into account lead deformation vs steel and the weight difference that thing would have killed even in that calibre.
Longer barrel to make the speed higher and this thing might do some real damage. Figure out a way to tie the timing on the steel balls to the rotation of the barrel so at speed it will consistantly fire in a specific direction(assuming you can lock the speed of rotation somehow) and it might, maybe, work.
It's not about the size of the ball, it's about it's mass/size. Since the mass of the steel is set, and the volume of a sphere is proportional to it's size, you'd find that you can't move the scales in any way without seeing a loss in effectivness in another category. If you reduced the size of the balls, they would accelerate faster, but they would decelerate faster aswell, meaning they would have less kinetic energy to transfer on contact. If you halved the size of the balls, you would have to DOUBLE its velocity to achieve the same energy output. Like throwing a ball of paper at a window vs throwing a rock at a window with the same force. Very easy to reduce the shot-size, but quite the task to find the energy to double it's velocity. So It's about mass/volume And steel mass is just such that it just doesn't weigh enough by volume to deliver more force on contact than it's surface area distributes that force. That's why our ancestors arrived at lead and not steel. Steel is great for a lot of applications, but not ball ammunition. Lead just has the magic mass, to deliver more force relative to it's area at a given velocity. This weapon would definitely maim the opposition force though, so it's not entirely useless. Take one of these shots to the face or throat and you'd be incapacitated easily. Take a shot to the arms or hands and it would severely degrade your ability to present, load or fire a rifle. Angled ballistically, to harass op-for while they're forming or marching and you'd take out several. Especially if you had no other choice because your cannonry was lacking.
Ok... so no timing mechanism. Instead use a gate that can be lifted from a ramp angled below to release the bearing at the correct time. Aswell this allows for a much better loading mechanism as you can just feed a magazine of sharp projectiles into 4 seperate (or honestly as many as needed if its a circle and not a cross) slots and allow the force to build. The bolt should be loaded directly after firing to maintain balance aswell as maximize efficency
Lethal or not, it would still injure and disable, and more importantly demoralize. As devastating and lethal the first machineguns in ww1 were, they probably did more damage to moral than physical.
Uh, round objects tend to roll, especially on flat ground (runway). No way in hell did that machine fire 700 yards. That's a range most handguns and some rifles can't match. And their machine gun was basically just a sling on steroids, using centrifugal forces to fire projectiles. Weirdly enough, wounding an enemy soldier is actually better, since the wounded tend to slow everyone down and saddling them with medical aid. If one soldier kicks the bucket, the rest can fight on. But if one is wounded, then at least one will be taxed with keeping him alive. This "machine gun" may not have the penetrating power of a round fired from a rifle, but the blunt force trauma should be more than enough to break ribs and/or cause serious concussions.
G'day, Really...? I'm much more bemused by the fact that the last "Entrepreneur" who bought the Segway Company was testing it's Off-Road High-Speed Capabilities, and while so engaged...; he rode the fucking thing at Full-Speed, straight off the top of the White Cliffs of Dover, in Southern England... Maybe he thought it might EVOLVE into a Hang-Glider, before he hit the Rocks or the Water at 112 MPH (Terminal Velocity for a Human wearing Clothes)...? Or, perhaps, possibly, maybe, he was doing the Segway version of the 1929 Stockbroker's Leap out the windows of the Wall-Street Skyscrapers..; when they realised that they used to be Rich, until they sunk their money into a really stupid idea...? ;-p Ciao !
Penetrating isn't the only way to kill (ex. mace) and having a lot of heavily injuried soldiers may be more incapacitating for an army than a losses (risks of diseases and needs more logistic) Then with a longer barrel and a faster rotating speed, this may work. But could we make it sturdier enough to last more than a few bullets ? With heavier bullets you could do some serious crushing damages. Or maybe with hollow balls that could produce some sharp frags (If I can remember it well, L. da Vinci had an interesting prototype of frag bullets so this would not be an anachronism) ? At last with a larger vent in the security collar, we would lose some accuracy but there would be a larger window to shoot the bullet and It may be more efficient in order to sweep bunches of soldiers.
+ProGuyGaming! that is not accurate. The agreement you are referring to was over 100 years ago and it addresses "expanding bullets" which applies to small arms. Only 33 countries agreed to (signed) The Hague Convention Hardly "most of the world"; The United States did not sign this... Also, if you read the wording there is no penalty and the agreement "ceases" as soon as a party who does not agree joins the fight. It was more of a gentleman's agreement. Here is a list of countries who signed the section of the Hague Declaration concerning expanding bullets (hollow points). www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=170 Here is the actual agreement: www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=F5FF4D9CA7E41925C12563CD0051616B As far as "special ammo"... there are plenty of fragmenting, explosive, incendiary, and other ammunition types widely used in modern warfare today even among countries who have signed the Hague Convention agreement.
it is plausible, all you have to do is decrease the angle to around 10 - 15 and change the balls for the most accurate you can get, as a paintball gun tho, you'd win hands down!!!!
if I throw a steel ball 30yd and it bounce-rolls another 100 - which on a flat hard surface is certainly possible - I wouldn't call that a 130yd throw.
Did anyone else feel sorry for the pig with a hook through its chin? Poor Babe... One moment you're a happy pig running around your pen; the next minute you're hanging from a hook on a Mythbusters episode.....
I think this gun would be effective. It may not penetrate, BUT it would hurt and maybe enough to get the enemy to the knees or break some bones and imagine you get some of these to the face x.x Medieval swords also werent designed to cut/penetrate. They were designet to concentrate enough force to break bones or just hurt enough to distract the enemy for a moment. The pain of...uhm...well pain should not be underestimated.
IncapableLP You can also load this gun with a ton of bullets, make it fire all over a area and hit everyone. Even if they don't die, they'll be in total pain. And maybe some more bullets hit them and kill them.
That was not a “ye olde” musket firing. I’ve been to reenactments where they’ve fired them with period accurate round and OMG it was the loudest thing I’ve ever heard. They even set car alarms off they were so loud
how is this NOT lethal? I would bet a headshot or a shot to the heart would be lethal, also shattered bones were prob also pretty lethal (long term) back in the days and made you useless on the battlefield. Gunshots to the legs, arms and abdomen arent insta lethal either but a gun is still considered a lethal weapon.
I consider the thing stupid and not very effective. Mostly because there is more effective Weapons. But just like a Slinger in Medieval Times does not need to Pierce your Skin to Kill you with a Shot. I do think that this Weapon would have been quite Scary if used in certain Situations. If this had been used against an Enemy Formation of Line Infantry. Then Showering them with Crude Metal Balls. Would certainly have gotten a Number of Headshots that would have been Lethal. And Shots to the Chest and even the Arms and Hands while not Lethal. Would have been more than enough to take that Soldier out of Combat. So as an War Weapon this thing would seem fairly Good to be Honest.
Enlighten us as to how it could kill without penetration or blunt force trauma(and not a headshot since it isn't accurate enough to reliably hit someones skull).
The thing is, this would probably only break a rib, unless it hit the head. In battle, that's not going to stop him from running up and stabbing you when adrenaline is going. It could take a couple people out, maybe, but keep in mind that it would be extremely expensive and hard to make correctly back then, and wouldn't be worth the effort when a small group of people could take it out.
Ehhh I mean considering the erw it was in 50% accuracy and effectiveness honestly wasnt that bad I mean hell most of the regular rifles and guns back then didnt even have that amount of accuracy and reliability beyond 20yds or so that's why all the battles took place at close range
I highly appreciate that Adam’s first priority was to get the camera person and the camera out of harm’s way before protecting himself. Just shows the type of man he is, and I love that
Despite what was said, wounding the enemy and making them take cover is more effective than actually killing them. It will stop an attack, plus it takes one or two men to rescue each of the injured.
However, that machine is far too unwieldy for anything but a static defensive position and the clouds of steam (and smoke, from the heat source) would make them a clear and obvious target for conventional artillery fire.
This was the civil war.. they didnt have "conventional artillery weapons" the most they would have is a fuking cannon which was even heavier and more unwieldy to move than this thing is and WAY less accurate
@@richardgrace4500 Cannon were exactly what I meant by 'conventional artillery'. They were more accurate (some of them rifled by that period), longer ranged and often used for counter-battery fire. Plus cannon were not that hard to handle in the field - certainly compared with something having a great steam boiler attached.
Lets be honest with ourselves-- this was invented as a last resort when they were running out of gun powder. No way it's NOT gonna suck.
You could put it on wheels
Ask any military doctor or body armor expert: often the blunt force trauma causes a kill rather than a pierced skin. This big ball causing internal trauma, bleeding, broken bones. The medicine at the period could not deal with many of said injuries. Now imagine this at a fixed position, lobbing these balls with somewhat accuracy and range towards a rank...you will cause more damage (more so on morale) than any cannon or firing line...
it's just the accuracy isn't all that good and all so you are only going to get a couple of hits on one target which will cause injuries but probably not death. If the rounds were denser and smaller this might have worked. Still tho, that thing is certainly going to lower the enemy morale lmao
@@literallyafuckingspoon8801 yea its scary as hell, imagine having a bunch of these stationed just flinging iron across the battle field. Probably can't immediately tell the difference between that and a regular bullet if you get hit by one anyway, so you gotta get a medic quick either way
Unfortunately, after every firing round, you'd have to go and fix the thing. It may be scary the first few uses, and effective at wounding soldiers, but it doesn't seem very practical, and it could miss fire and kill one of the men working with it
That's not very correct, the most often lethal event is piercing the body and striking blood vessels and organs.
Blunt trauma to the head can be incredibly lethal, and it can also be lethal against the torso, but it has to be quite severe to actually kill a person who isn't already wounded.
literally a fucking spoon have you ever seen a musket battle? Back then soldiers were standing in lines, very vulnerable for a machine gun.
Denting someone is still very demoralising
if i had constructed such a mashine i instantly would go for a 100 round shot
And a remote^^
yeah dude
Machine*
Starting with 100 shots could possibly ruin the machine ... but you need to fail to learn.
It could also be a bomb - don’t tempt fate
If the spinning barrels of the machine gun were longer, than it would increase the lethality of the bullets. The longer the barrel, the faster the end of the barrel spins, and the rounds also have more time to accelerate, thereby making them faster, and capable of full body penetration. PLAUSIBLE, at the very least.
That would require a vastly more complicated machine, that would have to be tuned to fire at the precise moment that will allow for the projectile to be leaving the barrel at the point of aim.
It's not even feasible for the technology at that time.
The reason why the barrels are shorter is because it has to fire AND leave the barrel at the point of aim.
@@polymathicperturbations1476 seriously? You are aware in 200yrs are mechanics of a firearm hasnt changed that much from what it was during civil war times right? We have just basically upgraded it but the actual mechanics,are the exact same
@@richardgrace4500 precisely why modern weapons don't use the slingshot mechanism
Richard Grace but they didnt have the manufacturing methods of our time, i dont think its realistic than the gun every worked, otherwise we would have heard more of it after the war.
@@detachsoup6061 the greek knew how to make clockworks
i think its just that the laws of physics prevent it from being effective and reliable
That's the most emotion I ever heard from the narrator
this narator is the best one, he is a great part of what makes this program so nice to watch..
Hm... The round war FOUND at 700 yards on paved road. The bullet used is a sphere shape, perfect for rolling.. I'm leaning more towards the 500 yard prediction on the range that was said earlier.
+LiquidWolfmans on pretty smooth ground you're right
what about the 2b4s that where layed out by adam?
@@sliceofbread2611 it could have bounced over them.
M-16:I have an effective range of 300-400 yards and I can pierce ar500 steel
This gun: SPIN ME RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND WWWWEEEEEEE
BOuINgk
Free falling... When u try ur best but you can't succeed...
I'm pretty sure if the steel balls were smaller they might of had more of a chance of piercing the skin
@@SomeGuy-vo7we What are you an asshole? You replied to a 3 year old comment just to be a condescending grammar nazi.
Andrew M dude he posted this comment 3 years ago. Stop looking for attention.
Andrew m) just cuz someone doesn't use proper grammar don't mean he is inbred.
Andrew M -it could be his second/third language, also maby a little sleepy or somthing-ells.
@@SomeGuy-vo7we what are you a fucking pathetic piece of shit?
Maybe is not so lethal, but the psychological effect could be significant
Oh for sure, this thing would strike fear into any civil war solider.
how lethal it is depends on the speed of the rotor.
It's also important to consider that they used steel balls, lead is far more lethal in this design if it functions anything like shotgun pellets.
@@burgerbro34fullstreamarchi82 including the guys on which that gun is standing on
Agreed, cause they’ll be shooting as well.
Few guys go down to the muskets but they see something firing tons and tons of bullets automatically they’re not gonna wait around to figure out it’s not that effective.
This shows that they did not hate each other at all. They probably just got tired of working someone else's way because they have both become so experienced that they each have their own specific way.
I still wouldn't want to storm that machine.
i wonder if the camera men had to figure out how much time they needed fill for that riding off into the sun set shot, calculate how much they needed to speed up the film, and then measured out the distance adam and jamie needed to ride side by side. or if they just did it by the seat of their pants and like "just ride off over there until we tell you to stop."
Just like almost everyone else I was excited to see this in action and wanted to see how much damage it would do but on reflection it is crazy what lengths we will go to to maim each other and usually in the most diabolical way possible.
A kill shot takes out one combatant from the battle. A shot which causes a serious wound takes out an additional two or three combatants from the battle as they quit fighting to take the wounded comrade for medical treatment.
With some more tweaks you could probably get it there, faster rotation and a better timing mechanism. Transport seems to be the main problem.
Mythbusters:we are going to test this civil war myth by using steel balls
Me: are you not aware that they used lead bullets back then
Steel is much harder so you increase the chance of deadly projectiles
Lead is too soft
@@Pac0Master Lead would flatten out on impact, causing more damage.
@@SgtRock-et7zl
That's a good point
but iirc it would have less penetrative forces especially since they don't move as fast as real bullets.
so the deformation would soften the blow more than anything.
@@Pac0Master Look up some of the injuries caused by lead, civil war bullets, then come back to me mate.
@@SgtRock-et7zl
You've said it yourself,
Actual lead bullets that goes likely 5-10x faster than those balls.
There's a massive difference there.
plus how small the bullets are, they have an easier time penetrating soft tissues
8:09 " SIR,
*IT FUCKS AS EFFECTIVELY AS...* "
and so the fascination with steam power begins.
Just wait until you find out how coal powers power plants.
Seriously though, the steam age never died, we just started burning things other than coal and wood.
Check out the vertical triple expansion steam engines that powered ships until steam turbines came around. They basically look like an inline ICE but the bore of each cylinder is different. Large, medium and small cylinders. Check out Drachinifel's bit on boiler technology if youre interested.
Would the steel ball roll pretty well on the runway? So the ball was shot probably about half that and rolled the rest ??
"No penetration." Story of my life 🤣
Miguel duran not penetrating a pig doesnt sound too bad
You should do like Adam and release your balls
Maybe with a smaller jagged ammo
This is really funny but I don't know if it's a joke, just say it is so that way everyone comes out a winner
Maybe it's about Contact Area. Smaller contact area, more pressure.
Smaller but in same mass bullets would make better damage.
+Mohammad Shameoni Niaei in this case, a larger bullet would do more damage. If the device is still rotating at the same speed the projectile will fly at the same speed regardless of mass. Higher mass will do more damage given the same speed. I'd say give this thing a longer barrel and a lower rotating speed to increase reliability and durability while maintaining the same velocity.
+k moods I loved longer barrel.I didn't think about angular speed. Nice point.
But I have to clarify with saying smaller I meant the shape of bullets. "Smaller but in same mass". So you have same energy. More pressure.
Mohammad Shameoni Niaei i knew what you meant, ;) and technically you're correct. I just think this type of idea would work better as a blunt force weapon.
Could you imagine being a soldier and just hearing vrrrrrrrrrrrrrr crack crack pop ting
6:45. "Adam releases his balls"
the balls would of been lead which is 3X heavier then steel which would make a HUGE difference in impact range and speed of travel
It wouldn’t have made a difference in speed of travel.
@@beboppalooka9897 you are incorrect sir! www.targetbarn.com/broad-side/what-is-bullet-weight/
Obviously the heavier the bullet the slower it is...
@@biancat7761 Considering the weight of the spinning barrel, I can't imagine that a lead bullet would slow down the spin much compared to a steel bullet. A lead bullet would probably go the roughly same speed as a steel bullet in this case.
I think it’s pretty effective tbh. Think about it the we’re using muskets. So metal balls being flung at you and could possibly hit you in the head. And the people behind the gun can get a little time to reload and such
Id be scared as hell if the enemy had one of those. And you cant determine reliability on a prototype. Im sure it would have been redesigned a few times.
That shot on the pig would’ve definitely broken pretty much any bone in a human and, seeing as this was a civil war era weapon and medicine was severely lackluster, I’d say if you got hit by this thing you’re toast. Whether it be from the immediate impact or residual injury you’re definitely at least losing an arm or a leg.
It may not be deadly but it sure would make them run for the hills 😂😂😂😂😂
I somehow doubt this is California gun control compliant.
I don't think it would even classify as a firearm though, as there is no powder propellant.
@@cornupswar Implying that makes a difference these days given the general trend to high velocity projectile prohibition
smooth bore, no powder, i dont think itd be a firearm, more likely to fall under cannon, perhaps, with that bore size
"Staring down this gun is LeAtHaL"
Bullet:Boink. Raaaa...
YAY HE HAS A BRUSE FROM 6 FEET AWAY AND OUR GUN WAS 1000 TONS YIIIIIIPEERE YYYYEEKIIIAAAAAA
did they used a rifled barrel?
During the Civil War the common ammo was 'mini balls', much smaller than those the Mythbusters used and with greater mass.
That would have made a massive difference on penetration and 'kill' factor?
There's a song called soldiers joy. The tune was written in the early 1700s but the lyrics were rewritten during the civil war to become a euphemism for the hundreds of cases of morphine addiction.
The lyrics go something like
Give me some of that soldiers joy, I think you know what I mean
Give me some of that soldiers joy my leg is turnin green.
Lead balls would give a larger punch, and perhaps larger? Like small cannon balls? A somewhat longer barrel could also make a big difference. Could be lethal, although probably not very practical.
I want to see a v2 with smaller diameter barrel, lead balls, and a longer barrel or higher angular velocity
that's the same way i built my first fleshlight
You didnt build SHIT! have a good one
The contraption is really interesting. As are the comments in this video.
But what's more interesting, is the sick barbecue that happened at Jamie's House that weekend.
I would like to see the barrel length doubled and have both barrels fed by a separate hopper. Twice the rate of fire at increased velocity.
a dead soldier takes one soldier off the field, a wounded soldier takes 2 or 3 off the field.
With the gun at full speed, Adam releases his balls 6:42
Should have made the “barrels” longer so the bullets could gain more momentum.
They should have used lead shot. Lead penertrates soft material far better at similar velocities because of its higher density. Lead would also have been more historically accurate.
Notice how the paint scuff marks on the metal collar are grazing shots rather than linearly? Thats because the hole in the metal collar is in the wrong place.the bullet exits tangentially to the barrel
Maybe if the barrel was longer the centrifugal force would make I go faster?
I was not advocating it's practicality as a field weapon, simply it's projectile lethality. Tp expand on my "Slow? Sure." comment, an injury like broken ribs, ankles or arms (or any major parts really) could result in a lack of participation in a following skirmishes or even possible decline into death over the next few hours/days/weeks.
Yeah when compared against a period slug there's case against using a legit gun, but even bullets sometimes had the same effects I described above back then.
I think really it could be a more scare tactic I mean think of it seeing and hearing that back in civil war a lot would be pissing thier pants no doubt
Actually even according to them it was 50%accurate and effective at 50yds which back in civil war times was highly impressive considering that not even your average musket or other firearms were 50% accurate and effective fron 35-40yds which is why most battles the firing didnt start until they were around 30-40yds out and even then out of all the shots that went off in a volley of thousands of bullets maybe 10people might actually fall, you had to be withing 25yds for a civil war musket to be anywhere near 50%accurate so technically that machine back then would have absolutely butchered the enemy and on top of that back then they used lead ball wherein in theis video they are using steal ball...lead is WAY heavier meaning it would carry WAY more velocity when getting flung and leaving the barrel
How far did the ball roll after being shot should be the real question shouldn't it? Ive seen Golf balls bounce pretty impressively far on concrete!!!!
I thought it would shoot summer discounts.
The pictured gun was many times the size, it would have been undoubtedly lethal if this tiny peashooter version is able to penetrate gel.
The Mythbusters should have used smaller projectiles, so the projectiles would be faster
The cannon specs specify 500 on distance, they shot 700, but the impacts weren't lethal enough
But why would they use steel shot? They should have tried lead. Lead balls would be heavier and slower to accelerate. If a projectile accelerates slower, it spends more time in the barrel. Adjust the timing of the feed and use the heavier lead balls, your range could drop to the 500 mark and at close range you might get the more lethal result you want.
I'm telling you with a high rate of fire I wouldn't want to b any where near were that pig was lethal or not
Jeremy hanna Yeah, there’s plenty of soft spots that would be heavily damaged by the gun like your eyes, face, genitals, hands, shins and the list goes on. Even if it doesn’t kill you it would sure as hell hurt.
standard musket calibre and that would have been lethal, also you have to take into account lead deformation vs steel and the weight difference that thing would have killed even in that calibre.
Longer barrel to make the speed higher and this thing might do some real damage. Figure out a way to tie the timing on the steel balls to the rotation of the barrel so at speed it will consistantly fire in a specific direction(assuming you can lock the speed of rotation somehow) and it might, maybe, work.
Is this Steel Ball Run?
was looking for this. More like Steel Ball Steam tho or if you wanna maintain the movement Steel Ball Segway? xD
Myth busters should get an ivanhead from ZGB
Too bad the ivanhead was about 5 years too late
It's not about the size of the ball, it's about it's mass/size. Since the mass of the steel is set, and the volume of a sphere is proportional to it's size, you'd find that you can't move the scales in any way without seeing a loss in effectivness in another category. If you reduced the size of the balls, they would accelerate faster, but they would decelerate faster aswell, meaning they would have less kinetic energy to transfer on contact. If you halved the size of the balls, you would have to DOUBLE its velocity to achieve the same energy output. Like throwing a ball of paper at a window vs throwing a rock at a window with the same force. Very easy to reduce the shot-size, but quite the task to find the energy to double it's velocity. So It's about mass/volume And steel mass is just such that it just doesn't weigh enough by volume to deliver more force on contact than it's surface area distributes that force. That's why our ancestors arrived at lead and not steel. Steel is great for a lot of applications, but not ball ammunition. Lead just has the magic mass, to deliver more force relative to it's area at a given velocity.
This weapon would definitely maim the opposition force though, so it's not entirely useless. Take one of these shots to the face or throat and you'd be incapacitated easily. Take a shot to the arms or hands and it would severely degrade your ability to present, load or fire a rifle. Angled ballistically, to harass op-for while they're forming or marching and you'd take out several. Especially if you had no other choice because your cannonry was lacking.
They were just using steel ball, not the more bullet like shaped ammo that they actually used.
Ok... so no timing mechanism. Instead use a gate that can be lifted from a ramp angled below to release the bearing at the correct time. Aswell this allows for a much better loading mechanism as you can just feed a magazine of sharp projectiles into 4 seperate (or honestly as many as needed if its a circle and not a cross) slots and allow the force to build. The bolt should be loaded directly after firing to maintain balance aswell as maximize efficency
Internal bleeding is a thing and it could fuck someone up
Lethal or not, it would still injure and disable, and more importantly demoralize. As devastating and lethal the first machineguns in ww1 were, they probably did more damage to moral than physical.
Uh, round objects tend to roll, especially on flat ground (runway). No way in hell did that machine fire 700 yards. That's a range most handguns and some rifles can't match. And their machine gun was basically just a sling on steroids, using centrifugal forces to fire projectiles.
Weirdly enough, wounding an enemy soldier is actually better, since the wounded tend to slow everyone down and saddling them with medical aid. If one soldier kicks the bucket, the rest can fight on. But if one is wounded, then at least one will be taxed with keeping him alive.
This "machine gun" may not have the penetrating power of a round fired from a rifle, but the blunt force trauma should be more than enough to break ribs and/or cause serious concussions.
A .22 will go that far easily, what rifles and and pistols are you thinking of exactly? BB guns?
That thing is terrifying haha
How about a lead/iron(Pb/Fe) bullet?
I like how much Adam is into these acted sequences.
I guess with smaller Bullets and more spin you could improve the guns lethality.
The ball bounced to reach that distance. Not sure it counts then
Bit longer throwing arms and bit smaller calibre might be more optimal. Plus tripling the RPM.
If they managed to fire it as a rain only those dents in enemies' heads/helmets could be enough
i am really dissapointed by the fact that a segway costs too much money
G'day,
Really...?
I'm much more bemused by the fact that the last "Entrepreneur" who bought the Segway Company was testing it's Off-Road High-Speed Capabilities, and while so engaged...; he rode the fucking thing at Full-Speed, straight off the top of the White Cliffs of Dover, in Southern England...
Maybe he thought it might EVOLVE into a Hang-Glider, before he hit the Rocks or the Water at 112 MPH (Terminal Velocity for a Human wearing Clothes)...?
Or, perhaps, possibly, maybe, he was doing the Segway version of the 1929 Stockbroker's Leap out the windows of the Wall-Street Skyscrapers..; when they realised that they used to be Rich, until they sunk their money into a really stupid idea...?
;-p
Ciao !
yeah
Penetrating isn't the only way to kill (ex. mace) and having a lot of heavily injuried soldiers may be more incapacitating for an army than a losses (risks of diseases and needs more logistic)
Then with a longer barrel and a faster rotating speed, this may work.
But could we make it sturdier enough to last more than a few bullets ?
With heavier bullets you could do some serious crushing damages. Or maybe with hollow balls that could produce some sharp frags (If I can remember it well, L. da Vinci had an interesting prototype of frag bullets so this would not be an anachronism) ?
At last with a larger vent in the security collar, we would lose some accuracy but there would be a larger window to shoot the bullet and It may be more efficient in order to sweep bunches of soldiers.
Most country's have signed an agreement to not use "special ammo" as in your hallow/frag bullets... So yeah
+ProGuyGaming! that is not accurate. The agreement you are referring to was over 100 years ago and it addresses "expanding bullets" which applies to small arms. Only 33 countries agreed to (signed) The Hague Convention Hardly "most of the world"; The United States did not sign this... Also, if you read the wording there is no penalty and the agreement "ceases" as soon as a party who does not agree joins the fight. It was more of a gentleman's agreement.
Here is a list of countries who signed the section of the Hague Declaration concerning expanding bullets (hollow points).
www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=170
Here is the actual agreement:
www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=F5FF4D9CA7E41925C12563CD0051616B
As far as "special ammo"... there are plenty of fragmenting, explosive, incendiary, and other ammunition types widely used in modern warfare today even among countries who have signed the Hague Convention agreement.
They be like.
Yeah I shot the pig myself xD
it is plausible, all you have to do is decrease the angle to around 10 - 15 and change the balls for the most accurate you can get, as a paintball gun tho, you'd win hands down!!!!
The only reason the gun failed was they put it on to steep of an angle
if I throw a steel ball 30yd and it bounce-rolls another 100 - which on a flat hard surface is certainly possible - I wouldn't call that a 130yd throw.
Did anyone else feel sorry for the pig with a hook through its chin?
Poor Babe...
One moment you're a happy pig running around your pen; the next minute you're hanging from a hook on a Mythbusters episode.....
Pigs are definitely not happy or running in their pens most of the time...
This is the episode that they used ballistic gel.
What were the bullets made of? They didn't look like metal.
Spar10Leonidas they painted it to findit easier
mythbuster comeback pls?
**The ATF Would Like To Know Your Location**
In the civil war they shot soft lead minié ball rounds not ball bearings.
I think this gun would be effective. It may not penetrate, BUT it would hurt and maybe enough to get the enemy to the knees or break some bones and imagine you get some of these to the face x.x
Medieval swords also werent designed to cut/penetrate. They were designet to concentrate enough force to break bones or just hurt enough to distract the enemy for a moment.
The pain of...uhm...well pain should not be underestimated.
IncapableLP You can also load this gun with a ton of bullets, make it fire all over a area and hit everyone. Even if they don't die, they'll be in total pain. And maybe some more bullets hit them and kill them.
+IncapableLP that's at super close range though
That was not a “ye olde” musket firing. I’ve been to reenactments where they’ve fired them with period accurate round and OMG it was the loudest thing I’ve ever heard. They even set car alarms off they were so loud
Luke Sparrow maybe it’s microphone peaking? And not wanting to make people deaf from TV?
It’s not like it landed that far from the gun… But rather 700 yards was where it ended up when it stopped rolling on the ground.
Not being able to replicate what the inventor may have been able to create doesnt disprove it.
isnt pig skin thicker than human skin???
Not by much.
if the ball was small or a bullet probably it could kill or pierce the skin
A soldier with pierced skin keeps on running. A soldier with a broken leg is out of the battle.
@@weckar agreed
how is this NOT lethal? I would bet a headshot or a shot to the heart would be lethal, also shattered bones were prob also pretty lethal (long term) back in the days and made you useless on the battlefield.
Gunshots to the legs, arms and abdomen arent insta lethal either but a gun is still considered a lethal weapon.
I really doubt that Jamie ate a whole pig that has been sitting out in the hot sun for hours... That would turn really fast? Right?
In and out of the cooling bag for a 10 minute test, it was fine.
I consider the thing stupid and not very effective. Mostly because there is more effective Weapons.
But just like a Slinger in Medieval Times does not need to Pierce your Skin to Kill you with a Shot.
I do think that this Weapon would have been quite Scary if used in certain Situations.
If this had been used against an Enemy Formation of Line Infantry. Then Showering them with Crude Metal Balls. Would certainly have gotten a Number of Headshots that would have been Lethal.
And Shots to the Chest and even the Arms and Hands while not Lethal. Would have been more than enough to take that Soldier out of Combat.
So as an War Weapon this thing would seem fairly Good to be Honest.
Cartoon character on caffeine
Enlighten us as to how it could kill without penetration or blunt force trauma(and not a headshot since it isn't accurate enough to reliably hit someones skull).
internal bleeding, for instance...
The thing is, this would probably only break a rib, unless it hit the head. In battle, that's not going to stop him from running up and stabbing you when adrenaline is going. It could take a couple people out, maybe, but keep in mind that it would be extremely expensive and hard to make correctly back then, and wouldn't be worth the effort when a small group of people could take it out.
Ehhh I mean considering the erw it was in 50% accuracy and effectiveness honestly wasnt that bad I mean hell most of the regular rifles and guns back then didnt even have that amount of accuracy and reliability beyond 20yds or so that's why all the battles took place at close range
typo: there's no* case for the steam gun over a rifle. Rifle win.
I get dumb sometimes while trying to slide under the character limit.
Or make the projectiles in pendulum shape. I mean
Someone explain the fucking Beanie Hat on the Mythbuster dude!
What if the projectiles we're smaller.
Well I guess you could make it work.