Also- I reference another RUclips video here in a fairly negative light, but that is NOT an invitation to go and be super degen on other people's videos. If you happen to find your way there, or to any other video promoting this technique, feel free to explain how it is not historical and how it is deeply unsafe, but do NOT harass people about it. There's no need to brigade anyone, either. If you see one or two other comments pointing out that it is inaccurate, you probably don't need to add your own saying the exact same thing. Especially not in my name. That kind of harassment would, if it takes place, be totally unacceptable and totally unnecessary.
English people use the word "nonce" only as a slang word for paedophile and as an Irish citizen made that mistake when I was younger talking to a young lady, just a heads up Brandon
@@BrandonF was to me and they only use that word for that and you never what to tell an brit you have been " noncing" about like a young paddy did to an English woman he liked
"Anyone who tells you to put a loaded gun in your mouth - probably, does not have your best interests in mind." - Sir Brandon Fischella MP, Pamphleteer and Historian. (Empire Total War loading screen)
@@spiffygonzales5160 Rome 1 was the best (the generals that would gain hillarious traits like being lazy if you left them in a city too long, or scared if they lost too many battles, or anything from brave to reckless if they kept winning against greater numbers of enemy) But having almost a whole world in Empire was epic. And the 17th century uniforms too.
Drillmaster: "You can spit the shot into the muzzle to reload if you're in a hurry" Recruit: "...really?" Drillmaster: "Sure, if you want to scorch your lips on the insanely hot barrel and run the risk of an accidental discharge and blowing your head off"
@@BrandonF I just thought of something else from the Sharpe series - there's a scene where Harper fires his ramrod from the Baker rifle in lieu of loading a shot. Would this be possible?
@@fogwar To shoot it? Absolutely, and it can go pretty far, too! Though going right through an unfortunate man on the other side? Well I am not too sure. I actually have an old video where I shoot my ramrod and it does embed itself pretty solidly in the ground.
@@BrandonF Wouldn't this be a matter of the weight of the ramrod? Considering how much more it would weigh compared to the musket ball, even though it would technically contain the same energy (that is IF you didn't ram the ball down there as well, in which case the energy of the ramrod would be severely diminished) but flying through the air at lower speed. The question is then how fast it bleeds energy and how much is needed to penetrate a uniform and body of an opponent. This is all, of course, looking away from the fact that the end of the ramrod does not actually have a sharp, pointy end, fit for penetrating any sort of solid matter.
@@bofoenss8393 In the case of wooden rammer, you have about 30 yards range in which you can relatively easily injure someone if you hit them (ramrods are rather severely inaccurate). However, in the case of steel rods, it is rather easy to kill a target in the same range so long as the rammer doesn't tumble. In fact, in the 1990's a Civil War reenactor was killed at about 35 yards by just such a mishap. There is a reason main stream reenactments forbid the use of rammers and packing of paper now...
Funny thing is he rarely actually uses his rifle in the show, he almost always fights with a cavalry sword. Also his sergeant, Patrick, carries a Nock gun, which was a naval firearm (barely practical even in that role) and had little value to a rifleman serving in his intended role. But you know, cool factor and all that.
@Some Guy The knock gun in the books was actually a Christmas present Sharpe’s got Harper when he borrowed from his Navy pals after during the Expedition to Copenhagen (Sharpe’s Prey)
If he taught others to fellate the ball recepticle, then I guess the show took a weird turn when he started spitting the balls at his opponents directly...
The Sharpe TV series was a bit of a low budget mess that departed greatly from the books....so I will give Brandon that fact. However, the books are extremely scholarly from both a historical and military perspective. YES, Mr. Cornwell could get a bit silly with Sharpe always saving the day and getting the girl in every book, but as far as his depictions of battle and the historical details of the Peninsular war, he was spot on. Also, to my point, tap loading came up in the books, but spit loading (aka Fellating the barrel) was an invention of the writers of the TV show, not the creator of the Sharpe Series of books who never described such a thing.
@@jbaidley Because they want to make sharpe look like a special forces guy who goes against the upper class orthodox thinking and beats the enemy with guile. Its why its a great tv show. Its also a pretty good way to get kids/ teenagers into history.
Just to clarify another point that people may bring up; I have heard people talking about how English Civil War soldiers, lacking cartridges and relying on bandoliers, etc. would sometimes keep spare musket shot in their mouths for easier access. Although it's not something I've even looked into, so even that may or may not be accurate. Even still, if it is true, I'd be *very* surprised to hear about them then "spitting" those balls down the barrel though, rather than just keeping them there like militant chipmunks. But I think we can all agree that this is very clearly different from what I am talking about in this video.
Why would a soldier prefer to store shot in their mouth and not in their pouches. As for spitting the ball what a load of nonsense, tapping yes spitting no.
@@The_Reality_Filter Yeah, I am not too sure about why, either. It's something I've been told about but I've not looked into it. I'll actually edit the comment to make sure people know that may not necessarily be true.
@@The_Reality_Filter It's more convenient, rather than have to fiddle around with a pouch and flimsy lead balls? Keep in mind that you not only had the bandolier flasks, but also a priming powder flask as well, but a fork too. Imo it's completely reasonable, especially with people not really having safety standards (and it sounding like one of those old mercenary tricks or something).
@@filthyweaboo2694 it sounds like utter nonsense in my opinion. I really cannot imagine a Sergeant in the British Army advising his men to put their mouths over a loaded weapon. They may well have held the shot in their mouths prior to loading and tapping but never spitting. That's just way too dangerous even for those crazy days.
Sometimes native Americans would do that if they had limited ammunition and before they could get cartridges, but it's not remotely preferable, and I've read nothing about spitting being other than something out of convenience. It's not a preferable technique.
My grandmother ( born 1894) had an uncle with part of his jaw and cheek shot away spit loading on horseback, well before she was born. Hunting buffalo he had developed the bad habit of putting the weapon under his thigh after discharging his weapon and would reload using that method, apparently after firing the muzzleloader more than a few times the barrel overheated as he spit the ball the weapon discharged and shot away part of his jaw, he lingered,according to the story, for about a week before dying. Needless to say she never met him.
Look, I know that Sharpe has the budget of a cornerstore 7/11. I know that most, if not everything is horribly wrong. I have to admit though, I love this show. It's goofy, and a lot of fun. The historically accurate electric guitar solo as sean bean always gets cut in the leg or the back since he can't die in this show. Historical FICTION (being the key word) at it's low budget finest.
I am an ACW living historian, so I am very familiar with the American Army muzzle loading drills from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. At least one of the manuals states in its forward that a primary concern was safety. No army wishes to waste a man, equipped and trained at government expense, and whose firepower and bayonette are critical to fighting the battle, through the carelessness or stupidity of either the soldier or his rank and file mates. Although spit loading is not specifically prohibited, it is obvious that the authors of these drills were keen on preventing the men from placing any part of their bodies over the muzzle while loading.
You are right about the manual of arms. But at the same time it is not that hard to find photos of civil war soldiers holding their hands over the muzzle. And the same with Danish soldiers in 1864. Clearly there is a difference between when on the battlefield and when getting a photo taken. But the modern idea of never putting anything in front of the muzzle is simply not there.
@@BrandonF I am an ordnance officer for an ACW group in the NW, I know I have seen references to safety concerns in Scott's Manuel in my antebellum research, as well as in Hardy's and Casey's manuals adopted in that order during the run up to Civil War. They are readily available so have fun reading!
@@BrandonF You might also look into the predecessor manuals to Scott's, as they are relevant to the War of 1812 part of the Napoleonic wars, as well as U.S. anti-piracy operations.
@@thomasbaagaard Presumably the rifles were not loaded when being photographed. I know that today all weapons are always treated as loaded, but perhaps that practice had not yet been developed.
Especially at the end "Don't fellate a loaded gu...or any gun for that matter, it's just weird!". Up till then he was very straight face an almost scientific in the use the word. At the end he goes full on double entrant meme.
To the theme of incompetence becoming the driver of an institution: A running joke exists in the US Army that a new Lieutenant can look at a compass and see the letters "L-O-S-T" on it. The usual retort is that while the Lieutenant may or may not be able to read a map, at least he can read at all.
I remember distinctly the lieutenant ignoring the direction of all the enlisted and getting us lost on a field exercise on his own insurance. I think we learned a different lesson about officers than he might have been trying to reach us that day.
@@BeKindToBirds I’m sure the odd LT manages to fuck up notably, but I can remember many, many times more incidents of sergeants fucking up things in way no self-respecting officer ever would have, everything from trivial matters like slides to important matters like accounting for SI.
@@jamesharding3459 Had a buddy do military exercises where the reserves were involved - ended up with a reserve LT that managed to make so many bad decisions they ended up having to airlift a rescue planes on skis out to pick them up. The best part of the story is that these little STOL planes flying around in the middle of nowhere at night led to a whole series of conspiracy theories about the military "securing UFOs" in the region.
@@secretbaguette That's the one I REALLY don't get. "They just threw men at their enemies" Like yea, they went to years and years of military school, served time in their various militaries, some saw first hand combat, and they contemplated for hours every day how to brake the stalemate... and all they could think of was "I dunno just throw some men at em." How do people believe this stuff?
@@spiffygonzales5899 It happens in ww2 too. "Yeah bro the red army used human wave tactics" is one of the most common things, when if you actually read through history almost all if not all of those attacks were by lost and disorganized units in the early days, and they lost, because obviously human wave tactics don't work.
@@kazak8926 Agreed. As far as human wave tactics go, Russia would have only used them in the sense that they rounded up dissadents and prisoners and sent them to fight to test German defenses. But did they say "oh hey, let's just.... throw men at em!" No. No they did not. And even the thing with the prisoners is hotly debated.
>risk of breaking your teeth on the ball >elevated risk of lead poisoning >risk of swallowing the ball >risk of blowing a golf ball size hole vertically through your skull >no substantial speed advantage or outright speed disadvantage
The Berber horsemen, of Northwestern Africa, do have an interesting, and visual theatrical method for reloading their Kabyle snaphance musket, while their horses are at full gallop. Their method of loading, also seemed to exclude the use of the ramrod, it did have a serious of twirling flourishes, that, may use centrifugal effect, to compact the blackpowder in breech. Now, the premise of the Sharpe series was, that, a battle-hardened, grizzled, experienced, veteran, professional earns his officer’s rank through a personal act of valor. The writers of show wanted to show Richard Sharpie as having learned a few “tricks of the trade”, and techniques. Sharpie, according to series, served in the east, prior in career. Sharpie has to be portrayed as person of extraordinary merits, to be worthy of changing his status.
I wouldn't try that. In a black powder firearm, if the bullet isn't properly seated on the charge, you can have pressure spikes that can bulge or even rupture the barrel. I don't think centrifugal force would be enough to seat the bullet properly. Tapping the butt on the ground works because the inertia of the bullet carries it down the barrel with gravity when the musket comes to an abrupt stop as the butt hits the ground, but unless you had an undersized bullet, I think there would be too much friction between the bullet and bore for the bullet to properly seat. And if you're using an undersized bullet, you'll have a massive drop in pressure from blow by as gas passes between the sides of the bullet and the bore, so a weapon with an already short range would be of little use. I think you're right when you say it's visual and theatrical in that they would be likely have been doing it for show, probably using wax bullets.
@@ktgiffin8147 : Agreed, better there is a difference in attitude of “civilized” regimented battle formation, and “oh shit, here comes the frenzied, bloodthirsty, screaming, enemy horde over the hill.” Okay, let’s assume that they are using undersized projectiles. In a line-abreast formation, accuracy is not be a priority. The volume and frequency of volley-fire would be primary concern. So, the projectile won’t be as accurate, okay, it won’t have the same muzzle velocity. But, the projectiles will still give the enemy some really good boo-boos.
@@salavat294 Doubtful. The effective range of a musket is about 100 yards, and at the charge, cavalry could cover that distance in probably about 15 seconds. They would have time for one volley, and then they'd be in the mêlée, where muskets would be useless. So why would they be reloading? Cavalry fought with swords and lances instead of firelocks for a reason.
@@ktgiffin8147 : In a cavalry charge to “soften up” an infantry formation, it would seem practical at range to fire the musket or carbine, then switch to saddle pistols, lance for initial impact, and in mêlée switching to sabre.
@@ktgiffin8147 : Alexander Suvorov’s favored tactic was two volleys at enemy, followed immediately by a bayonet charge. He never defeated on the battlefield. Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov was his protégé.
Hey Brandon. Just began watching Sharpe recently actually. I have to say despite all of these issues I do love the series. Was wondering if you had a video on THAT scene.
The show has a lot of these mistakes, likely from the writers misunderstanding the descriptions in the books. Bernard Cornwell likely didn't have a lot of input, just look at the difference between the book and show versions of Sharpe's Gold. You go from looting a treasure caravan to some weird mayan/conquistador death cult in Napoleonic spain.
" weird mayan/conquistador death cult" happened because of either some insurance claims, or they didn't want to pay original crew .They filmed some scene true to the book, and then had to reshoot with different script in order to collect insurance money.
@@AnUtterSimpleton I was trying to find source of this information. i read this some time ago, more then 10 years , on some internet forum. They filmed some scenes, something happened, I do not remember, an actor had been injured, or had to replaced for some reason. They collected insurance money, then comes lawyers and explains you either return the money or start something entirely different. Maybe this is pure speculation, maybe made up by some Sharpe fan?
I always suspected it was a way of hiding the fact that musket balls weren’t actually being loaded in close up - and to also avoid having to make lead ball props
I suppose it could be, but really, in the proper loading sequence you can't see the musket ball always, since it's at the bottom of the cartridge. While technically a blank would lack the telltale 'bulge' at its bottom without a ball, I think that's a far smaller problem to worry about film-making wise!
I don't think I'd call Sharpe a 'Gary Stu'. For starters, most the other officers hate him. Even his own men dislike him until he earns their respect. Also he's shown to be totally out of his depth when it comes to polite society and paperwork (he's bad at reading and writing and what have you). You make a good point, in that these sorts of shows like to portray authority as incompitent to make the protagonist look good, but I don't think they ever suggested that Sharpe came up with the loading method. It was framed more as something experienced troops might use to boost their loading speed. Yes, it's not correct, but this series was made in the early 90s. By the standards of the time (pre 'Saving Private Ryan'-Which to me is a turning point in the mainstream actually caring about getting things right) the show's pretty good. Thanks for the vid! :D
I think what keeps Sharpe from being a complete Gary Stu is that he has strong emotional flaws. The conflict of a lot of the Sharpe stories comes from him losing his cool, doing something stupid, and having to deal with the consequences.
Leaving aside the notion of pointing a loaded gun right towards your own face, there is another consideration. Lead is actually soft enough that you can dent it with your teeth, so accidentally biting down too hard would likely deform the ball, adversely affecting its flight characteristics. Ideally you'd also want to minimize the amount of saliva that comes into contact with your powder as well, since unburned (saliva-soaked) powder is liable to exacerbate fouling.
Thank you, I was just about to make the same comment! ...though, from an efficiency point of view, the biggest risk is accidentally biting directly on the bullet and deforming it to the point where it won't go down the barrel at all.
The lead ball wouldn't harm the barrel in the least. The ball might become deformed by ramming it down excessively, but that wouldn't hurt the barrel at all. Anything that contacts the barrel, like tooth marks and such, would get scrubbed off against the bore.
It’s a while since I read it so I could be a bit off on the details. But the weird thing about that scene is that (from what I remember) it actually conveys the exact opposite of the one in the book. I don’t recall if the book version had spitting or not but I’m pretty sure Sharpe was teaching them to do it “properly” and efficiently, not to cut corners. But I suppose by the musket drill book Sharpe is at least superficially at odds with maverick, show the posh idiots how it’s really done Sharpe that the series leans into. Book Sharpe was a great soldier because he combined out of the box thinking with sound understanding of period strategy and tactics. Not because he cut corners at the expense of combat effectiveness.
It’s been ages since I read the books but I recall that sharpe realised that a part of the soldiers uniform was inhibiting the reload process so he made them rip it off
@@georgeofazgad2176 Likely their stocks. It was a stiff piece put under the collar to keep the soldiers heads upright and help the men stand at attention more easily. It was commonly known then that the stocks served basically no purpose in battle, and so the majority of units did not wear them into battle. However, as standardization of anything but weaponry and uniforms was non existent at the time, it is possible that some officers had their men wear their stocks into battle, as well. Now, these officers would likely be called out by someone superior to them who knew that the practice was stupid, rather than an entire regiment following it as seen in Sharpe, but it is possible
@@georgeofazgad2176 Yes, I believe he has them discard the leather stocks that they wear around their necks in both versions. Which may be just setting them up for disciplinary action by another officer later but does seem well meaning. I think a big part of that was it being fresh in his own mind how uncomfortable it was when he had to wear one. But when it comes to the practical and functional side of soldiering, he is less inclined to tear up the rule book. I am conscious of just how many books where written though as well as how long it’s been, so perhaps some of them skew more towards TV Sharpe. Im not sure.
Ok, so in Sharpe’s Eagle he is described as spitting the ball in when demonstrating shooting to the South Essex. He does not emphasise this point to the men, nor does he advocate tap loading. It is unclear if he sticks to the letter or whatever Cornwell believes to be the correct drill manual. But it is stated that firing rapidly comes with experience with no mention of corner cutting. And they not only take off the stocks but also use them as targets. So I would still maintain that the overall message of the scene in the series is contrary to Sharpe’s philosophy in the books but the video’s main point about fellating the barrel still seems applicable.
Perhaps the show creators were trying to reference tap loading, but something got very lost in translation, or they just thought "How could we improve tap loading to make it look really special?" I don't know. What I do know is that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I am not an Anglophile, nor have I shot anything older than a No4 mk 1, but the idea of trying to test that by putting the barrel of a gun anywhere near one's self has me saying words. None of them kind.
Shows like sharpe hold a soft spot in my heart. They try to be authentic if not accurate and when I was a lot younget acted as a springboard too much deeper reasearch. Sharpe will definitely be a starting point when I try to get my kids into history.(whether they like it or not)
I hate that after at least a thousand years of explosive firearms, it still needs to be repeated: "Don't point an end of your barell at something you are not willing to destroy. Not even unloaded. Never. Just don't."
Honestly, spit-loading sounds like something we would have mentioned at a safety brief when I was in the Army, alongside drinking and driving, drinking and boating, drinking and, well, you get the idea.
I've said it before and said it again: BUT SEAN BEAN. Yes, he's also in LOTR, but that's only 2 hours! The series has like 15x the Sean Bean the LOTR movies has! Anyways, thanks for the informative video.
The universal firearms safety rules: Treat guns as if it's loaded, Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, Always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction, Be sure of your target & beyond. For the benefit of anyone who may not be familiar.
"Be sure of your target and beyond." The "and beyond" is one that gets forgotten about too often and treated way, WaY too casually. And yes, this ties into always treating any gun as if it's loaded.
Having watched Sharpe for the first time recently, I'm glad to see that I was right to raise an eyebrow at this spit-loading business. Like.... how would it actually save time to hold the lead shot in your mouth to then spit it in the barrel? Typical loading procedure had you pouring powder into the muzzle from the cartridge which already had a ball in it.... it's right there, just pop it in the bore. You even have the paper cartridge lined up with the barrel already. Just finish inserting it completely. Surely, leaning forward to place your mouth around the muzzle would just take a fraction of a second longer....
You called my favourite show of the 90s stupid. I am now googling for plane tickets to wherever you live and I got my duelling glove with me. You better prepare!
"The musketeer now bit the end off each cartridge when loading, retained the ball in his mouth, and tipped the powder into the muzzle. He then spat the ball after the powder and folded up the paper to serve as the wad, before ramming down as before." The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough, by David Chandler. Pub 1976. Mr Chandler gives no source for this, So it hardly seems fair to be trying to blame Mr Sharpe, Mr Cornwall, or the shows producers for using a well respected source, even if he is wrong. "It's just not cricket, Sir!"
I was a big fan of this series back in the 90's but i did wonder once or twice just how accurate it all was. Another entertaining and informative video Brandon.
Overall it was very accurate for TV fiction but like most TV fiction it was embellished for dramatic effect. The books are well worth a read, fast paced and more depth to the characters.
It's a good show for the narrative aspect, the action scenes and giving an overall picture of Napoleonic warfare. It's a terrible show for historical accuracy.
Sharpe also does an incredible injustice to William, the Prince of Orange. The Dutch and Belgians made sure that Wellington had time to prepare and this at a great cost
Indeed. “Slender Billy” was widely respected within the British Army for his good nature and his courage. But the entertainment industry will always prefer drama to calm competence and teamwork. .
If I had deserted Sharpe’s unit, would the defense “I didn’t want to have to pleasure my musket and have it blow my head off as a thank you.” have held up in court?
The rifleman in Sharpes never used this technique - it was only shown in one episode when then newly Officer Sharpe drills the South Essex which was musket men. A better part of this series was his statement about how to kill officers when he drills the Irish Company. I would love to see an episode about the historical realities of that part of the series. He remarks that in a pinch the best idea is to club the officers' horse in the teeth (with amazing imagery) and then when it bucks the rider, you can finish him off.
If I'm not mistaken the words were "You turn your musket aroung and clubb the buggery out of the horse's mouth. And when that fat, overpayed bastard on top hits the ground, you still got time left to finish him off."
As someone who's punched and kicked a rather psycho horse that was attacking our horse (I was between the two in the pasture), I can attest that horses hold no particular opinions about heavy strikes. For context, I came in at 82 kg at the time and was doing competitive kickboxing. Pretty sure I was putting out more than Joe Average would. This horse was fairly small, weighing in at maybe 300-350 kg. Punching it in the nose and teeth did nothing at all. Repeatedly kicking it in the front legs did though. The horse was limping for over a week (in the front legs) after the encounter at any rate. The horse ran into me and sent me flying a good two meters, landing on my back. It's probably only due to tensing up and training my core muscles that I didn't break anything. Kept my head down or it'd have knocked me unconcious. Chest felt wrecked for several days, as if my ribs had come close to breaking. What stopped the encounter is a roan in the same pasture saw the psycho horse going on and on and suddenly decided this was a threat to the herd, went full stallion mode, ran up and kicked it in the flank heavily twice.
@@nvelsen1975 The depictions of a horse being hit is usually armed, for example going for the teeth with a heavy cavalry sabre, bayonet, etc. I also suspect that a big wooden musket butt might work a little better than punches, though whether that is genuinely enough to get a horse to buck is definitely debatable.
As ‚spitloading‘ has been discussed in several reenactor forums before I tried to track down this modern myth. And to my surprise this myth appeared long before Sharpe! The earliest reference we have is in Cecil S. Forester‘s „Mr. Midshipman Hornblower“ from the 1950ies. (Chapter: „The frogs and the lobsters“)
It's one of the few Hornblower books I've not read yet, but I've heard the same thing! Which really surprises me, since I'd always held Hornblower in pretty high regard accuracy wise, and it's such a simple, low-level mistake to make.
@@BrandonF Sure. The source is Polish, titled "Piechotne ćwiczenia albo wojenność piesza" (Exercises for infantry or infantry warfare) published in 1660 in Cracow and written by sir Błażej Lipowski. The fragment that interests you can be found at the beginning of the chapter called Exercises with the Musket, in which Lipowski names the commands related to the use of this weapon. The second command is "Put six bullets in your mouth" then several steps of loading the gun later "Bullet from mouth to the barrel". I am not aware of any English translations of this treaty but If you want I can translate this whole chapter for you.
Why am I picturing a soldier in the heat of battle running towards enemy lines, and attempting to spit-load, they trip over the rough battlefield terrain, skewering the weapon through their head?
If I’m not mistaken, I haven’t watched Sharpe in more than a decade, Sharpe’s unit was equipped with rifles. I hunt with a traditional 50 caliber muzzleloading rifle that shoots lead round ball. I would not be able to load it with my mouth, my lips are not strong enough to engage the rifling much less get the bullet properly seated in the patch. Some dude do lubricant their patch with spit. This is sometimes referred to as spit-loading. But, it’s not the same process. Also, I’d break the rifle trying to tap load it. But, I do tap the stock after loading the charge in order to fill the powered chamber of the percussion lock. But, engaging the rifling with the bullet is not something that can be accomplished with gravity.
In the books (and possibly the films), some of the taploading was done on the Baker rifles, but to do so, they did it without patching, thus trading accuracy and power for speed. Given your experience, would taploading work sans patch in your opinion?
Maybe. I haven’t measure the depth of the rifling. I use 0.49 inch diameter balls. The patching is 0.018 inches. The purpose of patching is not just to engage the rifling, but to create a gas seal. I guess, if some dude is in your face, it doesn’t matter.
i would have always thought that tap loading would stop working once the barrel fouled up enough or at the very least work less n less as the fouling accumulates. would definitely love to se a d3monstration of if & how performance/effectiveness degrades over time
It is definitely something that, if it does work the first few times, would become slightly less efficient with every round fired for that reason. But it does take a good amount of firing to really foul up the barrel enough for it to be material, in my experience, and in most battles you wouldn't have very long protracted firefights. Especially in the situation where you're taploading, it's probably because the shooting is about to end, is my guess!
@@BrandonF Is it possible that tap loading was an emergency only technique, like "if some dumbass grunt loses his rammer, you do this"? Because, AFAIK, the aforementioned grunt would be in deep Doo Doo if he "lost" a vital part of his weapon, since the muskets were considered the King's property?
@@johnmullholand2044sorry for the late reply, but I believe that tap loading is more for getting one more volley before getting charged down and losing a ramrod isn't that important due to misfires cause it to fly away
Hahaha! this was hilarious. Well done I must admit that I have read of hunters in the 18th century and Canadian Metis hunters in the mid 19th spit loading, because of the use of powder horns, and in this case they held the ammo without the powder in their mouths to get them down the barrel quicker but, regulars would have no need for such weirdness.
To be fair to Sharpe, apart from the very *very* chronological beginning, he isn't an NCO, he's an officer. There is quite a lot of emphasis on his not fitting in with the aristocratic officer class, and while there are a number of competent aristocratic officers in the books, the show tends to focus on the few who are purchasing commissions they have no business holding.
If you spit load enough times, as you see in the Sharpe series, the metal of the musket on the firing end, would eventually get red hot, so you would be putting your mouth on a super heated piece of metal, burning your tongue, lips, and likely the roof of your mouth. Just stick to loading with the ramrod, it's safer, and you don't waste all the gunpowder chewing through the paper cartridge. You also, don't run the risk of swallowing the musket ball.
It's not hoping to ever get "red hot", but yeah, you wouldn't want to put any sensitive part of your body on it. Even 5- 10 shots get a thin musket barrel hot enough that you want to touch it by the wooden stock only! I'd daresay that you'd never get a "meltdown" with a muzzleloader musket.
I'm a man of simple pleasures, I see a Brandon F video with Sharpe in the thumbnail, I'm compelled to click straight away quickly followed by "smashing that like button"
@@The_Reality_Filter Not too sure I agree. It's definitely not the worst, nowhere near it in fact, but with some of those plots...well, what I've seen is hardly good writing.
@@BrandonF It's not even in the realms of the worst but I will admit I was never as much a fan of the series as I was the books, they're a cracking read as is pretty much everything by Cornwall.
I’ve noticed Bernard Cornwell does the same thing in his Last Kingdom series. Uthred of Bebabanburg who didn’t really exist in the capacity of England’s making wins all of Alfred the Great’s battles for him thereby diminishing the achievements of the real Alfred painting him as nothing but a weird nerd and religious fanatic. I still do enjoy Cornwell’s books but I do see the problems.
To their credit, there were some examples of incompetent officers in the British ranks (notably in the times when British officers could buy their commission). I've read in a book* that the British artillery officers in the 1850s / 60s were strongly opposed to Armstrong's breech loading system because they would misuse the guns and break them in the process. This incompetence eventually led to the British artillery's return to muzzle loading. * Guns of the regiment by Doug Knight
Another thing the Sharpe series gets wrong is that it makes it seem like Sharpe's commissioning from the enlisted ranks is somehow a shocking rare event. The other officers routinely talk down to him and treat him with disrespect because he was once a common soldier. In reality, 5% of all British officers of the era came from the enlisted ranks. That is uncommon, sure, but 5% is 1 out of every 20. That's not super-rare in an army as large as the British. Easily common enough to the point that the traditional officers wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.
I doubt you'll see this but, think another alternative is they listened to the wrong sort of reenactors. Primitive Firearms and civilian firearm usage during these periods very often mention what were called spitloads, or 'spitwads.' this is not spitting in a barrel, but you keep your wad in your mouth, as you don't use cartridges. Powder's measured independently, poured by 'instinct' or just measured in a flask nozzle. You take a wad, wet to fuck with saliva from your mouth, (aoften along with 5-6 other wads that are in your mouth if you're shooting quickly) place it, put the ball, hammer and then ram. Tighter wads are more accurate, and if you're going for serious accuracy, you usually have a independent ball-starter or primer. We *do* refer to dry wads as 'worse' because they're harder to load, less accurate, etc.
Plain and simple, common sense firearm safety tells one to never point a firearm at any human being (unless you intend to shoot them). I would say that putting the muzzle into one's mouth does constitute a form of pointing a firearm at a human being. A particularly egregious example of it at that!
Spit-loading was a thing in Gaiduk army of Hungary and Poland in 17 Century. Soldiers dont have cartpidges, but small tubes with gun powdwer. Loader takes multiple balls in mouth (3 or 4). Loader apply a powder, throw coushin, and then spit the ball. In tercio-like formation, arqebuziers can shot only 2-3 times, once per 1-2 minutes.
Not only did it not happen, it goes against that iconic colloquial expression we all know and love. “Keep your powder dry!” What next? Preparing a fire by sucking on an unlit matchstick? 😂
I went to the Shiloh battlefield last year and one of the ranger/reenactors emphasized that you didn't even want your hand over the barrel if possible since the possibility of an accidental discharge could punch a hole through your palm/fingers. The idea that anyone -- even TV writers -- would suggest getting your head near the barrel is just terrifying.
Not to mention you see Sharpe and the 95th rifles spit-loading occasionally throughout the show. Which I can imagine would be a lot harder with a rifled weapon due to the grooves in the barrel. I'm no expert on 18th-19th century firelocks, but if I had to guess, the cartridge is more likely to snag on the rifling if you're just spitting the ball into the barrel without using the proper ramrod technique to guide it down. So Sharpe's "Chosen Men" armed with the Baker rifle are likely slowing their own rate of fire by using this method. Also, while I vaguely remember tap loading in the books, I don't remember spit loading ever being a thing in the "Sharpe's Eagle" novel the show was based off of (or any of the Sharpe novels I read). So the show is not even accurate to the books it was based on, let alone history!
Rifled muskets of the time demanded a tight-fitting ball wrapped in a greased leather patch to allow them to grip the rifling properly, as opposed to the more loose-fitting ball and wadding used by smoothbore muskets, so spit-loading (or tap-loading) a rifle would probably be flat-out impossible; the ball would just sit on the muzzle and not go anywhere, or fall off and get lost in the grass. The ramrod is 100% necessary in that case.
@@yetanother9127 you are confusing a rifle and a riflemusket. The baker is a rifle and yes, that need a tight fit for accurate long range shooting. A riflemusket is a weapon that don't appear until the 1840ties where arms technology had improved. There you got a loos fit projective that you can load just as easily as a smoothbore, but it then gets expanded so it grip the rifling on the way out. The early rifle muskets did this by having a "stem" in the breech that you, with a heavy ramrod rammed the projectile down on to expand it... The next improvement was a selfexpanding bullet with a clary/wood/metal cub in the bottom to get it to expand. This is the actual minié bullet. And then the next step where the cub gets removed and the bottom of the projective is simply hollow and the pressure expand the bullet. The burton bullet used during the american civil war was of this type.... and is wrongly often called a minié. (and it worked a lot less well than bullets with the cub... but they where a lot easier and cheaper to make) Oh, and the british riflemen did have loose unpatched bullets that they could use if they needed the higher rate of fire to stop a French column at close range. This basically turned the rifle into a smoothbore with the advantages and disadvantages that followed.
@@thomasbaagaard Are you a US Civil War reenactor, by chance? That terminology is accurate for the Civil War era, but not to the Napoleonic era being discussed here. In the Napoleonic era, a "rifled musket" was a smoothbore musket converted into a rifle; they were tactically and mechanically pretty much the same as purpose-made rifles like the Baker, and I use the term to refer to both kinds for simplicity.
It was always my understanding you want to keep the front of your face AWAY from the business end of a device meant to spit a piece of metal hard enough to make the other guy's head explode. It's not a modern sniper round but it won't NOT kill you stone dead.
There is a gunpowder fantasy book, "The Thousand Names" by Django Wexler, that actually flat out states that the official manual of arms for the Royal Army of Vordan (one of the main European Analogues in the story) includes spit loading. Specifically, I point to page 67, where the steps are given as: 1. Tear cartridge in half, holding the ball in your teeth; 2. Pour some powder into the pan and close; 3. Pour powder down the barrel; 4. Spit ball down the barrel; 5. Ram home. I have a few other issues with the depiction of the army in the book. For example, it only refers to a single Regiment but the regiment is apparently 4,000 men strong with some guns and a detachment of cavalry. The Regiment, specifically called the First Colonial Infantry Regiment (for some reason known only to them, as they are not stationed in a colony). It is organized into four battalions, each of approximately 8 companies. Each battalion is led by a Major, with a Colonel commanding the Regiment. Companies are 120 men, lead by a Lieutenant with only a single Sergeant and 6 Corporals (though some, including the 7th Company where are main hero (a young woman pretending to be a man to escape something that I'm not sure of back in her homeland) is assigned only have 3 corporals). The cavalry element is also commanded by a captain and is I believe in company strength, given that there are multiple references to a desire for more cavalry. The artillery itself seems to contain two batteries, mostly light pieces of 4 to 6 pounds. I can't really find exact numbers for the guns but I'd venture at least 8 and perhaps as many as 16, with perhaps 200 or 300 men. The book itself is entertaining enough, even if the farbery can be distracting.
In the Sharpe novels they don't spit load only in the show. They tap load in desperation. I remember one time they were fighting a retreating action and tap loading gave them mobility since you can't run while loading. But the author is clear that this is pretty much just a psychological deterance to their attackers since the fire was much less effective.
Broadly speaking, do not point a gun at anything you don't mind being destroyed. That does include the front section of your head. And while the Sharpe series was occasionally entertaining, it didn't lean heavily on historical accuracy.
It was about as "historical!y accurate" as Fess Parker's portrayal of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett! (There's something to cover, Brandon! Maybe?) It was entertaining though!
I saw a lecture on the Baker rifle at the British Army museum well before Sharpe came out and the lecturer produced a small hammer as well as a ramrod. He then demonstrated how the riflemen would ensure good seating on the rifle's grooves with a wrapped musket ball by tapping the ramrod down the barrel with the hammer. He also emphasised that accuracy rather than speed of fire was pre-requisite for a rifleman.
I've searched for the Spanish army: "spit-loading" makes no sense for the Spanish Model 1752 musket with its "Miquelet lock" (which was an unique type of flintlock, the Model 1836 rifle replaces it with a percussion cap). For the reloading process, you needed to add gunpowder to the hammer so the flint would trigger the firing, in addition to adding the gunpowder (rammed) and the ball. The advantage was that the Miquelet lock was extremely sturdy.
Another enjoyable show Brandon! Now on to business. I have no idea how the idea of "spit loading" came about, unless it comes from a 1971 film called "Man In The Wilderness" starring Richard Harris as mountain man Hugh Glass. At the beginning of the film Harris fires a smoothbore fowling piece then reloads it by priming, pouring the powder down the barrel, then rolling a ball in his mouth and then dropping it down the barrel and tapping the buttstock on the ground. Needless to say you don't want to leave a wet bullet in the barrel for any length of time, it might ruin the powder. Anyway, maybe the myth of spit loading began there? At any rate, one of the first things I learned shooting muzzle-loading longarms at the same time the film came out was NEVER place any part of the body over the muzzle, especially after firing the first shot! And according to Major George Nonte's "Black Powder Guide," the muzzleloading bible of the time, you shouldn't rush the reloading process anyway. Nonte' put it this way: "Take your time! A soldier at Yorktown or Gettysburg HAD to reload quickly or take a bayonet through the throat. YOU don't have that problem. So take it easy and do it right!" As far as tap-loading is concerned SUPPOSEDLY Roger's Rangers used a method for rapid fire like that. Their muskets had slightly oversize touchholes so the procedure was dump the powder, drop a naked lead ball down the barrel, then slam the butt on the ground. The slam would seat the ball and force powder through the oversize touchhole automatically priming the pan. Is it true? I'm not sure. I read about that method 40 years ago but haven't seen anything about it since. Anyway, that's enough from me. Again, good show! Always a pleasure watching you! By the way, I LOVED Richard Sharpe! The series had quite a few inaccuracies in it (OK, more than a few) but Sean Bean was cool! (So was David Troughton's Wellington! Another story.)
selfpriming muskets was pretty common in the mid 18th century in Europe... but most armies stopped using them, because they had even worse effective range than musket where you had to prime from the outside. (loos of pressure true the touchhole and a bigger flash.)
@@BrandonF You're welcome! Actually, "Man In The Wilderness" is a pretty good movie and period piece. The Leo DiCaprio film "The Revenant" is a kinda-sorta remake of the 1971 film.
@@thomasbaagaard The only self-priming European musket I'm aware of was the Prussian. Invented by a Lieutenant von Freitag in 1781 the breechplug and the touch-hole inside the barrel were rounded so the act of ramming the charge would funnel some of the powder into the pan. If any other European army tried the same I'm not aware of it. But then the Prussian muskets were heavy, awkwardly stocked, and with a poor trigger placement so I don't think there was much about the Prussian musket anyone wanted to copy. I've handled a bunch of period muskets of the 18th Century and trust me, the best in my opinion is the Brown Bess. In the early 19th Century I'd prefer an M1808 or M1816 Springfield. The touch-holes on the Ranger's muskets were supposedly SLIGHTLY oversize, but as I said I can't confirm the story. Certainly a touch-hole that's too big is going to cause pressure loss and concurrant loss of range and killing power.
@@BrandonF CS Forester also uses the 'spit-loading' method in 'Death to the French/Rifleman Dodd' (1932). Chapter 4 starts by describing Dodd loading his rifle: "....He took a cartridge from his pouch and bit the bullet-- a half-inch sphere of lead-- out of the paper container. He poured the powder into the barrel, all save a pinch which went into the priming pan, whose cover he carefully replaced. He folded the empty cartridge into a wad, which he pushed down the barrel on top of the charge with the ramrod which he took from its socket along the barrel. Then he spat the bullet into the muzzle; it only fell down an inch or so, for it happened to be one of the more tightly-fitting bullets-- extreme prescision of manufacture was not demanded or considered necessary by those in authority." Dodd finishes loading with the help of a small mallet. Forester also mentions British soldiers loading in this way in 'The Frogs and the Lobsters' in Mr Midshipman Hornblower, (1950). I strongly suspect Cornwell got the idea from Forester since he cites him as a main inspiration for his own work. Where Forester got the idea from I have no idea but I would love to know if you or anyone else uncovered any more information. It is also notable that in the novel 'Sharpe's Eagle', loading the musket with one's mouth is (briefly) mentioned, but the implication is that that's how Sharpe and everyone else had been trained to do it, it's not presented as an unusual or special method in-universe. The scene instead establishes Our Hero's rad leadership skills, bringing the new soldiers up to scratch by showing faith in their ability rather than bullying them and then punishing them for their inevitable failure (and letting them have fun destroying the hated leather stocks without fear of consequences lol). I deeply enjoy the TV show but the writers had a habit of taking something like that and just developing it into something it wasn't in the source material (see also whatever they decided 'Chosen Man' meant) or just making weird writing choices they presumably thought were super cool and clever.
I love how his videos seem to be done in one whole take (or one long take with only a small handful of cuts / pauses ) instead do cuts here and there . And there’s nothing wrong with cuts but for him to know what he wants to say and speak on it for a whole video (some being very long ) without much stutter or getting stumped on what to say or what comes to mind. And yes I’m sure he may practice what to say or have a script but being able to go along the whole video without a pause is great. It feels like a teacher or a lecture . It really makes it seem like he knows what he’s talking about , being confident in knowing exactly what he’s trying to convey ❤️
I don't appreciate the hate for the show Sharpe, it's really quite good and a huge part of my childhood, I think you're missing the trees through the forest, the show makes it very clear that Sharpe is unorthodox with his tactics and you can't use him personally instructing to say that the whole portrayal is bad, it's like hating on Top Gun because he does a reckless stunt and "ReAl PiLoTs DiDn'T dO tHaT"
I had never seen Sharpe, but was just watching a random clip and was so confused as to what they were doing with the barrel. I immediately came here knowing Brandon must have done a video on this
Its a good thing Sharpe only teach it to the soldiers in one episode, though you do see spit loading occasionally popping in other episodes. I remember there was another episode where the character Hagman drilled a group of soldiers using proper reloading technique. So I guess the spit loading is only taught by Sharpe in that one episode to help speed up the soldiers fire rate.
The only people I ever heard of spit loading were pirates in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. And I guess this explains why; it’s stupid, dangerous, and not necessarily faster or more efficient.
Whether or not it's historical please do not do it in real life, guys. You're putting the muzzle near your head. Practice firearm safety at all times. We may disagree, but how can you disagree with me if you're dead?
I'm actually reading the Sharpe books right now, and while I will admit that he refers to "spitting the b bullet" intuitive the mussel a couple times, it's mostly actually tap loading that is described. And in the infamous scene you're referring to in the books it's actually just regular loading with the ramrod.
Ahh, but 99% of the readers would take the writing as gospel and the books would sell better as we all love a main character that knows better than the corrupt and incompetent generals.
For what it's worth, one thing I've found reference to that incorporates *part* of this, is that while nobody who had paper cartridges tried to spit the ball into the barrel, skipping or hurrying the use of the ramrod was often done during drills like this. See, the Prussians were scary dudes who took their skills seriously, and they drilled until they could fire six rounds a minute... Everyone else in Europe really wanted to be as impressive as they were, but they didn't really want to invest the massive amount of training time and ammunition. So when the higher-ups really want to see you do something, but don't want you to spend the time and effort required for you to actually get that good, you cheat. And occasionally you get caught cheating, and there are a few recorded messages coming down the chain of command to the effect of "Please don't artificially inflate your rounds per minute by neglecting to ram the ball all the way home. It lets you shoot faster, but it loses over half the power, and it's better to be able to hurt the other guy, even if you have to shoot more slowly to do it."
I see you talk about how a musket is normally loaded at 7:56. With a paper cartridges, tearing off the end with the powder with your teeth, and then shoving the whole thing down the barrel. I've seen one or two sources I can no longer remember the names of saying that never happened. Rather reloading went like this. Tearing off the end with the powder with your teeth, pouring the powder down the barrel, and then removing the bullet from the paper, putting the bullet at the end of the muzzle, and then ramming the bullet down the barrel. The way I'd always seen it done was leaving the bullet in the paper and shoving the whole thing in. I mean, of course, after tearing the end with the powder open.
On your later portion. I think it is something that we commonly see with people assuming officers were incompetent and didn't know what they were doing. Things like the idea that militaries initially opposed breach loading cartridge firearms because they didn't want the soldiers firing quickly. I am sure officers would have loved to increase the rate of fire of their troops, but they could not have supplied enough brass cased ammunition to maintain a campaign versus just supplying powder and ball (and paper to wrap it in) for muzzle-loaders. And you know what is worse than a soldier shooting slowly? A soldier not shooting because they have no ammunition. Or WWI where people don't realize that both sides were constantly implementing new things. For example the spring 1917 offensives by the British and French used techniques developed in 1916. Then, when they went up against German defenses in the 1916 model at Vimy Ridge they were quite successful, but elsewhere when they went against new German defensive techniques based on their experience in 1916 they had huge issues.
@@leeboyko9019 The Canadian Corps weaa part of the British Army command structure and followed British Army policies and regulations. Same with other Imperial forces. The colonial forces provided important contributions, not just in cannon fodder, but also with minds not saddled with the baggage many old-school European soldiers and officers had. But even as a Canadian, I can recognize they were effectively part of the British army. For Vimy, it wasn't so much that there was innovation as it pulled together all the innovations from 1914 through 1916 and put them into practice against a 1916-style German defensive position (Vimy's defenses had not been updated for various reasons including that the nature of the ridge as a key strategic feature did not readily facilitate defense in depth and the local commander didn't like the idea). The exact same tactics used elsewhere were dramatically less successful as the Germans had also learned from the prior year and had adopted new tactics to counter it.
In a particular book by Gary Zaboly, called American Colonial Ranger, it is mentioned that Dennis Stanley, a New Hampshire frontiersman, used spit loading in combat against Native Americans and also supposedly shot four moose in a row using this technique. This was during the French and Indian War. Id be curious to know if this claim is accurate... Here's the quoted text: "the New Hampshire frontier provided some of the best rangers. Fast-loading during a hunt or an Indian fight was done by spitting bullets directly into the barrel. At Cherry Pond, Dennis Stanley shot down four moose in a row."
I've got the Zaboly book (thanks for reminding me) and remember that passage. I'd like to know if it's accurate myself. Then again, Dennis Stanley may have been exaggerating, especially if there were no witnesses. I'll have to check the book. Concerning exaggerations I'm reminded of one of Major Roger's rules: "Remember, there is an army relying on us for information. Lie all you want to about the Rangers and yourself but DON'T ever lie to an officer about where you've gone and what you've seen!"
1. Before watching the video, I thought the "spit loading" mentioned in the thumbnail was like when you see troops in the movies tear their pre-made cartridge pack open with their mouth then spit out the portion they ripped off before pouring the powder into the lock. Lordy was I WAY off. 2. I knew an Iraqi soldier who used to do stupid stuff with his AK on the regular when I was overseas...lets just say one day he was no longer showing up on missions. Gents, don't be stupid with a firearm!
Also- I reference another RUclips video here in a fairly negative light, but that is NOT an invitation to go and be super degen on other people's videos. If you happen to find your way there, or to any other video promoting this technique, feel free to explain how it is not historical and how it is deeply unsafe, but do NOT harass people about it. There's no need to brigade anyone, either. If you see one or two other comments pointing out that it is inaccurate, you probably don't need to add your own saying the exact same thing. Especially not in my name. That kind of harassment would, if it takes place, be totally unacceptable and totally unnecessary.
English people use the word "nonce" only as a slang word for paedophile and as an Irish citizen made that mistake when I was younger talking to a young lady, just a heads up Brandon
Huh, that one is definitely news to me!
@@BrandonF was to me and they only use that word for that and you never what to tell an brit you have been " noncing" about like a young paddy did to an English woman he liked
@@BrandonF I really hope the video will stop people from doing it, or even prevent a horrible accident.
@@dogwhistle8836 Fascinating!
In Australia (and we inherited the word from the British) 'nonce' is an archaic term meaning 'idiot' or 'fool'.
"Anyone who tells you to put a loaded gun in your mouth - probably, does not have your best interests in mind." - Sir Brandon Fischella MP, Pamphleteer and Historian. (Empire Total War loading screen)
ooooh if I had any modding skills I'd make that a mod lol
Empire total war was the single best total war.
If it wasn't for the bugs and crashes I say people would have considered it better than even ME2
@@spiffygonzales5160The Empire II: Total War mod shows how much cut content from the original game could have made it the best total war ever made.
"Don't fellate a loaded gun -- or any gun, for that matter. It's weird!"
@@spiffygonzales5160 Rome 1 was the best (the generals that would gain hillarious traits like being lazy if you left them in a city too long, or scared if they lost too many battles, or anything from brave to reckless if they kept winning against greater numbers of enemy)
But having almost a whole world in Empire was epic. And the 17th century uniforms too.
Debunking myths of a 90’s popular show? Now that’s soldiering
Now that's like a third of my career!
And a book series
A fellow Chosen Man, I see.
Sharpe has a lot of cringe moments, but I will not apologize for liking it.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher same, to call it mostly historically accurate is an absolute lie, but it is wildly entertaining.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher we do not talk about Sharpe’s gold xd
Drillmaster: "You can spit the shot into the muzzle to reload if you're in a hurry"
Recruit: "...really?"
Drillmaster: "Sure, if you want to scorch your lips on the insanely hot barrel and run the risk of an accidental discharge and blowing your head off"
Oh man, I actually didn't even think about how badly it'd burn the lips! Good point!
@@BrandonF I just thought of something else from the Sharpe series - there's a scene where Harper fires his ramrod from the Baker rifle in lieu of loading a shot. Would this be possible?
@@fogwar To shoot it? Absolutely, and it can go pretty far, too! Though going right through an unfortunate man on the other side? Well I am not too sure. I actually have an old video where I shoot my ramrod and it does embed itself pretty solidly in the ground.
@@BrandonF Wouldn't this be a matter of the weight of the ramrod? Considering how much more it would weigh compared to the musket ball, even though it would technically contain the same energy (that is IF you didn't ram the ball down there as well, in which case the energy of the ramrod would be severely diminished) but flying through the air at lower speed. The question is then how fast it bleeds energy and how much is needed to penetrate a uniform and body of an opponent. This is all, of course, looking away from the fact that the end of the ramrod does not actually have a sharp, pointy end, fit for penetrating any sort of solid matter.
@@bofoenss8393 In the case of wooden rammer, you have about 30 yards range in which you can relatively easily injure someone if you hit them (ramrods are rather severely inaccurate). However, in the case of steel rods, it is rather easy to kill a target in the same range so long as the rammer doesn't tumble. In fact, in the 1990's a Civil War reenactor was killed at about 35 yards by just such a mishap. There is a reason main stream reenactments forbid the use of rammers and packing of paper now...
Sharpe didn’t need a rifle himself. He was tough enough to spit the balls directly at the enemy.
Funny thing is he rarely actually uses his rifle in the show, he almost always fights with a cavalry sword. Also his sergeant, Patrick, carries a Nock gun, which was a naval firearm (barely practical even in that role) and had little value to a rifleman serving in his intended role. But you know, cool factor and all that.
@Some Guy The knock gun in the books was actually a Christmas present Sharpe’s got Harper when he borrowed from his Navy pals after during the Expedition to Copenhagen (Sharpe’s Prey)
Sharpe's balls have claimed many French soldiers' lives. And some Spanish, too.
It was only in 1816 that watermelon seeds overtook shot as the preferred munition for HMS Sharpe.
If he taught others to fellate the ball recepticle, then I guess the show took a weird turn when he started spitting the balls at his opponents directly...
You didn’t mention that, after a few shots, a musket barrel would burn lips that got too close.
I enjoy your videos.
Excellent point, I’d never thought of that!
anyone who shot a gun a couple of times knows that...
Also saliva is bad for gunpowder.
I make that mistake often when blowing water of out my rifle during cleaning.
Probably evaporate the spit too
“I am not arguing that it is impossible to stick a loaded gun in your mouth.” Favorite Brandon quote.
The best example of "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
The Sharpe TV series was a bit of a low budget mess that departed greatly from the books....so I will give Brandon that fact. However, the books are extremely scholarly from both a historical and military perspective. YES, Mr. Cornwell could get a bit silly with Sharpe always saving the day and getting the girl in every book, but as far as his depictions of battle and the historical details of the Peninsular war, he was spot on. Also, to my point, tap loading came up in the books, but spit loading (aka Fellating the barrel) was an invention of the writers of the TV show, not the creator of the Sharpe Series of books who never described such a thing.
I have never understood why TV/film writers and directors are so fond of getting stuff wrong for no good reason.
Exactly 👍 TV film director's do like to F things up from the source.
@@jbaidley they try to make thier mark
@@jbaidley Because they want to make sharpe look like a special forces guy who goes against the upper class orthodox thinking and beats the enemy with guile. Its why its a great tv show. Its also a pretty good way to get kids/ teenagers into history.
The tv show was brilliant, even though for a battlion they had 100 men instead of 10,000 🤣
Just to clarify another point that people may bring up; I have heard people talking about how English Civil War soldiers, lacking cartridges and relying on bandoliers, etc. would sometimes keep spare musket shot in their mouths for easier access. Although it's not something I've even looked into, so even that may or may not be accurate. Even still, if it is true, I'd be *very* surprised to hear about them then "spitting" those balls down the barrel though, rather than just keeping them there like militant chipmunks. But I think we can all agree that this is very clearly different from what I am talking about in this video.
Why would a soldier prefer to store shot in their mouth and not in their pouches. As for spitting the ball what a load of nonsense, tapping yes spitting no.
@@The_Reality_Filter Yeah, I am not too sure about why, either. It's something I've been told about but I've not looked into it. I'll actually edit the comment to make sure people know that may not necessarily be true.
@@The_Reality_Filter It's more convenient, rather than have to fiddle around with a pouch and flimsy lead balls? Keep in mind that you not only had the bandolier flasks, but also a priming powder flask as well, but a fork too. Imo it's completely reasonable, especially with people not really having safety standards (and it sounding like one of those old mercenary tricks or something).
@@filthyweaboo2694 it sounds like utter nonsense in my opinion. I really cannot imagine a Sergeant in the British Army advising his men to put their mouths over a loaded weapon. They may well have held the shot in their mouths prior to loading and tapping but never spitting. That's just way too dangerous even for those crazy days.
Sometimes native Americans would do that if they had limited ammunition and before they could get cartridges, but it's not remotely preferable, and I've read nothing about spitting being other than something out of convenience. It's not a preferable technique.
"well, you see spit loading it technically possible..."
So is wiping my bum with sandpaper, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
My grandmother ( born 1894) had an uncle with part of his jaw and cheek shot away spit loading on horseback, well before she was born. Hunting buffalo he had developed the bad habit of putting the weapon under his thigh after discharging his weapon and would reload using that method, apparently after firing the muzzleloader more than a few times the barrel overheated as he spit the ball the weapon discharged and shot away part of his jaw, he lingered,according to the story, for about a week before dying. Needless to say she never met him.
Look, I know that Sharpe has the budget of a cornerstore 7/11. I know that most, if not everything is horribly wrong. I have to admit though, I love this show. It's goofy, and a lot of fun. The historically accurate electric guitar solo as sean bean always gets cut in the leg or the back since he can't die in this show. Historical FICTION (being the key word) at it's low budget finest.
...and who can forget the young Liz Hurley.
@@Bokfanlettucelip Grant seemed to forget her for a bit......
I am an ACW living historian, so I am very familiar with the American Army muzzle loading drills from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. At least one of the manuals states in its forward that a primary concern was safety. No army wishes to waste a man, equipped and trained at government expense, and whose firepower and bayonette are critical to fighting the battle, through the carelessness or stupidity of either the soldier or his rank and file mates. Although spit loading is not specifically prohibited, it is obvious that the authors of these drills were keen on preventing the men from placing any part of their bodies over the muzzle while loading.
Ooh, that sounds like an interesting thing to quote one day. Do you happen to know precisely which manual so I can look into it?
You are right about the manual of arms.
But at the same time it is not that hard to find photos of civil war soldiers holding their hands over the muzzle. And the same with Danish soldiers in 1864.
Clearly there is a difference between when on the battlefield and when getting a photo taken. But the modern idea of never putting anything in front of the muzzle is simply not there.
@@BrandonF I am an ordnance officer for an ACW group in the NW, I know I have seen references to safety concerns in Scott's Manuel in my antebellum research, as well as in Hardy's and Casey's manuals adopted in that order during the run up to Civil War. They are readily available so have fun reading!
@@BrandonF You might also look into the predecessor manuals to Scott's, as they are relevant to the War of 1812 part of the Napoleonic wars, as well as U.S. anti-piracy operations.
@@thomasbaagaard Presumably the rifles were not loaded when being photographed. I know that today all weapons are always treated as loaded, but perhaps that practice had not yet been developed.
It makes me feel childish, but hearing Brandon say "fellate the muzzle" caught me so off guard that I broke down laughing
Don't fellate a loaded gun, it's weird!
I still jokingly call sex acts--particularly handjobs--as "performing the manual exercise"
Especially at the end "Don't fellate a loaded gu...or any gun for that matter, it's just weird!". Up till then he was very straight face an almost scientific in the use the word. At the end he goes full on double entrant meme.
@@snagletoothscott3729 "Snagletooth" reminds me of a cat we once had. Great name.
That's Budd Dwyering
To the theme of incompetence becoming the driver of an institution:
A running joke exists in the US Army that a new Lieutenant can look at a compass and see the letters "L-O-S-T" on it.
The usual retort is that while the Lieutenant may or may not be able to read a map, at least he can read at all.
I remember distinctly the lieutenant ignoring the direction of all the enlisted and getting us lost on a field exercise on his own insurance.
I think we learned a different lesson about officers than he might have been trying to reach us that day.
@@BeKindToBirds I’m sure the odd LT manages to fuck up notably, but I can remember many, many times more incidents of sergeants fucking up things in way no self-respecting officer ever would have, everything from trivial matters like slides to important matters like accounting for SI.
@@jamesharding3459 Had a buddy do military exercises where the reserves were involved - ended up with a reserve LT that managed to make so many bad decisions they ended up having to airlift a rescue planes on skis out to pick them up.
The best part of the story is that these little STOL planes flying around in the middle of nowhere at night led to a whole series of conspiracy theories about the military "securing UFOs" in the region.
This is similar to me explaining to my class why the British fought in lines and how they were not stupid for doing so.
Was that an oral presentation? *snicker*
Or having to explain WW1 generals weren't actually stupid, stuffy idiots, they just didn't have anything else to try.
@@secretbaguette
That's the one I REALLY don't get.
"They just threw men at their enemies"
Like yea, they went to years and years of military school, served time in their various militaries, some saw first hand combat, and they contemplated for hours every day how to brake the stalemate...
and all they could think of was "I dunno just throw some men at em."
How do people believe this stuff?
@@spiffygonzales5899 It happens in ww2 too. "Yeah bro the red army used human wave tactics" is one of the most common things, when if you actually read through history almost all if not all of those attacks were by lost and disorganized units in the early days, and they lost, because obviously human wave tactics don't work.
@@kazak8926
Agreed. As far as human wave tactics go, Russia would have only used them in the sense that they rounded up dissadents and prisoners and sent them to fight to test German defenses.
But did they say "oh hey, let's just.... throw men at em!"
No. No they did not. And even the thing with the prisoners is hotly debated.
>risk of breaking your teeth on the ball
>elevated risk of lead poisoning
>risk of swallowing the ball
>risk of blowing a golf ball size hole vertically through your skull
>no substantial speed advantage or outright speed disadvantage
The Berber horsemen, of Northwestern Africa, do have an interesting, and visual theatrical method for reloading their Kabyle snaphance musket, while their horses are at full gallop. Their method of loading, also seemed to exclude the use of the ramrod, it did have a serious of twirling flourishes, that, may use centrifugal effect, to compact the blackpowder in breech.
Now, the premise of the Sharpe series was, that, a battle-hardened, grizzled, experienced, veteran, professional earns his officer’s rank through a personal act of valor. The writers of show wanted to show Richard Sharpie as having learned a few “tricks of the trade”, and techniques. Sharpie, according to series, served in the east, prior in career. Sharpie has to be portrayed as person of extraordinary merits, to be worthy of changing his status.
I wouldn't try that. In a black powder firearm, if the bullet isn't properly seated on the charge, you can have pressure spikes that can bulge or even rupture the barrel. I don't think centrifugal force would be enough to seat the bullet properly. Tapping the butt on the ground works because the inertia of the bullet carries it down the barrel with gravity when the musket comes to an abrupt stop as the butt hits the ground, but unless you had an undersized bullet, I think there would be too much friction between the bullet and bore for the bullet to properly seat. And if you're using an undersized bullet, you'll have a massive drop in pressure from blow by as gas passes between the sides of the bullet and the bore, so a weapon with an already short range would be of little use. I think you're right when you say it's visual and theatrical in that they would be likely have been doing it for show, probably using wax bullets.
@@ktgiffin8147 : Agreed, better there is a difference in attitude of “civilized” regimented battle formation, and “oh shit, here comes the frenzied, bloodthirsty, screaming, enemy horde over the hill.”
Okay, let’s assume that they are using undersized projectiles. In a line-abreast formation, accuracy is not be a priority. The volume and frequency of volley-fire would be primary concern. So, the projectile won’t be as accurate, okay, it won’t have the same muzzle velocity. But, the projectiles will still give the enemy some really good boo-boos.
@@salavat294 Doubtful. The effective range of a musket is about 100 yards, and at the charge, cavalry could cover that distance in probably about 15 seconds. They would have time for one volley, and then they'd be in the mêlée, where muskets would be useless. So why would they be reloading? Cavalry fought with swords and lances instead of firelocks for a reason.
@@ktgiffin8147 : In a cavalry charge to “soften up” an infantry formation, it would seem practical at range to fire the musket or carbine, then switch to saddle pistols, lance for initial impact, and in mêlée switching to sabre.
@@ktgiffin8147 : Alexander Suvorov’s favored tactic was two volleys at enemy, followed immediately by a bayonet charge. He never defeated on the battlefield. Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov was his protégé.
Bloody hell, Sean Bean can't even appear in a video on Brandon's channel without being murdered.
Best comment 🏅
(applause)
Well, Sharpe did take all the luck away from Sean Bean.
Hey Brandon. Just began watching Sharpe recently actually. I have to say despite all of these issues I do love the series. Was wondering if you had a video on THAT scene.
Perfect timing!
The show has a lot of these mistakes, likely from the writers misunderstanding the descriptions in the books. Bernard Cornwell likely didn't have a lot of input, just look at the difference between the book and show versions of Sharpe's Gold. You go from looting a treasure caravan to some weird mayan/conquistador death cult in Napoleonic spain.
Cornwell has repeatedly stated in interview after interview that he had no input in the films whatsoever.
" weird mayan/conquistador death cult" happened because of either some insurance claims, or they didn't want to pay original crew .They filmed some scene true to the book, and then had to reshoot with different script in order to collect insurance money.
@@dorotakarpiel6717 so they fucked up the story because of insurance money? Not sure I get it.
@@AnUtterSimpleton I was trying to find source of this information. i read this some time ago, more then 10 years , on some internet forum. They filmed some scenes, something happened, I do not remember, an actor had been injured, or had to replaced for some reason. They collected insurance money, then comes lawyers and explains you either return the money or start something entirely different. Maybe this is pure speculation, maybe made up by some Sharpe fan?
@@dorotakarpiel6717 I mean, it sounds like the kind of meddlesome bullshit that happens in the film business so I could believe it.
I always suspected it was a way of hiding the fact that musket balls weren’t actually being loaded in close up - and to also avoid having to make lead ball props
I suppose it could be, but really, in the proper loading sequence you can't see the musket ball always, since it's at the bottom of the cartridge. While technically a blank would lack the telltale 'bulge' at its bottom without a ball, I think that's a far smaller problem to worry about film-making wise!
As I type this, Sean Bean is garroting Brandon and whispering in his ear, "The 95th sends its regards."
That's literally rule number one of firearm safety.
Rule 1 of life...don't put shit in your mouth
@@silverpairaducks but im houngery
Three of the four, actually
I don't think I'd call Sharpe a 'Gary Stu'. For starters, most the other officers hate him. Even his own men dislike him until he earns their respect. Also he's shown to be totally out of his depth when it comes to polite society and paperwork (he's bad at reading and writing and what have you). You make a good point, in that these sorts of shows like to portray authority as incompitent to make the protagonist look good, but I don't think they ever suggested that Sharpe came up with the loading method. It was framed more as something experienced troops might use to boost their loading speed. Yes, it's not correct, but this series was made in the early 90s. By the standards of the time (pre 'Saving Private Ryan'-Which to me is a turning point in the mainstream actually caring about getting things right) the show's pretty good. Thanks for the vid! :D
I think what keeps Sharpe from being a complete Gary Stu is that he has strong emotional flaws. The conflict of a lot of the Sharpe stories comes from him losing his cool, doing something stupid, and having to deal with the consequences.
0:50 No Brandon don't do it!! There's so many more Assassins creed games for you to tare apart! You have so much to live for!
Some drunk Russian probably once tried it and gifted his skullcap to a bird.
I'd believe it.
Leaving aside the notion of pointing a loaded gun right towards your own face, there is another consideration. Lead is actually soft enough that you can dent it with your teeth, so accidentally biting down too hard would likely deform the ball, adversely affecting its flight characteristics.
Ideally you'd also want to minimize the amount of saliva that comes into contact with your powder as well, since unburned (saliva-soaked) powder is liable to exacerbate fouling.
Thank you, I was just about to make the same comment! ...though, from an efficiency point of view, the biggest risk is accidentally biting directly on the bullet and deforming it to the point where it won't go down the barrel at all.
The lead ball wouldn't harm the barrel in the least. The ball might become deformed by ramming it down excessively, but that wouldn't hurt the barrel at all. Anything that contacts the barrel, like tooth marks and such, would get scrubbed off against the bore.
It's not that soft. You'd have to intentionally bite hard to deform it, and it's not made to fraction of a millimeter tolerance to begin with.
It could also give the user lead poisoning likely
Putting a soft lead ball in your mouth cannot be a good idea.
It’s a while since I read it so I could be a bit off on the details. But the weird thing about that scene is that (from what I remember) it actually conveys the exact opposite of the one in the book. I don’t recall if the book version had spitting or not but I’m pretty sure Sharpe was teaching them to do it “properly” and efficiently, not to cut corners. But I suppose by the musket drill book Sharpe is at least superficially at odds with maverick, show the posh idiots how it’s really done Sharpe that the series leans into. Book Sharpe was a great soldier because he combined out of the box thinking with sound understanding of period strategy and tactics. Not because he cut corners at the expense of combat effectiveness.
It’s been ages since I read the books but I recall that sharpe realised that a part of the soldiers uniform was inhibiting the reload process so he made them rip it off
@@georgeofazgad2176 Likely their stocks. It was a stiff piece put under the collar to keep the soldiers heads upright and help the men stand at attention more easily. It was commonly known then that the stocks served basically no purpose in battle, and so the majority of units did not wear them into battle. However, as standardization of anything but weaponry and uniforms was non existent at the time, it is possible that some officers had their men wear their stocks into battle, as well. Now, these officers would likely be called out by someone superior to them who knew that the practice was stupid, rather than an entire regiment following it as seen in Sharpe, but it is possible
@@georgeofazgad2176 Yes, I believe he has them discard the leather stocks that they wear around their necks in both versions. Which may be just setting them up for disciplinary action by another officer later but does seem well meaning. I think a big part of that was it being fresh in his own mind how uncomfortable it was when he had to wear one. But when it comes to the practical and functional side of soldiering, he is less inclined to tear up the rule book.
I am conscious of just how many books where written though as well as how long it’s been, so perhaps some of them skew more towards TV Sharpe. Im not sure.
Ok, so in Sharpe’s Eagle he is described as spitting the ball in when demonstrating shooting to the South Essex. He does not emphasise this point to the men, nor does he advocate tap loading. It is unclear if he sticks to the letter or whatever Cornwell believes to be the correct drill manual. But it is stated that firing rapidly comes with experience with no mention of corner cutting. And they not only take off the stocks but also use them as targets.
So I would still maintain that the overall message of the scene in the series is contrary to Sharpe’s philosophy in the books but the video’s main point about fellating the barrel still seems applicable.
Perhaps the show creators were trying to reference tap loading, but something got very lost in translation, or they just thought "How could we improve tap loading to make it look really special?"
I don't know. What I do know is that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I am not an Anglophile, nor have I shot anything older than a No4 mk 1, but the idea of trying to test that by putting the barrel of a gun anywhere near one's self has me saying words. None of them kind.
Shows like sharpe hold a soft spot in my heart.
They try to be authentic if not accurate and when I was a lot younget acted as a springboard too much deeper reasearch.
Sharpe will definitely be a starting point when I try to get my kids into history.(whether they like it or not)
I hate that after at least a thousand years of explosive firearms, it still needs to be repeated: "Don't point an end of your barell at something you are not willing to destroy. Not even unloaded. Never. Just don't."
Honestly, spit-loading sounds like something we would have mentioned at a safety brief when I was in the Army, alongside drinking and driving, drinking and boating, drinking and, well, you get the idea.
I've said it before and said it again: BUT SEAN BEAN. Yes, he's also in LOTR, but that's only 2 hours! The series has like 15x the Sean Bean the LOTR movies has!
Anyways, thanks for the informative video.
The universal firearms safety rules: Treat guns as if it's loaded, Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, Always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction, Be sure of your target & beyond. For the benefit of anyone who may not be familiar.
"Be sure of your target and beyond." The "and beyond" is one that gets forgotten about too often and treated way, WaY too casually. And yes, this ties into always treating any gun as if it's loaded.
Having watched Sharpe for the first time recently, I'm glad to see that I was right to raise an eyebrow at this spit-loading business. Like.... how would it actually save time to hold the lead shot in your mouth to then spit it in the barrel? Typical loading procedure had you pouring powder into the muzzle from the cartridge which already had a ball in it.... it's right there, just pop it in the bore. You even have the paper cartridge lined up with the barrel already. Just finish inserting it completely.
Surely, leaning forward to place your mouth around the muzzle would just take a fraction of a second longer....
You called my favourite show of the 90s stupid. I am now googling for plane tickets to wherever you live and I got my duelling glove with me. You better prepare!
Really my intent was to say the main character is stupid, but I am not a fan of the show either.
@@BrandonF it's been 2 years, who won the duel?
"The musketeer now bit the end off each cartridge when loading, retained the ball in his mouth, and tipped the powder into the muzzle. He then spat the ball after the powder and folded up the paper to serve as the wad, before ramming down as before." The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough, by David Chandler. Pub 1976. Mr Chandler gives no source for this, So it hardly seems fair to be trying to blame Mr Sharpe, Mr Cornwall, or the shows producers for using a well respected source, even if he is wrong. "It's just not cricket, Sir!"
I was a big fan of this series back in the 90's but i did wonder once or twice just how accurate it all was. Another entertaining and informative video Brandon.
Overall it was very accurate for TV fiction but like most TV fiction it was embellished for dramatic effect. The books are well worth a read, fast paced and more depth to the characters.
It's a good show for the narrative aspect, the action scenes and giving an overall picture of Napoleonic warfare. It's a terrible show for historical accuracy.
Thank you! And hey, it's fine to have it as a guilty pleasure....just so long as you feel the appropriate levels of guilt, of course!
I reckon if you wanted to make a film about a reenactor who accidentally shot their head off spit loading, Sean Bean would probably be up for it...
Also i never knew how much i DIDNT want to hear brandon say “fellate” until now.
And thus I came in search of copper, yet I found gold.
I like this comment
Sharpe also does an incredible injustice to William, the Prince of Orange. The Dutch and Belgians made sure that Wellington had time to prepare and this at a great cost
Indeed. “Slender Billy” was widely respected within the British Army for his good nature and his courage. But the entertainment industry will always prefer drama to calm competence and teamwork. .
If I had deserted Sharpe’s unit, would the defense “I didn’t want to have to pleasure my musket and have it blow my head off as a thank you.” have held up in court?
The rifleman in Sharpes never used this technique - it was only shown in one episode when then newly Officer Sharpe drills the South Essex which was musket men.
A better part of this series was his statement about how to kill officers when he drills the Irish Company. I would love to see an episode about the historical realities of that part of the series. He remarks that in a pinch the best idea is to club the officers' horse in the teeth (with amazing imagery) and then when it bucks the rider, you can finish him off.
If I'm not mistaken the words were "You turn your musket aroung and clubb the buggery out of the horse's mouth. And when that fat, overpayed bastard on top hits the ground, you still got time left to finish him off."
As someone who's punched and kicked a rather psycho horse that was attacking our horse (I was between the two in the pasture), I can attest that horses hold no particular opinions about heavy strikes. For context, I came in at 82 kg at the time and was doing competitive kickboxing. Pretty sure I was putting out more than Joe Average would. This horse was fairly small, weighing in at maybe 300-350 kg.
Punching it in the nose and teeth did nothing at all. Repeatedly kicking it in the front legs did though. The horse was limping for over a week (in the front legs) after the encounter at any rate.
The horse ran into me and sent me flying a good two meters, landing on my back. It's probably only due to tensing up and training my core muscles that I didn't break anything. Kept my head down or it'd have knocked me unconcious. Chest felt wrecked for several days, as if my ribs had come close to breaking.
What stopped the encounter is a roan in the same pasture saw the psycho horse going on and on and suddenly decided this was a threat to the herd, went full stallion mode, ran up and kicked it in the flank heavily twice.
@@nvelsen1975 The depictions of a horse being hit is usually armed, for example going for the teeth with a heavy cavalry sabre, bayonet, etc. I also suspect that a big wooden musket butt might work a little better than punches, though whether that is genuinely enough to get a horse to buck is definitely debatable.
"Jim tried to spit a bullet down the barrel of a gun."
"What happened?"
"The gun spat it back."
As ‚spitloading‘ has been discussed in several reenactor forums before I tried to track down this modern myth. And to my surprise this myth appeared long before Sharpe! The earliest reference we have is in Cecil S. Forester‘s „Mr. Midshipman Hornblower“ from the 1950ies. (Chapter: „The frogs and the lobsters“)
I know at least one historical source from the XVII century that describes spitloading in detail. So I don't think it is a modern myth.
It's one of the few Hornblower books I've not read yet, but I've heard the same thing! Which really surprises me, since I'd always held Hornblower in pretty high regard accuracy wise, and it's such a simple, low-level mistake to make.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Could you point me in that direction?
@@BrandonF Sure. The source is Polish, titled "Piechotne ćwiczenia albo wojenność piesza" (Exercises for infantry or infantry warfare) published in 1660 in Cracow and written by sir Błażej Lipowski.
The fragment that interests you can be found at the beginning of the chapter called Exercises with the Musket, in which Lipowski names the commands related to the use of this weapon.
The second command is "Put six bullets in your mouth" then several steps of loading the gun later "Bullet from mouth to the barrel".
I am not aware of any English translations of this treaty but If you want I can translate this whole chapter for you.
Why am I picturing a soldier in the heat of battle running towards enemy lines, and attempting to spit-load, they trip over the rough battlefield terrain, skewering the weapon through their head?
If I’m not mistaken, I haven’t watched Sharpe in more than a decade, Sharpe’s unit was equipped with rifles. I hunt with a traditional 50 caliber muzzleloading rifle that shoots lead round ball. I would not be able to load it with my mouth, my lips are not strong enough to engage the rifling much less get the bullet properly seated in the patch. Some dude do lubricant their patch with spit. This is sometimes referred to as spit-loading. But, it’s not the same process.
Also, I’d break the rifle trying to tap load it. But, I do tap the stock after loading the charge in order to fill the powered chamber of the percussion lock. But, engaging the rifling with the bullet is not something that can be accomplished with gravity.
But this is done by the line with smoothbores... not the rifles.
(in the TV series)
In the books (and possibly the films), some of the taploading was done on the Baker rifles, but to do so, they did it without patching, thus trading accuracy and power for speed.
Given your experience, would taploading work sans patch in your opinion?
Maybe. I haven’t measure the depth of the rifling. I use 0.49 inch diameter balls.
The patching is 0.018 inches. The purpose of patching is not just to engage the rifling, but to create a gas seal. I guess, if some dude is in your face, it doesn’t matter.
What do you hunt with that rifle, moose?
i would have always thought that tap loading would stop working once the barrel fouled up enough or at the very least work less n less as the fouling accumulates. would definitely love to se a d3monstration of if & how performance/effectiveness degrades over time
It is definitely something that, if it does work the first few times, would become slightly less efficient with every round fired for that reason. But it does take a good amount of firing to really foul up the barrel enough for it to be material, in my experience, and in most battles you wouldn't have very long protracted firefights. Especially in the situation where you're taploading, it's probably because the shooting is about to end, is my guess!
@@BrandonF Is it possible that tap loading was an emergency only technique, like "if some dumbass grunt loses his rammer, you do this"? Because, AFAIK, the aforementioned grunt would be in deep Doo Doo if he "lost" a vital part of his weapon, since the muskets were considered the King's property?
@@johnmullholand2044sorry for the late reply, but I believe that tap loading is more for getting one more volley before getting charged down and losing a ramrod isn't that important due to misfires cause it to fly away
Hahaha! this was hilarious. Well done
I must admit that I have read of hunters in the 18th century and Canadian Metis hunters in the mid 19th spit loading, because of the use of powder horns, and in this case they held the ammo without the powder in their mouths to get them down the barrel quicker but, regulars would have no need for such weirdness.
To be fair to Sharpe, apart from the very *very* chronological beginning, he isn't an NCO, he's an officer. There is quite a lot of emphasis on his not fitting in with the aristocratic officer class, and while there are a number of competent aristocratic officers in the books, the show tends to focus on the few who are purchasing commissions they have no business holding.
If you spit load enough times, as you see in the Sharpe series, the metal of the musket on the firing end, would eventually get red hot, so you would be putting your mouth on a super heated piece of metal, burning your tongue, lips, and likely the roof of your mouth. Just stick to loading with the ramrod, it's safer, and you don't waste all the gunpowder chewing through the paper cartridge. You also, don't run the risk of swallowing the musket ball.
It's not hoping to ever get "red hot", but yeah, you wouldn't want to put any sensitive part of your body on it. Even 5- 10 shots get a thin musket barrel hot enough that you want to touch it by the wooden stock only! I'd daresay that you'd never get a "meltdown" with a muzzleloader musket.
I'm a man of simple pleasures, I see a Brandon F video with Sharpe in the thumbnail, I'm compelled to click straight away quickly followed by "smashing that like button"
I enjoyed the the Sharpe series for what they were. They also were historic fiction
"Historical Fiction" is sometimes just an excuse for "We wanted to make a fantasy series but weren't creative enough."
@@BrandonF that's not the case with Sharpe, overall it was very accurate for TV fiction but ofc there would be embellishments for dramatic effect.
@@The_Reality_Filter Not too sure I agree. It's definitely not the worst, nowhere near it in fact, but with some of those plots...well, what I've seen is hardly good writing.
@@BrandonF I wish you spoke more about the accuracy of the rest of the series as well. I really liked it but do not know how accurate it was.
@@BrandonF It's not even in the realms of the worst but I will admit I was never as much a fan of the series as I was the books, they're a cracking read as is pretty much everything by Cornwall.
I’ve noticed Bernard Cornwell does the same thing in his Last Kingdom series. Uthred of Bebabanburg who didn’t really exist in the capacity of England’s making wins all of Alfred the Great’s battles for him thereby diminishing the achievements of the real Alfred painting him as nothing but a weird nerd and religious fanatic. I still do enjoy Cornwell’s books but I do see the problems.
"Spitters are quitters" -Brandon F, 2022
To their credit, there were some examples of incompetent officers in the British ranks (notably in the times when British officers could buy their commission). I've read in a book* that the British artillery officers in the 1850s / 60s were strongly opposed to Armstrong's breech loading system because they would misuse the guns and break them in the process. This incompetence eventually led to the British artillery's return to muzzle loading.
* Guns of the regiment by Doug Knight
Trying to correct Sharpe…
That’s NOT soldiering…
I have friends at Horse Guards who would disagree!
Another thing the Sharpe series gets wrong is that it makes it seem like Sharpe's commissioning from the enlisted ranks is somehow a shocking rare event. The other officers routinely talk down to him and treat him with disrespect because he was once a common soldier. In reality, 5% of all British officers of the era came from the enlisted ranks. That is uncommon, sure, but 5% is 1 out of every 20. That's not super-rare in an army as large as the British. Easily common enough to the point that the traditional officers wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.
Well now we know why Sean Bean died so many times after this show.
I doubt you'll see this but, think another alternative is they listened to the wrong sort of reenactors. Primitive Firearms and civilian firearm usage during these periods very often mention what were called spitloads, or 'spitwads.' this is not spitting in a barrel, but you keep your wad in your mouth, as you don't use cartridges. Powder's measured independently, poured by 'instinct' or just measured in a flask nozzle. You take a wad, wet to fuck with saliva from your mouth, (aoften along with 5-6 other wads that are in your mouth if you're shooting quickly) place it, put the ball, hammer and then ram. Tighter wads are more accurate, and if you're going for serious accuracy, you usually have a independent ball-starter or primer.
We *do* refer to dry wads as 'worse' because they're harder to load, less accurate, etc.
Plain and simple, common sense firearm safety tells one to never point a firearm at any human being (unless you intend to shoot them).
I would say that putting the muzzle into one's mouth does constitute a form of pointing a firearm at a human being. A particularly egregious example of it at that!
Spit-loading was a thing in Gaiduk army of Hungary and Poland in 17 Century. Soldiers dont have cartpidges, but small tubes with gun powdwer. Loader takes multiple balls in mouth (3 or 4). Loader apply a powder, throw coushin, and then spit the ball. In tercio-like formation, arqebuziers can shot only 2-3 times, once per 1-2 minutes.
I can’t believe Sharpe’s secret speedrun method for blowing out a row of teeth isn’t safe or historically accurate
Not only did it not happen, it goes against that iconic colloquial expression we all know and love. “Keep your powder dry!”
What next? Preparing a fire by sucking on an unlit matchstick? 😂
I WILL SEE HORSEGUARDS ABOUT THIS
I, too, have friends at Horse Guards, sir!
I went to the Shiloh battlefield last year and one of the ranger/reenactors emphasized that you didn't even want your hand over the barrel if possible since the possibility of an accidental discharge could punch a hole through your palm/fingers.
The idea that anyone -- even TV writers -- would suggest getting your head near the barrel is just terrifying.
Not to mention you see Sharpe and the 95th rifles spit-loading occasionally throughout the show. Which I can imagine would be a lot harder with a rifled weapon due to the grooves in the barrel. I'm no expert on 18th-19th century firelocks, but if I had to guess, the cartridge is more likely to snag on the rifling if you're just spitting the ball into the barrel without using the proper ramrod technique to guide it down. So Sharpe's "Chosen Men" armed with the Baker rifle are likely slowing their own rate of fire by using this method.
Also, while I vaguely remember tap loading in the books, I don't remember spit loading ever being a thing in the "Sharpe's Eagle" novel the show was based off of (or any of the Sharpe novels I read). So the show is not even accurate to the books it was based on, let alone history!
Rifled muskets of the time demanded a tight-fitting ball wrapped in a greased leather patch to allow them to grip the rifling properly, as opposed to the more loose-fitting ball and wadding used by smoothbore muskets, so spit-loading (or tap-loading) a rifle would probably be flat-out impossible; the ball would just sit on the muzzle and not go anywhere, or fall off and get lost in the grass. The ramrod is 100% necessary in that case.
@@yetanother9127 you are confusing a rifle and a riflemusket.
The baker is a rifle and yes, that need a tight fit for accurate long range shooting.
A riflemusket is a weapon that don't appear until the 1840ties where arms technology had improved. There you got a loos fit projective that you can load just as easily as a smoothbore, but it then gets expanded so it grip the rifling on the way out.
The early rifle muskets did this by having a "stem" in the breech that you, with a heavy ramrod rammed the projectile down on to expand it...
The next improvement was a selfexpanding bullet with a clary/wood/metal cub in the bottom to get it to expand. This is the actual minié bullet.
And then the next step where the cub gets removed and the bottom of the projective is simply hollow and the pressure expand the bullet.
The burton bullet used during the american civil war was of this type.... and is wrongly often called a minié. (and it worked a lot less well than bullets with the cub... but they where a lot easier and cheaper to make)
Oh, and the british riflemen did have loose unpatched bullets that they could use if they needed the higher rate of fire to stop a French column at close range.
This basically turned the rifle into a smoothbore with the advantages and disadvantages that followed.
@@thomasbaagaard Are you a US Civil War reenactor, by chance? That terminology is accurate for the Civil War era, but not to the Napoleonic era being discussed here. In the Napoleonic era, a "rifled musket" was a smoothbore musket converted into a rifle; they were tactically and mechanically pretty much the same as purpose-made rifles like the Baker, and I use the term to refer to both kinds for simplicity.
I can only imagine this actually happening on an off undocumented chance that a private bit off the wrong end on accident and panicked
It was always my understanding you want to keep the front of your face AWAY from the business end of a device meant to spit a piece of metal hard enough to make the other guy's head explode. It's not a modern sniper round but it won't NOT kill you stone dead.
Fellating the muzzle of your gun? That's not soldiering!
"Filate the muzzle of their gun" is something every boy has tried at least once.
There is a gunpowder fantasy book, "The Thousand Names" by Django Wexler, that actually flat out states that the official manual of arms for the Royal Army of Vordan (one of the main European Analogues in the story) includes spit loading. Specifically, I point to page 67, where the steps are given as: 1. Tear cartridge in half, holding the ball in your teeth; 2. Pour some powder into the pan and close; 3. Pour powder down the barrel; 4. Spit ball down the barrel; 5. Ram home.
I have a few other issues with the depiction of the army in the book. For example, it only refers to a single Regiment but the regiment is apparently 4,000 men strong with some guns and a detachment of cavalry. The Regiment, specifically called the First Colonial Infantry Regiment (for some reason known only to them, as they are not stationed in a colony). It is organized into four battalions, each of approximately 8 companies. Each battalion is led by a Major, with a Colonel commanding the Regiment. Companies are 120 men, lead by a Lieutenant with only a single Sergeant and 6 Corporals (though some, including the 7th Company where are main hero (a young woman pretending to be a man to escape something that I'm not sure of back in her homeland) is assigned only have 3 corporals). The cavalry element is also commanded by a captain and is I believe in company strength, given that there are multiple references to a desire for more cavalry. The artillery itself seems to contain two batteries, mostly light pieces of 4 to 6 pounds. I can't really find exact numbers for the guns but I'd venture at least 8 and perhaps as many as 16, with perhaps 200 or 300 men.
The book itself is entertaining enough, even if the farbery can be distracting.
A little highly toxic heavy metal in your body, what should go wrong?
In the Sharpe novels they don't spit load only in the show. They tap load in desperation. I remember one time they were fighting a retreating action and tap loading gave them mobility since you can't run while loading. But the author is clear that this is pretty much just a psychological deterance to their attackers since the fire was much less effective.
Broadly speaking, do not point a gun at anything you don't mind being destroyed. That does include the front section of your head. And while the Sharpe series was occasionally entertaining, it didn't lean heavily on historical accuracy.
It was about as "historical!y accurate" as Fess Parker's portrayal of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett! (There's something to cover, Brandon! Maybe?) It was entertaining though!
I saw a lecture on the Baker rifle at the British Army museum well before Sharpe came out and the lecturer produced a small hammer as well as a ramrod. He then demonstrated how the riflemen would ensure good seating on the rifle's grooves with a wrapped musket ball by tapping the ramrod down the barrel with the hammer. He also emphasised that accuracy rather than speed of fire was pre-requisite for a rifleman.
Keep up the good content!
I've searched for the Spanish army: "spit-loading" makes no sense for the Spanish Model 1752 musket with its "Miquelet lock" (which was an unique type of flintlock, the Model 1836 rifle replaces it with a percussion cap). For the reloading process, you needed to add gunpowder to the hammer so the flint would trigger the firing, in addition to adding the gunpowder (rammed) and the ball. The advantage was that the Miquelet lock was extremely sturdy.
Another enjoyable show Brandon! Now on to business.
I have no idea how the idea of "spit loading" came about, unless it comes from a 1971 film called "Man In The Wilderness" starring Richard Harris as mountain man Hugh Glass. At the beginning of the film Harris fires a smoothbore fowling piece then reloads it by priming, pouring the powder down the barrel, then rolling a ball in his mouth and then dropping it down the barrel and tapping the buttstock on the ground. Needless to say you don't want to leave a wet bullet in the barrel for any length of time, it might ruin the powder. Anyway, maybe the myth of spit loading began there?
At any rate, one of the first things I learned shooting muzzle-loading longarms at the same time the film came out was NEVER place any part of the body over the muzzle, especially after firing the first shot! And according to Major George Nonte's "Black Powder Guide," the muzzleloading bible of the time, you shouldn't rush the reloading process anyway. Nonte' put it this way:
"Take your time! A soldier at Yorktown or Gettysburg HAD to reload quickly or take a bayonet through the throat. YOU don't have that problem. So take it easy and do it right!"
As far as tap-loading is concerned SUPPOSEDLY Roger's Rangers used a method for rapid fire like that. Their muskets had slightly oversize touchholes so the procedure was dump the powder, drop a naked lead ball down the barrel, then slam the butt on the ground. The slam would seat the ball and force powder through the oversize touchhole automatically priming the pan. Is it true? I'm not sure. I read about that method 40 years ago but haven't seen anything about it since.
Anyway, that's enough from me. Again, good show! Always a pleasure watching you!
By the way, I LOVED Richard Sharpe! The series had quite a few inaccuracies in it (OK, more than a few) but Sean Bean was cool!
(So was David Troughton's Wellington! Another story.)
Oh-ho! Now there's an interesting lead. I've not heard of the film but it may be worth looking into. Thanks for that!
selfpriming muskets was pretty common in the mid 18th century in Europe... but most armies stopped using them, because they had even worse effective range than musket where you had to prime from the outside. (loos of pressure true the touchhole and a bigger flash.)
@@BrandonF You're welcome! Actually, "Man In The Wilderness" is a pretty good movie and period piece. The Leo DiCaprio film "The Revenant" is a kinda-sorta remake of the 1971 film.
@@thomasbaagaard The only self-priming European musket I'm aware of was the Prussian. Invented by a Lieutenant von Freitag in 1781 the breechplug and the touch-hole inside the barrel were rounded so the act of ramming the charge would funnel some of the powder into the pan. If any other European army tried the same I'm not aware of it. But then the Prussian muskets were heavy, awkwardly stocked, and with a poor trigger placement so I don't think there was much about the Prussian musket anyone wanted to copy. I've handled a bunch of period muskets of the 18th Century and trust me, the best in my opinion is the Brown Bess. In the early 19th Century I'd prefer an M1808 or M1816 Springfield.
The touch-holes on the Ranger's muskets were supposedly SLIGHTLY oversize, but as I said I can't confirm the story. Certainly a touch-hole that's too big is going to cause pressure loss and concurrant loss of range and killing power.
@@BrandonF CS Forester also uses the 'spit-loading' method in 'Death to the French/Rifleman Dodd' (1932). Chapter 4 starts by describing Dodd loading his rifle: "....He took a cartridge from his pouch and bit the bullet-- a half-inch sphere of lead-- out of the paper container. He poured the powder into the barrel, all save a pinch which went into the priming pan, whose cover he carefully replaced. He folded the empty cartridge into a wad, which he pushed down the barrel on top of the charge with the ramrod which he took from its socket along the barrel. Then he spat the bullet into the muzzle; it only fell down an inch or so, for it happened to be one of the more tightly-fitting bullets-- extreme prescision of manufacture was not demanded or considered necessary by those in authority." Dodd finishes loading with the help of a small mallet.
Forester also mentions British soldiers loading in this way in 'The Frogs and the Lobsters' in Mr Midshipman Hornblower, (1950). I strongly suspect Cornwell got the idea from Forester since he cites him as a main inspiration for his own work. Where Forester got the idea from I have no idea but I would love to know if you or anyone else uncovered any more information.
It is also notable that in the novel 'Sharpe's Eagle', loading the musket with one's mouth is (briefly) mentioned, but the implication is that that's how Sharpe and everyone else had been trained to do it, it's not presented as an unusual or special method in-universe. The scene instead establishes Our Hero's rad leadership skills, bringing the new soldiers up to scratch by showing faith in their ability rather than bullying them and then punishing them for their inevitable failure (and letting them have fun destroying the hated leather stocks without fear of consequences lol).
I deeply enjoy the TV show but the writers had a habit of taking something like that and just developing it into something it wasn't in the source material (see also whatever they decided 'Chosen Man' meant) or just making weird writing choices they presumably thought were super cool and clever.
I love how his videos seem to be done in one whole take (or one long take with only a small handful of cuts / pauses ) instead do cuts here and there . And there’s nothing wrong with cuts but for him to know what he wants to say and speak on it for a whole video (some being very long ) without much stutter or getting stumped on what to say or what comes to mind. And yes I’m sure he may practice what to say or have a script but being able to go along the whole video without a pause is great. It feels like a teacher or a lecture . It really makes it seem like he knows what he’s talking about , being confident in knowing exactly what he’s trying to convey ❤️
I don't appreciate the hate for the show Sharpe, it's really quite good and a huge part of my childhood, I think you're missing the trees through the forest, the show makes it very clear that Sharpe is unorthodox with his tactics and you can't use him personally instructing to say that the whole portrayal is bad, it's like hating on Top Gun because he does a reckless stunt and "ReAl PiLoTs DiDn'T dO tHaT"
the quality of the shows varies greatly. Some are pretty great, others not so much.
@@thomasbaagaard fair, I certainly love it
I had never seen Sharpe, but was just watching a random clip and was so confused as to what they were doing with the barrel. I immediately came here knowing Brandon must have done a video on this
19:35 (Don’t) fellate a loaded gun, it’s weird
Its a good thing Sharpe only teach it to the soldiers in one episode, though you do see spit loading occasionally popping in other episodes. I remember there was another episode where the character Hagman drilled a group of soldiers using proper reloading technique. So I guess the spit loading is only taught by Sharpe in that one episode to help speed up the soldiers fire rate.
SPIT ON THAT THANG😂😂😂
The only people I ever heard of spit loading were pirates in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. And I guess this explains why; it’s stupid, dangerous, and not necessarily faster or more efficient.
Whether or not it's historical please do not do it in real life, guys. You're putting the muzzle near your head. Practice firearm safety at all times. We may disagree, but how can you disagree with me if you're dead?
Alec Baldwin disagrees
I'm actually reading the Sharpe books right now, and while I will admit that he refers to "spitting the b bullet" intuitive the mussel a couple times, it's mostly actually tap loading that is described. And in the infamous scene you're referring to in the books it's actually just regular loading with the ramrod.
Ahh, but 99% of the readers would take the writing as gospel and the books would sell better as we all love a main character that knows better than the corrupt and incompetent generals.
For what it's worth, one thing I've found reference to that incorporates *part* of this, is that while nobody who had paper cartridges tried to spit the ball into the barrel, skipping or hurrying the use of the ramrod was often done during drills like this.
See, the Prussians were scary dudes who took their skills seriously, and they drilled until they could fire six rounds a minute... Everyone else in Europe really wanted to be as impressive as they were, but they didn't really want to invest the massive amount of training time and ammunition.
So when the higher-ups really want to see you do something, but don't want you to spend the time and effort required for you to actually get that good, you cheat. And occasionally you get caught cheating, and there are a few recorded messages coming down the chain of command to the effect of "Please don't artificially inflate your rounds per minute by neglecting to ram the ball all the way home. It lets you shoot faster, but it loses over half the power, and it's better to be able to hurt the other guy, even if you have to shoot more slowly to do it."
INSULTING SHARPE?
TAKE IT BACK BRANDON
TAAAAAKE IIIIIT BAAAAAACK
Never!
I see you talk about how a musket is normally loaded at 7:56. With a paper cartridges, tearing off the end with the powder with your teeth, and then shoving the whole thing down the barrel.
I've seen one or two sources I can no longer remember the names of saying that never happened. Rather reloading went like this.
Tearing off the end with the powder with your teeth, pouring the powder down the barrel, and then removing the bullet from the paper, putting the bullet at the end of the muzzle, and then ramming the bullet down the barrel.
The way I'd always seen it done was leaving the bullet in the paper and shoving the whole thing in. I mean, of course, after tearing the end with the powder open.
Still 14 times better than the patriot.
To be fair, the excrement of most animals is better than The Patriot.
@@BrandonF Did I say 14 times? I am sorry. It was 14 thousand times better.
On your later portion. I think it is something that we commonly see with people assuming officers were incompetent and didn't know what they were doing.
Things like the idea that militaries initially opposed breach loading cartridge firearms because they didn't want the soldiers firing quickly. I am sure officers would have loved to increase the rate of fire of their troops, but they could not have supplied enough brass cased ammunition to maintain a campaign versus just supplying powder and ball (and paper to wrap it in) for muzzle-loaders. And you know what is worse than a soldier shooting slowly? A soldier not shooting because they have no ammunition.
Or WWI where people don't realize that both sides were constantly implementing new things. For example the spring 1917 offensives by the British and French used techniques developed in 1916. Then, when they went up against German defenses in the 1916 model at Vimy Ridge they were quite successful, but elsewhere when they went against new German defensive techniques based on their experience in 1916 they had huge issues.
Might want to add in the Canadians..... they did a lot of innovations during WW1, including at Vimy...
@@leeboyko9019 The Canadian Corps weaa part of the British Army command structure and followed British Army policies and regulations. Same with other Imperial forces. The colonial forces provided important contributions, not just in cannon fodder, but also with minds not saddled with the baggage many old-school European soldiers and officers had. But even as a Canadian, I can recognize they were effectively part of the British army.
For Vimy, it wasn't so much that there was innovation as it pulled together all the innovations from 1914 through 1916 and put them into practice against a 1916-style German defensive position (Vimy's defenses had not been updated for various reasons including that the nature of the ridge as a key strategic feature did not readily facilitate defense in depth and the local commander didn't like the idea). The exact same tactics used elsewhere were dramatically less successful as the Germans had also learned from the prior year and had adopted new tactics to counter it.
In a particular book by Gary Zaboly, called American Colonial Ranger, it is mentioned that Dennis Stanley, a New Hampshire frontiersman, used spit loading in combat against Native Americans and also supposedly shot four moose in a row using this technique. This was during the French and Indian War. Id be curious to know if this claim is accurate...
Here's the quoted text: "the New Hampshire frontier provided some of the best rangers. Fast-loading during a hunt or an Indian fight was done by spitting bullets directly into the barrel. At Cherry Pond, Dennis Stanley shot down four moose in a row."
I've got the Zaboly book (thanks for reminding me) and remember that passage. I'd like to know if it's accurate myself. Then again, Dennis Stanley may have been exaggerating, especially if there were no witnesses. I'll have to check the book.
Concerning exaggerations I'm reminded of one of Major Roger's rules:
"Remember, there is an army relying on us for information. Lie all you want to about the Rangers and yourself but DON'T ever lie to an officer about where you've gone and what you've seen!"
1. Before watching the video, I thought the "spit loading" mentioned in the thumbnail was like when you see troops in the movies tear their pre-made cartridge pack open with their mouth then spit out the portion they ripped off before pouring the powder into the lock. Lordy was I WAY off.
2. I knew an Iraqi soldier who used to do stupid stuff with his AK on the regular when I was overseas...lets just say one day he was no longer showing up on missions. Gents, don't be stupid with a firearm!
"They speak English in Scotland too!"
Oh, no! 🤣 That was a nice add.