I think my favorite part about this channel is that I can watch this brand new video today, then go find a video you uploaded seven years ago without any change in experience or drop in quality. You’ve always had a wonderful formula and share lots of good information, everything you’ve made is all great.
I think the metal would have originally been blued. The total absence of bluing indicates, I think, that someone used abrasives to refinish the surface of the metal at some point (although not to the extent which would remove the markings). Still, there clearly was never any deep pitting which is amazing, yes.
As some one has pointed out, the reason for the separate portion of the breech block is to support the base of the cartridge squarely when the breech is closed. Most other pivoting or dropping block designs have the breech block pivot axis located well above the centerline of the barrel. The Roberts design places the pivot axis in line with the barrel centerline, sort of like the Madsen machine gun. Because of this, the front end of the breech block must be allowed to swivel slightly as the breech is opened, hence the separate piece. A big advantage of this design is that the thrust from the cartridge when it fires will not tend to open the breech. That's why this design needs only a very weak latch to hold the breech closed. Check out patent US 65607 for more details.
The musket/cartridge conversion genre is fascinating. There’s a universal technical starting point in the 58 caliber rifled musket and a technical end point that requires a brass cartridge. Cheapness and reliability are paramount. Everything else is up for grabs. And the 19th c inventor/machinists go nuts.
@@c1ph3rpunk no major product liability or safety standards then. Plus, that was a time when you wanted all your working bits exposed to show off (and lubricate directly).
@@c1ph3rpunk I just now imagine a Springfield rifle sitting on an operating table while the mad machinist adds and removes bits of metal, using files and other tools in horrific ways until he is satisfied. Like the intro for Robot Chicken.
@@zombieranger3410 Don't forget all the Snider conversions like the Enfield's and the Danish Snider rifle. Like Ian said there are thousands of designs not just the Springfield.
Another surplus US Civil War conversion - I find these fascinating; reusing existing hardware in innovative ways. So much better than tossing them away. Remarkably simple, so few moving parts. I especially appreciate the 'out of battery' safety.
Except it would have been more cost effective to just replace the weapons with new, better designed rifles. In the end, the people that bought these expended a lot of money for a substandard product, that had to be replaced relatively soon. Sometimes the best answer is to remove the old and replace with new. I run into this a lot in industrial equipment. Yes, you can upgrade old equipment with never controls, etc. But at some point, the mechanisms are just too old, and the work arounds to keep them going just are not worth the additional cost over new. Yes, new sucks, because it's a huge up front cost. But you can amortize that cost over the life of the machine. If the machine is already 70-80% mechanically worn out, what are you really gaining over new?
@@jeromethiel4323 Not really. If you don't *need* fanciest, then inexpensive surplus, upgraded, makes absolute sense - especially if you're budget-constrained. This is a historical observation, born out over centuries of practice.
@@jeromethiel4323 No, it really wouldn't. The US Ordinance Board rejected the excellent Peabody rifle in 1864, which became the Martini Henry once a self-cocking mechanism was introduced, and took trapdoors instead - which is much more cost effective. You're applying some random knowledge of industrial machinery getting old in the wrong way. Unlike with those mechanisms getting too old and whatever in the long run... the muskets being converted were 100% functional. Nobody intended to use them for decades and decades longer.
Dozens, if not hundreds, of attempts at breech loader conversion. It would be an interesting specialty for collecting. The variations of the theme or "just what we're they thinking" aspects would be impressive.😢
Centerfire cartridges actually predated the percussion cap lock - Napoleon Bonaparte actually rejected centerfire rifles for adoption by the French military in 1812 (because he thought they were logistically too complicated). The US Army adopted a breech loading rifle in 1819 that they used into the 1850’s.
It's a particular interest of mine. Currently I own a Danish Snider conversion. It's one of those attempts. And am currently looking for others . They are beautiful guns that with in the exception of the Trapdoor Springfield doesn't get much attention from collectors.
Always nice to hear about a musket conversion that didn’t fizzle out and die after the trials. And that bolt face is neat, I wonder how they machined the cylindrical part
It's really amazing how quickly so many fairly new firearms became relatively speaking obsolete when self-contained cartridge ammunition was introduced. A firearm was being converted in a matter of a few years from its original production.
The ability to load and shoot 2-3x as fast would do that, if your military didn't have that technology then it might as well use sticks and stones. Then the advent of having multiple self-contained bullets in one gun became militarily feasible...
Here in Brazil they were field tested in 1868 during the War of the Tripple Alliance alongside the Spencer Carbine (about 5.000 Roberts described Model 1867). Both the Roberts and Spencer had ammo issues because of bad quality cartridges, they were taken back and issued again a few months after with better ammo. The Spencer would became a big sucess in brazilian service (even Belgium clones were latter adquired) but the Roberts continue to be considered unfit for service probably because of bad cartidges. They would reamain in Stock from 1869 to 1880s and never really used
I love seeing videos about this conversion era in American Firearms History. I am so lucky that I can own Italian Reproductions of percussion revolver conversions and Spencer and Henry to centerfire.
The geometry of the motion of the block would cause it to jam against the cartridge if not for the swivel action of the block face allowing for the downward and upward motion of the block while at the same time having a flat face against the cartridge when in battery, in my humble opinion.
Nice conversion! 👍😁 It appears that when a cartridge is loaded, all the shooter needed to do, was cock the hammer and the cam on the hammer would close and lock the breech, thus skipping one step in the loading cycle.
This was a great turn I firearms history. Talk about innovation under pressure! Maybe one day people will be converting conventional center-fire to caseless/ electronically ignited ammo. Hopefully not during a civil war.
An interesting notion, but one that doesn't really make sense today. Conversions were done because the work required to do it cost less than producing a whole new gun. Today the reverse is true - materials are cheap, labour is expensive.
Be interesting to know why they were no happy with them .. Extraction of a fired case I bet was one thing . Took awhile for industry to learn how to consistently make good brass cases . Then there is the BP fouling .
Around 3:35 to 3:38, Ian says "Miller conversion" twice, right in a row. There is a Miller musket conversion. Was that an error? Did he mean to say Roberts? Or did I miss something and this conversion has two names?
One aspect I can think of would be accuracy. Another one would be cartridge extraction after many rounds being fired, as black-powder was notorious for fouling; which could make extraction of the fired cartridge more difficult as more rounds were fired. Supposedly, legend has it, that at Little Big Horn's 'Custer's Last Stand', the quantities of ammo the soldiers had fired resulted in cartridge extraction problems with their Springfield Model 1873 carbines.
I myself have a Savage Lock Robert's Rifle, but it's a strange sporterized/carbine sort of weapon with a Wincbester repeater style lever. I have no idea who modified it or when but it seems to have been done long in the past
Excellent, find. If the Barrel is full length you could re configure it. However leave the lever ... it might have some significance. I just got a 1st model Allen 1866, also a 1863 Savage in musket configuration. I still want a Parker Snow Miller conversion... my favorite odd ball. The early conversions are some of my favorite long arms. The French and German varieties from the 1850s amaze me, after 25 years of collecting I continue to see new types!
Remember kids, this is the "But does it take Glock magazines" of the 1860s. You dont want to buy everything new, just -something- to make what you have better.
It looks to me like the interaction between the hammer, and the "safety" pin would actually close the action. So all you had to do was drop in a round and cock the hammer, doing so would close the breech. I wonder if that's how it works, and I wonder if that was done purposely to speed up the firing process.
Always wondered how conversations fired the cartridges didn't know they took out the nozzle thing that holds the cap and put a firing pin in the general area
Are there any period comparisons to the Allin trapdoor system? It seems to me that we have heard from Mr Pond before, did he perhaps manufacture his own cavalry carbine during the Civil War?
Hi Ian, can you please do a video on the McCrudden Light Machine Rifle? It is a very mysterious and rare firearm and a very early light machine gun prototype. There exists hardly any information on it on the internet. A disassembly of it so we can see how it works would be great too.
Quite some tangent: what's the history of state militias? Ian talks in this, and other videos of Civil War firearms, about state militias. Were they the precursors of the National Guard? Old-World viewer typing: so I am not that into US history. I would be happy for someone knowledgeable to elaborate. Thx
The quickest and dirtiest is, the United States was not originally intended to have a standing army (that's why we technically have to reapprove its funding every two years, but not so the Navy), so every state had its own Militia (army, essentially, in this case) that the Federal Government could call upon in times of war or insurrection (but with the States themselves controlling who the officers were). Basically, as originally intended, the US government was more like a combination of NATO (militarily, with linked, geographically-tied member states) and the EU (economically and in terms of immigration/migration).
German person here: As far as i know, when nowadays National Guard was called State Militias, the Governor of a State was basicly the Commander of his State Militia, while today the Governors influence of National Guard is weaker than formerly.
Way back at the start, the militia was every white man (iirc also needed to own land) aged 18-45. They were to own their own militia musket, of specified caliber, bayonet, all the extra stuff you'd need to carry one in the field, and all of that was unable to be sold for debts or anything else. Their militia kit was completely protected from debt collectors. They drilled one weekend a month and two weeks twice a year. Iirc, before spring plowing and after the fall harvest. The state militias were the reinforcements for the Federal Army, to be called up if needed. Before the Civil War, the US was very much a bunch of separate countries under a trench coat. Each state was (and still is, to some extent) a separate country. The Federal government existed to present a single common interest to other countries and to adjudicate disputes between the states.
The .58 Rimfire cartridge wasn't very powerful. The early Allin conversion rifle (Springfield M1865) was chambered for it and was replaced with the .50-70 centerfire cartridge.
Assume for the minute that the cartridge did not exist - can you consider doing a video on the ‘best’ breach loading rifled barrel rifle that did not use a cartridge?
Believe it or not there are rifles like that. The Starr being one. Also the ones that the cartridges are obsolete and out of production ie the .58 Miller, there is a way to use paper cartridges like the Starr Carbine did. It's not hard, I have a Snider conversion type3 rifle that there is no ammunition to be had. Make an adapter breech plug and use paper cartridges.
I'm curious to know which video has the most [Text] (subtitles, when Ian says something that isn't right the subtitles display the correct word that way)... does anybody know?
??? What was with that story just breezed over at the beginning? "We're sorry, General Roberts, but we find your submission unsuited to our needs. It fails structurally when you cram way too much powder into it, block the barrel with the mass of three bullets loaded in together, and then try to fire it." "Under what *possible* circumstance would that be something a soldier should attem---" "Good day." I'm a layman, but it seems to me that when anything at all like that happens it's a problem with _the user_ that needs addressing.
Not good, the large bore rimfires we're known for being quite underwhelming. .577 Snider and 17.5x28mm Danish both had proven to be quite disappointing. Most only used 40-50 grain powder charge. So much for performance. The 17.5x28 is .69 caliber so imagine how little performance is going to be had with that light a charge behind it. BTW .58 rimfire is also known as .58 Miller.
Hard to say for sure, but it might have been difficult to use once it got dirty with black powder fouling, and ignition might have been less than reliable with only a single firing pin.
The US had just spent a fortune on obsolescent muzzle loaders. They wanted to get some use out of them. And make the surplus weapons more attractive on the international arms market.
I will find it funny, if people can research the conversation from todays "modern weapons" into LASERBOLTER or something, in 100 years. 😀 I love this conversations into breach-loaders for metal cased ammunition. And I think, in its time, this where very good weapons for hunting.
The ammunition furnished by the US contractors to Brazil had a failure rate of 40% plus, which was considered unacceptable. The attempts of manufacturing cartridges in Brazil was a failure, differently than what occurred with the Spencers carbines bought together with the Roberts rifles.
I think my favorite part about this channel is that I can watch this brand new video today, then go find a video you uploaded seven years ago without any change in experience or drop in quality. You’ve always had a wonderful formula and share lots of good information, everything you’ve made is all great.
he even looks the same, Ian's a damn vampire!
A gun vampire!
@@Dapstart
He's not a vampire, but his real name is Dorian Grey.
that gun is in remarkably good shape, the metal is clean and the wood finish. wow
Yeah it’s kind of amazing tbh
I think the metal would have originally been blued. The total absence of bluing indicates, I think, that someone used abrasives to refinish the surface of the metal at some point (although not to the extent which would remove the markings). Still, there clearly was never any deep pitting which is amazing, yes.
@@sbreheny The original muskets (1861 and the 1863) were not blued, but left bright.
As some one has pointed out, the reason for the separate portion of the breech block is to support the base of the cartridge squarely when the breech is closed.
Most other pivoting or dropping block designs have the breech block pivot axis located well above the centerline of the barrel. The Roberts design places the pivot axis in line with the barrel centerline, sort of like the Madsen machine gun. Because of this, the front end of the breech block must be allowed to swivel slightly as the breech is opened, hence the separate piece.
A big advantage of this design is that the thrust from the cartridge when it fires will not tend to open the breech. That's why this design needs only a very weak latch to hold the breech closed.
Check out patent US 65607 for more details.
It's super interesting how people converted muskets into center and rimfire firearms after the Civil War.
Im suprised the barrels held up lol
@@terencepaul7475 they still used black powder with similar bullet weights and powder charges. All the conversions did was change how they were loaded
The musket/cartridge conversion genre is fascinating. There’s a universal technical starting point in the 58 caliber rifled musket and a technical end point that requires a brass cartridge. Cheapness and reliability are paramount. Everything else is up for grabs.
And the 19th c inventor/machinists go nuts.
Machinist inventors back then seem more mad scientist than most.
@@c1ph3rpunk no major product liability or safety standards then. Plus, that was a time when you wanted all your working bits exposed to show off (and lubricate directly).
@@c1ph3rpunk I just now imagine a Springfield rifle sitting on an operating table while the mad machinist adds and removes bits of metal, using files and other tools in horrific ways until he is satisfied. Like the intro for Robot Chicken.
@@zombieranger3410 Don't forget all the Snider conversions like the Enfield's and the Danish Snider rifle. Like Ian said there are thousands of designs not just the Springfield.
@@stevenbaker8184 well duh
Another surplus US Civil War conversion - I find these fascinating; reusing existing hardware in innovative ways. So much better than tossing them away.
Remarkably simple, so few moving parts.
I especially appreciate the 'out of battery' safety.
Except it would have been more cost effective to just replace the weapons with new, better designed rifles. In the end, the people that bought these expended a lot of money for a substandard product, that had to be replaced relatively soon.
Sometimes the best answer is to remove the old and replace with new.
I run into this a lot in industrial equipment. Yes, you can upgrade old equipment with never controls, etc. But at some point, the mechanisms are just too old, and the work arounds to keep them going just are not worth the additional cost over new.
Yes, new sucks, because it's a huge up front cost. But you can amortize that cost over the life of the machine. If the machine is already 70-80% mechanically worn out, what are you really gaining over new?
@@jeromethiel4323 Not really.
If you don't *need* fanciest, then inexpensive surplus, upgraded, makes absolute sense - especially if you're budget-constrained. This is a historical observation, born out over centuries of practice.
@@jeromethiel4323 Guns and machines aren't really comparable in a situation like this.
@@jeromethiel4323 No, it really wouldn't. The US Ordinance Board rejected the excellent Peabody rifle in 1864, which became the Martini Henry once a self-cocking mechanism was introduced, and took trapdoors instead - which is much more cost effective.
You're applying some random knowledge of industrial machinery getting old in the wrong way. Unlike with those mechanisms getting too old and whatever in the long run... the muskets being converted were 100% functional. Nobody intended to use them for decades and decades longer.
Dozens, if not hundreds, of attempts at breech loader conversion. It would be an interesting specialty for collecting. The variations of the theme or "just what we're they thinking" aspects would be impressive.😢
Way more than that, Ian said they made a Brazilian of these
Centerfire cartridges actually predated the percussion cap lock - Napoleon Bonaparte actually rejected centerfire rifles for adoption by the French military in 1812 (because he thought they were logistically too complicated).
The US Army adopted a breech loading rifle in 1819 that they used into the 1850’s.
(The auto-corrector corrected you wrong, it added an apostrophe in "what were they thinking?")
@@stone-hand I do that purposely so people know I'm not a bot.
It's a particular interest of mine. Currently I own a Danish Snider conversion. It's one of those attempts. And am currently looking for others . They are beautiful guns that with in the exception of the Trapdoor Springfield doesn't get much attention from collectors.
Honestly this conversion is brilliant, especially love the safety lug and the extractor
Cant wait for the Model 2073 AR15 laser conversion
More like 2030
I really like these older guns. Very interesting.
I feel that the older guns are most likely to be the most interesting. And have good stories about them.
Always nice to hear about a musket conversion that didn’t fizzle out and die after the trials.
And that bolt face is neat, I wonder how they machined the cylindrical part
They'd usually make a custom cutter to make that shape, do it in one step.
I really love those old conversions. They are great documentation of humanitys ability to rapidly adapt to new technologies.
It's really amazing how quickly so many fairly new firearms became relatively speaking obsolete when self-contained cartridge ammunition was introduced. A firearm was being converted in a matter of a few years from its original production.
Fundamental leap in technology of the cartridge loads, necessity is the mother of invention.
The ability to load and shoot 2-3x as fast would do that, if your military didn't have that technology then it might as well use sticks and stones. Then the advent of having multiple self-contained bullets in one gun became militarily feasible...
Probably my favorite "genre" of guns, muzzle loading conversions and early breech loaders.
Although obsolete, I absolutely love the beauty of muskets and musket style rifles.
2:17 They played him pretty dirty, three projectiles on the barrel would blow a contemporary Sig Sauer assault rifle 🤣
7:41 The front breech piece also has to pivot around the horizontal axis when the lever is being lifted. Hence the groove-and-cylinder junction.
I find this stuff fascinating. Maybe Headstamp Press should do a book on the major revolver and musket conversions.
Not just the Major but some of the more obscure rifles too.
Here in Brazil they were field tested in 1868 during the War of the Tripple Alliance alongside the Spencer Carbine (about 5.000 Roberts described Model 1867). Both the Roberts and Spencer had ammo issues because of bad quality cartridges, they were taken back and issued again a few months after with better ammo. The Spencer would became a big sucess in brazilian service (even Belgium clones were latter adquired) but the Roberts continue to be considered unfit for service probably because of bad cartidges. They would reamain in Stock from 1869 to 1880s and never really used
A modestly successful gun of a modestly successful design in a crowded market.
I love seeing videos about this conversion era in American Firearms History. I am so lucky that I can own Italian Reproductions of percussion revolver conversions and Spencer and Henry to centerfire.
Fascinating, especially with all the hand tools available.
It was genius in it's simplicity.
Thank you , Ian .
🐺
Honestly, Post Civil War Breech Loading Conversions sounds like it should be Ian's next book!
Fascinating that these conversions were made on almost brand new guns, just a few years after their manufacture
"They were used hard and put away wet"...mate I haven't heard that one in bloody donkey's years😊 Love it!
This awesome! I wanted to see a video about this for sono long. Thank you Ian.
i'm always excited for another episode in our cornucopia of conversions!
That removable bolt face is also the only good way they can set headspace on this.
This gun is still beautiful after all these years! Makes me feel a lot better about 80% of my Red Dead 2 being colored like this.
The geometry of the motion of the block would cause it to jam against the cartridge if not for the swivel action of the block face allowing for the downward and upward motion of the block while at the same time having a flat face against the cartridge when in battery, in my humble opinion.
Damn first person here? I knew watching forgotten weapons during work hours was a good idea!
Another informative vid, Ian.
Nice conversion! 👍😁 It appears that when a cartridge is loaded, all the shooter needed to do, was cock the hammer and the cam on the hammer would close and lock the breech, thus skipping one step in the loading cycle.
This was a great turn I firearms history. Talk about innovation under pressure! Maybe one day people will be converting conventional center-fire to caseless/ electronically ignited ammo. Hopefully not during a civil war.
An interesting notion, but one that doesn't really make sense today. Conversions were done because the work required to do it cost less than producing a whole new gun. Today the reverse is true - materials are cheap, labour is expensive.
Dr Durell Shepard has a great video on the history/disassembly as well as shooting the rifle
Be interesting to know why they were no happy with them .. Extraction of a fired case I bet was one thing . Took awhile for industry to learn how to consistently make good brass cases . Then there is the BP fouling .
This one seems a pretty elegant solution. Except for the hook at the back, which could hang up on all sorts of objects.
no way it's the me conversion
In tactical black. 😁
What’s the 1850s equivalent of 17 picatinny rails?
@@bosknight7837 Lantern hanging hooks.
Still hoping to see the Rolling Block conversions with these .58 barrels. .58 Roberts
Around 3:35 to 3:38, Ian says "Miller conversion" twice, right in a row. There is a Miller musket conversion. Was that an error? Did he mean to say Roberts? Or did I miss something and this conversion has two names?
What were the complaints about these conversions?
One aspect I can think of would be accuracy.
Another one would be cartridge extraction after many rounds being fired, as black-powder was notorious for fouling; which could make extraction of the fired cartridge more difficult as more rounds were fired.
Supposedly, legend has it, that at Little Big Horn's 'Custer's Last Stand', the quantities of ammo the soldiers had fired resulted in cartridge extraction problems with their Springfield Model 1873 carbines.
I myself have a Savage Lock Robert's Rifle, but it's a strange sporterized/carbine sort of weapon with a Wincbester repeater style lever.
I have no idea who modified it or when but it seems to have been done long in the past
Excellent, find. If the Barrel is full length you could re configure it. However leave the lever ... it might have some significance. I just got a 1st model Allen 1866, also a 1863 Savage in musket configuration. I still want a Parker Snow Miller conversion... my favorite odd ball. The early conversions are some of my favorite long arms. The French and German varieties from the 1850s amaze me, after 25 years of collecting I continue to see new types!
At first blush it looks alright. I wouldn't mind trying a few rounds myself. What was it that made it so bad that everyone hated on it? Obturation?
allways fascinating the ingenuity of conversions
Why have you copy and pasted someone's comment from a Mark Felton video?
Remember kids, this is the "But does it take Glock magazines" of the 1860s. You dont want to buy everything new, just -something- to make what you have better.
So cool. Thanks for sharing.
God bless all here
I actually like this conversion. Looks like an upside down Peabody.
I would prefer the Martini action. Solid.
It looks to me like the interaction between the hammer, and the "safety" pin would actually close the action. So all you had to do was drop in a round and cock the hammer, doing so would close the breech. I wonder if that's how it works, and I wonder if that was done purposely to speed up the firing process.
I would like to see the center fire model
Always wondered how conversations fired the cartridges didn't know they took out the nozzle thing that holds the cap and put a firing pin in the general area
Actually the "nozzle thing" is called a nipple.
@@stevenbaker8184 thanks didn't know that
@@whitequasar4686 you are welcome
6:48 If Apple had designed it there would not be a hole and the screw would be some special one.
This is kinda like the auto seer of its day if you think about it.
thats a cute little reciever.
My go to rifle in Red Dead Redemption 2 😅
It’s a trapdoor Springfield in rdr2
@@doctorvader9042 i think it’s a breach loader in RDR2 but it’s still fun!
*breechloader
Are there any period comparisons to the Allin trapdoor system?
It seems to me that we have heard from Mr Pond before, did he perhaps manufacture his own cavalry carbine during the Civil War?
Not only in USA, also in many european countries muzzleloaders had been converted to breechloaders.
Hi Ian, can you please do a video on the McCrudden Light Machine Rifle? It is a very mysterious and rare firearm and a very early light machine gun prototype. There exists hardly any information on it on the internet. A disassembly of it so we can see how it works would be great too.
Awesome
Quite some tangent: what's the history of state militias? Ian talks in this, and other videos of Civil War firearms, about state militias. Were they the precursors of the National Guard? Old-World viewer typing: so I am not that into US history. I would be happy for someone knowledgeable to elaborate. Thx
The quickest and dirtiest is, the United States was not originally intended to have a standing army (that's why we technically have to reapprove its funding every two years, but not so the Navy), so every state had its own Militia (army, essentially, in this case) that the Federal Government could call upon in times of war or insurrection (but with the States themselves controlling who the officers were). Basically, as originally intended, the US government was more like a combination of NATO (militarily, with linked, geographically-tied member states) and the EU (economically and in terms of immigration/migration).
German person here: As far as i know, when nowadays National Guard was called State Militias, the Governor of a State was basicly the Commander of his State Militia, while today the Governors influence of National Guard is weaker than formerly.
Way back at the start, the militia was every white man (iirc also needed to own land) aged 18-45. They were to own their own militia musket, of specified caliber, bayonet, all the extra stuff you'd need to carry one in the field, and all of that was unable to be sold for debts or anything else. Their militia kit was completely protected from debt collectors. They drilled one weekend a month and two weeks twice a year. Iirc, before spring plowing and after the fall harvest.
The state militias were the reinforcements for the Federal Army, to be called up if needed.
Before the Civil War, the US was very much a bunch of separate countries under a trench coat. Each state was (and still is, to some extent) a separate country. The Federal government existed to present a single common interest to other countries and to adjudicate disputes between the states.
Would have liked to hear more of why they weren't liked.
Please tell me I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of American rifles being sold across the pond in Japan by a reseller named... Pond. 😅
Keep the black power era guns coming
I read that Serbia also used this
The .58 Rimfire cartridge wasn't very powerful. The early Allin conversion rifle (Springfield M1865) was chambered for it and was replaced with the .50-70 centerfire cartridge.
steammmmmpunk, bebé!
Did Baretta make breech loading conversions?
Exactly how was the new end breech attached to the existing barrel?
Threaded. It's in the video.
@@Kevin-mx1vi Thank you - I missed that
Go to the range with it!
Assume for the minute that the cartridge did not exist - can you consider doing a video on the ‘best’ breach loading rifled barrel rifle that did not use a cartridge?
Believe it or not there are rifles like that. The Starr being one. Also the ones that the cartridges are obsolete and out of production ie the .58 Miller, there is a way to use paper cartridges like the Starr Carbine did. It's not hard, I have a Snider conversion type3 rifle that there is no ammunition to be had. Make an adapter breech plug and use paper cartridges.
the style fo these new videos look pretty similar to older videos, are these re-uploads?
I think it's a standard setup - he goes to Morphy's regularly. Has done for many years.
How many breech loading conversion systems did the US military look at?
I'm curious to know which video has the most [Text] (subtitles, when Ian says something that isn't right the subtitles display the correct word that way)... does anybody know?
??? What was with that story just breezed over at the beginning?
"We're sorry, General Roberts, but we find your submission unsuited to our needs. It fails structurally when you cram way too much powder into it, block the barrel with the mass of three bullets loaded in together, and then try to fire it."
"Under what *possible* circumstance would that be something a soldier should attem---"
"Good day."
I'm a layman, but it seems to me that when anything at all like that happens it's a problem with _the user_ that needs addressing.
Excellent video, I was completely unaware of that rifle. Is the finish chrome, nickel plated etc?
Greetings from Argentine Patagonia.
Likely it’s “in the white”, without a finish. Not uncommon of the era, they had to be well maintained so they didn’t rust.
Bare steel, left "in the white" instead of blued.
@@ScottKenny1978 Thanks for the reply. That gives me another question, how did they avoid corrosion? constantly polishing?
@@bulukacarlos4751 constantly cleaning and keeping it well oiled.
I would love to know what the .58 rimfire performance was?
Not good, the large bore rimfires we're known for being quite underwhelming. .577 Snider and 17.5x28mm Danish both had proven to be quite disappointing. Most only used 40-50 grain powder charge. So much for performance. The 17.5x28 is .69 caliber so imagine how little performance is going to be had with that light a charge behind it. BTW .58 rimfire is also known as .58 Miller.
That system looks perfectly fine to me. Fast and easy to operate. What didn't people like about it when compared to other systems of the time?
Hard to say for sure, but it might have been difficult to use once it got dirty with black powder fouling, and ignition might have been less than reliable with only a single firing pin.
@@AndrewAMartin Could have also been accuracy, too.
I wonder what was wrong with the gun that the militaries got rid of them.
Did they call the second generation of these the Robert's Patent-son? (Asking for The Batman.)
Neat
how many is a Brazilian guns?
I'd love to know what these rifles did in Japanese service.
It says "Robert's patent" on the firearm, so shouldn't it rather be "the Robert short-frame conversion" without an S in the title?
I assume it isn't just cheaper and easier to buy a new gun.
The US had just spent a fortune on obsolescent muzzle loaders. They wanted to get some use out of them.
And make the surplus weapons more attractive on the international arms market.
Why wasn't it that good of a system? What was unsatisfactory?
I will find it funny, if people can research the conversation from todays "modern weapons" into LASERBOLTER or something, in 100 years. 😀 I love this conversations into breach-loaders for metal cased ammunition. And I think, in its time, this where very good weapons for hunting.
Конструкция сложная какая - то...😢
Thank s
Ian i will send you one 5.56 PUG ,and you will know
❤
👍😊
So ruining and sporterizing surplus rifles has a long history 😂
What were the things the Brazilians and South Carolinans dislikes about the guns?
The ammunition furnished by the US contractors to Brazil had a failure rate of 40% plus, which was considered unacceptable. The attempts of manufacturing cartridges in Brazil was a failure, differently than what occurred with the Spencers carbines bought together with the Roberts rifles.
what happened with the flag in the thumbnail
Early gang
the united states should 100% be a spanish speaking country
:)
What a piece of garbage, it can't handle routine operations such as cramming three projectiles down the barrel and firing an overcharge of propellent.