Forgotten Weapons
Published 29 Oct 2019Note: These towers were built by the British, not the French. Sorry!
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
Sir Charles Ross was really a jerk sometimes. Not the sort of guy you would want to go into business with.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85704
Here are the Wikipedia pages on Sir Charles Ross, Bart. and Martello towers.
Forgotten Weapons
Published 28 Oct 2019http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
Sir Charles Ross was heir to a very wealthy Scottish family, and was a talented if temperamental engineer. He took an interest in firearms and their design, and worked with American and English connections to produce a line of his own straight-pull sporting rifles. Upon returning from the Boer War he looked to expand into the military market.
At this same time, the Canadian government was looking to replenish its arms supplies after the war, and requested Enfield rifles form the British. The request was turned down, as Britain did not have enough supply to spare any for the Canadians. The Canadians were expected to construct their own factory to make rifles of he standard British pattern. Well, the Canadian government was not eager to invest that sort of capital into the project. They investigated buying arms elsewhere, but the consensus was that Canada’s armaments should come from either Britain or from within Canada itself. No good solution was apparent until Sir Charles Ross stepped in.
Ross offered to fund the construction of a factory himself, and use Canadian labor and industry to manufacture Ross rifles for the military. This seemed like an excellent solution — for zero initial cash outlay, the Canadian government would get rifles both designed and produced domestically! The rifles would be chambered for the standard .303 British cartridge, thus handling the British objections about arms compatibility (Ross pointed out that the British themselves used something like 7 different patterns of rifle at the time).
In 1902, Ross and the Canadian government signed a contract for 12,000 rifles to be made in 1903 and 10,000 per year thereafter, at the price of $25 each. In addition to the Canadian military, the Royal North West Mounted Police also adopted the new Ross rifle. Deliveries did not actually begin until 1905, and when they did plenty of disturbing problems arose. The rifles proved fragile and unreliable — and a weak bolt latch periodically allowed the bolt to fall completely out of the rifle on parade drill — not a good start!
Only 10,000 of the Mark I Ross rifles were made, and an improved Mark II pattern would follow as quickly as Ross could make it a reality.
Many thanks to the private collectors who allowed me access to their rifles to make this video!
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85704
Forgotten Weapons
Published 21 Oct 2019http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
Courtesy of the Paul Mauser Archive, we have a very cool opportunity to look at the documentation and paperwork behind a production pistol design, from beginning to commercial sales. This sort of documentation is rare for pre-WW1 German small arms in general, and the Mauser Model 1910 pistol is a very rare example of a complete set of archival papers surviving. So, what we can look at is the whole development process from behind the scenes at Mauser. Initial design drawings, blueprints, glass-plate photography, internal assembly instructions, costing, corporate-level final approval, marketing, and final print manuals. Thanks to Mauro Baudino for supplying these original documents for me to show you!
The Paul Mauser Archive (http://www.paul-mauser-archive.com/in…) is a wealth of information for researchers, and make sure to check out the recent book on Mauser coauthored by Mauro Baudino and Gerben van Vlimmeren:
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85704
Forgotten Weapons
Published on 14 Aug 2019RIA on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/RockIsla…
RIA on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rockislanda…The KKW (“Klein Kaliber Wehrsportgewehr“, or small caliber military sporting rifle) was developed by BDW in 1937 as an amalgamation of various .22 rifle elements from other manufacturers as well as BSW itself. It was intended to fill the role of the German national standard target rifle. When the Nazi party took over Germany in the early 30s, the SA consolidated and reorganized the civilian shooting sports in to a format aimed at military training. To this end, they wanted a standardized rifle which would duplicate the handling of the Mauser K98k in .22 long rifle caliber. This was initially the DSM, but in 1935 the SA decided that it wanted a rifle that more closely mirrored the military pattern Mauser. The result was the KKW. For more information on these and other German 1930s/40s training rifles, I recommend the recent book on the subject by Bob Simpson.
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
TimeGhost History
Published on 20 Jun 2019In 1927 the US is finally back to its pre-WWI economic greatness, at least measured by the stock market. But all is not well with the finances in the land of the free and home of the brave.
Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TimeGhostHistory
Hosted by: Indy Neidell
Written by: Francis van Berkel and Spartacus Olsson
Research by: Francis van Berkel
Directed and Produced by: Spartacus Olsson and Astrid Deinhard
Executive Producers: Bodo Rittenauer, Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson
Creative Producer: Joram Appel
Post Production Director: Wieke Kapteijns
Edited by: Wieke KapteijnsArchive by Reuters/Screenocean http://www.screenocean.com
A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH
From the comments:
TimeGhost History
1 day ago (edited)
So… before you all go and get your panties in a bunch about the title. 1. This video is literally abut the effort to make America great again in the 1920s. 2. Although Donald Trump appropriated that expression in 2016, it has been used by two Presidents before him; Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. 3. It has even been used in other political contexts both liberal and conservative as early as in the 1940s. So, as a historical reference to US history, not a political value comment, it is highly relevant to this episode. On that note, our heartfelt thanks to our TimeGhost Army that keeps the wheels attached to the TimeGhost vehicle and keeps us rolling forward into the past. If you’re not already a member, you can join here: https://www.patreon.com/TimeGhostHistory or here: https://timeghost.tv
I saved this link at the time, then life intervened and I only just re-found it now … but it’s not a time-sensitive article and the arguments he makes are still worth considering:
Studying such things in detail meant I was now looking at the operational level of war. Any conflict — or business for that matter — is understood to be conducted on three levels. The first is the strategic — that is, the overall aims and ambitions. The second is the tactical: the coal face, the actual fighting, the pilot in his Spitfire or man in his tank. And the third is the operational — the nuts and bolts, the logistics, economics and the supply of war.
Almost every narrative history of the war ever published almost entirely concentrates on the strategic and tactical levels, but gives scant regard to the operational, and the result is a skewed version of events, in which German machine guns reign supreme and Tiger tanks always come out on top.
Studying the operational level as well, however, provides a revelatory perspective. Suddenly it’s not just about tactical flair, but about so much more. Britain, for example, decided to fight a highly mechanical and technological war. “Steel not flesh” was the mantra and that’s why the British had a small army, yet still ensured it was 100-percent mechanized. They also developed a vast air force and built a staggering 132,500 aircraft during the war — and that’s 50,000 more than the Germans. Until the start of 1944, the priority for manpower in Britain was not the army or navy or even air force, but the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Well-fed men and women were kept in the factories.
Germany, on the other hand, was very under-mechanized but had a vast army, which meant it was dependent on horse-power and foot-slogging infantrymen. As a result of so many German men at the front, their factories were manned by slaves and POWs, who were underfed and treated abominably, and whose production capacity was affected as a result.
And if the ability to supply war was key, then in the war in the West, it was the Battle of the Atlantic that was the decisive theater. Yet Germany built a surface fleet before the war, which could never hope to rival Britain or France and in doing so neglected the U-boat arm. Despite sinking substantial amounts of British supplies in 1940, it was still nothing like enough to even remotely force Britain to her knees. In truth, there were never enough U-boats to more than dent the flow of shipping to Britain. In fact, out of 18,772 sailings in 1940, they sank just 127 ships, that is, 0.7 percent, and 1.4 percent in the entire war.
Forgotten Weapons
Published on 12 Apr 2019This Bren is lot #1013 at Morphy’s April 2019 auction:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/cana…The John Inglis company in Toronto first opened in 1859 as a metalworking shop, and grew steadily over the decades under first John Inglis, and then later his sons. Inglis did substantial amounts of military work during World War One, but the Great Depression hit it hard, and both William and Alexander Inglis died in 1935 and 1936 respectively. The company went into receivership but was purchased by one Major James Hahn (DSO) and a group of business partners in November of 1936. Hahn and his associates saw an opportunity to use this large manufacturing facility to make machine guns for the military, and they were successful – in October 1938 they were awarded a contract to make 5000 MkI Bren guns. More contracts would follow, and by the height of World War Two the company had some 15,000 employees and more than a million square feet of floor space.
Among many other projects, Inglis was contracted to make small arms for sale to the Nationalist Chinese government under Chiang Kai Shek – both High Power pistols and Bren guns in 8mm Mauser (to fit the Chinese standardization on that cartridge). A batch of 8mm ZB-30 light machine guns were brought in from the Far East to use as a pattern, and Inglis engineers were able to successfully redesign the Bren to use that cartridge and magazine.
Where the story gets hazy is in trying to determine how many were made and for whom. The Chinese guns are marked in Mandarin on the receivers, and have “CH” prefix serial numbers, like the Chinese contract High Power pistols. However, two additional variations exist without those Chinese markings. Some are marked “7.92 Bren MkI” and “Inglis 1943” (or 44 or 45), and others – like this one – are just marked “7.92 Bren MkI”. The dated ones are typically referred to as Resistance guns, intended to be supplied to European resistance units for whom 7.92mm ammunition was more readily available than .303 – although information on how many guns were supplied in this way (if any) is difficult to find. The last group is generally called “sterile”, and it is not clear what their purpose is. This particular example is one of 23 that were registered in the US in the early 1960s to Interarms, and it does appear that they were associated with some clandestine US military activities. The serial numbers of those 23 Interarms guns range from 1-5343 to 2-8045, suggesting a production of 13,000 or perhaps as many as 28,000 guns – that is quite a lot to be undocumented and missing.
Hopefully, more information will turn up in the future to shed light on the purpose and use of these 8mm Brens. We do know for sure that many thousands did go to Chinese forces, and some were brought into the UK, where in the 1960s they were used in the development of the 7.62mm NATO L4 version of the Bren.
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
Forgotten Weapons
Published on 17 Feb 2019Get your copy here:
https://www.wetdogstore.com/NEW-FN-BR…Anthony Vanderlinden is a noted FN collector and author of a book on FN Mauser rifles as well as this volume on FN’s Browning pistols. Both are excellent reference works, with a remarkable amount of contextual information in addition to the very specific detail that appeal to the collector. This work begins with about 70 pages on the history of the FN company, detailing its work in firearms, automobiles, and other products through the Great War, the Great Depression, World War Two, and other events. It then spends a period discussing unique and interesting FN pistols, like the presentation guns made for FN’s celebration of producing a million Browning pistols and the guns used by Gavrilo Princip and his cohorts in the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. There are then sections on FN’s association with John Browning and on Browning himself, and on the markings and proofs used by FN throughout its history.
The remaining bulk of the book is broken up into chapters covering the development, production, and use of each model of Browning pistol produced by FN (namely the 1899/1900, 1903, 1905, 1910, 1922, Baby Browning, and High Power). These chapters do an excellent job of providing information on the early development of the guns as well as the commercial and military production, often broken down by the different contracts for each model. For instance, the 1922 chapter includes sections on Yugoslav, Dutch, Mexican, Greek, Turkish, French, Romanian, Danish, Finnish, and German procurement of those pistols. For the historian, the context presented does an excellent job of explaining each gun’s significance in larger events. For the collector, the attention to the details of differences in marking and production between each different variant is thorough and very useful.
My only real complaint would be that the book is entirely in black and white. While that does not really hinder the purpose of the photographs in showing variations and such, color photographs would make it nicer to look at. The book was first printed in 2009, with a revised and expanded second edition printed in 2013. That second edition is available direct from Wet Dog Publications for $67.95 plus shipping, and also from Amazon.
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
Forgotten Weapons
Published on 10 Feb 2019http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
What is the difference between patents and copyrights? If someone wants to reproduce an old firearm design, how do they get the rights to? Why can’t you reproduce a gun design from patent drawings? What information is in a technical data package? This and more, today on How Does It Work!
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
There’s that word: “investments.” That’s what Canadians — Ontarians and Quebecers, certainly — have been trained to expect in these situations: An elaborate mating dance culminating in a greasy press conference where corporate leaders hail bold new provincial and federal “investments” in the company and its workers and its world-beating widgets. Critics are assailed as uncaring and testily reminded that every jurisdiction subsidizes the widget industry.
Traditionally, this is later followed by outrage when it emerges the company has used taxpayers’ bold investment to pay out lavish bonuses or dividends. In the fullest version of the performance, the company just pulls up stakes and leaves town anyway — sometimes having fulfilled its stated obligations, sometimes not, but always leaving behind a bad taste and a per-employee subsidy rate that makes no sense in hindsight.
If the company is Bombardier, it might extract lavish subsidies from government for an airplane project on the theory the Canada needs an aerospace industry, then turn around and sell the project to a foreign competitor for basically nothing.
Chris Selley, “A reminder that governments don’t ‘invest’ in businesses. It’s just corporate welfare”, National Post, 2018-11-28.
Quest TV
Published on 23 Oct 2018Bruce puts two iconic World War II trucks to the test: the iconic American Jeep and the German Kübelwagen. Which truck will come out on top? #CombatDealers
Andrew Coyne tries to encapsulate the key economic concept that should be taken away from the GM Canada collapse:
Think of it this way. Governments have proven more than ready in the past to pay whatever the auto companies demanded to hold onto threatened jobs. If there were any chance whatsoever of buying the plant’s reprieve, no matter how foolishly or expensively, can there be any doubt they would have? That they did not — apparently GM waved them off — tells you how hopeless the plant’s prospects really are.
Many have recalled that the closure of the Oshawa plant comes less than a decade after the Canadian operations of GM and Chrysler were bailed out with $14 billion in federal and provincial money, $4 billion of which was never recovered. The lesson some have drawn from this is that GM is a devious ingrate, which may be fair comment but is not especially helpful. The real lesson is this: when you try to buy jobs with public money, the jobs last only as long as the money does. In the end, all you will have done is to lure people into taking or staying in jobs that were long since doomed.
Like most of economics, this is wholly alien to popular wisdom. There is a rich vein of commentary to the effect that the laws of economics are effectively optional, something we can resist by force of will: we can either bend to “market forces,” or we can “stand up” to them in some fashion. But in fact the latter option is entirely imaginary, at least in the long run. You can perhaps lure plants and jobs your way at the outset with subsidies and other goodies. But the only assurance they will stay is if it makes economic sense to the company to keep them there.
If not, then all you have won with your subsidy is the right to go on providing more subsidy, which is a fairly accurate description of Canadian automobile policy in recent decades. The workers whose jobs successive governments boasted of creating or saving were effectively hostages; as in all hostage-takings, the payment of ransom only stimulates further demands for ransom. Until one day when the money runs out, and the workers whose jobs were supposedly saved find themselves abandoned. This may be many things, but one thing it is not is compassionate.
Forgotten Weapons
Published on 10 Nov 2018https://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-…
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
The Ruger Mini-14 is certainly not a “forgotten” weapon, but I think there are some valuable insights to be taken from it. As a company, Ruger has an outstanding track record of making not flashy and exciting guns, but rather guns that are economical and dependable. The Mini-14 is an excellent example of that, with hundreds of thousands sold since its introduction in 1972. So today we will take a look at how Jim Sullivan simplified the M14 design when he scaled it down to 5.56mm for Ruger, and how the company used its investment casting expertise to further reduce production costs.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
The move by GM to close many of its remaining car manufacturing facilities in Canada and the US is a belated rational response — not to the market, but to the ways government action has distorted the market. In the Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon explains how, step-by-step, the CAFE rules have shifted drivers out of sedans and wagons and into minivans, pickup trucks, and SUVs:
Before the U.S. government introduced Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to increase the distance cars could travel per gallon of gas, sedans and full-size station wagons were popular and SUVs were unknown. CAFE, which effectively governed the entire North American market thanks to the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact, incented manufacturers to artificially raise the cost of large passenger cars in order to favour smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. It soon claimed its first victim: the full-size station wagon, whose flexible interior accommodated both passenger and cargo needs, and which, at its peak, came in 62 models to satisfy different tastes.
But, although CAFE priced the station wagon out of the market, the market still demanded a vehicle that offered its flexibility. Enter Lee Iacocca, the chairman of Chrysler, who helped develop the minivan and convinced the U.S. government to deem it a truck rather than a passenger vehicle, thus exempting it from the strict CAFE standards that killed the station wagon. The minivan took off — the first 1984 model, built in Windsor, sold 209,000 its first year — followed by the SUV, which also was deemed a truck rather than a passenger vehicle. By 2000, the passenger car had less than half the market. Today it accounts for only about a third.
CAFE standards didn’t only claim certain car models as victims, they also made the whole industry a victim by making it dependent on government whims and then handouts. CAFE also distorted the market by creating credits for ethanol and electric vehicles and by creating a lobbyist’s dream through ever-changing regulations that led car manufacturers to continually game the system to favour their own vehicles over those of competitors.
Perversely, by improving mileage, CAFE also increased distances travelled and emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The 2025 CAFE targets (since cancelled by President Trump) ran to almost 2,000 pages and were estimated to add an average of US$1,946 to the cost of a vehicle. Tax loopholes also helped accelerate SUV sales — like all light trucks, they were exempted from the gas-guzzler’s excise tax and also given preferential tax treatment as business vehicles.
Our own age, still, has the “image” of the mass-producing society that brought unparalleled prosperity and riches to the world in the last century (along with some truly horrible mass killings.)
The mass killings, Marxism (which people inhale without knowing, even in American Universities), behaviorism, and a passion for numbered, standardized everything are part of the ethos of the industrial age.
It is perhaps too much to ask people working on standard machines, to produce standard sizes, using standardized movements to conform to the machine’s mechanical exactness not to think in terms of “standard sizes” and “Models.”
You see this more strongly in the works of early science fiction writers, who expected psychology to to be standardized, numbered and filed and then all problems of mankind would be solved.
This stopped around the forties or fifties, when there was starting to be a suspicion that humans were not in fact standard issues, and that they had a disturbing tendency to be … human on an individual scale. I.e. “Nobody is normal” started penetrating the collective consciousness, but people STILL try to be normal. A part of the craze for transgenderism (other than that the progressives decided this was the next hill to die on) is this idea that there are standard models of people. Note I don’t say every transgender person is the result of that. There are cases of such profound mismatch between mind and body that even flawed and ultimately mutilating surgery (which is all we can do right now) is preferable to going on with the mismatch. These cases are, needless to say, very rare. But I swear at least half of the generation after my kids identifies as transgender, or gender queer, or gender fluid, or some other form of gender nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with the fact the poor dears have imbibed this flawed version of humanity as easily filable and definable. If you think that a girl who prefers trains and toy cars, a boy who prefers dolls […] a boy who is better at verbal than math, a girl who is the reverse, all of these are TOLD they are abnormal, if not in words, in the reaction of other people, until they feel they must have a problem.
In fact, none of us are standard issue. The very fact that, say, the medieval world, a communitarian world under stress (compared to us) of disease and famine, which needed to eliminate odds to operate, spent SO MUCH time decreeing what men and women COULD do meant that men and women kept blurring those lines, which for that time and place were FAR more clear than they are now. (I am an odd. In the world I grew up in, which retains a lot of medieval characteristics, I not only was pulled away from groups of boys I was playing with and told that girls play with girls and boys with boys (sounds like a motto for a gay bar) but I was also severely suppressed when I was about 8 and developed a fascination with whistling. I was told that women who whistle and men who spin (thread) are both going to hell. This must be a medieval thing, as I have clue zero why whistling should be masculine. In my family’s defense, this might have been an attempt at just getting the horrible noise to stop.
Sarah Hoyt, “Gears and Patterns”, According to Hoyt, 2016-12-16.
Powered by WordPress
