Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Unloading: The 1887 in WWI (Patreon)

Published:
2019-12-19 00:39:58
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Santa Othais with a Chrimmas Story!

For those of you who would like to download  the audio:

https://podcast1z2.candrsenal.com/05-Unloaded-The_1887_in_WWI.mp3 

Files

Previews only

Unloaded 05: The 1887 in WWI

Othais tells you a story. Thanks for supporting the show!

Comments

Joshua Pinson

Great story! Does C&Rsenal have any more content on the 1887? If not, is some in the works?

Shane Hawkins

Oh boy! Just what I always wanted!

Ethereal

Uncle Evans always read us Christmas stories in his underwear.

Thomas Brown

Ummm, is the audio track wrong? Doesn’t match the video.

Mr. Lee

Thanks, I enjoy these stories. I would love to see an episode or stories on the Colt 38acp automatics (I don't think Mae would like them) but so far I haven't seen mention of them in combat use after the philippine-american war other than in south america.

Wayne Dygert

Sweet old girl with stories to tell

Loren Hermanson

That was cool! Very enjoyable and harkens back to you and Mae’s discussion in 107 about if she would use the 1897 in the pitch dark. Thanks for the story!

Minion

Would love to watch Ian's reactions to your mangled French in this. Suspect he may need to find moral support in the form of Absinthe...

Tiger in man's clothing

This story, is it not nifty? Personal stories are always cool to listen to/read.

James G. Jones

That was a cool story to hear. Makes you wonder what happened to that ol'shotgun in the story. Yeah it would be interesting to ask questions about old guns that would be new to someone with little experience or first timers to old firearms

Planescaped

"The incident rather spoiled the war for a few days" I can imagine finding the corpse of a german holding a photo of a girl and 2 babies doing that... For further spoilage the lady probably died in RAF bombing runs and the two kids probably were both killed at Stalingrad! ...

Andrew MacDougall

6:40 transparent wad on top: nitrocellulose? 😳

Andrew MacDougall

in the end segment with Othias, audio is out of sync with video.

Andrew MacDougall

they certainly were more alliterative back then.

Donald Gray II
>>30225731

the entire audio is out of sync for me "Clark... The little lights, they're not twinkling."

Benjamin de Groot

God, you can't beat the older generations for writing. In an age where most people over 45 appear to take leave of their senses (and in particular their sense of grammar) whenever they approach a keyboard. A wonderful story full or poetic metaphor and euphemism. Loved hearing that. It does make you wonder what happened to that old 1887. That's a gun "from when pappy was in the War" with a great bit of history.

Markus B.
>>30220601

You have a way ruining Christmas spirit that qualifies you for appointment as The Grinch. ;)

Tim The Enchanter

i really like the story. but man it really bothered me that the video and audio didnt match (i know this was intentional)

Travis Tremmel

Two drams of smokeless in an 1887? Thought the 1887 was BP only

Tom Sullivan
>>30670240

1901 Winchester could handle smokeless powder. I had an 1887 with a 1901 barrel and could shoot light smokeless loads in it.

Christopher James Henry
>>30670240

Also, note that "bulk smokeless" was to shotguns what Trail Boss is pistols: A smokeless powder designed to be roughly equivalent to black powder (of the relevant granulation) by volume (hence: "bulk powder," because it was typically loaded by volume, as opposed to "dense smokeless," which was loaded by weight). It still would have had a smokeless-shaped pressure curve, so it would not have been *universally* safe to substitute for black powder. That said, 2 "drams" (see below) of bulk powder would have been a pretty mild load, especially since commercial 12-gauge black powder loadings in late 1890s catalogs I've seen ranged from 3 to 3.5 drams (I feel like I've even seen a single 4 dram example, but I might be misremembering). Technical caveat: There are several different historical measurements that go by the name of "dram" or "drachm" (originally the same word), but the only one that I have ever heard of people using to talk about in the context of shotgun shells is an avoirdupois dram, which is 1/16 of an avoirdupois ounce, a unit of *weight*. (An avoirdupois ounce is 437.5 grains, so an avoirdupois dram is 27.34.375 grains; for shotshell loading, an easy way to think about it (if you have a scale that gives weights in grains) is that 3 drams is almost exactly 82 grains, and 1/4 dram is just shy of 7 grains). In historical practice, however, loading black powder by volume was common that, combined with the factor that bulk powder was specifically designed to be roughly volumetrically equivalent to black powder, I think it's safe to assume that "about 2 drams of bulk powder" means "bulk powder occupying the same volume as about 2 drams of black powder, and that's what I do above. But, just for the sake of argument: Bulk powder was (is? does anyone still make it?) roughly half as dense as black powder, so that bulk powder that actually *weighed* 2 (avoirdupois) drams would be roughly equivalent to *4* drams of black powder . . . but all safety concerns aside, that would be a hell of a load to put behind 1 ounce of birdshot, even by American standards, and my vague recollection is that European loads of the era tended to be a bit lighter yet. And even 4 drams BP behind 1 oz. of shot would be less than a typical proofing load for a 12-gauge BP shotgun (as I said, I feel like I may even have seen a reference to a (hot) commercial load that strong). Not that that would make using such a load (or a comparable load of bulk smokeless) a *safe* decision, even without the pressure curve issue, but I'd imagine that the *probability* of blowing up a well-made BP shotgun that way would be fairly low. While I'm blathering at length: When you see "X drams, Y oz." on a box of modern shotshells, X drams is neither the weight of the powder, nor a (slightly informal) measure of the volume, but it is still meant as a measure of the equivalent amount of black powder, in the sense that (all else being equal, under ideal test conditions, in theory) X drams of black powder should propel Y oz. of shot at the same velocity as the (far smaller) charge that is actually in the shell should propel the Y oz. of shot (that is also actually in the shell).