American Genius Colt vs Wesson

I just finished watching this show on Nat Geo and want to issue a warning.

This is one of the most historically inaccurate presentations I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. Almost no aspect of the program had any connection to reality or history.

They apparently dredged up their experts from the non-shooting members of a Northeastern liberal university sorority house with their primary "expert" being a pert little thing of about 21, all giggles and grins but no knowledge of history in her head.

Their patent information was wrong, the marketing information was wrong and their general firearms knowledge was smack in the middle of the absurd puddle, the historical use of the products was wrong and their personal information was incorrect in most cases.

Do not use any information in that program as historical reference material!!!

I now doubt the accuracy of any of the information presented in any of their other episodes of this series.

Didn't see the show but I'm not surprised. I read a article years back that basically said history gets twisted about every 25 years.

Well, I was wondering how the revolver was just being invented while the Mexican Army was using lever actions rifles....about 50 years before they were invented.

Kinda like the revolvers that held 100 shot with out reloading.....

Pretty much Drivel.

It's not just that Hunter.

Walker and the Rangers were using the Colt revolvers against the Comanche from 1836 when the first models were brought back from the Seminole Wars. They even had a special model made up that was referred to as the Texas Paterson. The Rangers had been using the Colt guns for ten years when the Mexican war broke out.

Then there was the part about Wesson building the Colt Walker because Colt had no factory. That was Eli Whitney and the Walkers were known as Whitneyville Colts.

They also spoke seriously about the S&W government revolver contracts in the civil war, which never existed, and they never touched on the real S&W claim to fame which was the bore through cylinder and development of the .22 rimfire cartridge for it.

Then there was the statement about the U.S. government equipping the entire army with S&W revolvers after the Civil War. That never happened.

They also stated that Colt's wife ran the factory for years after Colt's death. (Got to have our women's rights advocacy stuck in there, right?) Actually Elisa Root took over daily operation of the Colt works when the big man died and Colt's wife had little or nothing to do with operations.

The show was filled with these inaccuracies, one after another to the point of absurdity. They could not go for 5 minutes without rearranging the history of the revolver as history knows it. It was like reading a bad research paper from a seventh grader, guided by an evil minion who was trying to rewrite history!

I don't know about the evil minion part but that particular show is made by Stephen David Entertainment or of NYC.

http://stephendavidentertainment.com/shows/

Maybe you should contact them and let them know their fact checker was asleep at the keyboard.

Rick this was too much for a "fact checker" to have missed.

As I said, I would have expected better from a 7th grader who knew how to do a google search.

Their "fact checker" had to be under orders to not do any corrections and their "experts" had to be warping the facts on purpose. You can't be that wrong unless you are trying real hard.

It was almost as if they had done a casting call on the survival forums for "experts" to do an Alaskan survival show, only they are claiming to present factual information on a new history, which they are writing on the spot.

Just be aware that what is presented is not accurate, and keep an eye peeled on their other parts of this series for deals that never occurred, people that never met and factories that did not exist in everything from the beginning of the airplane industry to the space race.

Don't call their hand on it. That way they are sure to change things in the future.

Would you all really expect anything less from todays TV sensationalists ? The school systems of America are twisting history every day, so why not TV ?

You make excellent points KYratshooter, I am very disappointed, frustrated and angry every time I watch TV shows and movies like those on Nat. Geo. and History Channel etc. Hopefully some people will write them and complain about a few specifics, also online (forums etc.) and on well read media but I'm not sure it will make much difference, only boost their audience.

I asked a guy that had just spent $6000 on a WWI collectable Winchester Shotgun and bayonet at a gun show (we were sitting at the same table eating sandwiches) what "ACP" as in .45ACP stood for. He said "Automatic Cartridge Pistol" OMG beam me up Scottie. Perhaps he heard that on a TV show. "C" for Colt BTW We where discussing why most off the shelf rounds could not be fired (without moon clip) in very old collectable/vintage revolvers; he had also purchased one for a lot of $$$. This man was not stupid, but I think like most people he spent more time watching TV than reading. So sad. Misinformation.

Jeese guys. History has always gone to the victors and their scripts. Always has. It doesn't bare any resemblance to actual events. You can find twisted history in the hieroglyphics of Egypt or modern text. Television is for entertainment.

Television is for entertainment unless the show is from NatGeo and purporting to be Truth.
People have trusted Nat Geo for decades to bring them honest history, natural history and on the spot local recording of how things are.
If the history is wrong, they should be called out on it. Write them KYR and H63.
(I'd have to do the research then see the show. I don't know the history.)

The TV Nat Geo isn't anything like the magazine...or the National Geographic Society as far as I can tell.

I get the magazine, and have for many, many, years and still like it....but the TV channel has been nothing but prisons, drugs and general sensational B.S......nothing like the intent I would expect.

I generally don't watch it at all.

History is at the mercy of those that portray it....and when this program is this far off, makes me question the content of the others in the series.

Major fail.

I watched a couple clips on the Nat Geo website. It's one of those shows that backs up after a commercial, isn't it. Like you can't remember what might have gone on before the commercial...

The part I saw had Smith&Wesson developing the metallic cartridge, even though it had been around for some time already. And at that point in the story they should have mentioned Rollin White and his patent. Maybe it was in a part I didn't see. Made me do some digging since it was a rainy evening. That's a pretty messy presentation.

They mentioned White but even that was a warped presentation, insinuating that S&W swindled White because they only paid a minimal amount for his patient and a royalty!!

How would you like to have had a royalty of a few cents per unit for every revolver produced by S&W ???

Now keep in mind that S&W did not have a U.S. contract but they had the contract for supplying the entire Russian Army as well as several other national forces and they were a brisk seller in the civilian market.

White came off like a bandit and did not have to invest a penny of capitol. That is fair payment for one's concept and exactly what our patient system was designed to do.

I hope this question is not too far off topic, but I have always wondered why it took so many decades to get from the percussion cap to center fire breech loaders (side arms and shoulder arms). After the percussion cap was developed, it would seem to be the proverbial "no-brainer" to put cap, powder charge and bullet together in a case that could be used in a breech loader or revolver. I am surprised that so many devices such as pin fire, Maynard tape primer, muzzle loading Minie ball, rim fire, Dreyse needle gun and others were tried before the concept of putting a percussion cap in a cartridge case was tried.

I would have thought that the development of the center fire breech loader came very slowly. Is there some problem related to cartridge metallurgy or patent protection that I am unaware of? :confused:

It was a need for development of technology in both machine work and metallurgy. Remember that we are talking the first half of the 19th century and they were still working on things like sewing machines, shoe pegging machines, typewriters, wire swaging, nail makers, and photography. They did not know that germs causes disease, martin Van Buran was president and Victoria had just become Queen.

There was also a crippling depression in place that lasted for 10 years (panic of 1836, the worst in our nations' history) and hampered economic development and investment. That was one reason why Colt went bankrupt and all these guns went into production around 1848-1851. We had the Mexican War in '48 and then a gold rush, both of which brought us out of that recession.

It was actually easier to make the guns than the ammo. Ammo needs to be a high speed production and it needs to be cheap and strong, accurate and powerful.

Making a copper cap and filling it with fulminate was simple enough. That is not a close tolerance process.

Folbert had to conceive of the next step, putting the bullet on top of the cap. That does not sound like much but with the primitive machine tools, forming a bulb shaped cap that would hang in the breech and attaching a bullet was difficult. I am not sure, have not got the book in front of me, but I think that was around 1828-30.

There were some dead ends through that period as the technology got sorted out. Bullets with powder and cap in the base like the Volcanic, the pinfire we already mentioned and others. That was still being done/tried with the gygro-jet in the 1960s !!

S&W made the next step with the development of the .22 rimfire and the use of White's bored through cylinder. That rimfire system was a real step forward and gave repeating rifles their first break.

As long as they were using copper the production was moderately easy but copper is a weak material and will not stand high pressures. That is why all the early rimfire ammo was low powered. The copper cases could not stand anything but the lowest powder charges.

Between the end of the CW and 1873 there were several advances world wide using copper, wound brass strips, rimfire, pinfire and finally centerfire ignition.

We still have two methods of centerfire ignition that go all the way back to those post CW days, Boxer primers and Bredin primers.

Brass was finally determined to be the best material for cartridge cases having the strength to contain the pressures, ease of working in the production machinery, cost and durability. Other metals, like steel and aluminum, can be used but brass is favored. And that brass case is still the most difficult part to make and the most expensive. That is why we own reloading tools.

Making those cases is a close tolerance operation and loading the ammo in mass is also a close tolerance, actually a zero tolerance, process. The thought that we have the capability of making billions of them each year, and 90% of them are near perfection, is amazing.

Now keep in mind that we are not through with this technology yet! The arms manufacturers and military are hard at work on new toys. HK has been working on a caseless round for military use for the past 50 years!

Thanks for the history lesson Krat.

That was an excellent answer to the question. Gave you some rep for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

That was an excellent answer to the question. Gave you some rep for that.

---

Very cool, Kyrat....Thanks for posting that.

Thanks, Rick.....I have to spread some around.

Looks like not all the history lessons were not wasted on the young.....

Thanks for the history lesson Krat. Gave you some rep as well.