Things that Make You Wonder About the Rest of the Internet

[Jeff Higgins]

We all have topics of interest to us wherein our knowledge might surpass that of the public at large. They can be centered about our professions, hobbies, or often both. One of them, for me, has been a lifelong interest in firearms, particularly those of the 19th Century. I find them fascinating, and have devoted a lifetime to their study and use.

With that in mind, I would like to share this image. It was sent to me by a shooting buddy who shares my interest. It shows, ostensibly, a Civil War era Confederate sniper armed with a British Whitworth rifle. Everything the caption says is true. That is, however, where any connection to reality simply ends. The number of errors presented in the actual image are beyond the pale - the artist got absolutely nothing right.



We see a thoroughly modern scope mounted in the most utterly contrived fashion. We see cartridges in a cartridge belt -this was a muzzle loader. We see the lock on the wrong side of the rifle. We see far too short and stout of a barrel, we see the stock very poorly represented, and on and on. It's one of those "the longer you look..." kinds of things, where he got every single detail wrong.

Someone put a lot of work into developing that image, either painting it, drawing it, computer rendering it, or whatever. A lot of work into everything but researching it. Why? Why bother, only to have gotten everything about it so entirely wrong?

Stuff like this sometimes makes me wonder about the veracity of other things I see on the internet. Representations of things I know little or nothing about. So, I have to ask, what similar sorts of things have you guys seen that you have found to be so entirely wrong as to be laughable, yet passed off as some sort of a serious attempt to portray the subject matter? I'm sure the internet is rife with this kind of "information".

[Superman]

I saw that and when I did, I wondered what Jeff might say. I only noticed one very small inconsequential detail problem. The one about 2000 yards. LOL

[Superman]

Wait. Civil war rifles actually killed people at a distance of about 1.5 miles? Surprised. Then again, was looking at the barrel length. That part has to be wrong.

[id10t]

I would bet on generative AI making the picture. The actual thing is likely from one of those "23 amazing facts you won't believe" clickbait list-icles ....

[Jeff Higgins]

The real Whitworth was a pretty fascinating rifle. It had a hexagon bore of .451" caliber, firing a fitted bullet which was quite long and heavy for the caliber. It actually was quite effective at long range. We can still buy very accurate representations manufactured by Pedersoli in Italy.






Most did not have a scope mounted. They used an elevating rear sight like this:





Those that did wear scopes were pretty similar to this:



Some guys actually used to shoot these in our long range matches. More conventionally rifled muzzle loaders did better, such as the Gibbs, Rigby, and Parker-Hale. Against breach loaders, though, none did well, as they had to "break position" to stand up and load between shots.

For a very interesting read on the development of long range riflery in that era, just post Civil War, google "Sandyhook Tests". Yes, these rifles could kill a man at 2,000 yards. If he was having a really, really bad day...

[herr_oberst]

A fitted bullet to a manufactured rifle with a hexagonal bore in the 1850's, '60's.

It's always slightly unreal to learn how smart people in all centuries have shaped our planet.

What must have been the process to first hold the barrel and then draw and twist a cutter (or a series of cutters) or dies in a repeatable way and maintain tolerances?

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by id10t

I would bet on generative AI making the picture. The actual thing is likely from one of those "23 amazing facts you won't believe" clickbait list-icles ....

No doubt, an AI generated image. And AI can get somethings OK, but usually gets something way wrong.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

A fitted bullet to a manufactured rifle with a hexagonal bore in the 1850's, '60's.

It's always slightly unreal to learn how smart people in all centuries have shaped our planet.

What must have been the process to first hold the barrel and then draw and twist a cutter (or a series of cutters) or dies in a repeatable way and maintain tolerances?

Not hexagonal, but still happens today. I have a buddy who has been naughty, so he does muzzle loaders only. Including modern inlines, using smokeless powder (yes, they exist and this is a thing). For people shooting bullet to bore it is very common when having a barrel put on to use a couple inches of the cut off to make a barrel-specific sizing die. When it comes time to load, the bullet is pre-engraved with the rifling of *that* barrel, making loading very easy and shooting very accurate.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by id10t

Not hexagonal, but still happens today. I have a buddy who has been naughty, so he does muzzle loaders only. Including modern inlines, using smokeless powder (yes, they exist and this is a thing). For people shooting bullet to bore it is very common when having a barrel put on to use a couple inches of the cut off to make a barrel-specific sizing die. When it comes time to load, the bullet is pre-engraved with the rifling of *that* barrel, making loading very easy and shooting very accurate.

Yup. "There is nothing new under the sun." These are known as "false muzzles", very common on late 19th Century Schuetzen rifles. Most of these rifles were "breach / muzzle loaders", in that the bullet was introduced from the muzzle in an otherwise breach loading rifle. A shell charged with powder was loaded from the breach after the bullet was loaded from the muzzle. This ensured proper bullet alignment, since it did not have to jump into the rifled barrel from the shell, passing through the throat and the leade where it could easily become misaligned. Some of the most accurate rifles ever made were these breach / muzzle loaders.

That little peg was placed so as to block the sight picture, lest one launch his false muzzle downrange...

[Gogar]

I too suggest that it's AI generated and that explains the sort of ... "aggregated" errors.

[LWJ]

AI for sure. I have some other examples of really stupid AI, don't need to blather on about. But for fun, I decided to zoom in on the shooter's hand. I see a thumb, five fingers, and two micro fingers in between??? We are (2024) in the period of AI where it is grabbing info without analysis. Which results in goofy pictures like above. Fun discussion.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by id10t

I would bet on generative AI making the picture. The actual thing is likely from one of those "23 amazing facts you won't believe" clickbait list-icles ....

Exactly. Someone told AI to create an image, and it did. AI is notorious about getting lots of stuff wrong in images, especially if it's not "fed" the right info/data.

[aschen]

Its actually pretty good for an AI image I am surprised he is not wearing air Jordan's or an apple watch.