The Spanky Show

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They did use rifles (the muzzle-loading muskets were a species of rifle), and also repeating ones at that. The Henry rifle was one lever-action repeater that saw service in the War Between the States.* The Spencer was another. Their higher cost and relatively exotic ordnance kept them from being as widely issued as the muzzle-loading rifles, which in turn were only six-year-old technology at the start of the war and therefore relatively exotic.

A.K.A. The War Among the States.

The repeating rifle seems so superior to the muzzle loading rifle that I find it amazing that more of an effort wasn't made to supply everyone with repeating rifles. A jump from a muzzle-loading rifle seems like to me the jump from a sword to a musket. It would seem to me that ten soldiers with repeating rifles would easily beat a hundred soliders with muzzle loading rifles. A repeating rifle could get off five rounds in a couple of seconds where a muzzle loading musket firing five rounds would take a couple of minutes. In combat that difference in time would be tactically invaluable. The difference in my mind must be greater than reality.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How far did the pre-civil war rifles shoot, as compared to muskets? What was the rate of misfires, as compared to muskets? What was the effect of a misfire, as compared to a musket? What was the accuracy, as compared to a musket? Would being shot with a rifle kill or effectively disable the opponent?

These are all pretty obvious and logical questions. If you are assburgery, I would think you would think of these things faster than, say, me.

I find nothing more annoying than someone who responds to a question when they don't know the answer. Why do people do that? If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, don’t say anything. You are almost as bad as notcasesensitive. Posts like the one above only demonstrate the inadequacies of the poster and wastes space.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by Spanky
I find nothing more annoying than someone who responds to a question when they don't know the answer. Why do people do that? If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, don’t say anything. You are almost as bad as notcasesensitive. Posts like the one above only demonstrate the inadequacies of the poster and wastes space.

You're learning fast. That is a great way to start the friday off.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The repeating rifle seems so superior to the muzzle loading rifle that I find it amazing that more of an effort wasn't made to supply everyone with repeating rifles. A jump from a muzzle-loading rifle seems like to me the jump from a sword to a musket. It would seem to me that ten soldiers with repeating rifles would easily beat a hundred soliders with muzzle loading rifles. A repeating rifle could get off five rounds in a couple of seconds where a muzzle loading musket firing five rounds would take a couple of minutes. In combat that difference in time would be tactically invaluable. The difference in my mind must be greater than reality.

No, the difference was quite real --- ask Custer, whose men had single-shot Springfields going up against the red man with Henrys and Spencers. Little Big Horn was probably the last time the USA allowed infantry to take on an enemy with superior weaponry.

An interesting basic answer to your earlier question is found here:

• I'm interested in finding out timelines for the various repeating rifles - any type, lever-action or revolver. I have several questions:
  1. Why did the revolver-type repeating rifles not catch on like the lever types?
  
  2. Were there good-quality repeating rifles during the American Civil War?
  
  3. If so, why did the armies continue to use single-shot rifles, as is written in anything I've seen or read about the war?
  Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my questions.
  John Geary
  Regular contributor David Stroud writes:
  1. By "revolver-type" repeating rifles, I assume you mean weapons such as the Colt revolving rifles and shotguns. Colt came out with a revolving rifle in 1836 and believed this would make him rich; the Paterson pistol was a sideline. However, both were far too costly for the military and civilian markets. There was also another drawback: with cap-and ball-rifles, the flame from the fired cylinder could burn the arm of the shooter unless he held it as prescribed in Colt's instructions.
  If you mean a Gatling Guns, the early models were not nearly as efficient as seen in the movies. The empty casings jammed frequently on ejection, and that's why Custer left them behind on his way to the Little Big Horn.
  
  2. and 3. Yes, the 7-shot, .52 caliber Spencer was lever action, and the Confederates claimed Yanks could load on Sunday and fire all week. The Henry lever action was also an excellent arm.
  Before the Civil War, the U.S. War Department was reluctant to buy such expensive weapons and believed the average soldier was not smart enough to operate multiple-firing arms. The War Department also claimed that the amount of smoke from repeating weapons hid the enemy from view.
  However, the US Army eventually purchased Spencers and by the end of the Civil War the Union cavalry was armed with them. In competition between the lever-action Henry and the Spencer the the government preferred the more durable Spencer, but eventually abandoned it and returned to the single shot Springfield trapdoor." Ironically, the Spencer was recalled from Custer's troopers and they were reissued single-shot Springfields for their march to the Little Big Horn where they faced Indians with Henrys and Winchesters.
  
  Byron Johnson, Director of the TRHFM adds:
  The issues of ammunition, ammunition storage and cost was a major flaw with the Spencer and Henry.
  The Spencer stored cartridges nose-to-tail in a removable magazine that slid into the buttstock. If a Spencer was struck hard on the butt, the weapon could "explode" in a chain reaction. I saw this happen to a reenactor in the 1970s with a reproduction Spencer. He required surgery after the stock turned into wood-and-metal shrapnel—even though the weapon was loaded with blanks.
  The Henry rifle was an elegant, precision weapon that could fire an impressive 12 rounds. However, Henry cartridges were of the less reliable rimfire design and prone to misfires. The bullets were smaller .44 caliber versus the .52 caliber of the Spencer, and the anemic 25 grain Henry powder charge yielded a low velocity and a range shorter than many old-style cap and ball rifles. The lever-action mechanism was fragile and required regular maintenance. Repairs in the field were impossible.
  The US Government was also not excited about the cost of these weapons. A single shot rifle like a Springfield could be had for less than $20. The Spencer was twice the cost at $40 and a plain Henry started at $50.
  I agree with David that the battle at the Little Bighorn might have been different if they used Spencers or Henrys in place of the trapdoor Springfields. "Trapdoors" used powerful .45-70 and .50-70 cartridges. However, the shell casings were cheap copper and expanded with heat from repeated firings. This led to cartridges jamming in the breechs. After the battle, the graves detail found several cases where soldiers were killed while desperately trying to pry a jammed shell out of a Springfield breech. Ironically, after this battel copper casings were replaced by brass casings.
  Thank you for you interest, and let us know if I can help any further.
  
  David Stroud & Byron Johnson

Link.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They did use rifles (the muzzle-loading muskets were a species of rifle), and also repeating ones at that. The Henry rifle was one lever-action repeater that saw service in the War Between the States.* The Spencer was another. Their higher cost and relatively exotic ordnance kept them from being as widely issued as the muzzle-loading rifles, which in turn were only six-year-old technology at the start of the war and therefore relatively exotic.

A.K.A. The War Among the States.

Wasn't the Sepoy Mutiny in India a few years earlier caused in part by the introduction of repeating breach loading rifles whose grease coated cartridges had to be unwrapped by the teeth? IIRC, there were rumors spread that the grease was a mixture of pig and cow fat, which pretty much offended every Sepoy in India.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They did use rifles (the muzzle-loading muskets were a species of rifle), and also repeating ones at that. The Henry rifle was one lever-action repeater that saw service in the War Between the States.* The Spencer was another. Their higher cost and relatively exotic ordnance kept them from being as widely issued as the muzzle-loading rifles, which in turn were only six-year-old technology at the start of the war and therefore relatively exotic.

A.K.A. The War Among the States.

Not to mention that the Henry was a .50 caliber beast that would have shattered the collarbones of the 16 and 17 year-old boys that made up far too many of the troops in the Civil War.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, the difference was quite real --- ask Custer, whose men had single-shot Springfields going up against the red man with Henrys and Spencers. Little Big Horn was probably the last time the USA allowed infantry to take on an enemy with superior weaponry.

An interesting basic answer to your earlier question is found here:

• I'm interested in finding out timelines for the various repeating rifles - any type, lever-action or revolver. I have several questions:
  1. Why did the revolver-type repeating rifles not catch on like the lever types?
  
  2. Were there good-quality repeating rifles during the American Civil War?
  
  3. If so, why did the armies continue to use single-shot rifles, as is written in anything I've seen or read about the war?
  Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my questions.
  John Geary
  Regular contributor David Stroud writes:
  1. By "revolver-type" repeating rifles, I assume you mean weapons such as the Colt revolving rifles and shotguns. Colt came out with a revolving rifle in 1836 and believed this would make him rich; the Paterson pistol was a sideline. However, both were far too costly for the military and civilian markets. There was also another drawback: with cap-and ball-rifles, the flame from the fired cylinder could burn the arm of the shooter unless he held it as prescribed in Colt's instructions.
  If you mean a Gatling Guns, the early models were not nearly as efficient as seen in the movies. The empty casings jammed frequently on ejection, and that's why Custer left them behind on his way to the Little Big Horn.
  
  2. and 3. Yes, the 7-shot, .52 caliber Spencer was lever action, and the Confederates claimed Yanks could load on Sunday and fire all week. The Henry lever action was also an excellent arm.
  Before the Civil War, the U.S. War Department was reluctant to buy such expensive weapons and believed the average soldier was not smart enough to operate multiple-firing arms. The War Department also claimed that the amount of smoke from repeating weapons hid the enemy from view.
  However, the US Army eventually purchased Spencers and by the end of the Civil War the Union cavalry was armed with them. In competition between the lever-action Henry and the Spencer the the government preferred the more durable Spencer, but eventually abandoned it and returned to the single shot Springfield trapdoor." Ironically, the Spencer was recalled from Custer's troopers and they were reissued single-shot Springfields for their march to the Little Big Horn where they faced Indians with Henrys and Winchesters.
  
  Byron Johnson, Director of the TRHFM adds:
  The issues of ammunition, ammunition storage and cost was a major flaw with the Spencer and Henry.
  The Spencer stored cartridges nose-to-tail in a removable magazine that slid into the buttstock. If a Spencer was struck hard on the butt, the weapon could "explode" in a chain reaction. I saw this happen to a reenactor in the 1970s with a reproduction Spencer. He required surgery after the stock turned into wood-and-metal shrapnel—even though the weapon was loaded with blanks.
  The Henry rifle was an elegant, precision weapon that could fire an impressive 12 rounds. However, Henry cartridges were of the less reliable rimfire design and prone to misfires. The bullets were smaller .44 caliber versus the .52 caliber of the Spencer, and the anemic 25 grain Henry powder charge yielded a low velocity and a range shorter than many old-style cap and ball rifles. The lever-action mechanism was fragile and required regular maintenance. Repairs in the field were impossible.
  The US Government was also not excited about the cost of these weapons. A single shot rifle like a Springfield could be had for less than $20. The Spencer was twice the cost at $40 and a plain Henry started at $50.
  I agree with David that the battle at the Little Bighorn might have been different if they used Spencers or Henrys in place of the trapdoor Springfields. "Trapdoors" used powerful .45-70 and .50-70 cartridges. However, the shell casings were cheap copper and expanded with heat from repeated firings. This led to cartridges jamming in the breechs. After the battle, the graves detail found several cases where soldiers were killed while desperately trying to pry a jammed shell out of a Springfield breech. Ironically, after this battel copper casings were replaced by brass casings.
  Thank you for you interest, and let us know if I can help any further.
  
  David Stroud & Byron Johnson

Link.

Well. I stand corrected.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I find nothing more annoying than someone who responds to a question when they don't know the answer. Why do people do that? If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, don’t say anything. You are almost as bad as notcasesensitive. Posts like the one above only demonstrate the inadequacies of the poster and wastes space.

I meant to imply that perhaps you could have, you know, googled.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I find nothing more annoying than someone who responds to a question when they don't know the answer. Why do people do that? If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, don’t say anything. You are almost as bad as notcasesensitive. Posts like the one above only demonstrate the inadequacies of the poster and wastes space.

Is it possible that she is actually trying to annoy you? Is she just in her standard bitchy mood? Has she run out of meds again? Can you waste virtual space when we get it for free?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, the difference was quite real --- ask Custer, whose men had single-shot Springfields going up against the red man with Henrys and Spencers. Little Big Horn was probably the last time the USA allowed infantry to take on an enemy with superior weaponry.

Well, there was Vietnam.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I meant to imply that perhaps you could have, you know, googled.

That was unexpectedly subdued.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Wasn't the Sepoy Mutiny in India a few years earlier caused in part by the introduction of repeating breach loading rifles whose grease coated cartridges had to be unwrapped by the teeth? IIRC, there were rumors spread that the grease was a mixture of pig and cow fat, which pretty much offended every Sepoy in India.

I can't explain why, but this post really turns me on.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That was unexpectedly subdued.

Pre-coffee. I like that I'm not as bad as Pretty Lady.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I can't explain why, but this post really turns me on.

Unwrapping something grease-coated and delicate with the teeth? I have no idea how that could be a turn-on.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Unwrapping something grease-coated and delicate with the teeth? I have no idea how that could be a turn-on.

Nah, I think it's more that RT, who usually talks about vibrators, can talk about guns and military history. It's like a hot chick in a bikini fixing your car.