Repeating rifles??????!!!!!

[Fjodin]

I've just realised strange thing! We know that at 1850-60 wars was fought with caplock muskets. After with single shot rifle, and after 1880 with magazine rifles.


BUT! Spenser repeating rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle) was produced in 1860!


Henry rifle in 1850!

So there was repeating rifles at age of ACW! So why does this war fought mainly with musket. And why after it Franko-Prussian War and Zulu War was fought by single shot rifles? Are military of that time was not interested with magazine rifles?

[Blackwolf]

It is called the self contained (for wont of a better word) cartridge,similar to the cartridges we use today, a new device at the time of the ACW,not yet perfected.Now you could have an percussion cap revolver etcetera,however once all the shots were fired it took ages to reload.........Early SCC were expensive and often not too good,cheaper to arm the masses with cap and ball rifles.

[white knight]

you know, if you wanted to convert some VSF troops with repeating rifles, it might be worth to find a GW bits seller on ebay (there are several) and get some repeating handguns from the plastic GW pistolier/outrider set. As they are plastic, they lend themselves well to cutting off the hands or just the barrels and place them on other figures.

Like here: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WARHAMMER-BITS-EMPIRE-PISTOLIERS-7x-OUTRIDER-GUNS_W0QQitemZ230454966735QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item35a82fb9cf

[Plynkes]

The Union did use repeating rifles in the Civil War to a limited extent, and the Rebs didn't like it.

"...that damned Yankee rifle that they load on Sunday and shoot all week "


Ammunition was always a concern. Higher ups always believed if you gave such a gun to a private soldier he would waste all his ammo shooting off without aiming. Same thing happened when the Brits got the Lee-Metford magazine rifle. I read somewhere that standard practice to begin with was to load a new round for every shot (just like it was a Martini). The magazine was to be saved for "emergencies." Took a while for that mentality to go.

[Dewbakuk]

As has been said, repeating rifles were used but they were far too expensive to issue on mass. I've also seen reports/data that shows that a moderately trained soldier can actually fire faster than repeaters of the time when you factor in a reload. I've also seen stuff that shows the standard rifle (Springfield?) is more accurate at longer ranges.

Even years later when the US upgraded their weapons for the Plains Wars etc they didn't issue repeating rifles. They instead used a modification to the Springfield that made it more accurate, reliable and a breach loader. One of the main reasons for this was the vast number of Springfields they had in storage. It was cheaper to replace the mechanism and barrels than to make a whole new gun. However, firing speed of a trained soldier and accuracy were again cited. I saw a comparison between a Plainswar Springfield and a Winchester and the Springfields effective range was more than twice that of a Winchester.

Another factor is the belief by officers that soldiers with rapid firing weapons would just waste ammo, not bothering to aim properly. This belief has been quoted from most armies of the time. - And Plynkes beat me to that one

[Blackwolf]

Don't forget what happened to Custer and co,the US cavalry used single shot Springfields,the American Indians repeaters....The rest is history.

[former user]

that's basically it

repeating rifles were not that accurate (and still aren't - why would snipers use bolt action rifles then?) and they were not produced en masse - too expensive for military, and also too difficult to maintain for the regular soldier!
and also the cost and logistics of cased ammo - powder in a barrel, cast Your own bullets

remember that the first revolvers were loaded from the front and had caplocks too.

[Dewbakuk]

Don't forget what happened to Custer and co,the US cavalry used single shot Springfields,the American Indians repeaters....The rest is history.

Actually, I'd say overwhelming numerical advantage and a complete failure to scout (his actual mission) had far more to do with it. But yes, it wouldn't have helped. Some of the men in Custer's command did have repeating carbines though, it wasn't uncommen for troopers to purchase better guns if they could afford it.

[Fjodin]

Thanx for replying! VERY helpful.

[Flockalicious]

I don't think they could have armed the common infantry with repeaters, even if they could afford it.  The manufacturing was difficult, laborious, and time consuming.  Quality increased as the quality & precisions of tooling and machinery increased nearer the end of the century.

[ushistoryprof]

As in many wars the US government tried to fight the Wars from 1860 to 1900 on the cheap.  Repeaters were much more expensive than the standard muzzle loader as was the ammunition (brass cartages were more than ten times as expensive as the paper ones).  Most units equipped with repeaters were private purchases except for those cavalry units armed with Spencer repeating carbines that were purchased at government expense. Repeaters were rare in the South as southern ammunition factories had no ability to make brass cartages. So once the ammo was used up captured weapons were useless until more ammo was captured.  

After the war the American Army quickly removed all repeating arms from regular troops replacing them first with single shot paper cartage Sharps carbines for the cavalry and Springfield rifles for the infantry.  This was done even in the face of evidence that small groups of troopers, heavily outnumbered, 50 troopers vs. 600 Indians (12 to 1), armed with Spencer’s had driven off Indians in the Battle of Beecher’s Island, while troops armed with single shot rifles and carbines had been wiped out as at the Fetermans Massacre 79 soldiers & troopers and two civilians with repeaters-they lasted the longest and caused the most casualties, vs. 1000 Indians 12 to 1).  Custer with single shot carbines (with brass cartages by this date) was outnumbered by around 8 to 1. (Indian numbers were of course estimates; all three battles are very interesting reading by the way)

By the late 1870’s US Infantry was armed with the single shot “Trapdoor Springfield.” Civil War issue muzzle loading Springfield rifles that had been modified to fire breech loading black powder brass cartages (a major complaint was that  the early version would often stick in the breech after being fired).  This was thought to be a great cost saver over purchasing new weapons.  These were still in use by US militia units in both the Spanish American War of 1898 and the Philippine Insurrection of the early 1900’s when even the US Regulars were armed with the more modern Krag’s.

[Fjodin]

Look what I've found! Very inarmative!

[mysteriousbill]

Another reason is that the lever-action design could only handle low or medium power cartridges, at least until John Browning got a hold of it. Henry's only had 25 grains of powder, Spencers 45 Grains  and Winchester .44-40s took 40 grains, while Springfield trap-door rifles (not carbines) took 70 grains and Martini-Henry's took 85 grains. This meant the repeaters couldn't fire as far or hit as hard. At the time the idea of long-range fire took precidence over rate of fire as a tactic.

[Smokeyrone]

LOL!  did any of you see my  "Lever Actions?" thread on TMP 19th Century Board recently?

Cool.

[leadfool]

Smokeyrone,  Why would we want to go to the TMP.  I like LAF mainly because it isn't TMP.

Powder Charges went up in lever actions every couple of years, ie with every newer John Browning design.  By 1895 Marlin had lever guns in the same 45-70 as the Springfiled trap door.