Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Just the books, just the books. I own a Miroku M1861 Springfield, M1841 Euroarms made into a Colt Conversion and I just received a Loyalist Arms Lorenz M1854. Used to own a Armi-Sport & Parker Halle P53 Enfield... The unit loaner Armi-Sport Rifled M1842 is in my basement alongside a friends Armi-Sport P53 while he is at Basic Training.
My father was a gun smith for 20 years so I grew up w/ the smell of woodsmoke and gunoil... guess it runs through my veins a bit.
May I suggest, "Civil War Breedh Loading Rifles" by John D. McAulay. In addition, don't overlook the helpful detailed period information that can be found in the "Ordnance Manual." Even info on "Restoring Unserviceable Powder."
There are a number of fine reprints out there.
Regards, Dave Gorski
Someone asked me today, how CW breechloaders were loaded, and I had to plead ignorance.
Capt.,
Before you can answer that question, you need to know which breechloader. The most obvious is the Sharps, but they were plenty of others out there.
Plus, you have the Spencer's and Henry's. So, tell us which you'd like to learn more about, and I am sure there will be quite a few of us willing to help.
Cheers and Fairwinds,
Brett Silver
Capt.,
Before you can answer that question, you need to know which breechloader. The most obvious is the Sharps, but they were plenty of others out there.
Plus, you have the Spencer's and Henry's. So, tell us which you'd like to learn more about, and I am sure there will be quite a few of us willing to help.
Cheers and Fairwinds,
Brett Silver
My friend didn't specify which.
If you can tell me the different procedures for the Sharps, Spencer, and Henry, and I can tell him, I can REALLY make him think that I know what I'm talking about!
The Spencer and Henry used metallic cartridges and were loaded very much like a modern firearm. The Spencer was fed from a tube in the buttstock, the Henry from a tube under the barrel. The Sharps used a paper or linen cartridge fed, by hand, into the breech. The only advantage was that there was no ramrod to tamp the round into the chamber. The shooter still had to **** the hammer and place a cap on the nipple, but it was faster than handling the ramrod.
Starting in '64, you begin to see a number of units armed with Spencers or Henrys. 50 guys could put out the firepower of 1000. You'll see where Forrest's boys had Spencers they took from some Yank. Unfortunately, the Confederacy was incapable of making ammunition for them. When the captured supply was gone, The Spencer was gone.
And you knew all this anyway but were just checking to see if anyone was paying attention.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Ole pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as loading procedure goes.
I have to say that I think the Sharps should never have been more than a stop-gap measure. It did have fair ballistics, from all I've seen, but really couldn't hold a candle to the Henry or Spencer. At least from where I stand.
I have had a chance to handle originals of all three, as well as live fire reproductions of the Sharps and Spencer, and they all certainly make the old muskets seem OLD; however, only the Spencer and Henry have a real advantage over muzzle-loading weapons. Doing away with a seperate ignition system, especially one as small and easily fumbled as a percussion cap, was a huge advantage (and still is if you have clumsy, rather large hands like mine). Not only that, the rounds were essentially weather-proof. These two also allowed you to keep your attention down-range in a firefight rather than having to break yourself away from the drama in your front to concentrate on pouches of ammuniton and pouches of caps and ramrods.
Anyway...I digress...
Thanks to all of you who passed along the info on Wilcox's book. As soon as I finish the kitchen of my house, I have promised myself at least one afternoon at the Virginia Historcal Society or Museum of the Confederacy Library or the like. I'll make sure I update y'all on anything I find.
Cheers and Fairwinds,
Brett Silver
Brett I can't quite agree w/ that... the Sharps first saw service in 1853 and it was literally heads and shoulders above anything else. THe Hall had been around since 1819 and was an excellent arm. But the sharps was simpler, more robust and reliable and most of all less expensive to manufacture. The standardd muzzle loader was just 3 aimed shots a minute for a well drilled soldier where the Sharps was 10 per minute and it was more accurate w/ a round every bit as hard hitting. No, the Sharps was a benchmark and the Sharps action set the standard for single shot arms. Remember when she came about there was no such thing as a metallic cartridge. The M1859 carbine & rifle were as good as they came.
The Spencer was really only consistantly accurate out to 200 yards anything past that was a wing and a prayer. It wasn't balliticly all that impressive but it was reliable; and IMHO far superior to the Henry in accuracy & stopping power especially w/ the practice of cutting an X in the tip of the bullet.
The Henry had some serious short falls, the exposed magazine spring which was eliminated in the 1866 to name the most glaring. It was also only a .44-40... a pistol round in a rifle length barrel giving it a consistant accuracy of only about 1000 yards. It was a BITTY to clean in comparison to either the Spencer or Sharps. But when there are 14 rounds in the thing at 100 yards... whooo boy. Life can suddenly become very uncomfortable for those on the reeiving end.
The Sharps M1859 was a Rifleman's weapon, man size target not an issue at 400 yards. And 10 shots per minute, especially w/ the Lawrence Pellet primer engaged. Good solid wallop.
Spencer... 200 yards average effective range, 7 rounds in the mag & 1 up the pipe. Easy to clean and keep clean w/ solid stopping power.
Henry, horizontal shot tower, outstanding rate of fire, accurate enough at 100 yards and you don't have to lug around a bayonet. Efective? Ask French's men at Allatoona.
Of note the repro Spencers... only the Larry Ramono's are really Spencers, the Taylor arms are a bastardation. Of the Sharps Shiloh or Pedersoli... oftherwise once again it ain't a Sharps. I have live fired original Sharps and Spencer (converted to centerfire) as well as the Ballard, Maynard, Smith, M1861, P53, Lorenz Jaeger and M1841 (M1841 was a dream to shoot and a regular tack driver) still been unlucky in finding an original Henry anyone will let me shoot. All had a similar impact on a 2 x 2 wooden post at 100 yards... killed that post something fierce.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Someone asked me today, how CW breechloaders were loaded, and I had to plead ignorance.
Does anyone here know?
Capt. Coxetter
This is a book might help; also probably the finest quick reference on CW arms I know of. Available at any NPS giftshop and most CW sutlers for under $10 IIRC.
Coates, Earl J. & Thomas, Dean S., An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms, Thomas Publications, 1990.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
List of References 
Linear Mode
