Thanks again. I, too, like to shoot the arms and actually found the Smith a very reliable arm. I guess I wonder why it did receive bad press. I have read where a number of them wound up going out West after the war in civilian hands. The same about the Gallagher. I understand there was some problem with their tin foil cartridges but the mechanics of the arm seem quite reliable. With the modern brass cartridges one can get from firearms selling reloading gear the Gallagher works quite well and I have never had a problem getting the cartridge out to be reloaded. At least you never had to worry about the extractor breaking. And it was chambered for a brass cartridge later on.I am more familiar with the post war Sharps brass cartridge arm and the action seems better than the Trapdoor the army adopted in its place. With the Civil War version, though, I have never been happy with those paper cartridges but that probably results from my not making them up right, usually getting a soggy mess of nitrated paper that then crumbles when I try to load them. Since I have not read of any war time troops complaining of the cartridges I suspect my problem with the Sharps comes from my cartridge making ability, not any inherent flaw with the gun. Your mention of the Henry is something I have wondered about. I have never owned or fired one but I do have a repro 1866 yellow Boy and if the Henry shot as well as the 1866 I can see why troops who had them loved them. The Spencer I find to be a heavy arm though I understand why the troops wanted them. Their rim fire cartridge carried a real wallop to them. I have never fired a Maynard, Starr, or Burnside. Perhaps the troops did not write more about their arms but that may be because they saw their arms as tools and how many of us comment in our correspondence on our daily use of the tools we use in our jobs?