Experiences with Civil War Carbines

kevikens

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Location
New Jersey
I have always been fascinated by the technologies employed to manufacture the breech loading carbines of the war. Equally I have been interested on the reports by soldiers in the field of their use. I am looking for troopers' accounts of the use of their carbines in combat (especially which makes), how efficiently they functioned, how accurate, how effective, that sort of thing. Anyone have anything like this? Thanks.
 
There are a variety of books that touch on the subject. Schiffers Civil War Carbines: Myth vs Reality, Edwards Civil War Guns, Thomas Civil War Sharps Carbines & Rifles, McAulay Civil War Carbines, Bilby Civil War Firearms. There are alos works on specific arms such as the Burnside, Ballard, Cosmopolitan, Hall etc but the ones I listed are the first that come to mind.

All are excellent works, there are quite a few out there. Edwards & Bilby are the most generalized but IMO must reads if you have any interest in the subject.

In my own reading of period letters and diaries accounts on the specifics of various arms are quite rare. The Sharps, Smith & Burnside were likely the most popular carbines prior to the Spencer... when the Spencer came along only the Sharps would really weather on.
 
Thanks. I will see what I can find. I have two of those books right now. I guess I am looking for letters or later personal accounts involving those arms. I recall one Union officer saying that the regiments experiences with Gallaghers were that they were 'perfectly useless' and one trooper complaining about his Smith being unable to harm his foe at all. Thanks again
 
Thanks. I will see what I can find. I have two of those books right now. I guess I am looking for letters or later personal accounts involving those arms. I recall one Union officer saying that the regiments experiences with Gallaghers were that they were 'perfectly useless' and one trooper complaining about his Smith being unable to harm his foe at all. Thanks again
All of the works have that to one degree or another. I'm tempted to say McAulay & Schiffers work eachhad a good amount of that. Thomas touches on it some as does Bilby & some of the works that concentrate on a specific arm do as well but those tend to be written from a fans perspective and seem to avoid negative aspects. If you read Henry fans they'll say the Henry was the finest arm ever invented capable of 700 yard shots so I tend to take many with a grain of salt. It also must be remembered many of the users who were complaining about arms had no clue what they were talking about some not even knowing how to properly clean them. The Starr & Smith are two prominent examples that come to mind in that it is relatively easy to find accounts of them as junk and others who praise them to no end. That's where it has been so enjoyable to me to actually find the opportunity to live fire some and feel how they actually performed.

I've mostly fired original Infantry arms but have never passed up the opportunity to fire a carbine when offered. I'm a fan of the Sharps but even the Sharps is a far cry from perfect as I've witnessed a hanky lain across the breach catch fire from escaping gasses.
 
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?
 
Here is a Spencer from my collection that was used by one of Gen Wilsons trooper during there raid into Alabama. This one was discarded after the hammer broke. This one is listed in the SRS and has been traced from the plant to the 6th Ill Cav and was issued in late 1864. I don't have any info on what the Union troops said about their Spencers but I do know what the CS troops said :Them yankees can load that gun on Sunday and shoot all week"
DSCN6593.JPG
DSCN6594.JPG
DSCN6598.JPG
 
You are very fortunate indeed to have a Spencer Carbine positively Id'd by serial number! Although, I can't imagine how you came up with the story about the hammer. I would rather suspect it reached its current condition after the Civil War.
J.
 
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?
Don't worry the civil war troops sometimes had problems with the load. I've read several period accounts of bad loads from dampness.
 
Back
Top