Could More Repeaters Have Won the War for the Union?

Could mass production of repeaters have helped the Union achieve victory much earlier?


  • Total voters
    19
I am a spencer fan, but yes I agree with you that the Sharps rifle would of had a dramatic input. I honestly believe that accuracy was affected greatly by the panic soldiers must of felt in the 30 seconds or so to reload. Having a round available after only 10/12 seconds would certainly be of benefit. Also with no raming involved a soldier would have to expose himself less and keep up rate of fire. The Sharps ammo would not of cost any more than the Springfield ammo so other than the intial cost difference of the gun money would not of been a great concern for acquiring the weapon. Sharps had a factory at the start of the war which was a major advantage over the spencer in 1861. The worst thing about using the sharps in quantity would be those captured could be used against you unlike the confederacy could not manufacture the spencer and henry ammunition.

Tks. Sharps was feasable very early. Spencer was , actually, not a long range weapon. Best suited to the Cav. Also...infranty Spencer very heavy. PLUS ya got that delicate 7 shot clip issue. Butt loaded. I not so sure "some" on here really very knowledgable bout the Spencer. Ya dont see the Spencer hanging around very long after the Civil War....and they were cheap. Sharps used in the West well into the 1880's....with some modifications. I can do better with the Sharps, and have, than the Spencer after the initial load with the Spencer....then it becomes a hassel. Sharps....slap in yer load, close breech, fire. Quick.....as long as yer cap feed doing it's job. Spencer quicker initially...BUT...ya gotta have all them LONG clips attached to you somwhere. It is/was also more prone to jamming that history records. etc etc blah blah
 
Just think of the fire power an entrenched Army using repeating rifles would place have on a force marching across an open field. Not a pretty sight.

Mulejack

Indeed....but at the time of the Civil War the Sharps could easily kill at half a mile....the Spencer....well under a quarter of a mile. The Sharps was more feasible given the era....I think. And....fast to load. I have shot it...fast. Spencer was perfect for the Cav. Now I getting redundent.
 
Tks. Sharps was feasable very early. Spencer was , actually, not a long range weapon. Best suited to the Cav. Also...infranty Spencer very heavy. PLUS ya got that delicate 7 shot clip issue. Butt loaded. I not so sure "some" on here really very knowledgable bout the Spencer. Ya dont see the Spencer hanging around very long after the Civil War....and they were cheap. Sharps used in the West well into the 1880's....with some modifications. I can do better with the Sharps, and have, than the Spencer after the initial load with the Spencer....then it becomes a hassel. Sharps....slap in yer load, close breech, fire. Quick.....as long as yer cap feed doing it's job. Spencer quicker initially...BUT...ya gotta have all them LONG clips attached to you somwhere. It is/was also more prone to jamming that history records. etc etc blah blah
Saw somewhere that most grunts did not carry the magazines. They just fed in the shells individually. After all, it was only 7.
 
Kind of a useless arguement. Were southerners better shots than northerners. Which southerner? Which northerner?
 
Kind of a useless arguement. Were southerners better shots than northerners. Which southerner? Which northerner?

Pithy as usual. Ohioans were the best shots..Annie Oakly from Ohio. Grant, ..Ohio,.. Sherman, Ohio,,, Sheridan,Ohio....heh. As u well know ole...a shooting "eye" is very related to yer geographical place of birth. Yup. EYES are better in certain locals. I like yer satire. Carry on.
 
Indeed....but at the time of the Civil War the Sharps could easily kill at half a mile....the Spencer....well under a quarter of a mile. The Sharps was more feasible given the era....I think. And....fast to load. I have shot it...fast. Spencer was perfect for the Cav. Now I getting redundent.
I think you have been reading too much hype about the Sharps. Bring in Quigley, heck he can hit anything with his Sharps. Accuracy, the Sharps rifle is just a 200 to 300 yard rifle consistantly in the hands of the average soldier. A Henry rifle could muster up the same accuracy as well as the Spencer. Don't believe all of the hype by those that don't know through experience. An expeienced shot who can judge range accurately could hit targets farther away. Just remember you can not kill what you cannot hit, regardless of the range, well you might be able to scare a target to death.
 
I think you have been reading too much hype about the Sharps. Bring in Quigley, heck he can hit anything with his Sharps. Accuracy, the Sharps rifle is just a 200 to 300 yard rifle consistantly in the hands of the average soldier. A Henry rifle could muster up the same accuracy as well as the Spencer. Don't believe all of the hype by those that don't know through experience. An expeienced shot who can judge range accurately could hit targets farther away. Just remember you can not kill what you cannot hit, regardless of the range, well you might be able to scare a target to death.

Simply wrong. Wrong. I dont buy hype cause I been shooting this stuff since the mid-1950's...so there. The Sharps was the deal. Spencer good, ok, Henry fired a PISTOLE round....44 cal. Not bad up close, bad far away. The dumbest thing I have ever seen in a movie that had a firearms scene was that thang a few years ago where Costner (sp...dancing witth the wolves) dropped a BULL buffalo with 1 shot from his Henry at long range. Duh.


I have shot em ALL. Sharps perfect for era and logistics at that time. Long range killer. Spencer just not suited for infrantry at that time. The clip is a real issue. Forget the Henry.....$$$$$$$$$........too expensive. We can argue this till the cows come home..heh.
 
I think you have been reading too much hype about the Sharps. Bring in Quigley, heck he can hit anything with his Sharps. Accuracy, the Sharps rifle is just a 200 to 300 yard rifle consistantly in the hands of the average soldier. A Henry rifle could muster up the same accuracy as well as the Spencer. Don't believe all of the hype by those that don't know through experience. An expeienced shot who can judge range accurately could hit targets farther away. Just remember you can not kill what you cannot hit, regardless of the range, well you might be able to scare a target to death.

There was no boot camp for recruits in the Civil War. No training fer as how to make the Henry deadly in the hands of new troops. No training as to how to handle the VERY heavy infrantry Spencer with it's butt fed clip and it's tendency to JAM.. yes, jam. I just arguing the most feasible weapon given the realities of the era.

The 3 band Sharps is much more than a 300 yard weapon. Much more! 300 yards is short range for the load that rifle could fire. Makes me wonder iffin you actually know that weapon? Yes in the hands of the average soldier it most likely would have not been proficient beyond that.....but, the learning curve is much lower than those other high tech weapons in that day. You can hit at quarter mile easily with a Sharps...with some experience. Hell the Springfield could could kill at over 500 yards...not common, but it could. Carry on.
 
There was no boot camp for recruits in the Civil War. No training fer as how to make the Henry deadly in the hands of new troops. No training as to how to handle the VERY heavy infrantry Spencer with it's butt fed clip and it's tendency to JAM.. yes, jam. I just arguing the most feasible weapon given the realities of the era.

The 3 band Sharps is much more than a 300 yard weapon. Much more! 300 yards is short range for the load that rifle could fire. Makes me wonder iffin you actually know that weapon? Yes in the hands of the average soldier it most likely would have not been proficient beyond that.....but, the learning curve is much lower than those other high tech weapons in that day. You can hit at quarter mile easily with a Sharps...with some experience. Hell the Springfield could could kill at over 500 yards...not common, but it could. Carry on.

Well after rereading some of your past posts and now reading this one I am not sure why you are posting all of the Sharps stuff and sniper comments on a question that asks about repeaters. In case you did not know the Sharps was a single shot and the Spencer does not use clips.:D

The Henry rifle and the Spencers were the repeaters of the Civil War and would have helped end the Civil War sooner if adopted in large numbers at the beginning of the war. The reality is, The United States(Union) did end the Civil War, reuniting the country using both muzzle-loaders and repeaters. "What if" questions could be argued till the cows come home and it still would not change the past.
 
Well after rereading some of your past posts and now reading this one I am not sure why you are posting all of the Sharps stuff and sniper comments on a question that asks about repeaters. In case you did not know the Sharps was a single shot and the Spencer does not use clips.:D

The Henry rifle and the Spencers were the repeaters of the Civil War and would have helped end the Civil War sooner if adopted in large numbers at the beginning of the war. The reality is, The United States(Union) did end the Civil War, reuniting the country using both muzzle-loaders and repeaters. "What if" questions could be argued till the cows come home and it still would not change the past.

O my....of course I know this was posted about repeaters. I just slammed my mouth in there and argued that perhaps the Sharps was more feasible for the infrantry than the repeaters of the day. I do kinda know that the Sharps was a single shot weapon....I also know the Spencer was not a true "repeater"! Ya have to cock the hammer before each round is fired. Did you know that?:bounce:

You have to pull the hammer back before each shot. That's the thingee that hits the primer cap...yes. Was not a repeater. Just to set the record straight.
 
A handfull of Berdan's Sharpshooters scored hits on Confederates with their Sharps rifles at an amazing 1,500 yards-nearly nine-tenths of a mile- at Todd's Tavern, Virginia.

Correct but they were highly trained, elite, and were armed with the 2 trigger Sharps...the "set" trigger....etc. Regular troops could have done very well with the regular Sharps...IMO. Again, I just thinking of the era and the state of development with the new true repeaters. The Spencer was not a repeater in the true sense....a great gun but I think the Sharps might have been more practical for the infrantry of the era. Union troops could have been well supported with the needs of that firearm. O....44 Henry...since ya wanna play nit-pic hows iffin I call the Spencer clips a "butt fed tubular magazine. OK? Happy?
 
I own and have shot several original Sharps, Spencers, and all types of muskets and rifle muskets. In my opinion the Sharps rifle was the best Infantry rifle fielded during the civil war. I love the Spencer and own two repro Henrys but still shoot my Sharps repro percussion rifle the most. I wish I could afford an original Henry for my collection, but I own an original mod 1866 as the closest that I could get to one.
 
Repeating rifles played on important part in the Civil War as well as the development of repeating rifles into the future. The 2 main repeaters of the Civil War were the Henry repeating rifle and the Spencer repeating rifle and carbine. The key to the repeating arms, the Henry and the Spencer, was the ammunition. It also offered the great advantage that the Rebs could not produce it. As far as numbers of repeating arms used in the Civil War, somewhere less than 10,000 Henry repeating rifles were used and about the same number of Spencer repeating rifles were used. By the end of the War a little less than 60,000 Spencer repeating carbines were produced and used. For an abundance of information on the Henry repeating rifle as well as some information on the Spencer repeating rifle check the webpage link.
http://44henryrifle.webs.com/index.htm
 
"... the VERY heavy infantry Spencer...". Seriously? Very heavy?
The 1860 Spencer Rifle weighs exactly the same as a Model 1841 Mississippi Rifle, 9lb 14 oz. Which is also what a M-1 Garand weighs. The Spencer Rifle may be too heavy for some of us today, but it was far from too heavy for the 18 to 20 somethings that they were issued to. Those were people who didn't ride a desk for a living!

Jobe
 
"... the VERY heavy infantry Spencer...". Seriously? Very heavy?
The 1860 Spencer Rifle weighs exactly the same as a Model 1841 Mississippi Rifle, 9lb 14 oz. Which is also what a M-1 Garand weighs. The Spencer Rifle may be too heavy for some of us today, but it was far from too heavy for the 18 to 20 somethings that they were issued to. Those were people who didn't ride a desk for a living!

Jobe
I agree with you. The tables I saw had the spencer rifle at 10 pounds and the sharps rifle at 9.5 lbs. Not much difference. As far as problems with the magazines I have never seen a period piece saying they had major problems with them. Did some spencers jam. I am sure some did but the men who used it said it was the easiest gun to maintain. As far as long range use. According to historian paddy griffith most civil war battles were fought under 200 yards with much under 100 yards. That is why in some battles a smoothboore shooting buck and ball was not a major disadvantage. I will talk about the spencer and leave the henry to 44 henry. Colonel Wilder probably used his repeaters against more infantry than probably any other unit. HIs men used them from 63 to the end of the war. His men repealed break thrus in the union lines, guarded bridges against superior numbers, was put in weak spots in battle lines to stop confederate attacks. HIs men were not any better or worse than most brigades before being issued repeaters. They used other weapons from 61 to 63 so they were familiar with their accuracy and range. No where was it ever written, at least I never seen it, that the Lightning Brigade suffered due to being outgunned. They were fighting against enfields and springfields with supposedly much longer ranges. If Rosecrans, Wilders commanding officer, could put these weapons to such great use, I am sure many other civil war generals could too. Should the spencer have been issued to everyone in the union army. No they could not of produced that many. But several brigades used effectly could of made major differences. More spencers made earlier in the war would of helped the cavalry become a more effective force earlier in the war
 
deleson1 -

I took the weights from arms in a friends collection using a baby scale. His New Model 1859 Berdan Sharps Rifle weighed 8 lb. 14 oz. He has quite an extensive collection if anyone is interested in other weights for comparitive purposes.

Jobe
 
The Spencer Rifle is an excellent repeating rifle that I have used both originals and reproductions. I developed a cheap blank for it for reenacting and as an infantry weapon it works great. In fact we have 7 Spencer rifles in our group when portray Wilder's Brigade. Check out the video of how a Spencer Rifle shoots these new blanks. I should probably mention that I am not a vendor nor do I sale blanks, I just do R,D & T. There is another video on You Tube on how you can make you own blanks. I just post the video to show how a Spencer rifle is not "too heavy" for an infantryman to use in the field.
 
The Spencer Rifle is an excellent repeating rifle that I have used both originals and reproductions. I developed a cheap blank for it for reenacting and as an infantry weapon it works great. In fact we have 7 Spencer rifles in our group when portray Wilder's Brigade. Check out the video of how a Spencer Rifle shoots these new blanks. I should probably mention that I am not a vendor nor do I sale blanks, I just do R,D & T. There is another video on You Tube on how you can make you own blanks. I just post the video to show how a Spencer rifle is not "too heavy" for an infantryman to use in the field.
Yeah, your video sure proved to me that I wouldnt want a spencer, lol
 
Back
Top