Dugger
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Location
- Southern Ohio
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