Breechldrs Influence of repeating rifles in the Civil War

It's a yes or no vote. Bean counters will short change the foot soldier every time. Ask the foot soldiers which weapon they would rather have when having to stand in formation in front of the enemy's breast works and return fire, if you truly believe standing in front of several hundred or thousand enemy soldiers intent on killing you with a single shot muzzleloader gives you the advantage over the guy with the repeating rifle then so be it.
Well since the best way to deal with a breast work in this period is to advance and get men over the other side of it then I would really question the officer who orders his men to stand and return fire at men in cover.

Now note those who point out the merits of the existing weapons also point out that the balance of advantage is situational just that the longer ranged more powerful weapon enjoys the advantage in more situations.

Further but reloading faster while not useless adds little if there is less than ammunition even though most shooters will split some of the time saved between firing more carefully and firing faster. One of the issues with the Sharps was that its ammunition often split in transport and was besides more difficult to manufacture than traditional cartridges. Ammunition issues would famously plague many breech loader including the Allin and perhaps better known the Martini-Henry.

It was supplying sufficient quantities of reliable ammunition that held up government procurement of breech loaders in many countries and it was more a case of not so much the soldiers would fire them off as they would not have them to fire.

The newer weapons had a niche but they were not yet a mature technology and in my, albeit limited experience, soldiers generally prefer a system they know works to one that has fancy bells and whistles and breaks a lot.

A lot of the infantry soldier who did buy repeating arms as private purchases were members of color guards who expected to only come into action during close range fights and be protected by the rest of the regiment in other circumstances.

As a weapon of the line the rifle ruled even when it was a muzzle loader, as a weapon for more specialised situations the repeating carbine had its place and for winning battles there is the artillery.
 
It's a yes or no vote. Bean counters will short change the foot soldier every time. Ask the foot soldiers which weapon they would rather have when having to stand in formation in front of the enemy's breast works and return fire, if you truly believe standing in front of several hundred or thousand enemy soldiers intent on killing you with a single shot muzzleloader gives you the advantage over the guy with the repeating rifle then so be it.
Correct. And between September of 1864 and April of 1865 the US had enough repeating rifles to get the message across. From Winchester III, to Five Forks, the Confederate generals like Dick Ewell, James Longstreet, John Bell Hood, and even Nathanial Forrest could see the trend. It wasn't equal fighting any longer: it was simply murder.
There were enough such weapons and if they war had continued past April 1865 there were going to many more repeating rifles in the hands of soldiers and troopers who knew how to use them.
 
Last edited:
It's a yes or no vote. Bean counters will short change the foot soldier every time. Ask the foot soldiers which weapon they would rather have when having to stand in formation in front of the enemy's breast works and return fire, if you truly believe standing in front of several hundred or thousand enemy soldiers intent on killing you with a single shot muzzleloader gives you the advantage over the guy with the repeating rifle then so be it.
Depends on a lot of things. How well trained are they, how far away you're allowed to be etc.

I'd take a muzzle loader with a basic modicum of training over a repeater without any, and the repeater would cost enough for three muzzle loaders and all the powder and shot needed to do the training!

Correct. And between September of 1864 and April of 1865 the US had enough repeating rifles to get the message across. From Winchester III, to Five Forks, the Confederate generals like Dick Ewell, James Longstreet, John Bell Hood, and even Nathanial Forrest could see the trend. It wasn't equal fighting any longer: it was simply murder.
Do you have an example of one of those engagements I asked for, then? Remember that one of the big changes in those battles is Union cavalry charges.
 
It's a yes or no vote. Bean counters will short change the foot soldier every time. Ask the foot soldiers which weapon they would rather have when having to stand in formation in front of the enemy's breast works and return fire, if you truly believe standing in front of several hundred or thousand enemy soldiers intent on killing you with a single shot muzzleloader gives you the advantage over the guy with the repeating rifle then so be it.
And that is why the decision should not be up to the private soldier, who do not see the whole picture.
A repeating firearm is completely useless if there is no ammo for it. And the north did not have the industrial capacity for mass producing the metal cartridges for the henry... no matter how much a soldier might wish it so.


In that specific situation sure I take a henry, but a revolver and a medieval sword and buckler would be higher on my list...
Since taking a firefight against an enemy behind cover is just stupid, no matter what firearms that is used... run forward until standing on the breast work, empty the revolver into the enemy and drop it and start killing with the sword and buckler... since it is way superior to a musket and bayonet in hand to hand combat..
And if that is not an option I would take a smoothbore with buckshot's over a rifled firearm.

In general I rather have an enfield, with all the ammo I need to do weekly, live firing training with it... and have two friends with the same.
Than a repeater where I will always go into combat with too few rounds and never have the chance to use it outside of combat... and be alone.


But Personally I would pick a sharps rifle... allow me to fight kneeling, do long range firing, have some ammo for training and have a better rof than my enemies.
And that might have been a option that would have worked for the federal army.
 
Last edited:
And that might have been a option that would have worked for the federal army.
Assuming they had the ability to produce them. The most productive breechloader factory in the world in the Civil War period was Dreyse's factory in Sommerda, which had a capacity of 30,000 weapons per year, and at that rate arming the Union's frontline armies would take on the order of a decade before accounting for wastage!
 
Assuming they had the ability to produce them. The most productive breechloader factory in the world in the Civil War period was Dreyse's factory in Sommerda, which had a capacity of 30,000 weapons per year, and at that rate arming the Union's frontline armies would take on the order of a decade before accounting for wastage!
Iam not arguing that the entire army should have them... that would just have been impossible.

But importing more weapons from Europe and then using more of the "saved" capacity for sharps rifles to arm specialized skirmish battalions. (somewhat similar to wellingtons light division in Spain)
So like the USSS, just more of them and actually use them in one unified command and focused at the "schwerpunkt".
This is the only alternative to what was done, I can se that had any chance of working...


But in the end the best option would simply have been to produce more paper cartridges for the used rifle muskets, and then institute actual marksmanship training. Even a little would have helped a lot.
 
But importing more weapons from Europe and then using more of the "saved" capacity for sharps rifles to arm specialized skirmish battalions. (somewhat similar to wellingtons light division in Spain)
So like the USSS, just more of them and actually use them in one unified command and offensively at the "schwerpunkt".
Still production problems. Sharps was given a basically unlimited contract for as many Sharps as he could possibly produce, and so the choice is basically rifles or carbines (and you probably have to give up more than one carbine to get one rifle) - and there wasn't a large pool of breechloader carbines to import from Europe.
 
And that is why the decision should not be up to the private soldier, who do not see the whole picture.
A repeating firearm is completely useless if there is no ammo for it. And the north did not have the industrial capacity for mass producing the metal cartridges for the henry... no matter how much a soldier might wish it so.


In that specific situation sure I take a henry, but a revolver and a medieval sword and buckler would be higher on my list...
Since taking a firefight against an enemy behind cover is just stupid, no matter what firearms that is used... run forward until standing on the breast work, empty the revolver into the enemy and drop it and start killing with the sword and buckler... since it is way superior to a musket and bayonet in hand to hand combat..
And if that is not an option I would take a smoothbore with buckshot's over a rifled firearm.

In general I rather have an enfield, with all the ammo I need to do weekly, live firing training with it... and have two friends with the same.
Than a repeater where I will always go into combat with too few rounds and never have the chance to use it outside of combat... and be alone.


But Personally I would pick a sharps rifle... allow me to fight kneeling, do long range firing, have some ammo for training and have a better rof than my enemies.
And that might have been a option that would have worked for the federal army.
There is a definite advantage to having a rifle that uses the same caliber as everyone else's rifle. Its sort of like cycling. Good to have the same tire and tube as every other recreational rider.
 
In that specific situation sure I take a henry, but a revolver and a medieval sword and buckler would be higher on my list...
Since taking a firefight against an enemy behind cover is just stupid, no matter what firearms that is used... run forward until standing on the breast work, empty the revolver into the enemy and drop it and start killing with the sword and buckler... since it is way superior to a musket and bayonet in hand to hand combat..
This is actually an interesting point, because the thing which causes an assault to fail is slowing down... a trick that turns up now and again in history is commanders ordering their men to charge with unloaded long arms.
 
Earlier in this thread there was some speculation as to the reliability of the Spencer rifle and any tendency to jam. While it’s true that the following information is from a Spencer Repeating Firearm sale catalog of the time, I find it interesting.

In June 1861, then Captain J. A. Dahlgren of the United States Navy had the arm tested at the Washington Navy Yard prior to the Navy Department putting in order for rifles. In his account of the testing he says :“The mechanism is compact and strong. The piece was fired five hundred times in succession – partly divided between two mornings. There was but one failure to fire, - supposed to be due to the absence of fulminate. In every other instance the operation was complete. The mechanism was not cleaned, and yet worked throughout as the first. Not the least foulness on the outside, and very little within. The least time of firing seven rounds was ten seconds.”

In August 1861, Captain Alexander B. Dyer, of the Unites States Ordnance Corps, tested the rifle at Fortress Monroe. His report says :“ I fired the Spencer Repeating Rifle some eighty times. The loaded piece was then laid upon the ground and covered with sand, to see what would be the effect of getting sand into the joints. No clogging or other injurious effect appeared to have been produced. The lock and lower parts of the barrel were then covered with salt water and left exposed for twenty-four hours. The Rifle was then loaded and fired without difficulty. It was not cleaned during the firing, and it appeared to work quite as well as the end as at the beginning.”

In a letter to the Spencer Company dated September 10, 1864, the cartridge manufacturers Crittenden and Tibbals say: “We send you, this day, the Rifle as requested, which we have had in constant use, at our works, since April 1862, nearly two and a half years. It has been fired more or less every day, by us and our men, for testing the cartridges, and by visitors who have been curious to try this arm. This Rifle must have been fired at least sixteen thousand times. It has never been out of order or repaired. It has not been cleaned more than six times since we have had it, and it is now in good working order. WE have not taken any particular care of it, allowing almost any one to handle and fire it that wished.”

A letter from the C. C. Leets Metallic Cartridge Manufacturing Company says: “…within the past year I have tested your arm thoroughly, by firing it nearly every day in proving cartridges made for the Government and other parties, also in showing its operations to visitors…I should judge that this carbine has been fired 10,000 times. It has always worked well – never has been repaired – nor cleaned but once in my possession – and today, I consider the arm in as good working order as it was when first received. No particular pains or care has been taken by me to keep it in order – for I have allowed all to test it that desired. Among the many magazine arms which I have seen and tested within the past year, the Spencer carbine, for efficiency and durability for actual service, I consider the best.”

As to how various Union commanders felt about the Spencer in letters written to the Spencer Rifle company:

Brigadier General G. A. Custer says: “Being in command of a Brigade of Cavalry which is armed throughout with the Spencer Carbine and Rifle, I take pleasure in testifying to their superiority over all other weapons. I am firmly of the opinion that fifteen hundred men armed with the Spencer carbine are more than a match for twenty-five hundred men armed with any other firearm – I know this to be true from actual experiment.”

Joseph R. Hawley, Col. 7th​ Reg’t Conn. Vol. and Brigade commander: “My regiment has now used the Spencer carbine…in the battles of Olustee, Fla., and Chester Hill and Drury Bluff, besides numerous picket combats and skirmishes. I am more firmly convinced than ever of the vast superiority of breech-loaders. For army purposes they are best; in many cases a magazine breech-loader doubles and I might say quadruples the efficiency of a soldier…three times in the very heavy fog on the morning of May 16th​ at Drury’s Bluff the enemy assaulted the position on the right…each time the rebels came very near, twice at least they must have been within 40 yards before our side opened fire. In neither case did our fire last more than three minutes, and when it ceased in obedience to the bugle signal, in neither case was there a rebel to be seen or one firing at us. The terrible toll that the carbines beat had utterly routed them…”

Lt. Gen U. S. Grant: “In reply to your letter requesting my opinion in regards to the merits of the Spencer Repeating arms, I have to say that it is the prevailing opinion amongst officers whose commands have been furnished with these weapons, that they are the best breech-loading arms now in the hands of troops, bot as regards simplicity and rapidity in firing, and superiority of manufacture.”

Maj. General Joseph Hooker: “I had a few of the Spencer Rifles in my corps during the campaign which resulted in the fall of Atlanta, and feel no hesitation in pronouncing them to the most effective arms now in use…a regiment armed with it is fully equal to a brigade armed with the muzzle-loading rifle…”

Maj. General O. O. Howard: “I have found the Spencer Rifle of great value in the hands of cavalry or infantry. I fact I prefer it to any other “repeating rifle”. In forcing the passage of a bridge across Flint River, a small body of men armed with these rifles opened so hot a fire upon the rifle pits beyond that a return fire was impossible, so that the bridge and rifle pits were quickly carried by assault. I noticed a regiment armed with the same rifles in the battle of the 28th​ of July. The enemy had attempted to carry a hill and was holding with unusual pertinacity, so much so as to give me considerable uneasiness, when this regiment was moved up and opened its rapid fire, and very soon the enemy’s fire ceased…”

Maj. General George Crook; “…I had a brigade under my command for several months armed with your repeating rifles. I regard it by far the best arm I have ever seen, either in or out of the service. I have made repeated applications to have troops under my command armed with it since, but have been unable to obtain them from the government. I feel satisfied that if our whole army was armed with them, this war would soon be ended.”
 
I would much rather have a musket that I can get standardized ammo for, than a repeater that fires a special cartridge that is hard to come by. And that seems the problem with repeaters of the day, they all used a very specific cartridge, and couldn't interchange. Whereas the muzzleloading rifled muskets could all use the same caliber cartridge, regardless of caliber. Much like how most preppers and survivalists and such continue to stick to 9mm, .45, and other common cartridges, despite possible "Better alternatives, or those not being their favorite. When the "s" hits the fan, those cartridges are plentiful and easy to find, vs some of the "better," but significantly less popular and harder to find ones.

In theory. You can fire a .54 caliber minie ball from a .58 or .577 musket, due to the mechanism of the bullet expanding to fit the barrel. Is it ideal? No. Will it affect accuracy? Yes. But it WILL get the round down range, and that's what is important in a pitched battle. If I run out of ammo for my Spencer, Colt, Henry, etc then I'm likely stuck with what amounts to a glorified club.

If you could get enough repeaters and a reliable ammo supply to equip a few divisions or even a corps, then actually TRAIN the units issued them in their use and proper firing/marksmanship, then yes it will have a noticeable tactical advantage. However given what we know about training in both armies, or lack there of, I imagine what would have happened is units going into battle with a period version of "spray and pray," running out of ammo quickly, and being out of the fight without doing enough damage to avoid getting overrun. I'm sure enemy commanders would catch on to the fact that no bullets are being fired back their way and simply bayonet charge to a victory....or move in to point blank and fire a devastating volley or two.
 
If you could get enough repeaters and a reliable ammo supply to equip a few divisions or even a corps, then actually TRAIN the units issued them in their use and proper firing/marksmanship, then yes it will have a noticeable tactical advantage.
And if you can do the training, you don't need the repeaters to have a noticeable tactial advantage. I'd take a single corps (regulation size, so 30,000 effectives) with Enfields and British level accuracy training over... honestly, most of the actual field armies of the war.
 
And if you can do the training, you don't need the repeaters to have a noticeable tactial advantage. I'd take a single corps (regulation size, so 30,000 effectives) with Enfields and British level accuracy training over... honestly, most of the actual field armies of the war.
Now imagine having a whole corps with British level training AND repeaters...that'll do some damage.
 
There is a definite advantage to having a rifle that uses the same caliber as everyone else's rifle. Its sort of like cycling. Good to have the same tire and tube as every other recreational rider.
The danish infantry in 1864 used 3+ versions of minierifles. (so self expanding bullets) and 2+ versions of Thouvenin rifle muskets.
(Where you ram the bullet against a spike to expand it) And the cavalry also had different carbines using both systems.

But they did one thing that was very smart. All minie guns where the same caliber and all Thouvenin guns where the same.
It helped deal with the issue by cutting the types of ammo down to two.
 
if the Confederates had deployed the repeaters, the US would have adjusted tactics and copied the development, in a few months.
The Confederates were innovative several times, and the US caught on quickly.
If the US had deployed more repeating weapons earlier, the Confederates would have been hard pressed to copy the munitions necessary to supply the infantry, as was the case earlier in the war. When both sides had them, it would have made the war even more an industrial and financial contest, and that would have favored the US.
Just giving a repeating rifle to someone who either does not want to shoot to kill, or doesn't know how, doesn't add much firepower. The US deployed its available repeating weapons to its best cavalry units, and to infantry units mainly in the west who had seen the fighting and who knew they wanted to upgrade their rifles.
Training + mobility + repeating rifles = improved tactical results. But the repeating rifles by themselves just would have led to trench warfare earlier.
 
Its an interesting hypothetical, but strictly hypothetical. The US economy did not have a big firearms industry at the start of the war, and by 1864 the war effort was constrained by full employment and labor shortages. The Confederates purchased the best firearms they could get in England, and those were not repeating weapons. And the Confederates did very well without them, at least until the surrenders at Vicksburg and Port Hudson.
 
Depends on a lot of things. How well trained are they, how far away you're allowed to be etc.

I'd take a muzzle loader with a basic modicum of training over a repeater without any, and the repeater would cost enough for three muzzle loaders and all the powder and shot needed to do the training!


Do you have an example of one of those engagements I asked for, then? Remember that one of the big changes in those battles is Union cavalry charges.
So it is harder to train a soldier to reload a muzzleloader while being shot at, ( and the muzzleloader being used require you to stand up while loading) than it is to train them to reload a repeating rifle (which they could do while kneeling, sitting, or laying down,
That explains a lot.
 
So it is harder to train a soldier to reload a muzzleloader while being shot at, ( and the muzzleloader being used require you to stand up while loading) than it is to train them to reload a repeating rifle (which they could do while kneeling, sitting, or laying down,
That explains a lot.
The reloading training isn't really an issue - both are simple if you bother - but it's accuracy training (musketry training) which is the issue. For what it's worth there was a reloading drill for the muzzle loader which could be done prone, while the reloading drill for the Spencer required the user to be standing as it used gravity assist (though a variant of the ML prone reloading drill could also be used).

There isn't any major "standing versus prone" benefit for the Spencer's reloading drill.
 
Granted, black powder is not the best choice for a repeating weapon, as fouling is going to happen with every black powder weapon. I personally would still prefer a repeater.
The US Army was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era of firearms technologies between the Civil War and WWI, while most modern armies had adapted repeating weapons the US Army held on the the idea that the foot soldier couldn't be trusted with a modern repeating weapon that had the potential to use more ammunition, the idiots would just go wild and waste ammo.
The men making that argument were not facing the enemy.
Even after the Civil War when the repeater proved itself in combat to be a superior weapon, the army choose a single shot trapdoor as the standard weapon for soldiers until 1898!
The tight wads even demanded the each bolt action rifle be equipped with magazine cutoff devices, men were trained to load the magazine, a d activate the magazine cutoff device and use the Krag as a single shot until ordered to deactivate the magazine cutoff device and use the weapon to its full potential.
It was this idiotic mentality that sent US Cav troops into conflicts with Native Americans who were armed with Winchester repeating rifles, while European armies, and the armies of Mexico, and most of So. America had already adopted the bolt action magazine fed rifle.
 
Granted, black powder is not the best choice for a repeating weapon, as fouling is going to happen with every black powder weapon. I personally would still prefer a repeater.
The US Army was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era of firearms technologies between the Civil War and WWI, while most modern armies had adapted repeating weapons the US Army held on the the idea that the foot soldier couldn't be trusted with a modern repeating weapon that had the potential to use more ammunition, the idiots would just go wild and waste ammo.
The men making that argument were not facing the enemy.
Even after the Civil War when the repeater proved itself in combat to be a superior weapon, the army choose a single shot trapdoor as the standard weapon for soldiers until 1898!
The tight wads even demanded the each bolt action rifle be equipped with magazine cutoff devices, men were trained to load the magazine, a d activate the magazine cutoff device and use the Krag as a single shot until ordered to deactivate the magazine cutoff device and use the weapon to its full potential.
It was this idiotic mentality that sent US Cav troops into conflicts with Native Americans who were armed with Winchester repeating rifles, while European armies, and the armies of Mexico, and most of So. America had already adopted the bolt action magazine fed rifle.
There are several issues I have with the statements here:

As of the end of Civil War, the US did have modern firearms. Modern in 1864 means rifle-muskets; modern in 1868 means single shot breech loading rifles converted from rifle muskets.
Magazine weapons didn't come in until the 1880s or later.
The idea of men wasting ammunition was a real concern that actually came up even with single shot breechloaders in the Franco-Prussian War, on both sides of the conflict.
The repeater did not prove itself in combat to be a superior weapon in the Civil War.
The bolt action rifle's magazine cutoff (which was in place in many armies in that period) serves a real purpose, which is the ability for the formation to deliver rapid burst fire on call after a period of individual firing.
 
Back
Top