Sharps vs. Spencer

[deleson1]

Just a feeling, but shooting a Sharps at 200 yards compared to a Spencer does not compute. At 200 yards, the Spencer is considered a spent round. The Sharps will take off whatever body part it hits. As will any .577 or .58.

I'm not disparaging the Spencer or the Henry, but they were volume-fire. And they were very useful. It's just that we are comparing apples and oranges here.

Ole, most of the charts I have seen list the muzzle energy and muzzle velocity of the spencer and sharps carbines very close to each other. I wouldnt stand in front of a spencer at 400 yards and if hit not expect to have some serious damage. Besides have you ever seen the report of weapons found and inspected at Gettysburg. Some 6000 were reported to have had 3 to 10 rounds in them indicating loading errors in the panic of battle. A Spencer would eliminate most of that. It had less fouling problems than a Springfield. You could fire it from any position., use cover better. I wish I could find the quotes from units that used them. Wilder could not say enough about them as did Custer. IIRC, I think only one unit that received them wanted their own guns back saying the spencer was too heavy.
The drawbacks were they cost more initially, the ammo was more expensive, and yes the soldiers if not careful could run out of ammo very fast.

 

[44 Henry]

The Spencer was by far the better of the 2 weapons. A weapon has no greater accuracy for the most part than the person's ability to shoot the weapon. The Spencer fired a bullet around 350 grains with a powder charge of around 40 grains, this would depend upon the manufacturer of the cartridge as there were many different loadings for the Spencer round but most were close to the above loading. This gave a muzzle velocity of around 1200 fps with a muzzle energy of around 1250, again plus or minus a little.

The Sharps had the bad habit of fouling the action after a few rounds which would greatly cause functioning problems but also accuracy problems after the barrel was fouled out. While the action for the Spencer usually did not foul, the barrel would and there goes the accuracy. Fouling is the "destroyer" of accuracy. NRA BPCR shooters use a blow-tube between shot to keep the fouling soft. The Sharps fired a bullet around 425 to 450 grains with around 50 grains of black powder, again this is depending up on the loading by the manufacturer or arsenal. The velocity is about the same as the Spencer as is muzzle energy.

While a person could fire a Spencer at a rate of maybe 14 shots per minute, the Sharps was more in the 5 shots per minute range. I own and fire both the 1859 Sharps double set trigger model rifle Pedersoli and the Spencer rifle, both original and Armi Sport. The rate of fire of both is not what many may feel it might be.

As to the power of each rifle, they are very comparable. Contrary to the movies and what some may think a Sharps will not take off whatever body part it hits, especially at 200 yards. All black powder cartridges have a giant rainbow trajectory at long distance. The .45-70 has about a 25 foot midrange trajectory when shooting at 500 yards making hitting at unknown distances almost impossible with first shots. The Spencer round as well as the Civil War Sharps round would be greater in their trajectory. The reason for good target shooting accuracy with bp cartridges is that the shooter are firing at targets of known ranges and can adjust their sights according. The Civil War soldiers were mostly shooting at unknown ranges and a misjudging of range, of a few yards, means a missed target. On the other hand "Minute of Buffalo" is far easier to achieve.

As a Union soldier there is not doubt which rifle to choose, the Spencer. Ammunition supply was not a problem, at least for the Union. The Spencer rifle was not a common weapon since only about 11,000 were made. This is about the same as the number of Henry rifles used in the Civil War. The Spencer carbine was much more in use, mainly by cavalrymen, since about 65,000 were issued by the end of the Civil War. The Spencer is my choice if I cannot find a Henry rifle. The Henry Is a better weapon in my view as a Civil War soldier's weapon.

 

[Bob Owen]

What do you think? Use Uptons plan for attacking trenches and give them 5000 Spencer Carbines to use. By 1864 they were mass producing the gun so they could of easily diverted some to the INfantry. The carbines would of worked great at short distances.

The only problem with the theory is that in 1864 the Spencer was being issued as fast as supplied to the cavalry units. They could not get enough of them even after the war for the Indian campaigns for the cavalry. The Navy was the first to order and receive them. They wanted them for counter sniper rifles atop the iron clad river boats.

 

[Bob Owen]

44 Henry's post is accurate. The first Sharps used by the military that was chambered for a metallic cartridge was chambered for the .50-70. This was a significant increase in power from the percussion models. Even the long range big .50's of the buffalo hunts had rainbow tragectories. The later .45-70's was an inprovement in power over the .50-70 and still arched the bullet to the target.

 

[deleson1]

The only problem with the theory is that in 1864 the Spencer was being issued as fast as supplied to the cavalry units. They could not get enough of them even after the war for the Indian campaigns for the cavalry. The Navy was the first to order and receive them. They wanted them for counter sniper rifles atop the iron clad river boats.

The government had a huge surplus of Spencers after the war and that was part of put the Spencer Company out of buisness. The government were selling them as surplus for $12 if I recall correctly and the Spencer Company was trying to sell new guns for about $30. So in effect they were competing against themselves and went bankrupt in 1869. Thousands of Spencers were sold and used in the Franco-Prussian wars with good success.

 

[Bob Owen]

It took the next year or two after the war to have the arms turned in and inspected and inventoried The new model 1865 Spencers were not initially surplused and a few of the old models were converted to the new .56-50 cartridge to keep up with the demand for the Indian Campaigns. Even Sharps carbines were being converted to the .50-70 cartridge and issued to western cavalry units until the adoption of the model 1873 trapdoor .45-70 carbine. Some Starr carbines were retained for the Indian Campaigns.

 

[coltshooter1]

Well how about using both the Sharps for long range fire and the Henry for close in fighting. Look at what the Turks did to the Russians at Plevna with long range Peabody-Martini rifles and Winchester 66's at close range. See http://www.militaryrifles.com/Turkey/Plevna/ThePlevnaDelay.html for an account of this type of action.

 

[Southron Sr.]

I recall one Civil War Veteran being quoted to the effect that "At the Beginning of the War, the Sharps was considered to be the best breech loader." "By the End of the War, the Spencer was considered to be the best."

The South captured lots and lots of Spencers. The problem was that Southern technology was not advanced enough to develop a machine that would "draw" Spencer cartridge cases. When James Burton went to England in 1863 on his famous buying trip, he discovered than no machinist or machine tool firm in England had any idea how to make a machine that would "draw" Spencer Cartridge cases.

Even though the British officially adopted the Snider breech loading conversion of the Enfield Rifle in 1864, early Snider cartridges were made by wrapping a strip of copper around a forming die!

The basic precess of "drawing" a cartridge case from a disc of copper or brass is still the same today. The disc goes through several "dies" that gradually "forms" the case.

So, IF you were a Southern soldier that had a choice between a Sharps and a Spencer, your best bet would be to latch on to a Sharps because your Ordnance Department could supply you with plenty of Sharps ammo but NOT Spencer ammo. A Spencer without any ammo is not a "repeater" and a poor club at best.

 

[BillO]

I'm a southerner and I'd vote for the Sharps. Ammo would have been easier to get and easier to carry. It is also a more versatile weapon. Better range and although it won't be as quick as a spenser it still beats the Enfield or Springfield hands down.

 

[TerryB]

I've heard that Maynard rifles were very popular with the Southerners who had them.

And I have a question. What carbine did Buford's men use at Gettysburg? I remember reading somewhere that because they were armed with breech-loading carbines and could reload while lying down that this gave them a big advantage on Day One.

I also think the Henry would not be a viable choice because so few of them were produced. Yet you see them in the movies a lot.

 

[BillO]

Without bothering to go look it up I believe they were mostly armed with Sharps.

 

[TerryB]

Without bothering to go look it up I believe they were mostly armed with Sharps.

Thanks, Bill. That's what I thought.

 

[johan_steele]

Depending on the unit a mix of Sharps, Smith & Burnside carbines.

I've heard that Maynard rifles were very popular with the Southerners who had them.

And I have a question. What carbine did Buford's men use at Gettysburg? I remember reading somewhere that because they were armed with breech-loading carbines and could reload while lying down that this gave them a big advantage on Day One.

I also think the Henry would not be a viable choice because so few of them were produced. Yet you see them in the movies a lot.

 

[44 Henry]

There were about 9,000 Henry rifles used in the Civil War and there was about the same amount of Spencer rifles used in the Civil War. The Henry rifles was seen in almost all of the major campaigns of the Civil War in the Western theater from 1863 until the end of the war. Sherman's Army probably had the most.

 

[Bob Owen]

I'm a southerner and I'd vote for the Sharps. Ammo would have been easier to get and easier to carry. It is also a more versatile weapon. Better range and although it won't be as quick as a spenser it still beats the Enfield or Springfield hands down.

Actually the Spencer and Sharps cartridges were practically the size and weight to carry. The Sharps cartridge did not hold up well during long marches and down time in camp. The Spencer's copper case made them waterproof and did hold up quite well when moved around. The Sharps and Spencer were a match in range and accuracy. Forrest captured one of Wilder's supply wagons right after Hoover's Gap and it was full of Spencer cartridges and some rifles which were used by Forrest's men until the supply ran out

 

[Bob Owen]

There were about 9,000 Henry rifles used in the Civil War and there was about the same amount of Spencer rifles used in the Civil War. The Henry rifles was seen in almost all of the major campaigns of the Civil War in the Western theater from 1863 until the end of the war. Sherman's Army probably had the most.

There were11,471 Spencer rifles Purchased by the War Department with 45,733 model 1860 carbines and 18,959 model 1865's. No Henrys were purchased by the War department nor ammo provided for them.

 

[44 Henry]

There were11,471 Spencer rifles Purchased by the War Department with 45,733 model 1860 carbines and 18,959 model 1865's. No Henrys were purchased by the War department nor ammo provided for them.

The US did purchased 1731 Henry rifles and right at 4,000,000 Henry rifle cartridges. Private purchases brought the amount of Henry rifles to around 9,000 Henry rifles used in the Civil War and over 14,000 Henry rifles were produced total. Private purchases of ammunition numbered into the millions.

 

[Bob Owen]

The US did purchased 1731 Henry rifles and right at 4,000,000 Henry rifle cartridges. Private purchases brought the amount of Henry rifles to around 9,000 Henry rifles used in the Civil War and over 14,000 Henry rifles were produced total. Private purchases of ammunition numbered into the millions.

You are correct. My error. I know better and cannot explain my comment about the Henry. I don't have one in my collection and never had one in the past. My lack of in depth research on the Henry leaves me with egg on my face!

 

[BillO]

Actually the Spencer and Sharps cartridges were practically the size and weight to carry. The Sharps cartridge did not hold up well during long marches and down time in camp. The Spencer's copper case made them waterproof and did hold up quite well when moved around. The Sharps and Spencer were a match in range and accuracy. Forrest captured one of Wilder's supply wagons right after Hoover's Gap and it was full of Spencer cartridges and some rifles which were used by Forrest's men until the supply ran out

I agree on the point of the spenser ammo holding up better than the Sharps. I don't agree on similiar range or accuracy the Spenser due to poor bullet shape wasn't much out past 200 yds or so. The ballistics for a Spenser round are very similar to a .44 special.As far as the weight goes I wasn't clear on. A lot of the units equipped with the Spensers found that because the rifle fired so much faster they ran out a lot quicker and needed to carry more than the standard amount.

 

[Bob Owen]

I agree on the point of the spenser ammo holding up better than the Sharps. I don't agree on similiar range or accuracy the Spenser due to poor bullet shape wasn't much out past 200 yds or so. The ballistics for a Spenser round are very similar to a .44 special.As far as the weight goes I wasn't clear on. A lot of the units equipped with the Spensers found that because the rifle fired so much faster they ran out a lot quicker and needed to carry more than the standard amount.

The carbines both Sharps and Spencer were not ment much over the 250 yard range. The rifles were a different story. The both were faily good out to 400 to 450 yards. This was all that could be expected out of the Enfield and Springfield rifle muskets at best.