Discussion The dramatic evolution of firearms from 1853 to 1862 .. Stunning

Cannonman1

Private
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
It always amazes me as to how fast we went from the Flintlock to the Gatling Gun (self contained cartridges).. When you realize that the Model 1816 Flintlock musket was the M1 of the US Army during the American Mexican War, you better strap yourself to one of Dr Lowe's balloons to get the same meteoric advance of small arms. 1853 is significant because it ushers in the Enfield P1853 and use of a skirted based bullet. 1863 is significant because it ushers in the Model 1862 Battery Gun (2nd Version) that used a .58 cal rimfire cartridge and an insane (for the time) rate of fire. In between those two milestones you have the developments of Henry, Smith and Wesson, Spencer, all of which were patented around 1860 and a dizzying parade of other weapons that pushed the envelope in a variety of ways.(Way to many to list here)
I know there were many economic and industrial revolution forces that guided this and created the perfect storm ..but.. My point is just WOW!!!!.. That is amazing!!
What a brilliant group of design engineers.. Every time I open up a Spencer, I ask myself "How did they ever make this??"
 
Technology advances like that...it's not a linear progression, it's going along then there is a paradigm shift that changes everything. Look at cell phones and computers and how those advanced in the past decade. As you point out, flintlocks ruled the world for two hundred years then everything started to change.
 
1853 is significant because it ushers in the Enfield P1853 and use of a skirted based bullet.
I think the invention of the percussion cap was a much bigger deal since it allowed the development of selfcontained cartridges.
That allowed for the creation of a boltaction rifle that was put into production in 1841 and the boltaction rifle is the weapon that was the standard infantry weapon in the late 19th century and to the mid 20th century.

So I will argue that everything about rifle muskets from 1841 and forward was a technological detour and the Enfield and Springfield where all obsolete the day they where invented.

Seen in the big perspective of the development of technology... Their greatest success is more about the mass production of arms with interchangeable part... because no matter how much you improved on the bullet, it was still loaded from the muzzle...

And then later the invention of smokeless powder was a huge gamechanger.

But yes, things changed pretty fast...
 
Last edited:
You are also looking a era in time in the U.S. where the majority of firearms were used for putting food on the table and yes some protection. As the flames of discontent continued to grow so did the firearm industry. Europe and the rest were already well into wars that kindled their firearm growth.
 
Excellent point. In the 1930s and airplane was obsolete as soon as it left the production line. We went from fabric cover bi-planes to the jet in a decade or so. Was there any technological advance like this prior to the 1850s? It seemed like in 1850 we went from firearms, to dreadnaughts, to airplanes, to jets, space craft, computers, artificial intelligence and Google. Google will probably halt all future technological advances. We will forget how to think for ourselves. :smile:
 
Percussion cap/fulminate of mercury replaces flintlock
Conical bullet and especially the minie over round ball.
Metallic cartridge. Sealed breech, water proof and reliable reloaders.
Nitrocellulose - higher pressure, velocity and relatively smokeless.
telescopic sights. Reach out reach out and touch someone.

I cover these developments in my first two books.
 
You are spot on as when the CW started the maneuver tactics for regiments and brigades were already obsolete.
yep. The danish 1863 drill book only have a few pages about how to do things as a battalion. And moving in line is just mentioned as "over short distances...and make it work" (where Hardee got a lot of pages about how to move a line)

The focus is on the 200man (rank and file) company and how it should fight in a heavy skirmish line.

But we don't see this change in north america. The regiment was still the basic tactical block and much of the time it was the brigade.
(that was pretty small compared to brigades in most European armies)
 
Excellent point. In the 1930s and airplane was obsolete as soon as it left the production line. We went from fabric cover bi-planes to the jet in a decade or so. Was there any technological advance like this prior to the 1850s? It seemed like in 1850 we went from firearms, to dreadnaughts, to airplanes, to jets, space craft, computers, artificial intelligence and Google. Google will probably halt all future technological advances. We will forget how to think for ourselves. :smile:
Don’t forget the Space Race. I’m old enough to well remember Sputnik in 1959 and it was the just size of a basketball. Just 10 years later NASA landed two men on the moon. What a ride that was through the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs! That decade saw probably the greatest collection of scientific and engineering minds ever assembled and it was pure joy to watch.
 
51KMZQRN1EL._SX362_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
I have often pondered this. The advances in weaponry outstripped the advances in tactics.
Yes. Like Guderian pointed out, weapons affect tactics. Soldiers finally learned to dig in and not to frontally assault fortified positions.

When the minie ball came out with its potential of longer range, there was discussion in some circles whether armies would close the distance as they had during the Napoleonic era or whether they would fight from a far. The Battle of Solferino was won by a French bayonet charge that broke the Austrian line. To some observers, the conclusion was that while long range fire had potential, it was only of limited use and the battle can be decided by the bayonet.

As for the belligerents involved in the late unpleasantness, most of the officers at the outbreak were from civilian backgrounds and ignorant in military matters. They were struggling to learn and master Hardee and only experience earned through battle taught them to entrench. Even military academy trained officers were ignorant about the minie's potential. Like their civilian officer counterpart, they learned slowly. The exception being John B. Hood.
 
Yes. Like Guderian pointed out, weapons affect tactics. Soldiers finally learned to dig in and not to frontally assault fortified positions.

Even military academy trained officers were ignorant about the minie's potential.
There was nothing new to the fact that attacking a fortified position need to be done with care. Just like there was nothing new to the use of field fortifications.

They knew the potential... but none of the sides ever prioritized this and used the needed resources to make it achieve it.
The result is that the civil war was fought at about the same range as earlier wars. About 100 yards.
 
Probably not that revolutionary.
I believe a screw propeller steamship crossed the Atlantic Ocean in 1845. If that could happen, masts, and paddle wheels were no longer required, and armored ships were right around the corner, giving a huge advantage to naval power.
 
That together with the rifling of artillery pieces, which improved range and accuracy, made naval power decisive.
The real change in long arms was the breach loading weapons, which greatly increased the rate of fire.
 
No it did not. A number of other navies had ironclads in service when the Virginia was "build"...

The French ironclads Dévastation, Tonnante and Lave all saw combat in october 1855.

Virginia and Monitor just happened to be the first to fight another ironclad...
Seems I learn something new everyday. Thanks
 
Unfortunately american books and documentaries are too often written by people who only know anything about US history. And it lead to claims about how the civil war was the first to use x or y.
Like railroads, ironclads, rifle muskets, breechloaded firearms, field fortifications, conscription/draft...
 
Koreans had the first iron clad ships. They used them to defeat the Japanese.
Rifle muskets were used in the Crimean War. Lest we forget, W. W. Greener designed and patented an expanding ball before Capt. Claude Minie.
Floating iron clad batteries were also used in Crimea as were merlons and rope curtains to protect gun crews from small arms fire.
Field fortifications. I think Ceasar knew something about them. Field Marshal Vauban's of Louie XIV's time set standard for centuries.
 
Back
Top