Was the Henry Rifle the most sought after gun in the civil war?

RJ I think ours is "Berdans, Berdans, Berdans" Yep we have used that well even at Wilson's Creek.

yepper, and you used it well at Twin Rivers as well. I composed that prelude call out with Rob Leinwebber at Greenbush WI September 2000.....we used it the following May at Raymond....been using it ever since for the Western Sharpshooters in blue\green at all national events.
 
and here I complimented you on that wonderful bugle post RJ........so unkind. LOL

yea, I owe you one....sharpshooter units MUST have the bugle calls down cold.....gun control (being able to hit the target you aimed at) and command control of a distant and spread out skirmish line by the bugle are at the very core of your impression.

Your mail box here is full up......so I can't email you here.....

http://www.rjsamp.com

and let's start upping the 2nd Georgia Sharpshooter's impression! We have a 64th IL here in Northern ILL as well....and I even have a bugle prelude call for you!
 
For the best source of information on the Henry Repeating Rifle of the Civil War go to this website. http://44henryrifle.webs.com/index.htm
It simply is the most complete source for Henry information. While the Spencer is a very good weapon it is not any more reliable than the Henry in fact I have seen more to the contrary. There were as many if not more Henry rifles used in the Civil War than Spencer rifles. The main thing that limited the use of the Henry rifle was that the demand was far greater than what production could keep up with.

Nothing like shilling your own website and providing your own biased opinions now is there?

You are absolutely incorrect in stating " The main thing that limited the use of the Henry rifle was that the demand was far greater than what production could keep up with." That the use of a 1) high priced hunting weapon with 2) maintenance issues when subjected to the rigors of campaigning 3) not approved by the head of US Government Ordnance Dept ( Colonel James W. Ripley) 4) that had great concerns over expenditure of ammunition in battle (as evidenced by your own admission of firing off 15 rounds as fast as you can lever load and fire presumably with some aiming going on?) was not used because of manufacturing capacity is stunning. If not down right preposterous.

Are you stating that if Ripley and Lincoln had said in 1862 $44 is too steep. How about $36 each, here's an order for 1 MILLION Henry rifles guaranteed, ramp up production at several locations across the North and the we'll take delivery as quick as you can ship them over the next two years...that Henry Rifle couldn't have met the demand??

Can you show us orders for several thousand rifles at $44 that were refused by Henry as their production line couldn't handle the demand?

In the short term, I'm sure they couldn't produce nowhere near 100,000 rifles as Spencer could with their Carbines...but they wouldn't be willing to ramp up production in say 6 months or a year for a significantly demanded weapon of choice?

And this has Nothing to do with the cost of procuring said Henry Rifle?

I know why Wisconsin Purchasing Agents purchased thousands of Lorenz 2 banders in 1862 (Lorenz being more sought after than Henry Rifles any way you look at it!).....low price and a decent weapon.


The reason that there are more Henry Rifles (privately purchased) than Spencer Rifles (government issue) ordered was that Spencer offered carbines at $25 each vs Sharps carbine cost of $28.50. So after the initial order of 7,500 Spencer RIFLES the government purchased 100,000+ Spencer Carbines.

To get back to the topic......was the Henry Rifle the most 'sought' after arm of the American Civil War (we already know that it was NOT the weapon of choice despite your insistence that we ignore the facts and logic)...

We need to Define 'Sought' after.....if the definition is not in Quantity of weapons purchased privately, weapons purchased by States, weapons purchased by the US Government, etc..... then how are we going to adjudge this 1862-5 'feeling' in 2011?
 
The Henry is the civil wars version of spray and pray. I think that the fellas who use one in most reenactments(Small sizers) give a Henry a bad name. They generally stand out there totally visible, alone or with a couple of other guys and just rip them off as fast as they can while laffing all the while. It appears to be more of a show-off than trying to replicate any type of actual miitary formation or tactic.
Not that I wouldn't like to have one myself. But at over a grand apiece for one, and the cost of ammunition, and labor demand of reloading is a bit beyond the average reenactor.
Wasn't the Henry cartridge considered to be a bit underpowered? And only have an effective range of about 200yds as compared to the longer ranges of the standard Springfields, and Enfields?
What is the cost per reenactor shot in comparison between a 3 band smoke pole, and a Henry, or even a Spencer?
I still would rather have a Witworth, or a Mississippi right now than a Henry. It has more uses than as a target rifle or powder burner. At least I can take a Witworth or my Enfield out at our BP deer hunting season.
 
Nothing like shilling your own website and providing your own biased opinions now is there?

You are absolutely incorrect in stating " The main thing that limited the use of the Henry rifle was that the demand was far greater than what production could keep up with." That the use of a 1) high priced hunting weapon with 2) maintenance issues when subjected to the rigors of campaigning 3) not approved by the head of US Government Ordnance Dept ( Colonel James W. Ripley) 4) that had great concerns over expenditure of ammunition in battle (as evidenced by your own admission of firing off 15 rounds as fast as you can lever load and fire presumably with some aiming going on?) was not used because of manufacturing capacity is stunning. If not down right preposterous.

Are you stating that if Ripley and Lincoln had said in 1862 $44 is too steep. How about $36 each, here's an order for 1 MILLION Henry rifles guaranteed, ramp up production at several locations across the North and the we'll take delivery as quick as you can ship them over the next two years...that Henry Rifle couldn't have met the demand??

Can you show us orders for several thousand rifles at $44 that were refused by Henry as their production line couldn't handle the demand?

In the short term, I'm sure they couldn't produce nowhere near 100,000 rifles as Spencer could with their Carbines...but they wouldn't be willing to ramp up production in say 6 months or a year for a significantly demanded weapon of choice?

And this has Nothing to do with the cost of procuring said Henry Rifle?

I know why Wisconsin Purchasing Agents purchased thousands of Lorenz 2 banders in 1862 (Lorenz being more sought after than Henry Rifles any way you look at it!).....low price and a decent weapon.


The reason that there are more Henry Rifles (privately purchased) than Spencer Rifles (government issue) ordered was that Spencer offered carbines at $25 each vs Sharps carbine cost of $28.50. So after the initial order of 7,500 Spencer RIFLES the government purchased 100,000+ Spencer Carbines.

To get back to the topic......was the Henry Rifle the most 'sought' after arm of the American Civil War (we already know that it was NOT the weapon of choice despite your insistence that we ignore the facts and logic)...

We need to Define 'Sought' after.....if the definition is not in Quantity of weapons purchased privately, weapons purchased by States, weapons purchased by the US Government, etc..... then how are we going to adjudge this 1862-5 'feeling' in 2011?

Wow, that was some editorial. Yes many individuals and regiments did want to arm themselves with the Henry rifle but the supplies of Henry rifles were just simply not there, at any price. Even Wilder’s first choice was the Henry rifle and he found out that he could not obtain the 2000 that he wanted and settled for the Spencer, an excellent second choice for him.

Those that used the Henry rifle in the field rarely, if ever, mentioned the fact that the Henry rifle had any maintenance issues even on the campaign. Nor do any major maintenance problems show up in correspondence with the company. There simply were not the maintenance issues that people today think existed. Ripley was more concerned about what worked in the past to kill people and stayed with that. Unfortunately that kind philosophy, to stay with a single shot weapon even after the war, cost many lives in future engagements. The government finally got into the modern age of repeating firearms when they adopted the Krag, but even then they adopted a dead end weapon. The Mauser design was far superior.

As to ammunition used in battle, the Henry rifle wasted far less than the old muzzle-loaders with their fragile ammunition. There was more of a waste of ammunition due to spoilage with the muzzle-loading ammunition than was ever fired in the Henry rifles. Couple that with regiments firing thousands of rounds with their muzzle-loaders without effect and that is a lot of ineffective ammunition being wasted.

Maybe you should try reading that excellent website on the Henry rifle, or Wiley Sword's book on the Henry rifle or even Les Quick’s book on the Henry rifle. It is surprising what a neophyte as yourself could learn. Give those men armed with the Lorenz a choice between the Henry rifle and the Lorenz after witnessing a firing demonstration of both, which weapon do you really think that they will choose, since the topic is about choice? Technology is a wonderful thing but unfortunately is expensive at times with limited supplies. Was the Henry rifle the government’s choice or the soldier’s choice for what was sought after, very interesting. I would say it might depend on who is asked the question. How many wise choices has the government made lately?
 
The Henry is the civil wars version of spray and pray. I think that the fellas who use one in most reenactments(Small sizers) give a Henry a bad name. They generally stand out there totally visible, alone or with a couple of other guys and just rip them off as fast as they can while laffing all the while. It appears to be more of a show-off than trying to replicate any type of actual miitary formation or tactic.
Not that I wouldn't like to have one myself. But at over a grand apiece for one, and the cost of ammunition, and labor demand of reloading is a bit beyond the average reenactor.
Wasn't the Henry cartridge considered to be a bit underpowered? And only have an effective range of about 200yds as compared to the longer ranges of the standard Springfields, and Enfields?
What is the cost per reenactor shot in comparison between a 3 band smoke pole, and a Henry, or even a Spencer?
I still would rather have a Witworth, or a Mississippi right now than a Henry. It has more uses than as a target rifle or powder burner. At least I can take a Witworth or my Enfield out at our BP deer hunting season.


The Henry was more like the assault rifle of it's day. Less spray and pray, more likely, controlled rates of fire with the ability to get off more rounds per minute than muzzle loader armed adversaries (higher rates of fire in any weapons system is always a force multiplier). The Henry, when used by the two units of Sharpshooters I have already listed (64th and 66th Illinois) served them well in the skirmish line, that being their primary position on the battlefield. It was the 66th, or Western Sharpshooters who used the Henry to great effect in retaking DeGress' Battery during the Battle of Atlanta, and the 64th, when serving as skirmishers for Mower's 1st Division, 17th A.C. Hit the COnfederate left hard enough at Bentonville to come within a gnats whisker of not only flanking the Confederate Army in toto, but also nearly bagging Joe Johnston himself.

Whitworths and Kerrs have gotten way to much credit for the part they played in the war. Far fewer reached America and were used in the field than did Enfields and Lorenzs. In regards to CS Sharpshooter Units, only smatterings of individual sharpshooters had Whitworths or Kerrs. For Example, the 1st Battalion, Georgia Sharpshooters was issued "Long Enfield Rifles with Accoutrements to match" extent images of enlisted men of the battalion show them with P.53 Enfield Rifle Muskets and English accoutrements. The 2nd Battalion is known to have been issued p.60 Short Rifles.
 
There were elements of 2 CS TX Cav units that ended up w/ a few Henry Rifles. 8th TX Cav was one that ended up w/ a few but it was "Shannon's Scouts" of Wheelers command during the March to the Sea that had a batch as well and probably go them courtesy of capture from the 7th IL at Allatoona Pass. But off hand I don't recall which TX Cav unit they were from.

They were described as: "Every man jack of them with a Colt pistol and a few with Spencer and Henry's in the mix."

One MN Sgt after an encounter with some of those men called them the toughest fighting men he had ever seen... as he was a Crimea War vet & veteran of the French Foreign Legion he had something to measure them against.

This article mentions Confederate Texas Cavalry used the Henry... anyone know which units?
 
Wayne Austerman wrote an excellent article entitled Rebels and rimfires back in 1985 for Man At Arms that I am sure would have rebel units mentioned. I have a copy of it some where that I will try to find.
 
I was aware of Wilder (and other's) desiring thousands of Henry's and being turned down.....let's say 10,000 delivered, and 10,000 requested\sought after and not delivered....20,000 Henry Rifle's 'jonesed' after during the ACW.

This is still a far cry short of Enfield's, Enfield 2 bander rifles, Lorenz', Springfield's, Sharp's Carbines, Spencer's (Rifles and Carbines) that were requested, sought after, delivered, and used during the ACW. and I'm not talking the Belgian's, Prussian's, Tower muskets, conversions, etc. that were gobbled up at the start of the war by droves of purchasing agents looking for anything that could throw lead down range. And I'll agree that Colt's revolving rifles weren't as sought after as other weapons, including the Henry.

I'll stand by my statement that Henry's were not the most sought after long arm of the ACW (we haven't even talked about the tens of thousands of revolvers that were sought after), nor were they the weapon of choice.

You didn't address the obvious negatives of the Henry that made it less then sought after, but were cited by many of the decision makers of the time.

As to your 'demands' not met argument (like Wilder being turned down for 2,000) rifles, you didn't address my simple business problem exercise of the risk of building extra capacity (like 2-5 more production facilities) to meet the demand for 100,000.....1,000,000 Henry Rifles given a purchase order to do so....Spencer was able to do this....Henry wasn't.....Henry wasn't able to make his rifle the Weapon of choice, nor the most sought after weapon.....because if he had been able to create the buzz, excitement, marketing hype, head swivelling, that turns demand into production facility expansion purchase order's....he could have built extra capacity to handle 20,000 rifles [but not 2,000]. This kind of business exercise may not be familiar to you (I've been involved in this kind of stuff since 1975)...but we see it all of the time for vendor's approaching a Wal-Mart or Home Depot. They don't have the assembly line capacity or working capital to accept an additional 2,000 item order....but can justify building the extra capacity to handle a 50,000 item order (and receiving financing capital by going to the banks with the orders in hand, backed by say the federal government). Does that make sense to you?

In other words, if Henry could have had orders in hand for 100,000 rifles because Ripley, Lincoln, Grant, McClellan, Private Demand,State Procurement Agents, Casement, Wilder, et al truly preferred paying 44.50 for an assault rifle that spewed lead effectively and efficiently then I have no doubt that several other production facilities could have been built....in short, Henry could create demand for, and produce, small runs of weapons. But he never received the game changing purchase order that would allow him to make the business decision to expand capacity to meet supply.

i.e. The Henry Rifle was NOT the most sought after weapon during the ACW.
 
It is hard to belief that it is Christmas Eve already. If a Civil War soldier was looking for the best, most progressive rifle he could get then the Henry rifle was what he would have been looking for. Those that were able to acquire one were the lucky or maybe unlucky ones. Unlucky because it usually got them more skirmish duty up front. Prices ranged from $35 to $75, yes a lot of money for a Civil War soldier. Too bad the New Haven Arms Company could not use existing parts from other weapons like the Spencer was able to do. A lot of hand fitting and machining as well as there just simply not the skilled workers need to manufacture such a magnificent rifle. The Henry rifle was the best rifle to come out of the Civil War without exception.

On another note, the Spencer was test by President Lincoln himself. I got to see the results of his firing a Spencer. Here is a picture I took Thursday of the board he shot.
IMG_0254.jpg
 
The henry the best to come out of the CW w/out exception... ZI doubt that very much. As much as you like to poo poo the reliability issues w/ the actual Henry Rifle the 1866 Winchester eliminated all of the known complaint issues.

If given a choice between a Spencer Rifle or Carbive & a Henry I would take the Spencer w/out reservation. The difference between an origina and a repop are legion. To understand what the soldiers dealt w/ you have to be willing to admit that the repops are NOT an original.
 
The Spencer came out of the war as having an impact on the war. Spencer did not survive much after the war due to the large numbers of surplus guns sold by the government and bought by those traveling West in need of a good repeater. Ammunition for the Spencer was made well into the 1930's.
 
The henry the best to come out of the CW w/out exception... ZI doubt that very much. As much as you like to poo poo the reliability issues w/ the actual Henry Rifle the 1866 Winchester eliminated all of the known complaint issues.

If given a choice between a Spencer Rifle or Carbive & a Henry I would take the Spencer w/out reservation. The difference between an origina and a repop are legion. To understand what the soldiers dealt w/ you have to be willing to admit that the repops are NOT an original.

I guess I should have mentioned the Henry design was the best to come out of the war. The 1866 is just a refinement of the Henry design, but the same toggle-link action of the Henry that was in place with the 1873 as well as the 1876. I just wish that those that want to keep bringing up the reliability issues of the Henry would bring the documentation from the field that would support the so-called problems. Not ifs or maybes, but soldiers complaining in mass about the problems. As to repops are not originals, well that is a given. With that said the repop is a slightly scaled up version of the original to take the larger caliber. Not many differences beyond that especially when it come the functionality of both, pretty much the same toggle link action.

I am always willing to learn and would be greatly interested in any sources that detail the "in the field" reliability problems of the Henry rifle so I can add them to my list of resources. In fact I would hope that someone would find several sources written by those that used the Henry rifle of the problems of the Henry rifle, that way I could expand my library of information on the Henry rifle.
 
After handling an original 1866 Winchester last night and a repop Henry last week... more than just a refinement, a good deal more. The addition of a simple sliding dust cover over the ejector, the total redesign of the magazine system all but completely eliminating any issues w/ dirt, dust or mud getting into the magazine, the addition of a forestock etc.

Now how much time in the field have you spent w/ your Henry? 2 maybe 3 days and fired maybe a hundred rounds on a weekend? How many times have you carried her through the woods in skirmish order or buried yourself into Georgia red clay mud to get away from reb arty or sharpshooters. Go ahead and do so, add wading through a few dozen cricks and spend a month or so in the weather sans canvas and then let me know how well she fares compared to a Spencer.

IMO a Henry is a pretty parlor rifle, wheras the real weapon ready for honest to god campaigning with a soldier is the 1866 Winchester or the Spencer.

Winchester was no fool he wouldn't have had the design changes made unless they were needed and as copying is the ultimate form of flattery... no one has ever copied the Henry except to sell to SASS & re-enactors. No military ever adopted the Henry Rifle wheras the M1866 was adopted by several. An original Henry is worth a fortune today because they are as scarce as they are, not because they were so superb. Compare the numbers manufactured vs the evolutionary 1866 or 1873 Winchester and you will have an obvious answer.
 
After handling an original 1866 Winchester last night and a repop Henry last week... more than just a refinement, a good deal more. The addition of a simple sliding dust cover over the ejector, the total redesign of the magazine system all but completely eliminating any issues w/ dirt, dust or mud getting into the magazine, the addition of a forestock etc.

Now how much time in the field have you spent w/ your Henry? 2 maybe 3 days and fired maybe a hundred rounds on a weekend? How many times have you carried her through the woods in skirmish order or buried yourself into Georgia red clay mud to get away from reb arty or sharpshooters. Go ahead and do so, add wading through a few dozen cricks and spend a month or so in the weather sans canvas and then let me know how well she fares compared to a Spencer.

IMO a Henry is a pretty parlor rifle, wheras the real weapon ready for honest to god campaigning with a soldier is the 1866 Winchester or the Spencer.

Winchester was no fool he wouldn't have had the design changes made unless they were needed and as copying is the ultimate form of flattery... no one has ever copied the Henry except to sell to SASS & re-enactors. No military ever adopted the Henry Rifle wheras the M1866 was adopted by several. An original Henry is worth a fortune today because they are as scarce as they are, not because they were so superb. Compare the numbers manufactured vs the evolutionary 1866 or 1873 Winchester and you will have an obvious answer.

We both seem to agree that the Winchester Model 1866 was a great weapon as well as the Model 1873. I won’t argue that point. They both represent the refinement of the Henry Rifle toggle link design.

As to my time in the field, you do not have a clue. How did the Spencer and you survive your “field test” of creeks, mud, rain and months of weather?

I don’t think that one would want to shoot a Henry rifle in a parlor, maybe a Volcanic rifle, LOL.

I would still love to see any documentation anyone has on the Henry rifle not being a reliable weapon written in the words of those that used the Henry rifle such as in letters home or to Winchester, diaries, books those that fought wrote or even newspaper accounts. It would be great to add these sources about the Henry rifle having “reliability issues”, as some claim, to my library of documentation concerning the Henry rifle. There must be a massive amount of information with everyone citing reliability issues as a major problem.
I think the term “reenactorism” is more appropriate when discussing “reliability issues” when speaking of the Henry rifle. Research is a great way to further your point.

Were there more Henry rifles used in the Civil War than any other rifle; no. Was the Henry rifle sought after, yes? Was the Henry rifle the most sought after, it depends on who is doing the seeking?
 
Back
Top