Spencer and Henry rifles early in the ACW

[Dave Howery]

When the ACW opened up, both sides were severely short on firearms, and had to ramp up production of them, and both sides imported quite a few from abroad (England and France sold a lot of guns to both sides, IIRC). Once the Union got it's act together, it produced a huge number of firearms, and developed some advanced ones for the time: the Spencer and Henry repeating rifles. However, both were developed rather late in the war, and couldn't be produced in large enough numbers to have any real affect.
So, for a POD, let's say that the Union happens to have a large number of firearms on hand, so that simply finding enough isn't so much of a concern. Thus, R&D can be done earlier, and the Spencer and Henry start appearing in large numbers in mid-1862. What would be the affects on the war as the Union armies start equipping themselves with these? The Spencer was used mainly by the cavalry, as it was so short... would this make the Union cavalry a lot stronger than the Confederate cavalry practically overnight? The Henry was too big and heavy for horseback use, but was fine for the infantry... what would be the affects on the war with these weapons in hand? And of course, the Confederates are going to get their hands on them sooner or later... will they have the capacity to copy them in large numbers?
One immediate use for the Henry would be to assign them to units facing up to the Confederate cavalry raiders. One problem with these troops was that the raiders tended to carry multiple Colt revolvers; this, combined with their horses, gave them an immense advantage over infantry with muskets. Time and time again, units led by Quantrel and Forrest used these tactics to overwhelm larger Union infantry groups. With Henry rifles in Union hands, it's hard to see how the raiders could prevail... would they reform their tactics to go after civilians more?
Thoughts?

[JLCook]

1.) This weapon is far too devastating. It's effect on the battlefield would be murderous!

2.) This weapon will use far too much ammunition.

[Highlander]

Hmmm - if both sides get their hands on these, would we see something like an early WWI taking place?

1.) This weapon is far too devastating. It's effect on the battlefield would be murderous!

The same could be said for the percussion-cap muskets . . .

2.) This weapon will use far too much ammunition.

I'm sure if they could produce these complex weapons, someone sooner or later would come up with a cheaper way to produce ammunition.

[Dave Howery]

let's assume that the Union can produce enough ammo... what happens in the war from mid 1862 on?

oh, and don't forget one thing... the Henry can't be equipped with a bayonet...

[Highlander]

let's assume that the Union can produce enough ammo... what happens in the war from mid 1862 on?

oh, and don't forget one thing... the Henry can't be equipped with a bayonet...

In that case, mass charges would (hopefully) be seen as useless much sooner. This could save a lot more lives.

Perhaps the development of multi-shot firearms becomes more developed than now?

[Dynamitard]

Maybe a much shorter Civil War, sort of a Guns of the North type thing. The South crumples a lot earlier, and maybe Lincoln isn't assassinated, leading to a much nicer reconstruction era, and a better overall world.

Or, if the South gets these crazy guns, the war would probably have the same outcome, but kill tons more than it did in the OTL. America never really recovers, and is unable to do much of anything for quite some time.

[NapoleonXIV]

let's assume that the Union can produce enough ammo... what happens in the war from mid 1862 on?

oh, and don't forget one thing... the Henry can't be equipped with a bayonet...

Which makes little difference. I don't know the source but I read somewhere that only 1% of ACW casualties were caused by bayonets.

Custer's men equipped with Spencer's put paid to Stuart's crucial flanking movement at Gettysburg.

I think the Union would have won the war in short order, probably before the South even had time to acquire any of the new weaponry. Most Civil war battles were near things for both sides at one point or another, and giving the Union such an advantage would give them consistent victorys in the clutch. The South would be worn down and demoralized rather quickly by the Union's many other advantages had they not had the many improbable strings of victorys that they did.

[MrP]

Which makes little difference. I don't know the source but I read somewhere that only 1% of ACW casualties were caused by bayonets.

Custer's men equipped with Spencer's put paid to Stuart's crucial flanking movement at Gettysburg.

I think the Union would have won the war in short order, probably before the South even had time to acquire any of the new weaponry. Most Civil war battles were near things for both sides at one point or another, and giving the Union such an advantage would give them consistent victorys in the clutch. The South would be worn down and demoralized rather quickly by the Union's many other advantages had they not had the many improbable strings of victorys that they did.

Re bayonet casualties: they only caused a tiny fraction of casualties in the Napoleonic period. IIRC about 5% of the total. I have heard higher figures but it's still a small faction. However, bayonet charges were still practical (in large scale terms) then because of lower rates of fire and because people don't like getting stabbed. The bayonet is a morale weapon more than aught else. It was used in the Falklands War, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Coalition forces have occasionally used it in the present unpleasantness.

I'm not sure quite what an effect this would have had. Improving firepower for infantry units is what a lot of the Great War's tactical innovations were about. The CSA almost certainly couldn't have kept up with Northern manufacturing even as badly as OTL. And she struggled for gunpowder for the entire war - having to create her own supplies as well as rely on blockade runners. Army-wide provision of these ammo-hungry weapons might well make the supply situation critical. That said, attacks are going to be so expensive that the Confederate strategic offensives might just be called off totally after a short failed attempt. If the Rebels simply sit on the defensive, they don't need weapons as good as those of their attackers to cause blistering casualties.

However, if these things are appearing in large numbers in mid '62 (a date deliberately chosen, I suspect ;) ) then Lee's horrendously expensive attacks that in OTL forced McClellan to withdraw (because McClellan was a fool) will now simply lose the South even more men. Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation earlier and the South probably loses Richmond. Lee is either a) removed and remembered by history as a fool who failed to appreciate the danger of the Henry, or b) retained and a dangerous network of entrenchments, setting the scene for the subsequent Franco-Prussian War.

[Ghost 88]

When the ACW opened up, both sides were severely short on firearms, and had to ramp up production of them, and both sides imported quite a few from abroad (England and France sold a lot of guns to both sides, IIRC). Once the Union got it's act together, it produced a huge number of firearms, and developed some advanced ones for the time: the Spencer and Henry repeating rifles. However, both were developed rather late in the war, and couldn't be produced in large enough numbers to have any real affect.
So, for a POD, let's say that the Union happens to have a large number of firearms on hand, so that simply finding enough isn't so much of a concern. Thus, R&D can be done earlier, and the Spencer and Henry start appearing in large numbers in mid-1862. What would be the affects on the war as the Union armies start equipping themselves with these? The Spencer was used mainly by the cavalry, as it was so short... would this make the Union cavalry a lot stronger than the Confederate cavalry practically overnight? The Henry was too big and heavy for horseback use, but was fine for the infantry... what would be the affects on the war with these weapons in hand? And of course, the Confederates are going to get their hands on them sooner or later... will they have the capacity to copy them in large numbers?
One immediate use for the Henry would be to assign them to units facing up to the Confederate cavalry raiders. One problem with these troops was that the raiders tended to carry multiple Colt revolvers; this, combined with their horses, gave them an immense advantage over infantry with muskets. Time and time again, units led by Quantrel and Forrest used these tactics to overwhelm larger Union infantry groups. With Henry rifles in Union hands, it's hard to see how the raiders could prevail... would they reform their tactics to go after civilians more?
Thoughts?

I believe that the major problem with procuring large numbers of these two weapons were the were complicated to build. IIRC the Spencer was available in or close to April of 1861, and was not the Henry an improvement of it?

[Ghost 88]

Which makes little difference. I don't know the source but I read somewhere that only 1% of ACW casualties were caused by bayonets.

Custer's men equipped with Spencer's put paid to Stuart's crucial flanking movement at Gettysburg.

I think the Union would have won the war in short order, probably before the South even had time to acquire any of the new weaponry. Most Civil war battles were near things for both sides at one point or another, and giving the Union such an advantage would give them consistent victorys in the clutch. The South would be worn down and demoralized rather quickly by the Union's many other advantages had they not had the many improbable strings of victorys that they did.
Slight nit pick for historical accuracy or my own education. I thought it was Ewell's infrantry that Custer stopped not Stuart's cavalry.

[Fenwick]

I think the charges still go on. What is the range of the rifles? That may have the most impact on tactics. It the range is similar then Generals will think in such terms, but if a long range gun is avalible then the union may win the first battle with simple fire power as the Confederates make a charge.

[NapoleonXIV]

Slight nit pick for historical accuracy or my own education. I thought it was Ewell's infrantry that Custer stopped not Stuart's cavalry.

Fourth para (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer#Brigade_command_and_Gettysburg)

[robertp6165]

Once the Union got it's act together, it produced a huge number of firearms, and developed some advanced ones for the time: the Spencer and Henry repeating rifles. However, both were developed rather late in the war, and couldn't be produced in large enough numbers to have any real affect.

I believe that the major problem with procuring large numbers of these two weapons were the were complicated to build. IIRC the Spencer was available in or close to April of 1861, and was not the Henry an improvement of it?

The problem which prevented large-scale use of either of these weapons was not one of availability at an early date (the Henry was in production in 1860 and the Spencer by early 1861) nor one of technical problems preventing large-scale manufacture. The problem was a bureaucratic one...the United States Ordnance Department. The Ordnance Department came to the conclusion that the large-scale issuance of repeating firearms would cause soldiers to waste large amounts of ammunition, creating a huge supply problem. Therefore they opted not to issue them in large numbers. Outside several thousand Spencer carbines issued to the cavalry in the last couple of years of the war, almost all of the repeaters which entered service were either privately procured by individual soldiers or were issued by State governments.

Change a few key personnel at the Ordnance Department, and the story could have been very different.

[Ghost 88]

Fourth para (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer#Brigade_command_and_Gettysburg)
Thank you. Had thought he had held up elements of Ewell's 2nd Corps.

[Smaug]

let's assume that the Union can produce enough ammo... what happens in the war from mid 1862 on?

oh, and don't forget one thing... the Henry can't be equipped with a bayonet...

The Henry is an amazing rifle, it more than compares with modern hunting rifle's. If used properly, even a company would have raised Cain.....

[67th Tigers]

Re: Bayonets

The idea that bayonets caused few casualties is prettymuch a myth. The data comes from field hospitals which generally only treated wounds to limbs. Soldiers bayonetted (generally in the torso/ abdomain) were not taken to the hospital as it was pointless, there's nothing the then state of medical science could do for them. You generally survived a musket ball, but generally died of a bayonet wound.

Re: Repeaters

Not a replacement for the rifles then in service. The repeaters are more akin to the Victorian SMG than a battlefield rifle. They fire a low powered bullet, with a range inferior to a smoothbore musket, and tended to be used much like an SMG. Soldiers would fire off all seven rounds (Spencer) without aiming, meaning the weapon had little more effect than a rifle-musket, except at very short range (20 yards or so). Soldiers would frequently fire off all 50 rounds in short order, giving them the excuse to withdraw from the firing line.

Also, in a prolonged firefight, they delivered exactly the same ROF as a breachloader, since the rounds were loaded individually rather than on a clip. A veritie of combat that persisted right upto the Great War (some nations used single shot breachloaders at the begining, notably France).

The Advance Company of the Queen's Own Rifles (Canadian Volunteer Regiment) had exactly this problem at Ridgeway. They fired off all their ammunition (at 100 yards, a range where the Enfields they trained with would have been effective, but Repeaters weren't), and were compelled to withdraw.

The British thinking of the late 1850's WRT Repeaters was that they should only be issued to specialist assault troops (Grenadiers), in combination with the new mechanical Hand Grenades (i.e. ones that you pulled the pin on, rather than lit a fuse). A sort of early sturmtaktic. However, British reluctance to form specialised troops after seeing how poorly the French Line performed without it's best men put pay to this.

Had repeaters been general issue weapons, it's probably fair to say attacks would have succeeded more often, as the dangerous "last 100 yards" is seriously shortened back down to something like the old "last 30" of smoothbore days.

The US Ordnance Dept was aware of all the problems of Repeaters, and that's why they weren't issued.

[Dave Howery]

67th> true enough, for the frontline troops anyway. Still, I wonder if the rifles wouldn't have been good for those units tasked with chasing down Confederate raider cavalry. Bands like those of Quantrell used their horses and six-shooters time and time again to beat larger numbers of Union troops simply because the raiders could charge, close, and shoot lots of time while the infantry facing them had single shot muskets. If I had been in their shoes, I'd rather have a Henry than a musket...

[Smaug]

You realize that you can start picking off whoever you want, over 3 to 4 hundred yards. That is a huge advantage:l


Than there's always the lack of need to think...first the wadding, than the powder, than the ball BOOM!

Old cartoon:D

[67th Tigers]

67th> true enough, for the frontline troops anyway. Still, I wonder if the rifles wouldn't have been good for those units tasked with chasing down Confederate raider cavalry. Bands like those of Quantrell used their horses and six-shooters time and time again to beat larger numbers of Union troops simply because the raiders could charge, close, and shoot lots of time while the infantry facing them had single shot muskets. If I had been in their shoes, I'd rather have a Henry than a musket...

Probably, the Cavalry is where these weapons were designed for and where most ended up. A Cavalryman is not concerned with laying down accurate fire at 100 yards, and has a horse to shoulder the extra load of ammunition. He's concerned wth a heavy weight of fire at very short ranges, and then the sabre.

The charge, shoot and withdraw is a very old tactic called Caracoling, which fell into disuse for being less devestating than the sabre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracole

However, the revolver did find it's way into Cavalry use around the 1850's. In the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, crown Cavalry charged with the revolver and sabre, and found the revolver to be highly effective (notably, the British adopted double action "self cocking" revolvers, rather than single action revolvers which most US/CS troops used). This stimulated great debate. Cavalry regiments had bought their own revolvers and breachloaders on the open market (1,000 Sharps were bought by HMG and used in the Mutiny by the 8th Hussars, resulting in the adoption of breachloaders as standard for HM Cavalry in 1860). However, there was some resistance to buying issue revolvers for the cavalry, and it was a few years before HMG relented.

http://www.chargeofthelightbrigade.com/indexnewpages.html

Notably, at Balaklava, the Heavy Brigade were carrying revolvers (ISTR) but refused to use them when charging (successfully) 8 times their number of Russian Horse.

[Dave Howery]

well, in the ACW, cavalry armed with Colt revolvers proved to be very effective raiders... infantry armed with muskets couldn't catch them or outshoot them... once the infantry shot, the cavalry would charge while they were reloading, close the distance, and then use their pistols to overwhelm the still-reloading infantry. Quantrell did this time and time again, and Forrest was no slouch at it either. The one disadvantage of the raiders was the short range of their pistols, but their horses closed the distance quickly. Now, the Henry may not be as long ranged as a rifle/musket, but it certainly outranged the revolver. Infantry armed with Henrys would win against the raiders.
And I'm not so sure about the Henry being outranged that much... there's a big difference between the maximum range of a firearm and what it is actually used at, particularly muzzleloaders. For one example, the Kentucky long rifle is often said to have a maximum range of 200 yards, but hardly anyone could hit anything at that range... anything over 50 yards for any kind of muzzleloader is chancy. And the line troops didn't fight that way anyway; they didn't start popping off rounds at maximum range... they held off until the enemy got fairly close and then fired off in volleys. I wonder how effective a unit armed with Henrys would be if they held off until the enemy closed to 50 yards and then cut loose. The enemy would be closer, but the defender could fire 15 (!) volleys in fairly short time... I think the advantage goes to the defender, not the attacker...

[67th Tigers]

That's true. The normal ACW firefight was well within the range of Napoleonic smoothbore firefights. However, before and after the ACW we find genuine long ranged firefights, the British in the Crimean hitting the advancing Russians at 600 yards, and the French hitting at 1,000 yards in the Franco-Prussian War.

So, something else must have happened in the ACW. The obvious answer is the massive restriction on Powder use, and the fact that until 1864 neither side conducted marksmanship training.

Cleburne, a CSA General, had been an Officer in the British Army, and had kept up on developments in Europe, and trained his Division using a copy of the British Musketry Training Pamphlet, to devestating effect...

http://www.civilwarguns.com/9502b.html

[Ghost 88]

That's true. The normal ACW firefight was well within the range of Napoleonic smoothbore firefights. However, before and after the ACW we find genuine long ranged firefights, the British in the Crimean hitting the advancing Russians at 600 yards, and the French hitting at 1,000 yards in the Franco-Prussian War.

So, something else must have happened in the ACW. The obvious answer is the massive restriction on Powder use, and the fact that until 1864 neither side conducted marksmanship training.

Cleburne, a CSA General, had been an Officer in the British Army, and had kept up on developments in Europe, and trained his Division using a copy of the British Musketry Training Pamphlet, to devestating effect...

http://www.civilwarguns.com/9502b.html
There was not the hugh open areas of Europe in the US at this time so fields of fire were not as great. Also both sides used open order skirmishers which are harder to see or aim at over 200m or so. When I was the age of most of the ACW combatants I had slightly better than 20/20 vision and was farsighted but on fireing ranges had trouble picking up the targets at 250m or more. Combine this with I believe to be brighter sunshine in the US,as it IIRC is less overcast than Europe throw in a more open order of attack and less open terrain and close range shooting makes since. Was at the Shiloh and Petersburg battlefields and when I was there 1964 and 1971 niether had long sight lines. It's forgot that a good deal of the eastern US was rolling country with 200m between the top of one hill and the top of the next normal.
It is most assuredly not the lack of markmanship as a large % of the soilders on both sides hunted as youth to supplement the diet,no I am not claiming they are Daniel Boone and can shoot a fly at 6 miles but 600m at a man would not be out of most farm boys ranges.

Point of fact a group of hunters out west about 1866 were traped by a large group of hostile Amer Indians at a place call Adobe Walls the land was clear and level and the Hunters were making killing shots at 1000m or more,so Americans could shoot that far and kill if they had the skill,weapon,and open terrain.

The main reason that they did not engage at long ranges IMHO is that they could not see to shoot at the long ranges you could in Europe more than doctrine or ability. As to the effective range of the repeaters in question I do not know but would guess that the Springfield Rifle was longer ranged.

[MrP]

Interesting titbit about bayonets, 67th, thanks. :)

Re ranges and visibility - I certainly have comes across - several times - comments that rifled artillery was less useful in the ACW simply because of poor fields of fire.

[67th Tigers]

Interesting titbit about bayonets, 67th, thanks. :)

Re ranges and visibility - I certainly have comes across - several times - comments that rifled artillery was less useful in the ACW simply because of poor fields of fire.

Smoothbores still had a large range. The M1857 "Napoleon" 12 pounder had a range (at 5 degrees elevation) of just over a mile, and the older M1841 6 pounder was not that much less. Parrott and Ordnance Rifles only had about a 10-15% larger range, excepting the imported Whitworth 12 pounder rifle with a significantly greater range (2,800 yds vs 1,600 for a Napoleon).

The advantage was accuracy. Rifles, properly aimed, could hit a target at a mile, smoothbores, while they could reach that far were inaccurate.

The obvious counter was that Smoothbores could fire canister and grapeshot.

[67th Tigers]

There was not the hugh open areas of Europe in the US at this time so fields of fire were not as great. Also both sides used open order skirmishers which are harder to see or aim at over 200m or so. When I was the age of most of the ACW combatants I had slightly better than 20/20 vision and was farsighted but on fireing ranges had trouble picking up the targets at 250m or more. Combine this with I believe to be brighter sunshine in the US,as it IIRC is less overcast than Europe throw in a more open order of attack and less open terrain and close range shooting makes since. Was at the Shiloh and Petersburg battlefields and when I was there 1964 and 1971 niether had long sight lines. It's forgot that a good deal of the eastern US was rolling country with 200m between the top of one hill and the top of the next normal.
It is most assuredly not the lack of markmanship as a large % of the soilders on both sides hunted as youth to supplement the diet,no I am not claiming they are Daniel Boone and can shoot a fly at 6 miles but 600m at a man would not be out of most farm boys ranges.

Point of fact a group of hunters out west about 1866 were traped by a large group of hostile Amer Indians at a place call Adobe Walls the land was clear and level and the Hunters were making killing shots at 1000m or more,so Americans could shoot that far and kill if they had the skill,weapon,and open terrain.

The main reason that they did not engage at long ranges IMHO is that they could not see to shoot at the long ranges you could in Europe more than doctrine or ability. As to the effective range of the repeaters in question I do not know but would guess that the Springfield Rifle was longer ranged.

America was not a well armed culture circa 1860. While in Britain, they were no real restrictions on firearms ownership, the US had some fairly severe restrictions (depending on state), embodied in the Militia regulations.

The cost of a hunting rifle ($30-50) was many months wages (typically >$10 a month, skewed by city dwelling artisans, whogot about double this. The Army wage of $13 a month was a real draw). The cost of ball and powder for 10 rounds was maybe a days wages. People could not generally afford to shoot, hunting was generally the last resort.

However, the ACW brought several million excess firearms to the continent, and DuPont started manufacturing powder in late 1862, dropping the price massively, to the point where in the late 1860's people can afford to shoot and hunt.

[Ghost 88]

America was not a well armed culture circa 1860. While in Britain, they were no real restrictions on firearms ownership, the US had some fairly severe restrictions (depending on state), embodied in the Militia regulations.

The cost of a hunting rifle ($30-50) was many months wages (typically >$10 a month, skewed by city dwelling artisans, whogot about double this. The Army wage of $13 a month was a real draw). The cost of ball and powder for 10 rounds was maybe a days wages. People could not generally afford to shoot, hunting was generally the last resort.

However, the ACW brought several million excess firearms to the continent, and DuPont started manufacturing powder in late 1862, dropping the price massively, to the point where in the late 1860's people can afford to shoot and hunt.
Dude while I find most of your posts informative and find little to argue with this post doesn't stand to reason as most frontier people had thier own weapons,now price of shot correndsponds with the one shoot one piece of meat, ethos atributed to "American Marksmen" not having weapons does not. I ask could you be mistaking Military grade .75 cal rifles with bayonet lugs with hunting grade Hawkins and Kentucky .50 cal rifles that were not good Military firearms. I never stated in the last post that it was a majority of the recruits with hunting experence but that there was a large number who had it.

[67th Tigers]

Those who hunt are an extremely small percentage of the population though. I thought the figure was less than 1% of the US population, and concentrated in the territories rather than the states.

The 1870's explosion in firearms use ISTR borrowed a lot of invented cultural elements.

I profess to regurgitating books here, I'm not really an expert. I do know that early ACW the standard of marksmanship was pretty terrible though, as evidenced by the fact that even with rifles (although Rifles were not universal until 1864, ISTR that 11% of the Union Regiments at Gettysburg were still armed with Percussion Smoothbores, and a lot more on the Rebs side), attacks could normally get pretty close before casualties started to mount to the point where static firefights developed. The typically quoted ranges (by contempory Commanders) that the firefight became deadly was 33-67 yds, depending.

[Dave Howery]

various parts of the country were better armed than others. The industrialized urban north had fewer weapons than the rest. The southerners tended to have a lot more, as they were a lot more rural... in fact, a lot of the southerners in the army brought their own weapons. The 'elite' who generally went into the cavalry were fairly skilled already at riding and shooting from horseback. And of course, the people on the frontier were nearly 100% armed, so far as the men were concerned... granted, they made up a pretty small percentage of the population in total. Thus, the most heavily populated part of the nation was the least armed, and the rest were more heavily armed.
One possible reason for the short range combat in the ACW... the US hadn't fought in a major war since Mexico, fought almost entirely with smoothbore muskets. All the major combat commanders in the war fought there. Most of them failed to grasp just how lethal the new rifles were, or that they could be used at longer range. A lot of the ACW combat consisted of mass volleys at short range. Thus, the shocking loss of life in the war.

[Number three]

Wilder's Lightning Brigade was fully armed with Spensers in 1863. The battles around Chatanooga likely would have come out quite differently without the firepower of Wilder's Brigade, which did the most to stem early Confederate success and allow Union forces to successfully withdraw.

[The Sandman]

In order to equip the Union armies with repeaters circa 1862, you need to be able to mass produce the cartridges. Did the USA have sufficient brass production in the 1860s to do this, and how long would it take to ramp up if we didn't? Also, would the Winchester have been sufficiently more effective to be used if it were invented earlier? And would a need for fire discipline result in higher standards of training in the Union Army?

[Ghost 88]

In order to equip the Union armies with repeaters circa 1862, you need to be able to mass produce the cartridges. Did the USA have sufficient brass production in the 1860s to do this, and how long would it take to ramp up if we didn't? Also, would the Winchester have been sufficiently more effective to be used if it were invented earlier? And would a need for fire discipline result in higher standards of training in the Union Army?
IIRC the Winchester '73 was a Henry or close enough it doesn't matter.

[Dave Howery]

not sure about the total of US brass production, but it had to be fairly large already, as black powder gear uses a lot of brass (can't use steel or glass, as these store static charges which makes powder go boom unexpectedly). To get the US to the point of being able to make lots of repeaters early on, you have to remove the fact that the US and CSA were both woefully unprepared for war; neither side had a lot of weapons on hand and had to import quite a few from France and Britain while their own industries ramped up. Basically, you need a POD that the US has plenty of firearms on hand at the start of the war, and can afford to experiment with repeaters right from the beginning.

The Henry was the ancestor of the Winchester, both used lever action reloading. The Winchester basically refined the Henry, eliminating some of its problems....

[Brandonazz]

Sounds like a certain book by a certain author about a certain gun in a certain civil war :rolleyes:

[Peter Cowan]

I think, from reading "Battle Tactics of the American Civil War" by Paddy Griffith that most musketry/rifle exchanges were at very close ranges - certainly well within the theoretical ranges of the guns - this incidentally is one reason why NATO/WP armies moved away from .303/7.62mm weapons with long ranges to lesser calibre weapons of shorter range - given the level of concealement in a temperate zone, spotting anything over 500m in close country is unlikely

As regards bayonets - UK forces in Iraq used them as recently as 2004 (maybe since then too but I can't be sure).