The Model 1859 Sharps military rifle...

The truely weird part about this WI is that a version of it could have happened. Breach loading rifles firing rimfire cartridges had been around since 1831. There were several compeating designs, the Sharps rifle was just one of them. It seems that the reason that no such design was fielded prior to the Springfield 1866 trapdoor had more to do with infighting and resistance at the US Ordnance Dept. than any logistical or technical hurdles.

The idea of the WI that has them in the hands of both sides of the ACW is not likely, not having them in the hands of the Union side was the result of happenstance. If this event had happened it would have shortened the war but not for the reasons stated so far. The ACW was one of the few wars where both sides could use each others ammo. If the Union had switched to a different rifle using a different type and caliber of ammunition it would have cut the South off from one of their main sources of ammo, scouring battlefields after the battles.

Quite. The part I bolded is just another prime example of the Army Department of Ordinance and their legacy of truly bad decision making when it came to equipping the American infantry man throughout history (see: 1885 Remington-Lee dumped for The Krag, passing on the Lewis gun, adopting the AR-15/M16 and it's low power cartridge in the first place, then not replacing them with Rec7 uppers to make use of the more powerful 6.8mm SPC in the present, etc...)

Also, the ammo matter would be a factor, but in the event of a Union Army equipped with a rifle capable of 5-6 shots per minute, at 500 yards, vs. a Confederate army gunning at 2-3 shots per minute, at 200-300 yards, that's a one sided bloodbath, war ending battle just waiting to happen.

Possibly on the peninsula (with an aggressive commander, like Sherman, for example) or at the latest at Antietam (again, with a more aggressive and realist general in command of the AoTP), but by the end of 1862, a battle like that would happen.

Sigma7:

To my knowledge, the Sharps pellet-primer didn't see much use in the ACW, due to its mechanical complexity. Those Sharps models that used the Maynard tape primer were also withdrawn from service because of the fragility of the tape under battlefield conditions.
The use of the Sharps in the early battles of the war would have meant an even more monstrous casualty list. Accordingly, I think that there would be a more widespread use of skirmisher tactics.

Mike Garrity

See, there's parts of that description I posted originally that may or may not be accurate for the time as I'm working with somewhat limited information (a few books on firearms in general) so the pellet primer might be out of the question completely, like you said. The tape primer...ugh!...from what I've read of it, that thing would actually turn an advantage into a hindrance to Union forces and was already shown to be poorly suited for the field from it's use in the 1855(IIRC) Springfield, so if the pellet stack's out of the equation, percussion caps it is.

Now, the skirmisher tactics being adopted brings up a rather interesting question:

If First Bull Run goes down with such monstrous casualties, does the Army turn to John Watts de Peyster and his concepts published in his treatise "New American Tactics", where he advocated skirmish lines replacing the old line of battle?
 

iddt3

Donor
Quite. The part I bolded is just another prime example of the Army Department of Ordinance and their legacy of truly bad decision making when it came to equipping the American infantry man throughout history (see: 1885 Remington-Lee dumped for The Krag, passing on the Lewis gun, adopting the AR-15/M16 and it's low power cartridge in the first place, then not replacing them with Rec7 uppers to make use of the more powerful 6.8mm SPC in the present, etc...)

Also, the ammo matter would be a factor, but in the event of a Union Army equipped with a rifle capable of 5-6 shots per minute, at 500 yards, vs. a Confederate army gunning at 2-3 shots per minute, at 200-300 yards, that's a one sided bloodbath, war ending battle just waiting to happen.

Possibly on the peninsula (with an aggressive commander, like Sherman, for example) or at the latest at Antietam (again, with a more aggressive and realist general in command of the AoTP), but by the end of 1862, a battle like that would happen.



See, there's parts of that description I posted originally that may or may not be accurate for the time as I'm working with somewhat limited information (a few books on firearms in general) so the pellet primer might be out of the question completely, like you said. The tape primer...ugh!...from what I've read of it, that thing would actually turn an advantage into a hindrance to Union forces and was already shown to be poorly suited for the field from it's use in the 1855(IIRC) Springfield, so if the pellet stack's out of the equation, percussion caps it is.

Now, the skirmisher tactics being adopted brings up a rather interesting question:

If First Bull Run goes down with such monstrous casualties, does the Army turn to John Watts de Peyster and his concepts published in his treatise "New American Tactics", where he advocated skirmish lines replacing the old line of battle?
That could actually have HUGE effects down the line, and possibly butterfly away trench warfare as we know it. It's one step from that to squad level tactics, which are possible as soon as you have repeating rifles.
 
Top