Would the ACW have been shortened by years had the Union more adopted repeaters?

The Civil War historian Robert V. Bruce speculated that had such rifles been widely distributed to the Union Army by 1862, the Civil War would have been shortened by years, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/

This passage is refering to the Spencer Rifle and how the Army’s chief of ordnance James Wolfe Ripley worked to sabotage the widespread proliferation of repeaters in the Union army. Does that statement ring true?

Could more Spencer's and Henry's issued really have had that impact?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
What is the army equipped with in 1861-62, while the

What is the army equipped with in 1861-62, while the arsenals are converted to manufacture repeaters - and their cartridge ammunition?

The AEF could have had BARs and Thompsons, but it would be 1919 before enough were in hand to replace the Chauchats and Lewis guns; likewise, the AUS presumably could have had selective fire Garands with 20-round box magazines in 1945, but that means they are using M1903s in the meantime.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, obviously.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Does that statement ring true?
No.
In December 1861, the government had ordered 73,000 breech-loading weapons but received only 9,000 of those. On February 4th 1862, Brigadier James Wolfe Ripley, the chief of ordnance, telegraphed all contractors producing breech-loaders for the army asking how many weapons per week they could expect. Six of the seven firms (Burnsides', Gallagher's, Smith's, Starr's, Gibbs' and Merrill's) could deliver between 120 and 250 weapons per week. Sharps could deliver 500 per week, but were building none for the government because Hiram Berdan had used political influence to have their production directed to his sharpshooter regiment.

Of the two weapons which have been specifically mentioned, 10,000 Spencers were ordered on 26 December 1861. In the summer of 1862, the factory reported production problems and the order was reduced to 7500. The first rifles weren't delivered until 31 December 1862, and the contract wasn't filled until the summer of 1863. As for the Henry factory, it could produce about 200 rifles per month at the start of the war and 260 per month by the end of it.

See also: ACW with cartridge rifles
 
to get repeaters by the start of the war, you'd need a major shift in the army's attitude towards upgrading it's armament. They seemed to have been really lackadaisical about it before the war, and when the war started, both sides were scrambling to find enough of any kind of firearm, much less repeaters. When the war began, some units on both sides were stuck using smooth bore muzzle loaders, which were just about obsolete, while they were waiting for England and France to deliver rifles in large numbers. So, to get more repeaters, you'd have to have this sea change in attitude starting somewhere after the Mexican War, and have the army and Congress actually interested in developing and acquiring the latest in firearms. With that, you might have a chunk of the armed forces armed with Spencers (Henrys seem to have been too complex, too slow to manufacture, and too unreliable), particularly the cavalry. Of course, if the Union starts with a fair number of repeaters, the south will too. But the Union can at least manufacture more of them, while the south doesn't seem likely to do so...
 
Getting a ramped up production of repeaters and their cartridges (no easy task), and arming small groups of e.g. cavalry first, then more cavalry, then a few special infantry units would be possible.

But note that NEITHER side used breechloaders let alone repeaters, because they were too finicky and expensive. Also, the costs were very high.

The North could have slowly ramped up production over the course of the war, and equipped some units, but no way can they supply the entire army.

Of course, the South had no chance, whatsoever of doing even that.
 
Top