I was just reading Carnage and Culture by Victor Hanson and he comments on the fact that the combination of the conservatism of the British military establishment and the fact that the British Army was the ugly stepchild (compared to the Navy) meant that the soldiers had an obsolete rifle (the Henry-Martini) when fighting the Zulus in 1879. He specifically mentions the repeating Winchester 73 as a more modern (and possibly effective) alternative.
My question is - do you think this was a handicap? My understanding of the Henry-Martini is that it shoots a big piece of lead a long distance, especially compared to the 44-40. Plus, it can attach a bayonet. Hanson suggests that, in addition to the 800 dead Zulu on the scene, hundreds died from their wounds having walked or crawled miles away, a fact he attributes to the heavy, soft bullet of the Martini.
On the other hand, much of the fighting at Rorke's drift was essentially at the fence, where a repeater would be most handy. And at point-blank range, a 44-40 would likely cause a fair bit of trouble.
Hanson says that 20,000 rounds were fired by fewer than 100 British soldiers against some 2,000 Zulus. That's a bit more than 200 rounds per soldier. Using a lever-action rifle, that would be fairly few rounds over 12 hours of fighting. I have fired more than 100 rounds from my Winchester 94 (30-30) in a long afternoon of target practice (ouch), without the incentive of thousands of angry Zulus in my face.
The chapter in the book reminds me of Winchester 73 with Jimmy Stewart where the US Cavalry is surrounded by Sioux (led by Rock Hudson as Young Bull, no less). They only have single-shot Springfields and are saved by civilian Stewart (and a friend) having repeating Winchesters.
Although they got massacred at Isandhlwana because of poor tactics, needless to say, the British did not need to be saved at Rorke's Drift. But I would bet that having two dozen soldiers with Winchesters would have come in handy.
My question is - do you think this was a handicap? My understanding of the Henry-Martini is that it shoots a big piece of lead a long distance, especially compared to the 44-40. Plus, it can attach a bayonet. Hanson suggests that, in addition to the 800 dead Zulu on the scene, hundreds died from their wounds having walked or crawled miles away, a fact he attributes to the heavy, soft bullet of the Martini.
On the other hand, much of the fighting at Rorke's drift was essentially at the fence, where a repeater would be most handy. And at point-blank range, a 44-40 would likely cause a fair bit of trouble.
Hanson says that 20,000 rounds were fired by fewer than 100 British soldiers against some 2,000 Zulus. That's a bit more than 200 rounds per soldier. Using a lever-action rifle, that would be fairly few rounds over 12 hours of fighting. I have fired more than 100 rounds from my Winchester 94 (30-30) in a long afternoon of target practice (ouch), without the incentive of thousands of angry Zulus in my face.
The chapter in the book reminds me of Winchester 73 with Jimmy Stewart where the US Cavalry is surrounded by Sioux (led by Rock Hudson as Young Bull, no less). They only have single-shot Springfields and are saved by civilian Stewart (and a friend) having repeating Winchesters.
Although they got massacred at Isandhlwana because of poor tactics, needless to say, the British did not need to be saved at Rorke's Drift. But I would bet that having two dozen soldiers with Winchesters would have come in handy.
