Best military rifle of 1875?

[slzy]

no doubt the general erosion of the confederacy led inexorably to doom and defeat,googling breech loading weapons of the union army brings many articles with endorsements ,particularly of the spencer by union officers. signal among the actions are the aforementioned hoovers gap and chickamaugua,but also nashville and selma and these all seemed to be in the hands of elements of thomas army.

this is certainly not to say the north would not have won if armed with brown besses, but the consensus seems to be it was easier accomplished with spencers.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

the consensus seems to be it was easier accomplished with spencers.

Consensus isn't tactical analysis.

And remember, most Spencers (about 90%) were carbines issued to cavalry, which was not "main force." Cavalry was used for raiding, screening, reconnaissance, and economy-of-force missions (as it still is today.)

Most attempts to translate the supposed aedvantages of the breechloaders of the day into tactical advantages revolve around strange ideas on the order of "if you can shoot ten times as fast, you only need one tenth as many men" and so on.

Remember, the repeating breechloaders of the day were basically pistols with shoulder stocks. Units with such weapons were highly vulnerable to stand-off attacks -- which is why each Confederate cavalry regiment usually included at least one company with rifle-muskets slung across their backs.

And on the Confederate side, there was no overwhelming desire for breechloaders -- JEB Stuart rejected the Sharps copies he was offered by Gorgas and specifically told him he wanted muzzle loading carbines.

 

[Bart Noir]

Vern, that is interesting. Why would Stuart say that? At that time the Sharps was a paper or linen cartridge firing weapon, so the same suppliers of cartridges for the muzzle-stuffers could have supplied cartridges for Sharps.

Bart Noir
Who seems to have put the original thread to sleep for 2.5 years.....

 

[Vern Humphrey]

A copy of Stuart's letter can be found in U.S. Firearms, 1776-1956 by Major James E. Hicks.

Stuart's tests (he was one of the few officers on either side who had hands-on testing) found the weakness of the Sharps. When the breechblock knife cut off the end of the paper cartridge, a few grains of powder would be spilled and accumulate in the nooks and crannies of the weapon. Since the Sharps breech was not gas-tight, eventually the inevatible would happen.

I always imagine some Virginia Cavalryman standing there with his face blackened and saying, "I dunno, Ginral. She was a-shootin' jest fine, and now look at ma eye-winkers!"

 

[slzy]

whatever the verdict,i believe study of hoovers gap,snodgrass hill and alatoona make interesting reading,along with gen. james wilsons comments.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The proper study of any battle is interesting. But we must be careful to study and analyze, not draw facile conclusions. Military history is full of fallacies, such as belief held by many that the Schliefen Plan in WWI failed because the Germans panicked and set too many troops east, or the battle of Cannae was a "double encirclement," or it would have made a difference if Custer had taken the Gatling guns with him.

 

[Slamfire]

1. With the possible exception of the Sharps, no breechloaders of the period had the range capability of muzzle loaders -- so tactics would have easily compensated for any theoritical advantage in weaponry.

Agree with the range. Tactics assume a set piece battle, warfare is not that predictable. There are battles won by natives with pointy spears over firearms, but the usual outcome, given good Generalship, that an arms advantage is an advantage that contributes decisively to winning.

2. The supposed "advantages" of breechloaders indicate a rather naive idea of combat -- of that period, or any other period.

I have read enough personnel accounts of civil war soldiers, one in particular was a Trooper who served under Custer, was very proud of it, and he carried a Spencer. The Spencer was a real advantage for the troops armed with it. So often battle was an individual against another individual, even in a crowd. The guy who had the most shots had the advantage.

Compare single shot pistols to the Colt revolver. The single shot pistol disappeared quite quickly from battlefields.

4. Most soldiers weren't capable of using muzzle loaders very effectively, and their officers paid scant attention to weapons training.

True. True in every war we have ever been engaged, and true today. Private Jessica went to war, and did not know how to clear her weapon. She said "it jammed". Cost cutters get ahead in peacetime. One of the things they do, to free up money, is cut training.

As to the best military rifle of 1875, I have a Martini Henry, a Mauser M71/84. Handled rolling blocks. All are good designs. You really have to handle a Martini Henry to understand what an excellent design it is. Very simple, very safe, impossible to put together wrong, easy to clean. But the Rolling Block was the most exported action, so I guess that makes it the "best".

 

[Cameronafter8]

The Peabody rifle was picked as the replacement rifle for the Army in 1866.

The Allen convesion to the Springfield was used instead to save money.

The Orignial Peabody looked similar to the Peabody-Martini, but the Army wanted saftey, a hammer that had to be pulled back, and that any could see it was ready to fire and not a little lever on the side.
The Orignial Peabody had the fastest trigger of it's time. The Hammer drop one didn't.

 

[Kentucky-roughrider]

Basil Duke wrote that one in the target bet seven in the sun. Anyone who takes the time load a muzzle loader, he will shoot it straight.
He was Morgan's XO, 2nd Kentucky Cavarly and later coomands. It was mainly a guerilla unit, also ammo migtly after been problem.


The 1873 seems to have worked for the Texas Rangers, weren't they a paramilitary unit in 1875. But as a MBR, I go with Mauser '71 or the rolling block. Gen. Sheridan in fact wanted the rollin block.
Paul Mauser was a state secret in the 1870's and 1880's, he was not allowed to late the country.
The Martini-Henry had the similar problem with extraction, the lever would break, when the rifle fowled up.

 

[MMCSRET]

The Winchester Hotchkiss bolt action 45-70 was coming on line about that time. U.S. bought a few to test in the field, it was a bolt action repeater, but never found favor.

 

[Cameronafter8]

The Springfield Allen conversion was the a good lay down and shoot rifle. Standing it would be a mess. 12 shots a minute, minute after minute.

The Peabody Military rifle was picked as the rifle the US Army 1866 wanted of all tested. It had a hammer added, for safety.

The Spencer had a major problem in ripping the poor brass the government ordered instead of the best brass.

I watched a man kneeling firing a Peabody-Martini,and it was very fast.
Much faster than a Rolling block. The Rolling blocks favor it loads well laying down.
In 1875 Sharps was using a cartridge and would have been adequate. Remington beat Sharps at 600,900, & 1000 yards @276-259. @1875

Could be @1875 Lee had already a bolt action, and was ignored in the US so he went to England where they liked it. But it needed a bit of work.

 

[Norsecat]

Peabody action 1862

There was some US designs that are almost unknown in this day.
Remington-Keen Winchester-Hochkis others.

I did a look up and found this.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=eHBwAAAAEBAJ&dq=Peabody&jtp=1

 

[GunTech]

I'd suggest that folks read up on the Franco-Prussian war of 1869/70. I'd say the Prussian "needle gun" was the most technically advanced rifle of its day, although with a limited ammo capacity: and if "best" equals "technically advanced", I'd say the needle gun is a clear winner.

By the time of the Franco-Prussian war the Dreyse needle gun was obsolete and outclassed by the French Chassepot. When introduced in 1841, the needle gun was revolutionary. By 1869 is was out of date. German artillery won the Austro-Prussian and franco-Prussian wars. At the same time, the French were converting the Chassepot into the metallic cartridge Gras. The German Imperial army replaced the Dated Dreyse with the Model 1871 immediately after the war.

 

[Bart Noir]

The Spencer also lost out because the action could not be changed to shoot longer, more powerful centerfire cartridges. Not that centerfire would be a problem, it's that the breechblock would have been too big and heavy if they wanted another 1-inch of brass, to get long range ballistics.

So I guess I'm reading that the original Peabody had an internal striker, the US military version had an external hammer, and then that Swiss officer, Martini, became famous for going back to the internal striker?

He must have been laughing every time somebody praised "his" new design.

Bart Noir

 

[Vern Humphrey]

German artillery won the Austro-Prussian and franco-Prussian wars.

The fact that the French made a pig's breakfast of their mobilization also contributed to the disaster. They planned to rush troops and equipment to the front by rail -- good idea.

They failed to plan to retrograde the empty trains -- bad idea. Soon the debarking stations were full of empty trains, and following trains had to unload into fields and woods. It was a giant goat-rope.

 

[alemonkey]

It's the thread that won't die!

If you haven't read it yet, Dick Trenk wrote an interesting article on the battle of Plevna:

http://www.militaryrifles.com/Turkey/Plevna/ThePlevnaDelay.html

 

[Vaarok]

I really have to second the Werder, it's a glorious design. Way too rare and expensive for me to get one yet, but impressive nonetheless. Fast, powerful, strong.

But I also think the Vetterli, mediocre ballistics or not, was probably a pretty good bet. Volume of fire covers a multitude of sins, and they're very accurate even if you have to lob rounds like artillery.