Spenser in Civil War

[old_pop2000]

As many of you probably know, there were repeating rifles in the Civil War. .44 cal. Henry's, Colt's, Maynard's, Le Mat, Sharp's, just to name a few. However, probably the best was patented in 1860 by Christopher Spenser. It fired seven rimfire self contained copper cartridges, typically .56-.56 Spenser Rimfire Cartridge, at a muzzle velocity of over 1100 feet per second. Spenser demonstrated the rifle in September of 1861 to the Navy, where Dahlgren ordered over 600 of the weapons. Unfortunately, the army Chief of Ordnance, one General Ripley, did not and none were ordered.

The Civil War started and the Union Army was equipped with a muzzle loading, rifle that allowed for a rate of fire of four rounds per minute. The Spenser, could fire at the rate of 20 rounds per minute and the shooter could be lying on the ground, and still load the rifle with ease. From 1861 to 1866, over 94,000 Spenser Carbines were ordered for the Cavalry, along with a small number of rifles.

Ok, so here is the idea, what would have happened, if Ripley had listened to General James Wilson who actively sought to have the rifle version adopted. It wasn't until Lincoln fired one, in 1863, that the Army was ordered to buy them. What if the Union army had been issued the rifle version of the Spenser as standard issue to all Union soldiers. How would the Civil War have changed?

Heh Heh Heh!!

[Kyle Holgate]

As many of you probably know, there were repeating rifles in the Civil War. .44 cal. Henry's, Colt's, Maynard's, Le Mat, Sharp's, just to name a few. However, probably the best was patented in 1860 by Christopher Spenser. It fired seven rimfire self contained copper cartridges, typically .56-.56 Spenser Rimfire Cartridge, at a muzzle velocity of over 1100 feet per second. Spenser demonstrated the rifle in September of 1861 to the Navy, where Dahlgren ordered over 600 of the weapons. Unfortunately, the army Chief of Ordnance, one General Ripley, did not and none were ordered.

The Civil War started and the Union Army was equipped with a muzzle loading, rifle that allowed for a rate of fire of four rounds per minute. The Spenser, could fire at the rate of 20 rounds per minute and the shooter could be lying on the ground, and still load the rifle with ease. From 1861 to 1866, over 94,000 Spenser Carbines were ordered for the Cavalry, along with a small number of rifles.

Ok, so here is the idea, what would have happened, if Ripley had listened to General James Wilson who actively sought to have the rifle version adopted. It wasn't until Lincoln fired one, in 1863, that the Army was ordered to buy them. What if the Union army had been issued the rifle version of the Spenser as standard issue to all Union soldiers. How would the Civil War have changed?

Heh Heh Heh!!

My civil war knowledge is pretty limited, I would guess however that the war would have been shorter. ;)

[old_pop2000]

My civil war knowledge is pretty limited, I would guess however that the war would have been shorter. ;)

That is one possibility, however, tactics might have changed. With a weapon that could fire at the rate of 20 rounds per minute, how long do the shoulder to shoulder Napoleonic tactics last? What about adopting a more looser formation, with skirmishers? More distance, might mean less casualties. Lot's of possibilities. With higher rates of fire, what about logistics?

[Kyle Holgate]

That is one possibility, however, tactics might have changed. With a weapon that could fire at the rate of 20 rounds per minute, how long do the shoulder to shoulder Napoleonic tactics last? What about adopting a more looser formation, with skirmishers? More distance, might mean less casualties. Lot's of possibilities. With higher rates of fire, what about logistics?

Ok, ok - I'll get serious if I must! :mad:

During the revolutionary war the Redcoats - and particularly the British officers complained that the Americans were not fighting fair. The very idea of hiding behind trees (or up in them) and sniping - and at officers too no less.
Why this didn't happen a lot more in the Civil war, I'm not sure. The idea of standing in line up in plain sight and range of the enemy and walking along makes me shudder. Bad enough running from cover to cover when under fire!
Could the south have copied the gun directly when they captured models? (or did they, as I show my ignorance on the subject?).

[Saffron]

Could the south have copied the gun directly when they captured models? (or did they, as I show my ignorance on the subject?).


I'm not sure if the South would've had the necessary manufacturing infrastructure to produce enough of them even if they did copy it. If memory serves, the South was already getting Enfields from the Brits. Now ... maybe if they gave some captured Spensers to the Brits to copy and produce ....

[old_pop2000]

There was sniping from the trees, in the Civil War. Remember those Americans in the Revolutionary War were not trained soldiers, but militia and they were really a guerrilla type organization. Keep in mind, that in order to get a volume of fire from a single shot, muzzle loading weapon, men had to be closer together to develop it. But the Spenser would have allowed for volume fire without the need to present a cluster of good targets. With a repeating rifle, I can acheive weight of fire on a particular position or portion of a front line without the need of a high number of targets per unit area. I concentrate firepower using weapons, not humans.

Could the South have copied the weapon? I see nothing in the design to preclude that.

[Spook046]

Well, I'm compelled to first dispense the nitnoid that I've always seen it "Spencer" instead of "Spenser"....

Well, to be certain, a more prolific adoption of the Spencer rifle/carbine and other repeating weapons, and much sooner into the war, would have had a fundamental shift on applied tactics. Wilder's "Lightning Brigade" of mounted infantry, at Hoover's Gap and later at Chickamauga in 1863, showed what a proficient body of troops could do with Spencers, even repelling attacks with odds against of 3:1 or so. The irony is that in order to be equipped with the Spencers, Wilder and his men had to buy the weapons themselves.

And my recollection is that they were able to engage without unanticipated ammo shortages. But then, as mounted troops, they were also probably better able to carry along a greater immediate ammo reserve.

Just to note, however, that even before the usage of repeaters, both sides were already making significant use of skirmishers as forward screens, though I suspect that the applied tactics varied a good bit, not only between both sides, but even between the divisions of one side's army.

Anyway, given just Wilder's example (a good source is Cozzen's "This Terrible Sound"), a massive rearming to repeating weapons earlier into the war would probably have had a profound effect, not dissimilar to what was seen in the Franco-Prussian War a few years later. On that note, if ACW artillery hadn't made a comparably pervasive "technical" stride (such as more breech-loading guns with longer range like the Whitworth), I think that artillerymen would have operated at a much increased hazard of loss.

[old_pop2000]

I'm not sure if the South would've had the necessary manufacturing infrastructure to produce enough of them even if they did copy it. If memory serves, the South was already getting Enfields from the Brits. Now ... maybe if they gave some captured Spensers to the Brits to copy and produce ....

That is another bit of misinformation about the South. The South quickly converted from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society, in a relatively short period. Two arms plants that were very important to the south were the Alabama Arms Manufacturing Co. in Selma, Alabama and the Confederate Arsenal at Richmond. Another was the Cook & Brother Arms Manufacturing of New Orleans. It was moved to Athens, Georgia, prior to the fall of New Orleans. There was the Shakanoosa Arms Manufacturing of Dickson, Alabama. In fact, a Confederate named George M. Morse actually patented a metallic cartridge, repeating rifle in 1856. Texas ordered over 1000 of the Morse repeaters. There was a carbine manufacturing plant in Florida. There were more, like Mendenhall, James and Gardner of North Carolina, Lamb and Brothers of Jamestown, N.C., J.P. Murray, D.C. Hodgkins, Pullem in Asheville, N.C.

I believe that the Spenser could and possibly was copied. As of September 30,1864, over 45,000 captured weapons had been refurbished and reissued to the Confederate soldiers.

[old_pop2000]

Well, I'm compelled to first dispense the nitnoid that I've always seen it "Spencer" instead of "Spenser"....

Well, to be certain, a more prolific adoption of the Spencer rifle/carbine and other repeating weapons, and much sooner into the war, would have had a fundamental shift on applied tactics. Wilder's "Lightning Brigade" of mounted infantry, at Hoover's Gap and later at Chickamauga in 1863, showed what a proficient body of troops could do with Spencers, even repelling attacks with odds against of 3:1 or so. The irony is that in order to be equipped with the Spencers, Wilder and his men had to buy the weapons themselves.

And my recollection is that they were able to engage without unanticipated ammo shortages. But then, as mounted troops, they were also probably better able to carry along a greater immediate ammo reserve.

Just to note, however, that even before the usage of repeaters, both sides were already making significant use of skirmishers as forward screens, though I suspect that the applied tactics varied a good bit, not only between both sides, but even between the divisions of one side's army.

Anyway, given just Wilder's example (a good source is Cozzen's "This Terrible Sound"), a massive rearming to repeating weapons earlier into the war would probably have had a profound effect, not dissimilar to what was seen in the Franco-Prussian War a few years later. On that note, if ACW artillery hadn't made a comparably pervasive "technical" stride (such as more breech-loading guns with longer range like the Whitworth), I think that artillerymen would have operated at a much increased hazard of loss.
Thanks, the proper spelling is Spencer, not with the S. Most humbly apologize. But, the basic information was correct. I've actually seen it spelled with the S, but believe that Mr. Spencer used the C instead of the S.

[Spook046]

From the reputed extent of your reference collection, Dennis, I'll certainly take your word for it of that at least one of your sources would have used the "Spenser" term.

[Spook046]

I believe Dennis is right in that the CSA did have the capability in their own armament industry to have copied and produced various repeating rifles. The central challenge might instead had been as to many such repeating rifles the South's arms factories could have turned out to have made enough of a difference in arming the various fielded armies.

[asnrobert]

With higher rates of fire, what about logistics?

I believe that was something that Union supply officers worried about. The metal cartridges were more expensive than the paper cartridges, plus there was concern that soldiers would go through their ammo much more quickly than with rifle muskets.
Interestingly enough, after the Civil War, the standard rifle was not a repeater, but the Springfield rifle modified to a single shot breechloader (using metal cartridges), which were still in service in the Spanish American War of 1898 (although the Krag was starting to take its place.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm not sure if the South would've had the necessary manufacturing infrastructure to produce enough of them even if they did copy it. If memory serves, the South was already getting Enfields from the Brits. Now ... maybe if they gave some captured Spensers to the Brits to copy and produce ....

Hi Saffron:

Correct! The South was up against the wall trying to keep her armies equipped and lacked not only the factories, but even the natural resources to try and compete with the North in weapons sophistication. Some of its best artillery came from Great Britain.

Reminds me of an alternate history novel by Harry Turtledove where disgruntled South Africans somehow travel back in time and bring AK-47s to General Lee. (Guns of the South). Fun book.

[Ed Rotondaro]

There was sniping from the trees, in the Civil War. Remember those Americans in the Revolutionary War were not trained soldiers, but militia and they were really a guerrilla type organization. Keep in mind, that in order to get a volume of fire from a single shot, muzzle loading weapon, men had to be closer together to develop it. But the Spenser would have allowed for volume fire without the need to present a cluster of good targets. With a repeating rifle, I can acheive weight of fire on a particular position or portion of a front line without the need of a high number of targets per unit area. I concentrate firepower using weapons, not humans.

Could the South have copied the weapon? I see nothing in the design to preclude that.

Dennis:

There are some memorable illustrations (I think in Harper's Weekly) of Union snipers in trees with long telescope type sights on their rifles. Also one regiment of primarily German immigrants specialized in sniping and were noted for taking out artillery crews and officers. It's somewhat funny that it took us until Viet Nam to use subdued insignia to make officers less conspicious. Of course the VC just looked for the radio aerial and knew the officer would be nearby.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Thanks, the proper spelling is Spencer, not with the S. Most humbly apologize. But, the basic information was correct. I've actually seen it spelled with the S, but believe that Mr. Spencer used the C instead of the S.

Dennis:

You having another senior moment there LOL? Another example of the effectiveness of metallic cartridges can be seen in the Austro-Prussian war in 1866. The Prussian needle rifles certainly gave them an advantage even if they were only single shot weapons. One wonders what would have happened if the British with their single shot Martini rifles had faced another modern army similarly armed? No shoulder to shoulder formations then eh?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I believe that was something that Union supply officers worried about. The metal cartridges were more expensive than the paper cartridges, plus there was concern that soldiers would go through their ammo much more quickly than with rifle muskets.
Interestingly enough, after the Civil War, the standard rifle was not a repeater, but the Springfield rifle modified to a single shot breechloader (using metal cartridges), which were still in service in the Spanish American War of 1898 (although the Krag was starting to take its place.

Robert:

Throughout recent military history that has been a worry of all armies using weapons capable of rapid fire. It's interesting to note that combat veterans would leave certain bits of kit and equipment behind in favor of extra ammo and another canteen.

[keschofield]

From what I have read, the confederacy certainly did capture many Spencers. However, they never were able to perfect manufacture of the requiste ammunition in any useful quantities.

Manufacture of many clever weapons was not a problem for the CSA. Manufacture of working weapons and ammunition in quantities large enough to be useful WAS a major problem for them. Secondarily, transportation of what they did manufacture was a major problem as well. By 1864, what rail infrastructure that the CSA had left was gridlocked and worn out with relatively little new construction completed. Needless to say, the US story was much different.

The only way that the CSA could win the war was if the US got tired of fighting. That didn't happen obviously.

BTW - The Spencer carbine, when fired, kicks like a bull moose! The much rarer Spencer rifle however is a joy to shoot (if you find one whose owner will let you shoot it!).

[john964]

I believe that was something that Union supply officers worried about. The metal cartridges were more expensive than the paper cartridges, plus there was concern that soldiers would go through their ammo much more quickly than with rifle muskets.
Interestingly enough, after the Civil War, the standard rifle was not a repeater, but the Springfield rifle modified to a single shot breechloader (using metal cartridges), which were still in service in the Spanish American War of 1898 (although the Krag was starting to take its place.
Thats nothing during WWII the US shipped 5000 flintlock muskets to several native tribes in S E Asia. The funny thing about it is that all the rifles were found unused in various US arsenels.

[old_pop2000]

From what I have read, the confederacy certainly did capture many Spencers. However, they never were able to perfect manufacture of the requiste ammunition in any useful quantities.

Manufacture of many clever weapons was not a problem for the CSA. Manufacture of working weapons and ammunition in quantities large enough to be useful WAS a major problem for them. Secondarily, transportation of what they did manufacture was a major problem as well. By 1864, what rail infrastructure that the CSA had left was gridlocked and worn out with relatively little new construction completed. Needless to say, the US story was much different.

The only way that the CSA could win the war was if the US got tired of fighting. That didn't happen obviously.

BTW - The Spencer carbine, when fired, kicks like a bull moose! The much rarer Spencer rifle however is a joy to shoot (if you find one whose owner will let you shoot it!).
It certainly does, with a .56-56 cal. Most likely not anymore than the .58 cal. Springfield which was standard issue.

[john964]

It certainly does, with a .56-56 cal. Most likely not anymore than the .58 cal. Springfield which was standard issue. I have a friend who is a ACW reenactor and he says that both the Enfield and Springfield kick like a #@&%^$* Mule at full powder charge. He says that during reenactments they typicaly use 1/3 to 1/2 normal powder charge. This is prevent or lessen wading wounds on other reenactors nearby. He also says when he participates in full charge shooting contests he has a pad on his sholder to prevent brusing.

[Ed Rotondaro]

From what I have read, the confederacy certainly did capture many Spencers. However, they never were able to perfect manufacture of the requiste ammunition in any useful quantities.

Manufacture of many clever weapons was not a problem for the CSA. Manufacture of working weapons and ammunition in quantities large enough to be useful WAS a major problem for them. Secondarily, transportation of what they did manufacture was a major problem as well. By 1864, what rail infrastructure that the CSA had left was gridlocked and worn out with relatively little new construction completed. Needless to say, the US story was much different.

The only way that the CSA could win the war was if the US got tired of fighting. That didn't happen obviously.

BTW - The Spencer carbine, when fired, kicks like a bull moose! The much rarer Spencer rifle however is a joy to shoot (if you find one whose owner will let you shoot it!).

Kurt and Dennis:

I'm familiar with the Spencer carbine and know that barrel length is the usual determiner. What exactly was the difference between a Spencer rifle and carbine?

[asnrobert]

Robert:

Throughout recent military history that has been a worry of all armies using weapons capable of rapid fire. It's interesting to note that combat veterans would leave certain bits of kit and equipment behind in favor of extra ammo and another canteen.


I have a co-worker who recently retired from the Army Reserve. He says they're doing away with the full-auto option on the M-16 since it basically wastes ammo (most of it just goes into the air).

[Campy]

Am I not correct in that the carbine has a considerably shorter range than a rifle? Rate of fire is nice, but if the other guy can hit you at longer range, you might have a problem. If I recall, there was at least one instance of Union troops crossing a river under fire, ducking under water, coming up for air and firing. Something you can't do with a musket.

Frank

[keschofield]

Kurt and Dennis:

I'm familiar with the Spencer carbine and know that barrel length is the usual determiner. What exactly was the difference between a Spencer rifle and carbine?

The Spencer carbine was designed for cavalry use and has a shorter barrel with only a short piece of wood for a forestock.

The Spencer rifle is almost as long as the Model 1862 Springfield musket and has a full forestock running almost to the muzzle. I do not recall if the Spencer rifle had a bayonet lug. The rifle is, of course, heavier thus the lesser recoil as compared to the carbine.

[keschofield]

If I recall, there was at least one instance of Union troops crossing a river under fire, ducking under water, coming up for air and firing. Something you can't do with a musket.

Frank

I wouldn't recommend that tactic using a Spencer either. The ammunition is not very water tight. You would also have to make sure that there is no water or debris left in the barrel or you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

[old_pop2000]

Kurt and Dennis:

I'm familiar with the Spencer carbine and know that barrel length is the usual determiner. What exactly was the difference between a Spencer rifle and carbine?

Model 1860 Spencer Carbine had a barrel length of 22 inches

Model 1860 Spencer Rifle had a barrel length of 30 inches

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Spencer carbine was designed for cavalry use and has a shorter barrel with only a short piece of wood for a forestock.

The Spencer rifle is almost as long as the Model 1862 Springfield musket and has a full forestock running almost to the muzzle. I do not recall if the Spencer rifle had a bayonet lug. The rifle is, of course, heavier thus the lesser recoil as compared to the carbine.

Kurt:

Thanks! Was it Spencer carbines that Custer's cavalry used or Sharps?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Model 1860 Spencer Carbine had a barrel length of 22 inches

Model 1860 Spencer Rifle had a barrel length of 30 inches

Dennis:

Thanks, I'm going to see if I can locate any illustrations of the two for comparison purposes.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I believe Dennis is right in that the CSA did have the capability in their own armament industry to have copied and produced various repeating rifles. The central challenge might instead had been as to many such repeating rifles the South's arms factories could have turned out to have made enough of a difference in arming the various fielded armies.

Spook and Dennis:

I did some digging and found out the main drawback for the South to produce this weapon was the inability to manufacture the metallic cartridges due to shortages of copper. So what good is the weapon without its ammo? It is one reason why these weapons didn't show up in greater numbers amongst Confederate troops.

[old_pop2000]

Kurt:

Thanks! Was it Spencer carbines that Custer's cavalry used or Sharps?
Two Michigan regiments in Custer's unit at Gettysburg had just received the first shipment of Spencer Rifles. At Little Big Horn, the Seventh Cavalry was now equipped with breechloading single shot rifles. Specifically, Springfield, breech loading, single shot Model 1873 .45-70. These rifles were notorous for jamming when overheated.

[old_pop2000]

Spook and Dennis:

I did some digging and found out the main drawback for the South to produce this weapon was the inability to manufacture the metallic cartridges due to shortages of copper. So what good is the weapon without its ammo? It is one reason why these weapons didn't show up in greater numbers amongst Confederate troops.
I have no doubts, they had shortages of copper and other vital raw materials for the production of rifles. Imports and refurbishment of captured rifles was very important to the South.

So, without a viable repeating rifle, how long does the Confederate army last against a repeater equipped North force.?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Two Michigan regiments in Custer's unit at Gettysburg had just received the first shipment of Spencer Rifles. At Little Big Horn, the Seventh Cavalry was now equipped with breechloading single shot rifles. Specifically, Springfield, breech loading, single shot Model 1873 .45-70. These rifles were notorous for jamming when overheated.


Dennis:

Thanks. IIRC some of the Souix had Winchesters. Talk about being out gunned. Custer should have taken the Gatling guns with him LOL.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I have no doubts, they had shortages of copper and other vital raw materials for the production of rifles. Imports and refurbishment of captured rifles was very important to the South.

So, without a viable repeating rifle, how long does the Confederate army last against a repeater equipped North force.?

Dennis:

I think that if the bulk of the Union army had repeating rifles, then the need for new tactics would have become obvious quite quickly. The rate of fire and accuracy of even percussion rifles was making the old Napoleonic tactics obsolete. You would see the repeating rifle as a force multiplier, at least in open field actions. Obviously going up against defenders with cover, the repeating rifle might not make as much of an impression unless the sheer volume of fire could be used to suppress the defenders. One battle I can think of where it would have made a tremendous difference is Little Round Top. As it was, the Maine regiment beat off attacks by a larger force. With repeaters, the butcher's bill would have been far greater.

This begs the question of how do you motivate troops to advance into the teeth of overwhelming firepower? Or how did the armies in WWI get their troops out of the trenches and across No-Mans-land against machine gun fire?

[john964]

At Little Big Horn, the Seventh Cavalry was now equipped with breechloading single shot rifles. Specifically, Springfield, breech loading, single shot Model 1873 .45-70. These rifles were notorous for jamming when overheated.

IIRC when the rifles jammed the spent casing was nearly immpossable to remove. The solders had to use there knifes to dig out the casing by using the blade to hook the rim of the cartrage case and even then it was difficult to do so, it could often take 5 or more minutes to dig ot the case.

[asnrobert]

Dennis:

Thanks. IIRC some of the Souix had Winchesters. Talk about being out gunned. Custer should have taken the Gatling guns with him LOL.

Better yet, a tank! :cool: Did you ever see the Twilight Zone episode where the crew of a Stuart tank during National Guard maneuvers goes back in time to the battle of Little Big Horn?

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

Thanks. IIRC some of the Souix had Winchesters. Talk about being out gunned. Custer should have taken the Gatling guns with him LOL.


Hi guys,

There was a short lived show on the History Channel called "Battelfield Detectives" a couple of years ago where they forensically examinined old battlefields. They recovered bullets and cartridge casings for 73 calibers of firearms showing the Sioux had a large number of fire arms as the cavalry guys would have had two and a smattering of private weapons.

[Ed Rotondaro]

IIRC when the rifles jammed the spent casing was nearly immpossable to remove. The solders had to use there knifes to dig out the casing by using the blade to hook the rim of the cartrage case and even then it was difficult to do so, it could often take 5 or more minutes to dig ot the case.

John:

I believe most first generation metallic cartridge rifles had that problem. I know that the British Martini-Henry did.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Better yet, a tank! :cool: Did you ever see the Twilight Zone episode where the crew of a Stuart tank during National Guard maneuvers goes back in time to the battle of Little Big Horn?

Robert:

I wish I had seen that one LOL! Was that a Rod Serling era Twilight Zone or the more modern one from the 1980s? Just figure between the machine guns and the 37mm firing canister, the carnage would have been nasty.

[old_pop2000]

Robert:

I wish I had seen that one LOL! Was that a Rod Serling era Twilight Zone or the more modern one from the 1980s? Just figure between the machine guns and the 37mm firing canister, the carnage would have been nasty.
They did not have the tank, it was left on a hill. The three heard the sound of indians and went back to procure their personal weapons and then went over the hill.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi guys,

There was a short lived show on the History Channel called "Battelfield Detectives" a couple of years ago where they forensically examinined old battlefields. They recovered bullets and cartridge casings for 73 calibers of firearms showing the Sioux had a large number of fire arms as the cavalry guys would have had two and a smattering of private weapons.

Mike:

I think by that time, just about all Native Americans had firearms thanks to trade with less than honest Caucasians. They certainly had their fair share of carbines. They probably saved the guns for warfare and used the lance and bow for hunting. Considering a war that took place about the same time, the Zulus had lots of older muskets along with their spears.

[asnrobert]

Robert:

I wish I had seen that one LOL! Was that a Rod Serling era Twilight Zone or the more modern one from the 1980s? Just figure between the machine guns and the 37mm firing canister, the carnage would have been nasty.

It was one of the original Twilight Zone episodes: "The Seventh is Full of Ghosts" (you might even see it on YouTube- I've seen other episodes there). As Dennis pointed out, they left the tank behind. The crew's CO found the tank, but no sign of the men, until he and another officer were looking at the Little Big Horn memorial and saw the names of the crew on it. One officer said to the other, "If only they could have brought the tank..."

[Smiffy]

It can be argued that the Spencer did have a profound effect on the outcome of the American Civil War. Had Brigadier General John Buford's Union cavalry division not been armed with their new Spencer carbines it is possible that they would have been unable to hold off the Confederate advance guard for as long as they did on the first day of Gettysburg. Buford's men, fighting dismounted, with their Spencers, amongst the low ridges to the North West of the town of Gettysburg, were able to delay the Confederates' leading corps long enough for the Union 1st Corps to get through the town and take position on the high ground around the town. Had the Union cavalry been equipped with single-shot weapons it is entirely possible that they would have been driven back sooner by the superior numbers of Confederate infantrymen, that would have allowed Lee to deploy on the high ground and the battle could have had a different outcome.

[old_pop2000]

It can be argued that the Spencer did have a profound effect on the outcome of the American Civil War. Had Brigadier General John Buford's Union cavalry division not been armed with their new Spencer carbines it is possible that they would have been unable to hold off the Confederate advance guard for as long as they did on the first day of Gettysburg. Buford's men, fighting dismounted, with their Spencers, amongst the low ridges to the North West of the town of Gettysburg, were able to delay the Confederates' leading corps long enough for the Union 1st Corps to get through the town and take position on the high ground around the town. Had the Union cavalry been equipped with single-shot weapons it is entirely possible that they would have been driven back sooner by the superior numbers of Confederate infantrymen, that would have allowed Lee to deploy on the high ground and the battle could have had a different outcome.
I don't mean to shoot down your idea, but they weren't carrying Spencer repeating carbines. The only Spencer's were rifles, issued to the 5th and 6th Michigan cavalry units under George Custer. They managed to stop JEB Stuart's supporting attack on the third day. The Michigan regiments were dismounted and firing in support of Custer's cavalry charges. Buford's First Cavalry was carrying Sharp's Carbines. How do we know? No record in logs of the three regiments, original contracts for Spencer carbines was not let until July 1863, one month after the battle. The initial contract was for rifles, which were issued. Another factor is that Park Service archeologist have never found Spencer .56-50 rounds on McPherson's Ridge but have found .52 cartridges fired by the Sharps.

But, the breechloading single shot Sharp's would still have put up a far greater firepower than the muzzle loading carbine usually issued.

[Ed Rotondaro]

It was one of the original Twilight Zone episodes: "The Seventh is Full of Ghosts" (you might even see it on YouTube- I've seen other episodes there). As Dennis pointed out, they left the tank behind. The crew's CO found the tank, but no sign of the men, until he and another officer were looking at the Little Big Horn memorial and saw the names of the crew on it. One officer said to the other, "If only they could have brought the tank..."

Robert:

Now that's a clever one. I'll have to try and see it.

[old_pop2000]

Robert:

Now that's a clever one. I'll have to try and see it.
Hate to mention this, but I saw the original showing of that on black and white TV in my favorite program-Twilight Zone.

[Smiffy]

I don't mean to shoot down your idea...

Thanks for putting me right. I'm trying to remember where I got the info from. it may have been Bruce Catton's "Terrible Swift Sword", or I maybe I have just have remembered wrong. I do remember it being used in a history of the British cavalry as an example of how dismounted cavalry with good firearms became more useful that men mounted with swords. Of course the British eventually replaced the cavalry carbine with a rifle, the slightly more cumbersome length of the rifle being more than offset by the gain in range and accuracy.

[old_pop2000]

Thanks for putting me right. I'm trying to remember where I got the info from. it may have been Bruce Catton's "Terrible Swift Sword", or I maybe I have just have remembered wrong. I do remember it being used in a history of the British cavalry as an example of how dismounted cavalry with good firearms became more useful that men mounted with swords. Of course the British eventually replaced the cavalry carbine with a rifle, the slightly more cumbersome length of the rifle being more than offset by the gain in range and accuracy.
Actually, it is a common myth that I even believed, until I researched the Spencer Carbine and found out that it wasn't available. There was information that Buford had gone out and bought the Spencer's himself. Hard to believe, because Spencer was building rifles, not carbines initially.

[keschofield]

Kurt:

Thanks! Was it Spencer carbines that Custer's cavalry used or Sharps?

If you mean at Little Big Horn, neither. They used "Trap Door" Springfield single shot breech loaders.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hate to mention this, but I saw the original showing of that on black and white TV in my favorite program-Twilight Zone.

Dennis:

I remember the Twilight Zone as a kid. My dad occasionaly watched it (He even watched Night Gallery which used to scare the hell out of me LOL!).

[Ed Rotondaro]

If you mean at Little Big Horn, neither. They used "Trap Door" Springfield single shot breech loaders.

Kurt:

Really? You always see in illustrations what looks like a Sharps carbine in the hands of Custer's men. Was the Springfield cut down in any way? I can't imagine a cavalryman being to use a rifle on horseback. But then as Dennis pointed out, they probably intended to dismount and act more like dragoons or mounted infantry. They probably only used pistols on horseback.

[old_pop2000]

Kurt:

Really? You always see in illustrations what looks like a Sharps carbine in the hands of Custer's men. Was the Springfield cut down in any way? I can't imagine a cavalryman being to use a rifle on horseback. But then as Dennis pointed out, they probably intended to dismount and act more like dragoons or mounted infantry. They probably only used pistols on horseback.
Video of Springfield Trapdoor and firing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FHicAr1-uZs&feature=related

[asnrobert]

Robert:

Now that's a clever one. I'll have to try and see it.


Correction: the name of the episode is "The 7th is Made Up of Phantoms." The Sci-Fi channel runs TZ episodes from time to time, and they usually have a two-day marathon around New Years.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Correction: the name of the episode is "The 7th is Made Up of Phantoms." The Sci-Fi channel runs TZ episodes from time to time, and they usually have a two-day marathon around New Years.


Thanks Robert!

[Ed Rotondaro]

Video of Springfield Trapdoor and firing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FHicAr1-uZs&feature=related

Dennis:

Nice video. Do you think the Springfield trapdoor carbine was converted from a rifle by cutting down the barrel and changing the action? Or was that a new manufacture? Also were they using smokeless powder in the reanactment? The Martini Henry certainly video certainly looked like it could fire faster.

[keschofield]

Kurt:

Really? You always see in illustrations what looks like a Sharps carbine in the hands of Custer's men. Was the Springfield cut down in any way? I can't imagine a cavalryman being to use a rifle on horseback. But then as Dennis pointed out, they probably intended to dismount and act more like dragoons or mounted infantry. They probably only used pistols on horseback.


The "trap door" Springfield came in both carbine and rifle versions.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Nice video. Do you think the Springfield trapdoor carbine was converted from a rifle by cutting down the barrel and changing the action? Or was that a new manufacture? Also were they using smokeless powder in the reanactment? The Martini Henry certainly video certainly looked like it could fire faster.
The Trapdoor was produced in both types: rifle and carbine. The Spencer had only recently been accepted and was not yet produced in a carbine.