The Henry rifle - Part IV. - Why was the Henry rifle not universally adopted?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 08. 2024
- This is the last part of the Henry rifle series searching answers for why the 1860 Henry rifle was not universally adopted in the Civil War. Some of these questions are already answered in the previous chapters of course. The second task of this film is to tell a few words about how to properly handle the Henry rifle. Enjoy!
Part I.: The .44 Henry cartridge: • The Henry rifle - Part...
Part II.: The Henry in the Civil War: • The Henry rifle - Part...
Part III.: Hunting with the Henry rifle • The Henry rifle - Part...
Part IV: Why the Henry was not universally adopted during the Civil War? • The Henry rifle - Part...
Chapters:
1:23 The drill
2:04 The metallic cartridge
7:05 Costs
11:53 Quality
16:45 Inconvenient cavalry use
#henry #civilwar #winchester #blackpowder #tactics #riflemen - Věda a technologie
i think your career is exactly what id like to follow, a mix between history, guns and military science. great vid as always
It's a beautiful life, but not easy I can tell you...
Couldn’t agree more
The "thing" that most folks miss is that few Americans, North & South, expected the war to last a year after April 1861. Not until the hard-fought Battle of Shiloh, in the spring of 1862, did both sides wake to the unhappy realization that they were in for a slug fest. Not until the last half of that year did seriously large-scale investment and planning begin. Within three years, the war was over.
Dear Capandball, thank you ever so much for answering this most important question why was the Henry rifle not universally adopted in the US Army during the Civil, and much more. What an informative, practical, and fascinating video, sir.
Many thanks my friend! And many thanks for your excellent support!
@@capandball what I like to know is why the Winchester model 1886 or the 73 musket versions we’re not adopted by the US military? 45 is a tough bullet and a 73 can fire more than 10? That sleeps and bounds of head of anything else in the 1870s.
the real ''problem'' with Henry rifle that didn't get it adopted was the same reason the Spenser, or the trapdoor, never got adopted: foot dragging army ordinance. The Civil War the beginning of the nearly 100 year run of army ordinance letting down the American fighting man in choosing service rifles.
All the listed issues could have been overcome or mitigated with proper training and/or corrected use. How many battle outcomes could have changed with 3-400 lever action troops inserted at the right time; think dragoons, mounted infantry moving around the battlefield to where they're most needed.
"When victorious Confederates surged into the Federal rear, however, they encountered stiffening resistance from Union units, including the 66th Illinois Infantry, a regiment with a large number of Henry.44-cal. repeating rifles in its ranks. "Private Prosper Bowe of the 66th recalled that: “We started our [Henry] sixteen-shooters to work. The first column in front of us nearly all fell at the first two or three volleys.” The “sixteen shooters” helped win the day, driving the Confederates from the field." >>>> Some units had them but were privately bought by their officers for their men. Yes, they made a HUGE difference.
If i had to guess. Original .44 henry rimfire cartridges of the era were of marginal power. The Spencer's mighty .56/50 was a man stopper
Not only did the U.S. army not take the leap forward towards a Henry, but after the way, they took a long step backwards by adopting the “Trapdoor” single shot Springfield. I don't know if Custer stood a chance with any rifle of the era. But He would have done a lot better with the Spencer and vastly better with the Henry.
Simply put, it was insanely impractical to outfit an entire army with very expensive repeating rifles, shooting very expensive new at the time brass cased ammunition. The trapdoor was not a bad rifle for it's time. Perhaps a tad bit too long lived in frontline service, but an excellent rifle for the average soldier. Custer was not going to be saved by an army of repeaters. He was an egotistically tactically inept General, who foolishly underestimated the size and strength of his enemy and placed his troops in a death box.
@@oscarfloyd2678Saying the trapdoor was not a bad rifle for it’s time is as ridiculous as saying it wouldn’t have mattered if Custers men had Henrys. We’ll never know but I am pretty confident things would have been very different if the US troops had repeaters at the Little Big Horn.
@@oscarfloyd2678 You're drinking the Kool aide about Custer. He fought Indians the same way every other commander did. It wasn't possible to make the warriors fight and with their knowledge of the terrain and superior horses and riding ability it was impossible for the cavalry to catch them. So you were left with going after the families in order to make the men negotiate. Yes, he was flamboyant and failed to heed the warnings of his scouts to his detriment. Remember it was the single largest gathering of plains Indians in recorded history.
@@guaporeturns9472 While the single-shot Springfields didn't help matters, a bigger issue for his forces was Custer's decisions prior to and during the battle. Leaving behind the Gatling guns to charge into an enemy under the belief that they won't fight was a terrible decision. The repeating rifles of the time were reloaded one round at a time, so in terms of continuous fire they were no different than single shots, the difference being having the ability to deliver a burst of rapid fire in exchange for longer reloads. The main difference would be that the Indians would now get repeating rifles instead of breechloaders.
If any weapon at the time could have gotten Custer out of that mess, it would have been the Gatling gun. Gatling guns prior to and after Little Bighorn had demonstrated their effectiveness in conflicts against non-industrialized forces employing numerical superiority to overcome technical inferiority. Russian Gatling guns had already proved lethal against Turkmen cavalry, and would later prove lethal against well-disciplined Zulu impi at Ulundi. However, their non-presence at the Little Bighorn was the result of the core issues with Custer's decision-making that led to the destruction of his force, which further reinforces my point.
@@classifiedad1 Indians had Henrys , 1866 and a few 1873.. even if only 25-30% of the indigenous folks had repeaters that’s a huge advantage. Not sure what you are getting at. Gatling gun would have helped obviously but I doubt it would have saved them. If you think a trapdoor Springfield and a lever action repeater are equal in a firefight because it takes longer to load the magazine of a repeater you have little grasp on reality
I came for the historical firearm content, I stayed for the doggo!
Awesome video!
I know one of the requirements post 1865 for an adopted rifle was the ability to stop a horse. There are records of this when the army went from .50-70 to the .45-70. Also, it was easier for the army to convert muskets to the .50-70, similar to the way the British converted muskets to the .577.
Being able to "kill or disable a horse" at long range (up to 1000 yards - keep in mind this would be *area* from from a full unit of shooters, not that each individual soldier was expected to hit a *specific* enemy soldier at those ranges), well into the 20th Century. Because until the development of proper communications for *real* indirect firing in anything except siege conditions, the biggest threat to ground forces was direct fire from horse drawn field artillery, generally at around 500-1000 yards.
By WWI, this direct fire threat had shifted to machinegun fire at those ranges, but critical enemy logistics were still horse-drawn. So the need to "kill or disable a horse at 1000 yards" was still present. And, of course, cavalry was still viable in any manuever battle until full mechanization took over that role with armor.
Which is also why pretty much everyone kept "full power" rifle cartridges well after it was apparent that in "infantry on infantry" engagements, troops weren't getting hits on other infantrymen beyond 300 yards.
The final gasp of this bias towards long range cartridges whose performance was based on *killing horses* at those ranges was when the US stubbornly insisted that the new NATO rifle cartridge maintain the power of the WWII .30-06 (which had that "kill or disable a horse at 1000 yards" as a requirement when it was first developed as the .30-03 in 1903...)
The Henry flat out did *not* have the lethality and range for this requirement to take out artillery caisson horses at the range the gun crews would be firing at the infantry.
@@geodkyt If I was on a horse as a cavalryman, I would have been MORE than happy having 13-16 cartridges without having to reload. If I ran out and was getting attacked in close quarters before I finished reloading, I would still have my pistol as a back-up.
Absolutely in love with your content. I live in the US and have been blessed to shoot an amazing amount of different firearms. I can totally appreciate your exploration of the blackpowder cartridge development. Hope that you can visit sometime and get a true feel for the American west.
That's a great goal of mine.
I love the Henry, even with its advantages and shortcomings. I have a 1992 production Uberti 1860 Henry in Charcoal Blue, in 44-40.
Charcoal is black tho.
Hey! I know Neil, a.k.a Colonel Montana ‘Kid” Hammer. He’s a great guy and a top-notch historian. So glad you got to collaborate with him.
Why is he dressed like a rodeo clown? Is he a historian of that too?
@@wizardofahhhs759 He’s dressed in period-correct US military clothing of the early 1860s. But then a rude troll like you wouldn’t care so long as your desire to belittle others is satisfied.
How much I enjoy your presentations ! As a peaceful, lawful and recreational user of firearms, your rational and technical presentations are FIRST RATE. Five stars, Good Sir! I Salute you ! FMR Intelligence Officer
It seems that the biggest drawback was the problems of producing limited quantities of .44 Henry cartridges and the problems encountered with the reliability of the cartridges produced. Also the loss of accuracy and knock down power at longer ranges. I had problems shooting my .45 LC
Henry this week because it only likes my reloads using .454 cast bullets. I bought some factory
bullets with smaller diameter SWRF bullets, and got terrible accuracy @ 50 yds.
My .44-40 Henry rifles are more accurate using .429 RNF as cast, and much easier to clean because the necked case expands in the chamber keeping powder fouling from blowing back into the frame, which the .45 LC str8 cases do not do.
From what I read in history, the Henry lever action repeating rifle was not adopted for general service by the Union for several reasons.
One reason is that the Henry was expensive, costing about $40 back then, considering a Union private's monthly pay was only $16, reduced to $13 after the war.
Perhaps more limiting was the disdain of Union generals and Ordnance officials who perceived repeating rifles would waste ammunition. More, it would supposedly render soldiers defenseless if they ran out of ammunition.
The Union generals and Ordnance officials considered the one-shot, metallic cartridge rifle and carbine to be the real future of infantry weapons. The Sharps carbine and rifle proved its one-shot worth by a firing rate of 8 to 12 rounds per minute, using even linen, non-metallic cartridges. 8 to 10 shots per minute giving more time for aiming was more practical.
U.S. Army Ordnance modified its Civil War muzzleloading Springfield muskets to be breechloaders with the Allin Trapdoor breechloading adaptation. The resulting one-shot breechloader offered a practical rate of fire of 8 to 10 shots per minute. The modification proved durable and reliable. The U.S. Army used the Allin Trapdoor Springfield all the way into the 1898 Spanish American War and the 1900 Philippine Insurrection.
One of my all time favorite rifles! Featured again on one of my all time favorite channels! As always, another fantastic video!
P.S. You REALLY need to make it to the North-South Skirmish Association's National matches. Team repeater competition is a torrent of well-aimed bullets.
CapAndBall, Thank you for this. Neil, thank you for showing us your shooting skills.
I have to admit I’m a little proud of myself for taking one look at the Henry and thinking: “Well this is going to be an awkward hold. Ahh I see you hold the little brass part as it’s probably not very heavy”. but then was surprised to see the guy doing the video where I first saw it describe the “Henry Hop” and thinking really that’s what the solution is ? Well since I’m no expert they must all be right. I guess I wasn’t off the mark after all !
Nice video of tge Henry, one of the several innovative weapons of the American Civil War. While the Henry had a few short-comings, the repeating action and enclosed cartridge proved to be lasting innovations. A novel use of repeating arms was the Federal "Lightning Brigade", consisting of four regiments mounted infantry and one of light artillery. Infantry regiments were armed with the Spencer repeating rifle. This unit was detached ftom its Corps , and used to support the army wherever quick firepower was needed.
I keep hearing "cottage manufacturing," which is a real thing. Household-based light manufacturing, I believe particularly around Amsterdam when its economy went into the sharp boom.
Your guest has Nothing to apologize for!
Another great video👍👍
Great video. So much interesting and useful information.
Thanks for doing this episode.
The big question I get asked every time. Thanks for the answer
Well, there was the Spencer too. Our ancestor & the cavalry troopers he led used it effectively.
Yes, and it is mentioned in the video also.
Awesome video .
"Learn to be slow in a hurry"...great quote, but I do believe the Roman Emperor Octavian (Augustus) Caesar beat Ole' Wyatt to the draw on that one; "Festina Lente". English translation; "Make haste slowly".
T bh, I'm not surprised the Henry wasn't adopted large-scale; Cost, logistics, relative fragility in the hands of scantily-trained troops, plus it's new technology that's pretty much untried. Oh, and ammo consumption in a tactical situation. A man with a single-shot muzzle loader and 60 rounds has ammunition for maybe 20 minutes and runs out only rarely. Give that man even a single-shot breech-loader and 80 rounds, and he's empty in 10 minutes. Assuming sustained rapid fire of course. Give him a repeater and its gets even worse...
Fascinating video....köszönöm
Excellent presentation.
Thanks for the video.
Wonderful presentation
Excellent!
I have an Uberti 1873 but I still want a Henry in my collection.
I concentrated so much on the content, that I only noticed the funny deer painting at the right upper corner after about fifteen minutes.😁
:) I just received that Ehrenscheibe from my colleagues at the military history department. :) I love that meme.
Bravo SIr Thank you!!
The Henry is such a beautiful rifle and we have to thank Uberti for making it possible for modern shooters to own at a reasonable price. Imagine how complex and expensive it is to machine the magazine and barrel from one blank of steel.
There's another round available called the 45 Cowboy special.
It's the same overall length as the original 44 flat that the Henry rifle used.
(Brass available from Star-Line)
It's a handload option only, and you have to replace the lifter/carrier for it to properly work.
Otherwise, it will jam the rifle.
I also believe that you need to use a 200 gr bullet to keep the proper overall length.
The original 44 Henry cartridge bullet diameter was .446 and the 45 colt today is .452, (only a .006 difference) so it's very comparable to the original round when loaded with black powder.
It's a very interesting concept that might be worth a try.
I don't remember who makes the custom carrier/lifter.
For anyone interested. InRange TV has a couple of videos on the cowboy special conversion.
Online outpost has the 45 cowboy carrier. Manufactured by Bill English
The 1860 henry fire pistol rounds 44 rim fire. Their effective range fired out of a rifle was only about 200 yards. Other civil war rifles had effective ranges of 400 to 600 yards.
Basically the US government did not want to spend the money. Each rifle was equal to about 4 months wages. They also did not want one person/company getting all the orders which is much the same today. With that said I can understand them considering the Henry to complicated. Mainly in taking care of it. They were not always good about taking care of their equipment and generals had to take even officers to task about cleaning and oiling their guns. It can still be a problem today although you see it more with draftes. Also even now they can bust a simple steel ball bearing given time. Soldiers from the frontier were better but not always. Horse soldiers were better because they were watched more because a horse was even more valuable. When soldiers paid out of their own pocket for the rifle they took care of it. Rapid fire wasn't needed as much as steady fire. I don't know why the lack of a bayonet would be a problem because in earlier wars rifles couldn't use them. Of course stepping outside of doctrine is not easy for officers.
In William Fletcher's book, A Rebel Private, Front and Rear, the author mentions flinging a captured Henry rifle into the woods from horseback after the magazine tube was bent during a skirmish. The Percussion Sharpe's rifles and carbines were the better, and more practical, weapons for that era.
A better question is why it wasn’t adopted by the cavalry which did adopt the 7 shot repeating Spencer rifle? It wasn’t that much more underpowered and it wasn’t that crazy at 15-16 rounds versus 7 (plus one in the chamber for both guns).
Primarily because the effort that would have required to make sure the ammunition availibity.and the henry .44 was an anemic round as well
Very cool Video, Greetings from Germany✌
Bravo!
The Army considered any weapon that wasn't a single shot to be a waste of ammunition.
Nice guy Neal, thank to him.
Not interview material those dawgs are.
Thanks
Guter Beitrag 👍
I like this gun.
Revolving rifle requires holding the rifle the same way.
Fico imaginando quanta coisa o amigo tem guardado em casa, e como é difícil manter a ferrugem longe disso tudo 😂
a couple things 44 40 and 45 40 were also known as 44 Colt and 45 Colt the 44 40 got that designation because Winchester loathed the idea of stamping Colt on his guns!! the 45 Smith and Wesson as you called it is the 45 Scofield! the Spencer also had faulty ammunition it had a nasty habit of the bullet shaking out of the case on long horseback rides a lot of cavalrymen got a nasty surprise in fights with Indians when they went to reload!!
I think they could’ve armed a few soldiers from squadrons with Henry’s. They didn’t have to arm the entire Union Army.
Train a few guys on the weapon which would only take a few minutes, and then have them for suppressive fire.
It wouldn’t have been extremely expensive or take a long time.
I learned to use my lever action in a couple minutes, they’re not that complex and aim like any rifle.
I knew more or less most of this, but some of it was fascinating to me; but reality is harsh, and the Henry's flaws were that exposed magazine, pricey construction and selling cost, and that weak cartridge that was just above a PISTOL load in power and range, it had some perks but it was for the moment too modern for its own good.
Centerfire shells and brass instead of copper, and a larger caliber would bring it to glory and legend.
My understanding is the .44 Henry round was all copper whereas they went to brass for .44 WCF. The change in metals is largely why they could now handle the 40 grains of powder versus the Henry which was about 25 grains if memory serves?
So what range were the targets at? That's one heck of a hat. Thanks.
This reminds me of the question on why other nations did not wish to adopt a rifle based on the dryse
Did some privately purchase things like this? or were they made to use the standard rifles, on one hand they get more rate of fire with somewhat comparable ramge and accuracy and not have to worry on paying for it but on the other hand ammo is going to be hard to get on campaign
Many Union soldiers purchased Henry repeaters with their own money. Recognizing this reality, U.S. Army Ordnance reputedly purchased one million .44 caliber Henry cartridges.
The Henry was a huge advancement but it was not perfect. The biggest complaint was its pistol power .44 rimfire cartridge, giving the Henry an effective range of 200 yards.
Sustained fire made the Henry's metal foreparts hot. There was no heat guard.
Based on what Paper Cartridges channel says, the Henry being less accurate at 200 + yards (compared to the Spencer) matters a lot less than most arms evaluators think, especially for conscript soldiers. Bullet trajectories of the time require substantial elevation to compensate for bullet drop starting at about 150 yards, which most Civil War soldiers aren't trained to do, most Civil War officers don't ask of their soldiers, and which completely shifts the weight of strengths in favor of the Henry.
Shooting the 44-40 at 200 yards is a chore as it drops about two feet.
During the Civil War my family then had a relative who lost an arm and ended up purchasing a Smith & Wesson .32 long rimfire revolver to finish the war. He did survive the war and lived to old age.
I forgot whether or not soldiers had to purchase their Henry rifles. From my perspective I would not have used any single shot muzzleloader in the Civil War; no not me.
That is a very nice dog of yours Balázs; your dog also understands the Hungarian language.
Great job on this one.
I know I'm not the only one that recognizes that the buck back there on the walls getting some cheeks😂😂
For the Infantry the biggest problem was no bayonet!
Empty rifle easily becomes a club.
Just can't get over the lack of a forestock on this rifle! It would make it a bit more difficult to reach the follower tab, which really sounds like a plus, but it would also make it much more difficult to burn your fingers.
Gloves work.
@@smithwesson7765 LOL! 👍🏼
The Henry rifle was such a big technological leap that it was dumped onto the market full of problems, in the modern era we tend to look at history and criticize people for not choosing the most advanced option. But given the situation the military was trying to operate under it doesn’t surprise me at all that they went with the Spencer over the Henry. It was a more robust system that could be better utilized by the cavalry and even mad more similar controls and handling to the weapons the soldiers were already used to. Can’t sell a mustang to a guy who just needs a bigger truck.
One word “Corruption”, so many people with their fingers in the pie.
Bussin on em
I have to disagree about the 44 Henry cartridge being a pistol round, as it was developed and used for the 1860 Henry Rifle first. Thus making it a rifle round. Yes it did see use in a couple revolver, later on, but it was still developed and used in a rifle first. Today there are revolvers that shoot the 45-70 rounds, and we do not call the 45-70 a pistol round.
But a great video series overall Sir. 👍
The Henry I've fired was much newer than the one in ur hand - it was in my godfather collection and was made I think 30's - It was accurate out to 200 yd.s and I loved it's overall usefulness - only the Winchester 94 was better but not by much 😊
The 1861 springfield was of the civil war what the m1 garand was during ww2. The henry sort of fills the role of the thompson. It even had the same flaws.
It was expensive, less precise, and less powerful and flat shooting than the infantry rifle.
They are more delicate and less 'soldier proof ' than the Spencer. The Spencer also had a more effective cartridge.
I think it is much simplier. So called Henry rifle was just a modification of the Volcanic rifle, which had been tested by the military earlier. The military rejected it for its bad ballistics, but also because they considered it too complicated, fragile and unreliable for the military use. The Herry rifle displayed the inproved ballistics, but the other reasons for falture were the same. Besides general Ripley, who was responsible for firearm's adoption in that time, was strongly against any repeatets.
Another Patreon request. I preferred it when vids were made for the love of it.
That's your decision weather you support the creator or not.
...and still going strong!!!😀
The ordnance officers were worried about ammunition expenditure and manufacturing capability. To solve the problem with burning your hand, wear a glove.
In addition to the cost, logistics, reliability, and fragility pf the Henry compared to muzzleloading rifled muskets or later single shot breechloaders (like the British Snider or American Trapdoor Springfield), the Henry had a critical failure as a general issue rifle.
It *did not* have the range and lethality required to function as a general purpose rifle or carbine. 19th Century soldiers *were not* shooting at paper targets at 100 yards. Nor were they satisfied with just being powerful enough to kill *humans* at 100 yards.
They *had* to be able to "kill or disable" *horses* at *hundreds* of yards, becayse of the threat of hirse drawn artillery firing in direct mode. (This is why as late as WWII, you find most nations issuing rifles qith range setting out to 2000 yards or meters - the need to engage *area* targets like a direct fire field artillery battery or a hilltop with a machinegun platoon on it.)
The .44 Henry is a moderately loaded *handgun* round, in comparison to service handguns. You really can't ramp up the pressures (and thus velocity and energy) much with a rimfire cartridge. The case won't take the pressures (amd if it was beefed up to take those pressures, it would be impossible to reliably set the cartridge off with any hanmer spring a human can easily cock.
Good points indeed!
These were the arguments, beut they never held much water. Volley fire either with machinegun or by company has never been emplpyed to any sort of effectiveness, and no regular soldier soldier of the era made relyable hits past 200 yds with open sights. The weapo s lacked the mechanical accuracy, the cartridges had too much bullet drop and marksmanship training was near nonexistent.
The fact is open order tactics by the 1860s were rapidly becoming obsolete, and full power service rifle cartridges were never a good idea to begin with.
The answer is simple. It's because John Wayne wasn't around to show everyone how cool you look doing that one handed reload.
:) the best answer so far! :)
As Bruce Catton wrote 'the old fossils' in the Ordinance Department didn't like newfangled technology and with Yankee thriftiness felt troops would waste ammunition with a repeater. However many Western Federals felt a Henry increased their chances and so saved up to buy one on their own as a sort of life insurance.
I feel that the costume is a disrespect to the uniform.
Price.
Now thats a serious hat.
👍👍👍👍
Actually if the military had done what Lincoln wanted done. All the Spencer and Henry rifles ordered would have been at Gettysburg. And that would have been the end of the war. But repeating rifles was slowed down from making it to the battle field by the army not trusting them they was worried the soldiers woukd go theu ammo to fast plus the lighter smaller bullet wouldn't be as effective as the heavier bullet plus manufacturing the ammo for them was costly and slower.
So is this the month (in Alaska) with no night or is it one of those days with like 2 hours of sunlight??? If so do you feel compelled to make all your videos in one short time period or in one month? Do you use an eye pillow or not sleep? This doesn’t sound fun to me?
Sir, from mid-May until the very end of July, at Lat 65 North in Alaska, we have sufficient light in the Northern hemisphere to shoot all day and night long. This is my very first video and I could make them over three months in this timeframe. I don't require any light shielding, yet some folks do. I've lived here 30 years and am very acclimated to the light & dark and cold & heat. Whether it's fun or not, it is all a perspective for sure. Thanks for asking and I hope my answers were of some value to you. Thank you again.
@@kidhammer2567 thanks for the education. I would love to visit one day? Certainly does sound like a place you have to “acclimate” to?
Take care
-Daniel
The old timers would say that with a Henry, you load it on Sunday and shoot all week!
it is simple. In 1861-65 in No country in the world had the Industrial capacity to make metal cartridge's (for the henry or spencer) in any relevant numbers.
And no one had the capacity to make the henry (or spencer) in any serious number in regard to using it as the main infantry firearm.
(By 1864 the ability to make the spencer did get to a point where arming the cavalry with carbines started to be possible)
by the end of the war the federal army still had huge numbers of European firearms in use.
Only half the ordered Springfield where ever made, and every single one of them was delivered way later than originally agreed to. And the Springfield was a way way way easier gun to make than a Henry or spencer.
the idea that the federal army should have tried to made any of the two the main firearm for its infantry is simply pure fantasy. There was no way to do that.
Cause it was expensive.
You have to remember that the Federal army was desperately short of arms. It wasn't a choice between the Henry and the Springfield rifle-musket, it was a choice between 1 Henry and 3 rifle-muskets. When you are arming the Yankee Horde of several million men, production quantity is critical.
Short answer: fudds have always existed.
The Henry is a fine rifle. I just never liked the magazine loading.
Launching a new production line, a new logistic line you will add to the already existing and cost-consuming ones, for a very expensive and raw material demanding new product nobody is properly trained for is never a good idea in a war time.
That was one of the reasons that explain the downfall of the german Reich in 1945.
cost and the army was always 30 years out of date
it was too hard to load in the field.
Beautiful rifles, I am Mexican and I really like the cavalry hats of the U.S army
The Army was really cheap on the expenditure of ammo and a rapid firing weapon was going to cost a lot of money to use.
I own reproductions of both the 1860 Henry and 1860 Spencer repeaters, both in .45 Colt. IMHO the Henry is FAR superior.
Between the Spencer, Trapdoor, Krag and 1903, the U.S. Army didn't have capacity and rate of fire comparable to the Henry until the M-1 Garand, and we all know how the Garand worked out in WW2.
SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
If it was a choice between them, I would also pick the Henry.
Imagine US army using Winchester Model 1895 in WW2 :)
@@xmeda It was chambered in 30'06.
In that time period, military rifles required some place to mount a bayonet!!!
Because it took a lot of ammunition and we had a cost conscious government
I thought that guy was wearing a mask, kemosabe!
Because the round is a pipsqueak... 😲🙄
Black powder matters!