The First Assault Rifle?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2024
- If we're willing to consider the assault rifle in its applied role, and not just by an arbitrary definition, then I propose that the first "assault rifle" in application was the 1860 Henry and the first intermediate cartidge was the 44 Henry Rimfire.
The Henry rifle first saw combat near the end of the US Civil War but rapidly cut a bloody swath via the Indian Wars and throughout the "Old West".
Please consider supporting the InRangeTV project via Patreon:
/ inrangetv
We have T-shirts! Hooray!
shop.bbtv.com/collections/for...
I'm sure the purists will yell, "It's not full auto!" and "It doesn't have a detachable magazine!!!" Annnnnd completely miss the point. As you noted it had the same mission and the same capacity on the battlefields of the day.
@nanda erdhani MP7 is a PDW chambered in essentially a pistol caliber and was designed for a much different mission. The FN FAL is a battle rifle that fires a full size cartridge, so it's different than an Assault rifle.
id pefer youd let people decide themselves what they classify themselves i get his point but to me the stg 44 or the fedorov avtomat is the first assault rifle but theres no need to put people into one ox and say theyre bad for making argument points
Which is why the role of an equipment/vehicle is more important
@managerial conclusions i wouldnt say im wrong the winchester is just a repeating rifle are you gonna classify bolt action rifles as assaults aswell if youre just able to fire em fast enough an assault gun had a completely diffrent purpose than the average repeater we cant deny that here
@@leutnantsilberstahl9189 I’d agree about the Winchester but disagree with you on the Henry. 16 shots at that time was a lot of firepower and the relative compactness of the Henry compared to long guns of the time made it fairly handy. At LBH Crazy Horse and his men used it to fire and maneuver rapidly and close the distance with Custer’s men, particularly onLast Stand Hill. Now if you want to include reloading as an important part of an assault rifle, you do have a valid point. But at that time 16 shots was a whole lot, and would have allowed suppressive fire. So I agree with Karl on this. The STG just did it better.
Some years ago in his book "Battle Tactics of the Civil War" the British historian Paddy Griffith made the observation that the Henry and Spencer were akin to modern assault rifles. It's interesting to note Wilder's Brigade, a brigade of Illinois and Indiana mounted infantry in the Army of the Cumberland armed with Spencer rifles (the rifles, not the carbines). This brigade was noted for it's ability to move fast on campaign and on the battlefield and to bring huge volumes of fire to bear, most notably at Hoover's Gap and Chickamauga. It helped that their commander, John Wilder, was a soldier of great energy, aggression and tactical sense.
One might argue from this perspective, the assault rifle no longer exists. It became the service rifle.
Interesting insight. What about the Girandoni air rifle used by Jägers of the Austria army? Vastly superior firepower, silent almost undetectable shooting, rifled barrel (they weren't the only ones, but the breech loading repetition mechanism made it way faster to shoot for the same precision than British rifles). Its only real problem is it was too ahead of its time, and they had troubles manufacturing spare resevoirs soldiers could have carried just as modern soldiers carry extra magazines. With a magazine of super easy to chamber 16 shots with fast reloading tube, a reservoir capacity of about 30 shots you just need to screw and unscrew to replace, and an effective range of about 100-150 yards, though in full musket size, the Girandoni rifle could be called the first assault rifle adopted by a military force (though in low number).
Jägers are light infantry, meant to be deployed in a open formation, using terrain and natural cover to harass the enemy. Having a vastly superior firepower, both in magazine capacity and firing rate, allows to pour lead on an unsuspecting enemy from a single position, maximizing casualties and morale impact, then move to another position, and open fire again.
In assaulting a fortified position, such light infantry tactics with a 16-shooter breech-loading rifle are way superior to frontal assault by regular line infantry, who can only open fire a few times before trying to flood the position and take it by force at the point of the bayonet. Actually, due to the use of muzzloaders, light infantry can't use actual light infantry tactics when assaulting a fortified position: they have to proceed like regular line infantry, with very mitigated efficiency.
Line infantry assault requires artillery preparation of the fortified position in order to reduce casualties, while the Girandoni rifle (with spare speed-loading tubes and air reservoirs) could allow light infantry to successfully take a fortified position on it's own, or as part of a larger infantry offensive, but without the need of artillery support to provide suppressive fire.
Now, I have to admit I don't know of any battle or ambush in which Windbüchsen-equiped Jägers fought, but Jägers are usually elite troops, selected for their initiative, intelligence, and sense of tactic (after all, when they're deployed, they're on their own), and I'm pretty sure they understood how to make proper use of this revolutionary rifle.
In the French napoleonic army, light troops such as voltigeurs and chasseurs à pied were used as skirmishers and for reconnaissance, amongst other things, and flanqueurs-chasseurs (of the Jeune Garde) were used to cover the flanks of the marching army (supposedly, but apparently that wasn't really the case), but light infantry regiments were also used on the battlefield in the same way as line infantry, including for assault, and they had the exact same equipment. The separation may have been clearer in other european armies, but I'm no expert.
But did they use "take cover-suppress-move" tactics? Were they issued to an entire squad so they could cover each other, or were they spread out to simply increase "Overall Volume of fire"?
It's not just the fact that you have an Assault Rifle, you also need to use it like one or the benefits are wasted. Furthermore I would argue 100 Yards is just too close range. Imo 200 yards is a minimum to be considered capable of more than just close range.
Normally, light troops deployed as skirmishers/tirailleurs use that "take cover-suppress-move" tactic, but light infantry can be used in so many other ways. I have an ebook I need to read, written by a French officer serving in the Prussian army and published in 1817, precisely talking about light troops, how they were used, and how he thought they should have been (which is often a good indication of how they weren't).
The range of the Girandoni rifle is probably just estimated, but anyway you don't need suppressive fire to be absolutely deadly to still work as intended (nobody wants to stand barely out of range in front of a shooting firearm).
Good pointers there, though it was demonstrated as an effective killing tool, the time it took to reload/repump one of these, and the method of use simply disqualifies it as an "assault rifle".
You got that wrong: the henry rifle is a heavy machine gun
Crew served, water cooled. ~Karl
Magazine fed, Automatic.
Guns aside, I congratulate you for always being on spot with the clothing.
You are one stylish guy. Ian too. He never runs out of polos and camouflaged rip stop pants.
WHERE IS DER PISTOL GRIP!?!?!?!
NO PISTOL GRIP ON LEVAH GUNZ! ~Karl
@@chibani- Im gonna go ahead and say it, just because you can doesnt mean you should. That thing is definitely what i need xd
Or the shoulder thing that goes up.
I wonder if people ever did that...?
This is actually something I've thought about a lot myself really, the difference between a lot of these early 'old west' rifles and single-shot cartridge breech loaders (or even muzzle loaders to go a bit further back) was enormous in terms of rate of fire; and particularly rate of fire placed rapidly on to a target/area at close to medium ranges. A lot of military rifles coming in at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries had far smaller magazines with over powered ammunition. I don't know how well the lever-actions fared in Russian hands in the mud of the trenches, but lever/pump/revolver rifles could absolutely deliver more shots on target at a higher rate and it's not like all those stripper clip rifles were super fast to reload themselves. Great topic as always InRange.
The russian lever action rifles used a full power cartridge
I probably should've specificed I was purely talking about reliability (with such an 'open' action).
According to the little I've read the '95 Winchester was regarded as very reliable by the Russians.
One reason why they didn't move to the repeating rifles after the war despite their effectiveness was due to the fact that they could convert existing Springfield rifles from the Civil War to the trapdoor if I can recall, right? I remember hearing that somewhere.
You're thinking of the Allins conversions. There's a video coming on that. :0 ~Karl
InRangeTV Oh wow, looking forward to that vid then. Also, thanks for all the hard work you guys put in your videos!
money saving way to reuse the rifles on hand. I can't quite understand the logic, but it was a different time.
Ammunition costs and logistical concerns would keep small arms development behind the times. The north could have fielded large numbers of gattling guns for example, but the army saw how much ammo they used and killed the idea. They never think that it would replace a large number of infantry who would also end up shooting even more ammo over the course of a day...
Still applies today. Can't do new guns because it costs too much, and can't do new calibers because it costs too much and makes logistics problematic. Company A is equipped with 5.56, company B is equipped with 6.5. Guess what ammo each receives? thats right, the wrong ammo.
Ammo consumption is certainly a big hindrance looking at the way logistics were set up back then. Another factor is that, at least on early lever-actions, you need to reload your bullets one round at a time. So, you get a bunch of really quick shots, and then you spend forever reloading. Seen this way, a rifle where you fire, load, fire, load isn't at that much of a disadvantage in a typical military engagement.
Another battle that not many Americans know about is Ridgeway, where the Irish Republican Army, (I shit you not) invaded Canada in 1866 (seriously look it up).
The Canadian Army had some Henry rifles, the Fenians (as they're more commonly called) just had muzzle loading rifles of various types. The Canadians managed to push the Fenians back with their initial volley, but then burned through their ammo and lost the initiative. The Fenians actually won the battle with a bayonet charge, although that was likely only possible because the Canadian commander fucked up.
that damn Yankee rifle that was loaded on Sunday and fired all week.....
High capacity, rapid fire lever action assault rile!
Extended tubes were banned
Yep. Time to joint InRange Patreon. Forgotten weapons, which i have been supporting for long time, and InRange are best Tube content out there. Keep up the good work guys. BTW. Salt liquorice is acquired taste Ian... :P
If you want to compare weapons of that time to modern type guns - I'd rather say the Henry/Winchester was the SMG of that time. The swiss Vetterli had an intermediate cartridge (10,4x38), and a tube magazine. The early version had a magazine cut off - so the equivalent of a selector switch. Luckily for the swiss, but quite sadly for us amateur gun historians, swiss military weapons were never battle tested.
Wow, somebody made a good point.
In the museum at Perryville Battlefield; I usually make the analogy of thee Henry being the 1862 SMG, and relegate the various breech loading metallic cased carbines as "Assault rifles", with the main battle rifles represented by the standard Springfields, Enfields, Lorenzes etc. Still a good video with a lot of very valid points as to tactical value of the Henry. Yes, the Henry saw combat at Perryville, in 1862.
Karl in the beginning of the video you fire 17 rounds out of the rifle like the original would carry if you had one in the chamber, but all the reproductions in .45 Colt and .44-40 only hold 13+1 rounds. Do you make a special stimulant of .44 Henry Rimfire with cut down 45 Colt or .44-40 cases? I'm genuinely interested because as far as I know no one has made .44 Henry Rimfire in a long time and a simulant with the same capacity but being centerfire sounds really cool.
Yes, and that's coming in a future video. :) ~Karl
If I had to guess, it's either .44 special that has been converted to feed .44 Russian, the progenitor of .44 special and .44 magnum, or it's a .45 Colt converted to feed .45 Cowboy Special, a cartridge developed for CAS by shortening .45 Colt down to about .45 ACP length. I always kind of wanted a rifle set up like that, but I'm too attached to using .44 WCF (44-40) and .44 Magnum in my lever actions.
kyle ober NICE!
People complaining that it isn't select-fire aren't thinking big enough. You can select between firing or not firing. :)
One of the good bits about your channel is you cover historical "battles" and skirmishes that are too small to get included in the bigger/grand history documentary series yet show interesting tactics or just damn interesting history. I love Ken Burns' The Civil War, but even with the number of episodes in that seires it cant cover the full scope of the war.
A massive thanks to you and Ian for filling in those gaps in history for me and countless others.
Great information, love the video. Keep bringing what ever you and Ian can come up with.
Great video, guys. I love that you offer historical content like this in addition to the modern technology and competition stuff.
What defines the assault rifle is not only the mode of use but also the tactics it is used for. It was the implement that provided entire squad with increased capability for pin down and flank. That, and urban, door to door fighting, were primary uses for modern assault rifle, and I do not believe that those tactics were yet present at the time of US civil war. Or am I wrong?
I'm not sure I want to argue too much with this.
Considering the time and the weapons available, it certainly has a great weight of fire and it certainly supports a highly mobile form of warfare. It also has the capacity to allow you to remain in combat for a prolonged period. Especially if you're up against single shot rifles.
Sixteen rounds of what seems to be a smooth firing cartridge, they knew what they were doing back then.
A great video IRTV, I found it to be a very fascinating concept.
Like the history in you videos Karl. So good!Best thing about InRangeTV..
i like these concept videos. more please!
The few times I've watched Cowboy Action shooters, I've been amazed at the speed at which they can put rounds on target. They often achieve a rate of fire equal to or exceeding what I can do with my AR. Admittedly, it's usually point blank range, but still...
I REALLY liked the way you presented this topic!!!!! Bravo Zulu!
thanx Carl,that was a really good presentation.
For YEARS I've told people that the lever action rifle was the first assault rifle for all of the exact reasons you pointed out in this vid. And in 100 years the AR Platform and AK Platform will be relegated to the C&R shelf and something else will wear the moniker of "Assault Rifle."
I liked the documentary feel to this video . keep it up guys
now that was a interesting history lesson. I concur with your conclusion and rationale behind the video. good job.
Various accounts I've read confirm your concept. It was also the first sub machine gun. Some where used like assault rifles, and some where actually used like sub machine guns. It's an interesting thing, everyone thinks that the ideas are new, but they aren't.
As it is with many things gun related, the ideas of today, have been done before, but fell out of favor for one reason or another, only to be reinvented decades later.
I actually used this same comparison a few months back. I was telling family members that AR-15s are the lever guns of their day. They're ubiquitous, can fill a variety of roles, and a part of Americana at this point.
Funny you should mention battle wagons. We'll get to them in a while.
The problem with any kind of loose concept like assault rifle is that unless it's pretty rigidly defined, many weapons with wildly different usage usually start to fall into one category. It's the reason why we have about 30 different types of medieval arming swords.
When it comes to the concept of using less powerful gun capable of quick follow up shots at close ranges, the concept goes pretty much back to Hussite wars (1419-1434). Hussites used something called a "dog whistle", or psi pistala in Czech (which is where we get a word for pistol from, incidentally), it was a smaller handgonne (the "rifle" of its day) with multiple barrels.
When combined with their war wagons, it was one of the things (along with discipline and light artillery) that enabled them to comprehensively spank several crusades, and create a lot of modern firearms terminology - howitzer being a Czech word too.
And speaking of wagons, Hussites were the first army that used wagon forts on a well-organized level, with pre-made tactics being the same (more or less) on a national level.
Sturmgewehr was probably the first assault rifle in the sense that if you give it to folks who use modern assault rifles, the tactical and mechanical use will be very familiar to them. With a Henry, tactical use is similar-ish, but the mechanics of shooting it less so. With a dog whistle, you'll likely get blank stares.
great video. it is a very compelling argument you make here. it does kinda come down to whether you want to define a thing by application or strictly in technical terms. also in the former case, I think there has to be slightly more discussion on what kind of doctrine, on a large scale, is adopted alongside the weaponry
Such a cool video willing to look at popular opinions with differing perspectives. Keep it up Dudes!
I've been telling myself that the winchester lever action was the AR-15 equivalent back in those days but I guess..... yes, I can see that Henry beat them to it. Great video! Thank you.
Right on!
great video Karl. love to see more.
It's amazing to see the comments here which seem to have completely missed the point of the video, I'd probably go around responding to comments but there are fairly few comments which are recent, and I don't want to bother those people who likely want to get on with their day rather than be harassed by an idiot on the internet about something they said two or three years ago.
The entire point of the video was to explain that the Henry was technically the first assault rifle as defined by it's usage of the time period.
Weapon terminology is not a strict, binary 'yes, no' affair of if a weapon is deemed suitable for a category, weapon terminology is instead a vague approximation of a weapon's intent and purpose, and the Henry qualifies as an assault rifle for it's intended use case at the time period it would've been used in.
The Henry is capable of delivering a high volume of fire, at least in comparison to most other weapons of the time period, and could much more readily be used to deliver sustained fire or even theoretically suppression, in a modern context, an assault rifle is the same way, it's capable of delivering a high volume of fire in comparison to most other kinds of weapons (such as handguns or extremely high caliber rifles that we often define as battle rifles), as well as having a good capacity and a round with a reasonable amount of recoil, while the Henry was firing a relatively low-power cartridge, much more so than 5.45 or 5.56 in comparison, that doesn't necessarily disqualify it, you could argue that would class it as being a sub-machine gun, but the usage for an intermediate rifle and a sub-machine gun are generally quite similar in combat, it's just that they have some differences in characteristics which does distinguish them, but in the context the Henry was used, either term is valid.
Again, weapon terminology is a vague approximation of a weapon's intended use case, we can say the Henry is outdated and doesn't meet the modern technical definition of an assault rifle, but it was for it's time, the Kar98K doesn't become not a carbine (literally what it was designed to be) just because modern carbines fire a much lower power bullet, have a much larger capacity and are automatic, it just becomes outdated.
Karl, as always, a fantastic and informative video. Sticking with this era, I would be curious to see a comparison with the Henry's repeating contemporary: the Spencer. While slightly slower to cycle, it used a slightly bigger cartridge and could be reloaded quickly via tubes. Custer apparently preferred them over the Springfield carbine. :)
Well done! I really enjoyed this
Very well thought out and presented.
I've been of this opinion for a while. The Plains tribes, with their bows and Henrys, knew that volume of fire beats range and marksmanship any day of the week. They discovered, 80 years before the US Army, just how strong a correlation - nay, causation - there was between rounds downrange and victory. I'd even argue that the use of bows was an advantage over the Army's lines of trapdoor riflemen. A trained bowman had a MUCH higher rate of fire than a trapdoor rifleman, and armor had already been abandoned in the age of gunpowder, so net effectiveness advantage went to the bow. So yes, the concept of the assault rifle was stumbled upon nearly a hundred years before the US finally adopted it.
InRange- I'd truly enjoy seeing this concept played out. Hope you can :) Thanks for sharing this!
We'll be getting there after the WWSD project draws to a close. Early next year, essentially. ~K
It is precisely the same argument used when NATO finally standardised to 5.56. You're absolutely right.
The deciding factor in most battles is not who has the longest range or who has the best accuracy, it's who can get the most bullets shot in the general direction of the enemy and thereby limiting their capacity to fight by suppressing them.
It seems interesting to me that some people consider the point of military marksmanship to be killing the enemy. To me that seems absolutely wrong. Instead, we should consider military marksmanship to be that the technique by which we limit the opponent's operational ability. Actually hitting somebody is quite difficult - but getting them to keep their heads down is relatively easy. At that point, the size of the round you're actually using is largely irrelevant - provided it still has the capacity to be lethal. The more rounds you can carry with you and the faster you can shoot them in the general direction of the enemy, the better.
It's still important to have long-range lethal capability in specialised roles (snipers) for targets of special interest and anti-materiel (artillery, etc.). It's also interesting that you have cited the doctrinal differences between Russian and American forces before (mass fire as opposed to the individual marksman) but I don't think these doctrinal differences realistically exist any more with the adoption of short carbine-like weapons like the M4 - which is really analogous to the AK-74U.
Of course, to come to these conclusions does require a large amount of operational analysis and significant mindset changes but the irony of this doctrinal realisation taking up until the 1960s is quite funny when you consider that this was also the same issue that faced European armies fighting each other during the 18th and 19th centuries in line-of-battle. I would almost go as far as to say that the widespread adoption of rifled guns (being slower to load as muzzle-loaders but with the greater accuracy) actually stymied the development of the modern doctrine with its promise of greater range and accuracy. With widespread adoption of muzzle-loaded, rifled guns the theoretical advantage is distinct but the practical advantage is rarely utilised - that is to say that the ability to shoot out to 1,000 Yards is something that militaries would love to have used - but the reality is that they almost never did.
Maybe this is because of the American Civil War's distinctive form of combat. Essentially, Napoleonic tactics and line-of-battle but with much more advanced guns. In that environment (and that environment alone) the theoretical advantage of long-range, rifled and relatively slow-firing weapons is actually practical and used.
Just some thoughts from somebody that has never served in the military or indeed fired anything before.
i would say first PDW or Sub machine gun, because a cornerstone of assault rifles as we know them today is the ability to provide accurate fire at long distances. Even an AK or STG can reliably hit a man sized target at 300 meters with high success. great video btw.
love this stuff. keep it up guys!
Really enjoyed the video guys. Thx
Its been said that the US civil war started out with both sides using Napoleonic style tactics. But by the end of the war, especially the battle of Atlanta, looked more like a WW1 battlefield. Trenches, Gatling guns and repeating rifles, observation balloons used to call artillery.
I completely agree with this sentiment. While "assault rifle" is a somewhat non-sensical term, the ability to rapidly disperse rounds without having to stop for any reason generally encompasses the idea of it. The Henry genuinely embodied that idea. "Load on Sunday and shoot all week" is, I believe, a phrase of frustration on the part of the Confederates.
I will give you it's a point in the evolution, but like Homo Erectus in the family tree. An intermediate cartridge, high capacity, selective rifle. The selective fire part inherently means a Autoloading rifle. The Henry uses a manual lever action. Although a trained user may be able to cycle at a far higher rate than any other rifle of the time it's not a self loading mechanism
Good informative videos! Keep it up!
Oh yes, more of these please! I'm a big fan of leverguns, and thrive to learn something new about them. I have a M94 Winchester and a M95 Winchester Russian contract, my dad has a modern Henry Big Boy and a Mare's leg in .22LR. All of those are a joy to shoot and i look up to those guns whenever i see them.
Any possibility to see you do a 2 gun with a levergun some time?
The reason the Army did not adopt the 1860 Henry rifle, the Winchester 1866, or the Sharps rifle was due to the entrenched ordinance department bureaucracy that determined that given a larger capacity magazine soldiers would "waste ammunition".
I realize I'm a little late, but... The 66th Illinois that you refer to had 600 men and 250 Henry's rifles bought with their own money. They must have been quite a force. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/66th_Illinois_Infantry_Regiment#cite_note-12
Karl You mention the 5.56 being the first intermediate cartridge adopt by the US I would say the M-1 carbine was the first while it was selected for second line troops cooks drivers etc some of the front line troops used it the Airborne units come to mind
then they is the Peterson device
Great video - I enjoyed it.
Loved this video!!!
Wow Mr Karl, you hit the nail on the head! Totally agree with you Sir.
I shoot Cowboy Action and often use lever guns in Zombie action shoots. I have been using the assault rifle analogy for years.
Strumgewehr does not mean Strom rifle :)
In literal translation that would be correct, but in German there is "Der Sturm" - "the storm" and "etwas stürmen" - " to charge or assault something", so Sturmgewehr has the exact same meaning as the englisch assaultrifle.
definitely agree with the premise, and I like the video. however I maintain that assault is an action not an object.
Very intresting video / idea!
I think you're not covering several reasons for why was the success of early repeaters ignored. Above all it was the cost and logistics. The "marksman>spray and pray" rhetoric is the post-fact rationalisation of this being cost-saving measure. Early on, repeaters were too expensive and used too much ammunition(especially important for US army which was tiny and had to cover the frontier). Later on the same applied to semi-autos. Even when it came to adoption if intermediate cartridge - you've added another different kind of ammo for your logistical train to handle(of course the "universal" intermediate cartridges like .280 British or 6.8mm are an exception here since at least in theory they can be both rifle and intermediate cartridge at the same time, whether it's actually reasonable or not I'll leave people who actually shot them).
Secondly, the range supremacy had certain merit even though being outdated by the time of Crimean war. In line warfare(classic just as well as Napoleonic) the army with longer range had obvious advantage. That majority of soldiers couldn't hit shit at 1000 metres didn't matter when you've had CO telling them which range to fire salvos at. Which is related to another issue.
Nowadays, nobody pretends that war in Afghanistan was dictating the way wars between first-grade militaries would be fought and nobody ever pretended that it was. Same goes for Indian wars, British-Afghan wars, Boer-Zulu wars(just as well as British-Zulu war), all sorts of stuff. Everybody recognises that colonial policing style of warfare requires different mindset and training, ideally you'd also have different equipment(which happens only sometimes). Same applies to local conflicts - Syria now, and for example - Balkan wars in early 20th century - Syria may be prophetic(2nd Balkan war kinda was) but it may as well be an outlier or a product of specific conditions dictated by limited scope of the conflict(quite a lot of African conflicts would fit there). After the fact you can play a wise man saying "awwww if I was X I would do Y because nowadays we all know Y is better than Z which is what X did initially", but other than that it's hard, really hard.
The first gun built like a assault rifle was the Federov. The first gun to be used as assault rifle was the lever gun :)
That's a good way to put it. ~Karl
THANKS for replying !!! I have a question for you!! If you had to go to war TODAY (a modern war) and you had to chose between a lever gun or a bolt gun with a trench mag to bring with you which would you take ?
I would consider the Henry a doctrinal forebear of the assault rifle. Military firearms are a balance of characteristics; weight, accuracy, reliability, rate of fire, capacity, range and impact. The Henry favors rate of fire and light weight over range and impact like an assault rifle
thank you Karl I'm tired of people non stop insisting the stg44 was the first assault rifle when they fail to see the practical application that any repeater adds to a battle!! a blitzkrieg is just as effective with a Henry or a Mauser or an stg44 they're all effective but now have labels that peacetime people add to them. a soldier from any Era wouldn't see a difference and feel relief with any repeater at ready when it's time to go over the top
These "the first X" arguments are fun, but they ride on the specificity of the definitions. Unless there's an influence lineage that connects assault rifles back to the Henry then this is an oddball/outsider. lineage matters.
But back to the definitions: assault rifles have also select fire and quick reloading. The Henry has neither.
Though I love the video! This kind of exercise really makes you think about things in new ways.
Can we call the Henry a proto-assault rifle. It has some, but not all the features and the refinements aren't all there :)
I'm so glad for channels like this versus Internet argument channels ("x caliber does y" and "z caliber can't do it") and clickbait channels
Thanks, we want to be something unique! :) ~Karl
I know everybody wants you to do a TV show but what about educational "history class" DVDs for middle and high schools? Or just fans.
I've got that same vest! It's very dashing.
Great video!
I have to agree. If the people in charge of the purse strings wouldn't have been so concerned with how much ammo a soldier would "waste", and the supply problems associated with that, no telling how history would be rewritten. That's another story for another day. Thanks. ; )
People still criticize the "poodle shooter" round. But if you understand what actually happens with the 5.56mm inflicting damage on a body you don't immediately dismiss its effectiveness. Hint: high velocity small projectile does not necessarily create a small bullet wound.
My two cents is that the Henry was the first attempt at filling the niche of "light, fast, intermediate" in the mid 1800's. But not being the perfect tool for the job, the niche went unfilled until the Stg44 filled the role roughly a century after the Henry.
It's similar to how the Gatling gun was the first attempt at filling the role of "bullet hose" in the mid 1800's, then that spot was filled again by the M61 Vulcan & M134 Minigun were created roughly a century after the Gatling.
The Henry could've been the stepping stone to a modern assault rifle but you have to think, what did assault mean in 1865 and in 1965? The processes of assaulting an enemy position are entirely different. Just my two cents.
I think you make a solid point. If we fail to learn from the errors of the past........
I've always held the argument that technically the Brown Bess or other flintlock infantry musket could be considered an assault rifle of their period. I think the term "Assault Rifle" changes with the times and technology that goes along with it.
Nice video man
Great Video. Thank you
Awesome video, thanks.
Thank You, I learned something new today.
Awesome, that makes today a good day! Thank you! ~Karl
IMHO the air rifle was pretty unique....ahead of its time as it really was the path to nowhere. The lever gun like the revolver was a new way to get lead flying....and had to wait for the metal cartridge to really come of age.
I do agree with the video....I think "select fire" is a modern term....in the time of the Civil war a lever gun would be a huge game changer.
You bring up a great argument, that the usage defines teh category. Enoyable video. I would offer my insight that the STG44 is still the first "Modern" Assault rifle in the sense of having a select fire switch, and how it served as the basis and inspiration for so many modern weapons systems. I have argued for quite some time that there were assault rifles before the STG like the russian avtomat but they cannot be considered assault rifles in the same sense of more modern types.
I think Karl is right about the Henry 's role. The problem in my personal view was the missing institutional recognition. Similar to the sniper concept. After I. and II. world war the sniper schools closed everywhere and had to learn agian from the baisics.
Actually for all that its worth I define the Fedorov Avtomat as the first "Real Automatic Rifle" Which is also fully automatic/semi if where going further back then Móndragon Rifle also fully automatic/semi another thing to note is that a weapon with a repeating action is worthless in trench warafare where hinging might be more then an issue. Also the fact that its loaded round by round means also that when it runs dry any hopes of reloading is going to be hard or impossible if used to assault an enemy.
I concur about the importance of the repeating rifle, and note also the use of Winchesters by Turkish forces at Plevna. I fully believe the reason the US Military didn't switch until after General Bennington was gone from Springfield Arsenal was simply, corruption. They made almost a half million Trapdoor .45-70s for an army of only 28,000. The bulk of the guns were being sold as 'surplus' almost as fast as they were being made. The official justification was that it was preferable to keep skilled arsenal workers busy than to reduce staff, then need a year or two of training for a new staff if there was an emergency. Yes, the rifles were disassembled and sold as parts, but all the parts went to the same buyers who then reassembled them and sold them as complete weapons. I firmly believe a little serious digging would show some sweetheart deals and what we would today call kickbacks or bribes. Going with a Winchester product would have meant moving production out of General Bennington's direct control and supervision of stock levels. As a contracted product he would have to justify things if he ordered a half million be made. But for a Springfield designed rifle, with no contract oversight he could make an unlimited number of them. Noting also that even though Alin became General Manager of the plant where the Trapdoors were made, he continued to receive design royalties on each one made, therefore it was not in his financial interest either to push for a different design of weapon.
Careful what you say Karl, gun control advocates might jump on the idea of lever guns being "assault rifles" lol. In all seriousness, i think the select fire capability is an important distinction between a true assault rifle and a sporter. We should uphold that definition if we want to keep AR's and other self loaders from being further demonized.
Interesting video. Karl, you look dashing as well.
Well I don't know almost nothing about the story of the first assault rifle but I think that in the 1800's (1850+era) there is no more substancial firepower and the improvement of rapid fire rifles such as the lever action repeating fire rifles like the Henry and the Winchester lever action rifles Vs other kind of rifles with limit firepower as the single shot or bolt action rifles with low rate of fire available at the time in the nineteenth century.
Great vid!
According to German definition an assault rifle has also to be full auto.
The first assault rifle is the Russian Fedorov Avtomat.
I would have to disagree, it shoots a 44 calibre bullet backed by a 28gr charge, that's a pistol bullet and that's by 1860s standard, the Ordnance dept recommended a very similar loading for revolver paper cartridges, if you wish to compare it to a modern comparison its a machine pistol.
You could call it a mechanical pistol to be correct. (Volcanic Pistol)
The impact the Henry had on the battlefield reminds me of the impact the Thompson, Sten, MP40 or M3 had or the Uzi had during the 6 days War.
Pistol calibre, higher capacity than a pistol, rate of fire higher than a pistol and a range further than a pistol, I'm going with the MP60
At the Little Bighorn the Indians had numbers and alot of repeaters. Experts still debate if repeaters were decisive. Custer was defeated, not Benteen and Reno on
Reno Hill. If U.S. could avoid being out flanked they could keep the Indians at bay with single shot weapons. The U.S. lost some battles, but in end, every Indian tribe was defeated and the U.S. did this with single shot weapons. Great video!!!
Love the content
Of the three battle examples listed in this video, in two the Henry's were used in a purely defensive capacity and it might be argued, since Custer's forces were attacking the Lakota and Cheyenne village, that all three stories were actually defensive uses of the Henry rifle. But I will allow that Sitting Bull's fighters were advancing against Custer's greatly outnumbered forces. The fact that you did not provide an example of Henry's being used decisively by the Attacking force negates any notion these were "ASSAULT Weapons".
Furthermore, one of the defining characteristics of Assault Rifles, which you touched on briefly at the beginning of the video, is the military standard that the intermediate caliber rifle be capable of both Semi-Automatic and Full-Automatic fire. In another words, the act of firing the weapon creates the energy required to reload the firearm. A manually operated lever action is not a self loader.
Speaking of Intermediate Caliber. The world had fully automatic SUB-Machine guns (pistol caliber machine-guns) nearly 25 years before Germany's Sturm Gewar-44 (sp). Two of the defining characteristics of the STG-44 was the use of cut down rifle cartridges which were more powerful than pistol rounds and the fact it was selective fire.
Repeating firearms, capable of firing more than one shot before the shooter had to load more rounds of ammunition, turned the course of history both in the settling of the American West and in the course of combat in WW-I. But calling them "Assault" anything is a poor twist of the term Assault Rifle to re-create history to fit your personal narrative/objectives.
However, if you want to include manually operated firearms in the role of ASSAULT Weapons, I will submit the Winchester 1897 shotgun as used by the US Military in World War I as the first true Assault Weapon. Capable of firing eight or nine .33 caliber pellets per pull of the trigger, while holding six shells (for a maximum of 56 projectiles). The US Military used these shotguns to great affect when assaulting trenches in the last year of World War 1. These firearms were really used as "Assault Weapons". But there were very few on the battle front, and the shotguns were only put to use once in the trenches and not during the approach.
The traditional Assault Rifle, in the pattern of the STG-44, actually allowed a single soldier to lay down suppressive fire while assaulting an enemy's position. This is the original military standard of the term Assault Rifle, and is the one I use to define the term. Attempts to re-write history not-with-standing.
I have to agree. I can't remember the battle off hand, but C&Rsenal mentioned a battle where the Winchester repeaters were held back for in close rushes and the single shot full battle rifle was used for long distance. This led to magazine cutoffs on a lot of the pre-WW1 bolt action battle rifles. Imagine what a trench raid would have been like with Winchesters in 45 Colt and the trench shotgun?
The 7th Cavalry's Colt SAA with its six rapid shoots and 7,5 barrel are more enough to supplant the single shots at the close quarter. It is PDW of the time I think.
Even a potent pistol lags behind a shoulder-fired repeating rifle in effectiveness, as Custer's soldiers found out to their dismay.
In fact trapdoor carbine and SAA combo keep intact in the cavalry for the next decades. They feel no need for such "assault rifle". What they realy need is just improve the tactics, and don't leave your gatling guns behind again.
Yo if you ask those Super Mutants, it's definitely an assault rifle. Lincoln's Repeater for LIFE!
that has to be the slickest looking leaver gun, period.
We had a brief exercise of the mind in a shooting club at school. question posed was "what would be your world war one primary and secondary weapon, any weapon of the time" and when I was the only one to suggest an 1860, 1866, or 1894 over some kind of bolt action or 15lb bs submachine gun with funny magazines people laughed, but I had many of these same arguments, and I think it would have been an excellent weapon over many of the funky experimentation for trench clearing of the time.
love the waistcoat karl
That's an interesting idea. Two points
1) Sorry it's a pistol cartridge, the concept of an intermediate cartridge didn't exist at the time. As you point out there were pistols using the same cartridge.
2) An assault rifle has a magazine that can be changed so the soldier can carry several pre loaded magazines with him. It's true that the henry will give sixteen rounds rapid fire, but it's then a spent force, reloading the magazine is time consuming and requires dexterity that may be lacking under battlefield conditions.
1. Sure its a pistol cartridge but its also sort of an intermediate cartridge, given that all firearms back then used black powder and had fairy low velocity. The Springfield rifled musket actually have lower starting muzzle velocity than the Henry (960 fps vs 1125 fps), but its heavier bullet carried better for long distance shooting.
2. No other firearm back then had a preloaded magazine. And remember that the majority of combatants on the battlefield back then still carried muzzle loaders. In the time it takes them to reload one round (20 seconds), you probably can fully reload the Henry's magazine as well. And reloading those muzzle loaders with paper cartridge, a ramrod and percussion cap require more dexterity than the Henry with its self contained cartridge.