New York Times article on Spencer

[Tuolumne Lawman]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/the-unions-newfangled-gimcracks/#

Has some errors with dates, etc. but a nice read.

[5judge]

It is an enjoyable read, but perpetuates old myths and provides new ones. Lincoln did not attempt to intervene with Colonel Ripley regarding the acquision of Spencers which, in the two times he shot them, failed once (50% of the time). Ripley's instincts to get uniform weaponry into the hands of the troops with uniform ammunition were sound and Spencer couldn't have gotten really meaningful mass production of his weapons or their complex ammunition underway a whole lot earlier than he did. Speculating Union troops would have won Chancellorsville if armed with Spencers presupposes  that it would have made a decisive difference if the Union XI Corps cast aside Spencers instead of muzzleloaders as they ran for their lives and that Spencers would have resulted in Hooker not being stunned and, subsequently, transfixed by Lee's command presence and audacity. Finally, Spencers would have been compromised as general issue infantry arms by their lack of power and thus range and their indifferent accuracy. It's notable that, just at war's end, Hancock's elite Veteran Volunteer Corps was being armed with newly manufactured NM1863 Sharps rifles, not Spencers, and that the post war Regular Army never considered the Spencer rifle for mass infantry issue.

[Trailrider]

There is always a question about how technology has affected battles.  What would have been the result if the Fergusson rifle had been available in quantity to either the Americans or the British during the Revolution?  In point of fact, the 3rd Infantry was issued Spencer Repeating Rifles with triangular bayonet following the War (the only infantry unit west of the Mississippi to be so armed). Indeed, Lt. Fred Beecher may have issued some of the rifles to Forsyth's Scouts, rather than the Spencer carbines that have been universally assumed to be the case.

Aside from this, the point about the range of the M1861/63 Springfield rifle musket versus that of the Spencers is to an extent valid. If the Spencer had been available in quantity to the Federal forces only, the War might well have been over much earlier. Had both sides been so armed, the results would probably have depended on the leadership and logistics available to both sides, just as was the case as it was.

The common belief was that the machinegun would make war unthinkable. Ditto for dynamite, poison gas, and nuclear weapons! If firepower of smallarms was the only criteria in who wins or loses a war, both the Germans and the Japanese in WWII would have been outgunned by our troops weilding M-1 Garands. But this neglects the use of artillery, and later airpower (both tactical and strategic).

The Spencer and the Henry were, under the right conditions contemporary assault rifles. At the Fetterman fight, Grummond's cavalry and Fischer and Heartly, 2 scouts armed with Henry's lasted about 15 minutes. At Beecher Island, Forsyth's Scouts, in a fairly good defensive position prevailed with their Spencers. But, as we have found out in Afghanistan, lower power assault rifles have their shortcomings compared to a main battle rifle or longrange sniper's rifle that hits harder, if not as often.

There are no pat answers. The Spencer was a great invention (Spencer's invention of the automatic screw machine was a better one, incidentally), but it was not the ultimate weapon either.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

Long range musket fire killed fewer than long range artillery and grape shot, and close up and personal musket fire and close artillery killed the most.  In the engagements where Spencers were used, they overshadowed the muzzle loaders, especially considering the small numbers utilized.  I have personally fired an original 1860 Spencer 56-56 at a 275 yard buffalo gong (actually 1/3 size to simulate long range shots) and hit it 6 out of 7 with the Spencer. It is far more accurate than it is given credit for.

Take ten men with Spencers in a position and advance 100 men with muzzle loaders across open ground from 200 yards away....

[Tuolumne Lawman]

BTW, both .58 rifled musket and 56-56 Spencer shoot a similar type projectile in terms of size and weight.  Muskets used 55-60 grains of powder, the Spencer used 42-45 grains.  I think a safe analogy is that at 100 yards a Spencer would be as effective on impact as a musket at 200.  Accuracy under 300 yards is probably similar.  At 100 and 200 yards, I can not shoot a rifled musket any more accurately than the 1860 Spencer.

[Trailrider]

"Take ten men with Spencers in a position {italics mine} and advance 100 men with muzzle loaders across open ground from 200 yards away...."

That's my point...a good defensive position, PLUS the Spencers, and it is extremely difficult for attacking forces to overcome the firepower. Even musket fire is pretty nasty against troops attacking over open ground. [See Pickett and Longstreet. The latter tried to talk Lee out of Pickett's attack, but was unable to disuade "Marse Robert"  ) Out in the open, given enough high-trajectory, rapid fire projectiles...such as arrows...and you can still be in deep yogurt, as were Grummond's cavalry at the Fetterman fight!  I think the reason the Spencer got a bad rap for accuracy was the poor sights, and probably the poor marksmanship training most troops got.  Of course, the deadliest thing in the War, at relatively close range was...cannister! As the dying Federal lieutenant gasped at Gettysburg, "And at 50 yards, Sergeant, give 'em triple cannister!"

[Tuolumne Lawman]

Good point.  Also, if I remember correctly, Grummond only had 27 cavalry troopers with Spencers, and the Indian force was around 2,000 in ambush mode!  Even if Grummond's troop had M16s, they would have been in deep doo-doo!  Dang, all this talk of 56-50 Spencers is making me wish I had a .56-50 Spencer instead of a .44-40 one! 

[Trailrider]

Good point.  Also, if I remember correctly, Grummond only had 27 cavalry troopers with Spencers, and the Indian force was around 2,000 in ambush mode!  Even if Grummond's troop had M16s, they would have been in deep doo-doo!  Dang, all this talk of 56-50 Spencers is making me wish I had a .56-50 Spencer instead of a .44-40 one! 

Both Grummond and Custer shoulda called for an airstrike, danger close! And then it might have been a near thing!   The interesting reality thing was both the Hay Field Fight and the Wagon Box Fight. Troops there were armed with single-shot Trapdoor Springfields, cal. .50-70 (probably Second Model Allin conversions). In both battles, even though there were beuacoup Indians, being in a fairly good defensive position, with the breechloaders made the difference. Out in the open??? Well, it might have been a different story.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

IIRC, there were a few Henries and Spencers at the Hayfield fight.  Also, it seems to me, they had two Spencers at the Wagon Box fight  I will have to check.  Beecher's Island was almost all Spencers with several Henries.  Good study in the power of the repeater.