better assult rifle Henry or Sharps?

[Tall Dark Slim]

It had better be able to reliably sustain at least ten rounds a minute or better for 10 minutes in my opinion to be considered an assault rifle. This would be without failures of any sort in that first ten minutes. Realistically, the .45-70 trapdoor should not be considered an assault rifle because of its high recoil and unreliable ejection system with the cartridges of the day.  The Sharps rifle on the other hand is a proven action and not a stop gap retrofit and should have no problem meeting the speed and endurance requirements.

Who really cares what size the machine gun that comes to your rescue is? The sound alone of the sustained fire would likely have been sufficient to break the warriors spirit and send them fleeing. The one inch guns would have had a devastating effect on any thing they hit and would have likely served as a great area denial.

[matt45]

way off the subject, but...
     The only way for the Gatlings to have been effective @ the Battle of The Little Bighorn was to have had them with Benteen's column and then gotten them to the Reno/ Benteen siege site in a timely manner.  The ground where they were would be tough to position artillery size pieces w/out getting the crews picked off (a bowl with most of the 7th cav in rifle pits on the reverse slope).  That would have slowed Benteen down getting to Reno's position, and that might have made everything theoretical (as I understand, Reno had pretty well lost control @ that point).
     None of which would have helped Custer's column- by that point he was totally FUBAR.  All of this still avoids the obvious problem of getting the gatlings over the terrain between the Tongue and the Little Bighorn.  Not an easy job to do in any kind of hurry.

[Trailrider]

Pack howitzers with both shot and cannister shells, packed on mules would have worked better than those gatlings on artillery carriages in that terrain.  Of course a 1.18-inch (30mm) mounted on an A-10 would have been appreciated, I'm sure! Or maybe an MC-130 with that 75mm howitzer...

[Tall Dark Slim]

AC-130 to the rescue! Puff the Magic Dragon!

[John Smith]

AC-130 to the rescue! Puff the Magic Dragon!

"Puff" was an AC-47, the predecessor of the AC-130.

[Tall Dark Slim]

"Puff" was an AC-47, the predecessor of the AC-130.

Alas you are right. My appologies to Spooky.

[Grapeshot]

Pack howitzers with both shot and cannister shells, packed on mules would have worked better than those gatlings on artillery carriages in that terrain.  Of course a 1.18-inch (30mm) mounted on an A-10 would have been appreciated, I'm sure! Or maybe an MC-130 with that 75mm howitzer...

That's AC-130 and 105mm M102 Howitzer.

[Deadeye Don]

I always wondered why a Pawn Store would not have an FFL especially since he seems to love to make money.  He always makes the excuse that it is just too hard or complicated to deal with the paper work or some such nonsense.  I have to wonder if they are unable to obtain an FFL due to some type of legal issues in the store owners past.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

I'd go with Spencer 1st.  Intermediate cartridge, rapid reloads from Blakeslee.  The Henry would be second, less powerful.  Kinda like the M1-Carbine compared to the M16.

[cactus joe]

yea tuolumne, i would be more inclined to agree with you that the spencer would be more comparable to the henry as a assult rifle, but the 3 guys on the show were all inagreement that the sharps was the best and there was just no debating the point. Thats what raised my eyebrows, is that they were just so sure it was without a doubt the best option during the civil war!

[Trailrider]

yea tuolumne, i would be more inclined to agree with you that the spencer would be more comparable to the henry as a assult rifle, but the 3 guys on the show were all inagreement that the sharps was the best and there was just no debating the point. Thats what raised my eyebrows, is that they were just so sure it was without a doubt the best option during the civil war!

For that matter, I'd rather have a 5th Model (4th Model, Type II???) Burnside carbine. Aside from the logistics problem of ammo, the design makes for less blowback in your face when the rifle gets fouled.  Sharps was great...as long as the Conant gas seal stayed fairly clean. Once that got gummed up...   Of course, the Burnside depended on what ammo you had. Not sure about the coiled brass type versus the one-piece cartridge. If you ran out of ammo, and didn't retain at least the gas seal bulge portion of one cartridge, you were in trouble.  But then, if you ran out of paper or skin cartridges for the Sharps... Hence, Gen. Ripley's objections to breachloaders!

[matt45]

How well does any single shot fit the definition of "assault rifle"?  I think, considering the start of the thread, that Rick's expert is maybe not so much.

[litl rooster]

How well does any single shot fit the definition of "assault rifle"?  I think, considering the start of the thread, that Rick's expert is maybe not so much.

[matt45]

I reckon that sometimes one shot is all it takes 

[swampman]

It had better be able to reliably sustain at least ten rounds a minute or better for 10 minutes in my opinion to be considered an assault rifle. This would be without failures of any sort in that first ten minutes. Realistically, the .45-70 trapdoor should not be considered an assault rifle because of its high recoil and unreliable ejection system with the cartridges of the day.  The Sharps rifle on the other hand is a proven action and not a stop gap retrofit and should have no problem meeting the speed and endurance requirements.

Who really cares what size the machine gun that comes to your rescue is? The sound alone of the sustained fire would likely have been sufficient to break the warriors spirit and send them fleeing. The one inch guns would have had a devastating effect on any thing they hit and would have likely served as a great area denial.

Since this is creeping towards the Bighorn fight, ponder this. What if the troopers had been armed with Martini Henry breech-loaders instead of the Springfield? I've always felt that the Martini was the superior weapon. I'm not actually comparing the Little Bighorn fight to Rorke's Drift, but with the numbers involved, the Brit's should have been in a even more precarious position but came out on top. I believe the individual weapon made the difference. I know I can fire my Martini quicker and more accurately then my Trapdoor. Thoughts?

[Tuolumne Lawman]

AT Rouke's Drift, the British were in a fixed, barricaded position with both cover and concealment.  Custer had a few dead horses and a few shallow draws.

[cactus joe]

swampman, i sorry to say that i have never shot a springfield or a martini henry, but i love my henry and would be pretty confident in it's ability to get the job done either in a offensive or defensive situation. cj

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

Rourke's Drift was a defensive battle from behind barricades.  It was only a small victory in a larger disaster, that of ISANDLWANA.

Three columns, one of the columns caught divided and wiped out;  Some of this sound familiar?

http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm

[swampman]

Rourke's Drift was a defensive battle from behind barricades.  It was only a small victory in a larger disaster, that of ISANDLWANA.

Three columns, one of the columns caught divided and wiped out;  Some of this sound familiar?

http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm

It is felt that the Brits tried to hold a perimeter that was too large for their numbers at Isandlwana. There were also fatal delays in bring up reserve ammunition. By the time the boxes were opened the units were already in deep trouble. The column had 400,000 rounds of ammunition in reserve. When your ammo runs out, so does your life expectancy. The Rorke's Drift defenders did it right. Barricades not withstanding, the ammo was readily available. They had 20,000 rounds on hand and expended just over 19,000. The soldier's pouches never ran dry. And when the perimeter was breached, overwhelming firepower pushed the Zulu's back. The Martini was the high water mark in single-shot design. The only thing that finally killed it was it could not be adapted to magazine feed. I have extensive trigger time with both weapons and I've always felt that as single-shot rifles go, the Martini is superior to the Springfield. So whenever the subject of Victorian Era weaponry comes up, I have to throw this up for discussion.

Anywho,...back to the Henry. I too am a Henry owner. I used one in reenacting for 10 years under a lot of different conditions. Performed blacksmith repairs in the field. Kept it running in sugar sand and mud. I've had it so gummed up with black powder fouling that I had to pour water into the ejection port to keep the carrier block free. I love mine and have turned down many offers to buy it. I've owned '73's and 92's, but the Henry is my favorite.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

I do love a Henry, myself.  Most of my CAS time since 1994 has been with a Henry, until about 2006 or so when I went over to Spencer full time. (I have a 44-40 Spencer now, but am switching back to a 56-50 Spencer because I love the THUMP!).  Heck, I have even toyed with the idea of a 444-40 Henry again if I can't find a good deal on a 56-50 Spencer.