Pick one of the top 3 repeaters of the American civil war

best of the 3

  • Total voters
    50
I have a soft spot for all 3 rifles in this poll, but, in my opinion (because it carries OH so much weight) volume of fire takes the cake. Especially when any form of line fighting is involved. So the Henry is tops and the Sharps is bringing up the rear. As far as caliber is concerned, getting hit with a 56-56 would probably hurt, but at the same time so would a .44, ITS A BULLET. Medicine of the period wasn't too advanced so a hit from any of these weapons was a potential death sentence. With Accuracy too, what percentage of those boys were taking carefully aimed shots, none percent that's what (probably more, but I'm making a point so let me run with it). I'm going with the Henry all the way. It's got some flaws but nothing too severe (we're not discussing the whole rimfire-tube-magazine issue, ok, spencer did it too so lets that slide). If its easy to get dirt IN the magazine, its super easy to get it out too, and the cartridges are water proof so you're good, and I don't know who these people are, running around smashing the magazines on things and defending against sword strikes but lets say you DO somehow manage to mangle your tube mag, just single feed rounds and presto, you're firing a sharps.
 
Last edited:
I started this poll with 4 repeaters, one of them being the colt revolving rifle, would anyone wish to make a comment about that rifle? as it did not get many votes, i gather it is a unknown in most circles.
 
Revolving rifles had one major flaw : They tended to blow up with alarming regularity, usually taking the shooter's support hand with it ...

TGC said:
I started this poll with 4 repeaters, one of them being the colt revolving rifle, would anyone wish to make a comment about that rifle? as it did not get many votes, i gather it is a unknown in most circles.
Click to expand...
 
That i knew, and i read the opition to over come that was to hold the charging leaver. in fact i read an acount of one yank regiment in the western area of operations that was armed with them
 
I don't see how you could effectively shoot a revolving rifle by holding the loading lever; you would have to raise it before recocking the gun. More importantly it would not give much protection from a gun blowing up and the revolving rifles in general still have the problem of hot gasses spraying out the gap between cylinder and barrel. Wearing heaving guantlets would help that. You also still are dealing with a muzzle loader and would have to carry spare cylinders. I think loading cartridges would be much easier. The only advantage to the revolver would be the ability to cast more round ball where the cartridge guns would require factory ammo. On the other hand I doubt that ordinary soldiers carried molds and cast their own ball.

cheers mooncoon
 
true, but the rifle did and was used, historical fact, i love these friendy descusions, keep up the info coming brothers and sisters
 
The Sharps

The Brits extensively tested the '55 'Slant Breech' Sharps and came close to adopting it. Several cavalry units were armed with it it served in the Indian Mutiny.
It was refused due to the excessive gas leakage that singed the cuffs of too many fancy, expensive uniforms.

The later '59 'Vertical Breech' passed all acceptance tests, but was not adopted over some British designs.

In all cases, both the tape and 'pill' priming devices were done away with on Brit models as not being reliable or robust enough for field service. The troops were just as comfortable using a musket cap as it never failed.
One of my Farmingdale Sharps lacks the lump where the primer feed would have been historically. It has the look of a British Sharps. The others have the ugly, non-functional hump.

You'll notice the similarity between the look of the Spencer to the Sharps. That is because Sharps made the barrels for the Spencer on a sub-contract basis.

ANY paper (onion skin, newsprint, paper towel, printer paper, etc.) works for paper cartridges. Don't bother with nitrating unless it turns your crank.
 
I find that odd myself......

I would take the spencer over the henry of that time any day of the week.

Just for the sake of ---- ease of maintenance ----;)
 
maybe its because there was to many operations to shoot the spencer, there is a vid in you tube with that x marine lee something, comparing the henry and spencer,
 
TGC said:
maybe its because there was to many operations to shoot the spencer, there is a vid in you tube with that x marine lee something, comparing the henry and spencer,
Click to expand...

I think it is because most people are fixated on Winchesters and the Henry is more or less a Winchester. Also I doubt that many people have shot a Spencer; I have have and would not consider them awkward at all although they do feel a bit heavy and bulky compared to the Henry. I would still stick with the Spencer though

cheers mooncoon
 
No problem, every ones opinion is valid, thats why we have so many of them, as for me. i would go for the sharps, as i say reach out and touch someone.
 
I would rank the Sharps third. It uses a paper/linen ctg which is very vulnerable to damp. In my experience shooting a repro Sharps I noticed that fouling built up rapidly in the chamber which could lead to difficulty in loading. This fault is shared by all BL arms using a combustible ctg. It was a fault of the Chassepot and the Westley Richards monkey tail was supplied with a chamber scraping tool. When ammo was turned in at the end of th War of Northern Aggression most of the issued paper ctgs were found to be unserviceable and the almost all copper cased ctgs were found to be serviceable.
Second would be the Henry. My impression of handling and shooting a replica is that it appears fragile.
First would be the Spencer. The long Spencer is fairly heavy but balances well. The magazine tube is well protected and the remaider is of robust construction. It also takes a bayonet.
The Spencer 56-56 ctg (1125fp) is almost twice as powerful as the 44 Henry (568 fp). This would be important when trying to stop a charging cavalry hose.
During 1861-5 more than 10 times the number of Spencers were produced as Henrys so that might be a measure of their popularity.
 
For an objective opinion, get a copy of Peter Schiffers "Civil War Carbines", Myth vs Reality"; ISBN 1931464338. Available from Mowbray Publishing, 54 E. School Street, Woonsocket, RI.

He shoots and discusses the relative accuracy, merits and problems of the:

Spencer
Sharps & Hankins
M1863 Sharps
Joslyn
Maynard
Burnside
Gwyn & Campbell
Smith
Starr
Merrill
Gallagher

This is the order in which he rated them overall after extensive testing, sparing no expense or detail in recreating period correct ammunition. Test firing was done at 55, 110 and 220m (Schiffer is German) and is quite revealing.
The Spencer was rated "1st rank" while the last five carbines were "rejected" as unsatisfactory. He took into consideration accuracy, reliability, quality of ammunition, ease of field maintenance, etc.

Regretably, the Henry was not tested as it was a rifle, not a carbine.

I look forward to owning and shooting a Spencer some day, simply because it has a Canadian historical aspect. The Smith also appeals because of it's simplicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom