Suppose the hidebound Ordnance, Infantry and Cavalry officers saw things differently at the close of the U.S. Civil War and decided to adopt, limited to Cavalry units stationed on the western frontier, the Model 1866 Winchester lever action carbine, and later the M1873. How would things be different. Would this affect the Indian Wars? Would the U.S. Army Infantry be forced to adopt a breech loading multi-shot rifle before 1892? Would there ever be a .45 Colt?
WI: U.S. Cavalry adopted the M1866 and M1873 Winchester?
- Thread starter muskeg13
- Start date
The militaries of the world wanted a rifles that could stop a charging horse at 300 m or so. The Alan conversion of 1866 made it possible to cheaply convert the muzzle loading Springfields to a a very powerful breech loader. The Alan conversion was continued into the 1873 45-70. The 44-40 did not have the range or power
marathag
Banned
The first conversion was a .50 Caliber Rimfire cartridge, that could also be used in the Spencer Carbine, but more power was wanted, resulting in the 50-70 for the 2nd conversion, but they were no longer relining old .58s from the Civil War, but new production
So new gun that used all new ammo, with a few shared parts from the older weapon, another example of the post-war government spending Dollars to save Pennies.
It should work fine. One of the reasons militaries didn’t like pistol caliber carbines besides their lack of stopping power against cavalry is their inadequate range against artillery and other riflemen. Often times the only weapon infantry had to use against artillery was their rifle. Obviously these weren’t concerns against American Indians.
So why didn’t the Army adopt lever guns? Because single shot rifles were good enough. Contrary to the movies Indians were not all that dangerous. They were poorly armed and poorly organized. Their dwindling population meant Indians were mostly casualty averse. Little Big Horn was a shock because it never happened before or since.
So why didn’t the Army adopt lever guns? Because single shot rifles were good enough. Contrary to the movies Indians were not all that dangerous. They were poorly armed and poorly organized. Their dwindling population meant Indians were mostly casualty averse. Little Big Horn was a shock because it never happened before or since.
The Winchester is not going to help if the soldiers who have to use it are not properly trained. Perhaps wit it a few hundred more Indians are going to die and a few less dozens US soldiers are not going to, but, in the end, the result is going to be the same.
Fetterman and Custer were not defeated by their lack of firepower, but because of their mistakes.
Fetterman and Custer were not defeated by their lack of firepower, but because of their mistakes.
marathag
Banned
Turks famously used Henry Repeaters against the Russians at ranges under 150 yards, and single shot Peabody-Martinis beyond that with the Siege of Plevna
Yes but that was a highly unusual case of close quarter fortress defense. Infantry tactics of the late 19th century is quite different from what we are used to, one should not use modern criteria to evaluate their weapons selection choices.
I’ll point out two items. First, unlike modern infantry that has a great variety of support weapons to call upon and didn’t have to deal with targets beyond the range of their personal weapons, riflemen of that period usually only had their rifles to deal with all threats. They couldn’t fire on a distant enemy artillery piece with mortars, heavy machine guns, sniper rifles. Instead their officer would act like an artillery spotter and have the whole formation to fire in volley. Short ranged repeaters will not be able to do this.
Another problem was smoke from blackpowder obscuring the vision of your own men. Rapid fire would only generate an impenetrable smokescreen faster. This isn’t an issue for cavalry, but you’ll appreciate the infantry can only fire so many rounds before smoke degrades visibility and they’ll have to pause or reposition. Thus accurate long range fire gets you more bang for the buck.
marathag
Banned
Troops were rarely trained at individual long range fire as it would happen on the battlefield, and BP smoke hinder long range fire far more that at 150 yards.
.45 and 11mm class BP Rifles of 1870-1890 could do long range, but fired in a huge arc, and at very long range, would be coming in almost like a mortar round. So troops had to be able to accurately estimate distance, a skill in itself that was rarely taught, instead of just listing to the Sarge at where to set the sight at and bang away.
And it's still hard, even with the flat shooting 308 NATO.
The accuracy requirement for US Army acceptance for Trapdoors was 4" at 100 yards