Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

  1. #1
    Eggman's Avatar
    Eggman is offline Banned
    Team:
    Iredell Blues
    Member
    7786v
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,763
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    Mr. Emory Hackman in his website hackman-adams.com says "With the Spencer the ammunition was gone before the fight was over," and, "Regiments with rapid fire repeaters in the Civil War had to be shunted aside in the major battles." He contends that running out of ammunition was a habitual problem. He also said that the repeaters generated so much smoke that unless there was a strong breeze the enemy could move up close to the repeater shooters because they (the repeater shooters) were essentially blind.
    He also said "The cratridge could be successful in the wide variance in barrel bore diameter shown below [52(.540 to.555)] because the bullet had a huge hollow in its base same style as the Minie ball first used in the .58 Springfield musket.
    Question: can anyone document any of this???

  2. #2
    John Holland is offline Moderator
    Team:
    44th NY Volunteer Infantry
    Member
    00973V
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,871
    Region:
    Northeast- New York

    Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    I have seen quite number of original Spencer bullets, both fired and unfired, and they have all had solid bases.

    In my experience with original Spencer Rifles and Carbines I have found the bores to be rather consistant. But, the Sharps is altogether different. Sharps had the worst quality control of just about any of the Civil War carbines. The dimensions you have cited would fit a Sharps very well. That is why the Sharps "Christmas Tree" bullet has 3 different diameters in one bullet....to fit anything from a .52 to a .55 diameter bore. In fact, when Sharps Carbines were converted to .50-70 some of the bores were small enough that they weren't even sleeved! That is why every once in a while you can find a Sharps converted to .50-70 with a 6 groove bore. All the sleeves were 3 groove.

    JDH
    Sharps Collectors Ass'n., Life Member

  3. Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    Quote Originally Posted by Eggman
    Mr. Emory Hackman in his website hackman-adams.com says "With the Spencer the ammunition was gone before the fight was over," and, "Regiments with rapid fire repeaters in the Civil War had to be shunted aside in the major battles." He contends that running out of ammunition was a habitual problem.

    There was certainly a concern by some officers that ammunition would be wasted, and one can easily find reports of troops armed with repeaters running out of ammunition. But telling exactly why they ran out of ammunition is a bit harder (i.e., did they "waste" it or were they just heavily engaged). One can just as well find incidents of troops armed with more conventional firearms running low or out of ammunition, so such a problem was not unique to repeaters (for example at Gettysburg the 20th Maine on Little Round Top armed with muzzle loaders and Berdans men along the Emmitsburg Road with Sharps are two examples that come to mind).

    The concern of waste was such that beginning with the Model 1865 Spencer and continuing to WWII with the 1903 Springfield, the military required a magazine cut-off. I also believe that the M16 is no longer selective for semi or full auto, but only for semi and 3-shot burst.

    While I would not agree with Mr. Hackman that wasting ammunition was a "habitual problem", I will say that it was, and continues to be, a concern.



    John Gross

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sherman's Kitchen, GA
    Posts
    980
    Region:
    Deep South - Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas

    Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    There was certainly a concern by some officers that ammunition would be wasted, and one can easily find reports of troops armed with repeaters running out of ammunition. But telling exactly why they ran out of ammunition is a bit harder (i.e., did they "waste" it or were they just heavily engaged). One can just as well find incidents of troops armed with more conventional firearms running low or out of ammunition, so such a problem was not unique to repeaters (for example at Gettysburg the 20th Maine on Little Round Top armed with muzzle loaders and Berdans men along the Emmitsburg Road with Sharps are two examples that come to mind).

    The concern of waste was such that beginning with the Model 1865 Spencer and continuing to WWII with the 1903 Springfield, the military required a magazine cut-off. I also believe that the M16 is no longer selective for semi or full auto, but only for semi and 3-shot burst.

    While I would not agree with Mr. Hackman that wasting ammunition was a "habitual problem", I will say that it was, and continues to be, a concern.
    These comments remind me of a friend of mine, the late Colonel Lewis Lee Millett, Sr. (1920-2009). “Lew”, also a member of the Society of Vietnamese Rangers, received the Medal of Honor in the Korean War (1951) for leading the last major American bayonet charge since Cold Harbor. His award of the MOH was only related to a second bayonet charge which anyone can read about on-line in his interviews and biography.

    http://www.historynet.com/military-hist ... illett.htm

    In the first bayonet charge, three days before, Lew was the new company commander of Easy Company, 27th Infantry “Wolfhounds,” and had heard Chinese propagandists claiming how Americans were too afraid of using the bayonet. Only Lew and two others were lone survivors of the unit in that first engagement when they defended a hilltop during an overnight attack by two Chinese divisions. After having exhausted their ammunition, hand grenades (and what rocks they threw to simulate grenades and trick their attackers), the survivors finally resorted to hand-to-hand combat with cold steel. Following the engagement, their relief went forward of the unit’s defensive position and found of some 180 enemy killed, 19 were slain by bayonet alone.

    Three days later, Lew was wounded by a Chinese hand grenade while leading another bayonet charge up Hill 180! Four men of Easy Company were killed, while 47 Chinese and North Korean defenders were wiped out. It was for this second action, and other circumstances that he was awarded the Medal of Honor.

    After the Korean War, Lew volunteered for Ranger School, and later served in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne, organizing the Vietnamese Rangers with ARVN officers who had completed the stateside U.S. Army Ranger School. During his subsequent sojourn as an advisor to the II Corps Phoenix Program, Lew was joined by his three sons, the eldest (Lewis Lee, Jr) was only about 12 years old when his father took him out on his first combat patrol. His dad just wanted his sons to learn about war first-hand, then they could decide whether they wanted to follow in their dad’s footsteps and make it a career. As far as I know, both Lee and his brother John served in the military; Lew Jr. as a civilian advisor to the Honduran government during the CIA-led support of the Contras in Costa Rica; and John was killed in 1985 while returning from peacekeeping duties in the Sinai Peninsula. I’m not sure what Timothy did. In 1983, Lee and I bought up blood-soaked Soviet stable belts as "Afghan War" souvenirs not realizing they’d be dirt cheap a few years later.

    Prior to retiring, Colonel Millett served with the U.S. Army Security Agency (ASA) at Fort Devens where in 1982 I attended airborne school compliments of 10th Special Forces Group, some six months after I had first met Colonel Millett at a reunion of the Society of Vietnamese Rangers. Like many friends who are now gone, while their memories live on, their comradeship is sorely missed. But as a former Infantryman (11C Heavy Weapons Leader), I'm not afraid of using the bayonet when I run out of ammo! I just have to fight against my instincts to use my entrenching tool!!!
    First Cousin (7 times removed) to Brigadier General Stand Watie (1806-1871), CSA
    1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles | Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation 1862-66

  5. #5
    Eggman's Avatar
    Eggman is offline Banned
    Team:
    Iredell Blues
    Member
    7786v
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,763
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    My difficulty with Mr. Hackman's statements is not so much that repeater outfits ran out of ammo but in that they were different in this regard from other breechloader equiped units. Like for example at Brice's Crossroads we had Grierson's first cavalry brigade initially engaging Forrest on the left -- the Yankee units including the 2nd New Jersey with its Spencers. According the the brigade commander, when finally relieved by the infantry the whole brigade was out of ammo, not just the New Jersey guys. As a footnote, the New Jersey men only suffered serious loss when part of regiment became lost on the retreat to Memphis.
    That's my problem; finding situations (documentation) where the repeater guys were unique.

  6. Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    Quote Originally Posted by Eggman
    That's my problem; finding situations (documentation) where the repeater guys were unique.

    If Mr. Hackman is to have credibility, it is his responsibility to provide documentation for his assertions. I have been reading and studying about Civil War firearms for 40+ years, and while I sure haven't read everything nor claim to know everything, I will say again that I do not agree with Mr. H. that troops armed with repeaters had a "habitual problem" of running out of ammunition.

    Sure, you can find some instances of careless use of repeaters, such as the opening paragraphs of the Repeaters chapter in Joe Bilby's book CIVIL WAR FIREARMS. However, the following facts cannot be denied.

    a) The Federal Government purchased approximately 100,000 Spencers, and continued to use them into the Indian Wars.

    b) The State of Massachusetts, as well as private purchases, accounted for additional sales of Spencers.

    c) The Federal Government purchased 1,700 Henry rifles.

    d) Private purchases accounted for approximately another 10,000 Henry rifles.

    e) While you can find some negative statements about the Henry and Spencer by soldiers and officers, by and large these arms were well regarded and much sought after during the war.

    f) A Union general, I THINK it was Sheridan, said that the effectiveness of the Spencer shortened the war by one year. While such a statement it hard to prove, it does show the high regard held for the repeating firearm.

    John Gross

  7. #7
    Southron Sr. is offline
    Team:
    24th Georgia Volunteer Infantry
    Member
    3002
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Gorgia
    Posts
    1,319
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina

    Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    "Logistics, logistics, logistics-while amatures speak of strategy and tactics, true military professionals speak in terms of logistics." Old military college saying.

    Today, because we are a "mechanized society" we tend to forget that during the Civil War army supplies were delivered to either a railhead OR landing/wharf and from there were transported in mule or horse drawn wagons. So providing an army on campaign with adequate amounts of supplies (including ammo) was a much bigger problem than it is today.

    That being said, the military establishment in 1861 was populated with an officer corps that was, for the most part, arch-conservatives. So when the new breechloaders came along, the arch-conservatives condemmed them on the grounds that they "wasted ammunition," or soldiers issued breechloaders would "shoot up all of their ammunition before the end of the battle" etc.

    All of these were spurious arguments that have been proven wrong. It is interesting to note that some "historian" has dragged up all of these old myths and half-truths and trying to pass them off as historical fact!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sherman's Kitchen, GA
    Posts
    980
    Region:
    Deep South - Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas

    Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    Even as late as 1863 a recognized authority on military subjects in this country, in writing of the wasteful expenditure of ammunition on the battle-field, says: “It becomes a self-evident fact that they (soldiers) fire too fast already, and that it is only adding to the evil to give them the means of firing four or five times as fast by placing breech-loading guns in their hands.”
    [Source Citation: “The Development of the Military Rifle” by Lieutenant Joseph M. Califf, Third U.S. Artillery, in The Railroad and Engineering Journal (1889) Ed. by M.N. Forney, Vol. LXIII (Vol. III, New Series), p8]

    Union Chief of Ordnance Brigadier General James W. Ripley (USMA Class of 1814, retired 15 Sept 1863, died 1870) was vehemently opposed to firearms utilizing “new fangled, self contained cartridges,” not simply the Spencer. Ripley believed when soldiers exhausted their self-contained specialty ammunition, any firearms incapable of taking ‘tried and true ball and powder’ would be essentially worthless. General Ripley berated the Spencer as “too expensive, too heavy, and too wasteful of ammunition.” The first 1,000 Spencer Carbines were delivered on 3 October 1863, eighteen days after Ripley retired.
    First Cousin (7 times removed) to Brigadier General Stand Watie (1806-1871), CSA
    1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles | Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation 1862-66

  9. Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    As I recall, Lincoln personally ordered that the Army buy the Spencer after testing the gun himself. I believe the target used is part of the Museum at Camp Lincoln(NGB) in Springfield IL.

    Notice the folks complaining are the RE folks not the line troops.
    Edwin Flint
    14th Mississippi Infantry, N-SSA
    Deputy Commander, DS Region

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Forney, Texas
    Posts
    254
    Region:
    Potomac - Virginia, Maryland and Delaware

    Re: Question for Spencer/Henry Shooters

    If the US army had had enough spencers and Henrys for half the Infantry and Cavalry, they could have decreased the supply problem by using fewer solders and putting more resources into supply. They wouldn't have needed as many horses for artillery or cavalry.

    I think having enough Henrys and Spencers for half of the army would have caused more casualties and a tremendous reduction in morale for the CS soldiers.

    Think how you would feel if you were part of a unit with muzzle loaders that was charging a US position with Henrys. And using Henrys must have been a big advantage in the attack, because a soldier could lie down if necessary but still keep up fire on the enemy.

    David
    DAVID FRANCE

Similar Threads

  1. Spencer's shooters
    By Dana Hayman in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2013, 11:17 AM
  2. Question for shooters who..
    By William H. Shuey in forum Shooting Techs, Tips, & Tricks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-16-2011, 02:27 PM
  3. Spencer and Sharps Carbine question
    By irish9 in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 12:26 AM
  4. henry rifle question
    By matt in forum Small Arms
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-28-2010, 03:18 PM
  5. Need some help for DS Henry and Spencer shooters
    By Edwin Flint, 8427 in forum Shooting Techs, Tips, & Tricks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-06-2010, 09:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •