Probably impossible, but in the spirit of science and removing variables: Do you think that if both rifles had a red dot the problem would be the same? It seemed the time difference was in how the Spencer had to come way off target and shake out the case where the Henry could just hang out basically on target. It doesn't make a difference for the historical investigation, but it does for the "Bring more mass to the spinner" argument. Although that seems to be best tested with that 7lb 308 AR and a 7LB 223 AR with effectively the same optic at the same range.
You need to bring the Spencer way off as there is no ejector for the spent case, that's how you clear the fired case. A better sight picture would not make a change in this/
I believe that the Calvary out west during the Indian Wars were trained to shoot the horse first, then the rider. The targets at Bents Fort show this arrangement. So maybe the Spenser would be more effective.
This is a good example were science wins in the end. The frequency of a pendulum is not affected by it's amplitude (in this case how strong it's allready swinging). Just by mass and lenght of the pendulum. For this spinner it seems to be 2.9s so it does not matter if you can fire again in 4.0 or 5.6 since you are forced into the "times 2.9 rhythm". This brings up a nice idea for 2g action matches if you have a spinner with a different armlenght that swings in a different rhythm than what everybody is used to by now, will shooters get caught on the left foot by this?
Well yeah it's possible nearly everything could be possible but is it likely with the center fired tube fed guns I think not with the calibers they are known for
The reason the Spencer was adapted at all was because Spencer took his carbine to Abraham Lincoln who shot the rifle and pushed the Army to adapt it for the Calvary. They put a large ring on the Carbine and attached it to the saddle. You couldn't do that with the Henry. Also the Army was more interested in durabililty. The rimfire Henry was not made to be carried in rain or snow and beat around-the Spencer was way more durable. Also--this shooter is a bit slow, which I like, because the soldier in the field often wasn't an expert on shooting.
Interesting comparison of the two weapons. Part of me wonders what the results would be if it was possible to replace/retrofit the Spencer with sights comparable to that of the Henry.
I need to get a spinner. I wish i could shoot that well. Great demo. I have long been interested in a modern Spencer repro. Starline makes the brass, so if i can find a source of lead for casting, i could do it. I would like to have a centerfire Henry too. I love lever guns. Obviously, delivered energy helps on a target like this, as does monentum, which favors heavy bullets (the first time i shot pepper poppers with handguns many years ago taught me that- 45 ACP for the win!). Anyway, i love all the old west stuff- gun demos, history vignettes, everything (i am a history buff myself). By chance do you have a Win 1876 Centennial in 45-60? As i recall, the vallistics are a little kess than the Spencer- about the same velocity, with (only) a 300 gr bullet. My interest in that was aroused by the Tom Selleck movie "Crossfire Trail" some years ago. Anyway, great work as always, guys. Thank you
I was wondering whythey didn't get the time from their footage. Good thing I read the comments before doing it myself. I had the impression the frist run was quicker, turns out I was wrong . . .
One thing I am curious about is if the action on the Spencer was more fluid, as is the case on the Henry would that make any significant difference? From what I observed it seemed Karl had to work the action more aggressively on the Spencer thus giving him a fair bit of time off target, where as with the Henry he was able to keep on target whole time while working the action.
what's your take on the balance of each compared to the other? purely conjecture on my part, but it just seems like the Spencer would be much lighter toward the muzzle, and would swing side to side more easily, be more maneuverable.
I click on these lever gun videos trying to guess at which point in the video Karl wil say "the Henry was the 'assault rifle' back in the day", cause you know he'll say it. Though I did not expect him to take 3 whole minutes.
They're both equally important (momentum being speed * mass), but mass is easier to increase. Modern rifles are remarkably inefficient at this thanks to their high velocity to mass ratio. Of course that's usually a desirable trait outside the rather artificial context of the spinner.
@@jeffprice6421 Should be conservation of momentum for moving an object. A lot of the energy goes into deforming the bullets even if they get caught somehow.
@@RaphYkun The principles are related - but ultimately the height the spinner swings after the impact to is proportional to the amout of energy that was imparted to it by the projectile. However it's difficult to predict how well projectiles will transfer kinetic energy to the target because the interaction is *very* inelastic and would skew things considerably - a heavy, slow lead ball might transfer most of its KE into the plate for example but a really high velocity 5.56 might shatter on impact and a lot of its energy would go flying off in random directions in the form of shrapnel.
I love this. I grew up Civil War reenacting with my dad and he lusted after a Henry 1860 for years. When he finally got a nice repro and we took it to the range we were both blown away at how easy the thing is to drive tacks with. It feels like a .22 but bigger.
@@Devin_Stromgren Very true, but Im sure for the purposes of such a test it might at least (hopefully) be sufficient. If nothing else it would be a good chance for the viewers to see exactly what goes wrong and why one platform was so preferrable for the day and conditions
@@Mooke1312 Actually the test proved that the Spencer's round was superior, while it's action was inferior, the sight's however are inconclusive, after all he did miss one shot with both. So I'd say Action>Mass>Sights. Though whether Momentum or Kinetic Energy is more important would make for an interesting test.
I (until recently) worked at my local museum. one day I found a Spencer, or more accurately the barrel, receiver, and (most of) the action. I later found what was left of the stock in another box some weeks later.
My takeaway is that targets aren't spinning metal plates. The speed of the Henry is good, but the less powerful round means that hits don't translate to killshots as much as the Spencer does - and with precise shooting, speed matters much less. The fragility of the Henry and heat of the grip also take a ton of points off when choosing one. This only really leaves the sights for the Henry to one-up the Spencer, but the weaker cartridge means that those sights aren't taken advantage of as much as they really should be. So honestly, I'd go for the Spencer. The Henry seems much better in close-combat situations where you need a lot of bullets quickly, but close-combat isn't nearly as common as it needs to be to tip the scales to the Henry's favour.
The Spencer vs Henry caliber and follow up shots discussion is the same as the .308 vs .223, There will never be a defacto answer for this, there will always be personal preference imbued in the choosing of "the best one"
It's not up to personal preference because it's all relative. 7.62 beats 5.56 at long range where the 5.56 is no longer effective. At the ranges where 5.56 is effective that is the better cartridge. That is precisely why militaries use both rounds for different applications. It is why marksmen and machine gunners use 7.62 while riflemen/auto riflemen use 5.56.
@@Turgz 7.62 isn't a very good long-range cartridge tbh. It's ok at 800, which is the outer edge of 5.56 too. It's less affected by wind though, being three times as heavy.
@@toade1583 That's everything to do with the shooter and nothing to do with the physics of firearms. .308 has more recoil and 5.56 is faster because of it.
These comparisons are always interesting, especially since the spinner measures energy delivered, not just base accuracy. The Henry is clearly the more capable weapon, but what you get from InRange is the acknowledgment that raw capability is *not* the only factor in play. It's easy to watch the Henry blow the Spencer out of the water on a flat range like this on a sunny day with no combat pressure in the hands of, let's be honest here, a master shooter. It's entirely another to think like a quartermaster in Civil War-era Murica, knowing that if your troop had a hundred rounds' worth of training he was an ace marksman by his unit's standards, and that this gun needed to be able to withstand whatever Private John Q. Dipshit could do to it - and do to it in the thousands. Thanks Karl, Ian. Excellent work as always.
@@Ensign_Cthulhu But the breech on auto loading pistols (and UZI etc. etc.) is behind the trigger and no one calls them bullpups. The point was to eliminate any grey area.
If you take a look at all those bullpub rifles (i hope i didn't miss one) i would say the easiest defeninition is that your hands are gripping the gun in front of the chamber on Bullpubs. Not just the breech.
Great idea! I am fond of my Savage, modern Winchesters, and modern Marlins. I would love to see how an 1895 stacks up. I have been interested in the modern reproa for a long time. Maybe in .30-40, to go with my '98 Krag. Or 7.62x54R, just because. And i will be able to load for either.
The Henry would be my choice, but, the Spencer does have >some< minor potential to run faster. Here Mike B. does a pretty decent job doing an old-timey mag dump. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WwhLuhRWYyI.html
The military doctrine of the day was still volley fire , not rapid fire (well , 3 rounds a minute was concidered rapid fire). So the Spencer was the hughe improvement over the muzzleloaders and fit the job just fine. The Henry was a delicate racehorse , it was not fitting the battle horse role. And keep in mind Generals fit their army allways to win the last war fought , not the next war.
When you look at power, you think the Henry has enough to remove an enemy soldier from the fight, so that should be good enough and the rate of fire is a huge advantage. But, during the Civil War, they also had to contend with cavalry. Does that small round have enough energy and penetration to "disable" turn away a trained horse at full gallop at enough range? If not, does the Spencer? That might have had influence on the military's decision on picking the slower firing, but more powerful round. Edit - so I typed this before the conclusion, and Karl touched on the cavalry angle. However, he was still speaking about hitting the man wearing a wool uniform. A horse is a much easier target that a man, and for the most part, if you take out the horse, the man is out of the fight as well.
Coleman Moore, I was thinking about that, too. If I was a wealthy LT in 1865 I’d outfit most of the squad with Henrys, 2 or 3 Spencers. Spencer armed would be ordered to shoot horses first, when available.
It was generally considered very poor form to target the horse and not the man. I'm not saying people didn't do it anyway but it wasn't really an accepted tactic and many of your fellow soldiers would be disgusted with your decision.
@@williamradler8712 The officers didn't want you to kill horses, because they wanted to take them as spoils of war and sell them to the cavalry. But, on the other hand, you gotta live and win to be able to take the spoils. Hey, the infantry can eat horse meat dinner!
@@caseybrown5183 Shooting horses deliberately wasn't a thing. Though it did happen on occasions. The reason being a live horse can be recycled for reuse by your side- and enemy soldiers not so much.
I started civil war reenacting in 1972 and only recently ceased. I love this stuff. Shot a Spencer with Phil Spangelburger and have shot Henrys and still have a Sharps.
I started reenacting in 1980, in 1984 I brought my center fire converted (new breach block) Spencer, and was promptly asked to leave. "there was no evidence a Spencer was used on the battlefield".
As to the importance or lack of it of bullet hitting power, wasn't it the practice to shoot at THE HORSE not the cavalryman? That was certainly the explanation I was given, that the 303 British cartridge was "The lightest that would reliably stop a cavalry horse at a thousand yards". Ok, that is from a different era, but doesn't the principle still hold?
I imagine there were people hit with 44 Henry that continued fighting. Probably not as many with with the 56-50. The 44 Henry is essentially equivalent to a powerful pistol cartridge (like a 45acp fmj) the 56-50 it a legitimate rifle cartridge.
It´s a age old argument. If I only had a more powerfull round. their is a few cases when pepole are hit multiple times with leathal hits. Most of the times it´s due to drugs. If it´s not it can be due to adrenalin. the person keeps going until it the braine and muzzles stops due to lack of oxigen or they get hit in the central nervous system. but you got to know your weapon. what is the effective range and what range are you going to hit that target.
I wonder which would win if you had two spinner targets next to eachother: Henry, Spencer, or Sharps carbine. The Sharps would obviously need to be reloaded, but it should only require 1 shot per spinner. Thus, which is faster, 6 rounds from the Henry, 4 from the Spencer, or two from the Sharps?
These early repeaters are very interesting. They are well made but still show certain quirks like reloading bullet by bullet from front to back or through the buttstock.
The Henry Rifle because its open at the bottom of the magazine gets very hot in the hands, the Spencer doesn't, but you are using a carbine rather than a Spencer Rifle , and you should try against a target at longer range. The Spencer Rifle has more range and stopping power and loads faster over say 14 rounds starting with an empty rifle
I think the Oomph (TM) from the Spencer is an underappreciated factor here. Remember, the Cavalrymen would not just be shooting at men, but also their horses. Mass absolutely makes a difference on an animal the size of a horse, and a man being shot at AND violently dismounted has a lot of things to worry about. Not to say .44 Henry couldn't kill a horse, but the Oomph (TM) helps with forcing the enemy's to ballistically dismount, so to speak. Were I a unit commander at the time, I would like to have both at my disposal. Majority of men with Henrys and selected Squad Designated Marksmen with Spencers. But at that point, logistics becomes an issue.
And no, the Troopers would probably not be purposefully aiming at the horses. Shots go low and wide under ideal conditions, let alone while riding and taking incoming fire.
"Power or speed" Henry Ek=½ (0.012959782kg* (350.52m/s)^2) = 796.1J Spencer Ek = ½ (0.0226796185kg * (381m/s)^2) = 1646.0981J Henry P= 145.3 W Spencer P= 300.9 W
I have a new thought experiment in comparing lever actions. I think it might be fun for you to do in Lever Action combat. Instead of the US, what if what if the Irish Brigades after the civil war found enough backers, and planned an invasion of Ireland to free it. Henry or Winchester 1866 vs the British Snider-Enfield, or set it later and have the Winchester 1873 or 76 vs. the Martini-Henry. Could civil war veterans with lever actions beat the professionals of the Empire?
Might be an action movie cliche or trope, but could you reload the Henry with one hand? On a horse, perhaps, or on a motorcycle, being chased by a liquid killer robot...
The movie you're referencing used a lever action shotgun, similar to this one: www.centuryarms.com/pw87-shotgun.html , not a Henry rifle. The shotgun's mag tube is loaded through the breach with the lever open.
If ammunition supply is a concern, then I think the Army made the right choice. If I could only have 50 cartridges, regardless of caliber, I would want the bigger, more powerful ones. Plus, the Spencer can more reliably engage targets at a further distance than the Henry. It would have been pretty cool, though, if the Army had adopted both and issued them to different troops.
Just my .02 worth. I own both a lever action (Rossi 92) and a Spencer. Both in 45LC. For fast firing the 92 wins. But for SUSTAINED firing, the Spencer/Blakesley Box combo wins hands down. Reloading is distinctly faster with the Spencer. Topping up the tube with individual rounds is about the same with both. SUSTAINED fire is where the Spencer really shines. Cadence of fire and a sustained drumbeat of fire is easy with a Spencer. With the 92 (or Henry I assume) there is a LONG period to reload the full tube. With the Spencer, pour 'em in, and go! Also, I noticed the demonstrator flips the muzzle up when working the action. Why? Rack the hammer back, work the lever HARD, and you're good. If not, tilt the carbine clockwise 45 deg, and get back on target. I'm no expert, but if I was still a horse soldier, I'd carry a Spencer. That box is a pain to carry, but it's worth it's weight in cold if you're being pressed hard. Love your channel, and look forward to new posts!!
So why Spencer over Henry? They are both about $40 in 1865, so price is the same. I think the Henry's virtues can speak for itself: faster burst shooting speed, more bullets potentially carried and a better sight picture. That leaves the question of why the Spencer was chosen... but the more I think about it, the more I think I understand why: *Durability: Spencers are (supposedly) more durable than Henrys. *Handiness: Spencers could be given a shorter barrel (20") for an overall shorter carbine which is nice when mounted. Henrys could (theoretically) cut its 24" barrel down to 20" too, ofc, but that cuts down on magazine capacity, which is one of the virtues of the Henry. *Long-term ROF: I won't defend the weak extraction or lack of cocking, but the Spencer with working tubes will probably still shoot 100 bullets just as fast as a Henry who has to load bullets individually. *Stopping power: The Spencer with its 1.5 kJ bullet has energy comparable to modern 5.45mm - which, depending on the amount of dutch courage expected on the part of the enemy (people fighting under influence of some kind of stimulant is surprisingly common) - is already at the lower end of what is deemed acceptable. Sure, even with a hit from a Henry's 770 J bullet you're probably dead - it's a week ride to the nearest hospital (and the care of this period isn't that good anyway) - but you may still be able to buck yourself up and make a heroic last stand. This goes doubly for shooting horses, who cannot be reliably taken down with a Henry. And related to that... *...the thing I think counted the most: Range. We know today how weird it was for pre-WW1 military planners to expect rifle fighting out to 2km... but they must have done that because the experience was that the "longest range rifle would win" up to that point. The continental US isn't jungle, and populations of the time were much less urban, so fighting ranges could be expected to potentially be very long - and, unlike today, troops of the time could not necessarily make up for lacking range by calling in artillery. The Henry was just too specialized into the "short burst of overwhelming firepower" to be adopted generally. The Spencer was a good compromise.
I still think the Civil War would've been over in one year if Abe Lincoln insisted on Henry rifles be issued to his Northern solders but the rich governmental bureaucrats at the time or maybe even President Lincoln himself turned down Henry because of cost $$$$ and believed that solders was a dime a dozen and expendable. I see that same thinking in all US wars in some of the useless battles that was fought, solders are expendable, just look at D-Day, then in Korea and Vietnam the two most useless wars in history. Now that I got that off my chest do a long distance lethal test on these two rifles..............
For whatever reason Abraham Lincoln preferred the Spencer (he actually shot it on August 17, 1863) even though he was introduced to the Henry two years earlier.
So basically a shoot off between an American Civil War "Battle Rifle" and "Assault Rifle". Another caliber debate has entered the Chat ! Which is better 56-50 or 44-40 ??
And with the Henry if you drop a round don't bend over to pick it up, you'll spill all the cartridges you already put in the tube. Although that would make future archeology students wonder at the pile of ammunition. . . Edit: that was some serious shooting. Well done.
