Great video. The one Spencer (a reproduction) I've experienced, struck me as a bit wonky, with great tendency to hang up. Left a negative impression of the Spencer in my mind. I'd take the simplicity of the Trapdoor myself, but then again, Chiappa was not what our troops were carrying back then. 😊
Hey Hickock, great to see you here! I have to stick up for the Spencer. The one you got from Bud's was new off the shelf, and not broken in. The Spencer's action doesn't become smooth without putting a few hundred rounds through it, and you have to slam the lever around for it to run flawlessly.
Yeah he's extremely dexterous when handling firearms. You only ever see videogame characters performing a perfect and flawless reload. Karl does that like 99% of the time which in real world terms is really impressive.
@@PokemonHaloFan That's because it's incredibly frustrating to have your character fumble a reload without it being the player's fault. The more competitive a game is the less randomness you want in these common actions, so developers choose to just make perfect reloads all the time. You point still stands though, I just thought I'd add some perspective
Bloke on the Range's buddy Chap has done mad minute with a number of with single shoot breech loading black powder rifles on their channel. I expect the trapdoor would do better than I originally thought it would do. I still think the Werder is the king of single shot rifles closely followed by the Martini-Henry and the Remington Falling Block.
@@mpetersen6 Yeah the rolling block really surprised me! Check out the Run and Gun over on TFB TV where they use the Remington Rolling Block. It's really impressive.
also, what weapons do you recommend for a cowboy build's deathclaw weapon? rocking a repeater as my primary, That Gun as my sidearm, a lever action as my shotgun (if I do a guns build my layout is 1 is primary rifle, 3 is shotgun, 4 is pistol, 5 is either SMG or second pistol, and 6 or 7 are melee and explosive, and 8 is medicine, usually healing)
Truth be told, these videos are like a breath of fresh air between all muh this AR and Wah this AK videos flooding the internet. This video shows how our perception of ammunition capacity has changed over the years. Some old guy I knew used to say that an average Indian sepoy in the 1930s used to carry 30 rounds total (20+10). Number of bullets were always considered less significant than the power of ammo. (they carried Ishapore 2A1 rifles)
Marisa Lau That's a good point. However, in India, Ishapore is a common nomenclature to point out any sort of SMLE type rifles. So yeah, it could have been the .303 version, don't know. This is like how .45 ACP is called .45 bore around here.
Man, these rules of the internet sure are confusing. If Ohlourdes Padua does not like a meme, that makes someone a fascist?? Is there a place I can send in my meme for official approval, or do I just have to post it and wait for a response?
What made this video, for me, was seeing Karl manipulate the trapdoor like a pro, but also Ian manipulating the Trapdoor, then starting a discussion of firing an extra round while still running it well.
Agreed. I think it was one of the biggest selling points as to the benefits of the Trapdoor over the Spencer. Goes to show just how simple and easy to operate the Trapdoor is, which is absolutely critical when your military training consists of "Here's your rifle, go shoot those people over there. Oh, hold on, here's the ammo, too. Now go shoot them." Durable, simple, easy to operate and service, these are all critical things for a conscript weapon. Same reason everyone loves to love the AK: you can train someone to use it in minutes and it'll run just fine.
My exact thoughts, aswell I think that would of been a more accurate test, even with single fire from the spencer after a depleted mag I feel like it would of been really close, even 10 shot comparison would of been tight.
To remain clear, the idea of the trapdoor function was developed and old muzzle loaders were first modified, to be trapdoors, but the 1873 Springfield Trapdoor was a new rifle manufactured as a trapdoor rifle.
i think a real test would be 14 rounds making for ian to have to do a reload this might close the time even knowing that they would go to single loading after the first 7 and also a 7 then load 7 single would be interesting too
The official 1873 test went further (I think too far) and had the shooter start with an empty chamber *and magazine.* They then had to fire as many rounds as possible in 1 minute. Under those conditions the Springfield was even faster than the Spencer.
Got to attend a lecture in college from a US Army colonel who had lectured at USMA-West Point. Take aways from the lecture in relation to your presentation - he insisted that there was no to very few true Calvary on the US frontier, it was doctrine to always fight as mounted infantry as you pointed out. Second point that you had pointed out, Supply was always of prime importance on the frontier. Doctrine is developed to accommodate problems and deficiencies, not to rely upon exceptional personnel and resources.
Probably little to no saber training (if any). And they certainly weren't picking tent pegs with lances. Or as pointed out here very little firearms training*. Pistol or carbine. This was mainly due to the severe control the Congress placed on the Army with the budget. The US Army literally was run on a shoestring. The most expensive thing a trooper was issued was probably his horse, tack and saddle. In my opinion the blood of every trooper who died in the west if he was outgunned was on the hands of the United States Congress. In truth if a regiment of US Army Cavalry from the 1870s or 80s had to go up against an equivilant size unit of European cavalry or mounted lancers they'd get their asses handed to them. But then the US Army was only fighting "unsophisticated savages" out on in the American West. In reality the Army's job in the west as not to fight the Native tribes but try and keep the peace as much as possible. The tribes saw their land and way of life disappearing before their eyes. They knew what had happened to the Eastern tribes simply because there was more trade going on in the Americas even pre 1500 than many realize. Shells from the gulf coast, Lake Superior copper, obsidian and other items have been found far from there origin points. As more and more settlers poured into the east it began to set off tribal migrations to the west. As I understand it the Lakota for example originally were from farther east. Souix is actually a very insulting name from the Ojibwea iirc. A lot of the tribes were called by names their enemies and neighbors had for them. Usually insulting. The Europeans (the US is or was at that time a European country**) just adopted the names from the peoples the met first. *The standards of American marksmanship in the 1800s was pretty bad. We think of the US for the time period as a nation of rifleman. The awful state of marksmanship even for people with some experience with firearms that were recruits in the US Army was so bad that was the major reason the Army assisted in the formation of the NRA in the 1870s. **We like to think we are exceptional as a nation. In some ways we might be. In the 1800s and since our biggest point of exceptionalism is the ability to re-invent oneself.
Good video as usual. I kept waiting for a malfunction. Especially with the Spencer. It looks like that rifle is perpetually on the verge of jamming. Well done both if you. No malfunctions (on camera at least).
Great video. Another factor often overlooked is the fouling effects of blackpowder. If you think the Spencer is finicky now wait until you've dumped a dozen rounds of real BP ammo through it. It might be worth demonstrating that. Another factor would be sustained fire, of say 20 rounds. The Spencer can be single loaded but not quite as easily as the trapdoor and I think you'll find the ejection issues become more apparent. I suspect, though have never tested, that over a long 'last man standing" type of test, say 50 rounds, the Spencer would fall behind the Trapdoor.
When I saw Ian loading the Spencer, my immediate thought was I wonder what would happen in a 14 or even 15 round test comparison. Honestly, when evaluating the two carbines, they had to be thinking that the Spencer only had a speed advantage for the first 7 rounds and that wasn’t worth the reliability concerns.
I have a spencer in 56-50 and I shoot only black powder loads . I have shot over 50 rounds and there is only a small amount of powder on the face of the block . As far as ejection of the round the action has to be worked with authority .
As a former infantryman, the idea of loading magazines (as mentioned) from loose ammunition boxes in combat genuinely sent a shiver down my spine and re-oriented me in the video to really consider what close quarters skirmishes would have been like and the genuine serious stress experienced getting engaged when the medical logistics may include a field surgeon and whiskey if you’re fortunate. Thank you for the thought provoking content guys.
The Civil War was an aberration when it came to how much Congress would have tolerated spending on Procurement and needs to be appreciated as such. The Spencer would almost certainly have not been adopted if fighting anyone other than an utterly implaccable American foe like the Confederacy. In all other times, the USA followed the trends of European military arms because it considered itself a peer and it should be no shock that the USA reverted to European norms once the panic of the Civil War was over.
To my untrained eyes, I almost want to say that Ian being left handed really hampered his fire rate on the Spencer since he had to constantly switch hands while working the carbine. But damn, you two are fast.
I remember one time Carl said his original vision for the channel was Top Gear with guns, but then chose not to develop it in that direction. Well, this video really gave me a Top Gear vibe, especially the chat at the end.
I believe they addressed this question in one of the earlier videos in the series. The US Army had a metric assload of surplus, muzzle-loading Springfields after the war, and it was generally more economical at the time to convert the existing guns to breech loaders than to build new rifles.
Rodney Rubert At this point in history the Spencers were already paid for, War Between the States leftovers. The Springfield rifle and carbines were all new production.
Not nearly enough spencers to equip all the cav though- it would have been a LOT of new production of entire rifles, versus conversion of existing rifles.
Jeffrey Root I was thinking of the 1865/66 trapdoor conversions. The later guns were new production, but still would have been much cheaper than new Spencers. Not only were the trapdoor Springfields less complicated, but a fair bit of the 1861 Springfield tooling could probably still be used.
According to the never wrong Wikipedia, the unit cost of a Spencer in 1861 was about $40. The 1865 Trapdoor Springfield was $20 for a new production gun, but only $5 if converted from muzzle-loading, 1861 Springfield.
It I was alone, having more shots ready in the magazine seems really valuable. But with a group of soldiers, there are always rounds ready to fire. And then steady and reliable seems more valuable.
I would like to see the end of this compare the full power lever actions in 30-40 against the Krag. I know that's kind of out of the scope since that's not an intermediate cartridge but it would be interesting to see.
An interesting comparison. While I see why the US frontier army might be concerned with ammo supply, I don't see why the European continental armies were worried - even after Plevna it took them a few years to adopt repeaters. IIRC European wars were supposed to be, and planned in a way to be, short, fast, wars of primarily manoeuvre and staff-work, and then a decisive battle.
Doctrine and the nature of the soldiers. The nature of armies in Europe was that of relatively uneducated conscripts with little to no experience with firearms at all. In fact, when “peasant armies” got possession of arms and powder, they often rebelled against their governments. Also, this is why the officer Corp in many European armies had the reputation for brutality with their own soldiers.
@@charlesadams1721 Honestly the American army of the time were little better. As Karl said, being in the army at that time was considered something as a job for bums and failures. Among the 7th cavalry at Little Bighorn, one of the more elite regiment in the army, one third of its rank and file were made up of recent European immigrants. Furthermore, many of its troopers were malnourished and in poor physical condition.
When firing Trapdoors Custer's men held 3 rounds in between their fingers (like claws) to get off those rounds faster; grab 3 more from belt/bag, rinse & repeat... Many men did this as it was the style of the time, exhibitionist or not, everyone thought they were Wyatt Earp...
This was really cool to watch but wouldn't it be possible to do this under more realistic "Little Bighorn" type simulation? Like being elevated on a ridge kneeling or standing or prone & firing out to moving targets both mounted & on foot at rages of 100-300 yards etc?
This whole series has been amazing to watch, and very refreshing from everything else out there. Bar none, one of my favorites. Keep up the amazing work you guys!
DefZen343: the Government did tested the Remington rolling block, however they felt that it was more cheaper to convert all of the existing Springfields instead of buying a whole new rifle. However Many state Militias bought the Rolling block over the Springfield, and dozens of countries around the world adopted for their armies, and Guatemala even has the rifle on its flag. The rolling block was in service between 1867-1918 so it was used for a very long time
I'd take a Martini-Henry. I think it was probably the easiest of all the single shots of that era to operate quickly, with the fewest separate motions required of the operator: just jerk the lever down, load, close the lever, and shoot, then repeat; no separate hammer to mess with.
Agreed. It seems a much faster/smoother action. From those era single shots I'd rate smoothness and ease of use as Martini>>>>>rolling block>>trapdoor springfield.
Very interesting. I'm pretty sure the action of the Spence is more right-handed: the hammer falls naturally under the right thumb and the lever is also a straight push down, instead of having to reach over one way with your left thumb and then roll your hand back over the wrist of the stock and then down to action the lever. The difference is subtle, but that seems to make it very slightly easier and faster for a right-hander. I was surprised at how quickly (provided the cases eject cleanly) the Trapdoor could be cycled, which no doubt is helped greatly by having the hammer and trapdoor right near each other on the top of the action, also having easily accessable and fumble-proof ammo sotrage.
Now put 14 rounds through both. Though the Spencer beats the Trapdoor on a 7 round basis, I'm sure it'd lose a lot of time on the magazine reload, meaning that over a prolonged engagement the Trapdoor would have an advantage. Or am I missing something?
And still lose a lot of ROF compared to the Trapdoor. But I guess that's what you get when you pit a very early repeater against a highly evolved single shot rifle.
fnglert The Spencer had a quick loader called the Blakeslee tube that carried 7 rounds and enabled speed reloading so long as the tube wasn't dented. The cavalry had them carried in a box so several quick reloads were possible.
fnglert The Trapdoor was originally a conversion of a muzzle-loading musket, it was far from "highly evolved". The only reason that they kept the design in service as long as they did was that the advantages of upgrading to a more modern single-shot rifle were outweighed by the cost and the logistics/supplies issues.
The reason the US Cavalry went from the Sharps to the Trapdoor? Congress. In terms of accuracy the average trooper at the time probably couldn't hit the barn from the inside. It would be interesting to see what the training was that took place in the US Army for the average recruit. Were the recruiteddirectly into the unit they served with. Was the Army running a training facility or facilities for the various combat branches. Artillery, Infantry and Cavalry. Plus another major branch of the Army at the time was Coastal Artillery.
how come every time I tune in they gotta just degrade some of my favorite guns lol. Great content guys, as a cool factor i would still take the Spencer but i understand the logic.
The U.S. Army compared them and Sharps rifles to these two and the Trapdoor came out on top in every meaningful way. You can read the history in Gregory Michno's "The Mystery of E Troop."
You being southpaw probably doesn't help your time Ian. Most people were and are and were assumed to be right handed so everything was designed for them in mind. ::EDIT:: That's an original springfield? It looks like you are using smokeless powder- are those weak loads on purpose to be safe with the gun?
Karl im a american civil war living historian, thinking about get into cow boy action. I have a question can I use a Spencer at cowboy action event's? I try my best to make my weapons do double work If I can.
Alistair Shaw I wanted an original Trapdoor, but ended up with an original Martini Henry and 2 Sniders for less than the cost of a reproduction Trapdoor. Shot all 3 for the first time last week very enjoyable
Not the respectable members of the family, but without the clergy to foist second sons on, they had to do something with them other than watch them dissipate themselves
I wonder if "tactical Doctrine" had anything to do with the switch back to single shot rifles? Similar to the idea that kept single shot and limited bolt action rifles as standard issue up until WW2. I always hear someone, somewhere mention the idea that leadership thought that if they gave the soldier more rounds and more rapid ability to shoot, then marksmanship would suffer. I think about that when I have to explain to friends what about my N1Mk3 Enfield that still has the cut off for single shot loading.
I suspect that you are correct. Military leadership has traditionally never trusted their soldiers any more than they had to. Your Enfield, for example, is descended from the Lee-Metford, which had detachable magazines. This so baffled the Army leadership that they insisted the magazine be attached to the weapon by a short chain so the soldier wouldn't lose it.
John Mcdougal, hence the whole idea of magazine cutoffs - as Ian and Karl have discussed multiple times. There is something about US thinking that is not readily apparent - the almost ubiquitous idea that soldiers should be accurate riflemen and be sharpshooters. That’s not a prevailing idea in the remainder of the world, except to some degree such as some ?Northern European nations, South Africa and to a lesser degree Australia, all countries where the idea (or myth) of a rifleman is a cultural theme.
You have a few things going on; 1) The Ordnance Dept. never wanted wasteful repeating firearms. It was with great reluctance that anything other than muzzle loading 1861 Springfields were adopted. 2) Most of the Henry Rifles were privately purchased or unit purchased by state forces, including the Washington D.C. Calvary. The Spencer was advocated by President Lincoln and Col. Berdan's Sharpshooters were equipped with Sharps Rifles. The vast majority of weapons were rifles .58 caliber muzzle loaders. 3) Post War, the United States arsenals needed to be supported and given work, therefore conversion of existing Muskets with breech loading Allin conversions was under taken, which lead to the development of the Trapdoor Springfield. It should be noted that after the battle of Gettysburg, of the 27, 574 weapons picked up from the battlefield, approximately 6,000 were found to be properly loaded, and 12,000 had three to ten loads. One piece contained twenty-three loads. From these figures it was estimated that one-third of the fighting men on each side during the battle were carrying non-functioning weapons. Therefore the War Department was completely wrong to want to retain Muzzle Loaders during the Civil War and wrong to eschew repeating rifles, especially the combat proven Henry and later 1866/73 Winchesters.
They seem far more stupid today. They did have a bit of a point as they pointed out the soldiers back then were pretty thick. Most of the walker colts that exploded did so because they loaded their bullets(as in projectiles) backwards and didn't measure their powder in any way and loaded it fully up, and if you loaded the bullet backwards it gave you more of a powder charge than the gun was built to handle.
I did some original research on the .45-70 issues at Little Bighorn in 2013 at Texas A&M for my senior history thesis. I tracked down original purchase receipts for the 7th Cavalry in 1876, and discovered that most of rifles were chambered for .45-55-405, and the "brass" (actually copper) with knife marks was for .45-70-500 for the Gatling guns. They also tended to deform slightly more due to the higher pressure, and would lengthen the casing when fired, so it was easier to track which soldiers essentially had the wrong ammo.
I absolutely L O V E that you guys are doing this series! You answer so many questions I’ve had about why the army or whoever chose the weapons they did. It boils down to money, time to train, ease of repair or fabrication, and ease of resupply. Thanks! I noticed Ian is on the last belt notch of Karl’s ammo belt and it still hangs on him!
Do you think the Remington Rolling Block is superior to the Trap Door? I personal do. I find since the back of the chamber is just totally open to me, the rolling block is very easy to load. The trap door is not too bad, but I still would take the rolling block over it without hesitation. Also it is just as if not as simple and not prone to breaking.
I had an H & R replica Trapdoor Springfield cavalry carbine. It was light weight. It had a steel buttplate. Modern 45-70 rounds being fired out of it was a stimulating experience.
I was walking around the quad/museum area at FT. Sill one day. I got thirsty and started looking for a water fountain. I saw an open door at one of the adobe buildings, so I went in to ask where I could get a drink. What I saw inside the building was row, after row, stretching the entire length of the building of Calvary carbines. Don't know if they are still there, but easily several hundred of them.
I think it goes without saying that either of these is still quite far ahead of the 1855/61/63, though I would think it would be hilarious if we had a comparison with one of them. Perhaps it can be an idea for April Fools day in 2019?
I’m sure it’s been addressed in the comments already but I couldn’t help but think Ian two-handed manipulation of the Spencer is what really killed his time. It’s a design that caters specifically to right-handed folk, which along with skill, would explain the significant improvement in Karl’s time with it over Ian’s.
As someone who comes from a place where inanimate objects are banned from all because a few bad people choose to do bad things with them. I am super glad you are taking the time to do this and am super glad you guys are making it happen.
Excellent video and discussion! Greta job... but 11:49 great adherence to the prone position firing method of the day... but what about the one-handed shooting with the high-tech shooting rest?
The first "trapdoor" round was the 50-70. The 45-70 came out with the 1873. You folks really have no experience with the 45-70. I have been shooting them since 1972 and by 1976 I owned 52 of them. I have and will soon again shoot long range match with them.
I would have to differ the training of a Cavalryman and an Infantryman on the frontier in the later 1870s and in the 1880s. Provided both had the same weapon system in rifle and carbine. Training a Cavalryman take more time and money to train. First of all is the equipment of the Cavalryman. Horse, saddle equipment, sabre, and carbine, this was expensive equipment. Like the saddle which was the McClellan saddle which was designed before the Civil War. These saddles were reclaimed and repaired after the Civil War and still served in service till WWI but modified. Procuring horses for the Army was very expensive and to train Cavalry horses was time consuming also. The soldiers recruited into the Cavalry were not stupid guys. The Army spent more time to train raw recruits just to ride a horse. This was very dangerous especially if a recruit has never rode a horse before. A Cavalryman during the Frontier Era was a prized soldier. The Army put emphasis on recruiting during that time who are already experienced horsemen and decent amount of firearms experience because Cavalrymen were needed to be deployed on the frontier. Many cowboys and men who had been veterans of the Civil War of both sides were recruited. The 9th and 10th Cavalry were Black soldiers recruited from the Oklahoma and other Western states who were already cowboys and already knew how to ride and shoot on the frontier. Marksmanship was also valued in the Cavalry because soldiers went on scouting patrols. Cavalrymen on frontier forts cleaning and maintaining their weapons was a priority. Sergeants and Corporals were given high responsibilities that all weapons are ready for use at all times when not patrolling. Troopers have to first care for their horses first, then weapons, and equipment. All Cavalrymen went on a rotational cycle for training, maintenance, and patrols. The Cavalry could travel long distances and move faster than the Infantry. Through long years of service Cavalrymen were trained in their battle tactics and drills which is expected of all Cavalrymen. They all had to be organized and well disciplined force on the frontier. Daily drills were tactics, mounted and dismounted, horsemanship, physical training, and sabre drills. Carbine, pistol, and sabre qualification skills were done annually. During a soldier's life on the frontier was usually the work details daily, house keeping on the forts, and most of all was equipment and weapons care with inspections. As far as the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Custer's men were engaged with a bigger force and ran out of ammo. The enemy was more mobile and out maneuvered Custer by encircling them and had to defend in place. Cavalry is supposed to be mobile and not get into a fight in the first place. Mobility and firepower is foremost in Cavalry tactics, not to stand and die even in a charge. Cavalry Officers are not trained to be expendable Infantrymen on the battlefield. Custer should have paid attention to Genghis Khan to how best employ Cavalry. The American Indians paid very close to Genghis Kahn's principle of Light Cavalry even though they didn't know who he was. The American Indians learned by trial and error fighting against the Spanish, Mexicans, and the US to develop tactics.
In terms of energy per second the Spencer had 593Juels/s((7rnds*1525Juels)/18seconds), while the Trapdoor in the same time was able to fire off three rounds so it achieved an average of 383Juels/s((3 rounds*2300Juels)/18seconds). I'd say in a Military environment, the Spencer has a serious edge. Whereas in a expedition or hunting scenario the Trapdoor would be better as its simpler and more durable.
The commentary on .45-70 ammunition is kinda interesting; the original rifle load was a 45-70-405 with the carbine load having a lighter charge. After the Sandy Hook Tests in 1879, the Army increased the weight of the rifle-load bullet to 500 grains for increased ballistic coefficient and long-range striking power. (a W. John Farquharson article from Rifle Magazine in 1977 reports that the Army also played with an 80-grain charge behind the 500-grain bullet but didn't see any real additional benefit and so adopted the 500-grain bullet but stayed with the 70-grain rifle charge--source: www.researchpress.co.uk/index.php/firearms/long-range/sandy-hook-1879 )
I think it would be interesting to see how the Spencer, the 1866 Winchester (or Henry) and the Trapdoor run black powder ammo. How does each design cope with the fouling that comes with repeatedly firing black powder? How does fouling affect accuracy? What kind of remediation is required (if any) to keep each weapon running effectively while firing the number of rounds that would be associated with a battle situation?
Looking at this Karl could have been much faster if there would have been a better positioned ammo source. Which technologically wouldn't have been that hard. The weak link appeared to be the cartridge belt more so than the gun. I think the prone shooting is a testament to that. Maybe just a cartridge belt with more spacing and less cartridge coverage would make a huge difference. This is really my favorite series that y'all are doing. It'd be funny to see a conclusion on this collaborating with the P&S guys on this! Comped Schofield? haha
You guys are kinda funny. 45-70-500 isn't bad, I shoot it often. 70 grains of black literally won't fit in the case. I load 60...some guys get 63. 45-70-405 will fit 70 grains, I shoot it also in a rifle. It's not that bad. I don't have a carbine, but at 55 grains, you have to load filler with a 405 grain hollow base. Thanks for the info, but black powder isn't punishing under 100 grains.
then a squad of dudes with 1876 Winchesters in .45-60 with their squad leader having an 1866 Winchester in .44 Henry and a Marksman with a scoped Sharps rifle in .45-120 roll up on their horses and kill everyone
The trapdoor is probably A LOT CHEAPER ... because it is mechanically much simpler. I got my education in material science and one of the wisest things a professor ever said was "the most important property of a material isnt hardness, weight, density, tensile strength ... but PRICE."
I think if the trapdoor had a weak spring which lightly flipped it open and stopped it from flopping a more certain series of movement would behad for the operator. Chasing it breaks a rhythm.
Another thing to keep in mind when comparing these guns was also just army doctrine at the time. The Minimum range requirement of army and cavalry rifles was 600 yards, which guns like the Winchester and the Henry were incapable of meeting until the late 1880s when Winchester finally started being able to load high caliber rifle rounds instead of 44 pistol rounds. The Trapdoor was Proven, it was Reliable, Very Accurate, and cheap to produce. The Spencer earned Ire from some troops for its difficulty with the lever action, Jamming was not uncommon in the heat of combat due to the difficulties of having no ejector for the rifle. And looking at literally every other nation's armies and the type of Rifle they were using, they all were also using single shot rifles until the 1880s, Such as the British Martini Henry, The German Needle Gun, the French Chassepot, the list goes on. Baring some exceptions, Such as the Swiss Vetterli and Italian copy of it. I would argue that the Trapdoor, while it gets flak being compared to things like the Spencer, Winchester, Henry, it was the workhorse of the U.S. Army for nearly 30 years. You don't get that type of longevity of service if its a bad gun. Trapdoor was not garbage it was a very very good piece of equipment.
History shows just this in the Russo-Turkish War where Big bore single shots, and Winchester 66's saved the Ottoman Empire form Russian Conquest in 1877-78.
Career in the US army? Well I hang around with US GIs in my German hometown for a bout 3 years. Sorry to say but all the guys I met (Quite a number) did not join the Army for patriotic reasons. "I did not find a better job, I dropped out of school and this was the only opportunity, the offered my an "apprenticeship" I learned to drive a truck." It might be different but it seems to me that the 1970s where not much different from the 1870s.
I can see the problems with the Spencer. But the Winchester was a very different animal as the Siege of Pleven in the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) would show. I presume you touch on that down the road.
An antique Spencer will run rings around that repo Spencer. A more equal test would be an original Spencer with a centerfire block against that trapdoor.
Sirs, I'm currently buying a Marlin 1881 in 45-70, I've heard your idea to do an 1876 squad shoot. I wanted to know if there would be any thoughts toward the Marlin in this discussion?
I the rifle version of the 1873 Trapdoor included a cleaning rod, that could be used to extract unejected cartridges. There are accounts from Reno's force that they had cleaning rods from rifles that they used to unjam the carbines since that was a quicker and easier method than trying to pry the cartridge out with a knife. The 1873's biggest issue was that it originally used copper cartridges, which were prone to expansion and the bullet coming unseated. The disaster at Little Big Horn prompted the Army to switch to brass cartridges, which were much more reliable, and the Army has been using brass ever since.
I have an original 1884 Carbine like that... They are so much fun!.... I would love to find an original Spencer, but then I'd need to learn how to form brass and make the ammo or the darn thing....
Wasn't there a version of the Spencer that essentially had a magazine cut-off? Kept the action from cycling far enough to pick up a cartridge, but still allowed single loading?
Love this video! I remember my grandfather telling me about one of our ancestors. The man told his father he was going to join the cavalry, and his father told him never to darken his doorstep again. Turned his picture to the wall and said: "Only bums join the army." Different times! Apparently, this ancestor rode around out west and came home with what they called a "fallen stomach". Not sure what that is but it was grounds for a medical discharge.
