thx Jeff

government contracts. also, stubbornness. browning invented a repeating rifle before the CW, but the US wouldn't listen to him. so, he left for europe to make his rifles.

Black powder fouling.......
 

One solution for the black powder fouling that was used during the Great War of Secession was the Williams Cleaner Bullet. It used one or two zinc discs attached to the rear of a lead bullet to help scrape the bp crud out of the barrel. These cleaner bullets were included in packs of cartridges, usually a 5th round or 10th round in the pack. The zinc discs were concave with the curve to the muzzle so that when the round was fired the disc would flatten and thus expand slightly. The harder zinc would then act as a scraper to help expel the black powder build up in the bore. I have several of these that I found at various places here in Georgia near battlefield sites. It is not unusual to find the bullets, discs and the little lead pin that held the assembly together. There were 4 or 5 different variations of the WCB made over the course of the Great War of Secession. There was even a version made for the Coffee Mill repeating gun used in limited quantities by the Union forces.

I figured it was manufacturing limitations, reliance of outdated tactics, use what you have available thinking. I mean didn't the soldiers often supply their own firearms (and horses) during the US Civil War? I learned from Mr. Higgins posts what the development of smokeless powder has done for firearms.

What is surprizing to me is from the late 1840's to the early 1900's we went from muskets to the .30-06. The .30-06 is still pretty much the benchmark for a high-powered rifle. The typical actions of modern firearms were developed by then. There have been refinements, but nothing like the step taken in that period from just before the Civil War to WW I.

John Moses Browning was still shyting his diapers before the Civil War.


Like many ideas to control or eliminate black powder fouling, this one simply proved impractical in the field, and to manufacture in any significant quantities for regular issue. After a certain point, these became impossible to ram home. They could not be made as undersized as the soft lead, hollow base Minie design, so fouling defeated them after just a few shots.

There certainly were a lot of "interesting" approaches to this problem developed during and after the Civil War, right up until the introduction of smokeless powder. Smokeless powder changed everything, and not because it was "smokeless" - it really isn't. The drastic reduction in fouling is what changed the game forever, along with the ability to achieve much higher pressures and, therefor, velocities..

uh oh...

The French rifles are very collectable and usually in good shape despite their age. Seems that they were never fired in battle and only dropped once.....

1. They were what was available in quanity
2. The logistics of having a great variety of ammo to provide, so ya stick with what ya have
3. Being Cheap or cost conscience.

He could have said "The Just Cause"

I was always taught it was the "war of northern aggression"......

that's what all those liberal high school teachers told us it was too...

lol well, i've been proven to be an idiot on many fronts. looks like this is the same. thanks, jeff, for pointing this out.

whoops, actually, i think i am correct, sort of. his father:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Browning

well, there ya go.

There is Jonathon Browning and John Moses Browning.....JMB was one of 19 children of JB.

JB was a Mormon gunsmith that invented the "Harmonica Gun". JMB was the auto weapons guy and was born in 1855. His stuff was used in WWI, aka the "Great War".

JMB also designed the famous Winchester lever action that was "the" rifle in the west.

And which mdl Winchester Lever was that?

My understanding is that what you describe is conventional wisdom, but for the most part not true.

- Because of the sheer mis-match in numbers, the first 2 battles of the American Revolution (Concord and the "Battle road" on the way back to Boston) were fought that way.

- Saratoga was fought that way.

Most of the rest of the battles were fought in the traditional European fashion, and most were lost by the Americans. The British were generally well managed and well trained which allowed them to mass their firepower against the objective, which is what it is all about.

Being Americans, the step that most people are missing is the Franco-Prussian war, a precursor and in many respects opening chapter to WWI. It was the first large war (AFAIK) fought with breech loading rifles. The French had smokeless powder and high-velocity bullets for their "Needle guns". The Germans had Mausers firing larger caliber, lower velocity bullets. So the French had the advantage of range and accuracy, the Germans had more reliable rifles (as well as better tactics, leaders and logistics). To be honest the extra range of the French guns didn't accomplish much since the Prussian tactics spread their troops out, and encouraged cover -- thus not give the French riflemen good targets to shoot at. Furthermore, most solders weren't shooting at targets 700 or 800 yards away. Much like WWI, most of the rifle shooting (excepting sharpshooters) was done closer to 100 yards or less. So the longer range of the French rifles ended up being wasted in most cases. After the crushing loss by both the French Empire, and then the Republic, and the German Emperor being crowned on French soil -- it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that the two sides were going to fight again.

By WWI the French had updated to Mauser style rifles, mistakenly believing that this was the secret of the German's success. Alas, the Germans had also moved to smokeless powder and high velocity bullets, but had also discarded flashy uniforms, developed modern high angle artillery and further improved their logistics and leadership corp. So the French ended up starting WWI fighting the Franco-Prussian War.

Actually a bit of a misconception. Casualty counts show that the "King of Battlefield" during the Civil war, and the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and WWII was the artillery. Canister, grape-shot and shrapnel did far more damage to the enemy army than rifle shots. Admittedly not as romantic as the infantryman, but a reality of modern, 'industrial" warfare.

The one Chuck Connors carried in "The Rifleman".

Yeah, but automatic weapons created the stalemate of trench warfare. Arty killed all their collective asses and air power turned the war with the small addition of the US and the their factories.

Correct War Titles.......
 

RWebb,

By definition, a civil war is one where a body or group is trying to take control of a country or government. In the American case, the 13 southern states were trying to leave the union, not take over the government of the United States. Therefore, it should be known as the "War of Secession", not the "Civil War". Or, as an alternative, it could be known as the "first federally funded urban renewal project"! Since I had ancestors that fought and died on both sides (Texas, Georgia and Vermont), I feel that I have a fairly balance perspective of what went on during the years between 1860 and 1865. Some cousins from Texas got themselves captured near Chattanooga, Tennesse and had to walk home from a prison camp in Indiana (took them a year!) and my great, great grandfather was killed at the battle of Cold Harbour in Viginia in 1864 (10th Vermont Volunteers). I'm pretty proud of all of them for standing up for their beliefs and putting their ass on the line when it counted.