I like the Swiss model. "This is your rifle. Really. You get to take it home with you."

Cutting edge technology was adopted, on a small scale. Spencers and Henrys and Sharpes saw service with specialized units. The real advances were in improving mass production, interchangeability, other manufacturing techniques.

When I was a kid the Maynard cap rolls were still being used in toy guns. I believe that the company that manufactured the rolls got rid of the Fulminate of Mercury but kept the black powder content. They were fun to play with.

I love the Maynard primer system. Especially because my childhood capguns used his system. I wonder if he would be happy or depressed that his invention survives as a toy.

The fact that the South had limited manufacturing capability also factors into the equation. Most foundries and gun manufacturers were in the North. Equipping an army with weapons, clothing,food, training, and shelter is a logistical nightmare that hasn't changed since the beginning of War and never will. Thank you sir as always very informative and well done!

In recent years, it’s really begun to strike me that the more one looks into it, logistics affect military decisions much more than military enthusiasts give it credit for.

I raced off-road motorcycles for many years, ending about 30 years ago. Long before my time, bikes were far less specialized and guys actually road their bikes TO THE RACES. At that time, the sentiments were “Run what you brung” and “Dance with the one that brung you”. Same idea here. Thanks, Ian. Good one.

Another thing you've mentioned elsewhere in the past is ammunition supply. Even if Ripley could have found manufacturing capacity to get every soldier an 1860 Henry within the year, he ALSO would have needed to secure manufacturing capacity for ammo. If everyone sticks with rifled muskets you need less ammo and it will be easier to create manufacturing capacity. Lots of companies already made gunpowder and percussion caps at the time so the only custom tool you might need to provide is the mold for Minie bullets in the right caliber. Teaching a company to make ammo for a Henry and making the tooling would have taken far longer and required a lot more resources before a single cartridge was made.

I’m ex British Forces, and our std aircon was holes in the walls of wooden buildings in the winter, & heating was those rare days of sun cooking up a storm on the roofs of the same huts. Luckily, that was transit or training camps, not permanently occupied barracks (at least by the time I served) lol

Another major concern of Ripley was ammunition. allot of the new weapons (Both good and real) used different ammunition. Not really a selling point when you are managing supply lines.

It's amazing how people think that once a new weapon is adopted, then "poof" everyone immediately has that new weapon. I still see people argue that 1911's were not issued during the 1st Gulf War because "the M9 was adopted six years prior."

Smoothbore with buck n ball. Turns the musket into shotgun. Very common at Shiloh.

This sort of thing has been the most interesting part of firearms history I've learned about since I started watching FW regularly: the HUGE difference between inventing a good gun, and developing the industrial capacity to manufacture it in tens or hundreds of thousands. And related to this is the opportunity cost mentioned in this video - if you want to equip a modern mass army with a new weapon, that means there are other things you must choose not to do.

Nearly ever gun brought before the Army also used proprietary ammo that would muck up the process even further.

In a single word: LOGISTICS.

While making sure Union troops were equipped across the board with rifled, percussion muskets the Ordinance Department still equipped cavalry units with Burnsides and especially Spencer rifles seeing the advantage of breech loaders for mounted units that was quite new technology. They also weren't afraid to manufacture rifled artillery in quite large numbers even though their range was far ahead of any effective fire control. Thanks for putting a new light on Ripley, often referred to as 'an old fossil afraid troops would waste ammunition with repeaters'.

Also interesting is that Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, had been Secretary of War of the USA (1853-1857) and was recognized as one of the most capable administrators to hold that office. Davis focused on increasing the army’s size and improving national defenses and weapons technology, as well as providing protection for settlers in the Western territories. Davis also strengthened coastal defenses, and directed three surveys for railroads to the Pacific. He was also a forceful advocate for what became the Gadssen Purchase. When South Carolina withdrew from the Union in December 1860, Davis opposed secession and was a frequent and vocal advocate for peace as he knew how much he had upgraded the USA military during his time serving as Secretary of War. Very ironic that the war machine Davis helped create ended up being unleashed against him.

Sorry, gotta say, the U.S. Army budget for weapons and the U.S. Army budget for barracks will never ever be written on the same spreadsheet. I love Ian's videos. Happy New Year.

Everyone looks at the battles in the east, but if you look at the western campaigns you see a monumental leap in tactics if not small arms, essentially Blitzkrieg using purpose built gunboats mounting 32 and 42 pound rifled Dahlgren guns with contact explosive shells instead of tanks. The many tributaries of the Mississippi and Ohio became roads into the heart of the Confederacy. The boats (City Class are the most common) were impregnable to normal field artillery, but able to flatten the earthwork forts guarding cities and entrances to tributaries. The boats would knock down the strong points and the cavalry would, like aircraft in WWII, take out bridges, railways, mills, warehouses, etc, for miles around. Grant understood that simply occupying ground wasn't enough, a modern war required destroying production and transportation behind the enemy. Read of the battle of Arkansas Post, the fort guarding the Arkansas River below Little Rock. A Division of infantry was landed below the fort and then the gunboats went to work. The fort surrendered before the infantry could even arrive.

Another thought I’ve had is that .44 Henry rim fire and other early cartridges (like for the Burnside) are really weak…. I wonder how much that thought went into it, too… if I know I’m going to be engaging cavalry at about 200 yards, .44 rimfire isn’t going to get the job done, but a 58 minie is still packing quite a lot of heat

2:01 "Making sure that the barracks have proper heating and air conditioning systems." *Me watching this video while in my barracks room at Fort Drum freezing cuz they haven't fixed the heaters since the building was made*

That makes a lot of sense from a logistical standpoint. It doesn't matter how good the guns are if you've only got a few. better to equip the entire army with the same thing and you can always modernize after the war is over.

Something similar happened on every side of WW1, where after the first battles, they suddenly couldn’t keep up with manufacture of their modern rifles and so fall back on the previous generation of rifles while scrambling to import or ramp up production of modern stuff. Even the US had trouble getting their hands on their own equipment since by the time the US joined, a huge number of US arms factories were already under contract with other countries (mostly Britain and France). Countries also seemed to have trouble with their side-arms because they were, well, a secondary issue, but were nonetheless proving to be extremely useful weapons in the trenches. A lot of European military pistols were underpowered and fairly old, with cumbersome features like a revolver that must have the cylinder turned after every round is loaded.

I have a Rifled musket one of approx. 500 made at Norfolk before it was overrun by the South along with the mold for casting the correct thick-walled proper Mini ball bullets. It took a seventy-grain charge of 2F powder and dad removed the service sights for closer to match sights of a custom design. Many reenactors use a longer thin-walled design of the Mini concept that only takes a charge of 35 grains of 2F safely. The Current nipple is for standard pistol caps cheaper and more reliable ignition. The musket caps tended to not sit square on the original issue nipple which was quit worn.

This is a subject that I always thought I had a fairly good understanding of, but am glad to expand and correct, with additional information from gun Jesus. Thanks Ian.

Basically, it came down to the fact that the guns that were being used at the start of the war were 'good enough' for the job at hand, and the risks associated with trying to build better guns outweighed the benefits that those potential guns would bring to the battlefield. Though it would have been interesting to see if, at least the union army, could have equipped NCO and line officers with repeater rifles to give their squads and company's a little bit more firepower, but then again, logistics would probably have been an even bigger nightmare than it already was.

Love these Ask Ian videos, I've been using this channel to learn more about firearms and firearm developmental history. Love technical videos!

All Babyboomer boys in the 50s had cap guns, both cowboy and semi-auto. Caps were cheap, especially if bought in large size and I loved the smell of the burnt caps. My favorite was a Thompson and each throw of the bolt would create about a ten round burst. On the Civil War issue, wasn't the whole S&W patent issue the main reason cap and ball pistols were the primary side arms?

The fact that Russia uses T-62 tanks, Mosin-Nagant Rifles and Maxim machine guns in The current war in Ukraine shows that these concerns are still relevant almost 160 years later.

Even today, Force Modernization does not happen overnight or uniformly. I was in a CONUS unit on early deployment to Desert Shield. I had a new M16A2, but my issued sidearm was still a1911a1. Likewise, there was another unit that still had M16A1 but were issued new M9s. My unit even had to be re-equipped in the field after deploying with M1s and Firsts Generation Bradleys. I still remember having to use M1s with M113s which really hampered the advantages in mobility that the new tank had.

The weapon you have now is always better than the one that you get in three months

This video title surprised me since to my recollection they improved a fair bit over the course of the war. Nothing completely superseded the rifled musket but by the end it was very clear what developments would take hold in the future.

I read a historical book where US calvalry using single shot Spencer's against Native Americans using Henry repeaters.

I'd add two things, Ian; after the shooting contest and all that, the next thing the military purchasing officer want to know is "how fast can a soldier break one of those" followed by can these people supply the product and then the service and parts reliably. You views on how manning numbers and conditions play is spot on- what you unfailingly do, Ian! Happy New Year! FR

Adopting the newest rifle technology < Making shure the toilets continue flush. You might laugh at this at first, but this is really paramount to maintaining a functioning military.

It's worth remembering that genuine big advancement is very rare, and that small advances are seldom attractive enough to make them worth the investment. Especially with small arms, which already work fine, the advance to breech loading paper catridges is super small - Sure, something like that is a better gun, but you also have to completely retrain troops to use them and also pay for all the guns and also pay for new ammo and also run parallel logistics until the new rifle takes over. The breach loader is faster, but fast enough to justify that kind of change?

What a great answer! I really love when Ian goes into more gun-adjacent subjects such as military history. It's always very interesting!

I know you said southern volunteer units were self equipped. I thought there were northern units that were also self equipped at least in the beginning of the war as well.

Spencer repeating rifles issued to Union troops toward the end of the war were breach loading weapons that used a metallic cartridge. I would call that an improvement over the Springfield 1861 muzzle loader that was the standard issue rifle for the Union. The Union also purchased around 90,000 Sharps rifles, another breach loading metallic cartridge rifle, but it saw more limited use.

My friend’s father found a flintlock rifle in a crack in a rock at Devil’s Den in Gettysburg circa 1938. So Southern forces did arrive with them, but tossed them when nice new Union weapons were abandoned. They still have it!

Excellent explanation of the question...happy new year

Overall very informative. There’s a lot of angles to war and what decisions to make

The Gent who does the Paper Cartridge channel points out the the modern rifled muskets that had the ability to hit a man sized target at beyond 300 yards were not able to be utilized to their capacity to to the lack of training in range estimation. The rainbow curve of the standard Minie Ball made range estimation critical beyond 200-250 yards. So smoothbore Muskets firing “Buck and ball” were arguably as viable an arm at the 150 yard ranges most Civil War battles were fought.

Thanks to Ian and Othias I already knew what Ian was going to say, mostly. In previous years I'd read an article saying old stick-in-the-mud Union generals prolonged the war by not adopting this or that breech-loading rifle and think "damn, how could they be so blind." Now I know about how hard breech loaders would be to produce quickly enough, and with good quality. And let's not forget how difficult and expensive brass cartridges were to produce, and how hard it was to keep up quality control on them.

I really enjoyed your video! I thought it was also worth mentioning that many generals in the U.S. Army, especially Sherman, were concerned that more advanced weapons like the Henry would require far more ammunition to operate effectively. As such it created a concern that these weapons in high quantities would use up ammunition far more quickly than it could be produced.

It should be also stated that the industrial capacity to retool for the new technologies developed during the war was very limited. People tend think manufacturing in the 1800's was the same as it was in 20th Century, it was not. The revolutions in mass production and even the assembly line (as we know it) did really exist until 1900. So in those days the more advanced and complicated a technology like single shoot breech loading rifles that used just paper cartridges required ridiculous amounts of man power to create using the manufacturing technology of the time. In the 1860's a Henry lever action multi-shot rifle using self contained metallic cartridges might as well had been a F-35 of today in terms of complex and time to build. They could do it, but it would take a long time and be very expensive. The Union needed men on front lines and need weapons that were cheap and simple enough to produced quickly enough for the 100,000's of Union soldiers to be equipped in time to fight war. Not have to wait 5 years to spool up production to making few thousands guns.

Hello Ian, You did a fine job explaining the question! I, like you, spent a good amount of time studying history. A lot of which was military, weapons and the general history of wars. I am a lot older and you have vastly more experience traveling and meeting people firsthand. With that said, it is interesting that the answers to so many questions are clear to the people who have studied extensively in these fields. I would like to add a couple of things though. Like you said, during a time of war, the most important thing is having weapons and ammunition for the soldiers! Even if there was some 'Majic' 'Garuntee' that a Henry (or any other weapon) would operate perfectly; HOW do you ensure that the people using it always get the right ammunition? Can you manufacture it in huge quantities? If you can, Can you garuntee that it gets to the right soldiers? Not No, but hell NO! There has been a lot of hate about the supply officers of both the North and the South, during the Civil War. This is Stupidity! Those men had to make the hard choices to outfit every man with weapons that could be fed by the same ammunition! Think about any major battle of the Civil War... If you have 100,000 troops firing a few rounds per minute... for days... Do the math and think about how much ammo is needed now and in a day, for resupply! And then resupply after that! They had to be ready to supply many millions of musket caps, many millions of projectiles and many many millions of pounds of black powder! This was the very basic, minimal supply for small arms! PLUS cannon projos, hard tack, medical equipment, socks, drawers, AND this is never ending! Without even getting to Food-stuffs! If an Arms General picked the 'New Best Thing' for a weapon, He would have killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers by shear Stupidity! Ian, I do love your 'Polite' responses to questions that accidentally upset me a bit! Ya'll Take Care and be safe, John

The Hall rifle, modified: Same basic action, .58 but the breech does not just go up and down but also a little bit back and forth. Because there's a brass liner in the breech that extends a bit. And the barrel has a matching cut. Great gas seal, standard ammo.

A very revolutionary weapons development during the American Civil War was in metallic cartridges for breech-loading firearms. Such as with the British .577 Snider-Enfield breech-loading rifle designed in 1860 which the British Army adopted in 1866 as a conversion system for their Pattern 1853 Enfield muzzle-loading rifles. - Forgotten Weapons: British Breechloaders and Trials Rifles kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hLmpq9OnrsC8qI0.html - Britishmuzzleloaders: The Mk III Snider-Enfield: Introduction kzfaq.info/get/bejne/erBdmZRizbOYg58.html

With that first question you really read my mind

Extremey interesting. I'd read rief references to smoothbore muskets being used, but this is the first time I have heard about it in ny detail. Many thanks.

The biggest war contemporaneous to the American Civil War was the Taiping Rebellion in China. It dwarfed absolutely every other war in the entire 19th century (including the Napoleonic Wars) in both numbers of combatants and numbers of casualties. The typical weapons used were bronze cannons, matchlock muskets and pikes, because those were the weapons readily available to the combatants. Armies often obtained weapons from caches that were over 200 years old and sent them to the front, because they were still tactically useful. European and American forces who became involved in the war (and those directly equipped by them) often fought with state-of-the-art weapons like revolvers, Sharps rifles and breech-loading artillery, but they had little direct effect on the outcome of the war because their numbers were so small compared to the huge numbers of Chinese soldiers on both sides, and because of international reluctance to strongly commit to backing either faction.

I've heard this a lot in WWII where they're making tanks and planes with thousands of parts. If you want to bring a new tank on line, you have to close down a factory that's rolling out the old model for months while new tools, dies, and machines are created and brought on line. Was that as much a factor in the Civil War where a new rifle had a hundred parts or less?

Very well explained, great job!

See this is what makes this channel great. I *knew* the answer to this question right away, but I had a little faith and still listened - and Ian added so many more angles that turned a really boring straightforward answer into a really interesting one!

Another outstanding show!! Thank you

Some notes to older weapons. In US civil war not only smoothbore and flintlock weapons had been used, also thousands of pikes had been produced.

Just to clarify in case anyone misunderstood, the French Chassepot was marginally superior to the German Dreyse and did not contribute to the French defeat, that being due more to French leadership and better German artillery.

Good question, even better answer. Thanks Ian.

My G G Grandfather was equipped with surplus (non-functional) surplus smooth bore Belgian muskets with the barrels stuffed full of grease. 84th Pennsylvania- deployed straight to the front and barely able to actually defend themselves January 1862

Always very interesting and quality.

Another point to remember is that new weapons tend to have problems. A few years later, the British lost the Battle of Islandwarha against the Zulu spearmen. One contributing factor was the problems with the Henry-Martini rifle the British Army used. It kicked like a mule and tended to jam. So, it takes a while to develop a "finished " weapon.

Yes, elite special forces are often allowed to choose the very latest kit and the infantry not, but this isn't because special forces soldiers are believed by the government to be better judges (the SAS freely chose an AR variant which needs to be wrapped in cloth to stop it burning the shooter's supporting hand) but because letting them have their way is how the minister of defence finds out, (very quickly because the specials often see combat in "peace" time) what definitely does not work before too much money is wasted and even more importantly, without the infantry having to rely on it in a situation where national survival is actually at stake. And when UK special forces succeeded in buying 7,000-odd Balister-Molina pistols, which were much better than than a lot of stuff that UK special forces actually used, they stayed in storage for nearly two decades until sold off to hobby shooters (in happier times than now.) The other issue is that sometimes technology is evolving so fast that the "new" stuff is about to be outdated anyway: The UK chose but never quite produced, in very quick succession; a slimmer .45" cartridge for the Martini-action (possibly because they were using the .45" Gardner in machine-guns and the more clunky .577-450" in rifles and the latter was never going to feed well from a magazine) and then a .400" version of the slimmer cartridge which would have been much better all round _than what they already had_ . Then, just as they were about to tool up for this, they noticed a new Swiss development which led to the .303" cartridge which was used for nearly seventy years and in four major wars. Being slow off the mark saved the British Army from facing Boer 7mm Mausers with .45" or .400" Martini-variants and the British economy from having to fund the complete replacement of all of its rifles between the disaster that the Boer War would have become and the beginning of WW1. And it also led to the British Army fighting the Second World War with a rifle that was "good enough" for the Korean War: there really was no way that UK could have afforded to re-arm between 1945 and 1950, so that was actually another disaster averted. What money there was got spent on developing the atom bomb and building enough Meteors and Vampires to defend UK airspace in the jet age. And though the British Army was slow off the mark with almost everything until they saw the forerunner to the .303", at that point they moved faster than they had ever moved before.

Very good analysis and explanation.

Ian covers the salient points well, but there are some details worth considering. A smoothbore musket cost $14 to make. A rifle-musket cost $18. And a repeater cost $50. If you assume that cost was proportional to machining time, the Federal Ordnance Department had a choice between arming two men with Henry rifles, or five with M1861 rifle-muskets. And they were in much better position to supply ammunition for the latter. The story of foreign arms in the Great Unpleasantness is a story in itself. The Confederates had the production of the Birmingham small arms industry under contract, having got there first. The Federals? They went scraping. Bought a lot of Lorentz rifle-muskets from Austria...then fed them undersized bullets with predictable impact on accuracy. (I've got a friend working on a book on the subject - already suggested he talk to Headstamp Publishing)

Hi Ian, something I have long pondered something that is slightly off- topic but in line with your discussion. Why no smart raccoon invented the "tank" during the civil war? Steam driven tractors, breech loading cannon & Gattling guns! A terrifying beast can be imagined- Tyler

I still think that switching to a 58 caliber breech loading rifle for the Infantry that use the same paper cartridges would have been a good idea even knowing that it was a dead end technology.

“Making sure that the barracks have proper heating and air conditioning.” Ian, I promise you the army’s funding is barely going to that lol

I loved the episode on the Whitworth Rifle....Amazing accuracy, but issue really was cost.

Henry Bessemer. The mass production of steel didn’t start until just before the civil war. Steel made wrought iron obsolete.

So I actually own a Model 1855 Springfield and I want to clear up a few misconceptions people who have never handled them have. The first is that it is designed to use either the Maynard tape primers or the standard musket cap, not just the tape primers. This was a good idea on the Army's part because they were concerned about running out of the new tape primers but had a stockpile of the older musket cap. Luckily, once they realized the newly developed tape primers were crap they didn't have to modify the rifle because it was already set up to use the cap (also a plus because I can actually still shoot it now 150+ years later). The second is that although the toy cap gun paper rolls are conceptually the same as the Maynard, the original Maynard wasn't as crappy because instead of paper they were typically made of foil and were obviously a lot more powerful with the fulminate of mercury. You cannot run a modern toy cap roll through it because they are considerably wider.

Lack of weapons while ramping up production for war is something the modern U.S. military wants to avoid. It's part of the reason our military spending is so ridiculous even in peacetime. For example, M1 Abrams tanks. The Army has said they don't need any more of them, so there are just huge lots of unused tanks sitting around because the factories keep making them at Congress's behest. While people usually attribute this to "pork-barrel" politics, there's actually a very good reason not to stop making Abrams tanks: if they do, all the people who make them will go work elsewhere. Then, if the military needs more tanks for some reason, those people will probably not come back, and even if they do, they may have forgotten much of what they know. This would be a major problem. It's always a problem when experienced workers leave and a factory needs to ramp up production, but for the Abrams it's an even bigger one because there is a very small number of people who know how to make the Abrams's armor. It's top secret information. Sure, it's written down somewhere, but there is a big gap between having a recipe and being able to produce it correctly. That can be overcome eventually, but "eventually" isn't soon enough when you need tanks NOW. And that's assuming they can find the recipe in the first place. We don't know how to make the Saturn V rocket anymore because the plans were lost or destroyed. As a result, NASA had to design the Artemis 1 superheavy rocket from scratch instead of being able to base it on the Saturn V, which set the project back by anywhere from two to ten years depending on who you ask.

By late 1862 early 1863 the majority of Confederate armies around Vicksburg had been outfitted with .577 Enfield and Tower muskets. Grant's Army of the Tennessee still had a mix of long arms and calibers, .69 smoothbores, .577 British rifles, .54 Austrian rifles, and the .58 US rifles. The supply issues this caused were nightmarish, in at least one case a US unit was resupplied during an assault with ammunition they could not use in their rifles. After the siege of Vicksburg when the Confederate army turned in their arms Grant gave orders that any US unit equipped with an obsolete long arm was to exchange them for the new Confederate surrendered weapons. At a stroke he simplified his logistics issues to just .58 and .577 ammunition (which in a pinch can be used interchangeably). Born out of that is the legend that the Confederate army was poorly armed and equipped since if you look at just the ordnance returns of captured small arms at Vicksburg they're a hodgepodge of weapons and calibers. There may be some truth to that but he weapons turned in by the US units are included in that mix.

The “paper company” hazard may point to another issue: Factories to make new systems take time to build, themselves, and that’s under the best of circumstances. With manpower being pulled away to the military, factories may take even LONGER to build. That may do a good bit to tip the scales in favor of sticking with an older technology that’s still “good enough” in order to leave resources free to help handle the NEEDS of the country.

More of these, this was excellent!

At least one more advanced rifle was used in significant numbers in the Civil War. About 56,000 Spencer carbines and rifles were produced under military contract before the war ended. The Spencer was a 7-shot repeating lever action rifle chambered in the .56-50 rimfire cartridge. It launched a 350 grain bullet at ~1200 fps, making it nearly the ballistic equal of the rifled muskets in general issue at the time. They were first issued in 1863 to the Navy. The carbine was by far the most numerous model. It was very popular with cavalry units. The Ordinance Department didn't want the Spencer as they feared troops would fire so much ammo so fast that logistics wouldn't be able to keep up. But President Lincoln himself stepped in and ordered contracts be issued to procure as many as could be manufactured.

The rapid adoption of new technology of the Civil War that I'm aware of was in naval technology. The Iroclads were a huge evolutionary leap, both inside and out. Hampton Roads was a wake up call for a lot of the world. Bigger and bigger cannons, lower and lower decks that barely sat above the waterline, rotating turrets, etc.

Very good analysis of the logistics of war.

I remember learning the 69th infantry “Fighting Irish” used smooth bore because they didn’t trust the new weapons and liked being able to fire grape shot or buck and ball (I can’t remember which)

Ammunition stocks are a very important argument against replacing rifles in the army. For small special forces, it's a small problem, but change thousands of tons of ammunition in hundreds of magazines! Maybe changing the rifle doesn't always mean changing the ammo, but it often is and it's a problem on a large scale. Another typical argument against the introduction of a small number of new small arms - such a slogan in the military "all have bad equipment, but the same" (in my original language it is said in obscene words). There is also a psychological reason for this. You don't want to divide soldiers into those with old weapons and those with new, more expensive ones.

Thank you for the lesson.

I find it refreshing that someone is actually asking questions that to me, at 76yo, have obvious answers. That says a lot about "modern" education (or lack thereof).

Leave it to Ian to teach me new things from a simple question. I'd love a long form video on this subject, even though it would have to be abbreviated still.

A major problem in the Civil War thru to WW2 was Patent Rights in government war production. Many like S&W would hold tight patents like the bored thru cylinder from other producers. This is one reason US Armories designed and manufactured or sub contracted equipment.

One option besides the Henry Rifle would have been the Spencer Repeating Rifle, which was introduced just before the war. But the war department opposed it because they were afraid soldiers would waste ammo with a rifle with such a higher rate of fire,.

As an amateur (and neutral) American Civil War historian, I thank you for recognizing the southern armed forces as equally American. I'd like to add that there's also a moral aspect to weapons technology amongst the soldiers of that war. The men doing the fighting saw the opposition as countrymen whereas the brass (moreso the northern flavor according to extensive research) saw it as a war of numbers. If the men of either side had access to semiautomatic arms, they'd seem to throttle themselves in combat to allow for a fair fight. This mindset is taken from a shitload of research and accounts from unpublished soldiers' memoirs (grief me if you will). Given my direct Missourian research and knowledge as one who had ancestors fight for both sides, I'd say that bleeding-edge weapons tech would've had no affect in that conflict. Adamantly, it was a war of politicians and the socially popular causes of which are horribly false IMO. Just saying if the combatants were dead-set on killing each other outright, the north would've quadrupled Gatling production and the south wouldve allied with their friends south of the border and amongst the nations in an all-out guerilla war.

Very interesting Ian keep it coming 👌

As well as the development of technology, tactical use of this technology was also a big factor in effectiveness. The American (US and CS forces) had, as a result of government doctrine of the time, adopted a French approach, which was to use the rifled musket as a more accurate version of the old smoothe bore. This was to place an emphasis on the bayonet as the decider after one or two volleys. Britain and Prussia had adopted "fire tactics" which maximised the potential of the new weapon, the ability to be effective at a distance and training the of troops to be capable of bringing that effectiveness to the field. The British army set up a school of musketry, training trainers to take the skills (calculating distance etc) back to their regiments, so producing a skilled rifleman capable of engaging an enemy effectively at many hundreds of metres. The US army did not have an equivalent until the turn of the century. During the Crimean war it is recorded that British riflemen could render artillery ineffective at ranges in excess of 800m with controlled fire, think of what effect such shooting could have had in the American Civil War. The potential would have been to drive US gunners from their cannon, probably giving a different outcome to such actions as Picket's charge. The French at that time leaned heavily toward the bayonet as THE weapon, not, as they sadly found in 1914, a good choice.

Generally - there were two ways to put more lead down range on an advancing targets. Increase the range and start firing first, or fire more rapidly. In a time where rail transport is still fairly new, and most stuff is moving via cart - increasing the supply of ammunition to match rapid firing becomes difficult. Even into fairly modern warfare the allotment per soldier was limited. A WWII paratrooper expected to be out of contact would only have a bit less than 200 rounds for their Garand. The early issue for an AK-47 was a chest rig with four mags, and two stripper clips for reloading - 180 bullets total. (and maybe some boxes for post-combat refill) Around the time of the Civil war, just having 30-60 shots was a large number of bullets.

I remember a scene in 'Gone With The Wind'. Rhett Butler was in a room with 'Southern gentlemen' who were celebrating the start of the Civil War. He remarks that there isn't a single cannon factory in The South. One 'gentleman' demands, "Are you impugning the honour pf The South?" "No. I'm just saying there is a single cannon factory in The South," I had to laugh. Rhett was right. In a modern war, and the Civil War was modern, industrial capacity is what wins wars. The South didn't have it and lost.

Great video Ian thanks. This obviously includes even modern conflicts. Hence the T90 tank production over the Armata.

This is somewhat similar to the reason why many Commonwealth countries did not adopt the No.4 Lee Enfield when the British did. The small arms factories in India and Australia in particular were already tooled up for full production of the MkIII* and had large reserve stocks. The British, on the other hand, left most of their MkIIIs in France or in the sea off Dunkirk and had to relocate or rebuild their factories due to German bombing. The No.4, being cheaper and easier to produce, it made good economic as well as logistical sense for Britain to cease all manufacture of MkIIIs. Not sure why Canada converted.

I like how ian is referring more to a general topic , that is still very relevant for todays war over seas but manages to never make it about anything going on today and just stays concise

I have Model 1816 Maynard Tape Primed Rifled and sited in 1857 by Remington. It's one of only 10,500 converted it's in my never gonna effing sell it category.

My friend Mike (R.I.P.) still had his relatives personal muzzle loading rifle that he used to fight in two battles during the War Between the States. It's now in the hands of his of his niece, as he had no male children, and his girls didn't want it. It's not in functioning condition, but still very cool.

Thank you , Ian . 🐺

I hadn't realised that the Maynard tape primer system was actually used on a standard issue firearm. I had always thought of it as just a novelty, probably because of owning several cap guns as a kid.

Importation of firearms was briefly mentioned but more specifically the US government frantically put in orders to Great Britain for Enfield muskets as did the Confederacy. The US also imported Austrian and Belgian muskets. The Confederate soldiers scavanged off of dead Yankees for their better muskets as well as anything else the Yankee had of use to the Confederate. One problem was there was a hodgepodge of ammo being used on the Confederate side instead of a standard ball.

Intel vs R&D may have been influential... Awesome to hear a historical evaluation on sound military decisions!

I think you were the first youtube channel i ever subscribed to, and i dont regret it. I wonder if there is any way i can check if im right about that.