It's a beautiful life, but not easy I can tell you...

Couldn’t agree more

Many thanks my friend! And many thanks for your excellent support!

@@capandball what I like to know is why the Winchester model 1886 or the 73 musket versions we’re not adopted by the US military? 45 is a tough bullet and a 73 can fire more than 10? That sleeps and bounds of head of anything else in the 1870s.

the real ''problem'' with Henry rifle that didn't get it adopted was the same reason the Spenser, or the trapdoor, never got adopted: foot dragging army ordinance. The Civil War the beginning of the nearly 100 year run of army ordinance letting down the American fighting man in choosing service rifles. All the listed issues could have been overcome or mitigated with proper training and/or corrected use. How many battle outcomes could have changed with 3-400 lever action troops inserted at the right time; think dragoons, mounted infantry moving around the battlefield to where they're most needed.

Simply put, it was insanely impractical to outfit an entire army with very expensive repeating rifles, shooting very expensive new at the time brass cased ammunition. The trapdoor was not a bad rifle for it's time. Perhaps a tad bit too long lived in frontline service, but an excellent rifle for the average soldier. Custer was not going to be saved by an army of repeaters. He was an egotistically tactically inept General, who foolishly underestimated the size and strength of his enemy and placed his troops in a death box.

@@oscarfloyd2678Saying the trapdoor was not a bad rifle for it’s time is as ridiculous as saying it wouldn’t have mattered if Custers men had Henrys. We’ll never know but I am pretty confident things would have been very different if the US troops had repeaters at the Little Big Horn.

@@oscarfloyd2678 You're drinking the Kool aide about Custer. He fought Indians the same way every other commander did. It wasn't possible to make the warriors fight and with their knowledge of the terrain and superior horses and riding ability it was impossible for the cavalry to catch them. So you were left with going after the families in order to make the men negotiate. Yes, he was flamboyant and failed to heed the warnings of his scouts to his detriment. Remember it was the single largest gathering of plains Indians in recorded history.

@@guaporeturns9472 While the single-shot Springfields didn't help matters, a bigger issue for his forces was Custer's decisions prior to and during the battle. Leaving behind the Gatling guns to charge into an enemy under the belief that they won't fight was a terrible decision. The repeating rifles of the time were reloaded one round at a time, so in terms of continuous fire they were no different than single shots, the difference being having the ability to deliver a burst of rapid fire in exchange for longer reloads. The main difference would be that the Indians would now get repeating rifles instead of breechloaders. If any weapon at the time could have gotten Custer out of that mess, it would have been the Gatling gun. Gatling guns prior to and after Little Bighorn had demonstrated their effectiveness in conflicts against non-industrialized forces employing numerical superiority to overcome technical inferiority. Russian Gatling guns had already proved lethal against Turkmen cavalry, and would later prove lethal against well-disciplined Zulu impi at Ulundi. However, their non-presence at the Little Bighorn was the result of the core issues with Custer's decision-making that led to the destruction of his force, which further reinforces my point.

@@classifiedad1 Indians had Henrys , 1866 and a few 1873.. even if only 25-30% of the indigenous folks had repeaters that’s a huge advantage. Not sure what you are getting at. Gatling gun would have helped obviously but I doubt it would have saved them. If you think a trapdoor Springfield and a lever action repeater are equal in a firefight because it takes longer to load the magazine of a repeater you have little grasp on reality

Being able to "kill or disable a horse" at long range (up to 1000 yards - keep in mind this would be *area* from from a full unit of shooters, not that each individual soldier was expected to hit a *specific* enemy soldier at those ranges), well into the 20th Century. Because until the development of proper communications for *real* indirect firing in anything except siege conditions, the biggest threat to ground forces was direct fire from horse drawn field artillery, generally at around 500-1000 yards. By WWI, this direct fire threat had shifted to machinegun fire at those ranges, but critical enemy logistics were still horse-drawn. So the need to "kill or disable a horse at 1000 yards" was still present. And, of course, cavalry was still viable in any manuever battle until full mechanization took over that role with armor. Which is also why pretty much everyone kept "full power" rifle cartridges well after it was apparent that in "infantry on infantry" engagements, troops weren't getting hits on other infantrymen beyond 300 yards. The final gasp of this bias towards long range cartridges whose performance was based on *killing horses* at those ranges was when the US stubbornly insisted that the new NATO rifle cartridge maintain the power of the WWII .30-06 (which had that "kill or disable a horse at 1000 yards" as a requirement when it was first developed as the .30-03 in 1903...) The Henry flat out did *not* have the lethality and range for this requirement to take out artillery caisson horses at the range the gun crews would be firing at the infantry.

@@geodkyt If I was on a horse as a cavalryman, I would have been MORE than happy having 13-16 cartridges without having to reload. If I ran out and was getting attacked in close quarters before I finished reloading, I would still have my pistol as a back-up.

That's a great goal of mine.

Charcoal is black tho.

Why is he dressed like a rodeo clown? Is he a historian of that too?

@@wizardofahhhs759 He’s dressed in period-correct US military clothing of the early 1860s. But then a rude troll like you wouldn’t care so long as your desire to belittle others is satisfied.

Yes, and it is mentioned in the video also.

For anyone interested. InRange TV has a couple of videos on the cowboy special conversion.

Online outpost has the 45 cowboy carrier. Manufactured by Bill English

:) I just received that Ehrenscheibe from my colleagues at the military history department. :) I love that meme.

Shooting the 44-40 at 200 yards is a chore as it drops about two feet.

Good points indeed!

These were the arguments, beut they never held much water. Volley fire either with machinegun or by company has never been emplpyed to any sort of effectiveness, and no regular soldier soldier of the era made relyable hits past 200 yds with open sights. The weapo s lacked the mechanical accuracy, the cartridges had too much bullet drop and marksmanship training was near nonexistent. The fact is open order tactics by the 1860s were rapidly becoming obsolete, and full power service rifle cartridges were never a good idea to begin with.

Sir, from mid-May until the very end of July, at Lat 65 North in Alaska, we have sufficient light in the Northern hemisphere to shoot all day and night long. This is my very first video and I could make them over three months in this timeframe. I don't require any light shielding, yet some folks do. I've lived here 30 years and am very acclimated to the light & dark and cold & heat. Whether it's fun or not, it is all a perspective for sure. Thanks for asking and I hope my answers were of some value to you. Thank you again.

@@kidhammer2567 thanks for the education. I would love to visit one day? Certainly does sound like a place you have to “acclimate” to? Take care -Daniel

Empty rifle easily becomes a club.

Gloves work.

@@smithwesson7765 LOL! 👍🏼

That's your decision weather you support the creator or not.

:) the best answer so far! :)

If it was a choice between them, I would also pick the Henry.

Imagine US army using Winchester Model 1895 in WW2 :)

@@xmeda It was chambered in 30'06.

Earl J. Hess has an excellent book on this topic: The rifle musket in civil war combat. It also covers the ranges that actually the voileys were fired from during various decisive battles of the conflict. The usual range was below 100 yards. By the way, the same goes for Europe that times.