I realize in history our Govt arms "basically" went from the .58 cal. ML's shooting mini balls to the .45-70 breach loader. I was wondering if anyone here has done any studies on what if anything was gained besides speed of reloading? There's no doubt the old .58's did a lot of damage. 600,000 American dead and wounded would be proof of that.
Rusty <><
Old vs. New
Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Old vs. New
If you're gonna be stupid ya gotta be tough-
Isiah 55:8&9
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
Isiah 55:8&9
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
I was talking to a historian at the gunshow on the very subject last weekend. He stated that when the Springfield were first converted to breechloader the cartridge was an actual 58 caliber, then this was reduced to 50-70, and finally to 45-70 in 1873. The advantage was a flatter trajectory and more ammo could be carried per soldier due to smaller size (same reasoning as switch to 5.56 ammo today).
In military circles I bet that relative water proofness, as well as easy and rapidity of loading were important to military officers of the time but so was ease of UNLOADING. Consider the ammo wasted and lives risked every time a sentry had to pull a load. Now it was pop out the live round, wipe it down and drive on.
Sincerely,
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
- Old Time Hunter
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:18 am
- Location: Wisconsin
Hobie, what you stated has the most credence to me. Read a ton of books pertaining to ordinance and the biggest reason we went with the trapdoor instead of the Ball repeater or a Spencer variant was the powers that be did not trust the common soldier to not waste ammo. Heck when Hotchkiss introduced his bolt for trials, the GSA said "it will bankrupt us in the usage of ammo", "it would be cheaper to bury a couple of soldiers than to supply the ammo that thing would use". They really did not have to worry too much, Winchester bought up the Hotchkiss patent and shut 'er down.
- El Chivo
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3612
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:12 pm
- Location: Red River Gorge Area
Nice attitude. i read once that the reason WWI flyers didn't wear parachutes was, they weren't issued them because the generals thought they would use them to bail out rather than try to bring a crippled plane home. They didn't want to waste the occasional plane, but they didn't mind wasting hundreds of pilots."it would be cheaper to bury a couple of soldiers than to supply the ammo that thing would use".
"I'll tell you what living is. You get up when you feel like it. You fry yourself some eggs. You see what kind of a day it is."
-
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 2427
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:37 pm
- Location: Texas
I kinda see that correlation with Iraq in a way. Why loose our soldiers when we could have told the civilians to get out and then use the h-bomb on the military or else! I know it is a simplization, but our government is dragging this out AGAIN! Why hasn't our government learned from our mistakes and realize you can't occupy a country if its citizens don't 100% (or close to it) support or want you there. IMHO