RE: [DL] The Winchester'73 for the Union Army?

[Frempath2@netscape.net]

I think you are correct on this, the Henry/Winchester was built as a civillian/sporting arm.  Christian Spencer designed his carbines and rifles to be military arms.  The Spencer was a much more robust weapon which was capable of withstanding more of the wear and tear of military use.   The Spencer also used a larger, though still underpowered, .52 and .50 inch cartridge. The Spencer also had to be cocked to fire each round.  The army liked this as it slowed the rate of fire a bit and encouraged then aimed shots.  The Spencer also had preloaded magazines which allowed the weapon to be reloaded in seconds as opposed to the Henry/Winchester.  The Spencers were used until the mid 1870's when they were replaced with the trapdoor Springfields.  The trapdoor weapons were cheap to produce, the army had millions of old muzzle loaders they could convert, and a single shot weapon would slow down the rate of fire even further and save money on ammunition.  Unfortunatly the single shot we!
apon armed troops could more easily be overrun, as Col. Custer found out, the 7th Cav. had used Spencers until the year prior to the nothern plains campaign.

Shotguns 
Christian spencer also invented the metalic cartridge shotgun round for his slide action shotgun model 1880.  This was the basis for all slide (pump) action shotguns to follow.  As you pointed out, if the war continued many weapon developments would have had funding that was not there in our world as the arms market crashed after the ACW.

Bolt action weapons may also have been poplular, perhaps the 1871 Mauser single shot or the 13 shot Vetterli of 1868.

g'day
frempath 

Michael Robert Blair <pellinoire@yahoo.com> wrote:

>So the Union army use the Winchester Model 1873? I
>think this is a bad decision but I can see where you
>are coming from.
>
>The M1873 fires a PISTOL round that is not in the army
>supply chain but that is similar to one that already
>is, the .45 Army. So logistically it would make sense
>for the army to have standardised on the .44-40 for
>pistols as well, easy enough as the Colt SAA was
>already made in this chambering.
>
>The war in the east had bogged down in static trench
>warfare, so a light, handy magazine weapon makes
>sense: ranges are short and with trench raids volume
>of fire is important. This would give the Union troops
>an edge in the trenches compared with the Confederates
>Martini-Henry, but their love of big-ass knives and
>shotguns would counter this.
>In the open, i.e. In the West, the Martini-Henry has
>the edge with much greater potential range.
>
>In the real ACW the army liked the Spencer carbine and
>was standardising on its ammunition as the war ended.
>Had the war continued this would have continued and
>the weaker, more fragile Henry would have been edged
>out. In 1877 what we would have been more likely to
>have seen is a derivative of the Spencer firing a more
>powerful centerfire cartridge. Trapdoor Springfields
>might be used for long ranged fire and in the Western
>theatre. The Evans with its huge magazine would be of
>interest but was clumsy and delicate, it would not
>survive trench conditions.
>
>Which brings me to another sore point, 4d8 is way to
>high for the damage from a Winchester ’73, it is a
>pistol cartridge, with a slightly higher velocity
>because of the closed action and a longer barrel but a
>jump from 3d6 to 4d8 because it is fired from a rifle?
>
>Man carried automatic weapons really need smokeless
>powder. Black powder produces vast amounts of smoke
>and is filthy, so automatic weapons would need very
>frequent cleaning or quick change barrels.
>
>Other weapons we might see because of Trench Warfare:
>1. Popularity of shotguns, so we could expect to see
>the Winchester M1887 a bit early.
>2. Heavy sniper’s rifles. Probably Sharps’ Buffalo
>rifles and ruggedised Creedmoor types.
>3. Small mortars.
>4. Grenades. Modern hand grenades originated in the
>trenches (siege of Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese
>war I think) so in Deadlands we could logically expect
>them to appear.
>5. Long range artillery and Ghost rock powered
>missiles to reach beyond the trenches. Guns are
>difficult as the technology is not good enough, fire
>control, metallurgy and propellants are all inadequate
>so rockets or even some form of winged missile are
>likely. I don’t expect guided weapons or great range
>though. Something like the Katyuasha. After all the
>British army had Hale rockets until 1914. Rockets with
>their lower accelerations would also allow dynamite to
>be used for the warhead. Though I do like the idea of
>huge Zalinsky airguns around Washington firing
>dynamite shells.
>
>I don’t think this one is really likely but it sounds
>like fun. An 1877 version of the V2. This is really,
>really scary. It would change everything, especially
>if the warhead was more than explosives. This would
>make a dandy scenario though; destroy the mad
>scientist and his lab developing the secret
>Confederate vengeance weapon. See the book ‘Anti Ice’
>for more ideas.
>
>
>Michael
>
>____________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
>or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>    unsubscribe deadlands
>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>


__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/