Civil war weaponry

I'm pretty sure it did serve in civil war. Other than that it suffered major issues, the gun powder would leak a lot in field conditions from the paper and hotgas also leaked. And also it ignited all the rounds at the same time when you fire one shot by accident. It had a lot of issues. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt%27s_New_Model_Revolving_rifle

>>33632330
because chain fire and no more arm

>>33632330
revolver (handgun-type) has all limbs BEHIND the cylinder. Revolver (long gun-type) has one in front of cylinder.

Add the fact that all your chambers still have to be loaded with loose powder and by hand, instead of nice, safe, sealed cartridges, and you have a recipe for having your hand blown off.

File: 1489122847346.png (108KB, 536x593px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 536x593px

>>33632330

>>33632372
>Chain fire
This and the time to reload is awful
Also if I remember right, they were around the same cost as Spencer and Sharps rifles making them unattractive as better alternatives were available

No gas seal.

It was dangerous to use in field conditions because of the very poor gas seal and a high risk of injury in case of a chain fire. Samuel Colt tried to make a shield around the cylinder in an attempt to fix the problem, but found it only increased the chance of a chain fire because sparks would bounce back into the cylinder.

>>33632330
Because revolver rifles are pretty clumsy, you can't put your hands forward of the cylinder, as the gap between the barrel and cylinder sprays hot gas and lead particulate, it'll burn and cut your arms.

Some modern revolver rifles, which use cartridges, have shield plates beneath the gap to protect your arms.

>>33632361
>>33632372
>>33632457
Chainfire isn't an issue in a standard revolver rifle, not any more than a regular revolving handgun, but it's speculated that Samuel Colt thought of shields, but opted not to put them on his revolver rifles because he reasoned that the flash and hot gas not being allowed to spray freely, and instead coming back, would vastly increase the risks of chainfire.

And he was probably right, gas shields wouldn't have been a good idea on a cap and ball gun.

>>33632994
>>33632849
No revolvers had gas seals then (and few do today), you just weren't meant to use the front handguards on a revolving rifle, some even omitted them entirely.

>>33633141
How would soldiers shoot it then? Mass issued monopods?

>>33632330
cost to manufacture

>>33633221
Soldiers generally wouldn't, because soldiers generally weren't issued revolver rifles.

Shooting a revolver rifle, you'd either have a two-handed grip on the stock, or a second spot to grip right on the triggerguard (typically a hook or other extension). Or a mentioned monopod.

Revolver rifles were unpopular for very good reasons.

File: cylinder-gap.jpg (170KB, 900x513px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 900x513px

>>33633241
Yes, and shit utility.

As the PPSh-41, it was a helluva shotgun.

>>33632330
Ths real question is is why wasn't ever Union soldier issued a level action rifle? Could could go from firing 2 rounds a middle to 20.

Simple answer is cost.

Revolvers were shit for range. The American Civil War was fought at great distances more often than not.

>>33634267
Easy answer. Some were.

>>33634280
I think pretty much all Union soldiers who fielded Henry rifles bought them for their own money as they recognized what a massive tactical advantage they were.

>>33634267
the belief that soldiers would "waste ammo" instead of taking their time aiming at the enemy like a true rifleman

>>33632330
Anyone able to make guns was making as many as they can. Early on they pretty much bought anything, but the governments on both sides needed numbers more than anything. And trying to manage a bunch if different ammos for all those different guns would be annoying, they had problems getting a hold of black powder and caps.

Lever rifles in attrition block unit tactics would be kinda funny though. Kinda makes more sense to give it to a guy on a horse, and just give Pvt. Johnny 'Oreilly a ram rod and wish him luck.

>Cus he's Irish.

>>33632330
>Anemic as shit compared to muzzle loaders of the time
>Have to hold it like a retard
>Your accuracy when
>After the first six shots you have to sit your ass down and just sit there reloading while being torn to shit by rifle equipped units
>Guns take more time, money, and resources to produce when you're short on all three

>>33634450
Certain officers and units took it upon themselves to get henries, spencers, or other repeating arms.

Some were even reimbursed for this by the government, but it's true that the government never just "issued" them, at least not to my knowledge.

>>33635606
You're like brass from 150 years ago, the high capacity and ease of use at shorter distances (where combat happens) is what made them highly valuable in gunfights.

Did you have to stop and reload them? Yes, but it was still way faster than reloading a musket at any stage.

>>33635645
I read somewhere that the Union military issued Spencers towards the end of the war in field trials. Same book also claimed that all troops that were issued Spencers liked them, often even better than the Henry rifles.

My guess with those reports, if the war lasted much longer, Spencers may have seen large scale issue to the general infantry, or at least the attempt to issue them as the standard arm.