Why was small arms fire so ineffective in the 19th century?

perseus

perseus

Active member
I was recently watching a movie about the exploits of ‘Stonewall’ Jackson and his adventures during the American civil war. In the battle of Fredericksburg, the Union army had to charge across a plain and ditch and was stopped short of a wall. There they stood in a line where they were plummeted with fire from the Confederates soldiers hiding behind it. Yet it is not the carnage that astonishes me here but how many survived, in fact most of the Union army still managed to retreat time and time again despite repeated attacks. Out of 114 000 men engaged, the Union army suffered ‘only’ 12,653 casualties (1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 captured/missing. Why so low?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg

It seems to me the small arm weaponry used by soldiers was still slow firing, and remained so well into the 20th century. Why did they not simply give them revolvers? Better still adapt the revolver into a long barrelled weapon capable of firing say six reasonably accurate shots over a space of 6 seconds? Surely this would have rendered any offensive impossible against similar numbers of soldiers.
 
I actually came across that thought before... the one about having revolvers modified with longer barrels and perhaps even a larger magazine.
A complete mystery as to why it never happened.
Actually I do believe such a weapon did exist (a revolver type rifle of sorts) but I don't know when it was introduced and just how popular or unpopular it was.
 
Good point, here's my thought, for what they're worth.

There was one pistol, a Mauser, I can't remember which model, but it had a wooden holster, which could double as a stock. From what I recall it was quite dangerous up to nearly 1000 yards. I believe that Winston Churchill had one in the Boer War, so it was around for a while. I'm pretty sure that it was used in WWI, as well - damn more research to do..

Back to the original point, I think that it was basically down to engineering and expense in the first instance. The shorter the barrell, the shorter the range, as early firearms weren't that accurate they were combined into volley fire. As time progressed and accuracy longer range kills became possible, but generally the pistol was considereed a CQB weapon. The more accurate, longer range pistols costing more, as opposed to the cheaper mass produced rifles. Also where would you put your bayonet?

Also I feel that a pistol sort of became an officers badge, I can still remember in the Gulf, a Marine officer bitching that he only had a 9mm, whilst I had an SA80. I'm glad that IW in the British Army are now virtually all SA80, never could get on with pistols.
 
Partisan said:
Good point, here's my thought, for what they're worth.

There was one pistol, a Mauser, I can't remember which model, but it had a wooden holster, which could double as a stock. From what I recall it was quite dangerous up to nearly 1000 yards. I believe that Winston Churchill had one in the Boer War, so it was around for a while. I'm pretty sure that it was used in WWI, as well - damn more research to do...
Click to expand...


You are talking about the 1896 Mauser often referred to as the “Broom handle" in 7.63 Mauser, which is a bottle neck cartridge. The 1896 Mauser was also built in 9mm Parabellum/9x19/9mm Luger/9mm NATO (its the same round) with a red "9" carved into the butt. There was also a selective fire model with a 20 round magazine called the Schnellfeuer, the selector switch was fitted on the left side of the frame. A number were also built in Spain and the Chinese built a small number in 45ACP. Its a very complicated firearm, and would be horrendously expensive to build today.

I still come across them on occasions, sadly many are badly rusted and usually poor bores. In fact I think I have one tucked away in my vault at work in storage.

Churchill did indeed have one, just before he was captured he dumped the weapon before it was found, otherwise he could have been shot as a spy.

Partisan said:
Back to the original point, I think that it was basically down to engineering and expense in the first instance. The shorter the barrell, the shorter the range, as early firearms weren't that accurate they were combined into volley fire. As time progressed and accuracy longer range kills became possible, but generally the pistol was considereed a CQB weapon. The more accurate, longer range pistols costing more, as opposed to the cheaper mass produced rifles. Also where would you put your bayonet?

Also I feel that a pistol sort of became an officers badge, I can still remember in the Gulf, a Marine officer bitching that he only had a 9mm, whilst I had an SA80. I'm glad that IW in the British Army are now virtually all SA80, never could get on with pistols.
Click to expand...

A point to remember, a revolver was more complicated to make then a single shot muzzle loading musket or rifle. As Partisan stated, the pistol/revolver is indeed a close quarter battle weapon.

There was a revolver carbine built, one of the problems for the firer was the flame cutting of the left arm, because of the cylinder gap between the cylinder and the barrel.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Like this you mean?

http://www.alfa-proj.cz/en/products/firearms/licensed-arms/carbines/

One of these reminds me of the contraption that Lee Van Cleef used in one of the Spaghetti Western's!
Click to expand...


The site you showed are modern types using metalic cartridges, but the idea is the same.

The one I was talking about was a cap and ball.
http://www.adfoldwest.com/pistol-uberti.html (go right to the bottome of the page)

Those shown are modern day replica's of the originals built in Italy. Those I have shot and handled are actually very good. I owned an 1858 Remington 44 replica years ago, I was amazed how accurate it was.
 
Last edited:
During the first half of the 19th Century the muzzle loading musket was still the main tool of the infantry which was not very accurate to say the least. During the American civil war you saw the largest progress in weapons for hundreds of years. The introduction of rifled barrels, percussion caps, the the brass cartridge, along with SLR and machine guns
 
One of the major problems regarding black powder firearms was the black powder residue which built up considerably during rapid fire. The muzzle loading rifles had major problems ramming a bore sized bullet into a barrel caked with the black powder residue build up.

This problem was solved with the Minie bullet which was undersized hollow base bullet, making it easier to ram into the barrel. On firing the “skirt” of the bullet expanded, gripping the rifling.

During the Battle of Rorkes Drift, the Martini Henry rifle barrels became too hot to touch, and soldiers often reverted to trying to pry stuck cases out of the chamber with their bayonet because of the black powder residue build up.
 
Last edited:
Colt built a variety of revolving rifles in a number of calibers. The big concern wasn't the cylender gap( the men had long sleeve wool jackets) but a chin fire from flash jumping from mouth to mouth resulting in a ball through the left fore arm. There was also concern about ammo usage. remember it could be shipped by rail, but had to go by wagon from the nearest point. The Union Army was saved from annialation @ Chicamauga by 2 Regiments, 1 with 5 shot Colt revolving rifles(56 cal?) & 1 with...hmm, sharps, Spencer, Henry, can remember exactly. Low casualties occured by relativly small number of troops actaully being involved in combar vs the number present. The Confederate disaster @ Franklin (5 CS Generals KIA) ended before most of the CS Army of Tennessee arrived on the field
 
Pretty sure it was the Sharps. ;)

War is a fertile field for innovation, always has been, always will. Smokeless powder was a result of what they learned on the battlefields of 19th century wars. Submarines, radar, paramedics, pennicilin, gas masks, latex condoms... the list is incredible. It would make a good thread... "What War-time Innovation has gifted the world".
 
bulldogg said:
Pretty sure it was the Sharps. ;)
Click to expand...

I think he's refering to John T. Wilders Lightning Brigade AKA Wilders Hachet Brigade (because they carried hachets) consisting of Indiana and Illinios Mounted Infantry Regt's (mainly mounted on mules) who were armed with Spencers. They were assigned to the Army of the Cumberland and made good use of their Spencers at Chattanoga/Chickamuga, Hoovers Gap and the Atlanta Campaign and later as Wilders main unit in his Corps of Cavalry.

The 51st Illinios also had a fair number of privatley purchased Henry's in their ranks at Chickamuaga and were documented as turning several assaults with them.
 
03USMC said:
I think he's refering to John T. Wilders Lightning Brigade AKA Wilders Hachet Brigade (because they carried hachets) consisting of Indiana and Illinios Mounted Infantry Regt's (mainly mounted on mules) who were armed with Spencers. They were assigned to the Army of the Cumberland and made good use of their Spencers at Chattanoga/Chickamuga, Hoovers Gap and the Atlanta Campaign and later as Wilders main unit in his Corps of Cavalry.

The 51st Illinios also had a fair number of privatley purchased Henry's in their ranks at Chickamuaga and were documented as turning several assaults with them.
Click to expand...
Yes, Wilder's men with Spencers & the 21st Ohio with Colt revolving rifles.
While many of the early Colt percussion revolvers were notched for a removable but stock "Lee Van Cleef" style, the military carbines & rifles look like any other musket from the breech forward.
 
perseus said:
I was recently watching a movie about the exploits of ‘Stonewall’ Jackson and his adventures during the American civil war. In the battle of Fredericksburg, the Union army had to charge across a plain and ditch and was stopped short of a wall. There they stood in a line where they were plummeted with fire from the Confederates soldiers hiding behind it. Yet it is not the carnage that astonishes me here but how many survived, in fact most of the Union army still managed to retreat time and time again despite repeated attacks. Out of 114 000 men engaged, the Union army suffered ‘only’ 12,653 casualties (1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 captured/missing. Why so low?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg

It seems to me the small arm weaponry used by soldiers was still slow firing, and remained so well into the 20th century. Why did they not simply give them revolvers? Better still adapt the revolver into a long barrelled weapon capable of firing say six reasonably accurate shots over a space of 6 seconds? Surely this would have rendered any offensive impossible against similar numbers of soldiers.
Click to expand...

Perseus

I dunno, 12,000 casualties seems like alot, remember this was 1862. The bloodiest battle of the American Revolutional War was less than 1500 and that was only 80 years beforehand.

Why didnt they use revolvers? Range. If you look at the most common Union revolver -The US.Army Colt 1860 it was only accurate to about 75-100 yards. A 1861 Springfield rifle-musket about 2x-3x times that. The US Civil War was the first major conflict where the firearm itself was more dangerous than the Bayonet, therefore most battles didnt get too close. They were of course exceptions, but the Napoleonic era of the Bayonet charge as the means to win a battle was over. Most soldiers found their bayonets more useful as a roasting fork to cook their dinner.

Also remember that pistols were not generally issued to infantrymen, espicially in the Union Army (the Confederates was more flexible). However it was common that they were 'acquired' (usually by looting the dead) by both sides. They were also considered war trophies, and were sought after prizes.
 
Last edited:
As far as efficientcy of small arms is concerned, check out Cold Harbor.
Pistols were needed by Cavalry, any infantry enlistedmen cought with them had them confinscated & issued to the Cavalry. Some kept them hidden for use when foraging for extra food.
 
mmarsh said:
Perseus

I dunno, 12,000 casualties seems like alot, remember this was 1862. The bloodiest battle of the American Revolutional War was less than 1500 and that was only 80 years beforehand.

Why didnt they use revolvers? Range. If you look at the most common Union revolver -The US.Army Colt 1860 it was only accurate to about 75-100 yards. A 1861 Springfield rifle-musket about 2x-3x times that. The US Civil War was the first major conflict where the firearm itself was more dangerous than the Bayonet, therefore most battles didnt get too close.
Click to expand...

Well a scene from the film prompted my statement which may have not been accurate. The Union soldiers seemed to pull up about 30 yards away from the Confederates hiding behind a wall. I cannot understand why any Union soldiers managed to escape from this barrage.

Range did not seem to be relevent in this case, however I suggested simply extending the barrel of a revolver to compensate for this deficiency. I am thinking as a weapons designer of the age rather than as an soldier who had to make do with what was available.
 
perseus said:
Well a scene from the film prompted my statement which may have not been accurate. The Union soldiers seemed to pull up about 30 yards away from the Confederates hiding behind a wall. I cannot understand why any Union soldiers managed to escape from this barrage.

Range did not seem to be relevent in this case, however I suggested simply extending the barrel of a revolver to compensate for this deficiency. I am thinking as a weapons designer of the age rather than as an soldier who had to make do with what was available.
Click to expand...
Did you read my comments about the rev rifle? Linky During the War there were Henrys(16 rounds), Spencer(7 rounds) , Colt rev rifles (5 rounds) The Army didn't want the higher expense, nor the extra supply burden of the increased ammo consumption, that these newer style rifles would cause to a strained budget.
 
perseus said:
Well a scene from the film prompted my statement which may have not been accurate. The Union soldiers seemed to pull up about 30 yards away from the Confederates hiding behind a wall. I cannot understand why any Union soldiers managed to escape from this barrage.

Range did not seem to be relevent in this case, however I suggested simply extending the barrel of a revolver to compensate for this deficiency. I am thinking as a weapons designer of the age rather than as an soldier who had to make do with what was available.
Click to expand...

The stonewall on Maryes Hieghts was the focal point of Fredricksburg but not the entire battle. Soliders in the civil war tended to shoot high, so much so that a common command on the firing line was "aim low boys". Shooting down from the hieghts would have caused more problems in that people shooting downhill tend to aim low. Take that into account along with the fact that a great many units retreated or simply layed down and presented a smaller target.

The US military was totally against multi shot weapons, thinking that soliders would "waste" ammo, this carried over into the adoption of the 45-70 Springfield Long Tom and Cavalry Carbine post CW, both single shot breech loaders (trap door) and even to the adoption of the Krag rifle with it's loading system and despite it being a reapter the regulations in it's loading were designed to conserve ammo.
 
03USMC said:
The stonewall on Maryes Hieghts was the focal point of Fredricksburg but not the entire battle. Soliders in the civil war tended to shoot high, so much so that a common command on the firing line was "aim low boys". Shooting down from the hieghts would have caused more problems in that people shooting downhill tend to aim low. Take that into account along with the fact that a great many units retreated or simply layed down and presented a smaller target.
Click to expand...
There's a photo of a 2 story house that CS troops were in front of in a battle. You can see a huge number of bullet holes @ the 2nd floor window level!
 
I wonder if shotguns with fewer but larger calibre shot would have been more effective at short range especially given the poor medical facilities of the day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top