Civil War question
 

I believe that there have been manufactured revolvers with a longer barrel and a stock. I think the reasons you don't see more of these are that the chamber on a revolver is not suitable for the larger charge in the round you'd use in a rifle, and that most rifles use a necked cartridge incompatable with a revolver's chamber, but suitable (e.g.) for a bolt-action rifle. But I'm no expert.

yrs in arming bears,

t.s.

Civil War question
 

OK maybe. But it still doesn't explain why they didn't use rifles. Why the muskets. Wouldn't a rifle be better. And wouldn't a revolver that could shoot five quick shots be better than a single shot rifle and especially a musket?

Civil War question
 

How far did the pre-civil war rifles shoot, as compared to muskets? What was the rate of misfires, as compared to muskets? What was the effect of a misfire, as compared to a musket? What was the accuracy, as compared to a musket? Would being shot with a rifle kill or effectively disable the opponent?

These are all pretty obvious and logical questions. If you are assburgery, I would think you would think of these things faster than, say, me.

Civil War question
 

Rifles are unquestionably better than muskets. If they were using the latter, it was for lack of technology and/or production capacity.

Revolvers are better at close range, for a few reasons, but rifles have a much longer range and better accuracy (it's the rifling). Although at close range, you can put a bayonet on the end of a rifle or musket.

Civil War question
 

They did use rifles (the muzzle-loading muskets were a species of rifle), and also repeating ones at that. The Henry rifle was one lever-action repeater that saw service in the War Between the States.* The Spencer was another. Their higher cost and relatively exotic ordnance kept them from being as widely issued as the muzzle-loading rifles, which in turn were only six-year-old technology at the start of the war and therefore relatively exotic.

A.K.A. The War Among the States.

Civil War question
 

The repeating rifle seems so superior to the muzzle loading rifle that I find it amazing that more of an effort wasn't made to supply everyone with repeating rifles. A jump from a muzzle-loading rifle seems like to me the jump from a sword to a musket. It would seem to me that ten soldiers with repeating rifles would easily beat a hundred soliders with muzzle loading rifles. A repeating rifle could get off five rounds in a couple of seconds where a muzzle loading musket firing five rounds would take a couple of minutes. In combat that difference in time would be tactically invaluable. The difference in my mind must be greater than reality.

Civil War question
 

I find nothing more annoying than someone who responds to a question when they don't know the answer. Why do people do that? If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, don’t say anything. You are almost as bad as notcasesensitive. Posts like the one above only demonstrate the inadequacies of the poster and wastes space.

Civil War question
 

You're learning fast. That is a great way to start the friday off.

Civil War question
 

No, the difference was quite real --- ask Custer, whose men had single-shot Springfields going up against the red man with Henrys and Spencers. Little Big Horn was probably the last time the USA allowed infantry to take on an enemy with superior weaponry.

An interesting basic answer to your earlier question is found here:

• I'm interested in finding out timelines for the various repeating rifles - any type, lever-action or revolver. I have several questions:
  1. Why did the revolver-type repeating rifles not catch on like the lever types?
  
  2. Were there good-quality repeating rifles during the American Civil War?
  
  3. If so, why did the armies continue to use single-shot rifles, as is written in anything I've seen or read about the war?
  Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my questions.
  John Geary
  Regular contributor David Stroud writes:
  1. By "revolver-type" repeating rifles, I assume you mean weapons such as the Colt revolving rifles and shotguns. Colt came out with a revolving rifle in 1836 and believed this would make him rich; the Paterson pistol was a sideline. However, both were far too costly for the military and civilian markets. There was also another drawback: with cap-and ball-rifles, the flame from the fired cylinder could burn the arm of the shooter unless he held it as prescribed in Colt's instructions.
  If you mean a Gatling Guns, the early models were not nearly as efficient as seen in the movies. The empty casings jammed frequently on ejection, and that's why Custer left them behind on his way to the Little Big Horn.
  
  2. and 3. Yes, the 7-shot, .52 caliber Spencer was lever action, and the Confederates claimed Yanks could load on Sunday and fire all week. The Henry lever action was also an excellent arm.
  Before the Civil War, the U.S. War Department was reluctant to buy such expensive weapons and believed the average soldier was not smart enough to operate multiple-firing arms. The War Department also claimed that the amount of smoke from repeating weapons hid the enemy from view.
  However, the US Army eventually purchased Spencers and by the end of the Civil War the Union cavalry was armed with them. In competition between the lever-action Henry and the Spencer the the government preferred the more durable Spencer, but eventually abandoned it and returned to the single shot Springfield trapdoor." Ironically, the Spencer was recalled from Custer's troopers and they were reissued single-shot Springfields for their march to the Little Big Horn where they faced Indians with Henrys and Winchesters.
  
  Byron Johnson, Director of the TRHFM adds:
  The issues of ammunition, ammunition storage and cost was a major flaw with the Spencer and Henry.
  The Spencer stored cartridges nose-to-tail in a removable magazine that slid into the buttstock. If a Spencer was struck hard on the butt, the weapon could "explode" in a chain reaction. I saw this happen to a reenactor in the 1970s with a reproduction Spencer. He required surgery after the stock turned into wood-and-metal shrapnel—even though the weapon was loaded with blanks.
  The Henry rifle was an elegant, precision weapon that could fire an impressive 12 rounds. However, Henry cartridges were of the less reliable rimfire design and prone to misfires. The bullets were smaller .44 caliber versus the .52 caliber of the Spencer, and the anemic 25 grain Henry powder charge yielded a low velocity and a range shorter than many old-style cap and ball rifles. The lever-action mechanism was fragile and required regular maintenance. Repairs in the field were impossible.
  The US Government was also not excited about the cost of these weapons. A single shot rifle like a Springfield could be had for less than $20. The Spencer was twice the cost at $40 and a plain Henry started at $50.
  I agree with David that the battle at the Little Bighorn might have been different if they used Spencers or Henrys in place of the trapdoor Springfields. "Trapdoors" used powerful .45-70 and .50-70 cartridges. However, the shell casings were cheap copper and expanded with heat from repeated firings. This led to cartridges jamming in the breechs. After the battle, the graves detail found several cases where soldiers were killed while desperately trying to pry a jammed shell out of a Springfield breech. Ironically, after this battel copper casings were replaced by brass casings.
  Thank you for you interest, and let us know if I can help any further.
  
  David Stroud & Byron Johnson

Link.

Civil War question
 

Wasn't the Sepoy Mutiny in India a few years earlier caused in part by the introduction of repeating breach loading rifles whose grease coated cartridges had to be unwrapped by the teeth? IIRC, there were rumors spread that the grease was a mixture of pig and cow fat, which pretty much offended every Sepoy in India.

Civil War question
 

Not to mention that the Henry was a .50 caliber beast that would have shattered the collarbones of the 16 and 17 year-old boys that made up far too many of the troops in the Civil War.

Civil War question
 

Well. I stand corrected.

Civil War question
 

I meant to imply that perhaps you could have, you know, googled.

Civil War question
 

Is it possible that she is actually trying to annoy you? Is she just in her standard bitchy mood? Has she run out of meds again? Can you waste virtual space when we get it for free?

Civil War question
 

Well, there was Vietnam.

Civil War question
 

That was unexpectedly subdued.

Civil War question
 

I can't explain why, but this post really turns me on.

Civil War question
 

Pre-coffee. I like that I'm not as bad as Pretty Lady.

Civil War question
 

Unwrapping something grease-coated and delicate with the teeth? I have no idea how that could be a turn-on.

Civil War question
 

Nah, I think it's more that RT, who usually talks about vibrators, can talk about guns and military history. It's like a hot chick in a bikini fixing your car.

Question 2: Middle Eastern Nationalism.
 

Wow - this is great. The civil war rifle question had been bugging me for years. Now I know the answer. He is another question (or questions), that I have Googled but not have found an answer to. From Morocco to Kabul there are only really four major languages in the Middle East.

1) Arabic is spoken from Morocco in the West to Syria in the Northeast down to Yemen in the south east. Although the accents get really thick, the phoenetic writing is the same through the Arab world. Someone from Yemen can barely understand someone from Morocco because the accent but everyone can pretty much understand the Egyptian accent (some say dialect). That is because of Egypts central location. They share liteature.

2) Kurdish is spoken in Southeastern turkey, Northwestern Iran, Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq.

3) Persian or Farsi is spoken in most of Persia except where Azerbaijani (Turkish), Kurdish, and Arabic (Khosistan next to Iraq) are spoken. Fifty percent of Afghanistan speaks farsi (where it is called Dari) and Tadjikistan. So farsi is spoken from a continuous strip starting in Tehran running through afghanistan and then into Tadjikistan. I have found out that the accents get thick but someone in norther Tadjikistan can understand someone from Tehran. They also share the same liteature.

4) Turkish is spoken in Turkey, Northeastern Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan, Uzbekistan and northwestern China (Sinkiang province where Kashgar is located).

Given the above here are my questions.

1) Each "Turkish" country has its own ethnicity - Turkmens, Kazaks, Azeris and Uighers which implies to me that they have their own language. However, they all are "Turkish". So can someone from Uzbekistan talk to someone from Kazakhstan (they are both neighbors and Turkish). Can someone from Istanbul talk to a Uigher in Kashgar which is about three thousand miles away? And do they share the same liteature like all the Arabs and the farsi speaking people do? I do know that Turkey dropped the arabic script in the 20s. Did that cut them off from the rest of the Turkish world as far as liteature. What do the Uighurs use as script?

2) There are Pan-Turks (people that want to unite all turks), Pan-Arabs (people that want to unit all arabs) and nationalist Kurds that want to unite all Kurds. Even in Eastern Afghanistan there are the Pashtuns and there are pan-pashtuns that want to unite the pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan. How come there is no Pan-persians. I have not ever heard of any group or movement that wants to unite the farsi speaking people of the middle east. Even though they have the same liteature, the same language and the are the people occupy is continuous.

3) Can all Kurds talk to eachother. Do they have a common script?

Civil War question
 

That was amazing. Thanks for that.

For Fringy and notcasesensitive: Please take note. The above is an example of a substantive answer to a question. When someone asks a question they are looking for an answer like the response above. I know that is hard to grasp, but mindless ramblings are not what is being requested.

Question 2: Middle Eastern Nationalism.
 

You've got to be fucking kidding me. I'm really glad paigow invented this board.

Question 2: Middle Eastern Nationalism.
 

And here are my answers. But see the disclaimer.


The premise of your questions is in error. Dialects of Arabic are so different that it is a mistake to assume that all Arabs can understand each other. Hell, my Roman father can't understand my Neapolitan relatives when they speak in their dialect, even though it's all supposedly "Italian."

I assume the same problem extend to dialects of Turkish, so I doubt that the average Istanbul-ian can understand the average Uigher. And I think their culture is quite different, largely because Ataturk so dramatically changed the culture of Turkey -- making it more secular, more western, less Asian.



No, because the pan-this-and-that movements generally result from artificial borders having been imposed by imperial powers, generally but not exclusively western powers, that drew new lines but did not impose deeper cultural changes -- the result being that people felt liked the belonged to one "nation", even if they lived in another. The same problem exists in Africa, but because the ethnic groups are so much smaller and more disparate you don't see the same sort of "pan" movements (and, politically, African leaders wisely decided after the independence movements took hold that they would keep the colonial borders. Possibly the only outbreak of collective wisdom among African leaders.)


Yes, despite great efforts to surpress the use of the language and script in Turkey and Iraq (and possibly in other countries).



Disclaimer: I made up all of my answers. They are probably wrong. Don't use them on a test.

Question 2: Middle Eastern Nationalism.
 

By the way, I'm beginning to understand why you don't get laid often.

Civil War question
 

If Less was here, he'd say:

http://www.dinside.no/km_bilde/5/134465.jpg

Civil War question
 

I'm afraid you've made an error on your assumptions. Maybe two.

Civil War question
 

My name actually has no capital letters either. I am somewhat sensitive to case. And what slave said is what I was actually saying. So you need to bitch at him too.

Civil War question
 

I already stated I tried to find the answer to these questions. Why don't you show the board wait a lame "Googler" I am.

Civil War question
 

It is funny that you mention that because Slave was actually saying what LessinSF would say. And you and NCS are minor leaguers compared to LessinSF. I have never heard LessinSF say "I don't know" to a question although I have probably asked him a thousand questions he did not know the answer to.

Civil War question
 

I can't speak for ncs, but I for one am heartbroken that I am not even close to achieving my goal, to be the quintessential less.

Civil War question
 

He's probably STILL answering a few of them, to those in reasonable earshot.

Civil War question
 

Really? You've never been with him in a parking lot in Vegas when the cops asked "who's your friend who just took off running?"

Civil War question
 

No but I was asked "who's your friend bleeding all over the craps table?".

Really

Civil War question
 

Civil War question
 

I think we need some deer sightings, stat.

Civil War question
 

Yeah. This sucks. I could go for some puma sightings in lieu of the deer, though.

Civil War question
 

Now we're talkin'

Or...not.

Civil War question
 

I was told they were around yesterday, but I was out of the house. Oh well.

Civil War question
 

Your terminology is off. Its not minor leaguers, it's a skool analogy.

Less is old skool. Like Paigow. Or me.

ncs, ltl and slave are mid skools.

you are a newber.

Carry on.