Great video. The one Spencer (a reproduction) I've experienced, struck me as a bit wonky, with great tendency to hang up. Left a negative impression of the Spencer in my mind. I'd take the simplicity of the Trapdoor myself, but then again, Chiappa was not what our troops were carrying back then. 😊
Hey Hickock, great to see you here! I have to stick up for the Spencer. The one you got from Bud's was new off the shelf, and not broken in. The Spencer's action doesn't become smooth without putting a few hundred rounds through it, and you have to slam the lever around for it to run flawlessly.
Yeah he's extremely dexterous when handling firearms. You only ever see videogame characters performing a perfect and flawless reload. Karl does that like 99% of the time which in real world terms is really impressive.
@@PokemonHaloFan That's because it's incredibly frustrating to have your character fumble a reload without it being the player's fault. The more competitive a game is the less randomness you want in these common actions, so developers choose to just make perfect reloads all the time. You point still stands though, I just thought I'd add some perspective
Bloke on the Range's buddy Chap has done mad minute with a number of with single shoot breech loading black powder rifles on their channel. I expect the trapdoor would do better than I originally thought it would do. I still think the Werder is the king of single shot rifles closely followed by the Martini-Henry and the Remington Falling Block.
@@mpetersen6 Yeah the rolling block really surprised me! Check out the Run and Gun over on TFB TV where they use the Remington Rolling Block. It's really impressive.
also, what weapons do you recommend for a cowboy build's deathclaw weapon? rocking a repeater as my primary, That Gun as my sidearm, a lever action as my shotgun (if I do a guns build my layout is 1 is primary rifle, 3 is shotgun, 4 is pistol, 5 is either SMG or second pistol, and 6 or 7 are melee and explosive, and 8 is medicine, usually healing)
Truth be told, these videos are like a breath of fresh air between all muh this AR and Wah this AK videos flooding the internet. This video shows how our perception of ammunition capacity has changed over the years. Some old guy I knew used to say that an average Indian sepoy in the 1930s used to carry 30 rounds total (20+10). Number of bullets were always considered less significant than the power of ammo. (they carried Ishapore 2A1 rifles)
Marisa Lau That's a good point. However, in India, Ishapore is a common nomenclature to point out any sort of SMLE type rifles. So yeah, it could have been the .303 version, don't know. This is like how .45 ACP is called .45 bore around here.
As a former infantryman, the idea of loading magazines (as mentioned) from loose ammunition boxes in combat genuinely sent a shiver down my spine and re-oriented me in the video to really consider what close quarters skirmishes would have been like and the genuine serious stress experienced getting engaged when the medical logistics may include a field surgeon and whiskey if you’re fortunate. Thank you for the thought provoking content guys.
Man, these rules of the internet sure are confusing. If Ohlourdes Padua does not like a meme, that makes someone a fascist?? Is there a place I can send in my meme for official approval, or do I just have to post it and wait for a response?
What made this video, for me, was seeing Karl manipulate the trapdoor like a pro, but also Ian manipulating the Trapdoor, then starting a discussion of firing an extra round while still running it well.
Agreed. I think it was one of the biggest selling points as to the benefits of the Trapdoor over the Spencer. Goes to show just how simple and easy to operate the Trapdoor is, which is absolutely critical when your military training consists of "Here's your rifle, go shoot those people over there. Oh, hold on, here's the ammo, too. Now go shoot them." Durable, simple, easy to operate and service, these are all critical things for a conscript weapon. Same reason everyone loves to love the AK: you can train someone to use it in minutes and it'll run just fine.
My exact thoughts, aswell I think that would of been a more accurate test, even with single fire from the spencer after a depleted mag I feel like it would of been really close, even 10 shot comparison would of been tight.
I remember one time Carl said his original vision for the channel was Top Gear with guns, but then chose not to develop it in that direction. Well, this video really gave me a Top Gear vibe, especially the chat at the end.
Great video. Another factor often overlooked is the fouling effects of blackpowder. If you think the Spencer is finicky now wait until you've dumped a dozen rounds of real BP ammo through it. It might be worth demonstrating that. Another factor would be sustained fire, of say 20 rounds. The Spencer can be single loaded but not quite as easily as the trapdoor and I think you'll find the ejection issues become more apparent. I suspect, though have never tested, that over a long 'last man standing" type of test, say 50 rounds, the Spencer would fall behind the Trapdoor.
When I saw Ian loading the Spencer, my immediate thought was I wonder what would happen in a 14 or even 15 round test comparison. Honestly, when evaluating the two carbines, they had to be thinking that the Spencer only had a speed advantage for the first 7 rounds and that wasn’t worth the reliability concerns.
I have a spencer in 56-50 and I shoot only black powder loads . I have shot over 50 rounds and there is only a small amount of powder on the face of the block . As far as ejection of the round the action has to be worked with authority .
Got to attend a lecture in college from a US Army colonel who had lectured at USMA-West Point. Take aways from the lecture in relation to your presentation - he insisted that there was no to very few true Calvary on the US frontier, it was doctrine to always fight as mounted infantry as you pointed out. Second point that you had pointed out, Supply was always of prime importance on the frontier. Doctrine is developed to accommodate problems and deficiencies, not to rely upon exceptional personnel and resources.
Probably little to no saber training (if any). And they certainly weren't picking tent pegs with lances. Or as pointed out here very little firearms training*. Pistol or carbine. This was mainly due to the severe control the Congress placed on the Army with the budget. The US Army literally was run on a shoestring. The most expensive thing a trooper was issued was probably his horse, tack and saddle. In my opinion the blood of every trooper who died in the west if he was outgunned was on the hands of the United States Congress. In truth if a regiment of US Army Cavalry from the 1870s or 80s had to go up against an equivilant size unit of European cavalry or mounted lancers they'd get their asses handed to them. But then the US Army was only fighting "unsophisticated savages" out on in the American West. In reality the Army's job in the west as not to fight the Native tribes but try and keep the peace as much as possible. The tribes saw their land and way of life disappearing before their eyes. They knew what had happened to the Eastern tribes simply because there was more trade going on in the Americas even pre 1500 than many realize. Shells from the gulf coast, Lake Superior copper, obsidian and other items have been found far from there origin points. As more and more settlers poured into the east it began to set off tribal migrations to the west. As I understand it the Lakota for example originally were from farther east. Souix is actually a very insulting name from the Ojibwea iirc. A lot of the tribes were called by names their enemies and neighbors had for them. Usually insulting. The Europeans (the US is or was at that time a European country**) just adopted the names from the peoples the met first. *The standards of American marksmanship in the 1800s was pretty bad. We think of the US for the time period as a nation of rifleman. The awful state of marksmanship even for people with some experience with firearms that were recruits in the US Army was so bad that was the major reason the Army assisted in the formation of the NRA in the 1870s. **We like to think we are exceptional as a nation. In some ways we might be. In the 1800s and since our biggest point of exceptionalism is the ability to re-invent oneself.
i think a real test would be 14 rounds making for ian to have to do a reload this might close the time even knowing that they would go to single loading after the first 7 and also a 7 then load 7 single would be interesting too
The official 1873 test went further (I think too far) and had the shooter start with an empty chamber *and magazine.* They then had to fire as many rounds as possible in 1 minute. Under those conditions the Springfield was even faster than the Spencer.
To remain clear, the idea of the trapdoor function was developed and old muzzle loaders were first modified, to be trapdoors, but the 1873 Springfield Trapdoor was a new rifle manufactured as a trapdoor rifle.
Good video as usual. I kept waiting for a malfunction. Especially with the Spencer. It looks like that rifle is perpetually on the verge of jamming. Well done both if you. No malfunctions (on camera at least).
I did some original research on the .45-70 issues at Little Bighorn in 2013 at Texas A&M for my senior history thesis. I tracked down original purchase receipts for the 7th Cavalry in 1876, and discovered that most of rifles were chambered for .45-55-405, and the "brass" (actually copper) with knife marks was for .45-70-500 for the Gatling guns. They also tended to deform slightly more due to the higher pressure, and would lengthen the casing when fired, so it was easier to track which soldiers essentially had the wrong ammo.
I had an H & R replica Trapdoor Springfield cavalry carbine. It was light weight. It had a steel buttplate. Modern 45-70 rounds being fired out of it was a stimulating experience.
To my untrained eyes, I almost want to say that Ian being left handed really hampered his fire rate on the Spencer since he had to constantly switch hands while working the carbine. But damn, you two are fast.
I absolutely L O V E that you guys are doing this series! You answer so many questions I’ve had about why the army or whoever chose the weapons they did. It boils down to money, time to train, ease of repair or fabrication, and ease of resupply. Thanks! I noticed Ian is on the last belt notch of Karl’s ammo belt and it still hangs on him!
As someone who comes from a place where inanimate objects are banned from all because a few bad people choose to do bad things with them. I am super glad you are taking the time to do this and am super glad you guys are making it happen.
This whole series has been amazing to watch, and very refreshing from everything else out there. Bar none, one of my favorites. Keep up the amazing work you guys!
The Civil War was an aberration when it came to how much Congress would have tolerated spending on Procurement and needs to be appreciated as such. The Spencer would almost certainly have not been adopted if fighting anyone other than an utterly implaccable American foe like the Confederacy. In all other times, the USA followed the trends of European military arms because it considered itself a peer and it should be no shock that the USA reverted to European norms once the panic of the Civil War was over.
It I was alone, having more shots ready in the magazine seems really valuable. But with a group of soldiers, there are always rounds ready to fire. And then steady and reliable seems more valuable.
I would like to see the end of this compare the full power lever actions in 30-40 against the Krag. I know that's kind of out of the scope since that's not an intermediate cartridge but it would be interesting to see.
This is exactly the content I subscribed for idk how many years ago. Don't get me wrong I love the modern stuff too, but the history is really why I'm here for every video.
So, awesome video, great topic. Couple of things to add; the Blakeslee Quick Loader Cartridge Box held tubular speed loaders for the Spencer rifles and carbines and allowed the carbines to be quickly reloaded without handling individual cartridges. Each box held 10 tubes with 7 rounds each, for a total of 70 rounds. The U.S. Government ordered around 30,000 boxes, but few made it into the hands of troops before the end of the war, however they did see action on the frontier. The U.S. Cavalry did want to order new Spence Carbines to replace their worn out guns, however Spencer went out of business in 1869, so none were available. Winchester purchased the remains of the company, which they often did, to prevent others from competing with their repeating rifles and carbines. In 1874, the 7th Cavalry had its Spencers replaced by Trapdoor carbines. Likely the absence of the Spencer during the 1876 Battle of Little Big Horn wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome. Much is made of Custer leaving his Gatlings guns behind and the Trooper's Trapdoors vs. the Indians Henrys and Winchesters, but the loss of the Spencers is rarely mentioned.
I have heard that the Spencer was rejected after the war because some of the old codgers in the War Department didn't like the idea of a repeating firearm due to the belief that the troops would waste ammo. I have also heard that the cavalry would carry extra ammo for the Spencer in a large box carrying what were called Blakeslee loading tubes, essentially holding a complete reload that could quickly dump another seven rounds into the magazine. Because the Blakeslee tubes were fragile, they didn't work as well as needed. I have also seen an old photograph showing the box for the Blakeslee tubes loaded up with the actual magazine plungers (that had the toe sticking out to the side). I am guessing that was a field expedient method for the fastest possible reloads. I believe that was from the Civil War, not the later Indian wars. I think the cavalry had already ditched the Spencer by 1868. Loved the video. Keep up the good work!
Love this video! I remember my grandfather telling me about one of our ancestors. The man told his father he was going to join the cavalry, and his father told him never to darken his doorstep again. Turned his picture to the wall and said: "Only bums join the army." Different times! Apparently, this ancestor rode around out west and came home with what they called a "fallen stomach". Not sure what that is but it was grounds for a medical discharge.
This is the second video of yours that I've watched. The other was the comparison between the Spencer and the early, no loading gate, Henry. In both you demonstrate an enormous historical knowledge of the firearms and why they were or were not adopted and understand the reasoning of the decision. You present the good and bad points of each without coming across as fan-boys of a given platform.
I was walking around the quad/museum area at FT. Sill one day. I got thirsty and started looking for a water fountain. I saw an open door at one of the adobe buildings, so I went in to ask where I could get a drink. What I saw inside the building was row, after row, stretching the entire length of the building of Calvary carbines. Don't know if they are still there, but easily several hundred of them.
Several history books on the time that I'm currently reading, mentioned that experienced soldiers could get out up to 15 shots per minute with the 1873 Trapdoor. Therefore I wasn't surprised when Karl only took 35/27,5 seconds for 7 bullets. :) Just stumbled on the lever gun series. Some of the most interesting videos here on InRange. Terrific!
Very interesting. I'm pretty sure the action of the Spence is more right-handed: the hammer falls naturally under the right thumb and the lever is also a straight push down, instead of having to reach over one way with your left thumb and then roll your hand back over the wrist of the stock and then down to action the lever. The difference is subtle, but that seems to make it very slightly easier and faster for a right-hander. I was surprised at how quickly (provided the cases eject cleanly) the Trapdoor could be cycled, which no doubt is helped greatly by having the hammer and trapdoor right near each other on the top of the action, also having easily accessable and fumble-proof ammo sotrage.
You guys are awesome, just not taking it seriously in the shooting but being interested in why things developed the way they did. Thank you for another refreshingly honest shooting video.
I believe they addressed this question in one of the earlier videos in the series. The US Army had a metric assload of surplus, muzzle-loading Springfields after the war, and it was generally more economical at the time to convert the existing guns to breech loaders than to build new rifles.
Rodney Rubert At this point in history the Spencers were already paid for, War Between the States leftovers. The Springfield rifle and carbines were all new production.
Not nearly enough spencers to equip all the cav though- it would have been a LOT of new production of entire rifles, versus conversion of existing rifles.
Jeffrey Root I was thinking of the 1865/66 trapdoor conversions. The later guns were new production, but still would have been much cheaper than new Spencers. Not only were the trapdoor Springfields less complicated, but a fair bit of the 1861 Springfield tooling could probably still be used.
According to the never wrong Wikipedia, the unit cost of a Spencer in 1861 was about $40. The 1865 Trapdoor Springfield was $20 for a new production gun, but only $5 if converted from muzzle-loading, 1861 Springfield.
This was really cool to watch but wouldn't it be possible to do this under more realistic "Little Bighorn" type simulation? Like being elevated on a ridge kneeling or standing or prone & firing out to moving targets both mounted & on foot at rages of 100-300 yards etc?
An interesting comparison. While I see why the US frontier army might be concerned with ammo supply, I don't see why the European continental armies were worried - even after Plevna it took them a few years to adopt repeaters. IIRC European wars were supposed to be, and planned in a way to be, short, fast, wars of primarily manoeuvre and staff-work, and then a decisive battle.
Doctrine and the nature of the soldiers. The nature of armies in Europe was that of relatively uneducated conscripts with little to no experience with firearms at all. In fact, when “peasant armies” got possession of arms and powder, they often rebelled against their governments. Also, this is why the officer Corp in many European armies had the reputation for brutality with their own soldiers.
@@charlesadams1721 Honestly the American army of the time were little better. As Karl said, being in the army at that time was considered something as a job for bums and failures. Among the 7th cavalry at Little Bighorn, one of the more elite regiment in the army, one third of its rank and file were made up of recent European immigrants. Furthermore, many of its troopers were malnourished and in poor physical condition.
This video is even better than the Spencer vs Henry one! I'm intrigued at how tests like this can open such a window into history and provide insight otherwise gone unnoticed. The trapdoor really wasn't that much slower than a Spencer to shoot, and far more powerful & rugged than a Henry. Suddenly the inexplicable US army decisions of the time are not so baffling. Subscribed!
When firing Trapdoors Custer's men held 3 rounds in between their fingers (like claws) to get off those rounds faster; grab 3 more from belt/bag, rinse & repeat... Many men did this as it was the style of the time, exhibitionist or not, everyone thought they were Wyatt Earp...
Very excited for this series! The WWSD ARs were very interesting but currently being in a banned state unfortunately was basically drooling on a keyboard at most. Having just been up at Springfield Armory the other day and seeing racks of trapdoors, this is very relevant to my current interests.
I agree with the gentleman below about the 14 round test, especially considering the value of sustained fire in the era. Also surprised you didn’t mention the old trick of sneaking a few full size rifle rounds into your buddy’s belt when he wasn’t looking after they started doing more live fire training later on. I’ll be carrying my Pedersoli trapdoor carbine to Montana next week, should be able to try it out at longer ranges, looking forward to that.
Good video that gives me a different perspective. I asked myself why the Cavalry did not use the Spencer or even the Henry rifle. The reason is because the trapdoor is slower,
I often shoot using the finger method. This is similar to using the Metcalf device. And yes, the Metcalf devices were issued. We had a Report of Survey for a broken rifle stock of a soldier who slipped on the ice. The survey listed the stock as being equipped with a Metcalf. We have also found reference to using the fingers to hold them by troops of the 1800's. This is what probably led to the Metcalf.
As to reacquiring a sight picture a sight picture, remember they had just come out of the muzzleloader era when every sight picture was acquired anew with each shot. also, black powder smoke likey minimized the ability to do so. Great Video, keep up the good work.
Enjoyed the video & comments- a couple things though there was a device called th Blakeslee Quickloader which was issued with the Spencer Also there is period documentation that shows that the horse soldiers did prefer the 500 grain lad for its greater knockdown power.
The idea of this comparison entered my mind after the Henry vs Spencer video and I was going to comment about it on the next video in the Lever Gun Series. So, when it turned out the next video was that same idea, I was happily surprised! Great work, very informative. As this series goes on, I think it would be great to examine non-lever guns, especially from the combined arms perspective. I'm wondering how the Remington Rolling Block would fare, either against the Sharps as a marksman's rifle or against the Trapdoor as an alternative (if it is not too out of the way). Looking forward to this series as it goes forward.
from what i have read, the spencer was replaced with the trapdoor because of ammunition supply, and discipline. soldiers with repeaters had a bad habit of expending their ammunition too fast with very little result. command felt that the single shot rifles would force the soldier to take well aimed shots instead of doing volley fire. where the trapdoor failed was with the copper casings, the casings would corrode over long marches and often times would jam in the chamber during reloads.
Now put 14 rounds through both. Though the Spencer beats the Trapdoor on a 7 round basis, I'm sure it'd lose a lot of time on the magazine reload, meaning that over a prolonged engagement the Trapdoor would have an advantage. Or am I missing something?
And still lose a lot of ROF compared to the Trapdoor. But I guess that's what you get when you pit a very early repeater against a highly evolved single shot rifle.
fnglert The Spencer had a quick loader called the Blakeslee tube that carried 7 rounds and enabled speed reloading so long as the tube wasn't dented. The cavalry had them carried in a box so several quick reloads were possible.
fnglert The Trapdoor was originally a conversion of a muzzle-loading musket, it was far from "highly evolved". The only reason that they kept the design in service as long as they did was that the advantages of upgrading to a more modern single-shot rifle were outweighed by the cost and the logistics/supplies issues.
This is an interesting and eye opening video but it only addresses some of the differences between these two guns. The cartridges they fired were another very significant difference that helped sway the army towards a single shot rifle. They wanted the added power and range of a true rifle cartridge as opposed to the significantly weaker intermediate round tired by the repeaters of the day. While the problematic 1876 Winchester could handle ammunition somewhat similar to the .45/70 it wasn’t until the 1886 Winchester that a repeater was available to chamber the .45/70. Pretty much every major power in the world felt the same way with Britain, France, Germany etc all equipping their armies with full power rounds in the .45/70 class. I’d be interested in seeing this issue included in a video like this because it was of paramount importance to the governments of the day.
Another fascinating video packed with info. It would be really interesting if you would ever run the Trapdoor with a simulated Metcalfe Magazine system, a wooden block of arsenal loaded cartridges fitted to the right side of the weapon. Developed by a Captain Henry Metcalfe in 1872 at the request of the Ordnance Department. Tested in 1873/74 some 34,000 were made but never adopted Army-wide.
Crazy, i could never reload a gun so fast and aim and even hit the target, you guys are crazy, of couse it is a matter of training and drill, that was impressive
Hello, everyone! I know I'm a little late with this comment, but I still want to comment on the video. In my opinion, loading up the magazine on the Spencer should count towards the time. Because in a firefight under realistic conditions, as the video tries to show, the fight isn't over after 7 shots, is it? That's when the strength of the Trapdoor comes into play, because it can shoot continuously at the presented speed, while the Spencer has to be reloaded, which is relatively time-consuming! I find it falsifying to compare a magazine-release rifle with a single-shot rifle without considering the reload factor of both. Nevertheless, thank you very much for presenting these two historically interesting weapons and for your effort! Greetings from Germany!
I the rifle version of the 1873 Trapdoor included a cleaning rod, that could be used to extract unejected cartridges. There are accounts from Reno's force that they had cleaning rods from rifles that they used to unjam the carbines since that was a quicker and easier method than trying to pry the cartridge out with a knife. The 1873's biggest issue was that it originally used copper cartridges, which were prone to expansion and the bullet coming unseated. The disaster at Little Big Horn prompted the Army to switch to brass cartridges, which were much more reliable, and the Army has been using brass ever since.
The register from the trap door compared to the Spencer was audible power. The Springfield sounds like it'd blow you off your feet or dismount you from your horse. You can really hear the difference with the trap door. It's probably way more power than you'd actually need lol but nobody realized that until WW2.
terminology: lever-action is the means of opening the action. The Sharps is a lever-action as well as the Spencer. The Spencer is single-shot repeater, whereas the Henry/Winchesters are lever-action repeaters. The Trapdoor and Sharps are single shot rifles, and not repeaters since the shooter has to manually load each round by hand. Later on we get bolt-actions; single shot and repeaters as well.
Another thing to keep in mind when comparing these guns was also just army doctrine at the time. The Minimum range requirement of army and cavalry rifles was 600 yards, which guns like the Winchester and the Henry were incapable of meeting until the late 1880s when Winchester finally started being able to load high caliber rifle rounds instead of 44 pistol rounds. The Trapdoor was Proven, it was Reliable, Very Accurate, and cheap to produce. The Spencer earned Ire from some troops for its difficulty with the lever action, Jamming was not uncommon in the heat of combat due to the difficulties of having no ejector for the rifle. And looking at literally every other nation's armies and the type of Rifle they were using, they all were also using single shot rifles until the 1880s, Such as the British Martini Henry, The German Needle Gun, the French Chassepot, the list goes on. Baring some exceptions, Such as the Swiss Vetterli and Italian copy of it. I would argue that the Trapdoor, while it gets flak being compared to things like the Spencer, Winchester, Henry, it was the workhorse of the U.S. Army for nearly 30 years. You don't get that type of longevity of service if its a bad gun. Trapdoor was not garbage it was a very very good piece of equipment.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video. The one Spencer (a reproduction) I've experienced, struck me as a bit wonky, with great tendency to hang up. Left a negative impression of the Spencer in my mind.
I'd take the simplicity of the Trapdoor myself, but then again, Chiappa was not what our troops were carrying back then. 😊
Hey Hickock, great to see you here! I have to stick up for the Spencer. The one you got from Bud's was new off the shelf, and not broken in. The Spencer's action doesn't become smooth without putting a few hundred rounds through it, and you have to slam the lever around for it to run flawlessly.
Karl reloads guns like a video game character.
Haha ikr
Yeah he's extremely dexterous when handling firearms. You only ever see videogame characters performing a perfect and flawless reload. Karl does that like 99% of the time which in real world terms is really impressive.
paris
@@PokemonHaloFan That's because it's incredibly frustrating to have your character fumble a reload without it being the player's fault. The more competitive a game is the less randomness you want in these common actions, so developers choose to just make perfect reloads all the time.
You point still stands though, I just thought I'd add some perspective
he must be playing too much vr
very impressive, that's one of the fastest runs I've ever seen with a Trapdoor rifle for sure. Great job guys
Bloke on the Range's buddy Chap has done mad minute with a number of with single shoot breech loading black powder rifles on their channel. I expect the trapdoor would do better than I originally thought it would do. I still think the Werder is the king of single shot rifles closely followed by the Martini-Henry and the Remington Falling Block.
@@mpetersen6 Yeah the rolling block really surprised me! Check out the Run and Gun over on TFB TV where they use the Remington Rolling Block. It's really impressive.
The extraction on that trapdoor will never not be satisfying.
It’s sorta impressive like the speed loading of a Martini Henry
RebSike patrolling the Mojave almost makes me wish for a nuclear winter
We won't go quietly. The Legion can count on that.
also, what weapons do you recommend for a cowboy build's deathclaw weapon? rocking a repeater as my primary, That Gun as my sidearm, a lever action as my shotgun (if I do a guns build my layout is 1 is primary rifle, 3 is shotgun, 4 is pistol, 5 is either SMG or second pistol, and 6 or 7 are melee and explosive, and 8 is medicine, usually healing)
When I got this assignment I was hoping there'd be more gambling.
Those intertitles make me feel like I’m cordially invited to the Spencer/Trapdoor wedding.
Their baby was a Sharps.
Truth be told, these videos are like a breath of fresh air between all muh this AR and Wah this AK videos flooding the internet. This video shows how our perception of ammunition capacity has changed over the years. Some old guy I knew used to say that an average Indian sepoy in the 1930s used to carry 30 rounds total (20+10). Number of bullets were always considered less significant than the power of ammo. (they carried Ishapore 2A1 rifles)
This was because unless you had a whole platoon, volume of fire was not an option, so you were better off aiming usefully.
Right, except 308 win was introduced in 1952. And the 2A1 itself was only adopted in 1963.
The 2A1 was designed to use 308. What was your point? Response to a deleted comment?
Marisa Lau That's a good point. However, in India, Ishapore is a common nomenclature to point out any sort of SMLE type rifles. So yeah, it could have been the .303 version, don't know. This is like how .45 ACP is called .45 bore around here.
His point is that the original comment referred to the 1930s, and the 2A1 didn't even exist at that point, and wouldn't for another 30 years.
Think a large part of Ian being slower on the Spencer is that it's a kind of awkward operation for left hand shooting.
Yes! i was thinking the same after seeing them both shoot.
Same with his trapdoor shoot. Note that he apparently declined to try a prone left handed Trapdoor shoot. :)
Spencer's are just awkward to cycle.
As a former infantryman, the idea of loading magazines (as mentioned) from loose ammunition boxes in combat genuinely sent a shiver down my spine and re-oriented me in the video to really consider what close quarters skirmishes would have been like and the genuine serious stress experienced getting engaged when the medical logistics may include a field surgeon and whiskey if you’re fortunate.
Thank you for the thought provoking content guys.
Karl, why didn't the army adopt the AR-15 in the 1860's? Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
Clearly it has to do with forward assist
The guy who lost, won because by Harry Turtledove.
You missed the point of thought experiments
Aluminium was stupidly expensive back then :)
Man, these rules of the internet sure are confusing. If Ohlourdes Padua does not like a meme, that makes someone a fascist?? Is there a place I can send in my meme for official approval, or do I just have to post it and wait for a response?
What made this video, for me, was seeing Karl manipulate the trapdoor like a pro, but also Ian manipulating the Trapdoor, then starting a discussion of firing an extra round while still running it well.
Agreed. I think it was one of the biggest selling points as to the benefits of the Trapdoor over the Spencer. Goes to show just how simple and easy to operate the Trapdoor is, which is absolutely critical when your military training consists of "Here's your rifle, go shoot those people over there. Oh, hold on, here's the ammo, too. Now go shoot them." Durable, simple, easy to operate and service, these are all critical things for a conscript weapon. Same reason everyone loves to love the AK: you can train someone to use it in minutes and it'll run just fine.
My exact thoughts, aswell I think that would of been a more accurate test, even with single fire from the spencer after a depleted mag I feel like it would of been really close, even 10 shot comparison would of been tight.
rhvette you can teach people how to use an AR in minutes as well. You can't teach them how to maintain one though.
David Hanny I agree
Yeah after a few rounds i was like "DAAAAMN! Holy shit he's fast! 0.0"
I remember one time Carl said his original vision for the channel was Top Gear with guns, but then chose not to develop it in that direction. Well, this video really gave me a Top Gear vibe, especially the chat at the end.
Ian: "...there's a kernel of truth to that.."
Karl *salutes*: "Colonel Oftruth!"
I knew I shouldn't have watched those HIMYM clips last week...
Great video.
Another factor often overlooked is the fouling effects of blackpowder. If you think the Spencer is finicky now wait until you've dumped a dozen rounds of real BP ammo through it.
It might be worth demonstrating that. Another factor would be sustained fire, of say 20 rounds. The Spencer can be single loaded but not quite as easily as the trapdoor and I think you'll find the ejection issues become more apparent.
I suspect, though have never tested, that over a long 'last man standing" type of test, say 50 rounds, the Spencer would fall behind the Trapdoor.
When I saw Ian loading the Spencer, my immediate thought was I wonder what would happen in a 14 or even 15 round test comparison. Honestly, when evaluating the two carbines, they had to be thinking that the Spencer only had a speed advantage for the first 7 rounds and that wasn’t worth the reliability concerns.
Yeah, I think if you make the race long enough, the trap door would win.
I have a spencer in 56-50 and I shoot only black powder loads . I have shot over 50 rounds and there is only a small amount of powder on the face of the block . As far as ejection of the round the action has to be worked with authority .
Got to attend a lecture in college from a US Army colonel who had lectured at USMA-West Point. Take aways from the lecture in relation to your presentation - he insisted that there was no to very few true Calvary on the US frontier, it was doctrine to always fight as mounted infantry as you pointed out. Second point that you had pointed out, Supply was always of prime importance on the frontier. Doctrine is developed to accommodate problems and deficiencies, not to rely upon exceptional personnel and resources.
Probably little to no saber training (if any). And they certainly weren't picking tent pegs with lances. Or as pointed out here very little firearms training*. Pistol or carbine. This was mainly due to the severe control the Congress placed on the Army with the budget. The US Army literally was run on a shoestring. The most expensive thing a trooper was issued was probably his horse, tack and saddle. In my opinion the blood of every trooper who died in the west if he was outgunned was on the hands of the United States Congress.
In truth if a regiment of US Army Cavalry from the 1870s or 80s had to go up against an equivilant size unit of European cavalry or mounted lancers they'd get their asses handed to them. But then the US Army was only fighting "unsophisticated savages" out on in the American West. In reality the Army's job in the west as not to fight the Native tribes but try and keep the peace as much as possible. The tribes saw their land and way of life disappearing before their eyes. They knew what had happened to the Eastern tribes simply because there was more trade going on in the Americas even pre 1500 than many realize. Shells from the gulf coast, Lake Superior copper, obsidian and other items have been found far from there origin points. As more and more settlers poured into the east it began to set off tribal migrations to the west. As I understand it the Lakota for example originally were from farther east. Souix is actually a very insulting name from the Ojibwea iirc. A lot of the tribes were called by names their enemies and neighbors had for them. Usually insulting. The Europeans (the US is or was at that time a European country**) just adopted the names from the peoples the met first.
*The standards of American marksmanship in the 1800s was pretty bad. We think of the US for the time period as a nation of rifleman. The awful state of marksmanship even for people with some experience with firearms that were recruits in the US Army was so bad that was the major reason the Army assisted in the formation of the NRA in the 1870s.
**We like to think we are exceptional as a nation. In some ways we might be. In the 1800s and since our biggest point of exceptionalism is the ability to re-invent oneself.
So excited for this project! Saw the post for this video on Facebook then dropped everything to watch it. Keep it up guys!
APG 75 same.
i think a real test would be 14 rounds making for ian to have to do a reload this might close the time even knowing that they would go to single loading after the first 7 and also a 7 then load 7 single would be interesting too
Exactly what I was thinking .
I thought the same thing but the lads did touch on that by mentioning that the Spenser can be run like a trap door gun.
Nah, single load after you run out.
The official 1873 test went further (I think too far) and had the shooter start with an empty chamber *and magazine.*
They then had to fire as many rounds as possible in 1 minute.
Under those conditions the Springfield was even faster than the Spencer.
How often are you really going to need more than 7 in combat of the era?
Also, original trapdoors were a modification at Springfield to surplus civil war existing inventory which was much more cost effective.
To remain clear, the idea of the trapdoor function was developed and old muzzle loaders were first modified, to be trapdoors, but the 1873 Springfield Trapdoor was a new rifle manufactured as a trapdoor rifle.
Good video as usual. I kept waiting for a malfunction. Especially with the Spencer. It looks like that rifle is perpetually on the verge of jamming. Well done both if you. No malfunctions (on camera at least).
I did some original research on the .45-70 issues at Little Bighorn in 2013 at Texas A&M for my senior history thesis. I tracked down original purchase receipts for the 7th Cavalry in 1876, and discovered that most of rifles were chambered for .45-55-405, and the "brass" (actually copper) with knife marks was for .45-70-500 for the Gatling guns. They also tended to deform slightly more due to the higher pressure, and would lengthen the casing when fired, so it was easier to track which soldiers essentially had the wrong ammo.
Love the Old West content, guys. Keep it up!
I love this stuff from you guys. The "what if" historical scenarios. Keep up the good work, guys.
I had an H & R replica Trapdoor Springfield cavalry carbine. It was light weight. It had a steel buttplate. Modern 45-70 rounds being fired out of it was a stimulating experience.
To my untrained eyes, I almost want to say that Ian being left handed really hampered his fire rate on the Spencer since he had to constantly switch hands while working the carbine.
But damn, you two are fast.
Even though it isn't a lever action, the "shunk, shunk" sound is one reason I love a lever gun!!
I absolutely L O V E that you guys are doing this series! You answer so many questions I’ve had about why the army or whoever chose the weapons they did. It boils down to money, time to train, ease of repair or fabrication, and ease of resupply. Thanks! I noticed Ian is on the last belt notch of Karl’s ammo belt and it still hangs on him!
19:05 The timer heard "Cluster..." and tried bleeping out the next word.
As someone who comes from a place where inanimate objects are banned from all because a few bad people choose to do bad things with them.
I am super glad you are taking the time to do this and am super glad you guys are making it happen.
This whole series has been amazing to watch, and very refreshing from everything else out there. Bar none, one of my favorites. Keep up the amazing work you guys!
The Civil War was an aberration when it came to how much Congress would have tolerated spending on Procurement and needs to be appreciated as such. The Spencer would almost certainly have not been adopted if fighting anyone other than an utterly implaccable American foe like the Confederacy. In all other times, the USA followed the trends of European military arms because it considered itself a peer and it should be no shock that the USA reverted to European norms once the panic of the Civil War was over.
It I was alone, having more shots ready in the magazine seems really valuable. But with a group of soldiers, there are always rounds ready to fire. And then steady and reliable seems more valuable.
Thank you guys. This project just keeps getting better.
The Smith carbine would be an interesting pick. Especially when you look at the ammo.
I would like to see the end of this compare the full power lever actions in 30-40 against the Krag. I know that's kind of out of the scope since that's not an intermediate cartridge but it would be interesting to see.
This is going to be a great series. Can't wait to see more.
Karl's proficiency with these classic gats always leaves me in awe. Really shows what lots and lots of training can make you capable of.
This is exactly the content I subscribed for idk how many years ago. Don't get me wrong I love the modern stuff too, but the history is really why I'm here for every video.
So, awesome video, great topic.
Couple of things to add; the Blakeslee Quick Loader Cartridge Box held tubular speed loaders for the Spencer rifles and carbines and allowed the carbines to be quickly reloaded without handling individual cartridges. Each box held 10 tubes with 7 rounds each, for a total of 70 rounds. The U.S. Government ordered around 30,000 boxes, but few made it into the hands of troops before the end of the war, however they did see action on the frontier.
The U.S. Cavalry did want to order new Spence Carbines to replace their worn out guns, however Spencer went out of business in 1869, so none were available. Winchester purchased the remains of the company, which they often did, to prevent others from competing with their repeating rifles and carbines.
In 1874, the 7th Cavalry had its Spencers replaced by Trapdoor carbines. Likely the absence of the Spencer during the 1876 Battle of Little Big Horn wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome. Much is made of Custer leaving his Gatlings guns behind and the Trooper's Trapdoors vs. the Indians Henrys and Winchesters, but the loss of the Spencers is rarely mentioned.
Thank you! I love everything old west and using these old guns to separate fact from fiction is awesome.
I have heard that the Spencer was rejected after the war because some of the old codgers in the War Department didn't like the idea of a repeating firearm due to the belief that the troops would waste ammo. I have also heard that the cavalry would carry extra ammo for the Spencer in a large box carrying what were called Blakeslee loading tubes, essentially holding a complete reload that could quickly dump another seven rounds into the magazine. Because the Blakeslee tubes were fragile, they didn't work as well as needed. I have also seen an old photograph showing the box for the Blakeslee tubes loaded up with the actual magazine plungers (that had the toe sticking out to the side). I am guessing that was a field expedient method for the fastest possible reloads. I believe that was from the Civil War, not the later Indian wars. I think the cavalry had already ditched the Spencer by 1868. Loved the video. Keep up the good work!
They covered the Blakeslee tubes in their Spencer vs. Henry video.
these two guys in one video be making me smile.
Love this video! I remember my grandfather telling me about one of our ancestors. The man told his father he was going to join the cavalry, and his father told him never to darken his doorstep again. Turned his picture to the wall and said: "Only bums join the army." Different times! Apparently, this ancestor rode around out west and came home with what they called a "fallen stomach". Not sure what that is but it was grounds for a medical discharge.
Yes! My favorite project of the channel thus far.
This is the second video of yours that I've watched. The other was the comparison between the Spencer and the early, no loading gate, Henry. In both you demonstrate an enormous historical knowledge of the firearms and why they were or were not adopted and understand the reasoning of the decision. You present the good and bad points of each without coming across as fan-boys of a given platform.
Finally a channel wich doesn't spam with comercial
I was walking around the quad/museum area at FT. Sill one day. I got thirsty and started looking for a water fountain. I saw an open door at one of the adobe buildings, so I went in to ask where I could get a drink. What I saw inside the building was row, after row, stretching the entire length of the building of Calvary carbines. Don't know if they are still there, but easily several hundred of them.
Several history books on the time that I'm currently reading, mentioned that experienced soldiers could get out up to 15 shots per minute with the 1873 Trapdoor. Therefore I wasn't surprised when Karl only took 35/27,5 seconds for 7 bullets. :)
Just stumbled on the lever gun series. Some of the most interesting videos here on InRange. Terrific!
Very interesting.
I'm pretty sure the action of the Spence is more right-handed: the hammer falls naturally under the right thumb and the lever is also a straight push down, instead of having to reach over one way with your left thumb and then roll your hand back over the wrist of the stock and then down to action the lever. The difference is subtle, but that seems to make it very slightly easier and faster for a right-hander.
I was surprised at how quickly (provided the cases eject cleanly) the Trapdoor could be cycled, which no doubt is helped greatly by having the hammer and trapdoor right near each other on the top of the action, also having easily accessable and fumble-proof ammo sotrage.
You guys are awesome, just not taking it seriously in the shooting but being interested in why things developed the way they did. Thank you for another refreshingly honest shooting video.
I am so glad you guys tested these two, which are so often overlooked.
Love love love this series!! Please don't take this long until the next episode, it feels like months I've been waiting!
Carl totally needs to replace that front thing on his shirt with a similarly colored and shaped plate carrier. That would be outstanding!
I knew Karl spells his name with a K... dammit!
I expected to see a comment about cost. What was the cost of the Spencer? Was the cost of the trapdoor? How much did that play into the decision?
I believe they addressed this question in one of the earlier videos in the series. The US Army had a metric assload of surplus, muzzle-loading Springfields after the war, and it was generally more economical at the time to convert the existing guns to breech loaders than to build new rifles.
Rodney Rubert At this point in history the Spencers were already paid for, War Between the States leftovers. The Springfield rifle and carbines were all new production.
Not nearly enough spencers to equip all the cav though- it would have been a LOT of new production of entire rifles, versus conversion of existing rifles.
Jeffrey Root I was thinking of the 1865/66 trapdoor conversions. The later guns were new production, but still would have been much cheaper than new Spencers. Not only were the trapdoor Springfields less complicated, but a fair bit of the 1861 Springfield tooling could probably still be used.
According to the never wrong Wikipedia, the unit cost of a Spencer in 1861 was about $40. The 1865 Trapdoor Springfield was $20 for a new production gun, but only $5 if converted from muzzle-loading, 1861 Springfield.
This is great! I love these old classics.
This was really cool to watch but wouldn't it be possible to do this under more realistic "Little Bighorn" type simulation? Like being elevated on a ridge kneeling or standing or prone & firing out to moving targets both mounted & on foot at rages of 100-300 yards etc?
The sound of that steel ringing was incredible. I don't think I've seen another video on UA-cam with that much clear oomph.
I really want a trap door now. Such a satisfying extraction.
They're fun guns.
InRangeTV the Cabela's near me had a bunch for like $450 a few months ago. Hopefully I can find another at that price.
I know this is 2 years old but the lever gun series is by far my favorite
An interesting comparison. While I see why the US frontier army might be concerned with ammo supply, I don't see why the European continental armies were worried - even after Plevna it took them a few years to adopt repeaters. IIRC European wars were supposed to be, and planned in a way to be, short, fast, wars of primarily manoeuvre and staff-work, and then a decisive battle.
Europeans can't into logistics.
Doctrine and the nature of the soldiers. The nature of armies in Europe was that of relatively uneducated conscripts with little to no experience with firearms at all. In fact, when “peasant armies” got possession of arms and powder, they often rebelled against their governments. Also, this is why the officer Corp in many European armies had the reputation for brutality with their own soldiers.
@@charlesadams1721 Honestly the American army of the time were little better. As Karl said, being in the army at that time was considered something as a job for bums and failures. Among the 7th cavalry at Little Bighorn, one of the more elite regiment in the army, one third of its rank and file were made up of recent European immigrants. Furthermore, many of its troopers were malnourished and in poor physical condition.
Timely video. I have been doing a bit of Little Bighorn reading lately and was wondering about this very, what if, comparison.
Fascinating! Great video, very revealing on a subject I was quite curious about.
That cartridge belt looks just a tad loose on Ian 😂
I really enjoyed how you tackled this interesting question. Especially the hands on approach beats any theory casting.
I would take the Spencer. Because you could sell it for a trap door and some ammo!
This project is very interesting. Thanks for the insight. Excited for more.
As someone living in a country where Semi Autos are banned, really looking forward to this series!
Love the work fellas!
This video is even better than the Spencer vs Henry one! I'm intrigued at how tests like this can open such a window into history and provide insight otherwise gone unnoticed. The trapdoor really wasn't that much slower than a Spencer to shoot, and far more powerful & rugged than a Henry. Suddenly the inexplicable US army decisions of the time are not so baffling. Subscribed!
Really nice cartridge lineup at 2:04. Copper and brass cases highly visible.
When firing Trapdoors Custer's men held 3 rounds in between their fingers (like claws) to get off those rounds faster; grab 3 more from belt/bag, rinse & repeat... Many men did this as it was the style of the time, exhibitionist or not, everyone thought they were Wyatt Earp...
Very excited for this series! The WWSD ARs were very interesting but currently being in a banned state unfortunately was basically drooling on a keyboard at most. Having just been up at Springfield Armory the other day and seeing racks of trapdoors, this is very relevant to my current interests.
I agree with the gentleman below about the 14 round test, especially considering the value of sustained fire in the era. Also surprised you didn’t mention the old trick of sneaking a few full size rifle rounds into your buddy’s belt when he wasn’t looking after they started doing more live fire training later on.
I’ll be carrying my Pedersoli trapdoor carbine to Montana next week, should be able to try it out at longer ranges, looking forward to that.
Solid. Just found a nice '74. Going to load up some and give it a go.
Good video that gives me a different perspective. I asked myself why the Cavalry did not use the Spencer or even the Henry rifle. The reason is because the trapdoor is slower,
I often shoot using the finger method. This is similar to using the Metcalf device. And yes, the Metcalf devices were issued. We had a Report of Survey for a broken rifle stock of a soldier who slipped on the ice. The survey listed the stock as being equipped with a Metcalf. We have also found reference to using the fingers to hold them by troops of the 1800's. This is what probably led to the Metcalf.
As to reacquiring a sight picture a sight picture, remember they had just come out of the muzzleloader era when every sight picture was acquired anew with each shot. also, black powder smoke likey minimized the ability to do so. Great Video, keep up the good work.
Enjoyed the video & comments- a couple things though there was a device called th Blakeslee Quickloader which was issued with the Spencer Also there is period documentation that shows that the horse soldiers did prefer the 500 grain lad for its greater knockdown power.
The idea of this comparison entered my mind after the Henry vs Spencer video and I was going to comment about it on the next video in the Lever Gun Series. So, when it turned out the next video was that same idea, I was happily surprised! Great work, very informative. As this series goes on, I think it would be great to examine non-lever guns, especially from the combined arms perspective. I'm wondering how the Remington Rolling Block would fare, either against the Sharps as a marksman's rifle or against the Trapdoor as an alternative (if it is not too out of the way).
Looking forward to this series as it goes forward.
I love this gun vs gun videos! Do more pls!!! This are realy realy cool!!
Absolutely love this sort of content guys! Awesome stuff
from what i have read, the spencer was replaced with the trapdoor because of ammunition supply, and discipline. soldiers with repeaters had a bad habit of expending their ammunition too fast with very little result. command felt that the single shot rifles would force the soldier to take well aimed shots instead of doing volley fire. where the trapdoor failed was with the copper casings, the casings would corrode over long marches and often times would jam in the chamber during reloads.
Now put 14 rounds through both. Though the Spencer beats the Trapdoor on a 7 round basis, I'm sure it'd lose a lot of time on the magazine reload, meaning that over a prolonged engagement the Trapdoor would have an advantage. Or am I missing something?
You single load the Spencer after you fire 7
And still lose a lot of ROF compared to the Trapdoor. But I guess that's what you get when you pit a very early repeater against a highly evolved single shot rifle.
fnglert The Spencer had a quick loader called the Blakeslee tube that carried 7 rounds and enabled speed reloading so long as the tube wasn't dented. The cavalry had them carried in a box so several quick reloads were possible.
John Dilday Unfortunately they dented far too easily. They have (or forgotten weapons) a video covering that.
fnglert The Trapdoor was originally a conversion of a muzzle-loading musket, it was far from "highly evolved". The only reason that they kept the design in service as long as they did was that the advantages of upgrading to a more modern single-shot rifle were outweighed by the cost and the logistics/supplies issues.
This is an interesting and eye opening video but it only addresses some of the differences between these two guns. The cartridges they fired were another very significant difference that helped sway the army towards a single shot rifle. They wanted the added power and range of a true rifle cartridge as opposed to the significantly weaker intermediate round tired by the repeaters of the day. While the problematic 1876 Winchester could handle ammunition somewhat similar to the .45/70 it wasn’t until the 1886 Winchester that a repeater was available to chamber the .45/70. Pretty much every major power in the world felt the same way with Britain, France, Germany etc all equipping their armies with full power rounds in the .45/70 class. I’d be interested in seeing this issue included in a video like this because it was of paramount importance to the governments of the day.
Excellent video series guys, keep them coming please!
Another fascinating video packed with info. It would be really interesting if you would ever run the Trapdoor with a simulated Metcalfe Magazine system, a wooden block of arsenal loaded cartridges fitted to the right side of the weapon. Developed by a Captain Henry Metcalfe in 1872 at the request of the Ordnance Department. Tested in 1873/74 some 34,000 were made but never adopted Army-wide.
Crazy, i could never reload a gun so fast and aim and even hit the target, you guys are crazy, of couse it is a matter of training and drill, that was impressive
Glad to see private snuffys legend lives on. He was a noble lad and no truer spirit ever ventured west.
I’ve been wondering about a similar concept just a century earlier. Say a combined arms force with giarandoni air rifles and Ferguson breech loaders
andyrihn1 I've been thinking about the same thing on and off
Hello, everyone! I know I'm a little late with this comment, but I still want to comment on the video. In my opinion, loading up the magazine on the Spencer should count towards the time. Because in a firefight under realistic conditions, as the video tries to show, the fight isn't over after 7 shots, is it? That's when the strength of the Trapdoor comes into play, because it can shoot continuously at the presented speed, while the Spencer has to be reloaded, which is relatively time-consuming! I find it falsifying to compare a magazine-release rifle with a single-shot rifle without considering the reload factor of both. Nevertheless, thank you very much for presenting these two historically interesting weapons and for your effort! Greetings from Germany!
I love this type of comparison. It really lends a perspective I might otherwise not see.
I realize it's often not practical to do, but it was nice to see the data from you both shooting each of the firearms.
What a cool video, learning so much. Karl and Ian have a very interesting dynamic. Technical vs practical kinda thing.
This is really fascinating! Great job guys !
I the rifle version of the 1873 Trapdoor included a cleaning rod, that could be used to extract unejected cartridges. There are accounts from Reno's force that they had cleaning rods from rifles that they used to unjam the carbines since that was a quicker and easier method than trying to pry the cartridge out with a knife. The 1873's biggest issue was that it originally used copper cartridges, which were prone to expansion and the bullet coming unseated. The disaster at Little Big Horn prompted the Army to switch to brass cartridges, which were much more reliable, and the Army has been using brass ever since.
Very impressive performance with the Trapdoor.
The register from the trap door compared to the Spencer was audible power. The Springfield sounds like it'd blow you off your feet or dismount you from your horse. You can really hear the difference with the trap door. It's probably way more power than you'd actually need lol but nobody realized that until WW2.
New to the channel. Love the history
terminology: lever-action is the means of opening the action. The Sharps is a lever-action as well as the Spencer. The Spencer is single-shot repeater, whereas the Henry/Winchesters are lever-action repeaters. The Trapdoor and Sharps are single shot rifles, and not repeaters since the shooter has to manually load each round by hand. Later on we get bolt-actions; single shot and repeaters as well.
Looking forward to more of this series.
Another thing to keep in mind when comparing these guns was also just army doctrine at the time. The Minimum range requirement of army and cavalry rifles was 600 yards, which guns like the Winchester and the Henry were incapable of meeting until the late 1880s when Winchester finally started being able to load high caliber rifle rounds instead of 44 pistol rounds. The Trapdoor was Proven, it was Reliable, Very Accurate, and cheap to produce. The Spencer earned Ire from some troops for its difficulty with the lever action, Jamming was not uncommon in the heat of combat due to the difficulties of having no ejector for the rifle. And looking at literally every other nation's armies and the type of Rifle they were using, they all were also using single shot rifles until the 1880s, Such as the British Martini Henry, The German Needle Gun, the French Chassepot, the list goes on. Baring some exceptions, Such as the Swiss Vetterli and Italian copy of it. I would argue that the Trapdoor, while it gets flak being compared to things like the Spencer, Winchester, Henry, it was the workhorse of the U.S. Army for nearly 30 years. You don't get that type of longevity of service if its a bad gun. Trapdoor was not garbage it was a very very good piece of equipment.
I never really noticed how gorgeous the trapdoor is before your video. Also, can you use a Jericho 941r in a future video?
Hey, that .58 Berdan round looks fun!