Soul Assassins Intermission Rarest

Descriptions by those that used the Henry Repeating rifle to describe how it was fired are plentiful if one does some research. These men represented the “Common Soldier” of the Civil War. They just so happened to have had the opportunity to purchase a Henry Repeating rifle which was not a “Common Weapon” of the Civil War. Too many times the “Common Soldier” is not honored because of the weapon that he armed himself with. Here are twenty descriptions of the Henry being used by those that witnessed the deeds. “I can make it equal to two regiments”, Colonel N.P. In a shoot out that only lasted seconds Captain Wilson killed 7 guerillas that were trying to kill him and did it with 8 shots.

Hints to a Rifleman 1864 3. Of the Henry rifle, “sheets of fire and lead before which no troops could stand to receive the last shot”, Scientific American. “Owning to their capacity to maintain a rapid and continuous fire, they successfully repulsed and drove from the field the enemy rebel force.” The Military and Naval History. “Captain Wilson, of the Twelfth Ky Cavalry, rushed into the midst of the enemy and laid many a man low with his Henry rifle”, Colonel Richard T.

“Two or three days ago three loyal men near Owensboro, KY armed with Henry rifles, had a conflict with forty well armed guerrillas, and soon put them to a very hasty flight. The three gentlemen were at breakfast when the guerrillas surrounded them and demanded their surrender, but the brave fellows refused, and bringing their terrible weapons into quick and effective play, they at once cleared the field of their enemies.” Western Papers 7. “I stood and fired ninety rounds without stopping.

My gun barrel was so hot that I could not touch it. Spit on it and it would siz.”, Prosper Bowe 66th IL WSS diary 8. “That regiment was armed with Henry rifles, or as we say, sixteen shooters, and their fire was simply terrific.These are the first guns we ever saw that fired without intermission.” Report of the Proceedings of the Society of the Army of the TN. Willis pumping death into the rebels ranks with a borrowed sixteen shooter.” A Corporal’s Story. “The 7th, armed with Henry rifles, Sixteen shooters, did gallant and fearful work” Report of the Adjutant General of Illinois.

Purchase Intermission by Soul Assassins on CD online and enjoy having your favourite Rap / Hip Hop music delivered to you in South Africa. Buy Intermission by Soul Assassins on Bleep. Download MP3, WAV, FLAC.

“after fully 400 cartridges had been used without any perceptible result--besides burning his hand and exhausting and depressing him mentally and physically” Frank Orcutt diary. “Captain Smith gave the command, “By right into line.” In 5 minutes the rebel regiment was broken to fragments and practically annihilated. The huge volume of fire pouring forth from the Henry Repeating rifle tore the rebel regiment to pieces.” Proceedings of the Reunion 1910 7th Illinois. “kept pumping our one shot after another until the whole sixteen were exhausted.” Captain James Spears, Company I 20th Connecticut. “The Seventh pumped the death dealing elements from their sixteen shooters with such vim that it made the enemy think that the whole army was on the line” History of the Seventh Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry.

“When the arm of the service known as “Sixteen Shooters” was first introduced into the northern army, it was not only a great curiosity to the troops who bore it, but a great fear by the Confederates.It was hard to tell how many troops were being encountered and sometimes very mortifying blunders were the result of miscalculation.” Blue and the Gray 1884 16. 1st Maine Cavalry armed with Henry rifles, “and when it opened fired each man discharging his cartridges in quick succession, it seemed as if instead of five hundred there were five thousand.This furious fusillade lasted a short time but effectively cooled the ardor of the pursuers.” A.

“The enemy charged the Union line, and ran squarely against this brigade of disjointed cavalry. Then what a terrific crackling of musketry there was. The sky was lighted up, and the glare of the musketry made everything as bright as day. So deadly was the fire of these new weapons(sixteen shooters) that but a few of the assaulting line ever got back.” A Boy Lieutenant 18.

“If a man is fighting for his own hand, he must keep his head cool, and judge when it pays for him to “pump lead”.Every last man of em had his magazine emptied in about twenty-five seconds” The Twentieth Century 19. “The enemy, covered by darkness and from behind trees, kept up a rapid fusillade with repeating rifles(Henry rifles) The Great Cattle Raid. “Voluntarily joined in a charge against the enemy, which was repulsed, and by his rapid firing in the face of the enemy enabled many of the wounded to return to Federal lines; with others, held the advance of the enemy while temporary works were being constructed.” Medal of Honor citation for Alanson Webber. Other descriptions stated that “they operated their levers of the rifles like pump handles. There is an abundance of information to support the view that the Henry Repeating rifles was just that, a repeating rifle.

It seems that too many reenactors today carrying the “common arm” do not understand or even know how the Henry rifle was used. The man carrying a Henry rifle in the Civil War was a “Common soldier” carrying an uncommon weapon. The Confederates feared and hated the Henry while many of the “Common Soldier” wanted a Henry. The same can be said today of the reenactor.

We have fielded many questions as to the cost of a Henry, where to get one and what kind of ammunition do you use for blanks. The above are just 20 examples of the Henry repeating rifle being used in the Civil War as described by those that were there and witnessed the Henry in action. If ten men today armed with Henry rifles fire at a rate of 1 shot every 3 or 4 seconds, it does sounds as if the world has come to an end.

A Henry has a 17 round capacity so this firing could last well over a minute. It does give the illusion that the men armed with a Henry are firing as fast as they can work the lever. The reality is if that were to happen the Henry would be empty in less than 13 seconds. At many reenactments where a company of Henry rifles are deployed, the Confederate reenactors get an education that his ancestors got during the Civil War. Hopefully a few have been able to learn some information about the Henry Rifle and will do more research. I have several more examples where the Henry rifle was used the way it was meant to be used, as a rapid fire weapon. Bresnan Victory thru rapid fire!!

National Henry Rifle Company http://44henryrifle.webs.com/index.htm. Let us keep in mind that 'rapid fire' is a relative term when applied to the Civil War. With a single shot muzzle loading rifle musket, one did well to get off three rounds per minute, and routinely less. Relatively speaking, a rate of fire of five rounds per minute per man across a regimental front would have seemed a massive outlay of 'rapid fire' power to most soldiers.

IIRC, in a previous thread it was indicated that a Henry rifle-armed soldier would carry about 100-150 rounds upon his person, with supply wagons nearby (not always as near as they'd like). With a round fired every four seconds, the ready supply of 150 rounds of ammuniton would be exhausted within about 15 minutes or less, allowing for changing out the tubes (ten minutes of actual firing). That would compare with 30 rounds expended at 2/minute from a typical muzzle loader. I have no doubt that there were times when pumping 'em out as fast as possible was done. I'm just not convinced that it was the common practice, and that a much slower, yet comparatively high rate of fire was not the norm. The Henry has it's place in history.

Unfortunally there are some who insist on using one where there were none. It is unfortunate that the Spencer has not been reproduced as an affordable arm. They were much more plentiful. As for using them I can speak for the Five Forks battle that there used to be spots where groups of 6 or 7 shell casings would be found quite often.

Mostly they were in the Union assult path leading up to the CS position. Of course there were many spots where only one or two were found but enough groups were dug to suggest that it was common for one man to stand and shoot until his Spencer was empty. From a reenacting or historical interpreting viewpoint, I think it comes down to: is the event offering a smorgasbord of different impressions, or is it trying to recreate a specific scenario? If a variety of different 'typical' impressions are being offered, then Henry rifles, seige artillery, Marines, city hospital workers, guerrillas, prisoners or war, War Department clerks, and any number of subsets outside a typical infantry unit, are informational and offer a side of history not as commonly presented. However, if a specific historic situation is being presented, and Henry rifles historically weren't part of it, then including Henry rifles (or any similar stand-out impression) simply to show the public what they were like, actually misinforms the public that Henry rifles were used at a certain time and place, when they weren't. Hank Trent hanktrent@voyager.net. From a reenacting or historical interpreting viewpoint, I think it comes down to: is the event offering a smorgasbord of different impressions, or is it trying to recreate a specific scenario?

If a variety of different 'typical' impressions are being offered, then Henry rifles, seige artillery, Marines, city hospital workers, guerrillas, prisoners or war, War Department clerks, and any number of subsets outside a typical infantry unit, are informational and offer a side of history not as commonly presented. However, if a specific historic situation is being presented, and Henry rifles historically weren't part of it, then including Henry rifles (or any similar stand-out impression) simply to show the public what they were like, actually misinforms the public that Henry rifles were used at a certain time and place, when they weren't. Hank Trent hanktrent@voyager.net Leaving the Henry at home, because it was not present at Battle A but was at Battle B, I understand. A disclaimer by the Unit or individual would be enough for me. The public who in most cases knows little about the War may be missing a chance to learn something.

Most events no all the events I go to are MS. School kids on Friday at any event would appreciate seeing one and learning a History lesson. As far as the rate of fire etc. I leave that to the Pros. I'm Artillery-one round every 3 minutes. Always Doug Thomas Lyons-Kentucky. From a reenacting or historical interpreting viewpoint, I think it comes down to: is the event offering a smorgasbord of different impressions, or is it trying to recreate a specific scenario?

If a variety of different 'typical' impressions are being offered, then Henry rifles, seige artillery, Marines, city hospital workers, guerrillas, prisoners or war, War Department clerks, and any number of subsets outside a typical infantry unit, are informational and offer a side of history not as commonly presented. However, if a specific historic situation is being presented, and Henry rifles historically weren't part of it, then including Henry rifles (or any similar stand-out impression) simply to show the public what they were like, actually misinforms the public that Henry rifles were used at a certain time and place, when they weren't. Hank Trent hanktrent@voyager.net I like how you hedged your opine with the 'any similar stand-out impression' boilerplate.

Many of us can tell the difference between a blued Enfield and a struck bright Springfield at fairly long distances.or a 2 bander Lorenz and an 1842 musket. Yet we routinely mix weapons in a company/battalion. A Colonel of a 3 company 'regiment' sticks out fairly strongly to me. And frock coats Hardee hats vs sack coats or roundabouts and a forage cap or Kepi stands out as well. This applies equally to farb fests, mainstream events, and EBUFU events. To each their own judgement as to what is a 'stand-out impression'.especially when event rules actually deal directly with the Henry/Spencer/multiple revolvers, et al issues.

There is plenty in our impressions and reenacting that actually misinforms the public that XYZ were used at a certain time and place, when they weren't.even when the public isn't present. I like how you hedged your opine with the 'any similar stand-out impression' boilerplate. Many of us can tell the difference between a blued Enfield and a struck bright Springfield at fairly long distances.or a 2 bander Lorenz and an 1842 musket. This kind of thing can't be reduced to mathematical exactness, which still doesn't change the fact that. A) some things stand out more than others to a casual observer, not to mention other things that stand out to educated observers who each have a different sense of what's required to suspend disbelief (since no re-creation will be perfect), and b) some things are easier to change than others, due to politics, personal preference, availability of reproductions, and so forth. However, the old tired dead horse of using some flaws to justify all others, has been beaten to death. To each their own judgement as to what is a 'stand-out impression'.especially when event rules actually deal directly with the Henry/Spencer/multiple revolvers, et al issues.

There is plenty in our impressions and reenacting that actually misinforms the public that XYZ were used at a certain time and place, when they weren't.even when the public isn't present. Yes, I'd say it's up to the event organizers to make the judgment call, but of course it doesn't absolve the individual just because 'so-and-so said I could do it.' But needless to say, there's the other viewpoint: who cares? It's a hobby, it's fun, we'll do whatever we want. And, naturally, that factors into every decision, to some degree--everyone's human, engaging in a volunteer activity. Hank Trent hanktrent@voyager.net.

.or a 2 bander Lorenz. Actually, a Lorenz has three bands. To each their own judgement as to what is a 'stand-out impression'.especially when event rules actually deal directly with the Henry/Spencer/multiple revolvers, et al issues. There is plenty in our impressions and reenacting that actually misinforms the public that XYZ were used at a certain time and place, when they weren't.even when the public isn't present. Please elaborate on your point.

I'm curious, because it appears on the face of it that your point is, 'because we can't fix everything, we shouldn't criticize anything.' Actually, a Lorenz has three bands. Please elaborate on your point.

I'm curious, because it appears on the face of it that your point is, 'because we can't fix everything, we shouldn't criticize anything.' Jason thanks for the correction, I knew they were about 4 inches shorter. Actually it's more on the line of: If you can't get your own act together, best to not criticize others. Specifically, the Henry rifle company has appeared at numerous FFD events, where appropriate. They act as an independent company, attached to the immediate command of the dismounted cavalry captain.

We have a bugled prelude that they have NEVER failed to respond to promptly, with certitude and alacrity (and did so at CP). Their bugle calls are direct orders (command/control) from the Brigadier.

They weren't doing a 6th Indiana impression, nor a 5th KY impression. And I don't know of any Saturday and Sunday PM battles in or about Decherd TN in May 1863. In essence, the combat was 'staged' for the paying spectator audience in order to demonstrate ACW battle tactics without casualties.albeit with a drastically reduced rate of fire for the artillery. If we show up as a 7th WVI impression at a Gettysburg Living History with a mixed bag of rifles.aren't we misinforming the public? 'If we show up as a 7th WVI impression at a Gettysburg Living History with a mixed bag of rifles.aren't we misinforming the public?' However, the longer non-answer is, IMHO, at what point does the medium kill the message?

Meaning, if the goal or mission is to 'educate the public' on general and generic 'Civil War' history and 'Civil War' life, at what 'breaking point' does having a mix of rifles, rifle-muskets, and/or muskets in the same company erase the value, validity, and truthfulness of everything else? However, if my heretical view, IF the goal or purpose of the 'living history' is to 'factually' or 'correctly' illustrate and present such-and-such a unit present at that site- then IMHO, the arms and uniforms should match the original unit. Otherwise, it is a sliding scale of mispresentation excused by what 'positives' the unknowing John Q. Public and Jane H. Spectator take away with them at the end of the day (and where to most or all, the distinction between one uniform and another, or one muzzleloading percussion longarm and another, is not 'important').

Can a positive worthwhile 'message' on the Civil War soldier still be delivered by say. 1862 green uniformed Berdan Sharpshooters armed with a mix of M1861/63/64 Springfields, 4th Model Enfields, non Berdan contract NM1859 Sharps rifles, and Wal-Mart/K Mart pseudo 'Hawken' rifles at Vicksburg? Some lads would argue no. Some lads would argue yes.

And others' mileage will vary. Shooting my Henry with smokeless and black powder has been a great time. I used to shoot a lot of Cowboy Action Shooting(2nd at Winter Range in BPC Class) events using my Henry. Most of the time I fired with black powder. Shooting at a 12 X 18 inch steel plate at 100 yards is no trouble hitting at 1 shot every 4 seconds, most of the time faster. The effective range for a Henry was probably 100 to 200 yards however there are many cases of hits well beyond that. I have never stated that the users of Henry rifle fired all of their ammunition as fast as they can.

There was a time and place for slow fire and a time, as one Civil War veteran stated, to “pump” lead. As far as some stating that the use of a Henry in a reenactment is an attention getter, I wonder what it is called when an infantry company has a volley fire, or when an artillery battery fires by battery.

I think that would qualify as an attention getter on both their parts. The reality of the situation, I hope, is that the infantry were using their infantry tactics in firing a volley as well as the artillery when firing a battery fire would be a tactically firing. The same can be said about the Henry unit I have participated with, sorry I can’t answer for every reenactor with a Henry. As to the Henry being referred to as a 16 shooter in the Civil War, this is undoubtedly true but the Henry was also referred to as a 17 shooter in the Civil War, read Ren Barker’s History of Company D 66th Illinois WSS and you will see both. You see for those that have not read the link provided there were two different length of Henry ammunition. Using the shorter, earlier, round allowed for the magazine of the Henry to hold 16 plus one in the chamber for 17 total rounds while using the later, longer, ammunition only allowed for 15 in the magazine and one in the chamber for a total of 16. The research will show that the Henry was referred to as both a 16-Shooter and a 17 shooter.

I am getting the picture here that too many are equating “firing as fast as you can blindly” as what a Henry armed soldier(reenactor) did all of the time. The Henry was used as a rapid fire weapon, but then anything over 4 shots per minute compared to the “Common Arm” would be rapid fire. The bottom line is the terms “targets of opportunity” and how great was the immediate threat to the Henry owner in the Civil War or reenacting. That would determine the rate of fire needed to stop the threat. As far as the comment about “changing out the tubes” I have no idea what that means, the Henry rifle shoot cartridges, maybe some confusion with a Spencer shooter using a Blakeslee Box. Concerning the Spencer rifle there number manufactured are actually less than total Henry production. If you are talking about the Spencer carbine that is a different story.

There have been many great comments and hopefully some education going on at the same time. The mockery, unfortunately, will always be there. Education is a great thing and hopefully this postings has sparked some to do more research and not miss an opportunity to learn more about an aspect of the Civil War. “Education can cure most prejudices, but not all.” http://www.rarewinchesters.com/articles/art_hen_00.shtml.

Can some one please clearify: Modern/Reproduction 'Henry's' are chambered for a modern, center-fire cartridge,(making those 200 yard pie-pan shots possible!). Original, CW era 'Henry's' chambered the 44 Rim-fire round. Much less effective at igniting a BP charge. What type of vel./energy would you still have in a round like this past 200 yards? Not to mention the poor 'Quality Control' of cast lead bullets, misfires from a rim-fire cart., mixed BP loads, etc.( I read that one 44 Henry Round found at the Little Big Horn had 7 strikes on it!). I think most of these 'Henry Stories' are just that.'

I can not tell you how many times I have heard, 'My GGGGrandfather fought off 8 Rebs with his Henry!' He stood picket for hours with a Springfield and never saw another soul, then 45 years later he mentioned he saw a 'Henry' once and the the story took flight! I mean ho wmany times have you heard that somebodies GGGGGrdfather was R.E. Lee's Body Guard??? Hagood's division was armed with the three band Enfield with the exception of one regiment which was armed with the two band Enfield, however, that regiment was issued the three band Enfield at Fort Darling during 1864. It would have been rare for a company or regiment to have a hodge pod of weapons.

Next it will be documented a soldier had a pistol fitted for a bayonet. My pet peeve is when people will research and find something to justify their own impressions while they are suppose to be representing the common soldier. And no, the common soldier was not issued a machine gun, but didn't they have'em?

Hey, the common soldier also had a shotgun, Sharps, Spencer, Morse Carbine, and a slingshot. I want to arm our battalion with long spears and shields with a V on them with archers in the rear rank. I am sure that if I search hard enough that I can find a soldier that had a spear and shield and maybe a bow and arrow.

We did have Cherokees and others to fight. Just having a little fun with the common soldier with the Leonerd pants. Hey, anyone see the funny looking person dressed like Zorro with the pole dancing hip boots at Resaca? He wasn't attached but walked around with battalions while sporting Colonel stars just like the common soldier.

We had to run him away from our battalion during the battle. What a parasite. Paul, One of the unique features about the Henry was a double firing pin on the bolt face. This would strike the rim in two places with one hammer fall. This feature made the ignition of the.44 rim fire much more positive in the Henry.

A feature that was carried over into the 1866 Winchesters as well. (Production of the '66 does not end until 1899.) I don't know what how a Henry or a '66 Winchester could have accounted for seven firing pin strikes. That would have to have come from another firearm that was chambered for.44 Henry. There were a number of firearms in that caliber at Little Big Horn other than Henry or '66's. As far as the comment about “changing out the tubes” I have no idea what that means, the Henry rifle shoot cartridges, maybe some confusion with a Spencer shooter using a Blakeslee Box. From The Henry was a little tedious to load.

The magazine was a tube under the barrel and loaded from the front end. Minecraft Mob Arena Schematic more. The magazine tube was rendered delicate for military service by a lengthwise slot on the lower side. The slot is necessary for retracting the follower and spring into the front end section for reloading. The slot and follower precluded a wooden forestock. Is this incorrect information? Or were individual cartridges loaded into the tube magazine, rather than a tube containing the cartridges, similar to the Spencer?

The Henry barrel and magazine were made from a single piece of steel. It was not a tube as the author mentions. The cartridges were loaded one at a time, not from a tube or by changing tubes. I can see how the authors information may be misleading.

From Is this incorrect information? Or were individual cartridges loaded into the tube magazine, rather than a tube containing the cartridges, similar to the Spencer? Actually it's more on the line of: If you can't get your own act together, best to not criticize others. Specifically, the Henry rifle company has appeared at numerous FFD events, where appropriate. They act as an independent company, attached to the immediate command of the dismounted cavalry captain. To me, this sounds like a very appropriate representation as this would be the type of formation and deployment where Union repeaters would have been used.

Now had they been deployed in a standard infantry double rank formation as part of an infantry battalion then, and only then, would many of the criticisms that I have seen in this thread been appropriate. But as you, and others, have so clearly illustrated that was not the case.

There were units armed with repeating rifles and historical documentation has shown that these units were quite effective in both the attack and the defense. IMHO, there should be no reason why these units should not be represented when appropriate and when appropriately deployed. After all, there was more to Civil War combat than infantry, mounted cavalry attacks and artillery. Spencer rifle production: Model 1860 Spencer Army rifle: 11,471 plus 200 for Navy use.

Model 1860 Spencer Navy rifle: 803 Total of Spencer rifles produced: 12,474 These numbers are from “Spencer Repeating Firearms” by Roy Marcot. Total Henry rifle production: just under 14,000 I guess when one does not agree with the research and can find no research of their own to refute the original research then you just say that it did not happen. Saying it did not happen does not change the facts. This hobby is all about doing research. Research is important in order to formulate an impression. Pet peeves aside, if the research supports an impression, where is the problem, other than it is not someone else’s view as to what they think history might be.

Usually the facts can speak for themselves. If we all do not do a certain amount of research to “justify” our impression then no impression exists. Civil War reenacting should be about honoring all that fought in the Civil War in whatever capacity those men fought in. The incident concerning Captain Wilson of the 12th KY Cavalry in which he killed his seven attackers with eight shots with his Henry rifle first appeared in a publication entitled “Hints to Riflemen” published in 1864. The incident was also verified in a letter from Captain Wilson to Oliver Winchester in the previous year. This is not great granddad’s fuzzy memory but a witnessed accounted by Captain Wilson’s family. The Henry rifle was used in the Civil War from as early as 1862 throughout the war.

There is plenty of documentation to back up such an impression especially as advanced skirmishers with Sherman’s army from Atlanta to the end of the war. Many times the Henry armed regiments were chosen because of the fact they were armed with a repeating rifle therefore fewer men needed to be sent forward, stealth, the '17 Shooter' cavalry around the Corinth area seems to come to mind in late 1863. I think the case has been made for the Henry Repeating rifle, however there are many that will not accept the facts of the case, too bad. It has been a great exchange of ideas. Thank you to all that have contributed to the discussion. Hopefully more information and research will come to light.

Forget the attacks but bring on the facts backed by solid research. I hope to see you all down the road at the next reenactment where the Henry rifle would be an appropriate impression, Atlanta seems comes to mind. “Education can cure most prejudice, but not all.” http://www.rarewinchesters.com/artic.t_hen_00.shtml. Andrew, You are basing your Spencer information off of Government purchases only. And, I might add, only for the Rifle length model. You have conspicuously left out the 94,898 Spencer Carbines that were also purchased by the Government?

Private purchases of the Spencer, all models all types is approximately 37,128. This number of private purchased Spencer's is more than double the total estimated number of Henry's manufactured.

This is another conspicuously omission on your part. The numbers you posted for the Henry reflect total production numbers.

You seem to be rather selective in the research material you wish to divulge. I believe the total story of all Repeating firearms development during the Civil War should be told.

But this article shows that only 2000 Henry's were purchased from that total production, clearly showing Spencers as the predominate repeating arm. A quick google search turned up 4 sites with similiar data Ouch, what an out of context poorly researched quote Ross. Shame on you. The 2,000 Henry's were all that were purchased by the 'Federal Government' per the article. We all know that the Ordnance Dept didn't want repeaters and fought their acquisition for a few early war years. A little higher up your cited article mentions 'state' purchases.which would be closer to the number of Henry's purchased for Military use during the ACW.and far more than the 2,000 you cite.

Private purchases were probably higher still than State's purchases.we know, for example, that the 7th Illinois Infantry Regiment bought their own Henry rifles.the entire Regiment. Am not arguing that their were more Henry's purchased than Spencer Rifles and Carbines. And I am not arguing that Spencer's were not the predominate repeating arm.

(They were!). I will argue that there were enough Colts Revolving Rifles, Henry Rifles, Spencer RIFLES, to support their use by Infantry reenactors in Western Theatre events: [selected, preapproved by event staff] battle reenactments, living histories, and sham battles (demonstration battles like at Conner Prairie). I think that Eastern Theatre reenactors need to crack a couple of books on Western Theatre battles PRIOR to criticizing western reenactment impressions, and find out about Ohio Regiment's shooting off their own finger's, Wilder's boys wild wild westing it, Casement's BRIGADE unleashing the hounds at Franklin, dismounted cavalry assaulting and taking extensive Infantry manned breastworks at Selma, and the documented battle use of Henry Rifle's during the American Civil War. Since this posting is about the Henry rifle it is fair to compare rifles to rifles. There were very few Henry Carbines produced. The infantry used rifles or muskets as opposed to carbines and there are some exceptions to that also.

Carbines were usually reserved for the Cavalry. The Spencer Rifle numbers I have mentioned are the actual production numbers. When speaking of Henry numbers the US government purchased 1731 of which only around 900 were delivered during the war. However private purchases and state purchases accounted for around 9,000 more. When discussing repeating arms of the Civil War there is no question that the Spencer Carbine was clearly the most predominate.

In fact I did mention this in a previous posting, “Concerning the Spencer rifle there number manufactured are actually less than total Henry production. If you are talking about the Spencer carbine that is a different story.” There was no “conspicuously omission” as you suggest, just comparing rifles to rifles or to put it another way, infantry weapons to infantry weapons. The Henry Rifle was predoninately used by Infantry regiments while the Spencer Carbines were used predoninately by the Cavalry. My Spencer information is NOT based on Government purchase but Spencer production numbers of the Spencer Rifles. The information I posted is selective in that it is consistent with the discussion at hand, The Henry Rifle. I do not plan to debate the merits of the Henry verses the Spencer Carbine, that is not what this posting is about.

I would suggest that if you want to discuss the merits of the Spencer Carbine you might want to start another post. I am not trying to tell the story of all Repeating firearms of the Civil War, just the Henry. I will look forward to your posting in which you will tell the story of all Repeating Firearms developed during the Civil War.

It is indeed a story that would be of great interest. Again I will look forward to your posting. 'The Henry was a little tedious to load. The magazine was a tube under the barrel and loaded from the front end. The magazine tube was rendered delicate for military service by a lengthwise slot on the lower side. The slot is necessary for retracting the follower and spring into the front end section for reloading. The slot and follower precluded a wooden forestock.

Is this incorrect information? Or were individual cartridges loaded into the tube magazine, rather than a tube containing the cartridges, similar to the Spencer?' Using 'tube' can be confusing if one thinks of the Spencer magazine 'tube' that is inserted into the buttstock. Yes, the Henry has a fixed 'tubular magazine' with an exposed spring. The barrel is loaded from the front, after turning a pivoting block. The individually loaded loose cartridges are 'held' and fed by a follower and the spring (one can tell how 'full' the magazine is by the position of the follower- annoying in 'Dances With Wolves.' ) The basic principle is basically the same on all Winchester lever-actions.

However, problems or complaints with the exposed nature of the barrel, magazine, and the loading block operation, saw 'King's Improvement' 1866 patent (Nelson King) completely enclosing the magazine 'tube' eliminating the exposed slot and spring, adding a wooden forestock, and changing the loading from the front to the receiver area to a spring loaded 'gate,' And a mechanism was added that would push each cartridge forward up to the limit of the magazine. This also lightened the gun as the magazine tube was now a lightweight addition instead of an integral forged part of the barrel. As a result, the 'Model 1866' was AKA the 'Improved Henry.' CHS (An unrelated aside. The repro Henry was once briefly banned at some shooting events due to a couple of accidents where the compressed spring and follower slipped and 'detonated' the 'stack' of cartridges, and where a partially loaded Henry had its follower snagged, pulled back, and released, detonating the cartridges.).

I guess when one does not agree with the research and can find no research of their own to refute the original research then you just say that it did not happen. Saying it did not happen does not change the facts. This hobby is all about doing research. Research is important in order to formulate an impression. The incident concerning Captain Wilson of the 12th KY Cavalry.

Sir, I think the real word here is 'RESEARCH'! Yes, we are all painfully aware of the Gallent story of Capt. Wilson and his almost God like bravery as he killed 7 Rebs while holding his trusty 17 shot Henry,(and I am sure he had a 6 shot Colt revolver or two at his side!), I mean how did he ever find the Courage to fight off 7 men with single shot muskets while he had a mere 23 rounds at his finger tips! (Sounds like a murderous coward to me!), but yes we can take this story as fact, or atleast as close to fact as we can get.

What I am refering too is the other 2 dozen stories of the young gallent Union Soldier that rides off to see his Southern Bell Sweetheart, visit his parents stuck behind enemy lines, or just looking for a good home-cooked meal; and suddenly attacked by the ruthless 'Home Guard' of 8 to 24. Luckily he has his private purchase 'HENRY RIFLE', (also strange how often these stories pop up with an old beat-to-dust Henry that is forsale!?), at his side and is somehow able,(I love how hiding in a chicken coop comes to play in about half of these stories), fights them off, killing atleast 2/3's of them! Then, w/out even a scratch makes it safely back to camp! Taylor, I stand corrected! I can no longer find that 'Research' that a 44 Henry round was found w/7 strikes.

But I did find this: In an article titled; 'Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn', it states that these 44Henry rounds were found. 185 rounds total 2 Misfires 15 were fired by weapons other than a Henry or 1866 mdl. (Ballard, Remington &Colt Revolvers) 57 Rounds found w/2 double strikes 12 Rounds found w/3 strikes 6 rounds found with 4 strikes and One 44 Henry Round found with FIVE double firing pin strikes!

Now I would say that a misfiring Henry could down right dis-nerve you when you got a whole line of Murderous Rebs coming down on you! Sure must be hard to make those 200 yard Shots!!!!! (I have fired a Henry Live, the long range sight leaves much to be desired!) IMHO. NO, thats a FACT! An unrelated aside.

How 'many' misfires and under what pressing or dire circumstances would/could a lad entertain before dumping the cartridge as defective? I have several Spencer cartridges and spent shells recovered from around Winchester with two strikes- implying that some were discarded after the second misfire, and some fired with the second attempt. Henry's 1860 patent actually sought to reduce the chance of primer misfire by designing a firing pin that had two strikers to strike opposite sides of the cartridge base. The balloon head, rimfire copper cartridges of the Period were not 100% reliable. (But IMHO, we should not make them 100% unreliable.) Winchester ran one test in November of 1862 claiming a test firing of 100 out of 100 on the first strike without failure.

It is said that the.44 Henry RF was 'anemic.' As early as 1864 it appears New Haven was aware of the complaints, and increased the charge from 26 to 30 grains through compression (when they also responded to dangers of magazine detonations by going from a pointed nose bullet to a flat point.) IMHO, the 'anemic' is a mix of truth and modern lore.

Winchester produced the M1866 in.44 Henry RF for over thirty years before switching to.44 WCF (.44-40) near the end of production. Plus the 23 to 30 grains found in Henry cartridges was sufficient to kick out a 200 or 220 grain bullet with muzzle velocities of 1100 to 1200 fps (about the same as a.357 Magnum fired from a 4 inch barrel revolver). IMHO, what the problem was was a combination of 'Western' distances where the smaller charged bullet fell off power too rapidly (hence a 40 grain cartridge in the initial M1873 Winchester).

A growing notion of 'Bigger is Better' where the.44 Winchester Center Fire round itself became viewed as anemic in favor of.40-60,.45-60,.45-70, and even.50-95's. (Not that there were not smaller popular versions such as the.32-20 or.38-40's.) Others' mileage will vary. CHS Live-fire shooter of modern center-fire Henry's, M1866 Improved Henry's, and M1873 Winchesters Mess. Ouch, what an out of context poorly researched quote Ross. Shame on you. The 2,000 Henry's were all that were purchased by the 'Federal Government' per the article.

We all know that the Ordnance Dept didn't want repeaters and fought their acquisition for a few early war years. A little higher up your cited article mentions 'state' purchases.which would be closer to the number of Henry's purchased for Military use during the ACW.and far more than the 2,000 you cite.

Private purchases were probably higher still than State's purchases.we know, for example, that the 7th Illinois Infantry Regiment bought their own Henry rifles.the entire Regiment. Am not arguing that their were more Henry's purchased than Spencer Rifles and Carbines. And I am not arguing that Spencer's were not the predominate repeating arm. (They were!).

I will argue that there were enough Colts Revolving Rifles, Henry Rifles, Spencer RIFLES, to support their use by Infantry reenactors in Western Theatre events: [selected, preapproved by event staff] battle reenactments, living histories, and sham battles (demonstration battles like at Conner Prairie). I think that Eastern Theatre reenactors need to crack a couple of books on Western Theatre battles PRIOR to criticizing western reenactment impressions, and find out about Ohio Regiment's shooting off their own finger's, Wilder's boys wild wild westing it, Casement's BRIGADE unleashing the hounds at Franklin, dismounted cavalry assaulting and taking extensive Infantry manned breastworks at Selma, and the documented battle use of Henry Rifle's during the American Civil War. Ding ding, we have a winner. RJ wins the Research Decyphering Award for the week.

I was making a query and a point at the same time with my post. I casually glanced over the site that I listed, along with 4 others which looked like they had the same info, for the point of saying that numbers are subject to intense analysis and subjective reasoning and don't always tell the whole story.

I did indeed catch the phrase 'government purchase', which indeed gives no measure of the amount of privately purchased arms were used. This is one of those cases that either side can use documentation to prove differing points and be right in their argument. I've got absolutely no dog in this hunt, as I don't worry myself about speciality impressions. I've got enough on my plate just interpreting the life of the common soldier and citizen of each side without spending thousands on toys and cool stuff. RJ is the only person to point out that information can be skewed toward different directions unless you totally analyze the provided data.

Fellow Enthusiasts, I thought it would be fitting to take a moment to post a few of the relevant sections from the Campaigner Manifesto written by Nicky Hughes. My impression is based upon serious research into and careful analysis of reliable sources of information about the experiences of Civil War soldiers.

I recognize the need to employ the historian's skills, including the ability to evaluate possible sources of information. I place considerable reliance upon documented research conducted by others, but I do not base my impression upon the claims of those who manufacture goods for the reenacting market, reenacting traditions and customs, superficial or outdated publications, entertainment media, or other suspect sources. I am prepared to change my impression to incorporate improvements dictated by new historical information as it becomes available to me. I recognize that our understanding of the details of history changes over time.

I welcome constructive discussion of such matters, and I share information freely. I handle and maintain weapons in a manner intended to insure my safety and that of others around me, and which reflects period practice in a way consistent with modern safety requirements. I see 'mainstream' reenactors as potential converts to living history at higher levels of historical accuracy, and I avoid conflict with them. I conduct my relations with them in a manner consistent with the behavior expected from a mid-19th century gentleman. However, I do maintain my own high standards of excellence for portraying Civil War soldier life.' I find it interesting has a double standard has crept into whole affair. Later this year self proclaimed campaigners plan to deploy to the field with a large number of Henry repeating rifles with intentions of portraying a unit which has no documentation for fielding such numbers of the repeating arm.

This has been brought to their attention multiple times but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Why let facts get in the way of a historical re-enactment. The Campaigner's best effort to date to justify this blatant disregard for lack of documentation is the following post: 'so sometimes the history books will overlook a man or two in every company/regiment being armed with a private purchase weapon.' Is this the new double speak for: 'if they had it they would have used it.' Additionally, are they going to take the time to modify the rifles to make them true 16 or 17 shooters as opposed to the way they come in the box? Is this what has become of the great Campaigner movement? Do as we say and not as we do?

Is that the new mantra? So I guess this means that as long as you buy the 'approved' high dollar clothes and traps and associate with the campaigners you can do whatever you like regardless of documentation(or lack of).

Now on the other hand here you have Mr. Bresnan whom I would call a progressive re-enactor.

He has done exhaustive research on the matter for nearly two decades and has done a wonderful job of investigating his sources and weeding out the junk. A lot of folks should follow his example. However, when he and trhe rest of us non-campaigners deploy to the field with our Henrys using this documentation we are labeled as 'Farbs', 'Attention Getters' and far more lewd terms than this forum will allow. So much for number 18 of the manifesto. Sadly those responsible for such name calling are ones who have little or no knowledge of the subject matter and worse yet show no interest in learning more about the subject matter. Truly a sad thing to witness. Bresnan for all of his hard work and for his willingness to share his knowledge with those who are willing to listen and learn.

He has taught me much and I look forward to learning more from him and others like him. Good luck to the MO engineers this fall and their large number of undocumented Henrys in the field. I have had my fill of this adventure and now take my leave. Good luck to all and never stop learning.

Sincerely, Robert A. Leinweber Rifleman & student of history. Fellow Enthusiasts. Good luck to the MO engineers this fall and their large number of undocumented Henrys in the field. LOL!y Hmmm, last I read the engineer company had changed its stance so that some men in the reconstituted unit would be using repeaters because some members of the original outfit had them. Not a requirement. Anything new to add to this?

What does their documentation show regarding percentage that had these arms in Georgia? I've enjoyed this discussion and would like to own a Henry of my own someday. Certainly some good insights have been shared. On the other hand, I am registered for Bummer's. I always appreciate when others who have no intention of participating in an event couch their questions and suggestions in helpful ways, rather than resorting to, well, name calling. Ever forward, Paul Hadley Can of Worms Mess. I occassionally portray a member of Company 'C,' 7th Independent Company of Ohio Volunteer Sharpshooters, a Spencer rifle armed unit often organized with other Ohio IC's in a battalion.

The particular company was pulled to be Rosecrans', Thomas', and Sherman's personal and headquarters guard. The 7th Independent Company of Ohio Sharpshooters suffered 18 men dead (17 by disease and one killed in action near Rossville, Georgia) and eight men captured by Confederate guerillas while foraging. From the 21st Michigan: Interesting that someone refers to Henrys as 12 shooters?

Maybe just a 1966 mix-up? Expert opinion needed. 21st Michigan winning 10 Colt revolving rifles for superior marksmanship after the brigade was presented with them. This is basically my point of these things that might pop up anywhere in one or two numbers. Anyone done any research on the 21st? Been wondering all day whether the ratio of Henry's as compared to all other non-pistol, small arms is larger or smaller than the ratio of zouaves compared to all other soldiers.

Regardless of the actual number, there sure has been alot of bandwidth used about a weapon which so few soldiers actually used. Actually there were more Henry's than say, General's Trust Company Dreaming In Black And White Zip Tankini on this page. or Colonel's. From an internet perspective not much bandwidth used on these two threads Silas. Lot more spent on discussing jack chain and connection holes on canteens.or Colonel's.or how to cook bacon in the dark. So from your analogies can I take it we shouldn't reenact any specific unit impression?

NY Jackets verboten? No 44 man brigades?

No cavalry impressions in a given army (too small a ratio), etc. And of course, no Major Generals at National Events. RJ, it's about time, place and manner. If de scenario call fo' it, I gots no probrems wid it. An example was the company at the Franklin event five years ago. I was downwind of them. Never forget it.

Didn't have a problem with it for the particular scenario in which it was used. I don't have a problem with zouaves if the portrayal is based upon something which happened in the chosen scenario.

My concern is that folks will bring expensive fancy junk like this to events where there is no historic basis for it. The suggestion that we need to portray the common soldier who was armed with a Henry is a significant stretch of the common soldier idea. There's nothing common about it.

Might be okay to have Henry companies at events where there is no basis for them if we have each guy wear a large wooden sign around his neck stating the innaccuracy of his accurate portrayal of the common Henry toter in the scenario. Four letter word starting with 'F' in large capitals ought to do the trick. Silas, I really do not know how to ask these questions concerning what constitutes a “Common Soldier” as I do not want it to come of the wrong way, so here it is anyway. You state your concern “My concern is that folks will bring expensive fancy junk like this to events where there is no historic basis for it. The suggestion that we need to portray the common soldier who was armed with a Henry is a significant stretch of the common soldier idea.

There's nothing common about it.” With all of that said, did the “Common Soldier” carry banjos as depicted in your avatar? Would a person that brought a banjo to an event be classified as a “Common soldier” (even though most did not carry a banjo) or in the same category as a soldier armed with a Henry even though both the banjo picker and the Henry armed soldier were exactly the same except for the banjo and the Henry? Would a person with a banjo need to provide historic documentation for having the banjo at the event? Is the banjo classified as “expensive fancy junk”? I happen to really like a banjo. Again, I really did not know how to ask the questions without coming off the wrong way so I took the straight out approach. RJ, it's about time, place and manner.

If de scenario call fo' it, I gots no probrems wid it. An example was the company at the Franklin event five years ago. I was downwind of them.

Never forget it. Didn't have a problem with it for the particular scenario in which it was used. I don't have a problem with zouaves if the portrayal is based upon something which happened in the chosen scenario. My concern is that folks will bring expensive fancy junk like this to events where there is no historic basis for it.

The suggestion that we need to portray the common soldier who was armed with a Henry is a significant stretch of the common soldier idea. There's nothing common about it. Might be okay to have Henry companies at events where there is no basis for them if we have each guy wear a large wooden sign around his neck stating the innaccuracy of his accurate portrayal of the common Henry toter in the scenario. Four letter word starting with 'F' in large capitals ought to do the trick. I really do not know how to ask these questions concerning what constitutes a “Common Soldier” as I do not want it to come of the wrong way, so here it is anyway. You state your concern “My concern is that folks will bring expensive fancy junk like this to events where there is no historic basis for it. The suggestion that we need to portray the common soldier who was armed with a Henry is a significant stretch of the common soldier idea.

There's nothing common about it.” I think that Silas's point as I understood it as that if someone is wanting to portray an infantryman in a standard infantry battalion, then any repeater rifle would be an inappropriate weapon as such a weapon would have been rare in such a battalion and might have even been discouraged because of resupply logistics. However, if your unit is portraying a generic unit that would likely been armed with some form of repeater rifle (e.g., late war Federal cavalry in the Army of the Cumberland) or a unit that was documented specifically to armed with such weapons, then repeaters would be appropriate. For example, my impression is that of a Confederate infantryman in the ANV. As such it would be totally inappropriate for me to buy a Spencer or Henry for use outside of a weapons display at a Living History.

But if my impression was of mid to late war Union cavalry or mounted infantry, then such a purchase might very well be approprioate as there could very well be events I would be attending where the use of such a weapon would be historically correct for my impression. This becomes a circular discussion. As with varying Mental Pictures, not all lads chose to embrace a 'Common Soldier' portraying the 'Life and Times of the Common Soldier.' We do not even have agreement or consensus on what constitutes 'common' let alone the quicksand of 'Plain, Everyday, and Common.' We could, perhaps, start that argument/discussion by looking at what impression or 'look' represents or is indicative of the largest numbers of CW soldiers, and that in our small numbers if one subscribes to 'proportional representation' one man in ten say with a Sharps Rifle represents ten (10%) percent which taken to extreme is portraying hundreds of thousands of of CW soldiers.

But that precludes a desire to be representative of the largest number and ignores the 'exceptions.' At the other end of the telescope, then, is the discussion of 'specialty troops' and 'less numerical' weapons in and of themselves. For example, having Berdan Sharpshooters at say Shiloh shares (some of) the overall 'history' of Berdan Sharpshooters with the spectating public as well as fellow reenactors- but it is 'rough' on the history of Shiloh (or the factual history of where the unit served). And then there is the discussion of portraying regiments or companies that were actually armed with say Sharps, Spencer, or Henry rifles, etc.,, etc. (specific unit, time, and place consideration) but were at the battle being reenacted. Having Berdan Sharpshooters at say Shiloh still shares the history of Berdan Sharpshooters with the spectating public as well as fellow reenactors- but it is 'rough' on the history of Shiloh.

All too often, this comes down to two issues that are important to some Mental Pictures and not important to other Mental Pictures: 1. The presence of 'speciality troops' or 'other than rifle-musket armed troops' impressions at specific (or declared scenario) reenactments of battles where those units were not present (Berdans at Shiloh, Ohio IC sharpshooters at Gettysburg). The sprinkling of either 'speciality troops' or 'other than rifle-musket armed troops' in 'rifle-musket' units when one, or two Zouaves, green coated Berdans, or just a lad with a Sharps or Henry shows up (or is in a unit with no standards to a weapon type). As a result of differing Mental Pictures, there are lads who see a handful of Spencer armed lads as adding dimension and depth to the Civil War story. And then there are lads who see Spencer armed lads as disorting history and wasting what could a contribution to the depiction of larger companies beyond the oft 'common' twenty-some lads.

In the end, being a 'voluntary' hobby, lads will choose do what they want to do and where they can do it, on both sides of the coin. Others' mileage will vary. CHS Heretic who saw a fourteen man Confederate company last weakend with two Sharps Rifle armed lads Egyptian mummy avatars are not very common, and are quite rare on boards and fora. Historically, mummies are rare, and typically former theocracy, nobiity, and rich folks who could afford the costly process for themselves or their pets. Just for spits and giggles I have collected a list of rounds expended by the feds during the Atlanta campaign (just one example). I've only included the data concerning cavalry and hence, I believe, carbines.

The list comes from history books, after action reports, the Official Records, etc. I don't have a specific source.

But, here is the data (3 armies in the collection). A - Army of the Cumberland, Major-General Thomas, about 60,000 troops. B - Army of the Tennessee, Major-General Howard, formerly under McPherson, about 25,000 troops. C - Army of the Ohio, Major-General Schofield, about 15,000 troops D - Total. A B C D Spencer rifle cartridges156,739180,76852,815390,322 Henry rifle cartridges10,24093,65523,300126,195 Colt rifle cartridges*10,760.5,00015,760 Burnside carbine cartridges..84,00084,000 Sharps carbine cartridges..16,00016,000 Smith & Weston carbine cartridges.15,00068,00083,000 Ballard carbine cartridges *..30,00030,000 Merrill carbine cartridges..10,00010,000 Colt army-pistol cartridges.60028,72029,320 Colt navy-pistol cartridges.1,2003,0004,200 Target-rifle cartridges.7,113.7,113 Whats interesting here is the number of pistol rounds vs long arm rounds. Yet, I still see cavalry carrying 2, 3, 4, or even 6 pistols.

I guess we like to burn more powder than the original toopers did. By the way, the Spencer rounds are about 3:1 over the Henry. However, the Henry was there in force. And either of these is significantly higher than pistol rounds. Here is an interesting transcript from a letter written by Captain Joseph Reynolds of the 64th Illinois Infantry dated Jan. 28, 1865 to his sister Sarah.

Sherman says he will be at his journeys end in ten days from time of starting, Charleston is his destination from appearances now. Day before yesterday our division was out again and drove the enemy across the Saskehatchie. When we reached the river fourteen men with Henry rifles of our Regiment went in a boat and crossed to within fifty feet of the enemy’s fort and captured a Captain of the artillery and two of his men. The troops in any number could not cross on account of the river being so much overflowed. We got back to camp at midnight.

It was the coldest day we have had and the men suffered from having to wade so much in water. Your brother, JS Reynolds” The interesting part of the letter is the fact that he mentions that fourteen men were armed with Henry rifles.

He goes on to say that troops in number would not have been able to cross. So fewer men armed with the Henry rifle were able to do a job that a larger number of men with the “Common Arm” would not have been able to do.

Just pasing along some interesting Henry rifle information. The interesting part of the letter is the fact that he mentions that fourteen men were armed with Henry rifles. He goes on to say that troops in number would not have been able to cross.

So fewer men armed with the Henry rifle were able to do a job that a larger number of men with the “Common Arm” would not have been able to do. Correct me if I'm reading it wrongly, but I interpret it to say that, because the river was so overflowing, large numbers of men could not be sent across, no matter what kind of weapon they may have been armed with. I also don't see where it indicates that a larger number of men armed with rifle muskets could not have taken the prisoners, just that a larger force couldn't be brought over. Neither diminishes the accomplishment of the 14 men who could be sent over capturing the prisoners.

I'm just not reading a direct correlation of the success being attributed solely to being armed with Henrys. I read it as the river was too high to wade through and the transport available only held 14 men -- I'd like to think the repeaters would have given them an advantage over a similar group of combatants who had only single-shot muzzle loaders. Wonder how many were on the opposite bank that they allowed their officer to be captured? Guess we'll never really know for sure. Paul Hadley P.S. -- Doc, I'm thinking about Chawls -- can't you just taste his salty vegetable whatever-it-was from 2nd Manassas?

I'm missing him and his authentic sustenance. Correct me if I'm reading it wrongly, but I interpret it to say that, because the river was so overflowing, large numbers of men could not be sent across, no matter what kind of weapon they may have been armed with. I also don't see where it indicates that a larger number of men armed with rifle muskets could not have taken the prisoners, just that a larger force couldn't be brought over. Neither diminishes the accomplishment of the 14 men who could be sent over capturing the prisoners. I'm just not reading a direct correlation of the success being attributed solely to being armed with Henrys. I must agree, I says nothing about men on either side being killed, wounded, or even firing a shot. 14 Men with Springfields could capture a Capt.

And two 'others' just as easily as 14 men w/Henry's. This is not 'Research' or 'Fact'.

It is mere speculation, or in simpler words.your best guess! One of the earliest uses of Henry Repeating rifles was in an account of the capture of Clarksville, Tennessee in 1862. Colonel Rodney Mason was the commanding officer of the 71st Ohio Infantry who occupied Clarksville. Colonel Mason was forced to surrender Clarksville on August 18, 1862. It seems he was attacked in the Ohio newspapers for the surrender. In a letter to the editor of the Ohio State Journal, Colonel Mason writes a defense of his actions. “On Monday morning I received notice of the approach of the enemy in force.

I was near my headquarters in the city, and immediately started for camp, which I reached just as the enemy galloped down the street. Colonel Andrews, who was in command, forming the men in position.

The enemy halted out of range, and sent in a flag of truce, demanding a surrender. I called my officers together, and submitted the proposition to them.

The matter was some time in consideration. Pending the negotiation, I asked and obtained leave to send Lt. Colonel Andrews along the line to verify their statements of their force. He counted them to the number of about eight hundred, well armed, one company with volcanic rifles, (“sixteen shooters,”) one with carbines, some with muskets, and the remainder with double-barreled shotguns.They had besides a battery of four guns, six and twelve pounders.” To oppose this enemy force Colonel Mason had one hundred and fifty-two men and no artillery. In the officers meeting, the officers of the 71st Ohio Infantry agreed with Colonel Mason that it would be hopeless to resist and the only sensible option would be to surrender. The officers also agreed with Lt.

Colonel Andrews’ report as to the armament of the enemy having a company of sixteen shooter, Henry rifles. In the statement of the company officers they state, “He returned and reported that, as near as he could ascertain, about four hundred cavalrymen were drawn in line some four hundred yards distance; one company armed with new sixteen shooters, one company with carbines and sabers, balance with double-barreled shotguns; at the left and rear drawn up about one hundred infantry.” A company in 1862 could have meant anywhere from 50 to 100. This company was armed with the Henry sixteen shooter rifle, sometimes referred to by its predecessor’s name, the Volcanic rifle. This was a Confederate Company, in fact it was Company B of the 10th Kentucky Partisan Rangers commanded by Captain Lorenzo Fisher who is even pictured with his Henry rifle in a book on the subject.

Where the Confederates got the Henry rifles and ammunition, I have a good idea. No troops were killed or wounded here either but Colonel Mason was sure intimidated by the all of the firepower the Confederates possessed, including the Henry rifles as specifically mentioned. “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” http://www.rarewinchesters.com/articles/art_hen_00.shtml.

Trivia: 'COLUMBUS, August 9, 1864. STANTON, Secretary of War: Is there an order of the War Department that manufacturers of the Henry rifle shall not fill private orders while manufacturing for the Government. I have heard something of the kind. Agents for manufacturers are all over this State selling these arms to men who are organizing to resist the draft. Such an agent is selling heavy rifles here; sold thirty yesterday.

The transactions are private, and civil process will not prevent it. Do you hold the manufacturers under such control that you can stop for ninety days the shipment or furnishing of arms by them for private sale?

The evil is a serious one. Can it be reached? WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, August 10, 1864. Governor BROUGH, Columbus, Ohio: The Government has no contract for the Henry rifle.

Let me know the name of the agent, where he is, and where his arms are. STANTON, Secretary of War. COLUMBUS, OHIO, August 10, 1864.

STANTON, Secretary of War: It is called the New Haven Arms Company, New Haven, Conn. The man here has been before me to-day.

He is not an agent, but is selling on commission. He gives me a list of his sales, and agrees to deposit in the arsenal his rifles on hand; protests his loyalty, and that he has not knowingly sold to disloyal men. He says rifles are coming into the State through other men, but he does not know who they are. One more, as it is getting late.

'HARPER'S FERRY, W. VA., June 16, 1863. CAPTAIN: In compliance with an order from Brig. Elliott, I have to report the following operations of my command on June 13, 14, and 15: Adjt. Van Eaton was present always in the thickest of the fight, gallantly discharging his duty.

It would be but simple justice to say the same of Captains Smith, Moore, Spangler, Ullery, Snodgrass, and Brown, and Lieutenants Hathaway, Rush, Cannon, Shellenberger, McKnight, Moon, and Boyer; also, Orderly Sergeant [George W.] Fraub. The latter commanded a detachment of Company K through each engagement. Captain Snodgrass received two wounds, but did not leave the field. Knowing the risk of being censured for making special mention of officers and men where all behaved so nobly, I cannot refrain from calling attention to my sharpshooters.

Armed with the Henry rifle, in each engagement they fired almost continuous streams into the enemy's ranks, creating great loss of life. They also, under my own eyes, shot down a number of the enemy's officers. WARREN KEIFER, Col., Comdg.

One hundred and tenth Ohio Vol. Williams writes on March 3, 1863 of witnessing the use of Henry rifles in Kentucky. He feels that the Henry rifle is the most effective weapon in use. He writes: “The Henry Rifle is regarded in Kentucky as the most effective known, and some most astonishing things have been accomplished with it; among these we mention one: Whilst the gallant Colonel Netter was raising his regiment of Kentucky Volunteers at Owensboro, Ky., he sent fifteen of his men armed with this rifle on a scout; these men were attacked by two hundred and forty rebel soldiers in an open lane, where there was no timber for shelter, and the fifteen Union soldiers, armed with the Henry, successfully repulsed and drove from the field the two hundred and forty assailants. This unparalleled feat could not have been accomplished with any other arm known to us. Respectfully, R.K.

Williams, W.W. Gardner” Fifteen against two hundred and forty of the enemy. If I were a betting man I would say some “rapid fire” went on in this fight. I would also bet that some were killed or wounded. “Common soldiers” who just happened to be armed with Henry rifles. “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” http://www.rarewinchesters.com/artic.t_hen_00.shtml.

The great thing about education is that it is an on going process. Some people are ignorant to many different topics; I will be the first to admit that, while others choose to be ignorant. What is the old saying, “Ignorance is bliss”. People choose to read the posting or not. My advice would be if you are no longer interested, just don’t read the postings.

It has been proven in the past that “Book Burning” and other means to keep education down have not worked. Most all soldiers of the Civil War were “Common Soldiers” doing many different jobs with different tools. Thank you for everyone that has contributed to the discussion. If you have more information please share the information with all. Those that wish to can read it, those that are tired of the discussion can move on. “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” Just makes me want to rush out and purchase a big crate overflowing with well oiled, shiny, fierce Henrys. Form my own battalion of them I will.

Dominate every battle with rapid fire I shall. Dude, give it a rest. The great thing about education is that it is an on going process.

Some people are ignorant to many different topics; I will be the first to admit that, while others choose to be ignorant. What is the old saying, “Ignorance is bliss”. People choose to read the posting or not.

My advice would be if you are no longer interested, just don’t read the postings. It has been proven in the past that “Book Burning” and other means to keep education down have not worked. Most all soldiers of the Civil War were “Common Soldiers” doing many different jobs with different tools. Thank you for everyone that has contributed to the discussion.

If you have more information please share the information with all. Those that wish to can read it, those that are tired of the discussion can move on. “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” Keep posting the information. I don't have a Henry but the stories about it use during the War is interesting. I have a Smith carbine Artillery model anybody want to trade? I see by your postings the gun shows up in Kentucky a lot. Interesting like I said, Keep it up.

Always Doug Thomas Lyons-Kentucky. The great thing about education is that it is an on going process. Some people are ignorant to many different topics; I will be the first to admit that, while others choose to be ignorant.

What is the old saying, “Ignorance is bliss”. People choose to read the posting or not. My advice would be if you are no longer interested, just don’t read the postings. It has been proven in the past that “Book Burning” and other means to keep education down have not worked. Most all soldiers of the Civil War were “Common Soldiers” doing many different jobs with different tools. Thank you for everyone that has contributed to the discussion.

If you have more information please share the information with all. Those that wish to can read it, those that are tired of the discussion can move on. “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” MR.

Bresnan, What is it you are trying to say? That I am 'Ignorant' because I do not agree with you, or that I am a 'Book Burning' Nazi!?!?!? Sir, We all are very much enjoying your wonderful stories about the awesome powers of the Henry Rifle. Now some may consider this 'Research', but it is clearly not being 'Educated' on the subject. All 'research' must be verified and deductive reasoning and good ole 'common sense' must be applied. So, lets look at poor Col. Mason, from Ohio.

With 152 men he is confronted with a force of over 800 and 4 guns of both 6 and 12 pounders! Would you have us believe that if that Company of Rebs, 50 to 100 men, had been armed with shotguns that Col.

Mason would have not surrendered???? What is better Sir, to write a letter home as to why you surrendered 152 men to 800 Rebs with 4 cannons, or try to explain to the home town folks why you got most of thier boys killed in a hopeless fight? Now for your delightful story of Col. Here is a Col. Commanding 15 men!

Sounds like the beginning of another 'Camp Fire Story', but we will ignore that and press on. All 15 men are armed with Henry's and as they are mounted maybe a Colt revolver or two.

So 17 shots in the Henry and 6 shots per pistol means a total of over 345 rounds at the finger tips of these 15 men. They are in a 'OPEN LANE', this means in my eyes mind a narrow road w/o trees, etc. Making any stand or uses of cover possible. This means it is not a fight on open ground where all 240 Rebs could fan out and put fire down on the 15 Yanks.

It would also seem correct that maybe.just maybe only 20 to 40 Rebs could come up on line to fire at any one time, meaning over 200 of the Rebs may have never got into the fight. And maybe.just maybe, these 240 Rebs started off as 20, and the next time the story was told it went up to 40, then 80, then 160 and now it is 240!

And where is the report from the CS Commander that said 15 men with Henry's threw back our patrol of 240 men? This Sir, is 'research'.

Now for your first story of 14 men w/henry's capturing 3 Rebs. My only point was when out numbered over four to one. It would seem smart to surrender. End of point.

And believe me when I say Sir I am not in any way 'tired of the discussion', as a matter of fact I get up each and every morning to read another exciting story of 'How the Henry Rifle Won the Civil War'! Williams writes on March 3, 1863 of witnessing the use of Henry rifles in Kentucky. He feels that the Henry rifle is the most effective weapon in use. He writes: “The Henry Rifle is regarded in Kentucky as the most effective known, and some most astonishing things have been accomplished with it; among these we mention one: Whilst the gallant Colonel Netter was raising his regiment of Kentucky Volunteers at Owensboro, Ky., he sent fifteen of his men armed with this rifle on a scout; these men were attacked by two hundred and forty rebel soldiers in an open lane, where there was no timber for shelter, and the fifteen Union soldiers, armed with the Henry, successfully repulsed and drove from the field the two hundred and forty assailants. This unparalleled feat could not have been accomplished with any other arm known to us.

Respectfully, R.K. Williams, W.W. Gardner” Fifteen against two hundred and forty of the enemy. If I were a betting man I would say some “rapid fire” went on in this fight. I would also bet that some were killed or wounded. “Common soldiers” who just happened to be armed with Henry rifles.

“Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” Mr. Bresnan, I stand corrected! Netter was not with this patrol, but who was? Was there no Officer or NCO to make this report? You wrote that this 'R.K.

Williams' wrote and/or 'Witnessing'.what did he witness? And on that point who is he? I can only find two 'R.K Williams', one a Cav. Soldier with Co. Cav., the other a Kentucy Delegate for the DNC in Kentucy 1860. And can you please tell us who 'W.W. You know, just for the sake of 'Research'.

And up popped the Spencer rifle bhoys! 'At Mission Ridge the sharpshooters were held in reserve. After that, they were at headquarters most of the time till the first of May, 1864, though they were engaged in a protracted scout between the hostile lines in February, and the Fifth and Eighth companies were located forty miles up the Tennessee, to protect Union citizens, during part of March and April. From about the first of May until the first of July the battalion manned a gunboat in the Tennessee, to keep the banks and vicinity clear of rebel guerrillas and raiding parties. On the 12th of May about sixty-five men came near being massacred through the management of the pilot of the gunboat, who turned out to be a rebel spy.

The negro huts and storehouses of a plantation on the south side of the Tennessee had been made the base of operations for rebel guerrillas who were accustomed to cross the river, do what injury they could to the Union forces and return thither. Captain Barber determined to clear them out. The pilot suggested, and the captain agreed, that the boat should lie near the town, as it was called, through the night, then land below it and march up the river road, under the protection of the boat, to attack it. In the night the pilot got ashore, and warned the rebels what they might expect. On landing, the captain found the river road so favorable to ambush, and so little protected by the gunboat, that he struck across to another. On the sharpshooters nearing the forks of the two roads, near a hundred Texans sprang up out of the ambush in which they had placed themselves on the river road. Thirty or forty shots were fired on a side, when the rebels fled.

The sharpshooters advanced into the so-called town, and attacked a store-house filled with plunder from the other side of the river. Immediately the rebels, concealed in other houses and in masked works on the hillside opend a heavy fire, driving the Unionists to the shelter of the gunboat, with a loss of three killed and wounded. The negroes were then warned to leave, and the gunboat shelled the town from end to end, soon driving out the rebels. Afterwards a detachment was sent ashore to burn it, as was done to all houses from which the Union troops were fired on. The rest of the sharpshooters landed to repel attacks.

The Texans, not knowing of the covering party, charged across an open space to destroy the burners. The sharpshooters met them with a terrific fire from behind cover, with their Spencer rifles, and more than half the assailants were killed or wounded. These operations entirely broke up the nest of marauders which had previously lurked in the vicinity.

The negroes were taken on the gunboat and sent to the contraband camp an Nashville, which was where they were anxious to go. The sharpshooters, while patrolling the river, passed through several other interesting experiences, which we have not space to relate here. After their gunboat service was over, they joined Sherman's army at Big Shanty. The Seventh company became that general's headquarters guard, and the others were in charge of the amunition train of the army of the Cumberland, from that point to Atlanta.

Afterward the battalion of three companies returned to Tennessee and was made Gen. Thomas' headquarters guard, which position it held till the close of the war. In April, 1865, Capt. Barber was mustered out to accept the lieutenant-colonecy of the One Hundred and ninety-seventh Infanty, and the battalion was mustered out on the 19th of July following.' Special Field Order No. 26 for the Fourth Division, Fifteenth Corps gives an idea of how much ammunition was necessary for troops armed with the Henry Repeating rifle.

Dated December 7, 1864 near the Ogeechee River, Ga., the special field order list the order of march. “The Third Brigade will have the advance, followed by the pioneer corps, and then the battery; the Second Brigade will move in the center, followed by the trains hereafter designated; the First Brigade will bring up the rear. The battery will take three wagons loaded with canister, two wagons loaded with shell, and one wagon with shot. Each brigade will take five ordnance wagons loaded with caliber.58, and for each regiment armed with Henry rifles one wagon load of that kind of ammunition will be taken. By order of Brig.

General John M. Crose” It would be interesting to know how many cases of.44 caliber Henry ammunition a wagon load consisted of, at any rate, it had to be thousands of rounds of ammunition. “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” http://www.rarewinchesters.com/artic.t_hen_00.shtml.

Bresnan, Thank you for another great story/discovered side note ref. 'How the Henry Rifle Won the Civil War' (in your opinion). But this is just what I am talking about.

Comments like 'I would say', 'I would also bet', and 'it had to be' are not 'Research'! This is just YOUR opinion! But it is a fact that the U.S. Did not like/want these 'Repeaters' because of the large amount of ammo that these so armed soldiers wasted.

You are 100% correct.' It would be interesting to know'. But we don't know, so should be base our impressions on your best guess? OH, and with well over a million built, it was the 1861 mdl & 1863 mdl that was the back bone of the Army!

IMHO, we should avoid straining at gnats while swallowing camels.:) While it is true that by scale and numbers, repeating arms were not the dominant and predominant firearm of the Civil War. However, for the units that were armed with them, it is not historically correct to ignore them either. While the Army was resistant at best, for several decades after the Civil War, there can be no doubt that the superiority of the repeating, magazine fed, rifle or weapon would come to dominant modern warfare. Otherwise we would have fought WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and Afghanistan with single shot weapons.

The 'Winchester' never gained acceptance or popularity except as a civilian arm, and its 'musket' version withered on the vine as did the 'trapdoor' before the bolt action. However, for the men that were armed with Henry, Spencer, and Sharps rifles the perspective, at the time, was different.:) IMHO, still. It adds a dimension, and is of interest (to some), to see the ancestors of modern military firearms and how they were used albeit in a limited and small scale when compared to the overall picture. And are worthy of board or fora discussion anytime (just not hyperbole). Others' mileage will vary.

CHS Sometime Company 'C,' 7th Independent Company, OVSS Mess. I know that the main weapon of the Civil War was the muzzle-loading weapon the “Common Arm”. That has never been in doubt. All I have mentioned is that the Henry rifle was used in the Civil War also and in limited numbers, as I have mentioned. It seems that a few read into the postings things that are not there.

I wonder why people feel threatened by the posting of information on the Henry rifle. What is wrong with posting information concerning the Henry Rifles? Some might want to start their own postings on how the muzzle-loader won the Civil War, which by the way is very true. There are other aspects of the Civil War besides a soldiers armed with a muzzle-loader.

The postings have indeed encouraged people to do more research on their own as well as to help educate others on the use of the Henry rifle. Nine Thousands Henry rifles being used in the Civil War is a long way from millions of the “Common Weapon” that were used. Thanks again for all that have contributed and may the quest for education continue. Henry ammunition was boxed 50 rounds to the box and shipped 2000 rounds per crate. What would be the estimated of crates that would be packed into a supply wagon?

“Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” http://www.rarewinchesters.com/artic.t_hen_00.shtml. Andrew, It never came packages in the way you suggest from New Haven Arms Co..44 Henry ammo came 'crated' 600 rounds per crate. Some had 12 boxes of 50 round per box. Some came with 6 boxes of 100 round per crate. One Mule could carry four (4) crates of.44 cal Henry ammunition, 2,400 rounds total and at a weight of about 200 pounds per mule. This same mule carrying.58 cal could carry two crates of 1,000 rounds each crate for a total of 2,000 rounds at a total weight or approximately 200 pound of weight.

In case you have forgotten, Crating was base on how much one mule could carry to where the soldiers need it, not by the wagon load, Education can be a two way street if one does not block off the flow of information. 'Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.' Does this statement also apply to you in equal measures? It is always good to find out new information. I am indeed willing to learn and absorb any new information concerning the Henry rifle or anything else. The information I have does indeed show what I have stated. I am glad that you have posted other information as it also gives a different perspective.

Do you have the source of the information, as I would like to add it to my list of sources? Thank you for any information you can provide. This exchange of information and ideas is what the purpose of the posting is mainly about where all can share and gain from each other as opposed to the opposite. Thank you again for the information. 'Education can cure most prejudices, but not all' It is good saying for all of us, even me. Factoid snippet.

On August 3, 1863 Captain Silas Crispin placed an order for 100,000 Henry cartridges from New Haven Arms Company. Oliver Winchester replied on August 4th. The cartridges were to have been delivered by steamboat. Once case of two thousand was sent that night for the quality to be judged before the balance was shipped.

The rest followed on October 15, 1863. Winchester to Capt. Crispin, August 4, 1863, NHAC, 340) On October 16, 1863 Captain Silas Crispin placed his second order for 40,000 Henry cartridges. New Haven Arms Company shipped 40,000 cartridges in twenty cases on November 4, 1863 arriving in New York on November 7th.

('Statements of Purchases of Ordnance,' NARA, RG 156). CHS (formerly Curt the Henry Shootist). The following article was published in the Peoria Journal Star in 1987 about a Marshall County man and his Henry Rifle link to the Civil War. 'Webber and the 86th were to attack and take a hill that was held by the Rebels. They found themselves in a desperate spot of not being able to go forward but could not go back without being fired upon by the Rebels.

“He(Fahnestock) refused to retreat back across the open field, but he ordered his men to fall back to a slight fold in the ground barely 35 yards below the crest of the ridge. Before Fahnestock gave that order, however, he passed his then high-tech Henry Repeating rifle and 120 rounds of ammunition to Fife Major Alanson Webber, along with instructions to fire every bullet as quickly as possible at the Rebel heads protruding atop the ridge. Webber did, every single bullet.

Many of the slugs found Rebel heads, but even those that didn’t had the effect of keeping enemy heads down as the rest of the 86th Illinois dug into the shallow fold below the crest.' 'While Webber poured on covering fire, the central Illinoisans used every implement they had--tin cups, bayonets, their rifle stocks--to excavate a life-giving hole in the dirt on the slope of the hill.Fahnestock and the rest of the 86th Illinois would fight on to the end of the war.

And Webber, the flute player from Marshall County, would be called upon again to use his commander’s rifle. The 86th Illinois Volunteer Infantry was mustered out of federal service at Washington D.C. In June 1865. When Webber returned home to his Saratoga Township farm, he carried a battered Henry which bore the inscription, “Presented to A.P. Webber, Fife Major, 86th Ill. Fahnestock for bravery in many battles, June 6, 1865.” Years later, Alanson Pitts Webber was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his work on Kennesaw Mountain. The medal has long since disappeared, but the Henry rifle remains in the family.” “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” http://www.rarewinchesters.com/artic.t_hen_00.shtml.

They have thier place in history but it is very limited. And other posts have hinted as to how all these Henry's/spencers may destroy a good event.

There's no question that Henrys, Sharps, and Spencers played a part in the CW. There is also no dispute that, at times, they played a critical role.

For our purposes, it is the second sentence above that gets at the crux of the matter for us today; that is, are these weapons being used at reenactments in a reasonably historical manner (unit tactics, rates of fire, etc.), or are they being used merely in a manner more likely to cause a 'Gee, Whiz' response from spectators. The former is acceptable.

The latter is more problematic. We all know that Galting Guns were around in the CW.

Not many, if any, saw action, but they existed. What if five or six of them were lined up at a given reenactment and turned on the attacking force? A spectacular display of firepower, smoke and noise, all guaranteed to wow the crowd and make people take notice. Also, wildly ahistoric. At Mill Springs a few years ago, one lone Henry-armed fellow popped up along the battle line. He cranked out his rounds in traditional rapid fashion, drawing everyone's attention. No surprise that it would have that kind of result.

Also, wildly incorrect for that particular battle in 1862. And that is why a goodly number of reenactors on the Federal line were not pleased with his 'performance'; a single man with an improper weapon for the scenario acting independently of everyone else. No surprise there, either. Prejudice tends to live on both sides of the street. However, we tend not to see it so well on our own side as on the other. Oliver Winchester, president of the New Haven Arms Company, wrote an article that appeared in the March 17,1863 edition if “The Scientific American” on the merits of the Henry Repeating rifle.

A magazine gun like the Henry rifle, carrying fifteen charges, which can be refilled in fifteen seconds, and the fifteen shots fired with deliberate aim in sixty seconds, or fifteen times before the enemy could reload once, must produce a sheet of fire and lead before which no troops could stand to receive the last shot. The only reason, or excuse rather, we have ever heard against the use in the army of arms susceptible of such rapidity of loading is that the troops would waste the ammunition. Will this bear the test of examination? “ “Consider that it is admitted that in the use of muzzle-loading guns, but five per cent of the shots would take effect, showing a loss of ninety-five per cent of the ammunition! Can a greater waste be well expected under any circumstances?

Thus far we have looked at the subject from a mathematical point of view only. Now as to the moral effect upon those armed with such terrible weapons and upon those opposed to them armed with such comparatively defective arms”. There's no question that Henrys, Sharps, and Spencers played a part in the CW. There is also no dispute that, at times, they played a critical role. For our purposes, it is the second sentence above that gets at the crux of the matter for us today; that is, are these weapons being used at reenactments in a reasonably historical manner (unit tactics, rates of fire, etc.), or are they being used merely in a manner more likely to cause a 'Gee, Whiz' response from spectators. The former is acceptable. The latter is more problematic.

We all know that Galting Guns were around in the CW. Not many, if any, saw action, but they existed.

What if five or six of them were lined up at a given reenactment and turned on the attacking force? A spectacular display of firepower, smoke and noise, all guaranteed to wow the crowd and make people take notice. Also, wildly ahistoric. At Mill Springs a few years ago, one lone Henry-armed fellow popped up along the battle line. He cranked out his rounds in traditional rapid fashion, drawing everyone's attention. No surprise that it would have that kind of result.

Also, wildly incorrect for that particular battle in 1862. And that is why a goodly number of reenactors on the Federal line were not pleased with his 'performance'; a single man with an improper weapon for the scenario acting independently of everyone else. No surprise there, either.

Prejudice tends to live on both sides of the street. However, we tend not to see it so well on our own side as on the other. You are very correct Sir. Re-enacting/Living Histories here is Colorado can be very difficult. Most events we attend involve an 18 to 24 hour drive, so we only get to one or two events a year. If it goes badly, (Rained out, 5 rebs for every Yank, etc.) we have lost our shot for the year. We were asked last year why we do not attend the 'Local' events, So early this year we attended an event in New Mexico as part of Sibley's Army, 1862.

The event was quite small with 2 Yanks for every Reb, (should have been the other way around!), but well hosted by the local Town and people. We fought on part of the Old Santa Fe Trail, but that is where the authenticity ended! Most of the Rebs had Enfields, about half had ANV and AOT Uniforms, CS Artillery had a 3' Ord. Rifle, Yanks had atleast 2 Henry's, they made up thier own Ground charges that rained down dirt and rocks and with one charge sent a very large RATTLE SNAKE (wiggling and biting!), in 2 pieces thru the air, and at the end when the Rebs were supposed to take a cannon.the Yanks brought out a GATLING GUN and killed us all! And all this was done while they passed around a bottle of some unknown Spirits! So with this still fresh on my mind, why would I drive from Colorado to Georgia, with gas prices ever on the rise, take out my Mdl42 with a mere 50 rounds/ 60 caps, march for miles. So I can be a moving target for 3 times as many Yanks as Rebs, AND every other Yank has a Henry and a wagon loaded with an endless supply of 44/45 blanks?

I can just stay here and go to one of the Wild-West/Gunfighter shows! Oliver Winchester, president of the New Haven Arms Company, wrote an article that appeared in the March 17,1863 edition if “The Scientific American” on the merits of the Henry Repeating rifle. A magazine gun like the Henry rifle, carrying fifteen charges, which can be refilled in fifteen seconds, and the fifteen shots fired with deliberate aim in sixty seconds, or fifteen times before the enemy could reload once, It sounds like the cost of ammunition is more important than the cost of lives being sacrificed. “Education can cure some prejudice, but not all.” You, and Mr. Winchester, may be correct!

But, (common sense #1),I have a Henry Rifle,(Just for shooting- it has never been to a re-enactment or on display), and I can not reload it fully in 15 seconds, unless the tube is already open and all rounds in hand. I am no expert, but,(common sense #2), it is my understanding that a trained Infanrty Soldier should be able to get 3 or 4 rounds off in 60 seconds.not just one! So, (common sense #3), a Soldier with a smooth bore 69 cal.

Musket, firing 'Buck and Ball' rounds,(this is one round ball of 69 cal. And 3 pieces of shot on the top), should/could be able to put 16 projectiles down range in the same time frame as a Henry shooter could only put 15 rounds down range.

Effectively out-shooting an Henry Rifle with a Smooth-bore 69!!!! (Its amazing what you can do with 2nd Grade Math and some Common Sense!). I am no expert, but,(common sense #2), it is my understanding that a trained Infanrty Soldier should be able to get 3 or 4 rounds off in 60 seconds.not just one! So, (common sense #3), a Soldier with a smooth bore 69 cal. Musket, firing 'Buck and Ball' rounds,(this is one round ball of 69 cal.

And 3 pieces of shot on the top), should/could be able to put 16 projectiles down range in the same time frame as a Henry shooter could only put 15 rounds down range. First, have you ever tried to load and fire 3 rounds a minute. At Quick Valley towards the end of the event we occasionally have a contest to see who can fire 3 blank rounds in the shortest time period. To simulate the actual load process, we are required to ram paper, something that is much easier than ramming a minnie ball but probably comparable to ramming buck and ball. The last time the contest was held, I came in second with a time just over a minute while Bill Watson beat me with a time around 57 seconds. When you actually consider how many times we reenactors actually fire our weapons each year versus how many times they actually did and my years in the hobby, at the time of the contest, I had probably twice the experience loading than most soldiers had at the end of the war. Yet, without bullets flying over my head and the nerves of seeing men on either side going down, it took me slightly over 1 minute (3 - 5 seconds) to fire three rounds.

Given the fire power of the repeaters as well as their rapid expenditure of ammunition, I know that as a commander of a Henry equipped unit, I would wait for my opponent to close within 50 or so feet before opening up with my men firing as fast as they could. With that rapid rate of semi-aimed fire coming over the next minute at such close, I seriously doubt that very many attacking formations would still be intact and advancing at the end when my men had to start reloading. Yes, the buck and ball could be devastating, but for all practical purposes, the advancing unit only had to sustain itself against at most two or three volleys (you ever seen formations duck when the other side comes to the aim for a volley). Once a repeater unit to your front opens up, the fire will be almost continuous rather than a series of distinct volleys. Trust me, there would have been a difference.

Soul Assassins:: Intermission:: Soul Assassins Soul Assassins:::: as reviewed by Pedro 'DJ Complejo' Hernandez Soul Assassins is back! Or should I say are back? The CD series is back for its third installment entitled 'Intermission.' Some of the previous Assassins are back for the third go round, but there is also a fair share of new voices to be heard rocking Muggs' beats and he wouldn't have it any other way. For all the platinum plaques, hit singles, and critical praise Muggs has received throughout his career he is still often overlooked when it comes to famous hip-hop producers. Rare is a time you'll hear a crew not named Cypress Hill brag about their lead single being produced by Muggs. It is odd considering Muggs produced so many classic tracks for the Hill over the years.

Though Muggs has expanded in recent years, making whole albums with Gza and Planet Asia, Soul Assassins remains as one of the few opportunities fans have to hear other rappers over his production. This volume has been long in the making, almost 9 full years actually. With expectations flying high, Muggs rounds up a cast of heavy hitting emcees to murder his beats. The album kicks off with the much anticipated collaboration between Bun B and M1 of dead prez. On paper this combo looked quite dope, in execution it ends up being one of the weaker tracks on the album.

Muggs attempts to create a darker, crunk type beat for the rappers but doesn't quite succeed. The weak beat and average M1 verse don't match Bun B who is as fierce as ever: 'One for the clip, two for the trigger guard Three for the sights, I'm super tight, this nigga's hard Certified gangsta, ain't no pretending Bitch I'm bad to the bone, and tough to the tendon Catch me bending your corner, coming through on the fly With my hat down low and my steel up high Trust me boy you don't want to go toe to toe with the ratchet Cause what that motherfuckers in you gonna hate if you catch it You got stripes? I snatch them hoes right off your lapel On my motherfucking own, like Patti LaBelle' The next track kicks things back into gear and is more indicative of what you will find on 'Intermission.' Over a lush mixture of samples, Sick Jacken and Evidence deliver a soulful track.