Why no inventor built a simple automatic weapon during the War Between the States?

Well I'll be.

I thought about the Remington-Lee, but for some reason I had it in my mind that the R-L magazine was semi-permanently affixed with a large-headed screw that made it easy to remove for cleaning, but it wasn't truly a detachable magazine.
 
VERY GOOD QUESTION!

Here are the two reasons the South did not opt for "High Firepower" weapons:

[1] LOGISTICAL

[2] TECHNOLOGICAL


LOGISTICAL- First of all, many military men at the beginning of the CiviL War were convinced that the troops in battle (and armed with muzzleloaders) fired "too fast" already! So, there was genuine concern that the troops would shoot up all of their ammo before the battle was "half fought!"

Supplying your troops with adequate ammo is a "Logistical" problem.

Of course, the modern American military has conquered the "Logisitcs Problem" [i.e., delivering the necessary supplies to the troops at the Front in adequate quantities] by the use of ships, airplanes, trains and trucks. To the Civil War commander, his army WAS SUPPLIED BY SLOW MOVING WAGON TRAINS away from the rail head or river port.

So, you can see that there was quite a difference between what can be delivered by wagon train VS modern, 21st Century, methods.

TECHNOLOGICAL - From 1863 ownward Southern military units were capturing Spencer Carbines BUT THE SOUTH NEVER DEVELOPED THE ABILITY TO "DRAW" RIMFIRE SPENCER CARTRIDGE CASES! So, many of those Spencers were simply turned in to storage because Southeen made ammo was not available for them.

Matter of fact, when Lt. Colonel James Burton, Superindent of Confederate Armories made his famous "buying trip" to England 1863-the "item" at the top nof his list was to purchase was Spencer cartridge case making machinery. Guess What? The Brits didn't have the foggiest idea as to how Spencer cartridge cases were made!!!

The following year when the .577 Snider was officially adopted by the Brirish Army-Snider "cartridge cases" were made from a IRON base WITH A WRAPPED BRASS STRIP making up the sides of the "cartridge case." Such a cartridge case in a Spencer would not have worked for several reasons.

Matter of fact, the "modern centerfire cartridge case" did not even "evolve" until decades after the Civil War was over!

Immediately after the Civil War the "Benet Inside Primed" cartridge case evolved and only later was the modern "centerfire" cartridge case invented.

Wartime and immediate post wae cartridge cases WERE MADE OUT OF COPPER. Copper cartridge cases have a tendency to "stick" in the chambers of hot weapons-ask General Custer's troopers about that one!

Modern "Brass" cartridge cases did not even "evolve" UNTIL MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. Unlike copper cases, hot brass cartridge cases are easily extracted [within limits] rom "hot" guns.

Last but not least, evev IF the Confederate Ordnance Department had had the "technical expertise" to manufacture modern, drawn, brass cartridge cases-after Mid-1863 when the Copper Hill region of Tennessee was captured, the Confederacy DID NOT have had the copper supplies necessary to manufacture cartridge cases.

By 1864 the Confederacy was so desperate for copper from which to make percussion caps they were sending out agents into the hills of Northern Georgia, East Tennessee, etc., to beg, buy or seize copper moonshine stills!

To put it another way-while the Confederacy, provided with blueprints, could have manufactured M-1 Carbines for general issue; they did not have the technical ability to manufacture the ammo! [to "draw" brass cartridge cases!]
 
By 1864 the Confederacy was so desperate for copper from which to make percussion caps they were sending out agents into the hills of Northern Georgia, East Tennessee, etc., to beg, buy or seize copper moonshine stills!
Click to expand...

Did they call it moonshine back then? I thought moonshine was illegal whiskey brewed during the prohibition era.
 
I don't understand the question. The time of the Civil War era saw the invention of the first modern style firearms (lever action repeaters), cartridges, and first machine gun (Gatling Gun).
 
"Wartime and immediate post wae cartridge cases WERE MADE OUT OF COPPER. Copper cartridge cases have a tendency to "stick" in the chambers of hot weapons-ask General Custer's troopers about that one!"

Yes and no.

Burnsides and Gallagher cartridges were made of brass during the Civil War. Peabody cartridges may also have been made of brass.

These, obviously, were externally primed.

Gallagher cartridges were "spun," an earlier alternative to deep drawing (think of a potter molding a piece of clay on a wheel) while Burnsides cartridges were punched formed from thin brass foil.

Hiram Berdan and Edward Boxer both patented their centerfire primer systems in the 1860s.
 
@ B.L.E.
Did they call it moonshine back then? I thought moonshine was illegal whiskey brewed during the prohibition era.
Click to expand...

Browse to the search engine of your choice and look up "Whiskey Rebellion." You will find that "moonshine" by whatever name has been made since a federal tax was put on whiskey circa 1791. Whiskey was made before that time but the production did not go "underground" until a tax was imposed.

( Guns used by moonshiners is a separate topic ;) )
 
I haven't read through all the Posts but:
The South was originally mostly armed with the weapons seized from Federal Military Forts and Outposts. Some State Militia had their weapons. The South was desperate as the War progressed. You just can't put a lot of time into trying to develop new weapons when your Soldiers need basic arms. Dozens of small makers worked their butts off just to turn out a few guns. If it hadn't been for some arms smuggled in and those captured, the South would have been fighting with sharp sticks by 1863. It doesn't leave a lot of production time nor resources to experiment with.
 
Technology has to advance on a broad front, as mentioned here already how ammunition technology was probably the biggest limiting factor at that time. Other things would be addressed as the problems appeared with newer technologies, such as high velocity cartridges that came along 20 years later. But mostly, it was a matter of simply thinking of something. Everyone has a moment when they say "why didn't I think of that?"

A lot of work and development goes into something that eventually becomes a dead end, at least for military purposes. Think of tube magazines.

There were successful repeating rifles during the Civil War and much better ones not much later. They used tube magazines. Tube magazines are still used, of course, but not in the army. Someone had to think of a different way to carry the ammuntion in the weapon. Box magazines were the thing by 1890 but it took a war for people to realize that loading one at a time was suddenly very old-fashioned. British soldiers did carry a spare magazine for a while before they had "charger loading," although it isn't clear to me why that was done. In any case, the magazine was still considered to be an emergency reserve, an idea that is not quite dead yet.

Military organizations tend to be conservative, you know, and there is often a built-in resistance to new things. That was just as true then as it is now. And yet another factor that we often overlook is that sometimes the wonderful advantages we take for granted in something new had serious shortcomings at the time. In the case of small arms, the use of black powder caused problems already mentioned. In the case of artillery, smoothbore artillery remained in use during the Civil War because it worked well and in some ways better than rifled muzzle loaders that were also widely used. Some of the artillery rifles also had an unfortunate tendency to blow up at the wrong time.
 
Some great info in this thread.
They could have even made it a patriotic initiative: Write a list of necessary parts available at the local hardware stores and distribute it to every family in the South. For each submachine gun built and given to the Army, the family will receive special rewards.
Click to expand...
Adults can get the parts from stores and machine/forge/craft them to fit.
Click to expand...
As Bubba has shown us all this doesn't work out well.
Look into what happened when Mao pushed China to increase steel production. I think in 1978. Disaster. People melting down iron pots in home furnaces that made worthless steel then having nothing to cook in. 35 years later and they made it. I do think the Confederates could have manufactured the guns in numbers that would have been significant though.


I agree with all the sentiment the problem was the cartridge not the powder. I could likely manufacture a full auto carbine from items and tools that just happen to be available in my house or most others in the US at the moment(not from guns I already own). The hardest part would be the spring, but I am sure I could find one suitable around here somewhere.

Cartridge cases? Smokeless powder? Nowhere close.

People underestimate the absolutely devastating effects of canister, especially against massed formations. A smoothbore cannon can nearly keep pace with a LMG when it comes to volume of fire measured by individual projectiles. I have oft wondered why no one seems interested in them these days.

On Gettysburg, I agree with the sentiment it was lack of contact with J.E.B. Stuart and Lees inability to adjust. Nothing more complicated. Lee became accustomed to Confederate cavalry running circles around Union cavalry troops and bringing him solid info. You can't be aggressive successfully without good information. Lee didn't have any information.
 
Last edited:
The South didn't adopt modern guns because of logistical consideration.

No one gave it a thought in 1861. Almost everybody on both sides accepted that the war would be a short, relatively quick war and the boys would be home in time for Christmas. Old Fuss and Feathers Winfield Scott knew otherwise but who wanted to hear about his drawn out two year Anaconda Plan? Before Manassas shattered the illusion of a quick war, the South was scrambling for any guns they could get. Besides the arms that were seized from los federales, the South was converting hunting guns to military service. McDowell and later Little Mac both (inadvertantly) did their share in helping supply the South.

Again, the problem remains that until the gas seal problem (resolved with the metallic cartridge case) and fouling issue were resolved (with nitro-cellulose propellants), automatic weapons were not feasible.
 
just some thoughts

:rolleyes:RACHEN, I often think of the what ifs of history. like what if Horace Hunley had used the primitive electical technology of the time to power up his undersea craft? or if either side had made the connection of adding fins and propulsion to their observation balloons. after reading the previous threads, allow me to add some of my thoughts. technological advancements happen when the right things come into play at the right time. fulminate of mercury and its propertys was know by 1660's but they were trying to use it as a replacement for gunpower. it didn't work. it kept blowing up inventors and their test guns. never occurred to anyone till 1805 to try it as just a primer. look how well that worked out. Hiram Maxim worked at his uncle's shop during the civil war. the thoughts of a weapon as you questioned were in his mind. but it wasn't until 1884 that he introduced the world to the first true machine gun. he remarked years later the weapon could have been realized earlier, but he was waiting for the development of a propellent that was better then black power. so the idea and the person were present during the war, but not the final piece of technology that linked it all together. in that, I think is the answer. but its still fun to think about the possibilty of history. its fun stuff.
 
"what if Horace Hunley had used the primitive electical technology of the time to power up his undersea craft?"

He would have electrocuted his crew rather than drowning them?
 
I think the military higher ups felt ammunition was a valuable resource that should not be wasted so they favored slow, deliberate fire. Case in point: the Little Bighorn in 1876. Many of the NDN's had repeating, lever action cabines while the Army had the single shot, trap door Springfields. I think I read that when the Spencer was brought out Lincoln himself tested it and immediately wanted them made for the mounted troops. He obviously saw the advantage.
This slow, aimed fire continued through WWI, I don't think it was until the Garand and WWII that the military started changing its mind about fire power.
 
Interesting discussion.

As has been touched upon, the real problems were the tactics of the day, not the weapons. Had Jackson lived, or had Longstreet been in charge at Gettysburg rather than Lee, then there is a real possibility we would live in a far different world today (I, for one, am glad it worked out the way it did).

The more I have thought about it and studied it, a modernized version of a Greek phalanx would have been extremely effective during the Civil War. Imagine if you will, a line of battle armed with revolvers, spears, and bullet resistant shields. Use the revolvers during the advance and take to the spear when distances get close. It would be difficult to inflict enough casualties upon such a formation to have any real effect, and that simple fact would be psychologically devastating to your enemy.

I'll even take it a step further and say that tactical deployment of skilled archers could have been extremely effective in certain instances during the war. A longbow's maximum range is about 300 yards and it's rate of fire is FAR greater than the muzzleloading rifle. Also, broadheads make horrible wounds and if dipped in a nearby pile of dung they would have been almost 100% fatal. Not to mention that bows, arrows, and shields are cheap and relatively simple to build and both sides had plenty of access to the materials required for their manufacture.

In short, while a blowback automatic may have been out of reach at the time, winning strategies were not... At least that is the opinion of General Towe:D.
 
People underestimate the absolutely devastating effects of canister, especially against massed formations. A smoothbore cannon can nearly keep pace with a LMG when it comes to volume of fire measured by individual projectiles. I have oft wondered why no one seems interested in them these days.
Click to expand...

I believe this niche is today filled by mortar rounds, John. Plus there are virtually no instances of large formations on modern battlefields.
 
Not to sidetrack but my view on Picket's Charge was a lack of communications. The left flank attacked too early and the artillery ran out of ammunition and could not advance with and support the infantry- I think that as eager as Lee was to attack the center- if there had been a quick line of communication and all facts were present- he would have called off the attack.
I come from one of those divided families. As much as I admire the gallantry by much of the south I'm glad we are all still one country. :cool:
The Civil War- I blame the politicians in Washington (north and south) that didn't work together to get a peaceful solution. Their failure caused a lot of scars,
 
I believe this niche is today filled by mortar rounds, John. Plus there are virtually no instances of large formations on modern battlefields.
Click to expand...

Sorry to b unclear. I was referring to civilian ownership in the US. Many seem very excited about $20,000 transferable LMGs that have a cyclic rate of $75/minute.
How to make a cannon at home
Buy it
Making canister shot can't be that difficult. Filled with 000 Buck. Thats is some SERIOUS firepower.

No NFA paperwork or restrictions. 1/20th the price. Sure the thing is heavy, but you can buy an ATV to drive it around with your savings. Or a Gator. Or a used pick-up.

If you really want to go at it you could design an inline muzzle loading cannon with modern steel. Could probably cut off a lot of weight that way. That might be a little more complicated legally.
 
Last edited:
"I believe this niche is today filled by mortar rounds, John."

Not to mention anti-personnel shells fired by artillery, like the Beehive round of the Vietnam era.

Artillery isn't used nearly as much for that kind of purpose anymore.
 
I can imagine a Greek-style phalanx advancing against an enemy that happen to have a few artillery pieces on hand. The phalanx would have to be pretty close before pistols would be effective and how heavy would those shields need to be? The artillery would make a bloody mess of the attack, if the artillery was any good. Of course, the artillery made a bloody mess of attacks the way it was, usually. If the artillery fire went over or fell short, then things usually turned out a little differently.

I believe I read that someone tried using bows and arrows during the Russo-Japanese War. I don't remember which side but they didn't repeat the experiment. Using a bow effectively supposedly takes years of practice. Naturally, there would be a national board to promote archery practice, so that's no problem. Surplus bows and arrows could be provided at a nominal price to young men.

One ecentric British army officer by the name of Jack Churchill (no relation to the other guy) supposedly killed a German with an arrow shot from a longbow in 1940 during a commando raid. He likewise carried his sword with him. The British army never seems to be short of ecentric officers, although they are tolerated rather better during wartime.
 
On the British Commandos- I'm not sure but I thought they had small, pistol sized crossbows used to take out Japanese sentries, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top