1860 Henry vs 1865 Spencer - Speed or Power?

The 1860 Henry is fast and handy with minimal recoil, firing a 200 grain bullet at ~1150fps.
The 1865 Spencer is slower but fires a 350 grain bullet at ~1250fps.
The Spencer is almost exactly double the ftlbs of energy of the Henry per round fired; how do these guns match up head to head?
InRange is entirely viewer supported:
/ inrangetv

[@ivankrylov6270]

Henry: for engaging a human on a horse Spencer: for engaging a horse with a human on it

[@Th3Sabator45]

Both would be fine, buffalo were taken out with a henry. And horses are thinner skinned than buffalo

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

@Bill Randleman The Sharps rifles used for buffalo used a much more powerful, centrefire cartridge.

[@Water_Worker]

@@Th3Sabator45 Buffalo only have one lung cavity, which is why they are so easy to kill.

[@alephkasai9384]

You could definitely kill a buffalo with a henry. But you'd need to have much better aim and some luck to get a good hit that would take it down

[@Phred7447]

👌🏾

[@Chlorate299]

Q: On the spinner target, what is more important speed or mass? A: Yes.

[@sawyere2496]

Basically, just use a .308 or something.

[@KyussTheWalkingWorm]

They're both equally important (momentum being speed * mass), but mass is easier to increase. Modern rifles are remarkably inefficient at this thanks to their high velocity to mass ratio. Of course that's usually a desirable trait outside the rather artificial context of the spinner.

[@Jay-ln1co]

Fast cycling, high impact blackpowder violence.

[@RaphYkun]

@@jeffprice6421 Should be conservation of momentum for moving an object. A lot of the energy goes into deforming the bullets even if they get caught somehow.

[@Chlorate299]

@@RaphYkun The principles are related - but ultimately the height the spinner swings after the impact to is proportional to the amout of energy that was imparted to it by the projectile. However it's difficult to predict how well projectiles will transfer kinetic energy to the target because the interaction is *very* inelastic and would skew things considerably - a heavy, slow lead ball might transfer most of its KE into the plate for example but a really high velocity 5.56 might shatter on impact and a lot of its energy would go flying off in random directions in the form of shrapnel.

[@Arthurzeiro]

I click on these lever gun videos trying to guess at which point in the video Karl wil say "the Henry was the 'assault rifle' back in the day", cause you know he'll say it. Though I did not expect him to take 3 whole minutes.

[@PugilistCactus]

"Oh this is an old vide..... never mind I have something to watch."

[@ZacharySolano254]

Welcome to quarantine

[@PJA264]

I love this. I grew up Civil War reenacting with my dad and he lusted after a Henry 1860 for years. When he finally got a nice repro and we took it to the range we were both blown away at how easy the thing is to drive tacks with. It feels like a .22 but bigger.

[@Mooke1312]

This just makes me want a concise comparison, in similar conditions, between a Colt Lightning in .44-40 and the Winchester pattern lever guns

[@Mooke1312]

that being said, this was an interesting video; Definetely shows that sight picture > mass for spinners

[@dustyboots2693]

@@Mooke1312 like in "doesn't matter how much powerful is your gun, if you can't hit the target"

[@Devin_Stromgren]

That would be interesting, although I have read that the lightnings had reliability issues, both the originals, and the repros.

[@Mooke1312]

@@Devin_Stromgren Very true, but Im sure for the purposes of such a test it might at least (hopefully) be sufficient. If nothing else it would be a good chance for the viewers to see exactly what goes wrong and why one platform was so preferrable for the day and conditions

[@KageRyuu6]

@@Mooke1312 Actually the test proved that the Spencer's round was superior, while it's action was inferior, the sight's however are inconclusive, after all he did miss one shot with both. So I'd say Action>Mass>Sights. Though whether Momentum or Kinetic Energy is more important would make for an interesting test.

[@456wjd]

The entire country- ‘quarantined’ Karl and Ian- ‘you wanna drag race some cowboy guns?’

[@deividplays]

Knowing the way they work, they probably had this filmed before the quarantine went into effect. (if I missed a joke, I apologize)

[@IPostSwords]

I've been waiting for a nice, direct comparison between these two "Civil war assault rifles" since you started to cover the concept.

[@winkleried]

The Spencer is more a "Battle Rifle" to the Henry "Assault Rifle".

[@IPostSwords]

@@winkleried both are abritrary, non-contemporary definitions

[@winkleried]

@@IPostSwords True. But, both are accurate, if modern, descriptions of the concepts at play here.

[@andrewpiegzik4121]

Jeremy Clarkson would never compromise, speed and power!

[@armyants432]

Ah yes, a man of culture.

[@moosemaimer]

"What I've done, with my massive brain powers, is fitted a V8 engine to a rifle."

[@janwacawik7432]

@@moosemaimer Sometimes my genius is almost frightening.

[@ArcturusOTE]

@@janwacawik7432 Imagine him putting a V8 on a Gatling

[@alexevans573]

That .56-50 made that spinner absolutely FLY. I don’t think I’ve seen one move quite that fast before

[@Shalkeyer]

I (until recently) worked at my local museum. one day I found a Spencer, or more accurately the barrel, receiver, and (most of) the action. I later found what was left of the stock in another box some weeks later.

[@Tedris4]

My takeaway is that targets aren't spinning metal plates. The speed of the Henry is good, but the less powerful round means that hits don't translate to killshots as much as the Spencer does - and with precise shooting, speed matters much less. The fragility of the Henry and heat of the grip also take a ton of points off when choosing one. This only really leaves the sights for the Henry to one-up the Spencer, but the weaker cartridge means that those sights aren't taken advantage of as much as they really should be. So honestly, I'd go for the Spencer. The Henry seems much better in close-combat situations where you need a lot of bullets quickly, but close-combat isn't nearly as common as it needs to be to tip the scales to the Henry's favour.

[@yurei8368]

These comparisons are always interesting, especially since the spinner measures energy delivered, not just base accuracy. The Henry is clearly the more capable weapon, but what you get from InRange is the acknowledgment that raw capability is *not* the only factor in play. It's easy to watch the Henry blow the Spencer out of the water on a flat range like this on a sunny day with no combat pressure in the hands of, let's be honest here, a master shooter. It's entirely another to think like a quartermaster in Civil War-era Murica, knowing that if your troop had a hundred rounds' worth of training he was an ace marksman by his unit's standards, and that this gun needed to be able to withstand whatever Private John Q. Dipshit could do to it - and do to it in the thousands. Thanks Karl, Ian. Excellent work as always.

[@cracklingvoice]

"Private John Q. Dipshit" made me bust up laughing. Thank you, from a former Company Armorer and weapons instructor.

[@MarvinCZ]

I'm sorry Matt, I have to: The spinner does not measure energy, it measures the momentum. Other than that, those are all good points

[@kohinarec6580]

These early repeaters are very interesting. They are well made but still show certain quirks like reloading bullet by bullet from front to back or through the buttstock.

[@CarlosZig]

The Spencer vs Henry caliber and follow up shots discussion is the same as the .308 vs .223, There will never be a defacto answer for this, there will always be personal preference imbued in the choosing of "the best one"

[@sawyere2496]

I’d choose .308 🥴

[@Turgz]

It's not up to personal preference because it's all relative. 7.62 beats 5.56 at long range where the 5.56 is no longer effective. At the ranges where 5.56 is effective that is the better cartridge. That is precisely why militaries use both rounds for different applications. It is why marksmen and machine gunners use 7.62 while riflemen/auto riflemen use 5.56.

[@hirumaryuei]

@@Turgz 7.62 isn't a very good long-range cartridge tbh. It's ok at 800, which is the outer edge of 5.56 too. It's less affected by wind though, being three times as heavy.

[@toade1583]

@@Turgz actually, it depends on how used to recoil you are, the 308 has more recoil, but if well trained, it can be manageable

[@Turgz]

@@toade1583 That's everything to do with the shooter and nothing to do with the physics of firearms. .308 has more recoil and 5.56 is faster because of it.

[@stevenhall2408]

I started civil war reenacting in 1972 and only recently ceased. I love this stuff. Shot a Spencer with Phil Spangelburger and have shot Henrys and still have a Sharps.

[@alwenke212]

I started reenacting in 1980, in 1984 I brought my center fire converted (new breach block) Spencer, and was promptly asked to leave. "there was no evidence a Spencer was used on the battlefield".

[@barrymccaulkener3230]

Vintage Karl carries a .44 because they don't make a .45

[@AM-hf9kk]

That doesn't make any sense. MANY Civil War era rifles were .54 - .58 with up to 500 gr projectiles.

[@Th3Sabator45]

@@AM-hf9kk think he meant for a henry

[@badgerrrlattin35]

I've long heard it said, "Winchester, the gun that won the West". I've always thought the Spencer deserved that title.

[@dragonbait1]

Probably impossible, but in the spirit of science and removing variables: Do you think that if both rifles had a red dot the problem would be the same? It seemed the time difference was in how the Spencer had to come way off target and shake out the case where the Henry could just hang out basically on target. It doesn't make a difference for the historical investigation, but it does for the "Bring more mass to the spinner" argument. Although that seems to be best tested with that 7lb 308 AR and a 7LB 223 AR with effectively the same optic at the same range.

[@HUNDLEYGUY95]

You need to bring the Spencer way off as there is no ejector for the spent case, that's how you clear the fired case. A better sight picture would not make a change in this/

[@mackharmon5818]

"Double the oomph" is my new answer for why I use a 1" impact on lug nuts. Thanks Karl! Also, darn good shooting!

[@dustywillis79]

I am absolutely JEALOUS of that Henry. That is a GORGEOUS gun! Nice shooting BTW.

[@devincook2736]

8:30 new game, spin the target fast enough to power a generator and make a light turn on.

[@spartaninvirginia]

This has the potential to become your best series yet. Nice work.

[@gpracer270]

6:32 What in the wide wide world of sports is flying overhead?

[@araknidude]

pterodactyls

[@con6lex]

We have turkey vultures in CA, and they are very large. Probably similar in AZ.

[@jcnash02]

Smoke from the black powder

[@sgt_kissekatt6686]

This was a very interesting and informal comparison. And to me the reasons mentioned makes it make sense that the Henry was more common for personal use while Spencer was picked for military use.

[@Getpojke]

Very interesting comparison and damn fine shooting may I add.

[@Hashashin_Fidayin]

Awesome video! Great shooting! I really appreciate these "older" guns comparison videos. Those old guns have such interesting actions/mechanics.

[@jeffaguilar4790]

I believe that the Calvary out west during the Indian Wars were trained to shoot the horse first, then the rider. The targets at Bents Fort show this arrangement. So maybe the Spenser would be more effective.

[@Phixeon]

I think the Oomph (TM) from the Spencer is an underappreciated factor here. Remember, the Cavalrymen would not just be shooting at men, but also their horses. Mass absolutely makes a difference on an animal the size of a horse, and a man being shot at AND violently dismounted has a lot of things to worry about. Not to say .44 Henry couldn't kill a horse, but the Oomph (TM) helps with forcing the enemy's to ballistically dismount, so to speak. Were I a unit commander at the time, I would like to have both at my disposal. Majority of men with Henrys and selected Squad Designated Marksmen with Spencers. But at that point, logistics becomes an issue.

[@Phixeon]

And no, the Troopers would probably not be purposefully aiming at the horses. Shots go low and wide under ideal conditions, let alone while riding and taking incoming fire.

[@joelerk6298]

Great videos guys, I know u hear this alot but still best gun history channel ever.

[@wollekemper8317]

The military doctrine of the day was still volley fire , not rapid fire (well , 3 rounds a minute was concidered rapid fire). So the Spencer was the hughe improvement over the muzzleloaders and fit the job just fine. The Henry was a delicate racehorse , it was not fitting the battle horse role. And keep in mind Generals fit their army allways to win the last war fought , not the next war.

[@sabre0smile]

I hate that I keep having to check this channel manually because KZbin just won't notify me of videos from you anymore. I love that whenever I do and find something new or old to watch, it's always makes that regular checking more than worth it.

[@benbryan1314]

Cool video, you both put put very good, interesting content. Love the real life comparisons of old time weapons. AWESOME!

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

The very similar times is physics doing its job. As the mass of the plate and gravity are constant, initial angle deviation does not affect cycle length, the pendulum swings at a constant rate, no matter how hard you hit it, and so it always takes the same amount of time for it to complete the three swings.

[@MrWarwick15]

Thanks Guys! Rich.

[@cptnemo20kl]

My wait for an examination of a lever-action squad continues, more fervent than ever! Great video!

[@terrygatewood340]

Two things to consider pinatration or ripping body tissue at 2200 fps is that the reason the 556 effective is out to 250 yds is because it drops below 2200 fps making it a pistol round

[@jeffreyroot6300]

Terry Gatewood Effective range in military terms means it can hit a human torso sized target at least half the time. So an M16 has an effective range of over 400 yards or meters ( off my memory so I do not remember exactly) . Practical ranges for human beings in field conditions is closer to 250 or 300 , usually less. The enemy doesn’t want to stand still in the open to get shot, and human reflexes are only so fast and precise.

[@Perry2186]

Next should be a savage 99 or Winchester 95 vs 1903 Springfield against the spinner

[@troy9477]

Great idea! I am fond of my Savage, modern Winchesters, and modern Marlins. I would love to see how an 1895 stacks up. I have been interested in the modern reproa for a long time. Maybe in .30-40, to go with my '98 Krag. Or 7.62x54R, just because. And i will be able to load for either.

[@seamusnolan905]

If youre Jeremy Clarkson, you can have both.

[@georgehilty3561]

this kinda feels like they're comparing a m1 carbine to a m1 garand

[@csipawpaw7921]

I suspect that the heavy larger projectile was preferred because the target was often the horse first, to break up a charge, and the man second.

[@Th3Sabator45]

The us army had colt make a cartridge that could take a horse size target at 75yrds with a revolver. Yeah it was a 250gr bullet, but it's going slower than both the henry or Spencer. So either or, henry goes fast while spencer has the weight

[@WangMingGe]

@@Th3Sabator45 Read the video description. The Henry round is both lighter AND slower than the Spencer.

[@Th3Sabator45]

@@WangMingGe not slow by much

[@Bajaos]

2:14 This is a definition of good sense of humor :)

[@colemanmoore9871]

When you look at power, you think the Henry has enough to remove an enemy soldier from the fight, so that should be good enough and the rate of fire is a huge advantage. But, during the Civil War, they also had to contend with cavalry. Does that small round have enough energy and penetration to "disable" turn away a trained horse at full gallop at enough range? If not, does the Spencer? That might have had influence on the military's decision on picking the slower firing, but more powerful round. Edit - so I typed this before the conclusion, and Karl touched on the cavalry angle. However, he was still speaking about hitting the man wearing a wool uniform. A horse is a much easier target that a man, and for the most part, if you take out the horse, the man is out of the fight as well.

[@caseybrown5183]

Coleman Moore, I was thinking about that, too. If I was a wealthy LT in 1865 I’d outfit most of the squad with Henrys, 2 or 3 Spencers. Spencer armed would be ordered to shoot horses first, when available.

[@williamradler8712]

It was generally considered very poor form to target the horse and not the man. I'm not saying people didn't do it anyway but it wasn't really an accepted tactic and many of your fellow soldiers would be disgusted with your decision.

[@colemanmoore9871]

@@williamradler8712 The officers didn't want you to kill horses, because they wanted to take them as spoils of war and sell them to the cavalry. But, on the other hand, you gotta live and win to be able to take the spoils. Hey, the infantry can eat horse meat dinner!

[@ringding1000]

@@caseybrown5183 Shooting horses deliberately wasn't a thing. Though it did happen on occasions. The reason being a live horse can be recycled for reuse by your side- and enemy soldiers not so much.

[@caseybrown5183]

William Radler, I wasn’t aware of that. I guess one Spencer for me and Henrys for the squad. Soldiers are usually disgusted by LTs anyway.

[@houseblacksmithing9836]

I dig Spencer bullets quite often when relic hunting near Chattanooga, much of the time the cartridge is nearby. I think soldiers on horseback dropped their ammo often. Loved the video.

[@viper2148]

For whatever reason Abraham Lincoln preferred the Spencer (he actually shot it on August 17, 1863) even though he was introduced to the Henry two years earlier.

[@magoid]

So, after Johnathan explanations yesterday on FW, is the Spencer a Bullpup?

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

IMHO no, because regardless of the magazine position, the breech is in front of the trigger.

[@jonathangriffiths2499]

jsm666 can you make a cup of tea with it ?

[@Turgz]

@@Ensign_Cthulhu But the breech on auto loading pistols (and UZI etc. etc.) is behind the trigger and no one calls them bullpups. The point was to eliminate any grey area.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

@@Turgz Are you so sure about those? The Uzi and the pistol magazines are IN the handgrip. When the action is in battery, the breech must be in front.

[@nirfz]

If you take a look at all those bullpub rifles (i hope i didn't miss one) i would say the easiest defeninition is that your hands are gripping the gun in front of the chamber on Bullpubs. Not just the breech.

[@DaveM86]

I only just saw Forgotten Weapon's video addressing his own Henry accident. Glad he didn't get hurt too badly.

[@yuryyanin7967]

It doesn't matter what we prefer now; what general James Ripley preferred in 1860 matters.

[@HillbillyHades]

Was waiting for more levergun series content. Glad to see it.

[@stevenandbobthedog]

Great, now I want a Spencer

[@elliottbutts153]

Nice shooting!! I’d take my chances with the Henry thank you.

[@tonycolca2241]

They were both miraculous in their day

[@wastool]

I imagine there were people hit with 44 Henry that continued fighting. Probably not as many with with the 56-50. The 44 Henry is essentially equivalent to a powerful pistol cartridge (like a 45acp fmj) the 56-50 it a legitimate rifle cartridge.

[@exploatores]

It´s a age old argument. If I only had a more powerfull round. their is a few cases when pepole are hit multiple times with leathal hits. Most of the times it´s due to drugs. If it´s not it can be due to adrenalin. the person keeps going until it the braine and muzzles stops due to lack of oxigen or they get hit in the central nervous system. but you got to know your weapon. what is the effective range and what range are you going to hit that target.

[@robertcurry389]

I’m still confused why we were using muskets when much better weapons were available.

[@jeanniebuchholz9923]

That was fun to watch and informative to boot. Thank you for sharing.

[@johneden2033]

If ammunition supply is a concern, then I think the Army made the right choice. If I could only have 50 cartridges, regardless of caliber, I would want the bigger, more powerful ones. Plus, the Spencer can more reliably engage targets at a further distance than the Henry. It would have been pretty cool, though, if the Army had adopted both and issued them to different troops.

[@justanothercaptain6566]

Thank you! Excellent working history test. Thank you!

[@michaelmorgan9973]

That was a very interesting and very cool comparison. I don't shoot black powder, but I do love those old guns.

[@taiiat0]

this was super fascinating!

[@jonathanwilliams4348]

Great job, guys!

[@maxim0666]

Very interesting, thanks for another good video.

[@IAF7]

👍 Henry and Spencer I really think I need one those.

[@Hawk1966]

And with the Henry if you drop a round don't bend over to pick it up, you'll spill all the cartridges you already put in the tube. Although that would make future archeology students wonder at the pile of ammunition. . . Edit: that was some serious shooting. Well done.

[@andersbendsen5931]

I really enjoy this kind of content. Thanks guys.

[@HappyAccident06]

Great video guys, very cool

[@radical026]

I know that this would not be a comparison that would approximate the original performance, but I wonder what would happen if instead the .56-50 had been loaded with a 200 grain bullet like the Henry but with a higher velocity. The increase in kinetic energy would be greater than the increase in kinetic energy from increasing the mass, so it might even spin it in one shot if the velocity is high enough (possibly, kinda-sorta, maybe)

[@michaelblanco2668]

What a fantastic channel! Great video as always.

[@TheGoatlady50]

The reason the Spencer was adapted at all was because Spencer took his carbine to Abraham Lincoln who shot the rifle and pushed the Army to adapt it for the Calvary. They put a large ring on the Carbine and attached it to the saddle. You couldn't do that with the Henry. Also the Army was more interested in durabililty. The rimfire Henry was not made to be carried in rain or snow and beat around-the Spencer was way more durable. Also--this shooter is a bit slow, which I like, because the soldier in the field often wasn't an expert on shooting.

[@brodie2711]

I'm not a fan of modern gun vids but it really interests me to see the comparisons between the same era classical rifles. What really set the mood was the shadow of what I presume was buzzards flying overhead.

[@NORGCO]

As to the importance or lack of it of bullet hitting power, wasn't it the practice to shoot at THE HORSE not the cavalryman? That was certainly the explanation I was given, that the 303 British cartridge was "The lightest that would reliably stop a cavalry horse at a thousand yards". Ok, that is from a different era, but doesn't the principle still hold?

[@WangMingGe]

I expect it would

[@samuelmac1054]

This is the first video I've seen with over a thousand likes and zero dislikes

[@joelmuller358]

So would the .45-70 (or .50-70 even) Springfield Trapdoor Carbine flip the spinner in a single shot?

[@cbeaudry4646]

I would guess

[@dchil15]

I've seen video of a 500 magnum doing multiple rotations in a single round after the owner stopped flinching, so yes.

[@Cakeyflour]

I wonder which would win if you had two spinner targets next to eachother: Henry, Spencer, or Sharps carbine. The Sharps would obviously need to be reloaded, but it should only require 1 shot per spinner. Thus, which is faster, 6 rounds from the Henry, 4 from the Spencer, or two from the Sharps?

[@saccaed]

Can really tell how much smoke black powder puts out by watching the smoke shadow on the ground after shots.

[@stevebenson1802]

@8:20 Now he's just showing off. That was fun to watch!

[@matthewprice2118]

I want to see more lever action at the 2 gun matches, I really like watching Kyle's manual division run at desert brutality 2020. That Winchester made henry clone with the loading gate is beautiful, an deserves more camera time

[@chrisroenker663]

I'll take the Henry when fighting multiple targets! More ammo and faster shooting and better sights. :)

[@frequentfiler]

Just my .02 worth. I own both a lever action (Rossi 92) and a Spencer. Both in 45LC. For fast firing the 92 wins. But for SUSTAINED firing, the Spencer/Blakesley Box combo wins hands down. Reloading is distinctly faster with the Spencer. Topping up the tube with individual rounds is about the same with both. SUSTAINED fire is where the Spencer really shines. Cadence of fire and a sustained drumbeat of fire is easy with a Spencer. With the 92 (or Henry I assume) there is a LONG period to reload the full tube. With the Spencer, pour 'em in, and go! Also, I noticed the demonstrator flips the muzzle up when working the action. Why? Rack the hammer back, work the lever HARD, and you're good. If not, tilt the carbine clockwise 45 deg, and get back on target. I'm no expert, but if I was still a horse soldier, I'd carry a Spencer. That box is a pain to carry, but it's worth it's weight in cold if you're being pressed hard. Love your channel, and look forward to new posts!!

[@zacharymurphy2099]

This was much more interesting than I thought it would be.

[@Darkmatterdwarf]

This is a good example were science wins in the end. The frequency of a pendulum is not affected by it's amplitude (in this case how strong it's allready swinging). Just by mass and lenght of the pendulum. For this spinner it seems to be 2.9s so it does not matter if you can fire again in 4.0 or 5.6 since you are forced into the "times 2.9 rhythm". This brings up a nice idea for 2g action matches if you have a spinner with a different armlenght that swings in a different rhythm than what everybody is used to by now, will shooters get caught on the left foot by this?

[@SN-xk2rl]

Love the raptor fly over

[@PaletoB]

Love it Lot's of people tell me "Henry, "that damned Yankee rifle that can be loaded on Sunday and fired all week. Well to me that saying fits the Spencer better.

[@ootdega]

Takes twice as long to cycle it, so the math checks out.

[@WalterBurton]

Nicely done! 👍👍👍

[@MatthewQuigley]

Tables were not invented yet when this video was made.

[@Rinzler0001]

Extremely entertaining! Thanks guys!

[@captainscarlett1]

If you shoot someone with a Spencer they tend more to stay shot. Measure the volume of fire over time. Given the reloading procedures I wouldn't be surprised if the Spencer could shine.

[@JaHa216]

Thank you, another excellent vid! I have this feeling about those two guns, not based on any historical fact whatsoever, that they are two distinct types of weapons. Originally military Spencer was a rifle, ment to replace rifle muskets. Henry, although named rifle, was more like carbine. I've always felt the Spencer is like the Garand of civil war, as powerful (well, almost...) but superior to Springfield 1861. You may even think those Blakeslee tubes as primitive stripper clips. The Henry then, well it's like the Thompson m/28! Pistol caliber long gun, shoots fast and is great up close and personal. 😄

[@LeFeuauxpoudres]

Very cool video!

[@spenceroreilly2922]

This was awesome loved the presentation

[@Igzilee]

I find it interesting that even though rifles like these existed the Union and Confederacy still largely used muzzle-loaders

[@JAR98]

One of the reasons the board of ordnance gave for sticking to muzzle loaders is that they feared that troops would use all their ammunition too quickly before the slow supply train could resupply them. Maybe that was just an excuse or they were just being too conservative. The biggest reason is that repeaters were much more expensive than single shot muzzle loaders

[@C-Henry]

Yes, this is what I'm supporting you for.

[@markd5625]

Damn nice shooting.

[@Javic167]

I love how Karl shows of with the Henry.

[@mausercal65]

Excellent video once again.

[@jmdavis45]

I always enjoy your 19th century firepower videos. Have you shot a two gun or 3 gun match Wild Bunch style (1911,1873,1897)? Oops I had missed the desert brutality 2020.

[@avengermkii7872]

I was bored and decided to record the time for the Spencer. It took 6.13 seconds for him to spin the spinner.

[@WIRRUZZZ]

I was wondering whythey didn't get the time from their footage. Good thing I read the comments before doing it myself. I had the impression the frist run was quicker, turns out I was wrong . . .

[@jameslahey6358]

Check out the dinosaur shadows at 6:30

[@1stminnsharpshooters341]

educational and entertaining *LIKED* and *SUBSCRIBED* --LT

[@AmericanmanElgoog]

Well yeah it's possible nearly everything could be possible but is it likely with the center fired tube fed guns I think not with the calibers they are known for

[@banditdelta7172]

Y'all should do a video on the viability of bolt action versus lever actions in a modern combat sense. Obviously neither is ideal but if you had to take one or the other which would be the better option?