Why Didn't They Use The Best Rifle?

[@RealityOrganized]

You nailed it. Too expensive, and not rugged enough in the field.

[@peterkerr4019]

Also add the cost of tooling up factories to mass produce them, the time to manufacture each rifle compared to a musket & the range of the underpowered cartridge compared to the rifled musket. Then add the time it took to train soldiers with the new rifles once they received them.

[@noahbianchi1920]

I once read that it’s because the brass thought that the 44 Henry round wasn’t effective at the ranges of typical battles. Of course the Army brass also wanted magazine cutoffs on bolt action rifles so that soldiers couldn’t waste ammo.

[@williamkidd01]

with all we have today in rifle selection there is something I have always loved about lever action rifles I so enjoy shooting my lever action. Great stuff!

[@AniwayasSong]

"Load it once, fire it all week!" :-) Yet again, the hard lessons History has already taught, is ignored/forgotten, guaranteeing the same hard mistakes will be made, and THEN re-learned. Humanity has a horrible track record of remembering things. Like the role of 'Sniper' in our military. Like the military itself, right up till WWII started. We continue to dismiss/discard critical things, because we find momentary 'Peace,' and are then caught with our shorts down, over-and-over. For myself, a USMC Veteran, who Qualified 'Expert,' I personally don't WANT a fully automatic weapon for 95% of anything I believe I may have to face/deal with, in my role as a Citizen/Veteran. I don't need that kind of suppressing fire, or mob/horde take-down. (And pray I never do!). For myself, semi-autos are a perfect fit, with lever/bolt action and the precision they demand running a damned close 2nd Place (Actually, I consider those three types equal, but people love a #1). Cost of the platform, and then the cost of feeding them, matters. There is a gigantic difference between what Civvies need/want, vs the military engaged in war, but I'm not saying the Civvies should ever be DENIED owning/bearing/keeping any 2A related tool they personally want. Just acknowledging there are differences in expected need. Long before "The Patriot," when Papa began teaching me how to shoot, he would utter the words, "Aim small, miss small," and I have never forgotten the value of it. If I can hit where I need to, one round will do the task. I try to live and conduct myself accordingly. You're a wonderful Man, Mr. Hickok. You, Paul (R.I.P. Good Sir), GarandThumb/Mike/ohsomany others, do such a vital and amazing job in keeping people informed about our 2A, I just can't say enough good things about it. Thank you.

[@ChrisPrice-rr4cy]

Damn Why don't you just write a book

[@AniwayasSong]

@@ChrisPrice-rr4cy I will consider it.

[@barrybarlowe5640]

There were several volunteer groups, that self-supplied, and equipped and carried them.

[@elcup31]

I asked this question a lot as a kid like many of you, forgot about it mostly, glad to see this video. Always a great channel

[@schizoidboy]

One irony was the Plains Indians were more likely to use these rifles than the U.S. Army out west. They were expensive for them, but they were more likely to have them especially at the Little Big Horn.

[@auerstadt06]

Where they used the tall grass to get close to the 7th cavalry units and then had a superior rate of fire and concealment.

[@chriswilson5203]

Machine shop i work at makes the BTH receivers, carrier ,thumb slide ,barrel. I make brass recievers for the Big Boy models. Rostraver PA.

[@mikebrase5161]

How do you polish the receiver's? I build and repair ship and boat propellers for a living and have spent 1,000's of hours buffing out Bronze, Nibral and Stainless props with a cloth buffing wheel and jeweler Rouge.

[@chriswilson5203]

Two different pads and compounds they shine up quick. I prefer how it looks unpolished just tumbled to remove the burs but can still see machining marks. Has flat old brass patina. Henry should market that as the Olden Boy.

[@mikebrase5161]

@@chriswilson5203 The olden boy, I like that.

[@jamesslick4790]

The "Spencer" was "bitchen" for it's time! Even Honest Abe was impressed with that little bastard. The MP5 of the 1860s!

[@noexcuses6727]

I was given (NOT GIFTED) an original Spencer Carbine with the date of 1865 stamped on it. Not functional to shoot but all parts except the buttstock magazine work.

[@kmorris180]

There are original parts available. I wish I could remember where I saw them advertised online. It wasn't gun parts corporation. Although they carry some.

[@markdavis7397]

I have a carbine with a serial number in the 10 thousands (I gave it to my son, and don't remember the exact number). Since they converted from rifle to carbine somewhere between 10K and 11K (nobody knows exactly the number), mine must be one of the first carbines every made. Still trying to buy ammunition though (haha, just kidding, I wouldn't fire that thing with a 10-foot pole....I do have one original cartridge though).

[@mattluckeydotcom]

Today is my birthday and my really good friend gave me a 45-70 Springfield. ( A few years ago, he gave me the Carbine ). I thought you were going to talk about the riffle on the table but the video ended! Great video!

[@willm5028]

Happy birthday!

[@mattluckeydotcom]

@ Thabk you!

[@blisterbrain]

Don't forget that fixing bayonets, charging the enemy, and engaging in hand to hand combat was still a big part of military doctrine at the time. The big muzzleloader was far more effective as a spear and club!

[@maxpinson5002]

Yes That and the Springfield and Enfield rifled muskets that each side was using were effective at long range and were very deadly

[@CrimeVid]

I don't know that you'd say that if you'd just got a minie ball in the giblets !

[@mikerawls9619]

Don’t forget this happens every day.

[@guerre1859]

True, the bayonet charge was still a fundamental 'commandment' of infantry doctrine into the Great War 1914-1918 and even beyond. But statistics showed that the percentage of people actually wounded and killed by bayonet was negligible. And true, armies were always hyper sensitive to ammunition costs. Metal as opposed to paper cartridge costs seemed prohibitively high. Unfortunately they forgot to consider the much much higher cost of losing the bloody war.

[@jackblack3886]

Really enjoyed the history lesson as well as seeing your Henry lever rifle. Nice video!

[@pshehan1]

Regarding the waste of ammunition issue, I read somewhere that this was the reason the British did not adopt the M1 Garand prior to WWII but persisted with the bolt action Lee Enfield.

[@FLMKane]

No After the first world war and the depression, the Brits were broke. They spent their money elsewhere

[@peterkerr4019]

Plus they also would have had millions of rounds of .303 (& plenty of rifles) ready for use. Further, Great Britain was still in the grip of the Great Depression & would not have had the funds to buy the rights of The M1, build millions of them, changing over the factories to build them & their ammunition.

[@pshehan1]

@@peterkerr4019 A British Garand could have been chambered for the .303 round, as was the Browning machine gun used by the RAF.

[@peterkerr4019]

@@pshehan1 yes, I think that's possible. However it would have taken time & money to design an enbloc clip for rimmed cartridges that would fit into the Garand. That would take even more money & time that the British government just didn't have.

[@gwine9087]

The Sharps breech-loader was patented in 1858 and was around then, as well. It would have made a significant difference.

[@thomasjamison2050]

It did. But not for everyone. At least a couple Union generals made it a point to collect them whenever they could and then give them to the units they normally posted on their flanks.

[@robertrobert7924]

The Civil War history has so many stories about new weapons that were approved and contracted to be made, but could never be delivered on time. Long delays on contracts. The Spencer was easier to make because it could use some parts already being made for years by the Sharps Company. And it used a heavier cartridge than the Henry cartridge. I own reproductions of both chambered in .44-40 WCF. I much prefer the Henry because it holds more ammo and is easier to clean than the Spencer.

[@ukulelemikeleii]

I read somewhere that the presidential guard unit for Jefferson Davis was equipped with Henry repeating rifles...

[@redtobertshateshandles]

Prone shooting is difficult. Expensive to give to Cannon fodder. Difficult to clean and maintain.

[@ronaldjohnson1474]

Lever actions aren't effective in war? I think people should ask the Russians how they felt after being beaten by the Turks using Winchesters against their single shots.

[@heyheyhophop]

We still have at least one at a local artillery museum in St Petersburg tho 😅 cool gun, looks less flashy that what we see here naturally

[@jjmac6054]

You can put fire power into the battlefield per minute than a single shot.

[@heyheyhophop]

@@jjmac6054 Might be a literal life saver when enemy gets close, too

[@MikeMc-512]

The same reason they don’t use the best rifle today!! $

[@TMiller616]

General John Buford outfitted his US Cavalry regiment with Henry repeating rifles. Partly due to his experience with the US Quartermaster Corps- and to his tactical expertise. The regiment always dismounted to fight on foot. With these rifles they usually had better than 3 to 1 superiority in firepower. It probably surprised CSA General Harry Heth when Buford’s defense at Gettysburg was much tougher than expected.

[@josephbailey4463]

It’s funny you mention this. I was thinking the lever gun would be a great dragoon gun.

[@scottbehl216]

They figured soldiers would waste too much AMMO, LOL. Ain't that just like higher ups !!

[@derekstocker6661]

Thanks for this, has answered a question I have wondered about for years, why was this fabulous and effective weapon not used by the military before!

[@TheDoomWizard]

The camera quality here looks incredible.

[@Jacksonboyeroutdoors]

It does

[@bobconnor1210]

The “ammo wastage” objection has arisen many times when purchasing and procurement comes up. Even in the case of the 1911 and M1. The main reason why there were so few breach loading/ metallic, ctg arms in service is that they, and the necessary ammo, could not possibly be made fast enough and the existing systems just had to do for the average grunts. Plus, they were so very expensive that the few that could be gotten mostly went to cavalry units.

[@sherwinstaudt1881]

The Henry's with a brass receivers are good looking rifles to hang on the wall, but right after they came out they had a lot of headspacing problems because of the brass, I would never own one.

[@greywendigo7026]

Custer found out how effective the lever action is "and the general he dont ride well anymore" ~ johnny cash

[@JnEricsonx]

They also had 2 Gatlings that they decided to not bring with them.

[@mikereimus8879]

Love the lever guns

[@david9530]

Your videos are extremely good seminars.

[@danerickson1632]

Superior technology on a Battlefield has won many Wars in World History

[@royjohnson465]

The major question for me is during the Civil War why didn’t they mass produce and use single-shot rifles that used brass cartridges??

[@edl617]

General Buford had Henry’s

[@sugrue8526]

When the lever action was presented to he US Quartemater General, he said we have no use for it.

[@IFIXCASTLES]

Was too expensive at that time. Had to be bought by the soldier. Many soldiers didn't have it to spend. Some rich considerate organizers would buy them for the men in there outfit.

[@UncleRunt86]

When you're referring to people it's their* 👍

[@RF6Gun851]

@@UncleRunt86 Thank ewe for the clarification, I didn't understood what he were tying to said too us.

[@UncleRunt86]

@RF6Gun851 😄

[@kirtflesher1603]

@@UncleRunt86they never even used the word you are correcting for.

[@kirtflesher1603]

Nope I see it now. I retract my statement!

[@jdgoade1306]

Because the government didn't want the exspense, with the government low bid wins, the 7th was allowed 20 rounds a year for practice.

[@lowellwhite1603]

The Federals did use the Spencer in larger numbers. In 1863 at Chickamauga, John Wilder’s “Lightning Brigade” was entirely equipped with Spencer rifles and almost turned the tide of the battle. By late 1864 almost the entire Federal Cavalry easy of the Mississippi had Spencer carbines. The Spencer fired 7 shots.

[@deafsmith1006]

People need to remember that most of those in the military don't give a hoot for their weapons. They treat them terribly in the field. Drop them, throw them, leave them in the rain, don't clean them, etc... and thus any weapon has to be very strong and durable under very harsh conditions. I am sure the Rebels, having many of them brought up with guns, treated them better but... in the rain, snow, sleet, baking hot sun, etc.. you still need a very tough rifle. The lever guns were more suited for whatever they called their 'special forces'... raiders, calvary, etc.. and not the GI 'grunt' in the field. And not only lever actions but their revolvers.. I doubt the majority of them would have taken care of them.

[@dennistennyson4540]

If I'm not mistaken the Indians at Little Big Horn had the Henry's.

[@kirkmorrison6131]

They had Spencers and Henrys as well as several types of muzzleloaders

[@knothead5]

And a couple of thousand warriors who were very upset with the white eyes. Custer passed up a couple of Gatling guns. Too much trouble to pull over the land.

[@steveww1507]

the .44 henry cartridge is anemic compared to the spencer 56-56 cartridge or the .58 musket round that and the magazine being open to the elements were dirt and debrie could jam up the works along with the fact that if the rifle was dropped the mag could be dented making the rifle un use able

[@jdgoade1306]

The .58 was prone to misfiring and powder fouling.

[@jannevellamo]

The Henry had no bayonet mount of any kind, the Army of course wanted to put bayonets on everything, so it was never going to be issued to more than a few special units, which had no use for a bayonet.

[@royjohnson465]

The major question for me is during the Civil War why didn’t they mass produce and use single-shot rifles that used brass cartridges and a good solid bayonet mount??

[@jannevellamo]

@@royjohnson465 I would assume they had assembly lines for muzzle loaders, but none for breech loaders.

[@donaldfedosiuk1638]

Steven Woodword, in "Nothing But Victory," his excellent history of the Federal Army of the Tennessee, tells us many regiments of that army were equipped with repeating rifles by the end of the war, most supplied by private donations.

[@markdavis7397]

I think this misses the main point. It isn’t all that expensive, and it works pretty well (I had a replica). The problem is, cartridges can only be made in what was at that time a very high-tech factory. All the raw materials have to get to that one place, and then the finished cartridges must be transported from that place. Generally that factory will be far, far from the front lines. With paper cartridges, all the materials - powder, lead, paper, can arrive separately from different places to pretty much anywhere (including directly to soldiers at the front line). Anybody anywhere can melt lead, mold bullets, and roll cartridges. Women got together and rolled cartridges at home. OK, you still need a percussion cap, which does require a more centralized factory. But those are far smaller, lighter, and cheaper to make and transport than the cartridge itself. Ammunition supply logistics was a primary driver of the decision not to go more heavily into these (Henry, Spencer, etc.).

[@tomalealso]

The same attitude was prevalent even in WW2 there lots of weapons that were better than a bolt action rife but like you said the more ammo a soldier has the more he will waste. pretty sad that economics was more important than human lives.

[@MartyMoose1611]

I heard somewhere that the confederates complained that the Yanks could reload on Sunday and shoot all week (therefore there must have been some out there). Of course the Calvary favored a couple of six shooter side arms. Thanks for all your insights.

[@pathfinderlight]

Back then, rifles were expected to do double duty in ranged AND melee combat. All the way up through WW1, the doctrine for most Western Militaries was for everyone to have access to the bayonette without resorting to a secondary weapon, like a sword or polearm. The only repeaters that could reliably do this were bolt action designs.

[@Glockshooter09]

Are these clips new or taken from older videos!

[@deltonlomatai2309]

Us army conservatism at army ordinance was also at work. After the war the us army adopted the trap door single shot Springfield because they were cheaper deemed more reliable. Problem was they used copper cartridges that jammed.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

Another factor might be the reluctance of a military to adopt a new rifle requiring a different type of ammunition, as well as training to use properly. Particularly in the middle of a conflict.

[@kennethcaine3402]

The South couldn't afford them. That should settle that question.

[@rongendron8705]

Plus, the factory that made them, was probably in the north!

[@gregkerr725]

The amazing thing...or not so surprising thing,,,,,is that Custer's seventh Cavalry didn't have Winchester 73 rifles or at least the Spencers the Seventh was issued for some years after the civil war. Governments can be so damn cheap with men's lives!

[@jdgoade1306]

Custer and his brother and some officers didn't use military issue, Tom Custer had a '66 Winchester, the troops had single shot Springfields with junk ammunition, copper cased, causing problems.

[@howardj602]

Custer also had enemies in high places. He used Spencers during the Civil war.

[@pat0343]

Didn’t the army have the same argument about the m1 vs the 03 being a “waster of ammunition”?

[@rongendron8705]

Good comparison! My WWII father trained with the 03 in Basic in 1941, but switched over to the M1 in 1942 or so!

[@knothead5]

So they developed the M-14 which had full auto capabilities...if you could control it at rock 'n roll. The armored companies of WWII had a shortened version of the M-1, if I recall. Any armor vets from 1941-1945? Edit: rongendron8705, a marine was shooting an M-1 and the gunny had an O3A3. Gunny beat the boot by speed and accuracy! Shades of Alvin York!

[@silverjohn6037]

Since they were still using black gunpowder, fouling with a complex action like the Henry would have been a issue. Not a big issue for a civilian hunter who might fire a few shots but for soldiers having to fire dozens of rounds before they'd have a chance to clean the guns it could have led to some nasty jams. Also, though I've never heard of it happening, if the barrel got hot enough, having the magazine that close to the barrel could have theoretically led to a spontaneous cook off the rimfire ammo in the magazine. So there were issues we don't think of but which would have been a consideration for the military at the time.

[@FjHenderson]

The government didn't want the soldiers using too much ammunition, it's expensive. Same thing with WW1 and WW2, semi-automatic and automatic guns.

[@dazmac159]

John Wayne: get a couple o Winchesters up on that hill over yonder!

[@ericb2501]

Lincoln loved it!

[@kbjerke]

I think it was the Spencer he tried in the yard of the White House, and liked....

[@kbjerke]

Guess I'm not allowed to leave a link. Oh well. Thought this was a constitutional republic.

[@jamesslick4790]

@@kbjerke KZbin is a NOT any kind of republic OR democracy, It's a division of a privately owned corporation.

[@cotteeskid]

That tubular magazine would be easy to damage if the barrel was knocked around a bit during action.

[@AMXSShirt]

I can vouch for soldiers wasting ammo 😅 OP ammo.

[@rcnelson]

I think the British and the Germans had the same attitude: repeater rifles would only waste ammo, which is why bolt action rifles dominated in both countries throiugh WWII. It's hard to believe today that the ability to throw far more lead at an enemy would be considered a drawback.

[@udaybhanusinh7278]

Like my manual/autofocus ring not working on the zoom on account of a bit of a bump. 😢

[@scott4482]

The Quartermaster General believed that it would encourage soldiers to use more ammunition.

[@browngreen933]

Why aren't we all driving flying cars?

[@marcofguzman3075]

😮It's simple, government accusation really was slow back then

[@shipmcgree6367]

A Vault 101 classic 👱🏻👍🏻

[@davidslone9776]

The powers-that-be, at the war department, did not want to spend the money, and they also thought the soldiers would waste ammunition. The lever action can shoot 2 shots a second. That, plus those "leaders" did not have the foresight to think outside the box, and see the impact a repeating lever action rifle could have, in a war. They were stuck in previous war's mindset, and the early tactics of the war, show that clearly.

[@DerBums80]

All about money!

[@PxThucydides]

As mentioned: seige of Plevna, 1878. The Russians were utterly massacred by a smaller Ottoman force armed with Winchester lever rifles. The seige only succeeded when the Ottomans ran out of ammunition.

[@gerryleb8575]

I think the real question is what weapon the picked sharpshooters carried on either side.

[@23Silverknight]

I don't feel like doing a long write up or posting the Wikipedia. However, checkout Col john t wilder, Tullahoma campaign, and the lightning brigade. There's some really interesting stuff about the first uses of rapid firing weapons.

[@dougjohnson1199]

Wonder if you could get a Spencer to show off on a vid? Is it Gong worthy?

[@reynaldoflores4522]

That's not ( entirely ) true. Many Federal units were armed with repeating lever-action Spencer rifles.

[@abehatt7887]

That is a pretty gun

[@knothead5]

President Lincoln shot a Spencer and liked it but the army thought the soldiers would waste ammunition. So...they used a muzzle loader that took time to load? Duh.

[@dennistennyson4540]

Why did Custer leave the Gatlin Guns behind ?

[@JerryRussell-cv6ng]

Rack the slide? Henry rifle did Not have a bayonet lug. Cost of production, plus logistics concerning ammo and parts.

[@kevinchopra9111]

Unfair advantage?...

[@thomast8539]

After the numbers argument (tens of thousands of .58 caliber muskets versus a few thousand lever actions), the real truth is that the battlefield tactics were designed for massed infantry and artillery engagements, with cavalry in a supporting role. Those in charge had trained on the existing tactics and were comfortable with knowing how to use massed units, armed with the muzzle loaders, in the field. Lever actions required changes in tactics and changing tactics during an active war is a tough sell.

[@RadarHawk52]

West Point grads running the show. Just like today.

[@yosemitesam-ux5ir]

I've been wondering why the 7th calvary was still using breach loading carbines while the enemy had repeating (winchester or henry?). Its always made me wonder why they were allowed to be out gunned. The repeating must have put 10 rounds into the air while the breach loader under the stress the soldiers were in could probably because of nerves put maybe 2 or 3. Is there an answer?

[@howardj602]

Yes, there is. It has to deal with Army politics and the fact that Custer had enemies in high places. It seems he blew the whistle on the brother of President Grant who had engaged in selling supplies to the military, and Indian agencies, at exorbitant prices, amongst other chicanery He cooked his own goose.

[@JohnDiffley-y3k]

Custer was a lightning rod/ loose cannon throughout his entire military career. He simply left too many footprints on too many desks of political foes who could, for better or for worse, dish out some serious pay back. I wonder if he would be remembered today were it not for his widow’s attempts to play the blame game to its fullest.

[@michaelparton91]

So what is a " lever" as in "never" gun, k or does he mean "lever" as in " leaver" curious!

[@felixrodriguez7423]

We sold many lever guns to Russia during WW1.

[@howardj602]

Not true. While Remington had a huge contract to make rifles for Russia in 1917, they were bolt action. The largest factory in the world was constructed in Bridgeport Ct. to manufacture rifles for Russia, but the contracts were canceled. The factory was sold to GE and it recently demolished to make way for a new Harding High School facility.

[@saxon6]

Read The American Rifle by Alexander Rose. He explains it in researched detail. This is the best book I have read about guns.

[@jimmclean7938]

Money

[@willemventer3935]

The .44 henry was underpowered ,the rifle expensive.

[@poormansgunz8032]

Cost.

[@Queequeg61]

Because most of them couldn’t afford them and the military wouldn’t supply them.

[@thehellyousay]

expense. the muzzle-loading rifles were far cheaper to manufacture than the repeating rifles were, and could be mass manufactured more easily at the time. i am surprised to learn that military doctrine used to consider wasting ammo to be pointless, in light of modern day carpet-bombing, mag-dumping tactics.

[@markpalmer7832]

Pistol rounds through a rifle not quite a battle rifle.

[@richhopkins2331]

Same thinking didn't allow parachutes for flyers in ww1.

[@midwestg4105]

What brand Henry is that? And where available from? Thx

[@GregBrown-f1o]

I think Henry is the brand of the Henry

[@midwestg4105]

@GregBrown-f1o thx

[@MikeyH2213]

@@GregBrown-f1o I think he meant what model Henry is that…

[@thechevykibs]

It appears to be a replica of the original Henry rifle made by Uberti of Italy. I have a Uberti replica of an 1873 Winchester in 44-40 and it’s a great rifle.

[@chrishill6276]

Because a Winchester can’t hit anything

[@3Pillers]

👍

[@patrickmaline4258]

military elite are usually drawn from wealthy families historically speaking, and their… let’s call it tendency to hold poor people in contempt, has rarely failed to cost people their lives. aristocratic attitudes should be cause for ridicule, but, when people smell money, few can resist the temptation to appease a snob’s ego for a fat reward. in human society, power and privilege are rarely without their notorious companions sexual perversion and moral as well as financial corruption. contempt finds a comfortable home within this paradigm.

[@williammorrill946]

Money. Rifles like that, and ammunition for them, cost money. And everyone knows that the troops would have wasted the ammunition and wouldn't have maintained the rifles properly. Besides, if muzzleloaders were good enough for George Washington, then they should be good enough for anybody.

[@GregBrown-f1o]

I think Henry is the brand of the Henry

[@kajusrieger9216]

😊👍

[@kmorris180]

Spencer's repeating rifle was refused due to the large capacity and quick reloading. But the rifle was also subject to dirt malfunctions and was very finicky on eating. If the loaded round were a bit too long or short, it jammed. When the war was over, we had a lot of Spencer rifles and carbines that had been taken from yankees. They weren't able to be used due to our not having the necessary resources to manufacture ammunition.

[@congerthomas1812]

As i remember the first Battle was in DC and the Yankees rifle's were faulty. Recently purchased from JP Morgan. The South marched south.

[@Robert-gb7ex]

Tacky looking

[@pauldonnelly910]

Contracts. Who had detailed plans to make 'em? Reverse engineering isn't easy, after all. I'd also be curious about the machine tooling requires to make Henry rifles on the scale of the standard musket. By way of comparison, in 1939 and 1940, FDR directed that literally hundreds of factories be licensed to make parts for the M-1 Carbine, without actually making more than a few. But two years of tooling to be READY to make 'em, meant we made more than 6 million in the next four years 1941-5. The Springfield Armory (among others) was massively upgraded in 1861, with steam engines, 15 hammers and mirror arrays, to make a state of the art muzzle-loading musket -- in fact, to make a million of 'em. They didn't do that for the Henry rifle because they were already doing it for the Springfield -- the tried and true, tested weapon.

[@buckwheat9932]

Grand Ma stop hitting that steel pot?