Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
Special Interests - Groups & Societies => The Barracks => Topic started by: Drydock on July 14, 2018, 10:49:08 AM
-
https://www.full30.com/video/61f17258aa98b304079303ff1fa3831a
-
Interesting.
Slim
-
Since I can't watch the video(due to internet data caps) let me guess: The Spencer was winning-up until he had to reload, then the Trapdoor caught and surpassed it.
-
They only shoot 7 rounds.
Slim
-
They did 7 shots standing, then 7 shots prone. The Trapdoor was close enough that both agreed that in that time period, they would rather have the Trapdoor. Fewer parts, higher reliability, better sustained fire.
-
The trapdoor was a chopped, bubba'd rifle, not a carbine.
-
They did 7 shots standing, then 7 shots prone. The Trapdoor was close enough that both agreed that in that time period, they would rather have the Trapdoor. Fewer parts, higher reliability, better sustained fire.
That would match my experience, and I would concur with their conclusion.
-
Having run my Spencer in competition against the participants in this discussion, I concur with one caveat. For the first seven shots the Spencer is definitely faster, after that, practice and experience mean the Springfield is the winner.
-
But there are several factors for both the Spencer and the Trapdoor that were not taken into account in this test: First was the ammunition. The shooters were using brass-cased ammunition, which springs back after the pressure drops. The Spencer uses copper (gilding metal) rimfire ammo, and the military .45-70 or .45-55 ammo, although central fire was of the same material because it was inside-primed. That stuff would eventually foul creating the extraction problems alluded to in this test. While it is true this was not a major factor with Custer's battalion, Reno and Benteen did have to clear cartridges from their troops' Trapdoor carbines. Why not Custer's troops? Because they were overrun before they could have fired enough rounds to encounter the problem! Had the Spencer-armed troops been equipped with Blakesley boxes, with the reloading tubes, they could rapidly reload. While the boxes were issued during the CW, in the Indian Wars campaigns, they were for the most part not issued, as being too heavy and cumbersome. Don't forget, repeating arms were considered wasteful of ammo by the Army! That is why they adopted the single-shot arms after the war. Repeaters also were not as powerful and of shorter range, and, again, long-range was considered more important...at least until the troops got into closeup firefights with the Indians.
To put it another way, which is a better weapon...an M-1/M-14 or an M-16/M-4? For long range or close up? Mostly the same argument.
Interesting test, however!
-
I enjoyed the video. Thanks for letting us watch it. Ian and Carl come up with some interesting scenarios.