Give the Confederates these .45 Ranch Hand guns as their primary weapons with the same amount of ammunition they would have had during the war but it's .45 cal. Do these dinky guns change the outcome of the war. No modifying the guns in any way or creating better versions of it.
>>837247
No weapons system operates in a vacuum.
>>837249
The hell are you talking about?
>>837247
I don't think caliber matters. You are aware of the caliber on a musket right? That shit would blow you wide open
>>837255
There are more variables to winning a war than just better guns.
The South would still be an agrarian society, so the moment a yankee captures some of these lever actions and enough ammo, the north could reverse engineer it and start native production.
Now the north has both the numerical, industrial and technological advantage.
>>837259
Yea but they were unaccurate and took forever to reload.
>>837247
It certainly would have made cavalry fights more interesting. Other than that, I don't think many would trade for it over an average rifle's ranges and simplicity.
>>837263
They weren't that innacurate.
Many people still hunt with muzzle loading BP guns, even today.
>>837263
Yeah, the repeating aspect would have been a big deal, but there were repeating rifles on both sides
>>837262
>There are more variables to winning a war than just better guns.
Pretty much this. Even with better tech and better leaders the south would have been swarmed unless they had widely deployed the machine gun early
>>837262
How many battles would the south have won if they were at that much of a disadvantage with guns though? Basically after one shot they have to depend forever reloading where as the other guys just flip the lever.
>>837263
>Yea but they were unaccurate and took forever to reload.
Percussion cap muskets in the mid 1800s were rifled, plenty accurate, and could be loaded in 15 seconds.
>>837275
That's a century compared to one second.
>>837263
>were unaccurate
lolno, they were rifled and could reach effectively out upwards of a mile. You'd be surprised how well they can shoot competing with modern designs.
I don't think you guys realize how much of an advantage the lever action guns would give the confederate army.
>>837293
I don't think you realize how quickly that advantage would be lost.
>>837293
Sure, in a temporal way. Considering how hard headed generals were to new weapons, it's unlikely tactics would have changed much, if at all.
Plus when one breaks, what is a nation without the infrastructure to build or maintain these weapons to do? The South notoriously struggled making brass cartridges alone.
>>837308
I don't think it would to tell you the truth. I don't think they would lose any battles unless they were outnumbered 15>1
>>837313
These guns don't break very often and if a couple somehow broke just give him a dead soldiers gun? They wouldn't just leave them there on the battlefield.
>>837272
Why not ask the south. The North adopted carbines and repeaters in massive numbers during the war. Part of the key to victory at Gettysburg was the fact that the John Buford's Union Calvary, armed with repeaters, were able to hold off a vastly numerically superior confederate force until Reynolds and his men arrived.
>>837322
While it is a rugged gun for sure, the battlefield is unkind to anything in its wake.
>They wouldn't just leave them there on the battlefield.
Are you kidding me? If it means the survival of your regiment to run like mad men, they're not going to bother collecting the shiny new toys. This happens constantly in war.
Range is going to be a key factor as well. I'd be surprised if it could reach an eighth of a Springfield, so much of the improved capacity is lost. On the other hand, if you were in effective range, say 60 yards(?), the fight would often get into melee. And so now you have a glorified stick compared to the fucking pike that is a spiked musket.
>>837355
I don't think they'd be doing very much running if they had these guns and up close is where these little guns would shine.
>>837364
Not to mention the psychological impact it would have on the Union soldiers.
>>837364
>>837375
Between the Spencer, the Henry, and something a little bigger, I think the Union knew a thing or two about repeating arms.
>>837391
Yea but did every single soldier have one?
>>837715
Certainly not, but between the north's superior artillery and resources, I don't really see the mare's leg making much of a difference.
Lever actions suck for war, mind you. They're complicated in action and tricky to reload under stress.
I see the Union lines get off several volleys of the horrendous Minie Ball while Johnny Reb hiccups closer and closer to get in proper range.
After a battle or two, the Union realizes the new found firepower of the South. Several clever generals start to focus on use of the cannon and cavalry. Under a well run battle, the lines of mares legs have been worn down by barrage, and when the cavalry comes, they have no reach of bayonet to counter. So now you have a neat row of well armed, grey uniformed cavalry bowling pins.
The North didn't win the war because of guns but because of manpower + industrial output guaranteeing easy supply.
Think of Germany vs Russia in WW1, industrial behemoth against an agricultural peasant shit hole.
