Civil War: Would you pick a muzzle loader or an AR / M4?

[Pete123]

There may be some folks on here that know more about this than I do, though I thought this would be an interesting topic.

Imagine that there was time travel, magic, etc... and that the Civil War leaders could choose between the muzzle loaded Springfield rifle, by far the most used long gun, or the M4.

Based on what I've read lately, they would have stayed with the Springfield. If they chose any M4s it would have been limited. Why?  They seemed to resist repeating arms.  Their big concern what that soldiers would waste ammo.  I think that is still an issue today, but they really, really, really worried about that.  Part of that is understandable as neither side had a supply chain that would really keep up, though there thinking seems to go far beyond where that makes sense.  You could always use the Springfield if anyone had black powder and the right sized bullets.  The Civil War guns that used cartridges were of no use if you ran out of ammo.

We were discussing on a recent thread that the post war Army moved from the repeating Spencer Carbine to a single shot rifle.  

Another reason they didn't like repeaters in the Civil War is that black powder created so much smoke that no one could see anything when they had repeaters.  Of course, the M4 is smokeless.

OK, enough fun, time to get back to work.

[Murgatroy]

Per Harry Turtledove they chose the AK. And they were taught how to manufacture the ammunition as well. The North tried to reverse engineer it, but they were too slow in development and the South won.

[Omega]

Unless there were a reason why they could not reload their ammo, if all they had technology wise is what they had then, then maybe they couldn't , then yes they would probably stay with their MLs.  But if they could reload or had a large supply of ammo, then I highly doubt they would choose a ML over an M4.  One squad of trained infantry could decimate a civil war era skirmish line with an M4, they can also take out leaders from 4-600 yards easily.  Hell, the Gatling gun was used in the civil war and would of been used more if the early models didn't have some issues.

[Caster]

10 minutes ago, Murgatroy said:

 and the South won.

*SIGH*....If only.  

[Garufa]

Pete, read Turtledove's "Guns of the South".  

[Pete123]

I'll have to check out Turtledove's book.

Omega,  what you are saying makes perfect sense.  I'm a little dumb founded to read as much as I have about generals focusing on not wasting ammo.  It seems like that was more important to them than thinking about how a higher rate of fire could help.  

The Spencer Carbine was a repeater with a great intro.  So, in their wisdom, they bought a part that cost $.25 per gun to turn it into a single shot.  Admittedly, that would be the Northern generals making that call and the north had no shortage of really bad generals.  

[nightrunner]

If you couldn't take a scientist and a lab with you to manufacture smokeless powder, that M4 won't do you much good.

 

if you think an AR is unreliable now, try it with blackpowder and cast bullets.

[Omega]

3 hours ago, Pete123 said:

I'll have to check out Turtledove's book.

Omega,  what you are saying makes perfect sense.  I'm a little dumb founded to read as much as I have about generals focusing on not wasting ammo.  It seems like that was more important to them than thinking about how a higher rate of fire could help.  

The Spencer Carbine was a repeater with a great intro.  So, in their wisdom, they bought a part that cost $.25 per gun to turn it into a single shot.  Admittedly, that would be the Northern generals making that call and the north had no shortage of really bad generals.  

This argument/decision keeps raising it's head, even in these modern times.  When I first joined we had select fire (auto and semi) M16s, then they came up with a select fire with semi and three round burst.  Now, they have auto and semi again with the M4s, which took an upgrade to get rid of the three round burst.

Here is my take on this; full auto is hard to control, but it's a good psychological tool, nobody wants to raise there head when someone is slinging all that lead at them.  But precise controlled fire wins the day.

I was not infantry, but unfortunately I had a few opportunities to return fire and in none of those cases did I even consider full auto.  I can pull the trigger fast, fast enough to put at least three rounds per target in critical areas.  In that same time frame, I would of wasted 10-15 rounds, at the same target.  I have some training though, many soldiers did/do not; I seen many just let loose never knowing if they even hit anything.  I am sure there are those with more experience than I that can effectively keep steel on target in full auto, but I don't think the average troop can do the same.

The three round burst thing, well short answer is it sucked. It always shot three rounds per cycle, so if you let off after two, the next pull you would only get one then you had to release and pull again to get to the next three .  At least with full auto, with practice, you could do the same thing in three, four, or five round bursts.  

As far as the civil war, if you could arm all your soldiers with M4s, and each man had a combat load, typically 210 rounds, and you could drum it into them to have ammo discipline then I do believe what ever side had that advantage would win.  But, and that is a big one, there would eventually be a need for more ammo, so once engaged they would need to be quick and merciless collecting weapons and ammo along the way.

[btq96r]

3 hours ago, Omega said:

This argument/decision keeps raising it's head, even in these modern times.  When I first joined we had select fire (auto and semi) M16s, then they came up with a select fire with semi and three round burst.  Now, they have auto and semi again with the M4s, which took an upgrade to get rid of the three round burst.

Here is my take on this; full auto is hard to control, but it's a good psychological tool, nobody wants to raise there head when someone is slinging all that lead at them.  But precise controlled fire wins the day.

I was not infantry, but unfortunately I had a few opportunities to return fire and in none of those cases did I even consider full auto.  I can pull the trigger fast, fast enough to put at least three rounds per target in critical areas.  In that same time frame, I would of wasted 10-15 rounds, at the same target.  I have some training though, many soldiers did/do not; I seen many just let loose never knowing if they even hit anything.  I am sure there are those with more experience than I that can effectively keep steel on target in full auto, but I don't think the average troop can do the same.

The three round burst thing, well short answer is it sucked. It always shot three rounds per cycle, so if you let off after two, the next pull you would only get one then you had to release and pull again to get to the next three .  At least with full auto, with practice, you could do the same thing in three, four, or five round bursts.  

As far as the civil war, if you could arm all your soldiers with M4s, and each man had a combat load, typically 210 rounds, and you could drum it into them to have ammo discipline then I do believe what ever side had that advantage would win.  But, and that is a big one, there would eventually be a need for more ammo, so once engaged they would need to be quick and merciless collecting weapons and ammo along the way.

When I was a team leader, controlling rate of fire during battle drills was probably one of the most hectic things I had to do.  One time during STX lanes, my squad leader was our evaluator, and if a guy ran out of ammo, all he would let him do was just lay there and make bounding movements instead of pretending they were still contributing to the fight.  A few contact drills into the exercise, there were only two of us with any ammo left and we got the point.  After that we took a pause and had a chat about the need to be more judicious with our rate of fire. 

Fully concur on the points you raise about full auto.  It makes more sense than a three round burst as an option on a rifle, but it's still something not worth using under what I would call 95% of circumstances.  If accurate auto fire from a rifle was as simple as moving the selector and letting er' rip, then the bad guys would have put a lot more rounds on target, because their rate of fire discipline was just atrocious.

[Sam1]

I'm glad they only had muzzle loaders back then, enough people died with those.  If they would have had repeating rifles, there's no telling if enough people would have been left to rebuild this country.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A full auto is only good for two things, clearing rooms and suppressive fire. A grenade works better for clearing a room and a belt fed works better for suppressive fire. The average person, even a well versed person, will have difficulty keeping a full auto on target. I will say that some of the locals I worked with overseas had ZERO control over their rates of fire. If they had to fire it would be on full auto and they would keep the trigger pulled until it went dry. Took a lot of work to convince them that aim semi auto fire was better than the typical spray and pray technique they would normally use. Had a few that could hit targets at 350 meters with boring regularity using AKs left over from the Russian invasion.

Here is one of my guys shooting at a 350 yard target. And notice the wind, not an easy feat with any gun but especially so with a 20+ year old AK and iron sights.

 

13 hours ago, nightrunner said:

If you couldn't take a scientist and a lab with you to manufacture smokeless powder, that M4 won't do you much good.

 

if you think an AR is unreliable now, try it with blackpowder and cast bullets.

An AR chambered in 300 Blackout WILL run on black powder and cast bullets.

[nightrunner]

21 minutes ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

A full auto is only good for two things, clearing rooms and suppressive fire. A grenade works better for clearing a room and a belt fed works better for suppressive fire. The average person, even a well versed person, will have difficulty keeping a full auto on target. I will say that some of the locals I worked with overseas had ZERO control over their rates of fire. If they had to fire it would be on full auto and they would keep the trigger pulled until it went dry. Took a lot of work to convince them that aim semi auto fire was better than the typical spray and pray technique they would normally use. Had a few that could hit targets at 350 meters with boring regularity using AKs left over from the Russian invasion.

Here is one of my guys shooting at a 350 yard target. And notice the wind, not an easy feat with any gun but especially so with a 20+ year old AK and iron sights.

 

An AR chambered in 300 Blackout WILL run on black powder and cast bullets.

I'm betting not long before it clogs up the gas system. Haven't personally tried it though.

[Omega]

55 minutes ago, nightrunner said:

I'm betting not long before it clogs up the gas system. Haven't personally tried it though.

You would be surprised, the AKs, well heck most Eastern Block weapons and equipment has such loose tolerances that carbon, sand, and dirt buildup wasn't much of a problem. 

[E4 No More]

A general's views would be influenced by the technology of the 1860's, so applying what they said back then without the option of the 20th century would not be accurate. Considering the overhead of the ML, (weight and bulk of the ammo along with smoke), they'd have gone with the M4. 50-ish caliber bullets weigh a lot more than 5.56 bullets, and they are certainly bulkier. Heck, that's why they went with 5.56 over the 7.62 in the 60's, no?

[nightrunner]

4 hours ago, Omega said:

You would be surprised, the AKs, well heck most Eastern Block weapons and equipment has such loose tolerances that carbon, sand, and dirt buildup wasn't much of a problem. 

A direct impingement AR is much different than a long stroke gas piston AK, and the AR is made with tighter tolerances than any AK.

 

Im not saying the AR is unreliable, it is anything but. However, you put blackpowder and cast bullets in there at 2700ish fps and I'm not certain how long that will last. I would imagine it becoming a single shot fairly quickly.

[Omega]

4 minutes ago, nightrunner said:

A direct impingement AR is much different than a long stroke gas piston AK, and the AR is made with tighter tolerances than any AK.

 

Im not saying the AR is unreliable, it is anything but. However, you put blackpowder and cast bullets in there at 2700ish fps and I'm not certain how long that will last. I would imagine it becoming a single shot fairly quickly.

Yea, didn't catch Dolo's last sentence.  It would be an interesting experiment to see how long an AR can run on BP and cast; maybe if run real wet it would last longer.  I know that during the Vietnam war dirty powder was a major contributing factor into the AR's bad rep in the early days.

[nightrunner]

7 minutes ago, Omega said:

Yea, didn't catch Dolo's last sentence.  It would be an interesting experiment to see how long an AR can run on BP and cast; maybe if run real wet it would last longer.  I know that during the Vietnam war dirty powder was a major contributing factor into the AR's bad rep in the early days.

Dirty powder, the powder was nothing even close to what the original gas system was designed for, therefore it didn't run right. Plus, they shipped without cleaning kits like the rifles they replaced and some were told they didn't have to be cleaned, they cleaned theirselves.

 

I know dolo has mentioned before about .300blk in an AR will run on blackpowder, part of it being his SHTF caliber. I don't know if that is heavy subsonic or if he is making supersonics with light bullets.

 

Im just saying that with what they would have had in 1860s, that means no powdercoated  bullets, I don't think it would work. With the bullets leading and the extra dirty blackpowder, I don't doubt it would run but I don't believe it would run for thousands of rounds on end like smokeless powder and jacketed bullets.

Edited May 24, 2016 by nightrunner
Spellcheck

[Sidecarist]

I highly doubt that you could ever get 2700fps from an AR on Black powder as the barrel is just too short to burn enough powder to get that kind of velocity. Sub sonic loads in 300BO would be much more like it with a better balance of bore volume vs case volume.

The tighter tolerances of the AR may or may not work against it. I'm not sure that a long stroke piston would be beneficial, I think short stroke would be better simply by reducing the surface area for fouling to build up on. DI may have some advantage of the area inside the carrier being on average cooler and possibly less likely to build up hard to remove fouling. Gas ports will be a maintenance area for all systems.

Regardless of the system it would require LOTS of maintenance to keep it running. BP is just plain dirtier than smokeless and builds up. in a SHTF situation it might work in a pinch, and like everything in those conditions you will maintain it like your life depends on it because you won't have spares....

[Omega]

Quote

After we had abandoned the line, and on coming to a little stream of water, I undressed for the purpose of bathing, and after undressing found my arm all battered and bruised and bloodshot from my wrist to my shoulder, and as sore as a blister. I had shot one hundred and twenty times that day. My gun became so hot that frequently the powder would flash before I could ram home the ball, and I had frequently to exchange my gun for that of a dead comrade. ----Confederate Private Sam R. Watkins, 1st Tennessee Regiment. (From "Co. Aytch" by Sam R. Watkins, published by Collier Books.)

Quote

The storm of battle [at Chickamauga] was sweeping over the ground I had just left. Hastily...returning, I found the 39th Indiana regiment coming from a cross-road,--a full, fresh regiment, armed with Spencer's repeating-rifles, the only mounted force in our army corps...Colonel T.J. Harrison, its commander...dismounting his men, dashed at the enemy in a most effective charge. [Colonel John T.] Wilder, coming up on our right, also attacked. Wilder had two regiments armed with the same repeating-rifles. They did splendid work. [Confederate General James] Longstreet told Wilder after the war that the steady and continued racket of these guns led him to think an army corps had attacked his left flank." --Union officer Gates P. Thruston. (From Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. III, published by Castle.)

Even with M4s with a full combat load, this may not have been a done deal if an effective strategy is was not employed.  You figure the Confederate Troops in this situation could withstand an attack like this?  But again, this goes back to ammo discipline; how many of those repeating rifle's bullets found their mark?  Sometimes equipment is not everything, training goes a long way in the effective use of said equipment.

[Caster]

M-4's probably wouldn't have won the Civil War.....but a .300 Win mag and someone like Chris Kyle COULD have won the war.  No need for some many brothers and cousins to die.  Just wipe out battlefield leaders from long ranges.  Then get sneaky and take out NON battlefield leaders.  Without leadership, the average soldier will try to find a route back home and find something else to do with his time.  

 

 

ALL combat strategy requires good leadership but THOSE types of open field, stand and deliver tactics REALLY depended on strong leadership.  

 

I have always believed modern tactics would have decimated the north with no need for modern weaponry.  A shoot and scoot fight would have taken them quickly.  Camouflage and stealth coupled with decimating their leaders would have done the deed.  

Edited May 24, 2016 by Caster

[Omega]

1 hour ago, Caster said:

M-4's probably wouldn't have won the Civil War.....but a .300 Win mag and someone like Chris Kyle COULD have won the war.  No need for some many brothers and cousins to die.  Just wipe out battlefield leaders from long ranges.  Then get sneaky and take out NON battlefield leaders.  Without leadership, the average soldier will try to find a route back home and find something else to do with his time.  

 

 

ALL combat strategy requires good leadership but THOSE types of open field, stand and deliver tactics REALLY depended on strong leadership.  

 

I have always believed modern tactics would have decimated the north with no need for modern weaponry.  A shoot and scoot fight would have taken them quickly.  Camouflage and stealth coupled with decimating their leaders would have done the deed.  

Some of that was tried, but many still had the old way of doing things ingrained into them.  Heck they even took out Lincoln, a bit late, but to no avail.

[Oh Shoot]

If any clearly superior technology had manifest itself, the North would have had it in greater quantity anyway, ie Spencer rifles and other examples.

Since it couldn't mount a a blitzkrieg type takeover of the Union, the South really lost the war on day one due to the inevitable attrition of troops and materiel compared to that of the North. It just took those four years to grind out the inevitable.

- OS

Edited May 24, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[Pete123]

Oh Shoot makes a good point.  Considering their resources, it's a wonder that the South did as well as we did.  The North had more people and most of the industry.  We had the will to win, but not the ability.

Part of the issue is that the South tried to get support from Europe and couldn't pull it off.

Also, Sam1 makes a really good point above - good thing they didn't have better weapons.  These are Americans that we are talking about.

[Oh Shoot]

11 minutes ago, Pete123 said:

Oh Shoot makes a good point.  Considering their resources, it's a wonder that the South did as well as we did.  The North had more people and most of the industry.  We had the will to win, but not the ability.

It was over after Gettysburg, as that was the last time northern held territory was really threatened to any significant extent. The army of the CSA became overall only a defensive force within its own homeland, and the South couldn't even reliably feed itself, let alone muster any significant manufacturing output -- while the North was just hitting its stride on cranking out the machinery of war.

- OS

[Caster]

OhShoot is right again.....course he was there so that goes without saying.  LOL!

 

 

One thing though, were it to happen again today...OHH what a different story it would be.  The best american industry is all down here now.  If you could put a wall up along the northern border of Kentucky and run it length ways far enough; Reckon which side would lose the most weight after the first year?  The North would look like a third world country.....oh wait, some of it already does!