That sentence alone cries out for a "MEGA BARF ALERT"! LOL.
Interesting article. At the local historical society last month a guy made a presentation on New England firearms, 1620-1900. He said that during the Civil War the Union actually purchased more rifles and muskets in Europe than they men under arms to prevent them from falling into Confederate hands. Almost all Confederates were armed with muskets, the Union mostly breech loaders and a significant number or companies had repeating rifles. (Armament varied between companies, but within a company it was generally uniform.) So many different arms and ammunition were used that today we would think it a logistical nightmare, every company had a different ammuntion, generally only available from a single manufacturer.
Another logical fallacy was the statement that if Colt hadn’t supplied revolvers to the North, the war might have turned out differently. In any major situation, all sorts of variables were employed. If the North had issued Henry rifles to all their troops at the start of the war instead of the Springfield musket, the war might have been shortened considerably as well. But Colt did supply revolvers, and the troops weren’t given Henry rifles as standard issue. (Although some Federal troops had repeating rifles like the Spencer, and a few purchased Henry’s out of their own pocket.) Britain might have come in on the side of the South. All sorts of variables. That’s history for you.
Thanks for an interesting glimpse into a character who brought us same great weaponry.
An interesting story. Thanks for posting it.
ping
I clicked on hoping to see a well blued piece, but alas, only a uniform.
Of general interest to you,perhaps?