The Henry repeating rifle certainly had an impact and was the predecessor to the Winchester Model 1866 and 1873, the “Guns that won the West” but the Henry .44 rimfire didn’t have the range and knock down power that a standard issue .58 cal musket had. It was excellent for a quick skirmish and “shock and awe” but for not for a sustained battle which is why the U.S. Army adopted the trapdoor, single shot .45-70 Springfield rifle as the standard arm after the war instead of the Winchester.
I'm sure there were many reasons why the Army eventually went with the Springfield in '73, but I bet Custer would have preferred to have had the suppressive fire capability of the Winchester at the Bighorn.
Yes, but the Henry was a sixteen shot, repeater which could be fired as quick as a soldier could pull the lever and shoot. It took a good, musket-loading soldier about twenty seconds to load the rifle and shoot one shot. No comparison, the Henry wins. The Union big thinkers thought that soldiers would waste too much ammo and not take careful aim with a Henry. Plus, like a lot of stodgy people in all professions, they were comfortable with the old. There is an argument about whether it was more powerful than the Spencer (another great repeater), but experts say the Henry saved the Union army from complete slaughter by 535 men with Henry’s stopping a Rebel charge. Which would you rather have in a battle against people firing at you with muzzle-loaders: the sixteen shot, fast-firing Henry or a rifle that would take you about thirty seconds to load?