Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Homer_J_Simpson; colorado tanker; Bull Snipe

Very interesting to notice Strong’s mention of purchasing Sharp’s rifles at $45 each.
That was a large sum in those days, but it seems that regiments so armed would have huge advantages over others with older muskets.

In hindsight we have to wonder why that was not so obvious then, or later.


20 posted on 05/26/2021 7:37:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK; Homer_J_Simpson; colorado tanker

During the war, the government paid between $20 and $25 for Springfield and Enfield pattern rifle muskets. These were the primary weapons of the infantry. The Sharps was a carbine and unsuitable for infantry due to it’s short range. Late in the war, infantrymen would buy the Henry repeating rifles and the Army would provide the ammunition. In 1864 a few regiments were re-equipped with Spencer 7 shot repeating rifles. When looking to keep 800,000 men armed, a few dollars price difference adds up quickly.


21 posted on 05/27/2021 3:10:00 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK; Homer_J_Simpson; colorado tanker

correction to my last post. In 1862 the Army paid $15 to $20 for a rifle musket. By 1864, inflation had driven the price up to as hi as $25. By mid 1863 the Springfield arsenal and it’s 21 contractors were capable of manufacturing all the the weapons the Army required. The purchase of Enfield and other European weapons was ended.,


22 posted on 05/27/2021 3:30:03 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson