Henry Rifle Usage in the Civil War

[44 Henry]

It is always great to see new people at events. Bentonville 2010 was one of those events as I met several super people. Mike thank you for the kind words, we fielded 23 Henry rifles in our unit with over 10,000 rounds of blanks for the 3 days of fighting. Education is part of this hobby not only educating the public but also fellow reenactors that may not be aware of the details of your impression. Exchanging information is what learning is all about.

I have used a Henry Rifle in reenacting since 1980 even traveling to Bentonville 3 times over the years, it is a long way from Illinois. A Henry rifle always makes a statement at a reenactment which leaves some with a good impression of what a Henry rifle was capable of and how it was deployed. The down side is the reverse of that. So to help better educated both public and reenactors I have put together the following article/book on how the Henry Rifle was used in the Civil War. It is a little on the long side but there is a lot of information out there. If you read it I am sure you will get at least some idea how this revolutionary weapon was used.
http://44henryrifle.webs.com/civilwarusage.htm

[bheard]

I am still working on my 410 blanks fpor my 45 LC Uberti. Thanks for all your help.
Bill

[Pvt Schnapps]

It is always great to see new people at events. Bentonville 2010 was one of those events as I met several super people. Mike thank you for the kind words, we fielded 23 Henry rifles in our unit with over 10,000 rounds of blanks for the 3 days of fighting. Education is part of this hobby not only educating the public but also fellow reenactors that may not be aware of the details of your impression. Exchanging information is what learning is all about.

I have used a Henry Rifle in reenacting since 1980 even traveling to Bentonville 3 times over the years, it is a long way from Illinois. A Henry rifle always makes a statement at a reenactment which leaves some with a good impression of what a Henry rifle was capable of and how it was deployed. The down side is the reverse of that. So to help better educated both public and reenactors I have put together the following article/book on how the Henry Rifle was used in the Civil War. It is a little on the long side but there is a lot of information out there. If you read it I am sure you will get at least some idea how this revolutionary weapon was used.
http://44henryrifle.webs.com/civilwarusage.htm

My strongest memories of reading about Henry's in action (as opposed to seeing reenactors using them) come from two incidents reported in part 2 of Vol. 37, Series I in the ORs [I think that's the reference]. One mentions the number of such rifles captured from Kautz's cavalry in their raids around Richmond in June, 1864. Another mentions a sudden shortage of Henry ammo in the defense of Washington a day or two before the Sixth Corps appeared. In the first instance rapid fire led to the capture of cavalrymen; in the second it embarrassed the ordnance personnel tasked with supplying the polyglot forces defending the capital.

I think your example from Bentonville illustrates how this might play out in real life. 10,000 rounds for 23 reenactors over three days works out to about 435 rounds per reenactor, or 145 per reenactor per day. Do you have any information on how the army's logisticians managed to cope with this extreme demand in practice, or did it often end with captures and shortages?

I noted too that Kautz considered the weapon not quite on a par with the 7-shot Spencer, which seemed to have its own issues.

Another question: if the weapon was so revolutionary, why did the army never adopt it? Was it just conservatism, or did they have concerns about low powered rounds, jams, short range, the tubular magazine, and wasted ammo?

Your article does a very good job of compiling a large number of quotes about the Henry, but it doesn't really address the larger issues involved in deploying and supporting one of several novel weapons that appeared during the war.

[44 Henry]

A lot of good questions. Many of the answers are found in the document http://44henryrifle.webs.com/civilwarusage.htm as well as the entire webpage concerning the Henry rifle. As to deployment or use of the Henry rifle, it is pretty much told by those that used this weapon as written in the document.

As to ammuntion supply one passage comes to mind, "Special Field Order No. 26 for Fourth Division fifteen Corps" dated Dec. 7, 1864. In this order General Crose specifically mentions that each regiment armed with Henry rifles will have a wagon load of that kind of ammunition. Considering that a wagon would be able to carry thousands of rounds of ammuntion and the strength of a regiment by that time was less than 400 to 500 men that would be a lot of ammuntion for each regiment thus armed. The 66th WSS as well as the 7th Illinois Infantry were just two of the regiments so armed, there were also others.

The document has many references to ammuntion and supply. It should also be mentioned the government did purchase over 4,000,000 rounds to suppliment private purchase ammunition. Generally each man carried close to 150 to 200 on their person and resupply was close by, however not in every case. Men would also use the ammunition of their wounded and dead comrades.

As to the government not wanting the Henry rifle, one must looking into the war time government as well as the thinking at war's end. The Henry rifle was not the main rifle used in the war or even close as only about 10,000 or so were used compare to the millions of muzzle-loaders. The cartridge weapon did mark an end to the muzzle-loading military rifle and the Henry repeating rifle showed the value of a repeating rifle. It is just too bad the US military did not learn the value of repeating rifles until the 1890s.

[Quickstep]

Another question: if the weapon was so revolutionary, why did the army never adopt it? Was it just conservatism, or did they have concerns about low powered rounds, jams, short range, the tubular magazine, and wasted ammo?

Apparently General Ripley, age 67 the Army’s ordnance chief held breechloaders and repeaters in great distain and dragged his feet when ordered to get them into production. He referred to breechloaders as "newfangled gimcracks” and believed repeaters would encourage soldiers to waste ammunition.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...led-gimcracks/

(gimcrack: a showy object of little use or value.)