I like how the wikipedia page on that contradicts itself.
‘Nonetheless, the design proved too complex for mass production’
No. built 577,120
Yes, the MG 34- of which they actually made more of then the “easy to mass produce” Mg 42.
British Captain John Norton 1823 Invents a hollow based bullet that is the Exact bullet used in the Civil war refered to as an Americanized Minie’ Rejected by the Military leaders because the round ball in use for the past 300 years worked good enough!
English Gunsmith William Greener 1836 invented the hollow based bullet with a wooden plug to aid in expanding the skirt
of the hollowed base.
1847 Claude Minie’ invents a hollow based connical bullet and uses a iron plug to help expand the bullet skirt.
So 24 years after the Amazing work of Captain Norton He get no credit!
John Norton’s 1823 design was not the “Exact bullet used in the Civil war”. As with most inventions, the Minie Ball wasn’t developed wholesale out of nothing. But Minie came up with a superior and more reliable design. Even then, there was considerable later development at the Springfield Armory which turned it into a much more useful, and more easily mass-produced, piece.
I did want to drop by to comment on two aspects that, while not overlooked, could use some clarification.
The first is that commanders in the Civil War absolutely did know that warfare was changing with the mass introduction of the rifle. They just hadn’t yet worked out exactly how it would change. The common idea that they just marched troops into the meatgrinder because they didn’t know better is false. Generals knew from the start that charging defended works was really, really hard: it’s just that the they often didn’t have a better option. It would take until the end of the war to develop trench-breaching tactics - which were actually quite similar to those eventually used in WW1. ON the whole, commanders were pretty sparing of their soldiers lives. The really bloody battles were more the result of a lack of available cover or ground to maneuver, where one side or the other felt that a risky attack was necessary. Further, these attacks were often successful if well-planned and well-led.
Secondly, the plain fact is that while northern industry was extremely strong and still booming during the war years, the technology to make reliable repeaters was just being polished. Factories tried to start mass-production but just couldn’t do it, with the result that supplies were very limited even in 1865. Of course, the attempts probably helped developed the very precision and systems needed. Trying to outfit every soldier with such arms would probably have been a futile effort. It’s somewhat the same story in medicine: advances in biological knowledge along with the following improvements in antiseptics only became widespread after the war. Here also the surgeon’s experience during the war probably contributed to a considerable development of those skills and techniques in the postwar era.
Nowadays we expect to buy a spare part for a Ford and have it fit and function properly regardless of whether it was made in Detroit or Dagenham or Valencia. But achieving interchangeability in the 19th c. was a difficult and expensive process which many claimed to have conquered but secretly did some hand-fitting anyway to get the stuff to work. The Ordnance Department declared that ‘we must have interchangeability and we are determined to have it, regardless of cost’ and they did achieve it at the National Armory. Commercial organisations found it much more difficult, and try to make a profit as well (e.g. Singer sewing machines, which usually exhibit a degree of hand-fitting)
I am wrong to use the word “Exact” in my post, however the study of these bullets is very interesting to me.
But then one can find Garbage like this on the internet too!
And here is an example of the information I read in another book about Captain John Norton and his development that was rejected by the British army.
So Who’s Bullet is more like the Americanized Minie’??
And keep in mind, Captain Minie’s Bullet was designed more for the French rifle with the plug in the chamber that would contact the metal plug upon ramming it hard against it and thereby cause the skirt to expand to seal the gasses.
From my reading this was not a reliable system because of the difficulty in cleaning the chamber area of the barrel.
So I therefore argue that the expansion of the bullet buy the gases is much more Captain John Norton’s design.
When young Lt. Ambrose Burnside resigned his commission to pursue an idea of a Gun that he developed due to the horrendous leak of gas at the breech of the Hall breach loading rife he had seen used on his duty in the southern US.
Burnside Breach Loading Carbine (This is either a 4th or 5th Model pictured as I am unable to see a guide screw on the receiver)
The patent on his carbine is for a gas seal at the breach.
The seal is an integral part of the Cartridge case but the rifle could be used with loose powder and round ball if needed!
There were many breach loaders being tested by the Ordinance Department that was under Gen James Ripley’s command.
One of the major hurdle that Burnside had to cross when his breach loader out preformed many other rifle being tested was Ripley liked the Maynard and in particularly the Maynard Tape Priming system and required Burnside to adapt that to his rifle.
Well the tape primer was a dysfunctional system at best but Burnside and his team did it to the degree of still being able to easily prime his rifle with the common Musket Cap when the Maynard primers ran out or were damaged by water.
Then another change would be added making the Burnside orders late each time.
The Burnside Carbine did make it into use but not in a great number because by the end of the war Burnside was helping in the production of the Spencer Carbine.
And Gen James Riley was involved in the design of the muzzle loading rifle in use, so one could say there was a conflict of interest???
Why are you dodging like this? They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist
Even as late as WWI, the various arms manufacturers hadn’t quite mastered interchangeable parts.
The bits and pieces for a Pattern 1914 rifle made by Winchester might not exactly interchange with one made by Remington, for example. Generally they’d interchange with parts from the same manufacturer, though.