Why didn't the US adopt the Spencer repeating rifle?

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4 Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 3 per post.

File: 1457782728868.jpg (234.15 KB, 1250x502, 625:251, Spencer Rifle.jpg)

Why didn't the US adopt the Spencer repeating rifle? Strelok 03/12/16 (Sat) 11:38:48 c99885 No.330775

Why didn't the American army adopt the Spencer repeating rifle formally?

They were only issued in limited numbers during the Civil War in America thanks to Abraham Lincoln. I know that the Northern Generals thought it would not make a difference, be a waste of ammo and cost to much. But it's brief service history and the Siege of Plevna in 1877 showed. Repeating firepower do give each individual solider a tremendous advantage. The Spencer rifle and carbine were strong and reliable, and it would not be difficult to convert them to fire centerfire cartridges. I just find it strange that it was used in relatively large quantities during the civil war and showed its potential and were just thrown away as soon as the war ended.

Strelok 03/12/16 (Sat) 12:29:33 bb292b No.330781

>>330775

we live in a world where france adopted helmets only because generals thought they are pretty. dont ask for logic

Strelok 03/12/16 (Sat) 12:42:03 517e17 No.330789

>>330781

/thread

Strelok 03/12/16 (Sat) 13:48:35 238d9f No.330808

cost and logistics, mostly cost.

"firing too fast" sounds ridiculous to a modern observer, but imagine what civil war logistics looked like. a soldier could shoot himself out of ammo pretty easily.

issuing the carbine to cavalry is a great solution. those are more elite troops who can be expected to control their fire and make maximum use of the expensive piece.

Strelok 03/12/16 (Sat) 14:48:59 50a93d No.330824

>>330781

France? Basically every army has adopted things because a specific general liked something, or for fashion reasons.

Strelok 03/12/16 (Sat) 15:56:36 009e3b No.330843

For some reason military type people tend to be extremely conservative and resistant to change.

Billy Mitchell was demoted and court-martialed because he wouldn't stop going on about how aircraft carriers would make battleships obsolete. There are probably quite a few examples in history of technological change that was resisted by the older conservative command structure until the enemy starts making use of it and then suddenly either change happens or the war is lost.