American Rifle - Alexander Rose [258]
Return to text.
88. Wolf, Arms and Innovation, pp. 93, 87.
Return to text.
89. Thus, in the words of one, magazine fire should be used “only at close quarters and for very short periods.” Quoted in Gilmore, “New Courage,” p. 101n23.
Return to text.
90. On the introduction of Bessemer steel and metallurgy, see Wolf, Arms and Innovation, pp. 104–5.
Return to text.
91. H. F. Williamson, Winchester: The Gun That Won the West (Washington, D.C.: Combat Forces Press, 1952), pp. 51, 62.
Return to text.
92. Quoted in Wolf, Arms and Innovation, p. 114.
Return to text.
93. In fact, for its Model 1876 “Centennial” rifle, Winchester did hit its target of .45, and even used the same cartridge case as the army’s, but only by using a lighter bullet (350 grains instead of 405) and compensating for its loss of hitting power by increasing the powder charge to 75 grains. Ultimately, though, the ’76’s weak toggle-link breech mechanism could not happily accommodate the cartridge, and sales were relatively poor—at least compared to its legendary predecessor, the Model 1873. Only with the advent of the Model 1886 lever-action would Winchester finally be able to handle the government-mandated ammunition. See P. B. Sharpe, The Rifle in America, 3d ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1953), pp. 232–35. The Model 1873 continued to be produced until the remarkably late date of 1924. (The Model 1876 was dropped in 1897.) Domestic sales of the M1873 were 720,610, compared with 123,211, but foreign sales would have greatly increased the former figure. See also B. N. Canfield, “Nineteenth-Century Military Winchesters,” American Rifleman (March 2001), p. 38. The Model 1886 was the first Winchester repeater that John M. Browning was called upon to design, and his solution to the toggle-link’s fragility was to replace it with a far more solid mechanism. So marvelous was his rethinking of a problem that had dogged Winchesters for decades that his weapon could fire cartridges even larger than the government stipulated: up to .45-90 initially and rising to a monstrous .50-110-450 by 1895.
Return to text.
94. Biographical material based on D.R. Beaver, “The U.S. War Department in the Gaslight Era: Stephen Vincent Benét at the Ordnance Department, 1870–91,” Journal of Military History 68, no. 1 (2004), pp. 107–8. On The Dust Which Is God, see C. E. Purinton’s review, Journal of Bible and Religion 14, no. 2 (1946), p. 126.
Return to text.
95. Quoted in Wolf, Arms and Innovation, p. 118.
Return to text.
96. H. Metcalfe, The Ordnance Department, U. S. Army, at the International Exhibition, 1876 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1884), pp. v, vii, 844–46, 860, quoted in Wolf, Arms and Innovation, p. 125. On the exhibition as a whole, see R. W. Rydell, All the World’s a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International Expositions, 1876–1916 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 10–37.
Return to text.
97. S. Brinckerhoff and P. Chamberlin, “The Army’s Search for a Repeating Rifle, 1873–1903,” Military Affairs 32, no. 1 (1968), p. 21; H. G. Houze, Winchester Repeating Arms Company: Its History and Development from 1854 to 1981 (Iola, Wis.: Krause, 2004), pp. 97, 104;Williamson, Winchester, p. 70; Sharpe, Rifle in America, p. 235.
Return to text.
98. C. Windolph, I Fought with Custer: The Story of Sergeant Windolph . . . (1947; reprint Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987), p. 92; J. E. Parsons and J. S. du Mont, Firearms in the Custer Battle (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole, 1953), p. 16; Wolf, Arms and Innovation, p. 137.
Return to text.
99. See General Godfrey’s conclusion that “when cartridges were dirty and corroded, the ejectors did not always extract the empty shells from the chambers, and the men were compelled to use knives to get them out. When the shells were clean no great difficulty was experienced,” in his authoritative memoir, “Custer’s Last Battle,