I'm familiar with the history of the Trapdoor Springfield, how it was originally designed in 1866 to use up surplus Civil War rifle parts. However, by the time the 1873 model came out, the whole gun was made from scratch. It seems to me that the 1873 and later Trapdoor Springfield rifles were hopelessly outclassed by the self cocking, striker-fired Martini-Henry.
Incidentally, the British followed nearly the same path when transitioning from muzzleloaders to cartridge arms. From the P53 Enfield, to the Enfield-Snider, to the Martini-Peabody, to the Martini-Henry in 1870.
I've never fired either rifle. Is the Martini-Henry really that much better than the Trapdoor Springfield? Did the US Army make a bad decision in 1873 when adopting the arm?
Another question I have is concerning the .45-70 versus the .577-450. Both are .45 caliber cartridges, but the .45-70 used a 405 gr bullet in front of 70 grains of powder, versus the .577-450, which slung a 500 grain bullet in front of 85 grains of powder. Is the .577-450 too much cartridge? Is the .45-70, no slouch in it's own right, a better cartridge for frontier fighting?
Thanks,
-John
Incidentally, the British followed nearly the same path when transitioning from muzzleloaders to cartridge arms. From the P53 Enfield, to the Enfield-Snider, to the Martini-Peabody, to the Martini-Henry in 1870.
I've never fired either rifle. Is the Martini-Henry really that much better than the Trapdoor Springfield? Did the US Army make a bad decision in 1873 when adopting the arm?
Another question I have is concerning the .45-70 versus the .577-450. Both are .45 caliber cartridges, but the .45-70 used a 405 gr bullet in front of 70 grains of powder, versus the .577-450, which slung a 500 grain bullet in front of 85 grains of powder. Is the .577-450 too much cartridge? Is the .45-70, no slouch in it's own right, a better cartridge for frontier fighting?
Thanks,
-John