The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - likelihood of a trapdoor used by indians?

**44 AMP** · February 14, 2017, 08:03 PM

If you study history a bit, you can find many situations where a "conservative" (AKA Pigheaded suborn) individual or small group in positions of authority has had a huge effect on what we arm our troops with.

There were Generals who delayed the adoption of repeating rifles simply because they believed the troops would "waste" ammunition.

The adoption of the Trapdoor was a huge step forward over muzzle loaders, but was technologically behind repeating designs that existed at the same time. And yes, we were also cheap. The trapdoor got the nod mostly because it was designed in house at Springfield, so the govt. didn't have to pay anything extra for it. Today, it seems like an obviously short sighted decision, but at the time, it was a big deal.

Our Army, without an actual "enemy" nation to face, got the short end of nearly everything from after the Civil War until after the turn of the century, and while that had changed some by the time of our entry into WWI, we went back to that (and for all services) until the ramp up that began shortly before we entered WWII.

And, while we came late to the repeater game, and chose a less efficient rifle in the Krag, we balanced that scale with the Springfield, and moved ahead with the adoption of the Garand.

February 14, 2017, 08:03 PM	#17
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,839	If you study history a bit, you can find many situations where a "conservative" (AKA Pigheaded suborn) individual or small group in positions of authority has had a huge effect on what we arm our troops with. There were Generals who delayed the adoption of repeating rifles simply because they believed the troops would "waste" ammunition. The adoption of the Trapdoor was a huge step forward over muzzle loaders, but was technologically behind repeating designs that existed at the same time. And yes, we were also cheap. The trapdoor got the nod mostly because it was designed in house at Springfield, so the govt. didn't have to pay anything extra for it. Today, it seems like an obviously short sighted decision, but at the time, it was a big deal. Our Army, without an actual "enemy" nation to face, got the short end of nearly everything from after the Civil War until after the turn of the century, and while that had changed some by the time of our entry into WWI, we went back to that (and for all services) until the ramp up that began shortly before we entered WWII. And, while we came late to the repeater game, and chose a less efficient rifle in the Krag, we balanced that scale with the Springfield, and moved ahead with the adoption of the Garand. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.