At least in my eyes, Christopher Spencer's rhapsody in walnut and steel, .56-50. I would surely love to take this thing hog hunting.

Well come on over. We have plenty hogs in Texas.

Thanks Charles. Posted this over at Paco's place, too.

Yes, I saw that.
I you can not get to Texas, just ship the rifle and ammo and I will test it on a hog or two for you.
If you do make it we will have the dogs bay one up close so you can put the muzzle in its ear.
I was less than 10 feet from this one recently, introducing it to my .Beretta .45-70 DR.

I agree, and they are ignored as a viable lever action, because everyone thinks Winchester was the only maker of them. Didn't help that they lasted only 9 years and a couple hundred thousand pieces, though.

Abraham Lincoln thought they were a very viable repeater for his Union forces. Loading wasn't quick though unless you had one of those multi tube carriers that the army made.

As with the Sharps, I love the side-hammer look. Oblivious of real worth, they must be one of the most mysterious rifles from the time.

Is the one pictured original or does someone make a replica?

Paul, er, Samuel ... this is a reproduction by Armi Sport/Chiappa. Despite its quirky look, Spencer's rifle is very strong and sound. And he so appreciated the work of his fellow inventor Christian Sharps that he employed Sharps hammer and lock parts in his design.

Spencer gave Lincoln a personal demonstration on the white house lawn. Probably couldn't happen now...
But Army Ordnance and Infantry officers didn't want any repeaters; they would just waste ammunition. After all, even the adoption of the Rifle-Musket was met with some resistance.

Tom, I have heard Lincoln was an able gun handler and a pretty fair shot.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Spencer gave Lincoln a personal demonstration on the white house lawn. Probably couldn't happen now...
But Army Ordnance and Infantry officers didn't want any repeaters; they would just waste ammunition. After all, even the adoption of the Rifle-Musket was met with some resistance.

Very true. Military thinking at the time focused on accurately aimed fire as being most important. Wasting ammo in their minds was sacrilegious . It took a long time to realize that even the best trained marksman takes a lot of shots to actually hit something, especially when being shot at.

The Spencer was certainly an interesting rifle for its time.

What a difference a century makes! Though in another war it was estimated that a ton of lead was thrown for every enemy soldier killed, it was callous of the brass to take that view of the Spencer. As we saw in Vietnam, having the rifle with the highest rate of fire is a good way to keep your own troops out of trouble.

Back in the 70s I saw a Western where some one uses Spencer rifle. As a gunbuff already I caught facination of the tubemagazine in the Stock. I have later handlede a few of the originals. Lovely rifles. Had I lived in the 1860s America I would have had one.

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
Back in the 70s I saw a Western where some one uses Spencer rifle. As a gunbuff already I caught facination of the tubemagazine in the Stock. I have later handlede a few of the originals. Lovely rifles. Had I lived in the 1860s America I would have had one.

The loading mechanism is really a beautiful piece of engineering. I think the Spencer was a bit ahead of its time. It would be rather difficult to make it work with modern bottleneck cartridges, unfortunately.