You think I and others don’t already know this? The rifles did not have bayonet lugs and the musket was preferred for them military strategy of the times.
The low powered Henry rifle still was better than any muzzle loading rifle in the Civil War, many officers buying their own. They were not cheap. The fact that one Union man shot down 7 Confederate renegades, attacking his family, with 8 shots proves the point. Napoleonic tactics caused the huge slaughter in the Civil War. “Stand up and shoot!”
After the Civil War, the new trapdoor 50-70 was shipped West to forts. Some of the commanders felt the settlers needed them more, so gave them to the settlers going into Indian country while they kept the muzzleloaders to themselves.
Custer WAS outgunned as the tribes had the new tube fed magazine rifles, so said Bourke in his book ON THE BORDER WITH CROOK.
Russia loved the 1895 lever action Winchester and contracted for thousands.
And citizens were using the 1906 Remington model 8 semi-auto while the US army was still designing the 1906 Springfield bolt action rifle, and later for the Pedersen semi-auto device.
We don’t have the time and space to give a complete history of arms development here, but during all this time the military and police NEVER considered themselves “outgunned” by the civilians till Prohibition and the crime wave of 1920s.
“You think I and others don’t already know this?...”
Meant to sound rhetorical, one supposes. To judge by the rest of the writing, you don’t know.
And you’ve added to the mistakes with post 105.
“...The low powered Henry rifle still was better than any muzzle loading rifle ...”
“Better” has no meaning outside the context of the situation. “Better” for what?
The Henry was superior in short-range volume fire; beyond 75 yards, anyone armed with a rifle-musket could laugh at a Henry shooter, while nailing them at leisure. You must never have examined a Henry close up: it’s ridiculously fragile - merely dropping one against a halfway-resistant object will end its service life. For good. The military of the day wanted range and serious penetration, and stoutness and durability (soldiers were notoriously rough on equipment). A single-shot muzzle loader that keeps on firing, even after getting dropped, or dunked, or bashed about, is preferable to the snappiest lever-action that fires half a box of new-fangled rimfire rounds, then dies (or explodes in a chainfire, because ammunition manufacture hasn’t had all the bugs ironed out yet).
No one knew at the outset of the American Civil War, that any repeater could be so much as a fraction as useful - the inventors that swarmed the War Dept were seen as so many pie-in-the-sky nutcases, snake-oil sales reps for perpetual motion.
Chance encounters where a single Henry user got the better of half a squad of marauders made good press, but were insignificant in the wider situation. Good press cannot make for good arms acquisition decisions.
“...Some of the commanders felt the settlers needed them more, so gave them to the settlers going into Indian country while they kept the muzzleloaders to themselves...”
Not sure where this came from ... any commander caught handing out officially inventoried equipment this way would be subject to early termination of his career. At the least; the military has always been very particular about stuff like that. And many forts were in “Indian country.”
The M1865, M1866, M1868, and M1870 rifles were made in a total of about 93,000 pieces: converted from muzzle loaders. These were all accomplished on the Allin pattern and the most numerous (a few thousand others were converted according to several other schemes). The early ones were 58 rimfire, later ones got barrels relined to 50 cal. Compared to the size of the post-1865 Regular Army (27,000 by the late 1890s) this was more than plenty - quite before the Armory people got around to building the smaller, sleeker M1873 and follow-ons. Muzzle loaders went to state & local units or were sold to the populace at large, sometimes sporterized by having stocks cut down, some bored smooth.
George Armstrong Custer wasn’t beaten because Indians had repeaters, his command stumbled onto a gathering where the warriors alone outnumbered the 7th Regiment troopers who’d scurried to the scene by numerous multiples. His troops got split up and the subsection he was with got overrun by warriors some eight to ten times their immediate strength; the Indians could have been tossing rocks, for all it mattered. Anyone can have a bad day; in the profession, bad days can have more serious, more permanent consequences.
“...Russia loved the 1895 lever action Winchester and contracted for thousands. ...”
Winchester made over 293,000 M1895 rifles in the musket configuration for the Imperial Russian government during 1915-1916 - almost 69 percent of total M1895 production. The Russians were pretty desperate by then and in no position to get fussy - their selection cannot seen as anything resembling more than the least bad among many terrible alternatives.
Accounts I’ve read indicate the M1895 was not well-liked by the Czar’s troops. Not sure how many you’ve encountered, but I’ve repaired several and know them in detail. Awkward and not too efficient - the moreso in the very-long musket configuration. Not that any rifle of the day could equal the Mosin-Nagant vintovka o1891g for strength and durability in rough use. Military establishments have never liked lever-actions much: very difficult to operate in the prone position.
“...And citizens were using the 1906 Remington model 8 semi-auto while the US army was still designing the 1906 Springfield bolt action rifle, and later for the Pedersen semi-auto device. ...”
Remington’s Model 8 is one of the few long-recoil autoloading rifles that ever made it to series production. A brilliant design, lovingly constructed by a top manufacturer when all major gunmakers were at the top of their game. I’ve repaired several (including the Model 81, the successor that is almost identical) and know them inside and out. The 8 would have made a terrible military rifle: no recoil-operated gun of the day could withstand dusty or muddy conditions. Individual arms like rifles suffer proportionately more, because their parts are smaller and lighter, and they get down and dirty with the troops more often and more completely than do crew-served weapons like machine guns. The parts of any recoil-operated gun have to mesh with greater precision in many more places, and over larger areas, than other autoloading systems; if they get bent or gouged or otherwise damaged, the gun quits functioning in a hurry. Repairs usually mean careful work over long stretches of time, with files and stones: lots of cut-and-try, over and over and over. One does not simply slap in a new part and expect the gun will work.
We must recall that all primers were still corrosive, a situation that was universal until 1927 and that lasted for many US military cartridges into the early 1950s (almost exactly when Remington discontinued the 81): any arm that wasn’t cleaned immediately after use began to rust like that. Autoloading arms suffered much more, because their actions fly open while hot gases, fumes, and salty residue are still wafting all about. If left uncleaned, a Remington 8 that fired corrosive ammunition would likely rust shut overnight ... the barrel sleeve and springs surrounding the barrel were impossible to get at without the most exacting disassembly, a task no troops in the field could do (and which experienced repair techs often avoid, today). And - not least - the Model 8 wasn’t robust enough to handle the military cartridges of the day.
Your timeline is inaccurate. The US M1903 rifle was designed, approved, adopted, and in series manufacture for a couple years before the Ordnance establishment got an inkling that the Imperial Germans had leapt beyond everyone else on the planet, in producing their spitzer bullet. Some 75,000 to 88,000 M1903s were made before the Ordnance engineers developed the 30-06 cartridge from the 30-03, and devised alterations for the M1903 rifle. Those already made were modified. Didn’t happen all at once: the rework program lasted into 1909.
US Pistol M1918 - known to the civilian gun-enthusiast world as the Pedersen Device - may have been the most imaginative innovation in small arms technology to come out of World War One. But it was a by-product of desperation, not any serious tactical insight. Nor foresight; like many items conceived by John D Pedersen, it was brilliant in conception and peerlessly executed, but overcomplicated. Cooler heads prevailed after the war and it was made obsolete without ever having gone into action. Sadly, almost all were destroyed. I’ve seen only two in my lifetime; one was in the Remington factory museum.
AEF would have been better served if they had been issued the M1919 Thompson gun - a design which itself was overdone.
Not the entire history of small arms development, just a very few salient points.
Decisions on design and development, and to acquire this or that particular system, make sense only when considered in light of the actual conditions pertaining at the time (if then). Tactical orthodoxy, prevailing attitudes, and the state of manufacture all played their roles too. Many moderns - civilian and military alike - don’t always grasp the essential truth, that we are looking back with benefit of hindsight. What seems obvious to us would have taken the most subtle understanding, the highest wisdom, to figure out back then. There weren’t enough geniuses. And not everybody listens to geniuses - even when they are right.