I havent read the book yet, but I read the review in the recent Journal and decided that I definately want to read it. I am perfectly willing to accept that fact that there is more than enough ineptness to go areound, but one way or the other , the rifles in US service have not been bad: 1873 Trapdoor, O3 Springfield, M1 carbine, M-1, M-14 and even the M-16 turned out to be pretty good. I look forward to reading the book in any event. Joe S

Leadball & Marlinguy,  The Government goes it's own way when it comes to procurement that's for sure.

Just finished reading a book about the Higgins boat and how the Navy resisted the design. Army overrode them after seeing it in trials. Compared to what the Bureau of Ships wanted the LCVP saved thousands of lives assaulting beaches.

However I am not so sure about the Trapdoor. Post Civil War there was little threat to the county and plenty of musket parts to build breech loading service rifles.   

When the Trapdoor was re-designed and mostly built from new parts around 1873 repeating rifles used low power pistol cartridges. Even Custer had quick firing ability, the Colt revolver. Little Big Horn Custer did not use the long range massed fire capability of his 45/70's. That's not the rifles fault.

Tubular magazines lever guns of the period used are weak points for military service crimp the magazine it's not going to work plus they are pretty easy to jam with dirt.  Infantry needed a long range powerful reliable rifle that handled the 45/70 cartridge. Trapdoors were about as good as any plus they were in service and available.

By the time the strong action repeating 1886 Winchester was on the market the Kraig & Smokeless powder was around the corner. My guess is the limited availability of smokeless is the thing that kept Trapdoors in service so long not any government bias toward single shots.

I do remember well the introduction of the M16, We went to a demonstration were they shot ammo cans filled with water with spectacular results. I looked at the pipsqueak cartridge and was not impressed. We thought the government was crazy to give up something powerful and effective.  Looking back at it now and seeing how small arms are used in conflicts today, lots of rounds none aimed, I guess it was a good choice. 

But I am a armchair historian & Trapdoor fan. Respecting other opinions on the subject.

Boats

There is a excellent book called Misfire by William H. Hallahan. It has been around for quite awhile and goes back to revolutionary war times through Veit Nam and the corruption and personal decissions that decided our military weapons for the last two hundred plus years. It talks about such things as to the reason behind why Harpers Ferry was located where it was and the corruption of our elected and cabinet officials. It talks about the fact that Lincoln ordered the Chief of Ordance to buy repeaters and how he defied him and bought single shots most likely extending the length of the war by a significant amount. The oscillation of the Chief of ordance position back and forth from Civilain to milatary. Good Read, highly recommend it.  We still see history repeat it self today with our future small arms weapons and the influence a few polititions and hirer up military can havemin decissions.

    The Military  had trials after the Civil war to decide on a new rifle, the Peabody won the trials but in their great wisdom chose the Trapdoor, what about that decision.   leadball

What would be the advantage of the Peabody over the trapdoor? I am not too familiar with the Peabody. thanks! Joe S