I read through the Meta Rules Roundtable #8: The /r/AskHistorians Homework Policy post and wanted to learn more about one of the examples.
I'm writing an essay on the development of the bolt-action rifle, and the effect it had on warfare in the latter-half of the 19th century. I've mainly been focusing on the Austro-Prussian War, and the clear dominance that the Dreyse showed over Lorenz Rifle, and the Franco-Prussian War, where the Chassepot in turn showed itself to be superior to the Dreyse. What I'm tripping up on however is why, after its strong showing (even if the French lost) the Chassepot so quickly was regarded as obsolete. If someone could help me out here, or point me in the right direction, that would be great!
First of all this is all new to me. While I've read the Wikipedia pages for each of these weapons, they don't come close to answering the question above. Also, some additional questions below.
Small arms development in that period was extremely rapid.
A LOT of that came from the drawn brass cartridge like Rusty said. This was resistant to moisture, accidental discharge, crushing, tearing, etc.. it was VERY robust for an army on the move. Plus it sealed the breach by itself, which means ditching the annoying and easily worn rubber gasket and avoiding excess gas and powder flying in your face.
Additionally, the Chassepot relied on a fragile needle that would, at best, wear over time. The new firing pin system was much stronger.
I cannot think of a single unit that would benefit or prefer muzzle loading though.
Backing up though, I'm not sure of your focus on bolt actions. From my perspective I see them evolving (in a broad sense) as follows:
Muzzle Loading
Breach Loading
Metallic Cartridge
Repeater (see Siege of Plevna)
Smokeless
Autoloading (much later)
I can help out here somewhat. This is a bit on the periphery of my core study but I can answer one of your questions.
- Was the Chassepot superceded so quickly because it was able to be retro-fitted?
In short, yes, probably. In long it is a bit more complicated. The time that the Chassepot and Gras rifles were developed was an interesting time in firearms design where technical innovation was moving faster than probably any other time. The Chassepot was superseded because it was obsolete, the US, British and Germans adopted metallic cartridges in 1871.
It was likely superseded so quickly because it was so easily converted. Basile Gras, developed a new rifle design and a method for converting the 1866 Chassepot rifles at the same time. If the 1866 design did not lend itself so readily to conversion it is unlikely that the French would have refit the army with new rifles as at the time the French had tremendous economic pressures.
For the last question: to echo Othais, it's hard to think of a unit that preferred muzzle loaders by 1870. Before the Civil War, it was not uncommon to hear a US officer say that , given a breechloader, the soldier would quickly use all his ammunition. After the War, though, it was recognized that rate of fire was of critical importance in battle, and metallic cartridges very quickly became a part of industrial production, to supply that higher rate of fire. There was also plenty of evidence that breechloaders were as accurate as muzzleloaders, if not more so: the British discovered the Snider conversions of the Enfield rifles actually improved their accuracy, and in 1874 there was a famous match between the Irish and American marksmen at the Creedmoor range on long Island. The Irish used fine Rigby muzzleloaders, the American team breechloaders, and the Americans won hands down. That seems to have decided target shooters from then on, to abandon muzzleloaders.