Origins of the Snider

By the mid 19th century the British Government maintained an army, a navy and a large volunteer rifle movement, in addition to several Colonial Forces. The equipping of these units was a major commitment. The period was one of technical change and the concept of breech-loading firearms was widespread. Several potential enemies were equipping or, had already equipped, their forces with rifles that used some form of a breech-loading system. Virtually all British military firearms were muzzle- loading which meant that they were slow to load and consequently less effective than the new breech-loaders. A few capping- breech loading weapons had been issued to some cavalry units but were not thought to be entirely suitable.

The rifle was still a comparatively new weapon in the British army and the vast majority of troops were armed with muzzle-loading muskets. Until the late 1830’s these muskets had been flintlock weapons but the army had recently converted many to the new-fangled percussion cap system. Until the advent of the Brunswick rifle of 1836 the majority of firearms were smooth-bore but the Brunswick barrel was fashioned with two deep grooves which imparted a spin to the bullet. This may have improved accuracy but loading was not easy and the Brunswick rifle was never popular. It was the adoption of the Enfield rifle in 1851 that made the majority of troops familiar with the rifle. It was a reliable, accurate weapon and it was this rifle that would eventually be converted to the Snider system.

Early muzzle-loading rifles utilised a paper cartridge containing a charge of black powder and a lead bullet. The paper case was torn open at one end and the powder poured down the barrel, followed by the paper, which acted as a wad, and then by the ball. The whole charge was rammed down into the breech using a wooden or steel ramrod. A percussion cap was then placed on the nipple, the hammer cocked and the rifle was ready to fire. The process took time and a well trained soldier might get off two or three shots a minute.

In designing a breech-loading weapon there are two main problems; one is the method of physically placing the powder and ball into the breech; there had been early systems that managed this quite well but they tended to be rather complicated and not a little dangerous. The development of the percussion cap had simplified ignition and by the mid 19th century metal- cased cartridges incorporating powder, missile and the ignition system had been developed. Patented by Berdan in the USA and Boxer in Britain, metal cased cartridges were becoming the norm.

The second problem was to devise a system that allowed the cartridge to be inserted at the breech and then ensured that once it was in position the opening was tightly closed. The closure had to be as tight as possible,else when the round was fired there would be an escape of gas and detritus that could make shooting the weapon uncomfortable and dangerous for the user. Obturation, or the leakage of gas and debris, was a problem that bedevilled many of the early breech-loading weapons.

Since it was obvious that breech-loading was the future, governments were faced with a difficult decision. Should they adopt a brand-new weapon which would be expensive, or could they find a method of adapting the muzzle-loading weapons to the new system? For the British military the problem was to discover whether there was a reliable, affordable way by which the current stock of muzzle- loading Enfield rifles might be adapted to use the new technology? When faced with this problem the Government adopted the time- honoured system of setting up a committee which was told to explore the possibilities.

The government collected together a number of experienced army officers to consider first of all whether the infantry should all be armed with breech-loaders. The Committee first met on 27th June 1864 and evidence was taken from its members who generally advocated their personal choice of breech-loading systems. On 30th June 1864 a second meeting was held and a current system, just adopted by the French, the needle gun of the Prussians, was discussed. On 5th July there was another meeting and on 11th July the Committee presented their conclusion that all the infantry should be armed with breech-loading rifles. There was no recommendation as to which form of breech-loading should be adopted.

The report also expressed a strong opinion that, because it was quicker and simpler to fire a breech-loading weapon this could lead to a waste of ammunition which was a valid comment. This point was made in emphatic, forthright terms by an officer of the Royal Artillery writing a series of articles in the Technical Educator . He wrote: “Many good soldiers and experienced officers declare that if you gave a soldier a gun which he could load very quickly he would expend all his ammunition before he came within effective fighting range. It may be admitted that breech-loaders are open to this objection although not to anything like the extent commonly supposed and the objection is one that can be remedied by discipline and an effective, careful training. The practice of the Prussians is an example of this. Here we have a nation that really understands the breechloader, which is properly trained in its use and in the economical expenditure of ammunition and the results that we have seen in two great wars. (He is probably referring to the defeat of Austria in 1866 and France in 1870.) On the other hand we have the excitable, and if we may be permitted to add, badly trained, ill drilled, ill disciplined French soldier blazing away any number of metres away from the enemy and running out of cartridges early in the day.” The committee took the point and very sensibly stressed that ammunition supplies would certainly need to be considered.

The Secretary of State accepted their conclusions and indicated that the next step was to look at the possibility of a stop-gap system, a conversion by which present weapons could be adapted to the new concept. He asked the Ordnance Committee to look around and find a method that would be quick to use, efficient and cheap; the cost to be no more than £1 per rifle. Another condition was that the new weapon was to be equal in performance to what it was prior to conversion. In view of the planned change of systems it was ordered that production of the old percussion Enfield rifle should be stopped as soon as possible.

Notice was given inviting gun-makers to submit for approval any system that they thought could meet these conditions. Each applicant was asked to submit six examples of their weapon plus a thousand rounds of suitable ammunition for which each would be paid £20 to cover their costs. In all some 47 arms were submitted and examined by the group, and of these nine were considered suitable for testing. Two were later eliminated and the final selection of seven gun-makers was each given six Enfield rifles (One, Shepard, was given 12 as he offered two versions) and each was allowed two months in which to convert the supplied weapons for testing.

Those finally chosen were:
a) Mont Storm, using a skin cartridge with a swivel chamber
b) Green, using a plunger; a chamber was fitted at rear of the barrel with access closed after loading in the cartridge
c) Wesley Richards, of monkey- tail fame; he was not very keen on the concept of conversion
d) Joslyn USA, who said that he could not get the conversion done in this country
e) Richards, who did not like the idea of conversion
f) Shepard, using metallic cartridges
g) Shepard, using service cap ammunition
h) Snider
i) Royal Small Arms Factory, using a special cartridge but this was withdrawn