accustomed to note the ground
accurately, and would, therefore, be apt to aim low, and it is desirable
to pour in a rapid, continuous fire to stagger an attacking line.

It is perhaps a first-rate gun for small skirmishes on horseback,
although for those, our cavalry decidedly preferred the revolver. But in
battle, when lines and numbers are engaged, accurate and not rapid
firing is desirable. If one fiftieth of the shots from either side were
to take effect in battle, the other would be annihilated. If rapid
firing is so desirable, why do the same critics who advocate it also
recommend that troops shall hold their fire until they can pour in
deadly volleys? Why do they deprecate so much firing, and recommend the
use of the bayonet?

It is folly to talk to men who have seen battles, about the moral effect
of rapid firing, and of "bullets raining around men's heads like hail
stones." That is like the straggler's excuse to General Lee that he was
"stung by a bomb." Any man who has ever heard lines of battle engaged,
knows that, let the men fire fast or slow, the nicest ear can detect no
interval between the shots; the musketry sounds like the incessant,
unintermitted crash of a gong--even cannonading, when one or two hundred
guns are working, sounds like the long roll of a drum--and the hiss of
bullets is perfectly ceaseless. Good troops will fight well with almost
any sort of guns. Mean troops will not win, no matter how they are
armed. If the matter were investigated, it would probably be found that
the regiments which won most distinction, in the late war on this
continent, on both sides, fired the fewest number of rounds.

At one time--when Morgan's command was somewhat demoralized--the men
were loud in describing the terrific effect of the Spencer rifle, when
it was notorious that, at that time, it was an unusual occurrence to
lose a man--they subsequently became ashamed of their panic, and met the
troops carrying Spencer rifles, with more confidence than those armed in
any other way. It would be very convenient to attribute every whipping
we ever got to the use of breech-loading rifles by our antagonists, but
it would be very wide of the truth. It was impossible, however, to
obtain, when we were organizing at Knoxville, the exact description of
guns we wished. One company, was armed with the long Enfield, another
had the medium, and Company A got the short Enfield. Company C was
furnished with Mississippi rifles