| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 07 2006 : 08:44:17 AM
|
"Also, Godfrey attributed the ammo issue to 'dirty' cartridges rather than defective cartridges, and I'm not aware he changed his mind later. That makes little difference except that minimal training would have taught soldiers to keep them clean so they wouldn't jam. But......so long as it's not being claimed as a big deal anyway."
My opinion is that due to the lack of training and familiarization some of these malfunctions were not prevented that could have been prevented. Wouldn't change the outcome but their might have been more Indian casualties. The night of the 24th would have been a good time to clean the carbine and ammunition. Along that line how was the ammunition for the Springfield carried on the body of a trooper at LBH? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 07 2006 : 3:39:24 PM
|
1 The 7th had very little training in operation and firing of the Trapdoor Springfield prior to LBH.
The 7th prior to 1876 were armed with the Ward-Burton,Springfield,and Remington,This was for experimental purposes.Now why use the 7th to test weapons if they do no training.Further would the problems with the Springfield not have shown up during this experimental period? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 07 2006 : 10:03:09 PM
|
"The 7th prior to 1876 were armed with the Ward-Burton,Springfield,and Remington,This was for experimental purposes.Now why use the 7th to test weapons if they do no training.Further would the problems with the Springfield not have shown up during this experimental period?"
http://www.us7thcavalry.com/Armament/ Can't vouch for these people on this website.
In the ordinance board of 1870, Ordance Memoranda No. 11 I found the following.
"the following is a list of the arms, accourtrements, and equipments received at the St. Louis Arsenal, under the provisions of General Orders No,. 72, and examined bt the Board, viz.:"
Carbines
1 Remington carbine
1 Roberts center-lock carbine
1 Sharps carbine
1 Spencer carbine
1 Springfield carbine
1 Conroy carbine
I assume the carbines tested were for cavalry use.
Under the rifle category I found the models you stated above but they only had one of each of these for testing purposes. There was over 30 models sent for testing and some sent two for testing.
I am not sure what you are saying Wild. Is it that someone from the 7th was on this board that tested these individual rifles and carbines sent for evaluation?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 08 2006 : 03:18:12 AM
|
I am not sure what you are saying Wild. Is it that someone from the 7th was on this board that tested these individual rifles and carbines sent for evaluation?
It's my understanding that the 7th were issued with the above carbines for evaluation.Now if there is no training in the unit how can they evaluate the weapons?
I also read somewhere that the troopers had 90 rounds per year for target practice. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 08 2006 : 08:09:16 AM
|
Wild--"It's my understanding that the 7th were issued with the above carbines for evaluation.Now if there is no training in the unit how can they evaluate the weapons?
I also read somewhere that the troopers had 90 rounds per year for target practice." I believe ammunition was issued in small quanties per month with a choice of a mixture of rifle cartridges and pistol cartridges. You did cause me to do some further research. It did not change my conclusion. A few rounds per month to me is not training. A highly trained trooper might be able to maintain skills at accuracy but would not experience malfunctions from shooting to many rounds at a rapid rate.
Testing to me is not training. If someone tells me to fire 100 rounds as fast as I can to test the weapon system it is not necessarily training and if it is at all it may be bad training. If you shoot as fast as you can you may sacrifice accuracy for speed. In testing this OK but in training it might cause the Trooper to miss his target on a battlefield. Under stress you shoot as you train.
Varnum wrote in 1924 “When I joined in 1872, we were armed with Sharp’s Carbine, and some troops had three kinds of carbines for experimental purposes viz: Ward-Burton, 50-caliber, Springfield, 50-caliber and Remington, 50-caliber, but in 1876 we all had Springfield 45s’. I never saw but one Spencer in my life, and that was an old worthless gun that someone picked up. In the same letter he maintained that they used 70 grain ammunition in 1876.
In the same section of Troopers with Custer Varnum is quoted as saying” One could shoot with reasonable accuracy up to 1000 yards with the Springfield carbine”. Varnum also estimate the number of warriors at “4,000”.
In Ten Years with Custer “When we were getting ready to go out on the Black Hills expedition in 1874, some of the companies of the 7th Cavalry were armed with four different kinds of caliber carbine, viz., the Springfield, the Remington, the Ward-Burton and the Sharps fifty caliber. The companies were trying these guns and the forty five Springfield was finally decided upon, and the news arrived at our camp, my regiment being the first regiment of cavalry in the U.S. service to receive these new guns and the 17th Infantry received them at the same time.”
Also stated is that “That the cartridge for these Carbines were forty five caliber and with fifty five grains of powder, while the infantry cartridges were forty five caliber with seventy grain.
These are the only two references I could find in my limited library and looking at them they do not agree on many points. We know that Major Reno was on the board that selected the TD Springfield so it seems logical that the 7th might have been given some of the test weapons of the final 6 selected from the 1870 Board of Ordinance. I don't have the Board of Ordinance document that Major Reno served on yet. I have read excerpts but not the whole thing.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 08 2006 : 08:18:37 AM
|
| So what is a Conroy carbine? I've never read anything about them. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 08 2006 : 10:01:16 AM
|
Dave
Insofar as I'm capable of thought, I imagine I can think, er, laterally. What is your point, though? Godfrey is quite specific in his conclusion about what caused the very few fouled weapons. I'm not aware of any of the 7th who participated in the battle ever blaming bad/inferior cartridges. Am I incorrect?
I'm only saying, as I have for two years now, I think, that at the practice/training/ammo-for-practice rate of the 7th, no weapon of the time would have made a difference at the LBH in the hands of the 7th. That more or less being agreed upon, then the insistence on revisiting the issue strikes me as an attempt to instill the thought in the unwary that Custer was betrayed by his government, etc. And in fact, in those forums where this is allowed to go on without routine slaps upside the head, almost on schedule that weed blossoms.
As recent postings - again - indicate, we have no clue even what ammo load was used by the 7th in what proportion, rendering blanket assessments of cases (note: cases....I learn) found at the field irrelevant or at least problematical to "battle analysis" and consigning unknown ballistic supposition of soldier intent based on disagreed upon sounds of firing heard from miles away over a century and a quarter ago rather, er, notional at this point if not at the time.
Sgt. Ryan claims his company got his Springfield in the summer of '74 during the Black Hills expedition. I think this was the time when North said the soldiers fired at nearby antelope and hit nothing. Ryan was a sharp cookie and he makes no mention of weapon deficiency; quite the opposite. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 07:27:58 AM
|
Dave--So what is a Conroy carbine? I've never read anything about them.
I could not find anything more on the Conroy carbine. It is listed in Summaries of the Ordnance Boards of 1863, 1868, 1870 (March) and 1870 (September). 1 Conroy rifle .42" and 1 Conroy Carbine .45" were submitted for testing. The tests ran from March 1870 till May 1870. Apparently it disappeared after the test at least as far as I could find.
The rifles submitted were evaluated for:
1 Simplicity of construction
2 Accuracy of fire
3 Rapidity of fire
4 Endurance
5 Effects of exposure to the weather and firing
6 Effects of sand and dust on the breech mechanism
7 Effects of salt water
8 Effects of defective ammunition
9 Strength of Breech mechanism
The results was a selection of 6 for further evaluation:
1 Remington .50" modified to load at half-cock
2 Springfield .50" breech-loading rifle musket
3 Sharp's .50" rifle musket
4 Morgenstern .42" rifle
5 Martini-Henry .45" rifle
6 Ward-Burton rifle .50"
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 07:36:33 AM
|
Wild--"It's my understanding that the 7th were issued with the above carbines for evaluation.Now if there is no training in the unit how can they evaluate the weapons?
One of the evaluation crieria was the effects of exposure to the weather and firing. This would not require firing very often mostly packing it around in different weather conditons. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 07:46:52 AM
|
DC--"As recent postings - again - indicate, we have no clue even what ammo load was used by the 7th in what proportion, rendering blanket assessments of cases (note: cases....I learn) found at the field irrelevant or at least problematical to "battle analysis" and consigning unknown ballistic supposition of soldier intent based on disagreed upon sounds of firing heard from miles away over a century and a quarter ago rather, er, notional at this point if not at the time."
I just read recently that Miles conducted sound tests in the late 1870's on LSH to see if you could hear shots fired from other locations. It was stated that the shots could be heard. More importantly though he would have been firing period correct ammunition at LSH and maybe other locations. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 09:10:27 AM
|
Miles is somewhat less than a font of honesty. Mary Adams' X, the faked letter supposedly of Edgerly's which didn't reflect Edgerly's views but parrotted Miles'.
Any sound test to derive evidence for the battle would have to be made under similar conditions and sound background. Otherwise, they're the definition of pointless. Further yet, even if period loads, were they 70 or 55? Would a volley of 10 Henrys sound distinctly different 4 miles away from a flurry of close firing by Springfields with 55 grain to people surrounded by hundreds of men, horse, braying mules, and screaming wounded? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 09:25:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
The tests ran from March 1870 till May 1870. Apparently it disappeared after the test at least as far as I could find.
The rifles submitted were evaluated for:
1 Simplicity of construction
2 Accuracy of fire
3 Rapidity of fire
4 Endurance
5 Effects of exposure to the weather and firing
6 Effects of sand and dust on the breech mechanism
7 Effects of salt water
8 Effects of defective ammunition
9 Strength of Breech mechanism
The results was a selection of 6 for further evaluation:
1 Remington .50" modified to load at half-cock
2 Springfield .50" breech-loading rifle musket
3 Sharp's .50" rifle musket
4 Morgenstern .42" rifle
5 Martini-Henry .45" rifle
6 Ward-Burton rifle .50"
Curious. What time period was this testing? 1870 or post 1870?
Because judging by the Martini-Henry and the Ward-Burton I'd say its post 1870. Interestingly enough I read a rumour that the 7th was involved in testing the Martini-Henry, but I've never read anything more about it. |
Edited by - dave on February 09 2006 09:26:55 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 10:27:16 AM
|
Further yet, even if period loads, were they 70 or 55? Would a volley of 10 Henrys sound distinctly different 4 miles away from a flurry of close firing by Springfields with 55 grain to people surrounded by hundreds of men, horse, braying mules, and screaming wounded?
The issue here is the sound of firing not distinguishing between the weapons being fired. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 3:21:21 PM
|
Dave--". What time period was this testing? 1870 or post 1870?
Because judging by the Martini-Henry and the Ward-Burton I'd say its post 1870. Interestingly enough I read a rumour that the 7th was involved in testing the Martini-Henry, but I've never read anything more about it."
The initial cut to the final 6 was 1870. The test of the final 6 I believe started in 1871. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 3:25:40 PM
|
"Miles is somewhat less than a font of honesty. Mary Adams' X, the faked letter supposedly of Edgerly's which didn't reflect Edgerly's views but parrotted Miles'.
Any sound test to derive evidence for the battle would have to be made under similar conditions and sound background. Otherwise, they're the definition of pointless. Further yet, even if period loads, were they 70 or 55? Would a volley of 10 Henrys sound distinctly different 4 miles away from a flurry of close firing by Springfields with 55 grain to people surrounded by hundreds of men, horse, braying mules, and screaming wounded?"
DC I don't much about Miles and I have read some about the two Adams. Mu point with this was that unless Miles picked up his cases on LSH they could be mistaken for those on June 25. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 4:29:51 PM
|
quote:
Testing to me is not training. If someone tells me to fire 100 rounds as fast as I can to test the weapon system it is not necessarily training and if it is at all it may be bad training. If you shoot as fast as you can you may sacrifice accuracy for speed. In testing this OK but in training it might cause the Trooper to miss his target on a battlefield. Under stress you shoot as you train.
Testing is not supposed to be training (although troops are often trained before a test -- so poor performance won't be mistaken for equipment failure.)
But this answers one question -- if the 7th performed the tests which included extensive rapid fire, someone in the 7th should have known. And, as we see, the Army as a whole did know -- there were published complaints in the old Army and Navy Journal and the Ordnance Corps was working on a series of "solutions" from ruptured case extractors, to jointed cleaning rods, to ultimately brass cases. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 5:59:42 PM
|
| Vern--"But this answers one question -- if the 7th performed the tests which included extensive rapid fire, someone in the 7th should have known. And, as we see, the Army as a whole did know -- there were published complaints in the old Army and Navy Journal and the Ordnance Corps was working on a series of "solutions" from ruptured case extractors, to jointed cleaning rods, to ultimately brass cases." The 1870 test of the Springfield was the .50-70 with brass case. Here is the result in the report after 500 rounds fired. The last 100 was in 9 minutes and 30 seconds. "The arm was cleaned and examined; no signs of weakness or wear in any of the parts; the extractor worked well, throwing the cases clear of the piece in every instance. Makes you wonder why they changed to the .45-70 and the non-brass cartridge case. The 7th received the 1873 Trapdoor .45-70 in July of 1874. I am still trying to find the results of the testing that took place in 1871 and latter in which Major Reno was involved in the decision to select the Springfield. I have not found anything that states the 7th had the Springfield for testing. I found some other makes that were involved with the test that the 7th may have carried in 1872. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 6:14:59 PM
|
quote:
The 1870 test of the Springfield was the .50-70 with brass case. Here is the result in the report after 500 rounds fired. The last 100 was in 9 minutes and 30 seconds. "The arm was cleaned and examined; no signs of weakness or wear in any of the parts; the extractor worked well, throwing the cases clear of the piece in every instance. Makes you wonder why they changed to the .45-70 and the non-brass cartridge case.
The .45-70 is ballistically superior to the .50-70. They abandoned brass because the Government would be making the ammunition, and did not have the equipment or the expertise to draw brass.
quote:
The 7th received the 1873 Trapdoor .45-70 in July of 1874. I am still trying to find the results of the testing that took place in 1871 and latter in which Major Reno was involved in the decision to select the Springfield. I have not found anything that states the 7th had the Springfield for testing. I found some other makes that were involved with the test that the 7th may have carried in 1872.
I think more important would be the number of new officers and NCOs in the 7th, along with the proportion of new recruits. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 09 2006 : 9:00:16 PM
|
"The .45-70 is ballistically superior to the .50-70. They abandoned brass because the Government would be making the ammunition, and did not have the equipment or the expertise to draw brass." I agree that the .45-70 405 grain bullet has a better ballistic coefficient the .50-70 425 grain bullet. I also agree that Frankford Arsenal could not make the brass case. But the .50-70 was the governments cartridge from 1868 to 1873. Who made it? If you know. Several officer's had .50-70 at LBH.
"I think more important would be the number of new officers and NCOs in the 7th, along with the proportion of new recruits." I think it more significant then the Springfield Carbine but more appropriate under a different thread. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 08:58:07 AM
|
RE: Sound of firing
Godfrey makes mention of firing distinctly heard, and causing much comment from Reno Hill amid the commotion going on there. On the other hand, when at Weir Point, the sound of shots obviously coming from the northern end of the battlefield was commented on as being "a great distance off". The distance from Reno Hill to Weir Point is roughly the same as that from Calhoun to Custer Hill. If the volleys heard at Reno Hill came from the Calhoun area, then I'd expect the same type of "great distance off" comment, but the impression I get is that the firing was a lot nearer, notwithstanding type of weapon or cartridge. That, in my mind would put the initial firing around MTC junction with Luce/NC area. Distance-wise, and in keeping with DeRudio and his similar comments from his position in the timber, that would be plausible - no? |
Edited by - Smcf on February 10 2006 08:59:59 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 09:24:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Dave
Insofar as I'm capable of thought, I imagine I can think, er, laterally. What is your point, though? Godfrey is quite specific in his conclusion about what caused the very few fouled weapons.
Quite specific yes, which is the problem.
If you have been following this thread you've probably read the bit about black powder combustion producing 40% solids. At which point you should be asking yourself what the difference is between dirt/dust from a cartridge gumming up the chamber, and black powder residue gumming up the chamber. Well there isn't really much of a difference at all. So really Godfrey is telling us a half truth, its dirty ammunition and any gun which had been fired consistently enough for a large amount of black powder solids to build up. I'm sure keeping your ammunition clean was a good idea, but its not the whole story.
Now if you were to keep your ammo clean, and periodically clean out your rifle with a cleaning rod, well I dare say you could happily shoot all day long. Except those cleaning rods didn't come till the 1877 model.
I don't know exactly why the Springfield had a problem with dirty ammunition as supposedly it passed a sand/dust test. I don't like speculating too much either, and since I never seen an actual 1873 Springfield, the best I can do is make a guess, but I suspect that the Springfields real problem was that the rifles chamber was too finely toleranced ie. it probably didn't have enough slop between the walls of the cartridge casing and the inside of the chamber. Of course that might be completely wrong, but I think they might have put too much effort into making the Springfield into an accurate shooting rifle. Its a common enough sympton of weapons of peacetime armies. They concentrate too much on accuracy and lose reliability in the process. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 09:31:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
The 1870 test of the Springfield was the .50-70 with brass case. Here is the result in the report after 500 rounds fired. The last 100 was in 9 minutes and 30 seconds. "The arm was cleaned and examined; no signs of weakness or wear in any of the parts; the extractor worked well, throwing the cases clear of the piece in every instance.
Do any of those ordnance reports make any reference to the Ward-Burton. I've been very curious about that rifle for some time now, wondering why it was rejected. Of the 6 rifles you listed previously, the Ward-Burton was by far the most technically advanced (and I think the only one which could be converted to a repeater).
|
Edited by - dave on February 10 2006 09:32:45 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 11:22:39 AM
|
Dave,
Are you saying that, due to a lack of cleaning rods, the carbines were not cleaned at all? You seem to be implying that after a certain number of firings with black powder (about how many?)such a weapon would jam - must jam - and people knew this, but ignored it. I'd reasonably assumed that the weapon could get through a two hour battle of rapid fire without this being an issue, and weapons were cleaned before a battle at least.
I'm assuming that when you say rifle you mean carbines as well, and the shorter barrel had little effect on powder buildup.
A possible difference between black powder and possible gunk is that black powder issues might take a while to build up in a clean weapon, whereas stray leather plus tallow, clay, dirt, or whatever on the first cartridge might cement it right off. Surely, in two years, the amount of firing with the carbine would suggest that immediate need for a clearing device, and the 7th would have made arrangements or was too stupid to deserve better. But they did not, from which I think a reasonable assumption, bolstered by some evidence, can be made. The 7th didn't practice much, or find opportunity for such a key issue to be known.
SMCF,
Godfrey, as I recall, says 'firing was heard.' He doesn't say "I heard......" but keeps it in the passive voice. He's repeating what he was told. He is also referred to as rather deaf. That said, the distance from Calhoun to Custer Hill is about, depending what points you use of course, three quarters of a mile, whereas the distance from Weir to Reno's center is about a mile and a quarter, a variance of about a half mile which I'd think would be meaningful. Although, I don't get what the difference between Calhoun and Custer hills suggests regarding sound heard at Reno and/or Weir. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 11:26:25 AM
|
quote:
I suspect that the Springfields real problem was that the rifles chamber was too finely toleranced ie. it probably didn't have enough slop between the walls of the cartridge casing and the inside of the chamber.
Oversizing the chamber would have made the problem worse, since the chamber must support the case against the pressure generated by the powder. A sloppy chamber results in split cases.
Two design changes that would have improved the situation would be a more tapered case and chamber (still closely fitted, though.) This would mean that a slight movement backward of the case would result in a lot more room because of the the taper.
The other fix would have been to make the extractor wider. The narrow extractor put a lot of pressure on the rim and simply cut through the soft copper. With the pressure distributed over more rim that wouldn't have happened. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 6:44:53 PM
|
"any of those ordnance reports make any reference to the Ward-Burton. I've been very curious about that rifle for some time now, wondering why it was rejected. Of the 6 rifles you listed previously, the Ward-Burton was by far the most technically advanced (and I think the only one which could be converted to a repeater).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by - Dave on Today 09:32:45 AM "
Dave the Ward Burton came in 6th in the 1870 test and was recommended as such for further testing. Interestingly it was almost twice as fast as the Springfield in the 100 round test. Here is a page to look at it. http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/springfield-ward-burton-carbine.htm |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
