| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 10 2006 : 7:11:12 PM
|
"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." I would agree with the post of Vern Humphrey. I would add that a tighter tolerance would not allow much gas and debris from the black powder charge to get around the cartridge case. One of the army tests was for gas leaks. Right before the bullet leaves the case there should be close to maximum expansion of the case sealing to the chamber wall. If the case is dirty it would have a tendency to "cement" as DC stated. I would just call it stuck. Then as Vern pointed the extractor could rip through the rim of the case. Sometimes this ripping resulted in the whole head of the case separating from the rest of the case. My suspicion is that the softer copper or gilded cases expanded and did not contract like a brass case would have done. Now you have a soft expanded case with the extractor having to remove it. Most of the time it worked sometimes it just tore through the rim. The worst case scenario, no pun intended, was the extractor ripped the head off leaving the remaining stuck case. The cavalry had cleaning rods just not attached to the carbines.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 7:15:48 PM
|
",
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. " I believe I read a post here that Godfrey did a lot of shooting, would explain his deafness. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 8:07:09 PM
|
Okay, they have cleaning rods.
But aside from whatever detritus adhered to the cartridge before loading, how many rounds before the black powder build-up becomes an issue, freezing the case in the chamber, increasing the likelihood the extractor would tear it leaving it stuck? What I've read is that there were some shared cleaning rods for a lot of carbines, and apparently none on Reno Hill where one of the best shots was employed with a knife clearing the chambers of the few carbines so encumbered. Or, so the story is told. What was the 7th's carbine cleaning schedule?
And this would also occur in any weapon using black powder, like the Sioux weapons, including the Henry, correct? How often did they get cleaned? What was their rate of failure? In other words, can we say the 7th was "outgunned" simply because the Sioux had weapons which, had they been properly maintained, could have fired at a faster rate than the Army's Springfields, even if they had been properly maintained? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 10 2006 8:08:10 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2006 : 8:36:59 PM
|
"But aside from whatever detritus adhered to the cartridge before loading, how many rounds before the black powder build-up becomes an issue, freezing the case in the chamber, increasing the likelihood the extractor would tear it leaving it stuck? What I've read is that there were some shared cleaning rods for a lot of carbines, and apparently none on Reno Hill where one of the best shots was employed with a knife clearing the chambers of the few carbines so encumbered. Or, so the story is told. What was the 7th's carbine cleaning schedule?
And this would also occur in any weapon using black powder, like the Sioux weapons, including the Henry, correct? How often did they get cleaned? What was their rate of failure? In other words, can we say the 7th was "outgunned" simply because the Sioux had weapons which, had they been properly maintained, could have fired at a faster rate than the Army's Springfields, even if they had been properly maintained?" I believe one of the officers at Reno-Benteen had a .50-70 rifle which had a cleaning rod and he used it to clear the stuck cases. During the tests of these carbines they were fired 500 times, 100 rounds of timed duration. I doubt anyone fired that many rounds at LBH. The black powder was not an issue. The last 100 rounds fired in the Springfield test was completed in 9 minutes and 30 seconds. That was about the entire amount a trooper carried. No wonder the note "bring packs" |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on February 10 2006 8:38:05 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 12:03:39 AM
|
| If black powder build up was not a problem then why did the British go to the extent of using Metford gain-twist rifling in their black powder Lee-Metfords a decade after the LBH? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 12:47:40 AM
|
"Okay. If black powder build up wasn't an issue at all....
Forgive me, but this is what drives me bananas with all this weaponry triv.......er, detailed analysis, at least in regards to the LBH." Its back to what you said in another thread regarding the author of a new book. You could write the review. There are many excuses used to blame something on rather than humans. There are many published articles and books stating it was the Springfield and/or the ammunition that caused the defeat of Custer. "Custer was outgunned" is stated by a lot. If a trooper can fire 100 rounds in 9 minutes and 30 seconds and all he has is 100 carbine rounds then he really doesn't need a faster rate to use up his ammo. Try hitting something when you fire that might be a better goal than shooting at a rapid rate. Easier said then done. Just think what 1,000 well placed shots could have done to the indians.
Trivia yes, but you can make a sound argument with factual details. It is easy to blame a piece of equipment and many will listen. Then they repeat the same argument. New members will bring up the same "weapon system" argument. You can't stop it. Besides you enjoy arguing the other side. Each of your points should make one think was their argument valid. There was so many indians maybe the had some with cleaning rods waiting to assist those with dirty weapons.
"And this would also occur in any weapon using black powder, like the Sioux weapons, including the Henry, correct? How often did they get cleaned? What was their rate of failure? In other words, can we say the 7th was "outgunned" simply because the Sioux had weapons which, had they been properly maintained, could have fired at a faster rate than the Army's Springfields, even if they had been properly maintained?"
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 12:57:11 AM
|
| "If black powder build up was not a problem then why did the British go to the extent of using Metford gain-twist rifling in their black powder Lee-Metfords a decade after the LBH?" Your answer lies within your own question. There is no rifling in the chamber of a carbine or rifle. Rifling starts where the chamber ends and the bullet begins to travel down the barrel. Rifling would not effect a stuck cartridge since it doesn't exist in the chamber. No one claimed the bullets were getting stuck in the barrel at LBH. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 06:58:54 AM
|
Okay. Mr. Humphrey clearly says there is black powder residue gumming up the chamber. AZ says doesn't address that directly but dwells on black powder issues in the barrel.
1. Does black powder residue gum up the chamber?
2. If so, starting with a clean weapon, how long does that take?
3. If it doesn't happen, why are we told it does?
4. How often and well did the 7th clean their weapons?
5. If it doesn't happen, we're left with Godfrey's observation of gunk on the cartridge case causing the rare fouled weapon.
6. It strikes me this thread pretty much obliviates any blame to weaponry (systems, cartridges...) for the LBH. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 08:37:48 AM
|
quote:
Okay. Mr. Humphrey clearly says there is black powder residue gumming up the chamber. AZ says doesn't address that directly but dwells on black powder issues in the barrel.
1. Does black powder residue gum up the chamber?
Yes. Powder fouling gets everywhere, as anyone who has fired a black powder weapon can attest.
quote:
2. If so, starting with a clean weapon, how long does that take?
It can happen in as little as two or three shots.
quote:
4. How often and well did the 7th clean their weapons?
It's unlikely they cleaned them at all once the action started.
quote:
5. If it doesn't happen, we're left with Godfrey's observation of gunk on the cartridge case causing the rare fouled weapon.
Does anyone have an exact quote from Godfrey? Does he mean gunk on the cases, or does he mean dirty powder? Not all powder is the same, you know.
quote:
6. It strikes me this thread pretty much obliviates any blame to weaponry (systems, cartridges...) for the LBH.
I don't think anyone here would say the defeat was caused by weapons failure. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 09:23:02 AM
|
Yes. Powder fouling gets everywhere, as anyone who has fired a black powder weapon can attest.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. If so, starting with a clean weapon, how long does that take?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It can happen in as little as two or three shots.
The point is not whether fouling begins with the first shot. It always does. The barrel begins with lead fouling also if lead bullets are used. The tests in manual No. 11 1870 include 500 rounds being fired without cleaning. After every 100 rounds the weapon was aloowed to cool but not cleaned. The Springfield passed the test along with 6 others. Another test was 25 shots of rapid fire and the effect on accuracy. The Springfield passed the test.
More importantly to cleaning was the corresive nature of the chemicals used in the primer at that time. I find it disengenous to believe that a carbine that can be fired 500 times in a test without cleaning is subject to cleaning failures.
Vern I also shoot black powder with a Pedersoli 1873 Springfield using black powder. In fact just ordered some blackdawg black powder cartridges for the .45-70, 55 grains black powder with 405 grain bullet.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 09:29:13 AM
|
| 2. If so, starting with a clean weapon, how long does that take? DC-- the test of the rifles were 500 rounds without cleaning. Given that why is anyone trying to make a point that fouling is an issue. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 09:47:10 AM
|
Okay. Mr. Humphrey clearly says there is black powder residue gumming up the chamber. AZ says doesn't address that directly but dwells on black powder issues in the barrel.
DC-- I missed the part where Vern states that black powder gums up the chamber. I did address Dave in regards to rifling. Metford rifling was very poor and could only be used for black powder. Modern powders burn at higher temperature and erode Metford rifling quickly.
Vern-- Are saying that at the time of discharge gases get between the cartridge case and the chamber wall? Or that in general the fouling begins whenever you fire a black powder firearm and this residue tries to get everywhere. As you well know that target shooters fire a round to foul the barrel after cleaning to make the groups tighter.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 09:53:28 AM
|
The '73 Springfield's problems were composed of several factors:
1. Soft copper cartridge cases, which did not spring back like brass, and which clung to the hot, fouled chamber walls.
2. A narrow extractor, which cut through the soft copper rims.
3. A relatively straight-cased cartridge with insufficient taper.
One additional factor was the ability of the Springfield to fire out-of-battery, which often resulted in a ruptured case -- in some cases the entire head came off. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 10:00:14 AM
|
quote:
Vern-- Are saying that at the time of discharge gases get between the cartridge case and the chamber wall? Or that in general the fouling begins whenever you fire a black powder firearm and this residue tries to get everywhere. As you well know that target shooters fire a round to foul the barrel after cleaning to make the groups tighter.
Depends on what you mean "at the time of discharge." If you get perfect rearward obduration, no gasses will enter the chamber (although it is not uncommon to find some blackening of the outside of a straight case some distance from the mouth -- indicating less than perfect obduration.)
Generally, the loading and unloading process will spread fouling beyond where it is originally deposited. Chambers do get fouled -- even with modern brass cases and smokeless powders. To this day, the army issues a special chamber cleaning brush with a rachet attachment for just that reason. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 10:22:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Your answer lies within your own question. There is no rifling in the chamber of a carbine or rifle. Rifling starts where the chamber ends and the bullet begins to travel down the barrel. Rifling would not effect a stuck cartridge since it doesn't exist in the chamber. No one claimed the bullets were getting stuck in the barrel at LBH.
Yes, I know all that. You're missing the point of why the British used Metford rifling to reduce black powder fouling in the barrel.
The inference is that black powder fouling was obviously common, and at least heavy enough to demand a special type of rifling, and secondly the most heavily fouled part of the barrel was the part immediately adjacent to the chamber. No surprises there.
Given the way the rifle would typically be handled, tilted when reloading for instance, cartridge casings being ejected creating a slight suction, some of this residue is bound to find its way into the chamber.
I see you've posted since I started writing this. Metford rifling was excellent - for black powder. It was cordite which killed Metford rifling, higher temperatures and pressure led to excessive bore erosion. As it so happens, the Enfield rifling which replaced the Metford rifling was also a design of Mr Metfords, via the Enfield Royal Ordnance Factories.
Regarding the 1870 tests, were they using brass .50-70? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 7:57:37 PM
|
I see you've posted since I started writing this. Metford rifling was excellent - for black powder. It was cordite which killed Metford rifling, higher temperatures and pressure led to excessive bore erosion. As it so happens, the Enfield rifling which replaced the Metford rifling was also a design of Mr Metfords, via the Enfield Royal Ordnance Factories.
Metford when looking down the bore looks like a shot out Enfield rifled barrel. Also I found this " and initially had what was referred to as "gain twist rifling". That is the rifling got faster/tighter the closer to the muzzle you got. This proved to create little advantage, and was discontinued." |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2006 : 9:41:20 PM
|
Apologies to Mr. Humphrey, I think I confused him with Dave who was the one who said black powder residue in the chamber could foul it. I obviously confuse easily. Or the quoting feature confused me.
So, did the testing of the Springfield back in 73/4 use roughly the same cartridges as the 7th had in 1876? Were they 55 or 70 grain? They wouldn't be so stupid as to test with, say, brass cartridges and then issue copper, would they? That seems unlikely and pointless, so can I assume the tests were with the same cartridge for all intents?
If they were, I think it pretty damning of the 7th if their weapons fouled to any degree and the testing was so relatively impressive per AZ's posting, both for rapid fire and not fouling and apparently accuracy. During this testing did they notice 'loosening' or ANY fouling issues for which the rod was required?
Given all this, and what can be no more than supposition that Indian firearms probably fouled more and easier than the Army's, does anyone else think this wobbles the claims of the 7th being "outgunned?" They were more, had more, but it's unlikely - highly unlikely - their weapons didn't foul more often and quicker than the 7th's even by the standards of 1876. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 09:33:02 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
So, did the testing of the Springfield back in 73/4 use roughly the same cartridges as the 7th had in 1876? Were they 55 or 70 grain? They wouldn't be so stupid as to test with, say, brass cartridges and then issue copper, would they? That seems unlikely and pointless, so can I assume the tests were with the same cartridge for all intents?
I don't know the answer, in fact I've been pondering much the same question myself. But I wouldn't be entirely surprised if something of the sort occurred eg used only brass cartidges for the trials. From reading I've done on other firearms, it wouldn't be the only occasion when something of this nature has occurred.
quote:
If they were, I think it pretty damning of the 7th if their weapons fouled to any degree and the testing was so relatively impressive per AZ's posting, both for rapid fire and not fouling and apparently accuracy. During this testing did they notice 'loosening' or ANY fouling issues for which the rod was required?
First off, its important to note, that the weapons used in the trials are not necessarily the same as those produced later on. By which I mean that manufacturing tolerances are not as strictly observed, and generally less care is taken in assembling the gun.
Perhaps an example is in order - the British L85A1 or as it was originally known - the SA80. I suggest for your own edification, that you do a google search for these terms (maybe try sa80 problems for instance).
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm
is probably a good place to start, as the man who runs the site is a renowned gun enthusiast of international note, and is not given to the hysterical uttering reproduced on some other websites.
After you've finished reading about the L85A1/SA80 you might find that you're asking yourself how this rifle passed its trials and was adopted by the British army. I think the answer is as I've stated above, that the quality of trials weapons are not necessarily representative of the product that comes out of the factory a couple of years later.
Its examples such as the L85A1 which make me slightly wary when I read the statistics that AZ Ranger has produced, because the quality control of the trial weapon might just be that much better than that of the carbines Custer's men carried. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 12:06:30 PM
|
I went through that, not as much as you'd prefer, but I'm not seeing the same sort of issue, really. The SA80, like the M16, is a pretty complicated machine, and stuff like the plastic grips dissolving in hand lotion was pretty stupid, and the many possible variants confuse me. I'm old. As to why it was chosen, what were the options? My short and incomplete experience on this stuff is that every entry will have problems.
But testing with brass and issuing copper in a simple carbine is a step beyond and would be deliberate deception, as the sytem tested wasn't the one issued, and this a choice by the buyer. I can only hope the test models are superior to the assembly line, and would expect that in any product, one of the issues that makes testing of ICBMs so amusing. By "testing," we apparently mean months of kidgloved preparation work for the missile in question, vs. what'll happen when they're needed to instantaneously fly over the Pole, which cannot be tested whatsoever. The last time we tested them from silos that would be used in actual conflict, three of the four failed to show any sign of life and the fourth exploded. Eh? "Star Wars" is even more unrealistically tested. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 12 2006 12:08:23 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 12:36:46 PM
|
Dave--First off, its important to note, that the weapons used in the trials are not necessarily the same as those produced later on. By which I mean that manufacturing tolerances are not as strictly observed, and generally less care is taken in assembling the gun.
Perhaps an example is in order - the British L85A1 or as it was originally known - the SA80. I suggest for your own edification, that you do a google search for these terms (maybe try sa80 problems for instance).
I choose a different route for my research. I went to Fort Verde, 5th Cavalry A Co., yesterday located in Camp Verde, Arizona. Fort Verde is an Arizona State Park and has a interpretive center, museum, and buildings with a parade deck. I talked with the rangers and got them to bring out the Springfields that were not on display. They had the Civil War muzzle loader, the Alin conversion, a 1873 carbine, and a 1884 rifle. Got to handle them and inspect them. I paid particular attention to the extractor since I have a repo of the 1873 myself. Their research material was extensive and I found a book that I am going to order. I knew I might like it but was expensive and only could see the cover on the Internet.
The information and data I gave is the US Governments own data not mine. Did the over 50 rifles and carbines that were turned have in have better tolerances to specifications than manufacturing them in latter production. It would not matter because the original test was to limit it to 6 rifles for testing of production weapons. If you followed our earlier postings you may have seen a discussion of weapon versus weapon system. I stated the weapon was OK but the ammunition was not. The test in the 1870 were for the weapon and not the whole weapon system. They even did some overcharging trying to see the effect on the weapon. The tests that followed were of those that were highest on the list from the 1870 test and that tested the weapon system.
One of the interesting things I found out yesterday is that the US Government had been sued and lost on patent infringements on firearms. Since the Springfield was US Government made and had no patent infringement involvement it was selected. The good news was that it had made the top 6 before the reality check on what the next weapon would be for the military. I was corrected from saying Springfield Armory also it is really the "National Armory at Springfield, Massachusetts". Also the ammunition for the .45-70 was to be produced by the US Government rather than purchased as was the .50-70, brass case, during the same time period. Frankford Arsenal could not manufacture a brass case because they didn't have new enough equipment.
The last testing right before the issue to the 7th involved Major Reno. As Vern has pointed out the government knew of a problem and were working on measures to correct it in regards to the ammunition. The bottom line was the Springfield had the lowest problem occurrence at 1.96%.
A report from the Chief of Ordinance dated 1873 that gave the results of a series of test (instigated by committee that included Reno) to assess the quality and reliability of various types of firearms:
Sharps
76,628 rounds fired with 2,699 failing (3.52%)
Remington
89,828 rounds fired with 2,595 failing (2.86%)
Springfield
96,628 round fired with 1,882 failing (1.96%)
The above data I believe takes into account your concerns of ammo used and blue-printed weapons. Reno was a member of the board on this test.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 12:59:04 PM
|
Just as a note the 1873 Springfield was the .45-70. The ammunition was available in 55gr and 70gr produced by Frankford Arsenal. The 1873 carbine was not produced in .50-70 at the time of issuing to the 7th. The .45-70 bullets had superior ballistic coefficients to the .50-70 bullets which means the .45-70 deviated less from a straight line then the .50-70 when fired at practical battle ranges.
As Vern pointed out earlier the Government knew of this ammunition concern prior to the issuing to the 7th Cavalry. This does not mean it had any significance on the outcome at LBH. The LBH did influence a latter model of the Springfield carbine and resulted in the Model 1877 carbine. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 1:53:52 PM
|
A report from the Chief of Ordinance dated 1873 that gave the results of a series of test (instigated by committee that included Reno) to assess the quality and reliability of various types of firearms:
Sharps
76,628 rounds fired with 2,699 failing (3.52%)
Just to clarify those figures AZ ---if one weapon was used then it failed every 30 rounds or so????
It should also be noted that Crook fired off 25000 rounds with very little adverse effect either to the weapon or the Indians.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 1:54:45 PM
|
Would such a low failure rate (for the time) be even viewed as an unexpected failure rate by soldiers? Did any weapon do markedly better in those years, and much better than previous? This still falls well within the various percentages I've read for 'human error' in any endeavor. I'd imagine even the bow had a higher rate of failure requiring serious adjustment or mending after less than 100 firings. And if that's the testing failure of the Sharp's, we can safely assume the failure of the Sioux Sharps must have been impressive.
I don't know what you mean when you say the 1873 Springfield was the .45-70. You mean the rifle as opposed to the carbine? I assume that's a reference to the cartridge used in testing, for we've been told that the carbine could use either load in the same cartridge. Nor am I clear why the previous .50 is periodically introduced.
However, in none of this is the issue of copper vs. brass for the testing addressed, or have I missed that as well. Was the government 'concern' (or rather, observation of the expected) over failure with brass or copper? In any case, it can't be entirely coincident that the percentage in testing failure is so close to the percentage of field failure in found cartridges, can it?
Of minor but puzzling interest is that the failure percentages are slightly different than the numbers grant. 1.95% rather than 1.96 for the Springfield. 2.89% rather than 2.86 for the Remington, and the Sharps on the money. But who can argue with stats? If only we had a manual...... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 2:18:11 PM
|
76,628 rounds fired with 2,699 failing (3.52%)
Just to clarify those figures AZ ---if one weapon was used then it failed every 30 rounds or so????
It should also be noted that Crook fired off 25000 rounds with very little adverse effect either to the weapon or the Indians.
Wild--That is the Sharps data. It would be 1 in every 51 rounds or so for the Springfield. The rifle was the state of the art for the time. The ammunition was not.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
