| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 12 2006 : 2:31:35 PM
|
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.
If only one weapon was used in the test it would take 70 days of non stop firing and anyway there is no way the barrell would last that number of firings. |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 3:04:10 PM
|
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.In 1870 the cartridge was the .50-70. It was the brass case which was not produced by the US Government rather it was purchased from private manufacture. There was no trick though. The .50-70 had been used since the the 1860s. That is what was tested in 1870. They were looking for the most appropriate rifle/carbine selection then regardless of caliber. The tests even included .42 calibers.
The army then realized that that a .45 caliber bullet was superior to the .50 caliber bullet ballistics. The new weapon would be in .45 caliber. The .45-70 was the result. It came in at least two versions of the Springfield in 1873 rifle and carbine. The rounds for the rifle used 70 grains of black powder and the rounds designed for the carbine used 55 grains. The carbine could fire either round 55 or 70 since the case and bullet were the same.
During the testing, after selecting the Springfield to be the weapon rifle/carbine of choice, the problem of the ammunition was discovered but it did not rise to a level of concern to fix it. The early solution to fixing a headless shell case stuck in the chamber required a lead bullet being jammed into the remaining case and use to assist in removing the stuck case. Then they invented the headless shell extractor to remove the stuck case. Several models we made throughout the extent of the Springfield military use.
They make headless shell extractors for lots of cartridges. It is the nature of using a cartridge delivery system. The M16 has one also. The brass cartridge is weaker than the metal of the weapon and sometimes the head will separate.
DC, I believe you have always been on the track or right points though. The 1873 Springfield and ammunition was not a determining factor for the loss at LBH.
1 All weapons fail. Some fail more frequently than others.
2 The Springfield was not a poor design. As a weapon it faired better in the testing than most others.
3 The Indains would have had the same problems using black powder cartridges regardless of weapon or cartridge.(fouling)
4 The Indains took all the carbines they could pick-up plus the ammunition. Officers at Reno-Benteen commented later regarding their use. If the Indians thought the carbines used by the 7th were the reason they won and the Troopers lost. Why would they pick them up? Or not throw them down when they "jammed"?
5 The rate of failure of the 1873 Springfield with the Frankford Arsenal ammunition was not significant enough to influence to outcome on June 25th 1876.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 3:11:06 PM
|
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?
The Government decided to make the weapon and the ammunition. (economics) Frankford Arsenal (FA) could not make a brass case. Unless the Government was willing to retool FA or purchase from private manufacturers there was no need to compare brass to copper. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 3:18:09 PM
|
If only one weapon was used in the test it would take 70 days of non stop firing and anyway there is no way the barrell would last that number of firings.
Wild the 1870 testing was one rifle/carbine. The testing resulting in the 1873 data which Reno participated in were multiple rifles. Varnum makes note of this when he started with the 7th. These were tests and not training as previous discussed. The 1873 document is over 400 pages and I have only found excerpts so far. I did find the test Pamphlet and have ordered it. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2006 : 3:22:26 PM
|
| Here is where the document is located. 1873 vol.3 43rd |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2006 : 05:08:19 AM
|
quote:
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.
DC
First of all, at both Reno Hill and Weir Point Godfrey says "We heard". Secondly, the firing heard on Reno Hill is supposed to be around the Calhoun area - lets move it a quarter of a mile south to around the junction of NC and Deep Coulee, for the sake of argument. Ok - move Godfrey a mile and a half to Weir Point and move the gunfire a mile to Custer Hill. The gunfire he (along with others) now hears is faint, whereas at Reno Hill it was distinct, even though he's at least half a mile closer aurally to the gunfire when at Weir Point. Therefore, its safe to argue the gunfire heard on Reno Hill did not come from NC/Deep Coulee/Calhoun, rather NC/MTC/Luce. |
Edited by - Smcf on February 13 2006 06:36:38 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2006 : 10:28:48 AM
|
SMCF,
'First of all', you're correct in the little of Godfrey I have available, which doesn't include the Inquest at present. During which, did he use the passive or the active? Seems to me, in fogged memory, it was pretty well couched in the passive. I suppose more important is the lack of him saying "I heard...." rather than 'we'. But having bungled the active/passive, I could be wrong about that as well. There was always something carefully phrased in Godfrey that rang wrong about that. It would be more convincing if he said "I heard two distinct volleys" rather than "we...", which implies but does not state and, in normal usage, doesn't necessarily mean the speaker heard. This convenient phrasing allows other testimony to say 'we were ordered to....' when the speaker never heard the order.
You can draw a direct line between Calhoun and Reno Hills and they are utterly blocked by Weir and Sharpshooter. Moving the action to Nye-Cartwright doesn't change that, and it would have to be rather faint, I'd think. So, I agree that anything heard distinctly on Reno Hill wasn't from Custer, Calhoun, NC.: it's physically blocked and far away.
It does not follow, however, that the "distinct" firing heard was therefore on Luce or MTC. MTC was also blocked, and decidedly lower and arguably more muffled. Luce makes better sense, but only if the firing heard was Army. Don't forget there is now "new" evidence - or suggestive supposition - that part of the camp was on the East side of the LBH, and that could have provided the firepower heard. We can't know. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2006 : 12:20:41 PM
|
| I'd put it nearer Luce too. Godfrey makes a point in his writing of conferring with others as to his eye-witness and aural observations, and a statement like "I heard ..." in company, could also be mis-interpreted as "Only I heard ..." - but, there you go. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2006 : 12:48:57 PM
|
| It would be necessary to conform those audibles with what (and when) Herendeen heard in the bullrushes. If it were a big fight in or near the village, for example, which is what some scouts thought. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 09:41:10 AM
|
| Didn't read it all through. Almost word for word summation of what's appeared here, with the same selection of conclusions, and no added evidence the carbines were a factor. They avoid mention of Crook. And they again fib: at least one company, Ryan's, had the Springfield in 74, and no mention of practice, lack of, being a major issue. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 09:41:56 AM
|
AZ posted this:
"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."
Just for a further coincidence, General Terry was president of the selection board.
Dave, re: your link to agitate DC. I thought that the 7th were issued the Springfield carbine in 1875?
Also, the Ordnance Department had always wanted to use the .45-70 ammunition based upon correspondence I have seen. The cavalry officers had complained so much about the recoil being so harsh that the Ordnance Dept. had modified the .45-70 into the .45-55 with cardboard liner/wad to appease them.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 10:50:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
AZ posted this:
"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."
Just for a further coincidence, General Terry was president of the selection board.
I guess the army was so small at the time it was like being in a slightly extended family. At least you would think so judging by the frequency at which various names appear and re-appear.
quote:
Dave, re: your link to agitate DC. I thought that the 7th were issued the Springfield carbine in 1875?
Calhoun mentioned receiving the new carbines on the 1st July 1874.
To quote:
"The new Springfield arms and ammunition were issued to the command today. They seem to give great satisfaction."
That link was a very poor summation, and the 1876 date wasn't the only mistake. A fair few of the comments were dubious to say the least. I just posted it to stir up DC. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 11:12:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave
I just posted it to stir up DC.
Dave, good to hear from you!
From my lurking around, I have noticed that he has been relatively restrained of late. Old age getting to him or just sore feet from tap-dancing around?
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 11:29:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Didn't read it all through. Almost word for word summation of what's appeared here, with the same selection of conclusions, and no added evidence the carbines were a factor. They avoid mention of Crook.
Given that Crook apparently didn't even insist on target practise, and didn't charge that attitude until after Rosebud, is it likely that he would have even noticed had there been a significant number of failures? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 12:59:14 PM
|
I failed to realize there was an 1876 US field officer insisting upon target practice, who would also make it possible (with, oh, sufficient ammo) and meaningful (..it IS loud, but I'm not scared by a loud noise, son, and neither is Sitting Bull....) and chronic (....till you can hit a barn at a distance greater than the barrel length....) and not just for public applause (who would do that?) for his concern, and reaped the rewards with a hot firin' outfit.
I'd find it hard to believe that a commander who hung with the enlisted guys periodically wouldn't notice or have had it called to his attention or discovered it himself. He'd have loved that as a reason to excuse the Rosebud's nonaccomplishment and ammo blowout, and the officers in conflict with Crook would have noted equipment failure or training lack and reported it as evidence of Crook's incompetence. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 2:57:56 PM
|
The US Army of the period consisted of 430 companies spread over 200 posts,The company/troop was the basic tactical unit rather than the regiment.An officer of the 24th infantry regiment stated that the largest company in the unit could muster a total of 7 soldiers.Gibbon fought the Battle of the Big Hole with 6 companies with an average of 24 men per company.While units remained understrenght and scattered with restrictions on the use of ammo,meaningful training continued to be more a hope that a reality.
He'd have loved that as a reason to excuse the Rosebud's nonaccomplishment and ammo blowout,
The army having no natural enemy was allowed to reach an all time low.It was ,not to put too fine a tooth in it, in rag order.
The weapon being discussed here and described as the main armament of the 7th was a defensive weapon.It did nothing more than give a limited defensive [don't let them get too close]capibility to the cavalry.The 7th had nothing more than their revolvers with which to attack.
The Brits faced something of a similar situation in South Africa in the latter stages of the war.There was no way they could bring the Boers to battle so they just built block houses every mile or so,burned the homesteads and farms and put the women and kids into concentration camps where they died in their thousands.The LBH was never necessary. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2006 : 3:13:37 PM
|
For purposes of comparison, it would be better to describe the British of the Zulu War of '79, not the British Army of the Boer War of 1899-02. The latter was fought with smokeless powder repeaters and fairly modern artillery.
In the 1870s, the British were armed with a single-shot black powder rifle or carbine of .45 caliber. In fact, the American weapon was superior on one point -- it had a safety or half cock notch, and could be carried loaded on horseback. The British Martini-Henry had no safety -- a deficiency that had some bearing on the death of the Prince Imperial. When his party was jumped by Zulus, the mounted men were mostly armed with carbines and no revolvers -- and the carbines were empty.
The '73 Springfield was by no means a defense-only weapon. While the preferred attack for Cavalry is the mounted pistol attack, infantry with identical weapons (except for barrel length) were a very effective attack force.
The great deficiency of the Single Action Army (SAA) revolver was the clumsy reloading process. In action, once the trooper had fired all six (or five in many cases) shots, he could not expect to be given the luxury of reloading. That's why so few .45 Colt cartridge cases were found at the Little Big Horn -- it doesn't mean the SAA wasn't used, it means not many men shot theirs dry and lived to reload. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 7:29:14 PM
|
"The great deficiency of the Single Action Army (SAA) revolver was the clumsy reloading process. In action, once the trooper had fired all six (or five in many cases) shots, he could not expect to be given the luxury of reloading. That's why so few .45 Colt cartridge cases were found at the Little Big Horn -- it doesn't mean the SAA wasn't used, it means not many men shot theirs dry and lived to reload."
If you're correct and I believe you are there would not have been any handgun available at that time to reload quickly. The Schofield even takes to much time if your outnumbered in close quarters. Carry a second Colt and even that would not make a difference at LBH. I think I could get one more round in my Springfield if it wasn't jammed quicker than reloading the SAA. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 7:37:57 PM
|
quote:
If you're correct and I believe you are there would not have been any handgun available at that time to reload quickly. The Schofield even takes to much time if your outnumbered in close quarters. Carry a second Colt and even that would not make a difference at LBH. I think I could get one more round in my Springfield if it wasn't jammed quicker than reloading the SAA.
You have a point. But combat is like poker, anything you can do to shade the odds in your favor helps. a faster reloading revolver might have gained a little for someone.
Again, we can't blame the weaponry. Twelve companies of cavalry would have had a better chance if handled properly, all of them in action at the same time. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 7:49:05 PM
|
"I failed to realize there was an 1876 US field officer insisting upon target practice, who would also make it possible (with, oh, sufficient ammo) and meaningful (..it IS loud, but I'm not scared by a loud noise, son, and neither is Sitting Bull....) and chronic (....till you can hit a barn at a distance greater than the barrel length....) and not just for public applause (who would do that?) for his concern, and reaped the rewards with a hot firing' outfit.
I'd find it hard to believe that a commander who hung with the enlisted guys periodically wouldn't notice or have had it called to his attention or discovered it himself. He'd have loved that as a reason to excuse the Rosebud's nonaccomplishment and ammo blowout, and the officers in conflict with Crook would have noted equipment failure or training lack and reported it as evidence of Crook's incompetence."
DC I believe you are correct that the officers did not believe in to much practice. I read somewhere that the officers were still debating volley fire rather than individual aimed fire. Maybe Vern can enlighten us on the Army's change from volley to individual aimed fire. He mentioned the formation of the NRA (your favorite Group) of which I am member being formed around this time.
Two issues then:
1 Aimed individual fire versus volley and the training for each. If individual aimed fire wasn't encouraged then there was probably very little training in that method.
2 What was the .45-55 ammunition carried in by most of the troopers at LBH? There seems to be an issue if it was leather involved with heat and moisture. This doesn't change any outcome ( the failure rate is still to low) but could partially exonerate the ammunition from the failures. If the ammunition is more likely to get stuck after getting wet and/or being carried in leather in warm weather then it would not show up in the testing.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 7:52:50 PM
|
You have a point. But combat is like poker, anything you can do to shade the odds in your favor helps. a faster reloading revolver might have gained a little for someone.
With hindsight there would have been a lot of deal me out.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 7:57:31 PM
|
quote:
With hindsight there would have been a lot of deal me out
With an M1 garand and an M1911A1 and a lot of ammo, I think I could have shot my way out of that mess. :-) |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 8:13:06 PM
|
Sometimes I guess it helps to look up a word when you don't know the meaning. I didn't know verdigris.
Verdigris-a green or or greenish blue poisonous pigment resulting from the action of acetic acid on copper and consisting of one or more copper acetates
I experienced this myself when I first worked with my Department. We carried revolvers and had brass cartridge cases. When carried 6 rounds in leather loops. We had to occasionally clean off the verdigris. I remember quite clearly that our Oak Creek Officer had a malfunction on the line at a shoot in Sedona Arizona. He carried a Smith and Wesson stainless steel model 66. Since he worked the creek he had a stainless steel revolver to keep it from rusting. What occurred at the range is he fired 6 rounds and attempted to empty the cylinder but could not. We had to to drive the rounds out of the cylinder with a wooden dowel. The rounds were covered with my new word verdigris.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
