| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 05 2004 : 8:18:25 PM
|
| Dark Cloud: Good move. I take it that you are not satisified with the evidence so far. Before we get into a long discussion maybe we should establish our positions, Im not that fond of typing. I'll use Fox as a term for archeology in general. Do I think that the field was greatly disturbed long before Fox examined it? Yes. Do I think some of his conclusions are unwarrented? Yes. Do I think that he is defecient in or deceived by facts or evidence of the period ? No. I think that you , I, Warlord, Billy and others agreed that that the Springfield load was not significant. The time period of the cartridges of course is very signifigant. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 9:14:47 PM
|
Agreed.
Well, I don't have the Fox books handy, so I'm at sea. I do think, though, that:
1. If you take all the found-on-field casings known without question available to the 7th that day, it's rather small.
2. If you consider all the found casings that supposedly weren't available that day - like the 70 load rifle marked as made too late Larsen mentioned - it is suspicious in light of Varnum's and (I think) Godfrey's admission of both types of ammo being used that few/no such casings were found.
3. In any case, date of manufacture is not date of use.
4. We have two urls with conflicting info, and no way to prove one over the other. For all I know, ammo came headstamped with a Happy Face. All this just doesn't strike me as the rock solid proof of troop movement that others feel it is and take comfort in. I again reflect on the statements of those there on the 27th that it didn't look like anybody except Calhoun's guys fired much at all. If so, and given the thousands that traipsed around looking for souveniers through the decades, and the rumors of salting (which were denied vehemently, which could be interpreted either way), who knows how those shells got there.
What, for example, would be the reason for those post 1876 casings? Were they blanks for salutes? Did they use blanks? Can you tell a blank from a bullet by the casing over a century later? How did they get there? And what is their percentage of the whole. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 08:23:13 AM
|
A few comments DC,
I'm not trying to say that the URL I referenced is correct, and Billy's is not - its no skin off my nose if the bloke is totally wrong - but if you compare what is said on the OldAmmo webpage I think you will find it gells with Scott's comments (see Larsen's reference to Scott).
What really strikes me, is that unmarked .45/70 rifle cartridges were produced for a further 7 or 8 months after the battle, and presumably must have been in circulation for months and years after headstamping was finally introduced.
So the question really is, how is it that none of these cartridges have been recovered from the battlefield? Are we to believe that no soldier ever discharged such a cartridge with all the military salutes, target practising etc which seems to have gone on in latter years. Did none of Gibbon's men fire a bullet to put down a wounded cavalry horse? It all seems a little inconceivable to me.
Regarding blank cartridges - look at the second picture on that URL. The cartridge on the left is a blank. You can see its substantially shorter than the rest. I have no idea if all blanks were the same, but I'm guessing that its a fairly typical specimen.
One final point regarding the unmarked cartridges. The military may have had the IQ of a Quahog, but I think you will find that the cartridges would have come in appropriately marked packs, and possibly in marked paper packets of 5 or 10, if American military practise mirrored the British procedures. So the risk of confusing cartridges might not as been bad as you might imagine. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 09:45:46 AM
|
| Warlord: Good point, but the little knowledge I have of cartridges is mostly from the websites presented here. There may be reference books, but I don't have access to them. Maybe all the cartidges of the LBH era are now collectors items? I know the carbines and Colts are very collectiable, even if no connection to the battle |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 11:19:59 AM
|
| Dave: I think that you are right that the old style cartridges would have been around for a while after the battle. I don't know any way they could have been distinguished from battle cartidges. I doubt there was much training or ceremonies on the battlefield in the years immediately after the battle.If the army was like in my time they picked up their fired casings from training or cereminies, so maybe there not too many of the old casings that didn't belong. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 11:41:44 AM
|
| Larsen: My reply to you went to the old thread. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 12:03:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: My reply to you went to the old thread.
I'm sure the pictures showed a lot --- it just didn't seem like much to me, though like I said, I doubt I'm the one whose opinion counts here. What did you think of Scott's radiographs?
If little beyond the caliber of bullets (and fired cartridge cases) could be determined --- and I think you're right about that --- then it's misleading to label bullets (and the used cases) as ".45/55s" when the archaeologists simply don't know. Many of them could be --- and some almost certainly are --- .45/70s. Scott and the rest should have been precise about this and labeled them generically as .45s only.
Apparently there are only a handful of unfired cases for which the archaeologists can (they think) reliably determine the grain load. Everything else is a big shrug of the shoulders.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 12:03:50 PM
|
I'd hope it came in marked boxes. Room to wonder, though. Army.
I find it hard to believe, knowing what we do about how Indians treated the dead of their enemies, that visitations to the battlefield didn't result in exposed bodies being shot up in the immediate years after. Or that bored soldiers didn't target practice and leave the cartridges, or civilians when the trains stopped for picnics at MTC didn't shoot sometimes (although railroads were strict about guns), or that railroad workers didn't, or that all these and more didn't search for items to sell or keep. And I doubt the Army wasted ammo; stuff available before 1876 was probably in use decades later by someone or other. Plus formal salutes. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 2:10:59 PM
|
but I think you will find that the cartridges would have come in appropriately marked packs, and possibly in marked paper packets of 5 or 10, if American military practise mirrored the British procedures.
British ammo came in cloth bandoliers.
Were these cartridges centre fire or rim fire?The Brits produced a .303 round for their Lee Enfield and their Bren light machine gun.You could tell the difference between the rounds by the charge in the base.The Brengun round had a much larger charge.
Can you tell a blank from a bullet by the casing over a century later?
If the blank is a crimped round I would imagine the crimping could be still distinguishable. |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2004 : 01:27:11 AM
|
All of my history books have been well packed for an upcoming move, so instead of going through about 100 boxes I thought it would be easier just to send an email to Doug Scott.
This is his reply regarding the question of headstamps on the soldier cartridges. I’ll preface this by stating that I’m sorry if his answer is not good enough for anyone here, but I’m not going to bother Doug with another question since I feel somewhat lazy for doing so in the first place.
Doug states:
“Only a few commercial cartridges were headstamped in 1876. The govt.
did not head stamp their ammo at that time.
They began marking case heads with the month, year, and rifle or carbine designation, as well as arsenal in April 1877.
The stamp would read F for Frankford the 6 0'clock position, C for carbine at 12, 2 for Feb at 9, and 78 for 1878 at 3. There are variations on the marks through the years, but this is pretty much the scheme even today.”
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 07 2004 : 07:30:40 AM
|
Bob, thanks for the input.
Also, I would encourage all to read, or in my case reread, the thread Battlefield Artifacts & Findings under the Custer's Last Stand forum, page three.
Here is a particularly interesting post from Timbrads on the subject:
"Posted - November 15 2003 : 11:23:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to say this....Weibert recovered more than 9000 artifacts in the years they lived at the LBH, mostly shell casings. Jason Pitsch told me himself that he had recoverd at least 6000 shell casings in a six year period. We need to keep one thing in mind here....We will never know exactly what happened. We are all coming up with theories. Fox and Scott are basing their theories on the eveidence they have found. As far a the shell casings, the 45/70 casings and whole bullets that are considered "period" are Benet Primed shells, this particular shell was not manufactured after 1877. After 1877, shell casings were manufactured with external primers with head stamps. As far as Indian positions, we have recorded tesitimony by both Indian and Soldier. After all, it is the speculation and theories that keep the subject alive. The one thing we all know for sure is that Custer and the men of his immediate command that were with him were all killed.....The Cheyenne did the fighting, the Soux got the Credit, and the Crow got the land. I do not believe for one minute that the government "salted the fields".. There were however, reunions and re-enactments that did take place, but for the most part the things they left behind were from a more modern time period."
Season's Greetings,
Billy
|
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 03:23:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Although it does leave intact the possiblity of individually owned arms such as henry rifles and others may have deposited cartridge cases with headstamps on them. These would have been a distinct minority at the close of battle on LBH.
Actually, there are a lot of Henry cartridges found at LBH with the easily discernable "H" stamped in the center. You can see photos of some of these at the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield's website. The link is -- http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Archeology-survey-2004.htm -- which covers the survey this past September.
I can't even begin to describe the feeling I had holding a freshly discovered spent Henry cartridge while standing on Greasy Grass Ridge and looking at the C Company positions in the not-to-far distance.
It seems every time there is an archeological survey plenty of Henry cartridges are found.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on December 08 2004 03:30:38 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 10:33:48 AM
|
So. As it stands. Contrary to the initial informed contentions about the C and R, NONE of the ammo used by carbine was headstamped at LBH. There is nothing on the shell itself to indicate powder load, there is no way to tell the powder load that powered a recovered slug, there is questionable method for deducing powder load by xray of the cartridge.
I have no knowledge or basis for opinion on any of this, except that we're coming down to the opinions of experts who may or may not be. Are all experts agreed on theses points? Certainly the gun trivia fanatics are not as the urls and postings of late show. And experts can be wrong, as well.
In any case, of ALL the Springfield cartridges found east of the river, what percentage could have been part of the battle, and of that number, what amount is assumed 70 grain load? As I recall, NO 70 grain loads have been found that could have been part of the battle. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 1:28:08 PM
|
| I have said all along that it is a learning process and so it is. I don't know who you are referring to as gun fanatics, but both Warlord and I have said that the powder load used was not significant. The thing that is significant is establishing if the cartridges were made before LBH. If so then of course there is some chance of them not being battle related, but the odds are not great. I have no idea why Scott, Fox etc persist in identifing all the cartridges as 45/55 if there are no identifing marks. Maybe Bhist knows. |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 8:25:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Actually "a lot of Henry cases found at LBH means aprox. 380! As compared to possible 124 cartridges carried by each trooper times about 215 equals 26,660 rounds carried onto LBH if my math is correct(a minimum)! That makes 380 cases a minority! The statement stands, despite romanticism!
I don't kow about gun fanatics but there are sure as hell some civil war trivia fantatics here and persons with huge egos. Low level name calling will easily lead to a lot higher level name calling which this board seems to suddenly be trying to avoid. So I would say try to maintain the decorum DC!
Prolar: I agree with your last posting. The great significance is the date of maufacture not the load.
Careful, WL. Not one person on this thread has attacked you, including myself. Yet, you’re becoming defensive for no valid reason, and bordering on the line of loosing it again. Be forewarned, I will not hesitate to file a complaint against you if you stoop to your real form of behavior. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 8:27:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
I have said all along that it is a learning process and so it is. I don't know who you are referring to as gun fanatics, but both Warlord and I have said that the powder load used was not significant. The thing that is significant is establishing if the cartridges were made before LBH. If so then of course there is some chance of them not being battle related, but the odds are not great. I have no idea why Scott, Fox etc persist in identifing all the cartridges as 45/55 if there are no identifing marks. Maybe Bhist knows.
I spoke with Dick Harmon today about this question. He is one of the best authorities on this subject. There is no visible difference between the 45/55 and 45/70 cartridges. However, the 55 had a cardboard wad, which can easily be seen by X-Ray. That is how the archeologists determined if the spent or loaded cartridges were either the 55 or 70.
I think this explains why Scott, et al refer to these cartridges as 45/55 and they were. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 8:52:27 PM
|
| Bhist: Thank you. I can readly see that the the unfired cartridges could contain the cardboard wad, but would they not be blown out when fired? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 8:54:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
There is no visible difference between the 45/55 and 45/70 cartridges. However, the 55 had a cardboard wad, which can easily be seen by X-Ray. That is how the archeologists determined if the spent or loaded cartridges were either the 55 or 70.
So they're able to determine if all cases, fired or unfired, were 55 or 70? In "Perspectives" they only mention doing x-rays for the unfired ones (pg. 173). The authors do note that "remnants of several liners" were seen in the lab, which I had overlooked before, and which I presume refers to the spent casings, but they also say that all these pieces were "too disintegrated to preserve," so I have to doubt how prevalent they were. And they're talking about tube liners, not cardboard wads. I'm still puzzled how they're so confident in the powder load of the spent casings they found.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 9:20:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
There is no visible difference between the 45/55 and 45/70 cartridges. However, the 55 had a cardboard wad, which can easily be seen by X-Ray. That is how the archeologists determined if the spent or loaded cartridges were either the 55 or 70.
So they're able to determine if all cases, fired or unfired, were 55 or 70? In "Perspectives" they only mention doing x-rays for the unfired ones (pg. 173). The authors do note that "remnants of several liners" were seen in the lab, which I had overlooked before, and which I presume refers to the spent casings, but they also say that all these pieces were "too disintegrated to preserve," so I have to doubt how prevalent they were. And they're talking about tube liners, not cardboard wads. I'm still puzzled how they're so confident in the powder load of the spent casings they found.
R. Larsen
Sorry you're still puzzled Larsen, but I get it. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 08 2004 : 9:33:39 PM
|
Since nobody has contested Godfrey and Varnum's statements that rifle ammo was also used, with Varnum's inference that it was preferred by most, you'd think that in an objective pick up of used cartridges from the battle that the numbers would be roughly proportionate or leaning towards rifle loads. At least, rifle loads would be a significant percentage. It doesn't look like that is the case at all, although apparently it's hard to tell with the spent casing. Still, archaeologists say that it's just about all carbine loads.
Is that because Varnum and Godfrey are wrong or because the majority of original spent Custer casings (which Reno's guys said were few which - with the code of the time - could be interpreted as very few) were harvested over the years and don't appear in the count today? Both Varnum and Godfrey are unlikely to be wrong about this, nor can it be imagined they or anyone would lie over this. But neither has that testimony been contested or corrected by any of the other participants, and I imagine therefore has to stand as truth. Being as how it is actual, first hand testimony and all (I'm assuming Graham kept their letters and they still exist).
If science has proven that the found casings are virtually all carbine, I have difficulty in melding that with the uncontested testimony of two officers nobody questions, who were there, who would know. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 09 2004 : 06:08:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
Sorry you're still puzzled Larsen, but I get it.
So do you get whether the cardboard wads still remained with the spent casings? In their book they say nothing about it. This seems kind of important, and it still doesn't explain why all bullets they found were freely dubbed .45/55s even though there was apparently no way to tell from the bullet what the powder grain load was (and despite there being cartridge casings of both kinds found).
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - December 09 2004 : 08:43:43 AM
|
| Considering the wadding must be seated directly between the bullet and the powder I'm very curious to know the answer myself. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 09 2004 : 5:24:37 PM
|
This extract is from Scott & Fox's book, Archaeological Insights into The Custer Battle: An Assessment of the 1984 Field Season, page 77.
Note: Underlining is mine
"Thirty-nine unfired cartridges of .45/55 caliber were found on the field. These cartridges are of the type used by the army in the Model 1873 Springfield carbine, the principal firearm used by the soldiers at the battle. The .45/55 cartridge does not differ from the .45/70 rifle cartridge issued to the infantry except that the case was filled with only 55 grains of black powder. To keep the smaller volume compacted in the larger case, ordnance personnel developed a wad for the carbine load. Later experiments were carried out with a cardboard tube liner used in place of the wad (WD 1875). Remnants of several liners were seen while the cases were being cleaned in the laboratory. All were too disintegrated to save."
"One cartridge (FS919) is particularly interesting. The primer end of the case is missing, and the case below the head is crushed and split. The cartridge has all the appearances of having been struck by a bullet."
"In addition to the cartridges we also found 87 fired cases for the .45/55 Springfield rifle. All of the cases and cartridges are of the Benet internally primed type."
Am I missing something in reading the first para? How are they going to see the wad or liner in unfired cartridges unless they have deteriorated over the years? Did they dissemble the cartridges? I can understand that portion if they said they saw the remnants of the liner/wad in the two unfired cartridges which were assumed to have been struck by bullets.
One way to solve this is to have someone in DC or close by go to the National Archives and dig out what type of ammunition was issued and signed for by the Seventh. I assume that would be in the Quartermaster records. Ft. Leavenworth has a roll of microfilm which contains all of Terry's communications to Headquarters during the event, I will try to get over there this weekend and see if any specific mention of ammunition issued is reported. |
Edited by - BJMarkland on December 09 2004 5:35:01 PM |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 09 2004 : 6:00:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
Am I missing something in reading the first para? How are they going to see the wad or liner in unfired cartridges unless they have deteriorated over the years? Did they dissemble the cartridges? I can understand that portion if they said they saw the remnants of the liner/wad in the two unfired cartridges which were assumed to have been struck by bullets.
If you'll reread my post above, Billy, you'll read that Harmon told me they X-Rayed the bullets to see the cardboard wad. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
