| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 09 2004 : 6:22:06 PM
|
Not being picky, but want to make sure I grasp this.
When you say Scott and Fox wrote "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." you really mean .45/70, right, since it's for the rifle? Or did you copy correctly and Scott and Fox really mean the Springfield carbine? Or do they mean a shell applicable to both carbine and rifle (my guess)? In any case, since it's been fired, how can they tell what the load was 120 years later?
I can't tell if that's sloppy writing or configured to obscure that they don't know. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2004 : 08:43:27 AM
|
quote:
Not being picky, but want to make sure I grasp this.
When you say Scott and Fox wrote "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." you really mean .45/70, right, since it's for the rifle? Or did you copy correctly and Scott and Fox really mean the Springfield carbine? Or do they mean a shell applicable to both carbine and rifle (my guess)? In any case, since it's been fired, how can they tell what the load was 120 years later?
I can't tell if that's sloppy writing or configured to obscure that they don't know.
DC, good catch. That is exactly how it is in the book (I just reverified) and I concentrated more while proofing on the actual words than what they were saying.
From what Bob said regarding Harmon - sorry Bob, that went right past me on who Harmon was and his significant role in the weapons' evaluations on the archaeological front - and your catch, I think the confusion I am experiencing and you are can be directly attributable to sloppy writing or editing.
Season's Greetings (see, I can be politically correct!),
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2004 : 11:44:10 AM
|
I annoyed a lot of people by complaining about loose use of words and needing a common glossary of terminology for the LBH, and if I may be forgiven, here is a case in point.
Scott and Fox introduce the term ".45/55 rifle" in the piece you quoted. Talking about Army Springfields of the time, there is no such thing, as either the rifle on the carbine could fire carbine or rifle ammo and is not denoted by the ammo. If you drop the adjective '.45/55', you'd assume they were talking about the heavier loaded cartridge. With .45/55, you assume they're talking about the lighter carbine firearm, although they used "rifle." Combined, it can be interpreted either way.
Fox and Scott are revered hereabouts, and quoted as authorities. But people could come away from these paragraphs that Markland provides thinking two mutually exclusive things, something that should not attend information from authority. This is what bothers me when people surrender to supposed authority in the form of "science", whether judging history or anything.
In itself, perhaps not all that important, of course. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2004 : 12:23:29 PM
|
Ugh, talk about sloppy writing and editing. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle!
My post should have read:
"From what Bob said regarding Harmon - sorry Bob, that went right past me on who Harmon was and his significant role in the weapons' evaluations on the archaeological front - and your catch, I think the confusion we are experiencing and you are can be directly attributed to sloppy writing or editing."
I promise to proof my postings, I promise to proof my postings!
Billy
|
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2004 : 1:37:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I annoyed a lot of people by complaining about loose use of words and needing a common glossary of terminology for the LBH, and if I may be forgiven, here is a case in point.
Scott and Fox introduce the term ".45/55 rifle" in the piece you quoted. Talking about Army Springfields of the time, there is no such thing, as either the rifle on the carbine could fire carbine or rifle ammo and is not denoted by the ammo. If you drop the adjective '.45/55', you'd assume they were talking about the heavier loaded cartridge. With .45/55, you assume they're talking about the lighter carbine firearm, although they used "rifle." Combined, it can be interpreted either way.
Fox and Scott are revered hereabouts, and quoted as authorities. But people could come away from these paragraphs that Markland provides thinking two mutually exclusive things, something that should not attend information from authority. This is what bothers me when people surrender to supposed authority in the form of "science", whether judging history or anything.
In itself, perhaps not all that important, of course.
You may have a valid argument with some of what you say, D.C., however, there is no one that posts on this thread that can even come close to being an "authority" on the LBH as is Scott and Fox, even with errors the two may construe.
Any of us, at our best in the research, analysis, and dissemination of the LBH cannot even come close to match Scott or Fox at their worst.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 10 2004 : 2:03:24 PM
|
Certainly, Bhist, I don't consider myself fit to carry their spittoons as far as authority. Or anyone's. I'm under no illusions about my qualifications except I appreciate the truth as revealed by fact, not by divine release. And there are those who receive Fox and Scott's opinion as just that.
What I suppose you and I will always argue about is accepting what Scott and Fox say without questioning, without feeling the need to, and hesitating because of peer pressure not to. There's no way I see that as healthy - for us, the rep of the participants, or them in the long run. Few appreciate as much as I the work they've put into it, but too few question their opinions based on their findings. In my opinion, they use the field detritus (which can only be supposed to have been involved at the battle) to unjustifiably propose extended manueverings of Custer's battalion (batallion? I'm having mind shorts...)which I just find absolutely implausible and for which other explanations might apply better.
Happy Friday. I'm realistic. In any case, here's the holiday for all of us.
http://www.chrismahanukwanzakah.com/
Pass the cous-cous.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Clint Hungerford
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 3:28:03 PM
|
| I hope that this post doesn't upset anybody but...By golly, what an interesting dialogue going on about shell casings and such. The type of topics posted to these Custer websites are really amazing. Just about the time you get to the end of one string someone else is off on another topic of great import. Ya'll have been talking about something that only in the briefest of moments crossed my feeble mind. However, how useful all this is depends on whether you understand the difference between a 55 grain black powder round and a 70 grain black powder round behind the same 300 grain slug. The bottom line, of course, is did a slug powered by 55 grains of black powder kill the target any deader than a 70 grain black powder slug? The answer is a resounding "NO." The slower round got on target, still caused a terminal wound cavity that would put the average 140 pound trooper flat on his back on the ground like he had been kicked by a bull moose. While undoubtedly 70 grains of black powder powering a 300 grain slug would have plowed into him quicker and tore through him like a hot knife through warm butter at better than 300 feet per second faster than the 55 grains of black powder did, the end result was the same. Somebody was dead. The old addage: "It is better to be shot at by a canon and missed, than hit by a bee-bee," might have more relevance however. You experts in this sort of thing amaze me. Good discussion. |
Clint Hungerford |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 3:40:58 PM
|
| I was always under the impression that the slower travelling round caused far greater damage? |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 13 2005 : 5:26:52 PM
|
| Clint: I agree with Warlord. None of us claimed to be experts, we were all looking for information. The point of the discussion was identification of fired rounds. No one doubted the killing power of either round. Better trajectory was an advantage, but probably not worth the increased recoil. By the way, a 405 grain bullet was standard in both loadings in 1876. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2005 : 2:40:31 PM
|
However, practically speaking in the 1873 carbine the 70 grain load would give the rifle somewhat flatter trajectory
And thus you would to have to zero the rifle for that load.Yes? |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 14 2005 : 11:57:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
wILD I: The velocity of the .45-55 opposed to the .45-70 is 1125 feet per second vs 1330 fps. The velocity difference translates into roughly a 6 inch drop difference to 200 yards with a 405 grain bullet. A meticulous shooter would indeed sight the carbine in at a different zero than a rifle ammunition shooter. At 500 yards the difference is pronounced. A drop of 202 inches compared with 167 inch drop.
You know, Paul brings up a good point. It was for battles like the LBH (and particularly LSH) that Colt & the Army developed the M16, aka, AR-15. Close-in warfare is what the 7th Cav on LSH experienced, along with random sniping from a distance plus indirect fire from bow & arrows. Maximum range for the Springfield is pretty much irrelevent in my opinion. Speed of loading as well as the ability to bring the barrel on to the target quickly counted far more than a 500 yard shot. Thinking about it, the troops would likely have been better off shooting shotguns.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2005 : 08:20:07 AM
|
| Warlord: I agree. Fox concluded that extraction failure was not a problem because he found few cases with pry marks. The fact that he found any indicates a problem to me. It would be a rare trooper who would spend time prying out a stuck case if he had another weapon available. I think most of the stuck casings were left in the carbines and carried away by the Indians. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 15 2005 : 12:03:12 PM
|
Other than the 7th Cavalry, who else had problems with the Springfield carbine? Crook didn't mention it. Merritt didn't. Who? How come only the 7th, and Godfrey in particular?
As for cases with pry marks, are there any carbines extant with indications that casings had been pried from them? Were the casings with pry marks rifle load or carbine load, and would the rifle load be the issue? Are those carbine rounds capable of being used, or looking as if they could be used, in guns the Indians had, and would warriors have tried? Do we know it was a Springfield carbine those casings were pried from? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 06:41:46 AM
|
| Warlord: Interesting story from Wooden Leg. I remember another about a warrior who used a ramrod from a muzzle loader to clear a jammed casing from his gun. Don't know if it was a 45/70. So maybe most jammed carbines were eventually cleared. Still there should be a lot of interesting finds at the bottom of the river. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 06:58:31 AM
|
Dark Cloud: Good questions. Don't know about Crook and Merrit, but Reno complained about jammed cases. I don't think carbines would show evidence of having cases pried out. Fox found split casings which he thought were from warriors using army ammo in larger caliber guns. I don't believe using rifle cartridges in the carbines would cause an immediate problem. More powder would eventually contribute to fouling.
The 1877 model carbines were equipped with a joined rod which could be used to clean fouling and clear stuck casings. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 09:59:25 AM
|
It is doubtful if Custer's troops were in action long enough to have a problem with fouling.
If the breech became fouled then the barrell must have become fouled which would have negated the effects of the rifling thus effecting the accuracy of the weapon plus causing a massive kick. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 12:27:02 PM
|
The number of suspected fouled carbines fell well within the percentage for human error, as I recall, and given the poor training of the troopers and the first time combat for some and just mistakes made in a hurry in life and death circumstance, I'm not sure the Springfield holds much blame. Reno and Godfrey are the only two I know of who've mentioned the issue. I've heard the 7th got a batch of inferior carbines, but this would have turned up during those extensive training sessions, wouldn't it? The ones that supposedly made the 7th capable of all this great shooting, evident nowhere else in the frontier Army....
You can't have it both ways. To be good shots, the 7th had to practice a lot. If they had, they'd notice the crappy weapons. Who else besides the 7th complained, and only after LBH? I do recall Godfrey SAID he had noted problems earlier, but did he point that out up the chain of command as a wonk like him would do? I don't recall it.
Given time and attention, I'm not sure it would be tough to clear a fouled carbine by an enthusiastic Sioux or anyone not given to pointless waste. Dumping large numbers of carbines in the LBH would probably have come to our attention by now, wouldn't you think? Is that likely, in any case?
In any case, if all we have are casings that suggest being pryed out, do we know they were pried out of a Springfield or did someone try to fire them from another weapon, as Indians were wont to do? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 16 2005 12:33:01 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 8:11:09 PM
|
quote:
BJ made a prior citation in his excellent research and substantiated that the Seventh's marksmanship program ...
Just to clarify, that information was about the 27th Infantry in 1867, not specifically about the 7th Cavalry. It was only intended to prove that there must have been, at that time, some type of directive from on high regarding target practice.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 16 2005 : 10:10:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Warlord: I agree. Fox concluded that extraction failure was not a problem because he found few cases with pry marks. The fact that he found any indicates a problem to me. It would be a rare trooper who would spend time prying out a stuck case if he had another weapon available. I think most of the stuck casings were left in the carbines and carried away by the Indians.
Reno himself that said only six of the 400 or so carbines with the hilltop survivors were fouled up, and I remember one guy in the Camp material saying that he tried to use Corporal Lell's carbine but found it inoperable. That's about all you'll read about it. In spite of Godfrey's tenative suggestion that jamming may have been a "cause" of Custer's defeat, history (and archaeology) all agree that the problems were isolated and few. Perhaps one fellow or two with Custer got screwed over on Battle Ridge when he tried to shoot an Indian and nothing happened, but there's just no evidence at all that it was a problem on a macro level.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 01:19:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Junior lavender boy: First of all Reno had no idea how many of Custer's carbine's fouled out.
Reno didn't claim to --- all he had was the same type of carbines Custer used: with a failure rate of something like 2%. A good fact from the real world, and better than lazy guesses.
quote:
Wooden Leg mentions many soldier sitting down struggling with their weapons! Numerous broken knive blades were found at custer entrenchment!
If mention of this is in the Wooden Leg book, then it's not WL who mentions it, but Thomas Marquis, who has been shown pretty convincingly to have doctored accounts (changing killings into suicides, making Wooden Leg witness to something he was not actually a witness to, and who knows what else). Source?
quote:
Archeology really cannot assess this. Going to shoot an indian and nothing happening is not how this jam happens with the 1873! There is actually quite a bit of information on this matter.
I don't know what constitutes "quite a bit," but all that I see indicates that it wasn't a major problem.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 17 2005 01:22:33 AM |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 11:02:07 AM
|
Larsen: Since you replied to my post, I assume you felt the need to say something on a subject you know little about.That is not intended to be insulting, I believe you have stated that you know little about firearms.There is enough mention of extraction failure to be evident that it happened. No one claims it happened on a "macro scale". It apparently happened often enough for an indivudal soldier to be aware of it. Wondering if every shot you fire might be the one to foul your weapon could certainly affect a soldier's behavior.
The six carbines mentioned by Reno were ones that were unservicable at the end of the fight. We don't know how many were cleared during the fight. Reno's troops were able to make use of some cover if they needed to clear a weapon, Custer's troops didn't have that luxury.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but if you don't understand the difference between a failure to fire and a failure to extract, it isn't an informed one. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 11:54:06 AM
|
If indeed the 7th practiced enough to become good shots, then they would have noted the fouling issue of the Springfield long before the LBH. Did they? No. And why only the 7th?
Whether an extraction issue or a failure to fire, surely responsible officers would have reported this if it was a serious problem. There's no evidence of this being a major or even much of an issue at all.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 12:52:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: Since you replied to my post, I assume you felt the need to say something on a subject you know little about.That is not intended to be insulting, I believe you have stated that you know little about firearms.
I just know what I've read; in this case, I don't see how anybody could know anything more about it.
quote:
There is enough mention of extraction failure to be evident that it happened. No one claims it happened on a "macro scale". It apparently happened often enough for an indivudal soldier to be aware of it.
Maybe some individual soldiers --- I mentioned the guy who tried to use Lell's carbine --- but the number of accounts in which it creeps up is surprisingly small, which does not suggest it was much pervasive. I think Fox, looking at all the concrete data available to him, figured it at 5 percent. Sounds consistent with the documented history.
quote:
Wondering if every shot you fire might be the one to foul your weapon could certainly affect a soldier's behavior.
Again, not many survivors seem to have complained about this, let alone made note of it, so where does this rather lazy speculation take us?
quote:
The six carbines mentioned by Reno were ones that were unservicable at the end of the fight. We don't know how many were cleared during the fight. Reno's troops were able to make use of some cover if they needed to clear a weapon, Custer's troops didn't have that luxury.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but if you don't understand the difference between a failure to fire and a failure to extract, it isn't an informed one.
Prolar, maybe you can start by showing where I failed to understand the difference between a failure to fire and a failure to extract. I simply pointed out the one solid fact that seems to be known about the carbines that the 7th was using at the time: that after two days of fighting and rolling around in Reno Hill's dirt, six out of 400 were fouled up. Beyond that, not much evidence, just a lot of speculation and words. Were it really an important problem --- pervasive enough to have caused the disaster, as some have suggested; or important enough for "an individual soldier to be aware of it" and for it to effect his/their behavior (whatever you think that means and at whatever scale) --- then I'd expect it to crop up more in the survivors' accounts (and archaeology) than it actually does. Where are all the complaints about the stuck carbines in Reno's valley fight, for instance? We know that jamming happened sometimes, but if it didn't happen enough to really affect things, who cares?
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 17 2005 12:53:58 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
