| Author |
 Topic  |
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 17 2005 : 2:41:17 PM
|
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.
|
  |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 2:46:24 PM
|
| Larsen: If you know the difference, what do you mean by the above statement?Surely no soldier would expect to shoot anyone with a spent cartridge stuck in the chamber of his carbine. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 3:57:44 PM
|
| Maybe this has been overlooked. Maybe it's been brought up. But, all the discussion about the carbines begs the question: How effective is such a weapon to a mounted trooper in a helter skelter retreat? If I recall my history, the cavalryman's main weapons were pistols and swords, while the carbine was available and in use after dismount. If I'm in Custer's column with a maelstrom of hostiles all around me, atop a frightened horse and trying to use both hands to fire, reload, fire, reload (assuming the thing doesn't jam), I and most of my comrades are dead in a few minutes. Even dismounted, I couldn't fire and reload a carbine fast enough to stay alive very long in that atmosphere. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 5:19:33 PM
|
| Heavyrunner: Very true, the single shot carbine was not an effective weapon in a close up fight. Getting close enough to warriors armed with rifles and bows and arrows, to use sabers and pistols would not be easy either. A man and a horse make a big target. Still, the cavalry got by with muzzle loaders a few years earlier. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 5:37:31 PM
|
| Can I ask a question regarding the carbine used by the 7th.In the 303 Lee Enfield the butt contained a small compartment housing a pullthrough and an oil bottle.Did the carbine come complete with these two essentials.Further, knowing that the weapon could jam were the troops trained in clearance procedures? |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 6:48:58 PM
|
| Wild I: The 1877 Springfield was equipped with a joined rod in the buttstock which could be used for cleaning or punching out a stuck casing. They also went to a harder brass cartridge to replace the softer copper cartridges. Two effective solutions for what some refuse to acknowledge as a problem. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 6:54:59 PM
|
Prolar,
Thanks for responding. My point involved the difficulty, nigh on impossibility, of doing battle--mounted and on the run--while trying to operate a weapon that required both hands. As for getting close enough to use pistol or sabre, I think most of those in the 7th were trying to get anything but close. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 17 2005 : 7:06:11 PM
|
| Heavyrunner: I agree. By the way, did you ever find anything on the teamster you were looking for? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 03:39:22 AM
|
Warlord
I could be wrong but I don't recall the Lee Enfields having individual cleaning rods.[although our armourer used them].
Back in the 60s we used the mark 4.Great rifle.At range practice we often ignored the targets and had a go at the sheep on the hills at ranges up to 600 yards.As regards the missing oil bottles I could suggest a certain orifice but I don't want to be accused of being bovine for a second time this week.
Prplar
Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 07:29:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: If you know the difference, what do you mean by the above statement?Surely no soldier would expect to shoot anyone with a spent cartridge stuck in the chamber of his carbine.
You're reading too much into it, Prolar, or perhaps I wrote too sloppily. If I did, my fault. I mean that a soldier or two may have tried to use his carbine to shoot an Indian but wasn't able to make anything happen because he couldn't clear the jam in time.
I still see no reason to think it wasn't anything more than an insignificant issue, at best.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 07:53:48 AM
|
quote:
I mean that a soldier or two may have tried to use his carbine to shoot an Indian but wasn't able to make anything happen because he couldn't clear the jam in time.
Actually, they are two different things: unable to shoot because of a misfire and unable to load because of an extractor issue. I am not going to say jam as that implies that a moving part of the weapon did not work, i.e., move.
So, with a misfire, you aim, pull the trigger, and have an "aw fudge" moment. With an extractor issue, you aim, fire, open the breech to extract the cartridge to load another one, then have your "aw fudge" moment. The worst of all worlds would be to have a misfire, then an extractor problem. That would ruin someone's entire day!
Hope that clarified things to fellow laypersons.
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on January 18 2005 07:56:41 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 07:59:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
Maybe this has been overlooked. Maybe it's been brought up. But, all the discussion about the carbines begs the question: How effective is such a weapon to a mounted trooper in a helter skelter retreat? If I recall my history, the cavalryman's main weapons were pistols and swords, while the carbine was available and in use after dismount. If I'm in Custer's column with a maelstrom of hostiles all around me, atop a frightened horse and trying to use both hands to fire, reload, fire, reload (assuming the thing doesn't jam), I and most of my comrades are dead in a few minutes. Even dismounted, I couldn't fire and reload a carbine fast enough to stay alive very long in that atmosphere.
You're right to a large extent Bob, during the 17th century it wasn't uncommon for cavalrymen to carry 4 wheel-lock pistols. The pistol seems to have become progressively less popular during the course of the 19th century, and by the turn of the 20th many of the remaining cavalry units were replacing lance, sabre and pistol with carbines. Of course cavalry was by then virtually an obsolete concept anyway - at least in its traditional use as a shock weapon.
I think Billy Markland posted an article here from Colonel Wesley Merritt, in which Merritt basically dismissed the revolver as a serious weapon and said that the sabre and carbine were the more effective weapons. Purely my personnel opinion, but I think I would put a lot of weight behind Merritt's views.
On the flip side, Benteen's troopers exchanged their carbines for their revolvers when they approached the group of Crow scouts near Reno Hill. So obviously in at least some situations the revolver was preferred for mounted use. Really I think what weapon you used from horseback, simply came down to question of range.
I think its also worth mentioning Ranald McKenzie who by some accounts preferred the 5 shot Winchester Hotchkiss (chambered in I think .45-55) over the Springfield. |
Edited by - dave on January 18 2005 08:08:07 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 10:15:03 AM
|
| Does anyone know it the cartridges used were "soft"? |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 8:12:06 PM
|
Dave,
I would see the carbine as a far more effective weapon in general, but not under the circumstances faced by Custer's reeling column. I think I'd prefer a six-shooter, not that it could have changed anything.
Prolar,
Nothing new. It's puzzling. The family history was researched only a few years after the LBH, published near the turn of the century. The 7th Cavalry site only includes him on the duty roster, but not KIA, as in the book. Of course, he most likely wouldn't have been part of the Custer or Reno advances, but with the pack train and at the seige. So, I don't know the final answer. Thanks, though, for asking.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 18 2005 : 10:57:58 PM
|
Wild I: I assume you are asking about the material the cartridge casings were made of. Fox in his book Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle, says they were made of copper or mostly copper. Another source, American Rifleman, says "After combat use, some deficiencies of of the carbine and its cartridge were found. The cartridge cases were too soft, and improved ammunition was put into production to alleviate this problem." The article goes on to list improvements in the carbine.
The all knowing Dark Cloud disagrees, but of course he disagrees with everything. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 19 2005 : 08:14:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
quote:
I mean that a soldier or two may have tried to use his carbine to shoot an Indian but wasn't able to make anything happen because he couldn't clear the jam in time.
Actually, they are two different things: unable to shoot because of a misfire and unable to load because of an extractor issue. I am not going to say jam as that implies that a moving part of the weapon did not work, i.e., move.
Well, I was never talking about a misfire. If I'm not using the right language by "jam," I apologize, though I thought that was basically what Reno was saying in his report on the six unworking carbines that I referenced:
"six were rendered unserviceable ... [by] failure of the breech block to close, leaving a space between the head of the cartridge & the end of the block, & when the piece was discharged, & the block thrown open, the head of the cartridge was pulled off & the cylinder remained in the chamber, where with the means at hand it was impossible to extract it".
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 01:07:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
larsen: You obviously do not know what you are talking about here! The above posting will only confuse the uninitiated further.
The 1873 Springfield did not often misfire, but it did often jam due to blackpowder fouling and the extractor pulling through the soft rims of the cartridges! The carbine could generally not fire unless the breechblock was closed!
This situation is confused enough, lets not make it worse!
I don't see how it could possibly confuse anybody, since it's Reno's own words, and he went into quite a lot of detail about it --- more detail and more informative than you. Nobody ever claimed the Springfield misfired often.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 02:56:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Well little fellar: Reno is either confused or you misquoted him, because it is difficult to fire a action opened carbine! It would be very difficult to extract the head of the cartridge. As I have pointed out without you listening, the extractor on this carbine is almost a sharp blade. What it does is cut through the soft copper rim of the case. If the breech does not close in this case the firing pin cannot line up on the primer. Don't blame me I didn't design it.
Well, what can I say, it's what Reno says. I'd figure he'd know, you know, given that he alone of all of us was actually handling real 7th Cavalry carbines, and cartridges, and that he was writing a report to the government specifically to complain about these features.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 07:45:43 AM
|
Somewhere while searching out information about the Springfield, I seem to recall that I did run across some information that the breech mechanisms in some cases, whether design or materials, left a small gap between the cartridge head and the breech itself. I am not sure if this was with the original trapdoor design for the rifle or was inherent in all.
I am busy right now inputting data so will not have time to go Googling but I would suggest the search criteria be (use this quotes & all) "Springfield+trapdoor" design...then use the "search within results" option (bottom of results page) for "Problems"
OK, I couldn't resist...I didn't find it but the search criteria does work. I did find this interesting article about arms found used by Custer's troops?
http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm
Also, found two other answers: the original cartridge was made of "folded copper" using a Berdan? inside primer. Another site I went to indicates "C" or "R" were used to distinguish rifle from carbine ammunition up to 1882.
Billy |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 12:44:44 PM
|
quote:
Do you mean a Benet primer?
Exactly. Thanks Bob, I knew I was mistaken and was planning on going back to correct but sorta got caught up in other stuff and forgot it.
Billy |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 5:00:23 PM
|
| As much as I would like to hear Larsen's explanation of how a gun fires with the breech open, I'll give my opinion of what Reno was describing. I think he was saying that because of excessive tolerance or variation in the thickness of the case heads that sometimes the head was not tightly supported by the block. Wouldn't this allow the head to seperate at firing? |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2005 : 10:05:45 PM
|
Prolar,
What I assumed when I read Larsen's quote was that there might have been dirt in the breach which prevented the block from completely closing. I'm looking at an exploded view of a 1873 action
http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/Exploded.html
and it seems possible looking at a profile view, that a small amount of dirt would allow the block latch to engage, but still leave a small seperation along the bottom of the cartridge case. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 05:47:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
As much as I would like to hear Larsen's explanation of how a gun fires with the breech open, I'll give my opinion of what Reno was describing. I think he was saying that because of excessive tolerance or variation in the thickness of the case heads that sometimes the head was not tightly supported by the block. Wouldn't this allow the head to seperate at firing?
Well, Reno himself attributed this problem to two causes:
1) "in the manufacture of the gun the breech block is in many instances so made that it does not fit snug up to the head of the cartridge, after the cartridge is sent home"
2) "the dust, always an element to be considered on the battlefield, prevents the proper closing of the breech block, & the same result is produced".
He also suggested that "There may be a want of uniformity in the flange of the head of the cartridge which would also render the action of the extractor null, altho' when the shell was left in the chamber the head would not be torn off".
If you all want to read the full report, it's in Overfield, "The Little Big Horn, 1876".
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 21 2005 05:51:45 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 09:59:43 AM
|
| Again, wouldn't all these alleged failures have shown up in spades during the numerous practice sessions of the U.S. Cavalry at post or in the field OR during the periodic battles that were won or a draw during the decades of Springfield use? If not, why not? And if that cannot be answered, why is the issue nursed as a fall back excuse? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
