| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 21 2005 : 5:06:54 PM
|
Prolar
As much as I would like to hear Larsen's explanation of how a gun fires with the breech open,
It is possible for a weapon to discharge before the breech is closed if a round is inserted and the breech has over heated.Bolts have been blown back into the firer's face under such conditions. |
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 8:08:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
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?
Reno must have anticipated this question, since at the top of the third paragraph he says: "I can also state that the blowing up of the breech block was a contingency that was patent to members of the Board which adopted the system & induced strong opposition to it, in the part of a minority," though he does not explain (if he even knew) why it was nonetheless adopted, if it was such a big problem.
I have no idea how accurate that is, or what the full story is.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 8:36:50 PM
|
That would be awful, if true, and certainly an issue that applied to all of them, not just those issued the 7th, but if it were a major problem - or one at all - surely it would have happened during Crook's hours of firing the thing, or certainly would have occured when the 7th tried out their new weapons in a meaningful manner before turning in the old ones ......
Wouldn't they?
I guess I'm of the opinion that even if the weapons religiously blew up or melted in the sun it's something that practice with them would have revealed, and if the weapon was bad or just badly used it's still the fault of the 7th in the final analysis, as no responsible officer would march to battle with newer but crappy weapons. I just don't see it as a potential cause of the battle's loss, but merely a pointer to a cause of general incompetence, if true. But I don't see the evidence for that. Whatever number of carbines fouled, causing French (one of the few good shots) to spend his time clearing them, just normal newbie screw ups in 3% of the weapons could account for it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2005 : 8:45:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
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?
Reno must have anticipated this question, since at the top of the third paragraph he says: "I can also state that the blowing up of the breech block was a contingency that was patent to members of the Board which adopted the system & induced strong opposition to it, in the part of a minority," though he does not explain (if he even knew) why it was nonetheless adopted, if it was such a big problem.
I have no idea how accurate that is, or what the full story is.
R. Larsen
I think you would have to accept Reno's statement as being at least partially, or almost wholely correct. A number of modern Trapdoor shooters say that the action is extremely weak. Not that it was any loner in this regard. The British apparently had similar problems with their Snider-Enfield conversions.
I think that the major motivating factor in the adoption of the Springfield was economic. It was an extremely cheap way of updating all those left over Civil War rifle-muskets. The lifting block design employed was patented by the chief armourer at Springfield, so the American government didn't have to pay a royalty (although it was later found to have infringed one of Hiram Berdan's patents).
Various luminaries wanted to adopt other rifles, but were stopped by the issue of cost. The Peabody (from which the British Martini-Henry is derived) was favoured at the end of the Civil War. General Sherman liked the Remington Rolling Block and the Sharps seems to have been another favourite. |
Edited by - dave on January 21 2005 8:48:10 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 10:51:34 AM
|
But, yet again, why only after this one battle? Did Crook's men complain having fired off 25000 rounds of mass jamming or extraction failure? Did anyone other than Reno's men or, specifically, Reno and later Godfrey? If only Custer's guys were afflicted because of 'returned' weapons from other units, wouldn't these defects have shown up during target practice of any meaningful duration?
If there weren't chronic practices of duration, what possible difference could it have made? If there were, why wasn't the problem attended to? I fail to see how massaging this dubious issue around detracts from serious malpractice by the 7th in its training, such as it was, and whether defective or nonexistent training or defective weapon the blame would fall on he who fell, for the most part, whose responsibility it was.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 5:45:44 PM
|
But, yet again, why only after this one battle? Did Crook's men complain having fired off 25000 rounds of mass jamming or extraction failure?
Perhaps they cleaned and oiled their weapons during lulls in firing.
Custer's troops were unfortunately just a bit too preoccupied. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 3:28:29 PM
|
| Wild I: Sorry to be so late finding your post. I agree that a "cook off" is possible, not likely in a single shot weapon though. Even in a repeater wouldn't the bolt have to be closed but not locked to blow back in the shooter's face? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 3:55:24 PM
|
Wild I: Sorry to be so late finding your post. I agree that a "cook off" is possible, not likely in a single shot weapon though. Even in a repeater wouldn't the bolt have to be closed but not locked to blow back in the shooter's face?
During the 1916 rebellion in Dublin a Battle occured at a canal bridge.2 Battalions of the Sherwood Foresters were advancing on the city and had to cross this bridge which was overlooked by a house held by 7 rebels[our "against all odds"].The boys were armed with German Mausers.The firing was so intense that they had to resort to cooling the Mausers with water and continiously pulling them through.
The Mausers were single shot with the round being fed into the breach by hand.This left the breach open or partially open for a split second but enough time to cause the round to discharge with the bolt being blown backwards.This occured twice knocking one of the lads unconscious. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 03:45:56 AM
|
Warlord
4 Rebels survived the action.At least one was still alive in the early 60s and I recall him being interviewed.Max Caulfield describes the battle in great detail in his book "The Easter Rebellion".
It was an intense battle with the Brits employing mass wave attacks across the bridge with the rebels firing as rapidly as the single shot Mauser would allow.
I think the Mausers dated from the 1880s and fired an 8mm round which is a fairly large shell. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 07:38:05 AM
|
I went looking in the archive of Colorado newspapers on-line for any reported issues with the Springfield carbine. I did not find any. Whether I used the correct search criteria or not is debatable. Anyway, I did find this article from the Colorado Miner published Sept. 16, 1876. It was originally published in the Philadelphia Press. I have had to do this in two posts so bear with me.
http://www.cdpheritage.org/newspapers/index.html
Use the following search criteria:
ALL Newspapers
Date: 1/1/1873 - 12/31/1876 hmmm...
Keywords: Springfield and cartridge (use all three words)
Image Insert:
37.97 KB |
Edited by - BJMarkland on January 28 2005 07:59:20 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 07:58:19 AM
|
Second part:
Image Insert:
37.66 KB |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 10:30:52 AM
|
Markland,
THAT is very interesting, just to us gadget freaks. Thank you. Let me see if I understand it. Tell me where I am wrong.
The newspapers referenced are from '73 to '76. They describe the manufacture of the Springfield rifle and the 70 grain, .45 slug.
It seems the rifle is made fresh and is not a slammed together piece out of muskets to save money from the Civil War. I wonder if this is true, for any number of reasons, of the carbine as well? You'd think so.
And NO mention of carbine problems? Huh.
I'll use the URL later. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 11:37:02 AM
|
*extremely dirty word*
I just noticed that the first portion of the image is missing. For crying out loud, that site seems to be having problems with both Internet Explorer as well as Firefox today.
I will try to retrieve a copy of it somehow and if nothing else, scan it and OCR it for posting.
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 12:01:35 PM
|
OK, here is the first section which was missing.
Sorry about that folks!
Image Insert:
88.33 KB |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 12:34:40 PM
|
Okay.
I'm looking in Barnard's Ryan book and find no reference to problems with the Springfield carbine. Ryan also says that his company got his new carbine before they left for the Black Hills in '74, the first cavalry regiment to get them. Page 257. Didn't someone say the 7th got the Springfield for the first time just before the LBH? Either way, these defects would show up with training in the two years between events. He also mentions that he took 70grain ammo periodically.
But, to be fair, and that's difficult for me, I also saw somewhere today that journalist Finnerty says a half dozen guys had simultaneous trouble at the Sibley fight after LBH. If they had the Spr. carbine, that's evidence. If this was a piece Finnerty wrote for a predetermined desired effect, and I recall he did, it labors in shadows, though. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 12:27:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Markland,
THAT is very interesting, just to us gadget freaks. Thank you. Let me see if I understand it. Tell me where I am wrong.
The newspapers referenced are from '73 to '76. They describe the manufacture of the Springfield rifle and the 70 grain, .45 slug.
It seems the rifle is made fresh and is not a slammed together piece out of muskets to save money from the Civil War. I wonder if this is true, for any number of reasons, of the carbine as well? You'd think so.
I'm sure I might have said something to the effect that '73 Springfields were cobbled together out of Civil War parts. Which, if I said so, was probably a stupid assumption on my part.
It would take a substantial liner to reduce the calibre from the Civil War standard of .58 to .45. I'm sure they could have brazed a liner in, but I guess it would have been at least an equally expensive process as forging new barrels.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they have to fabricate stocks either. The Civil War stocks would have been bedded to accept the .58 calibre barrel.
Which probably means that only the bayonet, sling, main-spring, lock plate, trigger assembly and hammer? were sourced from Civil War stocks. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 01:15:28 AM
|
Warlord, is yours a .45 or .50 calibre? Is there a cartouche on the stock to say when it was re-manufactured? Could it be one of the pre-1873 Allin conversions?
I don't think we can doubt the Philadelphia Press. They wouldn't gain anything from lying.
However I'm thinking that you may have a point that old barrels were being re-made at the same time new ones were being forged. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 09:55:42 AM
|
| Warlord: I don't see much wrong with the newspaper article. As you say the original trapdoors were altered from muzzle loaders, but the 1873 model was not. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 11:23:20 AM
|
Go to this URL Warlord, and plug your serial number in
http://armscollectors.com/srs/lookup_trapdoor.php
If you are very lucky, it might come up with a match.
Anyway odds on, you've got either a model 1866 or 1870 based on the numbers produced of both types. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 1:21:14 PM
|
So, if money was the issue, how much did the Winchester/Henry cost and how much the Springfield, in new and alleged conversion forms, and how much the ammo? What would be the cost difference between the 7th carrying the new Winchesters vs. the Springfield to the LBH? Didn't the early repeaters foul a fair amount as well?
Through World War One, European and American armies were reluctant to go to repeater/automatic weapons because supposedly it encouraged wasteful shooting which was because their soldiers weren't too bright (they thought). And, secretly, because they didn't want African American troops with such effective arms.
Strikes me again that in the two years of practice these failures of the Springfield would have emerged within the 7th. Would the 7th's officers have stood for taking such an unreliable weapon into battle? Or didn't they fire the thing enough to actually know? Or was it a perfectly good weapon in the hands of trained troopers? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 9:05:21 PM
|
quote:
Two years of poor communications countrywide is not enough to evaluate a rifle, especially with ammo constrictions. Probably didn't matter much at the range. Hot and fouled, the extractor tended to tear through the copper rims and you were screwed.
Paul, amazing! You and Fox agree on something! I was reading in his book last night and he mentioned that while the 1873 did outrange the Winchesters/Henrys that several of the Indians carried, especially against Calhoun & Keogh's companies, the fact that the Indians were able to infilitrate within range of the troops and lay down heavy suppressing fire negated the Springfield's major advantage: range. This enabled the Indians to force the troops back, as well as keep their heads down if not retreating, letting others get closer for a final rush.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 11:11:22 AM
|
Okay.
We're trying to find out if the weapons carried by the 7th that day were defective, and if the 7th was trained enough to use them properly, or if one or the other contributed to Custer's defeat.
We were originally told that these guns were shaky because they were Rube Goldbergs made from muskets, but now that isn't true, apparently. They were made from the ground up. The first units in the 7th got them in 1874. We were also told that the 7th got carbines rejected by other units. True? Source?
During the two years before the fiasco, there seems to have been no major complaints about the carbine, which could be due to it working fine or due to the fact that they never practiced enough. Either way, the carbine is removed as a source of battle loss, because it they didn't practice enought to expose this particular combination of flaws - overheating, extractor breaking the casing - in those two years, that was the least of their problems.
We have no clue what ammo the 7th had that day and in what proportion. Thus far, it seems to be a guess that they mostly had the smaller load, but Varnum assumes most everyone took the heavier load for the reasons he did, unstated. In any case, he heard the heavier loads zip rather than zing at the battle being fired at him as Indians used the cavalry carbines and captured rifle ammo.
That French spent some time clearing carbines doesn't strike me as compelling evidence the weapons were flawed, given the training of significant numbers of the men was not good.
So.......doesn't strike me as a terribly meaningful issue. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 1:47:34 PM
|
Either way, the carbine is removed as a source of battle loss,
Not so DC.Perhaps we can rule out defects in the weapon as a source of battle loss but a manually opperated single shot carbine was not the best weapon in close quarter fighting.If it had a bayonet it might have been a little more effective. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 4:23:24 PM
|
The cartridges were easily mixed and then could not be told apart.
How did they set their sights then?
Discussing any possible defects with the carbine is like discussing defects with the deck chairs on the Titanic.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
