| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 23 2005 : 09:34:43 AM
|
"Gen. Crook did not complain about the 1873 at the Rosebud fight! Now I do not know what Gen. Crook had to say about the 1873 Carbine, it probably exists somewhere! But I became curious enough to order some books on the battle. The first one I recieved is "With Crook At The Rosebud, by J.W. Vaughn. In skimming through it quickly I discovered Page 133. On this page it lists the opposite page photographs of recovered casings from the Rosebud Battlefield.
"Third row left to right. .45-70 soldier shell forced from gun with ramrod which tore out side!
Fourth Row left to right. .45-70 soldier shell which had been forced from gun with ramrod tearing out top!
Bottom Row Left to Right. .45-70 Springfield copper case which has been pulled in two by ejector after cartridge had gotten stuck in gun. Bullet wads still remain."
I then went on to find a quote on page 107 about this ammunition/Carbine problem. And I quote:
"One .45-70 soldier's shell broken about halfway down its length, with the lead bullet and wads still in place. This resulted in the defective extracting mechanism of the 1873 Springfield cabines used by the soldiers. After firing four or five shots rapidly, the extractor would not operate because the shells would stick in the chamber. The black powder used would cause the shells to stick. In this case the man could not even get his shell in the chamber all the way, and in trying to pull the shell out, broke it off in the middle leaving in the chamber the half with the bullet. This was pushed out some way. Custer's men had the same problem with these Carbines, and some of them became useless on account of parts of the shells sticking in the chambers."
Paul, my bad, I had totally missed your post of 3/19 @ 6:22 where you gave the Rosebud/extractor connection. It wasn't even a case of skimming badly but totally missing it. Oh well.
Good find. Too bad it had to be prefaced with the insults, etc. but still, good find. Now, I need to get that book also.
I will try to look tonight in the microfilmed rolls of Bourke's diary that Leavenworth has for any references to that problem also. I hope it is indexed somewhere as I seem to remember that it ran to something like 19 rolls of film.
Billy
|
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 10:14:29 AM
|
Really? A rifle shell is the same as the carbine? Huh. Three (3) infantry casings for rifle (which Crook's infantry and some civvies with him used) prove what about the carbines at another battle? And as many as three? Compelling. And we know they were fired in army guns? Or recovered shells used in other weapons by scouts or Sioux? Explain how you know, and why 3 out of 25k means anything?
Of course, nobody knows whether the 7th used carbine or rifle shells in the main, anyway. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 10:21:54 AM
|
DC, note the 3rd one which states bullet wads still in place. Remember, they used some type of spacer between the powder charge and bullet. It is discussed somewhere near the beginning of this thread.
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 10:31:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Really? A rifle shell is the same as the carbine? Huh. Three (3) infantry casings for rifle (which Crook's infantry and some civvies with him used) prove what about the carbines at another battle? And as many as three? Compelling. And we know they were fired in army guns? Or recovered shells used in other weapons by scouts or Sioux? Explain how you know, and why 3 out of 25k means anything?
Of course, nobody knows whether the 7th used carbine or rifle shells in the main, anyway.
Well, a rifle ramrod likely was used to clear them but it is proof positive that Paul has supplied what we asked for: documented proof that there were extractor/cartridge issues at Rosebud. Vaughn did excellent work and I put absolute faith in it. It doesn't matter who shot the rifle/carbine DC, because the context of the question was, "Were there carbine malfunctions at Rosebud?" That has been definitely answered.
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on March 23 2005 10:32:35 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 11:02:32 AM
|
| The rifle verses carbine ammo argument is a red herring. They were the same length cartridge, made from the same material, differing only in the amount of powder and fired from guns which differed only in barrel length. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 12:16:35 PM
|
Well done BJ, Dave, and Warlord .Game set and match.
|
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 2:14:59 PM
|
| BJ: Sorry I fell short of your expectations. That is sincere, not sarcasm.At the time I made the remark, I was not considering whether the post was research or opinion. I simply thought it was wrong. Warlord has explained how the Spencer could be rapidly reloaded. The Henry was fairly slow to reload, but the 66 Winchester could be used as a single shot and still reload faster than the Springfield. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 2:22:00 PM
|
If three casings are proof of mass failure, there's nothing for you. In any case, that's not been my stance. The issue is not whether there were failures (no doubt), but whether there were failures in numbers enough to affect the respective battles, and if these failures are due the weapon or the soldiers' training, and neither Crook nor Bourke seem to mention it as a factor. Bourke praises the Springfields. Odd.
Those are rifle rounds, unless the 70 is wrong, and Crook had Springfield rifles as well. And Indians used ammo in various guns. Three casings are less than compelling evidence for much of anything. Are they from one gun? No? (How do you know?) Three? Wow.
Of course, he mentions in one casing the wads remain. So are they .45/55 or .45/70? We don't even know what the 7th fired, so hard to be picky about Crook.
We also don't know if these are shells that Indians attempted to use in their guns. Do we?
But he only mentions one casing with wadding. That suggests one carbine shell failed, the others (2) were rifle. Insofar as this means anything at all. 3 out of 25,000. Multiply it by 100. Way, way under 1%.
I'm not arguing that ammo and weapons did not malfunction, but that not in any amount to affect the battle, and you yourself, Markland, have pointed out that Indian weapons were given to malfunction as well, increased by being "dirty and corroded", which is a failure of the soldier, not the weapon. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 3:51:28 PM
|
As you know, there is really no way to tell if they were .45/55 or .45/70 without the wadding. Science, always correct, says there were some casings found at LBH that suggested wadding had been there. At least one other did not, as I recall. Varnum says his guys used .45/70 and he assumed everyone else did. Nobody has contradicted him.
Three of 28 casings found would be a meaningful percentage and impressive if:
1. we knew they were from the battle, but I assume they are; and...
2. we knew soldiers fired them in carbines for LBH comparison, and we do not;
3. we knew they were fired in Springfield carbines or rifles at all, and we do not;
4. Then, this, which you say is a quote but makes no sense: "This resulted in the defective extracting mechanism of the 1873 Springfield cabines<sic> used by the soldiers." How were other soldiers affected by one damaged cartridge? Also, I need to check your work. I doubt exclamation points are in the text attending photo captions.
If it has wadding, Warlord, it isn't a .45/70, is it? No. But your source says it is. Huh. Unless you misquoted. Or something. The lack of complaint by Crook's officers about weapons and ammo at the Rosebud, now that's relevant. That previous problems existed isn't. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 4:40:55 PM
|
The argument he advances about fewer men would have died at his entrenchment if the soldiers had bayonets is illuminating! It openly suggests the soldiers had no real close range weapons when the enemy closed with them, SABERS! Defective carbine! No close range weapon. That equals disaster!
Sorry Warlord just backtracking a few posts to clear up a wrong impression you may have got.Reno wanted the bayonets to use as entrenching tools.
Is there no ammo of that period remaining to enable interested parties to test fire the Springfield.
I saw them do this with the rifle used by the Brits at Isandlewana.It jammed when the barrell reached a certain temprature.I think this occured after 1/2 a dozen rounds. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 5:07:17 PM
|
There are those - not professional soldiers, of course - who consider the pistol a close range weapon. Like the ones the 7th had.
If they trained the soldiers in sabers as well as they did firearms, a significant number would have fallen on them, perhaps by mistake. Which units after LBH thought the lesson was to use the saber against Indians? It was probably terrifying for the Indians before most had guns. After that, it's hard to see the fear some suppose it produced.
So, Wild, to conflate your last point with a previous one, the training doesn't consist of many rounds to prevent the soldiers - who will be scared and reckless in battle - from discovering their weapon jams after six firings? Six firings in what time period? And again: if 'training' doesn't consist of rapid firing under realistic conditions, which reasonably could be assumed to take more than six rounds, the fouling weapon is the least of their problems. I don't know how anyone can say it's the weapons' fault for fouling if they discover the flaw after two years of use in battle and practice. It's like discovering your horse has only three shoes because he didn't start to limp till the fifteen mile mark, and you'd never ridden more than five before starting down the Rosebud. You can't blame the blacksmith if he'd shoed them that way for four years without complaint or notice. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 5:44:06 PM
|
quote:
"One .45-70 soldier's shell broken about halfway down its length, with the lead bullet and wads still in place. This resulted in the defective extracting mechanism of the 1873 Springfield cabines used by the soldiers.
Paul, can you check Vaughn's book regarding the above sentence? It finally hit me where it states the "lead bullet and wads still in place" and I wonder if that was a misfire? Otherwise, the bullet would not still be there, right?
Billy |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 5:50:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
The sampling showed 28 casings. Vaugh estimates 99% of the casings had been washed away. Thus three catastrophic faluires is very significant.
If you refer to the photo layout on pages 132-33, it shows 28 casings and bullets, not all of them Springfields. It's just a selection of the more interesting finds.
Vaughn's actual text describes finding many .45/70 cartridges. Just limiting the count only to those Vaughn picked up himself, we have:
2, behind a ledge 300 yards west of Crook's Hill (88).
7, at Packers' Rocks (88).
6, behind a breastwork east of Packers' Rocks (89).
25, on a spur 400 yds south of Crook's Hill (105).
14, on east slope of southeast side of this spur (105-6). One of these is the first of the three jacked casings you refer to, but since Vaughn thought part of it had been poked out with a ramrod (something the soldiers were not issued) he thought this may have come from a weapon used by an Indian.
10, on a ridge south of Burt & Burrowes' ridge (106-7). One of these was the second of the three jacked casings.
2, on a conical mound west of Crook's Hill (108).
24, at Royall's first position (128-29).
15, on a second ridge owned by Chas. Young (129).
3, on a hill east of the ridges (129).
133, at Royall's third position (130).
That's 241 casings; I may have missed a few, since Vaughn's descriptions are scattered throughout his text. I didn't notice where he speaks of the third case that showed problems getting extracted, though on page 133 he says that two of the casings had been forced from the gun with a ramrod, something which he says on page 106 might indicate Indian ownership. The case that still had wadding in it was discovered by him on the ridge south of Burt & Burrowes' ridge (107). That case, it's worth noting, was found in a location which Vaughn believed from the surrounding artifacts to have been "occupied by friendly Indians".
So that's 3 cases, not out of 28, but 241, which showed signs of weapon failure, and all three of them came from guns which the evidence led Vaughn to suspect had been used by Indians, not soldiers.
I checked the officers' reports included by Vaughn in an appendix, and none of them complain of any problems with the gun, isolated or pervasive. I checked Finerty and Bourke too, and they're equally silent.
In the context of all this I don't see how three casings can be very significant.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on March 23 2005 6:44:32 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 5:57:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BJMarkland
quote:
"One .45-70 soldier's shell broken about halfway down its length, with the lead bullet and wads still in place. This resulted in the defective extracting mechanism of the 1873 Springfield cabines used by the soldiers.
Paul, can you check Vaughn's book regarding the above sentence? It finally hit me where it states the "lead bullet and wads still in place" and I wonder if that was a misfire? Otherwise, the bullet would not still be there, right?
Billy
Vaughn, pg. 107: "After firing 4 or 5 shots rapidly, the extractor would not operate because the shells would stick in the chamber. The black powder used would cause his shells to stick. In this case the man could not even get his shell in the chamber all the way, and in trying to pull the shell out, broke it off in the middle leaving in the chamber the half with the bullet. This was pushed out some way."
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 6:07:39 PM
|
Huh.
So was the weapon referred to on page 107 a rifle or a carbine?
Also, I don't follow Larsen's respone to Markland above.
Fox calls all casings found .45/55 and Vaughn all his .45/70, although there's difficulty in actually telling, if I recall from this forum without wadding marks that can vanish over 125 years.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 23 2005 6:18:19 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 6:15:00 PM
|
Here, I'll just post the whole thing. This is Reno's letter on the carbines, exactly as given by Overfield.
HeadQrs. 7th Cavalry
Camp on Yellowstone
July 11, 1876
Gen'l S. V. Benet
Chf. Ord. U.S.A.
I have the honor to report that in the engagement of the 25 and 26 of June 1876 between the 7th Cav & the hostile Sioux that out of 380 carbines in my command, six were rendered unserviceable in the following manner, (there were more rendered unserviceable by being struck with bullets) 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. I believe this is a radical defect, & in the hands of hastily organized troops would lead to the most disastrous results. The defect results, in my opinion in two ways - 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, & it has always been a question in my mind whether the manner in which it revolves into its place does not render a close contact almost impossible to be made. Another reason is that dust, always an element to be considered on the battlefield, prevents the proper closing of the breech block, & the same result is produced. 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.
I also observed another bad fault of the system altho' it did not render the guns unserviceable, viz, the weight of the breech block is such that the hinges on which it revolves is very soon loosened, giving to the block a lateral motion, that prevents its closing.
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. I send you these observations made during a most terrific battle, under circumstances which would induce men to fire with recklessness, as one's capture was certain death & torture, & the men fully appreciated the result of falling into the hands of the indians, & were not as cool perhaps as they would have been fighting a civilized foe. An indian scout who was with that portion of the Regt. which Custer took into battle, in relating what he saw in that part of the battle, says that from his hiding place he could see the men sitting down under fire & working at their guns, a story that finds confirmation in the fact that officers, who afterwards examined the battlefield, as they were burying the dead, found knives with broken blades lying near the dead bodies.
I also desire to call attention to the fact, that my loss would have been less had I been provided with some instrument similar to the "Trowel bayonet," & I am sure had an opponent of that arm been present with my command on the night of June 25th, he would have given his right hand for 50 bayonets, I had but 3 spades & 3 axes & with them loosened ground which the men threw into piles in front of them with tin cups & such other articles as could in any way serve this same purpose.
Very Resp'y
M. A. Reno
Maj. 7th Cav'y.
Cmdg. Regt.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 6:30:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Huh.
So was the weapon referred to on page 107 a rifle or a carbine?
Also, I don't follow Larsen's respone to Markland above.
Fox calls all casings found .45/55 and Vaughn all his .45/70, although there's difficulty in actually telling, if I recall from this forum without wadding marks that can vanish over 125 years.
All I can tell you is that Vaughn considers it to be a .45/70 shell used for an 1873 Springfield.
The case with the bullet and wadding still in it had never been fired. Vaughn believes that while the soldier (or friendly Indian, he actually thinks) was firing, the weapon got dirty, which kept him from properly loading his next cartridge. He tried to pull it out, and tore the back end off in the process. It's the front end of it which Vaughn actually found; he has a picture of it on page 132 of "With Crook".
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 23 2005 : 8:02:35 PM
|
Let's see. Reno says 6 plus others. I give him 15 total weapons jammed, which is probably more than existed since he'd love to have a larger number. Fifteen is about 4% of the total 380. That would indicate nine of Custer's weapons fouled, for all the difference it made, given there'd always be a nearby corpse and replacement and it was likely pistol work soon enough, plus people shot from the saddle without firing at all. If the percentage is based on the brand new information at the Rosebud, even skipping the fact no officer thought it important enough to mention and it apparently was the Crow and Shoshone who were at fault, it was only 1.2%, which is 3 out of 241 sampled. That's about three weapons with Custer.
I admit, this is questionable, but absolutely nothing suggests that with all the problems of men and weapon, it was a significant problem. However......
What Reno testifies to is that the 7th didn't practice enough to note that mechanisms of weapons, or anything, loosen. Quote: "...the weight of the breech block is such that the hinges on which it revolves is very soon loosened...." Gee. Anybody who practiced with the weapon would, you know, have noticed that previously. Very soon loosened.
The Seventh obviously wasn't remotely familiar with the weapon, and anyone who hasn't practiced to any degree to be called minimal can't blame the bloody weapon. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 23 2005 8:06:10 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2005 : 04:30:46 AM
|
He tried to pull it out, and tore the back end off in the process.
And
BJ: larsen's quote and explanation of the text are correct re: the broken cartridge inserted into a fouled chamber, having it stick and the extractor breaking it in two.
Warlord your reference to Larsen's post might be misleading.If the round could not be fully inserted then the breech could not have been closed and the extractor engaged.The cartridge was probably broken by some other means.
So, Wild, to conflate your last point with a previous one, the training doesn't consist of many rounds to prevent the soldiers - who will be scared and reckless in battle - from discovering their weapon jams after six firings?
It is the rate of fire not the number of rounds fired that results in the weapon overheaing and thus jamming.
if 'training' doesn't consist of rapid firing under realistic conditions, which reasonably could be assumed to take more than six rounds,
You are confusing realistic with reckless.I dont know but I would imagine that if the 7th ever practiced rapid fire it could not have been at a rate greater than 5 aimed rounds a minute.
The battle consisted of 4 actions only with Custer were there conditions which would have led to wholesale reckless firing.
Trying to disprove a point by the number of damaged rounds found 150 years after the event is stupid in the extreme.I don't know why the board humours you.I repeat Reno reported that 100% of his carbines had a defect which under certain conditions would jam.
I don't know how anyone can say it's the weapons' fault for fouling if they discover the flaw after two years of use in battle and practice
Fouling was a condition not a flaw easly overcome by using a pull through or ram rod.But who got a chance at LSH to clean their weapons?
Really there was no weapon available at that time which if issued to the 7th would have made one bit of difference to the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2005 : 04:31:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
larsen: Did you order that book two day express from Amazon?
No, I've owned it for about six or seven years.
quote:
However, he is wrong about them (broken casings photos) being suspected of coming from indian guns!
Vaughn shares his suspicions about the ramrodded casings on page 106, and he says on the same page that the damaged shell with the bullet and wadding was found on a small ridge which "from the type of shells found here I believe was occupied by friendly Indians". Vaughn is doubtful any of the three casings were used by soldiers.
quote:
I have tried to explain this before, but don't think I am getting through. This cartridge is known as the .45-70 Government (.45 Government/ .45-70-330/.45-70-350/ .45-70-405/ .45-70-500)! Most people refer to it as a .45-70 no matter what the actual charge of black powder was! When Vaughn refers to some of these cartridges as .45-70's they are actual Cavalry .45-55's. This can be seen from his reference to the broken cartridge with wad. He calls it a .45-70, it is actually a .45-55. Don't get me wrong I believe Vaughn's book is certainly authoritative, he simply does not make the distinction.
It's certainly very odd. Authoritative as it may be, if he filled in the gaps of his expertise with a little fudging it wouldn't be so out of place in this field. I find it really disconcerting, for example, that Fox would identify all .45 bullets found on LBH as .45/55s, even though it's clear that some must be .45/70s, based on other cartridge finds in the area. Were I in his place I would be conservative about this, for it does no one any good to assert as plain something that is actually unknowable. Yes, most of those bullets probably were .45/55s --- but it's just false to count them as all so. So why do it?
quote:
As larsen has found. this is a fine book with what appears to be a objective author about the battle of the Rosebud.
His books are certainly impressive and of lasting value. I've recommended "Indian Fights" before, which has the best account of the Fetterman Massacre anywhere available; "The Reynolds Campaign on Powder River" is also well done. "The Battle of Platte Bridge" is his shortest but probably most well-written book. Be cautioned, though, that his pick of the site where the Custard wagon train slaughter took place is not viewed favorably by other historians (i.e. McDermott, "Fort Caspar"). He didn't find much to substantiate it, just the kind of wagon parts which you could expect to find anywhere along an old wagon road, and its location doesn't really jive with witnesses. The other site, the one historians today suspect is the real one, is on private land about four miles from Ft. Caspar, though I was told by people there that no artifacts have ever been found at that spot, and the landowner has never allowed any search to be conducted (reluctant, understandably, to have state archaeologists snooping around with whatever consequences the identification of a Wyoming State Historical Site might bring). Of course, it's possible that the battle-site isn't there either, and everybody's quite clueless.
The spot where Caspar Collins was killed that same day is now a gravel pit.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2005 : 10:48:44 AM
|
Actually, Warlord, it looks again like you don't understand what you've read. Only a true idiot could post: "The author has not said anything about pry marks or unusually deep extractor marks. So it is obvious these were present but not commented on in this text that I have found as yet." It's not obvious these were present, at least by the evidence you've provided, and Larsen, who has read the book unlike you, didn't mention it. Utter lack of evidence isn't support, somehow.
You don't need to get through with box marking trivia, I understand. What you don't is that most people, or at least Fox, refer to the same shells as .45/55 although he can't prove it either. What are you basing that statement of 'most people' on? Apparently a spent casing only reveals its powder load if the wadding left indications of presence. And a century and a half can remove those indications. The one cartridge with the wadding is the only one you've mentioned that would be a 55 load for sure. Still, you don't know if it was fired in a Springfield anyway, do you? Larsen doesn't say Vaughn says that they were fired by Indian guns, but only they were found in a location presumed occupied by friendly scouts. And Vaughn may with reason assume they used Springfield weapons. And how did Vaughn prove in the 1950's they were fired by "soldier guns?"
Not having the Vaughn book, I depend upon you for quoting accurately. You say this is a quote "This resulted in the defective extracting mechanism of the 1873 Springfield cabines<sic> used by the soldiers." Did you misquote? Because that would only make sense if he said "This resulted FROM..." Is this true? And did he use exclamation points in picture captions? In other words, how much of it is falsely quoted, Warlord?
We have the record, and you've found Vaughn's three defective shells. No officers complained. No soldiers complained on the record, either. Rosebud doesn't support you at all.
Wild: where does Reno say 100% of his weapons were defective? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 24 2005 10:51:22 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2005 : 11:55:34 AM
|
Thanks for the Reno letter Larsen. The novel did quote Reno correctly.
On the subject of the Vaughn book, what was your personnel opinion of the following
After firing 4 or 5 shots rapidly, the extractor would not operate because the shells would stick in the chamber. The black powder used would cause his shells to stick
Is this Vaughn a reputable author? because the above statement seems astounding. I've made no effort to conceal my opinion of what I perceive as the Springfields shortcomings, but by no means did I think the gun could be that bad. Many guns suffer from teething problems during their early years. Its entirely reasonable for us to expect that the Springfield would suffer a certain amount of problems on one of its first major outings, but Vaughn's statement goes far beyond what you would normally expect from a firearm which is still maturing.
Do you know of any independent corroboration regarding this problem? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2005 : 1:30:23 PM
|
Wild: where does Reno say 100% of his weapons were defective?
In his report to Benet he says the manufacture of the weapon was faulty.
The weapon was mass produced.It went through a standardized production system.Therefore it can be taken that a fault highlighted by jamming in 6 of the production models existed in all of them. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2005 : 2:14:49 PM
|
No, it cannot, and no, it wasn't apparent in every weapon or even a majority of them. In any case, Reno never said 100% of the weapons were faulty. He only notes six; the others were struck by bullets.
Again, this is trivia gun porn. Whether 49.47% or 2.6% of the weapons were faulty isn't relevant. If true, it should have been discovered in normal practice and use in the two years elements of the 7th had the Springfield carbine. It was not, or it was and not reported. Either way, if the 7th obviously didn't practice or train enough to reveal certain mechanisms loosened very soon into a fight damns them right there.
If there were evidence that Crook's soldiers, or anyone else's, had this issue, that would be support. None, so far. None. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 24 2005 : 2:33:47 PM
|
| Do us all a favour and read the report.It was a standardised production weapon.Reno says there was a fault in the manufacturing process.The breech block was produced by machining.If the machining process is faulty for one it is faulty for all of them. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
