| Author |
 Topic  |
|
7th Trumpeter
Recruit
Status: offline |
 Posted - September 22 2005 : 9:17:14 PM
|
|
How many of you own or have ever fired an original or replica of a Springfield Carbine? I have had the privilege of owning and shooting an original and a Harrington & Richardson replica. They are relativly light when you consider the 405 grain slug they fired with the load of 55 grains of black powder. I always wondered how bad the carbines were kicking by the time the troopers on top of Reno hill had probably fired at least 200 rounds with out having the proper tools for cleaning out the barrels. That black powder fouling builds up quick and the recoil builds up right along with it. I have always liked the Springfield. I firmly believe that had the troops been properly trained with the Springfield that the slaughter at LBH would have been less, and that there would have been surviving troopers on LSH!!! The army only allowed 20 rounds of ammo a YEAR for target practice! That was crazy!! I read that most of the troopers wouldn't fire all the ammo at practice so they had the chance of shooting wild game to supplement their Army chow. My son who joined the Army 2 weeks ago was told by a Sgt. that you would be suprised at how many recruits when in weapon training have no idea as to where the magazine was to go in the M-16 rifle! If that is the case 130 years after LBH, then we can only imagine what the sad state of affairs was back then. Had the poor souls on LSH been trained to be good shots with the Springfield I personally believe we would be reading of personal accounts from LSH. Our government still is laying an occasional "goose egg" when it comes to military matters. Case and point; unarmored Humvees. All just my opionions. What do you think?
|
"God, please bless our Troops and may we learn from history so we don't repeat it." |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 08 2005 : 2:02:42 PM
|
7th, here is something I posted a few weeks ago at LBHA.org but is relevent to your post insofar as target practice is concerned.
"While searching for some other information yesterday in the Ft. Sanders, Wyoming Post Returns, I started noticing, beginning with the December, 1873 return, this tantalizing statement in the record of events: "Target practice held in compliance with existing orders." I checked every return and that sentence or a close variation was used on every monthly return through July, 1876. Previous to the 12/1873 return there had only been casual reference to target practice after 1866-67 such as, "Target practice held as weather permitted."
I then went back through the records of correspondence received at Ft. Sanders to see if I could find the specific order and whether it was a departmental order or an army-wide one. Unfortunately, I only found two references to target practice in the brief description of the correspondence received. These were Dept. of the Platte General Order 8, issued June 9, 1873; and Dept. of the Platte General Order 13 issued October 11, 1873. Based upon the time frames I would suggest that the latter is the more likely to have the pertinent information.
Since my curiousity was up, I went to look at the post returns of a fort that had been in the Dept. of the Dakotas, Ft. Sully. Got two good results, one for the original search and one for the family genealogy. Seems like one Second Lieutenant Mathew Markland, 1st Infantry, was the Post Adjutant at Sully in 1875. On the October, 1875 return, I ran into this under the purport of correspondence received: A.G.O. 83, issued September 23, 1875, "Fifteen rounds of Ammunition to be allowed Cavalry for target practice."
So, while the above doesn't answer if the 7th actually had target practice, we now know that there was authorization to shoot rounds, perhaps not a lot, but still, 15 per trooper per month is better than nothing.
I will try to obtain those orders but didn't have any luck hunting them down yesterday. "
With the help of the research librarian at Ft. Leavenworth's Combined Arms Research Library, I obtained A.G.O. 83 which reads:
""War Department
Adjutant General's Office
Washington, September 23, 1875
General Orders No. 83
General Orders 103, from this office, under date of August 5, 1874, is so far amended as to allow the Cavalry service fifteen (15) rounds instead of ten (10) of ball ammunition per month for target practice, this number to be divided between the carbine and revolver at the discretion of the commanding officer. No greater allowance can be authorized on account of the insufficiency of the appropriations for the manufacture of metallic ammunition.
By Order of the Secretary of War:
E. D. Townsend
Adjutant General"
Best of wishes,
Billy |
  |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 08 2005 : 7:47:16 PM
|
| Billy, Glad to see that you are keeping up the good work. While 15 rounds certainly would not make a marksman of anyone, it would certainly be a help in keeping a trooper familar with his weapon. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 08 2005 : 11:53:44 PM
|
Not to be Captain Bringdown, but that's 15 rounds between pistol and carbine, Prolar. That's assuming ammo was actually there at forts at the end of the food chain in quantity to be actually issued and assumes they actually practiced and didn't give it to the noted hunters in the unit to acquire game.
In any case, I've yet to run across any action where the general marksmanship of cavalry soldiers during this period sears the pages. Has anyone? Targets well within range of the carbine, about a half mile from Reno Hill to Sharpshooter Ridge, proved beyond the capabilities of the 7th. It takes, allegedly, Sgt. Ryan with a telescopic sight on a rifle to quiet that problem. We don't know if he actually hit anyone.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2005 : 12:57:07 PM
|
| Good points DC, but you are answering an arguement that I didn't make. As I said that wasn't enough ammo to create marksmen,but it would let them be a little more familar with their weapons. However no amount of practice is going to provide many hits om partially concealed Indians half a mile away. Do you have any idea of the trajectory of those carbines at that distance? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2005 : 2:15:36 PM
|
No clue, only that it's tough shooting uphill, but the carbines are sighted up to 1000 yards, twice the distance to Sharpshooter, I think. In range, anyway.
Because you used the singular "weapon", I was just saying that 15 rounds might keep people familiar with it, but 7.5 might not and is unlikely to. Tis all. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2005 : 6:32:26 PM
|
Although I've seen and held one, I am far from educated regarding the Springfield... However, it was a rather short-barrelled weapon, was it not? That, alone, would diminish its quality at long range. And, cavalry wasn't there for long range fighting, anyway...
7th-- I will disagree with your opinion that better training would have changed the outcome for Custer's column. I would agree that they might have caused more casualties, including killed, but they'd have still been wiped out to a man...and quickly.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 09 2005 : 8:39:11 PM
|
True. Just referencing previous posts about the mountains of dead Indians due to the crack shooting of the 7th, crossed upon tales that several soldiers that made the journey had never fired their weapon whatsoever, having just been assigned as the 7th rode and walked off. They were assigned depots along the way, I recall, but this isn't the stigmata of a well trained army, or even a remotely trained army. I still think the absence of horses defies comment, and reinforces that opinion.
What killed the 7th was its institutional mythology and blather, a seeming belief that gallant officers could motivate and control ill trained units against pretty terrifying enemies. This was true of British cavalry through, well, WWI. A Cavalry Officer was, in England, an affectionate literary code for a cranium composed of concrete calcium within the Imperial forces and out. Gallant, brave, and dead as a doornail soon enough.
Can you imagine the moment when Custer's officers and men realized it was going to come down to their men's skill with their weapons, their marksmanship? Whatever rah rah stories they told the press and each other, they had to know the truth. This seeps through Godfrey's bitter recollections, if nowhere else. Fire control is everything, all else nothing, was his mantra. And knowing what he did...... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 10 2005 : 05:41:59 AM
|
As the NPS web page on the Springfield carbine succinctly puts it:
"U. S. military tactics used discipline and massed firepower to stop an enemy. Indian warriors rarely accommodated the soldiers by coming within range of the Springfields"
Fire discipline like holding the weapon properly, speed of reloading and keeping it steady while shooting would be the primary concern rather than accuracy. In close combat, they all had revolvers to rely on. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 10 2005 : 1:41:30 PM
|
What is the purpose of fire discipline and holding a steady weapon if not some accuracy? How appropriate is skill at massed firepower to Indian warfare? How common the opportunity? How often did Indians 'mass' and/or charge soldiers head on? Why did Custer feel the need for "Sharpshooters" at the Wa****a, then, whatever their actual degree of skill?
Being not experienced in military matters like so many of you, I would think the primary concern would be hitting something and increasing enemy dead. Us silly civilians. To my mind, you can move like the wind and manually reload 400 rounds a second, but if you aren't hitting anything, it's a fairly irrelevant skill, like surrounded soldiers dramatically firing a mass volley in one direction (hitting little if anything)addressing one of 15 attacks while being shredded from the other 270 degrees of the compass.
Although not mentioned here, I also don't buy the periodically offered theory that sabres and pistols required little if any training, being for close quarters, either. Rather, I find those remarkable opinions for soldiers to hold.
In any case, we have no indication that whatever skills the soldiers had as a unit impressed their foes or slowed the disaster. Gray might have felt good using "a good dose of hot lead" referencing a postulated volley or two, but I cannot imagine Sioux watching mounted or unmounted soldiers prepare to fire by command in unison without leisurely hitting the dirt in time. Or being far enough away the threat was purely notional anyway. I still think most Indian casualties - and soldier - were friendly fire, the LBH battle being a large circular firing squad just like Wounded Knee was, with roles reversed and no artillery. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 10 2005 : 7:03:09 PM
|
| DC, other than your earlier statement that" targets half a mile away were well within carbine range", I can't find much in your statements to disagree with. Be assured that I will keep looking. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 05:27:16 AM
|
| I read somewhere that concentrated volley fire had the effect of increasing the range of the weapon - how? - I don't know. Accuracy only comes into it when trying to pick out individual targets - one-to-one. Volley fire has a one-to-many relationship so is inherently more accurate. If the "many" aren't massing in front, then its effectiveness becomes moot. Reports of volley fire at LBH, in the absence of large numbers of in-range Indians to shoot at could either have meant an attempt to check an imminent attack, or to signal for support, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 09:46:28 AM
|
As regards range, a google search came up with a WildWest mag article stating the Springfield Carbine had an effective range of less than 300 yards, but significant hits for up to 600 yards. The total range was over 1000 yards (probably with a 45 degree aim and ending up with pea-shooter energy with the reduced charge/short barrel etc). The sights could be calibrated from 100 to 1000 yards.
It was interesting to note Marcus Reno was on the board of Officers who recommended this weapon for us by the U.S Cavalry to the Ordinance Department. |
Edited by - Smcf on November 11 2005 09:50:17 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 12:41:27 PM
|
| The fact that the weapon is sighted out to a thousand yards does not mean that the weapon is capable of hitting a target 1000 yards distant.What it allows is sight adjustment.For example if ranging practice indicates that the weapon is firing low by a foot at 300 yards this can be over come by adjusting the sights [by trial]to say 500 yards.Likewise a weapon firing say 3 ft low at 700 yards can be adjusted by setting the sights at 1000 yards. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 12:46:47 PM
|
I read somewhere that concentrated volley fire had the effect of increasing the range of the weapon - how?
You don't have to hit anything for a weapon to be effective. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 2:25:17 PM
|
1,000 yards? Yes, the weapon will send a bullet that far and, if it hits someone, it will do damage. Does anyone here think that anyone in the 7th could hit the broad side of a barn at that distance? I certainly would not blame the men of the 7th or any other unit. It's been pointed out here that weapons training didn't exist in the Army...
We can blame that on leadership, or lack of it, at the War Department.
D.C.-- you bring up an interesting picture in the mind's eye: "...a large, circular firing squad..." I would think that, rather than one large circle, there would have been numerous "circular firing squads," judging from the scattered positions that stretch from Calhoun Hill to Deep Ravine.
Are you including suicides as "friendly fire?" I can certainly see how bullets must have been buzzing everywhere and from every direction. Had there been casual observers at the battle, they, too, would have been subject to casualties.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 2:57:16 PM
|
HR, your view is more correct than mine: there were certainly several Circular Firing Squads, so to speak. But my point is that these battles are just confusing, fast moving horrors and trying to get precise angle of fire and velocity rates and all this gun fanatic/nut unproveable trivia can't be divined at this point. I've said before, at the level of the 7th's training, the specificity of other and better weapons from those potentially available in those years is highly unlikely to have made any difference.
How many soldiers at Keogh Ridge were killed by Custer's soldiers firing and missing into dust, and vice versa, and how many Sioux bullets and arrows killed Cheyenne (and other Sioux)and vice versa, has to be factored in. It must have been a large percentage. Sioux killed Lame White Man at close range, for heaven's sake.
"You don't have to hit anything for the weapon to be effective." I realize you mean it could disrupt a distant advance, say, and make them take cover, which counts as an "effect", but if you want to effectively win battles and wars, you're eventually going to have to face the horror of aiming a weapon to achieve a specific result, namely the removal of the creature blocking your view at whatever distance. For example, at about 500 yards, volley fire by those Carbines might have dissuaded the Sharpshootin' Redskin who gave his nickname to the northern hill overlooking Reno might have been enough, right? Without killing him. And yet.......
There is reason to believe that covering fire from Nye and the other ridges happened, and it could have been by volley. I don't know, but if you're under attack and fighting a battle, a cohesive volley as a signal doesn't strike me as a valuable utilization of resources, time, and your last moments on the planet. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 4:58:15 PM
|
HR, your view is more correct than mine: there were certainly several Circular Firing Squads,
If this was the case then it would have mainly been the Indians who would have suffered blue on blue but then their casualties were no more than 2 dozen so it is not really a consideration.
Does anyone here think that anyone in the 7th could hit the broad side of a barn at that distance?If they all fired together then yes there would be a few hits.If 600 troopers fired at one indian 1000 yards distant good chance he would be hit.If one trooper fired at 600 Indians 1000 yards distant good chance he would hit something.It's all relative
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 11 2005 : 5:00:44 PM
|
HR, your view is more correct than mine: there were certainly several Circular Firing Squads,
If this was the case then it would have mainly been the Indians who would have suffered blue on blue but then their casualties were no more than 2 dozen so it is not really a consideration.
Does anyone here think that anyone in the 7th could hit the broad side of a barn at that distance?If they all fired together then yes there would be a few hits.If 600 troopers fired at one indian 1000 yards distant good chance he would be hit.If one trooper fired at 600 Indians 1000 yards distant good chance he would hit something.It's all relative
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 12 2005 : 5:10:32 PM
|
| I didn't realise there was an echo on this board. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2005 : 08:24:27 AM
|
Sorry to be picky, but if a weapon is only deemed to be capable of "significant hits" up to 600 yards, then logically it will be totally ineffective beyond that range.
If covering fire was employed on NC ridge, then a significant number of Indians must have been within range at that point - that means from 1-600 yards. Otherwise, the volley fire must have been for some other reason. Furthermore, if volley fire was employed, as it was identified by soldiers on Reno Hill, then the undeniable inference is the troopers were trained to employ it, otherwise it would not have been identified as "volley fire".
DC Wrote "Sioux killed Lame White Man at close range, for heaven's sake"
Where do you get this from? I read he was scalped by Sioux who mistook him for a crow, as he was lying amongst some dead soldiers they came across. The scalp later given back when they were told of their mistake by their friendly Cheyenne allies. |
Edited by - Smcf on November 14 2005 09:04:02 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2005 : 09:59:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
Sorry to be picky, but if a weapon is only deemed to be capable of "significant hits" up to 600 yards, then logically it will be totally ineffective beyond that range.
Not really, but it really depends on what you mean precisely. The full length Springfield rifle could throw a bullet about 2400 yards (determined by the tests at Sandy Hook), at which point the bullet literally fell from the air. Even given the carbines 55 grain loading and shorter barrel, the carbine would have been easily able to shoot over a 1000 yards, maybe over 1500 yards.
The problem is actually hitting something at that range. Black powder weapons typically had rainbow like trajectories due to the lower muzzle velocities generated by black powder. Add in wind drift and difficulties in estimating range and it all becomes a bit of a lottery. Of course the most restrictive factor, is not so much the weapon itself, but the limitations of tha human eye. Studies of the Korean War show that most soldiers were unable to regularly hit targets over a range of 200 yards.
quote:
If covering fire was employed on NC ridge, then a significant number of Indians must have been within range at that point - that means from 1-600 yards. Otherwise, the volley fire must have been for some other reason. Furthermore, if volley fire was employed, as it was identified by soldiers on Reno Hill, then the undeniable inference is the troopers were trained to employ it, otherwise it would not have been identified as "volley fire".
Its probably pretty hard to distinguish between a bunch of Indians all bobbing up at the same time to fire their guns and an organised volley from a group of soldiers. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Indians were firing their own volleys - think of it this way, if you're an Indian and you stand up alone to fire your rifle at the troopers, they all target you. If a group of you do the same, then they have to track multiple targets, which creates indecision and most of all, hopefully they shoot one of your mates, and not you. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2005 : 10:56:12 AM
|
Smcf,
I got the Lame White Man info from the same sources you do. Here was the prominent Cheyenne war leader and the situation was so bloody confusing that Sioux inadvertantly - well, I assume - scalped him thinking him an enemy scout. But the Cheyenne apparently thought the Sioux had killed him. You'd think the Sioux would know Cheyenne dress and weapons if not the chief personally. But, you're correct and I should not say as I did the Sioux killed him, but only use it to illustrate just how confusing the battle was and the liklihood of friendly fire casualties, which must have been immennse. I think what happened to LWM stands as a good example.
I don't see how, on any sliding scale of logic, that the next step down from "significant hits" is "totally ineffective." Even a minimal number of hits would be effective to some degree or other. And if you're watching your fellow soldiers being chased north, small harm in trying to distract the pursuers at great distance - you might hit something. But we don't know if ANY volleys were fired by soldiers that day from NC ridge......or from anywhere. Stories only. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2005 : 11:59:49 AM
|
No - I was asking just in case you'd come across another source for the Lame White Man stuff. As for the other, a range of 600 yards would appear to be a weapon specification for bullet energy. Remember, the spec for effectiveness is less than 300 yards, roughly the same as for the repeater rifles. But - I'm being picky, as I said. Dave - thanks for the info, I'm maybe reading more into the spec than is actually there.
The volley fire stories came from surviving troopers, more than one identified the fire as such. I would take that as evidence of some training, but where the fire originated from is not very clear. |
Edited by - Smcf on November 14 2005 12:23:03 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2005 : 1:46:46 PM
|
Studies of the Korean War show that most soldiers were unable to regularly hit targets over a range of 200 yards
Hi Dave
I don't think the Yanks were ever noted for their marksmanship.Quantity rather than quality is what they employed.
I would imagine that the poor shooting over 200 yards was due to return fire rather than any limitation of weapon or GI.
SMCF
The volley fire stories came from surviving troopers,
Is there any evidence of volley firing at the Reno position.I can't recall ever reading if volley firing was employed by Reno in the valley fight.My guess is the 7th never practiced fire control or volley firing.The skirmish line was just that,troopers firing independently at targets of opportunity. |
Edited by - wILD I on November 14 2005 1:52:33 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
