| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 30 2005 : 7:48:38 PM
|
quote:
1. Come on. What particular skill beyond eyesight and knowledge of battle would be required to see cases lying on the ground?
If it doesn't take any particular skill, why do you claim they were "trained observers?"
In fact, as anyone who hunts relics can tell you, it does take skill, but they don't teach that skill at West Point, or anywhere else in the Army.
quote:
They're trained observers and battle experienced and knew what to look for. It requires no archaeologist or schoolin'. They found very few cartridges of any sort at LSH. So yes: it's an issue that all these show up later.
What training did they have to find cartridge cases? What course did they take?
quote:
2. Crazy Horse told Sandoz squat. They never met, I assume you know, given she was born 17 years after he was murdered.
But had access to tradition -- just as many others, such as Bad Heart Bull.
quote:
3. That there is no Indian testimony, and of the stories at hand Gray could fit some in with his time schedules.
Except that there is -- while the indians were not sworn, they were interviewed. There are literally reams of interviews with indian participants, on both sides.
quote:
5. Sandoz cannot quote Crazy Horse. They never met.
I can quote Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin, and we never met.
Sandoz had access to oral tradition from people who were either eye witnesses or who were close kin to such witnesses.
quote:
What is the source for Sandoz' quotes? And further, since there weren't many if any guns captured at the Rosebud, how can this be true anyway? My point is, CH's tale is at best filtered through many voices at distance in time with plenty of opportunity to include then current desired slants.
It seems clear that members of Crazy Horse's band captured guns at the Battle of the Rosebud -- Crook abandoned the battlefield rather hastily, and most of the time he was there he was absorbed in things other than looking for discarded weapons and equipment.
quote:
That's why Fred Calhoun might well be an issue. It's his brother in law Moylan who is the sole source for the claim that Calhoun's men fired all these shells at the LBH, I fear. That too is suspicious.
You seem obsessed with Fred Calhoun.
quote:
6. Proof the 7th was aware of the issues they claimed at the LBH before the LBH?
The whole Army knew it -- many units were armed with '73 Springfields before the 7th got theirs.
quote:
Reno said at the inquest they discovered at LBH that the weapons loosened up very quickly, and that some few fouled. If true, that would have appeared during the two years they trained with the Springfield. If they didn't train enough for that to become obvious, it doesn't matter: they were ill trained, period.
So what? The '73 Springfield with issue ammunition was prone to jamming and firing out of battery. That's well known.
What are you arguing about? I can't tell what you mean -- do you accuse Reno of something? Do you claim the weapons didn't jam? What is your point?
quote:
7. No it doesn't. I AM saying that you have to prove the alleged failure rate of the Springfield was not due to human errors, existed in number beyond that of any alternative weapon of the period for it to be meaningful. Safe bet the Indians suffered far worse issues, anyway.
No, I don't. The jamming and firing out of battery are well documented -- that's why the Army made changes in both carbine and ammuniton. |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 1:31:01 PM
|
| The problem with attaching any significance to artifacts found on the LBH battlefield is that 4000 souvenir hunters got there first.Take for instance this great mystery about MTC ford.Artifacts found would seem to support some kind of action occuring here.However besides a few shell cases army knifes,buttons and saddle items were found.Now when you consider that perhaps 4 ton of army equipment was carried down from the field and across the ford by women and children is it any wonder bits and pieces turned up here. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 2:05:23 PM
|
quote:
The problem with attaching any significance to artifacts found on the LBH battlefield is that 4000 souvenir hunters got there first.Take for instance this great mystery about MTC ford.Artifacts found would seem to support some kind of action occuring here.However besides a few shell cases army knifes,buttons and saddle items were found.Now when you consider that perhaps 4 ton of army equipment was carried down from the field and across the ford by women and children is it any wonder bits and pieces turned up here.
But that isn't unique to the Little Big Horn. Archeologists often work where the event happened not a hundred years ago, but a thousand -- and much more than a thousand.
They work sites where not only has there been wholescale looting, but where later occupation resulted in people digging down to the strata in question and burying things of later date. And they have techniques to deal with these problems -- techniques developed and tested at many sites.
In the case of the Little Big Horn, it isn't absense of artefacts that tells the story, it's those that remain there. And the information is collated with other information. As I said, if you find a position with lots of .45-55 (or .45-70) cases, plus non-government bullets, plus human remains, you can tell quite a bit from that.
On the other hand, a handful of cases found where there are no enemy bullets, no remains, no other indicators of a fight is a different matter. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 2:09:13 PM
|
Mr. Humphrey,
1. "If it doesn't take any particular skill, why do you claim they were "trained observers?"" Because it doesn't take any particular skill to observe cartridge cases, hardly relics, and they were trained observers beyond what was needed. They knew how to count and recognize casings. Trying to make this a Cretian site is rather silly. Many of the officers knew how to read a recent battlefield, had written enough reports, knew what to look for.
2. "What training did they have to find cartridge cases? What course did they take?" Second grade arithmetic atop Civil War experience.
3. "But had access to tradition -- just as many others, such as Bad Heart Bull." That's not what you said, one, and tradition, having become established by any number of methods including drunken hallucinations, is unreliable on its face. No schoolin' required for that, either.
4. "Except that there is -- while the indians were not sworn, they were interviewed. There are literally reams of interviews with indian participants, on both sides." It's that oath which makes it testimony, of course, and since none of them spoke English, or wrote English, their responses went through the hands or a third party, often unknown to us, with unknown agenda and ability. Translators are highly suspect from that period: unvetted at best.
5. "I can quote Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin, and we never met." That's because we have their written words in their hand, or attested to in their hand. Further, many, many people heard them speak who understood their language of precision well, and there is little or no controversy as to their words, intent, or meaning, including the understanding of their enemies. No such thing from Crazy Horse or any Sioux of the time.
6. "It seems clear that members of Crazy Horse's band captured guns at the Battle of the Rosebud -- Crook abandoned the battlefield rather hastily, and most of the time he was there he was absorbed in things other than looking for discarded weapons and equipment." That's not what you said, and no, Crook didn't abandon it hastily, Crook wouldn't himself look for abandoned weapons anyway, and there is nothing to suggest that many were lost at all. What is your evidence that there was enough abandoned weaponry of any sort to make an alleged quote of CH's about "lots" of jammed guns remotely valid? And who translated for CH? And to who?
7. "You seem obsessed with Fred Calhoun." Other than he was an example of Custer's nepotism, not at all. It's your lack of interest in his presence that's suspect.
8. "The whole Army knew it -- many units were armed with '73 Springfields before the 7th got theirs." Than it should be easy to prove the 7th both knew it and had had experience with this problem before LBH.
9. "So what? The '73 Springfield with issue ammunition was prone to jamming and firing out of battery. That's well known." Not before the LBH it isn't. And again: proof? (Also? Custer was the last to die and had a saber is also well known, along with his Presidential ambitions, and Reno was a drunk. Everyone knows it. No need for proof.....)
10. "What are you arguing about? I can't tell what you mean -- do you accuse Reno of something? Do you claim the weapons didn't jam? What is your point?" That the weapons didn't foul more than alternatives, that the 7th given any weapon with the same level of training would have done no better, that the Army wasn't competent. I accuse Reno and Custer and all of them of incompetence if, by sworn testimony, they didn't know of deleterious aspects of their primary weapon till a life and death struggle due to lack of training after five or so shots.
11. "No, I don't. The jamming and firing out of battery are well documented -- that's why the Army made changes in both carbine and ammuniton." None of it before LBH, though. Crook's men didn't complain the weapon was faulty beyond the norm. If you have proof they did, where is it? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 31 2005 2:11:39 PM |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 2:38:45 PM
|
quote:
1. "If it doesn't take any particular skill, why do you claim they were "trained observers?"" Because it doesn't take any particular skill to observe cartridge cases, hardly relics, and they were trained observers beyond what was needed. They knew how to count and recognize casings. Trying to make this a Cretian site is rather silly. Many of the officers knew how to read a recent battlefield, had written enough reports, knew what to look for.
And where were they trained to do this? Specifically, how were they trained to look for cartridge cases in a systematic manner?
And which officers say they did this?
quote:
2. "What training did they have to find cartridge cases? What course did they take?" Second grade arithmetic atop Civil War experience.
And Civil War officers prowled the battlefields looking for cartridge cases?
I'll bet they didn't find many.
quote:
3. "But had access to tradition -- just as many others, such as Bad Heart Bull." That's not what you said, one, and tradition, having become established by any number of methods including drunken hallucinations, is unreliable on its face. No schoolin' required for that, either.
So you choose to discount it. Oddly enough, the more modern scholars studying (for example, Gray) this battle give it much more weight. Other highly respected scholars (for example, Utley) approve of their work.
quote:
4. "Except that there is -- while the indians were not sworn, they were interviewed. There are literally reams of interviews with indian participants, on both sides." It's that oath which makes it testimony, of course,
No, it's the telling that makes it testimony. And many of the indian accounts were given formally.
quote:
and since none of them spoke English, or wrote English, their responses went through the hands or a third party, often unknown to us, with unknown agenda and ability. Translators are highly suspect from that period: unvetted at best.
The way of dealing with that is to compare statements, making allowance for the actual location (and time) of the witnesses' participation. Modern scholars are more and more coming to see that if you carefully colate the indian statements and use other tools (such as topographic maps) to follow the action, their statements are quite as accurate as those of sworn white witnesses.
quote:
5. "I can quote Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin, and we never met." That's because we have their written words in their hand, or attested to in their hand. Further, many, many people heard them speak who understood their language of precision well, and there is little or no controversy as to their words, intent, or meaning, including the understanding of their enemies. No such thing from Crazy Horse or any Sioux of the time.
My grandfather, who was a Sanachie (an Irish storyteller) once told me, word for word, a story first composed around the time of Christ and handed down through the generations.
Homer, who relied on oral tradition, said things that modern readers couldn't understand -- until they found archeological evidence, and concluded that Homer was indeed correct when he talked about things like Achilles' shield tapping his heel and the crown of his head as he walked with it slung over his back.
quote:
6. "It seems clear that members of Crazy Horse's band captured guns at the Battle of the Rosebud -- Crook abandoned the battlefield rather hastily, and most of the time he was there he was absorbed in things other than looking for discarded weapons and equipment." That's not what you said, and no, Crook didn't abandon it hastily,
So your position is that Crook entrenched, sent out systematic parties to police up the battlefield, and continued on with his mission?
You're the only person I know who says that.
quote:
Crook wouldn't himself look for abandoned weapons anyway, and there is nothing to suggest that many were lost at all. What is your evidence that there was enough abandoned weaponry of any sort to make an alleged quote of CH's about "lots" of jammed guns remotely valid? And who translated for CH? And to who?
Read what Sandoz said.
quote:
7. "You seem obsessed with Fred Calhoun." Other than he was an example of Custer's nepotism, not at all. It's your lack of interest in his presence that's suspect.
As opposed to your obsession.
Was Calhoun present when Crazy Horse made his remarks about the Rosebud? Just how did he influence them?
quote:
8. "The whole Army knew it -- many units were armed with '73 Springfields before the 7th got theirs." Than it should be easy to prove the 7th both knew it and had had experience with this problem before LBH.
Assuming anyone subscribed to the Army Navy Journal, they would know it, even if they didn't experience it with the scanty allowance for practice ammunition.
quote:
9. "So what? The '73 Springfield with issue ammunition was prone to jamming and firing out of battery. That's well known." Not before the LBH it isn't. And again: proof?
There were letters in the Army Navy Journal complaining about the weapon.
quote:
(Also? Custer was the last to die and had a saber is also well known, along with his Presidential ambitions, and Reno was a drunk. Everyone knows it. No need for proof.....)
If you think that, you're in a rather small group.
quote:
10. "What are you arguing about? I can't tell what you mean -- do you accuse Reno of something? Do you claim the weapons didn't jam? What is your point?" That the weapons didn't foul more than alternatives,
Death is not graded on a curve.
An unreliable weapon in combat is a serious matter -- and we don't say, "Well, you can come back to life now. We found that your weapon doesn't jam any more than anyone else's."
The Army took the problem seriously and corrected it -- in fact, if anything, they went overboard by issuing ruptured case extractors with every carbine.
quote:
that the 7th given any weapon with the same level of training would have done no better, that the Army wasn't competent. I accuse Reno and Custer and all of them of incompetence if, by sworn testimony, they didn't know of deleterious aspects of their primary weapon till a life and death struggle due to lack of training after five or so shots.
Well, write to the Judge Advocate General and ask him to send you Court Martial forms, so you can write up your charges.
quote:
11. "No, I don't. The jamming and firing out of battery are well documented -- that's why the Army made changes in both carbine and ammuniton." None of it before LBH, though.
Wrong.
quote:
Crook's men didn't complain the weapon was faulty beyond the norm. If you have proof they did, where is it?
Let me get this straight -- you already have taken the position that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. And then you take the position that only complaints by Crook's men can be accepted? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 3:59:27 PM
|
My grandfather, who was a Sanachie (an Irish storyteller) once told me,
Maybe your grandfather was a Scot but the Irish term is seanchai.
|
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 4:10:18 PM
|
quote:
My grandfather, who was a Sanachie (an Irish storyteller) once told me,
Maybe your grandfather was a Scot but the Irish term is seanchai.
I can't spell in English, let alone in Irish. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 7:12:18 PM
|
quote:
Just as an aside, the next version of the carbine (the Model 1879) had a butt trap which contained a jointed cleaning rod and a ruptured case extractor. Clearly somebody thought jammed and ruptured cases were a serious enough problem to give each cavalryman his own ruptured case extractor.
Vern that modification was done in 1877 to the carbine due to the reported problems at the LBH. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 7:35:58 PM
|
quote:
Vern that modification was done in 1877 to the carbine due to the reported problems at the LBH.
The "headless shell extractor" (in modern terminology a ruptured case extractor) was invented in October 1875, and production was authorized in December of that year. So there certainly was knowledge of a problem and the Ordnance Corps was working on it prior to the Little Bighorn.
By 1877, jointed cleaning rods, which could be conveniently carried on the person and used to knock out stuck cases (as Captain French did with the cleaning rod of his M1870 .50-70 infantry rifle) were made general issue.
The Model 1879 Carbine has a butt-trap (which the Model 1873 lacked). There are three holes under the butt trap, the upper and lower holes (which are smaller than the central holes) contain the sections of a jointed cleaning rod. The central hole contains the ruptured case extractor.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 7:50:01 PM
|
| Vern I believe the testing in 1873 Army tests demonstrated a low failure rate at less than 2% I believe for the Springfield. The soft cartridge, dirty cartridges, and poor maintenance would have to account for anything over 3% failure and the stuck cases in my opinion. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2005 : 8:41:36 PM
|
quote:
Vern I believe the testing in 1873 Army tests demonstrated a low failure rate at less than 2% I believe for the Springfield. The soft cartridge, dirty cartridges, and poor maintenance would have to account for anything over 3% failure and the stuck cases in my opinion.
First of all, tests are basicaly the optimum conditions -- by that, I mean that every weapon we've ever adopted developed flaws and problems after production -- flaws and problems not detected in testing.
Secondly, dirty cartridges and poor maintenance are the norm in combat. The conditions under which troops operate, how they carry their ammuntion and so on make problems. The exingencies of combat often preclude good maintenance.
The idea is to develop weapons that work in combat. The Army realized the flaws in the '73 rifles and carbines and took a long series of measures to correct them -- developing and issuing ruptured cartridge case extractors with every carbine, issuing jointed cleaning rods, modifying the carbine to carry the ruptured cartridge case extractors and jointed cleaning rods, changing the metalurgy of the cartridges, and so on. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 12:02:55 AM
|
quote:
By 1877, jointed cleaning rods, which could be conveniently carried on the person and used to knock out stuck cases (as Captain French did with the cleaning rod of his M1870 .50-70 infantry rifle) were made general issue.
The Model 1879 Carbine has a butt-trap (which the Model 1873 lacked). There are three holes under the butt trap, the upper and lower holes (which are smaller than the central holes) contain the sections of a jointed cleaning rod. The central hole contains the ruptured case extractor.
Nice try Vern but how do you explain this quote.
quote:
The title, Model 1877, pertains only to carbines. Springfield did not designate a Model 1877 rifle or cadet rifle. The change from Model 1873 to Model 1877 was prompted by the addition of the cleaning rod holes in the butt stock of the carbine which required a heavier stock wrist to off-set any weakness the holes may have caused.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 12:33:47 AM
|
quote:
Secondly, dirty cartridges and poor maintenance are the norm in combat. The conditions under which troops operate, how they carry their ammunition and so on make problems. The exingencies of combat often preclude good maintenance.
The idea is to develop weapons that work in combat. The Army realized the flaws in the '73 rifles and carbines and took a long series of measures to correct them -- developing and issuing ruptured cartridge case extractors with every carbine, issuing jointed cleaning rods, modifying the carbine to carry the ruptured cartridge case extractors and jointed cleaning rods, changing the metallurgy of the cartridges, and so on.
1. What flaws were in the Model 1873 rifle?
2. Is not having the hole in the stock the flaw in the carbine?
3. What long series of measures?
4. The metallurgy existed before the Model 1873 so how was it changed? (by ordering brass cartridges instead of cheap low bid copper cartridge?)
As far as working in combat. How would having a stuck cartridge remover helped at the LBH? While the Indians are coming toward you, you open the compartment in the stock, assemble the three piece rod, attach the stuck case remover etc.?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 12:56:57 AM
|
quote:
The "headless shell extractor" (in modern terminology a ruptured case extractor) was invented in October 1875, and production was authorized in December of that year. So there certainly was knowledge of a problem and the Ordnance Corps was working on it prior to the Little Bighorn.
Vern a ruptured case is failure or break in the wall of a cartridge case, usually allowing gas to escape. It does not necessarily have to be a complete head separation as was the case the tool you mentioned was designed to remove. A knife would be quicker on a stuck case with the head still on the cartridge case. The tool you mentioned is the "M-1875 HEADLESS SHELL EXTRACTOR FOR M-1877 AND LATER SPRINGFIELD RIFLES AND CARBINES" It expands the case to assist in removal of a headless cartridge case. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 01:02:16 AM
|
quote:
I can quote Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin, and we never met.
Only if they wrote something done,its authenticated and you read the original. Everything else is hearsay. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 01:12:45 AM
|
quote:
So what? The '73 Springfield with issue ammunition was prone to jamming and firing out of battery. That's well known.
Vern show me where there is data that shows more than 5% functional failure. Your argument about the found cartridges that exhibit signs that it had been stuck does not hold up since they do have the Reno-Benteen rifles that had stuck cases. That data supports the Custer battlefield data that there was a low percentage of carbines that remained non-functional. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 01:14:46 AM
|
| Happy New Year |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 09:02:56 AM
|
quote:
Vern a ruptured case is failure or break in the wall of a cartridge case, usually allowing gas to escape. It does not necessarily have to be a complete head separation as was the case the tool you mentioned was designed to remove. A knife would be quicker on a stuck case with the head still on the cartridge case. The tool you mentioned is the "M-1875 HEADLESS SHELL EXTRACTOR FOR M-1877 AND LATER SPRINGFIELD RIFLES AND CARBINES" It expands the case to assist in removal of a headless cartridge case.
You're absolutely right -- there were two failures common in trapdoors. The first was a stuck case -- primarily due to three factors:
1. Soft metal cases (gilding metal was used).
2. Fouling (as I said, about 40% of the combustion products of black powder are solids.)
3. Overheating.
4. The narrow extractor -- a wider extractor might have solved much of the problem, but would have required a redesign of the receiver and the tooling to make it.
The second was a ruptured case -- primarily due to the fact the trapdoor could be fired out of battery. This was corrected in the next version with a better breechblock lock.
The best solution in the field to the stuck case was a cleaning rod down the muzzle. But in 1876, the troopers didn't have their own cleaning rods.
The solution to the ruptured case was twofold -- if the head was off or nearly off, the ruptured case extractor was best. If however it was only partially off, then it was pick and pry. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 09:07:05 AM
|
quote:
Vern show me where there is data that shows more than 5% functional failure. Your argument about the found cartridges that exhibit signs that it had been stuck does not hold up since they do have the Reno-Benteen rifles that had stuck cases. That data supports the Custer battlefield data that there was a low percentage of carbines that remained non-functional.
What's with this demand for 5%?
My position is simple -- Fox and company's data does not support their conclusions. The cases with pry marks only represent the carbines that jammed and were successfully cleared. They are no evidence for the carbines that jammed and were not successfully cleared.
There is no fixed percentage that I have to show to uphold that contention -- because I'm not talking about numbers but about interpretation of data. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 09:10:32 AM
|
quote:
Only if they wrote something done,its authenticated and you read the original. Everything else is hearsay.
Which covers about 99.99% of all the history books. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 09:23:38 AM
|
quote:
1. What flaws were in the Model 1873 rifle?
2. Is not having the hole in the stock the flaw in the carbine?
The rifle had a cleaning rod mounted under the barrel (where a muzzle loader would have had a ramrod.) This made the modifications to the rifle less critical than for the carbine which had no cleaning rod.
quote:
3. What long series of measures?
Developing a ruptured cartridge extractor (authorized for production about six months before the Little Bighorn), developing and issuing a jointed cleaning rod. Improving the breechblock lock.
The ammunition was constantly being changed to try to solve these problems. "...In June 1874, the thickness of the head was slightly increased; during September, 1876 [note the date] the outside diameter of the case was slightly reduced. In February 1877, the thickness of the walls of the body of the case was increased. These dimensional changes in the case were for the most part introduced to correct serious extraction problems which were reported from the Western Military Departments." (Source: History of Modern US Military Small Arms Ammunition.)
In other words, a lot of work had been done on the problem prior to June, 1876, and work continued well beyond that date.
quote:
4. The metallurgy existed before the Model 1873 so how was it changed? (by ordering brass cartridges instead of cheap low bid copper cartridge?)
Actually most of the ammuntion was made by the government at Frankford Arsenal. The arsenal had neither the tooling or the expertise to make drawn brass cartridges and pinned their hopes on solving the problems through other measures first. But yes, they did go to brass instead of gilding metal cases.
quote:
As far as working in combat. How would having a stuck cartridge remover helped at the LBH? While the Indians are coming toward you, you open the compartment in the stock, assemble the three piece rod, attach the stuck case remover etc.?
The issue is not did the various solutions work, but were they in train before the Little Bighorn. If someone develops a solution to a problem in 1874 (even if the solution doesn't work), it proves the problem was known before 1876.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 10:50:37 AM
|
Are you two fellas trying to outrank each other with these multipostings.
Happy new year. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 12:10:28 PM
|
Mr. Humphrey,
1. They weren't trained in modern systems, nor was that required. "And Civil War officers prowled the battlefields looking for cartridge cases?" You're being silly. This was a small action, they wanted to know how it had been fought and what happened, they found cases with Calhoun and nowhere else in number. First hand study for experienced officers trumps archaeology, who cannot even prove when the shells came to be there.
2. Trying to sneak stories and tales under the heading 'traditon' is problematic. I don't discount tradition, but I don't believe it when offered without knowing when the story first appeared, to who, from who, and what their agenda was. There is a reason Custer Studies, so called, is the Area 51 of Western History.
3. "No, it's the telling that makes it testimony. And many of the indian accounts were given formally." That's neither true legally nor in fact. "Formally" means nothing. It's either under oath, where falsehood can be punished, or not. Testimony is under oath, on the stand or in deposition.
4. "The way of dealing with that...." is to view it with a cancerous eye. You love the word collate, but that doesn't elevate the verb 'guess' to 'prove.' I have no doubt Indians told the truth as much as white men, but you need to remember that we don't have the Indian statements. We have statements purported to be that of particular Indians. If taken a quarter century after the battle on a reservation, why would we believe the remarkable concordance of stories, or credit Indians to being immune to the impulse to fit in and be one of the guys just like whites?
5. "My grandfather, who was a Sanachie (an Irish storyteller) once told me, word for word, a story first composed around the time of Christ and handed down through the generations." Thus explaining the mutually exclusive Gospels. There's no evidence Homer existed, or that the Greeks ever attacked Troy. Schulmann only found a small city that could be Troy. That Paris and London existed doesn't make Stanley Carlton real.
6. No, my postion is what happened. That they gathered up everything, took particular care the dead were buried and a fire burned over the bodies, and the army marched over the ashes in order. They had chased/followed the Sioux seven miles off the field. That's not abandoning the field in haste.
7. Quote what Sandoz says.
8. "Was Calhoun present when Crazy Horse made his remarks about the Rosebud? Just how did he influence them?" You're being deliberately dense. For the third or fourth time, who translated CH's alleged remarks, who wrote them down?
9. "Assuming anyone subscribed to the Army Navy Journal, they would know it, even if they didn't experience it with the scanty allowance for practice ammunition." That would mean previous to LBH 'everyone' knew that the Springfield had problems above and beyond the normal for new issues. Again: proof?
10. "There were letters in the Army Navy Journal complaining about the weapon." Great. Quote them, along with date.
11. You're being deliberately dense, again. Nobody believes that, and were offered as examples of other falsehoods 'everybody' knew at one time.
12. "An unreliable weapon in combat is a serious matter -- and we don't say, "Well, you can come back to life now. We found that your weapon doesn't jam any more than anyone else's."" That sounds meaningful and rife with import, but isn't. ANY new weapon will have problems, the Army will fix them, but the very small failure rate of the Springfield falls well under the various percentages by supposed experts that designate up to a 5% failure rate due to human error. The Army trotted out various possible excuses for the LBH fiasco, including this.
13. "Well, write to the Judge Advocate General and ask him to send you Court Martial forms, so you can write up your charges." Nobody did. Huh. Since you either have a defective weapon due to negligence or you don't, guess they decided it wasn't the weapon.
14. "Wrong." Good. Now, proof?
15. "Let me get this straight -- you already have taken the position that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. And then you take the position that only complaints by Crook's men can be accepted?" Your first statement is not a position of mine or anyone's, but fact. I have never said "only" complaints by Crook can be accepted. I point out again that whatever problems there were with the Springfield were minimal, well within problem rates for 1876 in anything, including weapons, but since the 7th hadn't done enough training with them, even obvious ones weren't discovered till LBH. With that level of competence and training ANY weapon's problems and issues (they all have some) would have remained an unwelcome surprise to the 7th at LBH. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 01 2006 12:14:52 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 12:15:18 PM
|
quote:
The second was a ruptured case -- primarily due to the fact the trapdoor could be fired out of battery. This was corrected in the next version with a better breechblock lock.
Again so we are on the same page of definitions the headless shell extractor is similar in function to a modern broken shell extractor.
I have one for the .223. Most gunsmiths are familiar with this tool. I have seen the nomenclature of "ruptured" cart. extractor for military designation. Since it won't remove a ruptured cartridge with the head of the cartridge in place it seems the military should have stuck with the original headless shell extractor nomenclature it clearly defines its use and function. That would be too easy.
The point here is that the Indians had a problem firing recovered .45/55 ammo in their .50 Sharps. In these incidents the .45/55 cartridges ruptured lengthwise. A ruptured cartridge extractor is not designed to remove this type of rupture.
The next version of the M 1873 carbine was the M 1877 which had the cleaning rod holes in the butt stock of the carbine. "Model 1877 Carbines have thick stock wrists and are found with a variety of breech variations such as: gas port depth, receiver width, barrel tenon form and high and low arch breech blocks."
By 1876 there were approximately 20,000 carbines produced. In 1877 approximately 2,500; 1878 approximately ,2000; were produced. In 1879 there were no carbines produced. If there was a significant problem in 1876 you would expect to find a large change over. Instead there is minor change in numbers, especially since the army lost some of them, with a variety of breech blocks not just one to solve a problem. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 01 2006 : 12:18:21 PM
|
Wild,
The lack of casings around MTC could - could - be easily explained by 1.) hordes of horses going back and forth that major highway and 2.) the fact that from the earliest days, trains stopped there for picnics with regularity, and the tourists cheerfully pillaged the area, which we know they did. That doesn't prove anything happened there, but the absence of evidence could be explained. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
