quote:

---

Are you two fellas trying to outrank each other with these multi-postings.
Happy new year.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

In seriousness, you might want to look at the newest voice recognition software. A few years ago it drove me crazy, and I don't use it, but I hear now the new ones are pretty good. It takes a while to 'train' the machine, but apparently once done, it's very accurate. The military uses various types, and that's a good place to ask for recommendations, as opposed to retailers. WinXP has one built in that drove me batty, but I'm not too swift or patient. But it's easier than learning to type at our age, late youth.

Dark Cloud

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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."

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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. Crook's men didn't complain the weapon was faulty beyond the norm. If you have proof they did, where is it?

---

quote:

---

1 My reason for picking 5% is I feel it is an acceptable level of malfunction. Remember the testing demonstrated that the Springfield had a 2% malfunction rate. If you find data that shows a 25% rate then we have serious problem that could be fixed by switching the weapon system or some serious modification.

---

quote:

---

2 There is evidence from Reno for the carbines that jammed and were not successfully cleared.

---

quote:

---

3 As far as your statements regarding the 45 Colt. There were 10 unfired cases and 8 fired cases found. I bet the Indians were mad they missed picking those up. My answer as to why so few is that the Indians knew how to reload cartridges. A 45 Colt is a lot easier to reload than a .45/55 of that era. The army was aware of the reloading issue before LBH.

---

quote:

---

4 Ammunition is not a component of the 1873 Trapdoor Springfield.

---

quote:

---

Any weapon can be made to malfunction with poor quality ammunition. Why would you want to spend time trying to make improvements to a weapon so it can fire this poor quality ammo instead of having better quality ammunition. Simple economics, I believe,is why the army purchased the inferior ammo rather than having the same standard as the .50/70 ammunition which was also found at LBH.

---

quote:

---

The ruptured cartridge extractor was designed to be used by the US Army in Springfield rifles and carbines, not for indians to use in the .50 Sharps.

Why on earth would we produce a tool for the enemy to use?

---

quote:

---

You seem to feel the problem is with the carbine. The problem was with the ammunition. The various changes were made in hopes of solving the problem, and while they may have made the carbines and rifles a bit handier and better, they didn't really solve the problem. So there was no point in a massive changeover. Going to drawn brass cases solved the problem.

---

quote:

---

Economics certainly played a part. But look at it from the perspective of the early 1870s -- you know the weapons are jamming, but you don't know why. Is it the weapon, the ammunition, or something else?

The Army tried a broad range of fixes, from ways to get jammed and ruptured cartridges out, to some improvements in the weapons, to changing the ammunition.

---

quote:

---

Vern that appears to be your problem about the carbine. I have always argued there were only minor changes in the Springfield.

---

quote:

---

I gave you test data to support it.

---

quote:

---

I also supplied you with numerous posts that demonstrated it was the ammunition and not the carbine.

---

quote:

---

Finally the totality of the problem was not significant factor at LBH.

---

quote:

---

Your kidding of course. If serious than you need to understand that there was many types ruptures the tool only works on one type. The headless cartridge. My point about the Indians was that both types ruptures were found and desrcibed at LBH.

---

quote:

---

"Why on earth would we produce a tool for the enemy to use?" Apparentlyl that is modification that was made to the M 1877 carbine based upon the LBH. At least when the Indians got the 1873 model they got no tools in the stock.

---

quote:

---

After that when the Indian found the rifle it came with the cleaning rod and headless shell extractor.

---

quote:

---

Since I happen to reload both, tell me how the .45 Colt is easier to reload.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After that when the Indian found the rifle it came with the cleaning rod and headless shell extractor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When? Did someone come up and dump M 1877 carbines at the Little Bighorn? You've completely lost me here.

---

quote:

---

Never said that. When is after they started putting the cleaning rod and headless shell extractor in the M 1877 Carbines. The LBH has nothing to do with the when it is the reason for the M 1877 Carbine.

---

quote:

---

My statement was regarding both of that era. I also reload both as modern brass cartridges. To load a .45/55 to specifications of that era would require wads or a liner which is not necessary in the .45 colt.

---

quote:

---

I don't know what your rate of production for .45 colt versus .45/55 but I reload mine with modern powders and try to keep the charges low on pressure especially for my Trapdoor. With my set up the .47s come out a lot faster than I turn out .45/70.

---

quote:

---

The indians were not bound by Army specifications -- they could load it any old how. If you look at actual weapons and other mechanical things owned by indians in that era, you see they were hardly the precise experimentalists modern handloaders

---

quote:

---

2. Fox and Company made a Black Bomber Error -- the data does not support the conclusions they reach about the number of carbines that jammed.

---

quote:

---

4. The issue of jamming did not first surface at the Little Bighorn. It was well known in the Army, and Springfield Armory was working on it.

---

quote:

---

The Indians had neither smokeless powder, nor reloading presses. They used tools more or less resembling the Lyman Tong Tool. I very much doubt they knew about the need to compress charges of black powder, nor used drop tubes.

One other point -- how did they deprime the inside-primed cases?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said that. When is after they started putting the cleaning rod and headless shell extractor in the M 1877 Carbines. The LBH has nothing to do with the when it is the reason for the M 1877 Carbine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm not sure I understand you. What has the M 1877 got to do with the Little Bighorn?

---

quote:

---

So have I -- it was I who first pointed out that the changes to add a butt trap were aimed at the ammunition problem.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Ammunition is not a component of the 1873 Trapdoor Springfield.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In modern day terminology we would call it a weapons system, and the ammunition would definitely be part of the system.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, what is important is how the troops at the time felt -- and given both the complaints and the responses from Ordnance, they clearly felt the rate was unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

From History of Modern US Military Small Arms Ammunition
"...In June 1874, the thickness of the head was slightly increased" because extractors were cutting through the rim.

---

quote:

---

"The indians were not bound by Army specifications" They were bound by a higher authority. USMC Actually the higher authority is the laws of physics and chemistry. If you don't fill the cartridge with something and compress it you have problems. That is why they added wads or liners when us using the 55 gr load in the .45/70 case.

---

quote:

---

I believe they were using statistical inference. If one knows the relationship between found cases, either exhibiting signs of extraction problems or not and known jammed and unjammed rifles (Reno) you could make an inference in other situations. The argument would only be the sample size and/or confidence intervals.

---

quote:

---

You have not produced anything that was printed before 1876. How can it be "well known in the Army"? What is the primary source?

---

quote:

---

Also could you give me the page number you are quoting from in History of Modern US Military Small Arms.

---

quote:

---

I believe it was Frankford Arsenal working on it. I suspect that it might have been known at the Frankford Arsenal and they worked on it. That is not the same as well known.

---

quote:

---

Vern- as you like to say the following was well known by the army. General Order 13 was the result.

"It had been found that Indians were reloading inside primed .45-70 and .50-70 cartridge cases that were discarded by the Army. This was accomplished by inserting a percussion cap in a hole punched in the base of the copper case, filling the case with black powder, and inserting either a newly cast or a reclaimed bullet.

---

quote:

---

Vern enough on this either I am not being clear or I can't help you understand. You stated something to the effect why would the army give a tool to the Indians to help them remove a headless case. Simple- when carbines came into the hands of Indians after the Model 1877 was put into field use, they obtained one with the 1877 carbine improvements. They would be acquiring that tool. Since this would have to happen sometime after 1876 why do you keep referring to LBH. I never did.

---

quote:

---

You stated it was the 1879 model. As you are now aware it was the Model 1877 carbine that had these modifications.

---

quote:

---

Vern- My post deals with the weapon. In modern day terminology we would call it a Trapdoor Springfield. You can post weapon system and talk about it all you like. I chose the weapon itself only because I believe it did not have problems to such a degree to be of any consequence at LBH.

---

quote:

---

"[Overall, the soldiers were pleased with their weapons. Lieutenant James Calhoun of Company L wrote in his diary on July 1, 1874: "The new Springfield arms and ammunition were issued to the command today. They seem to give great satisfaction."]"

---

quote:

---

The main problems , I believe, were that the Frankford Arsenal had poor equipment and could not produce the brass cartridge that would have solved the problem. The did get the head of the cartridge a little thicker but if the had currently available equipment then brass would have been the way to go. It gets back to my point on economics.

---

quote:

---

According to Hicks, US Firearms, 1776 to 1956, the model years of trapdoor cargines are 1870, 1873, 1879, 1884 and 1890. In addition, a series of experimental carbines were developed in 1882, but never fielded.

---

quote:

---

That's splitting hairs -- when your gun is out of action while you are in action, you have a problem. They can carve on your headstone, "It was the ammunition, not the gun" but that really won't help, will it?

---

quote:

---

Check the wording. "The new Springfield arms and ammunition were issued to the command today. They seem to give great satisfaction."

Calhoun was writing with less than a day's experience.

---

quote:

---

You raised the issue of a case split down the side (by firing a .45-55 or .45-70 case in a .50 Sharps chamber) and pointed out that a ruptured case extractor could not remove such a ruptured case. Somehow this was significant to you. I'm trying to figure out why you raised this issue.

---

quote:

---

There were letters in the Army and Navy journal. But the development of the "headless shell extractor" is solid proof without any documentary cite. Would the Army have developed a "headless shell extractor" if they didn't know they needed to extract headless shells?

---

quote:

---

Not really splitting hairs. You can do any modification you want to the rifle but until the ammunition is better quality it will still malfunction. "It was the ammunition..." was given as a cause for the loss at LBH. We know better. Neither the carbine or the faulty ammunition are the true blame.

---