| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 03 2006 : 10:48:55 AM
|
quote:
The headless shell extractor is solid proof of what?
You don't design a special tool if you have no use for it. The invention of the ruptured case extractor is proof that cases were rupturing. Issuing one to every soldier is proof that it happened pretty often.
quote:
There are ruptured cartridge extractors (military designation) for 30.06,M1, M1 carbine,M14, M60, and M16 to name just a few. It would appear to me that a head separation is expected for all these weapon systems.
And there are known instances of head separation in every one of those weapons. I have seen an M1 rifle with quote:
three
ruptured cases stuck in the chamber -- proof of the ruggedness and reliability of that weapon.
quote:
Do they all have this problem you refer to?
Which problem is that?
The normal cause of a headless case is firing out of battery, or excessive headspace.
quote:
Or is this something to be expected to occur. They made a tool that tightened screws among other things. Was there a loose screw problem?
Yes, there was a problem with screws backing out. There was also a need for a screwdriver to disassemble the rifle or carbine.
What's your point? |
  |
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2006 : 10:51:20 AM
|
quote:
It was only to demonstrate the different types of ruptures. Two types were described one headless which the new tool would work and one ruptured lengthwise (Indian) which the tool would not work.
Why do we care about lengthwise ruptures?
quote:
Your the the one that went off on the tangent of the military making tools for the Indians.
I extended you the courtesy of thinking you had something that made a point in the discussion. |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2006 : 10:53:34 AM
|
quote:
OK Vern supply the note in Calhoun's diary where he changed this opinion.
Ok Az, supply me the law of physics that says no one can ever change his opinion unless he writes it in a diary. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2006 : 11:44:15 AM
|
| Vern and AZ: Both of you have cited sources that are beyond me.For what it is worth American Rifleman had an article in Sept 01 by Bruce Canfield. It stated that the model 1877 was adopted to correct problems that developed with the 1873 in combat use.One of these was jammed cases. It also stated that the 1879 was a variant, but not an official model designation. I have never claimed that problems with the carbine caused the defeat. My point was that Fox reached an unwarrented conclusion from the small number of cases with pry marks found. I believe this was Vern's point also. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2006 : 12:43:41 PM
|
Out of curiousity, how can anyone know precisely what weapon the cases were pried out of? Indians jammed anything into anything. This, assuming the cases were in fact part of the battle at all.
If there is agreement that these failures, whatever they were, were minimal, and with no evidence they surpassed the problems with other choices, what IS the point?
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2006 : 2:48:23 PM
|
quote:
Out of curiousity, how can anyone know precisely what weapon the cases were pried out of? Indians jammed anything into anything. This, assuming the cases were in fact part of the battle at all.
The answer is yes and no. If two cases show identical marks, then we can infer they were from the same carbine -- so we could know that this case came from that carbine. There are no claims, however, that any of the cases with pry marks were duplicates (came from the same carbine.) And there are no claims that the cases with pry marks came from any carbine that also produced cases without pry marks. Given that less than a third of the carbines with Custer were identified by case markings this isn't surprising.
As for indian use of the cases, again, yes and no. Cases were found that were fired in outsized chambers (we've already discussed one fired in a .50 Sharps chamber.) Those cases were obviously used by indians. But in the case of indians using .45-55 (or .45-70) cartridges in captured '73 carbines, there is no direct evidence.
Fox does say that some cases and carbines can be inferred to have been used by indians because the cases were found in positions known to have been occupied by indians -- the cases were found in the midst of non-government cases, with .458, 405 grain government bullets in the same area.
quote:
If there is agreement that these failures, whatever they were, were minimal, and with no evidence they surpassed the problems with other choices, what IS the point?
I dunno -- this all started when I listed some errors and flaws with Fox's work, including his Black Bomber Error. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 01:07:35 AM
|
Vern it was you that led us down this path. Your black bomber theory only works if the carbines at Reno-Between demonstrated a significant number of unclearable malfunctions of the seperated case head type.
Fox describes (p 238) "The identified defect was the failure of the carbine extractor mechanism to eject, after firing, the spent .45/55 cartridge."
You take something then add your own information and then argue the point. What you added in this discussion was the tool developed for the malfunction. The headless shell extractor is a red herring.
quote:
I think there is some confusion about the nature of the problem. A headless case extractor would not have worked, since the head did not come off the case, the extractor tore through the edge of the folded rim, a whole different proposition.
The problem was actually solved when they went to gilding metal cases with a "solid head" (we now call it a "balloon head") in 1882, dropping the Benet primer in favor of an "external primer". Going to brass later was even better, of course.
We know from the Reno-Benteen battlefield that they were clearing the malfunctions with a cleaning rod. This indicates it was the extractor tearing the rim of the cartridge case head that caused the malfunction. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 04 2006 01:30:07 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 01:40:45 AM
|
quote:
This, assuming the cases were in fact part of the battle at all.
DC- I am beginning to believe this could be more of a problem than I had previously believed. Two things bother me about this. I have read that the battlefield may have been salted. Also that there were numerous reenactments that took place. Does anyone have information to support this or disprove it. Secondly when the army changed ammunition did they use up, destroy, or allow the old ammo to be used in reenactments and ceremonies. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 09:45:06 AM
|
quote:
Vern it was you that led us down this path. Your black bomber theory only works if the carbines at Reno-Between demonstrated a significant number of unclearable malfunctions of the seperated case head type.
Wrong.
You assume that an uncleared malfunction must be a head separation.
That's not true -- a soldier who was hard-pressed might have died while trying to clear the jam, or might have simply abandoned his carbine and relied on his revolver.
quote:
Fox describes (p 238) "The identified defect was the failure of the carbine extractor mechanism to eject, after firing, the spent .45/55 cartridge."
Which doesn't prove that was the quote:
only
malfunction.
And even if that was the only malfunction, how do we know how many men died while trying to clear a jam, or abandoned the attempt?
quote:
You take something then add your own information and then argue the point. What you added in this discussion was the tool developed for the malfunction. The headless shell extractor is a red herring.
No, you created your own red herring, just for the sake of being argumentative.
I pointed out that problems were known prior to the Little Bighorn, and the development of the "headless shell extractor" is proof that the Army knew of problems and was working on it. Changes to the ammunition, such as a wider rim, is another example. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 10:45:36 AM
|
AZ,
I understand they're working on this, somewhat reluctantly because what at the time was innocent and just giving VIP annoyances a rush to have found a casing from the battle is now a horror. But here are the issues, in my mind.
1. The hysteria with which soldier dead were normally buried - deep, fire burned over them, entire column tramps across grave to make it impossible for Indians to dig them up - suggests that there was reason for concern. The few handfuls of dirt and a tumbleweed at LBH probably didn't discourage any passing Indians from digging up the dead to desecrate, if coyotes and wolves and whatever else hadn't dug them up anyway. When Wooden Leg describes his visit there, finding cartridges, finding lots that winter, I doubt very much he or any of his brethren wouldn't have shot up the dead given they had much ammo, time, and motivating interest in making the washichus unhappy. There were Indians who said the entire area stunk of dead men and nobody could camp there, but they had to be there to know that. And when in Rome......
This atop whatever happened immediately after the battle with firearms when all those arrows were being shot into the cadavers.
We know - know - that significant numbers of Indians dressed in soldier duds on soldier mounts with guidons and mimicing their enemy. Weir was fooled, scouts and soldiers with Terry were fooled. More important, when these warriors rode out of the dust and into the Cheyenne village, it scared the hell out of the women there. During this time, various stories recount how Indians would shed those items or implements that bugged them, so what might look like a soldier postion might be a transit dump from the warriors. I have small faith that all these stories were accurately passed around the camp of various tribes, and some Indians probably DID think the soldiers had reached their camp and crossed up north where we know the newly attired warriors had. They fooled everyone else, why not?
The Reno guys talk about all the celebratory gunfire that night in the village. God knows what happened to the dead the next day, since they had much ammo for a change; practice, anyone?
We know the trains came, and people pillaged the field. We know mothers made children drop their icky cases before reboarding sometimes or on the field. We know at various times the field was described as 'picked clean' and even the Reno-Benteen dump was pillaged, we're told. Yet suddenly, all these casings....
If you're soldiers from the nearby forts, how cool in a life of boredom beyond ken to fire salutes to the fallen, to fire on the battlefield period? You're in Ringworm, Montana, who would possible 1.)know or 2.)care?
There were LOTS of salutes and firings on this field; look to the 1886 celebrations alone.
I don't believe the Army wouldn't use up as much old ammo as it could for salutes and displays before wasting the newer stuff. Penny saved, earned et al.
We HAVE all these clearly non battle cases. How did they get there? Their presence gives the lie to any serious policing of any sort. Is it logical to think that ONLY newer ammo was used? If not, do you think anyone cared about picking it up?
If you're a kid in the area, what to do, what to do..........
You're a bored INDIAN kid in the area, what to do, what to do..... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 10:59:38 AM
|
quote:
During this time, various stories recount how Indians would shed those items or implements that bugged them, so what might look like a soldier postion might be a transit dump from the warriors.
But such a dump would be:
1. After they got tired of all the stuff they captured, and not right on the battlefield.
2. Not associated with non-government fired bullets in plenty.
3. Not associated with human remains.
4. Not in any logical alignment with the rest of the action and evidence. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 11:02:06 AM
|
quote:
Wrong.
You assume that an uncleared malfunction must be a head separation.
or might have simply abandoned his carbine and relied on his revolve
I don't assume anything. I looked at the data, .45-70 cases, from Reno-Benteen battlefield and all the types of malfunctions they would indicate. The description of how they cleared malfunctions. The data for the cases on the ground showing cleared malfunctions is similar at both battlefields. At Reno-Benteen they had time to clear malfunctions using the cleaning rod. Therefore the ratio of cartridges on the ground showing malfunction indications would not be subject to the more easily cleared extractor malfunction which may have got a trooper killed at Custer battlefield.
"-- a soldier who was hard-pressed might have died while trying to clear the jam,"
True but you changed the discussion again. It is the frequency of the occurrence not if occurred. If it happened a lot then it would be a significant factor in the outcome at LBH. You all ready agreed it was not a significant factor.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 04 2006 11:02:59 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 11:14:32 AM
|
quote:
No, you created your own red herring, just for the sake of being argumentative.
I pointed out that problems were known prior to the Little Bighorn, and the development of the "headless shell extractor" is proof that the Army knew of problems and was working on it. Changes to the ammunition, such as a wider rim, is another example.
I called it a red herring because I believe the majority of malfunctions that may have gotten a trooper killed at Custer battlefield or required a cleaning rod at Reno-Benteen did not need the headless shell extractor. At Custer battlefield I doubt they had time to use a cleaning rod and I am more sure a trooper did not have time to use a headless shell extractor even if it were available.
As far as Calhoun's diary-if the problems were well known to Army why would they be happy even on the first day?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 11:18:09 AM
|
quote:
I don't assume anything. I looked at the data, .45-70 cases, from Reno-Benteen battlefield and all the types of malfunctions they would indicate. The description of how they cleared malfunctions. The data for the cases on the ground showing cleared malfunctions is similar at both battlefields. At Reno-Benteen they had time to clear malfunctions using the cleaning rod. Therefore the ratio of cartridges on the ground showing malfunction indications would not be subject to the more easily cleared extractor malfunction which may have got a trooper killed at Custer battlefield.
"-- a soldier who was hard-pressed might have died while trying to clear the jam,"
True but you changed the discussion again. It is the frequency of the occurrence not if occurred. If it happened a lot then it would be a significant factor in the outcome at LBH. You all ready agreed it was not a significant factor.
I haven't changed anything -- at the outset, I made two points.
1. The cases with pry marks indicate only the carbines that jammed and were successfully cleared.
2. The rate of jamming probably did not affect the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2006 : 11:28:45 AM
|
I quote:
called it a red herring because I believe the majority of malfunctions that may have gotten a trooper killed at Custer battlefield or required a cleaning rod at Reno-Benteen did not need the headless shell extractor. At Custer battlefield I doubt they had time to use a cleaning rod and I am more sure a trooper did not have time to use a headless shell extractor even if it were available.
It's a red herring because it was offered as proof the Army knew of and was working on ammunition problems -- you may recall that it was one of many things, including changes to the rim.
You pretended it was something entirely different.
quote:
As far as Calhoun's diary-if the problems were well known to Army why would they be happy even on the first day?
They hadn't any first-hand experience yet -- Calhoon based his comments not on how well they shot, but on what they looked like and how they handled.
Many a soldier liked the M16 when it was first issued to his unit -- even though he knew of complaints by other units. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2006 : 12:13:13 AM
|
Vern If you review the posts it was you and DC that were in a discussion of jammed rifles for several pages including sausages. I enjoyed sitting on th sideline watching the dialog. What caused me to post something was your post which I believe was a factual error. I am not saying intentional just factual.
AZ Ranger Posted - December 31 2005 : 7:12:18 PM
quote:
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.
Vern Humphrey 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.
Vern look at my post and your answer. I don't say anything about the modification to the stock other than the Model year correction It is your post about the headless shell extractor that began the discussion that followed. I think you posted my quote but were answering something that DC and you were engaged in regarding jams, and cartridges. After that I certainly engaged and responded to each of your posts. I believe when DC asked for proof of prior knowledge of the jamming etc. you did not have the sources at the time. You replied to my quote with something you were looking into for your discussion with DC.
quote:
Dark Cloud Posted - December 31 2005 : 2:09:13 PM
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?
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 05 2006 12:18:29 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2006 : 12:39:50 AM
|
quote:
They hadn't any first-hand experience yet -- Calhoon based his comments not on how well they shot, but on what they looked like and how they handled.
Many a soldier liked the M16 when it was first issued to his unit -- even though he knew of complaints by other units.
Maybe, I didn't talk with many soldiers but when I was going to Viet Nam in 1969 and we traded our M14 for the Matty Mattel M16 there weren't many Marines that I knew that liked it. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2006 : 11:41:01 AM
|
quote:
Maybe, I didn't talk with many soldiers but when I was going to Viet Nam in 1969 and we traded our M14 for the Matty Mattel M16 there weren't many Marines that I knew that liked it.
On the other hand there is the famous incident of General Westmoreland visiting a unit and asking a sergeant how he liked the M16. The sergeant replied, "Fine weapons, Sir. High velocity."
Which led some to wonder how the sergeant measured the muzzle velocity.
The impression of a man who had never fired the weapon is not evidence of reliability. On the other hand, the actions the Army was already taking is evidence they knew of problems. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2006 : 2:26:51 PM
|
If I can return to the century and battle of interest, here, and IF I'm following the arguments correctly, I'm not seeing any complaints by the Army about the carbine that aren't more in the nature of performance observations, and nothing that suggests they thought it a danger to the soldiers, and further, that the problems that existed weren't due to unclean ammo providing unexpected welding material to the barrel after firing. Markland, I think it was, has shown that the Winchester had a far more frequent failure rate. This is a pretty low failure rate for anything back then.
I also don't see that information filters downhill easily in bureaucracies like the Army, and I doubt the Army was alerted to these issues since such low failure rates would be a given back then.
In any case, it seems we're agreed that whatever the issues, they weren't important overall to the LBH. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2006 : 2:59:24 PM
|
quote:
In any case, it seems we're agreed that whatever the issues, they weren't important overall to the LBH.
Yes after a long and winding road we're agreed.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2006 : 3:41:43 PM
|
quote:
If I can return to the century and battle of interest, here, and IF I'm following the arguments correctly, I'm not seeing any complaints by the Army about the carbine that aren't more in the nature of performance observations, and nothing that suggests they thought it a danger to the soldiers,
No one has said the complains were anyhting other than performance observations (I know no one who said, "My carbine isn't pretty enough.)
Nor were the malfunctions dangerous in the sense that people lost fingers or eyes.
quote:
and further, that the problems that existed weren't due to unclean ammo providing unexpected welding material to the barrel after firing.
I don't understand 'welding.'
quote:
Markland, I think it was, has shown that the Winchester had a far more frequent failure rate. This is a pretty low failure rate for anything back then.
As I pointed out, combat is not graded on a curve -- and the Army never adopted the Winchester.
quote:
I also don't see that information filters downhill easily in bureaucracies like the Army, and I doubt the Army was alerted to these issues since such low failure rates would be a given back then.
Then why was the army changing the ammunition, developing a ruptured cartridge case extractor and so on even before the battle of the Little Bighorn?
quote:
In any case, it seems we're agreed that whatever the issues, they weren't important overall to the LBH.
Yep -- always have been. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 05 2006 : 3:57:47 PM
|
quote:
"I don't understand 'welding.'" That gunk on the case from leather or grit 'welded' to the barrel to impede extraction after firing. That was always an issue, I've read.
"Welding" is metal-to-metal bonding created by melting the respective parts and blending them together and allowing them to cool. There is no evidence either the cartridge cases or the chamber melted -- let alone both of them together. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 09:30:59 AM
|
Weld- a to unite (metallic) by heating and allowing the metals to flow together... b to unite (plastics) in a similar manner by heating cto repair by this method d to produce as if by such process
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Springfield Carbine
