| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 06 2006 : 09:55:07 AM
|
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:
But they didn't know that -- Indians often did things based on lack of technical knowledge -- like using stones for bullets, or pulling the butt plates off rifles to use as hide scrapers.
You can load a .45-70 case with a small charge of powder and no compression. It won't give good accuracy, but if you're galloping along and put the muzzle to the flank of a buffalo, who cares?
Black powder needs to be contained and/or compressed. No free space ,air, between ignition point(primer in a cartridge)powder and projectile. Even in muzzle loaders if you can't seat the ball over the powder you must disassemble rather than fire it out. In a cartridge if you don't fill it ("a small charge of powder") with black powder the primer can ignite a large volume of the powder at the same time creating a dangerously high pressure. Therefore the maximum charge is a full case. Anything less requires wads,liners, etc to take up space as found in the 55gr loading of the .45-70 cartridge case or seating the bullet deeper (takes up the space) as was later done which allowed the removal of the C and R on the cartridge head.
quote:
It won't give good accuracy, but if you're galloping along and put the muzzle to the flank of a buffalo, who cares
When the firearm blows up the shooter would care. The guy on the horse next to him might care if hit by shrapnel. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 06 2006 09:57:48 AM |
  |
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 11:26:23 AM
|
quote:
Black powder needs to be contained and/or compressed. No free space ,air, between ignition point(primer in a cartridge)powder and projectile. Even in muzzle loaders if you can't seat the ball over the powder you must disassemble rather than fire it out. In a cartridge if you don't fill it ("a small charge of powder") with black powder the primer can ignite a large volume of the powder at the same time creating a dangerously high pressure. Therefore the maximum charge is a full case. Anything less requires wads,liners, etc to take up space as found in the 55gr loading of the .45-70 cartridge case or seating the bullet deeper (takes up the space) as was later done which allowed the removal of the C and R on the cartridge head.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It won't give good accuracy, but if you're galloping along and put the muzzle to the flank of a buffalo, who cares
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the firearm blows up the shooter would care. The guy on the horse next to him might care if hit by shrapnel.
Black powder needs to be compressed for proper ignition and accuracy. You can load a case half full and all that happens is poor performance. It will not blow up. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 6:25:44 PM
|
quote:
Black powder needs to be compressed for proper ignition and accuracy. You can load a case half full and all that happens is poor performance. It will not blow up.
Vern I checked numerous sources before posting including the muzzle loader. They all state that air space regarding black powder is dangerous and result in high pressure. I will post them if necessary but would like to see any source that says it is OK or refutes these sources. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 6:43:30 PM
|
quote:
Vern I checked numerous sources before posting including the muzzle loader. They all state that air space regarding black powder is dangerous and result in high pressure. I will post them if necessary but would like to see any source that says it is OK or refutes these sources.
Many years ago, when our understanding of black powder cartridge weapons was not so advanced as it now is (you couldn't find anything in reloading manuals) I reloaded black powder cartridges without compressing the charges. I still have both eyes and all my fingers.
Even if the indians did know (and care) about such thing, what's the problem? Just fill the case, or seat the bullet deeper!!
Now, I laid a trap earlier. Now I'm going to spring it. Remember when I asked how they deprimed inside-primed cases? Do you really think people who were safety-conscious would do that?
I invite anyone who wishes to experiment to prime a black powder case with an ordinary percussion cap. Wear safety glasses when firing!! |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 7:27:23 PM
|
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_49/ai_97170889
Black powder for dummies: the secret is out. Tactical icon Clint Smith has a dark side
The one strict caution is that the wad must touch both the powder and the base of the bullet, in other words, no air space. Failure to observe this precaution can cause scoring or ringing of the chamber, damage to the rifle and or the shooter. Remember, no air space!
Black powder loading
Guns Magazine, Dec, 2005 by Jeff John
http://www.answers.com/topic/internal-ballistics
The important thing in loading black powder cartridges is making sure there is no air space between the base of the bullet and the powder.
Not seating the bullet firmly against the powder column can result in the loose powder burning all at once, which can create a dangerous overpressure condition.
http://www.three-peaks.net/muzzle.htm
Ensure the ball, bullet or sabot is seated firmly on the powder. An air space between the powder and the ball will cause dangerous overpressures.
MY EXPERIENCES WITH BLACK POWDER
BY TOM COSENS.
PRESIDENT OF THE HAM & PETERSHAM RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB
The powder must be compressed without an air space so make sure that there is adequate powder.
Lyman®
User’s Guide for
Black Powder Products
Make sure the ball is firmly seated since an air space could cause a
bulged barrel–or worse.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_7_48/ai_87413404
Cartridges should be loaded to 100 percent density, meaning no air space between bullet and powder in the case.
http://www.americanpioneerpowder.com/FAQ.html
Absolutely! As a matter of fact American Pioneer™ Powder is used by a number of the top cowboy action and mounted shooters in a variety of calibers, both in traditional black powder cartridges such as .45-70 and modern calibers such as .44 magnum. Basic loading instructions are to fill the case to the point where the bullet will slightly compress the powder, about 1/16", when seated, seat the bullet and crimp. DO NOT drill out the primer hole. The use of 'grease cookies' or wads is not needed or recommended. No special black powder lube is required for the bullet and regular smokeless lubed bullets actually work the best. As this is a 'bulk' type powder, it is important that the case be filled completely, leaving NO air space or gap. The use of fillers or wads is NOT recommended as some studies indicate that they can cause a 'ringed' barrel when used.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 7:31:53 PM
|
quote:
Black powder for dummies: the secret is out. Tactical icon Clint Smith has a dark side
The one strict caution is that the wad must touch both the powder and the base of the bullet, in other words, no air space. Failure to observe this precaution can cause scoring or ringing of the chamber, damage to the rifle and or the shooter. Remember, no air space!
And the indians subscribed to all these publictions, did they? :-) |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 9:20:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
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.
Strangely enough DC we had this very debate a few months previously, where I argued some of the points that Vern in making in this thread. There is no doubt that the leading cause of the 7th's defeat was simple, too many Indians, possibly they were out-gunned as well, although thats probably impossible to prove either way.
That said, why excuse the rifle from criticism. When you take into account the trail of evidence following the LBH, like the receiver being modified in the 1879 model and then further modified in the 1884 model, there seems to have been little doubt that at least some of the early Springfields were prone to failure.
Its nothing particularly unusual. Even the great military rifles of the past have experienced similar teething problems. For instance after the Boer War some British officers were clamouring to get rid of the Lee Enfield in favour of the Mauser. The Lee Enfield would go on to serve the British army for another 50 years, not a bad record. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 06 2006 : 9:34:29 PM
|
quote:
And the indians subscribed to all these publictions, did they? :-)
Are you saying if they don't read the manual it won't explode or that they couldn't learn from example if it exploded under improper loading conditions. Certainly they had to learn something about how to load a cartridge. They knew to use black powder rather than dirt.
Another more important point to be specific is I did not want anyone to read your original post and think it is safe without some form of rebuttal post.
http://www.armscollectors.com/srs.htm
Thermodynamics has equations that can predict chamber pressures and the like.
Black powder and Pydrodex must NEVER have air space between the powder and the base of the bullet! Where reduced loads are used with these powders (e.g, the 55 gr FFg carbine load instead of the the infantry 70 gr. load), the space was filled with a fiber wad over the powder. The wad was thick enough so that the bullet compressed both slightly.
Not seating the bullet firmly against the powder column can result in the loose powder burning all at once, which can create a dangerous overpressure condition.
The main rule is to have the case full or slightly compressed when the bullet is seated. Leaving airspace can be dangerous with black powder. SPG's BP Cartridge Reloading
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 07 2006 : 09:25:01 AM
|
quote:
Are you saying if they don't read the manual it won't explode or that they couldn't learn from example if it exploded under improper loading conditions. Certainly they had to learn something about how to load a cartridge. They knew to use black powder rather than dirt.
Another more important point to be specific is I did not want anyone to read your original post and think it is safe without some form of rebuttal post.
http://www.armscollectors.com/srs.htm
First of all, the indians hadn't read all that stuff. Secondly, I never had a gun blow up when I was loading black powder cartidges. Third, the indians had pretty low safety standards -- you recall using a percussion cap to reload a metalic case? And fourth, there is no problem -- if they wanted a compressed load all they had to do was fill the case with poweder (they didn't know the original charge was only 55 grains) or seat the bullet deeper.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 08 2006 : 11:39:42 AM
|
Dave,
I do recall that previous argument, and what you say is true, and in fact I welded it to my opinions which - as you know - are flawless gems. I've previously said that ANYTHING built in 1876 had problems, and that routine use exposed them, and the powers that be fixed or replaced them. In the previous discussion, Markland or maybe you pointed out that the alternatives to the Springfield had their own issues, and it wasn't just the Army's budget, or maybe the budget at all. In any case, these revelations and fixes are not admissions of system failure, of a weapon so bad it lost a battle. Just bureaucracy doing its thing.
In that same previous discussion - then graced by one poster's hysteria that Custer had been criminally armed with duct tape and glue versions of CW weapons but still had broken the back of the Sioux War Machine and because the 7th was composed of US soldiers they musta practiced daily for hours - I'd asked you what you thought of Reno's calimed revelation that after five quick shots or so, the carbine 'loosened up.' Did that suggest a useful amount of practice in the previous two years? Did it suggest anything in the way of meaningful practice? You said it wasn't a good sign, or the like.
This is important to me because I believe it illustrates that armed with any weapon of the time, at that rate of practice the 7th wouldn't have done any better. This melds in to my ongoing insistence that detailed - monumentally detailed - threads about the nature of Springfieldisms - or Springfielditis - were not particularly relevant to the battle's outcome, and it was the substitution of detail for relevance.
That, in turn, melds into my deep, dark suspicions about the connivance of Custerphiles in trying to formulate new and excitingly modern scientific reasons for the retention of Olde and derivitive romantic standard Custer myth for his exculpation. A Last Stand. Always On the Offensive. His Non-Custer Clique Associates: Betrayal or Cowardice? You decide with this new info!
These, in turn, I've tried to insist are descended from the literature and myth of Europe, and that these were well known and accepted templates in 1876, a cusp of social change, not intended to be taken as fact. But Custerphiles still today will, in their unique combinations of almost total literary and historical ignorance, argue them as fact and testimony. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 08 2006 : 4:48:43 PM
|
quote:
That said, why excuse the rifle from criticism. When you take into account the trail of evidence following the LBH, like the receiver being modified in the 1879 model and then further modified in the 1884 model, there seems to have been little doubt that at least some of the early Springfields were prone to failure.
I don't believe that anyone, to my knowledge, has argued in recent times on the board that the Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield Carbine was flawless in function and certainly as in all weapon systems modifications are made. The weapon system as Vern correctly describes includes the ammunition and accessories. I maintain the weapon system had no impact on the outcome at LBH. I believe all weapon systems utilized on the battlefield were subject to malfunctions and failures. Therefore any other choice would have the same resulting outcome in my opinion.
The test data used at least partially in selecting the Trapdoor Springfield for the Army showed it had had the lowest malfunction/failure rate ( less than 3%). It did malfunction and had failures but not at as great of frequency as the firearms tested.
The ammunition taken to LBH was inferior to .50-70 brass cartridges available prior to the Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield. Therefore an improvement in the weapon system was not a result from anything that occurred at LBH. Frankford Arsenal was not capable of producing the brass cartridge .45-70 case therefore the inferior .45-70 and .45-55 ammunition was produced.
The Model 1877 Trapdoor Springfield Carbine was modified to incorporate concerns from LBH. As Vern pointed out,this included the cleaning rod and headless shell extractor. (My point regarding this modification in the weapon system is that it would not have changed a thing at LBH even if it had been provided. I maintain that outnumbered by Indians willing to fight was the deciding factor.)
The cavalry was issued carbines mostly. The Model 1877 carbine was produced until the mid 1800's. In 1879 which keeps coming up for some reason there were modifications but not Model changes. The Trapdoor Springfield production data for 1879 Carbines was 0. It was also in 0 in 1884 for carbine production. There were 18,359 rifles produced in 1879 and 34,775 rifles produced according to production data.
"there seems to have been little doubt that at least some of the early Springfields were prone to failure."
My objection to using the wording "prone to failure" is that it appears to be something out of the normal and then can a contributing factor to failure at LBH. All weapons have failures and at the time of testing the Trapdoor Springfield had the lowest rate of failure.
As Vern has pointed out a weapon is only as good as its weapon system which includes ammunition and accessories. With that being said, I still don't believe that the weapon system had any significant impact on the outcome of LBH.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 08 2006 5:04:01 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 08 2006 : 5:01:30 PM
|
quote:
This is important to me because I believe it illustrates that armed with any weapon of the time, at that rate of practice the 7th wouldn't have done any better. This melds in to my ongoing insistence that detailed - monumentally detailed - threads about the nature of Springfieldisms - or Springfielditis - were not particularly relevant to the battle's outcome, and it was the substitution of detail for relevance.
That, in turn, melds into my deep, dark suspicions about the connivance of Custerphiles in trying to formulate new and excitingly modern scientific reasons for the retention of Olde and derivitive romantic standard Custer myth for his exculpation. A Last Stand. Always On the Offensive. His Non-Custer Clique Associates: Betrayal or Cowardice? You decide with this new info!
These, in turn, I've tried to insist are descended from the literature and myth of Europe, and that these were well known and accepted templates in 1876, a cusp of social change, not intended to be taken as fact. But Custerphiles still today will, in their unique combinations of almost total literary and historical ignorance, argue them as fact and testimony.
DC I agree with your first paragraph. I think. That is what I attempted to address in my previous post. I don't believe that even the details of the Springfield support any conclusion other than the it did not play a significant role in the outcome at LBH.
As far as the other two paragraphs, I am not sure what you said and not sure I want to know. That is to deep for me. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Vern Humphrey
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 08 2006 : 5:09:00 PM
|
quote:
The Model 1877 Trapdoor Springfield Carbine was modified to incorporate concerns from LBH. As Vern pointed out,this included the cleaning rod and headless shell extractor. (My point regarding this modification in the weapon system is that it would not have changed a thing at LBH even if it had been provided. I maintain that outnumbered by Indians willing to fight was the deciding factor.)
You're not wrong. That was greatly exacerbated by Custer's failure to synchornize his attack. With 12 companies, he failed to get more than three of them into action at any one time.
And I agree that the failures of ammunition (or of the system) had no appreciable outcome on the battle. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 04:42:52 AM
|
Did that suggest a useful amount of practice in the previous two years?
Some time after the battle a page from Sergeant Brown's [Coy G]notebook was recovered from the Indians.It listed the best shots in his coy.What conclusion can one draw from that? |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 08:42:51 AM
|
quote:
Did that suggest a useful amount of practice in the previous two years?
Some time after the battle a page from Sergeant Brown's [Coy G]notebook was recovered from the Indians.It listed the best shots in his coy.What conclusion can one draw from that?
Wild - I wonder if the Indians even knew what page they had? My conclusion is that even if you have some good shots you need everyone to be up to basic level of competence with all skills. With thousands of rounds fired by the 7th some more hits would have been helpful. My view of a good trooper is like looking at a bundle of sticks. You need to have all of them (sticks) to have a bundle (good trooper). Skills with a firearm is only one of the sticks.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 09:14:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
I don't believe that anyone, to my knowledge, has argued in recent times on the board that the Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield Carbine was flawless in function and certainly as in all weapon systems modifications are made. The weapon system as Vern correctly describes includes the ammunition and accessories. I maintain the weapon system had no impact on the outcome at LBH. I believe all weapon systems utilized on the battlefield were subject to malfunctions and failures. Therefore any other choice would have the same resulting outcome in my opinion.
Well I can't possibly disagree if we're talking about single shot weapons. I think a repeating rifle might have made some degree of difference.
quote:
The test data used at least partially in selecting the Trapdoor Springfield for the Army showed it had had the lowest malfunction/failure rate ( less than 3%). It did malfunction and had failures but not at as great of frequency as the firearms tested.
I don't dispute the results of the trials, but the problem is that it doesn't tell us how good the quality control was 2 years and 20,000 rifles down the track. There are numerous instances of rifles which passed their trials with flying colours only to later gain a reputation of an unreliable weapon later on because the arsenal/company making them was doing a bodgy job. I wouldn't be the slightest surprised if this was the case with the Springfield, not that I think it suffered any really severe problems.
quote:
The cavalry was issued carbines mostly. The Model 1877 carbine was produced until the mid 1800's. In 1879 which keeps coming up for some reason there were modifications but not Model changes. The Trapdoor Springfield production data for 1879 Carbines was 0. It was also in 0 in 1884 for carbine production. There were 18,359 rifles produced in 1879 and 34,775 rifles produced according to production data.
I mention 1879 because theres a parts breakdown diagram of a Springfield at the following URL
http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/Exploded.html
If you scroll down an look at the parts list, they have the following entries
PARTS UNIQUE TO MODEL 1879 - Receiver
PARTS UNIQUE TO MODEL 1884 - Breech Block, Receiver
Now from reading the rest of the site, I see there was no such thing as an 1879 model. So maybe its a typographical error, and they actually meant 1877 instead of 1879. Or maybe there is some other explanation. If you read the entry for the 1884 model you will see that the 1884 designation refers to a number of design changes made over a period of a number of years in the mid 1880's.
quote:
My objection to using the wording "prone to failure" is that it appears to be something out of the normal and then can a contributing factor to failure at LBH. All weapons have failures and at the time of testing the Trapdoor Springfield had the lowest rate of failure.
I think the wording is appropriate because we don't know whether the failure rate out in field fell within acceptable tolerance rates or not. However, the fact that they modified the carbine the next year by adding the cleaning rod, and experimented later on with different receivers and breech blocks suggests that the failure rate was not within acceptable bounds.
I'm hardly an expert but tinkering around with the design of the receiver part way through a weapons production life suggests all is not well. |
Edited by - dave on January 09 2006 09:20:42 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 09:43:34 AM
|
quote:
I mention 1879 because theres a parts breakdown diagram of a Springfield at the following URL
http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/Exploded.html
If you scroll down an look at the parts list, they have the following entries
PARTS UNIQUE TO MODEL 1879 - Receiver
PARTS UNIQUE TO MODEL 1884 - Breech Block, Receiver
Dave the key here is the diagram is for the rifle and not the carbine. There was only Model 1877 carbines and not a Model 1877 rifles. The Model 1877 carbine was produced until the Model changed I believe in 1884 for the carbine. No carbines were produced in 1879. Model 1877 carbines in latter years could be found with a mixture of breech blocks, receivers. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 09:58:13 AM
|
quote:
I think the wording is appropriate because we don't know whether the failure rate out in field fell within acceptable tolerance rates or not. However, the fact that they modified the carbine the next year by adding the cleaning rod, and experimented later on with different receivers and breech blocks suggests that the failure rate was not within acceptable bounds.
I'm hardly an expert but tinkering around with the design of the receiver part way through a weapons production life suggests all is not well.
I have found no data that indicates the Model 1873 had a unacceptable failure rate in the field. The ammunition used was a problem and changing to the brass cartridge case took care of most of the problems. From field experience modification are made to improve upon a weapon system which to me is different than correcting failures. In order to incorporate the holes in the stock of Model 1873 for the cleaning rod the Model 1877 carbine stock was made wider for strength. This could lead to a wider receiver to accommodate the wider stock. The Model 1873 rifle had the cleaning rod under the barrel unlike the carbine.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 10:47:00 AM
|
Well, unless you are in posession of some definitive data on the Springfield then we really don't know. All I know is that in latter years a series of modifications were made, one of which was made the year after the battle.
We also know that within a month of the battle, Reno wrote a letter in which he strongly condemmed the weapon, stating that he considered it both dangerous and a liability in the hands of untrained men. Its also known that during the siege of Reno Hill that Captain French had un-jam some troopers weapons. Now I don't know how many rifles he had to work on, but its worth considering at the time this occurred, that only selected troopers (presumably the ones who were better shots) were permitted to return the Indians fire.
There are also anecdotal stories about the carbines suffering problems during the Sibley scout. I've read that these weren't the only incidents, but they are only ones I know about, so I have to restrict myself mentioning these only.
If you are really interested in following this up, then I might suggest you try the Civil War guns forum.
http://www.civilwarguns.com/board/index.php?forum=1
quote:
In order to incorporate the holes in the stock of Model 1873 for the cleaning rod the Model 1877 carbine stock was made wider for strength. This could lead to a wider receiver to accommodate the wider stock. The Model 1873 rifle had the cleaning rod under the barrel unlike the carbine.
Hmm? Why would you do that? You cut the stock to fit the barrel and receiver, not the other way round. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 10:17:31 PM
|
quote:
Hmm? Why would you do that? You cut the stock to fit the barrel and receiver, not the other way round.
Simple - The stock had sufficient strength until they needed to modify it by drilling 3 holes for the cleaning rod and headless shell extractor. To regain the same strength in the wooden stock it needed to be of larger diameter. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 09 2006 : 10:30:15 PM
|
quote:
Well, unless you are in posession of some definitive data on the Springfield then we really don't know. All I know is that in latter years a series of modifications were made, one of which was made the year after the battle.
Trapdoor Production Data
for
Models 1873, 1875, 1877, 1884 and 1888
Cal.Year...Rifles... Carbines
1873................5.... 1,942
1874.........22,397.. 10,873
1875.........17,393.... 7,211
1876........ 11,369.......... 2
1877...............16.... 2,496
1878........ 20,620.... 2,000
1879........ 18,359.......... 0
1880......... 9,830....14,884
1881........ 18,896....... 501
1882........ 27,898.......... 0
1883........ 34,706.......... 0
1884........ 34,775.......... 0
1885....... 39,814........... 0
1886........ 34,162.... 6,000
1887........ 34,869.... 5,000
1888........ 34,121.... 5,003
1889........ 36,523.... 5,000
1890........ 22,266.......... 0
1891................0.......... 0
1892................0.......... 0
1893................0.......... 0
Totals..... 418,519.... 60,912
Model 1873 Rifle & Carbine
The following information is taken from: Description and Rules for the Management of the Springfield Rifle, Carbine and Army Revolver, 1874.
During the year 1873, the Board of Officers appointed in pursuance of the "Act of Congress, - approved June 6, 1872 - for the purpose of selecting a breech system for the military service of the United States," reported in favor of the "Springfield" system. The minor details as to the caliber, form of chamber, ammunition, etc., were also determined by a Board of Ordnance Officers convened for that purpose. In the following pages will be found a full description of this system in all its details, as adopted by the War Department. The Springfield Rifle, Carbine .45", is essentially similar to the "Springfield Musket, Model 1870," which for some time past has been in the hands of troops for trial. The following changes have been made:
· 1st. The barrel has been made of low steel instead of iron, and the caliber has been reduced from .50" to .45". The rifling consists of three plain concentric grooves equal in width to the lands, .005" deep, with a uniform twist of one turn in twenty-two inches.
· 2nd. The lock plate has been reduced in thickness, and has no bevel on the edge.
· 3rd. A rounder shape has been given to the hammer.
· 4th. The heads of the tang screw, tumbler screw and side screws have been rounded off, and the side screws have been slightly shortened.
· 5th. A screw has been substituted for the rivet of the guard bow swivel.
· 6th. The shape of the rear sight has been changed, and it has been set further forward on the barrel.
· 7th. The metal parts of the rifle have been browned or blackened.
· 8th. The stock has been rounded off near the lock plate, and on its upper edges, as far forward as the lower band.
· 9th. A number of cannelures have been cut near the small end of the ramrod, in order to give a better grip to the fingers in using it.
· 10th. The shape of the upper band and of the gun sling swivel have been changed, and an open or stacking swivel has been added for the purpose of stacking arms without using the bayonet.
The changes in the carbine follow those above indicated in the description of the rifle.
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. The rifle and cadet rifles did not have the cleaning rod modification so they retained there Model 1873 designation.
Many collectors use the name, Model 1877 for rifles and cadet rifles as a means of denoting their time of production. However, Springfield only referred to the Model 1877 when discussing carbines.
The model change was brought about by the Little Big Horn battle of 1876, when General George Custer and his men were killed. It was the military's conclusion that access to cleaning rods during the battle would have been advantageous for removing lodged shell casings.
At this time, it is thought that an unaltered Model 1877 carbine, made in early 1877, could have a Model 1873 rear sight. There seems to be some question whether the Model 1877 Type I sight was made for carbines. This point will require further research. The results will be published in the Trapdoor Springfield Newsletter.
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. These arms are difficult to find with correlating serial numbers and federal inspection marks.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on January 09 2006 11:32:38 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 10 2006 : 12:37:55 PM
|
Sheesh, my eyes are glazing over.
To reply initially to these points:
-If the Army required soldiers to turn in brass, then of course it happened, especially during the late 19th century.
At a formal ceremony, yes. Don't you know what happens to the brass from a salute to the dead?
There are numerous orders in the War Department papers, most definitely 1876 or later but some pre-1876, ordering that troops engaged in any target practice or other shooting recover their expended cartridge cases.
-Bradley is only one eyewitness, whose sensibilities (I think; Markland disagreed)would preclude him from dwelling on the unpleasant.
His testimony is emphatic on the point. It dovetails nicely with indian custom and other reports -- mutilation was mostly done by the women, and the badly mutilated bodies were those which fell close to the village.
I still think that Bradley was protecting the widows/families of the dead from the horrors usually prevalent in the aftermath of an Indian victory over the troops. That type of behaviour was not uncommon, witness Benteen's restraint regarding Elizabeth Custer's sanctification of GAC.
As far as mutilation and Indian custom and "mostly" done by the women, just a few examples of the contrary:
Platte Bridge fight
Kidder fight
Ft. Wallace fight (Sgt. Wyllyams
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/fpk/wyllyams.jpg
Fetterman fight (from Carrington's January 3, 1867 report):
Mutilations
Eyes torn out and laid on the rocks.
Noses cut off.
Ears cut off.
Chins hewn off.
Teeth chopped out.
Joints of fingers. [sic]
Brains taken out and placed on rocks with other members of the body.
Entrails taken out and exposed.
Hands cut off.
Feet cut off.
Arms taken out from socket.
Private parts severed and indecently placed on the person.
Eyes, ears, mouth, and arms penetrated with spear heads, sticks and arrows.
Ribs slashed to separation with knifes.
Sculls [sic] severed in every form from chin to crown.
Muscles of calves, thighs, stomach, breast, back, arms and cheek, taken out.
Punctures upon every sensitive part of the body, even to the soles of the feet and palms of the hand.
I have not included Elliot's men from the Wa****a due to the fact that women were in the area so it is a possibility that they performed some of the mutilations upon those men (and if you read the description of those, they are remarkably like Red ?'s drawings of LBH). Perhaps that is an indicator that the women were responsible?
-Who disagrees with Bradley? All the stories of mutilation trace back to newspaper accounts, which were filed by people who were not there, based on rumors and stories.
I do :)
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 09:49:14 AM
|
AZ Ranger,
This is from the link provided by Smcf in another thread ("Custers Last Battle" Godfrey's 1892 account of the battle in Century Magazine).
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABP2287-0043-105
On page 383
The question has often been asked "What were the causes of Custers defeat?" I should say:
First. The overpowering numbers of the enemy and their unexpected cohesion.
Second. Reno's panic rout from the valley.
Third. The defective extraction of cartridge-shells from the carbines.
He then goes on to write:
"Of the third we can only judge by our own experience. When cartridges were dirty and corroded the ejectors did not always extract the empty shells from the chambers, and the men were compelled to use knives to to get them out. When the shells were clean no great difficulty was experienced. To what extent this was a factor in causing the disaster we have no means of knowing."
Now I don't agree with all of Godfrey's observations, and I certainly wouldn't be putting extractor problems on my list of 3 reasons for the defeat, but isn't it interesting that we another officer along with Reno criticising the performance of the carbine.
If you've read anything about Godfrey, you will know he was a keen hunter (at least in his younger years) who managed to work through quite a large amount of ammunition (I think I recall him being billed $26 for 1500 rounds of .45-70, but my memory might be defective). Reno was on the board that recommended the adoption of the model 1873.
So I'm sure both men were admirably qualified to criticise the Springfield. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 10:04:52 AM
|
| As I have posted on another thread -----The skirmish line reduced the fire power of the command by 25%.What % did jams reduce it by. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 11:28:32 AM
|
Dave
quote:
He then goes on to write:
"Of the third we can only judge by our own experience. When cartridges were dirty and corroded the ejectors did not always extract the empty shells from the chambers, and the men were compelled to use knives to to get them out. When the shells were clean no great difficulty was experienced. To what extent this was a factor in causing the disaster we have no means of knowing."
Now I don't agree with all of Godfrey's observations, and I certainly wouldn't be putting extractor problems on my list of 3 reasons for the defeat, but isn't it interesting that we another officer along with Reno criticising the performance of the carbine.
If you've read anything about Godfrey, you will know he was a keen hunter (at least in his younger years) who managed to work through quite a large amount of ammunition (I think I recall him being billed $26 for 1500 rounds of .45-70, but my memory might be defective). Reno was on the board that recommended the adoption of the model 1873.
So I'm sure both men were admirably qualified to criticise the Springfield.
Dave- I agree with what Godfrey states. Even if Reno and Godfrey don't state it they are describing weapon system problems. I think you and I discussing this because of confusing terms such as the weapon system which includes the carbine, ammunition, etc. and the carbine itself Model 1873 Springfield. It was not the extractor of the carbine that was faulty (weapon). It was the soft metal of the cartridge case (weapon system) that was the problem. The remedy was stronger brass cartridges and that is what the army did to resolve it.
If you chose any firearm that has an extractor and use the same soft metal cartridge you will get the same results Godfrey describes for the Springfield.
"So I'm sure both men were admirably qualified to criticise the Springfield" I agree with that. They were there and I wasn't. I just don't think they described Springfield, the weapon only, problems. I own a Trapdoor Springfield .45-70 so I have some working knowledge of it. I don't have the ammunition that they used at the time they made their assessments. As far as their credentials I accept those also. So it is only fair to present mine from which I base my opinions. I am a Law Enforcement Program Manager for Arizona Game and Fish Department and employed with the Department for 27 years. I am a subject matter expert for Arizona Police Officers Standards board in regards to firearms training simulation. I am a Colt armorer for the AR-15 and M16. I am in charge of the firearms training for my region in Flagstaff. I am a patrol rifle instructor, a tactical shotgun instructor, and a tactical handgun instructor. I provide firearms training instruction for the Northern Arizona University Park Service Ranger Program. I just recently completed the Simmunitions training to be a instructor for the use of live fire in training. One of the things we do in our training is malfunction drills. All three of our modern weapon systems have malfunctions. We instruct our officers how to clear them and get back in the gun fight. If this was a problem, stuck cartridges, before LBH where was the documented training provided to the troopers to teach them the most efficient way to clear these problems. Either it didn't rise to a level of concern by the officers of the 7th or the were negligent by failing to train. That would have been a terrible guilt to bear by the surviving officers. We knew there was a problem and did nothing to resolve it before going to battle.
My job requires checking hunters with firearms. This has allowed me to be exposed to many weapon system over the years. I personally hunt, reload my own cartridges, train, practice monthly to maintain skills, and test to prove proficiency. On a slow year I would fire over 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
All this and a buck will get me a cup of coffee. Can I be wrong. You bet. I try to do the best I can because officers risk their lives and must utilize some of the training I provide to survive. My point is I don't completely need to rely on what I read electronically or in print to form my opinion. I have always maintained that the ammunition was faulty but not to the degree to be an excuse for LBH. This was a weapon system problem not the same as a weapon problem. Reno and Godfrey state weapon system problems and there is no argument with their description of those problems. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Carbine
