| Author |
 Topic  |
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 03 2004 : 12:18:31 PM
|
| Billy: Thank you for your research. You have answered several questions for me, and hopefully for Dark Cloud. As to your question, I don't believe the type of ammo made much difference in the battle. It was just another puzzle in regard to LBH. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 12:53:12 PM
|
But, as I understand, the C and R are the stigmata of those that could have been used in 1876. If they don't have them, the 7th did not fire them that day. "Originally, both the rifle and carbine rounds were seated to the same overall length and headstamped with a "C" or "R" for identification." In 1886, that changed.
So.......what do those casings look like from the field? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 6:25:38 PM
|
| Warlord: I haven't seen any headstamps either, but I have no doubt that Fox, Scott, etc know the proper markings for casings from the battle.Seems to me that Markland's research confirms what we believed but couldn't prove. I have no idea what DC's latest doubts are. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 6:44:21 PM
|
Okay. Nobody here (this isn't my forte) recalls headstamps of LBH .45/55 or/70 casings. But if what Warlord and Markland provided in the way of info is correct, that's the stigmata of casings available to the 7th in 1876: the C or the R. If the casings do not have those markings, they were made too late regardless of pack and traces. I would assume Fox et al would know and have assumed it. But, if no headstamps, Fox is wrong if Warlord and Markland's info pieces are correct. The casings could not have been fired in 1876.
Eh? Or have I whiffed, here. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 8:45:34 PM
|
| I can't find that Fox ever mentioned headstamp markings, but he does not seem to have any doubts that the cavalry ammo was 45/55. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 9:01:45 PM
|
| You think Fox isn't familar with cartridge markings of the period? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 10:03:09 PM
|
On page 173 of "Archaeological Perspectives" Scott et al say they had to radiograph the unfired cartridges to see if they had a wad or tube liner, which is apparently the only proof that one is a .45/55 and not a /70. No headstamps, apparently.
In the discussion of post-battle ammo on pgs 183-86 the authors mention finding 50 .45/70 cases which, because of headstamps, must date after the battle. They can't identify any post-battle .45/70 bullets, however, and it seems ridiculous to think they didn't find any. At least some of the .45 bullets fired from those guns must be among those included in the inventory of ".45/55" bullets discussed on pgs. 173-75, unless I've missed something.
I find it suspicious that they don't (or can't) identify any .45/55 ammunition as being fired post-battle.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 09:17:41 AM
|
| I would not expect them to identify bullets, but I sure would like to know more about the battlefield casings. I had hoped for some input from Bhist, but since Warlord insulted him, DC critized his .44 Colt statement, and none of us liked the History Channel program he was on,I guess he won't help us. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 10:33:09 AM
|
What .44 Colt? I doubt Bhist or anyone gives a particular flying fungo bat about my opinion; in any case, I'm sure with prayer, love of family, and deep therapy he has safely recovered from my grim review of a program on which he was interviewed.
Is it or is it not true that Springfield ammo available to the 7th in 1876 HAD to have either a C or an R headstamped on it? All I'm asking. What Warlord and Markland provided suggests to me they DID have to have that.
Prolar, you've read the same things I have, have I misunderstood? I must have, since nobody else thinks it odd, but I'm dense and would appreciate clarification. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 12:11:04 PM
|
Honestly DC, I don't know. Perhaps the cartridges manufactured by the Frankford Arsenal were headstamped and cartridges made by other vendors were not? Everything seems to indicate that the "R" or "C" headstamp was used but Larsen's quote from Fox & Scott has me confused. I haven't run across different HS markings for specific year ranges, only that they had discontinued the HS when they modified the cartridge to eliminate the cardboard spacer.
Arghhhhh! I am going to the library to see if they have anything on this. Hopefully I can get...time out! I will get back before the Carolina-Kentucky game. Go 'Heels!!
WL or Prolar, do either of you know if the US "outsourced" cartridge manufacturing between 1874-1876? As cheap as the government was during those years, I find it hard to imagine but if a 3rd party could do it cheaper than Frankford, who knows?
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 12:13:53 PM
|
Oh by the way, while doing searches on the web, I came across these 7th Cav. photos at www.trapdoorcollector.com.
The URL for the photos is:
http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/7thCav.html
The note at the bottom states that the commentary originally with the photos has been lost, so, does anyone recognize any of the subjects in the photos?
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 12:31:44 PM
|
Not to be Captain Bring Down (although I'd love to be), but isn't this rather important? If it is true that EVERY SPRINGFIELD CARBINE CARTRIDGE available to the 7th HAD TO HAVE A C OR AN R, doesn't that, you know, mean any shell casing that has none or a different one could not have been relevant to the battle? If it is not true, and Warlord and Markland's sources are wrong, what does that say about the surety which is attributed by reason of all this stuff? Unless we're missing a big chunk of info - which would be surprising given the fanatics that live for this sort of thing - either much of the conclusions drawn from the archaeology are wrong OR the sources quoted and here are wrong and significantly so.
Still the open question about whether I've grossly misunderstood the whole thing. Am accepting help. Aid. Kind words. Info relevant to the issue. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 12:47:12 PM
|
| DC and Billy: From what I know of it the casings from the the battle should be stamped with a C. I can't say that they had to have had this mark, but I know of no reason they wouldn't. I have to believe that the people who did the survey and wrote the books know at least as much on this subject as we do. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 1:57:11 PM
|
Then they know something we don't (certainly no accomplishment in my case), and the sources posted have to be incorrect. Either way, this ought to have been caught long before.
Nothing makes me more uneasy than "I have to believe...." That's a social dignity. You don't have to believe, you choose to. And, for all I know, you're correct to do so. But won't it be interesting if the missing headstamp invalidates all those shell casings from plotting the battle? It means they got there by other means at least a decade later. And the whole topic of salting - among others - emerges, yet again.
Chances are good I have it wrong, but something is quite odd. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 07:39:22 AM
|
I've sort of lost track of this thread, but the following URL seems quite informative. Unfortunately it doesn't quite answer some of the questions being raised here.
See
http://www.oldammo.com/november04.htm
For those too lazy to read the article, according to the URL, the 7th might have had C marked cartridges - if their ammunition was manufactured circa 1874/5?. Rifle cartridges continued to unmarked until March 1877, after which both carbine and rifle cartidges were headstamped.
So during 1876, a C marked cartridge is definatively a carbine cartidge, but an unmarked cartridge could be either.
The headstamped carbine cartridges at the time of the LBH had a raised headstamp, the headstamped rifle/carbine cartridges produced after March 1877 had an indented headstamp. So there shouldn't be any confusion between the pre- and post- March 1877 headstamps, even if the year stamp is obscured.
The author also states that unmarked carbine and rifle ammunition of the pre 1877 period is indistinguishable. So that would seem to raise all sorts of possibilites.
Mr Larsen, if you read this, I would be interested in knowing what a radiograph is (unless radiograph is just a fancy term for an x-ray), and how its used to identify whether a cartridge contained a cardboard wad or not. I'm asking out of genuine curiousity, not trying to be smart or sarcastic, but I'm really scratching my head trying to work out what discernable trace a cardboard wad could leave on a 130 year old cartidge case. |
Edited by - dave on December 05 2004 08:43:44 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 11:55:58 AM
|
There is clear conflict between Markland's source and David's, the former saying all cartridges would have either a C or an R to 1886, and this source, which says the US Army had the IQ of a quahog to allow two munitions that fit in the same weapons to be indistinguishable till your shoulder broke. (What were they thinking? And the headstamp cost too much??)
Still, this doesn't help archaeology. How are these cartridges with no headstamp dated as before 1876? It sounds like it's an assumption. And the question arises, given these conflicting sites by people who would seem to know, does anyone know? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 12:40:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave
Mr Larsen, if you read this, I would be interested in knowing what a radiograph is (unless radiograph is just a fancy term for an x-ray), and how its used to identify whether a cartridge contained a cardboard wad or not. I'm asking out of genuine curiousity, not trying to be smart or sarcastic, but I'm really scratching my head trying to work out what discernable trace a cardboard wad could leave on a 130 year old cartidge case.
Just an x-ray, as far as I know. I have no expertise. It's the word they use, so I go with that. Scott includes photographs of the two radiographed types of cartridges on page 172 of "Archaeological Perspectives". I'm not very impressed with it, but then I'm a mid-20s Blue State person who's never touched a gun in his life. Others may see things I don't.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 4:58:06 PM
|
| Nothing is ever simple is it DC? I kind of expected that additional information would turn up. Think of it as a learning process instead of conflicting sources. Whether the ammo was 55 0r 70 gr was no earth shaking or shoulder breaking difference. I expect that as is usual with the army, you use what is issued. The early unmarked casings would not be confused with the ones after 1886, different primers and different material, brass instead of copper. I think Billy also suspected something like this would turn up. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 8:27:28 PM
|
| Larsen: Good for you. I'm from a red state and voted accordingly. Ihave touched lots of guns, but never shot anyone or needed the services of a criminal lawyer. I view them much the same as VD clinics as a necessary evil. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 10:08:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Larsen: Good for you. I'm from a red state and voted accordingly. Ihave touched lots of guns, but never shot anyone or needed the services of a criminal lawyer. I view them much the same as VD clinics as a necessary evil.
Actually, though Blue State, I voted Red; in my life it's not often I'm in the majority (and I don't just mean in politics). The appeal of NASCAR still eludes me though.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 10:15:25 PM
|
So what's your opinion of the cartridge radiographs? Like I said, not really my subject, so I'm interested in hearing from others more experienced with it.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 10:26:42 PM
|
| Everybody has probably put me on their Ignore list, but this is potentially an important thread, and it should be on its own. I started one, below, so everything of note can be in one place on this topic. I have nothing but questions to contribute, myself. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 10:38:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Everybody has probably put me on their Ignore list, but this is potentially an important thread, and it should be on its own. I started one, below, so everything of note can be in one place on this topic. I have nothing but questions to contribute, myself.
Maybe Rich can move all the cartridge-oriented posts to that thread. I think the last page or two here is all on that subject.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
