| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 04 2004 : 5:20:27 PM
|
Very gallant of you Bhist.
Best regards
|
  |
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 5:23:00 PM
|
Indeed WILDI you are correct sir. The Colt will discharge 6 rounds to the carbine's one. And I daresay that if I were in that type of chilling situation, and was going to be forced to discharge rounds while mounted, and at close range, the first choice would be the revolver.
After the weapon is empty however, mounted or dismounted, it takes much longer to load the 6 shells into the chambers. This is where the carbine firing, and reloading, firing again, will gain your superiour firepower.
However, all I was stating in the post above, was that one of the few facts I could find stated by Warlord in his posts, was that it is indeed easier to load the Carbine mounted than the colt.
My Compliments,
Jake |
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 7:44:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
[quote]Originally posted by Warlord
WildI: Just so you know, the vast majority of Americans do not act like Warlord. We appreciate the Irish contributions for the betterment of America and love your country and, most of all, your people. And, we are a much more articulate society than Warlord portrays.
Bob--I couldn't have said it any better. There is little I hate more than having to pick up the pieces when faced with disasters spouted by "Ugly Americans." This was something of which I was quite aware when I docented while working Deep Ravine--and tried to tell the many foreign visitors that Custer was not an example of such and that most students of Little Bighorn and GAC's life are not, either.
Wild I: We Amerikaners are better than this! I appreciate your output at this forum!
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2004 : 9:37:21 PM
|
Dear high military officer in a warlike nation and/or local ruler or bandit leader; you need help. Your supernumerary outrage towards your every contact on this forum is beyond belief.
You make Dark Cloud and Larsen look like boy scouts. Bhist's response to your degrading retort to Larsen( Lord, am I defending him!!!???) was extremely appropiate and timely. Your vicious and senseless return response to one of our most dignified, ancillary, contributors to this forum, is incomprehensible.
Please return to whatever rock you emerged from. Obviously, the sharing of information is not your forte. Your arousal in life is incarcerated in a demonic need to defame and degrade your fellowman.
Lighten up for God's sake. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 04:11:45 AM
|
We Amerikaners are better than this!
The very salt of the earth.Thanks Movingrobewoman/Joe W
Best Regards
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 10:47:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Larsen; You are the floating turd. Your perfidy and just plain B.S. show you are not intersted in a genuine discusion! I think you are familiar with much of this detail but simply wish to start personal arguments and detract from the real discussions! I now suspect you are merely a armchair diletantte playing games. So go F--- yourself!!
Sincerely Warlord
You could have said, "I fold," a lot more succinctly.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:01:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
WildI: Just so you know, the vast majority of Americans do not act like Warlord. We appreciate the Irish contributions for the betterment of America and love your country and, most of all, your people. And, we are a much more articulate society than Warlord portrays.
I never believed that Lorenzo was a put-on like some suggested, but I think Warlord probably is. He comes off as somebody's smirking parody of the "Ugly American"; every cliche is there --- guns, arrogance, nativism, bombast. He's just trolling and probably loves the attention.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:04:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JakeW
1. Where is your proof that the soldiers carried at LEAST 2 pistols??? Because, they were only issued 1.
Talking Point:
I do think that there is a difference between the issuance and the CHOICE of carrying better/more firearms whilst on campaign. Granted, I think I read this in Sklenar--not the most respected writer with the members of this forum--that many of the officers, when they could afford them, carried their personal firearms in the battle, rather than to rely on US supply ... well, okay, uhh, at least GAC and Tom (I think I remember that correctly). Once again, this seems to confirm my belief that it was the Army that contributed most to the defeat of GAC.
The best way of dealing with our little Warlord is to not feed the beast ...
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:12:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Please return to whatever rock you emerged from. Obviously, the sharing of information is not your forte. Your arousal in life is incarcerated in a demonic need to defame and degrade your fellowman.
Lighten up for God's sake.
Hmmm ... funny. Where the heck did I apologize for "Custer" at Deep Ravine? Good God--GAC had abundance of his own problems to more than make up for errant behaviours attached to him by the Hollywood History
department!
I truly enjoyed asked the tourists on June 26, "how did you become interested in visiting LBH?" Almost to a person, it was "They Died With Their Boots On ..."
Hokahey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:21:00 AM
|
I asked if Warlord, who appeared about the same time as the announcement of the Harrington book, is related in any way to the author. He and the author are both named Cross. Warlord? Anyone?
Larsen, I think I'm the only one suspicious of Lorenzo - suspicious, not convinced - being a put on because he appeared, I think, about the time Martini was an issue here. Further, he stopped contributing when I said I wasn't going to spend any more time on figuring out his posts. OTHERS were reading them and had no admitted trouble, so I don't understand why he wouldn't continue just because I wasn't going to respond to them anymore. That's pretty much my evidence for it, and it's weak.
So, what is the status of this board? I know nada other than what Bhist posted. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:25:59 AM
|
Jerk?? HAHAHA, how long did you stare at the screen coming up with that one? The more you post, the more you sound like a spoiled childd. Nothing more. The fact that you don't care what you say to one of this boards most valued poster's is indeed a showing of YOUR immaturity.
quote:
Oh, the Colt could only be carried with 5 rounds!
Oh really? Hmmm....seeing as I have one right in front of me at the moment, it appears that it can use 6 shells? Well I'll be danged, another lie from Warlord. The only reason the weapon would have been carried with 5 shells, was when not in battle. As soon as engaged, or reloaded, the weapon would have been fully loaded. You know why Warlord??? The small fear of an accidental discharge was most likely overweighed by the terror of onrushing hostiles.
quote:
"Some indian accounts are persistent in their tally of 700(guns picked up on the field. If true, someone brought them! The indians did not have them before. They came frome somewhere. Its called linear logic. You should try it some time! Is it true? I am not sure. But I know Custer was carrying three handguns himself. If I was hunting Jerk, I mean Jake in the badlands I probably would take an extra Jerk gun!
Who do you think these troopers were Warlord? Members of Mosby's unit? Please. The troopers were all carrying a revolver and a carbine by governement issue. Now you really think all of them went out and bought an extra revolver? Money that could have been better spent over at the sutlers on rock candy and whiskey?? Please.
Movingrobewoman, yes you are indeed correct. The officers of the regiment as well as the civilian scouts and packers could carry whatever they wished. If memory serves, Custer's brother Tom carried an Officer's Model 1873 Springfield. And was it French, who carried the .50 Cal Springfield and put it to use over on Reno Hill?
Warlord has an image in his head of the 7th Cavalry charging forward, guidons blowing in the wind, with reins clenched between their teeth, while discharging double sixguns into the mass of oncoming Souix. (I can almost hear Garryowen sounding now) 
Warlord your continuing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! make you sound like a small child who needs a diaper changed. Maybe you just got in from the field and have an advanced case of jungle rot? Point is, I don't care. Fix it.
|
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:26:53 AM
|
| Sounds reasonable, but I doubt that many enlisted men could afford an extra weapon. It was a wise policy to carry the 1873 Colt with an empty chamber under the hammer,but I suspect that most troopers would risk the accidental discharge to have an extra shot when going into battle. They carried 24 extra rounds for the Colt which indicates reloads of six. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:42:48 AM
|
Jake: I didn't mean to make the same point you had just made. I was replying to MRW. W.O. Taylor in his first person account of the Reno fight, lost his revolver in the retreat. He didn't have an extra. Wonder who counted those 700 hundred guns?
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 11:44:02 AM
|
Dark, one time at all, I am not a put on. If I was on the forum at the same time Martini appeared it was a coincidence. That I had not noticed yet. And, frankly, for me Martini is not the most important topic.
I have explained what made me stop writing. That's not weak. I just finally saw that my posts were not understood as I wanted. My fault of course. After all you was right about my english. And I surely make a gift to everybody stopping writing my illegible hieroglyphs.
I can swear to you that my presence here was due only to interest in the subject, nothing more. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 12:15:19 PM
|
Prolar, no problem at all. I reckon I just got my post sent in a bit before yours,
CHEERS
Jake |
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 2:57:25 PM
|
It was a wise policy to carry the 1873 Colt with an empty chamber under the hammer
Prolar would the empty chamber not have been the next one up if you see what I mean?If the gun was discharged accidently it would the round from the next chamber which would fire,thus that chamber would be kept empty and not the one immediatly under the hammer. |
|
|
|
JakeW
Private
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 3:05:00 PM
|
Sorry Wild I but here you are a bit misinformed. No offense intended, but the chamber directly under the hammer would be kept empty when not going directly into battle. If dropped, the gun is not going to cock itself and fire.
If fully loaded with the hammer down on a live chamber and dropped, the force could be such that it could cause the firing pin on the hammer to pop the primer in the back of the shell, setting off the charge. If goin into battle, it would be a simple move, to turn the cylinder and load the chamber with a round.
As I'm not goin into battle when I pack into the woods during hunting season, I'll leave my revolver with 5 in the chambers, making sure the chamber that the hammer is resting on, is empty.
Jake |
"We've Caught 'em Napping Boys!" - Custer's Last Phrase |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 3:36:14 PM
|
| Nice explanation Jake.Thanks |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 6:17:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Jake: I didn't mean to make the same point you had just made. I was replying to MRW. W.O. Taylor in his first person account of the Reno fight, lost his revolver in the retreat. He didn't have an extra. Wonder who counted those 700 hundred guns?
Prolar--
I thought I was being very exacting when I mentioned that it was "the officers" who often supplemented/substituted issue firearms for/with personal weapons. At least that is what I meant. Perhaps I wasn't clear. You're right ... probably not a whole lot of "enlisted" guys could afford to pack hotter heat. But then again, de Rudio had the most awesome pair of binoculars ...
Jake: from what I have read (and for the life of me, I cannot remember the source--perhaps "Custer Victorious" or "Riding With Custer") GAC did often go into battle with horse reins between his teeth, shooting with great accuracy from both hands. Of course, he might have been the exception. What IS strange is that at the Realbirds' re-enactment--at least the last two years--it is insisted that GAC was LEFT handed. I've seen at least one photo of him writing--and it is clear that he is right handed. Could the "left-handed" interpretation come from seeing him shoot with either hand?
Just a couple of points.
And Lorenzo--it is good to have you back!
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 6:45:23 PM
|
Wild, were you really in the military? I find this revolver issue compelling evidence you were not. Yes, yes, you didn't use revolvers, but.....
Regarding Warlord, I'm with Robe. I'm not with Robe if she thinks for one minute Custer "often" - or at all - rode into combat with reins in his steely white teeth and six guns blazing from either hand. He may have done it, but there are issues.
One, what about the heroic sword that the other acolytes assure us was his weapon of choice in the CW? Far more dramatic. If just the Indian wars, he didn't have a whole lot of experience to try that two gun ensemble out. I know it can be done, etc., but it would be extremely stupid. He'd be better off with as good control of his mount as he could attain in an attack. He had two pistols, but I would doubt, and would hope, that he wasn't such a dunderhead, ambidexterous or not. I think he was ambidexerous; most athletic people are to greater or lesser degrees.
Of course, I also fail to see the point of the regiment's commander leading charges unnecessarily where his experience and logistical knowledge and strategic insight are needlessly risked to no benefit except his own ego. It's impressive that he did this - it is - but really it wasn't his job. His job was to keep his command informed, coherent, and focused on known and doable goals. He didn't do that. It was a good day if he got to lead a charge. I truly think what is most impressive about Custer (and I'm not being snide, it is impressive) are best seen in ambitious captains and lieutenants: not Generals or Colonels when they are the battle's highest rank and so much depends upon them. They have other responsibilities, less dramatic perhaps, but key. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 8:16:26 PM
|
MRW: I understood you, didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point was there were not enough officers to account for those 700 guns someone mentioned.You lost me on DeRudio, he was an officer.
Wild I: Jake explained better than I could.
DC: Good point but Generals such as Forrest and Stuart seemed to be often in the thick of battles. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 8:52:47 PM
|
Prolar,good point about Generals often being in the thick of the battle. Everyone remembers reading about Franklin, Gettysburg, etc. and knows the losses among the field officers in those battles. In those days, they were expected to lead from the front, not hover over in a helicopter and second-guess.
Dark Cloud, regarding controlling the horse. Remember as a kid reading about King Arthur and his knights? Same principle as the American Indian and the Scythians [sp.?] used. A well-trained horse can be trained to be guided by the knees and often only voice commands. Not being a horseman, I don't know how well they react to gunfire, loud screams, etc. but I am sure that proper training did eradicate the more unruly...at least for those who had the time to train their horses properly. Most enlisted men did not and I doubt that many officers had the time and resources to do it either.
I seem to recall having read somewhere that one of the things that the Union army remount "centers" did was acclimate the animals to gunfire and eliminate the ones who could not be conditioned.
I will have to research that when I get time. Currently moving the debris of 15 years in the same house to make room for the contractor to fix foundation and the cellar walls.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2004 : 10:27:40 PM
|
You're fixated on the rank rather than being the highest ranking officer on the field. Mead and Grant and Lee didn't lead charges. They have other responsibilities. Buford didn't lead his men on the front line while he was all there was till Reynolds came up. He wrote long, informative reports and orders and people knew what he was doing, where he was, what he planned, what the land was. Nobody thinks the worse of him for not being gallant and attracting fire. He'd proved himself in that regard. The highest rank about is not supposed to be at risk for no real purpose.
I understand some about horses, and since the Sioux and Cheyenne did it, of course they can be ridden guided at the knee solely. But it still isn't smart absent actual need. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2004 : 09:59:59 AM
|
DC,
I'm not certain if you're interested, or if you already know this, but the author of the Harrington book seems to post on the History Channel forum.
The following URL has a quick summation of his theory regarding the Shufeldt Skull
http://boards.historychannel.com/threadedout.jsp?forum=96&thread=300016094 |
Edited by - dave on October 06 2004 10:01:39 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2004 : 10:46:57 AM
|
Wild, were you really in the military? I find this revolver issue compelling evidence you were not. Yes, yes, you didn't use revolvers, but.....
DC,Are you really a pacifist? Or perhaps you can tell us if this safety precaution with the revolver applied to both single action and double action weapons?
Mead and Grant and Lee didn't lead charges.
Lee tried to at the battle of the Wilderness but was stopped by a Texas brigade who would not advance until Lee removed himself from danger.
At Waterloo it is said that a battery commander called out to Wellington that he had Napoloen and his staff in range and could he open fire.Wellington refused permission saying that commanding officers had better things to do than shoot artillery at each other.
You're fixated on the rank rather than being the highest ranking officer on the field.
Depends on wheather the officer is a staff officer or a field officer.At the time of the Civil war the highest ranking field officer would have been a Brigadier General and he would have been expected to lead from the front.
how about you and the Irishman trading homes! He can come to Texa's and learn about gun'sWhat school do you suggest Columbine High? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
