|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 24, 2009 17:32:11 GMT -6
Here Ye! Post 29, this thread. Hear Ye!
I love this. "...consistent with a century of outdoor expsosure (sic)." That specific, eh? Really. I'm not sure when this cartridge case was obtained, or by who or where. Facts, however, are mere annoyances here and divert from the pressing need. Which is definition.
Would a cartridge lying 'outdoors' but imbedded in the earth for a century show the same consistency of exposure as one wedged on the surface for that duration? If the earth holds water longer than the surface, wouldn't that affect the exposure levels and corrosion? Or would less exposure to air affect its corrosion?
Wouldn't there, in fact, be a wide, wide parameter of effect on the case involved dependent upon location, duration, and the history of the artifact?
What would be the tell tale distinctions between a pre-1876 manufacture salted case from Ft. Custer, fired in the first year of its existence at the practice range, and lying 'outdoors' before its placement near the South Skirmish Line/Camp's Photo Op, and a case actually from the battle next to it? It could happen and, really, wouldn't be surprised if it had already. Can you distinguish a firing pin dent made in 1934 from one made in 1876 in the correct weapon and then leave the cases only a half century 'outdoors?' What lab process do you apply?
Indians were famous for stinginess with ammo, and one can only hope the Army was as well. The Army may well have given outdated ammo away for free to sedate tribes for hunting along with older firearms to go with their heirlooms from previous battles. Marquis in the 1920's was shown an arsenal of old Cheyenne hidden firearms, for which ammo would be required and no doubt was there.
Bear in mind, again, I am in no way saying all, most, or even a huge plurality of the artifacts are bogus, only that there is no way to flense actual battle artifacts from bogus artifacts, which are derived from well known actual events and probabilities which, in compelling aggregation, neuter the artifacts' worth. That's all. They prove nothing, because they cannot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Feb 24, 2009 20:14:56 GMT -6
Look, I'm not going to nit-pick you...I'm sure my expertise (yes, I'm saying that because I am indeed a professional and get paid to know and recognize various forms and ages of corrosion products on artifacts) makes my evaluations on these subjects a lot more accurate than most anyone here--lots of unscrupulous folks try to outwit major museums with forgeries (fake aging etc.) all the time--it is the people like me who have a pretty good record of preventing this and authenticating such objects.
I won't bother to give you an on-line dissertation on the varying properties of decaying metals (they're all different for one thing), but rest assured I know them.
Besides...that is not at all the point here--you obfiscate the issue because you cannot answer the question and prefer to fog the issue when you can't.
I never stated that any particular provenience to these casings had anything to do with anything--only that they are typical of those found. And that I wanted to hear from you, or anyone, as to how to quickly or outwardly descern whether these type cases were originally packed with 70 grains or 55 grains--THAT was my question, and my ONLY question...period. Either answer the question succinctly or be quiet.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 25, 2009 9:32:47 GMT -6
First, I never implied nor would I that I know the answer. I would have no clue how to analyze the age or corrosion beyond picking up the phone to get help.
"I won't bother to give you an on-line dissertation on the varying properties of decaying metals (they're all different for one thing), but rest assured I know them." No doubt. But there's only one metal - copper - involved here for the question.
"And that I wanted to hear from you, or anyone, as to how to quickly or outwardly descern whether these type cases were originally packed with 70 grains or 55 grains--THAT was my question, and my ONLY question...period. Either answer the question succinctly or be quiet." I didn't know, said so, and suggested that cartridge weight would be the indicator if nothing else. I also find that an odd question for an experienced person on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 15, 2013 20:19:27 GMT -6
1. In Where Custer Fell the photographic evidence indicates hardly anything was shaved off. In some ways, it looks a bit higher than that which the wooden box originally sat upon. Where the rumor of huge removal of dirt came from may be a conflation with the Weir Point scrape, which was significant. This relates to the highest point on LSH only; the sidewalk, parking, and road must have required some scraping, but the photos aren't shocking in the differences. On LSH, again from WCF, testimony says the Custer group was where the monument is now, nearly the perimeter if the current grouping is viewed as a whole, or at the end of a line along the ridge. Other photos show the original burial wooden stakes going off down to Keogh outside the fence, and testimony and earliest photos are not real supportive of the current arrangement at all. They needed to bury, if that's the term, where digging was easier. 3. n/a It still would be interesting to hear why the fenced area describes the strange alignment it currently does, and why so much empty space. Battle update. Two images shown, can now be identified as pre and post 10th Battle anniversary. Notice the bevel facing introduced to the stone to repair damage to to the joint between the blocks.   As noted in a topic covering aspects of the monument, the wooden stakes in the later (post 25.6.86) image were apparently placed by Gall, during the 10th anniversary. Which may go some way to explaining a li'l of the confusion about markers. The actual problem is a total of 28 believed to belong in a ravine and 29 that are for men killed at Reno Hill. 18 died in the Finley Finkle area, 38 with Keogh. 28 burials and 14 animal carcasses were confirmed below LSH by the Cherokee advocate newspaper in 1877, a year after the battle. 126 or so to go. books.google.co.uk/books?id=07KE93TRNUoC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA52&ots=25PswqXY2e&dq=wessinger+custer&output=html_textYou could almost imagine the lead of a column coming over the rise towards you, and..... slaming into 700 Southern Cheyennes.  Roe placed the monument upon a large pit filled with concrete and stone aggregate, which may be why confusion is caused by images such as that with Curley in it. The trench around the monument has either just been dug or has been excavated. The remains visible mitigate against the former. Had the image been taken from 10 or 20 yards further back, the contour of the knoll would be prominent as the horizon, l suspect. So motive for the image is odd? If there were a half dozen bodies properly marked, once upon a time, near the old stone house, then that was Custer and ties in nicely to Gall's account of Custer out front. Ford D is a green light of sorts and hords of warriors came swarming up the ridge over the National Cemetary. Unfortunately, Big Beaver tells it very differently because all the people from that end of the village did what he showed in his sketch. Fencing present in 1886 is absent from the later picture above and a requirement for it appears to date to around 1884. One of the lesser considered battle texts was given to William Bordeaux by Foolish Elk, it doesn't sit well with modern theory but provided Lt. Clark's map is reasonably correct (it is) and that the ridge shown above at LSH could be viewed, then that account is under=rated. No one knew or knows where 28 markers belong. After Sweet's extensive efforts to locate burials, there were 29 problem markers. The actual number for Reno Hil and the valley is greater than the 29 which Sweet scoured Custer's battleground to locate.Capt Sweet located 217 graves where today it is belived the count should be 210 but various discoveries of graves had occured in intervening years. Thus Sheridan's original casualty list prepared for RCoI would be a useful document to assess in this matter. It is linked in the other post as part of a collection of papers and listed as the documents being marked as Exhibit 6'. One l modified earlier  books.google.co.uk/books?id=yhGVK1SPIJEC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&ots=FxWLRzN_3p&dq=patterson+hughes+letter+custer&output=html_text |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 30, 2017 15:40:37 GMT -6
Weibert stated that he believes more 45-70 cases have been placed at LBH after the battle than during the battle.
You can buy a pre 1876 commercial primer cartridge for around 25 dollars. An interesting meander is this wandering topic. Lt. Varnum was responsible for the group of scouts accompanying 7th Cavalry to Little Bighorn. That unit carried its equipment on five (5) mules and it is no stretch of imagination to accept that they were provisioned with their own ammunition. Probably two thousand rounds carried by one animal. The army scouts carried the 'Long Tom' Springfield Rifle. Whilst Sgt. Hanley was decorated for returning the stampeded 'Barnum' to safety at Reno Hill, at least one ammunition mule and I believe it to have been two of them, escaped into the river from the siege enclave defending Reno Hill. If one was the scout's mule then hostiles confronting Reno Hill with carbines captured from the five companies destroyed on the Custer Battlefield, had a supply of 50/70 rifle rounds with which to pepper the ground. It isn't perhaps so much what Varnum stated over many years as rather what he did not or simply was unaware of. Convolutedly simple addition to complicated enquiry. The scouts pack train contingent was long established during the march from FAL and mentioned in Libby's record of the Ree narratives. That is how I read the telling. The entire point of the carbine weapon system was for it to be usable by Cavalry who might and therefore would, stay in the saddle. Would the 70 grain round in the Carbine, unseat a mounted shooter. Perhaps someone will lend AZR their Springfield Carbine for quite serious research? |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 31, 2017 5:43:13 GMT -6
Weibert stated that he believes more 45-70 cases have been placed at LBH after the battle than during the battle.
You can buy a pre 1876 commercial primer cartridge for around 25 dollars. An interesting meander is this wandering topic. Lt. Varnum was responsible for the group of scouts accompanying 7th Cavalry to Little Bighorn. That unit carried its equipment on five (5) mules and it is no stretch of imagination to accept that they were provisioned with their own ammunition. Probably two thousand rounds carried by one animal. The army scouts carried the 'Long Tom' Springfield Rifle. Whilst Sgt. Hanley was decorated for returning the stampeded 'Barnum' to safety at Reno Hill, at least one ammunition mule and I believe it to have been two of them, escaped into the river from the siege enclave defending Reno Hill. If one was the scout's mule then hostiles confronting Reno Hill with carbines captured from the five companies destroyed on the Custer Battlefield, had a supply of 50/70 rifle rounds with which to pepper the ground. It isn't perhaps so much what Varnum stated over many years as rather what he did not or simply was unaware of. Convolutedly simple addition to complicated enquiry. The scouts pack train contingent was long established during the march from FAL and mentioned in Libby's record of the Ree narratives. That is how I read the telling. The entire point of the carbine weapon system was for it to be usable by Cavalry who might and therefore would, stay in the saddle. Would the 70 grain round in the Carbine, unseat a mounted shooter. Perhaps someone will lend AZR their Springfield Carbine for quite serious research? HR I own 2 carbines but if someone wants to give me one I can make room for it. I don't think I would make a good representation of a cavalry trooper. I am or at least was 6' 2" and over 200 lbs. I teach firearms and know how to use the upper body to mitigate recoil. We teach shotgun and used buck shot and slugs so the carbine even with a full 70 grains of black powder is not a concern. Riding a mule is better than walking. BE |
|
