|
Weapons
Sept 16, 2013 16:20:43 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 16, 2013 16:20:43 GMT -6
Fred... have you seen Glenwood Swansons' book.? He covers a number of firearms linked to cases etc found on the LBH battleground. Johnny, Yes, I have seen it. In fact, I use his data on the specs, ranges, and velocities of both the Colt and Springfield. Check them out and let me know if you agree. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 17, 2013 13:23:13 GMT -6
Post by johnnyq on Sept 17, 2013 13:23:13 GMT -6
Fred, The info looks good. They used a computer program (shrug - what do I know?). DISCLAIMER! The following is my experience under well known (to me)conditions. Gun writer Elmer Keith came up with the .44 mag. concept. (He never shot a firearm that was too powerful) I did try some of his long range handgun shooting advice. Just to keep it short, I'm confident that at 400 yds with a single action revolver, I might not (Probably Not) hit you, but you'd move somewhere else quick. (Fred Benteen excepted) LOL. The 700yds they gave the gov't single action "sounds right". I have no idea about the carbine range. That said, 2800 yards is a long way on 55 grains of black powder. The authors knew the difference between the 45-55 and the 45-70 so I give them the benefit of the doubt. 1200 yds was their "maximum" likely shooting range, and you indicated "fields of fire" work. I have a 577-450 martini sporting model. Its sight can be set to 1200 yards, but I don't think I could use the setting - nothing lines up with any degree of "repeatability". I don't see troopers using the contorted Creedmoor positions either. (Again, what do I know?) Where I'm headed is, at what range did the trooper’s fire cease to make the NAs move elsewhere. I suspect you're ahead of me, but I'd guess (OMG not the useless "guess" word LOL) 2-3 hundred yards max. Way to close for the numbers they faced. j
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 17, 2013 13:42:34 GMT -6
Post by fred on Sept 17, 2013 13:42:34 GMT -6
(shrug - what do I know?). One helluva lot, my boy, one helluva lot! And I intend to use it! I will let you know where and when... then I will need full particulars so I can give you the credit you deserve for helping me. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 17, 2013 16:33:38 GMT -6
Post by johnnyq on Sept 17, 2013 16:33:38 GMT -6
Fred,
Lt. Wallace was a competition shooter after BLBH. I've seen a picture of him using a shooting stand/bench (somewhere?). The bench looked to be adjustable and set-up to test trajectory or the like. If (big if) he went to that kind of trouble he may have written up results in A&N Journal, one of the trade mags or an army report. I've no idea how to find out, but it could add to your "stuff".
Honestly, I'm not even sure it was Wallace, but it was a LBH related officer.
all 4 now,
j It was Gibson, after he made captain. His troop tested the 24" experimental carbine in 1885-87. (he didn't like the sights).
Farrington Arming & Equipping the United States Cavalry pp 274, pp278-79
j
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 26, 2013 8:42:03 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 26, 2013 8:42:03 GMT -6
Happy Birthday Johnny!
Ian.
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 27, 2013 5:59:22 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2013 5:59:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 27, 2013 6:01:10 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2013 6:01:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 27, 2013 6:02:54 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2013 6:02:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 27, 2013 6:06:15 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2013 6:06:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 27, 2013 6:09:26 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2013 6:09:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Weapons
Sept 27, 2013 6:15:08 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2013 6:15:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by johnnyq on Oct 11, 2013 14:45:16 GMT -6
Fred 1st sgt William Heyn said he had to borrow a ramrod from Lieutenant Wallace’s sporting rifle to shove out a stuck shell. Read more: lbha.proboards.com/thread/2161/-cavalry#ixzz2hRL3Am9Cnt size="3"][/font] I checked around a bit. Wallace was the only 7th cav officer who purchased a "officer model springfield sporter" between September 1872 and June 1876. The rifle was a 45-70 cal. ordered, or delivered, 05-30-74. ( Farrington, Arming & Equipping the United States Cavalry pp., 204) Big deal huh? OK... To persue things a bit farther, the above ups the possibility of officers (or enlisted), on the Custer battlefield, using 50-70 or 45-70 springfield ammo, may have used non-military barrels which might leave a different style rifling mark on a possibly, non-standard bullet. Think sgt Ryan and his made in Bismarck, DT custom 45-70 sharps. I know, a very thin possibilty, plus NAs could have looted or stolen the firearm. But..maybe this possibility ties to something else so.. there it is. j
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 13, 2013 12:39:27 GMT -6
Post by justvisiting on Oct 13, 2013 12:39:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 13, 2013 13:08:46 GMT -6
Post by justvisiting on Oct 13, 2013 13:08:46 GMT -6
[/font]
I checked around a bit. Wallace was the only 7th cav officer who purchased a "officer model springfield sporter" between September 1872 and June 1876. The rifle was a 45-70 cal. ordered, or delivered, 05-30-74. ( Farrington, Arming & Equipping the United States Cavalry pp., 204)
Big deal huh?
OK... To persue things a bit farther, the above ups the possibility of officers (or enlisted), on the Custer battlefield, using 50-70 or 45-70 springfield ammo, may have used non-military barrels which might leave a different style rifling mark on a possibly, non-standard bullet. Think sgt Ryan and his made in Bismarck, DT custom 45-70 sharps. I know, a very thin possibilty, plus NAs could have looted or stolen the firearm.
But..maybe this possibility ties to something else so.. there it is.
j
[/quote] Steve, wasn't it Ryan who said that Captain French spent his time removing blockages from carbines? Billy
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 13, 2013 16:42:35 GMT -6
Post by johnnyq on Oct 13, 2013 16:42:35 GMT -6
Billy,
Heyn borrowing a ramrod from Wallace occurred on the skirmish line. Co. A was in the middle of the line, so Heyn had “equal” access to French (M co.) or Wallace (G co.). I don’t know the year his account was given. The info was taken from Camps notes so maybe enough time had passed to blur his memory.
What caught my eye was his use of the term “sporting rifle”, coupled with the report noted above. I haven’t seen comments calling Frenchs’ infantry rifle a sporter. “Long Tom” is what comes to mind.
At this point, I’ll give Heyn the benefit of the doubt and say there were at least two ramrods in use.
j
|
|