|
Post by benteen on Oct 13, 2013 17:51:55 GMT -6
Billy, Was this the Ordnance Committee that Major Reno was a part of. Be Well Dan PS...It looks like no one is going to stop Dark Clouds Mules
|
|
|
Weapons
Oct 13, 2013 19:45:14 GMT -6
Post by justvisiting on Oct 13, 2013 19:45:14 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 Johnny, there was something like two ramrods per company issued on the 1873 trap-door. I may be wrong insofar as the exact number but it t was a small number nonetheless. Billy Dan, yes, this is the group that Reno was part of, Billy
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 26, 2014 15:02:24 GMT -6
Post by scottbono on Jan 26, 2014 15:02:24 GMT -6
Ian and Gatewood, Thank you very much! Greatly appreciated and I will check out the links. Now... next question... How likely-- in your opinions-- would it have been for any of Custer's officers-- those in the five doomed companies, and including Dr. Lord-- to have been carrying any of those 20 weapons, handguns or rifles? Might as well get it all out right now... And what weapons do we know, think, or believe, were carried by Mitch Boyer, Marc Kellogg, Autie Reed, and Boston Custer? Best wishes, Fred. Marc Kellogg carried a Spencer - at least that is what my notes claim.
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 27, 2014 6:51:27 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Jan 27, 2014 6:51:27 GMT -6
Fred, I am going to bounce around a bit here. This from a book I am currently reading by Col. French MacLean, USA Ret. W.P. 1974 grad. Four tours Germany( Co. Company& Ba. Commander), D.S. and I.F.. Served as command historian for U.S. Army 5th Corps, a tour as I.G. for U.S. Army in Europe, and course director and professor at the National War College. He had his retirement ceremony at LBH. He has Written 9 books on WW2. I highly recommend, "The Cruel Hunters"
Now back on topic. A few troopers carried .45 S&W Schofield revolver. 1st Sgt. Ryan, Co. M carried a .45 caliber heavy barrel model 1874 Sharps telescopic rifle that had been specially made for him in Bismarck at the cost of $100.00. The weapon was probably provided by gun-dealer/gunsmith O. H. Smith, it fired the same rounds as the cavalry Springfield. Ryan, however, traded a number of his cavalry rounds to 1st Sgt. William Bolton of Company G in the 17th Infantry Regiment for the much more powerful infantry rounds. The infantry rounds had a better ballistic coefficient and were flatter shooting (My thought). Captain French also had a non issue long gun as did a number of other officers. It seems that if you were willing to buy it you could carry it. While the practice is frowned upon today, it is my understanding that SOG can carry non traditional, non issue weapons. Some H&K come to mind. Your time in VN, probably backs that up.
People who know much more about ballistics than I do, I am sure roam these boards. I would think that some of the privately owned weapons could have been chambered for the 45-110 Sharps,(and much like the .22lr you can shoot the .22long and short as well) these guns could shoot any Sharps shorter .45 ammo. Sorry about this post, got up early, preceding, and as QC says felt compelled to regurgitate.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 27, 2014 7:02:47 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Jan 27, 2014 7:02:47 GMT -6
To Dan(Benteen), Reno and Terry both on committee.
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 27, 2014 7:48:28 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 27, 2014 7:48:28 GMT -6
Fred, I am going to bounce around a bit here. This from a book I am currently reading by Col. French MacLean, USA Ret. W.P. 1974 grad. Four tours Germany( Co. Company& Ba. Commander), D.S. and I.F.. Served as command historian for U.S. Army 5th Corps, a tour as I.G. for U.S. Army in Europe, and course director and professor at the National War College. He had his retirement ceremony at LBH. He has Written 9 books on WW2. I highly recommend, "The Cruel Hunters" Now back on topic. A few troopers carried .45 S&W Schofield revolver. 1st Sgt. Ryan, Co. M carried a .45 caliber heavy barrel model 1874 Sharps telescopic rifle that had been specially made for him in Bismarck at the cost of $100.00. The weapon was probably provided by gun-dealer/gunsmith O. H. Smith, it fired the same rounds as the cavalry Springfield. Ryan, however, traded a number of his cavalry rounds to 1st Sgt. William Bolton of Company G in the 17th Infantry Regiment for the much more powerful infantry rounds. The infantry rounds had a better ballistic coefficient and were flatter shooting (My thought). Captain French also had a non issue long gun as did a number of other officers. It seems that if you were willing to buy it you could carry it. While the practice is frowned upon today, it is my understanding that SOG can carry non traditional, non issue weapons. Some H&K come to mind. Your time in VN, probably backs that up. People who know much more about ballistics than I do, I am sure roam these boards. I would think that some of the privately owned weapons could have been chambered for the 45-110 Sharps,(and much like the .22lr you can shoot the .22long and short as well) these guns could shoot any Sharps shorter .45 ammo. Sorry about this post, got up early, preceding, and as QC says felt compelled to regurgitate. Regards, Tom As far as the Schofield you would be limited to the ammunition brought for it since the cartridge length is shorter than the .45 Colt. I would agree that in general a straight walled cartridge that head spaces off the rim and the cartridge diameters are the same can be fired from a weapon with a chamber having a greater length. I don't think Sharps different from any other .45-110 made a cart ride but I could be wrong. A .45-110 would denote barrel diameter and capacity of black powder. Since 110 is greater than 70 the length would be greater than a .45-70 case in order to contain the increase in black powder. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 27, 2014 8:00:17 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 27, 2014 8:00:17 GMT -6
Just in case someone challenges the diameter of the case needing to be the same I know the Indians tried to fire 45-70 ammunition in a 50-70 chamber. We know this from the ruptured cases found on the battlefield. A ruptured case could cause a lot of gas to blow back and could even cause a stuck bullet in the barrel if sufficient gas blows by the case. In this case the Indians would be lucky since thier barrel was .50 caliber and the cavalry ammunition diameter was .45 caliber.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Jan 28, 2014 18:41:33 GMT -6
As to the performance of the carbine cartridge versus that for the rifle; both fired the same 405 grain bullet, so the ballistic coefficient was the same. The difference lies in the muzzle velocity. From the 1873 carbine the 55 grain load of the carbine round gave a velocity of 1,167 fps, versus a velocity of 1,364 fps for the 70 grain rifle round from the same weapon. So the trajectory of the carbine round is certainly less "flat". For example, at a range of 200 yards the mid-range trajectory (highest point of the bullet's parabola above the line of sight) is 15.0 inches for the carbine round versus 11.7 for the rifle. The results become more marked of course as range increases. These results are estimated using a Norma ballistic calculator. Hopefully, Sgt. Smith had time and sufficient rifle rounds to sight his rifle. More detail and sources are shown in this chart:
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 28, 2014 20:46:11 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Jan 28, 2014 20:46:11 GMT -6
Mike, great chart really shows much more efficient burn of the powder in the rifle. I don't think many of these troops new much about sighting in. Many very new, little training, very little ammo to practice with.
Regards' Tom
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 29, 2014 6:57:26 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 29, 2014 6:57:26 GMT -6
I suspect that the sights were set for something like 100 - 200 yards and not adjusted much. The trajectory of the .45-70 carbine with the .45-55 round sucks for the average soldier to make hits at great distances. If set for greater distances the miss space at closer range is greater than a horses height. The soldiers never had enough ammunition to practice with to become proficient at varying distances. Those that had their own rifles and ammunition would be the most likely to make hits at varying ranges.
I believe the length of the carbine barrel was sufficient to have the black powder burned up. The extra barrel length of the rifle increases the duration of gas pressure push on the bullet. I believe that is evidenced by the superior velocity and trajectory of the .45-70 round versus the .45-55 round fired from the carbine.
I think if you look at that data it .45-55 compared with the .45-70 round both fired from a carbine. The velocities were taken from Hammer TABLE I COMPARISON OF SPRINGFIELD CARBINE and Winchester Rifle.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Weapons
Jan 29, 2014 12:34:46 GMT -6
Post by Mike Powell on Jan 29, 2014 12:34:46 GMT -6
You are correct. The data in the chart is based on the muzzle velocities from Hammer's Table 1, which, as well as the rifle and carbine rounds both fired from an 1873 carbine, included data for the Winchester rifle in .44-40. Aside from the muzzle velocity for the carbine and rifle cartridge all other data in the chart is taken from the on-line Norma calculator output of bullet drop at various distances from the muzzle.
Interior ballistics are little understood by me, though I do recall reading of some tests done with a smokeless powder rifle which found muzzle velocity increasing progressively as the barrel was cut shorter and shorter, until a point was reached at which MV began to recede. I believe the explanation was reduced friction from the shortened barrel gave improvement until barrel length became too short to allow full combustion of the charge.
Back to Hammer's Table 1, I found interesting that the tests included a measure of accuracy, "Mean Deviation" at 100, 200, 500 and 900 yards for the two Springfield rounds (again, both from the carbine) and the Winchester. The three were comparable at 100 yards, the Winchester being slightly superior. At 200 yards, the deviation in inches was 8.36 (rifle), 7.97 (carbine) and 12.27 (Winchester). At 900 yards the rifle and carbine rounds were still comparable at around 36 inches, but the Winchester is listed as "Not obtainable". I'm guessing the "gravel bellies" (if that term for the longer range target shooting enthusiasts in the Army had been coined by 1876) took this as proof positive that the Winchester and its puny cartridge were unsuited to real shooting. Incidentally, while I'm not certain if a 36 inch "Mean Deviation" corresponds more to a radius or a diameter of a shot group; I'd suspect the latter. Either way I wouldn't think it a safe bet to stand up at that distance and allow a skilled marksman to fire off a string of five or so in my direction.
Finally, in my post above I referred to the cartridge trading soldier as Sgt. Smith. Hammer reminds me that he was as the earlier poster mentioned, First Sergeant John Ryan.
|
|