|
Post by herosrest on Jun 1, 2016 17:34:59 GMT -6
There has been, shall we say some skepticism, regarding some of the finds up there, usually when a VIP is involved. For instance, in 1943 Brinninstool wrote that when bringing a Park Service bigwig (funding) to that area the VIP was only there 15 minutes when he 'found'...
Jasw~ Ducemus
Skepticism is justified for quite many reasons and such as the immense enduring manipulation of what exactly went on with senior subordinates; Godfrey and before him Benteen's changing of routes of march to suit their circumstances and interest; the complete lack of evidence from Terry's post battle assessment, considerably divided post battle opinion as to what happened and how; blatant lies by Reno to Terry about timing of the siege, and on and on and on. Godfrey deciding ten years later that the route taken by an officer's stampeded mount away from the battle was in fact Custer's march to it.....
All that given, there is post battle evidence to confirm fighting on that terrain. It was provided by Henry B. Freeman, an impeccable source but not available until precisely one hundred years after the battle. Incredible!
Even now, after forty more years to study his information, the wealth of accumulated dirge and vested interest simply blots out and ignores important information from a qualified source. Certainly he was damning of 7th Cavalry in general for fiasco but reported what he saw on the ground. The Freeman Journal is worth purchase and a very interesting read. A job well done by Schneider with a book which no-one previously would put into print.
Here is Freeman's map
and simply because his information does not gel into modern ideas, means nothing and does not make modern thinking correct. The sketch was made on the ground as the Capt of 7th Infantry rode over it with Benteen.
It does not take much study or insght to realise that '4' is the Nye Cartwright terrain upon which Freeman stated that a dismounted skirmish line fought. Further more, he places the distance he rode from Ford B to '5' on the sketch as ¾ mile, which is Calhoun Hill. How to make sense of that is an interesting problem but having served from 1855 to rise from private to senior Captain of 7th Infantry in the field, he knew his distances and ¾ mile is not 1¾ miles. His '5' is Calhoun Hill; his '4' is NC ridge. He was there, he was not 7th Cavalry, and he noted what he found and displayed considerable insight. Some of his notes were embarrassing to Reno but hell........ that is what Reno was. A huge embarrassment who got everyone 'else'. killed.
You have '6' whee Butler was found, the converging squiggles are the mouth of Deep Coulee and '4' is NC, '5' is Calhoun. Not stuff people with decades invested in study and doings really want to deal with, so don't. It's there though, now, for always - as a little challenge to the accepted opining and wriggly worming with accumulated bilge. Salt that!
The lower ford is Realbird and the lower route of march wemt over GGR, followed by Two Moon and his Cheyennes - including Big Beaver and White Shield. Model that.
Pity this published post mortem - babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31175031142360;view=1up;seq=12;size=75 - Reno might have learnt a thing. (or two)
Finally, what is taken as '1' by the Cardinal Arrow, is in fact a mightily sad joke by Richard Fox and his insanity with the Kulhlman derived tribal waffle that stemmed from 1926 when 7th Cavalry actually did ride to the battlefield, from the D fords. It did not happen in 1876. Fox's '1' ia a squiggle on the paper! '1' is Reno's timber position.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 4, 2016 6:33:35 GMT -6
What does this have to do with ammunition?
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Jun 7, 2016 18:57:28 GMT -6
I was wondering the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Jun 8, 2016 7:13:44 GMT -6
I think Montrose's opening points are well taken. Regardless if troopers wore a box or thimble belt, at some point resupply was required. Would have been nice if the rounds back with the horses were in light cloth bandoliers but they weren't. So as the fire from a skirmish line began to diminish as ammo ran low, it would diminish even more as men were told off to go for the reserves.
As fresh supply was brought forward I suspect it was catch as catch can for each man on the line; here take a box, here catch a box, whoops! Consider for a moment the press of events and the manipulation required to transfer rounds from a cardboard box to a box on your belt; the even greater manipulation to fit rounds into loops on the belt, all the while holding your carbine. Montrose suggests into your hat or pockets, your ill-suited pockets, both of which I consider logical and likely, and I would add for those still wearing the blouse just shoving a box or two past the buttons with the belt holding things in at the bottom.
Reports of small piles of unfired cartridges here and there are to me likely evidence of a failed resupply evolution.
Mike Powell
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Jun 9, 2016 20:18:06 GMT -6
I was at a Victorian rifle match last weekend and I wore an 1876 Cavalry thimble belt with my carbine...and had a tough time resupplying and was thinking the same thing. I had heard that hats were used--if dismounted and stationary; but I think that's why the Dyer box was designed for cavalry. I have used an original one of those at the matches and they work really nicely--and would even on horseback...but for some reason the thimble belt won over all.
SW~
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Jun 12, 2016 18:57:57 GMT -6
I have been doing some research on the ammunition and the 1873 cabines used at the LBH. It appears the 7th was issued the correct ammunition the 45-55, not the 45-70 however the cartridges were copper not brass. The first issues of the 1873 carbines and rifles was in late 1874 and were supplied to the premier infantry regiments first, the last to receive the new guns were the cavalry units where receipt was delayed untill 1876. I have found a few web-sites that agree the 7th did not receive their springfields untill 1876. Army regulations allowed 3 rounds per man per month for practice. The statements below were taken from, Guns At The Little Bighorn by Mark Galear. "Custer’s men only received their new 1873 Springfield carbines in 1876 and were among the last to do so." "Rumours circulated after the battle that the copper cases had fused to chamber walls, allowing the extractor to tear through the case rim. These can be attributed to Reno’s testimony to the Chief of Ordnance that six of the carbines had jammed due to the breech not locking properly during the fight for the bluffs above the Little Bighorn. A trooper under Reno’s command claimed that an officer spent time extracting jammed cases, reloading and passing carbines back to the men." "One potential reason for these failings in the Springfields at the Little Bighorn, could be that the 7th Cavalry had been issued a number of faulty weapons that had been returned by other units." www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=14682,DATABASE=objects, Best regards dan25
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 13, 2016 7:22:03 GMT -6
I posted this next door in response to someone's query, but it seems it fell on deaf ears. Since this site remains the sine qua non of such, I shall re-post it here:
The troops at the Little Big Horn used a .45-caliber (.45/55 or .45/70), Model 1873 Springfield carbine (single-shot) and an 1873, 6-shot, .45-caliber Colt, single-action revolver. The carbine had a 1,000+ yards maximum range and a 250 yards maximum effective range. The carbine could reach a range of 2,800 yards before the bullet would fall below the minimum of 300 feet per second, and weighed about 7.5 pounds. It was manufactured by the National Armory of Springfield, MA.
The Model 1873 Colt Single Action Army revolver could reach 700 yards before the minimum velocity was achieved.
All 90 unfired cartridges retrieved during the 1984 – 1985 archaeological dig were determined to be .45/55 rounds. “All ninety rounds were identified as carbine by the presence of either the wad… or tube liner…. Only three rounds exhibited evidence of the tube liner….” [Scott/Fox/Connor/Harmon, Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn, 168 – 175]: 30 were found in the Custer area of fighting; 60 were found on the Reno-Benteen field.
The ammunition for the .45-caliber carbines and rifles was manufactured by the Frankford [Bridesburg/Philadelphia, PA] Arsenal from January 1874 to July 1882. From March 1874 to July 1874 carbine rounds were head-stamped, “U. S. Carbine.” Starting in March 1877, head-stamping began again, a “C” designating carbine, an “R” for rifle. In addition, the date of manufacture was included, as was the arsenal (“F” for Frankford). Military ammunition used in 1876 was not headstamped, but did have a distinctive style of crimping near the base of the cartridge.
1SG John Ryan, in an August 29, 1909, letter to Walter Mason Camp, wrote: “At the time I possessed a seventeen-pound Sharp’s telescope rifle, made for me in Bismarck, which cost me $100. I used infantry ammunition, 70 grains of powder, which I procured from First Sgt. Wm. F. Bolton of Co. G, 17th U. S. Infantry, before going out on this trip. I gave him some of our carbine ammunition in place of it.” The telescopic sight was, in all likelihood, a 30"-long William Malcolm three-power sight, made in Syracuse, New York, and widely considered the best available. Malcolm’s scopes had achromatic lenses providing better target definition, “with a flatter field of view and a clear definition at the edge of any target.” They also had accurate windage and elevation adjustments. “The action was a falling block, breach-loading, single shot. Triggers… could be single or double set,” allowing for reduced trigger pull. The barrel was probably octagonal and 32" long.
CPT Tom French—Ryan’s commander—carried a “Long Tom”—or “Big Fifty”—infantry rifle, an old Springfield, .50-calibre, 425-grain bullet using 70 grains of black powder, breech-loader.
Custer carried a Remington Sporting rifle, octagonal barrel; two Bulldog self-cocking, English, white-handled pistols, with a ring in the butt for a lanyard.
One trooper-- BSM Bailey of I Company, was reputed to have carried a shotgun, but this is unsubstantiated.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jun 13, 2016 7:46:05 GMT -6
The statements below were taken from, Guns At The Little Bighorn by Mark Galear. ... These can be attributed to Reno’s testimony to the Chief of Ordnance that six of the carbines had jammed due to the breech not locking properly during the fight for the bluffs above the Little Bighorn. I believe that what Reno actually stated was that six carbines had to be turned in for repairs that could not be effected in the field. That is far different from saying that six jammed or that there were only six jams. There is a lot of uncertainty as to how extensive the problem actually was, with some participants and historians saying that the problem was significant while others said it was no more than a minor inconvenience. However, even if a minor problem in the total scope of things, it could have been significant if a particular carbine failed at a particular critical time.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Jun 13, 2016 16:10:14 GMT -6
Fred, good information. Thank you.
Does anyone know if the springfield carbine had adjustable rear sights for windage?
I know they had adjustments for elevation.
regards dan25
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 11:22:02 GMT -6
Back to 44's for a minute. This is what confuses me about the difference between 44 and 44-40. Is it the Winchester, not the Henry, that can fire both? And does the model matter, e.g. 1866, 1873, etc? LBM
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 12:03:24 GMT -6
As fresh supply was brought forward I suspect it was catch as catch can for each man on the line; here take a box, here catch a box, whoops! Consider for a moment the press of events and the manipulation required to transfer rounds from a cardboard box to a box on your belt; the even greater manipulation to fit rounds into loops on the belt, all the while holding your carbine. Montrose suggests into your hat or pockets, your ill-suited pockets, both of which I consider logical and likely, and I would add for those still wearing the blouse just shoving a box or two past the buttons with the belt holding things in at the bottom. Reports of small piles of unfired cartridges here and there are to me likely evidence of a failed resupply evolution. Mike Powell Interestingly there is a match on CH between a brass 45/55 and a copper one. There are also 44's that match but differ in short vs. long cases. This seems to fit in with your scenario. LBM
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jun 14, 2016 12:08:54 GMT -6
LBM, The Henry 44 fired a 44 rimfire round, which is not the same as the 44-40. The 44-40 was a centerfire round. These two could not be fired from the same rifle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 12:28:10 GMT -6
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Jun 14, 2016 16:06:03 GMT -6
The reference above, "Custer’s men only received their new 1873 Springfield carbines in 1876 and were among the last to do so." is contradicted in The Springfield Carbine on the Western Frontier by Kenneth M. Hammer. Hammer gives that, "The Model 1873 carbine with .45-55-405 ammunition was the shoulder arm of the 7th Cavalry on the Black Hills expedition in 1874. The regiment was delayed in its departure from camp near Fort Abraham Lincoln, Dakota Territory until the new Springfields arrived on June 29, 1874." John D. McAuley in his Carbines of the U.S. Cavalry 1861 - 1905 shows type of carbines by regiment in September 1874, listing the 7th with 751 Model 1873's. In that same return 859 Model 1868 Sharps carbines remained with the 7th. Interestingly, 7 of the Model 1870 experimental were also shown though whether these were trapdoor, Sharps, Remington or Ward-Burton models is not stated. The returns for September 1875 shows the regiment with 808 Model 1873's and the Sharps were down to just 23. The number of 1870 experimentals had climbed to 55 but again the composition of that number is not given.
The rear sight of the Model 1873 as issued was not adjustable for windage. A revised sight in 1879 was similar. The Buffington sight adopted after 1885 did have windage adjustment and also corrected for bullet drift induced by the spin imparted by rifling.
My opinion is that whatever one makes of the carbine, its sights, whether 15 more grains of black powder in a cartridge matters, extraction difficulties, verdigis on the copper case, etc., etc.; none of that makes much difference at all. The carbine was generally servicible. The key flaw was the insufficient allotment of ammunition for training throughout the Frontier Army. That led to a lower overall standard of marksmanship than could have been obtained. This shortcoming and the poor means of resupplying ammunition to men hotly engaged were the problems that mattered with the Springfield during the fights on the Little Horn. All that said, there were just too damn many warriors anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Jun 14, 2016 17:48:14 GMT -6
Mike,
Thank you for that great information.
After reading about the 7th receiving the carbines in 1876, also the problems they had I posted the information to see if it was correct or not.
As for my question regarding the rear sights being adjustable. I have read several accounts about the low number of Indian casualties at LBH. I believe the counts were 40 - 50, which i find hard to believe. I know that Indians avoided getting close, however if you look at Reno's fight in the valley, then the timber, then the break out, the Indians were not at a distance, they were up close and personal.
If the soldiers were firing volleys or independent fire they should have caused at least an equal number of casualties that Reno's men suffered. Unless they were shooting but not hitting what they were aiming at.
I am starting to think besides poor training with the carbines, if the rifles were not sighted in properly, or not being able to adjust the windage these things could have contributed to such a low casualty rate.
What brought this to my attention, recently my step son purchased a used 22 rifle for target practice. He called me asking what could be wrong with it. He was shooting at a 24"x24" cardboard target he had made at 60 yds. and the bullets were missing his target. The rear sights were out of adjustment that bad.
regards dan25
|
|