Interested Bystander
Guest
|
Post by Interested Bystander on Aug 17, 2005 13:16:03 GMT -6
Hey: I really don't know much about the LBH, but am finding it interesting. Your current argument between you guys about the Spriengfield 1873 and alleged bad ammuntion/design of rifle got me interested enough to go downtown and get some librarian assistance at looking up some stuff on it. You aint gonna believe what I found. first I actually found Reulands book on Cartridges for The Springfield Trapdoor Rifles and Carbines. And guess what? It has the exact quote about the problems with the ammunition above. Secondly they found me a reference in the book With Crook at The Rosebud which says on P.107 that the rifle had a defective extaction mechanism and jammed every 4 or 5th shot. It also says Custer had this same problem.
Now I don't have a college degree, but if you guys have a book you seem to respect, that says the 1873 jams were a myth, the author sure didn't do any research at the L.A. Library.
Oh yeah, what is it with the animosity toward each other here? I thought you guys were talking about Custer's Guns, not trying to stab each other in the back. I think I might move on and try to find a more on topic site, rather than low level argumentation.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 17, 2005 23:22:55 GMT -6
Bystander, good job going and doing your own research. Another book you might want to check is _Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of Little Bighorn_ by Scott, Fox, Connor and Harmon, pg 113-115, addressing the question of extraction failure.
Some "bullet points" (pardon the pun) on the issue:
Captain C. E. Dutton questioned 37 officers about the problem during the 1876 campaign. All had seen at least one case of extraction failure, some stating they had seen six or seven failure situations.
There are several Indian accounts of extraction problems. (So I was wrong)
One of Reno's unservicable carbines was examined by Capt. Michaelis, an ordnance officer. The carbine had a shell stuck in it. The captain extracted the case, noting that the weapon had been carelessly handled and that the cartridge was dirty. (not the fault of the weapon)
The Springfield, during field tests in 1872, actually had the lowest cartridge failure rate of the three weapons tested, the other two being the Sharps and the Remington. The Springfield's failure rate was 1.96 percent.
Artifact analysis determined that Indian firearms displayed evidence of extraction failure as well. (they were using black powder arms too. Black powder fouling was not unique to any one weapon) The archaeological data determined that the case extraction failure rate during the battle WAS THE SAME FOR BOTH SIDES (surprise! the Indians had this problem too)
"This information on Indian extraction failure further reinforces the argument that extraction failures did occur, BUT NOT IN LARGE NUMBERS. That extraction failure did occur is not debatable but it WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT TO THE OUTCOME OF THE BATTLE"
Now, that being said, I realize you have take arch. data with a grain of salt; and the authors of the book had their view to promote. But I can definitely see how a young inexperienced trooper could initiate panic on the skirmish line when this occured. Panic that could easily spread.
However, if the extraction problem was so common, so widespread that all carbines jammed after four or five rounds, why didn't Reno use this in his favor? He had the perfect alibi to justify abandoning the skirmish line and timber as well as his not covering his "retreat".
"Due to chronic carbine extractor malfunction rendering my command unable to deliver a sustained fire upon the hostiles, I deemed it prudent to disengage the enemy before my command was destroyed".
Or so he could have said at the Court of Inquiry. (Yes, I know Reno was on the board that chose this weapon)
|
|
Interested Bystander
Guest
|
Post by Interested Bystander on Aug 18, 2005 0:03:08 GMT -6
Steve: Thanks for the good post. I will see if I can get the book on Archelogical perspectives at The LBH. Who would of thought I would be reading something like that a week ago. Enjoyed the information and thought provoking ideas you present.
I had no idea this subject was so diverse when i surfed through awhile back. In fact according to your post it looks like jams with black powder weapons in general was a problem I certainly never appreciated. I guess that makes them a long way from a myth.
In looking around the library i saw apicture of custer with a remington rolling block rifle. I wonder why he was using a remington when his men were using Springfields? I thought you had to use what the army issued you.
Your comment on Reno hands me a laugh.
Thanks again Bystander
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 18, 2005 0:22:47 GMT -6
Steve, wasn't it the Secretary of War.... (I forget his name, and if you could provide it I would ever be in your debt)... That had the final say? I can't remember where I saw this, perhaps "The Custer Myth", where he said that he wanted the springfield because he thought that too much ammuntion would be wasted if they chose a repeating rifle. And he was adamant that - that wasn't going to occur while he was secretary!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 18, 2005 8:26:12 GMT -6
Officers often carried their own personal firearms. Custer carried the Remington (not sure but I believe this was a single shot, not a repeater) rifle; Capt. French carried an older .50 cal infantry Springfield rifle. Sgt. John Ryan carried a Sharps sporting rifle, chambered to fire the .45 Springfield round. Both French and Ryan helped to silence Indian fire (long range fire, not fire from repeaters) coming from Sharpshooter Ridge. This sharpshooter had picked off three or four troopers on Co. M's line on Reno Hill. French and Ryan finally rose up and fired several shots in succession and ended the sharpshooter's career. Something they probably would not have been able to do with a short range repeater. I believe Ryan even had a scope on his rifle.
William Belknap, former Union general was Secretary of War in 1873. Yes, economy was a factor....remember the nation had just been through a horrific Civil War. Spending money on the military was not a priority. The army budget was sliced thin, as it was after the Cold War. The army that remained was deemed sufficient enough to handle sporadic Indian troubles. In most cases it was, though not in Custer's. This disaster brought about several reforms such as target practice.
The extraction failure, like so many other facets of this battle is one that will continue to be debated. Custer's men could very well have been wiped out even if they had carried repeaters.
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 18, 2005 9:55:29 GMT -6
Thanks Steve.
Now if I can find out who wrote that statement. It's been driving me batty! The blame was placed squarely upon the Secretary for not wanting the repeaters.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 18, 2005 10:02:43 GMT -6
Belknap would make the perfect fall-guy, having already been booted out of office. AND indirectly responsible for Custer's fall from Grant's favour. Bet it was a Democrat ...!
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 18, 2005 10:19:58 GMT -6
I was actually thinking that it was the Secretary before Belknap who disaproved of the repeaters, and may very well have been. Trying to close the gap on this one. Find it ~ I will!
The Belknap matter goes alot deeper than one would expect! It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! I have done alot of research in this area. And can state that it was directly responsible for what later happened at the LBH! At this time I am unprepared to tell all, and would prefer to defer all until a later time.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 18, 2005 10:25:38 GMT -6
Oooh -- sounds exciting! Please don't defer too long!
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 18, 2005 10:35:27 GMT -6
It does put a proper light upon the events leading up to and including the battle of the LBH. It supports a theory that most will find most discomforting. I am still in the research phase of this at this time. But once told I think will provide ample proof of what did happen!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 18, 2005 10:40:06 GMT -6
'Discomforting' sounds very promising indeed ...
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 18, 2005 11:02:07 GMT -6
Indeed! When I am finished. I would like to submit my work for publication. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 18, 2005 11:04:12 GMT -6
Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Aug 18, 2005 14:58:30 GMT -6
Thanks Steve. Now if I can find out who wrote that statement. It's been driving me batty! The blame was placed squarely upon the Secretary for not wanting the repeaters. Stanton?
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Aug 18, 2005 17:21:21 GMT -6
That's the culprit! Now to find the remark. Thanks!
|
|