|
Post by Saugus Zouave on Jan 19, 2006 14:18:08 GMT -6
Jimbo,
Numbers stamped on the butt plate -- usually on the top where the plate wraps the heel of the butt -- are normally rack numbers. They indicate the place in the gun rack in the barracks where the piece is stored.
Stamping on butt plates was not done by Ordnance; they used the Springfield serial number to track weapons. Rack numbers were used within companies to make it easy to quickly distinguish what belonged to whom.
Billy,
One of the most important points in Capt. Michaelis' report -- and one that is usually missed by military history buffs and arms collectors -- is this:
"Hence they prefer arms with long dangerous spaces, an attribute that overcomes the difficulty attending fine sighting and the accurate estimation of distances."
The dangerous space is the area in front of and behind the intended target where a man would be hit by the bullet even though it was not aimed at him. For example, the Model 1861 Rifle Musket firing a 500 grain .58" ball with a 60 grain charge aimed at the waist of a man 300 yards away would have a trajectory so high that the ball would pass over the head of a man on horseback sitting at 150 yards from the shooter. In contrast the current 7.62mm NATO round aimed the same way would be only 11" above the line of sight at 150 yards. That means the dangerous space for the modern NATO round extends all the way from the weapon to the target plus at least 100 yards past it.
There were three important things that the .45" cal. carbine cartridge did for the combat shooter that were improvements over the earlier .50" (original trapdoor) ; .54" (original Spencer); and .58" (original Springfield rifle) rounds:
1. Smaller, lighter round meant more ammunition could be carried. "Bring packs..."
2. Identical size of the carbine and rifle cartridge meant the ammunition was interchangeable. If you fire a carbine cartridge in a rifle, you don't get quite the range that you would from the rifle round. If you fire a rifle cartridge in a carbine, the gun kicks harder, but that's all.
3. A smaller ball with a larger powder charge meant higher muzzle velocity and higher muzzle velocity meant a flatter trajectory and a flatter trajectory meant a longer dangerous space and a longer dangerous space meant estimating target range was less important. This is a real big deal in combat.
There were two big problems with contemporary repeaters. The first was the weakness of the breech mechanisms. The Henry/Winchester breech could never have handled a 70 grain charge. This problem wasn't really solved until Paul Mauser perfected the bolt action. The net result was that repeaters used smaller, lower-velocity ammunition.
The second was the delicate, long follower springs they used in their tube magazines. Spencers had the tube in the stock while Winchesters had it under the barrel. The box magazine solved this problem.
US Army Ordnance officers knew all this stuff. Military firearms are always compromises. In general, hunting guns and target rifles don't make good military weapons because they are too specialized.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 27, 2006 17:34:54 GMT -6
Paul, a belated thanks for the explanation of "dangerous space" as I had been trying to figure it out. I had ultimately come down to a decision that it had something to do with the distance between the front and rear sights on a rifle vs. a carbine, which for the life of me I could not correlate to how this was "dangerous space."
Billy
|
|
|
Post by gnome1 on Mar 19, 2006 1:07:10 GMT -6
Certainly, many Indian weapons were obtained from traders. Another major source was the US Government, which gave rifles and ammunition to Indians as a condition of treaties signed. A number of treaties required Indians to stay within designated boundaries, some designated as reservations, some not,and were then given rifles and ammunitions with which to hunt bison, without which they would surely perish. As soon as Uncle Sam abrogated the treaty, all bets were off, and we would find our Army facing our weapons in plains warfare.Not too unlike our Army facing the Taliban in Afghanistan who were using weapons we had given to them when the Taliban was fighting Russia, back in the 1980's. It's a crazy world, isn't it ?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 22, 2006 13:24:40 GMT -6
gnome1,
You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon. Need I say more?
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Mar 31, 2018 11:53:13 GMT -6
What is, or is there a, consensus about the number of Indian guns at LBH? www.nps.gov/mwac/libi/firearm.html says 47 different weapon types and a minimum of 415 guns used by the warriors in total. I know Richard Fox has done work on the subject but I can`t remember the details. Then again you have claims of the number of guns being very few, limited to to some dozens before capturing soldiers`guns. In many cases using bows would be preferable even if owning a gun due to terrain. What do people here think? (I know this subject isn`t original or new)
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Apr 1, 2018 5:39:34 GMT -6
Noggy, while the repeating rifles played an impactful part in portions of the battle. The ability of the man pulling the trigger also had somewhat to do with the outcome. The weight of the Springfield carbine 9 lbs. and cyclic rate of 9- 10 rounds per min., when clean. Black powder builds up residue quickly and even slows loading. The Winchester/Henry's even in 30" barrel were about 9.5 lb. and cycled much faster, the average NA weapon was closer to 20" and less wieldy. The bow and arrow allowed for arching shots from cover, which would cause fear and unease. Many variables involved.
The biggest disparities in weapons were the Indians themselves they were knowledgeable of the terrain, had vast numbers advantage, and interior lines to traverse to move to various areas of the battlefield for mobility.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 1, 2018 13:12:18 GMT -6
Noggy, while the repeating rifles played an impactful part in portions of the battle. The ability of the man pulling the trigger also had somewhat to do with the outcome. The weight of the Springfield carbine 9 lbs. and cyclic rate of 9- 10 rounds per min., when clean. Black powder builds up residue quickly and even slows loading. The Winchester/Henry's even in 30" barrel were about 9.5 lb. and cycled much faster, the average NA weapon was closer to 20" and less wieldy. The bow and arrow allowed for arching shots from cover, which would cause fear and unease. Many variables involved. The biggest disparities in weapons were the Indians themselves they were knowledgeable of the terrain, had vast numbers advantage, and interior lines to traverse to move to various areas of the battlefield for mobility. Regards, Tom No argues here, I agree on all points and haven`t thought anything else. Neither side were good shooters, for that matter. My question is just related to sheer numbers of weapons, as I`ve seen just about everything from 30 to a minimum of half of the warriors owning guns. In my apparently never-to-be finished article I was going to mention a number and once again I find it hard to agree with myself (I mention aspects like bows being the better weapons in many sectors, the number of captured US weapons and such, but I`d like a fairly correct number just for show) All te best, Geir.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Apr 2, 2018 2:22:11 GMT -6
I need to write an essay on this; need to gather my thoughts.
1. Fighter vice weapons. It is important to distinguish between number of warriors present, and numbers of weapons present. The archeology data shows a weakly armed Indian force. But 200-400 rifles pretty good if 800 warriors present, notso hotso if 3000.
2. Weapon capability. My experience with weapon nuts, is they focus on weapon capability, and ignore training and ability. Does anyone believe the Indians knew how to zero a weapon, and knew the flat line ability of the weapon?
That means if I point weapon even to ground and shoot straight ahead where does bullet hit shoulder height. The bullet follows a curve. For the M16 it is 50 and 250 meters. So in the 50-259 meter gap I aim below target, based on range, above 250 meters I aim above.
The Indian ability to shoot at range was garbage. what they needed was rapid fire. So the repeating rifle advantage was rapid fire, in the 25-159 meter range, where they maximized number of shots with chance to hit.
3. Archeology data show both sides fired at ranges with ZERO, repeat ZERO probability of hit. Evidence shows folks shooting, on iron sights, at ranges of 800 meters and higher.
a. Indians. Just shows amateurs in action.
b. US. Here shows a serious and fatal flaw in NCO and officers. The NCOs should never have allowed this to happen. Benteeneast has discussed the massive individual failings of basic training of individual soldiers in the 7th. I claim that there were serious flaws in the corporal to first sergeant (E-2 to E-8) range, that doomed the unit. And the officers picked all NCOs, and were responsible for their SKA (skills, knowledge, ability).
We have trained and capable shooters on these boards. Any of you want to prove you can hit a target at 900 meters with an 1873 Springfield Carbine, on iron sights?
US forces, due to bad training and bad leaders, wasted fire in the 200 meter and above range where fire was useless.
Indian forces also wasted long range fire. But more to provoke US wasting ammo. There use of ammo was under 200 meters, where poorly trained shooters could use rapid fire to overcome poor training.
4. Over half of Indians had bows or hand weapons. Go look at their hand weapon that has a foot long handle, and 3 stone things sticking out of it. I can kill anyone using that with a swiss army knife, or a origami thing. The core of the Indian force was based on old technology, and old concepts.
For example, they had a tradition where a fighter would tether himself to the ground. He could not leave that spot til another warrior whipped him with a crop. Since the Plains Indians used to be melee fighters in a forest, made some sense. Once they had horses and open terrain, this was bat shite crazy. Even with bows.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 2, 2018 4:59:24 GMT -6
It was not my intent to seem to claim that the numbers of guns was a big factor in the battle.
I agree with both your and Tubman`s post. I was raised in a family where both hunting and (time to do some creative translating again) competitive target shooting were big deals, so the importance of the shooter vs the gun itself is by no way lost on me. I`d love to read anything in depth about fire discipline/the lack of, marksmanship etc. The soldiers on Reno Hil had 30+ casualties on the 25th during a few hours, and could thank poor marksmanship it didn`t get any worse. Swap the warriors with a couple of Prussian infantry companies, and even with the same weapons I`ll wager anyone you could multiply those 30 with... eh, a lot. They would certainly not shoot from distances were a head shot just resulted in the target being knocked unconscious, like seen on the hill.
Compared to most other topics and questions here, my is/was pretty boring since it`s not about anything else than sheer numbers. Historians like Donovan often say things like half of the warriors were armed with guns, which would mean about 1 000-1250 guns, numbers I only can see verified through assessments rather than physical proof. In the back of my head, Fox wrote something in the lines of the link where 415 guns as a minimum was mentioned, but I can`t find it.
All the best, GNoggy
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Apr 2, 2018 5:54:06 GMT -6
Noggy, Wills post is accurate, however any shooter with rudimentary skills can walk shots to hit a target with iron sights at that 900 yard mark, if he sees where his misses land. With the .44-40 or rim fire .44 you may only bruise your target at that range. The lack of rudimentary skills were missing for the most part.
This is simply an opinion, there were probably nearly 800 to 1000 guns on the NA side before the battle began, distributed amongst 2500-3000 warriors. Many of these would have been smooth bores, and nobody ever mentions the few shotguns. There were over 300 guns distributed at Ft. Robinson alone over the previous 4 years, for hunting purposes. What about the other reservations? What about trade guns? What of the weapons taken at the Rosebud? As we currently do we often arm our enemies!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 2, 2018 6:09:23 GMT -6
For Noggy
I am Benteeneast on another board. I wanted to be the opposite of Custerwest who has long since been banned from that board.
The Indians fought close up and the ballistics at the ranges where they were successful did not matter. I agree with William that there is several places where shots were taken at 800+ yards. At least one Indian either knew how to walk rounds into the soldiers at distance or he was a shooter. The distance from Sharp Shooter Ridge ( a hint the Indian was a shooter) to close to Reno/Benteen is at minimum 600 yards. The .50-70 rifles were capable as far as range the rest is up to the shooter. The men with the 1874 were shooters and made hits as far as mile away. The one most impressive to me was a hit made at 1/4 miles on an Indian about to pull a young man with the expedition off his horse. So you have horses moving, a good guy within arms distance, and 440 yards to add to the difficulty of the shot. The funniest is at the SFRC battle site where the Indians were thinking it might be a bad medicine day. One Indian held up a feather from behind cover and a shooter cut it in half.
I think the 800 yard shots were a waste of ammunition on both sides except for a few shooters.
What is interesting to me is that at Henryville they identified 63 different Henrys. They also only identified on the Custer battlefield only 69 carbines. Since we know there were over 200 carbines there has to be a ratio between discovered and known carbines of around 3 known to 1 discovered. If the ratio holds up for Indian Henrys that could double or triple the number of Henry that were there. I would find it hard to believe that we identified all the Indian weapons there that were fired. I would also find it hard to believe that only one third of the troopers fired their carbines more than one time and ejected a case on the ground.
Tomorrow is our first day on the range with the AR-15 for the Park Ranger Training Program.
Regards
Steve (alias AZ Ranger, Benteeneast)
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 2, 2018 6:30:29 GMT -6
William
I like what you posted above.
1. Fighter vice weapons. It is important to distinguish between number of warriors present, and numbers of weapons present. The archeology data shows a weakly armed Indian force. But 200-400 rifles pretty good if 800 warriors present, notso hotso if 3000.
So my question to you is would the Indians plan to use the 800 yards fire to suppress the troopers in place which allowed the others to close to close quarter battle distances.
2. Weapon capability. My experience with weapon nuts, is they focus on weapon capability, and ignore training and ability. Does anyone believe the Indians knew how to zero a weapon, and knew the flat line ability of the weapon?
You don't have to be a weapons nut to form such an erroneous opinion. We all know an individual on another board that thinks the mere presence of a .45-70 carbine would be sufficient to win the battle. Your point on training and ability is right on. We Marines believe only hits count. That is a function of ability, training, and practice. Making accurate hits requires lots of shooting to maintain the skill.
For me looking at the 7h cavalry I would think they were trained in the basic operation of the firearm, we have no way to know the individual ability, and we know that practice was less than desirable. My fourth addition to ability, training, practice, is desire. Sgt. Ryan had the desire to be a shooter and so did Captain French. They purchased their own firearms and/or obtained ammunition which allowed them to use their ability through practice to be a shooter.
I do think the Indian shooter on Sharp Shooter Ridge knew how to shoot at distance. It was at least 600 yards and his accuracy was good enough to cause a focus upon him by good shooters at the Reno/Benteen site.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 2, 2018 7:34:06 GMT -6
Noggy, Wills post is accurate, however any shooter with rudimentary skills can walk shots to hit a target with iron sights at that 900 yard mark, if he sees where his misses land. With the .44-40 or rim fire .44 you may only bruise your target at that range. The lack of rudimentary skills were missing for the most part. Yes, under the right conditions. If under fire yourself and against moving targets I think both sides would at best have a couple shooters able of such. But I`ve never been on the range with those guys Noggy
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Apr 2, 2018 7:51:17 GMT -6
For Noggy I am Benteeneast on another board. I wanted to be the opposite of Custerwest who has long since been banned from that board. The Indians fought close up and the ballistics at the ranges where they were successful did not matter. I agree with William that there is several places where shots were taken at 800+ yards. At least one Indian either knew how to walk rounds into the soldiers at distance or he was a shooter. The distance from Sharp Shooter Ridge ( a hint the Indian was a shooter) to close to Reno/Benteen is at minimum 600 yards. The .50-70 rifles were capable as far as range the rest is up to the shooter. The men with the 1874 were shooters and made hits as far as mile away. The one most impressive to me was a hit made at 1/4 miles on an Indian about to pull a young man with the expedition off his horse. So you have horses moving, a good guy within arms distance, and 440 yards to add to the difficulty of the shot. The funniest is at the SFRC battle site where the Indians were thinking it might be a bad medicine day. One Indian held up a feather from behind cover and a shooter cut it in half. I think the 800 yard shots were a waste of ammunition on both sides except for a few shooters. What is interesting to me is that at Henryville they identified 63 different Henrys. They also only identified on the Custer battlefield only 69 carbines. Since we know there were over 200 carbines there has to be a ratio between discovered and known carbines of around 3 known to 1 discovered. If the ratio holds up for Indian Henrys that could double or triple the number of Henry that were there. I would find it hard to believe that we identified all the Indian weapons there that were fired. I would also find it hard to believe that only one third of the troopers fired their carbines more than one time and ejected a case on the ground. Tomorrow is our first day on the range with the AR-15 for the Park Ranger Training Program. Regards Steve (alias AZ Ranger, Benteeneast) Aha, I`ve read many of your posts under the benteeneast moniker also. People like you, montrose, fread, tubman and many others are among the reasons I decided to quit "lurking" and sign up myself. Custerwest/Cornut and a few others was the reason I almost did not (I signed up by mistake on the other one and pulled out quickly). The identifications of Springfields and Henrys is a great point. Can`t say I remember ever reading the specifics of 63 and 69, so thank you for that. The 3 to 1 ratio is, if I remember my Fox correctly, the same he and other archaeologists operate with and makes a lot of sense. Could you lead me to where the numbers of Henrys is adressed? Never shot an AR-15, just the M-16 and 4, but a couple of days ago I went with a buddy who is in the Home Guard and got to relive my recruit days with the AG-3, our version of the German G-3. I remember visiting soldiers, especially Americans training in Norway during the winter, loved it. "Oh my God, it`s a f---ing cannon!" one guy was quoted on when trying it. Great fun to shoot with, especially if just using the iron sights. Good shooting, Steve! All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 2, 2018 15:08:26 GMT -6
I was one off. It was 62 Henrys and 69 Springfield Model 1873 carbines. You can find it on page 78 of Archeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle by Richard Allan Fox, Jr.
|
|