|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 30, 2011 11:21:58 GMT -6
Once clods like me understand the distinctions between size, load, and weight of bullet, it's understandable, and you're both clear about it so please don't defer to me, the least informed on these matters. For the Clods'R'Us Glossary of Terminology, though, all I'm trying to do is establish the definition and ask that it be used and maintained. As I understand it in general:
1. In firearms, the diameter of the bullet is determined by the barrel, but the case and load can vary in size according to the chamber. (A revolver has no sealed chamber, a bolt action weapon does.) In the case, the powder load may not be the maximum as for the Springfield carbine; if so, a wad or padding is put in to keep the existing powder tightly packed. (A .22 bullet used by summer camps has a chamber rather smaller than the .22 used in military weapons at present. It also has a significantly larger load - not black powder - in larger chamber and no wadding is used.)
Is THIS correct? If so....
2. the cartridge of the 7th's Springfields is composed of the black powder load, compacted in a copper case, with the bullet. The copper case could provide problems, being soft metal expanding and disallowing extraction when hot. The army changed to brass.
The correct way to id cartridge is .45 (the bullet diameter or caliber) followed by the accepted punctuation of a dash, followed by the powder load. .45-70, for example, is the bullet, load, and (only because we know the weapon) cartridge size. If there is a third element after a second dash, that references the weight of the bullet. A .45-70-405 for example. It is incorrect to write ".45 caliber bullet" since the ".45" is the caliber.
3. the Springfield weapons, rifle and carbine, of the US Army at the 1876 battles used the same sized cartridge and case. The bullet weight may have varied by manufacture. In general, the longer barreled rifle used the 70 grain load, but either weapon could use either load being the same cartridge size.
This is not necessarily 'standard' among firearms in general as AZ points out. The cartridge's physical size does not change, and that is the issue as to whether the weapon can use it, not the load. Would the hypothetical 60 load in a shorter case even work in the Springfield if it retracted the bullet into the chamber a bit?
4. Unfortunately, a found case does not necessarily reveal the load. When the 55 grain load was fired with wadding, it would be reflected in analysis of the case, generally showing the outline of its presence atop the powder by a ring on the case interior. Not always, and after 130 years in the ground with water and other chemicals working on it, may not show up. Is THIS correct?
4. We do not seem to be sure what Custer himself used, either by caliber or cartridge. His gun is assumed to have brass, not copper, cases, but so did other weapons possibly in the hands of the Sioux. As with all, found cases do not speak to who used them at who or when.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 30, 2011 12:07:01 GMT -6
Speaking of caliber, I have never understood how the 15/16 inch guns of a battleship are also called a .45 caliber. Anyone know?
bc
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 30, 2011 13:00:19 GMT -6
It's a formula relationship between the diameter - 15" or whatever - and barrel length. In general, I've never fully understood it and suspect that people who explain in the the books don't either, since they seem to conflict.
At one point the lower caliber seemed to indicate the shorter barrels of older, pre-dreadnought battleships (say, the 12" of the HMS Canopus as opposed the 12" of the HMS Dreadnought) , but stuff I've read since doesn't necessarily comply. I know in general what it's supposed to indicate, but what, exactly, eludes me. Newer metals allowed bigger firing chambers and larger powder loads which increased heat that would warp the barrels of longer guns after a while unless they were thicker and sectioned different, but caliber seems to reference length not diameter so I'm lost.
However, this brings up a good point. How to ascertain the size of the ship by tonnage. It is confusing at best, and authors are very sloppy with it. Warships are displacement, merchantmen by.....well.
First there's a ton, and then a 'long ton', which is 240 pounds heavier than a ton. However, it is often still called a ton to keep it fun and to lull you into a false sense of security. A cubic foot of water x35 (who knows why 35....) is a long ton, got it? Well, brace yourself.
The water displaced by a warship is weighed and that is its displacement tonnage. Correctly long tonnage, but tonnage. So far, okay.
Merchants are capacity tonnage. But NOT long tonnage. Although....
To compile this, forget weight measurement, which the unwary might think, being ton is a weight. But, merchantmen compile weight different than warships or other human artifacts: it's all space. Pour yourself a drink, I'll wait.....
You ascertain the capacity to be measured (which, if oil, is very different from, say, coal, but let's not apply logic so late in the game) into cubic feet. Then, you arbitrarily divide it by 100. Each 100 cubic feet weighs 1000 tons. Whether feathers or lead, it weighs 1000 tons, see? You'd like to think, like powder loads in cases, it was assigned by maximum measurement of something, but who knows?
Get it? Got it? Good.
This is all logical when you realize that 'ton' comes from 'tun' which was a cask of wine. All falls together, doesn't it?
However, sometimes because it sounds more impressive warships seem to be weighed by math based on materials used, which leads to warships like the Bismark shedding and adding 25% to itself. Sometimes the criteria for the tonnage isn't given and people assume its displacement. But it isn't, although it should be.
Then, the term 'casualty', which means unable to report for duty, and includes dead, wounded, captured, lost, MIA, and ill. But many just use it for dead. When someone who knows what it means sees 100 casualties, that's fine when he later reads the same action had 15 captured, 40 wounded. He knows that 45 were dead or MIA. Someone who doesn't, reading about the 55 wounded and captured, will add that to the 100 he thinks were dead.
This is why it's good to nail down and use the same terminology and be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 30, 2011 14:37:15 GMT -6
Once clods like me understand the distinctions between size, load, and weight of bullet, it's understandable, and you're both clear about it so please don't defer to me, the least informed on these matters. For the Clods'R'Us Glossary of Terminology, though, all I'm trying to do is establish the definition and ask that it be used and maintained. As I understand it in general:
1. In firearms, the diameter of the bullet is determined by the barrel, but the case and load can vary in size according to the chamber. (A revolver has no sealed chamber, a bolt action weapon does.) In the case, the powder load may not be the maximum as for the Springfield carbine; if so, a wad or padding is put in to keep the existing powder tightly packed. (A .22 bullet used by summer camps has a chamber rather smaller than the .22 used in military weapons at present. It also has a significantly larger load - not black powder - in larger chamber and no wadding is used.)
Close enough. The revolver has a cylinder and the overall length cannot exceed the cylinder length plus the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone of the barrel.
Is THIS correct? If so....
2. the cartridge of the 7th's Springfields is composed of the black powder load, compacted in a copper case, with the bullet. The copper case could provide problems, being soft metal expanding and disallowing extraction when hot. The army changed to brass.
True but they had brass cases before that also in .50-70. The copper was the result of the governments manufacturing equipment capability.
The correct way to id cartridge is .45 (the bullet diameter or caliber) followed by the accepted punctuation of a dash, followed by the powder load. .45-70, for example, is the bullet, load, and (only because we know the weapon) cartridge size. If there is a third element after a second dash, that references the weight of the bullet. A .45-70-405 for example. It is incorrect to write ".45 caliber bullet" since the ".45" is the caliber.
This nomenclature works with black powder cases and cartridges for carbines and rifles. Not so much with revolvers but sometimes it does. For smokeless powder all bets are off. Usually the bullet diameter or barrel diameter is included. .30-06 has the diameter (.308) but 06 is a year.
The bullet and the barrel should match in regards to diameter with the barrel groves are the diameter of the bullet therefor the lands grab the bullet and spin it according the twist put into the barrel.
3. the Springfield weapons, rifle and carbine, of the US Army at the 1876 battles used the same sized cartridge and case. The bullet weight may have varied by manufacture. In general, the longer barreled rifle used the 70 grain load, but either weapon could use either load being the same cartridge size.
Exactly
This is not necessarily 'standard' among firearms in general as AZ points out. The cartridge's physical size does not change, and that is the issue as to whether the weapon can use it, not the load. Would the hypothetical 60 load in a shorter case even work in the Springfield if it retracted the bullet into the chamber a bit?
Correct and the shorter case would only work in the one chambered for the longer version. How well I don't know. The .45-60 is a shortened .45-70 case. The same thing holds true for the .45 Colt and the .45 Schofield. You can fire either in the SAA Colt but only the shorter .45 Schofield in the Schofield revolver.
4. Unfortunately, a found case does not necessarily reveal the load. When the 55 grain load was fired with wadding, it would be reflected in analysis of the case, generally showing the outline of its presence atop the powder by a ring on the case interior. Not always, and after 130 years in the ground with water and other chemicals working on it, may not show up. Is THIS correct?
Exactly It would require evidence of a wad or tube to indicate it was loaded with only 55 grains of powder.
4. We do not seem to be sure what Custer himself used, either by caliber or cartridge. His gun is assumed to have brass, not copper, cases, but so did other weapons possibly in the hands of the Sioux. As with all, found cases do not speak to who used them at who or when.
I think that he had a .50-70 and the case was made by a private company manufacture and was not the previous military case used in the earlier 50-70 cases. Don't hold me to this since it is off the top of my head. It would mean the Indians had some earlier .50-70 brass or they fired .45-55 cartridges and had cases ruptured as they expanded to the large diameter. There is evidence they found examples of what appeared to be .45-70 cases fired in on a 50-70 chamber. It is possible that Custer had identifiable privately manufactured cases. Who fired them is anyone's guess.
Wiebert I believe found some .50-70 case that he believes were used by Custer.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 30, 2011 15:26:20 GMT -6
"Correct and the shorter case would only work in the one chambered for the longer version." Okay. What longer version? Aren't the cartridges at issue the same physical size for rifle or carbine, and so all Springfields at issue would be chambered for the it? Is the longer version referenced the rifle? So even though the carbine could fire a .45-70, it couldn't the .45-60? Further, wasn't the carbine the exact same weapon absent longer barrel and stock, but same chamber, firing mechanism and all? Was the rifling different? I'm thinking that the cylinder is not to be viewed as just a rotating firing chamber, a space which I thought had the advantage of being sealed to increase pressure and velocity at the expense of reload time. That wasn't solved till, I guess, the Maxim gun. Also, 'close enough' for folk music, horseshoes, and grenades, but let's nail it correct so I can't get lazy later. If everybody posting has to reference the same standard, your life would be happier. Also, you're dead on with clair on the other board. He's either lying, doesn't understand what he's read, hasn't read what he says he's read, or is just shorting out. Don't know how you can stand it, but appreciate the public service you do, and it IS a public service. Was just sent an url ( answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080529110711AAbNv29) which contained this: "The length of the barrel (especially for larger guns) is often quoted in calibers. The effective length of the barrel (from breech to muzzle) is divided by the barrel diameter to give a value. As an example, the main guns of the Iowa class battleships can be referred to as 16"/50 caliber. They are 16 inches in diameter and the barrel is 800 inches long (16 x 50 = 800). This is also sometimes indicated using the prefix L/, so for example, the most common gun for the Panzer V tank is described as a "75 mm L/70", meaning a barrel 75 mm in diameter, and 5250 mm long." But I was sent in the same post another example. Find the error: "The other definition is used for large bore weapons such as naval guns, tank guns and artillery. When used in this term the word 'caliber' is ratio of bore diameter to bore length. So in your example a 5" 45 caliber gun would mean that the bore diameter is 5" and the bore length is 225" long (5 inches times 55)." It's that sort of stuff that can ruin an afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 30, 2011 17:03:13 GMT -6
Yeah, I think you've ruined mine! And it's Sunday, to boot. Darkcloud, I went to Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, and before I joined its illustrious ranks I had my mother make sure no math was included in the curriculum (she was better at that stuff than I was; I was a better drinker). The more you start to include this kind of thing, the more my eyes glaze over... and I am lost. It isn't that I was bad in math, it's that I didn't want to be bothered. I am delighted you have the patience for it!
And if you think this Sunday is ruined, wait until you see what I've put together on markers. They couldn't even number the damn things properly. Hint, hint!! If there were 252 markers, then how come there is one numbered 257? How come there are three "A's" and one "B"? And how come one marker, excavated with nothing found, doesn't show up in the records? Stay tuned!
And you wanna know where men fell!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 30, 2011 17:31:19 GMT -6
It's almost a typo, but careless anyway. After explaining it is the bore length times the bore diameter.....well, here: "So in your example a 5" 45 caliber gun would mean that the bore diameter is 5" and the bore length is 225" long (5 inches times 55)." But it is 5 times 45, not 55. Careless, but the inclusion of these details and the confidence with which they're lain out are shot by someone trying to follow that.
It's what, at base, drives me batty about conz. He lays out his background, emphasizes West Point, and then spends three, four years providing monumental misinformation about combat, horsemanship, tactics, history, and (currently) the ground at LBH he could not have ever seen given his absurd contentions. When confronted, he tries to deflect with more (meaningless, often incorrect, possibly fabricated) detail from manuals he obviously has not read or understood if he did read them.
Conz is a Cliff Claven from OCS or after a year of ROTC trying to appear as John Keegan crossed upon Jeb Stuart. It deserves scorn. Seriously, on any actual issue involving the LBH, has he ever been in the same Area Code of fact? In a single contention against opposition, has he ever - I mean ever - been right?
Insofar as the markers, cannot recall when they were numbered, but in WCF markers came and went at the whim of custodians and others who thought it 'right' that a stone was placed here or there. Accuracy doesn't seem to be a controlling issue, at least above the "right thing", be it a newly raised barrow for Sturgis or a stone for Porter or whoever.
I'm interested if anyone else has done the redistribution according to testimony and photo? No screams of Eureka!, so I guess not. I'm willing to bet it will shock a lot of folks, even those who sorta/kinda visualize it in the mind.
Fred, put your feet up and listen closely. conz/Cliff is speaking:
"Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo and when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive drinking of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 30, 2011 22:07:07 GMT -6
It's almost a typo, but careless anyway. After explaining it is the bore length times the bore diameter.....well, here: "So in your example a 5" 45 caliber gun would mean that the bore diameter is 5" and the bore length is 225" long (5 inches times 55)." But it is 5 times 45, not 55. Careless, but the inclusion of these details and the confidence with which they're lain out are shot by someone trying to follow that. I am embarrassed to tell you this-- I should have typed it in the last post-- but I spotted it right away. Thinking I might make a bigger fool of myself than I have already, I demurred. That's how I watch Georgetown basketball or NY Giants football; I chalk a 3-0 or 2-0 deficit up to a loss, turn off the TV, and then surprise myself when I learn later that they won. Such is life, but I'm not sure the old ticker can handle stupid excitement any more. Excitement, yes; but stupid excitement? That's something else again. As for Conz, I agree with you. Grudgingly... but I agree. The sheer stupidity stifles decent discussion. There are times I think he has to be tongue-in-cheek... no one can be that stupid; no one can make up the sheer volume of nonsense. The tragedy is that some people actually believe him. Is that a failure of our educational system? I am also a product of the New York City public grammar school system-- why do you think I had so much trouble with math in later life? or placing adverbs? or forming verbs? what the hell is a past participle?-- so maybe I only see the worst in our education. Such delicate minds abused by the likes of another Claven. I am currently eliminating pairs. I have identified 13 pairs that the archaeologists have recorded and another 23 probables. That makes 36. Fox assumed 43, but 43 from 252 markers is 209, one short. Of the missing 6 or 7, I am making the assumption-- for the time being-- that these are all on Custer Hill. That, however, has to be compared with current assumptions of 42 bodies within an area we can define as Custer Hill. And then too, there are the unidentified or "missing" officers. Cool! Of course, that assumption needs to be reconciled against testimony and whatever pictures can be scrounged up. My only access to pictures may be Where Custer Fell, so we'll see how that works. And then, of course, we have to tackle others. We know, for example, the Kellogg marker is spurious and is probably a paired marker anyway. Norm, did you know the Indians had two villages that day? Crazy Horse north of Ford B and Sitting Bull south of it? And did you know that George Custer, with the biggest challenge of his life slipping within his grasp walked to the attack? And that Peter Thompson married the Indian maiden that Curley rescued? In a ceremony held at Thompson's Ford located between Fords Q and J? I'll bet you didn't know that? Or that Gall and Crazy Horse planned to ambush Custer at Ford B... with 11,739 warriors? By the way, Sam Adams makes a killer chocolate bock... if you like that sort of thing. As a beer plebeian, I do. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 30, 2011 22:07:34 GMT -6
It's almost a typo, but careless anyway. After explaining it is the bore length times the bore diameter.....well, here: "So in your example a 5" 45 caliber gun would mean that the bore diameter is 5" and the bore length is 225" long (5 inches times 55)." But it is 5 times 45, not 55. Careless, but the inclusion of these details and the confidence with which they're lain out are shot by someone trying to follow that. I am embarrassed to tell you this-- I should have typed it in the last post-- but I spotted it right away. Thinking I might make a bigger fool of myself than I have already, I demurred. That's how I watch Georgetown basketball or NY Giants football; I chalk a 3-0 or 2-0 deficit up to a loss, turn off the TV, and then surprise myself when I learn later that they won. Such is life, but I'm not sure the old ticker can handle stupid excitement any more. Excitement, yes; but stupid excitement? That's something else again. As for Conz, I agree with you. Grudgingly... but I agree. The sheer stupidity stifles decent discussion. There are times I think he has to be tongue-in-cheek... no one can be that stupid; no one can make up that sheer volume of nonsense. The tragedy is that some people actually believe him. Is that a failure of our educational system? I am also a product of the New York City public grammar school system-- why do you think I had so much trouble with math in later life? or placing adverbs? or forming verbs? what the hell is a past participle?-- so maybe I only see the worst in our education. Such delicate minds abused by the likes of another Claven. I am currently eliminating pairs. I have identified 13 pairs that the archaeologists have recorded and another 23 probables. That makes 36. Fox assumed 43, but 43 from 252 markers is 209, one short. Of the missing 6 or 7, I am making the assumption-- for the time being-- that these are all on Custer Hill. That, however, has to be compared with current assumptions of 42 bodies within an area we can define as Custer Hill. And then too, there are the unidentified or "missing" officers. Cool! Of course, that assumption needs to be reconciled against testimony and whatever pictures can be scrounged up. My only access to pictures may be Where Custer Fell, so we'll see how that works. And then, of course, we have to tackle others. We know, for example, the Kellogg marker is spurious and is probably a paired marker anyway. Norm, did you know the Indians had two villages that day? Crazy Horse north of Ford B and Sitting Bull south of it? And did you know that George Custer, with the biggest challenge of his life slipping within his grasp walked to the attack? And that Peter Thompson married the Indian maiden that Curley rescued? In a ceremony held at Thompson's Ford located between Fords Q and J? I'll bet you didn't know that? Or that Gall and Crazy Horse planned to ambush Custer at Ford B... with 11,739 warriors? By the way, Sam Adams makes a killer chocolate bock... if you like that sort of thing. As a beer plebeian, I do. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 31, 2011 6:21:41 GMT -6
Okay. What longer version? Aren't the cartridges at issue the same physical size for rifle or carbine, and so all Springfields at issue would be chambered for the it? Is the longer version referenced the rifle? So even though the carbine could fire a .45-70, it couldn't the .45-60?
Yes and I think if we stick to the military cartridges it will be simpler. In that respect the issued Trapdoors were chambered for the .45-70 and the preferred cartridge for the carbine was the .45-55.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 31, 2011 6:47:33 GMT -6
Further, wasn't the carbine the exact same weapon absent longer barrel and stock, but same chamber, firing mechanism and all? Was the rifling different?
The chamber is the same at .45-70. The rifle also had a cleaning rod which could assist in removing stuck cases. You have the correct idea that they are length variations of the same weapon system.
I'm thinking that the cylinder is not to be viewed as just a rotating firing chamber, a space which I thought had the advantage of being sealed to increase pressure and velocity at the expense of reload time. That wasn't solved till, I guess, the Maxim gun.
My view is that a cylinder sets the maximum diameter and length of a cartridge. The barrel sets the maximum diameter of the bullet. If you under size the diameter of the case you can experience case splitting. If you under size length it usually results in less velocity. If you under size the bullet diameter accuracy suffers.
Depending on the case length and the bullet used in a revolver there could be a short period of time where the bullet is still confined by the case and it moves forward hitting the forcing cone causing the same effect as a confined chamber.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 31, 2011 7:00:19 GMT -6
I am sure that you and Fred have it absolutely correct in regards to the Springfield Trapdoor rifle and carbine used by the Army in 1876.
We have the nomenclature of bullet diameter, grains of black powder, and sometimes weight of the bullet correct.
The rifle or the carbine having the same chamber dimension and could fire either cartridge .45-55 or .45-70.
The case is the same but cartridge differ by the amount of the powder used .
You can not tell the difference between the two cartridges by looking at external dimensions of the case.
You would have to find evidence of wad or tube to confirm it was .45-70. In later years after LBH they stamped the case to indicate rifle or carbine powder load.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 31, 2011 7:03:25 GMT -6
Interesting discussion on Naval weapons. I have no clue about them. For small arms caliber refers to the internal diameter of the barrel.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 31, 2011 10:41:01 GMT -6
DC brings up another of my pet peeves that a lot of historical programs use to over dramatize an event. Casualties. They talk about battles like Antietam and Gettysburg and over 50,000 casualties like it was a bloody massacre. But when you look at the actual numbers, there are only a thousand or two that are killed and maybe 2 or 3 times that in wounded. Then you have the thousands of captured and many of which escaped or were uncaptured. Finally you have the tens of thousands who get scattered during battle and miss the morning role call.
Then when you look at the pictures after the battles, all you see is maybe 5, 10, or 20 dead and then they describe a bloody fight right there.
Truth be told is that most cw units break and run/withdraw when they start incurring a few killed and wounded. If they don't break and run then they manage to get themselves into a pickle where they surrender and don't try to fight to finish. So much for being committed to a cause.
I'd bet that if you took the percentage of number killed compared to battle participants, then the LBH battle would be much worse that any battle in the cw.
bc
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 1, 2011 11:34:13 GMT -6
Here is something from reading Don Weiber's book, "Custer, Cases, and Cartridges."
Weibert does seem to put to rest Varnum's statement that the ammo used was actually .45-55 and not .45-70 as Varnum stated. All the cartridges he found that had split cases showed wadding material in them. He also found that the level of powder inside created an area of corrosion on the outside consistant with the level of powder. All unfired bullets found had a corrosion level consistent with a 55 grain powder load.
bc
|
|