|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 8, 2016 8:19:50 GMT -6
jodak
Thanks for the link.
I disagree with some of their statements.
"Granted, the carbine used a smaller .45/55 round, but its internal parts and design mirrored the larger model. " --- the carbine chamber was .45-70 and the .45-55 was the same size with less powder
I think it is right on when it comes to training.
My Department is changing from Sig Sauer P226 to striker fire Sig Sauer P320 we will put the officers through training and practicals. The amount of ammunition per officer will be more than what the cavalry issued for it troopers for a whole year.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 8, 2016 8:45:14 GMT -6
Hammer's booklet, which I cited above, includes the results of a comparison made at Springfield Armory in August, 1876 by one Lieutenant John C. Greer. Evaluated were the M1873 carbine, using both the rifle and carbine cartridges and a Winchester 1873 in .44-40. Comparing muzzle velocities the Springfield carbine cartridge produced 1,166.6 FPS; the Winchester 1,127.4 FPS. Accuracy, measured as "Mean Deviation (inches) at 100, 200, 500 and 900 yards, was for the Springfield: 2.48, 7.97, 19.05 and 36.52. The Winchester gave 2.27, 12.27, 21.46 and "Not obtainable". At 100 yards the Springfield penetrated 10.075 inches of white pine; the Winchester 4.9. The take from all this is that the Springfield was a much harder hitting, slightly more accurate at reasonable ranges, slower firing weapon that the Winchester; so no surprises there. The Winchester's 15 shot capacity is formidable, if you have 15 to begin with. Clearly superior in a close-in rush or for repeated snap shots. But the reload is problematic, requiring repetitive manipulation of single rounds. This would have been even more so for Henry repeaters which lacked a side-loading gate. Hi Mike I wonder what the sample size was for the test. It appears at 100 the Winchester was more precise. Then there is almost a 5" difference at 200 yards. At 500 yards the Winchester tightens up and there is less than a 3" difference. What made the group tighten in comparison at 500 yards? I think preciseness is what is being measured rather than accuracy. I think that accuracy is influenced by the shooter. The best shooters have a precise weapon system. My point is that the preciseness difference is mitigated by the shooter's ability to make accurate shots. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 8, 2016 9:01:24 GMT -6
At one time our Department received some free highly used Mini-14s and put on a rifle class with a qualification at the end.
One officer failed to qualify with a large group size with no apparent grouping. We placed the Mini in a rest at 100 yards and the 10 shot group was slightly larger than 14 inches. That would measure the preciseness of this particular weapon. Add to this the officer's ability to make as accurate of a shot as they possible can and it caused the failure.
We obtained a more precise mini and then had the officer adjust the sights to make it accurate for the individual shooter and the officer qualified.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 8, 2016 15:34:19 GMT -6
jodak Thanks for the link. I disagree with some of their statements... There are a few other things in the article that call into question the author's credibility. To begin with, he pronounces Custer as being "one of the Army's ablest tacticians". Exactly what Custer did from the CW onward that would warrant that accolade, I have a hard time envisioning. Not to belittle Custer, but his renown was based primarily on having led a number of daring charges, but it doesn't take a tactical genius to ride out in front of his men and yell charge. Also, toward the end of the article the author makes it sound like the decision to fight on foot was an individual decision resulting from lack of training on how to fight on horseback. He even calls it "going to ground". All hogwash that exhibits a lack of understanding of how cavalry fought. However, I agree with the basic premise of the article that the Springfield has been unfairly ridiculed while the worth of Winchesters and Henrys has been blown out of proportion. We have discussed their relative merits numerous times, and it seems that there is a large number of people that are infatuated by the fact that the Winchesters/Henrys were repeaters, while the Springfield was not, and can't move beyond that to see the other considerations involved, which the article somewhat addresses.
As an aside, the article alludes to the fact that the Indians were surprised that the soldiers were firing over their heads, which they author probably correctly attributes to lack of training. However, that is another possibility for the Indians' comments about the soldiers "firing into the air" that is being discussed in the tread of that name.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Sept 19, 2021 11:32:31 GMT -6
For LBH: a soldier has 20 rounds in his cartridge box on his belt. He had four cardboard boxes of 20 rounds each in his saddle bags. How does he resupply with ammo? He can take a cardboard box and manually refill the 20 canvas loops in his waist box, if he has time. Or he can place the cardboard box on the ground, take a knee, and take rounds from there. Or he can dump the box into his hat, put the hat on the ground and take rounds from the hat. He can dump the rounds into his pockets, but the uniform pockets are poorly designed for this. Party people: Pretty sure this has been addressed before, but how does this and the often repeated "Each man carried 50 rounds on him and 50 on the horse"(loosely taken from memory)? Bandoleer? All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 19, 2021 12:32:39 GMT -6
Hi Geir, I have heard in the past that troopers simply stuffed their pockets with extra rounds, anywhere to carry rounds.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Sept 20, 2021 13:22:40 GMT -6
Hi Geir, I have heard in the past that troopers simply stuffed their pockets with extra rounds, anywhere to carry rounds. Ian Yep, but if they had 5 boxes with 20 rounds in each, giving an order like "Everybody, bring along 2 packs and individually pick out 10 rounds from another pack!" during a fight sound strange, doesn't it? If they had bandoleers which held 10 rounds it would make ,more sense, even if packing away a half-way emptied ammo box is a littlestrange too. (I could swear this topic was discussed here once years ago,, but couldn't find it) Geir
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 20, 2021 13:29:34 GMT -6
I have seen it before too, but finding that would be like looking for a needle in a hay stack.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Sept 20, 2021 13:38:25 GMT -6
I have seen it before too, but finding that would be like looking for a needle in a hay stack. If it is a big needle and a small stack, it doesn't have to be that difficult. Geir
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 20, 2021 13:44:48 GMT -6
That thread may have preceeded me on this board Geir, I recall finding it whilst doing a back search.
|
|
|
Ammunition
Sept 27, 2021 18:23:10 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by herosrest on Sept 27, 2021 18:23:10 GMT -6
Peter Thompson - The Black Hills Trails. 'After arriving there I took inventory of my ammunition. My pistol contained five cartridges, my belt contained seventeen cartridges for my carbine, a very slim magazine as a means of defense. I had left nearly a hundred rounds in my saddle bags...... The information is at page 1 of this topic from Jaz Watson, relating data by Jerome Greene. Besides the given work, another useful reference is here archive.org/details/evidencecusteren00greeGreene plotted all known artifacts to aerial photographs of the battlefield a number of years before Fox and Scott went et al ignoring the Luce, NC finds as not of their remit. That takes some getting your head around. Regards gents.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Oct 2, 2021 3:17:05 GMT -6
Peter Thompson - The Black Hills Trails. 'After arriving there I took inventory of my ammunition. My pistol contained five cartridges, my belt contained seventeen cartridges for my carbine, a very slim magazine as a means of defense. I had left nearly a hundred rounds in my saddle bags...... Hi HR It makes sense that not EVERY SINGLE man in the 7th carried precisely 100 rounds for his rifle. 5 shots for revolver strikes me as more strange, at least if memory serves me right and he had not fired a single shot, just had an "aim-off" with 4 or 5 NAs. Either way, I guess the whole 50 in the saddle packs and 50 carried by a trooper can't be regarded as Gospel. Well, I'm not a believer so...the point stands! (I looked up now and the one source of his story available says nothing about shooting. But he does mention how "belts for carrying ammunition" were just coming into use, which I found interesting.) All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 2, 2021 6:56:42 GMT -6
Hi Geir, I am sure that I read that the army colt 1873 revolver held six rounds, but soldiers only used five on safety grounds.
Apparently this weapon was a pain in the ass the reload, as you had to remove the empty cases, unless I am getting my evolvers mixed up.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Oct 3, 2021 2:35:50 GMT -6
Hi Geir, I am sure that I read that the army colt 1873 revolver held six rounds, but soldiers only used five on safety grounds. Apparently this weapon was a pain in the ass the reload, as you had to remove the empty cases, unless I am getting my evolvers mixed up. Hi Ian. Not heard about that 5 rounds-thing. Interesting. I think I would have allowed myself the extra round by that time Yep, each one had to loaded, I think it under normal circumstances could take 30 seconds to reload, under the stress of combat it would probably be much worse. Geir
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 3, 2021 9:54:11 GMT -6
The Colt SAA had a fixed firing pin, and a blow to the hammer could set off the cartridge. There was even a procedure on loading. Load one skip one load four
|
|