|
Post by Cavalryman on Aug 14, 2005 17:01:38 GMT -6
In all reality, the extractor problem was not overblown! The extractor on the 1873 is a very sharp lever with considerable leverage on the rim of the cartridge case. If the copper case sticks in the chamber the extraxtor either cuts through the rim or extracts about half of the case as the weak copper case breaks in half! This leaves the soldier with a jam he cannot clear easily in a battle. This problem was not resolved until there was a total recall of all .45-55 and .45-70 ammunition for salvage in 1877! After six shots of his revolver the trooper is disarmed facing a charge empty handed! This rifle and defective ammunition has been reported to often jam in 4 or 5 shots!
Unfortunately Steve, you are discussing apples and oranges! The Springfield rifles used at the Hayfield fight were .50-70's! This cartridge operated at a lower chamber pressure than the .45-70. It also was not loaded with a cardboard wad. No problems that I know of have often been reported by the original .50-70 rifles. Interestingly, one civilian ex-soldier is reported to have killed 300 indians with his Henry in front of witness' at that fight. Significantly better than any report on a Springfield! You are correct the 7 shot tubes (magazines) of the Spencer rifle were the quickest to reload! You sound like you have some experience with arms. However, the Henry was not a conventional magazine rifle. A stud or short handle was attached to the magazine spring, this spring was pulled all the way to the top of the tubular magazine which was then rotated to enable the firer to easily drop 16 rounds into it, turn it and release the spring. A very fast reload! If you had a tube for the extra ammo it was almost instantaneous. And of course, due to the good ammunition for the lever guns as compared to the defective .45-55 ammunition for the Springfield, there was no comparison in reliability. If tou wanted to live, you had a Henry! Saying the army was not sold on repeaters is exactly like saying the army provided all the armored vests our troops needed in Iraq! When we all have heard the reports of parents having to buy them and ship them to sons. Gen. Ripley, head of Ordinance, refused to buy repeaters until Pres. Lincoln actually forced him to do so! The .45-55 as stated is no more effective than a .44-40 at combat ranges, most authorities who know more than I agree on this. Hand to hand combat training. Most of that was done with the saber. Quite a bit of training was done with it! Unfortunately, the sabers were boxed in the hold of the Far West per Custer's orders. Bowies? The indians say they found some knives, but I can't remember more than an ocassional reference to anyone carrying a Bowie knife. Fire control? These guys were being overrun on foot at short range. There is no comparion between a good repeater and a single shot rifle that jams on every fourth shot! Which rifle would you choose if you had to go into this fight? Be honest! The Fetterman fight! As far as I know Fetterman's troops were armed with muzzle loaders! Perhaps you have a citation contrary?
|
|
|
Post by Cavalryman on Aug 14, 2005 17:46:14 GMT -6
Steve: I found it. You are correct about the cavalrymen being armed with Spencers at The Fetterman Fight. The infantry were armed with the muzzle loaders. However, I doubt if the cavalry had a sufficient ammuntion supply for the Spencers to even start to deal with the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 14, 2005 22:19:03 GMT -6
Cavalryman: you mentioned "if the copper cartridge case sticks"....this "if" was most likely because of verdigris on the case, not a faulty weapon design. If a trooper did not regularly polish his cartridges, if held in a leather looped belt, verdigris would appear on the case, sometimes causing the empty case to stick in the breech. If the extractor issue was as common as you claim, then why is LBH the only battle where this problem is even mentioned? Archaeological evidence doesn't bear out much extractor difficulty. Among the .45/55 cases found, only 2 pct. exhibited extractor trouble. The army fought with the Springfield at the Rosebud, where some 28,000 rounds were expended, and not one report of extraction problems. So it would appear the 7th Cavalry was lacking a measure of discipline when it came to weapons maintenance.
The Springfield was used also at Powder River, Slim Buttes, the Nez Perce war in addition to Apache combat in the southwest. Where are the reports of this problem in those engagements? Or did only Custer's men get the defective weapons?
My source is Doug McChristian's _US Army in the West_. There is a chapter on the whole weapons changeover and what the army's reasoning was. It was more than just economy.
The Spencer was a rimfire; rimfires were more prone to misfire and jamming than a centerfire like the Springfield. The army was also looking for a durable weapon for use in the elements while in the field, far away from any source of repair. Repeaters had more intricate mechanisms. The more parts there are the more likely they are to malfunction. In a series of tests of several weapons the single shots proved superior to repeaters as far as broken parts.
The army was also looking for a weapon on par with the European armies (who were not using repeaters either...the British Enfield and the German Mauser were both single shot weapons. The Northwest Mounted Police, a force you would think engaged primarily in close range firefights, used the single shot Enfield carbine also) with whom the next conventional war was assumed to be fought.
And here's something interesting regarding the Spencer. The Blakeslee cartridge box, holding ten tubes of seven shot magazines, was virtually non existent on the frontier. The troops therefore carried the Spencer ammo in a leather pouch. Now, if these rounds were carried loose, then to reload the trooper would have to reload the tube, one round at a time, then reinsert the tube to fire again. Kiss your fast reload goodbye. No faster than a Colt. Unless they carried extra pre loaded tubes.
As for the claim of killing 300 Indians with a Henry at the Hayfield: preposterous. Michno lists Indian casualties at Hayfield at eight killed, thirty wounded. The Sioux would have broken off the fight long before 30 were killed, let alone 300.
Each weapon had its advantages/disadvantages. The troopers had to fight with what they had. Which would I have preferred? Psychologically, probably the repeater on Last Stand Hill. But it would be useless if a warrior armed with a captured Springfield blows your skull off from 300 yds while you are waiting with your Spencer for him to get within its effective range.
Finally, rate of fire is meaningless if you don't hit your target. If Custer's men had been killing warriors with those Springfields (instead of shooting over their heads) they may well have survived.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 15, 2005 2:05:25 GMT -6
Steve, you mention verdigris. Just a thought: could some cartridges have suffered from packs getting dunked in the river the night before? Benteen and De Rudio both describe the chaotic night crossing, with mules stuck in mud and packs slipping ...
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 15, 2005 8:42:07 GMT -6
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Aug 15, 2005 9:00:35 GMT -6
I'm sure Doug won't mind me quoting extensively from his book "The U.S. Army in the West, 1870-1880: Uniforms, Weapons, & Equipment." Most people on this board probably know who Doug McChristian is. If not, he was Chief Historian at Little Bighorn and served as Acting Superintendent. Doug is one of the first people Doug Scott calls when he needs help with archeological digs at LBH. This book IS the bible when it comes to the U.S. Cavalry.
Starting on page 114 Doug states,
"A widespread myth attributed to the Springfield carbine is that it suffered from extraction problems to such a degree that IT WAS A FACTOR IN LT. COL GEORGE CUSTER'S DEFEAT AT THE BATTLE OF THE LBH. (caps mine) Recent archaeological evidence argues against this. Data from the survey conducted on the battlefield reveal that only 2 percent of the archaeologically recovered .45/55 cases exhibited extraction problems. Combining this figure with all of the other government carbine cases in the LBH Battlefield collection comes to a total of only 6 percent. The archaeological study concluded that although extraction problems occurred in the fight, this ‘was not significant to the outcome of the battle.’ In the interest of evaluating the Springfield’s performance in a broader context, one also must look beyond the LBH to other engagements, such as the Battle of the Rosebud, where at least 25,000 rounds of .45-caliber government ammunition were expended in the period of a few hours. Significantly, no complaints of jamming were lodged against the Springfield after this fight. The 1877 Battle of Big Hole offers another example, where only one archaeologically recovered .45.70 case bore signs of extraction difficulty.
For the most part, the limited extraction problems encountered must be attributed not to the Springfield’s design but rather to the leather cartridge belts that the solders fabricated for themselves. Uncovered and subjected to the elements, the cartridges soon became grimy and covered with verdigris as a result of the chemical reaction between the copper cases and the tanning composition contained in the leather.”
Doug writes more on this subject, but I think this has made it clear that the extraction problem was only a myth. People with military experience may argue further against this, but my guess is they are not scientists. And, someone with current military experience might as well have been in the boy scouts when it comes to thinking they understand the frontier military when they argue that the extraction problem WAS NOT A MYTH.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 15, 2005 9:22:26 GMT -6
Bob, agree. I would also ask where are there Indian accounts of this problem? I've not read Sioux or Cheyenne testimonies describing troopers with pocket knives digging frantically to remove stuck shells. The warriors also took Custer's carbines and used them against Reno. Any accounts of them discarding scores of these Springfields on account of any extractor trouble?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Wilk on Aug 15, 2005 9:30:28 GMT -6
Just a P.S.; I love Doug's book, but he stops at 1880 Wish he would have covered the whole Indian War period.
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Aug 15, 2005 9:47:09 GMT -6
Just a P.S.; I love Doug's book, but he stops at 1880 Wish he would have covered the whole Indian War period. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Cavalryman on Aug 15, 2005 20:20:23 GMT -6
I am merely stating the fact that the copper cased ammunition issued was defective, and it was well known, whether some commander or not mentioned it. Frankfort arsenal and others took notice of the problem and replaced the ammunition in 1877 with brass cased ammunition, after development. As I have stated several authorities believe it was a significant factor in this and other battles. I suggest you read the books! I refer you to "Cartridges for the Springfield Trapdoor Rifles and Carbines 1865 1898" By Reuland P. 18! The Frankford Arsenal soon increased the thickness of the case above the head and the earlier ammunition was recalled for salvaging.". "the heads of the early cartridges including the US Carbine headsstamped cartridges had a propensity to tear upon extraction"! Get the book and read it , if you are so skeptical about a well known fact, the army would rather bury. The army was busy covering this up until the problem was corrected much like the M-16 fiasco in the 60's! If you don't wish to believe the facts, not my problem.
Vedigras and the extra shap extractor were further problems which magnified the extraction/jamming/thin case problem. Actually black powder fouling in the chamber seemed to contribute to this problem. All the soldiers carried jackknives to dig broken cases out of the rifle. Numerous broken knives were found on these battlefields. There are numerous instances of indian accounts, talking about soldiers trying to clear their weapons! I believe one is mentioned on The Son Of Morning Star and others. The archaelogical evidence is suspect because the battlefield has been picked over. Wooden Leg mentions throwing a jammed Carbine in the river. What is not lost is the many reports on this and current authorities (should you care to ask one) substantiating it. It was a major factor in any fight where this ammunition was issued. Actually, rimfires tended to be somewhat more reliable. if you examine a Henry firing pin, you will see it strikes the rim in two places. And guess what? They are waterproof.
The army wanted to use up a bunch of their old muzzle loaders by converting them. And thats what they did!
The instance of 300 indians being killed or wounded by a ex-civil war captain was done in front of civilian witness' which are much more reliable than the army officers were. I don't particularly feel like looking up the book this is in. I suggest you do some research. I do not say it is the absolute truth. It is a rather substantiated report, though. Nevertheless, it likely represents what a determined man could do with a repeater, so I am not so amazed and baffled as you. It was said he had a 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
The officer's lied about casualties, weapons and even drunken Reno. Their accounts are not to be trusted. Like I said. Don't believe me, READ THE BOOKS!
This is factual evidence not some self-aggandized book writer passing an opinion.
|
|
Interested Bystander
Guest
|
Post by Interested Bystander on Aug 15, 2005 20:32:04 GMT -6
Hey: I don't know that much about the battle, but I have read more than once, about The Springfiel Trapdoor .45-70 jamming all the time with the initial ammunition issued. They quickly fixed the problem though. I think about 1877 according to the magazine article I have!
300 indians! Man, thats a lot of indians! Hey Guys, if that isn't the record, I just wonder what is?
Interesting conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Trapdoor Man on Aug 16, 2005 13:12:00 GMT -6
Following this thread it is hard to believe the misinformation being posted about the 1873 Trapdoor Springfield. Perhaps I can help.
1. The problems with the first issue of .45-70/.45-55 copper cased ammunition are well documented beyond the some, not very well researched Custer books. Many authors including Fox have drawn very faulty conclusions which are very contrary to Frankfort Arsenal and many expert military analysis of the battle.
2. I am not familiar with the book mentioned that claims these extraction problems were a myth. However, it would seem the author simply has not done his research and is repeating old canards first published in books by authors totally unfamiliar with firearms and the trapdoor in particular.
3. After 1877 with brass cartridge cases being used in actual centerfire cartridges, not the less reliable inside cup Benet priming used in the defective lot of too thin copper cased ammunition, the trapdoor became quite reliable. In march/April of 1877 the Berdan centerfire brass case became available.
4. As has been mentioned here before, the .45-55 cartridge had a trajectory like a rainbow. None of these arms at this battle were much effective beyond 200 yards. Current drop tables show the .44-40 dropping 33 inches at 200 yards. The .45-55 would drop near 30 inches. In a light carbine with crude iron sights firing offhand hitting a man at 200 yards becomes somewhat problematical for the unhardened rifleman.
5. Within its limitations the trapdoor can be a fine little brush rifle for deer. It design perimeters did not include dealing with huge numbers of an enemy armed with edged weapons. That is what the repeaters were designed for.
New book mythology not with standing, the trapdoor was way out of its league with its defective ammunition at the LBH. So were the tactics. Should anyone desire to see how troops should properly use a singleshot against large numbers of hostiles I suggest they rent a copy of Zulu and watch the British troops squad fire with their singleshots.
I would hope interested people would buy more books covering some of the more technical military and weapons information of the era, rather than just the "Custer Books" which are often filled with much fine information, but they usually are not weapons technicians and oft repeat mistakes.
Have Fun!
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Aug 16, 2005 17:02:20 GMT -6
Following this thread it is hard to believe the misinformation being posted about the 1873 Trapdoor Springfield. Perhaps I can help. 1. The problems with the first issue of .45-70/.45-55 copper cased ammunition are well documented beyond the some, not very well researched Custer books. Many authors including Fox have drawn very faulty conclusions which are very contrary to Frankfort Arsenal and many expert military analysis of the battle. 2. I am not familiar with the book mentioned that claims these extraction problems were a myth. However, it would seem the author simply has not done his research and is repeating old canards first published in books by authors totally unfamiliar with firearms and the trapdoor in particular. 3. After 1877 with brass cartridge cases being used in actual centerfire cartridges, not the less reliable inside cup Benet priming used in the defective lot of too thin copper cased ammunition, the trapdoor became quite reliable. In march/April of 1877 the Berdan centerfire brass case became available. 4. As has been mentioned here before, the .45-55 cartridge had a trajectory like a rainbow. None of these arms at this battle were much effective beyond 200 yards. Current drop tables show the .44-40 dropping 33 inches at 200 yards. The .45-55 would drop near 30 inches. In a light carbine with crude iron sights firing offhand hitting a man at 200 yards becomes somewhat problematical for the unhardened rifleman. 5. Within its limitations the trapdoor can be a fine little brush rifle for deer. It design perimeters did not include dealing with huge numbers of an enemy armed with edged weapons. That is what the repeaters were designed for. New book mythology not with standing, the trapdoor was way out of its league with its defective ammunition at the LBH. So were the tactics. Should anyone desire to see how troops should properly use a singleshot against large numbers of hostiles I suggest they rent a copy of Zulu and watch the British troops squad fire with their singleshots. I would hope interested people would buy more books covering some of the more technical military and weapons information of the era, rather than just the "Custer Books" which are often filled with much fine information, but they usually are not weapons technicians and oft repeat mistakes. Have Fun! 1 Please, tell us what well documented material you have to substantiate your claim. 2 If you’re not familiar with the book I mentioned – here, I’ll mention it again, “"The U.S. Army in the West, 1870-1880: Uniforms, Weapons, & Equipment." By Douglas McChristian. It is NOT a Custer book. I find it interesting that you just assume it is. I’ll also mention again its author, Douglas McChristian. He doesn’t write Custer books. However, he is a former Chief Historian at the Little Bighorn Battlefield. The man knows the frontier army better than most people walking this earth. With all due respect, you claim to be well studied and know the documented material regarding this issue. I'm afraid you don't. If so, you would have been very well aware of McChristian's book. 4 & 5 have nothing to do with the myth of the extraction problems. I strongly urge you to state any sources to substantiate your odd claims. I have, you haven’t. If, indeed, you have something reliable other than just opinion, then I’d be willing to listen. Oh yes, that goes for Cavalryman as well (both of you sound so much alike BTW). Lastly, since you are not well read regarding this issue I will share with you the year McChristian's book was published -- 1995; that is not a "new book mythology."
|
|
|
Post by Cowgirl Kate on Aug 16, 2005 18:05:29 GMT -6
bhist: You sound so well read about the littlebighorn. Sometimes even very dignified. But you do not seem to be able to accept other peoples opinions or facts they give you, like the above stated references. Several posters have already given you what you appear to be demanding again on this subject. Actually, you sound like you verge on losing your temper in many of your posts. I mean sometimes you sound almost hateful. Do you have a problem with anger management?
Sitting down and having a nice cup of tea while looking out the window into the distance often relieves severe stress I have found. I recommend it to you highly.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 16, 2005 19:41:48 GMT -6
OK Paul, quite the hiding fella.
Most of us are aware of your firmly fixed antagonism to the Springfield carbine.
However, beyond the statement that everyone is lying, how does one go about explaining the utter lack of documentation of wide-spread extractor issues, beyond the Custer Cluster? Skirmishes or early battles featuring the Springfield 45-55, such as Reynold's attack in the winter of 1876, as well as the Rosebud battle, have given us little, if any, indications of extractor/cartridge casing issues. In hopes of trying to give you some ammunition (pardon the pun), I read through the diaries of John Bourke dealing with LBH-who is unusally forthcoming in his personal diary pages about his opinions-and found no references to ammunition problems. By the way, I owe you a big thanks for forcing me to begin reading his dairy. Loads of data about the Indian Wars are contained within those microfilm rolls! Anyone who has access to them should begin to read them if at all interested in truthful accounts of what was happening.
So, what we have are are the words of one private of the 7th who was on Reno Hill who stated that Capt. French sat in the open and cleared jammed rifles and Wooden Leg's commentaries. Other people better qualified than I can deal with the Indian perspective vs the slant their interpreter perhaps wanted to put on the issue.
Just one small aside-readers forgive me.
"Cowgirl Kate", just because someone disagrees with another's argument is no reason whatsoever to insinuate such silly accusations towards the disagreeing party as you attempted to do. Most persons consider that an attempt at misdirection, i.e., You have no argument to counter what the other said so you attack the person instead. There is a word for that but, at the moment, I have no interest in looking it up.
Paul, I understand that in your mind, the issue is moot, but, this is not a free-form forum as the other was and indications of why someone believes a theory is correct is respected and almost necessary. Just to give us disagreeing suckers something else to read and perhaps to convince us.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|