View Full Version : Battle of the Little Big Horn...................
Bob - The Beagle Master
05-02-2010, 10:36
This is a picture of my great great uncle, Trooper Benjamin Franklin Brown, F Troop, 7th US Cavalry. The uniform is certainly not his as frontier troopers were not issued dress uniforms. I'm sure that the uniform actually belonged to the photographer who took the picture. He probably kept two or three of the dress uniforms around and altered them with pins so they would fit.
Bob - The Beagle Master
05-02-2010, 11:23
I also have a letter that he wrote to his mother just before the battle. At the time of the battle he was detached from F Troop to guard the remount herd but when the battle started the guards left the herd and went up to where Custer and the rest of the command were. The letter is pretty fragile so I'll just type it out.
Ft. A. Lincoln DT May 13th, 1876
Dear Mother
I received your kind and welcome letter.
It found me well and I hope this may find you the same,
I was very sorry to hear that sister Alice was sick and I
Think Alice might send me a picture , and also, tell Tom to send his.
There will be no excuse for them. They will have 'til fall to get them
taken.Don't send them until fall. We are going to start next Monday
on our journey to the Big Horn Valley. You can write and if the mail
is sent out to us I will get it.
Your son,
Benjamin F. Brown
F Troop 7 US Cavalry
JohnMOhio
05-03-2010, 01:50
Thanks Bob for sharing the family history and a small note that was written prior to history being made.
Bob - The Beagle Master
05-03-2010, 03:00
The spelling, capitalization and punctuation in the original letter is atrocious.
John Sukey
05-03-2010, 08:07
Frontier troopers were not issued dress uniforms? WRONG. There is an inspection report from Ft. Bowie (Arizona Territory). A note was made that two soldiers were missing the regimental number from their full dress helmets. Guard mountings, unlike the movies, were in Full dress. At one time I did collect Indian war equipment. For that matter, garrison uniforms were five button blouses and kepi's, NOT field gear.
And at one time I had a photo of a parade in Arizona territory with cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery, and they were ALL in full dress!
limazulu
05-04-2010, 12:55
Thanks Bob for sharing the family history and a small note that was written prior to history being made.
+1 for sharing. It's certainly a reminder that no one can know their future.
Bob - The Beagle Master
05-04-2010, 06:14
My information was from family lore. :icon_redface: The following is from the US Cavalry Museum at Ft. Hood. Texas:
AMERICAN INDIAN WARS
The end of the Civil War results in a great western movement of displaced Confederate soldiers, Union soldiers looking for adventure, and African-Americans looking for a new life. This movement west will bring the Native American in direct contact with them. Fighting will begin and the Army is sent to keep the peace and control the Indian population.
Four additional cavalry regiments were organized during this era-the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Cavalry Regiments. The 9th and 10th became known as the "Buffalo Soldiers."
The Army is reduced in size, yet required to patrol a large area. Troops of the Indian War period became highly professional soldiers. Uniforms and equipment are developed to support their operations. This is the first time that soldiers have two separate uniforms-a dress uniform for guard mount and parades and a uniform to be worn in the field or on campaign.
The primary weapon of the Indian War period is the Model 1873 Springfield Carbine.
The Indian War period lasted from 1866 to 1900.
John Kuhns
05-05-2010, 04:29
It should also be noted that Custer turned down an offer to command the 9th, and that both the 9th and 10th had lower desertion rates than the pride of the Army 8th US Infantry.
Bob - The Beagle Master
05-05-2010, 06:03
30 minutes before the Battle of the Little Big Horn seems like an ideal time to desert to me.
John Sukey
05-06-2010, 04:17
Please Mr. Custer, I don't wanna go:icon_wink:
Wonder what would have happened if Custer had not turned down those four gatling guns he was offered?
John Kuhns
05-06-2010, 05:26
True. Custer thought the guns would slow down his advance up the Little Big Horn and he did not want that burden.
True. Custer thought the guns would slow down his advance up the Little Big Horn and he did not want that burden.
When discussing Custer and the Gatlings at Little Big Horn you have to consider two things.One,the Gatlings were mounted on field carriages like artillery pieces pulled by a limber and horses.Two,the terrain.How usefull would they have been in the terrain around the Little Big Horn area with the broken ground encountered?Custer rightly determined that the ground was unsuitable for there deployment and trying to keep up with a mobile fast moving Cavalry operation would have been impossible.A horse and rider can move across ground that a carriage mounted piece cannot.
A lot of recent acheological evidence also points to the Native Americans being far better armed with cartridge and repeating firearms than has been speculated until recently as another contributing factor in Custer's defeat.
John Kuhns
05-06-2010, 08:25
There is a good book about Crook's fight in the Rosebud which was the prelude to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. I believe it is titled "Into the Rosebud" loaned by a friend of mine a couple years ago. Another book, written in the 20s, which he also loaned but I cannot remember the title was based in part on historical accounts obtained from interviews with Sioux warriors who participated in the battle. It too is a good read and very thorough in its analysis.
Yes, the even the books I reference also mention the Indians were far better armed than the Army expected. Crook discovered this much to his dismay 8 days prior to Custer.
John Sukey
05-15-2010, 03:06
Funny, the army had no trouble hauling mountain howitzers around on broken ground. Even ONE gatling gun could have made the difference.
But then, Custer had a high opinion of himself. For that matter, he should not even have been there as he was still under sentence of Court martial for abandoning several men in his hurry to "get home to Libby"
Festus39
05-15-2010, 05:58
It should also be noted that Custer turned down an offer to command the 9th, and that both the 9th and 10th had lower desertion rates than the pride of the Army 8th US Infantry.
Not hard to figure out the lower desertion rate. A deserting white soldier could blend in with the other whites on the frontier and assume another life.
A deserting black soldier on the frontier would stand out from the others. He would also be giving up regular food, clothing,camaraderie,and very likely more status than he ever had in his life.
Festus
Funny, the army had no trouble hauling mountain howitzers around on broken ground. Even ONE gatling gun could have made the difference.
There was a large difference in the carriages and deployment of the M1841 Mountain Howitzer and the Gatling gun.The Mountain Howitzer had small diameter wheels and a wider track width than the Gatling.It used a redesigned Prairie Carriage for transport by pack animal or pulled by a single animal using shafts attached to the gun.They still upset crossing rough ground while being pulled as evidenced by field reports one being at Big Hole,Montana in 1877.
The Gatling carriage at the time was similiar to full size artillery carriages towed by a limber.Period pictures show the wheels as being as high as a mans shoulders.Tactical deployment at the time was similiar to deployment of field pieces.
One Gatling gun would have had little if any effect in my opinion.Custer split his command up and when attacked dismounted and fought on foot against a mobile mounted enemy over broken ground where it wouldn't have been hard to avoid or overun a gun in a fixed location or caught in the process of limbering up to move.There was no "last stand" like those heroic Budweiser advertising pictures you used to see in the taverns.Archeological forensic evidence from the shell casings found on the battlefield shows Custer's men were running for their lives and were for the most part run down in detail and killed by a mounted enemy while afoot after dismounting to fight.Add to that he was outnumbered about three to one with half the attackers armed with firearms and half that number thought or shown to be armed with repeating rifles of one sort or another and his goose was cooked from the outset mostly due to his ego and glory hunting.
John Sukey
05-19-2010, 08:54
Reinforces my statement that Custer had a very high opinion of himself. If he had only waited for Terry, but no he wanted all the glory, "Them injuns always ran away before" Only this time he wasn't facing Black Kettle, so he IGNORED the information from his scouts.
No doubt about it, Custer was a bold Indian fighter. But then Custer had been a bold Confederate fighter also. In Mr. Lincoln's army, cautious generals didn't last long.
Yes, Custer's experience on the plains was that the Indian would probably rather flee than stand to anything other than overwelming odds in his favor. Custer's experience was gained, not only at Wa$hita but in other skirmishes with the Cheyenne and Sioux and as a matter of fact, was correct - Indian tactics dictated that flight was much preferable. Especially if the family was involved.
Custer had no knowledge of a couple of very important facts. First, of course, was the whipping that was dealt to Crook's southern column at the Rosebud a few days earlier, and second was a lack of intel as to the whereabouts of Terry's column. Custer felt, in the absence of information, that he had to strike to keep the tribes from again fleeing. His largest mistake was in dividing his command into three parts prior to attacking the village. With Reno attacking the lower end of the village, the initial inclination of the Indians was to flee. In fact, their ferocious attack on Reno was for the purpose of getting their women and children time to escape. Custer's attack on the upper end of the villiage blocked this from happening and forced the combined tribes to fight.
It wasn't just Black Kettle who might have chosen to flee, the Indians camped on the Greasy Grass River would also have run if Custer hadn't forced them to stop and fight.
Funny, the army had no trouble hauling mountain howitzers around on broken ground. Even ONE gatling gun could have made the difference.
But then, Custer had a high opinion of himself. For that matter, he should not even have been there as he was still under sentence of Court martial for abandoning several men in his hurry to "get home to Libby"
And where would Custer have deployed his one Gatling? At the lower end of the vilage where Reno was barely able to get his butt accross the river and up the bluff to Reno's Hill. If you've ever been on the ground there, you would see it was not a good place to set up a Gatling - especially in the face of a whole damned bunch of very angry Indians. Reno is very lucky to have saved as much of his command as he did.
If Custer had taken his Gatling along with his command, he would have found himself trying to deploy it in the middle of the river where he first met resistance. There was no time to deploy it until he reached his final stand and by that time his command was so scattered and disorganized as to have made no difference.
By the way, Custer was at the Big Horn, not because of leaving troops to go home to Libby (That was an entirely different time and in Kansas). He was returning from Washington where he had foolishly gone to testify against the President's brother in a post sutler controversy. President Grant was a whole bunch pissed at Custer.
Bob -
Thanks for posting the letters and etc. by your relative that was a member of the 7th at the Big Horn engagement. If I might add a few points, the frontier cavalryman was an interesting specimen. He was one of the most neglected fighters in our entire existence. As late as the 1876 date of the Custer debacle, frontier troops were still being issued Civil War surplus clothing, tack, and even rations. All of which had been furnished by wartime profiteers bent on screwing Uncle Sam at every turn. The uniforms were cut too small, much of the tack was substandard and the food was either spoiled or infested with weavels or maggots.
At the time of your relative's photo, he would have been issued a dress uniform with helmet. He would also have been issued garrison uniforms, stable clothes and for campaign, he wore his old and worn out clothing, sutler purchased hats and whatever else he could scrounge that was useful. Custers army on campaign looked more like a group of mounted bums than a fighting force. The only thing that he took a lot of pride in and cared for very well was his horse. If his horse developed a problem that would keep him from being ridden, the poor trooper walked and cavalry boots were not made for walking.
A good book to read on this subject is one by Don Rickey entitled "Forty Miles A Day On Beans and Hay". I guarantee it will give you a whole new respect for our frontier army.
I've been to the Little Big Horn and reading Bills post was like a little vacation back to there for me.
One point of interest for me was standing on the spot where Custer's scouts first saw the encampment. A tractor was working the ground where the village was located so it helped put things into scale for me. The Scouts told Custer the number encamped there and if the turned and ran possibly they could save there lives. Custer sent for a pair of quality binoculars belonging to another officer and looked the situation over. With the glasses he couldn't see the encampment but the Indian Scouts said you could tell because the ground moved like it was covered with worms. Custer advanced and the Indian Scouts deserted.
This information was given by the Park Ranger giving us the tour. Anyway, this is how I remember it so if I'm wrong correct me.
John Sukey
05-19-2010, 04:28
Bill D. the point is that Custer had NOT served his full sentence for the episode in Kansas so he should NOT have been in command at the time.
Just remembered. The Ranger thought he wanted to be nominated to run for President. So if he had killed the Indians he would of been on a fast horse to get to the convection with some war stories. In short he wanted to be a hero. What is the old story? If you want to make God laugh make a plan.
The charges in Kansas were mentioned and strings were pulled to give Custer a second chance. Can't remember who gave him the break.
Just remembered. The Ranger thought he wanted to be nominated to run for President. So if he had killed the Indians he would of been on a fast horse to get to the convection with some war stories. In short he wanted to be a hero. What is the old story? If you want to make God laugh make a plan.
The charges in Kansas were mentioned and strings were pulled to give Custer a second chance. Can't remember who gave him the break.
If I recall correctly, it was General Sheridan who got him reinstated. He did not serve the entire "time in exile" but by the time of the Big Horn fight he was no longer facing any charges.
I'm not defending Custer. He had his faults but he gets a bum rap on some of the things at the Little Big Horn. Actually, I have a friend who is at Dull Knife College who has done a series of "ledger book" drawings over a copy of the first newspaper account of the "massacre". The friend is a full blood Northern Cheyenne and his account (as drawn) was gleaned from a number of Cheyenne first person accounts of the battle. They tell a completely different story than the one generally recognized by the whites.
Do you suppose there could be two sides to this story?
It always seemed that Sheridan had his eye on a different prize. Libbie. All Libbie had to do was ask Sheridan for something and he would melt like butter. Custer was being court marital for leaving his command in the field to be with Libbie. Sheridan gave the surrender desk from Appomattox to her. Why??????????
There probably wasn't nothing there but it would make a good soap box.
Bill D. the point is that Custer had NOT served his full sentence for the episode in Kansas so he should NOT have been in command at the time.
Custer NEVER commanded the 7th. He was the Lieutanent Colonel. The Seventh was always commanded by Colonel Samuel D. Sturgis throughout the entire Custer period. That aside, General Sheridan, Custer's patron saint, intervened with the powers that be to have Custer fully reinstatedd "for the good of the Army" well prior to the Big Horn debacle.
"...attacking the village..." More like a small city. Estimated to be 10 to 15,000 men, women and children. The accounts I've read of the battle said the encampment was the biggest ever seen. Custer is rumoured to be out numbered 10 to 1. Supposedly, roughly 2500 + warriors(six tribes) against Custer's split command of 650 or so. Four Gatlings wouldn't have helped much. They also said most of the Indians didn't fight mounted.
"...Custer NEVER commanded the 7th..." For sure. He did command Terry's cavalry though.
Dan In Indiana
07-21-2010, 05:49
Several years ago, I was at the battle field, and while going through the Visitors Center, I was looking over a mock up of the battle [had all those little lights on it] and got into a conversation with one of the Park employees in uniform who just happened to be an Indian. We talked for a few minutes when he asked me if I knew much about Custer, and I replied only what I had read on numerous accounts on the Internet, and it was my honest, personal opinion that Old Blondie was a self centered, self serving, egotistical, power hungry SOB and he got what he deserved. That Indian just started chuckling with a big smile on his face and never said a word.
thank, you so much for sharing this
John Sukey
07-23-2010, 11:15
I agree with the opinion on Custer. It's just too bad that he dragged his troops with him into that mess.
Oh by the way the only people who had cavalry sabres on the day were the indians from the previous engagement.
Note; when the army won, it was a victory, when the Indians won, it was a massacre.
Custer was noted for his high casualty rate in the Civil war at a time when high casualty rates were the norm.
He probably would have left them with the supply column witch, never caught up before his death. He was only interested in speed, afraid the Indians would get away.
wsfbernie
08-26-2010, 06:48
Just a thought, anybody out there remember the old Twilight Zone concerning Little Big Horn? Rod Serling imagined a tank with all
pertinent ammo and crew being transported through time to the battlefield. Ahhhhhhhhhh, the sixties...........
Dan Shapiro
08-26-2010, 11:49
Yeah, but when they arrived on the battle scene, they left the tank on a ridge and walked towards the battlefield, and suddenly their uniforms and weapons turned into those of that time period.
Shooter5
08-28-2010, 12:48
Not all of the Custer scouts left, a small number stayed. Of more importance than the Gatlings was the decision to split up the unit. One wonders if they had stayed together.
The spelling, capitalization and punctuation in the original letter is atrocious.
I assume you 'cleaned' it up? You should have left it as written. If you read allot of letters from that time they are all that way. You have to remember the average person who went to school may have had 6-8 years. 8 would have been allot. They learned to spell by phonics (remember that?) and while words were mis-spelled you know what the word is. Too bad the average hi-schooler to-day can't do as good!
Dan Shapiro
08-29-2010, 09:07
"Too bad the average hi-schooler to-day can't do as good!"
From what I've read recently, many can't even write, much less read cursive. I can only imagine what you'd get if you took word processors away from them!
They haven't taught cursive in years, too time consuming.
On the subject at hand though. Years ago I read an intriguing article that I have since, as usual lost, that I found fascinating.
As all of you know "Custer era" U.S. martial arms bring a premium. The article was written by a man who had come into an M1873 "trap door" carbine. He learned that the park service was in the process of analizing the tool marks on the case heads of cartridges recovered from the little big horn battle ground to determine the positions of the troops at various times. Computerization alone made this process one that was not so onerous that it would never have been attempted normally.
On a whim the author sent a spent case from his trap door to the park service and......are you ready for this.....got a match. The rifle had indeed been fired on the Little Bighorn Battleground. Yes indeedie some of the old cartridges recovered there matched. Now THAT is a valuable old rifle.
Vern Humphrey
09-02-2010, 11:35
Please Mr. Custer, I don't wanna go:icon_wink:
Wonder what would have happened if Custer had not turned down those four gatling guns he was offered?
He'd be alive today -- down in some valley in the Little Wolf Mountains, cursing and swearing and trying to get those *&^%$ guns up the other side.
The Gatlings were heavy -- think of a field piece, not a modern machine gun. They were pulled by condemned cavalry horses, and were in caliber .50-70. The latter means they didn't have the prime characteristic of modern machine guns, long grazing range.
I've had this discussion a time or two, and I alway ask the proponents of the Gatling guns to assign them a mission -- and have yet to find a supporter of Gatling guns who knows how to assign them a mission
El Paso Mark
09-23-2010, 07:25
Yeah, but when they arrived on the battle scene, they left the tank on a ridge and walked towards the battlefield, and suddenly their uniforms and weapons turned into those of that time period.
I remember that one. At the end of the episode they showed a grave or monument with the crew's names on it.
Cheers,
Mark
"Too bad the average hi-schooler to-day can't do as good!"
From what I've read recently, many can't even write, much less read cursive. I can only imagine what you'd get if you took word processors away from them!
My mother was educated in a 19th century school system. It was in the early to mid 1920s but the school had two rooms, grades 1-4 on one sied and 4-8 on the other. No electricity, no running water, chickens running around the school yard. The teacher's salary was so pitiful that he had to live with the parents of some of the children, in this case my grandparents. If you think not a lot of learning went on in this environment you're absolutely right. I have read a lot of 19th century letters related to my family. The style and grammer goes from excellent in about half the cases to absolutely atrocious in the other half. This of course only relates to the about 70% of them who could actually read and write and my mom's family came from the southern planter class so we aren't talking about poor folks.
8th grade was as far as anyone was expected to go and all the skills needed were the ability to read and write (after a fashion if youre parents weren't taking care of that at home) and to do simple arithmetic. One of the reasons my grandfather wanted to get out of the cattle business was that had he stayed in his children would not have been able to go to high school, the nearest one being 25 miles away.
According to my mom nothing is more overrated than 19th century education. A large part of the population was functionally or totally illterate. Children like her who were well educated were given a big head start at home before they ever started school.
High Plaines Doug r
09-23-2010, 08:26
He'd be alive today -- down in some valley in the Little Wolf Mountains, cursing and swearing and trying to get those *&^%$ guns up the other side.
The Gatlings were heavy -- think of a field piece, not a modern machine gun. They were pulled by condemned cavalry horses, and were in caliber .50-70. The latter means they didn't have the prime characteristic of modern machine guns, long grazing range.
I've had this discussion a time or two, and I alway ask the proponents of the Gatling guns to assign them a mission -- and have yet to find a supporter of Gatling guns who knows how to assign them a mission
Mr Humphrey,
Assuming the guns would have been left behind with Benteen's pack train and brought up only after Reno has retreated to his little redoubt, may they have possibly been effective at better protecting that group of survivors? In particular; Weir's tiny rescue party and the later attempts to procure water from the stream below.
Given that they (some of them) survived in any case, so it could be said that the point is moot, and I agree that the outcome of the fight is probably not in question on this point.
If bringing the guns had slowed Custer's advance by say; 12 hours, would the outcome of the battle have been significantly changed?
Would Reno and Benteen been more agressive in attemping to relieve Custer? Would the Sioux have been intimidated by automatic fire coming from the hilltop as Terry had probably imagined?
Quen sabe?
Doug r
John Sukey
09-24-2010, 11:22
Bob, just looked at your post again. Actualy there were three uniforms. Dress for parades and guard mount, five button blouses and kepi's for garrison and field uniforms which ususlly consisted of shirts, pants, and the wide brimmed hat that hollywierd thinks was worn all the time. If crossed sabres were worn on field hats, they would have been on the side not the front. Shiney brass attacted bullets
In the majority of the campaigns the hats were BLACK, not the tan ones that were used at the end of the indian wars. Neck scarves were whatever color the post sutler had on hand, NOT necessarily yellow. Yellow suspenders are also a myth as pants were fitted to stay up, and while suspenders did make a late apperance they were NOT yellow.
There is even a pic of Custer and his staff wearing pillbox hats with their dress uniforms in the British manner. Plumed and spiked halmets came into use in 1870 after the french lost to the Germans. Before that, our uniforms had a distinctly french look.
John, the field uniforms were not standardized. They consisted of garrison uniforms that were too badly worn to be kept for garrison plus anything which was useful. Hats were largely left to the discretion of the individual with some soldiers opting for the kepi, some preferring a brim hat which was more or less wide as the individual preferred, colors were mostly dark but again could vary ,and on the Little Big Horn campaign, large numbers of officers and men had purchased straw hats. An Indian Wars cavalry unit, in particular, was apt to be hardly recognizable as a military unit due to individualism.
There was a further uniform for cavalry - the stable uniform. This consisted of a white canvas trousers and blouse and was worn during stable duties.
John Sukey
10-02-2010, 10:19
The stable uniform was TAN canvas. During the Spanish Campaign, there was a shortage of the blue uniforms. Therefore the Rough Riders were outfitted in stable dress which proved to be much more suited to the climate than the wool uniforms. There are pics of Teddy wearing that.
And yes, straw hats were also worn in the field. Lets not forget the early "Witch hat" which had a wider brim than the later ones and the sides could be hooked to the crown. The main problem with that version was the quality of the material. If you were caught in a heavy rain, it disintegrated, and you would up wearing the brim like a collar and the crown like a skull cap.
Now One wonders what would have happened if the 7th had still been equipped with the Spencer Carbine which was replaced shortly before the campaign with the trapdoor. OR what would have happened if Custer had waited for Terry's infantry instead of pressing ahead.
A point; Custer was known for his high casualty rates in the Civil War where casualty rates were normaly high. You have to lose a lot more soldiers than anyone else for that to be commented on.
Now One wonders what would have happened if the 7th had still been equipped with the Spencer Carbine which was replaced shortly before the campaign with the trapdoor.
I believe they would have made some difference,certainly more than the left behind Gatlings that are always talked about.But with the Indians outnumbering Custer by 3 to 1 or more and fighting dismounted one wonders if it would have altered the outcome significantly or only in the number of survivors?
The stable uniform was TAN canvas. During the Spanish Campaign, there was a shortage of the blue uniforms. Therefore the Rough Riders were outfitted in stable dress which proved to be much more suited to the climate than the wool uniforms. There are pics of Teddy wearing that.
I don't know too much about Spanish American era uniforms but do know that the Custer period (1872 pattern) stable frock and overalls were made of light canvas or unbleached drilling and were worn over the uniform to protect it while engaged in stable duties and do not appear to be the same as the uniforms worn by members of the First Volunteer Cavalry in Cuba.
The 1872 black campaign hat did not hold up well in the field and was replaced partly because of this deficiency. Mostly, it was replaced because it was universally hated by both officers and men.
Both of the above can be referenced by [I]Volume II, The Horse Soldier /I] by Randy Steffen, an excellent reference work.
The 7th had given up it's Spencer carbines several years prior to the Little Big Horn fight and had been armed with the Sharps carbine modified to fire the .50-70 cartridge. The Spencer .56 was just not adequate for the ranges normally encountered in the west. The Sharps was then replaced by the Springfield in .45-55-105. However, both the Sharps and Springfield were single-loading carbines. One of Custer's officers later wrote in his memoirs that he had not seen a Spencer during his entire time in the regiment although a couple may have still remained on company books.
5MadFarmers
10-02-2010, 09:10
The Spencer .56 was just not adequate for the ranges normally encountered in the west.
A read of the Chief of Ordnance appendix on "Indian Guns" should disabuse anyone of that notion.
The Spencers were replaced by Sharps carbines as the Sharps patent expired whereas the Spencer patent was still in force.
John Sukey
10-02-2010, 09:24
For that matter the trapdoor carbine was not all that good either. However the Infantry rifle DID have the range. Oddly enough the Remington Lee trials models were issued to the cavalry in Arizona but as rifles, not carbines. The board of officers said the troops preferred the single shot trapdoor carbine. One wonders about that.
A read of the Chief of Ordnance appendix on "Indian Guns" should disabuse anyone of that notion.
The Spencers were replaced by Sharps carbines as the Sharps patent expired whereas the Spencer patent was still in force.
You're going to have to reference that for me. The reports that I have read cite the chamber length of the Spencer as a flaw. It could not be lengthened, thus increasing the length of the cartridge and an increase of powder. The Spencer was a fine carbine in the relatively heavily wooded east but on the flat plains of the west, was a tad bit on the underpowered side. At the same time, there were large numbers of newly manufactured Sharps carbines sitting in storage that could be easily converted to the much more powerful .50-70 cartridge.
The Spencer .56 was just not adequate for the ranges normally encountered in the west.
That would depend on whether you were shooting buffalo at hundreds of yards or shooting Indians at close range.Most of the fights from the period I have read or studied were pretty much close up affairs and ambushes of one sort or another.Historically most of what you read about the marksmanship skills of the average soldier of that period pretty much negates the range factor in discussing the advantages of one caliber over another.Then there was the Ordnance Dept. worrying about the troopies firing off too much ammunition and wasting it if equiped with repeaters.Look how long the magazine cutoff remained a feature of U.S.military firearms starting with the Spencer and ending with the M1903A3.
5MadFarmers
10-03-2010, 10:27
You're going to have to reference that for me. The reports that I have read cite the chamber length of the Spencer as a flaw. It could not be lengthened, thus increasing the length of the cartridge and an increase of powder.
Citation needed for "the reports." The decision to revert from Spencers to Sharps was made by Dyer and the reason cited wasn't power of cartridge.
The Spencer was a fine carbine in the relatively heavily wooded east but on the flat plains of the west, was a tad bit on the underpowered side.
Perhaps for Buffalo. Refer to the minutes of the Hancock Board.
At the same time, there were large numbers of newly manufactured Sharps carbines sitting in storage that could be easily converted to the much more powerful .50-70 cartridge.
There were larger numbers of new Spencers. Total production was 90,000, more or less, and the bulk of that was from the end of the CW. Refer to the production reports of the 1873 Springfield carbines and see exactly how many years it was before they matched production of the Spencers. Side note - Spencer were still in the hands of Militia troops well into the 1890s.
====
The report on Indian Guns is Appendix V in the 1878-1879 Chief of Ordnance report. The bulk of the Indian guns, and many exist in the RIA museum today, were without any sights at all. No surprise as reading accounts of the "engagements" of the time shows the Indians hit up close and quickly. Sitting Bull directly attributed the wiping out of the 7th as being due to the soldiers having single shots while the Indians had repeaters. That from an interview conducted after the fact and printed in the early 1900s.
You really should read that report as it's an interesting display of theory versus practice. The ordnance officers were focused on long range shooting yet the practical accounts they include are all close range engagements. From that report:
Of the Indian guns reviewed, the four "most powerful" were singled out:
1) Sharps. Slide on leaf so loose as to indicate that it could not have been used.
2) Sharps. Barrel 22 inches. Front sight so loose as to affect accuracy.
3) Winchester. (.44 rimfire)
4) Winchester. Rear sight leaf broken off. (.44 rimfire)
"It will be seen by a glance at the foregoing tables that none of the breech-loaders, except the Springfield and Sharp's[sic], are of the later center-fire models.
"As General Miles states of the Nez Perces, the use of fine sights and the measurement of distances is the result of civilization. The typical Indian is a point-blank marksman."
"An officer of the Seventh Cavalry has informed me that he saw Indians on the banks of the Little Bighorn "pump" shots into our troops, struggling up the opposite bank, at a range of fifty yards."
So much for the Spencer needing great range. It should be noted that some of the Indian guns turned in were in fact Spencers.
====
That would depend on whether you were shooting buffalo at hundreds of yards or shooting Indians at close range.Most of the fights from the period I have read or studied were pretty much close up affairs and ambushes of one sort or another.Historically most of what you read about the marksmanship skills of the average soldier of that period pretty much negates the range factor in discussing the advantages of one caliber over another.Then there was the Ordnance Dept. worrying about the troopies firing off too much ammunition and wasting it if equiped with repeaters.Look how long the magazine cutoff remained a feature of U.S.military firearms starting with the Spencer and ending with the M1903A3.
Bingo. They focused on very long range shooting. A review of the trapdoor trajectory tables from the Description and Rules for the Management manual will show that shooting at an Indian at 2,000 yards with a trapdoor would be rather non-productive. Not only didn't the soldiers have the shooting skills (I have the allocated amounts of cartridges allocated for practice and it's pitiful) but the time of flight of the round is slow enough where even a gimpy Indian has time to go home, have dinner, and father a child before the bullet lands.
====
The Spencer patents, which were valid, were controlled at that time by the company the ordnance department loved to hate - Winchester.
Not only didn't the soldiers have the shooting skills (I have the allocated amounts of cartridges allocated for practice and it's pitiful) but the time of flight of the round is slow enough where even a gimpy Indian has time to go home, have dinner, and father a child before the bullet lands
Sometime back on one of the shows on TV about shooting there was an episode on long range shooting with BP cartridge rifles.The target was a life size buffalo at a measured mile if I remember correctly.The shooter was using a Sharps repro in either .45-90 or .45-110.He fired his shot,laid the rifle down,turned to look through the spotting scope,and still had plenty of time to see the shot hit the target.
LOL Frankly in some of the fights a sawed off 10 guage double with buck and ball loads would have been more effective.
5MadFarmers
10-03-2010, 12:49
I think it was Gettysburg - read an account of the battle. Some of the soldiers with .69 muskets had not used the "buck" in their buck and ball. They had saved that for the expected charge. Devastating.
Adobe Walls not withstanding shooting people, moving people, at that range isn't practical with those arms.
Frank: "Ok, I see him. His name is Running Bear you say? Ask him to sit down as I'd like to hit."
Bert: "Say Running Bear my lad, I don't suppose you'd mind repeating that charge but this time dally a bit at 2,000 yards? Pretend you're 'Sitting Bear' for a moment?"
Running Bear: "What! Aw, ok." Returns to 2,000 yards back.
Bert: "Do you have him in your sights?"
Frank: "Yes. Just a minute while I wait out thus gust of wind. I wish he'd quit fidgeting."
BOOM
Frank: "On the way."
Running Bear: Just stares.
Bert: "Darn, you missed him! How did you manage that?"
Frank: "Must be the temperature difference. It was 45 at Springfield when I calibrated. I'd say it has to be at least 85 today. Let me adjust for that."
Bert: "Take your time - he's charging again."
Bert: "Say Running Bear - you said you'd sit at 2,000 hours and let us have a chance of shooting you."
Running Bear: "I did. You missed. Now I'm going to kill you and take your scalps."
Frank: "Offer him something to try again."
Bert: "Listen Running Bear. We'd like another try. The sights weren't calibrated right. How about if we miss you get our scalps and I sign over my horse? It's back with the Cavalry troop."
Running Bear: "Is it a nice horse?"
Bert: "Sure is. I paid $20 gold for that horse. I'll even throw in the carbine and scabbard on him."
Running Bear: "Ok, I'll let you try again. Miss this time and your scalps are mine."
Bert: "Ok, he's sitting at 2,000 yards again."
Frank: "Great. Sights are right this time. Almost ready ... almost ... almost ... BANG"
Bert: "You missed again!"
Frank: "Give it a minute, the bullet is still in flight."
Bert: "I saw the puff. You missed to the left."
Frank: "Well that wasn't fair - he fidgeted again."
If I remember correctly,outside of Billy Dixon's famous shot after the battle was basically over,most of the Adobe Walls fighting took place in and around the scattered buildings at mostly short range with the defenders holing up in the buildings.They're saving grace was they had an ample supply of guns and ammunition plus people who were used to doing a lot of shooting.At the ranges those guys were used to shooting it was fish in a barrel,the Indians being the fish.There were some women present who were also involved in defending the trading post.
5MadFarmers
10-03-2010, 03:48
Regards LBH, trapdoors, and Spencers. Spencers can be said, with some truth, to have ended Robert E. Lee's army. The union Cavalry was able to cut him off and that was due, from what I can tell having read the accounts, to the union Cavalry fighting as "mounted infantry" with those carbines. It was determined during that war that "300 yards" was the effective range of rifles. Beyond that and it just didn't happen. Spencers will kill you dead at 600. Fast forward to WW2 and the Germans did a study of the extensive action they were in. "300 meters" is what they found was the effective range of rifle fire. Hence the Stg. 43/MP44 thing. Read the book "Infantry Aces" for a taste of Germans fighting on the Eastern Front. They uniformly grabbed Soviet SMGs. The plains of the Ukraine provide wide open spaces yet they tended to SMGs. Why? "300 yards."
Let's assume that the 7th Cavalry was a bunch of crack shots. Mind you that with a desertion rate of 10% that's pretty unlikely but let's say they were. Given the "superior range" of the trapdoors, and the short range of the Indian guns, what would that range provide? Dead Indians at distances. The question nobody seems to answer is "what happened to all those dead Indians?" There didn't seem to be any. So if the Indians had Spencers and Winchesters, "short range" ones presumably, they should have taken hits at distances. Except there were no bodies showing that.
The Indians uniformly chose the arena of battle. If Gatlings were set up they'd just fade away. They picked their battles giving them superior numbers up close; witness the "Fettererman Massacre" amongst other fights. At LBH they couldn't fade away - too many women and children. So they attacked. Yet didn't suffer much for casualties.
The "vaunted range" of the Springfield trapdoor counted for nothing. Firepower matters. That has always been true.
The Spencers were replaced due to the ordnance department being composed of circus clowns. Theodore Roosevelt aptly named them - "Closet theorists." They'd knock guns they didn't like as "likely to get out of order" yet their answer to "magazine guns" was nailing bits of lumber to trapdoors.
http://www.ugca.org/ugca02mar/sametcalf.jpg
Yeah, that kind of thing. Circus clowns.
It is not my intention of getting into a "wee-weeing" contest with anyone. The initial statement made by the poster was that the Spencer carbines of the U. S. 7th Regiment of Cavalry had been replaced by Springfield breech-loaders, Model of 1873 very shortly prior to the engagement with hostile Indians on the Little Big Horn river.
I have research my answer and will stand by my statement that the carbines that were replaced by "trapdoor" Springfield carbines were actually Sharps carbines which had replaced the Spencers some time prior. Two authors whom I know and respect have both stated that the Spencers were replaced for several reasons, one of which was the limitations of cartridge size (length) in the Spencer design. Another reason was the decision by Dyer in Ordnance (and supported by President Grant) that there should be standardization of cartridge size based up on the .50-70 cartridge developed to utilize converted Civil War muskets.
In fact, following the Civil War, some cavalry units in the west were initially armed with .58 caliber muskets converted by utilizing the Allin system. This was probably done because at the same time, infantry regiments were also armed with .58 caliber rifles. Further, although Ordnance was in possession of relatively large numbers of breech loading infantry rifles, they seemed to have preferred to keep them in storage. The era of the .58 caliber carbine was relatively short, these having been replaced with the .50-70 breechloaders. The Spencer repeater was still used in fairly large numbers on the frontier during this period but it's days were surely numbered. Whether correct or not, and we could argue this point for a lot longer than I care to do so, it was perceived by Ordnance that the basic design of the Spencer was too weak for a cartridge of the .50-70 type in use in the breech loading Allen system. Further, Ordnance had declared the maximum effective range of the Spencer as 200-yards. I didn't say it, Ordnance did.
The Fetterman Massacre that you alluded to was fought with a limited number of Spencers. When C Company of the 2nd Calvary (most of them raw recruits) reported for duty at Fetterman, Col. Carrington reported that most of them were armed with "old Springfield rifles and Starr carbines". He had the company exchange weapons with the band, which was armed with Spencer carbines. Captain Fetterman's daring notwithstanding, he was sucked into an ambush and his entire command killed. You are correct in this instance. Distance was not a problem. This was a close-up, in-your-face fight. Fetterman was an idiot.
During the Wagon box fight, whic h was fought at much longer distances, a mix of Spencer repeaters and the new trapdoor repeaters, were used with participants reporting "equal effectiveness".
There were instances of long-range Indian sharpshooting recorded during the Little Big Horn fight. Reno was able to escape to the bluff on the north side of the river and join Benteen in a consolidated position on the bluff. This, however, is not the highest topography in the area. From a higher vantage point, to the northeast, at least one Indian and possibly more were able to make some shots from several hundred yards away which killed a number of the Reno-Benteen troopers. Evidently, not all Indian weapons were sans front or rear sights nor the expertise to utilize them.
I suggest researchers investigate two books in particular which have a lot of good information on the Indian Wars Army. The first is: The U. S. Army in the West, 1870-1880 by Doug McChristian. The second is: Firearms of the American West. This is a two volume set - Vol. 1 covering 1803-1865 and the second covering 1866- 1894. The authors are Louis Garavaglia and Charles G. Worman. There is also a new book recently published entitled The Last Stand by Nathaniel Philbrick. I have only started this read but from what I see so far, it looks like good information.
5MadFarmers
10-03-2010, 07:16
It is not my intention of getting into a "wee-weeing" contest with anyone.
Don't sweat it - a little Sunday general store cracker barrel discussion.
The initial statement made by the poster was that the Spencer carbines of the U. S. 7th Regiment of Cavalry had been replaced by Springfield breech-loaders, Model of 1873 very shortly prior to the engagement with hostile Indians on the Little Big Horn river.
It was the "Spencers weren't effective at range" which I took issue with.
I have research my answer and will stand by my statement that the carbines that were replaced by "trapdoor" Springfield carbines were actually Sharps carbines which had replaced the Spencers some time prior.
I'd have to dig into the records to see if that's correct but little need as it's a side point.
Two authors whom I know and respect have both stated that the Spencers were replaced for several reasons, one of which was the limitations of cartridge size (length) in the Spencer design. Another reason was the decision by Dyer in Ordnance (and supported by President Grant) that there should be standardization of cartridge size based up on the .50-70 cartridge developed to utilize converted Civil War muskets.
"Two authors" are secondary sources. I'm finding a lot of problems with secondary sources as they didn't review enough primary sources. Which is what I'm doing. Poyer, his book being what it is, changed the order of preference for the rifles by the Schofield Board. I notoriously don't trust the books - the source is so much better.
As to the "standardization of cartridge size" - that wasn't Dyer, it was the Schofield Board. The results of which Dyer ignored in spite of Sherman and it's noted in Sherman's annual report.
In fact, following the Civil War, some cavalry units in the west were initially armed with .58 caliber muskets converted by utilizing the Allin system. This was probably done because at the same time, infantry regiments were also armed with .58 caliber rifles. Further, although Ordnance was in possession of relatively large numbers of breech loading infantry rifles, they seemed to have preferred to keep them in storage. The era of the .58 caliber carbine was relatively short, these having been replaced with the .50-70 breechloaders.
I'm aware of the Allin's history. Does the name Wright ring a bell? Preston? Morse?
Further, Ordnance had declared the maximum effective range of the Spencer as 200-yards. I didn't say it, Ordnance did.
Really? Let's review that.
Special Orders #410 of September 12, 1863, created a board to review caliber of carbines. The members of the board were: Hagner, Dyer, Laidley, Benton, Benet, Crispin, and Balch. The board recommended .52. The following carbines were to be chambered the same:
1) Sharps, Gibbs, Starr.
2) Spencer, Joslyn, Sharps & Hankin, Ballard.
Group two were to use the "Spencer cartridge."
Ramsey sent the recommendations of the board to Stanton on September 28th, 1863. Stanton replied the same day with that recommendation not approved. His reasoning was the Spencers weren't even in service yet so he didn't understand why that was used as the cartridge for group #2. He directed Ramsey to present a letter from each member of the board detailing their opinions.
Hagner responded on October 5th, 1863. ".44" was his desire. "Sufficient for 500 yards."
Dyer responded on October 6th, 1863. "In reply, I have the honor to state that the proper calibre is .5 inches, and for the reason that it is sufficiently large to be effective at long ranges against a man or a horse, and not large enough to require ammunition which is objectably heavy or likely to produce too much recoil."
So if .44 was sufficient for 500 yards and .5 was good for men or horses at long range it's only 200 yards? Go through those names on that board again. The leading lights in ordnance knew, in 1863 as the Spencer was introduced, that the range was over 500. So where do you get this?
Further, Ordnance had declared the maximum effective range of the Spencer as 200-yards. I didn't say it, Ordnance did.
I don't buy it. Neither does Ordnance Memoranda #8.
http://5madfarmers.com/111/penetration.jpg
At 500 yards the Spencer will penetrate 6 inches of lumber.
There were instances of long-range Indian sharpshooting recorded during the Little Big Horn fight. Reno was able to escape to the bluff on the north side of the river and join Benteen in a consolidated position on the bluff. This, however, is not the highest topography in the area. From a higher vantage point, to the northeast, at least one Indian and possibly more were able to make some shots from several hundred yards away which killed a number of the Reno-Benteen troopers. Evidently, not all Indian weapons were sans front or rear sights nor the expertise to utilize them.
It's suspected that those were deserted US soldiers believe it or not. Doesn't change the fact that the Indians were known to fight at close range. The ordnance department appendix is clear. As are the guns at Rock Island.
I suggest researchers investigate two books in particular which have a lot of good information on the Indian Wars Army. The first is: The U. S. Army in the West, 1870-1880 by Doug McChristian. The second is: Firearms of the American West. This is a two volume set - Vol. 1 covering 1803-1865 and the second covering 1866- 1894. The authors are Louis Garavaglia and Charles G. Worman. There is also a new book recently published entitled The Last Stand by Nathaniel Philbrick. I have only started this read but from what I see so far, it looks like good information.
I'll stick to primary source thank you. ;)
Not trying to harsh you. Too many authors have stuck to the reports of the ordnance department and taken them as gospel. They don't reach deeper into the reports over time and they ignore the other reports. The reports of the "General Commanding" are always amusing and informative.
5MadFarmers
10-03-2010, 07:57
On the lighter side....
Gun pron?
http://www.5madfarmers.com/lbh/spencer.jpg
http://www.5madfarmers.com/lbh/73c-1.jpg
and what I'd have wanted there....
http://www.5madfarmers.com/lbh/evans1.jpg
It's all good.
Many interesting postings gentlemen.I am enjoying them all.I also like to study the period information on the subject of firearms during the Indian Wars.I recently accumulated all 5 volumes of Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars.It is interesting to read the period accounts at the time it was current information and compare that with historical accounts published many years after the fact.As for the Spencer,LOL,it seems the Ordnance people did all they could to make it the red-headed stepchild from the time they were more or less forced to adopt it till it was no longer an issue weapon.It is interesting to note that Spencer ammunition was commercially available into the early 20th century,somebody must have found them of use and sufficent power for their needs.
LOL I'll pass on the Evans 5MF.It's mechanically interesting but other than that it has to be at about the top of the list for useless.:wave:
Ah, glad this is just a friendly "Sunday general store cracker barrel" discussion.
Right now, I don't have the luxury of primary source research materials. What is not packed away is my book collection which includes the cited volumes. I don't have a lot of problem with the two authors as I know both of them personally and respect their research methodology. I have worked with Doug McChristian during his employment with NPS and Chuck Worman was a long-time Curator at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson with whom I am personally acquainted. I don't blame you for being suspicious of "secondary sources" if Poyer is your example of secondary sources. I'm still trying to figure out what I have in my four 1903 Springfield rifles and all I have is Poyer to assist me. However, you seem to be saying that the $58.00 that I recently spent on a copy of Col. Brophy's, 1903 Springfield (which hasn't arrived yet) is money down the drain? It is, after all, a secondary source.
I personally like the Spencer carbine a lot. I started out a long time ago with the grandiose plan of collecting one of every type of Civil War carbine. I didn't get into it very far (four carbines) when I made the discovery that every Yankee and his brother sold Uncle Sam a different carbine to snarl up the supply system. Some were good and others abysmal. It is my personal belief that had Christian Spencer been received a bit more warmly by the War Department, the war of "Northern Aggression" might have ended a full year earlier.
That being said, I am not so convinced as you that the Spencer was a particularly good choice for Indian Warfare in the west. I am not going to argue the findings of the board convened under SO 410. This board was convened during the war and the list of carbines to be tested contained some of the least successful and most trouble prone. Early Spencer use on the plains was with CW carbines that were severely worn and badly in need of repair. The most successful use of Spencer's out West probably has to be Col Forsyth's expedition which culminated with the battle of Beecher's Island and the death of Roman Nose. The next serious combat use of Spencer carbines against hostile Indians occurred in November 1868 when Custer led his 7th cavalry in an early morning raid on Black Kettle's Southern Cheyenne village on the Wa****a river in Oklahoma. Prior to this expedition and after the unit had been issued their Spencers, an intensive marksmanship training program was initiated with twice daily drills where the troopers fired their carbines at ranges of 100, 200 and 300 yards "and for more than a month, scorekeepers carefully recorded every shot". SO. . . . there was some fairly intense marksmanship training with the weapon BUT only at ranges out to 300 yards. I've been to the Wa****a site and you could see a field mouse sneaking up on you from a distance of two miles. In fact, following the Wa****a incident, Custer's (Actually it was Sam Sturgis') 7th cavalry pounded their a$$es all over western Kansas which is today known as the world's largest landing area. Believe me, western Kansas is FLAT and a carbine that could shoot out to five miles would be a boon.
The board convened under SO 410 is NOT the one I wrote of above. This is the board of 1872 which convened in September in New York. The Spencer was used less and less frequently during the period prior to the convening of this board with the last recorded military use occurring in the summer of 1873. To the Ordnance officers in the early 1870's, the Spencer's drawback was it's short rimfire cartridge; although the gun could have been altered to fire centerfire as mine has been, it could not be altered to take cartridges as long as the .50-70. Thus, the Spencer was not even included in the list of guns presented to this Ordnance board. The board further limited it's cartridge options to .40, .42, .45 and .50 caliber and tested them in various configurations out to 1,000 yards. This board chose the .45 which was the same caliber chosen by the board that I mentioned in my previous post which convened in 1866 but which ultimately chose .50 caliber because Dyer wanted .50 caliber and President Grant sided with Dyer for whatever reason.
I have cited Garavaglia and Worman simply because that is what I have and I trust their research. Their bibliography lists four pages of documents including Annual Reports of the Chief of Ordnance from 1865 thru 1907, Annual Springfield Armory Expenditures Statements from 1866 thru 1904, War Department Contracts from 1866 thru 1894, ands several more pages of primary and secondary sources.
I suggest, if you have the primary sources, look in the Annual Reports of the Chief of Ordnance for the years 1866 and 1872. Please do so with an open mind and if you still disagree with me, then we will just agree to disagree.
(I just love the way this software protects you folks from foul mouth typs like me. The river above which the software spells with a bunch of asterisks is the WA$HITA RIVER)
On the lighter side....
Gun pron?
http://www.5madfarmers.com/lbh/spencer.jpg
http://www.5madfarmers.com/lbh/73c-1.jpg
and what I'd have wanted there....
http://www.5madfarmers.com/lbh/evans1.jpg
It's all good.
No Stabler cutoff. Must be a model of 1860 looks just like mine. And, surely you jest with the Evans?
Ah, glad this is just a friendly "Sunday general store cracker barrel" discussion.
LOL A "scholarly" discussion.Of all the 03 books Poyer is probably the worst one and Brophy the best but they are all outdated on many things.Clark Campbell's book has been updated but is lacking in photos with the illustrations being limited to mostly line drawings.
I was reading some of the original reports and newspaper accounts of the Beecher's Island fight.When they started talking about eating the horse meat and how after several days it was getting "soft" ie.a little ripe,sure makes you respect the will to survive no matter what these guys had.
I recently bought one of the new Spencer repro's to really see what one in new condition would be like to shoot.From many of the reports these suffer from many of the same failings as the originals particularly on the feeding of shells,being rather sensitive to correct OAL on cartridges.If I could just find time to cast some bullets now that the weather is cooler.:wave:
LOL A "scholarly" discussion.Of all the 03 books Poyer is probably the worst one and Brophy the best but they are all outdated on many things.Clark Campbell's book has been updated but is lacking in photos with the illustrations being limited to mostly line drawings.
I was reading some of the original reports and newspaper accounts of the Beecher's Island fight.When they started talking about eating the horse meat and how after several days it was getting "soft" ie.a little ripe,sure makes you respect the will to survive no matter what these guys had.
I recently bought one of the new Spencer repro's to really see what one in new condition would be like to shoot.From many of the reports these suffer from many of the same failings as the originals particularly on the feeding of shells,being rather sensitive to correct OAL on cartridges.If I could just find time to cast some bullets now that the weather is cooler.:wave:
I used to live fairly close to the Beecher's Island site and would go over and help them with their annual reenactment. One of he last years I went, one of the guys from Wyoming who was there had a brand new Model 1865 Spencer carbine. There was not a blemish on this thing and the color case was stunning. I asked him who was now making the repros and he assured me it was the genuine article. It was a Burnside that had been made under the contract when the war ended and was immediately put into storage. He had purchased it, if memory serves, from a Los Angeles movie studio who had come into a fairly large number of them. My Spencer has a somewhat cloudy background but I suspect it was a studio gun. It had been converted to center-fire a long time ago and it was my desire to find a breechblock in rimfire which I am told is nigh impossible. About ten years ago, at the Colorado Gun Collectors Show, an old gentleman had a table with boxes of small parts for CW and IW firearms. I asked if he might have a Spencer breechblock and he dug through several boxes and came up with one in excellent condition - for $15.00. We didn't haggle over the price.
Actually, several years ago, I visited Dixie Gun Works in Union City, TN and they had boxes of .56-50 Spencer ammo for sale. I didn't buy much - $20.00 a round was a bit much for me but I do have ONE round. I also have several blank rounds which were picked up at the site of old Fort Wallace, Kansas.
5MadFarmers
10-04-2010, 07:22
Ah, glad this is just a friendly "Sunday general store cracker barrel" discussion.
Collecting. "Serious" is reserved for real life where it matters.
I don't blame you for being suspicious of "secondary sources" if Poyer is your example of secondary sources.
Not impressed with his work.
However, you seem to be saying that the $58.00 that I recently spent on a copy of Col. Brophy's, 1903 Springfield (which hasn't arrived yet) is money down the drain? It is, after all, a secondary source.
I won't badmouth Brophy as his books are very well done. Given that I intend to print a Krag book eventually I do think his books can be improved. Not really a knock on Brophy as he did that work 30 years ago. "BC" as Hosmer claims is "before computers." We simply have more access to data. I really like his '03 book. I could improve some areas of it but that's not saying much given the scope of that book.
I personally like the Spencer carbine a lot. I started out a long time ago with the grandiose plan of collecting one of every type of Civil War carbine. I didn't get into it very far (four carbines)
I'm on that path. If everything goes well I'll get another this Saturday.
Some were good and others abysmal.
User reports on the Gibbs tend to indicate they'd have preferred sharp sticks.
It is my personal belief that had Christian Spencer been received a bit more warmly by the War Department, the war of "Northern Aggression" might have ended a full year earlier.
That unfortunate incident with Berdan set him back a bit.
This board was convened during the war and the list of carbines to be tested contained some of the least successful and most trouble prone.
That board didn't have functionality under their perusal - standardization of cartridges was the only item considered. In regards to carbines anyway as the rest of it was artillery stuff.
Early Spencer use on the plains was with CW carbines that were severely worn and badly in need of repair.
JBinIll's observation about the Spencer being the bastard red-headed stepchild is apt here. The bulk of the 90,000 Spencer carbines were made very late or after the war. The ordnance department had tens of thousands of them new in the chests. I know this as I have a sales document showing the sale of 30,000 new in the chest. So why were the ones out west "severely worn" when they were sitting on that many new ones?
The board convened under SO 410 is NOT the one I wrote of above. This is the board of 1872 which convened in September in New York.
I think you're referring to the Terry Board here. That followed the Schofield and Hancock Boards. Dyer was going to convene boards until he got what he wanted.
To the Ordnance officers in the early 1870's, the Spencer's drawback was it's short rimfire cartridge
I'd say the Spencer's drawback was the gun was still patented. That and the fact that they had Springfield. For a short time, right at that time, Springfield turned out guns under supervision of private parties for sale to a foreign government. They had to keep Springfield operating. Dyer mentioned that quite often.
the Spencer was not even included in the list of guns presented to this Ordnance board.
The Spencer was an orphan. The person who normally presented orphans to the boards was the Chief of Ordnance. A review of the boards 1864-1894 will show, time and again, that the Chief of Ordnance was the presentor for guns which were orphaned or not submitted by their maker. Winchester had their own gun they wanted reviewed. It was up to Dyer to present the Spencer.
This board chose the .45 which was the same caliber chosen by the board that I mentioned in my previous post which convened in 1866 but which ultimately chose .50 caliber because Dyer wanted .50 caliber and President Grant sided with Dyer for whatever reason.
I'm unaware of Grant's involvement in any of it. The Boards were convened and reported to Dyer. Dyer then submitted their recommendations along with his. The General Commanding then was permitted to comment. Then the Secretary of War made the decision. Dyer was directly under the Secretary and it was known for the Secretary to take his recommendation over the objection of the General Commanding. Dyer wanted the .45.
I have cited Garavaglia and Worman simply because that is what I have and I trust their research. Their bibliography lists four pages of documents including Annual Reports of the Chief of Ordnance from 1865 thru 1907, Annual Springfield Armory Expenditures Statements from 1866 thru 1904, War Department Contracts from 1866 thru 1894, ands several more pages of primary and secondary sources.
I see nothing listed there which I don't have. Except there isn't a Chief of Ordnance Report in 1865 really - it was embedded in the Secretary of War report at that time. I'm going from memory but I can check if necessary. The Chief of Ordnance report was, later, it's own document. That then became volume 3 of the Secretary of War report. Which in turn became a congressional document. So there are three printings really with them being identical often but sometimes abridged.
I have the Secretary of War reports from well before the listed time to well after.
I have the Annual Report of the Commanding General also - that's often overlooked.
I have the Springfield Armory expenditure statements in complete form for all years.
I also have the other arsenal expenditure and production reports.
Also the contracts. More importantly the disposition documents.
Not included in that list are a host of other documents. Ordnance Memoranda, Notes, Circulars, Orders, Manuals. Easy given that we have a federal depository library here. I also spend time at Rock Island doing research. What is often overlooked are the other congressional documents. There are so many people just skip them but that's unwise as there is gold in them thar hills.
I suggest, if you have the primary sources, look in the Annual Reports of the Chief of Ordnance for the years 1866 and 1872. Please do so with an open mind and if you still disagree with me, then we will just agree to disagree.
As noted I have those. Don't limit yourself to the Ordnance report - read the General Commanding report also. Not only is it valuable on trapdoors but there is a gem in that report on the Lee rifles.
Research material I have no shortage of. In fact I seem to have more than I can handle at this time. Which is fine as over time I'll have processed and digested it.
==========
People harshing the Evans! Oh Noes!
No, it wouldn't be a practical general issue carbine. That screw magazine has a really serious downside. The method for capturing the barrel in the receiver also made me shake my head. In regards to LBH though - 32 rounds in one go can give you an advantage. :)
My CW / IW carbine collection before it got too expensive to collect.
http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x435/wfdawson/Indian%20Wars%20%20Civil%20War%20Cavalry%20Carbine s/DSC_0005.jpg
My CW / IW carbine collection before it got too expensive to collect.
http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x435/wfdawson/Indian%20Wars%20%20Civil%20War%20Cavalry%20Carbine s/DSC_0005.jpg
Very nice collection.I acquired a trapdoor,the rest as you say are getting too expensive unless I quit collecting in other areas.Being retired does have it's disadvantages.:wave:
5MadFarmers
10-04-2010, 11:17
One right most - Smith. That's what I'm going to look at this weekend. Mind you "next to nothing" is what I know about that model and that Gwyn & Campbell (Cosmopolitan) next to it. I did encounter some issue records for those to an officer in Janesville Wisconsin and that caught my eye. As to the gun itself I've never seen one.
Very nice collection.
Sharps and Spencer. Both very significant designers and both nice carbines. Very nice.
One right most - Smith. That's what I'm going to look at this weekend. Mind you "next to nothing" is what I know about that model and that Gwyn & Campbell (Cosmopolitan) next to it. I did encounter some issue records for those to an officer in Janesville Wisconsin and that caught my eye. As to the gun itself I've never seen one.
Very nice collection.
Sharps and Spencer. Both very significant designers and both nice carbines. Very nice.
The Smith is an "Artillery" model. It has standard fore and aft sling swivels rather than the bar and ring.
Hope you can acquire it - Smiths are neat little carbines. I have fired mine and it shoots rather well. The "Grapevine" is a basket case with a broken mainspring. Parts are just not available anywhere.
The Sharps is a late war cartridge conversion. I have fired blanks in it during reenactments at Fort Larned, Kansas but never live ammo. The Spencer has sort of "Bubba" breachblock converted to center fire. I have never fired it but did cut down a couple of rounds of .50-70 brass and loaded them with .50 Smith cast bullets. I have never fired them. Guess I'm going to have to take it out and see if it will do 6" of penetration into wood at 500 yards. I personally doubt if it would but I am sure it would take more than 2 rounds to get on target.
Not to change the subject but does anyone here have a Smith with a ser# of 41 or 43 by chance know anyone who does? I know it's a shot in the dark but I'm look for one or both.
John Sukey
10-06-2010, 11:26
Speaking of movie guns, I have Lee Enfield that is marked MGM.:icon_lol:
5MadFarmers
10-09-2010, 03:15
One right most - Smith. That's what I'm going to look at this weekend. Mind you "next to nothing" is what I know about that model and that Gwyn & Campbell (Cosmopolitan) next to it. I did encounter some issue records for those to an officer in Janesville Wisconsin and that caught my eye. As to the gun itself I've never seen one.
Very nice collection.
Sharps and Spencer. Both very significant designers and both nice carbines. Very nice.
So it was written, so it was done. Smith is now in my care.
So it was written, so it was done. Smith is now in my care.
Pictures and description if you please. Congratulations!
Bill D
So it was written, so it was done. Smith is now in my care.
LOL Like they say on that other forum,"without pictures,didn't happen".:icon_lol:
5MadFarmers
10-09-2010, 06:09
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/smith1.jpg
Missing the sling ring but that's the only real issue I noticed.
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/smith2.jpg
Not all pitted. American Machine Works.
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/smith3.jpg
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/smith4.jpg
Retains some case color here and there.
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/smith6.jpg
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/smith8.jpg
Bore is pristine.
First one I've touched so I'm happy. Cartouche is JH so presumably Joseph Hannis.
====
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/hatcher1.jpg
Little surprise waiting for me on the table - not listed in the lots.
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/hatcher2.jpg
Garand is first edition whereas the notes is signed to his secretary.
====
http://5madfarmers.com/haul/krag_bayo.jpg
Krags weren't ignored. 1900 and 1894. 1894 missing blueing but that's not a big deal as I have another.
Also took a box lot of 1800s cartridges. Colt FA stuff. Some inside primed (Benet I suspect) and some 1886-1888. Which was cool and all but I have no Colt revolver.
Good day. Another good one Monday. Makes for a busy weekend.
Serial on the Smith is 3289.
Nice carbine. Lack of sling ring is of little consequence - they are available from several sources. Doesn't look like any pitting anywhere, inside or out. And the wood looks good also. Your number is much lower than mine (6074). Do you plan to shoot it?
The books are a great bonus.
5MadFarmers
10-09-2010, 07:23
Shooting them. That is another area where so many on these boards exceed my experience and likely capability. I seem to be more of a collector. When it's shooting time I tend to stick to an M1 and an 1896 Swede. Periodically a Colt 1911. That last is missing the US Property marking so a shooter.
Gutta Percha cartridges. I guess loose powder and a cap would work for that? I have no idea what to shoot in that thing.
I've not taken the musket out either and I really need to figure out how to load and shoot that.
The Smith uses a unique rubber cartridge case although Dixie Gun Works sells a brass case which is probably better for prolonged use. The rubber was a problem during the war as the case tended to vulcanize during prolonged firing in a hot chamber and was difficult to extract. Loading isn't rocket science - just dump 45-50 grains of FFg black powder or a modern substitute into the case and seat the bullet by hand. No tools needed, then a musket cap on the nipple and let 'er rip.
If you want to PM me an address, I'll send you a case and a few bullets. Everyone needs to shoot one, just to say you have.
That is one fine looking weapon,congratulations on your aquisition.If you have an interest in shooting some of these carbines there is a book out published by Mowbray Publishing titled Civil War Carbines by Peter Schiffers.The author aquired many of the CW carbines and goes into detail on testing and shooting them to compare his experiences with historical reports of the period.Has quite a bit of information on making up the cartridges and loads.Nice score on the books.
5MadFarmers
10-10-2010, 09:32
The Smith uses a unique rubber cartridge case although Dixie Gun Works sells a brass case which is probably better for prolonged use. The rubber was a problem during the war as the case tended to vulcanize during prolonged firing in a hot chamber and was difficult to extract. Loading isn't rocket science - just dump 45-50 grains of FFg black powder or a modern substitute into the case and seat the bullet by hand. No tools needed, then a musket cap on the nipple and let 'er rip.
If you want to PM me an address, I'll send you a case and a few bullets. Everyone needs to shoot one, just to say you have.
I suspect I should. Take a long vacation next summer and just drag all of the oddities out and shoot them. Have the kid camcorder it all. It'll take some doing - there are quite a few.
Thanks for the offer. I'll email my address tomorrow night after the auction.
5MadFarmers
10-10-2010, 09:45
That is one fine looking weapon,congratulations on your aquisition.
Thank you. As peculiar as it sounds the deciding factor to take that one was the wife - for her own strange reasons.
If you have an interest in shooting some of these carbines there is a book out published by Mowbray Publishing titled Civil War Carbines by Peter Schiffers.The author aquired many of the CW carbines and goes into detail on testing and shooting them to compare his experiences with historical reports of the period.Has quite a bit of information on making up the cartridges and loads.Nice score on the books.
Sigh, yet another book. Mind you I like books, own thousands, but it's getting rather serious from a space perspective. I've been going back to the store for bookcases with a sad frequency lately. Each one seems to start a "Franklin Mint" set I may never complete but will spend time trying. Not counting "electronic copies" and books photographed at the library, page by painful page, the following are the "must have" sets:
1) Ordnance Memoranda. Original and reprints but preferably the former. 29 total.
2) Ordnance Notes. 12 or 13 sets. Photographed them, all of them, page by page. I've also been finding them ever so slowly.
3) "Description and Rules for the Management" manuals. Originals and reprints but prefer the former as they have names and serials sometimes. This also includes the "Instructions" for the other stuff. I've been doing well on this front.
4) War Department Documents. Over 1,000. All those "drill regulations" and such.
5) Training and Technical Regulations. Post-WW1 to the start of WW2. I might have the most complete set extant.
6) 1930s Basic Field Manual sets. Odd little series. Hard to complete but I'm working on it.
7) Technical and Basic Field Manual series from 1939-present. FM23- being the really interesting ones. I have a picture of the TM collection at the library and it's in the tens of thousands. I limit my intake of TMs. 9- series mainly.
8) Standard Nomenclature Lists. So expensive they make me cry.
9) Sundry other "official" documents. Annual reports, etc.
Then we get to the collector books. All scarce and expensive. Not just guns - "gun related." "Ordnance Went Up Front" and "Shots fired in Anger" type things.
Outdated but the list I worked from:
Baird, John D.; "Fifteen Years in the Hawkins Lode"; Gun Room Press, 1976
Baird, John D.; "Hawken Rifles"; Buckskin Press, 4th printing, 1973
Ball, Robert W.D.; "Springfield Armory Shoulder Weapons 1795-1968"; Antique Trader Publications, 1997
Bartlett, W.A. & Gallatin, D.B.; "Cartridge Manual: an illustrated digest"; Pioneer Press, 1956
Brophy, William S.; "The Springfield 1903 Rifles"; Stackpole, 1985
Brophy, William S.; "The Springfield Armory - 1890-1948"; Mowbry, 1991
Brophy, William S.; "The Krag Rifle"; 2nd Ed., 5th printing, Gun Room Press, 1998
Browning, John & Gentry, Curt; "John M. Browning, American Gunmaker"; 2nd Ed, 4th printing, Browning, 2004
Canfield, Bruce N.; "Complete Guide to the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine"; 2nd ed., Mowbray, 1999
Canfield, Bruce N., Lamoreaux, Robert L., & Johnson, Edward R.; "Johnson's Rifles and Machine Guns"; Mowbray, 2006
Carey, A. Merwyn; "American Firearms Makers"; Crowell, 1953
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol I (listed as of 3 volumes)"; GPO, 1951
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol I (listed as of 3 volumes)"; GPO, 1951 - Presentation copy #49.
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol II (Part VII)"; GPO, 1952
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol III (Parts VIII and IX); GPO, 1953
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol IV (Parts X and XI)"; GPO, 1955
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol V; GPO
Coggins, Jack; "Arms and Equipment of the Civil War"; Fairfax Press, 1962 - 1983 printing.
Crowell, Benedict; "America's Munitions"; GPO, 1919
Cunningham, Gary M.; "American Military Bayonets of the 20th Century"; 6th ed., South Greenburg, 2005
Datig, Fred A. Cartridges for Collectors. Beverly Hills, CA: Fadco Publishing Company, 1958.
Deyrup, Felicia Johnson; "Arms Making in the Connecticut Valley"; George Shumway, 1970
Dorsey, R. Stephen; "American Military Belts and Related Equipment"; Pioneer Press, 1984
Duff, Scott A.; "The M1 Garand: WW2"; 9th ed., South Greenburg, 2004
Duff, Scott A.; "The M1 Garand: Post WW2"; 11th ed., South Greenburg, 2004
Dunlop, Roy.; "Ordnance Went Up Front"; Samworth, 1948
Edwards, William B.; "Civil War Guns"; Stackpole, 1962
Farrington, Dusan P.; "Arming & Equipping the US Cavalry, 1865-1902"; Mowbray, 2004
Ferris, C.S. & Beard, John; "Springfield Model 1903 Service Rifle, Production and Alteration, 1905-1910"; Ferris, 1995
Flayderman, Norm; "Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms"; 8th ed, Krause, 2001
Frasca, Albert J. & Hill, Robert H.; "The .45-70 Springfield"; Springfield, 1980
Fuller, Claud E.; "Springfield Shoulder Arms - 1795-1865"; S&S Firearms, 1968
Fuller, Claud E.; "The Breech-loader in the Service"; ARCA, 1933
Fuller, Claud E.; "The Rifled Musket"; Bonanza Books, 1958
Fuller, Claud E.; Whitney Firearms. Huntington, WV: Standard Publications, 1946.
Gardner, Robert E.; "American Arms and Arms Makers"; F.J. Heer, 1938
Gardner, Robert E. Small Arms Makers: A Directory of Fabricators of Firearms, Edged Weapons, Crossbows and Polearms. New York: Crown Publishers, 1963
George, John; "Shots fired in anger"; 2nd ed, NRA, 1981
Gluckman, Arcadi; "Identifying old US Muskets, Rifles, and Carbines"; Stackpole, 1965 (Bonanza Books)
Gluckman, Arcadi; "U.S. Martial Pistols & Revolvers"; Stackpole, 1956
Gluckman, Arcadi and Satterlee, LeRoy Deforest; "American Gun Makers"; Stackpole, 1953
Hackley, Frank W., Woodin, William H., Scranton, Eugene L.; "History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition, Vol 1, 1880-1939; Macmillan, 1967
Hackley, Frank W., Woodin, William H., Scranton, Eugene L.; "History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition, Vol 2
Hatch, Alden; "Remington Arms - An American History"; Rinehart, 1956
Hatcher, Julian S.; "Hatcher's Notebook"; Military Service, 1948 (2nd corrected printing)
Hatcher, Julian S.; "Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers"; Small Arms Technical Publishing Co., 1935
Haven, Charles T., and Belden, Frank A.; "A History of the Colt Revolver. New York"; Bonanza Books, 1940
Hicks, James E. Nathan Starr. Mt. Vernon, NY: James E. Hicks, 1940.
Hicks, James E.; "Notes on German Ordnance, 1841-1918"; Stoeger, 1941
Hicks, James E.; "United States Military Firearms"; Hicks, 1962
Hicks, James E.; "United States Ordnance, Vol I, Small Arms, 1776 to 1946"; Hicks, 1946
Hicks, James E.; "United States Ordnance, Vol II, Ordnance Correspondence"; Hicks, 1940
Hopkins, Richard E. Military Sharps Rifles and Carbines. Campbell, CA: Published by the author, 1967.
Hosmer, Richard A. & CFM; "The .58 and .50 Caliber Rifles & Carbines of the Springfield Armory, 1865-1872"; Northcape, 2006
Johnson, Melvin M. & Haven, Charles T.; "Automatic Arms"; 2nd printing, Morrow, 1942
Johnson, Melvin M. & Haven, Charles T.; "Automatic Arms"; 5th printing, Morrow, 1944
Johnson, Melvin M.; "Rifles and Machine Guns"; Morrow, 1944
Johnson, Melvin M. & Haven, Charles T.; "Ammunition"; 2nd printing, Morrow, 1944
Karr, Charles Lee and Karr, Caroll Robbins; "Remington Handguns"; Stackpole, 2nd ed. 1951
Kauffman, Henry J.; "Early American Gunsmiths, 1650-1850"; Telegraph Press, 1952
Kehaya, Steve & Poyer, Joe; "The Swedish Mauser Rifles"; 2nd ed. North Cape, 2003
Kimmel, Jay; "Savage & Steves Arms, Collector's History"; Corey/Stevens Publishing, 1990
Lewis, Berkeley R.; "Notes on Ammunition of the American Civil War"; American Ordnance Association, 1959
Logan, Herschel C.; "Cartridges"; Standard Publications, 1948
Logan, Herschel C.; "Hand Cannon to Automatic"; Standard Publications, 1944
Lustyik, Andrew F.; "Civil War Carbines - From Service to Sentiment"; World Wide Gun Reports, 1962
Mallory, Franklin B. & Olson, Ludwig E. "The Krag Rifle Story"; Springfield Research Service, 1979. First printing, November 1979.
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 1
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 2
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 3
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 4
Marcot, Roy M.; "Spencer Repeating Arms"; Northwood Heritage, 1983
McAulay, John D.; "Carbines of the Civil War"; Pioneer Press, 1981
McAulay, John D. Civil War Breech Loading Rifles. Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray, Inc., 1987.
McAulay, John D. Civil War Carbines. 2 Vols. Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray, Inc., 1991.
McHenry, Roy C. & Roper, Walter F.;"Smith & Wesson Handguns";
Myszkowski, Eugene; Remington-Lee book around here somewhere
Myszkowski, Eugene; "The Winchester-Lee Rifle"; Excalibur, 1999
Naramore, Earl; "Handloader's Manual"; Samworth, 1937
North, S.N.D.; "Simeon North";
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 1, Breech-loading Carbines of the United States Civil War Period"; Armory, 1987
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 2,Revolvers & Automatic Pistols"; Thomas, 1990
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 3, U.S. Breech-loading Rifles & Carbines, Cal. .45 "; Thomas, 1991
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 4, U.S. Magazine Rifles & Carbines, Cal. .30"; Armory, 1992
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 5, Miscellaneous Notes - Calibers .58, .50, .30, Confederate & Foreign"; Armory, 1992
Poyer, Joe & Riesch, Craig; "The .45-70 Springfield"; 4h ed. North Cape, 2006
Poyer, Joe, and whomever - Krag book. MIA around here somewhere.
Riling, Ray. Guns and Shooting
Riling, Ray; "The Powder Flask Book"; Bonanza, 1953.
Rohan, Jack; "Yankee Arms Makers"
Satterlee, Leroy Deforest; "10 Old Gun Catalogs"; 3rd printing, Vol I, Gun Digest, 1957
Satterlee, Leroy Deforest; "14 Old Gun Catalogs"; 4th ed., Vol II, Follett, 1962
Sawyer, Charles Winthrop; "Our Rifles"; Williams Book Store, 1946
Sellers, Frank; "Sharps Firearms"; Beinfield, 1995
Shockley, Philip M.; "The Krag-Jorgensen Rifle in the Service"; World-Wide Gun Reports, 1960
Shockley, Philip M.; "The Trap-Door Springfield in the Service"; 11th ed, World-Wide Gun Reports, 1958
Smith, Winston O.; "Sharps Rifle";
Stevens, R. Blake & Ezell, Edward C.; "The Black Rifle"; Collector Grade Publications, 1987
Stockbridge, V.D.; "Digest of U.S. Patents Relating To Breech Loading And Magazine Small Arms, 1836-1873"; Flayderman, 1963
Van Rensselaer, Stephen; "American Firearms"; Century House, 1947
Waite, M.D., and B.D. Ernst. Trapdoor Springfield. North Hollywood, CA: Beinfield Publishing, Inc., 1980.
White, Terry A.; "American Manufacturers of Combustible Ammunition: Merrill, Sturtevant, and Mason"; Thomas Publications, 2002
Winant, Lewis; "Early Percussion Firearms"; Bonanza, 1959
Winant, Lewis; "Firearms Curiosa"; Bonanza, 1955
Green, Constance McLaughlin, Thomson, Harry C., & Roots, Peter C.; "U.S. Army in WW2, The Technical Services, The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions for War"; OCMH, USA, 1955
Thomson, Harry C. & Mayo, Lide; "U.S. Army in WW2, The Technical Services, The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply"; OCMH, USA, 1960
Vigneras, Marcel; "U.S. Army in WW2, Special Studies, Rearming the French"; OCMH, USA, 1957
Quartermaster General, USA; "U.S. Army Uniforms & Equipment, 1889"; University of Nebraska Press, 1989
Letterkenny Ordnance Depot; "Letterkenny Ordnance Depot in War and Peace"; Pridemark Press, circa 1956
Smithsonian Institution; American Military Insignia, 1800-1851; GPO, 1963
Tillinghast, B.F.; "Rock Island Arsenal in Peace and War"; , Henry O. Shepard Company, 1898
Missing some but they all show up eventually. Some acquired since I updated that list. Under 20 in that list still missing. Closer to 10 I think.
Buying books can be more expensive than buying guns. It's death of a thousand cuts. I'll add that book to the list.
Outdated but the list I worked from:
Baird, John D.; "Fifteen Years in the Hawkins Lode"; Gun Room Press, 1976
Baird, John D.; "Hawken Rifles"; Buckskin Press, 4th printing, 1973
Ball, Robert W.D.; "Springfield Armory Shoulder Weapons 1795-1968"; Antique Trader Publications, 1997
Bartlett, W.A. & Gallatin, D.B.; "Cartridge Manual: an illustrated digest"; Pioneer Press, 1956
Brophy, William S.; "The Springfield 1903 Rifles"; Stackpole, 1985
Brophy, William S.; "The Springfield Armory - 1890-1948"; Mowbry, 1991
Brophy, William S.; "The Krag Rifle"; 2nd Ed., 5th printing, Gun Room Press, 1998
Browning, John & Gentry, Curt; "John M. Browning, American Gunmaker"; 2nd Ed, 4th printing, Browning, 2004
Canfield, Bruce N.; "Complete Guide to the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine"; 2nd ed., Mowbray, 1999
Canfield, Bruce N., Lamoreaux, Robert L., & Johnson, Edward R.; "Johnson's Rifles and Machine Guns"; Mowbray, 2006
Carey, A. Merwyn; "American Firearms Makers"; Crowell, 1953
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol I (listed as of 3 volumes)"; GPO, 1951
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol I (listed as of 3 volumes)"; GPO, 1951 - Presentation copy #49.
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol II (Part VII)"; GPO, 1952
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol III (Parts VIII and IX); GPO, 1953
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol IV (Parts X and XI)"; GPO, 1955
Chinn, George Morgan; "The Machine Gun - Vol V; GPO
Coggins, Jack; "Arms and Equipment of the Civil War"; Fairfax Press, 1962 - 1983 printing.
Crowell, Benedict; "America's Munitions"; GPO, 1919
Cunningham, Gary M.; "American Military Bayonets of the 20th Century"; 6th ed., South Greenburg, 2005
Datig, Fred A. Cartridges for Collectors. Beverly Hills, CA: Fadco Publishing Company, 1958.
Deyrup, Felicia Johnson; "Arms Making in the Connecticut Valley"; George Shumway, 1970
Dorsey, R. Stephen; "American Military Belts and Related Equipment"; Pioneer Press, 1984
Duff, Scott A.; "The M1 Garand: WW2"; 9th ed., South Greenburg, 2004
Duff, Scott A.; "The M1 Garand: Post WW2"; 11th ed., South Greenburg, 2004
Dunlop, Roy.; "Ordnance Went Up Front"; Samworth, 1948
Edwards, William B.; "Civil War Guns"; Stackpole, 1962
Farrington, Dusan P.; "Arming & Equipping the US Cavalry, 1865-1902"; Mowbray, 2004
Ferris, C.S. & Beard, John; "Springfield Model 1903 Service Rifle, Production and Alteration, 1905-1910"; Ferris, 1995
Flayderman, Norm; "Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms"; 8th ed, Krause, 2001
Frasca, Albert J. & Hill, Robert H.; "The .45-70 Springfield"; Springfield, 1980
Fuller, Claud E.; "Springfield Shoulder Arms - 1795-1865"; S&S Firearms, 1968
Fuller, Claud E.; "The Breech-loader in the Service"; ARCA, 1933
Fuller, Claud E.; "The Rifled Musket"; Bonanza Books, 1958
Fuller, Claud E.; Whitney Firearms. Huntington, WV: Standard Publications, 1946.
Gardner, Robert E.; "American Arms and Arms Makers"; F.J. Heer, 1938
Gardner, Robert E. Small Arms Makers: A Directory of Fabricators of Firearms, Edged Weapons, Crossbows and Polearms. New York: Crown Publishers, 1963
George, John; "Shots fired in anger"; 2nd ed, NRA, 1981
Gluckman, Arcadi; "Identifying old US Muskets, Rifles, and Carbines"; Stackpole, 1965 (Bonanza Books)
Gluckman, Arcadi; "U.S. Martial Pistols & Revolvers"; Stackpole, 1956
Gluckman, Arcadi and Satterlee, LeRoy Deforest; "American Gun Makers"; Stackpole, 1953
Hackley, Frank W., Woodin, William H., Scranton, Eugene L.; "History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition, Vol 1, 1880-1939; Macmillan, 1967
Hackley, Frank W., Woodin, William H., Scranton, Eugene L.; "History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition, Vol 2
Hatch, Alden; "Remington Arms - An American History"; Rinehart, 1956
Hatcher, Julian S.; "Hatcher's Notebook"; Military Service, 1948 (2nd corrected printing)
Hatcher, Julian S.; "Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers"; Small Arms Technical Publishing Co., 1935
Haven, Charles T., and Belden, Frank A.; "A History of the Colt Revolver. New York"; Bonanza Books, 1940
Hicks, James E. Nathan Starr. Mt. Vernon, NY: James E. Hicks, 1940.
Hicks, James E.; "Notes on German Ordnance, 1841-1918"; Stoeger, 1941
Hicks, James E.; "United States Military Firearms"; Hicks, 1962
Hicks, James E.; "United States Ordnance, Vol I, Small Arms, 1776 to 1946"; Hicks, 1946
Hicks, James E.; "United States Ordnance, Vol II, Ordnance Correspondence"; Hicks, 1940
Hopkins, Richard E. Military Sharps Rifles and Carbines. Campbell, CA: Published by the author, 1967.
Hosmer, Richard A. & CFM; "The .58 and .50 Caliber Rifles & Carbines of the Springfield Armory, 1865-1872"; Northcape, 2006
Johnson, Melvin M. & Haven, Charles T.; "Automatic Arms"; 2nd printing, Morrow, 1942
Johnson, Melvin M. & Haven, Charles T.; "Automatic Arms"; 5th printing, Morrow, 1944
Johnson, Melvin M.; "Rifles and Machine Guns"; Morrow, 1944
Johnson, Melvin M. & Haven, Charles T.; "Ammunition"; 2nd printing, Morrow, 1944
Karr, Charles Lee and Karr, Caroll Robbins; "Remington Handguns"; Stackpole, 2nd ed. 1951
Kauffman, Henry J.; "Early American Gunsmiths, 1650-1850"; Telegraph Press, 1952
Kehaya, Steve & Poyer, Joe; "The Swedish Mauser Rifles"; 2nd ed. North Cape, 2003
Kimmel, Jay; "Savage & Steves Arms, Collector's History"; Corey/Stevens Publishing, 1990
Lewis, Berkeley R.; "Notes on Ammunition of the American Civil War"; American Ordnance Association, 1959
Logan, Herschel C.; "Cartridges"; Standard Publications, 1948
Logan, Herschel C.; "Hand Cannon to Automatic"; Standard Publications, 1944
Lustyik, Andrew F.; "Civil War Carbines - From Service to Sentiment"; World Wide Gun Reports, 1962
Mallory, Franklin B. & Olson, Ludwig E. "The Krag Rifle Story"; Springfield Research Service, 1979. First printing, November 1979.
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 1
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 2
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 3
Mallory, Frank; SRS Vol 4
Marcot, Roy M.; "Spencer Repeating Arms"; Northwood Heritage, 1983
McAulay, John D.; "Carbines of the Civil War"; Pioneer Press, 1981
McAulay, John D. Civil War Breech Loading Rifles. Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray, Inc., 1987.
McAulay, John D. Civil War Carbines. 2 Vols. Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray, Inc., 1991.
McHenry, Roy C. & Roper, Walter F.;"Smith & Wesson Handguns";
Myszkowski, Eugene; Remington-Lee book around here somewhere
Myszkowski, Eugene; "The Winchester-Lee Rifle"; Excalibur, 1999
Naramore, Earl; "Handloader's Manual"; Samworth, 1937
North, S.N.D.; "Simeon North";
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 1, Breech-loading Carbines of the United States Civil War Period"; Armory, 1987
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 2,Revolvers & Automatic Pistols"; Thomas, 1990
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 3, U.S. Breech-loading Rifles & Carbines, Cal. .45 "; Thomas, 1991
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 4, U.S. Magazine Rifles & Carbines, Cal. .30"; Armory, 1992
Pitman, John; "Pitman Notes on Firearms, Vol 5, Miscellaneous Notes - Calibers .58, .50, .30, Confederate & Foreign"; Armory, 1992
Poyer, Joe & Riesch, Craig; "The .45-70 Springfield"; 4h ed. North Cape, 2006
Poyer, Joe, and whomever - Krag book. MIA around here somewhere.
Riling, Ray. Guns and Shooting
Riling, Ray; "The Powder Flask Book"; Bonanza, 1953.
Rohan, Jack; "Yankee Arms Makers"
Satterlee, Leroy Deforest; "10 Old Gun Catalogs"; 3rd printing, Vol I, Gun Digest, 1957
Satterlee, Leroy Deforest; "14 Old Gun Catalogs"; 4th ed., Vol II, Follett, 1962
Sawyer, Charles Winthrop; "Our Rifles"; Williams Book Store, 1946
Sellers, Frank; "Sharps Firearms"; Beinfield, 1995
Shockley, Philip M.; "The Krag-Jorgensen Rifle in the Service"; World-Wide Gun Reports, 1960
Shockley, Philip M.; "The Trap-Door Springfield in the Service"; 11th ed, World-Wide Gun Reports, 1958
Smith, Winston O.; "Sharps Rifle";
Stevens, R. Blake & Ezell, Edward C.; "The Black Rifle"; Collector Grade Publications, 1987
Stockbridge, V.D.; "Digest of U.S. Patents Relating To Breech Loading And Magazine Small Arms, 1836-1873"; Flayderman, 1963
Van Rensselaer, Stephen; "American Firearms"; Century House, 1947
Waite, M.D., and B.D. Ernst. Trapdoor Springfield. North Hollywood, CA: Beinfield Publishing, Inc., 1980.
White, Terry A.; "American Manufacturers of Combustible Ammunition: Merrill, Sturtevant, and Mason"; Thomas Publications, 2002
Winant, Lewis; "Early Percussion Firearms"; Bonanza, 1959
Winant, Lewis; "Firearms Curiosa"; Bonanza, 1955
Green, Constance McLaughlin, Thomson, Harry C., & Roots, Peter C.; "U.S. Army in WW2, The Technical Services, The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions for War"; OCMH, USA, 1955
Thomson, Harry C. & Mayo, Lide; "U.S. Army in WW2, The Technical Services, The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply"; OCMH, USA, 1960
Vigneras, Marcel; "U.S. Army in WW2, Special Studies, Rearming the French"; OCMH, USA, 1957
Quartermaster General, USA; "U.S. Army Uniforms & Equipment, 1889"; University of Nebraska Press, 1989
Letterkenny Ordnance Depot; "Letterkenny Ordnance Depot in War and Peace"; Pridemark Press, circa 1956
Smithsonian Institution; American Military Insignia, 1800-1851; GPO, 1963
Tillinghast, B.F.; "Rock Island Arsenal in Peace and War"; , Henry O. Shepard Company, 1898
Missing some but they all show up eventually. Some acquired since I updated that list. Under 20 in that list still missing. Closer to 10 I think.
Buying books can be more expensive than buying guns. It's death of a thousand cuts. I'll add that book to the list.
LOL I have concluded for every $100 I spend on firearms,accoutrements,etc.I spend $200 on books to find out exactly what it is I have.I have a good percentage of those books with the exception of the references on the machine gun related ones.Some of those books are a better investment than firearms if the prices some of the out of print book dealers charge.It seems anymore that every time I see a new book out it costs $80 or $100 and then I must ask myself where I am going to put it.You're absolutely right about those SNLs,hard to find and expensive.
5MadFarmers
10-11-2010, 01:51
We've hijacked LBH. The GP thread.
Books. Today I bought the two most expensive books I've ever purchased.
http://www.5madfarmers.com/books/flags1.jpg
http://www.5madfarmers.com/books/flags2.jpg
http://www.5madfarmers.com/books/flags3.jpg
That one cost me a bit more than that $5 advertised price.
http://www.5madfarmers.com/books/uniform1.jpg
http://www.5madfarmers.com/books/uniform2.jpg
http://www.5madfarmers.com/books/uniform3.jpg
Also took a Krag. Been an expensive year. I think I'll quit for a while.
Very desirable books congrats.Can be budget busters that's for sure but you don't find them everyday.
LOL,Apologies to the OP for trainwrecking the thread.:wave:
Mark in Ottawa
10-30-2010, 02:32
As I recall Custer attacked 8,000 Indians with about 400 troopers so I suspect that if Custer had had 4 gatling guns, the result would have been that a few hours later, the Indians would have had 4 gatling guns in their collection
Poyer doesn't get invited to many parties, does he?
I imagine that the opposition would have gained about 4 gatling guns. Numerical odds were a big problem on that day. Seems like "Hoka Hey" sort of drowned out the drowned out the" Ooorahaa's".
fredtheobviouspseudonym
06-23-2011, 09:59
. . .my honest, personal opinion that Old Blondie was a self centered, self serving, egotistical, power hungry SOB and he got what he deserved. That Indian just started chuckling with a big smile on his face and never said a word.The book "Custer Died For Your Sins" has a lot of left-wing ideas but I did like this line (IIRC): "Every Native American, regardless of family, tribe, or linguistic group, feels a quiet sense of accomplishment when thinking of George Armstrong Custer."
fredtheobviouspseudonym
06-23-2011, 10:11
Simply to weigh in (and put myself forward as an opinion pinata) I read somewhere that Guns and Ammo did a test of the era's carbines about 15 years ago. They used, IIRC, original weapons in excellent condition. Apparently the Spencers grouped to about 8 inches at 100 yards -- kinda iffy for shooting out West even at 300 yards.
However, my source did not note where the magazine obtained the ammunition, and that's going to have a major effect on accuracy.
Nick Riviezzo
06-24-2011, 03:38
Spencers? I thought they had Trapdoors. Nick
fredtheobviouspseudonym
06-25-2011, 09:30
Apparently they tested ACW era weapons -- Sharps & Spencer carbines and a Springfield 1863.
Apparently the Springfield could consistently hit a 12" by 12" target at some 300 yards.
Don't have the original article, tho'.
Nick Riviezzo
06-26-2011, 05:33
Thanks Fred, I see now I misread the post. You're the GENT!. Nick
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/How-the-Battle-of-Little-Bighorn-Was-Won.html
Interesting take on the fight.
Shooter5
07-05-2011, 03:36
Much of those accounts and literature has been available for a very long time for those that cared to look into it. That many didn't or haven't has more to do with with attitudes and prejudices. More recent oral history accounts from American Indian families has also come to the public over the years that has also been informative.
When Dr Fox's research was released it also tended to cause a controversy among those who had sacred cows vulnerable to barbecue.
http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-History-Custers-Last-Battle/dp/0806129980
Thought rant:
One element of past prejudice that continues to linger and still amazes me is the provincial attitude that borders on obsession is the pre-occupation with transliterating American Indian names into English - and all too often to the detriment of the actual meaning of the name which is either lost in translation or the subtle explanation of it cannot quickly be described to another cultural-linguistic group. No other ethnic-cultural groups get this treatment from Americans, both past and present. It would be as if we took every non-anglicized name in US history and systematically altered it to suit our perceptions. How about we take Admiral Yamamoto's name and transliterate it into say, "son of samurai warrior" and then forever after refer to only that as his name. No, I say. That is incorrect and inaccurate by all available standards to include decency. A man's name is his name and ought not to be trivialized. I.e., 'Sitting Bull' is not and never was 'Sitting Bull'; his name was and is Tatanka iyotanka. The same holds true for all those others who were (and many still are) are almost never known by their true names. (Yes, I am aware that during his lifetime anyone and nearly everyone outside of the American Indian language groups referred to him as such but that didn't make it right, then or now.)
GarandinSD
07-08-2011, 10:42
I was just at the Little Bighorn Battlefield last monday (July4). My first trip there. Although I have read alot about the battle over the years, and looked at the pictures etc, I was not prepared for how rugged the landscape is between Custer's final position and the hill top where Benteen and Reno were dug in. Then consider that Custer's command had been on the march for quite a while and his horses had to be in less than excellent shape. Grain fed and pampered, stabled cavalry mounts tended to not fair well on extended duty. During the civil war this was not too much of a problem as remount depots allowed troops to return worn down horses and get fresh ones. Not so on the frontier. In addition to the excellent discussion above that supports the notion that Custer was probably out gunned by his opponents, he was probably not as well mounted either.
I had my wife and 13 year old grandson with me and by the time we got over to Benteen/Reno hill, it was getting pretty warm. My grandson was looking for water. The perfect "teachable moment". We had a discussion about how those soldiers had to lay in their shallow fighting holes, or behind a dead horse for two days with little or no water. I think it may have gotten his attention.
I was just at the Little Bighorn Battlefield last monday (July4). My first trip there. Although I have read alot about the battle over the years, and looked at the pictures etc, I was not prepared for how rugged the landscape is between Custer's final position and the hill top where Benteen and Reno were dug in. Then consider that Custer's command had been on the march for quite a while and his horses had to be in less than excellent shape. Grain fed and pampered, stabled cavalry mounts tended to not fair well on extended duty. During the civil war this was not too much of a problem as remount depots allowed troops to return worn down horses and get fresh ones. Not so on the frontier. In addition to the excellent discussion above that supports the notion that Custer was probably out gunned by his opponents, he was probably not as well mounted either.
I had my wife and 13 year old grandson with me and by the time we got over to Benteen/Reno hill, it was getting pretty warm. My grandson was looking for water. The perfect "teachable moment". We had a discussion about how those soldiers had to lay in their shallow fighting holes, or behind a dead horse for two days with little or no water. I think it may have gotten his attention.
Excellent point about the Seventh's mounts. Government purchasing requirements were for horses of 15-16 hands. These larger animals, although necessary for the heavier loads of the troopers, didn't fare well on short rations. The Indians generally rode ponies of 13-14 hands and they were lean and mean. By the time Custer arrived at the LBH site, his mounts were somewhat used up. It really didn't make much difference, though. Custer was outgunned and definitely out Indianed.
Doug Douglass
08-11-2011, 04:29
What is interesting, and may have been mentioned in the last ten pages of posts, is the fact that eight years later after the Little Big Horn in 1884 Frankford Arsenal was still loading 45-70 rounds in copper cases. (I have five) Copper cases are prone to swelling in humity and heat causing the US Springfield trap door rifle to become a true single shot rifle. :eusa_wall: The copper case would over expand when fired and when the ejector grabbed the rim, being soft copper it would give way. Many of the Custer rifles were noted by the indians to be disabled in this manner.:icon_redface:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.