Battle of the Little Big Horn...................

[Bill D]

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]

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]

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.

[Bill D]

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.

[JBinIll]

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]

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.

[JBinIll]

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]

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."

[JBinIll]

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]

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.



Yeah, that kind of thing. Circus clowns.

[Bill D]

Spencer Carbines

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]

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.



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]

On the lighter side....

Gun pron?





and what I'd have wanted there....



It's all good.

[JBinIll]

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.

[Bill D]

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)