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

[Bill D]

On the lighter side....

Gun pron?





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



It's all good.

No Stabler cutoff. Must be a model of 1860 looks just like mine. And, surely you jest with the Evans?

[JBinIll]

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LOL A "scholarly" discussion.Of all the 03 books Poyer is probably the worst one and Brophy the best but they are all outdated on many things.Clark Campbell's book has been updated but is lacking in photos with the illustrations being limited to mostly line drawings.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.

[Bill D]

LOL A "scholarly" discussion.Of all the 03 books Poyer is probably the worst one and Brophy the best but they are all outdated on many things.Clark Campbell's book has been updated but is lacking in photos with the illustrations being limited to mostly line drawings.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.

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]

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.

[Bill D]

My CW / IW carbine collection before it got too expensive to collect.

[IMG][/IMG]

[JBinIll]

My CW / IW carbine collection before it got too expensive to collect.

[IMG][/IMG]

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.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

[Bill D]

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.

[Weasel]

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]

Speaking of movie guns, I have Lee Enfield that is marked MGM.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

[Bill D]

So it was written, so it was done. Smith is now in my care.

Pictures and description if you please. Congratulations!

Bill D

[JBinIll]

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".

[5MadFarmers]

Missing the sling ring but that's the only real issue I noticed.



Not all pitted. American Machine Works.





Retains some case color here and there.





Bore is pristine.

First one I've touched so I'm happy. Cartouche is JH so presumably Joseph Hannis.

====



Little surprise waiting for me on the table - not listed in the lots.



Garand is first edition whereas the notes is signed to his secretary.

====



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.

[Bill D]

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.