MarshallDodge
Member
Because someone figured out that 5.56 will kill just as well as 45-70 in the distances we fight.
I find it interesting that the 45-70 was designed for infantry because it is such a large cartridge
- Thread starter Kevinq6
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 45-70 govt infantry
- Status
Because someone figured out that 5.56 will kill just as well as 45-70 in the distances we fight.
entropy
Member
My Military History professor, and an article in American Rifleman (don't remember which issue, it was some time ago) both stated that Custer had three M1866 Gatling guns available to him, and although they were cumbersome to the point of being something that was utilized more like defensive artillery, would still have been a battlefield asset. (Had he not jumped to conclusions and prematurely initiated the attack.) One he chose not to utilize because he wrongly, as history proved, thought maneuver would be more an advantage than it was. In actuality, accepting the Gatlings would have forced him to not impulsively attack the camp at LBH and try to hog the glory for himself. (A known character defect of Custer's that had on occasion worked for him against the Confederates)
Yes, a lack of good horses, and having poor horses was a major factor, but more so because of Custer's 'blitzkreig' attempt at taking hostages instead of waiting for his own baggage train under McDougall, much less the reinforcements coming from Terry and Gibbon. Custer did not believe his own scouts, both internal and attached, and did not see what his scouts saw when visiting them. This, coupled with assuming (you know what happens when you assume..) that outbound Indians from the village were scouts and had reported his position (which at the time was very secure from attack) to the village, leading him to his rash, and ultimately, unsuccessful attempt at taking hostages. Reno and Benteen, not being as forward as Custer, were able to withdraw in good order to a hill where they were able to fend off repeated attacks until Terry relieved them on the 27th. The Indians withdrew, Terry's men treated Reno and Benteen's men, including Benteen himself. they then withdrew to the steamboat Far West, which carried the wounded back to Ft. Lincoln.
In the end, it was Custer's hubris that doomed himself and his men at the Little Big Horn.
Yes, a lack of good horses, and having poor horses was a major factor, but more so because of Custer's 'blitzkreig' attempt at taking hostages instead of waiting for his own baggage train under McDougall, much less the reinforcements coming from Terry and Gibbon. Custer did not believe his own scouts, both internal and attached, and did not see what his scouts saw when visiting them. This, coupled with assuming (you know what happens when you assume..) that outbound Indians from the village were scouts and had reported his position (which at the time was very secure from attack) to the village, leading him to his rash, and ultimately, unsuccessful attempt at taking hostages. Reno and Benteen, not being as forward as Custer, were able to withdraw in good order to a hill where they were able to fend off repeated attacks until Terry relieved them on the 27th. The Indians withdrew, Terry's men treated Reno and Benteen's men, including Benteen himself. they then withdrew to the steamboat Far West, which carried the wounded back to Ft. Lincoln.
In the end, it was Custer's hubris that doomed himself and his men at the Little Big Horn.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,122
Custer fought a very poor battle at the Little Bighorn, tales of Indians "pumping their Winchesters" were just that. The 45-70 was part of that short lived era, the black powder cartridge which was quite an advance, but was quickly overtaken by new developments-smokeless powder, e.g. Today militaries have gone too far in the other direction, adopting what are basically varmint rounds for battle rifles. They are OK for inflicting casualties and taking an enemy out of the fight-unless he is all doped up-but lack range and punch, no good for covering fire, against thin-skinned vehicles, etc.
tark
Member
I already have, and you haven't. Lets see a link to this National Geographic study, for starters. You stated that this study found evidence of at least 134 repeating rifles were used by the Indians. Really?? 134 out of thousands of Indians?? Doesn't sound to me like the Indians had very many repeating rifles.
well.....???
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
In this photo on the left is an original copper cased, Benet primed 45-70, on the right is one of my reloads in a modern solid head brass case. The first 45-70s along with the first 45 Colts, and the first 45 Schofields had a copper, not brass case. The dent at the bottom holds the internal Anvil Plate in position against the bottom of the case. The priming was internal, sandwiched between the rear of the case and the anvil plate. The firing pin would dent the soft copper case, compressing and igniting the priming compound. There were two flash holes in the anvil plate which allowed the flame from the priming material to ignite the powder charge. Edward Boxer had patented his centerfire priming method in England in 1866, and was granted a patent in the United States in 1869. Although the 44-40 cartridge came out in 1873 with Boxer priming, the US government continued to use the Benet system for a few more years. With the Benet system, the case had to be made of copper, which was soft enough to be dented by the firing pin. The problem was that copper does not spring back to its original shape after being fired, it tends to stay expanded and clings to the walls of the chamber. In addition, the extractor of a Trap Door rifle would often rip through the soft copper rim, leaving the spent case jammed in the chamber. Cartridge brass has 'memory'. It expands at the moment the cartridge is fired, but then springs back almost to its original size once the bullet is gone. So brass cases tend to be much easier to extract than copper cases.
This is the extractor on my Trap Door Springfield. Just a piece of steel with a notch in it. When the trap door is opened, the extractor pops back. There is no spring, how briskly the trap door is opened determines how much force the extractor exerts on a case rim. My Trapdoor has no problem extracting modern brass, I am not going to see how easily it would rip through a copper rim as I only have a couple of them.
In the center of this photo is an original copper cased Benet primed 45 Colt on the left and a copper cased Benet primed 45 Schofield on the right. They are flanked by my reloads with modern brass cases.
In this photo on the left is an original copper cased, Benet primed 45-70, on the right is one of my reloads in a modern solid head brass case. The first 45-70s along with the first 45 Colts, and the first 45 Schofields had a copper, not brass case. The dent at the bottom holds the internal Anvil Plate in position against the bottom of the case. The priming was internal, sandwiched between the rear of the case and the anvil plate. The firing pin would dent the soft copper case, compressing and igniting the priming compound. There were two flash holes in the anvil plate which allowed the flame from the priming material to ignite the powder charge. Edward Boxer had patented his centerfire priming method in England in 1866, and was granted a patent in the United States in 1869. Although the 44-40 cartridge came out in 1873 with Boxer priming, the US government continued to use the Benet system for a few more years. With the Benet system, the case had to be made of copper, which was soft enough to be dented by the firing pin. The problem was that copper does not spring back to its original shape after being fired, it tends to stay expanded and clings to the walls of the chamber. In addition, the extractor of a Trap Door rifle would often rip through the soft copper rim, leaving the spent case jammed in the chamber. Cartridge brass has 'memory'. It expands at the moment the cartridge is fired, but then springs back almost to its original size once the bullet is gone. So brass cases tend to be much easier to extract than copper cases.
This is the extractor on my Trap Door Springfield. Just a piece of steel with a notch in it. When the trap door is opened, the extractor pops back. There is no spring, how briskly the trap door is opened determines how much force the extractor exerts on a case rim. My Trapdoor has no problem extracting modern brass, I am not going to see how easily it would rip through a copper rim as I only have a couple of them.
In the center of this photo is an original copper cased Benet primed 45 Colt on the left and a copper cased Benet primed 45 Schofield on the right. They are flanked by my reloads with modern brass cases.
I think that was the reason the .45 Colt was popular in the West also, you needed a gun big enough to put down an injured horse.
Tommygunn
Member
It is said by historians who studied the battle that there were more Indians equipped with repeaters than men in the 7th Cavalry. Also, archeologists have studied the battlefield and found a LOT of casings from repeaters. In some cases they have actually matched them to the rifles they were fired in, when said rifles were available.
There certainly was a hodgepodge of other rifles ..... and a great many with bow & arrow, which shouldn't be disdained, as they don't have to be "line of sight", they can be arced over hillocks in volleys and rain down on grouped soldiers.
A small proportion of Indians had repeaters, but given the numbers, that "small proportion" still amounted to a great many.
Last edited:
Tommygunn
Member
Custer refused the Gatlings because they would have delayed his march. They were transported in caissons which were cumbersome. In addition, the uneven terrain of the battlefield, with the coulees and hills, would have made their use problematic.
Had Custer taken them, I believe it might have altered the outcome ~~~ but not for the reason many believe. They might have delayed Custer and the Terry Gibbon column might have showed up on Tuesday June 27th, and found it possible to actually meet up with Custer and plan out a actual strategy to use against the Indians ..... maybe. Maybe .....
DocRock
member
You state that the Indians had virtually no firearms. Then, in proof of your assertion, you shows us pictures of Indian firearms. I have given the title of the NG article and date of its publication. Look it up, buttercup.
You offer nothing but your unfounded opinion. That is of no value in this discussion. Provide a citation for a credible study that refutes the findings of a substantial number of firearms, many of them repeaters, in possession of the Indians that fought at Little Bighorn. I’ll wait.
Last edited:
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,577
The .45-70 was considered a “small-bore” round in its day. The British target shooters in the 1860s had discovered that .45 caliber rifles (whether muzzleloaders or breechloaders) performed notably better than the old .58 caliber Enfield service muskets. This led to their development of the .45 caliber .577-.450 Martini-Henry round. The Americans followed suit a couple of years after, but improved the formula with the .45-70, which had a longer range with less recoil. Comparable rounds in other countries were the .43 Spanish (similar if not identical to the American .44-77) the .43 Egyptian, .43 Mauser, 11mm Werndl and 11mm Gras round. The .45-70 may have been the best of the breed. It certainly packed a big whallop compared to the .30 cal smokeless, jacketed rounds which came after, according to contemporary accounts from the Spanish American war, which saw Trapdoors and Krags deployed together, facing Mausers and Spanish Remingtons.
I’m no expert on Little Bighorn, but it seems clear to me that it’s unfair to say the cartridge was lousy just because the initial implementation had some issues to be worked out. Breechloading, cartridge rifles were a new thing, and designers didn’t have the benefit of 150 years of hindsight to know what was likely to work under all circumstances.
Anecdotes abound that the Trapdoors (often referred to as “needle guns” due to their long firing pins) were extremely popular with civilians on the frontier, who found them almost indispensable, and bought, purloined, or otherwise acquired them however they could.
I’m no expert on Little Bighorn, but it seems clear to me that it’s unfair to say the cartridge was lousy just because the initial implementation had some issues to be worked out. Breechloading, cartridge rifles were a new thing, and designers didn’t have the benefit of 150 years of hindsight to know what was likely to work under all circumstances.
Anecdotes abound that the Trapdoors (often referred to as “needle guns” due to their long firing pins) were extremely popular with civilians on the frontier, who found them almost indispensable, and bought, purloined, or otherwise acquired them however they could.
Project355
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 672
A deer, shot a few inches off the spot of greatest lethality will run a very long way. Even if shot other than in the heart ot aorta... they will run a ways.
Deer don't shoot back. Soldiers do.
Any wound with the potential to instantly incapacitate also has the ability to be lethal. Firing at the enemy is a haphazard affair in most instances for non-snipers. The idea is make the other poor s.o.b. die for HIS country, so you dont die for yours.
Shooting the bad guy in the leg and having him give up only happens in the entertainment media and the minds of politicians.
A person shot in the leg, gut, arm... even non-center chest, has at least one arm with which to aim and fire with.
I'm sure the 45-70 would have done well on human enemy targets. But don't take my word for it, just ask any buffalo.
entropy
Member
Sometimes even then. I've had two I hit in the aorta and correspondingly, both lungs, that went 75 yards. One had been chased through a swamp, the other had just been shot at by my neighbor. Adrenaline can make things possible that wouldn't happen without it, and everyone's adrenaline is up on a battlefield. Many soldiers don't even notice muscle-only hits or cuts, until after the action has ended or slowed down. They might notice a 'stinging' sensation, but not even realize they've been hit.
lysanderxiii
Member
A few things:
Gatlings - In the entire history of the Indian Wars, when did the Army use Gatlings? Three times - they were used to rake Cheyenne positions in Oklahoma in 1875, killing a whopping six Indians. During the Red River War in Texas, they were used against the Cheyenne on August 30, 1874, and Gen. Oliver Howard used Gatling guns in the Nez Perce War of 1877-78, but this last one is after Custer's last battle.
Why didn't he bring them? Well, the normal answer is they would have slowed him down, and this is true. Further, Custer's ordered were capture, disarm and return the Indians to the reservation, not kill them. (Although, sometimes killing them seem to be the orders). Bringing the heavy towed Gatlings would have been contrary to his primary mission of moving fast and striking hard.
Another thing is, while everyone seems to know that the copper Benet primer .45-70 was prone to losing its rim during extraction in the Trapdoor, no one thinks about the same cartridge case having similar problems in the Gatling. It did. And the rim problem only became problematic in either after continuous firing when the chamber got hot. So, in any long engagement, both weapons would have had problems. And in the Gatling, a shed rim was even harder to clear.
The only reason anyone would think to bring the 7th's Gatlings along on the Lakota and the Cheyenne expedition in 1876 is with the knowledge of hindsight.
And last, if Custer did get a note from the future telling him to bring them along and he did, in fact bring them, then yes, the 7th Cav wouldn't have been wiped out, they would have been plodding along a few hours ahead of the Infantry. But the 2nd or 3rd Cav would have, when they, moving faster, eventually bumped into the Indian's encampment.
Why did Custer attack? Well, he could have waited for the infantry, or one of the other columns to arrive, in which time the Indians would have escaped, and then been Court-Martialed like Reynolds, for failing his duty.
EDIT: Second guessing a commander is easy with access to the eventual outcome of the battle, but almost always, when you look at just the facts available to the commander on the spot, and his actual orders, you will usually find they did the most logical thing possible. Unless they were totally incompetent, and Custer had many negative traits, but he was a competent cavalry commander.
Gatlings - In the entire history of the Indian Wars, when did the Army use Gatlings? Three times - they were used to rake Cheyenne positions in Oklahoma in 1875, killing a whopping six Indians. During the Red River War in Texas, they were used against the Cheyenne on August 30, 1874, and Gen. Oliver Howard used Gatling guns in the Nez Perce War of 1877-78, but this last one is after Custer's last battle.
Why didn't he bring them? Well, the normal answer is they would have slowed him down, and this is true. Further, Custer's ordered were capture, disarm and return the Indians to the reservation, not kill them. (Although, sometimes killing them seem to be the orders). Bringing the heavy towed Gatlings would have been contrary to his primary mission of moving fast and striking hard.
Another thing is, while everyone seems to know that the copper Benet primer .45-70 was prone to losing its rim during extraction in the Trapdoor, no one thinks about the same cartridge case having similar problems in the Gatling. It did. And the rim problem only became problematic in either after continuous firing when the chamber got hot. So, in any long engagement, both weapons would have had problems. And in the Gatling, a shed rim was even harder to clear.
The only reason anyone would think to bring the 7th's Gatlings along on the Lakota and the Cheyenne expedition in 1876 is with the knowledge of hindsight.
And last, if Custer did get a note from the future telling him to bring them along and he did, in fact bring them, then yes, the 7th Cav wouldn't have been wiped out, they would have been plodding along a few hours ahead of the Infantry. But the 2nd or 3rd Cav would have, when they, moving faster, eventually bumped into the Indian's encampment.
Why did Custer attack? Well, he could have waited for the infantry, or one of the other columns to arrive, in which time the Indians would have escaped, and then been Court-Martialed like Reynolds, for failing his duty.
EDIT: Second guessing a commander is easy with access to the eventual outcome of the battle, but almost always, when you look at just the facts available to the commander on the spot, and his actual orders, you will usually find they did the most logical thing possible. Unless they were totally incompetent, and Custer had many negative traits, but he was a competent cavalry commander.
Last edited:
I think you are misunderstanding what I said. I do not know and was only speculating as to why military cartridges have shrank over the last 100 plus years. Maybe they were left in the dryer too long. Yes, the .45-70 is pretty lethal. I have a couple of them and they blow really big holes in and through really big things. I cannot say the same for the 5.56 NATO. As a hunting cartridge, my opinion, it is the round that really cannot. Even if it is the darling of the MSR crowd. Not being a military fella, I do appreciate being able to carry more ammo, but less lethal ammo? Of course, dead is dead, so getting the enemy into that condition, I will leave to the folks who are military weapons experts. But getting my game into that condition ethically, I will choose something other than the current military battle rifle 5.56 round.
Last edited:
Yes.
One more deserves mention. The 8X60R was used in the Murata single shot. The Japanese soldiers were very unhappy with the recoil, so it was replaced by an 8MM cartridge, which was in turn replaced by a 6.5.
Project355
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 672
Several reasons.
Weight and number of rounds carried by the foot soldier
Use of available raw material
Velocity increases
The changing nature of warefare
Gone are the days of fixed, regimented lines of fire from the days of Napoleon up to even the War Between the States. Trenched warefare was a fashion of a time. Then more or less random skirmishes of varying size, with support of the armor, then air support. Those days may be dwindling as technology on the battlefield increases. Longer range encounters are fewer. Close encounters with the enemy greater. The US Army considered .276 and the proto-Garand rifles were just that. Then the Army reconsidered, and wanted 30 caliber. Later warefare after WWII demonstrated that the 30 cal full size rifle was becoming a hindrance. Project SALVO.... and we have a .22 cal rifle for the last 65 years or so.
Considering the US went through two World Wars with the "wrong ammo", nothing is too surprising. Back in 1903, we had the US 03 Springfield rifle, and in 1906 we standardized a 150g bullet (M1906). The Germans, in WWI had a longer range bullet in their 8mm, and especially in machine gun fire, we got taught a lesson on long range warefare. A search begain for a longer range 30 cal bullet, and we adopted a bullet very close to what the Swiss had - which was our 174g boat tail bullet the 30M1. That was 1926, after WWI was over. Well.... things were going well until it was discovered that the 30M1 flew too far for the safety zones at existing rifle ranges. Crap, what to do. What we did was re-introduce a 150g bullet that flew within the safety zones. We had that ready in about 1938 or so, just prior to WWII. When WWII broke out, all the old machine gunners were gone. New troops that trained with the M2 liked it better. It kicked less. It was lighter, they could carry more. So we went to war again, with the 150g bullet that was inferior - except - some of the M1 stuff on hand was given out to "machine gunners only", which erroneously caused some to think it was more powerful, unsafe to shoot in the 03's or Garands. It wasn't. ----- Just a little aside for the sake of a Sunday afternoon.
- !885-1945+: smokeless powder and jacketed bullets, allowing smaller bores, higher velocity and flatter trajectory, less recoil, and a reduced logistics footprint.
- 1047 ff: short rapid-fire rifles adapted to new tactics, using smaller cartridges.
Coyote3855
Member
For those interested in or debating about firearms used by the Native American warriors at Little Bighorn, I recommend Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn by Douglas D. Scott, et. al.
Forensic analysis of cartridge cases and bullets recovered from the site indicate the Indians used 41 different firearms in the fight including Henry rifles and at least one 1873 Winchester in .44-40.
Forensic analysis of cartridge cases and bullets recovered from the site indicate the Indians used 41 different firearms in the fight including Henry rifles and at least one 1873 Winchester in .44-40.
Coyote3855
Member
lysanderxiii
Member
The victors took the most of the serviceable ones.
Oh, and by the way the forensics study of the battlefield was done by the US Park Service, not Nat Geo. It was under the supervision of Dr. Douglas Scott.
And one last thing, why is it that something had to "cause" the cavalry to lose?
- "The Springfield carbines jammed, and that's why they lost."
- "Custer didn't bring his Gatlings guns, and that's why they lost."
- "Custer was a rash idiot, and that's why they lost."
How about, Custer and the Cavalry didn't do anything "wrong", it is just the Indian commanders used local numerical superiority and superior tactics to defeat an enemy.
(Another BTW, the forensic collection of cases allowed the identification of individual rifles, just the same way they do for a crime scene. A good number of the Indian rifles, identifiable by NOT being .45-70, or being located in the midst of non-cavalry cases, showed multiple primer strikes. So, the 7th weren't the only ones with weapons malfunctions.)
Last edited:
entropy
Member
His orders were to reconnoiter the camp, and if there were superior numbers, fall back and wait for Terry and Gibbon, who were making haste to get there. He was given (and this was Terry's big mistake) leave to attack if he felt his numbers were sufficient to capture the camp with minimal bloodshed. This is where Custer's hubris is culpable; he (wrongly, as it turned out) believed that by capturing women and children the braves would fold and fall in line back to where they belonged. They were on Crow land, hence the many Crow scouts he had, whom he didn't believe anyway when they told him not to attack until he had more men. Instead when the force besieging Reno and Benteen heard Custer was almost at the camp, a good portion of them peeled off their attack, and wheeled to hit Custer's flank, and then quickly surrounded his men, dooming them, and allowing Reno and Benteen to withdraw to a hill they could defend, which they did while a blocking force whittled away at them until sometime on the 27th. The Indians performed the classic maneuver of divide and defeat in detail, but the terrain prevented them from a final assault, and Terry and Gibbon were able to relieve them, their numbers causing the Indians to fall back. In the meantime McDougall, who had struggled to catch up to Custer and couldn't, had linked up with Terry, so the relief force was also well-supplied.
True, to the extent they defeated Custer only, and bloodied Reno and Benteen's force pretty good. Had Custer not been a 'rash idiot' in this case, the outcome most likely would have either been an all-out battle on the 27th or 28th, with the Army winning, or more likely, the Lakota and associated tribes with them vacating Crow land and going back to their land after a parley sometime around the 28th.
Last edited:
tark
Member
I'm pretty sure the 1873 in the picture I posted is that rifle.
It's a liiittle more complex than that...
https://www.historynet.com/custers-last-stand-still-stands-up.htm
Tommygunn
Member
Interesting article, thank you for posting the link.
.455_Hunter
Member
Ancestors on my paternal grandmother's side were close family friends with the Custer clan. Speaking ill of George was VERY frowned-upon when my grandmother was a child in pre-depression era Kansas.
History is interesting...
History is interesting...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
