BBC: The Wild West-Custers Last Stand bp weapons

[StrawHat]

Actually the Indians were adept at reloading rim fire ammo without tools. About 35 years ago, a prairie fire burned the battle field and many shell cases were found and indicated different skirmish lines than had been previously thought. One of the discoveries was rim fire ammo with evidence that the rims had been indented and bent out again for reloading. A old nail with a head could be used to bend out the indentations on the case rim. One professor used the heads of old fashioned matches mixed in a slurry, a few drops placed in each rim fire case and set in the sun to dry. Then the cases filled with powder and a round ball thumbed in the end. Some of the cases appeared to have been refired a half dozen times.

In addition, Custer's men still had trapdoor rifles and balloon head ammo. The sloppy chambers of the trapdoors would cake with powder fouling and the cases would stick and the extractor would tear the balloon head rim with out extracting the shell. The same difficulty was noted ten years earlier at the wagon box fight and in Africa by the Brits with Martini Enfields in the Anglo Zulu wars. After five to seven shots the guns had to be chamber cleaned to keep functioning.

Just to add to the information, the Arsenal ammunition was copper cased, not brass. The copper expanded on firing, but unlike brass, did not shrink away from the chamber walls. The copper case clung tightly to the chamber and this is what caused the extractor to rip through the rim. The lack of a cleaning rod compounded the error.

I have two trapdoor rifle, an 1866 (50-70) and a 45-70 (1873), with modern brass, neither jams no matter how fast you load and fire.

 

[DD4lifeusmc]

Elhombre
that's the one I was thinking of. I thought I saw it on netflix, but you're right it was at you tube
I've watched sooooo many video lately forget which ones were where.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Strawhat, it also depends a little on how sloppy the chamber is in the gun. The tolerances inspectors were to accept in the very early days of the trapdoors left a lot of leeway for variance. Until about 1878, bores between .456 and .468 passed. It was even worse with the 50-70's. For instance, my brother and I both have NYS rollers in 50-70. The armory numbers are consecutive and they have the same inspector's stamp on the butt stocks. But a shell fired in his gun will not even chamber in mine unless sized. His are covered with fouling on the outside of the case and my cases are not.

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

In this video, they also did some comparative shooting with a period trapdoor and a Henry. While the trapdoor was good at long ranges from a dismounted skirmish line, the Henry was obviously a more rapid shooter and very good in close weapon. 13 shots in 30 secs for the Henry vs. 4 for the Springfield. Thus, if the Indians had 200 repeaters that would be the equivalent to perhaps 800 Springfields against Custer' s troops 260 Springfields. And that does not even include the effect of the 46 other firearm types uses by thousands of other armed Indians or use of perhaps thousands of arrows shot into a vary small área where the troopers were clustered. Even without issues regarding Custer's perhaps questionable tactics, Custer was outgunned. The video examined Custers tactics which followed those of the day, designed for fighting the organized Army of another "civilized" country, not an indigenous people who knew the lay of the land and used it effectively

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

I found A web book "Who Killed Custer" by Bruce Brown, that refers to eyewitness reports by surviving troopers and Indian participants. An Indian warrior White Cow Bull indicated he had shot Custer during his charge across the river at Medicine Tail Coulee, though he nor any of the Indians really recognized Custer by sight???? The charge then broke up mid river, utter confusion ensued, then the troop hastily retreated back up the coulee, winding up on Last Stand Hill, apparently with Custer mortally wounded. I am going to order this as an interesting read... I cant paste in the link from my phone, but you can find it using key words astonisher.com, 100 voices, who killed Custer.

 

[Stony]

We have a very large swap meet/flea market here where I live that operates once a month for 4 days. Last weekend I saw a fellow there with a trapdoor (rifle) in 45/70. He had a tag on it representing it as a "Custer Gun". I told him I was under the impression the 7th Cav were horse soldiers and would have been carrying carbines. It didn't change his opinion of his rifle and he had no documentation....and was firm on the $2,000 price. I assume he still owns it....

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

There were some additional privately owned rifles carried by a few of Custers troops, but I believe they all typically carried govt. issued trapdoor carbines. Anyone trying to represent such a relic without provenance is to be avoided.

 

[Slamfire]

I have seen the PBS show, read several books. It is clear to me that Custer’s command was simply over whelmed by numbers. He divided his force, he wanted to race around the front and prevent the Indians from escaping, while Reno pushed them from the rear. He simply did not comprehend the number of braves, nor that with families present, the Indian men were not going to let their families be slaughtered by these Troops.

Military units have clear rules about succession, given the command structure, even if Custer was killed early, the Officers next in the chain of command had extensive combat experience and would have quickly assumed command and provided leadership. This is evident in all accounts, that command cohesiveness, firing lines, etc, were there early, until it collapsed, probably from causalities.

Someday I hope to visit the battlefield, but given the accounts, I am certain even though the Troopers were organized, they did not have walls, or trenches to hid behind. The Indians simply kept up a high volume of fire, then moved forward, and were totally adapt at using the country side for protection as they moved. Indians with arrows could lob them into the last stand hill, defeating any temporary protection the troopers might have erected with rocks or dead horses.

Obviously the Trooper’s return fire diminished to a low level and the Indians were able to rush in. Custer’s command collapsed around that time. The trail of bodies towards the river has been interpreted as men escaping as unit cohesion collapsed.

Custer was an ambitious man, needed a glory for his own self promotion, he charged when he should have waited, divided his command up when he should have kept it together, his subordinates sat behind a ridge despite orders to join Custer, the Indians had more firepower and determination than Custer envisioned. Custer’s chances for a Presidential nomination were buried with him and his command.

If the Indians had only bows, arrows, and spears, it is likely they would have lost, just as thousands of African's died in front of British rifles.

The moral to the story, if there is one, beware of ambitious men.

 

[rodwha]

"The moral to the story, if there is one, beware of ambitious men."

Couldn't have been said better.

 

[Tommygunn]

The video examined Custers tactics which followed those of the day, designed for fighting the organized Army of another "civilized" country, not an indigenous people who knew the lay of the land and used it effectively

If this was what the video stated then their understanding of army tactics is wrong.
The army (especially cavalry) had a pretty good history of gaining experience fighting against the Plains Indians, and while one does not always get the impression that the
beuracracy learned from its failures it did -- the main failing was in the ego or character of some leaders.
Remember, Custer had planned to hit the LBH village the morning of June 26th, not that Sunday. He had planned to hit the village as the Indians slept, a tactic that had worked at Wa sh ita* for Custer and at Sand Creek, and for other commanders. Many units had tried to hit Indians they met up with when the Indians had formed into War Parties only to find that they wound up with the worst end of the deal (see Fetterman Massacre for example). The Sunday attack was precipitated by Custer because troopers had discovered Indians pilfering lost food packages from the supply train and those Indians had escaped. This proompted Custer to worry the element of surprise would be lost if he waited.
To many sensibilities today the idea of a viciously armed military attacking a sleepy village seems anathema, and a moral horror. Sometimes, in fact, as Chivington found out at Sand Creek, it actually wound up exactly that.
But military tactics aren't designed to be "fair." "If you're fighting fair, your tactics suck," goes an old bromide. Hitting the Indian Village at dawn, or at such time as their mobility and awareness were at a nadir, became a valuable tactic in the Plains Indians Wars, mainly because it worked.
Usually.
Chief Sitting Bull had had a dream, or prophecy, of cavalry soldiers "falling headfirst into camp." In fact he had painted a picture of this happening. The imagery is important; it meant that the Indians would win the battle. This was important as the Indians also knew, all too well, that while encamped, during the night or early morning, they were very vulnerable. This "prophecy" of Sitting Bull was told to the village; it gave them great confidence. Thus when Custer hit them, instead of feeling they were in a desperate fight for their very survival, Crazy Horse, Gall, and many others sprang into confident action they firmly believed would be, for them, a great victory.

There is a book by Roger Darling titled A Sad and Terrible Blunder that was published, IIRC by Potomac Press, which does a great analysis of the battle, and I would recomend to anyone who wishes to learn what we know of the battle beyond what a one hour TV documentary has to say.


* - for some reason the swear word filters on this site seem to think the name of a 19th century battle is a vulgarity. W A S H I T A It's a place, get it?

 

[AJumbo]

Let's bear in mind that a Plains Indian bow can fired more rapidly than a Trapdoor, and the that one Lakota survivor described how he and many warriors stayed behind cover and lobbed arrows into the massed troopers. Plus, both arms can run out of ammo, but bows don't tend to jam.

Four aimed shots in 30 seconds, in practiced hands, seems about right for the Trapdoor. Problem is, you can test that rate of fire all you want at the range, but unless your life is in imminent peril, it doesn't really count. Those troopers were experiencing adrenalin dump of the first order.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Personally I wouldn't use Sand Creek as an example of superior tactics. It was a pretty sad statement on the condition of mankind when motivated by the failings of the human character.

 

[Tommygunn]

Personally I wouldn't use Sand Creek as an example of superior tactics. It was a pretty sad statement on the condition of mankind when motivated by the failings of the human character.

In the final analysis I would agree; it wound up as a horrid atrocity where the only Indians killed were children, old men and women, and where the near total amount of injuries done to Chivington's men were "friendly fire" injuries.
Yet as horrible as it was Chivington still ... "won."
The basic over-all point I was trying to make was that the tactic the military developed of hitting the Indian village didn't arise out of a sense of chivalry, fairplay, political correctness, but from the bitter experience of war (which is horrible in all its forms whether it is righteous or .... whatever) which taught the cavlary that the Indian Warriors were brave, ruthless, smart, had faster ponies and could travel more lightly, and were amazingly well versed in the art of the ambush.

 

[Don McDowell]

We have a very large swap meet/flea market here where I live that operates once a month for 4 days. Last weekend I saw a fellow there with a trapdoor (rifle) in 45/70. He had a tag on it representing it as a "Custer Gun". I told him I was under the impression the 7th Cav were horse soldiers and would have been carrying carbines. It didn't change his opinion of his rifle and he had no documentation....and was firm on the $2,000 price. I assume he still owns it....

One of the officers with Reno and Benteen carried a Springfield rifle, it came to be a handy thing as many of the carbines jammed, they were passed down to that position and the cleaning rod was used to extract the stuck case.
Sgt. Dan Ryan with Benteen also carried a 14 lb sharps with a scope sight, and was the only reason the Indians were driven away from their snipers positions on top of Weir point looking down to Reno and Benteens entrenchment.

 

[Don McDowell]

I figured there wasn't a such thing as reloading back then. I assumed ammo was only factory made. But I'm surprised that Indians would have been able to get their hands on the equipment needed.

Sharps, Remington, Peabody, etal all sold reloading tools, and components, and provided instructions on how to use them including charts that gave the convertion from apothecary to grains so that powder charges could be accurately weighed.
Biggest problem with reloading at that time there were no resizing dies as we know them today, and after a few rounds many of the cases would be expanded to the point they wouldn't chamber anymore.
Many of the hide hunters of the day bought most of their ammunition in case lots, preferring the reliability of it over the reloaded ammo.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

As I recall, Barlow did not invent/develop his reloading tong tool until the late 1870's and it took until after 1880 for them to be sold in the market. His development was sold to Ideal which about 35 years later was sold to Marlin and then after an unknown period was sold to Lyman. In the early 1870's there were very few reloading tools out there. In fact Winchester tried to discourage the practice of reloading at first, thinking it would cut into their ammo sales. I don't recall when the Winchester spoon handle tool was first issued, but I think it was also after the LBH. Maynard and Sharps sold reloaders early on. I have some early Remington reloading stuff, but it was for Berdan primed shotgun shells. The existence of Draper cartridges indicate that there was a demand for reloading in the 1860's, but they also were mostly shotgun shells.

There was a very condescending attitude against the Indians in the 1870's. I have a partial "editorial" from Chicago Field Newspaper from a few weeks after the LBH, that warns the US public against the foolhardy idea that our soldiers were superior and against underestimating the ferocity and wisdom of the plains Indians battle tactics. I'll try to find it and post it.

 

[elhombreconnonombre]

I have read that Custer was actually under house arrest by the order of President Grant, but convinced Gen. Terry to allow him to continúe in his duties. Perhaps, his ambition to clear his name by a glorious victory over the Indians at all cost contributed to his eventual downfall...quien sabe?

 

[Don McDowell]

Can't say what Barlow did, but Winchester lists their reloading tool in the 1878 catalog.
Sharps lists reloading tools in their 1875 catalog, as does Remington.

Biggest problem Custer had that morning on the Greasy Grass, it was the first time he had enguaged anything other than old men ,women and kids in a winter encampment in the middle of the night...
Let's not forget this same bunch of Souix and Cheyenne had just a few days before kicked Crooks butt all the way back to Ft. Fetterman.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I found the editorial and I was wrong about the date. It was published in Chicago Field newspaper a week to ten days after the Rosebud Battle, which means about the same day as the LBH.

THE INDIAN WAR – INDIANS AS ATHLETES

The practical experience of the recent Rosebud Battle has about exploded the idea that a white man is the equal in the field of five Indians. The daring and recklessness shown in the first pitched battle of the campaign proves how much they had staked on the result. Those who claim that the Indian war will be of short duration disregard the fact that the Sioux are among the very best fighters in the world. They possess union and self-reliance, cunning without an equal, a personel in which every man is an athlete capable of super-eminent feats of endurance, horsemanship and agility. Further, they possess the vast advantage of fighting on ground of their own selection, in their own country, and with whose resources, either for supplies or defense, they have perfect familiarity. It affords them, too, at every step natural fortifications equal – for purposes of concealment or defense – to the most elaborate work possible to engineering skill. Well mounted, armed with the very best of modern arms, ever alert and tireless, regarding death in battle as an honor to be sought rather than as a calamity to be avoided, they are practically as effective as a civil……

(the rest of the editorial was cut off from the tattered copy).

 

[Tommygunn]

I have read that Custer was actually under house arrest by the order of President Grant, but convinced Gen. Terry to allow him to continúe in his duties. Perhaps, his ambition to clear his name by a glorious victory over the Indians at all cost contributed to his eventual downfall...quien sabe?

Due to his antagonistic testimony during the Clymer Commission and how Custer had treated a cavalryman who was U.S. Grant's son (IIRC) --who was a alcoholic -- President Grant had releived Lt. Col. George A. Custer as the commander of the Little Bighorn Expedition. Custer was originally not supposed to even accompany the expedition.
Due to the intercession of General Alfred H. Terry, Presodent Grant would relent and allow Custer to resume his position as head of the 7th Cavalry, but he would not allow Custer over-all command; he placed General Terry in command of the Little Bighorn Expedition.
This was a dubious decision. General Terry did not have Custer's reputation for liberal interpretation of orders, he was more "by the book," but even though he was a cavalry officer his best mount was a desk, and General Terry had no illusions otherwise. However, his president had spoken, an order is an order, so Terry wound up with command ... an interesting result of the old "be careful of what you ask for; you might get it" caveat.

I found the editorial and I was wrong about the date. It was published in Chicago Field newspaper a week to ten days after the Rosebud Battle, which means about the same day as the LBH.

THE INDIAN WAR – INDIANS AS ATHLETES

The practical experience of the recent Rosebud Battle has about exploded the idea that a white man is the equal in the field of five Indians. The daring and recklessness shown in the first pitched battle of the campaign proves how much they had staked on the result. Those who claim that the Indian war will be of short duration disregard the fact that the Sioux are among the very best fighters in the world. They possess union and self-reliance, cunning without an equal, a personel in which every man is an athlete capable of super-eminent feats of endurance, horsemanship and agility.

Zimmerstutzen, that is a great read, and I completly agree with it. Indians were great warriors and unfortunatly, white man, to his detriment, often vastly downrated them. Any decent study of the Plains Indians Wars will show just how effective they were.
You wouldn't want to mess with them. Not without the ability to "dust off and nuke 'em from space."

 

[zimmerstutzen]

OT: I wish I had the rest of the editorial. I have been searching on line for old copies of the Chicago Field from that year.

I watched "Red Dawn" again last week. It seems our leaders should have watched that movie in regards to Afghanistan, and the Chicago Field editorial could just as easily been said about the native Afghans in the hills of that country vs the Brits years ago, or the Soviets or vs the US in modern history.

Sorry for the rant.

However there are parallels to be drawn from the way some leaders approached Indian affairs and our situations today.

 

[desidog]

I seem to recall from this book that the amount of alcohol Benteen brought along was quite significant too...

/a great read, btw.

 

[Leanwolf]

ELHOMBRECONNOMBRE - "I have read that Custer was actually under house arrest by the order of President Grant, but convinced Gen. Terry to allow him to continue in his duties."

Yes, Custer pleaded with Gen. Terry to take him on the expedition, and Terry then went to Gen. Sheridan, a many years great admirer of Custer, who in turn convinced Pres. Grant to allow Custer to join Terry's expedition, although not in command of the expedition, which Custer had wanted.

As for the amount of cartridges the troopers carried, all my research shows that each trooper was issued and carried 100 rounds of rifle/carbine ammo, in his belt, pockets, saddle bags, etc. The additional rifle/carbine ammo was carried in the packs aboard pack mules and in the following Army wagons.

Many of the Indians had repeating rifles which they had obtained from unscrupulous traders previous to the fight.

L.W.

 

[JRH6856]

Great thread, guys. As to the Indian's access to weapons and ammo, remember that for 3 hundred years, the Comanche were the greatest trading empire in North America. They were fierce fighters, but they traded with everyone from Mexico to the northern plains. And just about anything could be had for the right price.

 

[Don McDowell]

They gave the Souix and Cheyenne cases of Winchester 66's and supporting ammunition every time there was a "treaty" signing.