For Those of You Who Think That Rifle Controversy Started With The M16

[BigG]

45/70 at the Little Big Horn

Has anybody looked into this? The soldiers of Custer's outfit were armed with 1873 Springfield 45/70 carbines? furnished with copper cased ammo. The casings were softer than the preferred brass but for some reason, penny pinching probably, the troops were issued copper cartridges. I seem to remember Custer had a Remington with brass ctgs, purchased at his own expense. It just occured to me that controversy as to the Gomit's choice of a weapon to arm its troops did not start with the M16 in 1966...

 

[Jim K]

At that time (1876), the government's ammunition plant, Frankford Arsenal, had not been able to make drawn brass cartridge cases for the .45-70. They were making several kinds of center-fire cases using the more ductile copper. Private companies had been making shorter drawn brass cases for several years, but drawing the longer .45-70 proved difficult. It would be 1879 before Frankford began production of solid head cases, and even then they were copper. Brass cases were not made until 1886 and not standardized until 1888.

The adoption of the "trapdoor" Springfield was heavily criticized, as was the later adoption of the "furrin" Krag with its "tiny" bullet, the heavy and "over-powered" Springfield 1903, the "worthless and unreliable bullet squirter" M1 rifle, the "uncontrollable and heavy" M14, the "cheap plastic toy" M16. No "etc." so far, but it will be along.

I think it is safe to say that the choice of a service rifle and ammunition, like every other government action, has been subject to criticism.

Jim

 

[starfuryzeta]

I think it is safe to say that the choice of a service rifle and ammunition, like every other government action, has been subject to criticism.

And, of course, it still is, even before weapons are fielded. The XM8 and the OICW/M29 have been lambasted almost since their inception.

 

[Sunray]

Seems to me there was a lot of complaining about the change over to percussion locks too. Doesn't happen up here. Our Generals are forbidden to talk to the press about anything the government does while they are serving.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Penny pinching?

No.

Unless you mean by penny pinching limitations of technology that was still evolving.

They were issued copper cased ammo because the technology for deep cup drawing brass cartridge cases of this size was in its infancy and was far from perfect.

It wouldn't be until the 1880s that deep drawing for brass would be sufficiently advanced to be considered to be truly trouble free.

It also needs to be noted that an archaeological survey of the battlefield done in 1984-85 came up with a LOT of fired shells, of which fewer than 6% showed evidence of extraction difficulties. If those numbers are true, it's very doubtful that extraction failure contributed significantly to Custer's defeat.

 

[VG]

I'd say the fact that the 7th Cav didn't have Spencer Carbines at LBH was more significant.

There was substantial controversy surrounding the selection of the M1 Garand as well.

 

[Jeff White]

There has been subatantial controversy regarding the selection of almost every rifle we've ever fielded. I'd recommend William H. Hallahan's Misfire The History of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military I don't believe in all of Hallahan's conclusions, but it makes some interesting reading.

Jeff

 

[Billy Sparks]

the History Channel did a very interesting piece on the Little Big Horn battle. They even went as far as tracking the brass and how many different weapons there were. It was interesting that the Indians were
mostly armed with lever actions where as our troops were armed with falling blocks. They had one demonstration with one guy with a lever action and one with a falling block. The time difference in discharging 13 shoots was very interesting.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Yep, big time difference in dropping those shots.

The Army, however, was more concerned about being able to engage enemy forces over longer distances, something that the relatively low-powered lever action cartridges of the day couldn't do, as well as with long-term mechanical reliability in remote outposts and, finally, easy of ammunition supply, one of the biggest reasons why the Spencers were withdrawn from service.

I've often said that the military missed a great chance to kill two birds with one stone by not retrofitting or redesigning the Spencer repeater to use .45 S&W ammo. The larger rim would have allowed it to be more reliable in that use than the .45 Long Colt, the ammunition supply problem wouldn't have been as much of a problem, and the troops could have been partially armed with hard-hitting long range Trapdoors and short-range high output Spencers.

 

[Jeff White]

Once again our fascination with hardware blinds us...

Can anyone name a weapon available to the Army at the time of the Little Big Horn battle that would have changed the outcome? The defeat was a failure in software NOT hardware. Even if Custer had taken the gatling guns he was offered, the outcome would most likely have been the same.

Jeff

 

[Mike Irwin]

The Battle of Beecher's Island in 1868 provides an interesting look at the power that a mix of Spencer and Springfield rifles (in this case, .50-70s) could bring to bear.

The odds were roughly similar for the two battles, IIRC.

 

[Gewehr98]

Even more significant...

I'd say the fact that the 7th Cav didn't have Spencer Carbines at LBH was more significant.

How about the fact that Custer decided not to bring his Gatling guns to the party. Wonder how history would have changed without this omission?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Given the broken nature of the terrain, I don't think he could have taken the Gatling guns and still accomplished his mission as per his orders.

 

[Jeff White]

Gewehr98 asked;

How about the fact that Custer decided not to bring his Gatling guns to the party. Wonder how history would have changed without this omission?

Considering the poor tactical choices Custer made, I doubt the gatlings would have made that much of a difference. You can only carry so much ammunition. Spencer carbines and gatling guns wouldn't have won the day.

Jeff

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Billy Sparks,

That History Channel program was pure baloney. "They" never tracked anything, but used data obtained from a search that has long since been discredited. Better research indicates that most of the Indians had bows, and the ones with guns had all sorts of weapons, including a few old Henrys and Winchesters. The myth that all the Indians were armed with the latest 1873 Winchesters is just that, a myth. (Of course in the movies, they were all armed with Model 1892 Winchesters, which were presumably provided by the Great Spirit, since Winchester would not make them for another 16 years.)

I think the myth of heavily armed Indians was begun by the army, which simply could not admit, in that centennial (and election) year, that one of its most publicized officers had been outfought, and his men panicked, by a bunch of poorly armed "hostiles". The army's own investigation pulled no punches, and told the truth, but by that time the press had the myth and ran with it. (Not for the last time - look at the very similar Jessica Lynch story.)

There is an excellent book about tracking the actual cartridge cases and following the troopers in the field by tracking cases fired from the same carbines, as well as cases fired from Indian weapons. I now can't recall the title, but it definitely de-myths the encounter and shows officers who lost control and troops that panicked, not exactly a picture the army wanted to convey. The picture of a heroic Custer, fighting to the death, surrounded by blue-clad bodies, was a lot more inspiring. (Again, look at the Jessica Lynch saga, first version.)

Jim