Historical US Government rifle and handgun rounds

[Nom de Forum]

Tommy Guns.
M-16s.
B.A.R.s
M1 Garands
Phased Plasma rifles in the 40 megawatt range.


"Dust off and nuke 'em from orbit; it's the only way to be sure."

Probably nothing needed as advanced as any of these. A good hasty defensive position, more ammunition, and especially repeating rifles might have sufficed. Break the momentum of the Sioux with firepower and a siege, if any, would probably be short as it was not a routine part of the Sioux way of war.

Or--- better yet, let history be what it is. It's more fun that way....

Tell that to all the authors making a good living from writing alternative history fiction for many decades and the readers greatly enjoying it.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

What rifles and cal round were the Indians using?

 

[Skribs]

The big strategy in the military is to lay down covering fire while others advance. You can argue about power all day, but if you're going to be laying down covering fire, you want something that kicks little and has a whole lot of friends in the box with him. Something light-and-fast does this while still maintaining range (as opposed to say a 200-grain subsonic round).

For actual effectiveness, that's another debate, but I think even for the military, who are engaging armored targets at range, the 5.56 is more than sufficient for a large majority of the situations they find themselves in. For those times when they need more, a box-fed semi-auto in .308 or .300 WSM makes a better choice than an 8-round .30-06 rifle.

 

[rcmodel]

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm

There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered.

rc

 

[StrawHat]

...The 45-70 did not work out for Custer. The Battle of San Juan Hill in the Spanish war in Cuba sealed the fate of slow cartridges...

The Springfield Armory had been working on the Krag rifle and the 30 Gov't cartridge long before the War. They were also developing a smokelss loading for the 45-70. Once the war started, load development stopped and all resources were put toward the Krag rifle and ammunition. (45-70 ammunition was loaded for the US by subcontractors.) It only takes time and money but when you are playing "catch up" neither is plentiful enough.

 

[rcmodel]

I believe the 6mm Lee Navy saw service in Cuba too.

rc

 

[Nom de Forum]

Does anyone know if there is a site out there that details what rounds were in use by the US Government, by date/era? I cannot seem to find it. It would be interesting to see what round was in use at a particular date and exactly when the decision was made to use another round. Also, any sites that might give the reasoning of the US Military as to why they dropped one particular round and selected another round in its place.

When you do find sources you will probably be greatly surprised by the number of cartridges you did not know were used. Especially during the transition era (ball, powder, and cap to self-contained boxer primed). Something else to consider is that, for example, a .30-06 is not just a .30-06. For just that cartridge there numerous dates of use for various loadings in service. Changes are made for reasons of efficiency, ballistic and otherwise.

Also, why is the trend towards smaller rounds? I know the .223 is very popular, but it really seems like such a small round relative to rounds utilized in the past, such as .45-70, .30-40 Krag, and .30-06. Any of these three rounds, and others, seem, in my opinion, to be better rounds than the .223.

To answer as succinctly as possible your question about the trend towards smaller rounds: efficiency. The average soldier can only carry so much weight, soldiers miss more than they hit, and the enemy cannot be "deader" from a larger round.

 

[klausman]

+1 on the astonishing number and variety of military cartridges. Sometimes I wonder at the logistics of keeping the right ammo on hand, regardless of a sufficiency of that ammo.

 

[Tommygunn]

What rifles and cal round were the Indians using?

Numerous types of repeaters and singleshot types of rifles have been catagorized by means of found empty shell casings and bullets on the LBH Battle site.
.44-40, .44 Henry, various caliber of Spencer repeating ammunition, and others were found. In recent years archeologists have carefully sketched out many details of the battle based on what ammo was found where -- in fact using techniques used to match guns that are familiar to anyone who watches a murder mystery on TV. Firing pins and extractors leave marks that identify the specific gun they were used in -- even if that gun is no longer in existance the markings alone tell the story.
While U.S. Army men were assigned revolvers and rifles of certainmakes and caliber, this wasn't true of Indians. They all had guns that they acquired through trade, purchase or theft and that means they had no standard caliber or make of handgun or rifle.

One historian said there were likely more Indians armed with repeater rifles at LBH than Custer had troopers with him. Very likely, this was true.

Tommy Guns.
M-16s.
B.A.R.s
M1 Garands
Phased Plasma rifles in the 40 megawatt range.


"Dust off and nuke 'em from orbit; it's the only way to be sure."

Probably nothing needed as advanced as any of these. A good hasty defensive position, more ammunition, and especially repeating rifles might have sufficed. Break the momentum of the Sioux with firepower and a siege, if any, would probably be short as it was not a routine part of the Sioux way of war.¹

Or--- better yet, let history be what it is. It's more fun that way

....

Tell that to all the authors making a good living from writing alternative history fiction for many decades and the readers greatly enjoying it.²

¹They had probably as good of a defensive position as it was possible for them to have, a hill at the end of a ridge. I'm sure they'd have loved a deep emplaced concrete bunker .... but it couldn't have been available at the time. IMHO the Seventh lost primarily because they lost the initial momentum after Major Reno broke and ran, and Custer had not likely been able to find a good place for his five companies of Seventh Cav. to cross. Extended sieges may not have been the norm for Sioux Warriors but they managed to take out Custer's five companies out in a hour long battle and keep Benteen and Reno's men confined on their hill for the next forty eight hours without too much difficulty.
My speculation on guns was intended basically "tongue in cheek." A lot was made by Custer's refusal of Gatlings but I don't think that having them would have saved Custer. Ironically, bringing them along might have saved Custer; they were problematic enough to have possibly delayed Custer's detachment long enough for the Terry/Gibbon column to catch up!

²People can speculate all they wish about such things writing alternate history fiction. It certainly is great fun. One of my favorite episodes of "The Twilight Zone" had a National Guard tank out near the LBH on exercises in 1960. The guardsmen come across a Teepee, a Civil War era canteen marked with the 7th Cavalry emblem, and hear odd battle noises over a hill. Radioing their commander doesn't help as they aren't believed.
Apparently unable to maneuver their tank they grab M-1 Carbines and proceed toward the sound of the guns on foot.
Later, their abandoned tank is found by the commanding officer. What happened to the men becomes strangely obvious when their names are located on the monument atop Custer Hill. The commander remarks; "too bad they couldn't have brought the tank with them."
You think?

 

[zdc1775]

What rifles and cal round were the Indians using?

You might find this site interesting

http://www.nps.gov/mwac/libi/firearm.html

 

[Pete D.]

Ammo

In addition to the fine multi-volume history by Ackley, Woodin, and Scranton already noted, there is relevant information about U.S. Military ammo in George Hoyem's "The History and Development of Small Arms Ammunition" , volume two.
Pete

 

[gunnutery]

The military is all about making things lighter so we can carry more stuff.

Very true. These days it seems to be taking full advantage of the weight savings and piling on a bunch of electronics and batteries to power them. I can fully understand NV goggles and communications, but some of the "future soldier" concepts seems a bit unnecessary.

 

[Schutzen]

I stand corrected on Gen Terry vs Gen Crook relieving Reno & Benteen, but I still believe Reno & Benteen made wiser choices than Custer. Several years ago there was a fire that burned through the Little Big Horn Battlefield. After the fire a survey of the battlefield with metal detectors and plotting of the discovered artifacts (primarily shell casings) a much clearer picture of the battle was revealed. Further, this picture was not colored but the desire to protect or embellish Custer's record. Most reports I have read indicate there were 3000+ Indians present at Little Big Horn. If only 1/3 of them were warriors all Reno and Benteen could have done by trying to fight through to Custer was insure they would die with Custer and the rest of the 7th.

Custer was an excellent Calvary commander and his record proves it. On the Civil War battlefields he was a holy terror turning the tide of numerous battles in favor of the Union. My personal belief is his downfall was a lack of understanding of mutual support and logistics. At Little Big Horn he out ran the supporting infantry columns and separated his command from their organic trains (Benteen). During the Civil War he was generally well supported by follow on columns after taking objectives with aggressive cavalry charges. These columns tended to protect his rear. At Little Big Horn Custer chose to separate his command from their trains with Little Big Horn Creek. The Sioux got between Custer and Reno/Benteen effectively deigning him reinforcement and resupply. There is also some thought that even an unlimited supply of ammunition would not have saved Custer from the overwhelming numbers of the Sioux. We can re-fight 140 year old battles every day and never change the outcome. All we can do is learn from the successes/failures of the past and pray we are smart enough to learn those lessons by studying and not by re-doing past mistakes.

 

[vaupet]

two things not mentioned sofar:
it is very hard to control 30-06 or 7.62 nato firearms in full auto mode.
also, they get very hot very quickly

5.56 was introduced in Vietnam and it is used today in urban warfare, in circomstances where you can't see wat you are shooting at, so shot placing is difficult and suppressive fire is used (see remark one)

 

[orpington]

With regards to electronics and batteries and their usage in the military...

A map with a bullet hole in it is still useful. A GPS device with a bullet hole in it is a very expensive paper weight.

 

[Tommygunn]

I stand corrected on Gen Terry vs Gen Crook relieving Reno & Benteen, but I still believe Reno & Benteen made wiser choices than Custer. Several years ago there was a fire that burned through the Little Big Horn Battlefield. After the fire a survey of the battlefield with metal detectors and plotting of the discovered artifacts (primarily shell casings) a much clearer picture of the battle was revealed. Further, this picture was not colored but the desire to protect or embellish Custer's record. Most reports I have read indicate there were 3000+ Indians present at Little Big Horn. If only 1/3 of them were warriors all Reno and Benteen could have done by trying to fight through to Custer was insure they would die with Custer and the rest of the 7th.

Custer was an excellent Calvary commander and his record proves it. On the Civil War battlefields he was a holy terror turning the tide of numerous battles in favor of the Union. My personal belief is his downfall was a lack of understanding of mutual support and logistics. At Little Big Horn he out ran the supporting infantry columns and separated his command from their organic trains (Benteen). During the Civil War he was generally well supported by follow on columns after taking objectives with aggressive cavalry charges. These columns tended to protect his rear. At Little Big Horn Custer chose to separate his command from their trains with Little Big Horn Creek. The Sioux got between Custer and Reno/Benteen effectively deigning him reinforcement and resupply. There is also some thought that even an unlimited supply of ammunition would not have saved Custer from the overwhelming numbers of the Sioux. We can re-fight 140 year old battles every day and never change the outcome. All we can do is learn from the successes/failures of the past and pray we are smart enough to learn those lessons by studying and not by re-doing past mistakes.

Schutzen, I wonder if you've read as many books on the subject as I ... or have I read as many as you?
I still disagree about Reno & Benteen; their situational awareness was no better than Custer's, and it was Reno who broke & ran first, as I said.
If you can find a book titled A Sad and Terrible Blunder by Roger Darling (Potomac Press) you will find a great book, full of maps, geological relief maps, photos showing the LBH river then & now, and so forth. Darling used as much original material as he could find to reconstruct how the Cavalry expedition approached and attacked the Indian Nations at the LBH. Unlike many other books it goes into good detail on the Terry Gibbon column and what Terry does wrong, the mistakes he made -- and does not correct -- will shock the sawdust from your shingles, if I might borrow an uncle's phrase.

"During the Civil War he was generally well supported by follow on columns after taking objectives with aggressive cavalry charges. These columns tended to protect his rear. At Little Big Horn Custer chose to separate his command from their trains with Little Big Horn Creek."

I believe the supply train became an point of some contention after the Battle of Wash/ita* as well, due to it's more rearward than normal position.
It is known that Custer precipitated the attack, originally scheduled for Monday morning, until that Sunday afternoon due to reports of Indians pilfering dropped foodstuffs and escaping from troopers who should have either captured or killed them.

But how much to make of this? Those Indians did escape ... but OTOH we know the Indians were already well prepared due to Sitting Bull's prophesy.

Did Custer really intend a "pincer movement" type of attack to be the model for his descent upon the Indians at LBH? Most historians seem to think so.
But Mr. Darling has other ideas.
Dang good read. If you haven't had your fill of Custer and the Little Bighorn I couldn't recommend it more highly.

* W a s h i t a what is this some autocorrect? It's place, not a naughty word .... I swear.

 

[Nom de Forum]

In addition to the fine multi-volume history by Ackley, Woodin, and Scranton already noted, there is relevant information about U.S. Military ammo in George Hoyem's "The History and Development of Small Arms Ammunition" , volume two.
Pete

Orpington,

I second Pete D.'s recommendation of Hoyem. In part 2 of volume 2 is a 40+ page chapter on U.S. military cartridge designs at the tail end of the transition era I mentioned in a previous post. It will give you an idea of the magnitude of creating a list of U.S. military cartridges, reasons for adoption, and dates of use. I forgot I had Hoyem's V1&2 since I am no longer an active cartridge collector. Good luck with your extensive research project.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Very true. These days it seems to be taking full advantage of the weight savings and piling on a bunch of electronics and batteries to power them. I can fully understand NV goggles and communications, but some of the "future soldier" concepts seems a bit unnecessary.

Soldiers have been carrying about 70 pounds of the most modern lightweight equipment for about 3000 years.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Tommygunn and Schutzen,

No doubt it was a "cluster #*&@" even before the shooting started and a historical gordian knot that will never be fully untied or cut to reveal the whole truth. It appears you guys have done quite a bit more study on this than me and people of slightly more than average interest. Maybe you guys could collaborate on the creation of a thread exploring the characteristics of the firearms used and how they were exploited tactically by the 7th and Sioux. What would be really interesting is attempting to determine from the various defensive positions could repeating lever action rifles of that era and sufficient ammunition make a difference for any of the components of the 7th. I am sure a thread would capture the attention of many THR members.

 

[herrwalther]

Soldiers have been carrying about 70 pounds of the most modern lightweight equipment for about 3000 years.

You win the internet for the day. That made me laugh for about 2 minutes.

Weight will always be a driving factor in combat. When I deployed, there was an entire Pelican box I didn't even open the entire time full of crap I was told to bring, but didn't use. Our starting elevation was high enough to warrant the use of plate carriers which are 6 or 7 pounds lighter than the standard issue IOTV. Might not seem like much difference, but it does when you are at 7000+ feet above sea level. Those 7 pounds allowed me to carry more ammo on higher risk missions and the lighter rounds meant more ammo still.

Standard combat load for an M4 is 7 magazines filled with 30 each, 210 rounds. Now if I carried a .308 or bigger, I would not have been able to carry much extra ammo and still maintain effectiveness. Since the 5.56mm is a light round, I usually carried 6 extra magazines. Almost doubling my ammo.

 

[Onmilo]

A fully loaded 30 round .45/70 Gatling Gun box magazine is roughly 3 inches wide, 4 inches long, 2 Feet tall and weighs a bit under 6 pounds

Native Americans obtained weapons and ammunition by any and all means neccessary but were particularly fond of commonly available and easily obtained calibers.
Many became very adept at reloading cartridge cases, even rimfire cases, using any materials at hand.
Muzzle loading guns remained popular well into the early 20th century, particularly with remote tribes.

For all the hype concerning the older military cartridges, the .30/06, 7.62 NATO, and 5.56 NATO are the BEST military cartridges ever designed by American and free Europe.

The .50/70 and .45/70 were smashing brute cartridges, at both ends, and in the hands of average soldiers of the time these rounds were really only effective at ranges of 150 yards or so.
You see, soldiers of that time really weren't very good shots as a rule and practice was all but non-existent.

The .30/40 Krag offered a "Fast loading" fast shooting weapon, the Military brass despised it because of the increase in "Wasted Ammunition".
As for terminal effect, the .30/40 Krag isn't any better, or worse, than the current 5.56 Nato.

Ammunition resupply has ALWAYS been a problem in combat and soldiers have ALWAYS found ways to rectify the situation when they could.

While positions have and will be overrun and taken due to soldiers running out of ammunition, this situation is much less apparent to occur due to better logistics and planning.

In my time in the military and my continued studies, I cannot ever recall anyone complaining of a lack of terminal effect againxt either the .30/06 and 7.62 Nato or the 8mm Mauser, Mk Vll .303. or 7.62X54 Mosin for that matter.

 

[joshk1025]

A fully loaded 30 round .45/70 Gatling Gun box magazine is roughly 3 inches wide, 4 inches long, 2 Feet tall and weighs a bit under 6 pounds

Native Americans obtained weapons and ammunition by any and all means neccessary but were particularly fond of commonly available and easily obtained calibers.
Many became very adept at reloading cartridge cases, even rimfire cases, using any materials at hand.
Muzzle loading guns remained popular well into the early 20th century, particularly with remote tribes.

For all the hype concerning the older military cartridges, the .30/06, 7.62 NATO, and 5.56 NATO are the BEST military cartridges ever designed by American and free Europe.

The .50/70 and .45/70 were smashing brute cartridges, at both ends, and in the hands of average soldiers of the time these rounds were really only effective at ranges of 150 yards or so.
You see, soldiers of that time really weren't very good shots as a rule and practice was all but non-existent.

The .30/40 Krag offered a "Fast loading" fast shooting weapon, the Military brass despised it because of the increase in "Wasted Ammunition".
As for terminal effect, the .30/40 Krag isn't any better, or worse, than the current 5.56 Nato.

Ammunition resupply has ALWAYS been a problem in combat and soldiers have ALWAYS found ways to rectify the situation when they could.

While positions have and will be overrun and taken due to soldiers running out of ammunition, this situation is much less apparent to occur due to better logistics and planning.

In my time in the military and my continued studies, I cannot ever recall anyone complaining of a lack of terminal effect againxt either the .30/06 and 7.62 Nato or the 8mm Mauser, Mk Vll .303. or 7.62X54 Mosin for that matter.

I wish the British were able to get their experimental 280 standardized by NATO. I think it made for a much better compromise cartridge than 7.62 NATO, which was hard enough to control in full auto that many militaries just used it in semi auto.

 

[herrwalther]

I wish the British were able to get their experimental 280 standardized by NATO. I think it made for a much better compromise cartridge than 7.62 NATO, which was hard enough to control in full auto that many militaries just used it in semi auto.

Full auto has very little use outside crew served weapon systems, as such most individual weapons in the US military have burst fire instead of full auto. 7.62 is very easy to control when using bi/tripods and a full shoulder stock.

If I were general officer grade I would push for 6.5 Grendel to be the standard cartridge. If used correctly that round could replace our 5.56 and 7.62 firearms. The added benefit of using similar magazines would reduce the standard magazine from 30 to 24, which is acceptable considering the improved performance.

 

[Onmilo]

I agree with both of the above posts.
An intermediate cartridge would provide an ideal balance in theory.
Just until someone yet again decides it isn't "Enough gun" and the remaininf full power battle rifles are yet again trundled out of retirement,,,