Trapdoor Springfield Rifle vs. Sharps

[scotjute]

Did the Sharps rifles used by the buffalo hunters ever have any problems?
Particularly under a lot of fire such as in a battle?

Just finished reading another account about Custer's last stand at the Little Bighorn, and several times in this version, the author mentions that the soldier's were having trouble with the .45-70 cartridge casings not extracting once the Trapdoor rifle got hot.

Comparing this to the accounts about the Battle at Adobe Walls and at Buffalo Wallows where Sharps rifles were used and no mention of any problems were made regarding those rifles, only the astounding shots made. Was curious if the Sharps ever had any problems?

 

[bubba15301]

the early 45/70 cases were copper . they would swell up and jam the trapdoors because they had very weak extractors

 

[45-70 Ranger]

The problem was with the cases

The cases used in the mid to late 1870's up to the 1880's were often from contractors, and had a high amount of copper in them. To further the problem of extraction, they were baloon head cartridges. The rather small extractor/ejector on the Springfield would tear through the soft metal rim when the weapon was heated or fouled and thus render the weapon a club! The baloon heads would come apart and leave the body of the case in the chamber and the head would pop out making it a club as well......

It has been recorded that several officers and such would purchase their own ammo and would bypass the issue ammo for this reason by getting better quality casings. Yet another "government buying from the lowest bidder" issue huh?

Wade

 

[Tommygunn]

I suppose any rifle can have problems; Sharps included.

With regard to Custer's 7th cavalry, a big problem with what they had was actually the ammunition they were issued. The army was pinching pennies. Modern ammo is brass (usually). In the 1870s "fixed ammo" (as it was called) was relatively new. The army was underfunded in Custer's day and they did things the cheapest they could, thus they were issued .45-70 (really, nominally a ".45-55" in the case of what was issued for carbine use) ammunition for their Springfields that were copper cased, not brass. Copper cases tarnish easily, pick up verdigris, and due to how they were carried got dented easily. In battle these problems added up combined with the fact the rifles heated up and expanded the metal caused plenty of jams. A common thing to happen was when the trooper flipped open the "trapdoor" which, in its final few degrees of arc, activated a finger-like extractor, it would rip the base off the spent case rather than eject it. The unlucky trooper was stuck with a useless rifle until he pried the offending case out with a knife ... and if the knife tip broke off....OOOOOOOPS!
The Sharps was also made in .45-70, as well as other even more serious calibers. I don't know if any of these were copper cased or not. This period in time was a time of great experimentation. Wise hunters would usually reload their ammo, as "factory ammo" in those days was often viewed as "suspect" or for "tyros." In 1876 you also just didn't pop down to Academy Sports or Gander Mountain and buy more ammo, you usually were on your own with what you had, and that conspired with the facts of life meant RELOAD, RELOAD, RELOAD. And that usually means brass case ammo.
The extractor of the Springfield trapdoor rifles were always thought of as being less than really ideal, but what hurt the troopers with Custer really was more ammo related.



Well .... leadership related as well .....

 

[Pokyman]

If you want an interesting read concerning Buffalo rifles and their loads, see if you can find the articles published with Frank Mayer as the author. He claimed to be a buffalo hunter for over 12 years. His story gives a lot of insight concerning choice of rifles, calibers, and loads. His favorite rifle was the Sharps.
You may notice I haven't touched on the subject of the trap door rifles jamming during the Little Big Horn fight. That subject has been accurately addressed by previous posters.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The 50-70 trapdoors had a similar extraction problem at the Wagon Box fight and the Martini Henry Rifles at Rourkes Drift in 1879 also had extraction problems. Whether it was from a crud ring in the chamber, heat of battle, balloon head cartridges, poor design etc or a combination of factors. At the wagon box fight, they reported "sticky" chambers after 5 or 6 shots. Same at Rourke's Drift with completely different rifles.

Considering the average line soldier vs the Buff hunter who lived by the knowledge and quality of his arm, the care and feeding of the gun was also much different. Billy Dixon and his partner Bat Masterson had a much better understanding of their firearms and their use. Although the amazing shot was fired with a borrowed rifle.

Consider also, the different arms of both sides. At the Wagon Box fight, the Indians had never encountered the firepower of breech loaders. At Rourke's Drift, some of the Zulus had cartridge guns, but single shots. At the little Big Horn, several of the indians had lever guns. (The wagon Box fight would probably have been a disaster but for the fact that the Army scouts had lever guns.)

 

[Tommygunn]

At the little Big Horn, several of the indians had lever guns.

It has been estimated by some historians that there were more Indians at the Little Bighorn fight with "repeater" or lever actions than there were troopers under Custer's command in the 5 companies that were wiped out with the infamous general along Battle Ridge.
These would include Spencers, Henry Rifles, Improved Henries (AKA Winchester 1866) Winchester 1873s, Kennedy Repeaters and maybe some oddball brands people today don't recall.
Generally, the 7th cavalry's rifles used more powerful, longer-ranged rounds, but in the fighting the 7th cav. experienced, range became meaningless and firepower became the premium element -- meaning the repeaters, even though less powerful on a shot per shot basis, more than made up for this detriment through superior firepower. Simply, more lead downrange.
Also, in the broken uneven terrain, simply lobbing arrow valleys over hills became very effective since in that manner they were not line-of-sight. The arrows might hit someone, but the men being thus attacked couldn't return fire with a rifle.
Custer was simply outsmarted, outnumbered, and outfought.
But, there were A LOT of indians with lever actions there ... as well as a plethora of numerous other weapons.

 

[artee]

The key here is it was a time of flux. Many new inventions and styles of solving a problem. Many new case styles. Many priming styles. And experience hadn't weeded out the week ideas yet.

The .45-70 Govt case from adoption till 1879 was even WORSE than a "balloon head" case. A "balloon head" is still a solid case head design. The cartridges issued for the 76 campaign had a priming style called the "Benet Priming". If you picture the case as being a giant scaled up .22 Rimfire, you'll have an idea of it's construction. The rim is a folded over design, just like in today's .22 LR or Short (or the .22 short of their day). The case was much thinner metal, especially at the bottom of the case. The primer was a "dot" of compound placed in the center of a strip of metal. This metal strip stretched across the INSIDE of the case head like a Band-Aid on a wound. The ends of the strip went into the FOLDS of the rim on opposite sides. The firing pin actually had to strike through the BOTTOM of the case to crush the primer pellet between the case head and "strip". The casehead was not pierced; it just got a big dent from the firing pin. As you can imagine, the case would have to be of very thin metal for this system to work. Again, if you think of the case as an enlarged .22 Rimfire, with very little change in metal thickness, you have a fair idea of the cartridge style the Government used. It is no wonder that the rims on these cartridges, especially with a case material of copper instead of brass, were so delicate and torn so easily by the extractor. Also, it explains why rifles that would "jam" or stick the cartridge "in the heat of battle" could often be picked up and have the cartridge extracted with only a bit more than normal difficulty when the rifle/carbine had well cooled down. This characteristic, and the changing of the case design in 1879 led many investigators, even in the 1880's to arrive at the wrong conclusion--that this problem didn't exist but in the minds of the soldiers.

Also, be aware that the 7th still had their Spencer carbines in the '74 expedition. They only BEGAN to receive the .45-70 Trapdoors in '75 and some troops/companies didn't receive them till early '76. Many had as little as 4 months to learn a new weapon. Lastly, the ammunition allotment for training had been severely cut back to something like 20 rounds per man per year. Tricky to learn of a problem that shows up under heavy sustained or rapid fire conditions when you only practice with a half dozen cartridges per range visit.

 

[BHP FAN]

Artee nailed it in one.The description of a ''giant .22'' coincides perfectly with the picture on page 160 of ''Trapdoor Springfield'' by M.D. ''Bud'' Waite and B.D. Ernst.

 

[Onmilo]

I have reproduction 1873 Trapdoor and 1874 Sharps Infantry rifles.
Using modern drawn brass cases there is no difference between the two in mechanical function or ability to withstand the affects of blackpowder fouling.

The problem wasn't with the weapon, the problem was with the ammunition it utilized.
I don't believe the military went to drawn brass cases until about 1884.

Sharps rifles were used in a number of skirmishes between buffalo hunters and Indians, there are no recorded instances of ammunition issues with these particular weapons because the buffalo hunters were using drawn brass cases for their rifles and usually reloading their own ammunition to meticulous standards.
By all accounts the Sharps rifles acquitted themselves quite well at keeping the Indians out of range

 

[Z71]

Yes..the copper cased ammunition and black powder fouling lead to extraction issues. The trapdoor extractor doesn't work on much of the case rim...just takes a small bite. Copper being quite soft..takes a bite out of the rim of a stuck case..and your done shooting for awhile.

These copper cases were what were called 'balloon head'..just a sheet of thin copper pressed into a case..the rim being hollow(like a .22 rimfire)..they were centerfire..but had the ancient 'inside primed' primer. The primer wasn't visable from the outside it was installed in a 'base wad' type doo-hicky inside the case....50-70 ammunition was the same type. A common way for self contained ammo to be constructed then.

 

[StrawHat]

Actually, copper cases were of folded head construction. What is considered balloon head construction came out much later and were called solid head by the manufacturers. Cartidges also had seperate cse heads at one point and coiled cases and...

Many cups of coffee have been consumed during conversatios about case head construction by the various cartridge collectors!!

The Springfields and Sharps are both okay with modern case head construction. I have an 1866 Trapdoor and with modern 50-70 brass it kicks them clear everytime. Of course, I am not fighting Indians.

 

[mr16ga]

I have never seen an original Sharps but the repo's I have seen the extractor can be a problem as well. The one on my EMF Sharps is a wimpy little twig of metal that would slip past the rim of the case most of the time until I fixed the extractor by drilling the extractor out and putting a tight ring of metal to stop the extractor from flopping around.
I would like to examine an original 74's extractor.