|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 30, 2019 22:33:01 GMT
How did the Cavalry end up with the 1873 Springfield? How did this rifle/ carbine become the weapon of choice? Was it the best platform? Would the troops preferred a weapon that would chamber more than one round?
The Springfield went up against the 1873 Winchester, the Spencer, and several other platforms. The 1873 Winchester could be chambered for the 44-40 as could the 1873 Colt(Cost saving and utilitarian). Was the Government afraid they could not afford the ammunition? Part of the reason the Spencer was retired. Were the officers pushed/ordered towards the Springfield? The government owned the Springfield Armory and the rounds were the 45-70 government. Oh yeah Terry and Reno were among the officers who chose the platform. I wonder if they ever second guessed themselves? Probably not they probably just followed orders.
The United States' first armory (established under authority of General George Washington as a major arsenal early in the Revolutionary War) – was closed by the federal government in 1968.
Regards, Tom
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Mar 31, 2019 10:11:07 GMT
Memory says one thing it was chosen for was its range. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 31, 2019 11:07:34 GMT
Yes that was the word Mac and may have in part sealed the deal, but Winchester had already produced a Musket model 30" barrel and expanded magazine. They also promised one in 45-70in the same configuration. As a matter of fact they, later, on their own produced the Model 76 in 40-60, 45-60, 45-75, and 50-90 these all would have been available to the military in the 1873-74 timeframe.
There was a belief, in the military management, that the repeater would be the cause for much wasted ammunition. So would the proper amount of practice.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 31, 2019 12:26:50 GMT
The primary component of the weapon system was the rifle and amongst the strengths of both rifle and carbine was stopping horses. Bang and down they go. Range mattered but, imho, mindset had not fully adapted to the new skirmish line as battle line tactics. Economically, there were serious constraints on funding and during 1876, a significant number of regiments were abolished by Congress. Little Bighorn changed that. Both the Springfield Rifle and carbine could and can take down a horse. The copper ammunition was a cost saving which didn't work out.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 31, 2019 12:45:24 GMT
Powder burn in the longer barrel increased the velocity and knockdown power. This is somewhat obviated in the carbine and it used the 45-55 due to the fact that the barrel was not long enough to fully burn that 45-70 powder and leverage the knockdown power. The longer barrel of the rifle also gave more groove distance to accurize the ball further down range. I can bring down a horse or elk with a .22 or .24 cal. ball with proper shot placement.
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 31, 2019 16:03:17 GMT
The rifle achieved sonic velocity and a carbine shooting 55 grain of black powder did not which made a noticeable difference in the sound heard.
I think the barrel of the carbine was sufficient in length to burn all the powder it just lacked the additional push from an increased length of a rifle.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 31, 2019 16:06:29 GMT
A spotlight and a .22 are very effective at taking deer and elk at night. Anyone care to guess why there are less cases against antelope taken at night? I doesn't have anything to do with population numbers.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 31, 2019 18:32:54 GMT
Once they bed down they stay there!
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 1, 2019 16:33:12 GMT
During the ACW, Custer’s own regiments had Spencer carbines at Hanover and east cavalry field. They did have their drawbacks, apparently, they produced a lot of smoke which practically blinded the soldiers firing them. Ammunition was also a factor, with supply chains not used to supplying the number of cartridges needed for use in the field. But they held seven rounds and had an effective range of 500 yards. They could in trained hands, pump out nearly 20 rounds per minute, which was why the supply factor was such a problem.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 1, 2019 23:40:10 GMT
They used them at the Washita and the Yellowstone expedition as well.
Regards. Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 5, 2019 14:37:48 GMT
At the armory in Massachusetts they have two prototype carbines with a hole drilled in the front of the stock and a bracket attached to the barrel to hold a cleaning rod. The buttstock compartment was the final product.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 6, 2019 0:57:57 GMT
|
|