".45-70 at LBH?" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board Back to The Old West Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Norman D Landings | 07 Sep 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
In "The Custer Myth", W.A. Graham includes a letter from Charles Varnum, who was in command of the 7th's scouts. Varnum was among many to whom Graham sent the manuscript for "The Story of the Little Big Horn" (1926), soliciting comments, corrections, etc. Varnum's only suggestion was: "We took, at least I think they all took, rifle ammunition instead of carbine .55 grain." Has anyone heard this before? I've certainly never come across the idea in any other sources. I find it hard to credit that such a radical action would pass without mention in this most studied of battles. In practical terms, I'm sure it would offer no advantage whatsoever. Any supposed increase in range or power would be more than offset by the greatly increased felt recoil and increased loadout weight, and if anything it would have exacerbated the problematic combination of overheated weapon + cheap copper cartridge case. If there's no substance to this, then… what on earth do you think gave Varnum the notion? |
WillieB | 07 Sep 2016 11:07 a.m. PST |
I wonder what he meant by .55 grain? The difference in weight between a 70 grain and 55 grain load wouldn't be all that enormous. We're at most talking about a few grams for a full loadout since the bullet weight remained the same in the carbine load? It might however explain, up to a certain point, the extraction difficulties often mentioned in the reports. The shorter 22 inch barrel would heat up faster and there MIGHT have been more fouling from unburned powder. The copper cartridge wouldn't have helped either but of course that was exactly the same with the full length rifle. At least some of the men were actually carrying rifles instead of carbines I believe? |
DJCoaltrain | 07 Sep 2016 11:32 a.m. PST |
Not sure what Varnum's talking about. Prior to the .45-70 round they used a .50-70-450 round. In 73 the .45-70 became the standard. However, "The Model 1873 carried by the 7th Cavalry was a carbine that weighed 7 pounds and had an overall length of 41 inches. It used a .45-caliber copper-cased cartridge, a 405-grain bullet and a charge of 55 grains of black powder. The best effective range for this carbine was under 300 yards, but significant hits still could be scored out to 600 yards. A bullet was driven out of the muzzle at a velocity of about 1,200 feet per second, with 1,650 foot-pounds of energy. The trapdoor Springfield could hurl a slug more than 1,000 yards and, with proper training, could be fired with accuracy 12 to 15 times per minute." I think it possible the troopers took .45-70 rifle rounds to use and not the .45-55 rounds. However, if that is the case, it would change studies regarding weapon performance where the author assumed the troops carried the .45-55 carbine ammo. A very provocative observation. |
CorpCommander | 07 Sep 2016 12:32 p.m. PST |
The bullet drop on those carbines was a significant factor, I bet, when the battle left the saddle and went to dismounted. The American Indian warriors had a big advantage with the rifles they had. We see the same thing in this century – the very advanced, gadget encrusted M4 carbine is great in Iraq and suffers from the longer ranges in other places. As for rifle bullets in the carbine – they certainly fit the '73. The difference would be about 200 ft/sec extra muzzle velocity and a slightly flatter trajectory with possibly more dispersion. The carbine just isn't fit for long range engagements. Its certainly an interesting campaign to study and recreate. There are interesting reasons for the intelligence failures, as well as what seems odd choices in hind sight. This adds another interesting twist to the story. |
WillieB | 07 Sep 2016 4:35 p.m. PST |
I have no idea but was the groove twist the same in the carbine as in the rifle? Just curious but in all the years I've been shooting competitions we have gone from longer barrels with slow twists for certain calibres, to short stiff barrels with relatively fast twists and everything in between for exactly the same cartridge. Just to say that a higher muzzle velocity doesn't ALWAYS equate with less accuracy from a shorter barrel. |
TurnStyle | 08 Sep 2016 6:54 a.m. PST |
Yep, and in the firearms industry there has been a big push to build bullets for shorter barrels. .308 used to be produced for barrels in the 20-24" range and now more companies are building ammo for 16" (carbine-esque) length barrels etc. |
Cloudy | 08 Sep 2016 7:38 p.m. PST |
The grooves and twist were the same for rifle and carbine – 1:22 |
|