General Custer's Double Action Revolver

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

I'm a member of the Friends of the Little Big Horn organization, and a recent discussion has popped up there about the legend that Armstrong Custer carried a Webley Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) "Bulldog" revolver at the battle.  This discussion was started by an article in Dec. Guns and Ammo.  The thread is on the Facebook site for the FLBH.  It's a fact that he was given a brace, as was his brother, Tom.

Some of the doubters say that the fact that the Webley was slow to load/unload means that Custer wouldn't have carried it.  I don't have the G&A article, but I've looked in Wiki, etc., and I can't figure out the loading action. I saw a pic and it doesn't look like a break-top.  The article says it fired .442 center-fire cartridges.  Does anyone know how it loaded?

I suppose this question should go in Frontier Iron, but the idea that Custer was shooting a double action is pretty interesting from a historical point of view.  Maybe I should post this in NCOWS and start an argument about approving double action revolvers?    (just kidding, just kidding!!!)

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

If you're a Facebook user, here's the article (and the LBH group):

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Little-Bighorn-Battlefield/143769472602?ref=mf

[Hangtown Frye]

JD, the RIC I used to own had an ejection system exactly like the M1895 Nagant revolvers, in that the ejection rod was mounted on a swivel-type yoke arrangemen. You would pull the rod forward towards the muzzle, swing it from where it was normally carried (within the cylinder pin) over to line up with the chambers, and plunk the empty rounds out exactly as with a Single Action Army.  They weren't spring-loaded like an SAA of course, but just as quick to knock out the rounds.  Because of this the RIC's didn't have the weight of the SAA-style ejector and housing on the side of the barrel, and it made for a slightly slicker profile to holster and unholster.

I don't know why anyone would claim that they're particularly slow to unload, unless they're comparing the RIC to a Smith and Wesson break-top.  They're no slower (or faster) than an SAA, which 95+% of Custer's troopers were armed with, and the RIC is a tad bit faster to empty too, being a Double Action and all that.

I had understood that Custer's Galand-Somerville was in .442", but that his RIC's were in .450". I don't recall where I got that information from, but that has been my understanding.

Cheers!

Gordon

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

Thanks, Gordon.  That's a great explanation. I wondered about that assertion, too.

[Books OToole]

Since it is known that Custer had a pair of Webleys;  and that they were not with his other belongings that were left behind; 

It would seem to imply that he had them with him at Little-Big Horn.

Just a theory.

Books

[St. George]

Taking a look  at actual forensic evidence as gathered during the archaeological finds, you'll see:

Forehand & Wadsworth .32 Rimfire
Colt .36
Colt .38
Sharps .40 -.45 and .50
Ethan Allen or Forehand & Wadsworth .42
S&W American .44
Evans Old model .44
Henry .44
200-gr .44
Miscellaneous and Unknown .40
Winchester .44-40
Colt and S&W .45
Springfield .45-55
.45 Unidentified
Spencer
Unidentified .50 rimfire
Springfield .50-70
Maynard
Miscellaneous and Unidentified .50
Starr
Enfield
Round Ball - .44, .45, .50
Shot

No identifiable Webley rounds were found.

The above are attributal to all of the sites investigated.

More on this is found in 'Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Big Horn' - by Scott, Fox, Connor and Harmon.

It's the record of the digs conducted across the battlefield after the grass fires of August 1983 stripped off all of the thatch and underbrush of the site - and the follow-on 1984-85 dgging season that completely covered the area.

This is the print version of what you've seen on 'The History Channel', and it goes into great depth, as archaeological work does - yet it's compelling...

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

As to the absence of casings, Senior Editor Garry James, Guns & Ammo, the author of this theory, "explains that emptying the spent cartridges was more cumbersome than the Colt so it's possible that Custer never had time to reload." (this is from the FLBH site). 

I don't think the absence of shells means much, one way or another.  After all, the battlefield is missing the remains of an entire group (possibly 20 or so) of troopers whose bodies were reported as being in Deep Ravine, by early witnesses, but who have since disappeared.  So a few shells could certainly escape detection.  Also, as for the guns being left in Custer's possessions, I wonder if there is any concrete accounting of his estate after his death?  Just curious, I don't have the answer.

I've read all Doug Scott's archaeological books, and some of his reports.  Excellent stuff, stripped of the politics and biased reporting that colors most of the record.  It's as close to "truth" as you can get.

And speaking of Dr. Scott (an announcement from the facebook group):

Set your TiVo's, DVRs, or VCR's for November 23, 2009 to the History Channel at either 10:00 AM or 4:00 PM Eastern Time for "Custer's Last Stand" starring our own Doug Scott. This is part of a new series called, "What Went Down" which allows a historian to take moments in history and recreate them as they wish Hollywood would. In other words, the historian becomes the director somewhat.

"Doug Scott, a field archaeologist, is acknowledged as one of the premier experts on Custer's Last Stand. Scott has always wanted to see this dark moment in American military history through the eyes of survivor Lieutenant Edward Godfrey. His knowledge would be key to finally bringing the entire story to light with a team of Hollywood producers. He may know the history, but it was up to the production team to make his vision a reality. Scott wrangles the team to Hardin, Montana to finally re-create the battle of Little Bighorn correctly. Would movie magic, teamed with Scott's knowledge, bring new insight to this important moment in history?"

[Books OToole]

Taking a look  at actual forensic evidence as gathered during the archaeological finds, you'll see:


No identifiable Webley rounds were found.

The above are attributal to all of the sites investigated.


Vaya,

Scouts Out!

There is also a version of the fight where Custer was one of the first to fall.  If not the first.
[That is, from his part of the fight, rather than Reno's or Benteen's.]

This would explain why there wer no Webly cases found.

Books

[kflach]

I'd never heard of any survivor stories of the LBH so I Googled "Lieutenant Edward Godfrey" and found this link:

http://www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/edward_godfrey_little_big_horn.html

The site contains 100 "eye witness" accounts from both sides of the battle (obviously none of them are from the troops who were with Custer at the final moments, but there are a number from Reno and Benteens' troops as well as the 7th Cavalry's scouts). The site authors do a very thorough job of cross-referencing all the stories. It would be quite interesting to see how these stories cross reference with the archeological finds.

That, however, isn't the point of this post. The point is that there appear to be eye-witness accounts that place Custer as being killed while off with a couple of his men trying to find a place to ford a river to get to the Indian villages prior to the battle. According to those sources, the men carried his body back with them as they escaped back to the rest of Custer's troops. *If* (and I emphasize the "if") that is true there wouldn't be any expended ordinance from any of Custer's guns whether he'd been carrying a Webley or an AR-15.

The site authors clearly have some biases (and the site looks kind of like a tabloid), and I know that in the confusion of battle (as well as the passing of time) eye-witness accounts can be inaccurate, so I'm not saying this is gospel. I'm just saying it appears to be a possibility - at least to some degree.

Here's their "Who Killed Custer" page:
http://www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/who_killed_custer.html


p.s. No, I don't believe everything I read on the Internet - but if you sift well enough through all the garbage you can sometimes find hidden treasures.

[Four-Eyed Buck]

Does give one something to think about. And kind of sheds some light on the on some of the why questions



As an aside, in today's local paper there was an announcement of a 170th birthday and historical gathering for G.A. Custer at his home town in a county south of us ( Carrol)........Buck

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

I seem to recall that Doug Scott and other pretty knowledgeable historians discounted the theory that Custer was shot early in the battle.  I can't remember the specifics, but it was based on archaeology, eye-witness accounts from American Indians, etc.

But that's not why I'm writing....

I just found a link with some interesting information about the 7th Cav's armaments.  This is on a page created by Lone Star Rifle Co. of Texas, makers of damn fine single shot Rolling Blocks (there's a Custer model, too).  Here's the link to the article:

http://www.lonestarrifle.com/Custer.html

If nothing else, check out their rifles (place napkin over keyboard to protect from drool).  

[kflach]

That was a very interesting read, J.D. Thanks for the link!

[J.D. Yellowhammer]

You're welcome! 

It was pretty interesting. Well written, too.

[Story]

Taking a look  at actual forensic evidence as gathered during the archaeological finds, you'll see:

.45 Unidentified
....
No identifiable Webley rounds were found.

Considering that both the Webley Bulldog and Royal Irish Constabulary were chambered for the .450 Webley (or .450 Colt), further forensic examination of the 'unidentified .45s' mentioned above is warranted.

[Buffalo Creek Law Dog]

Assuming that they were loaded with 5 rds each, he could have fired up to 10 rds before the end came and never got a chance to reload hence, no empties on the ground.  If still alive at the heat of the battle he would be directing troop movements etc rather than actually shooting.