'73 Springfield and '60 Henry rifle

[Regret Chancy]

I have spent the day shooting my Springfield SRC 45/70 at ranges of 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards, and 300 yards and it is absolutly awe inspiring. Dead on accurate and only drawback is single shot, if in an 1870's through 1889 indian wars battle on either side, one of these with a sidearm and the Henry rifle as a back up for use during a rush by superior numbers. The damage you could do from a defensible position would be total carnage. Having a large amount of native american blood coursing through my veins plus the lessons and strategy learned from my Marine Corps days has led me to the sad realization that even if my native ancestors had equal amounts of ammunition and weapons the same as those being used against them, we were never going to be able to win because fighting from the defensive position was a last resort for us. A warrior believed in attack or ambush and attack, it was an honor system based on bravery and defensive fighting was only used as a rear guard but it was a moving defense not a stationary one. As near as I can tell the Chiricauha Apache finally figured that out when they went to the fortress but it was to late because without proper preperation it was defensible but unholdable because of lack of food for just that purpose in preperation. While I know this is a little off track and a Sharps is probably much better at ranges beyond those I shot today  I have no doubt in my mind that these could be devestating in the proper hands and wonder about the battles were warriors from both sides had these and were bringing down the pain on the opposition.
                                                                                                                  Regret Chancy

[Stillwater]

<snip>

I have no doubt in my mind that these could be devestating in the proper hands and wonder about the battles were warriors from both sides had these and were bringing down the pain on the opposition.
                                                                                                                  Regret Chancy

You would need better ammunition than 1870's users of the rifle had. Ammunition that didn't need to be dug out of the chamber with you knife... Like some of the troops had to do at the "Little Big Horn."

Bill

[Joe Lansing]

    The '73 Springfield rifle off the rack at Springfield Armoury was expected to group within a 27" radius at 1000 yards. Try reading "HARDTACK AND BLACK POWDER" by A. O. Niedner as told to John J.Barsotti, in the November, 1950 issue of " The American Rifleman",pages 27 to 31.
    If you can't find a copy, I'll make a copy and mail it to you for a few bucks (5 pages, with engravings}.

                                                                                           J.L.

[Joe Lansing]

    By the way,: the Turks had a battle with the Russians (using Colt Berdan rifles) in which the Turks defended their position with Rem. rolling blocks, and when the Russians charged, the Turks laid down their Remingtons and picked up their Winchester "66's when the Russians came into range. Use your imagination for the rest of the story.

                                                                    J.L..

[Drydock]

The "Plevna Delay".  Though most of the casualties were caused by the big single shots, the close in firepower of the 66s did great damage in several assaults.  The Russians made a lot of tactical errors, not the least was a frontal assault on an entrenched position that had been fully ranged and marked.  The Standard Turkish rifle was the Peabody, BTW.

http://www.militaryrifles.com/Turkey/Plevna/ThePlevnaDelay.html

[Trailrider]

While it is true that firepower at short ranges can blunt or even defeat massed attacks, a good defensive position is also essential.  Compare the situation of Lt. Grummond's cavalry company in the Fetterman Fight with the situation of Forsyth's Scouts at Beecher Island.  Grummond's troops were armed with Spencer Carbines and two civilian QM employees had Henry Repeating Rifles.  As opposed to the remainder of Fetterman's command, which were armed with muzzleloading rifles, Grummond and Wheatley and Fischer lasted the longest.  But they were in exposed positions and finally fell victim primarily to "primative" bows and arrows (which are very effective in rapid fire, at close to medium ranges, and have an advantage of producing plunging fire...nearly as effective as morters...against barricaded targets).

At Beecher Island, OTOH, Forsyth's Scouts, once they were able to dig in on the island, and using dead horses for cover, and also armed with Spencers (I believe there is a possibility at least some of the scouts were armed with Spencer RIFLES, rather than carbines), were able to hold off a much larger force of Cheyenne and Sioux attackers. As it was, they sustained IIRC, five KIA and 19 WIA.  Forsyth, incidentally, also had several breechloading Springfield rifles, cal. .50-70, which were used for longrange work, and at least one (1) Henry Repeating Rifle, belonging to the mortally wounded Lt. Fred Beecher, the latter probably used by Scout Pierre Trudeau when he went for help.

At the Little Big Horn, Custer's command was wiped out to a man (well, maybe...).  His troops were spread out and cut down in detail by the Lakota and Cheyenne.  Conversely, Reno and Benteen, once dug in were able to hold out against attack, as well as against long range snipers.  Reno/Benteen's troops were NOT armed with repeating arms, but were in a good defensive position.  There is no question that Custer's troops were at a distinct, fatal disadvantage against their attackers in terms of single-shot rifles versus repeaters.  Archeological digs reveal the Indians had only a small percentage of repeating arms, yet probably had more repeaters (Henry and Winchester '66) than Custer had troops.  But probably as many troopers fell victim to plunging arrowfire as died by gunshots.  Of course speculation is fairly useless, but I would opine that had Custer had Spencers, the outcome would have been little different due to the exposed disposition of his troops.  What about if he had had the Gatling guns he refused?  IF those guns had been positioned in support, and HEAVILY GUARDED, before his troops started down Medicine Tail Coulee or the other locations, he might have saved his command.  He'd have probably been better off with pack howitzers initially firing explosive shot into the village, and then cannister or grape shot at closer range.  The PSYCHOLOGICAL effect of either the artillery or Gatlings would have had more effect on the Indians, POSSIBLY saving Custer's command.

[Joe Lansing]

    Drydock: I stand corrected re: the rolling blocks. Reading the history of the battle was very enlightening!

                                                                                J.L.