So after 200 rounds or so, the breech block pops open upon firing. How di I fix this?
Printable View
So after 200 rounds or so, the breech block pops open upon firing. How di I fix this?
sounds like an early development toward semiauto military rifles.
the self ejecting model!
of course if you had the problem at little bighorn it would not have mattered, as you were going to die anyway.
keep safe,
bruce.
Not every cavalryman at the Battle at LBH died. Those that did didn't die because of the M1873 Carbine.
larry,
if any lived it would not have been many.
equipment problems seem to have been mainly ammo related.
the old soft cases might have been one problem, but the main problem was apparrently lack of ammo as all the horses were scared off by the women, and a lot of ammo went with them.
the other issue was the person that stupidly took the soldiers there in the first place.
keep safe,
bruce.
Bruce
Fact is the Reno/Benteen half of the battalion survived the battle. The Battle at LBH comprised much more than just that one battalion GAC accompanied. There were many in the 7th Cavalry that survived and went on to finish the campaign against the hostiles and against the Hostile Nez Pierce a few years later.
The inspection of weapons and ammunition a few days after the battle by an ordnance officer accompanying Terry's column, forensic evidence found in the 1980s let alone the fact the hostiles fired over 11,000+ rounds of the captured 45-55 ammunition into the Reno/Benteen location belie any credibility to the "ammo" problem. The cavalrymen carried 50 rounds on them in prairie belts plus had 18 rounds for their M1872 Colt. If the soldiers had problems with the ammo why didn't the hostiles? Fact is neither the cavalrymen or the hostiles had any significant problems with the 45-55 ammo jamming in the M1873 Carbine.
Very few of the hostile woman took an active part in the battle. They did not "scare off the horses" regardless what romantic novels, tv or Hollywood might say. They were too busy packing up what they could of the village, rounding up the young and old to "skedaddle".
The problem was one of little or no training, particularly in weaponscraft and the use of the M1873 Carbine. most of the 7th Cavalry was not "elite" as Hollywood and the many books and articles lead us to believe. The fact is more than half of the soldiers had less than a year in the cavalry. The winter of '74/'75 was one of the worst on record and no training was conducted before the departure in May'75. Many of the recruits had also just arrived. Most of the NCO's and Officer's had no real experience fighting hostile Indians, especially those on the plains. The lack of training and experience led to disintegration of discipline and tactical stability resulting panic among the soldiers and they ran. That tactical disintegration also occurred with Reno's battalion in the valley, it is why Benteen did not take his troop assist Reno in the valley as he knew it would happen to his men too and it began to happen during the retreat from Weir's Point.
As to the "stupid person that took the soldiers there" if you are referring to GAC you are incorrect. The campaign plans were not his. He had nothing to do with the planning. That was Sheridan and Terry. GAC arrived and took field command (he was not the actual regiment commander) only days before the regiment departed on campaign with Terry's column. At the LBH GAC was following orders. The Terry/Gibbons column was to enter the Little Big Horn Valley from the north. Crooks column was to enter the Little Big Horn Valley from the south and the GAC and the 7th Cavalry were to be the attack force causing the hostiles to move out into the plains of the valley and to block the hostiles escape back into the mountains to the west. All were to converge on the 25th of June......that was Terry's plan, not Custer's. Only GAC and the 7th Cavalry were at the appointed place, at the appointed time on the appointed day. The problem was CAC did not know the Terry/Gibbons column was lost up Tullock Creek and Crook was fishing and playing cards still on the Rosebud. GAC thus had no idea the other 2 columns were not there as they were supposed to be. I guess the cell towers were down that day.........
Regardless of what revisionist progressive ideas may tell us in Hollywood movies, tv and novels or even in many of the old books on what someone thought may have happened GAC was following orders. His tactics were those of the day. He may have been arrogant but stupid......I don't think so.
Alas, in the spirit of this thread the M1873 Carbine and the Officer's Model (there were a couple of those there at the LBH battle) H&Rs that pop open can be fixed. I ended up replacing the breach blocks on both mine with originals. It took a little fitting but was not difficult. I have shot thousands of smokeless and BP loads through mine in the last 20+ years.
While it is said the 1873 Winchester "won the West" it was the M1873 Springfield that made the West safe for the Winchester to "win".
Attachment 208038
Larry you are a wealth of knowledge :awesome:
And I think you will find that many of the recruits in the Army had less than a year in the country, much less in the army. Lot of recently arrived Irish in the Army at that time.
larry,
i would value your opinion on some points as i understand them.
i believe there were a number of army forces looking for the indians, and the plan was to find them, and unite forces prior to any engagement.
custer happened to be the force that found them first.
he had orders not to engage until joined by other forces.
he had such an intense hatred of his second in command that he wanted him dead.
he was specifically ordered to have no media contact, yet took a newspaper writer with him.
he planned a carreer in politics and needed public acclaim to get there.
his tactic that had been twice successful previously, and made his name as an indian fighter was to take women and children hostage.
this sets the scene for little bighorn.
upon finding the camp, he divided his force, sending 1/2 of it to fight a superior force of indians, under charge of his 2ic.
this would solve the problem of getting rid of that guy.
it was a calculated risk, but he believed he had enough men left to capture the women and children, which would cause the warriors to give up.
the indians were under 2 chiefs, one of which led the warriors, (crazy horse?), and the other (sitting bull?) led the women and children along the river bank.
unfortunately for custer he could not cross the river to capture them.
the soldiers sent to fight the warriors were driven back to defend themselves on a hill, in a bad way.
the warriors took shots at them for a period of time, and then went after custers group.
as they came across custer, causing him to go into defensive mode, the women crossed the river flapping blankets and yelling, scaring off the horses which were held by horse holders more than 1 horse per man, and carried much of the ammunition.
modern forensic investigation has followed the fight from here, connecting fired cartridge cases to individual rifles as the soldiers were driven back using skirmish lines as their tactic.
they were pushed back up the hill, until almost all were killed, and the few let tried to run away, almost certainly all being killed.
cartridge cases found include sone with tool marks on them from obviously failing to extract, and having to be forced out some other way.
these could have been the old soft cases that were known for this.
the guys left on the hill having retreated from the warriors mostly lived to tell the tale.
it is suspected that custer took his own life, and suggested that he had a serious dose of venerial disease.
if any of these things are true, it suggests that far from being a man of honour and gallantry, custer was self serving at others' expense, disobeyed orders, and was prepared to engage in folly rather than let common sense rule.
the hollywood vision of custer being the last man standing, out of ammunition and armed only with a sabre, taking an arrow from a treacherous indian is long since dead.
and we must remember that the indians probably would have called the whites "hostiles".
hell the whites were trying to kill them for trying to hang on to what they were given by the whites.
keep safe,
bruce.
Bruce,
As a fellow Bruce in this world... Cheers! As an American with 1/4 Native heritage (North-Eastern seaboard/Canadian tribe - so not hostile after we lost the King Phillip's War of 1676.. The other half came over by boats from England, Wales and France about that same timeframe)
The Battle of Little Bighorn was a colossal disaster on many facets of the US's military command.
A study from the Native American accounts after the battle.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...-won-63880188/
Many US Military personnel take road trips to the battlefield to study the command and tactical decisions of both warring parties. Its a takeaway from the value of the study in that many of us emulate Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Gall in our military planning aspects now.
George Armstrong Custer was not a good officer cadet at West Point and after an abbreviated time at the Academy, was commissioned and shipped off to Union Army. (In those days, the premier assignments for the cadets in the top of their class was the Engineer Assignments. Cavalry at the time of his commission was not considered a prime assignment for officers. He was also sent home from West Point with an assignment back to his home state to be assigned to handle their volunteer units versus the regular Army. That said, he excelled in combat and swiftly rose through the ranks to become a General Officer by the end of the war.
After the war ended he was administratively reduced to his regular Army grade versus the stars of a general but returned to a hero's welcome to his home state where shortly afterwards he re-upped for an assignment as a Lt. Col in the Regular Army and then went west to seek his fortune and to regain his former rank where his ego soon conflicted with his commander.
That said, Aussies aren't innocent. You've been fighting with the Aboriginal people for more than 146 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars
bruce,
good to hear from you.
your heritage makes your point of view interesting.
yes massacres happened here, and not just in warfare.
great effort has been made to cover these up.
back to the indian wars, a good read of the book "a tough trip through paradise" should be mandatory reading when studying the fate of the nez perce.
this book suggest that that tribe was far from hostile, but rather defensive all the way.
treachery brought them down.
their doom was only 1 step up from the so called battle of wounded knee.
keep safe,
bruce.
bruce,
your link to smithsonianmag is well worth reading.
one would have to give it great credence, as it is from memory of people who were there.
my belief that the women crossed the river with blankets seems to be blown away, but blankets were used for the same purpose.
what it does not describe is custers reason for dividing his force.
his track record of taking women and children hostage, combined with his actions, certainly does not rule out that intent.
keep safe,
bruce.
Bruce
Not sure where you got your information and understanding but most of it is incorrect. I will address your questions.
larry,
i would value your opinion on some points as i understand them.
i believe there were a number of army forces looking for the indians, and the plan was to find them, and unite forces prior to any engagement.
There were only 3 Army forces and they were operating under the same plan as developed by Sheridan and Terry. Custer was not involved in the planning. They were familiar with the hostiles and knew they would be in possibly 3 locations because the hostiles needed buffalo for food and other uses; the Powder River Valley, Rosebud Creed Valley or the Little Big Horn Valley.
custer happened to be the force that found them first.
Not so. Actually it was Crooks column that found them first and engaged the hostiles at the battle of the Rosebud a week before the LBH battle. Crook failed to notify the campaign commander (Terry) of this engagement and location so Terry and hence Custer were not aware of the Rosebud battle.
he had orders not to engage until joined by other forces.
Custer had no such orders. Terry's overall plan, as I stated earlier, was for the 3 columns to converge on the Little Big Horn Valley after scouting the Powder River, the Tongue River and the Rosebud in case hostiles should be there. That was where the hostiles were really expected to be because they traditionally trespassed into Crow country to hunt buffalo and antelope. Custer was the attack force following the hostiles from the Rosebud where Reno had earlier found their trail. His mission, as the attack force, was to proceed up the Rosebud to locate the hostiles, and use his own judgment. Custer’s obvious objective when he located the Village was to drive the hostiles out into the open valley and to block their possible escape back eastward into the mountains. Crook's column was to block the southern escape and to surround the hostiles from the south. The Terry/Gibbon's column was to come up the Little Big Horn Valley, block the northern escape route and to capture the hostiles.
Crook’s column never arrived and the Terry/Gibbons column arrived a day too late.
he had such an intense hatred of his second in command that he wanted him dead.
Really? On what authority is that based on? Major Reno was Custer's second in command. There is no evidence of any such hatred. Perhaps disdain because Terry had selected him to command a scout up the Tongue River and Reno had disobeyed Terry's orders.
he was specifically ordered to have no media contact, yet took a newspaper writer with him.
Now that is a new one......the 7th Cavalry including the newspaper reporter, Kellogg, passed in review in front of Terry and his command staff as they left up the Rosebud. If there had been any such orders would not have Terry stopped Kellogg from going or would not have any of his staff made note of it? Terry didn't stop Kellogg and his staff made no note of it because there was no such order.
he planned a carreer in politics and needed public acclaim to get there.
Another myth created after his death and promoted by Hollywood. There is no evidence Custer had any desire to run for any public office, especially the presidency as is often mentioned. What he strived for was to get his General Rank back.
his tactic that had been twice successful previously, and made his name as an indian fighter was to take women and children hostage. this sets the scene for little bighorn.
Yes Custer did use that tactic. That tactic had been developed and used since the French and Indian Wars. It was further "modernized" by Crook in the early '60s when he campaigned against the Paiute Indians in Oregon, Idaho and Nevada. It was also the tactic used by others such as Reynalds against the Cheyenne in March '76 (the actual beginning of the campaign) who was commanded by Crook. Also at Sand Creed, etc. It was the standard tactic for fighting hostiles Indians. That tactic was effective because the warriors would give up then. The hostile village was the supply line and support for the warriors. It was simply a tactic of separating the warrior from his supply base. All commanders fighting hostile Indians used that tactic. As far as tactical deployments Custer and the other officers were following the “Prescriptions Of Cavalry Tactics, 1874”.
upon finding the camp, he divided his force, sending 1/2 of it to fight a superior force of indians, under charge of his 2ic.
this would solve the problem of getting rid of that guy.
You're kidding, right? That is so preposterous to think Custer would have sacrificed a battalion of his soldiers to maybe rid himself of Reno......especially when there is no evidence supporting Custer's "hatred" of Reno. Actually Custer had a disdain for Weir and for Benteen. In reality the "hatred" was Benteen's hatred (not sure I would even call it that) of Custer for the Elliot Massacre at the Wa****a Battle some years earlier. No, Custer divided his force as per the tactics used then for fighting hostiles and attacking hostile villages. That tactic is still used today; it can be known as a "hammer and anvil" or a diversionary attack with a main flanking attack. However, Custer's main objective was not to simply "attack" the village but to cause the village to flee out onto the prairie where they could be captured, and to separate the warriors from the pony herd.
it was a calculated risk, but he believed he had enough men left to capture the women and children, which would cause the warriors to give up.
Custer did not attempt to capture the hostile village as so often is portrayed by fiction. He sent Benteen off "to the left" to ensure there were no hostiles in that direction. That was correcting the error he made at Wa****a where he actually faced more Indians than at the LBH. Custer sent Reno into the valley to attack to drive the horse herd off and to cause the old, woman and children to pack up what they could and attempt to escape as per the tactics of the day. Custer probably, when he saw the true size of the village then took the rest of the 7th positioning it between the village and the mountains to the east blocking escape that way……following his orders from Terry. The village was breaking down and fleeing out into the valley to the NW toward where the Terry/Gibbons column was supposed to be. Custer positioned C, L and I troops to block the crossing at Medicine Tail Coulee, E Troop to block the Deep Ravine crossing and F Troop to block Clark’s Ford D crossing (down where Kellogg was killed).
With the village fleeing out across the prairie where it was very vulnerable it was the Terry/Gibbon column that was supposed to "capture" the village perhaps assisted by Crook's column. Problem was, neither of those columns showed up at the appointed place, on the appointed day.
All participants also were well aware the hostile warriors would fight.
the indians were under 2 chiefs, one of which led the warriors, (crazy horse?), and the other (sitting bull?) led the women and children along the river bank.
unfortunately for custer he could not cross the river to capture them.
As there were several tribes there along with many separate bands there were many “chiefs”. No chief led them all. The northern plains warrior fought as an individual. There were also 7 or 8 “Warrior Societies” (gangs actually) that fought separately. Crazy Horse “led” very little and Sitting Bull didn’t either. Gaul probably was a more effective “combat leader” than either.
There’s little evidence to say there was any attempt to cross the LBH and attack other than by Reno and Benteen (he chose not to attack). What it appears is that reconnaissance in force was made of the crossing and then blocking forces were positioned to stop the hostiles from crossing and escaping into the mountains. Besides all that, what is it do you think Custer and the 7th Cavalry were there for?
the soldiers sent to fight the warriors were driven back to defend themselves on a hill, in a bad way.
Assuming you’r referring to Reno’s battalion(?) this is true.
the warriors took shots at them for a period of time, and then went after custers group.
Also true. Most of the warriors Custer’s battalion faced were the ones who drove Reno’s battalion from the LBH valley floor up to the top of the bluffs. Had Reno’s battalion not been routed they would have been reinforced on the valley floor by Benteen’s troop and Custer would not have face the number of Warriors he did. The village would have continued to skedaddle out onto the valley prairie and the warriors would have disengaged and attempted to flee with the village.
as they came across custer, causing him to go into defensive mode, the women crossed the river flapping blankets and yelling, scaring off the horses which were held by horse holders more than 1 horse per man, and carried much of the ammunition.
Obviously you’ve not studied a map of the battlefield or ever been to the battlefield. The horses were held on the east side of Mile ridge with the river being a long way downhill from the crest. Also most of the battle was taking place between where the horses were held and the river. The woman would have had to wade the deep river traverse ¾ +/- a mile uphill in the midst of the battle “flapping blankets” to get to the horses which they had no idea where they were because they couldn’t be seen from the village. You really want to believe that? No, the women were packing up the village along with the elderly and children to skedaddle. The woman only went out onto the battlefield after the fighting was over.
The fact is C troops horses were held with I and L Troops and were stampeded by warriors bravery runs as told by the warriors. E and F troops horse were stampeded by a bravery run of the warrior society; the suicide bunch. That also is told by the warriors.
The doctrine was every 4th soldier dismounted became a holder of 4 horses. As mentioned before the solders wore prairie belts (cartridge belts) holding 40 – 50 rounds of 45-55 ammunition and 12 additional rounds of 45 Colt for their revolver. They had been issued an additional 100 rounds of 45-55 ammunition that was in the saddle bags. Thus the soldiers had 1/3 of their ammunition on them when dismounted. Additionally we do not know if any of the extra ammunition in the saddle bags was taken out when the troops were still in skirmish position and fighting.
The inconsiderate Hostiles did not leave an inventory for us of what they recovered from the horses. However, we do know they recovered a lot of 45-55 ammunition from dead soldiers and the horses as the forensic excavations recovered over 11,000+ 45-55 bullets that impacted into the Reno/Benteen position. All of which was shot from the captured M1873 Carbines and 45-55 ammunition.
modern forensic investigation has followed the fight from here, connecting fired cartridge cases to individual rifles as the soldiers were driven back using skirmish lines as their tactic.
they were pushed back up the hill, until almost all were killed, and the few let tried to run away, almost certainly all being killed.
Basically, that was the end at Last Stand Hill as stated by the hostiles present. There was, however, a lot more action that occurred before that on Luce Ridge, Calhoun Hill, the base of Greasy Grass ridge and Keogh’s position not to mention the total route and chase clear along Mile Ridge to Last Stand Hill.
The forensics only tracks the cartridge cases. Those cases shown to be fired by the same firearm can then be assumed to track the firearm across the battlefield. Those cases found that were fired from obvious skirmish lines that ate 45-55 cases we can assume were fired by soldiers. The others found across the battlefield may have been fired by soldiers or by Indians who were then using captured Carbines.
cartridge cases found include sone with tool marks on them from obviously failing to extract, and having to be forced out some other way. these could have been the old soft cases that were known for this.
The number found were inconsequential to the outcome of the battle. Cpt. Michaelis, an ordnance officer assigned ot terry’s column inspected the arms and reported no occurrences. Also we have the report of the Reno/Benteen contingent who had the same Carbines and the same ammunition and little of such problems even though they fired many more rounds than did the Custer contingent. And lastly if all those carbines jammed how was it the hostiles fired 11.000+ rounds at the Reno/Benteen contingent out of the same Carbines with the same ammunition?
the guys left on the hill having retreated from the warriors mostly lived to tell the tale.
No idea whom you’re talking about here?
[I] it is suspected that custer took his own life, and suggested that he had a serious dose of venerial disease.{/I]
From the purported head would some do assume Custer may have shot himself after being wounded at the end. However, there is a warrior who claims to have rushed up and shot Custer in the head. That story is suspect.
As to the venereal disease…..where are you coming up with this stuff? Can you give us a break or at least tell us what fiction your watching or reading?
if any of these things are true, it suggests that far from being a man of honour and gallantry, custer was self serving at others' expense, disobeyed orders, and was prepared to engage in folly rather than let common sense rule.
There is nothing in what you’ve posted that can be substantiated that would lend credence to that statement.
I will add that if Custer did make any arrogant error in judgment it was refusing Brisbane’s offer to take his cavalry battalion. Having that additional force with the 7th at the LBH would have changed history.
the hollywood vision of custer being the last man standing, out of ammunition and armed only with a sabre, taking an arrow from a treacherous indian is long since dead.
and we must remember that the indians probably would have called the whites "hostiles".
hell the whites were trying to kill them for trying to hang on to what they were given by the whites.
The Hollywood version isn’t dead; they replay and revise it all the time. Many, like you have bought off into that revisionism which is obvious from the statements in your post.
I’m sure the hostiles referred to whites as a lot worse than “hostiles”.
Again, you should check your geography and factual history. If the Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and other hostiles present were trying to “hang on to what they were given by the whites” why weren’t the Sioux in the Black Hills? What were the Northern Cheyenne give in Montana? Fact is they were trespassing on Crow land, killing Crow buffalo and antelope and letting their horses eat up all the Crow grass………the hostiles were just that; hostile.
One last question for you; exactly what do you think the 7th Cavalry was supposed to do when they caught up to the hostiles given the hostiles had already attacked Crook’s column. Notice the hostiles were the attackers, Crook did not attack them or their village. Not exactly the image of the native American communicating with nature eh? So the hostiles probably wouldn’t have been too keen on having tea and crumpets and perhaps a game of cribbage with Custer would they……..
"I’m sure the hostiles referred to whites as a lot worse than “hostiles”.
Again, you should check your geography and factual history. If the Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and other hostiles present were trying to “hang on to what they were given by the whites” why weren’t the Sioux in the Black Hills? What were the Northern Cheyenne give in Montana? Fact is they were trespassing on Crow land, killing Crow buffalo and antelope and letting their horses eat up all the Crow grass………the hostiles were just that; hostile.
One last question for you; exactly what do you think the 7th Cavalry was supposed to do when they caught up to the hostiles given the hostiles had already attacked Crook’s column. Notice the hostiles were the attackers, Crook did not attack them or their village. Not exactly the image of the native American communicating with nature eh? So the hostiles probably wouldn’t have been too keen on having tea and crumpets and perhaps a game of cribbage with Custer would they…….."
And as Paul Harvey would say, here's the rest of the story.
White people were the "original illegal aliens" that invaded this continent, attacked the native populace in more ways than just militarily....then have the unmitigated gall to call the Indians "hostiles". Pure unadulterated hypocricy.
Back on OP's topic: interesting H&R replica info courtesy of the National Park Service, see page 9:Quote:
Originally Posted by omgb
https://www.nps.gov/stri/upload/19th...ver-Manual.pdf
White people were the "original illegal aliens" that invaded this continent, attacked the native populace in more ways than just militarily....then have the unmitigated gall to call the Indians "hostiles". Pure unadulterated hypocricy.
Maybe splitting hairs here, but it was the Spanish who invaded that country and provided the horses 250 years before any "white people" got involved.
Not exactly hypocricy, or at least I would not have chosen that wordage.
Back to the H&R..... this is good info as I almost bought one not long ago.
Army tests showed that a practiced person could fire the Springfield breech loader at a rate of 12 to 13 times a minute,
Interesting manual fgd135. We see the above also in the Army's Manuals. However that rate of fire with a M1873 Carbine or rifle is not possible (if you intend to hit a target anyway) using the manual of arms for loading and firing as shown in that manual. We seldom see the correct method of rapid fire reloading used in movies, even older ones, as the correct method is a lost art. Using the correct method 12 -15 shots with accuracy (hitting a 12x12" plate at 100 yards is possible by "a practiced person".
Obviously if one replaces the H&R breach block with original Springfield then one should follow the appropriate instructions if using that manual.
> Pure unadulterated hypocricy.
Actually the ones who are guilty of hypocrisy are the people who's vision is clouded with the delusions of PC,
revisionist history, and selective memory.
During the settlement of North America and expansion westward, the people of European and African descent
(you do remember the buffalo soldier's, right?) treated the Indians the exact same way as one Indian tribe treated another.
As Larry said, the Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and other hostiles there were trespassing on Crow land and
literally eating up the Crow's life sustaining resources.
For more examples, I am more familiar with the Iroquois Indians in New York State than with tribes out west.
The Iroquois tribes talk of "the old ones", tribes that originally owned what ended up being "Iroquois" land.
The Iroquois say that they destroyed/drove off the old ones to take their land.
So much for peace loving, 1600's hippies at one with nature, huh?
More interesting facts from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iroquois-Confederacy
"By 1628, however, the Mohawk had emerged from their secluded woodlands to defeat the Mohican and lay the Hudson River valley tribes and New England tribes under tribute for goods and wampum. The Mohawk traded beaver pelts to the English and Dutch in exchange for firearms, and the resulting depletion of local beaver populations drove the confederacy members to wage war against far-flung tribal enemies in order to procure more supplies of beaver. In the years from 1648 to 1656, the confederacy turned west and dispersed the Huron, Tionontati, Neutral, and Erie tribes. The Andaste succumbed to the confederacy in 1675, and then various eastern Siouan allies of the Andaste were attacked. By the 1750s most of the tribes of the Piedmont had been subdued, incorporated, or destroyed by the league."
Hmmm, attacking and destroying their neighbors, extortion (forcing them to pay tribute),
extirpating a local animal species (beaver) in order to buy guns to attack and murder their neighbors,
and then going further afield and extirpating their neighbor's local animal species in order to buy MORE guns
to wage even more war upon even more neighbors.
All done before white man was the dominate power in central and western NY.
So don't try to blame whitey as a "corrupting influence".
So much for peace loving, 1600's hippies at one with nature, huh?
Liberal hypocrites never tire of spewing propaganda, and Conservatives delight in refuting and trouncing them
each and every time :)
First of all, a liberal hypocrite I am not nor did I say anything about being "peace loving hippies". We certainly did raid and war between tribes, old Apache legend tells of the Sioux coming to raid..."for many seasons you could follow the Sioux retreat by the skeletons left behind". And as a historical fact, the 1st European to come was a Viking (Leif Eriksson) in the 11th century, long before Spanish conquistadores were even born. Your "refuting and trouncing" attempt alleges that I inferred and/or stated things which I did not, therefore you failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by edp2k
Larry, as a 40+ year student of Custer, LBH, and the Indian Wars, I salute your effort to correct many common misunderstandings concerning GAC, the Model 1873 Springfield, aspects of the battle's progress and forces involved.
I have a question regarding your comments on the H&R 1873 replicas. Must the entire breechblock be replaced with an original, or can an original cam latch be fitted and installed in the H&R block? I've heard often of the cam latch issues on the H&R's, but haven't experienced it on mine, because I mostly shoot originals.
Most early history concerning Native Americans has been written by white army officers or political figures. Needless to say how bias it was. The truth of the matter is that the white's wanted the Indian's lands and intended to acquire them by any means possible. And once those lands were acquired the Indians had to be removed to keep them safe.
As has been evidenced here the military and government used any and all means to justify their actions in acquiring those lands. The government made over 370 treaties with the Native Americans and broke every one of them.
The entire breechblock is replaced. Do a search on the bulletin board on www.trapdoorcollector.com. There's a load of info on that subject. I had an H&R for a while and never had a problem with it. An accurate rifle but a real thumper off the bench with rifle loads(70gr). Like you, I prefer my originals.Quote:
Originally Posted by John in PA