Custer and the Henry

getitdone1 · Post by **getitdone1** » Sun May 15, 2011 1:02 pm

If Custer and his men had all had Henry's would the fight have ended differently? Same too if they'd had Gatling Guns--or did they?

My memory tells me they had the Colt SAA and Springfield 45-70 carbines. A friend and I visited the Custer Battlefield in the summer of 1963. Wonder if it's changed much since my visit? Recall seeing a display of their guns while there.

Believe the number of Indians was so great they didn't have a chance--Henry's or not. Always remember one chief (name??? Red Cloud?) who said "This is a good day to die."

Had Custer biography at one time and seems I recall he was riding along--maybe shooting at buffalo--and shot his horse in the head with his handgun. Not impressed with what I read about Custer.

Don

Stan in SC · Post by **Stan in SC** » Sun May 15, 2011 1:09 pm

Custer had Gatling guns assigned to his unit but left them behind fearing they would slow him down.

Stan in SC

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Sun May 15, 2011 2:03 pm

From what I have read about Custer, the 1870’s cavalry, etc., the Gatling gun(s) would have slowed him down as the prime horses were assigned as individual mounts. Lesser grade, worn out horses, or draft horses pulled the wagons, Gatling guns, etc. And if I recall correctly Custer had trouble with his pack train keeping up with the column??

Also, the Gatling was mounted on a two wheeled artillery carriage, pulled by a limber. It moved the quickest and easiest over roads, not trails the kind of trails and terrain Custer’s column traversed. At best, its progress would have been cumbersome.

Additionally, the Gatling easily jammed depending upon the quality of the ammunition. Ammuntion was not the "best quality" at the time of the Little Big Horn --the M1873 Springfield exractor could and would tear off the head of the catridge cases used at the time.

Seems I have also read that the Littler Big Horn is/was taught at the US Army War College. And despite all the scenarios, “what ifs”, Custer always lost.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Sun May 15, 2011 2:06 pm

Yes, the Battle site has changed some since 1963. The land hasn't changed, but your perspective has. I remember visiting in 1967-68 as a young child. There was a grass fire in the 1980s that allowed archeologists to find some artifacts that let them "reinterpret" the battle. The museum has changed. It's been nearly 20 years since I was there last, so I guess I'm due for a re-visit.

Go to your library and read this book-

http://www.amazon.com/Keep-last-bullet- ... 805&sr=8-1

Nothing would have helped Custer as much as humility and wisdom.

Very well researched book that took in the accounts of soldiers and native Americans that were there.
My family lives on Rosebud Creek and I pass "Custer camped here on June XX, 1876" signs when I go to visit.

Booger Bill · Post by **Booger Bill** » Sun May 15, 2011 4:51 pm

Yeah, but also think what the indians could have done if THEY had a gatling gun too! Custer`s big horn battle was in 1876. How about winchester 73s? One big reason custer got wiped was the goverment was trying to save money by useing the old single shot springfields. Hard for us to belive now days that the primitive savages were better armed!

hfcable · Post by **hfcable** » Sun May 15, 2011 6:15 pm

Booger Bill wrote:Yeah, but also think what the indians could have done if THEY had a gatling gun too! Custer`s big horn battle was in 1876. How about winchester 73s? One big reason custer got wiped was the goverment was trying to save money by useing the old single shot springfields. Hard for us to belive now days that the primitive savages were better armed!

The theory/doctrine was to have a rifle that would drop a horse at reasonable rage, I suppose meaning with one shot. The73 Winchester lacked the power n range for this. There were no repeaters for 45/70 in 1876. The burgess was the first and it came out in 1878.
Likely if all his men had been equipped with 73s they could have held out longer or made a fighting withdrawal. He didn't want the Indians to get away- and they didn't

Grizzly Adams · Post by **Grizzly Adams** » Sun May 15, 2011 8:31 pm

I know it is fashionable to think of Custer as a pompous idiot, but I don't buy that premise. However, I always enjoy the discussion!

Custer was a highly experienced soldier who applied the same body of knowledge about Indian fighting and Indian behaviors as most any other field commander at the time would have done. Custer's tactics were straight out of the Army field manual of the time. His experience, and that of the Army, was that the most pressing issue would be to get the Indians to stand and fight. He also hoped to capture as many non-combatants as he could to use as leverage to force compliance. What Custer did not know, and the enemy did, was that the circumstances for the "perfect storm" existed, and that the indian forces had overwhelming numbers. Custer was no fool. He was in fact one of the true heros of the CW. In a way, he was the George Patton of the time. Americans expect their generals to be a little mad!

The Army was not trying to save money by not equipping troops with the Winchester 1873. The Springfield was fair superior to the Winchester in terms of range and power. The Winchester's strength was it's rapidity of fire, but it is/was pretty much a close range weapon. Even the nobel Winchester had to take a back seat to the speed and effectiveness of a bow and arrow in the hands a warrior who grew up using it. Remember too, that the rest of the 7th (about 400 men) survived because they were able to dig in and keep the Indians at a distance with the Springfields. That would not have been possible with the Winchester, given the seer numbers of opposing troops who would have been able to approach much more closely and utilize their own repeaters and bow and arrow effectively.

Here's an interesting article for those interested in the subject: http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-lit ... overup.htm

765x53 · Post by **765x53** » Sun May 15, 2011 8:49 pm

One of the early noted advantages of the Spencer over the Winchester was, that it could be more efficiently fired as a single shot, after the magazine was emptied.
In an extended battle, the single shot could put more rounds down range in a given time than a repeater that had to be taken out of action to be reloaded.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Sun May 15, 2011 9:19 pm

One issue that changed the way ammo was made after the battle, no more copper cartridges. It has been said that quite a few of the Trapdoors were no better than spears and clubs once the fired copper shells jammed in the chambers. This was partly Custer's fault as his brother was a copper broker in Chicago and the CO (at least Custer did) of the 7th recommended only copper cartridges. Brass was available, but as an option. Would having brass cartridges made a difference...probably not. Custer was not only way out numbered, but also out gunned. There were more Indians with Springfield Trapdoor rifles than Custer had and they used brass cartridges because they made better jewelry...of course they were also easier to reload. The Indians had less than fifty or so Henry's and repeaters, but once they got close enough, they could sling arrows faster than you could reload a Trapdoor, even if it wasn't jammed.

KCSO · Post by **KCSO** » Sun May 15, 2011 9:53 pm

The soldiers were hukered down behind their horses and the indians rained arrows down on them with high angle fire. They could do this while hid in the grass with no problem. My buddy worked the battlefield as a historian for a few years and we discussed this a lot and the answer is always the same no cover and too many indians. Contrast Custer with Roark's Drift and the soldiers behind good cover and no arrows raining down.

piller · Post by **piller** » Sun May 15, 2011 9:59 pm

Lots of what if statements here. We weren't there, so we don't know all of what went on, but we have quite a lot of information. It appears to me that Custer was out-Generaled. No way of proving that statement for absolute sure either way. Custer had made his way back up to Lt. Colonel by the time of the final battle, so he couldn't have been totally stupid. I read somewhere that the Cavalry charge he made which earned him the battlefield commission to Brigadier was caused by a bullet cutting his horses reins. I cannot prove it, but whether true or not, he lead a Cavalry charge which was of enough importance to gain him a big promotion. Luck might have some to do with it as battles are always a lot of action and confusion, but Custer was good enough to live through it. He couldn't have been too bad to do that. Having been in the Army myself, I can tell you that they will hold back on ammunition and stockpile it while not giving the individual soldier enough to shoot as much in a year as folks like 86er shoot in a normal month. I would bet that Custer's men were running out of ammunition before it was all over.

Bruce Scott · Post by **Bruce Scott** » Mon May 16, 2011 4:19 am

piller wrote:. I would bet that Custer's men were running out of ammunition before it was all over.

There is some interesting discussion here http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dpa ... on&f=false on ammunition.

gvthnks · Post by **gvthnks** » Mon May 16, 2011 5:39 am

Bruce Scott wrote:
piller wrote:. I would bet that Custer's men were running out of ammunition before it was all over.

That would be easy enough to verify I would think. The remains of the battlefield should tell that answer. Never been to the museum but would be interesting to go sometime.

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Mon May 16, 2011 7:21 am

Custer lost because of many reasons...
His attitude that his forces, under his command could handle any campaign..
He got that attitude from the civil war....and his rapid promotions to general....
without a lot of experience to back it up....
Not have the right fireams for inclose and fast moving battle...
Leaving his best weapons in the rear....the Gatalin gun..as you guys discussed...
Not knowing how vastly he was outnumbered...
Dividing his forces, If I remember correctly there were three columns advancing
toward the 2 mile or so Indian encampment...one from the west, one from the east
and one from the south...and their coordination for the attack....did not work...
Renos advancement did not make it anywhere near is objective...and retreated...
He lost half of his column....
At the very north end, Custered tried to use an old trick of his...
by trying to capture the elders, women and children and use them as hostages....
to get the rest of the Indians to return to the reservation........
Reno was and the other column were no where near to help....and he sent
curriers with a note asking for help....the currier got through...but they couldnt
help..because they were getting their butt kicked as well...

Not knowing the terrain...The terrain from what i heard is very hilly...and even though
he took the high ground in the end...all along the way the Indians used the terrain to get
in close...and then let him have it...and springfield are not the greatest weapons
to have in an inclose battle...especially if you cant see them....

One of the guys mentioned that the soldiers were hukered down behind their horses and
the indians rained arrows down on them with high angle fire....
you cant shoot an indian if you cant see them...I herd the grass was high and again
the terrain gave the indians cover....and they just lobbed the arrows in...

Custer could have had all the Henrys he wanted...spencers ..trapdoor 45-70...sharps
or any other weapon you can think of...and he would still have lost...........eventually...

And what the Indians did after the battle was the beginning of the end for them...
For religious reasons, the Indians gouged their eyes so they could not see in the afterlife.
punctured there ears, dismembered them...etc...so their spirits would never be able to
persue them ever again.....That just motivated the US military even more....

But if it werent for the gold found in the black hills.....
none of this would not have ever happened...

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Mon May 16, 2011 11:24 am

RIHMFIRE: good post.

Fiddler · Post by **Fiddler** » Mon May 16, 2011 1:44 pm

Here's a book about Custer written by Custer himself: http://www.kancoll.org/books/custerg/in ... l#contents
He was a very interesting, intelligent guy. And a pretty good writer.
Another good book for Old West history fans is "Scalp Dance". It's been around a while and is probably at your local public library.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon May 16, 2011 2:51 pm

I see there's no lessening of diversity in opinions of Custer.

Gobblerforge · Post by **Gobblerforge** » Mon May 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Shelby Foote recalls a little story about Custer in this collection of stories.
Custer was from a little place called New Rumley, just a ridge or two over from where we live. They have a nice little memorial there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBghmvRMluY

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Mon May 16, 2011 9:04 pm

Geeze, thats all Custer needed was a couple of 105's with beehive rounds. But noooooooo......he was in a hurry and left 'em behind.

pittman_clay · Post by **pittman_clay** » Mon May 16, 2011 11:02 pm

there is a realy good book called A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn - the Last Great Battle of the American West
by Jim Donovan

I think custer was a little over confadent but was using respected indian fighting tactics that had been sucesfull before, reno was a drunk coward who failed in the opening moments of the battle and bentenn(spelling) may have left custer out to dry? do i think he would he have won...no could he have made a working retreat or held them off till they broke it off probably

as to the 1873 colt and trapdoor in a book about Mckinzie and the red river war after test of several rifles from burges sharps and the springfield the trapdoor proved to be more reliable and accurate.. ill look the quotes up tonight and there were several battles in that war where the cav held of indians at long range that couldnt have been done with a win 73" or henry but who knows i think i would have wanted a 50-50 mix keepem far off and rapid fire if they got close, mabey some "apache" gunships for close air support

.Dirty-.Thirty · Post by **.Dirty-.Thirty** » Tue May 17, 2011 10:36 am

I read an article in a Taxidermy magazine from a few years back, Custer enjoyed shooting game and practicing Taxidermy himself. It had photos of him and mounted antelope and birds and such.

Here a few miles from my house is a lone grave upon a mountain side, miles from any home and now on public land. That grave belongs to a calvary man. He was 7th regiment and has his rank and name. When I researched his name online it said he was from KY and wounded during the battle of the Little Bighorn. He has a military headstone and is the only grave on that steep mountainside, I use his stone as a seat to rest as I hunt that spot for Deer and turkey. I need to snap a picture of it, next time I'm there. .DT

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Tue May 17, 2011 2:36 pm

pretty cool...
would like to see that pic...
and find out who he served under...
Of all the men that were with Custer....I cant remember exactly...
but 4 or so did survive the battle....these +/-4 guys were sent with
dispstches to the other columns asking for reinforcements...
which we all know......never came...
There just was a show on the history channel talking about survivors
of little big horn battle...most were discredited...except one...

tomtex · Post by **tomtex** » Tue May 17, 2011 4:40 pm

Note: 11 troopers, received the Congressional medal of Honor, for actions above and beyond the call of duty at the battle, all were from Maj Reno or Cpt Bentine's Battalion Note: Custer had divided his Regiment into three Battalions, LTC Custer's Battallion had around 220 troopers, all of the troopers with him ,were KIA that day or burn to death that night. Why you ask, I say poor leadership!

tomtex · Post by **tomtex** » Tue May 17, 2011 5:08 pm

I thank the best books on this subject , are from BG. SLA Marshal.Check out Crimsoned Prairie and other.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Tue May 17, 2011 7:35 pm

FWIW... From my memory of that Hist Chan show.... The show was about perhaps the most creditable of those that have claimed to be LBH survivors, a man by the name of Frank Finkle.... His story started when he was at a 1920s Independence Day BBQ when the LBH topic almost as always came up. Finkle, an old man and a highly looked upon member of his community, got tired of hearing the years of Custer vs Indians BS and called it that, when asked how he could know, he reluctantly admitted he was at LBH....
Regarding Custer... In the Hist Chans’ account it was pointed out that Custer probably would have gotten a lot of bad press at the time after the battle... the negative stuff we now have heard about the way he conducted himself etc etc...but in deference to Custer’s widow and his brother’s widow, plus the celebration of the Centennial year, the press and others withheld it’s criticism by and large... In the interim years Custer’s loyal widow campaigned tirelessly until her death in the1930s, to make sure his name was remembered honorably... many myths born along the way...Only after she died the negatives started coming out about him.
Back to Finkle....Finkle claimed he was wounded in three places on his body ... two bullet wounds...and ricochet splinter fragments off of his carbine to his forehead... Clinging to a horse that spooked and charged past Indians, the semi conscious trooper instinctively held on for dear life, escaping death in the fight by dumb luck and a fast horse... and by Indian accounts, at least one pursuer that gave up the chase and returned to the fight... Finkle’s supporters did a pretty good job of making his case, by showing how his story dovetailed with Indian accounts... Accounts of the battle which up until relatively recent years were always dismissed with disdain....and archeological evidence found in a 1980s survey of the battle field there, after a grass and brush fire allowed archeologists freedom to use metal detectors to find artifacts of the battle, and plot them to a map that defined where the skirmish line actually was ...Which was where Finkle said it was so many years before, and not where historians had theretofore thought it was.....Once out of the battle zone,Finkles’ story became one of survival.. being wounded.. finding water.. finding help.. Supporting his story was his knowledge of the terrain he claimed to have traversed in ... particularly the finding of at that time of year, two forks of a watershed that ran alkaline, and finding its’ third fork than ran sweet water.. a little known fact of the area.. There were other facts about the battle that were discovered that he could have used to augment or support his story but he never wavered from his original accounting...
For me... I thought that the fellow who was really pushing the idea of a LBH survivor got to grasping at straws with handwriting analysis of a Sgt whose name I forget is buried at the Memorial and matching it with Finkles’... They didn’t match up as best as I could see...Best “evidence” to me are Finkles accounting and his reasons for not fessing up sooner...Everybody as far as he knew that knew him were dead...He’d had enough of Army life and after a certain amount of time had gone by, if he showed up and said he’d survived he might have been charged with desertion....In light of the times that might not have gone well for him...

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Tue May 17, 2011 11:21 pm

Why would you disrespect a man's grave by sitting on it? Especially a military man?

As to Custer. He used tactics known to work. Yeah, he should have brought the Gatlings but cavalry tend to survive by speed and deception, and he wanted speed. He got stuck in a bad spot and couldn't do what would have made sense, and paid for it. Not the first or last time it'll happen.

Many things can change in battle, just look at Islandwhana and Rorke's Drift a few days apart. Same type of weaponry more or less.

firefuzz · Post by **firefuzz** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:03 am

I think Grizz's "perfect storm" comparision is the most valid. There were too many of the variables of war stacked against Custer for the outcome of this battle to fall in his favor.

Bad or ignored intelligence (debatable), badly out-numbered (no doubt), out-gunned (debatable), cut off from re-supply/reinforcements, with no cover or supporting fire.... pretty much a recipe for disaster for dis-mounted calvary. Custer didn't get to fight his planned fight, which proves the old saying that battle plans seldom survive first contact with the enemy. I don't think Custer was a fool like some do, but I do believe he was pretty much full of himself and played the "Custer's luck" chip once too often.

Rob

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:35 am

but I do believe he was pretty much full of himself and played the "Custer's luck" chip once too often.

This is pretty much how I view it too. His career was more "luck" than skill, careless charges were his mantra.

piller · Post by **piller** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:43 am

My Great Grandfather was in the 7th Cavalry during the Civil War, and retired to Fort Dodge, Kansas just weeks before the 7th Cavalry left on the campaign which culminated in the Battle of the Little Big Horn. He was dead long before I was born, but my Grandfather and I once were watching something on TV about Custer. My Grandfather said that his Father thought Custer was too arrogant. That is all he said that I remember. It could be true that Custer was arrogant, or maybe not. I have only a memory of my Grandfather's memory of his Father's words to go on.

My Grandfather's initials, one of his brother's initials, and one sister's initials are still there carved in stone by the front door of what was their home. My Grandfather was forced to leave there in 1907 at the age of 12 years old as that was considered to be old enough to make your way in the world at that time. If anyone on here ever goes to Fort Dodge, Kansas and sees a where on one of the stones the houses are built with has the initials RGW and 2 other sets of initials on one of the stones right beside the door, then you have seen where my Grandfather left his mark on Ft. Dodge at age 10 years old.

.45colt · Post by **.45colt** » Wed May 18, 2011 11:00 am

Several years ago the History Channel did a show " Battlefield Detectives" about the Little Bighorn Battlefield. they covered the site foot by foot with metal dectors and logged every piece of brass they found into their computer. this then told much of the story of the battle.the Indians were well armed. I hope they repeat the show soon.Look for it.

.Dirty-.Thirty · Post by **.Dirty-.Thirty** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:31 pm

Mr.Murphy please share you views on how it is disrespectful, I would like to know.

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:06 pm

Dirty-Thirty: I agree with MrMurphy.

Some people, like myself, were raised with the idea and told/taught that sitting or walking on a grave shows disrespect for the deceased and his/her family.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:35 pm

A couple things re. respect.

First of all, sitting on a former Cavalry Member's tombstone may or may not be disrespectful, but I would say that some of the things said here of former Cavalry members Custer, Benteen and Reno would, most certainly, be disrespectful to a higher degree than merely sitting on their tombstones. I'm not judging, mind you. I have been guilty of my share of disrespect in my days. I don't mean to offend anyone here. I'm just sayin' that's all.

If it were my tombstone at the top of a lonely mountain, and if some other fellow wanted to rest by making himself comfy on my tombstone, but he personally meant no disrespect for me, I would be more than happy to host him ..... glad I could do something for someone else even after I am gone ...... just so long as he thought respectfully about me. Now if he did it in front of other people, then I would take offense, for familiarity in private does not necessarily translate well into familiarity in public. It sends a different message. So you all are welcome to take a rest on my tombstone as long as you do it in private and the attitude of your heart toward me is respectful. That being the case, I will be proud to host you with what little I can offer you ... my own tombstone.

Now back to General Custer. It is always good to let a person speak for himself if he is to be criticized. I would highly recommend General Custer's own book My Life on the Plains. It does not speak directly, of course, to the Battle of Little Bighorn, but it does tell you a lot about General Custer himself, since he wrote it himself. Here is the link http://www.kancoll.org/books/custerg/ I found it to be fascinating reading. I would say he was very savvy in the ways of the Indians on the basis of what he writes in that book, and on field strategy. He may have made a mistake on that fateful day, but I will concede that he knew an awful lot more than I when it comes to fighting Indians and Cavalry strategy. Of course, hindsight is worth a thousand years of actual experience.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Wed May 18, 2011 5:45 pm

firefuzz wrote: Bad or ignored intelligence (debatable),

Rob

I vote for "ignored."
Custer's Crow (Absaroka) scouts, after observing the 7-tribe encampment, told him there were too many Cheyenne and Sioux...he ignored them. The Crow scouts lit out.

Custer didn't see the massive size of the encampment until he went down the bluff and into the camp. Then it was too late.

Custer had lots of inexperienced men (as far as Indian fighting goes) in his command. There was also alcohol in camp when there should have been none. The old breed sat around the campfire at night and told the young guys stories about how the Indians would sneak up, kidnap you, and give you a fate worse than death. (The white man had a poor concept of what counting coup was. A warrior fought as an individual, not a unit, and to touch a live enemy was a much braver act than killing him. They were sneaking up to hit you, not kidnap you.) The young guys were told to keep the last bullet for themselves.

Interviews with troopers and Indians who were at the battle mention soldiers committing suicide. Indian paintings done to record the battle showed soldiers riding away from pursuers with their own revolver to their heads and blood spraying out.

In the panic that ensued when the Cheyenne chased the soldiers back across the Greasy Grass river...no amount of Henrys, 1866s, or 1873s would have helped. They needed preparation, training, leadership, and calm.

The Cheyenne women did not dismember Custer's body out of respect for his Cheyenne mistress he had in Ft. Scott, Kansas. The Indians didn't even know it was Custer they were fighting until after he was dead, so the "ambush" theory is flawed. Custer had cut his hair before the campaign. Indian accounts do say that Custer was one of the last still standing and fighting. He stood out in his buckskins.

My thoughts about the disrespect are similar to KirkD's. I'm gonna be cremated-so you can't sit on my grave, but you might inhale me on a windy day

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:20 am

Granted, any grunt who's done field time knows you sit where you can when you can. But i was always taught to show respect to the dead, and while if it was an unmarked grave, nobody could fault you, sitting on a plainly marked tombstone and marked gravesite is to me, disrespectful. In my case while I might spend time in the area and keep him company as it were, i would sit 'off' the gravesite a few feet.

When I visited the American cemetery outside Florence (as well as in Colliersville in Normandy, and elsewhere), my now ex-wife's great-uncle was buried there along with a few thousand of his brothers. He never made it back from the Italian campaign and no one in his family had ever been able to visit or even see pics. So we visited, decorated his grave and took pictures.

His brother, on seeing them later (8th Air Force, in England, he worked on B-17s) thanked me for going there. As a fellow veteran and an Air Force man myself I told him no thanks were needed, it was the right thing to do.

And while it may sound a little weird, i had to stand on other graves to take the pictures obviously (long rows of them) but I apologized to them for doing so. Nothing more than a "my apologies, gentlemen" but it was enough for me. They may be long gone, but they all did their time and never got to come home. I would want someone to show equal respect to my final resting place, even if i'm gone in spirit.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:35 am

As mentioned the copper case ammo was a factor. To cut cost they decided to go with the copper cases rather than brass. But, the trapdoor extractors were poor and when combined with soft copper cases that expand but don't contract the extractors failed jamming the gun. There were several recovered that had knife marks around the chamber mouths were the guy was trying to pry the case out.
Fast forward 100 years to Viet Nam and the early pre-forward assist M16's. Part of the reason they jammed is because the experts decided to change powders to one that tended to foul the bolt/carrier jamming the gun. IIRC Stoner even told them it was going to happen.

tomtex · Post by **tomtex** » Fri May 20, 2011 4:58 pm

Tell us about the Henry rifle and its ammo, that the troopers could have use?

Terry Murbach · Post by **Terry Murbach** » Fri May 20, 2011 5:22 pm

slow2run wrote:Tell us about the Henry rifle and its ammo, that the troopers could have use?

TAKE THIS TO THE BANK : THEY WOULD NOT HAVE USED ANY HENRY RIFLES AS BY THEN THE WINCHESTER '73 IN THE MUCH MORE POWERFUL 44WCF CARTRIDGE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED. FURTHERMORE, THE WIN'73 WAS MUCH MORE DIRTPROOF WITH IT'S SEALED MAGAZINE NOT BEING OPEN TO THE WEATHER AND COLLECTION ANY CRUD THAT CAME IT'S WAY. IN ADDITION THE 44WCF CARTRIDGE WAS MUCH MORE SURE FIRE WITH IT'S " CENTRAL FIRE PRIMING " AND WAS A MUCH TOUGHER CASE AND CARTRIDGE DESIGN. AND LASTLY, THE WAR DEPARTMENT THOUGHT SUCH RIFLES WERE CONTRAPTIONS OF PITYFUL PERFORMANCE AND A SHEER WASTE OF AMMUNITION BY UNDISIPLINED, MOSTLY RECENT IMMIGRANT, TROOPS.
AND BY THE WAY, BY NO MATTER OR MEANS WAS THE 7th CAVALRY DESTROYED AT THE GREASY GRASS. MOST OF BENTEEN'S MEN AND MOST OF RENO'S MEN SURVIVED AS BOTH COMMANDERS DISOBEYED CUSTER'S ORDERS AND SAT ON THEIR COLLECTIVE BUTTS LISTENING TO THE SIOUX AND CHEYENNE DESTROY CUSTER'S COMMAND,[ FIVE SQUADRON'S IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
CUSTERS LAST ORDER TO BENTEEN [ CARRIED BY BUGLER GEOVANNI MARTINI ...LATER JOHN MARTIN ] " BIG VILLAGE BRING PACKS BE QUICK REPEAT BE QUICK "
BOTH BENTEEN AND RENO WERE ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS WORTHLESS THAT MAMMORIES ON A STUD HORSE. FOR DECADES AFTERWARDS IN THE U.S. ARMY A VERY CLEVER LIE WAS CALLED A " BENTEENISM."
[ "PACKS" WERE THE AMMUNITION PACKAGES ]

getitdone1 · Post by **getitdone1** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:26 pm

Terry Murbach and all,

When I wrote the "title" Custer and the Henry I knew the year of the battle and that the '73 was available. Just wasn't think'in.

Like several have said, I think they were so outnumbered only several Gatling Guns could have saved them.

Lot of interesting and informative comments about this subject.

Don

765x53 · Post by **765x53** » Sat May 21, 2011 12:01 am

Ray Newman wrote:Dirty-Thirty: I agree with MrMurphy.

Some people, like myself, were raised with the idea and told/taught that sitting or walking on a grave shows disrespect for the deceased and his/her family.

How do you propose mowing, decorating and maintaining a grave yard?

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Sat May 21, 2011 12:26 am

765X53: certain things can not be avoided.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Sat May 21, 2011 1:34 am

There's maintaining a grave and keeping it up, and using it as a convenient bench.

Big difference.

tomtex · Post by **tomtex** » Sat May 21, 2011 1:12 pm

Terry Murbach wrote:
slow2run wrote:Tell us about the Henry rifle and its ammo, that the troopers could have use?
TAKE THIS TO THE BANK : THEY WOULD NOT HAVE USED ANY HENRY RIFLES AS BY THEN THE WINCHESTER '73 IN THE MUCH MORE POWERFUL 44WCF CARTRIDGE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED. FURTHERMORE, THE WIN'73 WAS MUCH MORE DIRTPROOF WITH IT'S SEALED MAGAZINE NOT BEING OPEN TO THE WEATHER AND COLLECTION ANY CRUD THAT CAME IT'S WAY. IN ADDITION THE 44WCF CARTRIDGE WAS MUCH MORE SURE FIRE WITH IT'S " CENTRAL FIRE PRIMING " AND WAS A MUCH TOUGHER CASE AND CARTRIDGE DESIGN. AND LASTLY, THE WAR DEPARTMENT THOUGHT SUCH RIFLES WERE CONTRAPTIONS OF PITYFUL PERFORMANCE AND A SHEER WASTE OF AMMUNITION BY UNDISIPLINED, MOSTLY RECENT IMMIGRANT, TROOPS.
AND BY THE WAY, BY NO MATTER OR MEANS WAS THE 7th CAVALRY DESTROYED AT THE GREASY GRASS. MOST OF BENTEEN'S MEN AND MOST OF RENO'S MEN SURVIVED AS BOTH COMMANDERS DISOBEYED CUSTER'S ORDERS AND SAT ON THEIR COLLECTIVE BUTTS LISTENING TO THE SIOUX AND CHEYENNE DESTROY CUSTER'S COMMAND,[ FIVE SQUADRON'S IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
CUSTERS LAST ORDER TO BENTEEN [ CARRIED BY BUGLER GEOVANNI MARTINI ...LATER JOHN MARTIN ] " BIG VILLAGE BRING PACKS BE QUICK REPEAT BE QUICK "
BOTH BENTEEN AND RENO WERE ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS WORTHLESS THAT MAMMORIES ON A STUD HORSE. FOR DECADES AFTERWARDS IN THE U.S. ARMY A VERY CLEVER LIE WAS CALLED A " BENTEENISM."
[ "PACKS" WERE THE AMMUNITION PACKAGES ]

I thank both Cpt Benteen and Maj Reno was competent officers First. Cpt Benteen battalions was ordered out of the battle area by Custer. Major Reno was ordered to attack the Indian camp as part of a doble inveloment, and did so, and was push back to a wooded area by the River and from there, had to withdraw across the river to high ground. Pvt Martini carrying a dispatch from the Regiment adjutant as posted above to Benteen, he was doing so, when he came on Reno and what was left of his battalion, at this time Custer and his troopers had parish Note; The 7th Cav horses were exhausted before the Battle started, Maj Reno and Cpt Benteen troopers fought from the hill position all that day and throughout the night. The War Dept awarded 11 troopers from this hill top fight the CMH. The win or loss of a battle is always laded at the feet of the Commander, which was LTC Custer. ask yourself, why did Custer ride his Reg. horses into the ground before the battle, Why did his troopers leave their issued 70 rds of 45 Colt ammo, in the horses saddle bags that the Indians later ran off, when knowing the 45-70 ammo was unreliable? Why did LTC Custer attach his pack train to Benteens Battalion, and then order Benteen out of the battel area?

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Sun May 22, 2011 5:23 pm

I always had the impression, that Custer was glory hunter, and needed a big battle, with him at the center of it, to gain reconition which would hopefully payoff in politics for him later. He needed to be the hero, and did not want to share the glory with some of the other officers at the time, and that affected his decisions, and may have let to the ill timed battle that got him and a bunch of others killed.

RKrodle · Post by **RKrodle** » Sun May 22, 2011 7:11 pm

Custer didn't know what the Texans had learned fighting the Comanches, Never, Never, dismount and fight a mounted foe from the ground!!

OJ · Post by OJ » Mon May 23, 2011 11:44 am

Griff wrote:I see there's no lessening of diversity in opinions of Custer.

Well, some of those opinions can be documented by those who were acquainted with facts -

Fact - he graduated from the USMA at West Point in the class of 1861.

Graduates there have always been graduated in the order of their academic standing.

He graduated #63.

There were 63 graduates in the class.

Why would you disrespect a man's grave by sitting on it? Especially a military man

Well, from the time I've spent in OCS plus at the USMA West Point - one question came up so often the response reached the reflex level bypassing the thinking level - it was "Who is responsible ...(fill in here anything such as safety of the troops, quarters, food, equipment, etc)" It just became reflex to give the answer that was always correct - "THE COMMANDING OFFICER"

He not only sealed his own fate but also the fate of the men he commanded and was responsible for with his "less than smart tactics".

He was clearly a better politician to get the promotions he got than soldier with good tactical abilities.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Mon May 23, 2011 3:02 pm

I wasn't judging Custer, one way or the other.

I was enlisted, not an officer, but i've commanded others in my time and I wasn't there, so i won't judge.

I meant using a guy's headstone as a bench. Any guy's.

Bruce Scott · Post by **Bruce Scott** » Mon May 23, 2011 5:34 pm

OJ wrote:
Griff wrote:I see there's no lessening of diversity in opinions of Custer.
Well, some of those opinions can be documented by those who were acquainted with facts -

Fact - he graduated from the USMA at West Point in the class of 1861.

Graduates there have always been graduated in the order of their academic standing.

He graduated #63.

There were 63 graduates in the class.

Everything I have read placed him 34th.............in a class of 34.

OJ · Post by OJ » Mon May 23, 2011 11:32 pm

Figures get mixed up when reporting the past - we agree he was in last place in his class.

hfcable · Post by **hfcable** » Tue May 24, 2011 12:34 am

here is what i found:
http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/custer/Westpoint.html
......sounds like he skated on the absolute edge of expulsion from standpoint of discipline and achievement.
of course i have read that about 50% of the heads of fortune 500 companies were barely graduating C students in college.
certainly in recent past we had Kerry, George W. and Hot Air Gore, who between them made a grand total of one A [ not each.... total between them!!! ]in college and hardly any Bs just barely making it thru.
Do you think maybe we deserved better back in Custers day and now as well?
Ah, guess i should just shut up.