Comments on: Battle of Little Bighorn: Were the Weapons the Deciding Factor http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sat, 18 May 2013 15:30:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: VERNON PRESCOTT http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-857621 VERNON PRESCOTT Fri, 01 Feb 2013 03:04:43 +0000 #comment-857621 1. I believe the LBH Battlefield starting being picked over in 1877, when they returned to re-mound the graves, and successively through the years right up to, perhaps the 1930's. Native Americans passed through as well, occasionally scavenging useful objects, picnic parties from Ft. Custer took tokens of their visit to the battlefield, later Anniversary gatherings, etc. I believe ( don't quote me ) Colonel Luce put an end to it, at least at LBH. Of course, when did the Federal Law get passed about removal of objects, metal detecting,random digging, etc. on National Battlefields? I guess right up until 11:59 PM of that law being in effect, you could theoretically find and keep an object. 2. Most, if not all authors must be balanced with evidence that already exists, theories/hypothesis' on recent finds, and that which remains to be discovered. Fox included. He is not the final word on the subject............. 3. Mitch: Your Henry Check Wikipedia. New Haven Arms was the original manufacturer, bought out by Winchester. Perhaps an email to them with the serial number can shed some light as to the original purchase/owner. That's a start. Who knows? Maybe the ownership path will take you to Last Stand Hill....... 1. I believe the LBH Battlefield starting being picked over in 1877, when they returned to re-mound the graves, and successively through the years right up to, perhaps the 1930's. Native Americans passed through as well, occasionally scavenging useful objects, picnic parties from Ft. Custer took tokens of their visit to the battlefield, later Anniversary gatherings, etc. I believe ( don't quote me ) Colonel Luce put an end to it, at least at LBH.

Of course, when did the Federal Law get passed about removal of objects, metal detecting,random digging, etc. on National Battlefields? I guess right up until 11:59 PM of that law being in effect, you could theoretically find and keep an object.

2. Most, if not all authors must be balanced with evidence that already exists, theories/hypothesis' on recent finds, and that which remains to be discovered. Fox included. He is not the final word on the subject………….

3. Mitch: Your Henry

Check Wikipedia. New Haven Arms was the original manufacturer, bought out by Winchester. Perhaps an email to them with the serial number can shed some light as to the original purchase/owner. That's a start. Who knows? Maybe the ownership path will take you to Last Stand Hill…….

]]> By: mitch http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-857083 mitch Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:54:56 +0000 #comment-857083 I only recently became interested in LBH. Great info and comments here. I must admit I am now skeptical of Mr Fox's research and conclusions. However, Paul... Your conclusion that LBH was picked over in the 60's doesnt seem right IMO. Wouldnt the site have been covered with dust/dirt after 85yrs? Also, My father who passed away a few yrs ago owned a Henry rifle he suspected could have been at LBH. Where might i begin to find this out? Thanks! I only recently became interested in LBH. Great info and comments here. I must admit I am now skeptical of Mr Fox's research and conclusions. However, Paul… Your conclusion that LBH was picked over in the 60's doesnt seem right IMO. Wouldnt the site have been covered with dust/dirt after 85yrs? Also, My father who passed away a few yrs ago owned a Henry rifle he suspected could have been at LBH. Where might i begin to find this out? Thanks!

]]> By: Tom http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-839272 Tom Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:43:06 +0000 #comment-839272 Paul states \The 1873 Colt could have fired over 5,000 rounds at charging indian's by itself. If 10% had been hits there would have been 500 dead indian's. Unlike the Springfield the Colt was extremely reliable and accurate in it's 7 1/2 barrel version. Under 50 yards it was deadly. \ 1. You assume every hit results in a fatality. 2.There are few people who can hit a moving target at 10 yards with a handgun, let alone out to 50. As a onetime avid shooter, I can attest to the amount of skill and practice needed to become proficient with a handgun; it is the most challenging weapon to become accomplished with. Your figure of 5000 pistol rounds fired seems reaching, that is everyman firing the maximum under the best of circumstances, I'd bet money the average is much much lower. Paul states \The 1873 Colt could have fired over 5,000 rounds at charging indian's by itself. If 10% had been hits there would have been 500 dead indian's. Unlike the Springfield the Colt was extremely reliable and accurate in it's 7 1/2 barrel version. Under 50 yards it was deadly. \

1. You assume every hit results in a fatality. 2.There are few people who can hit a moving target at 10 yards with a handgun, let alone out to 50. As a onetime avid shooter, I can attest to the amount of skill and practice needed to become proficient with a handgun; it is the most challenging weapon to become accomplished with. Your figure of 5000 pistol rounds fired seems reaching, that is everyman firing the maximum under the best of circumstances, I'd bet money the average is much much lower.

]]> By: Waldo http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-833646 Waldo Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:41:17 +0000 #comment-833646 No doubt, the vast majority of the troopers were not well trained marksmen. Add in the dust, smoke, noise, confusion, physical and mental strain, and Indians shooting at you, and it's not easy to hit a moving target. Also, perhaps the stories are exaggerated and he wasn't that close to troopers. Perhaps he just got lucky. Who knows for sure. No doubt, the vast majority of the troopers were not well trained marksmen. Add in the dust, smoke, noise, confusion, physical and mental strain, and Indians shooting at you, and it's not easy to hit a moving target. Also, perhaps the stories are exaggerated and he wasn't that close to troopers. Perhaps he just got lucky. Who knows for sure.

]]> By: Waldo http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-833625 Waldo Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:28:05 +0000 #comment-833625 Your notion of a 25% hit rate is fantastical and suggests that you lack credibility in everything else. As author of piece notes, Crook's cavalrymen had about a 0.4% hit rate. I think you slightly overestimate the number of rounds Custer's battalion had. At 210 men with 100 carbine rounds and 24 revolver rounds apiece, that works out to 26,000 rounds. We know that some significant portion of the ammo was lost when horses stampeded and that much more was captured from the dead soldiers by the Indians. From all the evidence, it'd be surprising if the soldiers fired close to half their ammo. 13,000 rounds fired * 0.4% hit rate = 52 Indian casualties. I wouldn't be surprised if Custer's soldiers had a better hit rate considering the close quarters nature of the fighting, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they got off much less than half their ammo given loss of horses and how many troopers were quickly overrun and ensuing panic that likely took place. Your notion of a 25% hit rate is fantastical and suggests that you lack credibility in everything else. As author of piece notes, Crook's cavalrymen had about a 0.4% hit rate. I think you slightly overestimate the number of rounds Custer's battalion had. At 210 men with 100 carbine rounds and 24 revolver rounds apiece, that works out to 26,000 rounds. We know that some significant portion of the ammo was lost when horses stampeded and that much more was captured from the dead soldiers by the Indians. From all the evidence, it'd be surprising if the soldiers fired close to half their ammo. 13,000 rounds fired * 0.4% hit rate = 52 Indian casualties. I wouldn't be surprised if Custer's soldiers had a better hit rate considering the close quarters nature of the fighting, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they got off much less than half their ammo given loss of horses and how many troopers were quickly overrun and ensuing panic that likely took place.

]]> By: Smedley http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-831796 Smedley Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:52:24 +0000 #comment-831796 Thank you Dakota 22 for your candor. So,,,,,,given the reality of 2013 issues .....what do you recommend that we all do? I agree that greed is ruining people and the environment. Thank you Dakota 22 for your candor. So,,,,,,given the reality of 2013 issues …..what do you recommend that we all do? I agree that greed is ruining people and the environment.

]]> By: BIll http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-828840 BIll Wed, 26 Dec 2012 02:37:01 +0000 #comment-828840 Thank you. I am almost afraid to post anything... Whew!! :>)) Thank you.
I am almost afraid to post anything…
Whew!! :>))

]]> By: BIll http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-828835 BIll Wed, 26 Dec 2012 02:02:06 +0000 #comment-828835 According to Native American accounts Crazy Horse had had a vision that he would never be hit by the enemy..He had special 'medicine' and painted his horse and himself in ways to protect him.. When he finally was killed it was at the hand of another Native American acting as a guard at Fort Robinson.. According to Native American accounts Crazy Horse had had a vision that he would never be hit by the enemy..He had special 'medicine' and painted his horse and himself in ways to protect him.. When he finally was killed it was at the hand of another Native American acting as a guard at Fort Robinson..

]]> By: BIll http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-828834 BIll Wed, 26 Dec 2012 01:58:23 +0000 #comment-828834 1- I think Custer made other mistakes,,the biggest being not knowing his enemy. Robt.. E. Lee also attacked larger forces and split his own forces against common military practice BUT he knew the enemy commanders so could make intelligent choices. 2- I do NOT believe the Indians had massive loses- just from the research I have done.. 3- I am enjoying your comments about the weapons and ammunition, much of which I have also read elsewhere but your info is more complete. But I don't know that if their Springfields had functioned better OR even if Custer had say Winchesters or Henry rifles he would have 'won.' That is difficult to say given all the other circumstances.--poor fire control, many new recruits, poor "generalship", Odds of greater than 10 to 1 at each of the major fights-- Reno/Benteen and Custer..etc.... 4- This was the largest gathering of Plains Indians known and their intent was not about fighting. Many had left reservations to join Sitting Bull and live a better life than the horror of reservation life.They just wanted to live, hunt buffalo, raise children and whatever... They never thought in a million years that the 'bluecoats' would attack such a large camp. So on the evening of the 26th they just left and did not fight Terry because 'they had had enough fighting for then.' 1- I think Custer made other mistakes,,the biggest being not knowing his enemy. Robt.. E. Lee also attacked larger forces and split his own forces against common military practice BUT he knew the enemy commanders so could make intelligent choices.
2- I do NOT believe the Indians had massive loses- just from the research I have done..
3- I am enjoying your comments about the weapons and ammunition, much of which I have also read elsewhere but your info is more complete. But I don't know that if their Springfields had functioned better OR even if Custer had say Winchesters or Henry rifles he would have 'won.' That is difficult to say given all the other circumstances.–poor fire control, many new recruits, poor "generalship", Odds of greater than 10 to 1 at each of the major fights– Reno/Benteen and Custer..etc….
4- This was the largest gathering of Plains Indians known and their intent was not about fighting. Many had left reservations to join Sitting Bull and live a better life than the horror of reservation life.They just wanted to live, hunt buffalo, raise children and whatever… They never thought in a million years that the 'bluecoats' would attack such a large camp.
So on the evening of the 26th they just left and did not fight Terry because 'they had had enough fighting for then.'

]]> By: BIll http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm#comment-828832 BIll Wed, 26 Dec 2012 01:23:35 +0000 #comment-828832 Thank you Dakota22. I am so glad to hear your comments here... I am not an historian, nor Lakota, just a guy living in upstate New York on land that once belonged to the Seneca.(That's another story).. but I have done a good deal of research into Native American history, sociology, mostly the plains people and Southwest. I traveled in southern Montana, SD looking for....a feeling....,I spent a brief time with a Hopi family in 1970...etc. that is all I know... But I have always been especially interested in the fight on the "Greasy Grass." Why? From what I have learned there is good information in this article-at least on the weapons if not not on the fight itself- and many mistakes...and the same with the comments.. Thank you again... Thank you Dakota22.
I am so glad to hear your comments here…
I am not an historian, nor Lakota, just a guy living in upstate New York on land that once belonged to the Seneca.(That's another story).. but I have done a good deal of research into Native American history, sociology, mostly the plains people and Southwest. I traveled in southern Montana, SD looking for….a feeling….,I spent a brief time with a Hopi family in 1970…etc. that is all I know…
But I have always been especially interested in the fight on the "Greasy Grass." Why?

From what I have learned there is good information in this article-at least on the weapons if not not on the fight itself- and many mistakes…and the same with the comments..
Thank you again…

]]>