I honestly can't see how we can get past those Winchesters and Henry rifles in a running battle with the Indians also having grossly superior numbers.

There is no contesting that statement.

I think what we need to do is a re-enactment with say 250 men on horseback shooting Winchester rifles at stationary targets in a column formation with single shot rifles in a running battle to fully comprehend the enormity that the 7th Cavalry faced that day.

How exactly can one mount an offensive to save Custer and his troops with single shot Springfield rifles? It would have been suicidal in my opinion. The loss of the 7th Cavalry would have been total.

Sometimes you must run for cover... NO CHOICE!

There is a lot of information regarding the corruption in the Government at that time and how the Indians actually obtained those repeating rifles. NONE of it is honorable. The real focus on the Little Big Horn should be and "ALWAYS" should be those repeaters. That must be answered first in my opinion! Without those repeaters the outcome would have been much different in my opinion. Each one of those rifles represents 12 fast repeating rounds times hundreds! That is simple fact. Hard to comprehend that many rounds coming at you at once. Especially in 1876!!!

Let's try this one....I'll take 100 men with Winchesters and behind us will be a flag pole...The object is for you and your 600 Cavalry to get to the flag and take it from us. You and your 600 will be on horseback with single shot rifles and Colt's 45 revolvers and the inaccurate multipurpose 45 round. We'll use rounds that splatter red paint when hit like paint balls. "GOOD LUCK"!

I think the result would closely mimic the Little Big Horn. A very quick end.

It's not about bravery or the lack there of. Sometimes it's about fire power.

Hmmm, I wonder what the outcome would have been if the Cavalry all had Winchesters?



Murph

IIRC (?) neither Reno or Benteen liked Custer ?

Benteen had no idea where Custer was, Custer had promised to support Reno, so Benteen assumed they were together. When he arrived on Reno Hill, Reno was in danger of being wiped out, as well as was Benteen's senior officer. It was Benteen [as well as a couple of his junior officers] who stood during the fighting there, encouraging & giving the orders all while under heavy fire at times.

Custer knew on the morning of the 25th that he was facing a larger force than the "800 warriors" suggested in the reports. His scout, Mitch Boyer told him it was the largest Indian encampment he had ever seen.

Custer was aware that Sioux scouts had seen his column that morning.

Custer's response was to split his 12 companies up. He sent one company with the packs. He sent Captain Benteen with 3 companies off to the Southwest to prevent an Indian escape in that direction. Custer sent Major Reno with three companies. down into the Little Bighorn valley with instructions to attack the Sioux encampment form the south. Custer told Reno he would support him from the East side of the Little Bighorn when Reno's attack began.

Custer rode off with the remaining 4 companies. Down the Medicine Bow coulee completely losing touch with Benteen, Reno, and the pack train. Custer apparently believed that His 200 man force could charge through the entire Sioux nation

Reno attacked as ordered. He found himself greatly outnumbered,\. He held for awhile in the tree line by the river, and when not support arrived from Custer, withdrew across the rive, up a steep slope, to the top of th bluff where he took defensive position.

Captain Benteen, recieved Custer's message to "come quick" and bring packs and joined with Captain MacDougle's pack train company. Apparently hearing gunfire from the Reno fight, they diverted to the top of the bluff where Reno was hotly involved with the Sioux in a defensive position. Reno and Benteen joined forces. They were under fire from a large Indian force and dug in.

Reno was NEVER court martialled. He asked for a Court of Inquiry to counter the versions of events being spread by Custer's Wife, Libby and her allies. For instance Private Martin, who delivers the "Come quick" message believed Benteen should have abandoned Reno and headed down the coulee to try and find Custer, not knowing where Custer was or if Custer was still alive.

The Military Court of Inquiry amassed an impressive record of the events and found there were no grounds for Court Martialling Reno. It did find some of Reno's actions in the attack in the valley and retreat up the bluffs a bit questionable, but endorsed his defense on the hilltop and joining with Benteen and the pack train as a correct decision.

If Benteen had gone off, with his three companies and the pack train, looking for Custer, they likely would have found Crazy Horse and Gall celebrating Custer's defeat and been destroyed in the same fashion. And then Reno would have gone down. Dividing your force in the face of a numerically superior enemy seldom works out well.

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz

There is certainly an argument to be made that he did not disobey the letter of the order, but he certainly disobeyed the intent of the order. There was a clause, for want of a better description, that gave Custer some leeway in the event that the situation was not as anticipated, but I don't think Terry meant that he could take on the whole Sioux nation by himself if the infantry column was slow getting there. He was supposed to wait at the mouth of the Little Big Horn River for the Column to catch up. The written orders are somewhat ambiguous, however, on June 21, Terry, Gibbon and Custer had a meeting on the steamer. In letters from Terry after the battle, he contends that the plans were communicated to Custer and he was aware of what his exact role was. General Terry always felt that Custer disobeyed his order. The problem with the written order is that it wasn't written by Terry. It was written by one of his aides. So it begs the question of what did Terry actually tell Custer?

Everyone like to think about what the outcome would have been had Custer had the Gatlings. Of course he turned down the offer because he felt that they went against the function of the cavalry, which was mobility. From reading the accounts of the battle, it moved very fast. In fact, there has been some evidence that Custer was on the move when he was overrun. It's hard to imagine that the Gatlings would have survived long enough to be set up in any type of useful defensive position.

Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.





Good thread.

Well written sir. It was me that misread court martial instead of court of inquiry, obviously two completely different things. My question, or point, was meant to be why he was singled out, or made the scapegoat if you will. And further reading makes it clear that Benteen almost certainly saved Reno’s Command, and likely his own by consolidating forces.

Perhaps it was because Reno was the Senior Officer Present, but more likely to your point, at the insistence of Custer’s widow. He did admit later that ‘drink’ likely influenced his behavior. Hard to condone drinking in combat, but with the benefit of hindsight…

__________________
Danny
SWCA #3370 - SWHF #672

As I recall, Reno was later court martialed, just not for anything having to do with this battle.

Custer was also court marshaled. Twice. Once when he was at West Point and in 1867 for being AWOL from his command and for having three deserters shot. As a result of this, he was suspended from command and docked his pay for one year. After 10 months, with things not going so well in the Indian War, Sheridan brought him back early to go after the Cheyenne.

Just to add here, as one of the other posters have pointed out, Reno was not court marshaled. There was a court of inquiry held to determine if he SHOULD be court marshaled. They determined that he shouldn't.

I sometimes wonder if Custer, with his civil war experience, using cap and ball revolvers, muzzle loaders and iffy under-powered breech loaders, did not feel that the 45/70 Springfield and Colt or Schofield 45s gave him an overwhelming firepower advantage over the indigenous freedom fighters.

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz

From the few books I have read on the subject it was a collision of two things:


First, He had a huge ego and wanted to run for president and needed a huge victory on this mission to propel him so he became impulsive and rash



Second, He ignored his scouts warnings and wrongly assumed they would scatter at the cavalry charge thus negating the disparity in numbers. Probably due to the first issue.



He thought wrong on both accounts and he and his command paid the price.


Yes, it was no secret that his subordinates hated him due to his ego; however; the more I read up on the subject, the more I realize that if Benteen had not stayed with Reno, the entire 7th would have been wiped out. His decision to not chase after Custer based upon poor intel about Custers location and Renos orders likely saved everyone who survived that day.

More in depth research on Major Charles Bendire:

Photo depicts an earlier "Captain Charles Bendire"
He was promoted to Major for his Gallant service in action against the Nez Perce Indians at Canon Creek, Montana, September 13, 1877. An injury from a fall led to his retirement in 1886. (Internet incorrectly listed him as dying) He did not die in 1886. He retired in 1886.

This is the connection with the Smithsonian. He volunteered at the Smithsonian Institution and turned in many artifacts that he himself found and documented on the prairie. One of these many artifacts being the 1883 Schofield "Battlefield relic" discovery.

It is also originally listed when documented as a " Little Bighorn Site Battlefield Relic"....So, no question that Major Bendire believed it was used in the battle. That to me personally, carries a lot of weight. Not only his impeccable credentials but the timeframe that it was discovered and the fact that he was a volunteer at the Smithsonian beginning in 1886! That's how long this battlefield relic has been recorded! It simply doesn't get better than that!

What a great storyline and an untainted, authentic piece of "early" history directly associated with the Little Big Horn battle site.



He passed away in 1897 from uremic poisoning at Jacksonville, Florida.


Murph

Attached Images

537C9E61-283A-4B38-AC34-15CD223B7BF4.jpg (104.5 KB, 12 views)

The Shofield of course may have been dropped and lost by an Indian, who had got it elsewhere, either directly or in trade, with it having been obtained in some other skirmish or engagement in some other area previously.

Do you have a link to the Smithsonian article about the Schofield? I can't seem to find one. I'm interested to see how they link this gun to the battle. It seems that it laid on the battlefield for about 7 years before anyone found it.

There is no article from the Smithsonian. It’s a listing with 3 photos and minimal information. Just punch in “ Smithsonian Schofield” in google and up she comes!
The Man at Arms 1988 Jan/Feb Article goes into much more detail. Charles Pate actually examined the gun and the available information from the Smithsonian. I posted a summary of that article and information already. The information is copyrighted so I can’t photo it and post it or I would.

Murph

Here's the link to the Smithsonian:

Smith & Wesson Schofield Revolver | Smithsonian Institution

The "specific history" tells us virtually nothing, and the "general history" is just a very cursory overview of the Schofields.

Given that there's no meaningful provenance attached to this gun, I'd say that all of its attribution to Little Bighorn is highly questionable.

Mike

If I remember correctly the Indians were issued Schofields

__________________
Forum consigliere

I personally would pay to see that one....I mean someone bucking up to a Major in the U.S. Army, veteran of Indian wars, and call his find a Fraud...

That would be entertaining and very satisfying for me personally.

Murph

Fraud is your word, not mine. The provenance on this gun is weak, given that its attribution to the Little Bighorn site is one person's verbal account with no meaningful information about where it was found, the site context, etc.

I haven't read Pate's article on the gun, but I do have tremendous respect for his talents as a historian and writer. That said, even he had to concede that this gun could not be traced beyond having been shipped to the Springfield Armory from the S&W factory. The only meaningful conclusion that we can draw is that the gun could have been on the battlefield ... so, in theory, could any gun that shipped prior to the battle.

Ergo, the circuitous path that it took from the Springfield Armory to Bendire's hands is anyone's guess. Ditto for whether this gun was actually found on the battlefield—and whether it had anything to do with the battle there. It's all within the realm of possibility, but that's a far cry from any sort of "proof."

Mike

I have not read Pate's article so I really can't speak to it. Does he actually say that it was USED at the battle? The Smithsonian information is lacking, to say the least. It says it was FOUND at the battlefield, which is very different from USED in the battle. Given that the gun was located almost 7 years after the battle, and without knowing how it was found, it makes me wonder. With all of the traffic that passed over the site in all those years it seems that someone would have stumbled across it. I don't think the Indians would have left it behind had they found it. I think a more likely scenario is that it was lost there sometime between 1876 and 1883 by someone passing through. I'm not saying that no Schofields were in the fight because no one can say that. With all of the actors involved in that fight, it surely is possible that just about anything could have been used. But without definitive proof, you can't say there was one there any more accurately that you can say that they weren't.

This is a really good summation of the results of a lot of the archeological searches at the site. It is put out by the Dept. of the Interior. Page 96 is where they start talking about the guns used in the battle. Very interesting, although condensed, report.

http://npshistory.com/series/archeol...c/tech/124.pdf

The Smithsonian Schofield is clearly documented as being submitted by Major Charles Bendire in 1886 upon his retirement. It is also clearly documented as “FOUND” on the Little Bighorn battlefield in 1883, loaded, by a survey party in the summer of that year. There is no way they would know if it was actually used in the battle of little big horn. Only that it was found at that site!!
It’s not a modern yarn or lame unresearched Modern opinion 140 plus years later.
That’s the claim submitted by Major Bendire. Pretty straightforward.
I’m not seeing any holes in this claim. From A researched Perspective anyway seems solid to me.
Focus on the claim not generalities.
Find and read the article before you post a negative unresearched opinion.
Also, a gun doesn’t get heavily rusted and pitted overnight. To say that a gun could not have been lying on the ground for 7 years after a battle is to question any discovery after the fact.

It’s amazing how much credit we give a 1983 survey of the site?
Murph

That's because you're not a credible researcher.

Major Bendire's claim is just that—a claim. Most historians would want to see something that corroborates this claim; an objective third party account of this discovery, or at least a more detailed account of the discovery. Like what appears in the earlier referenced archaeological report, which was clearly written by professionals, and which contains a ton of objective information from which scientific observations can be made.

Any of us could take an antique gun out to a battlefield and claim to have found it there, and then make spurious claims that it was used in that battle.

None of this is to say that Major Bendire is a liar; I have no reason to believe that. But the burden of proving the claim is on Major Bendire—and without more information, it's just an unsubstantiated claim.

That, by the way, is one of the key differences between a professional historian and a well-intentioned enthusiast. The former is inclined to look at the totality of the evidence, to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to the table, and to make very careful observations based on that. The latter like to string together bits of information to make spurious and unfounded claims, as you've done in much of this thread.

Mike

So school me on why I shouldn't be skeptical of this claim and why you accept it as dispositive of the fact that the gun was used in the battle. I think in claims like this, you need to start out doubting it until it is proven otherwise. I don't know much about Bendire so I can't make any kind of decision about his veracity. But just because he was a Major in the Army doesn't give him a free pass and he wouldn't be the first Army officer to make a spurious claim. If this gun was used in the battle, that meant that it laid on the ground for 7 years while survey crews, Indians, curious civilians and all sorts of people walked all over the field and didn't find it. Suddenly Bendire shows up with it. It obviously wasn't issued to anyone in the 7th. No one ever testifies that they saw anyone using a Schofield even though they seemed to take notice about a lot of details about weapons. I'm certainly not closed minded about this but tell me why I should believe it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

A gun found on or near the battle site seven years after the battle is not proof it was used in the battle.

Sorry. It may have been there. It probably was there. But proof? Nope.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Gee, does that criteria not apply to everything else on that battlefield? Terry's whole command was tramping around in what was obviously a field of horrors. Custer was found naked with the remains of a boot on one foot laying on two other bodies. At least that is what somebody said. Somebody said they found it somewhere and we trust them? Not a lot of first hand info out there saying there were no Scholfields. "Historical proof" is a flexible standard and often turns on the credibility and knowledge of the presenter.

The Captain in this case seems creditable. It is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" but little in history is. It is interesting evidence. In 1985 the metal detectors found a 1858 Reminington revolver rammer in remarkably good condition.

The indigenous people had only slightly over a day to salvage the battlefield. They may have missed some. And after they were rounded up and returned to the reservation no-one was to eager to admit where their US marked firearm may have come from. A lot of them are probably still hidden somewhere in the west.

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz

The burden of proving an assertion rests with the person making that assertion—not the person doubting it. Asserting a position and then demanding that someone produce proof to deny it is a logical fallacy.

Burden of proof (philosophy - Wikipedia)

Professional historians generally don't talk about "proofs." It's the cult of the amateur to declare that some historical assertion has been "proven."

Again: I'm actually not taking the position that the Schofield in question wasn't found on the battlefield; it may very well have been. The 1984 excavation showed that there was still plenty of stuff out there. And the gun may very well have been found by Major Bendire—about six years after-the-fact, if one believes his account.

This remains a highly tendentious way to bolster the claim that Schofields were (or weren't) in use at Little Bighorn.

As my old thesis advisor used to tell me: "go hit the books again."

Mike

Thank You Heinz!

Refreshing to see at least one member with an open mind who has actually been following and participating in the thread.

The others need to go back to page one of the thread and read "ALL" the input from members. that includes military records that have been proven to be incomplete and neglected prior to 1876, Schofields taken from indians proven to be in the Battle of the Little Big Horn less than a year later, and Schofields sold to officers of the 2nd Infantry proven to have fought in the battle of Rosebud just days before the little Big horn. The updated fact that most of the 3000 Schofields from the first shipment were actually already in the field "Prior" to the Little Big Horn.

It's not an opinion that Schofields were there...They were there both before and after the battle, if you read all of the thread and documented information. Not speculation or non applicable dictionary references.

It's also a two way street. One must also present evidence to the contrary. What proof do you have that Schofields werent there?

If you read the entire thread you might learn something.

Unless we believe that all the military records are bogus? The listed Schofields taken from Indians proven to be at the Little bighorn is also bogus, the sold Schofields to officers proven to be in Indian territory and assigned to Units involved with proven battles in and around the Little Big horn...That's bogus too? The letters from the Commanding officer of the Armory denying orders for Schofield revolvers in 1875 due to none being available? That's bogus too? Where were they? All 3000 of them?

Prior published information redundantly claims that only 800+ were issued in 1876 in total.....Detailed research by Mr Pate proves the Armory was depleted prior to 1876 and less than 30 were in reserve to be sold to officers!

The least you can do is read the researched material posted.




Murph

I was not the one who brought "proof" into the conversation

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

I think we are talking about weight of the evidence. I think the that based on all of what has been presented here it is certainly possible that Schofields were present at the battle. What is troubling to me is there is no mention of them in the Reno Benteen fight. However there is not much specific mention of the Colt revolver there either. The state of the Army data seems pretty ragged.
It is like Custer's RIC pistols; did he have them that day? We will never really know. The officers could carry what they wanted and not have it noted.

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz

Heinz,
Lets review. It's documented that Custer split his regiment into 3 Battalions.

Custer commanded companies: C,E,F,I & L
Reno commanded companies: A, G & M
Benteen commanded companies; D,H & K

McDougal commanded Company B to remain with the pack train.

According to Military Quarterly reports from December 1875. Records of issuance are missing for companies D & K.
March of 1876 Records of issuance are missing for companies D, H, K & M.

Those companies were assigned to Reno and Benteen during the Battle of Little Big Horn.

The other companies assigned to Custer were listed as having Colt 45 SAA's. These records are listed as clearly neglected by Mr. Pate. That also does not include officers, scouts, packers, etc. We don't know what they were carrying.

However, remember that by this time the Army was no longer separating Colt's 45's from Smith & Wesson 45's.....They were often simply listed as issued X number of 45 caliber revolvers. Likely due to the Multi-purpose cartridge now made them basically the same. In the eyes of the U. S. Army. a 45 is a 45 is a 45.

If we take the position that those missing company records represented evidence of the Schofield being used in the battle the evidence actually fits. Few Schofields would have been lost from Reno and Benteen's Battalions since the heavy losses were with Custer's Battalion that is listed as having SAA's.

Murph

Off topic a mite, but it seems I remember reading that Custer had a Remington rolling block rifle with him that day; I presume it was chambered in .45-70.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Custer is known to have used a Remington Rolling Block chambered for the 50-70 cartridge.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

It is amazing that a thread that started regarding one pistol has grown to cover a much broader topic and generated so much discussion. Lots of great information shared, questions asked, theories postulated, and many stones unturned, all with no conclusion.

If only that one pistol could talk...


Fantastic thread, great reading. Carry on...

It's likely that the Smithsonian Schofield will never be proven to have been used or dropped during the actual battle. I have no idea how one would actually prove that unless we could find records of issuance to a specific member of the 7th Cavalry at that time. Which is a ridiculous proposition since NO GUNS issued to the 7th have those type of records by serial number. The only thing we can come up with is that the Schofields were actually being used...I think we've presented that point clearly enough.

However, lets just be clear here.
The "fact" that Schofields were there and in use at that time is clearly presented by Mr. Pate's research. Here is just one example: " Lt. E.B. Robertson had already purchased a Schofield, having ordered it from the Springfield Arsenal in June of 1875. He was assigned to Company H of the 9th Infantry that "PARTICIPATED IN THE BATTLE OF ROSEBUD"

Here is another clip:
Captain O.E. Michelis was ordnance officer of the Department of Dakota in March of 1876. He wrote the Ordnance office stating that "several officers had asked to buy Schofields" from him. 26 Schofields were immediately sent to him by express mail.
Captain Michelis is listed as supplying 14 Cavalry companies and 50 infantry. Among those is listed 10 of the 7th Cavalry!

So to maintain a position that the Schofields were not in that area or even part of that battle at this point is to maintain a position that is obsolete and uninformed.

Murph

Fascinating read, I found it interesting that there were quite a few firearms that could not be identified, I think the report referred to them as plains or trade guns, whatever that may be. One thing certain, which has been surmised time and again, the wealth of evidence concludes that Custer was outgunned in sheer numbers and firepower. Even so, based on the wounds noted on the skeletons, it also seems clear that many were killed in close combat by arrows, clubs and knives. How many of these were postmortem mutilations will never be known, brutal doesn’t begin to describe what must have happened.

Having read that comment, i realize it sounds like I’m blaming the Warriors for the brutality, but in my humble opinion they were just fighting for their right to exist, and protection of their land and families. I don’t think any of us living in modern times can fully comprehend either side of the argument.

__________________
Danny
SWCA #3370 - SWHF #672

There is at least some circumstantial evidence that Custer had his Webley. There was testimony at the Reno Court that Custer had two nickle, ivory handled revolvers but it seems that might not be accurate. Or at least they were not at the battle. Custer owned two, S&W, model 2's that were nickled and had pearl or ivory grips but they were accounted for after the battle so he could not have used them. There were no other nickle guns that can be linked to him at the time he was at Ft. Lincoln. Some say that he had two Webley's but that doesn't work out either. The RIC Webley he probably had at the battle was given to him by a British sportsman who he had guided on a buffalo hunt. He was only given one Webley that anyone knows of. It was the 442 RIC and it was blued so if he really had a pair, the other gun came from someplace else. Custer was photographed with the Webley before he left and no one could account for it after the battle. There is some more interesting testimony at the Reno Court from the Engineer Officer from Terry's command who was tasked with surveying the battlefield. He testified that he recovered one unique pistol cartridge which did not match any of the government guns and which he could not identify. It was recovered close to where Custer ended up and he attributed to Custer's RIC. It seemed like the Lieutenant was proffering his opinion and I don't remember if there was any further investigation by way of testimony about it. I'm not sure what ever happened to it or if it was ever submitted to the ballistic examinations. So taking all of this circumstantial evidence into account, we can ASSUME that Custer died using a Webley, Royal Irish Constabulary 442 caliber revolver. This is an ASSUMPTION, which is a lot different than a FACT.

Hi all

Some other interesting data about the weapons and ammunition of that period.
Maybe you already know this photo? H. Sterling Fenn, who published it, sees weapons that I honestly cannot identify. Probably live is clearer. However, it seems to me a confirmation of what was known!

The other photo shows a summer 1990 find at the site of Battle of Canyon Creek on September 13, 1877. Evidently it was lost during the clash. It is of course a Colt Army .45 with a serial number still readable, #17371. The "C" of sub-inspector A. P. Casey could also be read. The revolver was loaded and had in the cylinder four "Colt's Revolver Cartridges" and two "Revolver Ball cartridges". I think you can see the shorter length of the two cartridges on the right, Ball Cartridges, compared to Colt's Cartridge on the left. The hammer is frozen in the safety position and is resting on an unfired cartridge.

The troops involved in that battle were of the 7th, which means that they still used cal .45 cartridges of the first type in September 1877.
Mike Blohm Collection. Photo by H. S. Fenn.

Giorgio

Attached Images

	Custer and Wife.jpg (100.1 KB, 73 views)
	Find 1990.jpg (27.5 KB, 65 views)

The Garland & Somerville revolver in the photo may have belonged to Custer's brother Tom. When Custer guided Lord Paget on a buffalo hunt, Paget gave him the RIC Webley as a gift. The story goes that he gave the Garland & Somerville to Tom, who went along on the hunt. I think that may be where the idea that Custer had two pistols at the battle came from. The Lord Paget connection has never been conclusively proven so the possibility remains that Custer purchased the guns himself. Both were available at the time for sales to the public.

to circle back briefly to post 73 and first-models comments on the the reliability of the information at hand. Without casting any shadows on the work of folks who are not professional historians, after all many important historical discoveries were made by amateur historians, First-Model has a good point in that we are all looking at fairly shaky evidence.

As Scott et. al. point out in "Archeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn" no forensic examination of the battlefield was conducted in the immediate aftermath of the battle. The dead were buried quickly and reburial occurred over a term of years afterwards. There is serious question whether the reinterment of Custer actually involved Custer's remains. It is just as likely that Custer lies in the mass reburial under the Custer monument.

At this point in time we can make projections, or guesses. We need to be aware that what we today would call a massive coverup was taking place. Terry and his troops wanted quick burials, getting the Reno-Benteen wounded back to medical care, and getting away from the stink of the battlefield. They were also aware that the Indigenous tribes now were in possession of over 200 Springfield rifles and a similar number of Colts and other make revolvers.

No one on the scene wanted to make the Seventh out to be poorly led, they wanted to bury the dead and move on.

We will never have good historical records on the arms. Pate has demonstrated good records were not kept. The 45 universal cartridge just muddies the water even more.

The pistol that started this discussions was not found by Capt Bendier, but by a survey crew on the Battlefield in 1883. I think it brings up an interesting possibility. But if this was a trail you would never get that pistol into evidence. I choose to believe it ws there, but that does not make it a fact.

Scott believes the archeological evidence supports the Sioux and Cheyenne testimonies on the details of the battle more than any other renditions. They all agree it happened fast, the warriors were angry over Reno's surprise attack on women and children, After quickly disposing of Custer some went to fight the Benteen- Reno troops on the hill. They do not mention many troopers reverting to using revolvers.

So, we will never really know. Captain Bendier believed the Schofield came from the battlefield, but he did not pick it up himself. I tend to trust his judgement. But that is just a judgement call, not hard evidence.

PS, George and Tom Custer were buried together covered with blankets and buried at least foot and a half deep. When a detachment was sent in June 1877 to recover Custer remains, they may well have taken the wrong ones (Scott et al pp 246-247)

So, let us enjoy this discussion between Smith and Wesson enthusiasts and respect each others opinions.

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz

Good post Heinz. It is also important to remember that for many years there was unrestricted access to the battle field. There were reenactments and demonstrations. In fact, there is a story about one of the early superintendents of the battlefield who was a veteran of the 7th Cav. He liked to spread empty cartridges around for the tourists to find. The Schofield was not the only gun to be found years after the battle. In 1883, there was a 1873, 50 caliber Sharps rifle that was found near the Greasy Grass area. The gun was ballistically linked to empty cartridges the were supposedly recovered from the battle site and tested. Even with this evidence that to the naked eye seems irrefutable, the experts are very, very careful when they talk about that find and always point out that just because the gun was fired at the Little Big Horn, doesn't mean that it was fired in the battle. Part of the problem is that when things like this go up for auction, the auction house writes it up like it came from Custer's mouth to God's ear. The Sharps sold for about a quarter of a million dollars by the way. You can count of one hand the number of guns in existence that have hard evidence linking them to the battle. A quick word about Custer's final resting place. When they went back to exhume the dead, it had been decided that Custer's remains would be returned to West Point to be buried. When they initially dug up the bodies, they boxed up the wrong one to be sent back east. The OIC of the detail said that they caught the mistake and fixed it before shipping the body, but who knows who got buried at West Point. The descendants of Custer will not to this day, give permission to exhume the remains at West Point for DNA testing. So there's a good chance that some poor private is holding Custer's spot in the cemetery at The Point.

Giorgio,
Great stuff.

However, by 1876 all the major manufacturers were cranking out 45 Colt's cartridges in boxer primed cases.
Even in 1877 the heads were not stamped so you would be hard pressed to identify who in fact manufactured the round in question. Possibilities are basically endless on this one.
So, you would actually have to closely examine this Colt to make sure it has Bennett primed cases. In it's present condition I think that it would be very difficult to tell. Looks frozen to me and rusted solid.
It is definitely a reflection of that era being poorly supplied. Not unlike trying to find ammo today?
Often relics found in this condition have different cartridges in the chambers. Longs and shorts being the most common. Ammo was hard to find back then!
Even harder for the Indians to find ammo I'm sure! All those rounds they obtained from the Indian agents likely dried up really fast after the Little Big Horn!!!
It's not like they could ride into town to purchase ammo.

Murph

Hi

The availability of ammunition was certainly a problem in certain areas. But here we are talking about a weapon in the hands of the cavalry, whose ammunition came from an arsenal. The .45 cartridges inside that Colt (if the weapon had fallen to a soldier) could only be of government origin. Unless we want to think that it fell to an Indian. This cannot be ruled out a priori, given that the year before Sioux and Cheyenne had recovered more than 200 Colt Army and several ammunition from the ground!
However, even if it had been an Indian weapon, the ammunition would have been governmental. After the disaster of June 1876 the area had been militarized and the Agencies placed under the direct control of the War Department. At that point I think finding commercial ammunition was almost impossible for the Indians.
So I would say that the six ammunition left inside that relic are definitely Cartridges Colt Revolver and Revolver Ball Cartridges. Also because the .45 commercial shorts (Schofield) we have seen that they were not available until 1880 at least.

Giorgio

I think I remember that in one of Reno's reports he indicated that they used 38200 rounds of carbine ammo and 12000 revolver cartridges. I can't remember what report that came from. Reno also turned in some Colt revolvers that were deemed un serviceable from damage that occurred in the battle. Most of those were fixed, refitted with shorter barrels and turned into "artillery" models then reissued to be used in the Philippines, fading into history. One of those escaped being redone and is one of the few guns that has indisputable provenance today. It sold at auction about 5 years ago for $400000.

Edit: That was Benteen who turned in those revolvers.

Giorgio,
You're missing my point....Let me be clear ok?

We can "date" ammo.... Just like the Smithsonian Schofield? It must be loaded with Bennet primed shells if it was dropped during the time of the Little Big Horn battle....Unfortunately, Mr. Pate did not mention the gun as being "still loaded" at the Smithsonian when he actually examined the gun. That is "very unfortunate" because those rounds are extremely important to prove timeline.

Just like the gun you presented....We "must" examine the rounds in that rusty gun to prove that they are bennet primed.... If it was dropped later? I might have boxer primed shells which would be solid evidence that it was dropped later...

Too bad the Smithsonian gun isn't still loaded...I wonder if they still have the original rounds? That's kinda huge stuff there!


Murph

For what it's worth, I roamed over the Custer battlefield several times from the late 1940s to the mid 1960s and depending on the time of the year and the height of the grass, one could easily miss finding a rusty Schofield unless you actually stepped on it. You could kick up spent rifle and revolver cartridges and a few live rounds, even an ocasional arrow head or horse bone. Whether these items were actual Custer battle relics, who knows. Ed

Perhaps I too have explained myself badly. And my post neglected for a moment the topic "Schofield at Little Big Horn" and the find "Smithsonian Schofield"!
The reference to the scarce availability of ammunition was referred to the Indians (not the Army) and in a specific period. More or less from the spring of 1876 to the whole of 1877, and even after. (It is believed that the Great Siuox War started in March 1876 with the attack on a indian camp on the Powder River)
At that time for the Sioux and the Northern Cheyenne pulled a very bad air, after Little Big Horn. So their contacts with the civilian whites with whom they sometimes traded for some weapons and some ammunition, are a hypothesis to be excluded, after the spring of 1876!
That's why, in my opinion, there's a good chance that the ammunition inside the Colt Army revolver found after 120 years at the site of a September 1877 clash is still of military origin. Even if it had fallen to an Indian!
Of course we take for good the hypothesis that that Colt was actually on the ground from September 1877 to the summer of 1990. We therefore exclude, for good faith, that it is a "false" find, and believe that the author Fenn tells the truth.
So my conclusions were about this Colt and its ammunition and they were essentially these: 1) If the weapon had fallen to a soldier it means that in September of '77 the 7th still had the .45 long (Cartridge for Colt's Revolver) available after three abundant years from the stop of construction by the Chief of Ordnance. 2) If instead the revolver had fallen to an Indian (unlikely hypothesis) almost certainly came from a capture in battle, (and the cartridges were the same martial). But it could not have come from the Rosebud or the Little big Horn as the Colt Cavalry "Custer range" had four-digit serial. Also those supplied to the 2nd and 3rd regiments. The 17xxx serial number was later! But, in my opinion, the chances that some Sioux recovered a military Colt Cavalry after June 1876 are zero!
Giorgio

AK’s as rifles too!

There is actually a pretty good alternative history novel by Harry Turtledove where time travelers go back and arm Lee’s troops with AK-47s. Not to spoil the novel, or I suspect surprise anyone here, but the southern troops then win the war!

Returning to reality, this is a very interesting thread. Every time one of these Custer threads comes up, I watch Son of the Morning Star, which I always enjoy.

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

Lonesome Charley Reynolds was a scout in Custer's command. On the day of the battle he and a group of scouts were with Reno. When Reno retreated across the river Reynolds was killed . He was reported to carry a Schofield. It's possible it was picked up by a Sioux that went to join the fight going on with Custer.

The Schofield revolver was issued in significant numbers by June of 1876. The revolver was definitely there and in use. The Rock Is Arsenal reported being out of Schofield revolvers prior to the Little Big Horn. All issued! Unfortunately, we just don’t know how many.

Murph

Was a forensic search done at Reno's position. When Reynolds body was recovered it was reported that over 50 spent cases were found where he laid.