I love it. For the longest time I’ve been trying to tell people it was about the money not just because of a concern that soldiers would waste ammo and I would say logistics to boot. Well done

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

thankyou very much

Very good video. As far as Custer, he was lucky to survive the Civil War. He was too vain glorious and brash.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

i 100 percent agree he was a hot head.

Glad you mentioned the ammo and bullet. There’s guys that shoot trapdoors in silhouette and black powder target rifle military matches today because they are still accurate enough. Need a video like this on the colt single action as well. How it wasn’t the first metallic cartridge handgun adopted, unsafe with 6 rounds etc. I know it’s beaten to death in live chats but like you said the channels that just gloss over a gun and shoot a few rounds and read off the wikipedia page and get millions of views keep spreading it. You may need to start a whole historical gun mythbusters series.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

thats a great idea thanks!

Whew! I thought I was gonna get hammered on for a sec there. I was using the Fresca books "The 45-70 Springfield" for my info. Great info you have and thanks for sharing.. 👍

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol no i think you are one of the most accurate channels out there

What I learned in college when I was a history major was that when you do research on a subject, any subject involving history, no matter what it is, you get three separate sources. One may go one way, one may go another, and the third could be a tie breaker. Wikipedia isn't something I would use as a source because you don't get to see where their info comes from. They may list things or articles but that doesn't mean they were sourced from there.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

you 100% right on that. lol what i find funny is even getting one good book would help these people out alot. like i said in the beginning studying trapdoors is way easier then some guns

Man, if I hear one more time about Custer losing because of the Trapdoor being the gun that was issued his troops. Custer lost at the Little Bighorn because Custer was Custer. One, he was already facing superior numbers, he just didn't know it yet, two, he spilt up his force, between Benteen and Reno taking their own separate commands and trying to do the impossible. By the time Custer and what was left of the troops he was in direct command of ended up facing off against the Native Americans, he was pretty much facing the whole lot of them. Had his troops been armed with repeaters, he would have lasted maybe a bit longer, inflicted more casualties, but in the end, the battle was already decided. It was also speculated for years about what would have happened had Custer had the Gatlings that he had access too. Nothing like revisionist history.

@The_SmorgMan

7 ай бұрын

The real question is what if Custer had access to MG42’s and tanks. Nobody talks about that though

@MrChickennugget360

6 ай бұрын

@@The_SmorgMan exactly. If Sherman was their things would have been different. i mean M4 Shermans

@josephwalukonis9934

6 ай бұрын

To understand the 1876 campaign you just can't look at the Custer fight in isolation. When you look at Crook's battle at the Rosebud you will find that Crook divided his forces just as Custer did and Crook's men might have been spread out even more than Custer's were. The difference was that Crook faced far fewer Indians than Custer did. Crook also had a number of mounted infantry who were armed with the infantry issue trapdoor rifles that had a greater range than the cavalry version that Custer's men had. Although, as you correctly state it would hardly mattered given the tactical situation Custer was in. Also, it needs to be clarified that not all the indians had winchesters or the older henry's. They carried a wide variety of firearms. It also should be clarified that in most cases they never had a large amount of ammunition as well. The real question becomes how well did Custer's Crow scouts communicate the size of the village and number of warriors to Custer.

@wes326

5 ай бұрын

In addition, the Native American's attitude had changed. Leaving the reservations and The Battle of the Rosebud showed they would go on the offensive and were done running and scattering when attacked. Custer attacked a hornet's nest and was bound to be destroyed.

@williamanderson6006

5 ай бұрын

If you would do a little research you will find Custer was setup

Some really interesting info. Thanks, you rogue!

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol yer welcome you scoundrel

Excellent post, thanks! For warfare on the open plains I'd choose the accuracy of the 45/70 Springfield rifle over anything Winchester made at that time. I've been shooting a trapdoor now for over 40 years, mostly with 60 gr fffg and a 535 grain bullet. Excellent accuracy and super reliable.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

yes sir i agree 100 percent

@TheSulross

8 ай бұрын

I've always thought it rather clever that they came up with a way to convert the Springfield muzzle loader into a breach loader, but I did wonder if that resulted in a reliable weapon - good to hear a report that it is reliable. I suppose I shouldn't have had such ponderings given it was in service for so many years as the backbone weapon of the US Army.

I own an1873 Trapdoor and a Remington Rolling Block in 45-70. They are just wonderful old guns. My favorite though is an old Krag as it has been in the family for 100 years

@Real11BangBang

11 ай бұрын

oh yes i love all the old single shots. the krag is good too

@kirkmorrison6131

11 ай бұрын

@@Real11BangBang Wonderful old guns, I reload all of them

Excellent video! I love busting perpetuated myths.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol so do i. it is great fun

@Everythingblackpowder

Жыл бұрын

@@Real11BangBang I’ve seen that a few times where people use low pressure/power loads, and then blame the firearm for being weak. But my favorite one is blaming the trapdoor on Custer’s demise.

Have shot the original loading and and the 5oograin loading . At 5'7" and 186lbs. The 45-70 in full power and properly loaded bullets is a beast . Had a range bull on a ranch in West Texas that was attacking riders on the ranch at 180yds the trapdoor 45-70 knocked that 3700lds bull sideways and he dropped with one shoulder shot! Thankfully I don't think I would have been able to fire the next round ! That steel butt plate did a number on my shoulder! 😢 ! It is very affective on big dense muscle and bone ! Small entry fist sized exit! I now own 5 different 45-70 rifles. For different types of game . Reload my own cartridges for the specific size game! Very versatile cartridge! But like most rounds factory produced like the .357 magnum the 45-70 factory ammunition is downloaded! Reloading these rounds wakes them up! Be careful and safe when reloading! And enjoy yourselves out there!

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

100%

@williamanderson6006

5 ай бұрын

Agreed it kicks as hard as anything I've ever shoot can't imagine shooting 100 rounds through it

@oldgysgt

23 күн бұрын

Yes, when taking my trapdoors to the range with 500 grained bullets, I seldom take than 5 rounds per shooter. Even if one or two guys want to fire more than that, most of the other shooters will gladly let them have a few of their unused rounds.

Excellent video, right on, very interesting and informative, thank you. Have a good evening.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

thankyou. you have a good evening aswell

I'm a martini guy, but I'll tell you that 480gr and 85gr of 2f will make you wipe the slobber off the side of the stock. Thanks for the video

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol i hear ya. thanks for watching

@ronrobertson59

Жыл бұрын

I'm a Martini guy too it was the most advanced rifle of its day. The ammo not so much due to the way the case was made but an excellent cartridge none the less..

@jic1

10 ай бұрын

@@ronrobertson59 I'd say that the Sharps-Borchardt was actually more advanced, although the Martini was certainly more successful.

@jamesharrison2374

3 ай бұрын

Have had a Martini from the Zulu war error, a 1884 trapdoor, a vintage Remington Rolling block, 1874 and 1875 Sharps. I reload with 500gr and packed Swiss BP. They were all great rifles, have traded all but the 1875 C. Sharps that I still own. Have photos from a family member that served in the Spanish American war time and them training at fort Screven in Savannah GA.

@sharonrigs7999

28 күн бұрын

The Gras is another fantastic Single Shot. I have one in original 11mm and a shortened (20" barrel) 8mm Lebel conversion. I have a lot of fun with the 8mm one. Several grains of pistol powder and a lead round ball makes a fantastic 'gallery' load for low cost plinking

I love hearing people say how the Trapdoor was obsolete when it came out but then they tend to be the same people who think the Sharps is some magical wonder weapon, given the Sharps has its own issues, like the fact that if you don't put it on half-cock when opening the action, over time you can bet you're going to break off the very end of the firing pin. The Trapdoor is actually fairly strong given the action it does have, and with the right ammo and not hot loading it with Buffalo Bore ammo or even hotter smokeless loads, the gun has more than enough power to get the job done.

I have head anecdotal accounts of them being used by the Navy in World War II as line throwers.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

i have heard that

@eazy8579

4 ай бұрын

Would make sense. Big charge, strong enough rifle, it’s in inventory, and you only need a single shot for hucking a line. It would be an interesting project to try to track down evidence for or against.

Well said! I'm a simple man. Any rifle that gives me a love tap when I fire it will never be obsolete. Accuracy wise, I tend to be the inaccurate one in the pairing. 😉

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol me too i really havent found a gun that shoots worse then me

Myth #3. I load 45-70. I loaded and 200 460gr pill with about 60-65 grains of FF and a few loaded with 33 grains 3031. My cousin and I went out to the Quarry Next day I had a black and blue mark on my shoulder. That sucker was controllable but IT KICKED!

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol yeah some people who just shoot amokless miss out on all the fun!!

@sharonrigs7999

Жыл бұрын

I load my 577/.450 Martini-Henry with a 510gn bullet and 80gn of FFF + 5gn of Unique. I use a hollow base bullet so no paper patch required. It allows me to cram in a little more powder.

@pilgrimm23

Жыл бұрын

@@sharonrigs7999 yep

@user-og5rk5lt1s

7 ай бұрын

@@sharonrigs7999 Paper patch was utilized as a way to manage leading and fouling and achieve full engagement with the rifling. Switching to just an expanding base bullet leads to faster fouling and leading of your barrel

@sharonrigs7999

7 ай бұрын

@user-og5rk5lt1s Very true. However I cast from a precious stash of linotype lead that doesn't lead the bore badly at all.

Fun video! I did not know much about these before the video!

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

oh yes this is a fun subject

Fun Fact - The 1884 Springfield trapdoor rifle was still being used on some U.S. Navy ships as a line throwing gun well into the 1970s.

@Real11BangBang

9 ай бұрын

i saw that thanks for watching

Evening Garrett👋

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

hi gxrza

Didnt you know if custer would have used the Remington New Model Army. and he had a bucket of Crisco. He would have easily won😁

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol

Good evening from Syracuse NY brother

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

good evening

@earlshaner4441

Жыл бұрын

Hi my friend

I didn't expect to be recommended such a niche video regarding a rifle I have a huge obsession with. Really appreciate you clearing up these myths!

@Real11BangBang

8 ай бұрын

thankyou for taking the time to watch

Well done. I find some of those myths very odd; the simple fact is that a lot of people who profess an interest in BP firearms tend--only tend, mind you--to have a strong anti-intellectual bias, and put little faith in books, preferring "old hand" word-of-mouth lore. I have run into this constantly in my research. I can understand the claim that the government was concerned about troops wasting ammunition, not because it's correct, but because the people who say that are one generation off--that *was* a concern previous to this, and a lot of folks don't study enough to differentiate between the older attitudes and the way those attitudes were changed by what was learned in the ACW. As for the accuracy of the Trapdoor being poor, that boggles my mind. If you read the manuals of the time, especially Blunt's 1885 and 1889 manuals, you would be amazed at the attention paid therein to serious, high-end long-distance marksmanship. One can say that the Buffington sight was ludicrously overdone for line grunts, but you cannot say it could have been used on a rifle that couldn't shoot well. Finally, the Custer thing just drives me nuts--I have rarely seen any military event so widely misunderstood and reported. As always, I continue to be impressed with your focus on real documentation and the way you eschew popular misconceptions.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

thank you very much that means a lot coming from you. as for the inaccuracy of the rifle. i am sure that just comes from the people shooting the undersized bullets in modern smokless ammo

@Schlachtschule

Жыл бұрын

@@Real11BangBang you may be right; as with any attempt at experimental archeology, your conclusions can never be better than your materials and processes, like all the folks who shoot arrows at cheap, thin, soft poorly made reproduction armor and conclude that the archers at Agincourt killed a bunch of French knights when actually, armor was largely proof against arrows and almost all the killing was done by English knights (archery in medieval battles is the single most misunderstood aspect of *any* period of history--archery was important in that battle, but not because it did much killing).

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol my favorite quote "MR. Olivier knights did not need cranes to get on there horses.... Olivier... well then we will just have the french use them" haha

@Schlachtschule

Жыл бұрын

@@Real11BangBang Forgetting, of course, that he French knights fought on foot, as did the English knights, and *not* on horseback. In fact, that's one of the important thing English archers accomplished--they forced the French to dismount because after Crecy they learned that it was insane to charge English archers on horseback, so the vast majority of major battles during the Hundred Years War were fought on foot. But at least the Armor in Olivier's movies was far, far better than that depicted in Branagh's version.

Yeah at first i thought they should let more into the archives at Springfield... but boy did they do that right. If only colt would have done similar

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

oh yes it makes the study much less covaluteted

@ByLandandSeaArms

Жыл бұрын

While a lot of the info is available for anything produced at Springfield, quite a bit of it has been lost. The National Achieves had several massive fires in the 20’s, 30’s, and early 60’s. While most of the info that burned up was military personnel and medical records, unit diaries and some production documents from all of the arsenals were lost forever…

@snappers_antique_firearms

Жыл бұрын

@@ByLandandSeaArms how i wish i could see the documents That were lost in the colt fire. I

@ByLandandSeaArms

Жыл бұрын

@@snappers_antique_firearms My gut tells me that because so much testing and innovation was being done at Colt, that they would've kept redundant records and diaries... someday I hope those will surface and help fill the gaps.

One of the inaccurate KZread videos you must be referring to is Military Arms Channel's video titled "It didn't serve long: The 1873 Springfield Trapdoor Rifle". Yeah, not a very historically accurate video but informative for the less historically nerdy types. His videos don't fulfill my nerdy desire to learn more firearm history, so I need more videos like yours. Keep up the good content.

I had an 1873 trapdoor carbine and some 500 gr. round nose bullets. I loaded it with smokeless charges of the safe pressure limits for that gun. I can tell you that load will pound you. I only had 50 bullets and was glad l had no more. I have the rifle version now, but haven't shot anything over the 405 weight. Yet.

Don't you just love it when you prove somebody wrong

Great Video!

@Real11BangBang

7 ай бұрын

thankyou

Awesome video Garrett!

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

thankyou!

YES!!!! YES!!!! 100% YES!!!! That was perfect!!!!

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

thankyou!

Well done !

@Real11BangBang

11 ай бұрын

thankyou

This is just all extra to add to what you said Myth 1- hit it right on the head. Cheaper to convert the muskets over to back stuffers and the tooling was essentially already in existence when Springfield started building purpose built trapdoor receivers. Myth 2- Custers men, and the U.S. army in general barely allowed any rounds for soldiers to practice shooting. So you had soldiers with a weapon which was effective but they lacked the practice to know how to shoot it properly and add onto the fact that they were outfought by the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho. The ammo could also be looked at as an issue too but the gun was not the reason they lost. If that were the case then the Prussians should have lost every engagement in the Franco Prussian war since their dryse needle rifle was inferior to the French chassepot needle rifle. The trapdoor was highly sought after by native Americans who preferred it to the weapons they had during little big horn. Myth 4- the trapdoor only entered obsolescence after the Russo Turkish War (1877-1878), specifically the third battle of Plevna where the repeater rifles used by the Turks caused massive casualties amongst the Russians. Russians are armed with the Berdan II singleshot rifle and the Turks used Peabody martinis and had purchased a large amount of Winchester repeaters. The trapdoor may have entered obsolescence but it still took time for all the armies of that period to start shifting to repeaters. The British were tinkering with a way to make the martini Henry into a repeater (never worked out) the Germans were in the process of developing the 71/84 Mauser (which was truly obsolete 2 years after its adoption when the French invented smokeless powder), the French had developed the kropatshek tubular mag and adopted it with there navy, and Even the U.S. was testing out ways to make the trapdoor into a repeater. What really made it truly obsolete was the development of smokeless powder. But without that, the trapdoor could have faced its counters parts and still had been the better gun. All those actions were about equal with only little things that made one better than the other. It all comes down to training, marksmanship, and tactics used. Myth 3- My 1888 trapdoor, even with the extra weight of the rod bayonet still has a good kick to it and it’s comparable to my martini Henry, just a little more than my dads 43 Spanish rolling blocks, and I’d guess probably a little more than my 71/84 Mauser but I haven’t shot that one yet (since that gun has the extra weight of the tubular magazine). Myth 2- Served from 1866 all the way up to the beginning of the Philippine American War (also known as the Philippine insurection). The first troops sent to fight in Phillipines American War were armed with trapdoors and only wasn’t until those units got cycled home (most were national guard troops) when the new units coming were exclusively armed with American krags. That was last frontline combat the Trapdoor saw which pushes it frontline combat use up into 1899/1900 time frame. Myth 1- have nothing to add. Everyone forgets about the poor 50-70.

Thank you for highlighting the 50-70 Govt.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

your welcome

For Christmas I was gifted a 1888. It’s stamped 1892. It was in my grandmother’s closet for the last fifty years

The rifle( 45-70) always shot a 500 gr. Bullet but it was deemed to harsh for carbines so they cane up with the the 405 gr. Bullet and lighter powder charge, the 80 gr. Charge with a 500 gr. Bullet you mentioned was used in a 2.4" case

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

the 500 grain bullet was first used in the 1879-80 long range rifles. i have a whole video dedicated to the 45-80-500

@usualsuspect5173

7 ай бұрын

​@@Real11BangBangwe know but nobody cares much about the 50-70

@redtra236

4 ай бұрын

@@usualsuspect5173 that's not really true the ones in .50-70 tend to bring more than the ones in .45-70. And you are also wrong that the 405 grain bullet was never used in the rifles it was early on. The .50-70 I believe always used a 450 grain bullet but not sure about the carbines.

I think Myth #4 comes from a major misunderstanding of just how much disconnect there was between the military market at the time and the civilian market. There was really only one European nation that had been an early adopter of repeating rifles and that was Switzerland with the Vetterli rifle, but literally every other country dismissed the Swiss repeaters as just another Swiss quirk and little more. Serious consideration of repeating military rifles wouldn’t be considered until early 1880s and by then, the smokeless revolution was just around the corner (even though no one knew that at the time). And even on the civilian market, the vast majority of civilian long arm sales wasn’t for repeaters, and honestly it wasn’t much for cartridge single shots, most Americans of the period would’ve been perfectly content with a muzzleloading shotgun or rifle for their basic needs.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

1000% right

@Ben_not_10

Жыл бұрын

@@Real11BangBang hey I did have one question a couple of questions regarding the 45-70. 1. For the 70 grain load (both the 405 and the 500 grain) what kind of powder would they have used 2. What kind of powder would they have used to fit 80 grains in the 45-70 case. Just ordered some starline brass and looking to cook up some full house black powder loads for my dads Marlin. (Thinks blackpowder or blackpowder equivalent loads are weak 😂 even though he still hasn’t shot my 40 grain 45 colt loads)

@garrettfromsmokeinthewoods

Жыл бұрын

It was standard 2f, I believe, and the 80 grain loads I think were loaded twice compressed. I will look in the books and get back to you tomorrow ps if you are going to shoot that 80 grain load make sure your rifle is post 1877 with the heavier breech block

@Ben_not_10

Жыл бұрын

@@garrettfromsmokeinthewoods would the 80 grain load be shootable in a modern Pedersoli 1873 trapdoor long rifle or the 1874 Sharps rifle?

@garrettfromsmokeinthewoods

Жыл бұрын

@@Ben_not_10 oh yes modern guns are made with the heavy block. Bare in mind the earlier brass held a little more powder as they were balloon headed. I am going to have try loading a few of these. Al Frasca says that they were made by heavy powder compression.

...a bit late to the party here....regarding myth #2, you mention the guns being in service thru 1916? I have heard of instances of Trapdoors still being held in National Guard armories up until the 1920's-30's....if used they were likely more for drill or training....

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

yes this is true they hung around forever

you can only drive a man so far, before he's out for blood.

The same guys saying that stuff about the trap door are the guys saying you cant fit 40 grains of bp in a 45 colt case. Also the same guys saying the 45 colt round is weak and obsolete. Or that the SAA is useless for anything other that cowboy action shooting.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol yes sir 100%

@derekbrogan5008

6 ай бұрын

Name a purpose for a gun that the SAA isn't outclassed in other than cowboy action.

In my mind the only US military rifle that was "obsolete" the moment it was adopted was the M14.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol cant argue with you there

@Ben_not_10

Жыл бұрын

Thank you army ordnance.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

This is Ethan here. I actually was a squad designated marksman in Syria and my weapon was an M14 EBR. I'm not going to lie. I did love the rifle. Only problem was is it weighed about as much as a machine gun Lol

@louisweldon6710

Жыл бұрын

M14 is probably one rifle that cant be obsolete. It will probably be around after the M16 derived family of weapons is phased out.

@mikebrase5161

Жыл бұрын

​@@Real11BangBang I was a DMR in Iraq in 04-05. I love the M-14 with M-118 Match Grade it's accuracy was almost like cheating.

The carbines were not Custer's problem as much as the ammunition issued. The copper cartridges had a crimp at the base, and when the carbines heated up and the extraction met more resistance, often the base of the cartridge would separate leaving the trooper with a completely unusable weapon. A stuck case with no base on it could not be cleared with a cleaning rod. Bad luck all around. Another myth is that with the single shots soldiers were "outgunned". The Springfield cartridge had the capability to engage a target long before adversaries armed with repeaters of the day came within the repeaters effective range, as the repeaters fired pistol type cartridges. Again, when your enemy is within your ranks, the repeater then becomes the more effective weapon.

@Real11BangBang

9 ай бұрын

That and the 2000+ mounted warriors that were about 45 seconds behind him

@tjh44961

8 ай бұрын

When I purchased my 1873 rifle in the mid-1980s, and tried to get a round in the chamber, it wouldn't chamber completely. I tried shortening the case a few thousandth and tried again, it still wouldn't chamber. A few more rounds of that and I stopped, and took it to a friend of mine that had more experience with antique guns. We looked in the chamber and couldn't see any obstructions, so we thought maybe there was just a lot of left-over fouling in the chamber. We put a bronze brush on the end of a long cleaning rod, pushed it down the bore to he chamber, and began spinning it to clean out the "fouling." What came out of the chamber through the breech was the top half of a copper cartridge. So, it was entirely possible that my rifle hadn't been shot in close to 100 years or more when I purchased it.

@sharonrigs7999

28 күн бұрын

Those two piece balloon head copper, Benet internal centerfire primed ammo weren't very good. Copper is a terrible material for cartridges. The two piece brass foil with iron base .577/450 were only slightly better.

You got those ones correct pilgrim

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

lol thanks captain

Sup, brother!

Exactly why i prefer the Smaller channels. They usually consist of hosts that are educated and experienced with the content they project. The larger channels seem to rush and compete to produce the Popular Content or flavor of the moment, with little research and regurgitation of the same old myths and misinformation. I have Actually used your videos as reference, in debate regarding this, as well as a couple others like Plowboy and Duke. Really enjoy the Quality Content.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

thank you very much

I don't remember how it was in 1873, no matter what my kids say, but for most of my life, "If it is on the market, it is already obsolete." Myth or not, this is kind of a "who cares" issue.

I rather enjoy a good rant !!! Proceed Sir !!

I shoot an 1870 trapdoor rifle and compared to a modern cartridge it is a smaller kick than the modern loads. BUT if you shoot a rifle cartridge in a carbine it DOES KICK LOL

The Trapdoor should have been a stop gap measure until something better was adopted, like the Snider Enfield. The Rolling Block was a better gun, but the Martini was the best single shot of them all.

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

we have several videos on the rollingblock and personaly i love the rolling block had no ejection at the time and was just to expensive and the gains made by adopting the martini would have been very marginal compared to its cost.

@MangasColoradas941

Жыл бұрын

​@@Real11BangBang Not to mention there was bolt action magazine fed 4570s that popped up shortly after 1873, the Martini was obsolete compared to them, but adopting them would likewise of been a waste because smokeless made them obsolete too. US lucked out. Worth mentioning too that the primary advantage of the martini is its rate of fire, but the martini peabody presented to the US still had an external hammer, and therefore had no real advantage fire rate wise Remington block is imo not any better than a trapdoor. Some ways its a bit smoother, certainly a stronger action (which isn't important with black powder) but its fire rate was lacking compared to the trapdoor.

For the mod.1884 what diameter projectiles should I be loading to achieve the best accuracy? I believe I'm using.458

Are there any smokeless loads that replicate the accuracy and recoil of a proper black powder load for these?

@Real11BangBang

2 ай бұрын

no you reall have to have black powder. the army tried a smokeless load in 1898 it only lasted for a few months as they could not safely get the same Velocity with smokeless as black powder

Mr Garret, I recently read about an 1897 cartridge supposedly ordered by the Army that used a 30.3 grain charge of DuPont No4 smokeless powder and a 500 grain bullet with an advertised velocity of 1,428 fps and a chamber pressure of 18,000 psi. Was this a real thing or is this straight from the cavalry’s horse stables.

@Real11BangBang

7 ай бұрын

yes they did order and use smokless in 1897 i do know they were trying for 15,000, psi and yes it was dupont. im not sure of the fps or the actual pressure they got. these cartridges were actually issued in the Philippines.

I shoot 350grn. Winchester out of my 73 trapdoor moving 1800 fps

I would like to know how to get 70 grains, or even 8o grains of powder into a 45/70 case, is this by weight or volume? What granulation was used historically? What are you doing when loading yours? I don’t recall ever getting 70 by volume in my cases by various means of compression or using long drop tubes . Should I be weighing it? I played with 3f 2f and alliant black mz substitute since it compressed easily. You want to get kicked by a 45/70 use that crap. Holy cow. Love trapdoors. Mine is a ‘73 made in the first quarter of 1881… has killed some deer with the Lee 405 hollow base pure lead…. .459-.460 diameter on 55gr of 3fg Outstanding work by this channel as always!

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

i always load my home made 3f by volume in starline brass and get 70 grains no problem. the 80 grain loads have half inch of compression. remember the original cases were baloon headed and held more powder.

@caledanielson1193

Жыл бұрын

@@Real11BangBang so you’re getting 70 by volume of 3f, no or light compression?just drop tube and that is settling close to your seating depth? Are you using a drop tube or another method? I have about every kind of brass available in the last 10-20 years…. Aside from hornady trim length they are all pretty close volume …I’ll have to give this another go. I must be doing something wrong. Would love to meet you all. Everything I see from you all is just plain solid… I have an interesting 1885 style falling block in 45/70 made by the former falling block works in maybee Michigan you all would get a kick out of seeing. Maybe you’re familiar….It is one very slick looking and working action and rifle. It’s above my pay grade but I was fortunate to happen on it.

@danceswithbadgers534

8 ай бұрын

I load Starline brass, with 70gr Swiss 2F. I use a compression die, with about .4” compression with the Saeco M881 500gr bullet on top. Gets me consistently 1315fps, which means it is in service load specs and shoots to the sights on mine

@redtra236

4 ай бұрын

@@caledanielson1193 You're supposed to have some compression with black powder, but in my experience with modern cases at least 60 grains is about right with 70 in a .45-70 or .50-70 the compression is pretty heavy

When it comes to time it served it is less about design and more about firearms technology 1840 to 1890 in that 50 year time frame less time then has passed since the Vietnam war frame you went from single shot percussion Muzzleloaders with reserve units having flintlocks in some cases to having countries experimenting and adopting machine guns anything in a period of change Like that was not lasting

Weren't a decent amount of M1861s still in service into the early 1870s? Although I think basically all soldiers on the frontier were getting an M1866, M1868, or M1870 by then. I personally own an M1868 and M1873.

@Real11BangBang

4 ай бұрын

They may have been used by national guard But after the fetterman massacre in december of 66 , they generally came back in quickly and were almost universally replaced by december of 67. the first 7000 model 66s were shipped out to omaha in may of 67.

Why dump the spencer ?

@Real11BangBang

Жыл бұрын

mostley because it was under powered for long range fighting. it was very finicky "i have an original 1865 spencer behind me in this video and i can attest to this". it was in a rimfire cartridge and lastly it was just way to expensive. it cost over $30 a carbine where the allin conversion cost only $6 for a whole rifle

I've read old stories where the first trapdoor were referred to as repeaters. Is this historically accurate?

@Real11BangBang

8 ай бұрын

i havent personally seen that but it wouldnt suprise me

So we're talking 1860s? Early in that period the French were using the old 1857 regulatory rifle: Muzzleloaders converted to use percussion caps. Then they moved on to the Chassepot rifle in 1866, an early model of single shot bolt-action needle guns firing a paper cartridge. These were converted into Gras rifles in 1874 to use the Lebel centrefire smokeless powder cartidge (first one of its kind). This was only a stopgap measure until they could design a rifle optimised to recieve that ammo, which they'd do in 1886 with the Lebel rifle that included a proper tube magazine. That one lasted until WW1 although they fiddled with the design over time, like they always do. Regulatory rifles tend to be less about reinventing hot water in new revolutionnary ways, and more about seeing how long you can make your previous model last by adapting it in increments so it stays somewhat relevant compared to the other nations' equivalent. At the end of the day a gun's a gun, and its model and characteristics aren't usually important as long as the men using it can perform their battlefield role. It's more about occupying ground and manoeuvering than it is about marksmanship or sheer destructive power. Custer wouldn't have shifted methods with repeating rifles, so I don't expect these would have made a difference.

@redtra236

4 ай бұрын

Smokeless powder in 1874? Yeah no the 1886 Lebel was the first smokeless powder rifle that the french used. The Gras rifle was chambered in an 11mm black powder cartridge BUT after the 8mm lebel came in to play in the mid 1880s some Gras rifles were converted to the new 8mm smokeless powder cartridge. No rifles were using smokeless powder in the 1870s as no one had developed a smokeless powder that was stable and consistent enough to be used in firearms yet.

@thatfrenchguy9140

4 ай бұрын

@@redtra236 My point was to show that the Gras was just a series of modification on older models, one to fire metal cartridge, and one to fire the smokeless powder cartridge, which served my overal point of rifles being adapted by increments rather than thrown away and reinvented out of the blue. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The date I gave you wasn't the introduction of smokeless powder in the arsenal, it was the change of name from Chassepot to Gras despite the guns being the same with an upgrade, and as I said the modification to use the Lebel cartridge was just a short term solution until they could design a gun around the new cartrige's properties. Do note though that smokeless powder has been around in some form since 1866. France was just one of the earlier nations to make a formula that was stable enough for the infantry in 84.

@redtra236

4 ай бұрын

@@thatfrenchguy9140 Oh I see, and yeah I know smokeless powder existed earlier but as you and I both said there wasn't a stable and consistent enough formula to use in firearms until the 1880s

@thatfrenchguy9140

4 ай бұрын

@@redtra236 No worries, and fair enough. have a nice day ^^

You made no mention of the fact that the guns Custard had previously was the Spencer carbine. Also the fact is the Indians are known for retreating if they were taking a lot of losses. The ammunition of the day was known for swelling as the chambered heated and made it difficult for extraction

@Real11BangBang

2 ай бұрын

well the spencer was a rimfire that had many issues of its own and was just as prone to jam. In this case, the Indians had nowhere to retreat too. They literally were fighting for the lives of their family and children at the bottom of the hill, showing their backs at this point would have been suicide. I'm sure they had the battles of whashita and sand creek vividly burned into their minds at this point. no way were they goong to retreat.

What is the bore of the 1873 Springfield?

@Real11BangBang

8 ай бұрын

.459 or 45-70

@barefoofDr

8 ай бұрын

@@Real11BangBang The on the 45-70.

You can always count on the US government to adopt the wrong gun. The 30-40 Craig over a Mauser the 1903 over the 1917. They got it right with the M1 rifle but screwed up Taking the M-14 over the FN FAL in the British intermediate cartridge. The M-60 over the MG-42/MG-3 as a light machine gun. The M16 wouldn't have been needed had they taken the FN FAL in the British intermediate cartridge to start with. Getting rid on the Colt 1911 was a mistake too.

I don´t see where the trapdoor failed at little big horn,

@Real11BangBang

5 ай бұрын

me neither

@mikehoare6093

5 ай бұрын

@@Real11BangBang as you´ve pointed out already, with rolling blocks, sniders, martini-henries, peabodies, mauser and gras bolt actions, all the other armies had nothing much better. the only objection would be that a trapdoor is not the strongest action but that in itself has nothing to do with the events. I doubt that even a gatling would have helped, custer was a dashing officer with no morals and no brain. there is no medicine against stupid !!!

@larryclark9380

4 ай бұрын

Wasn’t it outmatched by the 1860 Henry? Rumor was that was what the Indians were using. From the History Channel: “No one knows when Custer realized he was in trouble since no eyewitness from his troops lived to tell the tale. The Sioux and Cheyenne warriors led by Crazy Horse attacked with Winchester, Henry and Spencer repeating rifles as well as bows and arrows. Most of Custer’s men were armed with Springfield single-shot carbine rifles and Colt .45 revolvers; they were easily outgunned. Custer’s line and command structure quickly collapsed, and soon it was every man for himself.”

@Real11BangBang

4 ай бұрын

There is evidence that perhaps there were 8 winchester 73s at little bighorn that includes the 3 on custers side. There were some 66s and a few 60s. However, a study done on captured native weapons in Oct of 1879 showed that the natives were armed 10 to 1 with muzzle loading lehman rifles. There is actually only evidence of about 200 repeating weapons used by natives out of the 2,000 that were there that included Spencer's 60s 66s. By far and away, the most weapons used by natives There were captured trap doors or obsolete fifty seventy trap doors and muzzle loaders

How many '⁶⁶ yellow boys were made? How trackable is the distribution of those rifles? There should be some type of record as far as how many civilians, and who said civilians were, that were killed im indian attacks. Is there an estimate (reliable?) on how many winchesters, henrys, spencers and other repeaters the forces that defeated custer actually used at l.b.horn? Compared to a muzzelader, an indians bow and arrows would be a repeater, wouldnt it? At least where rate of fire was concerned? Ya, the indians won at l. B. Horn because they were just simply good at combat. Tactics, weapons, and numbers makes a big difference. Especially if one of those three is exaggerated, but them'uns good at fighting should be exaggerating and exploiting them exaggerations. Basic military doctrine. Just like with fetterman. Custer learned zilch from fetterman.

@Real11BangBang

3 ай бұрын

in 1877 -1879 the military did a research on all natives guns captured that were involved in the battle. of all the 400 weapons captured that were claimed to have been there at little bighorn 260 were long arms the rest bows and handguns. of those long guns 160 were muzzleloaders 94 of those were leman trade rifles. of the 100 remaining guns around 20 were henrys or yellow boys. the rest were either spencers or older 50-70 trapdoors. Studying the shells found and archaeology it's been determined that out of the nearly two thousand warriors there , perhaps 200 hundred had lever action winchester style repeaters. only 8 were 1873s.

Custer with his regiment of 250 men attacked a force of 2,500 Native Americans many of whom were armed with repeating rifles was not a very good idea.

@josephwalukonis9934

4 ай бұрын

The 7th Cavalry Regiment had roughly 700 men at the LBH. It was divided into three battalions and a pack train. Custer had roughly 209 men with him consisting of five companies. Reno had three companies, Benteen had three, and 1 company was with the pack train. There were 12 companies total plus scouts.

Facts and myths will always be facts and myths until someone actually does a tests, I for one have tested a 1860 repro Henry 15 shot 45 colt, it shoots straight and fast and loads fast...... All you guys that praise the single shot trap door rifle like the ones used by Custers 7th Calvary should actually do a test on the very fast repeating 15 shot fire power Henry vs single shot Springfield rifle. A 15 shot Henry x 200 = 3000 shots, thats easily equals 2,500 dead Indians, enough that Crazy Horse would've said stop and lets rethink this and try something different. Instead the 7th kept having single shot shell jams because someone introduced copper shells to the US Army instead of brass shell casings.... The 1860 Henry should've already been in the US Northern Army's arsenal during Civil War, which intern would've shorten that war by atleast 2 years and with lot less dead solders on Northern side. The 1860 Henry wasn't used because solders are cheaper than weapons back in the 1800's, back then the Government couldn't print money on command and the IRS wasn't introduced yet, so the government was on a pay as you go government........ I'm also tired of Custer getting a bad rap. For the past 50 years Custer has been ridiculed, called stupid, crazy and using poor judgement. But how do we know he wasn't going by his past 10 years of military experience of fighting Indians that when he attacked they always scattered, which would also prolong the fighting. How do we know he wasn't just following orders from higher up corrupt politicians that he could not stand, and those corrupt politicians knew he was a go getter and a get in done solder and always followed orders........... It might be if Custer won a big victory at the Little Big Horn, that intern would put him in a good position to become president of the US, so then he could drain the swamp that is in DC that kept breaking Indian Treaties...........

@Real11BangBang

11 ай бұрын

we actually have run the henry on this channel and we ran it on the DukeFrazierProductions channel great gun but in 44 rimfire henry which has ballistics worse then 38spl not well suited for infantry use. that would be the the equivalent today of taking all 5.56 away from the military and arming them with 380 carbines

@williamanderson6006

5 ай бұрын

@job38four10 I have always held that Custer was set up

The Winchester 1873 was chambered in a pistol cartridge, not a rifle cartridge. The toggle action of the 1873 Winchester could not handle the Government .45-70 cartridge. Even the toggle action 1876 Winchester couldn't handle the US Army issued .45-70 cartridge. It wasn't until 1886 that Winchester marketed a lever action repeater that could handle the Government .45-70 cartridge, and that rifle was a John Browning design that used a reciprocating bolt that was locked in battery by twin falling lugs, NOT the previous Winchester toggle action. While it's true the Winchester .44-40, used in early 1873 Winchesters, was lethal at relatively close range, but not so much at longer ranges.

Trap door- robust, easy to maintain, easy to CLEAN, easy to extract rounds if needed, and Very SAFE! Lever action rifles are non of these things, that’s why military didn’t adopt them…ever

@Real11BangBang

3 ай бұрын

1000%