We are not talking about armed civilians in self defense shootings. We are talking about government control. I do quite well out past 1200 meters with a bolt action, but on duty in the military I always wanted belt-fed machine guns, high capacity magazines, and as many of them as I could get. As a cop, I carry high capacity magazines for my pistols and AR, an extended tube shotgun, and hope all of the officers who back me up do the same. Can we defend ourselves with a single shot shotgun, you betcha! Is it the best choice if terrorist take over the city as they did in Mumbai? Not so much. The 2nd Amendement is about protecting us from despotic governments and outside threats. Revolvers will work but you better have plenty of them loaded and ready.
We are not talking about armed civilians in self defense shootings. We are talking about government control. I do quite well out past 1200 meters with a bolt action, but on duty in the military I always wanted belt-fed machine guns, high capacity magazines, and as many of them as I could get. As a cop, I carry high capacity magazines for my pistols and AR, an extended tube shotgun, and hope all of the officers who back me up do the same. Can we defend ourselves with a single shot shotgun, you betcha! Is it the best choice if terrorist take over the city as they did in Mumbai? Not so much. The 2nd Amendement is about protecting us from despotic governments and outside threats. Revolvers will work but you better have plenty of them loaded and ready.
Allow me to rephrase the question: For those who quibbled on the answer, would you be good with everyone driving a Chevy Volt, allowed only tofu sandwiches, and identical quilted PJs to wear?
How about..........NO!
How about..........NO!
Certainly wasnt helping the idiot Custer and his forces at BoLB. The indians had somehow got their hands on rifles, which happened to be the lighter weight and not so accurate repeater rifles, versus the Armys more accurate but heavy Springfield single shot carbines that Custers men had that were supposedly jamming up on them so bad that they had one guy assigned just to take care of the FTFs in the middle of the 'battle', errrr, massacre. They worked great in the Civil War but not so much in Montana. The Army wanted them being using the carbines because they were cheaper to operate- they were supposed to use less ammo with a single shot rifle, thus saving the govt money. Even though I guess being outnumbered by hundreds and those pesky bows&arrows they had didnt help either.
Better check your history!
I did, I just was off a bit. The reason this was so fresh in my mind was because me and my kid had been studying the battle recently and we had just finished researching stuff on it. One of the articles we had read said that the reason they were using the Springfield 1873s at the battle was because they had used them in the Plains wars with no problems. I should have wrote the Indian or Plains Wars instead of the Civil war, sorry, my mistake, but it was 1876 and that wasnt that long after the Civil War so I just figured they used them in the Civil War. But actually it was the Springfield Model 1861 that was used in the Civil War and it is listed as the most widely-used shoulder arm during the Civil War, besides other more modern for the time firearms and weapons, including repeaters. The Civil War is supposedly considered the first 'modern' war because of the weapons used, thats why we were a little perplexed about why Custer would go into this battle with these rifles.
"In defense of Custer, historians claim that some of the Indians were armed with repeating Spencer, Winchester and Henry rifles, while the 7th Cavalry carried single-shot Springfield Model 1873 carbines, caliber .45–70.[45] These rifles had a slower rate of fire than the repeating rifles and tended to jam when overheated".
"The Springfield Model 1873 was selected by the Army Ordnance Board after extensive testing in competition with other rifles. It was considered to be the most reliable rifle after multiple weathering tests. The choice of a single-shot rifle over repeating rifles was the Army's choice to prevent overuse of ammunition, following its emphasis at that time on marksmanship, as well as the costs of transporting cartridges along a 1,000-mile (1,600 km) supply line. Repeating rifles of the era used much lighter ammunition than the Springfields. It was not until 1876 that a heavy cartridge repeater was introduced to the market, the Winchester M1876 .45-60 rifle. However, the .45-70 cartridge was not only effective against personnel but was also large enough to bring down most horses. The carbine version used by the cavalry did not have a cleaning rod which would have been used to clear jammed cartridges. The carbine cartridges were loaded with a smaller charge of 55 grains of powder to avoid heavy recoil. While Lakota accounts noted men throwing down their rifles, in panic or possibly anger, accounts of jammed Springfield carbines were not reported in other confrontations during the Plains Wars. The jamming could have been due to the men's lack of familiarity with the Springfields, as they had been issued only weeks before the Battle".
If new legislation passes I might just sell everything
I was specifically answering the question;
"When was the last time, if ever, that an armed civilian ever fired more than 30 rounds while engaging multiple attackers in a self defense shooting?"
And I wasn't thinking of Custer(who was a fool to leave the Gatling guns behind) or military engagements but the many settlers, travelers, etc. who had to defend themselves from raiding parties.
There was a fire on the battlefield in 1983 and an extensive excavation of relics was performed. Some of the remains were sent to Dr. Clyde Snow at the University of Oklahoma for examination.
Many cartridge cases were discovered, and as the Henry repeating rifle made an individual identifiable strike on the casing, the position of the shooter and his movements could be traced fairly accurately. Some casings had two or even three strikes on them which ment they were cycled through the gun again and again if they failed to fire. The rimfire cartridges used in the Henry at that time were not known for reliability. Also, it's surprising how many of the Indians were actually still using the Leman Trade Rifle.
There was approximately a 3.4% failure rate among the Springfield 1873 casings discovered. These were basically a failure to extract due to the copper casing being used at the time.
An excellent "read" on the subject is "Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn" by Douglas Scott, Richard Fox, Melissa Connor and Dick Harmon. There is also a chapter by Dr. Clyde Snow. I picked my copy up on "the battlefield" itself at the museum in 1991 after hunting the Bighorns.
Dr. Snow was the Forensic Anthropologist who identified the remains of the Nazi --- Dr. Joseph Mengele. This was just one case among many other famous cases he's worked on. He's an extremely nice gentleman and I had the pleasure of meeting him at "Borders Book Store" in Norman in 1999. He had just returned from Bolivia on an unsuccessful attempt to identify Butch Casidy and the Sundance Kid's remains.
Of course any speculation as to what led to Custer's defeat is just that -- speculation. After years of studying the event and several trips to the battlefield my conclusion, and it's just that -- my conclusion, is that the number one factor was the inexperience of the troops. They were not the professionals that dime novelists and movies have portrayed. Most were just kids and many panicked and committed suicide. These were for the most part rookies facing a superior foe of battle tested Sioux and Cheyenne Warriors.
It should also be pointed out that troopers were sent back the morning of the battle to retrieve some lost packs and discovered Indians opening them. The Army erroneously assumed that these Indians were heading for the encampment when actually they were heading the opposite direction. Army positions had not been discovered and reported. As a result of this event, the attack was launched immediately instead of waiting until the next day.
It's much easier to look back today with what we know now and make assumptions about this or that mistake. One must put himself in the "shoes" of the person at that time and make assumptions based on the knowledge available to him at that time and not factor in events that have now come to light.
If you've ever been on the battlefield and observed the terrain it's easy to see how in many cases the "bow" was superior. You could easily stay hidden and launch dozens of arrows overhead. Now---there's your hi-cap mag--the bow, and very effective.
One must also take into account Benteen and Reno's failure to follow orders. What commander goes into battle expecting his two subordinate commanders to disobey orders? An elementary rule at that time in the Army was that in a conflict such as this, and in the absence of orders, to march to the sound of firing.
"Gall" himself said in an interview years after the battle that if Reno would have kept up his "charge" at the lower end of the village the resulting battle would have turned out much different.
I'm not taking Custer's side here or saying what was done here against the American Indian was right; in my opinion it was wrong and one of the great tragedies in our history. But, it must also be remembered that Custer was a soldier following orders from above.
His conduct at "Gettysburg" very possibly saved the union, but that's another story. Anyway, if you're ever in the area the Little Bighorn Battlefield is a very worthwhile stop and expect to spend the whole day there. The museum is fantastic.
My apologies for getting off the topic of the "thread" here but the Little Bighorn Affair is quite an interesting study.
Many cartridge cases were discovered, and as the Henry repeating rifle made an individual identifiable strike on the casing, the position of the shooter and his movements could be traced fairly accurately. Some casings had two or even three strikes on them which ment they were cycled through the gun again and again if they failed to fire. The rimfire cartridges used in the Henry at that time were not known for reliability. Also, it's surprising how many of the Indians were actually still using the Leman Trade Rifle.
There was approximately a 3.4% failure rate among the Springfield 1873 casings discovered. These were basically a failure to extract due to the copper casing being used at the time.
An excellent "read" on the subject is "Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn" by Douglas Scott, Richard Fox, Melissa Connor and Dick Harmon. There is also a chapter by Dr. Clyde Snow. I picked my copy up on "the battlefield" itself at the museum in 1991 after hunting the Bighorns.
Dr. Snow was the Forensic Anthropologist who identified the remains of the Nazi --- Dr. Joseph Mengele. This was just one case among many other famous cases he's worked on. He's an extremely nice gentleman and I had the pleasure of meeting him at "Borders Book Store" in Norman in 1999. He had just returned from Bolivia on an unsuccessful attempt to identify Butch Casidy and the Sundance Kid's remains.
Of course any speculation as to what led to Custer's defeat is just that -- speculation. After years of studying the event and several trips to the battlefield my conclusion, and it's just that -- my conclusion, is that the number one factor was the inexperience of the troops. They were not the professionals that dime novelists and movies have portrayed. Most were just kids and many panicked and committed suicide. These were for the most part rookies facing a superior foe of battle tested Sioux and Cheyenne Warriors.
It should also be pointed out that troopers were sent back the morning of the battle to retrieve some lost packs and discovered Indians opening them. The Army erroneously assumed that these Indians were heading for the encampment when actually they were heading the opposite direction. Army positions had not been discovered and reported. As a result of this event, the attack was launched immediately instead of waiting until the next day.
It's much easier to look back today with what we know now and make assumptions about this or that mistake. One must put himself in the "shoes" of the person at that time and make assumptions based on the knowledge available to him at that time and not factor in events that have now come to light.
If you've ever been on the battlefield and observed the terrain it's easy to see how in many cases the "bow" was superior. You could easily stay hidden and launch dozens of arrows overhead. Now---there's your hi-cap mag--the bow, and very effective.
One must also take into account Benteen and Reno's failure to follow orders. What commander goes into battle expecting his two subordinate commanders to disobey orders? An elementary rule at that time in the Army was that in a conflict such as this, and in the absence of orders, to march to the sound of firing.
"Gall" himself said in an interview years after the battle that if Reno would have kept up his "charge" at the lower end of the village the resulting battle would have turned out much different.
I'm not taking Custer's side here or saying what was done here against the American Indian was right; in my opinion it was wrong and one of the great tragedies in our history. But, it must also be remembered that Custer was a soldier following orders from above.
His conduct at "Gettysburg" very possibly saved the union, but that's another story. Anyway, if you're ever in the area the Little Bighorn Battlefield is a very worthwhile stop and expect to spend the whole day there. The museum is fantastic.
My apologies for getting off the topic of the "thread" here but the Little Bighorn Affair is quite an interesting study.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sub Category: Handguns
- Sale Price: 750$
- Caliber: 38
- Sub Category: Handguns
- Sale Price: 1800$
