Cheyanne Indian and His Spencer Carbine

[Two Flints]

Hello N-SSA,

Am posting this old photo of a Cheyenne Indian, White Paints His Ears and his Spencer Carbine without a front sight. Just thought you would find this interesting.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e29/SSSMod/WhitePaintsHisEars.jpg

Two Flints, Founder & Moderator
Spencer Shooting Society

[Muley Gil]

Looks like he bought his shirt from S&S!!

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

Notice the rawhide cord in the buttstock. Is there any particular reason why the Indians would remove the front sight or was it just knocked off at some point in time?

[Eggman]

Say what you want about the Plains Indians but they had GREAT taste in armament. Favoring volume over precision, they gravitated to the Spencer (and to some lesser repeaters, like the Henry, the '66 Winchester etc.) which SOME think gave the redmen the edge via overwhelming suppressive fire over Custer with his trapdoors at the Little Big Horn. When you and your pals are spewing large quantities of lead in the air, no front sight is needed (though it was most likely knocked off by hard use).

[RaiderANV]

Eggs...............while I tend to agree with most of which ya say............I gotta go with those couple "redmen" who chearished their Maynard carbines on Custers last day. One of which resides in the museum their. It was brought in by the Indians daughter decades ago with the story of how it was used that day. Of coruse they all laughed and stuck it in the basement for decades. Then came that huge fire that burnt the battlefield to dirt and the government did an archaeology investigation of the site and turned up thousands of spent rounds and a whole pile of Maynard brass from the Indians position. Needless to say now the carbine is on display. Bet I'm Custer was wishing they indians has starr's & Sharps!!!!

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Ordnance Notes No. 115
October 1, 1879
American Executive Papers W3411-4.5.115 p. 171-172
Combat Arms Research Library
Ft. Leavenworth, KS

Headquarters Department of Dakota
Office Chief Ordnance Officer
St. Paul, Minn., January 22, 1879.

To the Adjutant General, Department of Dakota.

Sir: I have the honor to submit, for the consideration of the Department Commander, the following report, in connection with eight guns received from the District of the Yellowstone, under the following instructions:

“Ordnance Office
“War Department
“Washington, October 10, 1878.

“The Chief Ordnance Officer, Military Division of the Missouri, Chicago, Illinois.

“Sir: At various times during the last few years, complaints have been made that the service carbine was inferior in range and accuracy to the arms commonly used by the hostile Indians, and within the last few days the fact has been stated, that, such an opinion was prevalent in the cavalry troops now operating in the Departments of the Missouri and Platte. The Chief of Ordnance wishes to examine thoroughly into this subject, and to that end requests you to procure a sample of the best arms the Indians are known to use, if possible one that has been used by them, and a small quantity of ammunition.

“If you succeed in getting an arm that you are satisfied can be considered a fair sample of the best in use, of course excluding any of the United States service arms that may be in their possession, taken from our troops or otherwise procured, he desires you to send it to this office for examination and comparison.

“Respectfully, your obedient servant,
“S. C. Lyford,
“Major of Ordnance.

”Copy to Colonel Miles, October 17, 1878, (from Headquarters Department of Dakota,) who will send to the Chief Ordnance officer at these headquarters all arms captured from the Bannocks, and samples of the ammunition that may be in his possession, which have been captured from Indians, which in his opinion are deemed fair samples of the best in use by the Indians.

CLASSIFICATION OF THESE ARMS
1. A muzzle-loading squirrel rifle, octagonal barrel, made in Columbus, Ohio, by Seibert; caliber .44.
2. A Sharp’s rifle, percussion lock; short barrel; ante bellum model
3. A Sharp’s carbine, altered lock; caliber .50
4. A Joslyn carbine, caliber .50.
5. A Spencer carbine, model of 1861.
6. A Sharp’s rifle, Government model; caliber .50.
7. A Sharp’s rifle, short octagonal barrel; caliber .44.
8. A Sharp’s rifle, long octagonal barrel; caliber .44.

Nos. 6, 7, and 8 are the only pieces deserving of further mention. The Sharp’s rifle, caliber .50, was fairly tried in the field in comparison with the Springfield musket, caliber .50, and could not hold its own. Nos. 7 and 8 are Sharp’s rifles of a well-known type, with set triggers, originally furnished with peep-sights, and judging from the numbers, were manufactured about the same time. I am of the opinion that the barrel of No. 7, which is lighter than that of No. 8, has been shortened. The fine sights of these guns, upon which their shooting at long range is supposed to depend, have been removed: very coarse front sights, and old model carbine rear sights, altered to buck-horn, have been substituted in an unworkmanlike manner.

These arms are forwarded by General Miles, as a representative of the armament of Indians, and I presume must be accepted as such, with two limitations, - the absence of Springfield arms, excluded under the order, and of Henry (Winchester) rifles, both of which are used whenever they can be obtained.

In connection with his Nez Percès engagement, speaking of it and his adversaries, General Miles says: “They have all the enterprise and cunning of wild Indians, and many of the arts of civilized warfare. They are the best marksmen I have ever met, and understand the use of improved sights and the measurements of distances; they were principally armed with Sharp’s, Springfield, and Henry rifles, and used explosive bullets.”

As General Miles states of the Nez Percès, the use of fine sights and the measurement of distances is the result of civilization. The typical Indian is a point-blank marksman. The use of bright muzzle and buckhorn sights proves this. He steals upon his quarry and fires at it. Hence they prefer arms with long dangerous spaces, an attribute that overcomes the difficulty attending fine sighting and the accurate estimation of distances.

[Eggman]

An interesting document. I'm not sure how to draw conclusions from it --- the Winchester paragraph seems to reinforce my contention. Obviously the Bannocks and Nez Perce tended to leave their Sharps rifles behind on the field. The last three sound like the big buffalo guns - hard to carry on horseback.
Back to the Cheyenne and Sioux and the Little Big Horn, I recall Charles Windolf's account describing lots and lots of wild shots from the Indians, but only one marksman from that crowd, a fellow that drove everyone crazy on Reno Hill, and whom Windolf swore must have been a white man.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The series of correspondence cited was rather lengthy and had to be pared down for inclusion here, while still other portions were omitted for brevity. Hence why I provided page citations. Below is some of the omitted context:

“The sample Nez Percès Sharp’s rifle (No. 2) has a set trigger, percussion lock, and peep sight without scale. It certainly cannot be claimed that this gun is comparable with the present Government arm, and it is an accepted fact that our standard caliber outranges the repeating gun. It follows, therefore, from General Miles’ report, that the best gun of the best Indian marksmen he ever met, so far as range is concerned, was the Springfield rifle.

During my tour of service in this Department I have never met an officer, either in the field or at posts, and of course as an Ordnance officer I took especial pains to inform myself, who claimed that the Indians, as a class, had longer ranging guns than our own troops.

As General Miles states of the Nez Percès, the use of fine sights and the measurement of distances is the result of civilization. The typical Indian is a point-blank marksman. The use of bright muzzle and buckhorn sights proves this. He steals upon his quarry and fires at it. Hence they prefer arms with long dangerous spaces, an attribute that overcomes the difficulty attending fine sighting and the accurate estimation of distances.

The scouts at Fort Keogh were armed with Sharp’s guns, caliber .50, but for this very reason, as I believe, without knowing it, they asked for the Springfield, caliber .45.

It seems to me that there is a periodicity in the claims and rumors concerning the arms of Indians.

In 1876, after the battle of the Little Big Horn, the newspapers were filled with descriptions of the “pumping” guns of the Indians, and requisitions were made for repeating rifles – arms that certainly could not compete with our caliber .45 Springfield rifle or carbine.

An officer of the Seventh Cavalry has informed me that he saw Indians on the banks of the Little Big Horn “pump” shots into our troops, struggling up the opposite bank, at a range of fifty yards.

Concerning the two close fights that have taken place in this department since – the Big Hole and Snake River – I have never heard it claimed that the Indians had longer range guns than our own troops.

Now, when there have been no close engagements, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry writes to a United States Senator: “The Indian tribes on our frontiers have excellent arms, and many of our officers and soldiers believe their range is greater than the arms used by us.”

Thoughtful and experienced captains of infantry have recommended that one leaf-sight be abolished and the buckhorn substituted, for the reason that our soldiers as a class were not reliable marksmen beyond point-blank range.”

Within a short time, Springfield Armory introduced a new model “Trapdoor” rifle, carbine, and cadet rifle, known as the Model 1879 with a new buckhorn rear sight, of which some 140,000 were produced from 1879 to 1885. The subsequent long range Model 1881 was also fitted with the buckhorn rear sight, though 24 of the 191 long range rifles made were equipped with peep and globe sights. It was not until the Model 1884 rifle, carbine and cadet rifle that the Army returned to a single leaf rear sight, but had no doubt adopted the new buckhorn sight based on the recommendations offered earlier in 1878 “for the reason that our soldiers as a class were not reliable marksmen beyond point-blank range.”

Like Captain Michaelis continues in his advocacy for rifle marksmanship, "our soldiers should be taught to shoot as Captain Benham does, to estimate correctly the distance of the object, and to hit it by fair shooting from the shoulder. As I have repeatedly recommended, we need a thorough system of target practice. Men should be taught the relative sizes of objects, apt to be seen in the field, at varying distances: the Le Boulenge field and musket telemeters, and no simpler distance measurer can be desired, should be generally introduced. If this be done, and the target allowance be honestly expended in target practice, our men will become good shots, and these periodically recurring animadversions upon the “shooting” qualities of our arms will cease."

As late as the Spanish-American War, troops sent to Cuba (including Roosevelt’s Rough Riders) had to first undergo rifle marksmanship training on account that too many of the soldiers had never handled a rifle, and did not know how to shoot. Fortunately, these volunteers only had to go against the Spanish, not the Indians.

[John Holland]

Richard, your research abilities never cease to amaze me!

Thank you for the great historic material.

John

[Phil Spaugy, 3475V]

I second Johns comment. Great work Richard, thanks for sharing with us.

Phil

[Eggman]

So as I get it from this outstanding research is that what the soldiers on the Plains really wanted was a long-range rifle so they could duel with Indian sharpshooters 700 or 800 yards away. I'm sure such duels might have happended, but the only one I've encountered in the literature is the one between Reno's command and Sitting Bull's lethal minion, a single fellow with a long range rifle. Long-range shooting capability might seem like a necessity on the vast prairie, but the way the terrain rolls means that in reality you can sneak right up close to somebody, or a deer, or a bison quite easily if you pay attention to the wind.
Army combat service is described as months of tedium and boredom followed by several minutes of total mayhem, fear and chaos. It's those minutes the Army SHOULD HAVE prepared and armed for. For a while it did. In 1868 George Forsyth and his forty volunteer scouts faced an onslaught Roman Nose and over 500 Cheyene braves riding down on them out in eastern Colorado. The scouts repelled several direct assaults with massive, rapid firepower --- from Spencer carbines. Eight years later Miles Keogh and his three companies, with their "long-range" trapdoors, faced a similar attack from a similar force from atop Custer ridge. They were stampeded and annihilated.
It should be noted that Major Lyford's report comes before the Army's next big campaign -- after the Army starved out the Plains Indians it turned to the Apache menace, the folks who come at you "fifty at once." Perhaps there are some ordnance reports about this in Richard's archives.
As for the long range sniping, my thought is perhaps one or two sharpshooters with Sharps buffalo guns in a company might well suffice.

[Southron Sr.]

Richard has a PhD and is one of the most knowledgeale shooters in the N-SSA. He is also a fine gentleman.

[Eggman]

I know I have his book. Your point is????

[John Holland]

What book would that be, please?

John

[Eggman]

I thought he was the "Carbines of the Civil War" McAuley. Sorry.

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

If I was a Plains Indian, I would have learned to shoot at an early age with a bow. I would have learned to stealtily approach game or a foe to get in range with a bow. My bow, unlike the bows used by hunters today would not have had sights. If I acquired a firearm, I would want it to be a repeater, something with some real firepower. Since I was used to bow shooting, I would have used similar tactics with my firearms. Since a rifle bullet has a lot less drop than an arrow, the Indians would have been very comfortable shooting a rifle without sights. Also since a large war party probably consisted of Indians armed with bows and rifles, it made sense to use their tried and true tactics based on the effective range of a bow. Unless the Indians developed a special team trained in long range shooting with sights, close range firepower was more important than long range accuracy. I suspect that the Indians used repeaters as they would have used bows, but with much more devastating results.What I find particularly amazing is that the US Army didn't continue to use the Spencer as the main weapon for the Cavalry. If I was an Indian, that would have been my first choice. A small unit armed with long range rifles was all that was needed as part of the larger force. It wasn't until the Garand was developed in the 1930's that the US finally had a repeating firearm in the soldiers hands that didn't require working the bolt to fire a round. The trap door which was originally developed because they had all these muskets left over and didn't want to waste them. They used cheap labor to convert muskets into 58 and 50 caliber trap doors. Rather than go with a more progressive design such as the Mauser utilizing stripper clips, they continued using the trap door with the 45/70 cartridge until the Krag came along in the 1890's. Only problem was the Krag wasn't nearly as good a design as the Mauser and we got our butts handed to us by the Spanish armed with Mausers during the Spanish American War. The Krag could not be reloaded with stripper clips, whike the Mauser could. So along comes the 1903 Springfield which out-Mausered the Mauser. Now they did try to make a rapid fire weapon out of the Model 1903 Springfield toward the end of the First World War using the Pedersen device, but it was a failure. The Garand was originally supposed to hold 10 7mm rounds, but the capacity was cut back to 8 so that the 30/06 cartridge could be used in both Garands and Springfields.

[Southron Sr.]

Contrary to TV and Movie accounts of the warfare against the Plains Indians, Infantry also played a decisive role in defeating the Plains Indians by hitting the tribes in their villages in the Dead of Winter.

The BEST way to defeat Indians was discovered way back in the early 1760's when the British Army and Colonial Militia defeated the Overhill Cherokees who took part in the Cherokee Uprising of 1759.

You wait until the "Dead of Winter" then make a rapid march to their villages. Attack and burn down the village AND ALL OF THEIR FOOD SUPPLIES. Deprived of their store of food supplies, the Injuns have no choice but to surrender and get provisions from the government.