1911Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
A lot of this talk has its roots in a query as to why the army insisted on arming its troops with trapdoor Springfields instead of Winchesters during the so-called "Indian Wars." Of course, all Lakota warriors who could afford them traded for Winchesters. The army's reasoning was that the 45-70 cartridge had a longer range than the 44-40 round of the Winchester '73 and the .44 round of the Winchester '66 (as well as the .44 rimfire of the Henry.) But, the truth is, Native American beliefs about battle dictated that they must face an enemy face-to-face and killing by one's own hand at close range was preferred for honor and status reasons. Therefore, the army's reasoning for not equipping their men with repeating weapons became a moot point. (One of the few times Native Americans were impressed enough by long-range firepower was at Adobe Walls. But those weapons were .50 caliber Sharps; a weapon superior to the army Springfields.)

A recent archeological survey of the Little Big Horn battle site revealed some startling results. This was done after a brush fire exposed the battle site and a ran washed away covering earth. Into view came spent 45-70 casings that had pry marks on them. Also found were broke knife blades. This evidence pointed to an extraction problem with the Springfields the troopers were carrying. This had been suspected for a long time, and the recent evidence tends to support this. Also found were scores of Winchester spent casings near positions where Lakota warriors were thought to have been. Also found were enough steel arrowheads to point to the Natives having fielded more bows than had previously been thought to have been. Being as the bow is a weapon with a much higher rate of fire than a single-shot rifle, this points to an overwhelming quantity of firepower in the form of Winchesters and bows. Could the army have been better armed? Yes. Could it have made a difference at Little Big Horn? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the fact was, the trapdoor Springfield was certainly not the best weapon of the period in question. Most civilians were not owning this piece (those who opted for single-shots had Sharps or Remington rolling-blocks) but rather owning Winchesters.

While many are fascinated by military weapons, many of those weapons are what the military could afford at the time of adoption or what was "good enough" at the time of adoption. We cannot confuse that with quality.

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't

[This message has been edited by Kevan (edited 08-24-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
I have to agree about the OICW (OIC You-got-ripped-off-too.) With a $14,000 per weapon price tag, we the taxpayers are getting the screws by army ordnance boards once more.

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Another thing about that cumbersome, Rube Goldberg contraption they call the OICW (O, I C it's-a-P.O.S.) is the weight! It weighs just about the sae as a M-60 machine gun! And did anyone notice in the press photos it has a bayonet on it? WHY!!!??? How could anyone possibly use it in such a capacity. There are so many great weapons out there to choose from these days and they had to come up with this?

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Yes, that would be the POS. All $14,000 per weapon of it. And the 20mm rounds cost $25 each, so the army is already saying they won't be able to afford to use live 20mm rounds for practice. The army is back to 1873 when they refused to buy the Winchester '73 because they said the .45-70 single-shot trapdoor Springfields had longer range than the .44-40 Winchester. But the army also didn't have the money to buy ammo for regular target practice, so what was the point of having a longer range weapon in the first place?

"O, I C it's another single shot Springfield."

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
It's going to be just like Christmas; the weapon costs $14,000 alreay, but when the army starts getting the weapons in stock, the crates will be marked: "Batteries not included; some assembly required." And the batteries will probably cost $500 each. And the assembly instructions won't be understandable; just like that bike you got for Christmas when you were ten and dad spent all night cussing and throwing tools and still it was only half-finished when it was time to open the presents. You know those instructions: "Take Bolt 'A' (to complete subassembly 'C') and connect it to nut 'D' while making sure subassembly 'F' does not fall off sprocket retaining assembly. Turn sprocket retaining assembly (not shown) 90 degrees left and down until the threaded fastener can be slided forward and over to connect to the brake housing assembly (not shown)..."

This "weapon" is going to be the biggest and most expensive POS ever.

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
The problem with its alleged "advantages" is that they are all theoretical.

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
As a former 45B (small arms repairman), I can say that more than likely, there would be no replacing 'parts' on this OICW, but rather, replacement of entire assemblies. Expensive. I fail to see how any one MOS could repair this weapon. Itwould take a small arms repairman and a fire control repairman to do anything with it. Expensive. Read also: more training at Aberdeen; the Small Arms Repairers Course was well over three months when I went through it. This will become another MOS to be critically short of people due to the difficulty of keeping trained people in the army and the length of time to train the MOS.

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,726 Posts
Let's also not forget the lessons of some of the army's "other" wonder weapon---the Sgt. York anti-aircraft gun, for example. The gun that couldn't shoot down a drone.

------------------

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top