likelihood of a trapdoor used by indians?

[tahunua001]

hello all,
a friend of mine has just been gifted a family heirloom springfield model 1868 trapdoor and he has strong beliefs that it was used by an ancestor in the Nez Perce War. I'm just curious what the likelihood of this actually is? I don't know a whole lot about military arms prior to world war 1, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to me that even a U.S. soldier would have been issued a trapdoor in 1877, no less have the weapon somehow find its way into the hands of an enemy by that time. so what say you experts?

 

[BillM]

Well--Little Bighorn was in 1876, and they all had trapdoors--and
they were the standard issue of the time, in 45-70.

It would have been very possible that a 1868 in 50-70 could
have been acquired in battle or trade by darned near any
native american warrior by 1877. Proving it is probably a
problem, but it makes a nice story.

I'm assuming the 1868 is a rifle--not a carbine?

 

[tahunua001]

rifle

 

[mete]

In the John Wayne movie in the attack on the train You can see a fine example when an 'Indian' fires reloads and fires again, a trapdoor , at full gallop !

 

[Tad_T]

63 rifles, some pistols, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition were captured by the Nez Perce when F Company and H Company of the 1st Cavalry Regiment, along with a small company of civilian volunteers, were defeated at the Battle of White Bird Canyon. That was the opening battle of the Nez Perce War.

It is entirely plausible.

 

[tahunua001]

thanks a million Tad T, I'm glad there's some history buffs out there that know a thing or two about it. I'm pretty much limited to what I can find on wikipedia.

 

[44 AMP]

It's my understanding that a LOT of trapdoor carbines and rifles in .50-70 were SUPPLIED to Indian agents for sale to reservation Indians, after the Army adopted the .45-70.

So, the likelihood of finding a trapdoor (of some vintage) in the possession of a native American family is actually pretty good. Proving a specific one was at a specific place & time, is a different matter.

 

[Slamfire]

In the John Wayne movie in the attack on the train You can see a fine example when an 'Indian' fires reloads and fires again, a trapdoor , at full gallop !

In Buster Keaton's masterpiece silent film " The General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film) you can observe the Union soldiers firing Trapdoors, which if they were available, probably would have ended the war early for the Confederates!


I have no doubt American Indians had every firearm that was in Army or Civilian inventory at one time or another. The hard part is proving ownership.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

I read someplace that soldiers post Civil War were supposed to step on their empty cartridges to render them useless to be salvaged and reloaded by the Indians. I also read that they would even reload rim fire .44 Henry cartridges. Wish I could remember where I read this.

 

[Mk VII]

Quite a lot of Indian guns were the older .50/70 guns recycled. Many were bitzers made up out of condemned parts that had been sold off to the dealers for not much more than scrap value.

 

[James K]

"Quite a lot of Indian guns were the older .50/70 guns recycled. Many were bitzers made up out of condemned parts that had been sold off to the dealers for not much more than scrap value."

Somehow, I doubt that any trooper unfortunate to be hit with a .50 bullet really cared much about the scrap value of the gun he was shot with.

Jim

 

[44 AMP]

A friend informs me that at least one batch of .50-70s provided to the Indians was painted green. The idea being that an Indian with a green rifle was lawfully armed for hunting, and recognizable as such.

As usual, govt plans didn't work exactly as planned....

I don't know a whole lot about military arms prior to world war 1, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to me that even a U.S. soldier would have been issued a trapdoor in 1877,

in 1877, the Trapdoor was still "cutting edge technology" for the US Army, and the primary issue rifle.

The Trapdoor was the official rifle until 1892, various models from 1866 to 1873 in .50-70 and from 1873 to 1892 in .45-70, until replaced by the .30-40 Krag.

As late as the Spanish American War, many state militia units were still armed with the Trapdoor. They gave a rather poor showing against the Spanish armed with Mauser bolt actions, and even our most modern rifle, the Krag, came off second best, which is why we developed and adopted the 1903 Springfield.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

In fact just a short time before Little Big Horn Custer's troops had been rearmed with the single shot Trapdoor's giving up their Spencer Repeating Rifles that they had carried since the Civil War. A bureaucratic decision that had fatal consequences for the men under Custer's command as most had not even fired their new weapons until the Battle of Little Big Horn. One hell of a time to learn a new weapon that had 1\5th the rounds per min firepower of the one you had been used to.

 

[Scorch]

in 1877, the Trapdoor was still "cutting edge technology" for the US Army, and the primary issue rifle.

That may be, but when compared to European rifles of the same time period, they look very antiquated.

 

[SIGSHR]

From what I have read the Indians were very good at policing up the battlefields where they won decisively and no officers or NCOs to tell a brave what he could or couldn't carry. There is the ammo supply problem of course.

 

[Archie]

Correct, Scorch!

That may be, but when compared to European rifles of the same time period, they look very antiquated.

You betcha, Red Ryder!

I collect WWI infantry rifles and consequently study the transitional rifles and cartridges between black and smokeless powder.

The Trapdoor Springfield (in one variant or another) was the official primary rifle (or carbine) of the U. S. Govmint until - as 44AMP said - 1892. Consider in 1886 the French Army (yes, French!) had a repeating, smokeless powder rifle in service. Of course, they were worried about Germans, not 'half-nekked savages'. The U. S. Government was just plain cheap about military expenditures.

Still prior to the end of the Trapdoor rifle/carbine, most all the European powers had repeaters in black powder and switching to smokeless as quickly as possible.

You are correct! The Trapdoor was rather antiquated.

 

[44 AMP]

If you study history a bit, you can find many situations where a "conservative" (AKA Pigheaded suborn) individual or small group in positions of authority has had a huge effect on what we arm our troops with.

There were Generals who delayed the adoption of repeating rifles simply because they believed the troops would "waste" ammunition.

The adoption of the Trapdoor was a huge step forward over muzzle loaders, but was technologically behind repeating designs that existed at the same time. And yes, we were also cheap. The trapdoor got the nod mostly because it was designed in house at Springfield, so the govt. didn't have to pay anything extra for it. Today, it seems like an obviously short sighted decision, but at the time, it was a big deal.

Our Army, without an actual "enemy" nation to face, got the short end of nearly everything from after the Civil War until after the turn of the century, and while that had changed some by the time of our entry into WWI, we went back to that (and for all services) until the ramp up that began shortly before we entered WWII.

And, while we came late to the repeater game, and chose a less efficient rifle in the Krag, we balanced that scale with the Springfield, and moved ahead with the adoption of the Garand.

 

[mapsjanhere]

To be honest, while there were repeating rifles out there, no major army adopted them large scale until the 1880s. And the 50-70 was one of the first all metal center fire cartridges in production; the Germans and French still used paper cartridge needle guns in 1870.

 

[Slamfire]

There were Generals who delayed the adoption of repeating rifles simply because they believed the troops would "waste" ammunition.

I have read military documents from the 1840's that expressed the same concerns, that troops would shoot up their ammunition. And, the same sentiment expressed as a reason not to adopt the Garand. And if you remember, the M1903 had a magazine cut off.

Sort of gonzo thinking, the Army leadership spent a lot of money training, equipping their Soldiers, and would spend a lot of money deploying them across the seas. And once they got their troops abroad, they were more concerned that their Armies not shoot too many bullets at the Enemy, because of the costs of supply!

 

[44 AMP]

Sort of gonzo thinking, the Army leadership spent a lot of money training, equipping their Soldiers, and would spend a lot of money deploying them across the seas. And once they got their troops abroad, they were more concerned that their Armies not shoot too many bullets at the Enemy, because of the costs of supply!

Not entirely gonzo, if you understand the rationale of the day. And the cost of supply was more a peacetime issue, when combat looms, its the capacity of supply, not the cost, that is paramount.

Outside of combat, things change slowly, both equipment, and attitudes. Technology makes advances, but tactics (and training) to take full advantage of technological advances often moves with glacial slowness, until the shooting actually starts.

The magazine cutoff is a classic example, something that seems reasonable, even prudent, until real world experience proved it to be an unneeded feature.

Remember that it came about during the days well before machineguns, beaten zones, and full auto fire support. Soldiers were trained to fire individual aimed shots, and area suppressive fire was done by volley fire of units of riflemen. (and artillery).

The idea of keeping the full magazine "in reserve" to repel an attack does make sense, if you consider the mindset of the time, which "grew up" with single shot breechloaders being the pinnacle of rifle firepower. With that established, now along comes rifles that hold 5 shots!!!! awesome firepower!!

Not to us, today, but back then, quite a bit. Keeping that firepower in reserve until actually needed did make a bit of sense. Until actual combat (and further tech advances, like automatic weapons) showed that it didn't make sense any more.

Cost matters a lot in peacetime, probably more than any other single factory, especially when money is tight. We got the M1 Garand in .30-06, instead of the .276 Pedersen, simply because the cost of changing to a new round was deemed excessive.

When you get into combat, especially overseas, supply capacity becomes more important than the cost of the items being supplied. We always find a way to pay for them during war, what's more important is that we deliver enough of what's needed to the guys who need it, WHERE they need it, and when they need it.

And, just what is the stuff they need?? History abounds with both right, and (in hindsight) wrong decisions about that, in ALL fields.