Why did the military replace the 50-70 with 45-70?

pete · Post by **pete** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:32 pm

I'm guessing it probably has something to do with the flatter trajectory and maybe better penetration of the 45-70 but I'm not sure and I'm just curious as to what you guys think.

ffffgdave@yahoo.com · Post by **ffffgdave@yahoo.com** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:48 pm

the tacktistions were constantly getting info from a world wide forum by this time.. huge battles were won and lost due to the firearms capabilites of the foot solder.. the longer bullet of the 45 70 would resist tumbeling at long range, the world was internationally moving towards long range infnatry shooting.. 1000 yards pounding with rifle fire and cannon on an ataccking enemy could decimate it.. this was learned in the cremerian war.. i had to leave for church before the show was over one sunday am, but one side creamed the other at long range on a 1500 yard battle field, becouse one side had surperior long range rifles... these hard learned ;lessons quickly spread around the world.. dave..

8iowa · Post by **8iowa** » Tue May 18, 2004 10:28 pm

There were several factors:

The 1866 50-70 trapdoor rifle was actually an 1863 musket modified to load from the breech. The first modifications used a 58 caliber rimfire cartridge which of course was the musket's original bore size. Large rimfire cartridges have a lot of disadvantages and are limited in pressure and velocity capabilities. This led to the centerfire 50-70 which required the .58 bore to be relined to .50.

The 50 cal had more recoil than desired so the 1873 rifle was developed with a newer design breech (trapdoor) and a new 45 caliber barrel for the 45-70. This was a new rifle, not a remanufactured Civil War musket. It too had too much recoil for the average soldier, especially in the carbine version, so the cartridge was modified to the 45-55-405. This was the standard load used in the Indian Wars. This cartridge originally had a copper cartridge case with an interior anvil. To all outward appearances it looked like a rimfire, however the firing pin indented at the center of the base. The copper cases were too soft and tended to get stuck in the chamber. The extractor would then strip off the rim and leave the trooper in a tough situation. The brass case solved that problem.

The state of technology at the time would have us wonder why they didn't develop a repeating rifle, such as a more powerful Spencer. The reason for developing the trapdoor rifle had a lot to do with costs and available tooling. The panic of 1873 was a severe economic depression and the war had built up huge debts. Also, the European powers were developing powerful single shot weapons. Firepower would have to wait for the invention of smokeless powder.

Troll · Post by **Troll** » Wed May 19, 2004 5:17 am

An interesting peice of historical trivia is that the 45-70 was almost replaced by the 40-70 due to documented accuracy problems with the 45-70 at the time. The only thing that kept the 45-70 from groing to the round graveyard was because the army quartermaster overrulled the decision to replace the the 45-70 due to all the pre-existing rifles and ammunition in the army's supply system. It's amazing that what was once considered one of the least accurate rounds of its day is now considered one of the most accurate.

Bad Ass Wallace · Post by **Bad Ass Wallace** » Wed May 19, 2004 6:22 am

I always found this article interesting as it relates to the 45/80 2.4" which was nearly chosen over the 45/70
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/sandyhook.htm

8iowa · Post by **8iowa** » Wed May 19, 2004 8:20 am

The trapdoor 45-70 rifle actually had a short military history from 1873 to 1892, when the Army adopted the smokeless 30-40 Krag. The 45-70 did see some service with volunteer troops in the 1898 Cuba campaign. Gen. Joseph Wheeler, the old Confederate cavalryman, now a U.S. Major General, described these units as "worthless". He wrote that the white smoke gave away their position to the Spaniards, 1000 yards away, who poured volleys of 175 grain 7mm Mauser bullets into their position, while the 45-70 slugs fell far short of the enemy.

After the Span-Am war, the Army realized the advantages of the Mauser rifle with it's stripper clip. This spurred the development of the 1903 Springfield.

My favorite trapdoor is the 1884 ramrod bayonet model with that fantastic Buffington sight. They can still be found in excellent condition and in my opinion are underpriced in today's collector market.

Hidehunter · Post by **Hidehunter** » Wed May 19, 2004 10:42 am

I can't remember where I read this and I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes sense. If nothing else it is a good story. Supposedly, the design goal of the .45-70 was to produce a round which would completely penetrate a horse at 100 yards, and retain sufficient energy to kill the rider (presumably an Indian) who might be using the horse as a shield.

MBW · Post by **MBW** » Thu May 20, 2004 1:11 pm

An interesting side note to all this is that Custer used repeating Henry rifles in the Civil War to great advantage(The Spencer was also used by Northern troops and some think that it alone shortened the war) and then during the Indian wars the stupid, old and slow thinking 'powers that be' at the time opted for the slower single shots to slow the rate of fire down and prevent the troops from 'spray and pray' wasting of ammo. Kinda how the select fire M16 evolved to the the 3 round burst variety. To conserve ammo. Anyway, many of the Sioux warriors had Henrys and Spencers and other repeating arms at the Little Big Horn Battle. Ironic. Just a thought, but when politics and rigid, old thinking takes priority over good sense then the soldier gets screwed. As a result we have a great cartridge in the 45-70 today. But that may never have been if the troops were given the repeating arms they deserved.

SharpsShtr · Post by **SharpsShtr** » Fri May 21, 2004 9:18 am

While it is true that the Army "powers that be" didn't want the troops spraying bullets around, single shot rifles were not the primary cause of Custer's defeat at the Little Big Horn. The primary cause of the defeat was Custer not using proper tactics (attacking into superior numbers, splitting one's forces in the face of the enemy, out-running support troops/equipment, holding more troops in reserve than were actually employed on the skirmish line, panic amongst the troops after the collapse of a skirmish line). While one may debate some of these points there is too much data to doubt poor employment of the troops. Additionally, the Indians did an outstanding job of employing their forces and weapons.

Besides the Army wanting to reduce the rounds fired by the troops, the fact is that the single shot Springfields had advantages over the repeaters of the day. They were both more powerful and accurate at long range. When properly employed in a skirmish line, the Springfields were effective at keeping opponents at a longer range. This negates the superior rate of fire of the early repeaters, especially since they were not as accurate at long ranges. Anyone who doubts this can look at the results of Reno-Benteen part of the battle, the battle at Adobe Walls, the "Buffalo Wallow" fight, and numerous other period battles. An enemy that is out of range is not a threat (or at least not as much of one).

A very good book was written on this battle. It is "Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle" by Richard Allan Fox, Jr. It combines archaeology, forensics science, military records, and indian verbal histories into one coherent book. A definitely good read.

Matt Riehl

crazeyiven · Post by **crazeyiven** » Fri May 21, 2004 11:50 am

Sharpshtr-

Very good observations.

Another interesting book is "The Custer Myth" by W. A. Graham. It had been out of print for years. I kept seeing it referenced footnotes. A few years ago it came out again and I bought it. I noticed the other day that Wal-Mart is advertising it.

It is has a lot of interviews with the actual participants, commanders, etc. The conclusions were not much different than your post.

Thanks,

crazeyiven · Post by **crazeyiven** » Fri May 21, 2004 12:09 pm

In as much as this thread is starting to wander, I though I might put in a bit for the 50-70.

During the Red Cloud War (1866 I believe) the 50-70 was the major contributor to the Army's success in the Wagon Box and Hayfield fights. The Indians anticipated muzzle loaders. After the first volley they charged in an got a big suprise. The were around fort CF Smith.

Also associated with this same war was the Fetterman Massacre. This battle shows that stupidity over rides technology. Fetterman had made the comment that with 80 men he could ride through the entire Sioux Nation. He was sent out to relieve a wood cutting party that had come under attack and was ordered to relieve the wood party and come back. It has been a point of discussion if he disobeyed orders, but, by coincidence he had 80 men, a couple with Henry's and he met just about the entire Sioux Nation. The name of the fight says the rest.

If I have missed or misstated a fact, please feel free to jump right in.

Thanks

MikeT · Post by **MikeT** » Sat May 22, 2004 9:05 am

crazeyiven,
That just point up the old adage; Be careful what you wish for. :wink:
Keep on hav'n fun!

Sean Thornton · Post by **Sean Thornton** » Mon May 24, 2004 7:11 am

Custer's men in the Civil War were armed with Spencer rifles not Henrys.

http://www.rarewinchesters.com/articles/art_hen_int.htm

pete · Post by **pete** » Mon May 24, 2004 9:12 pm

I think Custer is an easy and simplistic target to pick on. In more than one article that I've read the splitting of the force was a basic cavalry technique that was employed at the time and came right out of the military journals of the time. A "hammer" and "anvil" maneuver. It worked in the past so he thought it would work this time too. As far as outrunning his support goes, yea you could say that but it was feared the Indians were going to escape because they had rarely stood up to that many troops before and Custer thought they had been detected because of the lost hardtack issue. Obviously he was wrong but hindsight is ...... well you know. One could also easily say the support he was suppose to get from Reno and Benteen didn't exactly materialize either. Also, we just can't seem to accept the fact the Indians won that one. We think the military lost it, the Indians didn't win it so Custer get's the blame and at the same time he becomes a sacrifice to the conqurered.
Lee got the hell shot out of his men at Gettysburg and if the Union would have pushed the issue instead of letting the Confederates go the war would have ended alot earlier. If Lee would have lost to Indians instead of U.S. soldiers I wonder how history would judge him?
Kinda got off the 45-70 50-70 issue but it's still fun dialogue.