Replies

“...The replacement rounds were brass, not sure how they were manufactured, probably bored.
It appears that the cavalry was issued carbines which shot 45-55s rather than the normal 45-70 cartridges...” [buffaloguy, post 167]

Hadn’t heard before, of US military small arms cartridge cases fashioned by drilling & machining. It’s all been deep draw die forming, except for extractor grooves in some special instances. Or so I’d been given to understand.

The British made early centerfire rounds by a build-up process, from many different materials: applied to the 557 Snider, 577/450 Martini-Henry, 476 M-H and possibly others. The charge was wrapped in waterproof paper, then a carboard sleeve, then coiled brass wire of square cross-section, and finally thin copper (later brass) sheeting after the bullet was placed in the neck. The rim was of iron, pierced and swaged to hold the primer cup. It was hollow riveted to a short cup of thicker copper or brass (still very thin), which was then crimped onto the cartridge head. The final product looked a lot like a modern shotshell, except for the metal-sheet body and the bullet.

These built-up rounds remained issue items until deep-draw manufacture of cases from 70-30 brass was perfected. The other big innovation was differential heat-treatment of the brass after forming: head and lower case body remained hard (brass hardens during drawing), while neck was annealed.

Early in the 2000s, one of the more scholarly-oriented firearms publications (Man at Arms, Rifle, Handloader, Small Arms Review or some such) published a lengthy article on firearms of the Little Bighorn battle. Trapdoor carbines and Colt Single Action Army revolvers - adopted in 1873 and only recently issued to field units - were looked on as the latest hi-tech super weapons and confidence was high that they’d give the troops a substantial advantage against the Indians.

Whether the War Dept or Army Ordnance performed any meaningful tests before adopting the new guns and new rounds isn’t clear. Quite apart from the hubris exhibited by BGen Benet, operational testing was in its infancy, and environmental conditions were not fully understood, especially when it came to their impact on small arms functional reliability. The author put some effort into arguing that the heat of that late June day in southeastern Montana put stresses on the copper-cased internal-primed ammunition that no one had believed possible, during acceptance trials; they bulged and stuck at a greater rate than ever seen previously. And when attempts were made later, to duplicate conditions in hope of divining “what went wrong,” the experiments fell short. Head scratches all around.

45-55 rounds were either identical externally, or slightly shorter in case length, than standard 45-70 rounds: Downloaded on purpose, to reduce recoil. I read someplace that 45-55 was also issued to the Corps of Cadets at West Point.

I’d not have cared to march nor ride with the troops of the 1870s. Not at all: I’d have wimped out early on. I have fired Trapdoors just once, with low-pressure smokeless loads specially prepared for those rifles. I was shooting the full-length infantry rifle- perceptibly heavy than any carbine. After eight shots, I was more than done for the day.

I am still looking for a reference to the manufacture of brass rounds for the US Army at this time but haven’t found it yet.

The first time I shot a 45-70 I couldn’t tell whether the shoulder bruise was a bruise or internal bleeding needing a hospital visit. 14 rounds the first time 30 lbs of recoil.

I immediately bought the thickest PAST shoulder pad I could find. It works rather well.

The 45-55 was issued to cavalry because the 45-70 kept knocking them off the horse. Riders are not always in balance on top of the horse. LOL

Don’t feel bad about 8 shots. That is the normal number of shots that most shooters without shoulder pads can stand. Most shoot 7 to 8 rounds and then put them away.