It's a very simple explanation. Custer wasn't issued repeating rifles because the U.S. Government never bought any repeating rifles.
It was the Army's opinion that the lever action rifles of the time, that used the .44 Henry rimfire cartridge, were inferior to the Trapdoor Springfield firing the .45-70 rifle cartridge.
I takes it that after the Little Big Horn, they changed their mind............
The idea that if Custer had just been issued repeating rifles his command would have survived or even won the battle is a non-starter.
What killed Custer’s men wasn’t inadequate equipment.
What killed Custer’s men was lack of leadership and the subsequent lose of cohesion.
When you read the reports of the battlefield, from two days later, of the location of the dead, archeological evidence and interrogations of Indians who participated in the battle, you find what occurred was
1. Custer ordered his men to charge in.
2. They were confronted a massive wall of Indians.
3. Custer’s men attempted to retreat.
4. And were overwhelmed, surrounded and cut down.
There where no attempts at forming a line or use cover. There was no last stand.
The whole engagement lasted, “Less time than a hungry man can eat a meal.” ie. minutes
You could have given the men M16’s and M240’s and once the unit broke. The outcome would have been the same.
....
History is replete with forces armed with better equipment who broke and ran.
In the Falkland, the Argentinians were armed with better weapons, in prepared positions and outnumbered the British 4 to 1. But because of abysmal Argentinian leadership, the troops broke and ran.
Thanks for the good info.
Yes, the Army tested the range of these rifles and the .45-70 easily beat out the .44. That was one of the deciding factors when they chose the new rifle - 1873 I believe is when they made that decision.
I would have thought they should have at least had Spencer’s. Those 7 rounders could have made a slight difference in Reno’s skirmish.