Trapdoor Springfield in Military History Magazine

[matt45]

Howdy to the Camp, 
I am starting this thread because I hope somebody with this forum can do something about a previously good magazine.  The article calls the trapdoor the worst military rifle in the history of military rifles, just about.  Custer and Teddy Roosevelt were "remarkably alike" and you had to elevate a Springfield so it would eject.   The Saints weep.
                                                                                  matt45

[matt45]

     O.K.- more fun facts that you folks may not have known.  Muzzle velocity for the 1873- 1100 fps.  "But in the trapdoor, the 45-70 was a miserable failure."  I"ve already been amazed that the rifle or carbine has to be elevated to eject, but I was amazed to read that it was the trapdoor that changed cavalry tactics- apparently no trooper fough on foot before the trapdoor was issued.  It is true, at least according to this article:
      ..."pitching and rolling in the saddle, using this Springfield was an utter impossibility, and
      called for a change in cavalry tactics.  Cavalry troopers could charge with pistol and saber,
      but when engaged in sustained action, they were told to dismount and fight...in groups
      of four.  three men fired and one man held the rearing and plunging horses."
     Well, that is ehough amazing and fun filled facts for today.  But stay tuned- there are all sorts of other great historical tidbits in this article.
                                                                                      matt45

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Gee - Ya learn a new revisionist lie ever' day!

[Advertising]

[Ransom Gaer]

Matt45,

I'll admit I only have limited experience with the trapdoor Springfield, but as I remember when I shot an original 1884 model the spent cases came right out.  According to the magazine I must have been imagining that.  Huh!!

If the trapdoor Springfield changed tactics, then how do you explain several of Nathan Bedford Forrests battles where his cavalry troops fought dismounted?  I had cousins in the Sixth and Ninth Texas Cavalries during the War Between The States and have histories of their regiments.  They regularly fought dismounted.  It sounds like whoever wrote the article has a real chip on his shoulder or was real lax in checking facts.

Ransom Gaer

[Dr. Bob]

Modern cartridge cases are much better made than the ones of the late 1860's and 1870's,  The trapdoor was behind the times, being a single shot in an era where many European armies were adopting bolt action repeaters.  However, a number of other countries were still using shingle shot rifles, the rolling block and Martini being the most noted.  I would agree with RG, that the author was not telling all of the story.

[St. George]

The sad truth of the matter is that despite what that eminent historian John Ford depicted - the Cavalry Trooper of the time was a fairly poor marksman - due in part to often being an enlistee from the 'civilized' East, trying to get to the gold fields, as opposed to being a professional - and the fact that at the time - ammunition allocation and money to support it were beyond 'tight'.

The 'trapdoor' idea came about as a good, reliable method to use up already-purchased rifles in Government hands.

It was a definite cost-saving measure for an Army whose resources were being cut back after the Civil War.

Army Ordnance 'liked' the single-shot idea, since it didn't encourage wasting resources, and though that idea was short-sighted - it 'was' how they viewed it.

As ammunition changed - so did the weapon - and the Trapdoor arose and served well up until the advent of the Great War, in many National Guard units.

The Regular Army stationed on the frontier had little in the way of available ammunition for practice.

Months would go by with none being done at all, and the 'ranges' as today's soldier sees them were non-existent in the West.

The hell of it was that in 1881, silver Marksman's buttons were authorized - indicating that the Army 'did' prize it as a skill - but the ability to pay for what it took to develop that skill wasn't always found in the monies given by the War Department.
(Annual Report, Chief of Ordnance, 1881)

Cavalry was taught to fight on foot - the saber and pistol were for mounted use, of course - but fighting on foot was largely the way they did their business.

An excellent example of this is Buford's use of his Cavalry at Gettysburg and that of the Rough Riders in Cuba...

As to the comparison between TR and Custer - well - both 'were' bombastic, publicity-seeking men with charisma and agendas.

As to 'Military History' magazine - I haven't read anything in it after the first couple of issues, years ago, since I never thought that their scholarship was up to the task of presenting anything accurately, or in enough detail.

From your report - it sounds as though that unfortunate fact remains in effect.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Four-Eyed Buck]

I was wondering about your take on this, St. George My scholarship on this subject isn't near yours, but I thought it was a little far fetched myself...........Buck

[matt45]

Hello the camp,
     I was going to put more fabulous facts down for your edification, but my fingers jammed on some of the whoppers.  Seriously, the trapdoor was as effective (in my limited view) as was the Martini Henry, the 1871 mauser, the berdan, et. al.  The real issue is that the army held on to the weapon too long.  The 7th's problem at the Little Bighorn was due to the folded head cartridges being ejected too forcibly.  I believe that the three men shooting w/one holder was common in early 18th century dragoon tactics, so it pre- dates the 1873 by a bit- but you gotta love the "bucking and rearing horses" bit .
     It used to be that Military history was a good light read- at least the errors weren't the result of hyperbole- anyway, I hope you have fun with this

[St. George]

The jammed cartridges at the Little Big Horn were the result of several things - verdigris build-up on the copper cases as a result of the contact with the all-leather 'Fair Weather Christian' belts, was one,  but the heated barrels from excited Carbine fire were another - effectively 'fusing' the case to the chamber upon firing, and causing extraction failure.

Apparently that was never something planned for during initial testing.

When that happened - the copper case was well and truly 'stuck' unless prised out with a knife blade, and there are numerous examples extant of that, as well as several accounts of Indians clearing the chambers of those Carbines after the battle with ramrods and such.

The new brass case eliminated most of those problems, since it expanded at a much slower rate than copper and retracted quicker, as well.

The use of the 'horse holder' lasted until the Cavalry's end - though those horses were inured to gunfire and would've been grazing on what could be found, while the horse holder anxiously looked for his bunkies.

In a way - it still exists - except the 'horse holder' is the Bradley Commander and the 'horses' are in defilade as the Troopers fight dismounted - and 'this' time - the 'horse holder' can engage from his position in the turret...

One thing the various Armies of the time had in common when it came to the single-shot weapon was a fear of untrained, excitable soldiers using up their issue to no good purpose, and scared soldiers pull a lot of triggers...

As such - those Armies had little use for magazine-fed weapons and more use for aimed single fire.

Early military bolt-actions had a 'magazine cut-off' for that purpose - with the soldier firing single, well-aimed shots and using the magazine's rounds in the attack.

Today - it's different, and 'fire suppression' is the Name of the Game , and the concept of 'Marksmanship' is taught not on the Range, by experienced instructors - but indoors, on a computer-simulation, but 'way back when' a soldier or Marine earned extra pay for his proficiency with his weapon.

For it's time - the Springfield Trapdoor was an effective, deadly weapon, firing an accurate, heavy bullet - as did the Martini.

Serving in harsh locales, against tough fighting men - they did the job asked of them, like the professionals who carried them.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Delmonico]

The trapdoor could also chamber dirty, dented or corroded ammo much easier than most of the single-shots that were not bolt action.  If this was a good thing I'll let you decide.

[matt45]

And another thought-
     In a way, it was fortunate that the Army didn't pick a succesor earlier.  Consider the French Lebel rifle- out of date, but not enough to replace, all the way to WW II.  I fear to suggest that the Krag was a poor choice, but not the trapdoor- considering the technology of the time.

[St. George]

They didn't pick one, because there really wasn't one.

They - like all of the world's Armies - watched new developments - especially the Mausers that were coming on the scene - but money was tight - and new armament requires funding.

The rifles that were adopted around the globe were the best then available - making the Krag-Jorgensen a wise choice.

Though Ordnance tries to acquire a weapon with some real longevity - the next conflict generally causes newer and better weapons to come on the scene - thus rendering the current issue if not 'obsolete' - then behind the power curve.

Alas - those older weapons systems didn't allow for that - nor were they even thought of, since no one envisioned a World War that would change the way every army armed itself and fought.

Remember - 'at the time' - those Krags were the world's 'standard' in weaponry, because of America's position in world affairs as a leader, and because the phrase - 'Civilize 'em with a Krag' was a message they'd all heard...

Meanwhile, Springfield was looking at the Mauser used in the Spanish American War and how successful both it and its smokeless ammunition was in combat and getting ready to infringe upon Paul Mauser's patent.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[matt45]

     Not to make too fine a point on it, but "civilize em with a krag" came from the Philipino insurrection, and we were the ones doing the civilizing.
     However, if I am reading your comment correctly, I would agree with you in that the officers assigned to the board made the best choice, in their opinion.  I think they got fixated on controling the ammo usage, and there is no doubt the krag has a very slick action.
     Still, I think the officers on the various ordinance boards from 1866- 1871 made a better choice with the trapdoor, considering the limitations and problems of the respective eras.  By 1892, there were better rifles with magazine cut-offs available, whereas the trapdoor was as good as most, and better than other major arms of the era.
     Which brings me back to my original point on this thread (I bet you were wondering where I was going with this).-  That goofy article in Military History is B.S.

[St. George]

Indeed - the phrase 'Civilize 'em with a Krag' comes from the Philippine Insurrection - 'then' the Boxers got to experience the Krag in action - so we were doing our part to bring civilization to the rest of the globe...

Articles like the one referenced are sometimes written to elicit comment.

Seriously.

Then - folks go out to read the next issue's 'Letters to the Editor' page to see what's been said.

In that light - turn back the pages of the years and go to the different gun magazines whose 'writers' would opine that 'The Sixgun Is Dead!' - only to turn around after a few months and say the same about single-stack magazine-fed automatics.

Controversy sells.

As to a remedy - all I can say is that given what you've written and what I'd noticed early on about the lack of quality found - perhaps the best thing to do is to read them at the news stand and not buy them...

Falling sales may cause the editors to re-think their cavalier attitude about research.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[matt45]

Roger that
I guess the main reason I brought it up was I hoped it would start up some interesting comments from folks who know their stuff- did that

[Ol Gabe]

All,
Roger Pinckney's article under the 'Weaponry' section of the recent MILITARY HISTORY mag puts forth some differing views than those of us that have owned, shot and treasured an original Trapdoor. Granted, it is a task to master the rifle but not insurmountable with enough practice. I submit that as we have read in this thread and other tomes that 'IF' the Soldier of the day even shot a box of ammo in a years time on the practice range, it would have been a banner headline in the Military Gazette.
As the impetus in publishing any mag is dollar-driven, it is difficult to sometimes sort the truth from e-researched info where the writer never ventures far from his PC, unfortunately this is a problem in our e-acceptable age where sometimes nothing and then everything is challenged for veracity and historical accumen. MILITARY HISTORY has undergone many changes in the past decade to keep a reader-based audience excited enough to pay the fare, this is a task all unto itself let alone trying to vet an article for historical accuracy.
As a long-time subscriber I frequently write in and proffer comments on this or that and do so in a positive manner. What usually triggers my letters are maps and the artwork used in an article, many are put in by the editors during the final publishing and not even suggested by the author and may not be accurate. This practice alone can cause headaches after the fact as any reader of the mag can attest to.
matt45, I humbly suggest that a letter compiling all the data acquired here in this thread and e-posted to the mag in a constructive and positive manner would garner much interest and a verifier from the author as the editors are as interested in history as we are and always looking to improve the mag.
Best regards and good writing!
'Ol Gabe

[matt45]

I fear I am not the man for it- A writer I ain't, at least not with the soul of brevity or wit
or perhaps I am both- but my brief parts aren't funny, and my funny parts aren't brief