known little bighorn guns

[free1954]

looked interesting http://www.american-firearms.com/ame...rn%20Guns.html

[Dick Hosmer]

I have DuMont's book, but it is nice that someone has extracted the info (believe me it's not so handy, buried in the text thereof) and put it in tabular form for quick reference. Many more numbers have come to light since the 70's. I believe the total now stands at 68 or thereabouts.

The current issue of Man At Arms contains an article about "carbine" 8874, about which I - and numerous others - are VERY VERY dubious. There are NO other carbine (let alone 7th Cav carbine) numbers nearby, at all. We'll probably never know for sure, but I smell a rat, or the opening hype for an auction. The gun is said to match a large number of fired cases, but what bothers me is that (unless the author, and proof-reader, had a grammar breakdown) half of said matches are to dug CARTRIDGES! How does that work? Further, the ONE case picture shown is a rather vanilla overlay of similar-looking hits. Where's the high mag split image?

[5MadFarmers]

Wow, what a house of cards that is. "Known Little Big Horn guns."

They gathered up all the guns from all the Indians they could get their hands on. Not all, nor even most, were at LBH.





Yeah, they're a little dark. I didn't bother turning on the photo lights - not needed.

In any event somehow those '73s have moved from "from the Indians" to "LBH guns." That isn't warranted.

[Dick Hosmer]

I am not aware that anyone, including myself, has said the OM115 guns were LBH, however some COULD have been.

Are they of the correct period? Yes.
Do they give some insight into clarifying carbine number blocks? Yes.
Were they recovered from Indians who COULD have been at LBH? Strong POSSIBILITY.

There are only a few LBH carbines/numbers known today which are ironclad, perhaps half or less of the 68 I mentioned, but most of that total probably no longer exist. Mills recovered a few carbines at Slim Buttes - about as close to a hot pursuit as there was. Five carbines in the mid 17,000 range were listed in a (KIA - LBH) sergeant's diary. . Some, like 12221, a "B" troop carbine, have been rebuilt, starting with a receiver.

[5MadFarmers]

I am not aware that anyone, including myself, has said the OM115 guns were LBH, however some COULD have been.

Are they of the correct period? Yes.
Do they give some insight into clarifying carbine number blocks? Yes.
Were they recovered from Indians who COULD have been at LBH? Strong POSSIBILITY.

There are only a few LBH carbines/numbers known today which are ironclad, perhaps half or less of the 68 I mentioned, but most of that total probably no longer exist. Mills recovered a few carbines at Slim Buttes - about as close to a hot pursuit as there was. Five carbines in the mid 17,000 range were listed in a (KIA - LBH) sergeant's diary. . Some, like 12221, a "B" troop carbine, have been rebuilt, starting with a receiver.

Didn't say you did but others? Certainly. The link the OP provided implies exactly that.

"ARTICLE TITLE: Serial Numbers of Known Custer/Little Bighorn Guns"

Not "1873 Springfield carbines taken from the Indians."

http://www.american-firearms.com/ame...rn%20Guns.html

Pretty clear implication.

Guns the Indians received from deserters, picked up off the range, etc., were recovered. Many, and this shouldn't be lost, had a history included with the return. Those "history" documents could be used to cull the list as some were clearly not LBH. The RCO also has that list as I recall.

Many of the guns are at RIA.

[free1954]

5 mad farmers
i said it looked interesting, i didn't say take it as gospel. i found it interesting for all the carbines listed as unservicable.

[5MadFarmers]

I'm not saying you created that page. That page is an indicator that people are taking the guns recovered from the Indians and equating them to LBH guns.

Custer Batle Guns
By John S. du Mont, 1974
The Old Army Press
1513 Welch
Ft. Collins Colorado 80521
University of Montana-Missoula Library

Why do I suspect that book does that? In which case it's been done for 30 years now.

[Dick Hosmer]

No, if you read it, you'll find it certainly does allow the reader to draw some inferences, but it really doesn't come out and say so directly. And, that book has, very much, to be taken in the context of its' time. John Du Mont was a respected amateur scholar of his day, ahead of many of his contemporaries, but NONE of the better TD books had been published, the SRS files weren't available to him, etc.

TDs were whale droppings in the early 1970s - anyone who actually "collected" ("but aren't they all the same?", I used to hear) them was seen as somehow being second class. You had to be into Winchesters or Colts to have any real standing. In some small way, I hope I've helped to change that. The other side of that coin is that many bargains were available to those few who did their homework. I've known what a triangular RB, and an 1875 SA-Lee were, since the 1950s, thanks to avidly reading and collecting back issues of the American Rifleman.

[John Sukey]

whale droppings? Maybe true for the 70's, as I bought my first trapdoor for $45 back then and carbines were at the high end if they went for $85 Times sure have changed
Once had 35 trapdoors.
But then, you could buy a M1 for around $125 and a Lee Enfield for $9.95. 1917 smiths and Colt New Services could be had for $35 and I did own those. Webleys? $25 with a free queeks draw belt and holster!

[Dick Hosmer]

Ahh yes, the good old days! I've surely enjoyed the run, and an awful LOT of the fun was in the search, or, perhaps best, that special moment of reaching for your wallet when you knew you knew more about the gun than the seller!