Trapdoor Collector Discussion Board

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]


Re: Custer rifle

Posted by Larry Gibson on Friday, 14 July 2017, at 1:19 a.m., in response to Re: Custer rifle, posted by steve miller on Friday, 14 July 2017, at 12:03 a.m.

Steve

You're getting in a nut roll for nothing. With regards to Mikes rifle; I have used the term bogus and improbable regards the Indians story of acquiring the rifle. So, to hopefully appease you I will use your verbiage. It is indeed "highly unlikely for an Indian to have acquired a 45-70 rifle during the '76 campaign from an infantryman other that the 3 soldiers that Gibbon's 7th Infantry lost early on". However, can you say for certain what happened to the few M1873 rifles known to have been with some officers and civilians at LBH battle? No you can't, no one at this time can. So while it is unlikely or improbable that Mike's rifle is from the LBH battle can you say it is impossible?

Tactical disintegration is a known fact at the LBH battle and several other accurately reported battles. The training in the Army at the time was OJT. There was no basic training or even depot training yet. Your concept of "ran away" is obviously different than mine. I never said "hand to hand combat" and in the movement back and forth on a battlefield carrying wounded back etc. a lot of equipment, including rifles, is left. Can you site references, even in Vaughn's book, which stated with certainty no weapons were lost? No you can't, neither can I show where weapons were lost. Those weren't generally reported. Also you belie your own argument with "almost always".....because sometimes the Indian attacks were not "handily repulsed".

Again the point is; while it is improbable or highly unlikely the Indians story is correct it is not impossible......not impossible because there were several M1873 rifles at the LBH battle, some of which we do not know what happened to them. Mike apparently doesn't know where this transaction took place. If on the Crow Reservation it would have been a Crow Indian because back then there would not have been any Sioux, Cheyenne of other of the "hostiles" on the Crow reservation because they still had considerable animosity over the whole affair......that alone suggests a bogus story.

Larry Gibson


Responses


Post a New Response

Your Name:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Please answer the riddle feature to prevent spam:    17 + 18 + 3 =

Message:



Return to the Trapdoor Collector home page via this link.