Как общеизвестно, чем бы не были вооружены враги, они всегда стреляют дальше и точнее.

Американская армия второй половины девятнадцатого века была в этом практически уверена. Правда, отдельные сомневающиеся все же находились. Некоторые даже осмеливались утверждать, что враждебные индейцы - не "прирожденные снайпера" и вообще предпочитают для хорошего выстрела подкрасться поближе. Да и штатное армейское оружие в общем, ничего так. А если солдат еще и начать учить правильно стрелять, вообще все будет зашибись.

много букв на буржуйском про все это.

"Ordnance Notes No. 115

October 1, 1879

American Executive Papers W3411-4.5.115 p. 171-172

Combat Arms Research Library

Ft. Leavenworth, KS

Headquarters Department of Dakota

Office Chief Ordnance Officer

St. Paul, Minn., January 22, 1879.

To the Adjutant General, Department of Dakota.

Sir: I have the honor to submit, for the consideration of the Department Commander, the following report, in connection with eight guns received from the District of the Yellowstone, under the following instructions:

“Ordnance Office

“War Department

“Washington, October 10, 1878.

“The Chief Ordnance Officer, Military Division of the Missouri, Chicago, Illinois.

“Sir: At various times during the last few years, complaints have been made that the service carbine was inferior in range and accuracy to the arms commonly used by the hostile Indians, and within the last few days the fact has been stated, that, such an opinion was prevalent in the cavalry troops now operating in the Departments of the Missouri and Platte. The Chief of Ordnance wishes to examine thoroughly into this subject, and to that end requests you to procure a sample of the best arms the Indians are known to use, if possible one that has been used by them, and a small quantity of ammunition.

“If you succeed in getting an arm that you are satisfied can be considered a fair sample of the best in use, of course excluding any of the United States service arms that may be in their possession, taken from our troops or otherwise procured, he desires you to send it to this office for examination and comparison.

“Respectfully, your obedient servant,

“S. C. Lyford,

“Major of Ordnance.

[first endorsement excluded]

”Copy to Colonel Miles, October 17, 1878, (from Headquarters Department of Dakota,) who will send to the Chief Ordnance officer at these headquarters all arms captured from the Bannocks, and samples of the ammunition that may be in his possession, which have been captured from Indians, which in his opinion are deemed fair samples of the best in use by the Indians.

“Referred to Chief Ordnance Officer, Department of Dakota, December 16, 1878.

CLASSIFICATION OF THESE ARMS

1. A muzzle-loading squirrel rifle, octagonal barrel, made in Columbus, Ohio, by Seibert; caliber .44.

2. A Sharp’s rifle, percussion lock; short barrel; ante bellum model

3. A Sharp’s carbine, altered lock; caliber .50

4. A Joslyn carbine, caliber .50.

5. A Spencer carbine, model of 1861.

6. A Sharp’s rifle, Government model; caliber .50.

7. A Sharp’s rifle, short octagonal barrel; caliber .44.

8. A Sharp’s rifle, long octagonal barrel; caliber .44.

Nos. 6, 7, and 8 are the only pieces deserving of further mention.

The Sharp’s rifle, caliber .50, was fairly tried in the field in comparison with the Springfield musket, caliber .50, and could not hold its own.

Nos. 7 and 8 are Sharp’s rifles of a well-known type, with set triggers, originally furnished with peep-sights, and judging from the numbers, were manufactured about the same time.

I am of the opinion that the barrel of No. 7, which is lighter than that of No. 8, has been shortened.

The fine sights of these guns, upon which their shooting at long range is supposed to depend, have been removed: very coarse front sights, and old model carbine rear sights, altered to buck-horn, have been substituted in an unworkmanlike manner.

These arms are forwarded by General Miles, as a representative of the armament of Indians, and I presume must be accepted as such, with two limitations, - the absence of Springfield arms, excluded under the order, and of Henry (Winchester) rifles, both of which are used whenever they can be obtained.

In connection with his Nez Percès engagement, speaking of it and his adversaries, General Miles says: “They have all the enterprise and cunning of wild Indians, and many of the arts of civilized warfare. They are the best marksmen I have ever met, and understand the use of improved sights and the measurements of distances; they were principally armed with Sharp’s, Springfield, and Henry rifles, and used explosive bullets.”

The sample Nez Percès Sharp’s rifle (No. 2) has a set trigger, percussion lock, and peep sight without scale. It certainly cannot be claimed that this gun is comparable with the present Government arm, and it is an accepted fact that our standard caliber outranges the repeating gun. It follows, therefore, from General Miles’ report, that the best gun of the best Indian marksmen he ever met, so far as range is concerned, was the Springfield rifle.

During my tour of service in this Department I have never met an officer, either in the field or at posts, and of course as an Ordnance officer I took especial pains to inform myself, who claimed that the Indians, as a class, had longer ranging guns than our own troops.

As General Miles states of the Nez Percès, the use of fine sights and the measurement of distances is the result of civilization. The typical Indian is a point-blank marksman. The use of bright muzzle and buckhorn sights proves this. He steals upon his quarry and fires at it. Hence they prefer arms with long dangerous spaces, an attribute that overcomes the difficulty attending fine sighting and the accurate estimation of distances.

The scouts at Fort Keogh were armed with Sharp’s guns, caliber .50, but for this very reason, as I believe, without knowing it, they asked for the Springfield, caliber .45.

It seems to me that there is a periodicity in the claims and rumors concerning the arms of Indians.

In 1876, after the battle of the Little Big Horn, the newspapers were filled with descriptions of the “pumping” guns of the Indians, and requisitions were made for repeating rifles – arms that certainly could not compete with our caliber .45 Springfield rifle or carbine.

An officer of the Seventh Cavalry has informed me that he saw Indians on the banks of the Little Big Horn “pump” shots into our troops, struggling up the opposite bank, at a range of fifty yards.

Concerning the two close fights that have taken place in this department since – the Big Hole and Snake River – I have never heard it claimed that the Indians had longer range guns than our own troops.

Now, when there have been no close engagements, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry writes to a United States Senator: “The Indian tribes on our frontiers have excellent arms, and many of our officers and soldiers believe their range is greater than the arms used by us.”

Thoughtful and experienced captains of infantry have recommended that one leaf-sight be abolished and the buckhorn substituted, for the reason that our soldiers as a class were not reliable marksmen beyond point-blank range.

In the hands of good shots our gun has always proved satisfactory. I have seen Captain D. W. Benham, of the Seventh Infantry, now on the Equipment Board in Washington, hit a tree-stump three times in five shots, standing and firing from the shoulder without muzzle rest, at a distance of 1,000 yards, with caliber .45 Springfield rifle taken at haphazard from his company rack. On the Yellowstone, in 1876, General Terry, at a range of 400 yards, with a similar arm outshot both the Sharp’s Creedmore and Winchester guns. General Crook carried a Springfield caliber .45 rifle in the campaign of 1876, and General Gibbon always uses one, hunting and fighting, with buckhorn sight and set trigger, modifications that may affect the accuracy but not the range of the weapon. Reynolds, the guide, who was killed on the Little Big Horn, the best shot in Dakota, carried a Government gun. Captain Ball, of the Second, and Captain Benteen, of the Seventh Cavalry, certainly representative company commanders, have both very recently officially reported that they were satisfied with the standard carbine. The same lieutenant-colonel already referred to, in an official communication of about the same date as his letter to the Senator, writes as follows of the rifle:

“The rifle, owing to its length and weight, cannot be used by a man mounted. Then, again, its length and weight make it too cumbrous and inconvenient. It cannot be carried attached to a sling-belt slung across the back; it is inaccessible, and causes delay in mounting, dismounting, and getting into action. Again, if slung on the pommel of the saddle, it being badly balanced, would soon give the animals sore withers and backs, besides spreading the column greatly.”

So far as this officer’s opinion is concerned, the plan of arming cavalry with rifles is effectually disposed of.

Our carbines can safely use our 70-grain cartridge, and no carbine of equal weight could use a heavier charge without great danger and intolerable recoil. Complaints have already been made in regard to the severity of the recoil of our present arms using the standard cartridge. What, then would be the result were we to increase the charge without augmenting the weight?

The longest-ranging Indian arm I have seen is the octagonal barreled Sharp’s rifle, a piece manifestly too heavy to be used as a military gun. If weight is not objected to, an arm can be made at the National Armory that will outrange any gun yet tried. Our rifle at 1,650 yards, using the service ammunition, will penetrate two inches of pine and therefore kill. Is not this enough for all military purposes? If we attempt to accomplish more than this without increasing the weight of the piece the recoil becomes impracticable. Our arms can now kill an enemy as soon as he becomes distinctly visible to the eye, provided he is hit. And it is just in this inability to hit that the true source of all dissatisfaction with our standard arms as military weapons is to be found. Our soldiers as a class are not skillful marksmen.

The disjointed system we call “target practice,” so far as my observation goes, does very little good in improving our men. I know of one regiment of cavalry where no so-called “target practice” has taken place for a year past. I do not mean to be understood that this was owing to any neglect; it was probably due to the varied duties the men were called upon to perform. Still, the fact remains that while the companies were in garrison nothing was done to improve individual marksmanship.

Where target practice does occur, men fire at known ranges of 100 and 200 yards. This is really an aiming and firing drill, a relic of the military epoch where heavy line firing at known intervals was the custom.

Our fighting now is extended skirmishing, and men should be taught what I deem the most important attribute of a military marksman, the just estimation of distances. This, our present practice, founded, I believe, upon the Wimbledon system, does not do.

Wimbledon, or our Creedmore, produces fine dilettanti shots, men who at extraordinary known ranges, by assuming positions impracticable, from a military standpoint, can make any number of successive bull’s-eyes. This, however, is not military practice. Our soldiers should be taught to shoot as Captain Benham does, - to estimate correctly the distance of the object, and to hit it by fair shooting from the shoulder.

As I have repeatedly recommended, we need a thorough system of target practice. Men should be taught the relative sizes of objects , apt to be seen in the field, at varying distances: the Le Boulenge field and musket telemeters, and no simpler distance measurer can be desired, should be generally introduced.

If this be done, and the target allowance be honestly expended in target practice, our men will become good shots, and these periodically recurring animadversions upon the “shooting” qualities of our arms will cease.

I include a communication from Lieut. J. W. Pope, 5th Infantry, Acting Ordnance Officer in charge of the Tongue River Depot, upon the subject of Indian armament, to which I invite especial attention.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

O. E. Michaelis

Captain of Ordnance

Chief Ordnance Officer