Editing Battle of the Little Bighorn (section)

====Malfunction of the Springfield carbine extractor mechanism====
Whether the reported malfunction of the Model 1873 Springfield carbine issued to the 7th Cavalry contributed to their defeat has been debated for years.<ref>Gallear, 2001: "some authorities have blamed the gun's reliability and tendency for rounds to jam in the breech for the defeat at the Little Bighorn".</ref>

That the weapon experienced jamming of the extractor is not contested, but its contribution to Custer's defeat is considered negligible. This conclusion is supported by evidence from archaeological studies performed at the battlefield, where the recovery of Springfield cartridge casing, bearing tell-tale scratch marks indicating manual extraction, were rare. The flaw in the ejector mechanism was known to the Army Ordnance Board at the time of the selection of the Model 1873 rifle and carbine, and was not considered a significant shortcoming in the overall worthiness of the shoulder arm.<ref>Hatch, 1997, p. 124: "This defect was noted by the board of officers (which included Major Reno) that selected the weapon in 1872, but was not considered particularly serious at the time."</ref> With the ejector failure in US Army tests as low as 1:300, the Springfield carbine was vastly more reliable than the muzzle-loading Springfields used in the Civil War.<ref>Gallear, 2001: "A study of .45–55 cases found at the battle concludes that extractor failure amounted to less than 0.35% of some 1,751 cases tested ... the carbine was in fact more reliable than anything that had preceded it in U.S. Army service. These weapons were vastly more reliable than the muzzle-loading weapons of the Civil War, which would frequently misfire and cause the soldier to uselessly load multiple rounds on top of each other in the heat of battle."</ref><ref>Hatch, 1997, p. 124: "Scholars have for years debated the issue of whether or not the Model 1873 Springfield carbine carried by cavalrymen, malfunctioned during the battle and [whether this] was one reason for the defeat" and "No definitive conclusion can be drawn [as to] the possible malfunction ... as being a significant cause of Custer's defeat. Writers of both pro- and anti-Custer material over the years ... have incorporated the theory into their works".</ref>

Gallear addresses the post-battle testimony concerning the copper .45–55 cartridges supplied to the troops in which an officer is said to have cleared the chambers of spent cartridges for a number of Springfield carbines.<ref>Donovan, 2008, p. 440: footnote, "the carbine extractor problem did exist, though it probably had little impact on the outcome of the battle. DeRudio testified that 'the men had to take their knives to extract cartridges after firing 6 to 10 rounds.' ... but 'the men' seems to have been an exaggeration. Private Daniel Newall mentioned the problem".</ref> This testimony of widespread fusing of the casings offered to the Chief of Ordnance at the Reno Court of Inquiry in 1879 conflicts with the archaeological evidence collected at the battlefield. Field data showed that possible extractor failures occurred at a rate of approximately 1:30 firings at the Custer Battlefield and at a rate of 1:37 at the Reno-Benteen Battlefield.<ref>Hatch, 1997, p. 124: "The controversy results from the known failure of the carbine to [eject] the spent .45–55 caliber cartridge [casings]. The cartridge cases were made of copper, which expands when hot. That—coupled with a faulty extractor mechanism and dirt—could cause the head of the cartridge to be torn away when the block was opened, and the cartridge cylinder would then be left inside the chamber ... The casings would have to be removed manually with a pocketknife before [reloading and] firing again. This defect was noted by the board of officers (which included Major Reno) that selected the weapon in 1872, but was not considered particularly serious at the time."</ref><ref>Hatch, 1997, p. 124: "How often did this defect [ejector failure] occur and cause the [Springfield carbines] to malfunction on June 25, 1876? According to Dr. Richard Fox in ''Archeology, History and Custer's Last Battle'' (1993), there were very few .45–55 caliber cartridge casings found during the digs on the battlefield that showed any evidence to pry or scratch marks [indicating manual extraction]. Only 3 of 88 [3.4%] found on the Custer [battalion] portion of the battlefield could possibly have been removed in an extraction jam. On the Reno-Benteen defense site [Reno Hill], 7 of 257 fit this category [2.7%]. If this was a representative number it would appear that malfunction from that source was minimal."</ref><ref>Hatch, 1997, p. 124: "Both sides [troopers and Indians] apparently believed that some weapons malfunctioned. Indian testimony ... reported that some soldiers threw down their long guns and fought with their short guns. Could this indicate a malfunctioning [carbine] that was discarded and therefore could not have left its marked [pry scratched] casings on the field? ... No definitive conclusion can be drawn about the possible malfunction ... as being a significant cause of Custer's defeat. Writers of both pro- and anti-Custer material over the years ... have incorporated the theory into their works".</ref>

Historian Thom Hatch observes that the Model 1873 Springfield, despite the known ejector flaw, remained the standard issue shoulder arm for US troops until the early 1890s.<ref>Hatch, 1997, p. 124: "On a final note: the Springfield carbine remained the official cavalry firearm until the early 1890s"</ref>