I’m reading Custer’s Fall by David Miller and it suggested that Custer could have possibly commited suicide, but the tell tale powder burns were simply wiped away. “After Custer’s death by his own hand, they reasoned, any of his subordinates, or Bradley himself, might have wiped away powder burns or other traces.” I’m not really questioning the circumstances surrounding Custer’s death, I’d just like to know if it’s possible to wipe away powder burns. It seems like a weird propostion.
‘Powder burns’ are just the residue left by the hot gases exiting a gun barrel behind the bullet. They’re not a burn, per se, so they can be wiped away. Same idea behind the test police use to determine whether or not you’ve fired a gun recently.
Unles you get actual burns, which are caused by muzzle flash and still-burning particles of gunpowder, which are quite common with contact wounds of the type inflicted by suicide. Also: If you’ve ever watched a black powder-based weapon fire (such as Custer’s weapons)at night or in dim lighting conditions, you’ll note a large quantity of burning powder going down-range. Burns of this sort are not easily obscured.
Custer carried and used an Webley Bulldog revolver, and his men were equipped with Spencer carbines. These were cartridge-based weapons which wouldn’t have been quite so messy as muzzleloaders, with their imprecise measurements of powder charge and such.
I would also put forth that in the heat of battle, one becomes quite grimy and more than a little bit abused. In fact, considering the fact that the Sioux had gotten ahold of his body, Custer’s remains were likely heavily abused. Good luck finding powder burns in the midst of all that, and even if you did, I certainly wouldn’t begrudge Custer his last bullet.
Good points, but the cartridges were still using black-powder, and even with more precise measures, a lot of burning material goes down-range. Contact wounds are unmistakable, while near-contact wounds are almost as unmistakable, with their tattooing of the flesh around the wound. There would also be charring of the hair and imbedded unburned powder. All that said, a contact wound, in and of itself, means nothing except that a firearm was discharged at very close range. Without more information, it’s difficult to determine what hand held the weapon.
Also, as previously mentioned, post-mortem mutilation would make determination of cause of death more difficult. I, too, won’t begrudge the man an easy exit. Faced with uncertainty about his fate, should he be captured, and with the fact that his beloved fame and career were now over in disgrace (not to mention the fact that his command had been essentially wiped-out), taking the 26-cent solution is understandable.
I shoot black powder weapons comptetively, both cartridge and cap and ball. The muzzle flash is enough to set clothing on fire at close range. Muzzle loading weapons are no more “messy and imprecise” than BP cartridge weapons. They both send lots of still burning powder and residue that is not completely burned. Even with smokeless powder burns are not merely residue on the surface. Smokeless can cause skin “tattooing” that is permanent.
Sure about those spencers? IIRC the issue weapons was the trapdoor springfield. It was not US policy to issue repeating weapons.
I’m sure the Souix did a number on yellow hair’s body with coup sticks. There wouldn’t be much left for Quincy to examine.
You are absolutely right about the Springfield, Padeye. I have now thoroughly proven I have no idea what I’m talking about, in terms of cavalry arms and close-range wounds 
Maybe I’ll learn from it, probably not.
Hadn’t considered the effects other than powder residue. Slight hijack, but do modern propellants like nitrocellulose leave the same sort of actual burning and tattooing?
Regarding the mutilation of the body: several reports at the time indicated that Custer was not mutilated and was treated with a certain respect by his opponents, unlike his troops that were torn up pretty badly in the traditional manner.
I do not recall whether I have ever seen an account of this from the Indian perspective, so it is possible that reports of “respect” were invented by the soldiers who found the bodies in order to put their own spin on the disaster.
Don’t sweat it Trudico, I wasn’t trying to one up anyone. Looking back now it seems odd that the military would stick with single shot rifles while civilans and indians had repeating Henry, Yellowboy and Winchester '73 rifles, the high capacity assault weapons of their day. Less powerful than the trapdoor but holding 13 or more rounds.
“Smokeless” propellants - nitrocellulose or nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine - will leave burn marks from hot gas and particles coming out of the muzzle but but not nearly as much as true gunpowder - charcoal, sulphur and saltpeter. The different kinds of powders burn differently. Smokeless burns more quickly under pressure. Set a pile of loose smokeless on fire and it just goes “fwoosh.” When it’s contained in a chamber the pressure spikes very quickly. Nearly all is consumed in the barrel so there is less flass and residue. Black powder burns pretty much the same confined or not. Touch off a loose pile and it goes boom. it’s also sensitive to static electricity. Black powder companies always have two factories; one for production and one under construction to replace the one that blows up.
tfnb34a - one of these days I’m going to experiment and see just what a black powder muzzle flash will do to say a cotton sheet. I can guarantee you it will be something that can’t be wiped away. If I ever manage to catch a good flash in a photo I’ll post it.
Good arguments, but from a forensic standpoint, there’s more going on than mere “burns” from hot gases.
When fired, typically not all of the propellant- either black or “smokeless” powders- is fully burned. This is especially true in pistols and short-barreled weapons.
In fact, granules of the propellant are typically ejected from the muzzle at speeds greatly exceeding that of the bullet itself.
Now since the powder granules are very light, they don’t go very far, a few feet at best. BUT, at close ranges, under 8 to 12 inches or so- again depending- the grains themselves have more than enough kinetic energy to penetrate the skin.
Modern forensics don’t typically bother with the “burns” themselves, they’re looking for minute penetrations, pinpricks from the powder itself.
In the blackpowder days, as mentioned above, yes, the “burns” themselves could be pretty ferocious. I once lit a wadded newspaper on fire from three feet away with a powder-only charge from a reproduction .44 Dragoon.
But getting back to the death of Custer, I have to admit that I’ve never even heard such a rumor. (Doesn’t mean it’s not possibly true though.)
The indians did indeed… er, defile many of the bodies afterward. Scalps were taken, bodies beat upon by rocks and sticks, clothes and boots taken- occasionally simply cut from the body- hands and feet were chopped off in order to “hobble” the spirit of the soldier.
In the book Archaeological Perspectives on The Battle of The Little Bighorn, the writers took the opprotunity of a prairie fire (which removed much of the dense wild grass) to do an archeological study of the battleground.
They found a great many bone fragments with undeniable bullet, knife and axe marks, as well as the occasional artifact like a decayed leather boot which still contained the bones of a complete human foot and half the lower leg, which appeared to have been chopped off at the top of the boot.
If anything, the “spin” from those arriving later to survey the scene of the carnage, was exaggerated- though much of it, like the “hobbling” was quite true- in a deliberate “anti-indian” effort, much like the WW2-time dehumanizing references to “the Hun” and their “atrocities”.
(Some of which, too, were also true.)