I guess you figure that criminals today don't have guns because they are prohibited from having them. How did the Indians pick up Winchesters, Henrys etc from the battlefield, when the soldiers did not have them? Part of the information that I put in my post came from the same park service that you are saying gave you the information. They have actually done forensic studies of the battle field and have been able to track by the expended ammunuition the movement of some of the shooters.
"There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered."
This is the kind of detailed information they got when they actually studied the battlefield. You think all of the above is just baloney?
I have no problems with Indians and their contributions. That doesn't however change the fact that they had repeating rifles and the soldiers didn't. I also didn't mention any books. I've seen a lot of information about the Little Big Horn through the years, from both sides, some contradictory, not just some story from a tour guide.
You don't think your credibility is questionable when you believe that someone can shoot 3 arrows per second with a regular bow and arrow? (one arrow at a time, I'm assuming). You seriously believe that. Mark