I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

B P Arn · Oct 3, 2024

M. De Land said:
I bought a second cylinder for my 58 Rem Pietta target model and it always shot to a different point of aim than does the original fit to the gun. It grouped well but to a different POA. The chamber alignment to the barrel is different.

I would imagine that this would be even more of a problem in the bad old days before CNC machining.

Loyalist Dave · Oct 3, 2024

Ed C. said:
Not saying it was not done, just does not seem to be a common practice. Where are the belts and pouches that would have carried these? Imagine you are in gunfight and need to reload your revolver.

This is a good point, BUT nobody has showed evidence the reason for the spare cylinder was, and only was, a "quick reload".

WalnutRed said:
Interesting thought. My suspicion though is that most of these cylinders were obtained in the field. From damaged revolvers.

The problem with this is "damaged" from what? How? So you don't get the revolver repaired OR it was so badly damaged that it cannot be BUT the cylinder survived?

Ed C. said:
We know that the first revolvers, the Colt Patersons, were sold with an extra cylinder. It stands to reason that this would carry over to some degree. How much? Who knows? What we don't seem to have is:
1)Any CW Period cavalry manual that while usually describing anything and everything never mention spare cylinders or how to use them.
2)Period images of cavalrymen with them.
3)Manufacturer records and contract terms for arms plus parts. (For example, Colt supplied smallish "X" number of certain spare parts for armorer-type "field' repairs.)
4)Unit inspections and inventories of firearms, accouterments, and equipment on hand and present.
5)Issuance receipts/records
6)Arms requisition papers.
So, while I believe spare cylinders may have been carried I don't think it was a common practice and not a practical means of reloading in a battle.

Again, this simply shows that as far as the army is concerned, the government wasn't buying and issuing spare cylinders. So you're probably not swapping cylinders if you are a private in the cavalry.

The first article mentions that when the conversion cylinders started to appear, some revolvers were sold with the conversion, BUT still came with a cap-n-ball cylinder. This is in case the owner can't find cartridges, and has to switch back for a time. THIS might be the key, but not quite the reason....

So the cylinders are NOT for a "quick reload" but we can find scenarios where they could be faster than the conventional way of reloading. WE however miss a couple points.

ARE they for reloading in combat, OR CONSIDER..., was the owner of such a cylinder a little wary of the durability of the cylinder in his revolver? There were a LOT of fakes made of Colt's open top, especially the .44 versions. Steel quality in these might vary a lot, and they were often tough for a person not well versed to detect. EVEN IF the person could tell the revolver was not really a "Colt", did they have the option to buy a different revolver, or was it the default option for them?

Which brings up the question, Had these still existing examples of spare cylinders of which many are still loaded, been carried by folks who had seen or actually experienced a chamber failure in the past? Not necessarily a catastrophic failure where they were injured and the whole handgun ruined, but one where the cylinder cracked and deformed a bit? Did they carry that loaded second cylinder because although slow, they thought they might have a chamber failure and would need to replace that cylinder ASAP?

AND the fact that when a person got a conversion cylinder, they kept their original cylinder, PLUS the revolvers sold with a pre-fitted conversion cylinder would come with the previous cap-n-ball cylinder. Folks assuming that was for situations where cartridges were scarce. Really? OR was it also because the buyers of the new tech of the conversion cylinder were not fully confident the cylinders wouldn't fail? HOW do we know that all of those "spare" cylinders, especially those found loaded, were not mostly carried by folks using conversion cylinder revolvers, and those cap-n-ball cylinders were the extras, and loaded "just in case"?

So perhaps it WAS commonly done, when one had a conversion cylinder, and those conversions were "all the rage" for about a decade.

LD

MSW · Oct 3, 2024

not to second guess, but if you're being shot at, your small muscle coordination can got south pretty quick ... if it were up to me, i'd do what later bacame known as a Chicago reload

Zapadach · Oct 3, 2024

Ed C. said:
Not saying it was not done, just does not seem to be a common practice. Where are the belts and pouches that would have carried these? Imagine you are in gunfight and need to reload your revolver. Say it is an open top. You have to tap out the wedge. What are using to do that? Then worry about it falling into the grass. Now you have to handle the frame, the barrel, and a cylinder and replace the cylinder. How many hands do you have? Don't drop anything especially if you are on a horse. And assemble the gun. While being shot at. Common sense says I'd rather carry a little more weight and have the extra firepower at the ready if needed. The Remington is more friendly to cylinder swaps but it still takes some fiddling to insert the new cylinder. And what were the manufacturing standards back then? Were cylinders hand fitted? Would they be universally interchangeable? The Patersons were sold with an extra cylinder as part of the package so those were fitted to the gun. Search around. Not much documentation or mention of this being a thing.

The human hand is a magnificent creation, it can be taught to manipulate the keys of a piano flawlessly to make beautiful music, as well as weal a sledge hammer to crush a piece of granite. It has been my experience in life, that a person with average intelligence, with a dedication to learn and practice something, can accomplish amazing things. That would include, switching a loaded cylinder for an empty one under pressure.

Ed C. · Oct 3, 2024

Zapadach said:
The human hand is a magnificent creation, it can be taught to manipulate the keys of a piano flawlessly to make beautiful music, as well as weal a sledge hammer to crush a piece of granite. It has been my experience in life, that a person with average intelligence, with a dedication to learn and practice something, can accomplish amazing things. That would include, switching a loaded cylinder for an empty one under pressure.

True. But compare to the average person. Today, how many people that have handguns or even carry take the time to do intense training with them? I don't think the average person in the 1800's was figuring they'd be getting into gunfights unless they were in the military. Probably more gunfights and shootings today than back then.

Ed C. · Oct 3, 2024

Loyalist Dave said:
This is a good point, BUT nobody has showed evidence the reason for the spare cylinder was, and only was, a "quick reload".

The problem with this is "damaged" from what? How? So you don't get the revolver repaired OR it was so badly damaged that it cannot be BUT the cylinder survived?

Again, this simply shows that as far as the army is concerned, the government wasn't buying and issuing spare cylinders. So you're probably not swapping cylinders if you are a private in the cavalry.

The first article mentions that when the conversion cylinders started to appear, some revolvers were sold with the conversion, BUT still came with a cap-n-ball cylinder. This is in case the owner can't find cartridges, and has to switch back for a time. THIS might be the key, but not quite the reason....

So the cylinders are NOT for a "quick reload" but we can find scenarios where they could be faster than the conventional way of reloading. WE however miss a couple points.

ARE they for reloading in combat, OR CONSIDER..., was the owner of such a cylinder a little wary of the durability of the cylinder in his revolver? There were a LOT of fakes made of Colt's open top, especially the .44 versions. Steel quality in these might vary a lot, and they were often tough for a person not well versed to detect. EVEN IF the person could tell the revolver was not really a "Colt", did they have the option to buy a different revolver, or was it the default option for them?

Which brings up the question, Had these still existing examples of spare cylinders of which many are still loaded, been carried by folks who had seen or actually experienced a chamber failure in the past? Not necessarily a catastrophic failure where they were injured and the whole handgun ruined, but one where the cylinder cracked and deformed a bit? Did they carry that loaded second cylinder because although slow, they thought they might have a chamber failure and would need to replace that cylinder ASAP?

AND the fact that when a person got a conversion cylinder, they kept their original cylinder, PLUS the revolvers sold with a pre-fitted conversion cylinder would come with the previous cap-n-ball cylinder. Folks assuming that was for situations where cartridges were scarce. Really? OR was it also because the buyers of the new tech of the conversion cylinder were not fully confident the cylinders wouldn't fail? HOW do we know that all of those "spare" cylinders, especially those found loaded, were not mostly carried by folks using conversion cylinder revolvers, and those cap-n-ball cylinders were the extras, and loaded "just in case"?

So perhaps it WAS commonly done, when one had a conversion cylinder, and those conversions were "all the rage" for about a decade.

LD

Good points. More questions than answers. For me, if I were going into battle, on a posse, or planning to rob a bank, I'd want extra revolvers to use in the heat of the fight and spare cylinders to change out under cover. If I were an average rancher, farmer, etc. I'd just carry the gun for any unexpected use. Just like today...9 rounds in the .45....no extra mags....don't expect I'll have to use it.

Ed C. · Oct 3, 2024

Loyalist Dave said:
This is a good point, BUT nobody has showed evidence the reason for the spare cylinder was, and only was, a "quick reload".

The problem with this is "damaged" from what? How? So you don't get the revolver repaired OR it was so badly damaged that it cannot be BUT the cylinder survived?

Again, this simply shows that as far as the army is concerned, the government wasn't buying and issuing spare cylinders. So you're probably not swapping cylinders if you are a private in the cavalry.

The first article mentions that when the conversion cylinders started to appear, some revolvers were sold with the conversion, BUT still came with a cap-n-ball cylinder. This is in case the owner can't find cartridges, and has to switch back for a time. THIS might be the key, but not quite the reason....

So the cylinders are NOT for a "quick reload" but we can find scenarios where they could be faster than the conventional way of reloading. WE however miss a couple points.

ARE they for reloading in combat, OR CONSIDER..., was the owner of such a cylinder a little wary of the durability of the cylinder in his revolver? There were a LOT of fakes made of Colt's open top, especially the .44 versions. Steel quality in these might vary a lot, and they were often tough for a person not well versed to detect. EVEN IF the person could tell the revolver was not really a "Colt", did they have the option to buy a different revolver, or was it the default option for them?

Which brings up the question, Had these still existing examples of spare cylinders of which many are still loaded, been carried by folks who had seen or actually experienced a chamber failure in the past? Not necessarily a catastrophic failure where they were injured and the whole handgun ruined, but one where the cylinder cracked and deformed a bit? Did they carry that loaded second cylinder because although slow, they thought they might have a chamber failure and would need to replace that cylinder ASAP?

AND the fact that when a person got a conversion cylinder, they kept their original cylinder, PLUS the revolvers sold with a pre-fitted conversion cylinder would come with the previous cap-n-ball cylinder. Folks assuming that was for situations where cartridges were scarce. Really? OR was it also because the buyers of the new tech of the conversion cylinder were not fully confident the cylinders wouldn't fail? HOW do we know that all of those "spare" cylinders, especially those found loaded, were not mostly carried by folks using conversion cylinder revolvers, and those cap-n-ball cylinders were the extras, and loaded "just in case"?

So perhaps it WAS commonly done, when one had a conversion cylinder, and those conversions were "all the rage" for about a decade.

LD

The idea of spare cylinders as a back up or spare part makes more sense to me than a quick reload for the average person. It was a part subject to failure back then. I have spare parts for the internals of all my revolvers on hand. If I thought cylinders would fail I'd have those also.

TNGhost · Oct 3, 2024

Loyalist Dave said:
This is a good point, BUT nobody has showed evidence the reason for the spare cylinder was, and only was, a "quick reload".

The problem with this is "damaged" from what? How? So you don't get the revolver repaired OR it was so badly damaged that it cannot be BUT the cylinder survived?

Again, this simply shows that as far as the army is concerned, the government wasn't buying and issuing spare cylinders. So you're probably not swapping cylinders if you are a private in the cavalry.

The first article mentions that when the conversion cylinders started to appear, some revolvers were sold with the conversion, BUT still came with a cap-n-ball cylinder. This is in case the owner can't find cartridges, and has to switch back for a time. THIS might be the key, but not quite the reason....

So the cylinders are NOT for a "quick reload" but we can find scenarios where they could be faster than the conventional way of reloading. WE however miss a couple points.

ARE they for reloading in combat, OR CONSIDER..., was the owner of such a cylinder a little wary of the durability of the cylinder in his revolver? There were a LOT of fakes made of Colt's open top, especially the .44 versions. Steel quality in these might vary a lot, and they were often tough for a person not well versed to detect. EVEN IF the person could tell the revolver was not really a "Colt", did they have the option to buy a different revolver, or was it the default option for them?

Which brings up the question, Had these still existing examples of spare cylinders of which many are still loaded, been carried by folks who had seen or actually experienced a chamber failure in the past? Not necessarily a catastrophic failure where they were injured and the whole handgun ruined, but one where the cylinder cracked and deformed a bit? Did they carry that loaded second cylinder because although slow, they thought they might have a chamber failure and would need to replace that cylinder ASAP?

AND the fact that when a person got a conversion cylinder, they kept their original cylinder, PLUS the revolvers sold with a pre-fitted conversion cylinder would come with the previous cap-n-ball cylinder. Folks assuming that was for situations where cartridges were scarce. Really? OR was it also because the buyers of the new tech of the conversion cylinder were not fully confident the cylinders wouldn't fail? HOW do we know that all of those "spare" cylinders, especially those found loaded, were not mostly carried by folks using conversion cylinder revolvers, and those cap-n-ball cylinders were the extras, and loaded "just in case"?

So perhaps it WAS commonly done, when one had a conversion cylinder, and those conversions were "all the rage" for about a decade.

LD

There is little evidence our army issued or promoted the use of spare cylinders for reloading, likely due to the doctrine of using the handgun to to close and them employing the saber. Most troops did not carry a handgun, they were mostly limited to officers and cavalry troops (hence the saber doctrine)

There was though at least one army that issued the colt 1851 with a spare cylinder and a holster pouch combination as well are sperate cylinder pouches and that was the large and well known and well-respected Prussian Army, as evidenced in my earlier post in this thread.

That we see little evidence of it here is due to that fact that handguns themselves were not "general issue" and confined to certain types of soldiers, mostly officers and cavalry. Calvary likely didn't make use of the spare cylinders for two reasons, the aforementioned use of the saber in close quarters and, as they were on a horse, the ability to carry more weight in the form of extra revolvers. They even had those pommel holsters designed to carry extra larger heavier revolvers. And officers, well likely reloads were not a priority for most of them for the obvious reasons and if they were in combat, they also carried sabers.

You would also, in the case of the Confederacy have to take into account the general shortage of guns, and in particular revolvers, which would have likely driven the use of spare cylinders as getting one revolver was difficult and multiples more so, so the cylinder thing would have been more likely.

The only thing that there is little evidence of is pouches, that spare cylinders were sold and even advertised is well documented as well as pistols coming with spare cylinders. On thing I tend to dismiss those naysayers that right about this issue is, when they start citing the dangers of carrying a "loaded" cylinder, comparing them to hand grenades or claymore mines. Yes, a capped loaded cylinder would present hazards, but a loaded uncapped cylinder would not as we all here should be well aware of, and these "expert" writers more often than not do not differentiate or even mention this. Even an uncapped loaded cylinder would greatly sped up the reloading process, especially if on had a capper around their neck. Uncapped cylinders would also be easier/safer to carry, thus not requiring a special pouch, explaining their scarcity.

A good question may be did those carry spare loaded cylinders carry them capped, or uncapped?

As far as commonly done, I would say the Prussian army's use pretty much says it was "common". Depends on how you define common though as it is a subjective concept.

Ed C. · Oct 3, 2024

TNGhost said:
A good question may be did those carry spare loaded cylinders carry them capped, or uncapped?

Again, I'd put myself in the position of choosing capped or uncapped. I'd carry them capped for the sake of quick use and convenience. Also to better protect the charge from moisture or rain. And I'd worry more about getting struck by lightning than being injured by dropping a capped cylinder.

TNGhost · Oct 3, 2024

Ed C. said:
Again, I'd put myself in the position of choosing capped or uncapped. I'd carry them capped for the sake of quick use and convenience. Also to better protect the charge from moisture or rain. And I'd worry more about getting struck by lightning than being injured by dropping a capped cylinder.

Capped you'd want some sort of pouch or secure holder. Uncapped you could throw three or four in a pocket without worry. Hence the Dirth of pouches. Because of doctrine, this would not be military, and more individuals or like the Pony Express rider mentioned above, where weight and the ability to carry numerous revolvers would be a handicap., concealment would be another issue where it would be smarter to have an extra cylinder(s) rather than more revolvers. Again, these being civilians so issue/armory records etc, would not be there. The sales and manufacture records are there for extra cylinders.

snakebit · Oct 3, 2024

I read a book some years ago about westward expansion. It was mentioned were 1858 Remingtons were popular for this due to cylinder exchanges being somewhat quicker. It was mentioned sometimes the spare cylinders cost more than the revolvers.

bullshot · Oct 3, 2024

No cylinders for sale in this 1860 Colt ad. I once had a lot of Colt C&B books. I never recalled seeing an extra cylinder for any post Paterson Colt. Some one posted in this thread about seeing several cylinders in Cody museum as I recall. It would be interesting to know what they were. Sort of related to this spare cylinder thread, the factory directions for loading the 51 Navy said to never remove a loaded cylinder from the firearm.

Ed C. · Oct 3, 2024

bullshot said:
View attachment 352913
No cylinders for sale in this 1860 Colt ad. I once had a lot of Colt C&B books. I never recalled seeing an extra cylinder for any post Paterson Colt. Some one posted in this thread about seeing several cylinders in Cody museum as I recall. It would be interesting to know what they were. Sort of related to this spare cylinder thread, the factory directions for loading the 51 Navy said to never remove a loaded cylinder from the firearm.

Thanks for posting this. Gives us some good historical insight. The Patersons were much earlier, 1837-1842 and aside for use by the Texas Rangers were not very popular. They were sold with the extra cylinder being part of the package so past that point I doubt those cylinders were ever marketed.

Ed C. · Oct 3, 2024

bullshot said:
View attachment 352913
No cylinders for sale in this 1860 Colt ad. I once had a lot of Colt C&B books. I never recalled seeing an extra cylinder for any post Paterson Colt. Some one posted in this thread about seeing several cylinders in Cody museum as I recall. It would be interesting to know what they were. Sort of related to this spare cylinder thread, the factory directions for loading the 51 Navy said to never remove a loaded cylinder from the firearm.

https://www.bidsquare.com/online-au...-with-extra-cylinder-serial-number-23-1732362

Enfield58 · Oct 3, 2024

bullshot said:
View attachment 352913
No cylinders for sale in this 1860 Colt ad. I once had a lot of Colt C&B books. I never recalled seeing an extra cylinder for any post Paterson Colt. Some one posted in this thread about seeing several cylinders in Cody museum as I recall. It would be interesting to know what they were. Sort of related to this spare cylinder thread, the factory directions for loading the 51 Navy said to never remove a loaded cylinder from the firearm.

Ed C. said:
Thanks for posting this. Gives us some good historical insight. The Patersons were much earlier, 1837-1842 and aside for use by the Texas Rangers were not very popular. They were sold with the extra cylinder being part of the package so past that point I doubt those cylinders were ever marketed.

Ed C. said:
https://www.bidsquare.com/online-au...-with-extra-cylinder-serial-number-23-1732362

You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing, the advertisements for selling spare cylinders is practically nonexistent. However, it is still possible that spare cylinders might have been custom ordered, or cannibalized from a damaged-beyond-repair revolver.

With the advent of the Colt 1851 Navy revolver it became possible for the average person to carry very portable lethal protection with more than one shot.

Heck, they would not need a holster. They could slip the revolver in the waistband of their pants.

So because of the presence of smaller revolvers after 1849, it would be a lot more practical to carry two revolvers instead of one with a spare cylinder.

Sorry Clint Eastwood fans, an extra revolver in the hand is better than a spare cylinder in the pouch.

M. De Land · Oct 4, 2024

Loyalist Dave said:
This is a good point, BUT nobody has showed evidence the reason for the spare cylinder was, and only was, a "quick reload".

The problem with this is "damaged" from what? How? So you don't get the revolver repaired OR it was so badly damaged that it cannot be BUT the cylinder survived?

Again, this simply shows that as far as the army is concerned, the government wasn't buying and issuing spare cylinders. So you're probably not swapping cylinders if you are a private in the cavalry.

The first article mentions that when the conversion cylinders started to appear, some revolvers were sold with the conversion, BUT still came with a cap-n-ball cylinder. This is in case the owner can't find cartridges, and has to switch back for a time. THIS might be the key, but not quite the reason....

So the cylinders are NOT for a "quick reload" but we can find scenarios where they could be faster than the conventional way of reloading. WE however miss a couple points.

ARE they for reloading in combat, OR CONSIDER..., was the owner of such a cylinder a little wary of the durability of the cylinder in his revolver? There were a LOT of fakes made of Colt's open top, especially the .44 versions. Steel quality in these might vary a lot, and they were often tough for a person not well versed to detect. EVEN IF the person could tell the revolver was not really a "Colt", did they have the option to buy a different revolver, or was it the default option for them?

Which brings up the question, Had these still existing examples of spare cylinders of which many are still loaded, been carried by folks who had seen or actually experienced a chamber failure in the past? Not necessarily a catastrophic failure where they were injured and the whole handgun ruined, but one where the cylinder cracked and deformed a bit? Did they carry that loaded second cylinder because although slow, they thought they might have a chamber failure and would need to replace that cylinder ASAP?

AND the fact that when a person got a conversion cylinder, they kept their original cylinder, PLUS the revolvers sold with a pre-fitted conversion cylinder would come with the previous cap-n-ball cylinder. Folks assuming that was for situations where cartridges were scarce. Really? OR was it also because the buyers of the new tech of the conversion cylinder were not fully confident the cylinders wouldn't fail? HOW do we know that all of those "spare" cylinders, especially those found loaded, were not mostly carried by folks using conversion cylinder revolvers, and those cap-n-ball cylinders were the extras, and loaded "just in case"?

So perhaps it WAS commonly done, when one had a conversion cylinder, and those conversions were "all the rage" for about a decade.

LD

I wonder if "conversions" were/are not often confused with "true convertibles" then and now. Were not Thuer conversions unable to switch back the percussion loading after the alteration which would make the percussion cylinder useless ?

Ed C. · Oct 4, 2024

Enfield58 said:
You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing, the advertisements for selling spare cylinders is practically nonexistent. However, it is still possible that spare cylinders might have been custom ordered, or cannibalized from a damaged-beyond-repair revolver.

With the advent of the Colt 1851 Navy revolver it became possible for the average person to carry very portable lethal protection with more than one shot.

Heck, they would not need a holster. They could slip the revolver in the waistband of their pants.

So because of the presence of smaller revolvers after 1849, it would be a lot more practical to carry two revolvers instead of one with a spare cylinder.

Sorry Clint Eastwood fans, an extra revolver in the hand is better than a spare cylinder in the pouch.

But years ago when I didn't know what I was looking at and saw Clint doing that cylinder swap I was thinking,"Neat! I want a gun like that!" So now I have 4 in both BP and cartridge plus others. Thanks alot Clint for all the hours I now spend washing guns!

Packrat · Oct 4, 2024

Changing a cylinder on the Remington design is more practical than on a colt.
But if you want a real challenge, change the cylinder on the Ruger Old Army. My understanding is they made it so difficult because they didn't want conversion cylinders to be used

Ed C. · Oct 4, 2024

M. De Land said:
I wonder if "conversions" were/are not often confused with "true convertibles" then and now. Were not Thuer conversions unable to switch back the percussion loading after the alteration which would make the percussion cylinder useless ?

I don't think they were doing that back then. As I understand it Remington had a large inventory of percussion revolvers on hand about the time when cartridges were becoming popular. In order to not have to eat those guns they simply made the shorter cylinders needed for metallic cartridges and installed a spacer and loading gate in the frame. The loading lever holds the cylinder pin in place so that stayed and had no use other than that. What I don't know is if the percussion cylinders could have been machined down or made from scratch for the metallic cartridges. Anyway, a pretty good way to make lemons into lemonade.

Sylvester Pattie · Oct 4, 2024

I re-enacted with a very strict confederate cavalry unit in the late 80s and early 90s. I carried two revolvers a 51 navy first model with the square back trigger guard and a backup boot pistol was an 1849 pocket model with a 4” barrel and no loading lever. Both being commonly available to pre-war civilians. I did not carry any spare cylinders, but others in the troop did. I would have carried a spare for the 1849 as it takes forever to find a place to reload a cylinder when you have to dismantle the pistol and use the cylinder pin as a ramrod. Since most patterson’s did not have a loading lever I understand why they needed a spare cylinder. They same would be true for any very short barreled revolver.
As for carrying caps, remember the troopers who carried spares rolling up caps in a tube of cloth and stuffing it inside the cylinder pin hole. They carried the cylinder in a coat or vest pocket not wanting to add anymore weight to an already heavy and bulky saber/pistol belt with cap pouch and carbine ammo pouch.

I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

69 Cal.

Cannon

Cannon

40 Cal

54 Cal.

54 Cal.

54 Cal.

40 Cal.

54 Cal.

40 Cal.

58 Cal.

36 Cl.

54 Cal.

54 Cal.

45 Cal.

75 Cal.

54 Cal.

45 Cal.

54 Cal.

32 Cal

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!