I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

There are plenty of references to the privy and doing a combat reload is a wee bit more interesting than going to the privy. When you read Bruce Catons History books about the civil war there are detailed descriptions about how dismounted calvalry was able to stop and delay much larger forces of regular infantry using breach loading carbines some of which were even repeating. No mention of extra revolver cylinders being used anywhere in a real history book. When you read first hand accounts of western scouts and mountain men you read about rapid firing revolvers and various different kinds of long guns and how they were loaded. You read about scouts with multiple revolvers. You even read about a rapid firing air rifle. You read about the Jay hawkers and Bushwackers having multiple revolvers. Never once do you read about an extra revolver cylinder. In fact the only place I have ever seen an extra revolver cylinder refrenced is in Pale rider and today the Whitney add which I read on the internet so have no proof that its even real. Back in the day of actual history books there was actual fact checking before you could get published. In todays world of google searches anything goes. Literally.

nick_1 said:

There are plenty of references to the privy and doing a combat reload is a wee bit more interesting than going to the privy. When you read Bruce Catons History books about the civil war there are detailed descriptions about how dismounted calvalry was able to stop and delay much larger forces of regular infantry using breach loading carbines some of which were even repeating. No mention of extra revolver cylinders being used anywhere in a real history book. When you read first hand accounts of western scouts and mountain men you read about rapid firing revolvers and various different kinds of long guns and how they were loaded. You read about scouts with multiple revolvers. You even read about a rapid firing air rifle. You read about the Jay hawkers and Bushwackers having multiple revolvers. Never once do you read about an extra revolver cylinder. In fact the only place I have ever seen an extra revolver cylinder refrenced is in Pale rider and today the Whitney add which I read on the internet so have no proof that its even real. Back in the day of actual history books there was actual fact checking before you could get published. In todays world of google searches anything goes. Literally.

Click to expand...

I think you greatly overestimate the fact checking done in old published books. I think they lied just as much back then, perhaps more, as the methods for fact checking were harder.

Is this good enough validation for the new York Times article?

https://www.nytimes.com/1853/03/26/archives/article-5-no-title.html

If you want to read the full article, you need a subscription, but the do provide a picture and the first few lines.

nick_1 said:

There are plenty of references to the privy and doing a combat reload is a wee bit more interesting than going to the privy. When you read Bruce Catons History books about the civil war there are detailed descriptions about how dismounted calvalry was able to stop and delay much larger forces of regular infantry using breach loading carbines some of which were even repeating. No mention of extra revolver cylinders being used anywhere in a real history book. When you read first hand accounts of western scouts and mountain men you read about rapid firing revolvers and various different kinds of long guns and how they were loaded. You read about scouts with multiple revolvers. You even read about a rapid firing air rifle. You read about the Jay hawkers and Bushwackers having multiple revolvers. Never once do you read about an extra revolver cylinder. In fact the only place I have ever seen an extra revolver cylinder refrenced is in Pale rider and today the Whitney add which I read on the internet so have no proof that its even real. Back in the day of actual history books there was actual fact checking before you could get published. In todays world of google searches anything goes. Literally.

Click to expand...

LOL. Actual fact checking? As long time consumer of history I can tell that there has been a significant number of books that have been discredited in recent years due to the internet. The latest one to cross my radar is Barbara Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China. She won a Pulitzer prize for it but it has largely been discredited because it was a rehash of Stillwell's self serving propaganda. For the record, Stillwell was a horrible general, up there with Mark Clark.

I do like Tuchman overall as a historian and author.

Not to add confusion to those already confused, but I've mentioned a time or two in this forum that a few of the true 'old timers' that actually used C&B revolvers were still around for me to talk to. My father goes even farther back to Indian Territory, now Oklahoma at the tail end of 'The Old West'. He was born there in 1903. What' my point? When watching some of the 'old' westerns, he had the bad? habit of pointing some of the glaring inaccuracies of these movies. In some of those involving the Calvery, he would often point out this piece or that piece of equipment. In some of the older movies, the Calvary was still using C&B. I recall him pointing out the pouches on the belts. One he called a case for paper cartridges. paper bullets, he called them and another he said held extra cylinders. While this is not definitive proof of the carrying extra cylinders, it's proof enough for me.

.

Nazgul58 said:

Posted on the internet........

Don

Click to expand...

It sure is a useful tool.

Old movies are evidence of old movies and that’s about it. The evidentiary value of many things often approaches zero.

One he called a case for paper cartridges. paper bullets, he called them and another he said held extra cylinders. While this is not definitive proof of the carrying extra cylinders, it's proof enough for me.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to your father, memories can get crossed up. Its not deliberate, it does happen.

So, real world. Two guys see a murder. Both are well educated, one is a Surveyor and the other is a PE. Both smart (yes you can have idiots in any profession, neither one of these guys was). The PE had the better view angle (on a 2nd floor deck). The Surveyor looking out his first floor window. I knew and respected both men.

The PE said the guy did not kill the Taxi driver. The Surveyor said, yea, he did.

The physical evidence all said that the guy had killed the Taxi driver. That matched what the Surveyor reported as the sequence.

Both were called in court and the PE testified for the defense. No one can explain why he saw something that evidence (best) or the Surveyor (witness are not good) corroborated.

So, what we would want is pictures of the cartridge belt(s) and a shape that indicates a cylinder storage and records that indicate the Army bought spare cylinders.

horrible general, up there with Mark Clark.

Click to expand...

Yea there was a reason he was left in Italy and sadly the people serving under him suffered for his stupidity.

Worst I read was a guy who supported his lunge for Rome. Arrogant glory hunting jerk.

Smokerr said:

Yea there was a reason he was left in Italy and sadly the people serving under him suffered for his stupidity…

Click to expand...

As is always the way.

Just to be clear, I never said the Army bought spare cylinders. I also never implied that I believed cylinders were changed out during a fire fight, either in civilian use or military use. There is archeological evidence of cylinders without frames being found in several places throughout the American west. Usually the cylinders were found loaded which makes me think that the cylinders were carried as spare cylinders.

I'm quite happy to let the armchair historians and movie critics debate how or why they were carried. Personally I believe they were carried in a saddle bag or pack carefully wrapped in an oilcloth. None of the discussion on their use changes the fact that they do exist and are still being occasionally recovered.

As you say, the War Department never ordered extra cylinders. They did however order extra barrel assemblies and wedges. I wish they had explained why it was necessary but so far I haven’t discovered any explanation.

I would have been really interested in /if your father said that they used extra cylinders? Theres a ton of stuff I never had a chance to ask my father.

Its really easy to bash Mark Clark but perhaps not so easy to actually do a better job under the circumstances and with the intelligence he had available in real time rather than long after the fact. Most folks think Patton was a great general and in the big picture yes he got the job done very well but he also needlessly got a lot of guys killed hunting glory for himself.

There is archeological evidence of cylinders without frames being found in several places throughout the American west. Usually the cylinders were found loaded which makes me think that the cylinders were carried as spare cylinders.

Click to expand...

Just saying evidence misses the citation aspect. Post specific reports.

If someone had an ammo belt with places for cylinders, then it would have been listed kit. Could a guy make his own belt and carry cylinders? Sure. Likely, no. Better to buy a second or third pistol.

And with fouling, you are better off with another gun as a spare cylinder out or in and the fiddling? While it sounds cool, break it down and its not realistic not to mention the evidence against it.

As noted, for each Conversion cylinder there would be a BP cylinder floating around. Did Billy Joe Bob keep one to play with? Again maybe. But if you are actually digging them up, they were not being carried (hopefully no grave robbing going on) .

I would have been really interested in /if your father said that they used extra cylinders? Theres a ton of stuff I never had a chance to ask my father.

Click to expand...

Same here. Mine died when I was 11 (WWII Gunboat Mechanic). We have built something of a picture from what he did talk about (just the drama stuff, aka Kamikaze and Rocket Launches at the beach). He had a fixation for exact course steering in a boat, ergo, suspect he did helm duty. LCL(L) and the R and G variations were squirrely. Probably passing ammo if he was on deck to see the rocket launches.

Its really easy to bash Mark Clark but perhaps not so easy to actually do a better job under the circumstances and with the intelligence he had available in real time rather than long after the fact. Most folks think Patton was a great general and in the big picture yes he got the job done very well but he also needlessly got a lot of guys killed hunting glory for himself.

Click to expand...

Some side track but I do disagree on Clark. His record was rife with bad decisions. Going for Rome while the German army streamed by was all glory hounding. His record up to that point was poor to bad and that was the Candles on the cake. No I am no general but it takes a non generla to put them in perspective.

I don't disagree with aspects of Patton. War is ugly, you are going to order ops that you know people will get killed doing. Sicily is an interesting aspect. Yea he was trying to outdo Montgomery who was a blatant back pounder self promoter and a total ass (my take was he was a good defensive general and a logistics mans dream, but he was also a bean counter - El Alemein as close to a loss and the details of tactics were stupid. Saved by brave men and huge material advantage. As we saw latter in Normandy, inept. I would say Patton was right, allies would have been vastly better off without him.

Metz was another bad Patton set of decisions and a degree of ego if not a lot of ego. But, look at his Army. Well run, highly capable, fought over far worse terrain than Montgomery and they kept moving. He had built an incredible staff, Battle of the Bulge where he stopped, pivoted and then marched (90 miles?). He gave the orders, but he also put the staff together that got it done. But Patton had courage. I can respect that.

Bradly who was the soldiers soldier had his own PR machine and he had some huge blunders. Failure in Normandy at Falaise was one and the Battle of the Bulge was another. But he mostly had competent people.

You don't get to general without ego and arrogance. Everyone has their bad decisions. Its the weave of the whole fabric.

nick_1 said:

Interesting how people reference posts in this thread like they prove something. I read it on the Internet... Find me a single period first person account of a scout, soldier or frontiersmen changing cylinders to reload in the field.

Click to expand...

Hard to do as they have all likely been dead for nearly a hundred years.

I find it hard to go along with your premise though, that just because we have only the written word, that it never happened.

Smokerr said:

Just saying evidence misses the citation aspect. Post specific reports.

If someone had an ammo belt with places for cylinders, then it would have been listed kit. Could a guy make his own belt and carry cylinders? Sure. Likely, no. Better to buy a second or third pistol.

And with fouling, you are better off with another gun as a spare cylinder out or in and the fiddling? While it sounds cool, break it down and its not realistic not to mention the evidence against it.

As noted, for each Conversion cylinder there would be a BP cylinder floating around. Did Billy Joe Bob keep one to play with? Again maybe. But if you are actually digging them up, they were not being carried (hopefully no grave robbing going on) .

Click to expand...

I would think the referenced antique auction archive above, featuring a leather holster for the 1851 Colt issued by the Prussians with an integral cylinder pouch would be somewhat compelling.

As would the reproductions of ads by Remington for spare cylinders and the magazine article reprint discussing their use by the Pony Express (as told first person by a rider)

Clark Badgett said:

Each cylinder has to be timed to the paw as well. Cylinders were not universal even in the same make.

Click to expand...

I would think that that would be a matter of when it was made and who made it?

Didn't the Patterson Colt's come from the factory with a spare cylinder? I have a book from the 1950s showing original cased Patterson's with spare cylinders. Also, (was it Austrian or Prussian navy?) KM 1851s had a pouch for spare cylinder, widely issued. Seems during the percussion era the idea of a spare cylinder wouldn't be so novel to a professional fighter. Somebody on the amateur end, maybe just happy to have a weapon at all.

The accounts I have read of Texas rangers using Petersons they carried two. Charged into the middle of the Comanches and shot a few of them. The rest of the Indians ran away very confounded by the repeating pistols and the accurate shooting. The Paterson had no loading lever.

I did not know about the War Department ordering extra barrel and wedge assemblies but that makes perfect sense to me. If a revolver got a little rough from lack of PMCS under field conditions, a little pitting inside the chambers of the cylinder could be cleaned up and overlooked. A pitted bore would be harder to deal with. Replacing the barrel assemble would be a good way to get the revolver back into useable condition and could probably be done at the Company level. After a battle Ordinance would be policing up weapons that may have been laying around for a week or more and trying to restore them to serviceable condition.