1858 New Army revolver - legit combat arm?

[garandman]

Thanx redwing. Not firsthand, but somewhat telling. Soldiers don't tend to throw off a reliable combat arm. But the article mentions a few reasons the 1858 syle revolver might have been separated from the individual soldier.


Knowing that manufacturing tolerances were not a tight then as today, and as someone has noted, perc caps were not as standardized then as today, it raises the possibility the average soldier ended up with perc caps that weren't properly fitted to their revolver. Those caps would likely fall off, renerding the gun inoperable.


That's all speculation. I'd like to find some first hand field reports

 

[redwing]

You have never been in hot ungodly deadly combat warfare. I can tell you this you are not going to set and fret over a pistol. But by hell that GD rifle had better work. And don't lose that canteen, nough said. :hmm:

 

[garandman]

I hold to the theory "My pistol is simply the tool to fight my way to my rifle."

And the little I do know about "hot ungodly combat" is what made me post this thread. :wink:

 

[Dphar]

Nope, they'll more than likely just thumbed back the hammer & thanked God if they had a few shots left in the thing.

As far as a legit combat arm......no. No one has ever been killed with a Remington New Model Army, in combat, anywhere, ever. Oh, wait.......

Seriously?

I reckon, if you'd have been in the middle of close range, "white-of-their-eyes" distance, smoke, explosions, blood & screaming fight 150 years ago, you'd have probably given up your firstborn plus a couple of cousins for an 1858 Remington.

Yer missing the point. The Chauchat ALSO killed people. NO ONE knowledgeable about firearms would ever call it a "legit" combat arm.

No Garandman. YOU are missing the point, badly.

You are equating a revolver that you don't know how to load or care for properly (caps fall off) as being illegitimate as a combat arm.
The caps don't fall off if the owner knows enough to get the proper caps/nipples. I have no idea how reliable 1860s caps were but the technology was 40 years old by that time and had reached its pinnacle just before being superseded by the self-contained cartridge.
So far as people having misfires? It happens. I had a re-manufactured from GI components M2 ball cartridge miss-fire last month. When Frank Reid tried to shoot Soapy Smith at Skagway AK in 1898 the first cartridge misfired. The second fired, but so did Soapy's Winchester. Both men died. But Soapy's criminal mob was out of business.
AS previously stated I had a rash of misses with a bulk box of 22 LRs last month.

It happens even more when someone is poorly trained or has no idea what it takes to actually maintain a firearm loaded with loose powder and ball. Inability to properly load or maintain the arm or being too lazy or ignorant to see the need does not equate poor performance of the firearm. The lazy, ignorant or no money for fresh caps and powder is likely the prime cause of misfires with percussion revolver in the past.

AS I stated I carried a 1860 everyday for a couple of years. With a clean gun problems were virtually non-existent everytime I wanted to shoot something it when "bang" first try. Out shooting a number of cylinders full for fun things get gummed up there are more likely to be issues. The primary issue was fired caps in the action. The old timers used a cocking motion that pitched them out. This is the snappy cocking seen in some early western movies.
Was a 1860s C&B as good as a 1911 Colt? No. But thinking the guy with the C&B was pitifully under armed? Thats just stupid. Bill Hickok was still using Colt Navys when he was shot in the back. In 1876. Years after the clumsy S&W #3 came out in 44 CF. I would think he probably trusted them. But he was careful to make SURE they were clean and properly loaded. Of the accounts of the times he had to use a revolver I do not read of his having misfires.

Dan

 

[cynthialee]

My only issue I have had with any of the ball and cap revolvers I have owned was the fired caps getting into the action and making it impossible to advance the cylender. Once I learned how to properly cock it like the old west guys did I no longer have that issue. Ya gotta hold it muzzel up as you cock it so the spent cap falls away from the pistol instead of into the cylender area.

Caps falling off have only been a problem with one pistol I have owned. (my current pistol) Turns out that 3 of them are a perfect fit for a 10 and the other three are perfect for 11's. They are all suppossed to be for 10's but suppossed to be and is are two differant monkeys. (I got it new in the box, so that flaw made me a little mad.) So that pistol gets 10's on 3 nipples and 11's on the others and they never fall off. (yes I am going to replace them, the repalcements are in my possibles bag. I just haven't bothered as I know which nipples are which and they are still perfectly functional.)

As to a reliable combat arm for the time:
You have a choice; a revolver or a single shot. The revolver might have a cap fall off but there is likely to be nipples with caps on them. The single shot might also loose its cap, in which case, there is no advancing the cylender to get to the next hot cap.

 

[bubba15301]

wild bill stayed with the cap and balls because the early fixed cartridges were not as reliable as the cap and ball with paper cartridges or loose powder and ball .the problem was with the priming mixture .

 

[necchi]

I think you hit the nail on the head there Dan.
1st of all the 1858 wasn't availabe in 58, they didn't hit the ground til late 62
I find it hard to believe a gun in production for 13yrs averaging 10,000 a year was so un-reliable to be thrown away by the men they where issued to.
It's kinda important to understand why the Remington was put to use in the first place.
There was a fire at the Colt plant.

At this same time period HUGE advancements where made in the firearms industry, a mere 6 yrs later in 68 the cartridge conversion was available.

I think it just the hard part of taking 21st century thinking and equating it to 19th century reality, unless someone is studied and'or practiced enough in the actual time frame it's difficult to grasp was happening.

Do I think they where reliable? Yeah, the Army kept buying and using them. The Army wasn't in the business of loosing personel because of poorly working equipment for over 10yrs.

 

[garandman]

I have no idea how reliable 1860s caps were ....Dan

Yeah, I really didn't read your post beyond this point, cus THIS is the whole point of my post .

But thanks for the ad hominem attack saying I don't know how to operate my gun. Which even if it were true, is irrelevant.

The point of this thread is the 1858 revolver during the 1860's.

Which as you admit, you know nothing about.

 

[garandman]

The Army wasn't in the business of loosing personel because of poorly working equipment for over 10yrs.

LOL. Never heard the old saying "Remember, the equipment you are now using was made by the lowest bidder" ???

And the M60 wasn't an unreliable pig.

And they didn't fail to issue cleaning kits with the M16 in the Vietnam era. Or use the wrong type of powder in the 5.56 catridges.

The history of pooled ignorance and inflexible bureacracy concentrated in the Army's ordnance dept is long and storied.

Which makes your stmt pretty funny. The other funny part is how this thread represents EXACTLY how the Army Ord Dept typically reacts when anyone questions an issued firearm..."How DARE you question the firearm we issued. The proof of its suitability is found in the fact that we issued it!!!!"

Fun thread.


:wink:

 

[biliff]

"The thing that makes me doubt them as a legit combat arm is the way the caps fall off. NO WAY they stay on in combat.

Whatta ya think?"

If percussion caps were falling off the Remington in combat then they would have been falling off every other percussion arm as well. Since the two sides weren't beating each other to death I have to assume it wasn't problem.

 

[biliff]

"The thing that makes me doubt them as a legit combat arm is the way the caps fall off. NO WAY they stay on in combat.

Whatta ya think?"

If percussion caps were falling off the Remington in combat then they would have been falling off every other percussion arm as well. Since the two sides weren't beating each other to death I have to assume it wasn't problem.

 

[Poor Private]

Sorry still no provenance- Just because a guy wrote it in a book/article doesn't mean that that it's true. where is his provenance? I see no footnotes.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof" Christopher Hitchens
Since I am writing this statement it must be true "all horses are brown".

 

[garandman]

If percussion caps were falling off the Remington in combat then they would have been falling off every other percussion arm as well.

Not really. Every other firearm had a single percussion cap / nipple, and didn't revolve. Apples and laptops.

Since the two sides weren't beating each other to death I have to assume it wasn't problem.

If a cap fell off a single nipple, I'm sure the soldier just pulled the hammer and went on to the next cylinder. And I'm pretty sure when the revolover was out of action, and hand to hand began, beating / stabbing each other is exactly what they did.

 

[garandman]

Sorry still no provenance- Just because a guy wrote it in a book/article doesn't mean that that it's true. where is his provenance? I see no footnotes.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof" Christopher Hitchens
Since I am writing this statement it must be true "all horses are brown".

Very true. That provenance is what I'm looking for. Thus far, pretty much everything (including my question) is merely anecdotal of modern guns, and speculative of the actual fireams of 1860, and the battle effectiveness (particularly re: the perc cap system) of the 1858.

 

[mingo]

Funny thing here is that besides the percieved probelm of caps or whatever, the Remingtons and others were what they had and what they continued to use for some time.
I have owned and fired various C&B revolvers for 50 years and never saw falling caps as a major problem.
The system is less than perfect and the occisional misfire or hangup is expected.
I think they all disapeared pretty fast after cartridges became more effective and available.

I also believe from my experience and that of those I have polled that the ineffectiveness or unreliability of the M60 is more of a tale than a fact.

 

[garandman]

Funny thing here is that besides the percieved probelm of caps or whatever, the Remingtons and others were what they had and what they continued to use for some time.
I have owned and fired various C&B revolvers for 50 years and never saw falling caps as a major problem.
The system is less than perfect and the occisional misfire or hangup is expected.
I think they all disapeared pretty fast after cartridges became more effective and available.

I also believe from my experience and that of those I have polled that the ineffectiveness or unreliability of the M60 is more of a tale than a fact.

Well, for the ONE soldier than any combat arm fails, its a HUGE problem. :thumbsup:

OF COURSE they continued to use C&B tech...UNTIL something much better was invented, about 1870's.

Your personal anecdotal evidence is greatly appreaciated but of little use, since we're talking about the supply chain, manufacturing tolerances, and the skill level of the average 1860 soldier. As such, today's reality has little bearing on this discussion.

You have internet mail order to get anything you want in the world in about 2 days, space age technology incorporated into all areas of manufacturing, and a knowledge base about ML firearms that would make the average 1860 soldier look like a 2 yr old.

Not sure how many times I'm gonna have to say that, but there....I did it again.

 

[biliff]

"But when I think about combat conditions - the mounted rider bounding along on horseback, crawling along the ground with the cylinder exposed, running thru brushy / grassy areas, etc. "

Guess the boys with the rifles or Colt's revolvers didn't do any of this stuff so the caps stayed on.

I fail to see why you are singling out the Remington revolver for this problem.

 

[garandman]

I fail to see why you are singling out the Remington revolver for this problem.

To be clear, I'm not. My question really relates to any C&B revolver. My supposition is that for single shot firearms, they wouldn't put the cap on UNTIL they were ready to fire, as I doubt they set a hammer down on the perc cap of a loaded firearm.

 

[biliff]

Ain't no point in trying to hit a moving target. I'm done.

 

[crockett]

garandman: I don't mean to repeat myself but a lot of folks have a misconception of these guns so I'll elaborate a little more- this would pertain to the military use.
These cap and ball pistols were used with combustible cartridges. These cartridges came in little wood boxes about the size of a deck of cards. The cartridges were easily broken- hence the need for the wood boxes. Each cavalry man was issued two boxes and these were kept in a cartridge box worn on the belt. To the best of my knowledge there was instruction in the manual on reloading a cap and ball with a flask and loose balls but I have yet to find much evidence any soldier was issued a flask and loose balls.
The little wood boxes had a gummed, paper label over the holes containing the rounds. There was a pull string you yanked to rip off the label and expose the ammunition. Some of the boxes had an additional hole for six caps and some did not- you needed a capper.
So the drill was:
1. Grab a box, rip the string, turn the box upside down and let the six rounds drop out. Cram the six rounds into the cylinder asap, cap the nipples- you're done.
2. I have made duplicate boxes and combustible ammo and with a CLEAN UNFIRED revolver loaded up in around 45 seconds or less. I have tried the changing of cylinders and it is slightly faster but as I said I don't believe it was common.
3. As far as the "panic" of combat causing reloading errors. I've heard that infantry men would keep loading their muskets without firing a shot, etc- I don't think the errors in reloading was an exclusive issue with the revolvers.
4. On the power- I forget but if I recall I think a 44 was about equal to a 38 special- but I might be wrong on that.
5. The combustible cartridge issue has been previously discussed- it's a lot of fun one or two times- just to experience the thing but for most shooting I use a flask and loose balls. The western gunmen preferred the flask and loose balls as you could cram in more powder and some of the Southern cavalry probably loaded up with a flask and ball. The Richmond Arsenal made combustible cartridges but put them in cardboard boxes which were inadequate and resulted in broken cartridges from time to time.
IAE- as far as the question asked- I think the combustible cartridges were easy enough to reload- as compared to a fask and loose balls- that the reloading process under combat went about as well as could be expected, IMHO.