• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Curiosity regarding Confederate Brass revolvers

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cdg

40 Cal.
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Well I wasn't entirely positive where to post this, so I'm going to give it a try here.

The question has more to do with shooting and firearm design then it does about the history of the civil war and Confederate produced brass frame revolvers. I fully admit I don't know very m uch about the topic. Please correct me on the background if I am wrong: The confederate states, lacking the necesary iron (and thus steel) to produce sidearms for their cavalry, came up with the idea to substitute a large percentage of the steel in a remington designed revolver with Brass. These brass framed guns were used rather extensively in the confederate army throughout the civil war to great effect. Beyond this, I'm afraid I don't know much more. My questions center around the firearm itself more then the historical context, but feel free to correct or add to any of my background information. Questions are:

1) Are/were brass framed revolvers actually weaker and more suceptable to accidents/breakage then a steel framed revolver? I say as/were because I"m interested in what went on in the Civil war, and if modern replicas have made improvements.

2) How did the weight of the brass framed revolver compare to the weight of the steel framed revolver? While I believe that Brass is a little bit lighter then steel, you would have most likely needed to build up more material to come up with even close to equal stregnth. Of course Brass is a fairly strong alloy (not as much as steel perhaps, but strong enough for the "napoleons" employed by both sides).

3) I can and probalby will look this up tomorrow now that I"m thinking of this topic, but what different model revolvers did the confederate armies carry through the civil war? Were they mostly brass, or mostly steel framed?

4) Starting into the world of cap and ball revolvers, would it be OK to start on a brass framed revolver, or do they not hold up as well as a steel framed revolver? This is more of a side note. At some point, I want to get into muzzleloading. Not sure if I want to steer more towards a side-lock pistol, or cap and ball revolver, but I'll probably buy some kind of muzzleloader within a year or so...

Any responses are appreciated. :) Thanks!
 
I can't say Confederate revolvers were used exrensively since less than 10,000 were made overall. The most successful with 3600 guns produced was the Griswold and Gunnison a brass framed copy of the Colt navy. Spiller and Burr produced around 1400 solid frame Whitney copies. Most Confederates that used revolvers favored the 51 navy. I've heard it said brass frames don't hold up under heavy loads and the guns get loose but I've never seen one in this condition. A lot of guns were imported by both sides. Certainly more were imported than the Confederates produced.
 
Rebel 727 is right, don't get the idea that the Confederates loaded themselves down with brass framed pistols, compared to the total number in the field the brass frame revolvers were rare. I think this brass frame business got started as a marketing gimick. Today's manufacturers refer to the original brass frames to justify selling their replicas. You are PC with a brass frame but they weren't the typical pistol of the South.
A guy I know says he bought a brass frame Remington and shot "normal" loads( I don't know the charge). He miked the frame new and kept at it. He claims the brass didn't start to stretch until about 10,000 rounds were fired. So I've been told, don't know if it is truth or not.
 
crockett said:
Rebel 727 is right, don't get the idea that the Confederates loaded themselves down with brass framed pistols, compared to the total number in the field the brass frame revolvers were rare. I think this brass frame business got started as a marketing gimick. Today's manufacturers refer to the original brass frames to justify selling their replicas. You are PC with a brass frame but they weren't the typical pistol of the South.
A guy I know says he bought a brass frame Remington and shot "normal" loads( I don't know the charge). He miked the frame new and kept at it. He claims the brass didn't start to stretch until about 10,000 rounds were fired. So I've been told, don't know if it is truth or not.

I understand that revolvers weren't actually widespread much on either side of the civil war, being relatively recent technology, and rather expensive. I was under the impression though that the confederacy used revolvers to great effect using small bands of cavalry in a kind of "lighning raid", where they would ride in on horseback, steal some suppplies, and ride away quickly, the idea that you shot up a place a little bit without yourself getting killed...

But what you are saying is that even in the world of confederate revolvers, Brass wasn't necesarily wideaspread?

Oh, another thing, I was under the impression that pistols in general were rare during the war. In fact, I believe that one of the Aaron Burr/Hamilton dueling pistols was converted to precussion cap for duty as a sidearm during the civil war...
 
At the beginning of the war revolvers were issued in great numbers to all branches including infantry. It didn't take many marches for the average foot soldier to send his home, trade it off or throw it away. Cavalrymen often carried 3 or 4 revolvers plus a carbine. Confederate cavalrymen, specially in the western theatre preffered a sawed off double barreled shotgun to the carbine. Most carbines carried by southerners thru the first half of the war were cut down rifles. So yeah, pistols were pretty commonly used. Some officers even carried pocket pistols like these for backup or last ditch affairs.

3879-R1-14-15A.jpg
 
the brass framed revolvers were heavier than steel ones as brass is a denser metal. also the brass frames were more fragile. i dont believe that the soldiers would have used treir pistols enough for them stretch.my 2 cents
 
In the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION
the south produce tha Gunnison & Griswold
and The Spiller & Burr revolvers with a brass frame.http://www.civilwarpreservations.com/newmus84.html....you might want to look at this website
I dont believe they ever made a remington with a brass frame,,,,that is just a modern concoction.
I have been shooting my bras framed Ginnison & Griswold for 30 years....usually use 20-25 gr ff
and no problems yet....
 
I think brass, or really bronze, was used in those revolvers because it eased the manufacturing process. Steel frames required extensive machining. Bronze can be cast very close to final dimensions and machining was much easier, the same reason brass framed replicas are cheaper to produce today. As mentioned by others, the Confederacy never produced enough revolvers to be a significant factor in the war but the fact that they tried shows the value placed on revolvers by the troops. I rather doubt that soldiers threw away revolvers, that would seem pretty dumb. If I felt overburdened I'd throw away that huge damn musket and pick up all the revolvers I could find. For the weight of one single shot Springfield you could carry three or four revolvers with six shots each. Revolvers were in such demand that Smith & Wesson even sold tons of their little toy .22 short rimfire and nearly toy .32 short rimfires. :grin:
 
CoyoteJoe said:
I think brass, or really bronze, was used in those revolvers because it eased the manufacturing process. Steel frames required extensive machining. Bronze can be cast very close to final dimensions and machining was much easier, the same reason brass framed replicas are cheaper to produce today. As mentioned by others, the Confederacy never produced enough revolvers to be a significant factor in the war but the fact that they tried shows the value placed on revolvers by the troops. I rather doubt that soldiers threw away revolvers, that would seem pretty dumb. If I felt overburdened I'd throw away that huge damn musket and pick up all the revolvers I could find. For the weight of one single shot Springfield you could carry three or four revolvers with six shots each. Revolvers were in such demand that Smith & Wesson even sold tons of their little toy .22 short rimfire and nearly toy .32 short rimfires. :grin:

They were brass not bronze. Machining wasn't the problem, raw materials was. A good portion of the brass used came from church bells from all across the south. Sorry to disappoint you but infantry troops tossed revolvers by the roadside by the hundreds. Some were sent home and some were traded but there was such a glut of unwanted revolvers they weren't worth much. Revolvers were a short range weapon whereas the rifle was good for several hundred yards. I could see cavalry troops tossing a rifle to keep a revolver but not infantry.
 
Yes, having a revolver would only have been useful if things went very badly and it came down to the wire on a charge or something. Otherwise what the infantry might have wanted over the majority of service muskets would have been a repeating rifle. They were much more effective then a single shot muskett, being probably about as fast to reload, if not faster, and having a much higher rate of fire, while maintaining most of the advantages afforded by a muzzleloader.

Of course I'm sure the colonols and generals and high ranking officers that otherwise did not carry a rifle would have probalby preferred revolvers for defense- the alternative being a muzzleloading pistol...
 
I believe the sword was the customary weapon for officers. Tradition, don't you know? :grin:
Many officers did carry pistols in addition to the sword.

I have read that some of the infantry did at one time did recieve pistols, and some did leave them along the roadside to reduce the amount of weight they had to carry.

More than one guy was killed by a fellow solder in camp with pistols so some of the brass decided it was better to remove the weapon from the men.
I know similar things occured during WW II with the 1911 .45.

The pistols removed from the infantry were used by officers, the Calvary and I believe the artillery units.

The Calvary on both sides of the conflict did like them a lot.

As for the brass pistols of the South, as was mentioned there were not a lot of them made. I believe that any that were made were used though because the South was using everything they could get their hands on throughout the war.
IMO, most of the folks that were contracting with the Confederacy to make these brass guns were crooks.
In several cases, after large sums of money were "spent" setting up the factorys, the Government ended up taking them over to make the few guns that were produced.
 
As mentioned above, though there were brass-framed revolvers made in the South, but their total production was low compared to Colt, Remington, etc. Yes, brass frames will stretch over time with heavy loads and the revolver will develope timing problems. There were No brass framed Remingtons though I believe the rumor has hung on so long due to the Whitney's passing similarity due to a top strap on the frame.

Southern cavalry was fond of toting revolvers and some to the tune of 4 to 6 per trooper. Texas regiments were particularly so, if the guns could be bought, taken stolen, whatever! Terry's Texas Rangers (as they preferred to the 8th Texas Cavalry Regiment) toted as many revolvers as they could get and favored shotguns to carbines or sabers. One problem was that in a cavalry melee a shotgun blast might smite friend as well as foe! Spray & Pray! :shocked2:
 
I could definately see the shotgun bit. Not only do they tend to be constructed lightly compared to a rifle, but it would be effective in close range (and they can deliver a staggering ammount of knockdown power). But it would kind of suck if one of your own men was in front of that blast...
 
Go ahead and start with a Brass frame revolver........A lot of us did........I did way back in 77.....As a matter of fact I bought another one from Gander Mtn in 87 that has had hundreds of rounds shot thru it and its as tight as the day it was made........My secret is (Dont tell anyone). Use light loads........that brass frame 60 Colt replica was made by "Armsport"........and I only used 22 gr of 3 f black in it .....If you get a 36 use around 15 to 18 gr........Oh by the way you will graduate to a steel frame one someday..........Beware some Brass frame replicas go for what you could almost buy a steel one for........So try to find a "Cheap" brass frame pistol..................Bob
 
Yes, my inspiration for this topic actually came up when I was looking on the cheaper than dirt website (I belong to the buyers club). Club price on a Traditions .44 black powder brass frame (can't recall the model now) was only $169 I believe. Now I'm not saying that I'd buy that one, although I've heard Traditions has good overall quality, but that's why I got curious about the brass frame.

As for avoiding heavy loads, I can understand that with the brass frame. I just didn't want to consider buying a firearm that might easily fail.

That is not to say that I'm afraid of heavy loads. I've never shot black powder, but I have shot some reasonably heavy conventional weapons, starting with the .44 mag (which is overrated for recoil), a .50 S&W (got some kick but not terriable), and the .454 Cassul (not sure if I spelled that right, but that gun kicks pretty darned hard- it can blow my hands right into the air no matter how hard I hold it.)

Anyway we'll see what I start with. As I mentioned, I'm hoping to make a purchase sometime by the end of the year, so I'm just going to look, research, and probably ask some more questions around here. :grin:
 
Will do. Like I said, I was just cruising Cheaperthandirt. I used to buy a lot of ammo from them, and of course sometimes they have some pretty cool novelty (ex-mil) stuff too...

If I recall correctly, Midway had better prices on reloading gear too.
 
Ah Ha! "I've never shot black powder" .

Never fear, this just gives me a chanch to go into my song and dance. :grin:

If you buy a Cap and Ball pistol you will find that it doesn't recoil at all like a modern gun.
This applies to rifles and shotguns as well as pistols and it isn't just because the projectile is lighter. It is because of the way the BP creates pressure.
Rather than a sharp pressure spike like smokeless powder, BP creates the pressure slightly slower so it is more of a hard "push" than a sharp "rap".

Because of this, BP guns don't try to jump out of your hand, they don't cause the gun to "bite" your hand and they are just one hell of a lot of fun to shoot. Give them a try and I bet you will enjoy it so much you might decide to leave those cartridge guns in the safe and take your BP gun every time. :grin:

Zonie :)
 
Wes/Tex said:
As mentioned above, though there were brass-framed revolvers made in the South, but their total production was low compared to Colt, Remington, etc. Yes, brass frames will stretch over time with heavy loads and the revolver will develope timing problems. There were No brass framed Remingtons though I believe the rumor has hung on so long due to the Whitney's passing similarity due to a top strap on the frame.

Southern cavalry was fond of toting revolvers and some to the tune of 4 to 6 per trooper. Texas regiments were particularly so, if the guns could be bought, taken stolen, whatever! Terry's Texas Rangers (as they preferred to the 8th Texas Cavalry Regiment) toted as many revolvers as they could get and favored shotguns to carbines or sabers. One problem was that in a cavalry melee a shotgun blast might smite friend as well as foe! Spray & Pray! :shocked2:

Yes that was true in the beginning until the Federal cavalry was armed with Spencers and other carbines and would park just outside shotgun range and play Hell with the Confederates whereupon the shotguns went the way of D guard Bowies in the Infantry. As to brass framed Remingtons,I agree except there was a derringer sized brass frame Remington-Rider chambered for one round in .17 cal.There were only 200 made and I doubt there are very many surviving.
Tom Patton
 
Zonie said:
Ah Ha! "I've never shot black powder" .

Never fear, this just gives me a chanch to go into my song and dance. :grin:

If you buy a Cap and Ball pistol you will find that it doesn't recoil at all like a modern gun.
This applies to rifles and shotguns as well as pistols and it isn't just because the projectile is lighter. It is because of the way the BP creates pressure.
Rather than a sharp pressure spike like smokeless powder, BP creates the pressure slightly slower so it is more of a hard "push" than a sharp "rap".

Because of this, BP guns don't try to jump out of your hand, they don't cause the gun to "bite" your hand and they are just one hell of a lot of fun to shoot. Give them a try and I bet you will enjoy it so much you might decide to leave those cartridge guns in the safe and take your BP gun every time. :grin:

Zonie :)

Zonie: while motorcycling is where my heart lies, I have been into firearms for probably around 6 years now (as a small time hobby). As with a motorcycle, I've never met a gun I didn't like. I have my preferances of course, but every one has a unique charm, with an extremely small selection of exceptions. I think that this is due to the high standard of quality that most guns (and motorcycles) seem to consistantly live up to. I'm sure black powder would be a blast, no pun intended. :grin:
 
Back
Top