How many shots for a Civil War revolver

[kologha]

Can anyone make an educated guess as to the minimum number of shots an original Civil War revolver would have fired during the war?

kologha

 

[mewing6003]

My guess would be zero. I am sure there were some revolvers that were made but never fired once they left the factory.

 

Soldiers through the ages have been notorious for their avoidance in firing their weapons. Remember all the CW battlefield pickups with the barels filled with charges?

This tendency was known and is the reason for the strict battle drill, firm control of the officers and the reliance on the bayonet long after it was technically obsolete.

Disease killed 50% of the CW troops, artillery was the biggist killer on the battlefield and gunfire a distant third. Bayonet and sword wounds counted for only 3%.

Only about half the GIs in WWII actually fired their weapons when engaged in combat. It is further estimated that only one out of ten would actually AIM the weapon when they did fire. It seems that the fighters of the Great Generation were actually not that anxious to "mix it up". Movies and war stories have altered our preception.

(That means that weapons prior to the end of WWII had a 50% chance of not being fired in combat even if they were carried into combat)

During Viet Namn our entire training program was altered due to this discovery.

Modern weapons training is done at human shaped targets to accustom the soldier to shooting at the human form. Snap shoting and reflex actions are now stressed, along with aimed fire.

Target acquisition and fire discipline are still problems of every small unit commander. Spray and pray is the new life saving technique.

I once saw 27 men empty one mag. each at a fleeing enemy as he covered 300 yards of open ground and entered the tree line without a scratch!

 

[Two Trails]

I saw a rabbit run the complete firing line on a platoon firing for record and never take a hit. Needless to say the Gunny had a few choice words for "You Ladies that couldn't hit a Bull in the a** with a banjo." Yes,that was before Gunnys had to be politically correct and not hurt your feelings. :rotf:
Two Trails

 

[Wes/Tex]

Wow, that's a tough one! Much will depend on who and when. Forrest, Morga and Terry's Texas Rangers were overly fond of revolvers and the Texans, for example, were prone to carrying 4 to 6 and used them often. Considering the actions they were involved in I'd conservatively guess about 100 shots per each gun over the length of the war itself. Other outfits would probably have been much less.

 

[John Taylor]

Johnny Cash had a walker that was said to be unfired condition.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I'd say the answer to that could never be better than a wild guess. It is clear however, that revolvers in the uncivil war saw more use than pistols of any war before or since. At the outset of the war, the revolver was the only repeating weapon available. Soldiers who were not issued revolvers would part with their own meager funds to purchase anything they could get. Even the S&W .22 short revolvers sold like hot cakes. Imagine having to depend on a .22 short mini-revolver in combat! :shake:

 

[crockett]

I would say every cap and ball revolver was fired a little at a firing range when the gun was issued to who ever carried it. It is my opinion that almost all pistol ammunition issed in the Civil Wat was combusible cartridges.
WHAT!!!!!!!
Okay, maybe I am wrong. The army manual gives directions for loading from a flask. Troops were issued pistol cartridge boxes, where was the pistol flask carried with mounted troops? Saddle bags? How did they reload?

And Ghost raises an interesting point about hitting targets. Too much paper punching. If you want to learn how to shoot go back a step in time. Start throwing some tin cans in the air and learn to hit a moving target. IMO.
Tin cans in the air- the safety boys will have a nightmere with that. Throw low, horizontal to the ground.

 

[rebel727]

Soldiers through the ages have been notorious for their avoidance in firing their weapons. Remember all the CW battlefield pickups with the barels filled with charges?

These are commonly believed to have been caused by all the noise and fear. A scared soldier would load a round forgetting to tear the cartridge open and with all the guns going off around him couldn't tell his own didn't fire. So he loads another one on top and so on. Most infantry soldiers didn't carry revolvers. Many were issued at the beginning but after a few long marches they were tossed as was any other extra weight they didn't just have to have. I can't say how many times revolvers or any other weapon was actually used but I've got a 61 Enfield that's been fired so much the wood behind the hammer is charred.

 

[almrl]

Disease killed 50% of the CW troops, artillery was the biggist killer on the battlefield and gunfire a distant third. Bayonet and sword wounds counted for only 3%.

"General Rosecrans, in his official report of this battle,(Stones River) goes into this curious matter also but in a somewhat different direction, and states that 'of 14,560 rebels struck by our missiles, it is estimated that 20,000 rounds of artillery hit 728 men; 2,000,000 rounds of musketry hit 13,832 men; averaging 27.4 cannon shots to hit one man, 145 musket shots to hit one man.' p. 104

The Chances of Being Hit in Battle, by Colonel William F. Fox: pp. 93-106
The Century Magazine Volume 36, Issue 1 May 1888
[url] http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABP2287-0036-14[/url]

Colonel Fox discusses the old adage that "It takes a mans weight in lead to kill him." The official reports of the battle of Stones River tallies 20,307 artillery projectiles fired plus over 2,000,000 rounds of musket fire for a total weight of approximately 375,000 pounds of metal. Rebel losses were 2,319 killed or mortally wounded. That figures out to over 161 pounds per rebel death.

Old Coot

 

[Blizzard of '93]

I toured the Chickamauga battlefield and museum, there is a battlefield pick-up of two slugs that met head-on in flight, and have seen a foto of another pick-up like that at another site.
I read reports written by soldiers in battle that stated 'the air around us was filled with the sound of angry hornets from musket shot and whistles from cannon balls'
Imagine marching into line with this going on around you.

 

[almrl]

I am in awe of those soldiers of both sides who stood their ground in front of that barrage. 7734, I am in awe of those who turned tail and ran then reformed and advanced again.

Much has been made of the soldiers forming battle lines and firing volleys, but with the quantities of smoke on the battlefield, what else could they do? They couldn't see the enemy.

Old Coot

 

[Darkfold]

Disease killed 50% of the CW troops, artillery was the biggist killer on the battlefield and gunfire a distant third. Bayonet and sword wounds counted for only 3%.

Disease caused almost two thirds of all deaths in the War of the Rebellion, musketry was the chief cause of combat deaths, artillery was a distant third place and edged weapons caused a bit less than 3%.

 

[smoothshooter]

Over the last few years, I have been coming across more and more evidence that many, if not most Civil War troops went into their first battle with weapons they had never fired. It seems that most commanders saw marksmanship practice as a waste of time and government property. Many soldiers (especially in the north) were not previously familiar with firearms, most notably rifles and pistols. Makes you wonder if the new technology of the rifled musket/Minie bullet combo was materially more effective than the old smoothbore musket loaded with ball or buck & ball loads when fired by the majority of troops.

 

[Dphar]

Soldiers through the ages have been notorious for their avoidance in firing their weapons. Remember all the CW battlefield pickups with the barels filled with charges?

This tendency was known and is the reason for the strict battle drill, firm control of the officers and the reliance on the bayonet long after it was technically obsolete.

Disease killed 50% of the CW troops, artillery was the biggist killer on the battlefield and gunfire a distant third. Bayonet and sword wounds counted for only 3%.

Only about half the GIs in WWII actually fired their weapons when engaged in combat. It is further estimated that only one out of ten would actually AIM the weapon when they did fire. It seems that the fighters of the Great Generation were actually not that anxious to "mix it up". Movies and war stories have altered our preception.

(That means that weapons prior to the end of WWII had a 50% chance of not being fired in combat even if they were carried into combat)

During Viet Namn our entire training program was altered due to this discovery.

Modern weapons training is done at human shaped targets to accustom the soldier to shooting at the human form. Snap shoting and reflex actions are now stressed, along with aimed fire.

Target acquisition and fire discipline are still problems of every small unit commander. Spray and pray is the new life saving technique.

I once saw 27 men empty one mag. each at a fleeing enemy as he covered 300 yards of open ground and entered the tree line without a scratch!

Interesting and I have seen this information before. But based on my own experience the idea that a large pecentage do not fire their weapons in combat is flawed for a number of reasons.

The Civil War example just means the one shot missed fire and in his terror the soldier failed to realize this and kept loading. It shows he was trying at least.

One must first ask if the soldier had the opportunity in a given situation/firefight.
It is possible to go through "contact with the enemy" (this does not necessarily mean each side is shooting at the other at least not constantly) and have people in the platoon or squad who never had any reason to fire their weapons since the firefight was at the front of the column and was over before they were in a position to fire etc etc. In this case out of a platoon of 30 or so only 1 or 2 had any opportunity to fire. Thus some researcher if they talked to some of these men or failed to ask the right questions after this incident they might think that they didn't fire their weapons when they met the enemy.
They we have the peer pressure thing, will the people you serve with tolerate this behavior;
"The next time you don't fire cover for me I will shoot your ass myself" etc etc. I would be ****** if I was doing my job and 1/2 the people around me were hiding under cover and refusing to fire. The 50% that is doing all the fighting are not going to be happy with the 50% who are keeping their heads down. I can also state that I have been order NOT to fire on the enemy when I wanted too. So I have not fired on the enemy when I had the opportunity.
I know a VN era Marine who was with a unit that was ambushed at least once a day for an entire 45 day mission and never fired his weapon once. He was the mortar FO and his job did not include trigger pulling.

If you are in a situation like the banzai charges of WW-II or the human wave Chinese attacks in Korea failing to fire could be a way of removing yourself and the rest of your unit from the gene pool.

The other problem, in WW-II at least, was people being trained on round targets as you pointed out.

Some people don't like to talk about killing people and this could skew the data to some extent.

I do know of one instance in which the guy on point shot to hit an NVA in the legs because he didn't want to kill anyone or had killed all he ever wanted too. But he still fired. The guy behind didn't SFAIK (was 15 or more men back at the time), he had no target.
I have no doubt that some will not use their weapons, at least not initially, but I cannot see 50% spending much time in combat and not firing their weapons. They are sure to loose some friends sooner of later and decide they nee dto get even if nothing else.
I don't believe we could have won the war in the Pacific if 1/2 the men refused to fire. Most men in WW-II understood that the only way home was to kill the enemy.
If 27 men shot at this guy it was not his day to die. Makes a great point though.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Can anyone make an educated guess as to the minimum number of shots an original Civil War revolver would have fired during the war?

kologha

Would depend greatly on who was carrying the revolver. If a Cavalry trooper or maybe an infantry officer who saw a lot of action it might be used a lot. But remember the revolver was a secondary weapon for most people in the Civil War.
If a cased set given to a general (Sam Colt gave every union General a case with a Navy and a Pocket revolver at the start of the war) it might be unfired.

Dan

 

[bavarialand]

i would say 342.
why-?

why not, givin the number of times you would have to pull your revolver and the fact you have no time to draw down aim and shoot. :v