I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[TNGhost]

There is a massive amount of evidence that folks who intended to get in scraps and lively fights as they were called at the time carried multiple revolvers. I personally have not read any evidence of spare cylinder swap.

Well now you have:

https://truewestmagazine.com/article/got-a-spare/

 

[SDSmlf]

As to safety, I carry the revolver with a fully loaded and capped cylinder and don't perceive any greater danger in carrying a spare, if the cylinder is covered by a box/pouch lid. I can drop the frame just as easily as I could drop the cylinder.

And letting the hammer rest on a capped cylinder makes dropping the gun all that more exciting.

 

[TNGhost]

next post down from the pictures "The really best part of all is the Rig with it's Texas buckle. It consists of a '51 navy form fitting holster, a box to carry 2 spare cylinders, cartridge box and Bowie Knife. "
one of the images shows a cylinder in the box, whether they were with it when found is a question, but the other box was fitted for cartridges.
Not mine just something I came across when looking for a cylinder pouch/box ideas for my own use.

As to safety, I carry the revolver with a fully loaded and capped cylinder and don't perceive any greater danger in carrying a spare, if the cylinder is covered by a box/pouch lid. I can drop the frame just as easily as I could drop the cylinder. I think a charged cylinder uncapped would bother me a lot more.

Funny there have been a number of articles, ads and papers indicating the use of spare cylinder reloads in this thread, but yet those who say it never happened, seemed to have never seen them and say there is "no" evidence of such use. I wonder if they just post up what they think without reading anything, including the thread they are replying to?

 

[fireman1]

Funny there have been a number of articles, ads and papers indicating the use of spare cylinder reloads in this thread, but yet those who say it never happened, seemed to have never seen them and say there is "no" evidence of such use. I wonder if they just post up what they think without reading anything, including the thread they are replying to?

Reading comprehension is a lost art.

 

[Smokerr]

Well now you have:

And you will notice that the True West picture had two revolver? One for each hand?

Its not that you could not buy spares nor that they were completely unknown, its how realistic it was for almost anyone to be able to change on in combat on the fly.

Some years back I read an account of the Settlers and the Native American wars, Ohio country. There was one scout type who taught himself to reload a flintlock on the run. Could anyone do that? Nope. Clearly he had a fantastic dexterity and focus as well as a need.

But then in the case of pistols not carry the spare gun and be a heck of a lot faster?

 

[fireman1]

And you will notice that the True West picture had two revolver? One for each hand?

Its not that you could not buy spares nor that they were completely unknown, its how realistic it was for almost anyone to be able to change on in combat on the fly.

Some years back I read an account of the Settlers and the Native American wars, Ohio country. There was one scout type who taught himself to reload a flintlock on the run. Could anyone do that? Nope. Clearly he had a fantastic dexterity and focus as well as a need.

But then in the case of pistols not carry the spare gun and be a heck of a lot faster?

Reloading on the run was not some ultra rare gift. The gun advisor guy on LOTM taught Daniel Day Lewis to do it. It did not take that long.

 

[WalnutRed]

According to Allan Eckert in That Dark and Bloody River, anyone wishing to be a member of the border rangers had to be able to reload on the run.

 

[nick_1]

I am going to guess that gun belt pre dated the 51 and was possibly made for a Patterson. Very cool.

 

[TNGhost]

And you will notice that the True West picture had two revolver? One for each hand?

Its not that you could not buy spares nor that they were completely unknown, its how realistic it was for almost anyone to be able to change on in combat on the fly.

Some years back I read an account of the Settlers and the Native American wars, Ohio country. There was one scout type who taught himself to reload a flintlock on the run. Could anyone do that? Nope. Clearly he had a fantastic dexterity and focus as well as a need.

But then in the case of pistols not carry the spare gun and be a heck of a lot faster?

A spare gun would be heavier and bulkier, and contrary to most western movies the full size revolver was not the choice of most. Pocket pistols and more easily concealable models were more popular and adding another just added weight and concealability problems. Spare cylinders made much more sense. Yes, there were those that carried two or more pistols, but it isn't a one size fits all world now and wasn't then, just because it looked like it in the movies and in lore.

As far as learning to reload on the fly it was a skill required by cavalry troops, all of them. They trained to reload carbines, pistols and revolvers on a moving horse from the time firearms were first used. It would be just as "easy" (practice and hard work) to do it for most today. Heck most here could probably learn it easier than a new "smart phone" or programming their "VCR". You'd just need to make time by stepping away from the keyboard and putting your phone down.

 

[Bad Karma]

A spare gun would be heavier and bulkier, and contrary to most western movies the full size revolver was not the choice of most. Pocket pistols and more easily concealable models were more popular and adding another just added weight and concealability problems. Spare cylinders made much more sense. Yes, there were those that carried two or more pistols, but it isn't a one size fits all world now and wasn't then, just because it looked like it in the movies and in lore.

As far as learning to reload on the fly it was a skill required by cavalry troops, all of them. They trained to reload carbines, pistols and revolvers on a moving horse from the time firearms were first used. It would be just as "easy" (practice and hard work) to do it for most today. Heck most here could probably learn it easier than a new "smart phone" or programming their "VCR". You'd just need to make time by stepping away from the keyboard and putting your phone down.

And getting on a horse.

 

[rodwha]

That's what I thought, but presuming that troops didn't have felt wads nor extra cornmeal, to fill the chamber full, a flush load would mean a larger charge than if the ball was loaded 1/2" deep, and I wondered if given the rapid combustion of BP if the larger charge might offset the short travel distance. The things I've never thought about before list keeps growing.

I doubt they used 30 grn charges either, and they certainly didn’t use wads. But if the ball isn’t seated to 1/2” of the chamber mouth making a sort of barrel it would likely be going slower as it didn’t have time to build the pressure. There needs to be a barrel to make them useful.

 

[rodwha]

Well, I was unsuccessful in getting a read on the chronograph, kept spitting out errors. Perhaps the light wasn't good enough. I'll have to try on another day.

Did learn a bit more however. Full power loads still kick, so I decided to shoot a 2x4 while hiding behind a tree. Fired 3 shots, all 30 grains FFFg Swiss with the Johnson and Dow conical just barely below the chamber mouth.

1st shot just grazed it. 2nd embedded itself next to the graze, and the 3 split the thing in half.

Now this is an old 2x4, but I'd still say that's gonna do some damage to a person. Blood would be spilled for sure. It is funny how quickly they start tumbling, so damage would probably quickly drop off with range.

Apparently if you need to do a combat reload you can cut the time of the swap in half. Reattaching the barrel is unneeded.

If I can get an FPS reading, I think figuring out velocity changes with a free moving cylinder is just a bit of math.


View attachment 372026

View attachment 372027

View attachment 372028

View attachment 372029

View attachment 372030

Excellent test! I’d like to see how a ball compares so we can better see how much superior Swiss is to standard Goex and many other powders. Curious about the load you used seeing the damage done. Sure would leave a mark

 

[rodwha]

it would scare me!!!plus I would have to take a shower

No doubt! I like the idea of a spare cylinder but my paper cartridges work really well so I’d opt for that myself. Plus I’d need to have the cylinder sent out for reaming and chamfering.

 

[TNGhost]

No doubt! I like the idea of a spare cylinder but my paper cartridges work really well so I’d opt for that myself. Plus I’d need to have the cylinder sent out for reaming and chamfering.

With an open top those paper cartridges would work near as well as a spare cylinder. The only drawback would be more "moving pieces" to hold onto while reloading.

Where the spares shine is with the Whitneys/Remingtons. There is a reason that the Remington Pocket remains very popular even today.

 

[rodwha]

With an open top those paper cartridges would work near as well as a spare cylinder. The only drawback would be more "moving pieces" to hold onto while reloading.

Where the spares shine is with the Whitneys/Remingtons. There is a reason that the Remington Pocket remains very popular even today.

My first revolver was going to be a 2nd Model Dragoon until I spoke to my father who drove down with an ASM 1860 Army and a ROA. I didn’t like the streamlined Colts nor the silly fin of the loading lever on the NMA. Apparently the Ruger softened me up on the Remington design as I got one of those now too. Changing a cylinder on a Colt seems too much, as does the Ruger since the lever assembly will just fall apart.

I still like the older Colt models with the exception of their Pocket Police for some reason, even with the Pocket Navy as an option as well.

 

[shorthair]

Surprising how many misses there are at those ranges. Fine motor control goes all to hell…

When the bullets start flying your way it sure distracts your aim.

 

[shorthair]

Yep….. but I wonder why a recent study I saw showed in police shooting engagements averaged 3 meters or so, with 6 out 10 shots missing the intended target (less than 35% hitting) .

Personally, I would want every bit of accuracy I could squeeze out of a firearm in a real life or death situation gunfight once adrenaline, nerves and all that excitement kicks in, none of which improve accuracy. ‘Probably not a factor’ doesn’t get a passing grade with me.

I blame a big part of the lack of successful hits on the modern spray and pray practice. I mean most people figure if they have 15 shots that they don't have to use as much care as they would if they only had 5 shots available, then knew that it would be a minute or more before they were reloaded.

 

[shorthair]

Several years ago there was a hostage situation in my town and it ended when the police rushed the house and fired iirc 17 rounds hitting the villain with a single round but did manage to hit the 7 year old boy 5 times.
Speaks well for the top of the line training program........ NOT.

 

[Bad Karma]

I blame a big part of the lack of successful hits on the modern spray and pray practice. I mean most people figure if they have 15 shots that they don't have to use as much care as they would if they only had 5 shots available, then knew that it would be a minute or more before they were reloaded.

That and many people behave as if a wall of lead going out will somehow prevent hits from the incoming. You’re scared spitless and sure that any minute now one of those bullets or shrapnel or some damn thing will find you. It’s all to easy to just hit the switch and spray indiscriminately.

 

[SDSmlf]

I blame a big part of the lack of successful hits on the modern spray and pray practice. I mean most people figure if they have 15 shots that they don't have to use as much care as they would if they only had 5 shots available, then knew that it would be a minute or more before they were reloaded.

But did you not also tell us gun accuracy at gun fighting range was not a huge factor? Not sure how having only 5 shots can improve the accuracy of an inaccurate gun.

At the average gun fighting range of 5 - 15' a difference of a couple of inches is probably not a huge factor.