I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[KingOfKindling]

The bushwackers would have had a ton of access to lots of guns, and no supply lines to deal with. At a pretty early point I'd image the weight of an extra revolver being more of a hindrance than a salvaged cylinder.

Would make a ton of sense for those guys to grab up spare cylinders, and leave what they couldn't carry.

Regular army would be a bit more controlled, I'd imagine their supply department had a bit more control over recovered materials.

 

[GreyGus]

Again, hung up on the military as the only ones using C&B revolvers.

We get it, no pouches and likely no spare cylinders as regular issue. Also, revolvers for the most part only were issued to cavalry who could more easily carry several pistols in lieu of reload. Yes, there were likely a few soldiers that bought carried their own and they could have had spare cylinders.

But what you are forgetting is that for the period of the C&B revolver there were a whole lot more civilians than military using them and the record shows that at least some of them were using spare cylinders, and even more of them were after cartridge conversions appeared. And these folks, lawmen investigatory agents, security agents, mail riders and armed civilians had a lot more use for spare cylinders. And we have documentation (in this thread) they were used, and these people would have been a lot more likely to just carry them in a pocket capped or uncapped than use a pouch

I think we can agree that as a matter of policy and doctrine the military did not issue or train their troops in the use of spare cylinders, but that there were a whole lot more people using C&B revolvers in the 19th century than just the military in military engagements The ads from Colt and Remington at the time showed spare cylinders for sale. Heck the very first practical C&B revolver, was not military issue, and it was specifically designed and sold to be reloaded "in the field" with the spare cylinder provided with the pistol a time of sale.

No, you are mistaken. I am not hung up on the military, just wanted to limit my comments to them ( as I clearly stated in my post). My post was not intended as a response to any particular previous post, and over the course of this lengthy thread, there has been several comments on if the military did or did not routinely use extra cylinders and/or pistols, and I wanted to give my position and why.

I left out the civilian side because, as I clearly stated, civilians could do whatever their preference and finances dictated. I doubt that the average civilian, the vast majority of which were farmers, ranchers, shopkeepers, etc. walked around with his pockets full of loaded extra cylinders for his 1851 navy or other pistol of choice, but I have no documentation to prove it, so it remains my personal speculation. Just as you are free to believe as you want.

 

[TNGhost]

No, you are mistaken. I am not hung up on the military, just wanted to limit my comments to them ( as I clearly stated in my post). My post was not intended as a response to any particular previous post, and over the course of this lengthy thread, there has been several comments on if the military did or did not routinely use extra cylinders and/or pistols, and I wanted to give my position and why.

I left out the civilian side because, as I clearly stated, civilians could do whatever their preference and finances dictated. I doubt that the average civilian, the vast majority of which were farmers, ranchers, shopkeepers, etc. walked around with his pockets full of loaded extra cylinders for his 1851 navy or other pistol of choice, but I have no documentation to prove it, so it remains my personal speculation. Just as you are free to believe as you want.

Well, what documentation there is, says it did happen, and I have seen none that said it didn't.

 

[TNGhost]

The bushwackers would have had a ton of access to lots of guns, and no supply lines to deal with. At a pretty early point I'd image the weight of an extra revolver being more of a hindrance than a salvaged cylinder.

Would make a ton of sense for those guys to grab up spare cylinders, and leave what they couldn't carry.

Regular army would be a bit more controlled, I'd imagine their supply department had a bit more control over recovered materials.

The military cavalry doctrine was attrit your enemy from range with your long gun, close on them using your handgun and engage and destroy them with the saber.

 

[TNGhost]

With the Colt, I would imagine, especially in Calvary environments that changing out the cylinders while on horse back would be an impossible task. I mean removing the all important wedge and not loosing it! then the barrel in one hand the grips and firing assembly in the other, your horse reins in your mouth and no flat stable surface to lay any of that down....On the Colt it would be impossible to change cylinders while riding a horse during an engagement, to many parts to control and too many tools required. Now, with the Remington I think it would be possible, fewer moving parts. However, Colt was the preferred weapon of the time. I believe they had more than one pistol and in some cases extra cylinders to use after the engagement was over(maybe) to speed up time it took to get to the chow line. In the Calvary, where these weapons would see action, the care of the horses came first and then your weapons before any relaxation or chow was consumed.

Yet the Rangers did it with the Patterson and had a practiced regiment for doing it.

 

[GreyGus]

Well, what documentation there is, says it did happen, and I have seen none that said it didn't.

I doubt many civilians would document not carrying an extra cylinder. The common and normal are seldom recorded. It is the unusual and rare that get noticed and talked about.

 

[TNGhost]

I doubt many civilians would document not carrying an extra cylinder. The common and normal are seldom recorded. It is the unusual and rare that get noticed and talked about.

So then you agree that swapping cylinders to reload was "common and normal" due to the scant documentation?

If it had been "rare" it would have been "noticed and talked about" right?

 

[GreyGus]

So then you agree that swapping cylinders to reload was "common and normal" due to the scant documentation?

If it had been "rare" it would have been "noticed and talked about" right?

You are contradicting yourself, In Your own post #383,
You keep talking about the documentation that exists for changing cylinders. The only strong documentation that I see refers to the Rangers use of the Colt Paterson. The Rangers were a relatively small unit, using a then state of the art firearm. That makes it uncommon and noteworthy, hence it gets documented. The first version with no loading lever coming with a spare cylinder. Someone else mentioned that once they were made with loading levers to facilitate faster reloading, the extra cylinders were omitted. In any case, extrapolating the practice of a low production revolver, that was obsolete with the introduction of the 1851 navy, to encompass practices with cap and ball revolvers in general would be quite a stretch.

My point about what is likely to be recorded or not was clear to anyone with reasonable reading comprehension, so were you intentionally misrepresenting my post because you have no logic to refute it? If that is the case, you are not the type of person I care to have an exchange with.

 

[TNGhost]

You are contradicting yourself, In Your own post #383,
You keep talking about the documentation that exists for changing cylinders. The only strong documentation that I see refers to the Rangers use of the Colt Paterson. The Rangers were a relatively small unit, using a then state of the art firearm. That makes it uncommon and noteworthy, hence it gets documented. The first version with no loading lever coming with a spare cylinder. Someone else mentioned that once they were made with loading levers to facilitate faster reloading, the extra cylinders were omitted. In any case, extrapolating the practice of a low production revolver, that was obsolete with the introduction of the 1851 navy, to encompass practices with cap and ball revolvers in general would be quite a stretch.

My point about what is likely to be recorded or not was clear to anyone with reasonable reading comprehension, so were you intentionally misrepresenting my post because you have no logic to refute it? If that is the case, you are not the type of person I care to have an exchange with.

Undeniably, the best-known example of this practice is that of Pony Express rider “Pony Bob” Haslam, who recorded that, just prior to riding across Nevada in 1860, he “adjusted…my Colt’s revolver, with two cylinders ready for use in case of emergency.”

And there are numerous other documented instances, some posted on this page by others.

But hey, you do you.

 

[nick_1]

They are not numerous when looked at in the context of how many first person accounts of fire arm use in the old west exist and the few times that spare cylinders are mentioned. Exceedingly rare is a more accurate description.