I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[WalnutRed]

Last week wife and I visited Cody Wyoming. Among others we visited the Museum of Relic Firearms. In his display cases were many loaded percussion cylinders which had been found without frames.

I still don't believe cylinders were swapped out in the heat of battle or on horseback. But there we too many lone cylinders for spare cylinders to have not been carried by some.

 

[Eutycus]

It is not an impossibility but I still think spare cylinders had a spare revolver wrapped around them.

 

[Ed C.]

Interesting and controversial topic. There is evidence of the Texas Rangers using spare cylinders with their Patersons. Past that it may have been done but was not a common practice. People serious about staying alive in battles seemed to go with carrying more guns.

 

[AlexB]

Personally I would have had as many of both I could afford or carry.

 

[WalnutRed]

But you have to let the historical evidence tell it's own story. Why so many loose, loaded cylinders if not carried as spares? Any extra gear takes energy to transport. You could probably carry an extra cylinder or two easier than a spare revolver.

 

[Ed C.]

But you have to let the historical evidence tell it's own story. Why so many loose, loaded cylinders if not carried as spares? Any extra gear takes energy to transport. You could probably carry an extra cylinder or two easier than a spare revolver.

Not saying it was not done, just does not seem to be a common practice. Where are the belts and pouches that would have carried these? Imagine you are in gunfight and need to reload your revolver. Say it is an open top. You have to tap out the wedge. What are using to do that? Then worry about it falling into the grass. Now you have to handle the frame, the barrel, and a cylinder and replace the cylinder. How many hands do you have? Don't drop anything especially if you are on a horse. And assemble the gun. While being shot at. Common sense says I'd rather carry a little more weight and have the extra firepower at the ready if needed. The Remington is more friendly to cylinder swaps but it still takes some fiddling to insert the new cylinder. And what were the manufacturing standards back then? Were cylinders hand fitted? Would they be universally interchangeable? The Patersons were sold with an extra cylinder as part of the package so those were fitted to the gun. Search around. Not much documentation or mention of this being a thing.

 

[WalnutRed]

Maybe then as now most gunfights were settled in 5 or less shots. A spare cylinder could have been wrapped in oilcloth and carried in a saddle bag. I'm not saying that I believe a cylinder swap would have happened in the middle of a fight. However there is also weather to consider. If it was raining or snowing it would make more sense to swap cylinders after the shooting was done , than to reload either loose powder or nitrate cartridges. Someone was carrying these loose cylinders or they could not have become lost.

 

[Ed C.]

We seem to have a pretty good idea of the number of guns produced by both Colt and Remington. I wonder if there were any records of the number of spare cylinders produced?

 

[WalnutRed]

Interesting thought. My suspicion though is that most of these cylinders were obtained in the field. From damaged revolvers.

 

[Smokerr]

Fun to speculate but we will never know. You had two major and how many less mfgs of revolvers and so far no one has reported cylinder records. And clearly if any were procured it was not for a combat reload.

Army/Navy procurement would tell you if the govt ordered spares (no reports of that I have seen either).

Individuals? Certainly possible but again records?

If there is any credence to spare cylinders it would look to be individuals and I could figure a number of reason for that, fast reload of course not being one of them. But carry a spare cylinder and a 2nd revolver and you could certainly ensure you had a loaded revolver if you were in cover. Or as noted, if the weather did not allow a reload.

 

[cynthialee]

Common or rare???

What is the metric one would use to state a thing was common or rare?

WalnutRed has a solid point. Cylinders have been found sans a gun leading to the suggestion it was a spare. And enough have been found in various places to show it wasn't a singular individual. Therefore the idea was in play for some folks.

Common as in everyone was doing it? No.
Common as in many folks did it? Yes.

I hate that 'well it wasn't common' thing when we know a thing was done but it doesn't seem enough folks did the thing to say it was a thing done...??!
What is the metric of common?! How many people have to have done a thing in the past for it to be acceptable in a portrayal or period kit?

 

[TNGhost]

Short article but interesting reading:

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

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.”

For irrefutable documentation of the practice, one can refer to a number of studies by respected firearms historians, R.L. Wilson, Roy Marcot and R. Bruce McDowell, who not only write about it, but also show numerous photos of revolvers produced with spare cylinders. The manufacture of revolvers with extra cylinders was not uncommon, with some revolver makers, like Remington, advertising the sale of extra cylinders.

Later, when the first self-contained metallic cartridge revolvers appeared, arms producers found it expedient to offer their metallic cartridge revolvers with an optional percussion cylinder, for use in the event that the new copper cartridges were not always available in certain remote locales.

And then there is this:

https://stewartsmilitaryantiques.co...pouch-1851-colt-navy-pistol.46447.archive.htm

 

[SDSmlf]

What is the metric of common?! How many people have to have done a thing in the past for it to be acceptable in a portrayal or period kit?

Guess it’s up to the subject matter experts that rely on documentation of things. I wasn’t there so I don’t know.

 

[Ed C.]

We know that the first revolvers, the Colt Patersons, were sold with an extra cylinder. It stands to reason that this would carry over to some degree. How much? Who knows? What we don't seem to have is:
1)Any CW Period cavalry manual that while usually describing anything and everything never mention spare cylinders or how to use them.
2)Period images of cavalrymen with them.
3)Manufacturer records and contract terms for arms plus parts. (For example, Colt supplied smallish "X" number of certain spare parts for armorer-type "field' repairs.)
4)Unit inspections and inventories of firearms, accouterments, and equipment on hand and present.
5)Issuance receipts/records
6)Arms requisition papers.
So, while I believe spare cylinders may have been carried I don't think it was a common practice and not a practical means of reloading in a battle.

 

[SDSmlf]

We know that the first revolvers, the Colt Patersons, were sold with an extra cylinder.

I guess I have lead a sheltered life, as this is the first I have heard of the extra cylinder being sold with Colt Pattersons. Please share with us your reference. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Sir Boniface Harrison]

The Remington is more friendly to cylinder swaps but it still takes some fiddling to insert the new cylinder.

I have this down to about 20 seconds. So it is at least practical.