I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[fubar22]

I often read that Civil War cavalrymen carried spare cylinders and reloaded with them in the saddle. Since I picked up a Remington New Army reproduction and actually tried swapping cylinders, I have come to doubt that. It's a two-handed operation that requires manipulation of the hammer position, cylinder, cylinder pin and loading lever. I can manage it easily enough at the range with both feet on the ground, but can't picture doing it on horseback in the middle of a gunfight. Carrying capped and loaded cylinders seems like a pretty risky proposition and uncapped cylinders aren't going to be much help. Clint Eastwood seems to manage it easily enough, but I wouldn't try it. A second (or third) loaded revolver seems like a better idea.

 

[Ed C.]

I often read that Civil War cavalrymen carried spare cylinders and reloaded with them in the saddle. Since I picked up a Remington New Army reproduction and actually tried swapping cylinders, I have come to doubt that. It's a two-handed operation that requires manipulation of the hammer position, cylinder, cylinder pin and loading lever. I can manage it easily enough at the range with both feet on the ground, but can't picture doing it on horseback in the middle of a gunfight. Carrying capped and loaded cylinders seems like a pretty risky proposition and uncapped cylinders aren't going to be much help. Clint Eastwood seems to manage it easily enough, but I wouldn't try it. A second (or third) loaded revolver seems like a better idea.

I think Clint either practiced that a lot or had a gun tuned for an easy swap. Some will be easier to swap than others.

 

[AlexB]

I swap cylinders all the time shooting for fun.
Only hard part is cleaning all the cylinders afterwards.

 

[TNGhost]

I often read that Civil War cavalrymen carried spare cylinders and reloaded with them in the saddle. Since I picked up a Remington New Army reproduction and actually tried swapping cylinders, I have come to doubt that. It's a two-handed operation that requires manipulation of the hammer position, cylinder, cylinder pin and loading lever. I can manage it easily enough at the range with both feet on the ground, but can't picture doing it on horseback in the middle of a gunfight. Carrying capped and loaded cylinders seems like a pretty risky proposition and uncapped cylinders aren't going to be much help. Clint Eastwood seems to manage it easily enough, but I wouldn't try it. A second (or third) loaded revolver seems like a better idea.

Those cavalrymen were gifted highly skilled and trained horsemen who generally carried a rifle or shotgun (sometime both) revolvers and a saber, and were able to employ all three easily, riding a horse with both hands free is not that big a trick, especially if the horse is standing still. The trained to reload their long guns in the saddle so I would think they did the same with their revolvers.

As far as "in the middle of a gunfight", one could, being mounted, move off and disengage momentarily.

Although I would think that a cavalryman would be less likely to carry spare cylinders and more likely to carry extra revolvers, due to being mounted and not having to carry them himself, he also had a saber that foot soldiers didn't for the most part and it was employed in close quarters, the revolver merely being a tool to close with form rifle range to saber range.

 

[M. De Land]

I often read that Civil War cavalrymen carried spare cylinders and reloaded with them in the saddle. Since I picked up a Remington New Army reproduction and actually tried swapping cylinders, I have come to doubt that. It's a two-handed operation that requires manipulation of the hammer position, cylinder, cylinder pin and loading lever. I can manage it easily enough at the range with both feet on the ground, but can't picture doing it on horseback in the middle of a gunfight. Carrying capped and loaded cylinders seems like a pretty risky proposition and uncapped cylinders aren't going to be much help. Clint Eastwood seems to manage it easily enough, but I wouldn't try it. A second (or third) loaded revolver seems like a better idea.

I expect it was far more likely that cavalry troops carried multiple pistols rather than dangerously carried loaded and capped cylinders ! I think I read in one of Keith's books that the technique used was to shoot multiple pistols dry, then resort to the sabre to cut ones way clear, gallop out of range to reload, reform and charge again .
Also it must be remembered that only officers and cavalry troops were issued pistols not infantry and I doubt it would take long to recover spare/extra pistols off a battle field.

 

[Smokerr]

Heck, they would not need a holster. They could slip the revolver in the waistband of their pants.

Carrying a gun like that all to close to parts near and dear has no appeal!

 

[M. De Land]

Carrying a gun like that all to close to parts near and dear has no appeal!

Yeah, can you imagine a chain fire in your britches ! The muzzle blast would probably do as much damage as the projectiles !

 

[briantllb]

I think Clint either practiced that a lot or had a gun tuned for an easy swap. Some will be easier to swap than others.

Also the magic of cinematography would make it a lot easier for Clint to do it.

 

[Mad L]

One can also look at it this way:
How many moder unmentionable owners only own the extra clip that came with the firearm vs how many have purchased two or four extra clips....them 'extras' when loaded most definitely add weight when transporting, this I know as I have four for each.

I know, unmentionable clips can be swapped out with a mere push of a button and Slap of the new....but nothing was so easy back in the day, but the wish it was and that is why today it is.

Bottom line, which would be faster:
1 - reloading six Chambers under stress.
or
2 - swapping the cylinder with a fully loaded one.

Even seconds can count.

 

[Ed C.]

One can also look at it this way:
How many moder unmentionable owners only own the extra clip that came with the firearm vs how many have purchased two or four extra clips....them 'extras' when loaded most definitely add weight when transporting, this I know as I have four for each.

I know, unmentionable clips can be swapped out with a mere push of a button and Slap of the new....but nothing was so easy back in the day, but the wish it was and that is why today it is.

Bottom line, which would be faster:
1 - reloading six Chambers under stress.
or
2 - swapping the cylinder with a fully loaded one.

Even seconds can count.

Or 3-pulling an extra gun.

 

[M. De Land]

One can also look at it this way:
How many moder unmentionable owners only own the extra clip that came with the firearm vs how many have purchased two or four extra clips....them 'extras' when loaded most definitely add weight when transporting, this I know as I have four for each.

I know, unmentionable clips can be swapped out with a mere push of a button and Slap of the new....but nothing was so easy back in the day, but the wish it was and that is why today it is.

Bottom line, which would be faster:
1 - reloading six Chambers under stress.
or
2 - swapping the cylinder with a fully loaded one.

Even seconds can count.

Well the revolvers were not to my knowledge originally issued with an extra cylinder so I think the very idea of multiple extra loaded cylinders unlikely in general. It would be far more likely that extra revolvers where squired from the battle field in my opinion.
Also reloading loose components, even cartridges , extra cylinder replacement and re- capping on a moving horse more than problematic in the middle of a mealy.
We also forget I think how cavalry operates and that is with a charge through to break up infantry cohesion and order. The notion of fighting from horse back round and round as we often see in the movies is not actually how cavalry operates but rather a moving body of horse flesh through the enemy running over the top of infantry.
Reloading would have of practical necessity taken place after a charge through and move out of range with either a whole revolver or separate cylinder.

 

[TNGhost]

Or 3-pulling an extra gun.

Weight is the drawback there, not so much for cavalry, but for someone on foot, yes.

The tactical operators of the day likely carried both

 

[Mad L]

Or 3-pulling an extra gun.

I do, three actually, four clip each.

 

[Mad L]

Well the revolvers were not to my knowledge originally issued with an extra cylinder so I think the very idea of multiple extra loaded cylinders unlikely in general. It would be far more likely that extra revolvers where squired from the battle field in my opinion.
Also reloading loose components, even cartridges , extra cylinder replacement and re- capping on a moving horse more than problematic in the middle of a mealy.
We also forget I think how cavalry operates and that is with a charge through to break up infantry cohesion and order. The notion of fighting from horse back round and round as we often see in the movies is not actually how cavalry operates but rather a moving body of horse flesh through the enemy running over the top of infantry.
Reloading would have of practical necessity taken place after a charge through and move out of range with either a whole revolver or separate cylinder.

I did say there are basically two groups...for argument they can with detail be broken down in 8, 12, even a couple dozen fragmented groups.
But for basic explanation:
One group uses what they are issued, another groups aquires more...not saying that those who sought or had intention of acquiring an extra cylinder would turn down an extra pistol...if they sought out a second cylinder then they certainly were not fools..
"Naw, I just want the spare cylinder, you keep the pistol..."

Oh, and let's not forget: No one took time to clean their firearms...so I guess the replacements the better (you, guns were cheap and everyone was rolling in cash)
*satire in case you thought otherwise *