I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[Loyalist Dave]

I think we pretty much have determined that some folks carried spares, some carried extra handguns, and some only one handgun/no spare. Are we done or are we still discussing? Seems like a good thread with lots of referenced information ?

LD

 

[KingOfKindling]

I think we pretty much have determined that some folks carried spares, some carried extra handguns, and some only one handgun/no spare. Are we done or are we still discussing? Seems like a good thread with lots of referenced information ?

LD

Got a bit more to add.

Recently purchased a book by Daniel E. Williams, Jr. called The Whitney Navy Revolver. On page 15 he included a review/advertisement from the New York Times.



The Remington Old and New model Army revolvers were essentially clones of the Whitney that took the cylinder swapping mechanism even further.

I think an article like this one, alongside the progression of the cylinder swapping mechanism make it quite obvious that swapping cylinders was in the designers intentions. It would have also been a feature the general public was aware of, and would have wanted to have.

 

[nick_1]

except we have never seen a bit of historical evidence that this was actually done on the frontier or in the civil war.

 

[WalnutRed]

Well, if you are willing to overlook the number of cylinders without frames being found in abandoned buildings or excavated at many locations throughout the west then you are correct, there is no "historical" evidence for spare cylinders in use.

 

[Sparkplug]

Something I wonder...
When did cartridge cylinders come about? Where there kits that just swapped out with a little mod of the frame like we have now?

Could this swap possibly be the source of all of these cylinders?

 

[TNGhost]

Got a bit more to add.

Recently purchased a book by Daniel E. Williams, Jr. called The Whitney Navy Revolver. On page 15 he included a review/advertisement from the New York Times.

View attachment 370884

The Remington Old and New model Army revolvers were essentially clones of the Whitney that took the cylinder swapping mechanism even further.

I think an article like this one, alongside the progression of the cylinder swapping mechanism make it quite obvious that swapping cylinders was in the designers intentions. It would have also been a feature the general public was aware of, and would have wanted to have.

Seems pretty definitive to me. People carried spare cylinders as a quick reload.

 

[TNGhost]

Well, if you are willing to overlook the number of cylinders without frames being found in abandoned buildings or excavated at many locations throughout the west then you are correct, there is no "historical" evidence for spare cylinders in use.

There are a number of historical references and even artifacts in this thread. Why would they need to repeatedly document spare cylinders beyond the ads for sale and these stories? I would suspect most considered it "common sense" and self-evident.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Each cylinder has to be timed to the paw as well. Cylinders were not universal even in the same make.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Something I wonder...
When did cartridge cylinders come about? Where there kits that just swapped out with a little mod of the frame like we have now?

Could this swap possibly be the source of all of these cylinders?

Experimentation start approximately 1866. Colt tried a few different methods prior to the S&W bored through patent expired.

 

[nick_1]

How popular was the Whitney.? I have read quite a few first person accounts of Western scouts and mountain men. Many civil war history books. Never a single mention of cylinder swaps yet lots of other details about loading and firing and what types and brands of fire arms.

 

[Clark Badgett]

When it comes to revolvers, too many look at them with a more modern perspective. The most popular of the revolvers was the Colt (and others) pocket models in .31 cal and the copies and forgeries of such, the second was the .36 cal versions, and copies/forgeries. The larger .44 cal types were not overly popular with civilians as they were heavy beasts, especially prior to 1860. I don’t even think the Army really offered belt holsters for the Dragoon models, opting for pommel holsters that held 1 dragoon and 1 single shot for the enlisted.

 

[Smokerr]

Well, if you are willing to overlook the number of cylinders without frames being found in abandoned buildings or excavated at many locations throughout the west then you are correct, there is no "historical" evidence for spare cylinders in use.

Well what do you think they did with those BP cylinders when they got a Cartridge conversion? Yep, they dumped them.

Or do you think they would not carry spare cartridges for the Conversion? That and carry Caps and Balls and Powder on top of the cartridges.

I think an article like this one, alongside the progression of the cylinder swapping mechanism make it quite obvious that swapping cylinders was in the designers intentions. It would have also been a feature the general public was aware of, and would have wanted to have.

Or a type of Newspaper Hype. Whole world of difference between sitting on a shooting bench swapping out cylinders and doing it in action.

 

[WalnutRed]

I also think movies have made us overestimate the number of full sized revolvers that were actually CARRIED in the west between 1860 and 1900. One of my grandfathers uncles homesteaded in Kansas prior to the CW. He served in a Kansas Cav troop during the war and returned to Kansas. When he returned to the homestead he took with him his 31 caliber Bacon revolver and Spencer carbine, which a cousin still has. The one family photo in front of his soddy also shows what looks like a sporterized Springfield rifle musket, probably converted into a shotgun. Most western settlers were not gunslingers or cowboys. And those of use who for whatever reason have carried a sidearm on a regular bases can attest that they get heavy and get in the way. I've seen examples of chaps from the late 1800s that had sewn in holsters for period pocket pistols.

 

[AlexB]

This subject got me curious about the reality of ranchwork and carrying a full size Remington clone so I started trying it.
A pita on my belt even with suspenders constantly having to stop and adjust a definite hassle.
Switched to a well fitting shoulder rig and its pretty much a nonissue for most things.
My day is not nearly as physical as a day was in the 1860's either so I suspect the answer is depends.

 

[nick_1]

I have not finished Bill Cody's auto biography so perhaps he will mention a cylinder switch but so far its been one long gun. a single shot .50 cal needle cartridge rifle and several revolvers for added firepower.

 

[KingOfKindling]

How popular was the Whitney.? I have read quite a few first person accounts of Western scouts and mountain men. Many civil war history books. Never a single mention of cylinder swaps yet lots of other details about loading and firing and what types and brands of fire arms.

They were one of the bigger guys. Dwarfed by Colt of course. Though the first Colt Walkers were made by Whitney.

Think there were over 35,000 Whitney Navy's sold to the military. A similar number of pocket models were sold to civilians. The pocket was an analog to the Navy in the same way the colt pocket was to it's larger cousins. Nearly identical, just a smaller size and caliber.

Here's my .31 cal pocket, just about identical to the full size Navy.

One more tidbit, the Whitney Navy revolver, and the Remington Old/New army pistols were designed by the same guy. I'd say the intention for swapping cylinders carried on past the Whitney, and to the Remingtons.

 

[TNGhost]

Well what do you think they did with those BP cylinders when they got a Cartridge conversion? Yep, they dumped them.

Or do you think they would not carry spare cartridges for the Conversion? That and carry Caps and Balls and Powder on top of the cartridges.



Or a type of Newspaper Hype. Whole world of difference between sitting on a shooting bench swapping out cylinders and doing it in action.

Actually, there are references in this thread to people often possessing both types of cylinders, especially for the Remingtons, and especially on the frontier. Sometime int he early days of cartridges, they were hard to obtain, particularly in remote areas and the small towns of the west. However, lead and black powder were nearly always available, having been part of the supply chain for decades. So, if you were unable to obtain cartridges for your revolver, you went to your C&B cylinder, rather than just having a paperweight on your hip, until such time as you located ammo.

They were one of the bigger guys. Dwarfed by Colt of course. Though the first Colt Walkers were made by Whitney.

Think there were over 35,000 Whitney Navy's sold to the military. A similar number of pocket models were sold to civilians. The pocket was an analog to the Navy in the same way the colt pocket was to it's larger cousins. Nearly identical, just a smaller size and caliber.

Here's my .31 cal pocket, just about identical to the full size Navy.

One more tidbit, the Whitney Navy revolver, and the Remington Old/New army pistols were designed by the same guy. I'd say the intention for swapping cylinders carried on past the Whitney, and to the Remingtons.

Another post in this thread points out that Remington specifically advertised spare cylinders for quick reloads.

This thread does seem to have raised another question about this practice though, and that is why so many are so eager to debunk the practice of carrying a spare cylinder, when so many see it now, and likely saw it then, as simple common sense?

 

[TNGhost]

I also think movies have made us overestimate the number of full sized revolvers that were actually CARRIED in the west between 1860 and 1900. One of my grandfathers uncles homesteaded in Kansas prior to the CW. He served in a Kansas Cav troop during the war and returned to Kansas. When he returned to the homestead he took with him his 31 caliber Bacon revolver and Spencer carbine, which a cousin still has. The one family photo in front of his soddy also shows what looks like a sporterized Springfield rifle musket, probably converted into a shotgun. Most western settlers were not gunslingers or cowboys. And those of use who for whatever reason have carried a sidearm on a regular bases can attest that they get heavy and get in the way. I've seen examples of chaps from the late 1800s that had sewn in holsters for period pocket pistols.

Also, the vast majority of Civil War soldiers were not issued revolvers. A simple look at the number of long guns vs the number of revolvers issued reveals that. Revolvers were pretty much confined to cavalry and officers, while the bulk of the forces, infantry afoot, never were issued pistols, although some more wealthy individuals may have sprung for their own, but then they would have likely been on their own for ammo as well and would likely have chosen the smaller pistols you refer to.

 

[nick_1]

Interesting how people reference posts in this thread like they prove something. I read it on the Internet... Find me a single period first person account of a scout, soldier or frontiersmen changing cylinders to reload in the field.

 

[WalnutRed]

"Interesting how people reference posts in this thread like they prove something. I read it on the Internet... Find me a single period first person account of a scout, soldier or frontiersmen changing cylinders to reload in the field."

Or for that matter a first person account of someone actually using an outhouse in the west. I think all of the ones you see passing through ghost towns are actually just left over movie props. Just because the physical historical artifact exists is no proof anyone actually used them. There are movie references to outhouse being used, but I've never seen a period written account.