I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[Clark Badgett]

I would think that that would be a matter of when it was made and who made it?

Who made it and where it was made is immaterial. There were no NC or CNC machines at the time. There weren’t even milling machines as we know them, (they had been invented, but tech at that time wasn’t conducive to proper end mills like we have now). Milling was done by scraping. The common twist drill wasn’t invented until after the civil war, IIRC. Even on into most of the 20th century, revolvers still required hand fitting and tuning.

There quite possibly were some scattered individuals that took the time, effort and money to have an extra cylinder, but it certainly was not common. And besides all that, it’s quicker to slide ready made paper cartridges in each chamber and cap the nipples as it was to pull a tight wedge with a tool, disassemble, replace a cylinder and reassemble.

Most anyone that was in the situation to actually need extra firepower would carry multiples. Keep in mind, there were both civilian pommel holsters and saddle bags with holsters commonly available well into the cartridge era.

 

[KingOfKindling]

Who made it and where it was made is immaterial. There were no NC or CNC machines at the time. There weren’t even milling machines as we know them, (they had been invented, but tech at that time wasn’t conducive to proper end mills like we have now). Milling was done by scraping. The common twist drill wasn’t invented until after the civil war, IIRC. Even on into most of the 20th century, revolvers still required hand fitting and tuning.

There quite possibly were some scattered individuals that took the time, effort and money to have an extra cylinder, but it certainly was not common. And besides all that, it’s quicker to slide ready made paper cartridges in each chamber and cap the nipples as it was to pull a tight wedge with a tool, disassemble, replace a cylinder and reassemble.

Most anyone that was in the situation to actually need extra firepower would carry multiples. Keep in mind, there were both civilian pommel holsters and saddle bags with holsters commonly available well into the cartridge era.

Yeah, don't buy it. Who made it and when is a incredibly important. Might be true for the small guys, but the bigger companies like Colt and Remington were all in on the latest advances. Colt in particular was really big on making parts that could be swapped with minimal hand fitting, and just kept getting better and better at it.

Also, pretty sure the twist drill came before the war, or at the very beginning. Think it was Morse, who was a longtime friend of Sam Colt. Secondly, just because that type of drill wasn't common, doesn't mean there were not others. Also, basically all milling is done by scraping.

Would be really easy to test. Anyone got multiple originals you could try swapping cylinders on?

 

[M. De Land]

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

That is a fact I have some experience with including individual ratchet tooth filing to uniform hand /pawl lift !

 

[TNGhost]

Who made it and where it was made is immaterial. There were no NC or CNC machines at the time. There weren’t even milling machines as we know them, (they had been invented, but tech at that time wasn’t conducive to proper end mills like we have now). Milling was done by scraping. The common twist drill wasn’t invented until after the civil war, IIRC. Even on into most of the 20th century, revolvers still required hand fitting and tuning.

There quite possibly were some scattered individuals that took the time, effort and money to have an extra cylinder, but it certainly was not common. And besides all that, it’s quicker to slide ready made paper cartridges in each chamber and cap the nipples as it was to pull a tight wedge with a tool, disassemble, replace a cylinder and reassemble.

Most anyone that was in the situation to actually need extra firepower would carry multiples. Keep in mind, there were both civilian pommel holsters and saddle bags with holsters commonly available well into the cartridge era.

Well, there is the fact that large scale interchangeability was demonstrated not long after the American Revolution:

on July 8, 1785, Honoré Blanc demonstrated the first large scale interchangeability of complex mechanical parts in the courtyard of the Château de Vincennes by disassembling musket locks, mixing the parts, and assembling them again.

And Simion North and Eli Whitney both did extensive work on introducing interchangeable parts circa 1800 and for the first half of the 19th century a lot of progress was made, culminated with:

The method of creating interchangeable parts was almost, but not entirely, perfected during the Civil War.

https://www.menmachineandthecarbine.org/interchangeability

I say when and by who becuase it makes a difference, the technology passed down by Whitney (i.e. the Remington 1858) would have a bearing here as would the larger manufacturing entity of Remington, and with "when" you are talking about pre-CW, during CW or post CW, huge differences as there always are surrounding weapons manufacture and large-scale warfare.

Why would Remington advertise the availability of extra cylinders if they didn't work, or were not used? It is quite obvious that part of the design of the 1858 is the ability to quickly remove and replace a cylinder.

We also know that Remington and other makes were offered with the availability of one or more extra cylinders, so as far as "when" if the cylinders were made the same time as the pistol, surely, they were made to "drop in"? And if no one used such an accoutrement, why would the revolver manufacturers offer, advertise and sell it?

I don't know why there is so much "over thinking" on this subject. It is obvious the advantage and obvious extra cylinders were sold, and there is literary proof that the practice existed. Did some "expert" somewhere at some point say, "this never happened," and everyone ran with it? It flies in the face of common sense, like so many proclamations of "experts".

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

Does anyone make anything close to what a Whitney Musket was today?

 

[M. De Land]

Well, there is the fact that large scale interchangeability was demonstrated not long after the American Revolution:


And Simion North and Eli Whitney both did extensive work on introducing interchangeable parts circa 1800 and for the first half of the 19th century a lot of progress was made, culminated with:


https://www.menmachineandthecarbine.org/interchangeability

I say when and by who becuase it makes a difference, the technology passed down by Whitney (i.e. the Remington 1858) would have a bearing here as would the larger manufacturing entity of Remington, and with "when" you are talking about pre-CW, during CW or post CW, huge differences as there always are surrounding weapons manufacture and large-scale warfare.

Why would Remington advertise the availability of extra cylinders if they didn't work, or were not used? It is quite obvious that part of the design of the 1858 is the ability to quickly remove and replace a cylinder.

We also know that Remington and other makes were offered with the availability of one or more extra cylinders, so as far as "when" if the cylinders were made the same time as the pistol, surely, they were made to "drop in"? And if no one used such an accoutrement, why would the revolver manufacturers offer, advertise and sell it?

I don't know why there is so much "over thinking" on this subject. It is obvious the advantage and obvious extra cylinders were sold, and there is literary proof that the practice existed. Did some "expert" somewhere at some point say, "this never happened," and everyone ran with it? It flies in the face of common sense, like so many proclamations of "experts".

I just fit a new cylinder to a 62 Police about a year ago and all but two ratchet teeth required filing to uniform the pawl lift to be equal into bolt lock up with no binding. Even modern CNC driven machinery is only as accurate as it's calibration and tool wear tolerance allowance and maintenance schedule.
The new cylinder absolutely would not function in my revolver without hand fitting.
Tuning doesn't even begin until full function is established. Modern replicas are function fit from a pile/bin of machined parts and that is about all. If the turret mills, shapers and cutting tools are calibrated, sharpened and changed at tolerance schedules then the parts will assemble and function for years with no further help but are not as well mated/tuned to each other as they can be.. Most replica's have not been nor ever will be professionally tuned further than factory function level.
This is the nitch of tuning specialists !

 

[GreyGus]

I would think the referenced antique auction archive above, featuring a leather holster for the 1851 Colt issued by the Prussians with an integral cylinder pouch would be somewhat compelling.

As would the reproductions of ads by Remington for spare cylinders and the magazine article reprint discussing their use by the Pony Express (as told first person by a rider)

I suspect the pouch attached to the Prussian holster for the 1851 Colt was intended for prepackaged cartridges, not a spare cylinder.
This was similar to the practice of the US military.

The headline for the ad even described it as an ammunition pouch.

The description of how the pistols were acquired goes into detail listing the accessories that accompanied the pistols, but there is no mention of spare cylinders.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Well, there is the fact that large scale interchangeability was demonstrated not long after the American Revolution:


And Simion North and Eli Whitney both did extensive work on introducing interchangeable parts circa 1800 and for the first half of the 19th century a lot of progress was made, culminated with:


https://www.menmachineandthecarbine.org/interchangeability

I say when and by who becuase it makes a difference, the technology passed down by Whitney (i.e. the Remington 1858) would have a bearing here as would the larger manufacturing entity of Remington, and with "when" you are talking about pre-CW, during CW or post CW, huge differences as there always are surrounding weapons manufacture and large-scale warfare.

Why would Remington advertise the availability of extra cylinders if they didn't work, or were not used? It is quite obvious that part of the design of the 1858 is the ability to quickly remove and replace a cylinder.

We also know that Remington and other makes were offered with the availability of one or more extra cylinders, so as far as "when" if the cylinders were made the same time as the pistol, surely, they were made to "drop in"? And if no one used such an accoutrement, why would the revolver manufacturers offer, advertise and sell it?

I don't know why there is so much "over thinking" on this subject. It is obvious the advantage and obvious extra cylinders were sold, and there is literary proof that the practice existed. Did some "expert" somewhere at some point say, "this never happened," and everyone ran with it? It flies in the face of common sense, like so many proclamations of "experts".

The US government did not achieve interchangeability of musket parts until the M1842, and it wasn’t totally perfected even then. Prior to that it was only partial. Before anyone goes crowing about Eli Whitney and his achievements, they should probably do a little surface digging to find out the quality issues of his contract arms early on. And the French, nor English, for that matter didn’t have any better luck with interchangeability of parts either. There is a reason most firearms manufacturers had to devote at least some final assembly time towards hand fitting of parts even up until the past couple of decades.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Yeah, don't buy it. Who made it and when is a incredibly important. Might be true for the small guys, but the bigger companies like Colt and Remington were all in on the latest advances. Colt in particular was really big on making parts that could be swapped with minimal hand fitting, and just kept getting better and better at it.

Also, pretty sure the twist drill came before the war, or at the very beginning. Think it was Morse, who was a longtime friend of Sam Colt. Secondly, just because that type of drill wasn't common, doesn't mean there were not others. Also, basically all milling is done by scraping.

Would be really easy to test. Anyone got multiple originals you could try swapping cylinders on?

I just looked the twist drill up. Invented in 1861, patented in 1863. Yes, it was Morse. I knew it was sometime around that decade but for some reason 1867 was in my head.

 

[TNGhost]

The US government did not achieve interchangeability of musket parts until the M1842, and it wasn’t totally perfected even then. Prior to that it was only partial. Before anyone goes crowing about Eli Whitney and his achievements, they should probably do a little surface digging to find out the quality issues of his contract arms early on. And the French, nor English, for that matter didn’t have any better luck with interchangeability of parts either. There is a reason most firearms manufacturers had to devote at least some final assembly time towards hand fitting of parts even up until the past couple of decades.

Buy a stock new 1911 today in .45 ACP and chances are it won't feed hollow points without some hand fitting, which I am sure is the reason no one uses any hollow points, and folks in the future will look back and wonder why..

 

[Clark Badgett]

Buy a stock new 1911 today in .45 ACP and chances are it won't feed hollow points without some hand fitting, which I am sure is the reason no one uses any hollow points, and folks in the future will look back and wonder why..

Now go back 150 years to a time when most things weren’t standardized. Image when +/- .010” was a tight tolerance. Talk about the possibility of tolerance stacking. The old guys managed to do some incredible work when the slip jaw caliper was order if the day.

There is an important reason gun parts often had assembly number applied to them.

 

[Smokerr]

Why would Remington advertise the availability of extra cylinders if they didn't work, or were not used? It is quite obvious that part of the design of the 1858 is the ability to quickly remove and replace a cylinder.

What is obvious is that Remington Top Strap with the spindle system was a different take down for cleaning.

As for spares, as noted, a few did for specific reasons but not wide spread. Funny how many don't believe reports and data but will go back to old advertisements and news articles as gospel (assuming you are religious). I got a Subaru that advertises Auto Strop/Start, except it does not work where I live because its temp related and its too cold or cool most of the time. If Remington could not sell a gun, sure they might sell a cylinder to a guppy until they realized it had not purpose.

And they were boring rifle barrels back to the matchlock days. Accurately no, but bore they did. Same with a chamber. But you also see picture of guys around WWI straightening barrels because the bore was not straight. Al;ways a way to work around an issue (it may not be pretty and it may be non realistic like swapping cylinders amidst the carnage, but you can do it)

As for parts commonality, into WWI it was not there. A huge issue was the Model of 1917 Rifles, to issue non compatible or waist to compatible. They waited and that really was the wrong decision. A rifle in your hand is worth 10 waiting to be built compatible. Just put in IC mark on them until they met the spec.

And the numbers on parts were exactly for that reason. Lugers were hand fitted and had the last two SN numbers on all the parts. Some would fit ok and some would not, but only parts match ensured that it was a reliable functioning gun.

 

[AlexB]

I have four pietta 1858's and each one has a spare of its own.
All cylinders work on all the frames with zero issues.

 

[Trev]

I grew up on horseback in the 1950s, worked as six days a week, dark to dark, horseback ranch hand in the '60s etc. and I'm sure that if I still rode, that swapping a cylinder in a Remington would present no problem, if the replica is anything like the pieces in combat use. I got my reload time down to less than a minute for the 1858, on a bench back when I was shooting it a lot, but I would never attempt to reload that piece while on a horse.
I've seen men roll and light Bull Durham cigarettes while riding. FWIW a trained horse really doesn't need much hand direction so having both hands free for other duty isn't a big deal it's why reins are tied together or "roping reins" used. With a loop in one hand and the remaining rope in the other the horse has to be guided by other communications , knees for example or weight shifts.
Elmer Kieth mentions using spare cylinders several times, particularly in reference to the Pony Express riders where he says "at first each rider carried two six-shooters and a carbine but they soon dispensed with the carbine and second sixgun, carrying but one extra loaded and capped cylinder."
Just recently on another forum someone posted an image of a "Texas rig owned and carried by a Confederate officer "Col. F.S. Bass" with a story that it has a pouch for two extra cylinders.
I suppose that the cavalry troops were trained riders and mounted on trained horses and that makes me believe that they could easily have made cylinder swaps while traveling. If they had them. And while we don't have written proof or firsthand interviews that categorically prove they did have them , we also don't have written proof that they didn't have them.
Yes, carrying two or more hand guns into battle would be an advantage, if you had them. But having possession of two or three or six revolvers does not prevent one from also having multiple spare cylinders.
Mention was made that these extra cylinders that have been found were merely spare parts, if that was the case they would not be loaded.
We don't have records showing purchase of spare cylinders nor do we have proof that every revolver ever sold did not come with one or more fitted and timed spares. What we have is much speculation and some secondhand information passed on by writers who may or may not have done full research.
I'm sure it possible to change cylinders while horse back and I'm sure some must have done just that, as to how common it was I'm not sure but what ever those fighters did during conflict, they took those skills and likely those weapons with them when they went home.

 

[Bad Karma]

The US government did not achieve interchangeability of musket parts until the M1842, and it wasn’t totally perfected even then. Prior to that it was only partial. Before anyone goes crowing about Eli Whitney and his achievements, they should probably do a little surface digging to find out the quality issues of his contract arms early on. And the French, nor English, for that matter didn’t have any better luck with interchangeability of parts either. There is a reason most firearms manufacturers had to devote at least some final assembly time towards hand fitting of parts even up until the past couple of decades.

They hadn’t completely achieved it in 1970… tolerance stacking could and did render magazines useless and one bcg might or might not function in another upper. I never saw,this with 1911’s but they were well broken in by then.

 

[M. De Land]

I grew up on horseback in the 1950s, worked as six days a week, dark to dark, horseback ranch hand in the '60s etc. and I'm sure that if I still rode, that swapping a cylinder in a Remington would present no problem, if the replica is anything like the pieces in combat use. I got my reload time down to less than a minute for the 1858, on a bench back when I was shooting it a lot, but I would never attempt to reload that piece while on a horse.
I've seen men roll and light Bull Durham cigarettes while riding. FWIW a trained horse really doesn't need much hand direction so having both hands free for other duty isn't a big deal it's why reins are tied together or "roping reins" used. With a loop in one hand and the remaining rope in the other the horse has to be guided by other communications , knees for example or weight shifts.
Elmer Kieth mentions using spare cylinders several times, particularly in reference to the Pony Express riders where he says "at first each rider carried two six-shooters and a carbine but they soon dispensed with the carbine and second sixgun, carrying but one extra loaded and capped cylinder."
Just recently on another forum someone posted an image of a "Texas rig owned and carried by a Confederate officer "Col. F.S. Bass" with a story that it has a pouch for two extra cylinders.
I suppose that the cavalry troops were trained riders and mounted on trained horses and that makes me believe that they could easily have made cylinder swaps while traveling. If they had them. And while we don't have written proof or firsthand interviews that categorically prove they did have them , we also don't have written proof that they didn't have them.
Yes, carrying two or more hand guns into battle would be an advantage, if you had them. But having possession of two or three or sing revolvers does not prevent one from also having multiple spare cylinders.
Mention was made that these extra cylinders that have been found were merely spare parts, if that was the case they would not be loaded.
We don't have records showing purchase of spare cylinders nor do we have proof that every revolver ever sold did not come with one or more fitted and timed spares. What we have is much speculation and some secondhand information passed on by writers who may or may not have done full research.
I'm sure it possible to change cylinders while horse back and I'm sure some must have done just that, as to how common it was I'm not sure but what ever those fighters did during conflict, they took those skills and likely those weapons with them when they went home.

I never could get past the practical danger of carrying loaded and capped spare cylinders. It seems almost as risky as carrying a cocked and loaded hand gun in your belt with no safety. Drop it out of your belt pouch while attempting a fast reload and it likely would discharge as not.

 

[M. De Land]

I have four pietta 1858's and each one has a spare of its own.
All cylinders work on all the frames with zero issues.

I have a Pietta 58 with a spare cylinder that functions properly but the different bolt notch alignment makes chamber barrel misalignment and shoots to a different POA from the original cylinder. Change the cylinder and print a different , distinct group on target.

 

[Trev]

@M. De Land, I'm in doubt that I could accidentally discharge a loaded and capped Pietta cylinder using CCC caps, given the recessed cones and the forces of strike needed to fire the caps, however even if I thought of it as a risk, I doubt that it would deter me from having one in every pocket when riding into a close combat situation, which is already pretty high risk. Carried in a fitted leather box I believe it would be as safe (or safer because of the box cover) as the capped and loaded cylinder in the gun, the only danger time might be when transferring into the frame, if dropped but on a moving horse you'd be yards away when it hit the ground.

RE the misalignment of barrel and spare cylinder, that is what brought me to this forum in the first place, searching for input on the same situation. I have a couple of notions about improving that, but was hoping for someone who has already fixed one.

 

[AlexB]

I have a Pietta 58 with a spare cylinder that functions properly but the different bolt notch alignment makes chamber barrel misalignment and shoots to a different POA from the original cylinder. Change the cylinder and print a different , distinct group on target.

I am merely reporting my results they work.
Do they hit slightly different poa........do not and would not care its a in close piece.
If it hits 3" left of center mass at 25 feet or centers it the end results the same.