I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[Clark Badgett]

@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.

When was the last time you had to perform a reload under fire?

 

[Clark Badgett]

There was a site that had these guys testing things, one of which was how dangerous a chainfire would be. Lit off a chamber off to the side over a chronograph and 30 grns of 3F Goex and a ball only had 7 ft/lbs of energy and the conclusion was that it likely wouldn’t break the skin.

Back when I was a teenager 40 years ago, I had a 4 chamber chain fire in my CVA navy. There were 3 holes in the cardboard box I was using for a target. One was a particularly nasty tear because it was the one that hit the side of the barrel. The bottom chamber fired into the cut out on the barrel and messed up my loading arm. Had to save up for a new pistol after that. Those CVAs were pretty cheap and brass framed.

 

[Trev]

When was the last time you had to perform a reload under fire?

Point? are suggesting that under fire it would be easier to reload in the gun than to swap a cylinder? you've already emptied all six spare revolvers.
The post you quote is about perception of safety when carrying a capped cylinder, in a situation where that might be of least concern.

 

[nick_1]

I have zero problem carrying a loaded cylinder in my pocket as long as I do not have any other metal objects in the same pocket. I have some very nice leather cylinder holders that I use if I actually strap on a gun belt but if I am just stepping out back with the 58 in my hand I might have a space cylinder in my pocket. They seem to work just fine for hitting 5 and 6" steel plates. I have no doubt that skilled horseman can swap a 58 cylinder at a canter but personally if I was a horseman expecting trouble I would have a rifle/carbine and pistol on my saddle gear. I would also have two pistols on my person and then I would have a few extra cylinders either in pouches or pockets depending on how I had my belt rigged. a fresh pistol is always a lot faster reload than a cylinder swap. If I had a good repeating rifle that all changes and the bulk of your belt space is going to be rifle ammunition and perhaps just a single pistol for when that runs out. Still dont think it happened much in real life... if it did someone would have mentioned how fast so and so could reaload and how many folks he killed while doing so...

 

[TNGhost]

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.

Why would you have to carry it capped?

Uncapped would be nearly as fast as capped and cut out most of the is reloading regimen, particularly if you had a capper around your neck.

 

[Trev]

Of course spare revolvers would work well and were used. I only know of the spare cylinder use from Kieth, and a few shorts on the web. some with images of belt rigs or cased sets. Kieth seemed to think the cylinder change was common, I suppose based on his association with and interviews of Civil War veterans. He also mentions that soldiers who could afford revolvers bought them as personal weapons. With the idea that people don't write about the everyday common happenings or things that they expect (like free laces in new boots) and that we can't prove a negative, I'm happy to say sure it's possible and probable that it happened to some extent. Actual use of revolvers wasn't exactly common.

 

[Trev]

Uncapped would be nearly as fast as capped and cut out most of the is reloading regimen, particularly if you had a capper around your neck.

You don't think there would be a chance of powder loss through open cones? water contamination etc.?
I've read that the cones of those days were open tubes not the tiny holes that modern nipples have?

 

[M. De Land]

There was a site that had these guys testing things, one of which was how dangerous a chainfire would be. Lit off a chamber off to the side over a chronograph and 30 grns of 3F Goex and a ball only had 7 ft/lbs of energy and the conclusion was that it likely wouldn’t break the skin.

That would be an interesting velocity test to see how much is generated from a loaded cylinder. I bet it would certainly break the skin though.
I guess one would have to screw the barrel off and fire through the frame of a .58 Rem and try to get one through the screens for a velocity read which would be tough at ten feet or so.
I know the Deringer .41 rimfire with a 1.5- 2 inch barrel would put a slug well into a persons intestines to die a miserable death a week later.

 

[Trev]

Would there be less velocity if the ball was seated flush with the cylinder face or 1/2" deep?

 

[nick_1]

pointless to carry an uncapped cylinder. You will get humidity damage to the powder and it will be an exceptionally slow reload.

 

[Smokerr]

Have to agree with nick 1, if you are going to do it and count on it, it has to be capped.

Where I do disagree is jouncing on the back of a horse in combat trying to pull a cylinder out of a pistol, find a pocket or throw it away, get the other cylinder out of its pouch or storage, insert, spin until its centered and get the rod back in. The most skilled horseperson could spend years training to do that and not be able to do it. You average Calvary guy?

If you only have one gun and nothing else and on foot, yea a spare capped cylinder is possibly6 going to be faster than a cylinder you pout powder in, ball in and cap. I don't doubt nick 1 has the swap down pretty good.

Now I am not dinging on nick 1 here. I am just talking about people in general. Most do not do well under pressure. We have all seen the stats on how many misses trained officers have. You don't have people shooting at you on the practice range (and no realistic way to create that). A few people are cool as cucumbers and others range from getting jerky to freeze up.

All too many reports of replacement soldiers being the highest casualty group. They have not learned true combat. The ones that survive by luck and time to adjust, they tended to survive longer.

The reports of 20% of the shooters in the Civil War causing most of the casualties........ Those were the cool cucumbers. Others learned to do it but it was and is not a high percentage. Or the sound tracks of pilots in Iraq I first night, adrenaline through the top and excitement. As the days went on, ho hum, another radar sight, oh here comes a missile, chaff and flare, turn on the EW suite for that missile and radar, no big deal. These are guys who train all the time for that stuff. People really shooting at you take even those guys a while to calm down.

Ok, back to a spare cylinder change out. Call it 15 seconds at best. Are you standing there and getting shot at or did you duck to cover? Add 5 seconds. Now the other guy sees you stopped shooting and walks up to you and .........

Or if its that critical a situation, carry a spare gun. I don't disagree that some options are better than none but its a distant, poor and in most cases not realistic second option .

 

[nick_1]

well if you look at what I wrote I said that if I was a trained Horsman I would have two pistols on the saddle and at least two on my person if I didnt have a good repeating rifle.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Point? are suggesting that under fire it would be easier to reload in the gun than to swap a cylinder? you've already emptied all six spare revolvers.
The post you quote is about perception of safety when carrying a capped cylinder, in a situation where that might be of least concern.

No much harder under duress.

 

[Clark Badgett]

This discussion has degraded to the point of supposition. The best documentation of extra cylinders is an advertisement, and little else written to support this. Lotsa what ifs being touted as fact.

 

[Whitworth]

There was a site that had these guys testing things, one of which was how dangerous a chainfire would be. Lit off a chamber off to the side over a chronograph and 30 grns of 3F Goex and a ball only had 7 ft/lbs of energy and the conclusion was that it likely wouldn’t break the skin.

The huge flash will still get your attention though

 

[WalnutRed]

I've had two chainfires in my life, both were when I was still greasing the cylinder mouths. Although I honestly suspect one chainfire occurred because I was using #11 caps and one fell off. I'm not sure dropping a capped cylinder and a chainfire is an apples to apples comparison. The ball ricocheting of the frame, even slightly, would reduce velocity and therefor the energy. At one point in the American South West it was not unusual to find a SAA that has been "Mexicanized" by removing the barrel and ejector assembly to convert it into a pocket pistol. Not a lot of velocity but sufficient for across the card table distances. I have to think a dropped percussion cylinder, if the caps actually ignited, would have similar results. I also believe that caps would have to strike just right on a very hard surface, something highly unlikely in most of the Midwest or West in the 1800s. The cylinder landing on sod or sand and maybe even wood, would probably not cause the caps to ignite. The last time I was at the Log Cabin Shop they had a few odd percussion cylinders fairly cheap. This has me curious enough to pick up a couple different styles of cylinders and do drop tests. I think caps, corn meal filler and lead balls would be a good and safe duplication of dropping a loaded cylinder.

 

[Smokerr]

well if you look at what I wrote I said that if I was a trained Horsman I would have two pistols on the saddle and at least two on my person if I didnt have a good repeating rifle.

I actually did. Clearly you have worked things out that work for you.

But if you will note, I went onto a person on solid ground (well maybe a boat) and while more possible, reality is that the 2nd gun is the only option (or 6 guns) in a tight situation. The only exception I can think of is a group of people under cover and while one guy swaps cylinders in his multiple. guns while the other keep the opposition off them.

What is wrong to do is extrapolate what works for you from what works in general.

 

[WalnutRed]

"But if you will note, I went onto a person on solid ground (well maybe a boat) and while more possible, reality is that the 2nd gun is the only option (or 6 guns) in a tight situation. The only exception I can think of is a group of people under cover and while one guy swaps cylinders inot his multiple. guns while the other keep the opposition off them.

What is wrong to do is extrapolate what works for you from what works in general."

Smokerr. I think we're looking at the spare cylinder idea from two different perspectives. I do not have any reason to believe a cylinder swap was would have been done under fire, especially on an open top revolver. However I can see someone who lived outside carrying a spare cylinder carefully stored in their kit. Run into several days of rain and you start to question the loads in your percussion revolver. Once the rain stops, swap cylinders and deal with your potentially contaminated cylinder when you have time. Something like that is how I see the spare cylinder being carried and used. The archeological evidence is that some spare cylinders were being carried. I wish I knew how they were being carried and how they were used, but I don't.

 

[nick_1]

I must be really bad at writing what I intend to. A second and third or fourth pistol is the absolutely the way to go if you have a horse to carry them around. If you have a good repeating rifle then one or two pistols is enough. I did say that I think a very good horseman who has practiced with a 58 could probably swap a cylinder out while galloping but it would be a much better idea to simply pull out another pistol. I have not finished the Bill Cody book. So far he has only mentioned colt pistols. It was documented that he carried a Remington. Perhaps by the end of the book he will have a Remington? Perhaps he will switch out a cylinder? So far he has just pulled a second pistol when needed.

 

[SDSmlf]

I've read that the cones of those days were open tubes not the tiny holes that modern nipples have?

A lot of ‘interesting’ bits of information to read on the internet…. What are the actual measurements of the ‘tiny holes’ in the cones of original guns you have measured? It’s difficult to convert ‘tiny holes’ to a real number. The few original guns of ‘those days’ that I own plus some others that I have measured have ‘tiny holes’ in their cones that measure as small as .024”, actually smaller than the .028” to .030” found on contemporary guns. Also find it interesting to learn that original guns from ‘those days’ had cones while contemporary/modern guns have nipples.

Please share your actual measurements from some period guns.