I have to rethink the spare cylinder idea

[Smokerr]

I will concede that spare cylinders were never carried in the American West, if someone can give a logical explanation on why loaded cylinders have turned u in excavations and building renovations in the American West.

Its called out of context. We do know there were a lot of conversion cylinders procured to replace the BP cylinders.

So, for each Conversion, you would created one excess BP cylinder.

So unless you find a cylinder on a layer that also has a carry pouch with it, context is not there. All you can say is you found a BP cylinder.

 

[TNGhost]

Its called out of context. We do know there were a lot of conversion cylinders procured to replace the BP cylinders.

So, for each Conversion, you would created one excess BP cylinder.

So unless you find a cylinder on a layer that also has a carry pouch with it, context is not there. All you can say is you found a BP cylinder.

You are discounting everyone who wasn't military. Only the military would have regularly had pouches.

Everyone seems to be hung up on this pouch thing because Clint had them in Pale Rider.

 

[fireman1]

Its called out of context. We do know there were a lot of conversion cylinders procured to replace the BP cylinders.

So, for each Conversion, you would created one excess BP cylinder.

So unless you find a cylinder on a layer that also has a carry pouch with it, context is not there. All you can say is you found a BP cylinder.

They must have just left them laying around loaded then.

 

[fireman1]

4 month and almost 400 posts and I bet NO ONE has changed their position on this one.

 

[Tenring]

There are post that I have seen about just common civil war foot soldiers bringing pistols from home with them and after being on a forced march saying they threw them away because of the unnecessary weight along with other objects such as there Great Coat and what not, so a spare cylinder I suppose wasn’t on the list. Just my two cents.

 

[Trev]

a single shot pistol from home to a foot soldier would be much different than a cylinder to a horse soldier in terms of of weight to worth.

 

[nick_1]

They were not single shot pistols. Many infantrymen posed for photos before they went off to war with personal weapons. Revolvers and bowie style knifes usually. They very quickly found out that forced marches suck and did what every infantryman on a hard ruck has done since the beginning of time. They threw away everything that was not absolutely crucial. The slackers threw away some crucial stuff as well. ...

 

[Tenring]

We’re not talking single shot ,from what the research said they were revolves. Got it..

 

[TNGhost]

They were not single shot pistols. Many infantrymen posed for photos before they went off to war with personal weapons. Revolvers and bowie style knifes usually. They very quickly found out that forced marches suck and did what every infantryman on a hard ruck has done since the beginning of time. They threw away everything that was not absolutely crucial. The slackers threw away some crucial stuff as well. ...

There were a lot of single shot pistols used in the civil war. Both from the military inventory and personal. Derringers were particularly favored. (Ask Booth)

What this has to do with the topic of this thread I don't know other than to confuse things

Bottom line is those of us who find it easier to put ourselves in the period in a practical logical manner, as we would solving situations today taking a living history approach, and those who see the past through the lens of modern media and stiff written history are not going to agree.

People then were the same as people now, some bright, some not so bright, and would have acted in the same ways. So, a spare cylinder being eminently practical, a practical logical person would have availed himself of that if possible

 

[nick_1]

you are thinking that with all of your acquired knowledge. Thinking with a modern brain and 21st century mind set. None of these folks had watched Pale rider.

 

[TNGhost]

you are thinking that with all of your acquired knowledge. Thinking with a modern brain and 21st century mind set. None of these folks had watched Pale rider.

My point exactly. In Pale Rider they had pouches, and so you say because there are no pouches found, no spare cylinders were used.

Saying someone is not knowledgeable enough to have used a spare cylinder is like saying today someone is not knowledgeable enough to want to use a revolver speed loader.

 

[KingOfKindling]

you are thinking that with all of your acquired knowledge. Thinking with a modern brain and 21st century mind set. None of these folks had watched Pale rider.

Not that again. Just cause movies didn't exist, doesn't mean other forms of media did not. I did post a newspaper article from the New York times not that long ago extolling the virtues of swapping cylinders in the Whitney.

The designer of the Whitney revolver, also designed the subsequent Remington revolvers. The Beals patent Army/Navies were first, so named for the loading lever patent that held the arbor pin in place. This was a big improvement in speed for removing the cylinder.

Next came the Old Model Army/Navies. They dropped the Beals patent and went to an even faster cylinder removal design. For this all you had to do was slide the base bin forward. No more fiddling with the loading lever to swap a cylinder. Unfortunately, after a bit of wear, the arbor pin could move on it's own in a holster, so the army went back to the Beals patent lever for the New Model Army/Navies. The ones that are cloned all over the place now and were made in the largest numbers during the war.

These are my revolvers showing what has to be done to the revolvers to remove the cylinders. Big New Model Army on the top, and the slightly smaller Old Model Navy on the bottom.

Clearly somebody was thinking about swapping cylinders, and not just to make cleaning faster.


The Texas rangers used Patersons with extra cylinders, it was written about, and I'm sure knowledge and stories of those events stuck around.

There are reports the military did trials with some of the first Dragoons with extra revolvers. I'm sure that was also talked about and spread around.

Somehow the Southern Guerrillas figured it out without Clint Eastwood time traveling.

The idea was out in the ether, no need for television.

 

[nick_1]

the southern gurrillas used multiple pistols. very well documented as did the Kansas regulators.

 

[Robroy]

With the Colt, I would imagine, especially in Calvary environments that changing out the cylinders while on horse back would be an impossible task. I mean removing the all important wedge and not loosing it! then the barrel in one hand the grips and firing assembly in the other, your horse reins in your mouth and no flat stable surface to lay any of that down....On the Colt it would be impossible to change cylinders while riding a horse during an engagement, to many parts to control and too many tools required. Now, with the Remington I think it would be possible, fewer moving parts. However, Colt was the preferred weapon of the time. I believe they had more than one pistol and in some cases extra cylinders to use after the engagement was over(maybe) to speed up time it took to get to the chow line. In the Calvary, where these weapons would see action, the care of the horses came first and then your weapons before any relaxation or chow was consumed.

 

[GreyGus]

You are discounting everyone who wasn't military. Only the military would have regularly had pouches.

Everyone seems to be hung up on this pouch thing because Clint had them in Pale Rider.

The military in the CW did not issue pouches for carrying spare cylinders. The issued pistol cartridge box was designed to carry prepackaged packets of paper cartridges. It is not nearly wide enough to accept a cylinder.
In preparing inventory for my Sutlery, I study lots of period procurement and issue documents. Never recall seeing a mention of cylinder pouches. Never saw an original at CW collector shows. So they carried them in their pockets right? Civil war cavalry jackets and the common “sack” or fatigue coat that often replaced them had no exterior pockets.

I have followed this thread for months. The extra cylinder supporters seem to rely on the logic that I would have done it, so they must have done it 160 years ago. But you are a civilian with disposable income. These guys were soldiers who carried what they were issued, and the army didn’t issue extra cylinders. And at $13 a month, they were lucky to be able to purchase the overpriced tobacco and canned peaches from their regimental Sutler. This assumes they were even available to purchase them as Colt was tied up with military contracts. My comments are limited to soldiers as civilians could do whatever they wanted, and could afford. But with the 1849 pocket pistol being colt’s most popular civilian product, it seems the average civilian placed a priority on ease of carry/ concealment, just as today.

it is possible that a few officers could have provided themselves with extra cylinder(s), as they were required to purchase their own weapons and uniforms. But this would be the exception and not normal or common for cavalry as a whole. Interesting, while regulations required officers to equip themselves with a sword, Carrying a pistol was optional.

I am not going to discuss extra pistols in this post, except to ask, has anyone seen a military issue holster designed for left side butt forward wear to balance the issue right side butt forward holster? The cavalry belt can only carry so much gear, but the horse,, the military quit issuing pommel holsters before the Civil War began.

 

[TNGhost]

The military in the CW did not issue pouches for carrying spare cylinders. The issued pistol cartridge box was designed to carry prepackaged packets of paper cartridges. It is not nearly wide enough to accept a cylinder.
In preparing inventory for my Sutlery, I study lots of period procurement and issue documents. Never recall seeing a mention of cylinder pouches. Never saw an original at CW collector shows. So they carried them in their pockets right? Civil war cavalry jackets and the common “sack” or fatigue coat that often replaced them had no exterior pockets.

I have followed this thread for months. The extra cylinder supporters seem to rely on the logic that I would have done it, so they must have done it 160 years ago. But you are a civilian with disposable income. These guys were soldiers who carried what they were issued, and the army didn’t issue extra cylinders. And at $13 a month, they were lucky to be able to purchase the overpriced tobacco and canned peaches from their regimental Sutler. This assumes they were even available to purchase them as Colt was tied up with military contracts. My comments are limited to soldiers as civilians could do whatever they wanted, and could afford. But with the 1849 pocket pistol being colt’s most popular civilian product, it seems the average civilian placed a priority on ease of carry/ concealment, just as today.

it is possible that a few officers could have provided themselves with extra cylinder(s), as they were required to purchase their own weapons and uniforms. But this would be the exception and not normal or common for cavalry as a whole. Interesting, while regulations required officers to equip themselves with a sword, Carrying a pistol was optional.

I am not going to discuss extra pistols in this post, except to ask, has anyone seen a military issue holster designed for left side butt forward wear to balance the issue right side butt forward holster? The cavalry belt can only carry so much gear, but the horse,, the military quit issuing pommel holsters before the Civil War began.

Again, hung up on the military as the only ones using C&B revolvers.

We get it, no pouches and likely no spare cylinders as regular issue. Also, revolvers for the most part only were issued to cavalry who could more easily carry several pistols in lieu of reload. Yes, there were likely a few soldiers that bought carried their own and they could have had spare cylinders.

But what you are forgetting is that for the period of the C&B revolver there were a whole lot more civilians than military using them and the record shows that at least some of them were using spare cylinders, and even more of them were after cartridge conversions appeared. And these folks, lawmen investigatory agents, security agents, mail riders and armed civilians had a lot more use for spare cylinders. And we have documentation (in this thread) they were used, and these people would have been a lot more likely to just carry them in a pocket capped or uncapped than use a pouch

I think we can agree that as a matter of policy and doctrine the military did not issue or train their troops in the use of spare cylinders, but that there were a whole lot more people using C&B revolvers in the 19th century than just the military in military engagements The ads from Colt and Remington at the time showed spare cylinders for sale. Heck the very first practical C&B revolver, was not military issue, and it was specifically designed and sold to be reloaded "in the field" with the spare cylinder provided with the pistol a time of sale.

 

[TNGhost]

the southern gurrillas used multiple pistols. very well documented as did the Kansas regulators.

And how many individuals, sheriffs, lawmen, investigators, detectives, civilians, many of whom concealed carry used "multiple pistols"?

And it is just a flat-out fact that the very first practical C&B revolver, the Patterson, was sold with a spare cylinder designed to be used for reloading. So, the idea of using a spare cylinder was not anywhere near novel, in fact it was the first thought that designers and users had from the outset. Reloading the cylinder on the gun was actually an afterthought by Colt.

 

[nick_1]

The early paterson had no loading lever and came with two cylinders, later versions had a loading lever and did not come with spare cylinders. Every first person account that I have read involving indian fighting with patersons specifically mentioned haveing two revolvers. In all of the first person accounts of old west scouting, trapping, mountain men, prospecting, gambling and indian fighting that I have read not a single refrence to spare cylinders. Many references to multiple revolvers, reloading rifles, pistols and shotguns after beating off a charge. I even just recently read a first person account of hiding in a washout trying to pour loose powder in his hand and get that down the barrel and get a ball seated without being seen but never a spare cylinder. Much written about how surprised the Indians were when the trappers had two pistols each for a total of 10 or 12 shots per man . never even once a mention of a spare cylinder.. Is what it is. keep watching spagetti westerns.

 

[KingOfKindling]

the southern gurrillas used multiple pistols. very well documented as did the Kansas regulators.

Using multiple pistols does not mean they did not also carry spare cylinders.

The author of this articles sites several books that say they carried spare cylinders in addition to multiple revolvers with the "Guerrilla Shirt" being a primitive version of a modern chest rig.

https://www.capandballrevolvers.com...of-multiple-cylinders-in-percussion-revolvers

If you wanted to dig deeper you could find those books and see what they used for sources.

 

[nick_1]

thats pretty much what I have read. The rangers with the early pattersons and one small order of dragoons. I had not read about the bushwackers having them. had always read of their great number of pistols carried. for some reason the practice did not become universally popular.