The "Myth" of Cylinder Swapping?

[jbg]

I still stand behind my previous post. If cylinder swapping did happen, I believe it an extreme rarity. Battle shirts with pockets for paper cartridges not extra cylinders, the difficulty and the time consumed during swithching cylinders instead of just grabbing another pistol or one's saber, the lack of archeological evidence showing us all these "extra cylinders" all point to the lack of use of extra cylinders.

I have checked all of my reference books on arms and equipment of the " Late Unpleasantness" and have found nothing mentioned about extra cylinders, nor in any photos I have of arms and equipment have I found anything remotely resembling an appropriate leather accoutrement to carry a cylinder.

And as far as the Texas Ranger taking the sideplate off of his Winchester, any Marine will tell you that they are taught to dissassemble their weapon, and then reassemble it, blindfolded. Manila Joe Basilone spent a good part of a battle at Guadalcanal doing just that with several .30 cal. machine guns. Underfire and with no other light than that which came from the tracers of machineguns overhead. A lot of Vietnam vets will tell you how they had to do it with their M-16s when they were first issued.
About 10 years ago I brought a Garand. My dad, who had not picked one up since 1953 or so( and a Marine) was able to take it apart and then put it back together. Strictly from a 40+ year memory. Heck, just about every veteran that I showed it to, Marine or Army, could, and did.

 

[T.C.Albert]

OORahhh...but thats also why Colt added the forward assist to the M-16 so field stripping wasnt needed so often in in a fire fight...I doubt I could swap my Paterson cylinder on the fly, but then on an
early Paterson I sure couldnt "reload" a cylinder on the fly either, I can barely load it as it is at the kitchen table...I had always heard this cylinder swapping legend/myth/or practice was pretty much confined to Remingtons...and I was told this by an octogenerian shooter/collector over 20 years ago...so the story has had pretty firm roots for a long long time it would seem...no wonder we are confused.
TCA

 

[TANSTAAFL]

I can't imagine someone with maybe an eighth grade education would have the time during a battle to swap them, after disassembling the revolver(s).

Education should not be confused with intelligence, the former is learned, the latter is innate.

 

[Raider2000]

I have no proof of cylinder swapping in either Colt nor Remington revolvers of the time but I believer that the practice is more of a modern conception than is a historical precidence.

We all know that during the War of Northern Agression both sides carried as many revolvers as their cavalry soldiers could carry to keep in the fight & more than likely they did replace the weapon in a sash or holster & retrieve another due to the fact that every weapon was precious but we also have to remember that especially during the early part of the war Pistols were hard to come by & some soldiers were only armed with a Saber & possibly a Musketoon if they were lucky.

We also know of Cased Sets available from both Colt & Remington that included on some occasions at least 1 spare cylinder for the piece so the possibility of cylinder swapping was available & may have been performed on occasion but not on the large scale as some may think.

I have 2 spare cylinders for my Pietta 1858 NMA with the 5.5" barrel & can swap them quite quickly but like today I can only imagine that a person in the 1850's & 1860's probably needed only the 5-6 shots in the weapon to make the fight end & that even a spare revolver was unneccessary.

 

[rebel727]

Rebel

Emptying it and switching guns...but not dropping the gun they had. It takes a second to stick it back in the holster or sash. I just can't see them dropping something so valuable.

Dan

Maybe but I've read accounts of where they did. I know if I was in a running battle I'd want the next pistol as fast as I can get it. I don't think I'd want to try to re holster in a hurry while on a galloping horse. I'd drop it and try to find it later. Guns would be there for the taking by the victors anyway. I wasn't there so your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I have a feeling the revolvers were on lanyards and when they were dropped they just hung loose until the rider cleared the battle. Then they could be reloaded in preparation for the next attack. Throwing away a perfectly good revolver just doesn't make any sense.

 

[rebel727]

Different times, different mindset. Remember after a battle there would be plenty more to choose from. Just go pick'em up. No fees, no paperwork, no taxes, no waiting period. :grin:

 

[crockett]

DanChamberlain: well we are speaking of the Civil War, or at least that was your original post, and also a credible reference. The book I cited is at a local library so I'll have to check it out next time I'm there but if I remember correctly the statement was unclear as to whether he intended to carry a loaded cylinder and do a cylinder change or just have a spare in case the cylinder he had was damaged.
How many cylinders get damaged? I don't know but probably not many. It was sort of my impression that he intended to carry it loaded but that was just how I read it.
Now, all the safety bugs- read no farther......

I have played around with all forms of reloading. This is sort of dangerous stuff in some respects so I'll just give my findings.

The slowest form of reloading is from a flask and loose balls, the standard way it is usually done.

Combustible paper cartridges- DON'T go putting these in a just fired cylinder cause an ember will blow up the cartridge- I did mine pretending the gun had just been fired but it was an unfired cylinder. The time was considerably shorter and maybe 15 seconds longer than reloading a 1873 Colt Peacemaker cartridge gun in 45 Colt.

Next came the Colt 1873 Peacemaker- knock out the old cartridges and put in the new.

A little faster than the Colt 1873 Peacemaker was a cylinder change on a Colt 1851. If I recall I could do it in about 20 seconds, including capping the nipples. I read somewhere that the guys that did change cylinders took out the retaining screw on the wedge or left it loose enough the pull out the wedge to take off the barrel. Everyone says the Remington is better for a cylinder change but IMHO the Colt is better. The fit on the Colt is loose, you can knock things around pretty fast, on the Remington the fit of the pin is more precise and if you have fumbling fingers it can actually take longer- or that's my experience.

Fastest- just draw an extra gun.

If anyone is interested I could try calling Colt to see if they have a company historian and find out if Colt manufactured extra cylinders- they may have for a few presentation sets but I'd bet as a general rule they did not.

The extra cylinder may have been more common with a frontiersmen who didn't want to pack around a lot of extra pistols- I simply don't know. It could explain the Gregg quote.

Well, at least that's some of my experience on the matter :shocked2:

 

[Coot]

Different times, different mindset. Remember after a battle there would be plenty more to choose from. Just go pick'em up. No fees, no paperwork, no taxes, no waiting period. :grin:

I am only an old Navy guy but I don't think that the attitude ( :cursing: ) of a first sergeant towards a trooper who tosses an issue weapon away has evolved any in hundreds of years! :grin:

PS - the battlefield pickups went to the winning side which might be hard to predict in the heat of action. :wink:

 

[Erzulis boat]

Different times, different mindset. Remember after a battle there would be plenty more to choose from. Just go pick'em up. No fees, no paperwork, no taxes, no waiting period. :grin:

I would think that if you had an operable arm, and you knew that it would reliably fire, you would not discard it, and pick up another.

You could only "go pick em up" if you were victorious, and no soldier bets on that one. I was in the Army for a pretty long time, and we would never just swap an arm- not when your life was at stake.

 

[Poor Private]

On a civil war forum I posted the same question: And one of the responses was interesting to say the least. I will paraphrase.

The Federal Ordinance Department lists the following in it's "Instructions for Making Quarterly Returns":
Colt Army $3.57 ($20)
Colt Navy $3.09 ($18)
Lefaucheux $2.00 (13)
Savage $1.60 ($20)
Remington $2.00 ($12)
The cost in parentheses is the cost of a complete pistol. The other cost is the cost of a cylinder. In my estimation it seems that the federals were buying spare cylinders for pistols of all types.

 

[jbg]

In my estimation it seems that the federals were buying spare cylinders for pistols of all types.

Then where are they? I have not found a single example of a spare cylinder in any of the museums I have been to, not a single one in any book on equipment, not a single reference in any memoir I have read. One would think that if replacement cylinders were a common piece of equipment that there would have been at least several dug up somewhere.

With the Federal army being a regular source of resupply for the Confederate army, especially prior to 1864, one would think that there would have been at least a few found in either sides camps.

I am not saying they didn't exist, I just believe that the evidence points to their being a rarity.
I really hope this discussion does not devolve to the level of the Mongo Bowie discussion a few months back.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The Lefaucheux is a pin-fire cartridge revolver and it isn't likely that they would switch out cylinders. This sounds more like a list of replacement costs for revolvers and damaged parts.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Cavalry battles were pretty fluid. Might not get a chance to retrieve a dropped weapon. But, still, 30 pistols taken from the bodies of six dead Reb cavalry pretty much cements in my mind, that the quickest reload was an already loaded revolver.

I have three C&B revolvers within 3 feet of me right now. They ain't loaded...but they are always there on the mantle. I'd feel pretty comfortable if they were the only guns I had in the house for defense of home and hearth.

Thanks for all the replies.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Stryker



'unfortunately, slipped a .45 Colt's pistol cartridge into the magazine of his .44 Winchester and in attempting to throw a cartridge into his gun it jammed, catching him in a serious predicament. However, taking his knife from his pocket, the fearless Ranger coolly removed the screw that held the side plates of his Winchester together, took off the plates, removed the offending cartridge, replaced the plates, tightened up the screw, reloaded his gun, and began firing. It takes a man with iron nerve to do a thing like that, and you meet such a one but once in a lifetime.'

Hope that satisfies.

Regards

Dan

Getting the plates off gives access to the lifter cut out, removing the links allows putting the bolt to the far rear so the lifter can go back down. Then the mag spring unloads the ammo through the cut out in the lifter.
He knew how his gun worked or just had no choice.

Another Dan

 

[Dphar]

Few surviving Colts have lanyards so letting them drop on a lanyard would require a gun that had a lanyard unless it was passed though the TG which is a poor solution.
It is interesting in looking through "The William Locke Collection" which shows many cased Colts that all 4 pictured cased "Texas" Paterson's have extra cylinders 1 for each revolver. Hardly any of the later colts have extra cylinders in the case. One or two out of many.
Also remember that in most versions the Paterson required removing the cylinder to reload anyway with a separate loading tool, impossible to do horseback. I just loaned the book out about an hour ago and can't go through it right now.
This could be one of those things where both opinions are right to some extent. The cylinder swap may have been a common method with the Paterson and it fell out of favor with the advent of the attached loading lever.
I really doubt anyone intentionally dropped his revolver to draw another. This would have meant the revolver was lost forever to that user anyway.

Dan

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Maybe they had big pockets. In any case, I think they carried several revolvers in preference to swapping out cylinders. This would also free them from concerns about fouling gumming things up.

 

[jbg]

I had a talk with the former 1st Sergeant of my reenactgment unit. He insists that instead of caps, the cap pouch was used to carry an extra cylinder. it is the first I have heard of this argument, and am more than a little sceptical. Between us we have 7 cap pouches, all copies of originals. A cylinder fits in none of them.
Does anyone here have an opinion of this?

 

[Coot]

I had a talk with the former 1st Sergeant of my reenactgment unit. He insists that instead of caps, the cap pouch was used to carry an extra cylinder. it is the first I have heard of this argument, and am more than a little sceptical. Between us we have 7 cap pouches, all copies of originals. A cylinder fits in none of them.
Does anyone here have an opinion of this?

They are called cap pouches not cylinder pouches. "A cylinder fits in none of them". I think you have answered your own question.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Yup. There's no way a cylinder would fit in my cap pouch even if it was left open.