The "Myth" of Cylinder Swapping?

[Va.Manuf.06]

"Also, how could you guarantee that the caps would stay on?"

Back in the day the caps actually fit. Getting the proper size was not a problem. They were tight on the cylinder and pretty well sealed out moisture.

Dan
[/quote]


I have only owned three revolvers, an early production Navy Arms '58 Remington, a M1862 Colt Police, also Navy Arms and a "No Name" brass framed Colt '51. None had problems with caps falling off and they sealed the flash channel just fine using standard #11 caps. Still, with a cylinder loose in the pocket or wherever, the caps could have fallen off. Also, a pretty dangerous practice since a sharp blow to a cap on a nipple would cause the round to go off. I vote for an extra revolver if it could be had, if not, 6 rounds in a quick fight would likely be all that was needed. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[jbg]

While we now have some provenance that spare cylinders were at least occasionally issued, is anyone aware of any battlefield finds?
If there were, it might point to their being something more than a rarity.

 

[Dphar]

"Also, how could you guarantee that the caps would stay on?"

Back in the day the caps actually fit. Getting the proper size was not a problem. They were tight on the cylinder and pretty well sealed out moisture.

Dan

I have only owned three revolvers, an early production Navy Arms '58 Remington, a M1862 Colt Police, also Navy Arms and a "No Name" brass framed Colt '51. None had problems with caps falling off and they sealed the flash channel just fine using standard #11 caps. Still, with a cylinder loose in the pocket or wherever, the caps could have fallen off. Also, a pretty dangerous practice since a sharp blow to a cap on a nipple would cause the round to go off. I vote for an extra revolver if it could be had, if not, 6 rounds in a quick fight would likely be all that was needed. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
[/quote]

This is why I said its not resolvable. There are valid arguments for both.
I suspect that by the Civil War many simply carried extra revolvers if possible.
The lack of extra cylinders in cased Colts after the attached loading lever came about probably made it less likely that they were commonly issued.
By the same token the "technology" was known and it was a viable idea. The danger might not have been such that someone going into combat would have worried about the idea of the cylinder firing in a pouch or coat pocket as much as being gut stuck with a bayonet while trying to load an empty revolver. I used to carry hand grenades and smoke in my pockets. I also smuggled my own pistol overseas and carried it in a Bianchi X15 shoulder holster. I was an EM and nobody objected. So forgive me if I don't go with "what was issued" as a guide to what everyone carried.

Part of what I see here is people wanting the "right" answer or wanting to make their opinion the "right" one.
I think BOTH ideas are right. I have no doubt that some used extra cylinders and some, *probably* most, used extra revolvers. But saying everyone carried extra revolvers is wrong and stating that everyone carried extra cylinders is also wrong. There is no "right" answer. The best one could hope for is to assume from available information what was "typical". But this is not an absolute answer either.
Carrying more than 2 revolvers on one's person when horse back is going to be a PITA. Though it was apparently done. Carrying 2 on ones belt and 2 on the pommel is a better option. But this is not "typical".
In my opinion there is no answer that covers this as 100% right.
I am SURE there were men who used more that one cylinder and only 1 or 2 revolvers. I am equally sure there were some who had one revolver and no extra cylinder. I am equally sure that SOME used multiple pistols.
Trying to pin this down to some absolute that is all one or the other is just silly and is impossible to do.
If I had to make a statement as to "typical" for the average Union cavalryman in the Civil War I would say that one revolver, a Carbine and a Saber was probably "right". But this is not my field of expertise. Like everyone here I am making assumptions on limited statements from 140+ years ago and pictures of old revolvers in cases.
Trying the argue this to a point where everyone agrees is a waste of time since I am sure to a greater or lesser extent *everyone* is right.

BTW the first issue cartridge revolver required the cylinder be removed to load it. At least this is what I have read. The Remington with a 46 cal cartridge cylinder dropped into it.

Dan

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Dan, that was a well thought out and reasonable post. We still have to remember that standard issue for both Union and Confederate cavalry was ONE revolver and both sides had trouble getting enough revolvers to keep up with that number. Despite the fact that Mosby's troopers were recorded as carrying 3, 4 even 6 revolvers, they were the extreme exception, often being equipped from items from prisoners and enemy cavalry and supply trains in the rear area. They were an independent command and operated far differently than the average cavalry unit.

 

[redwing]

Well maybe but there are records of Union Inf. being issued revolvers. They also record that foot soldiers threw them down along the roads. They did not want the extra weight on those hot southern roads. Foot soldiers did not value handguns. So there were extra handguns around. :thumbsup:

 

[Poor Private]

Va. Manf:
Can you please site the documentation of the issue of only one pistol per man? Also the documentation of the carbine and sword issuing. I have heard the same thing but no-one has seen to put up the documentation . As Joe Friday said "Just the facts".

 

[Dphar]

Va. Manf:
Can you please site the documentation of the issue of only one pistol per man? Also the documentation of the carbine and sword issuing. I have heard the same thing but no-one has seen to put up the documentation . As Joe Friday said "Just the facts".

As I keep trying to point out there are NO SET "FACTS".
Many units were volunteers and often furnished their own weapons.
Buy or borrow, inter-library loan etc
"Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" by Garavaglia and Worman
Read the pertinent chapters on 1850s-60s cavalry arms 12 and 13.
You will find a WIDE variety.
For example and account by Lt. John Bell Hood of the Second Cavalry. July 1857 south Texas plains.

He is quoted by Garavaglia and Worman that each man carried "an Army rifle and a six shooter, a few of us had sabers and two revolvers, whilst I was armed with a double barreled shotgun and two Navy six-shooters"
Concerning a fight with Commanches he states "...if I had had two six shooters to a man I would have killed or wounded near all of them..."

So do we say they were armed with rifles and revolvers? Or sabers and revolvers? or double barreled shotguns and revolvers?
The we have the 1858 Ordnance Board recommending 2 Colt Dragoons with a shoulder stock and no long arm.
One officer reports going on missions (1857) with no long arms at all just Dragoon revolvers and sabers. Considering the long arm just so much excess baggage. He received a "sharp censure" by a commander whom he considered to lack the experience to do so.
In 1857 Company K of the Mounted rifles (via the just from West Point Lt. John DuBois) was a "...most splendidly armed one--rifles, sabers and pistols (six-shooters)..." But no uniforms.

If you read these chapters and can determine what was a "standard" for arming ANY unit in the US Army you have found something I missed.
You can glean that some experienced officers considered the revolver the premier cavalry arm. We learn that 2 revolvers per man was thought by many, the Ordnance Board for one, to be a very desirable option.
But there is little else.
The US Army between mid-1861 and mid-1862 purchased 2 different varieties of Colt revolvers along with 8 other designs PLUS some smoothbore horse pistols.
They actually bought more revolvers/handguns than carbines during this time.
Both sides had a vast array (by modern standards) of issue arms that varied in caliber, barrel length and action type and this was just the REVOLVERS.

Dan

 

[Poor Private]

Dan, I think you missed something.
Va.Manuf posted that it was standard issue of ONE pistol (notice the caps) of the Union and Confed. I was asking where in the offical records was it standard??? Go back and read his post #740. You highlighted and responded to the wrong person.
Also you quoted pre civil war ordinance standards(1858), and not during. And just because 1 type of weapon was bought more than another type does not mean they were issued. Take a look at weapons manufactured and not issued 1863 Remington rifle (commonly referred to Zouve), and the Rogers&Spencer pistol, to name just 2. Inference from one source is not fact.

 

[Dphar]

Dan, I think you missed something.
Va.Manuf posted that it was standard issue of ONE pistol (notice the caps) of the Union and Confed. I was asking where in the offical records was it standard??? Go back and read his post #740. You highlighted and responded to the wrong person.
Also you quoted pre civil war ordinance standards(1858), and not during. And just because 1 type of weapon was bought more than another type does not mean they were issued. Take a look at weapons manufactured and not issued 1863 Remington rifle (commonly referred to Zouve), and the Rogers&Spencer pistol, to name just 2. Inference from one source is not fact.

Get a copy of Firearms of the American West 1803-1865 and draw your own conclusions if you don't like what others come up with. They have an extensive bibliography so you can look up the stuff where they found it.

There is "General order 20" from New Mexico stating that if any Volunteer looses his Colt Army or Navy *revolver* he would be charged $40. I infer from this they were issued one. Books downstairs so I won't quote exactly. Civil War era can't recall the exact date.
Since the military was short on revolvers at least early on I doubt they were issuing pairs to everyone.
And some people bought their own so even if they had two and wrote it down or it was mentioned by someone else it does not mean that both or either were "issue".
I do not think this is resolvable unless some smoking gun document is found somewhere. Even then seems that the number of revolvers varied from man to man in the same unit. So what the higher ups were ordering or recommending may not have been what was done in real life.

Dan

 

[coehornboy]

I surmise that it may have been a possibility that some individuals carried an extra cylinder. But if it was done on a large scale, where are they now? Wouldn't they show up at gun shows, relic stores, etc, just as the original revolvers do? And wouldn't you see more original Colt's and Remington's with cylinders numbered different from the frames, etc when they were swapped out?

-nuff said. :v

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Well maybe but there are records of Union Inf. being issued revolvers. They also record that foot soldiers threw them down along the roads. They did not want the extra weight on those hot southern roads. Foot soldiers did not value handguns. So there were extra handguns around. :thumbsup:

Redwing, a thoughtful post but I am afraid that you have confused how the infantrymen received those pistols. Neither the Federal nor Confederate infantry were issued revolvers. True, infantry officers carried revolvers (their own personal property, officers had to purchase through "the trade" or could purchase them through regimental supply) and some NCOs were issued revolvers but the average private never received a revolver through actual government issue, never. What you are probably mistaking here is that early in the War, many troops on both sides did carry privately acquired revolvers and very often "dumped" them on the first long march, it was just a part of amateurs learning what they did and did not need. The revolver had no place in the disciplined, close order fighting that was the hallmark of the carnage of the Civil War, the musket and bayonet were all the weapons that an infantryman needed to use, the revolver and its ammunition only took up space and added weight to his load. Revolvers dropped by the infantry were picked up by the Qaurtermaster for possible issue to the cavalry.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Va. Manf:
Can you please site the documentation of the issue of only one pistol per man? Also the documentation of the carbine and sword issuing. I have heard the same thing but no-one has seen to put up the documentation . As Joe Friday said "Just the facts".

I do have to ask what documentation there is for more than one revolver being standard issue for a trooper on either side? Can I provide documentation for the standard issue of one pistol? I am sorry but I do not have a great deal of information on the standard issue of equipment to cavalry, my interests have always lain with the infantry but I can point you to exact documentation of the handling of weapons by the cavalry, including loading. See "Gilham's Manual for Volunteers and Militia", 1861, by Major William Gilham, Instructor of Tactics, and Commandant of Cadets at the Virginia Military Institute, a standard manual of the Confederate Army and used by state troops on both sides during the early War period. Gilham’s Manual is available as an exact reprint of the original 1861 edition originally published by Charles DeSilver of Philadelphia and reprinted through the efforts of Ken Mink of the reconstituted A Co. Fourth Virginia, Stonewall Brigade, Jackson’s Division. It is (or was) available through Fair Oaks Suttler but can be found with a search on Abe Books, three copies are currently available. It expands on and updates Scott and other early US Army manuals and its Article I, Army Organization, applying to Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry is standard. Article II discusses Arms and Ammunition (including the revolver and BTW, it does not mention the issue of extra cylinders). Article III through Article VI describe the training and maneuvering of the Infantry. Then we come to the important part for this discussion, Cavalry, discussed in Articles VII through X. Article VII, "School of the Trooper" goes through training the individual trooper which describes, in their order of importance, the "Saber Exercise", the "Manual for a Breech-loading Carbine, or Rifle, the Troopers Mounted" and, finally, the "Manual for Colt's Revolver". All are done mounted and the instruction for loading do not in any way refer to exchanging cylinders, only loading with cartridges, easily done with two hands while one is still controlling the reins.

Think about this: Maintaining control of the horse while exchanging cylinders would be nearly impossible since the gun (in the case of the Colt revolver) will be in 4 pieces (frame, two cylinders and barrel - oooh, and don't forget that pesky wedge, hope you don't loose that), more than one pair of hands can control especially on a restive mount with gunshots and screaming men and horses running around hell bent for leather! Admittedly, the number of pieces would be decreased if exchanging cylinders with a solid framed revolver like the Remington or Whitney, but you'd better hope that cylinder pin doesn't fall out.... It seems to me that those who want to say "reload by exchanging cylinders, its faster and easier" can only quote reference to Jeff Daniels in "Gettysburg" and Clint Eastwood in at least one film appearance. That's nice; Hollywood is certainly a great and accurate historical reference. Now, both of the above are great actors, there is no doubt about that but neither did any research on the "correct" method of handling a revolver during the mid-19th Century, those were decisions made by the director and/or a prop master and were done to look "cool" rather than historically accurate. Also, remember that both actors did this while they were standing with both feet planted on the ground, not on horseback.

For those that may have an interest in reading more on this subject, try the “Civil War Reenactors Forum” at this post started by our own Poor Private:
http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?p=97689

My favorite quote there? "I would call this Myth.... Busted!" That's the way I feel about it. Did the exchanging of cylinders happen? Maybe it did, but why? It is completely different from exchanging a magazine in an AK47. The magazine in an AK is meant to be changed when necessary, the Colt and other percussion revolver cylinders are not.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Thank you for your insight. I've often wondered why - if it was quicker to swap out a cylinder than to reach for another revolver - why known gunfighters didn't just carry extra cylinders, rather than an additional shooting iron on their off hip.

Of course, in combat, once you've exhausted your four or five revolvers, you have to reload sometime.

Regards

Dan

 

[sixgunner]

Ok, I know this is pretty heavy necroposting, but the debate is very interesting and I'd like to address one point that has been debated about carrying several revolvers: many argued that it would have been too cumbersome to carry, say, six Dragoon revolvers, and that's true, obviously.
But this wasn't usually the case. People carrying multiple revolvers usually carried Navy or Remington's Army revolvers, maybe a couple of Dragoons in saddle holsters and multiple Colt Pocket revolvers, which was extremely popular and very compact and light, tucked in the belt or in overcoat pockets, much like people today carry a primary handgun and a compact, pocket backup.
I've seen pictures of guys with a holstered Navy, one Navy un their hand and a Pocket or Police tucked in the belt or with the grip protruding by a pocket.
Two Navys and two 1848 or 1862 Pockets would give you 22 shots, with just 8-8.5 pounds of weight... Half of what 4 Dragoons would weigh.

 

[B P Arn]

 

[smoothshooter]

In the book "Colt Single Action from Patersons to Peacemakers" by Dennis Adler, going thru it real quick here are a few cased revolvers with extra cylinders.
Pgs. 24,26-29, 31, pages 33-38 shows cased
sets of Patersons with extra cylinders and the cases all have placement specific locations for the cylinders. Pg 78 model 1849 Pocket pistol includes an extra cylinder.
I also found on pages 148, 149- cased sets of a 1849 colt pocket and 2 1860 Colt armies with conversion cylinders (gasp).
When I mentioned to my son about documentation of using a 2nd cylinder in the field he stated.
In the Bible they don't ever say Jesus went to pee, or anyone else for that matter. So I guess because there is no documentation no-one took pees."
This book is colt specific, so the references I have is for only on colts. BUt with the ease of converting Remingtons I bet there is a pletera of them that came the same way. Why would 1 manufacturer sell that way and not another.

Extra cylinders MAY have been available for the Patersons because Colt had not started using the better steel yet that eliminated a lot of the bursting cylinders that the Dragoons were plagued with.
By the 1850’s better steel was available. I will not go so far as to say that no one ever did a loaded cylinder swap, but if these extra cylinders were widely availably, why are there no factory or retailer records of orders and sales of these cylinders from Remington or Colt? Yes, I am aware of the fire at Colt that destroyed a lot of their records.
my view is that the carrying of extra loaded cylinders is about 95% myth.
where they would have been particularly useful is in the Remington and Colt rifles and carbines, yet I am not aware of any evidence of their use in these guns either.

 

[smoothshooter]

Ok, I know this is pretty heavy necroposting, but the debate is very interesting and I'd like to address one point that has been debated about carrying several revolvers: many argued that it would have been too cumbersome to carry, say, six Dragoon revolvers, and that's true, obviously.
But this wasn't usually the case. People carrying multiple revolvers usually carried Navy or Remington's Army revolvers, maybe a couple of Dragoons in saddle holsters and multiple Colt Pocket revolvers, which was extremely popular and very compact and light, tucked in the belt or in overcoat pockets, much like people today carry a primary handgun and a compact, pocket backup.
I've seen pictures of guys with a holstered Navy, one Navy un their hand and a Pocket or Police tucked in the belt or with the grip protruding by a pocket.
Two Navys and two 1848 or 1862 Pockets would give you 22 shots, with just 8-8.5 pounds of weight... Half of what 4 Dragoons would weigh.

Remember that a lot of the guns and accessories shown in old photographs were photographer’s props.

 

[troy2000]

I'm in the camp that thinks extra revolvers were probably a whole lot more common than extra cylinders. I just can't picture a cavalryman or guerilla fumbling with both hands to swap out cylinders, on a moving horse in the heat of battle... and they were the ones likely to be armed with revolvers instead of long guns.

 

[eggwelder]

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.

trained soldiers tend to remain cool-headed enough to strip and reassemble their weapons under fire. There is a story recently perpetrated by one manufacturer that their support team received a phone call from a US Marine sniper team that was actively under fire and their weapon would not feed properly. The manufacturers support team listened to the marines describe the issue , determined the problem(bent magazine lips) and got them back in the fight.
I can see cylinder changes happening, but i don`t think it would have been normal practice, just like calling a manufacturer support team on a cell phone would not be considered normal in the heat of battle.
reloading a cylinder would probably have been more normal practice.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

It's difficult finding cased sets of Remingtons to view as they were less subject to the practice of embellishment, though I've seen some fine examples.

Your Bible anology is interesting, but totally illogical and meaningless. Since there are tons of references in which soldiers carried multiple pistols for the exact purpose of staying in the fight longer, one would think, if the practice of switching cylinders were commonplace, there would be adequate period references of it. That's the reason I'm asking.

Having a spare cylinder as an option, is not something that is beyond comprehension, but attempting to switch them out, even with a Remington (when a second or third gun is available as history indicates was a common practice) during combat seems a tad inconsistent with history.

There is no shortage of memoirs written by Civil War soldiers, in particular those romantic, yet hated guerilla fighters and mention is periodically made concerning the practice of carrying as many as 6 or more revolvers, but it appears lacking concerning the practice of multiple cylinders. Seems to me, if it were a viable practice, why would men resort to 20 pounds of iron, when they could resort to a greatly reduced weight in extra wheels for their hogs.

I'd have to say it's pretty much a modern myth, or so uncommon a practice as to be widely ignored by history.

Dan

The Rems seemed more a worksman's man's piece.