Myth or Fact? Use of spare pistol cylinders.

[Poor Private]

On another forum there is a discussion concerning the use of spare cylinders. One person says the use of spares are a myth since he can't find documentation of thier use. Others say it is the same as if you reloaded an AK47 you don't say you stuck in a clip, just that you reloaded it. Others say that since they carried multiple pistols they didn't carry any spare cylinders. Any ideas or documentation out there either way?

[DamYankee25]

Are you talking about officers changing out cylinders or Pvt. John Doe who may have a side arm? I highly doubt anyone would be carrying a bandoleer of pistols like Blackbeard, they are heavy and I know I wouldn't want to carry one on the march let alone 2 or 3. I imagine that if it came down to a line officer using his sidearm he probably wouldn't have much of a chance to reload because the enemy would have been right on top of him. they are terribly inaccurate at anything beyond extremely close range. Keep in mind that less than 1% of soldiers were killed by a bayonet, knife or sword. So I'm sure pistols would fall in that realm somewhere because of the close combat nature of the weapon....just some thoughts.

[michael.shafto]

Hello!

I have asked myself the very same question. I know with the main unit I portray the ordinance reports do not show any sign of spare cylinders. Nor do the manufacturers (Colt) show the cylinders as a seperate item that I have seen. There is no mention of a spare cylinder in the tactics of the Cavalry, to include Codgens, which was published in 1864.

The regulations for the Cavalry, no matter which variation that is used, goes into detail about how to load a pistol on horseback. Nothing is mentioned about changing out a cylinder. Also, changing a cylinder on a Colt is not an easy task, by any means. It would be next to impossible on a galloping horse (Troopers were expected to be able to load at any speed).

Could spare cylinders have been used? Of course they could have been on rare occasions. But, like Dave Myrick is fond of saying, just because one person had them, dosen't mean everyone should wear jaguar skin pants!

I would be willing to bet that the spare cylinder was not government issue, which is why they do not show up on the returns. Most regiments of Cavalry had only one pistol per trooper, some did not even have that. For some Federal Cavalry regiments, even late in the war, the saber was the primary weapon. Major Scranton is quoted to that effect in EOG (I would list a page number, but my book is not in front of me).

Reloading a pistol with cartridges in pre made "arsenal packs" is just one way I think we can add to the overall experience as Cavalrymen. I know I am looking forward to trying it this season!

Best Regards!

[Pvt Schnapps]

I think Mr. Shafto's response is pretty nearly definitive, but I'd also like to throw in the issue of cost.

The Ordnance Department's "Instructions for Making Quarterly Returns..." lists the following prices for revolver cylinders, which they list with other parts and their prices, not as separate items of issue (I give the total cost of the pistol next in parentheses):

Colt Army: $3.57 ($20)
Colt Navy: $3.09 ($18 )
Lefaucheux: $2.00 ($13)
Savage: $1.60 ($20)
Remington: $2.00 ($12)

As far as private purchase, note that the Colt Army cylinder costs more than a week's pay. Even a Lefaucheux or Remington cylinder costs several days' worth.

And, come to think of it, I've never seen a period ad for cylinders. The Schuyler, Hartley, and Graham catalog reproduced by Dover shows several sorts of pistols with sale, and includes in some cases options for extras, like carbine stocks with canteens (!), but no cylinders.

As for multiple pistols, we know some partisans carried them, but from the government's perspective it makes no more sense than to arm infantrymen with multiple muskets since a pistol costs just about as much.

[RJSamp]

I think Mr. Shafto's response is pretty nearly definitive, but I'd also like to throw in the issue of cost.


I'd like to throw in the issue of safety.....they loaded 'cartridges'....paper, powder, ball....all in one. They didn't worry about wonder wads, caked cream of wheat (COW), staples, grease...yea, or bullets , coming out the barrel at high velocities. And the bullet/ball on top helped prevent chain fires (the second or third topping off and ramming of the COW slows modern blank firing down). At GAC we had a CSA mounted unit firing at us with pistols, and two of the 'southrons' (stronger argot to follow if need be) fired greased paper wads at us from less than 35 feet....no kidding.....and I mean directly at us as the flaming/smoking papers sizzled through our ranks.

So it's your guys choice: no safety and speed loading up to their rates of reloading.....or spare cylinders and safer reloading that approximates the speed in which they could reload. They didn't use powder flasks/loading tubes/cream of wheat....

Start with a ban on loaded pistols for anyone walking. You can carry it, just can't fire it while off of your horse/on the ground....use your carbine/rifle/artillery piece as they would have....and if they're in pistol range you're duck hunting anyway....(event rules should have you firing straight up under 50 feet or whatever the rules say)....and I'll defy any of you to hit a moving target whilst you are being fired at and/or moving yourself with an ACW pistol at greater than, say, 15 feet.

[harley_davis]

Hallo,
Mr. Shafto, Mr. Schaffner & Mr. Samp have pretty much hit it right on. One final point against multiple cylinders is that as difficult as it is to load a revolver under fire, it will be equally as challenging to try to either pull a cylinder pin (Remington) or hammer out a barrel wedge (Colt). Now, this extra cylinder. Have you been carrying this around loaded and capped? Unless you are rather brave, you still must put caps on the nipples under fire. I wonder how much easy or quicker the spare cylinder really would be? I have tried the spare cylinder thing in my days as Old West reenactor and found it be more cumbersome than useful. One pistol is heavy to carry around all day, two is downright uncomfortable. If you in a unit that would allow it, two pistols should be more than enough for most firefights. Anything more is a serious battle that will more than likely become intense hand to hand combat before either method of reloading could be accomplish. This is simply my opinion as I do not have any documentation to support my theory, but I do have a bit of experience at it. Mr. Samp's points on safety should be the first consideration I should think.
Respectfully,

[sbl]

The one time I could see having a couple of preloaded, non-capped cylinders might be for target shooting on a range

[Dave Myrick]

In a different discussion of this very topic, Kevin O`Bierne cited a quotation from a letter in which an infantry officer made mention of carrying a loaded spare cylinder for his colt in his pocket. This is proof positive that that particular officer carried a spare cylinder. However, there is no positive evidence that the rank and file trooper carried them. Anyone that has ridden in close ranks knows just how dangerous this is as there is no safe place to carry a loaded and capped cylinder.

Tactically the revolver was used in a manner in which would have prevented it's being reloaded during combat. They can be reloaded quite easily from the saddle using cartridges, capping is another matter all together. Difficult yes, impossible no and it was expected of each trooper (see Congdon's Compendium) but not while engaged in active fighting.

Dave

[Union Navy]

To give the Navy perspective, it was possible for anyone to be issued a pistol, depending on their duty. Often it was a single shot with several spare cartridges, or a Colt (Remington) with a pistol cartridge box. No spare cylinders are mentioned in anything I have read except as repair parts. Capt. Melancton Smith threw a "brace" (two, in this case) of "fine pistols" into the Mississippi rather than they should fall into Confederate hands if he was captured after abandoning the USS Mississippi (according to fellow officer George Dewey). No spare clinders, but spare pistols in this instance.

I still have two spare cylinders with a belt pouch for my Remington and one for my Colt Navy, but haven't used them in years. Can't justify.

[GaWildcat]

I would call this Myth.... Busted!

[heyvern]

Id say busted I was gonna ask if anyone had found any battlefield relics? I dont think I have heard of any,but I have seen scores of revolvers found. Seems as many as we see of Cavalry reenactors loose there would be more if used.
I dont see any officers having any either for the same fact.
The use of them is a modern reenactment thing because of the short battle times and condensed battles,When you do a good campaign event you barely need one pistol much less multiple.
;)

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Meaning, five or six rounds might be a whole lot of shooting going on.
;) ;)

IMHO, much if not all of "loaded cylinders" is a reenactorism first, and secondly reloading a revolver with factory cartridges is a different discussion than reloading with loose powder and loose ball.

On the other hand, my horse skills are too meager or non-existant to want to reload a revolver in the saddle. But, that is a greater Modern handicap for me. ;) :)

In a later period, Custer's men went to the Little Big Horn carrying a total 24 revolver rounds (and 100 carbine rounds) on their person...

CHS

[HCSmitty]

Even though yall have dispelled this myth, yall are still gona have a hard time convinceing all those "dismounted cavalry" units that its not correct.

Hunter Smith

[Blair]

Dispelled this myth as common practice? Perhaps.
There is mention of the useage of extra revolvers and cylinders in special cases as with Quantrell and Mosby. Mosby recommended shot loads instead of ball. I would not call these occurances "common practice"!

Nearly 110,000 Remington Model 1863 Army Revolvers (New Model) were purchaced by the U S Government during the Civil War. (Out of the tolal production of a little over 126,000 made between 1863 to 1875.)
This is only one model type and only one revolver maker.
What might be more telling as to how correct or incorrect this practice might be would be to find the production records for cylinders and compare it to the production records of revolvers. If such a thing existed or exists any longer.
Blair Taylor

[Dave Myrick]

Dispelled this myth as common practice? Perhaps.
There is mention of the useage of extra revolvers and cylinders in special cases as with Quantrell and Mosby. Mosby recommended shot loads instead of ball. I would not call these occurances "common practice"!

Nearly 110,000 Remington Model 1863 Army Revolvers (New Model) were purchaced by the U S Government during the Civil War. (Out of the tolal production of a little over 126,000 made between 1863 to 1875.)
This is only one model type and only one revolver maker.
What might be more telling as to how correct or incorrect this practice might be would be to find the production records for cylinders and compare it to the production records of revolvers. If such a thing existed or exists any longer.
Blair Taylor


A few years ago, I approached Colt seeking the very same information. They replied to me that those records did not exist. Next I searched the contracts let by the government to Colt. They specified things like complete revolvers, not repair parts. While its not 100%, the lack of information to the contrary and the fact that wedges, and cylinders were serialized leads me to believe that extras were not very prevalent.

Dave

[Blair]

Dave,

I agree.
I thought that Colt maybe a bad place to try to check for such info due the the number of fires they have had over the years.
I have seen a few, not many but a few, Colt cylinders without serial numbers. I would not want to imply these were spare cylinders intended for use as discribed in the original posting of this thread.
Blair Taylor

[John Tobey]

Well, we know it was done prewar. Here's a excerpt from "Ten Years in the Saddle" (Memoirs of W. W. Averell, edited by E. K. Eckert and N. J. Amato: San Rafael CA, Presidio Press 1978):

“When the old dragoon revolver was first made, a dozen of them were sent to his regiment in for trial…each pistol had two cylinders, both of which were kept loaded so that when the one in the pistol had been exhausted it could be removed and replaced by the extra one in a moment. Now said the Colonel [named Harney] (warmly), “No man can be such a blankety-blank fool as not to see the importance of not losing the extra cylinder, for if lost you will have only six shots…” (88-89)

John Tobey

[Craig L Barry]

John,
Hope you are well. I have read similar accounts and I have always wondered about something...Climb up on old Chance and try replacing the cylinder on one of those five pound Colt horse pistols from the saddle. Wouldn't it require removing the wedge, and so on to replace the cylinder?

[reb64]

Id say busted I was gonna ask if anyone had found any battlefield relics? I dont think I have heard of any,but I have seen scores of revolvers found. Seems as many as we see of Cavalry reenactors loose there would be more if used.
I dont see any officers having any either for the same fact.
The use of them is a modern reenactment thing because of the short battle times and condensed battles,When you do a good campaign event you barely need one pistol much less multiple.
;)


as these were known to be pistol heavy, maybe the answer lies there

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"I have read similar accounts and I have always wondered about something...Climb up on old Chance and try replacing the cylinder on one of those five pound Colt horse pistols from the saddle. Wouldn't it require removing the wedge, and so on to replace the cylinder?"

No, kinda/sorta.

The barrel wedge on the M1847 (Whitenyville "Walker") is retained by a flat spring and screw affair, so it needs to be only tapped to the side but not removed.

It is interesting that the M1847 was the only martial Colt where the wedge entered from the right side of the receiver. I might wonder if the "spare cylinder" resulted in the change to the left?

For the sake of discussion as it would be "easy" to interpret it as an accomodation to replacing multiple cylinders and not just for ease of cleaning disassembly (as I do not believe the reasons for the change have been preserved)-

The Remington M1861 revolvers deviated from the early 1858 Remington Beals/Beals-Remington revolvers by NOT having to lower the loading lever to remove the cylinder. With the M1863 revolvers, the loading lever returned to having to be lowered to allow the cylinder arbor to move forward to remove the cylinder. (IMHO, a superior design over the Colt wedge.)

;) :)

CHS

[Blair]

Curt,

Very good point about the wedge being changed from the right to the left side. A point I had not considered before.
One other thing about the wedge screw, it helps prevent the wedge from being pushed too far in causing the barrel to bind against the cylinder face.

I too believe the Remington is a stronger and better disign, and "if" swaping out cylinders, one less part in your hands or standing to loose.
Blair Taylor

[Craig L Barry]

Oh, no doubt about it the Remington is a superior design. Also the maddening tendency of spent caps to stick to the hammer face of the Colt revolver and drop into the frame (resulting in a jam), or come partially off and jam the cylinder while cocking the piece. I consider myself a "Colt" enthusiast, but not any sort of expert and I especially like the Model 1851 "Navy" or "Ranger" .36 holster revolver, but concede the design superiority of the solid frame Remington. Interesting, isn't it, that the US Government did not order the more modern Remington revolver design which could drop the cylinder without freeing the loading lever. It is almost like they did not intend for the cylinders to be easily or readily switched out...

One of the WtG editors much more knowledgeable about such subjects as this chided me when I suggested cylinder swapping as a potential way to increase rate of fire with the Remington (not the Colt) in an article comparing the two revolvers. "No way" was the answer to the question of swapping out cylinders under fire, especially on horseback. If done, it would be rarely successful and the most likely result would be lost cylinders fumbled during the switch. The problem, he said, was solved by carrying multiple revolvers rather than one revolver and multiple cylinders.

[Blair]

A well documented (with many research references) book to read on this subject is "The Devil Knows How To Ride", The True Story of William Clark Quantrill and His Confederate Raiders, by Edward E. Leslie.

These "Raiders" seem to have used multipule revolvers as well as multipule cylinders for those revolves.
I think it is very safe to say these types of "Raiders" are very much the exception, rather than the rule to normal practices of the day. With that said... such techniques were not unheard of for the period.
Blair Taylor

[harley_davis]

Oh, no doubt about it the Remington is a superior design. Also the maddening tendency of spent caps to stick to the hammer face of the Colt revolver and drop into the frame (resulting in a jam), or come partially off and jam the cylinder while cocking the piece. I consider myself a "Colt" enthusiast, but not any sort of expert and I especially like the Model 1851 "Navy" or "Ranger" .36 holster revolver, but concede the design superiority of the solid frame Remington. Interesting, isn't it, that the US Government did not order the more modern Remington revolver design which could drop the cylinder without freeing the loading lever. It is almost like they did not intend for the cylinders to be easily or readily switched out...

One of the WtG editors much more knowledgeable about such subjects as this chided me when I suggested cylinder swapping as a potential way to increase rate of fire with the Remington (not the Colt) in an article comparing the two revolvers. "No way" was the answer to the question of swapping out cylinders under fire, especially on horseback. If done, it would be rarely successful and the most likely result would be lost cylinders fumbled during the switch. The problem, he said, was solved by carrying multiple revolvers rather than one revolver and multiple cylinders.

"Superior" Remington design? Then and today, this is still a question of personal preference. While I agree, there are certainly some advantages to the solid frame design, I have personally found the Colt Navy revolvers to be much easier to use than the larger Remington design. It is interesting to note that when the Army was looking at cartridge revolvers in the early 1870's (I dont have the exact quote, officer and date in front of me) that it was reported that troopers in the field were refusing to accept Remington's based on the "fact" that they were prone to "blowing up". Apparantly some of the later war production revolvers had some issue in the integrity of the metal in their backstrap resulting in some failures. While it is probable that this "fact" was being perpetuated by individuals that had financial interests in Colt, nonetheless, this "fact" prompted Custer's troopers to insist on Colts. It is also interesting to note that the famed "Prince of Pistoleers" Wild Bill Hickok, refused to use Remingtons for this very reason. I have had issues with both Colts & Remingtons in action when used caps come off the nipple and manage to wedge themselves between the frame and hammer. IMHO, I have found the Colt to be easier to clear of such malfunctions provided the cap doesnt get down into the frame & internal action in which case, either design is probably rendered inoperative.

Also interesting is the fact that in the early 1870's, Major Schofield found it neccessary to come up with a modification to the barrel latch on the current Smith & Wesson No. 3 in order to facilitate one-handed reloading on horseback. This resulted in the production of S&W's only .45 caliber revolver, the famed M1875 No. 3 "Schofield" model. The development of solid case ammunition was clearly a huge advancement, but even the cartridge Colts & Remingtons as well as S&W's are difficult to reload with one hand on horseback.

Respectfully,

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Not that it relates to anything historical, but just for fun...

I am mostly a die-hard Colt fan, and the only Remington I shoot is an M1875.

For my druthers, I love the Colt M1861 Navy, but occassionally shoot the M1860 Army.

And for the early to mid-late 1870's, I shoot a Richards or Richards & Mason conversion of the M1860. Or at times, a Colt Model 1871/72 "Open Top."

CHS
Shootist Mess

[Craig L Barry]

...identify the gene that separates those with a preference for Colt from the Remington shooters. I think it is like the gene that divides those who prefer Enfields from their Springfield toting counterparts. There is not much middle ground, is there? I read and liked "The Devil Knows How To Ride", and it mentions some of the same design flaws, and as I recall the additional shortcoming of the Colt design relative to the necessity of leaving a chamber unloaded so it would be "drop safe." This essentially renders the Colt a five shot revolver v. the Remington as a true six shooter. The Remington hammer (of course) rests in a notch in the cylinder between the loaded chambers, so there is no reason to leave a chamber unloaded. The Colt was known to chain fire, etc.

Not pimping for the Remington, as I prefer the Colt Navy but even the sights on the Remington are better. I just don't like the way the Remington feels in my hand...or the looks of it.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"I just don't like the way the Remington feels in my hand...or the looks of it."

That is why I like the Colt M1860 Army with the Navy grip frame. ;) :)

CHS

[Blair]

Yes, my preferance is for the Colt. Something to do with the placement of the trigger in relatonship to the grip and grip shape that fits my hand much better.
Two other books that make for good reading are,
"Colt Conversions and Other Percussion Revolvers", by R, Bruce McDowell and
"Smith & Wesson 1857 - 1945", by Robert J. Neal & Roy G, Jinks.
These both may help provide some understanding in to the development of cartridge revolvers from their percussion counter parts.
Army Odrnance contacts Smith & Wesson in 1864 to get approval to have Remington convert their 1863 Army (New Model) revolver to breech loading cartridge. Rollin White owns the Patent on the bore through cylinder disign that S & W was using at the time for their #1, #1 1/2 and #2 revolvers, And Rollin White will not allow it unless he gets 25 cents Royalty fee for each revolver. Needless to say the revolvers don't get made until 1868, well after the War and after Rollin White's Patent renewal was refused by the U S Patent Office. Those early Remington Conversions will carry the Rollin White Patent numbers on them.
Overall both book are very good reading.
Blair Taylor

[Poor Private]

I just found 2 refereneces on spare cylinders by yahooing or googoling.
"Mosbys' Rangers" By Jeffry D. Werts
"Mosbys' men carried a brace of colt pistols in 2 holsters. Many of them also had a pair of revolvers in saddle holsters or aditional loaded cylinders in thier pocket- during combat if a ranger needed to reload cylinders, he dismounted and sought cover."

"The Look of the Old West" By Foster-Harris
In the fighting gear chapter on page 59 he says.
"An old codger who told me about Quantrills' querillas-about whom he seems to know an amazing lot for such a peaceful old man... "said that those enterprising outlaws used to carry loaded cylinders for thier dragoon colts, just as modern trooperscarry extra automatic pistol magazines, and they could load almost as fast."

[MickCole]

FWIW, I am also one of those who prefer the Colt simply because it fits my hand better than a Remington. I have practiced changing cylinders with both and can change cylinders just about as quickly with the Colt as with the Remington. The key to quick cylinder changes with the Colt in my experience has been whether the wedge works correctly with the wedge screw so one can use finger pressure to remove the wedge far enough to release the barrel without the wedge falling out. My Pietta 1860 Army works fine, unlike the brass-framed Pietta Navy I bought back in the days when I didn't know any better.:roll:
It may be worth noting that photographs I have seen of presentation-cased private-purchase Colts generally have an extra cylinder, so it does seem reasonable that those who obtained their revolvers from a source other the military--such as Quantrill's and Mosby's raiders--may well have had extra cylinders available, but that would seem unlikely to make it common practice for anyone else.
Mick Cole
37th VA Co E

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Just being a stick in the mud on a cold and gray morning... ;) :)

As a general research tool...

Does the Mosby author reference a Primary Source that speaks to spare cylidners, OR... as do many authors is he just writing his own views and opinions unsupported by documentation? (Just because something is published in a book does ot always mean it is "correct.")

I recall an engraved M1863 Remington Army with carved ivory grips that was presented to Custer by E. Remington & Sons that included a spared cylinder in the case. But, I am not sure a presentation grade set should be compared to the everyday "trooper's" resources and issue items.
At the moment, I am fuzzy about recalling any common in Colt sets, it is early in the morning yet.

CHS

[Blair]

Mick,

Good point about the presentation-cases/boxes. I've seen spaces for extra cylinders set up in both the French and English style boxes. Usually the cylinder, if there ever was an extra, has gone missing.
I still have a cylinder for a Mason cartridge conversion 1860 Army revolver. The serial number on that cylinder matched the serial number on one of the revolvers in the book I mentioned earlier about "Colt Conversions". The mistery (for me) is "Why?" would you need a spare cylinder for a cartridge conversion? A cylinder for two different cartridge caliber? Say one for .44 Colt and the other for .44 Henry Center-fire?
Perhaps, the cylinder was messed up during the conversion and another cylinder was used to finish the revolver. I guess we will never know.
Blair Taylor