A question about pistols

[bob 125th nysvi]

As a lowly footslogger I've never bothered to look in pistols but I was given a nice .44 years ago that I occasionally go out on the back 40 and shoot with.

And it is a real pain in the rear with all the stuff I have to carry out there.

I figured the CW officers and horse boys had easier methods so I'd ask.

I understand the holster and cap pouch but I have seen both powder flasks and cartridge boxes and that is confusing me.

Which was more used, the cartridge box or the flask?

If it was the flask what did they carry the balls in?

And if it was the cartridge box am I correct in the assumption that the pistol carriers made cartridges like us footsloggers did?

HELP!

Thank you

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[Sgt_Pepper]

Mr. Sandusky,

The most common ammunition for pistols at the time was combustible cartridges which eliminated the need for separate powder and ball to be carried. I suggest you search on the Internet for articles about making combustible cartridges for percussion firearms. You might try entering "combustible cartridges revolver" in a search engine.

[hussard7]

Bob:
The pistol cartridge box was designed to carry 3 packs of 6 cartridges each. They are the same as musket cartridges, except that they were linen or nitrate paper. When made properly the only difficultly is placing the caps on the cones when your horse is moving.

Yours,
Wayne Gregory

[Sgt_Pepper]

When made properly the only difficultly is placing the caps on the cones when your horse is moving.

Thus the oft-deplored practice of carrying multiple pistols for "instant reloads", or extra pre-loaded and -capped cylinders in small boxes on the belt. Neither practice was common, and a loaded and capped cylinder is an accident waiting to happen.

[Dave Myrick]

Revolver ammunition was supplied by many different private companies under contract to the Federal government. I can't speak for the Confederate supply system as I have not researched that side of things. The ammunition as delivered to the troops in the field came as a combustable cartridge, ready for loading. The permeasured powder charge was contained in s skin tube, tapered from the bullet end to the closed end. The lubricated bullet, most often connical and hollow based, was then affixed to the cartridge tube. Some makers chose to wrap the skin over the bullet instead of attaching it to the tube.
Six cartridges were then placed into a packet. The packets sometimes were nothing more than a simple labeled pasteboard box.
What is more often found among existing artifacts, are packets made from either a single or two piece hard wood block. The cavities in the block are formed in the tapered shape of the cartridges. Then the block is labeled and wax sealed. What is of interesting note is that while labels indicate the presence within the packet of 7 caps, other labels do not specify this leaving us to wonder if they were included or supplied separately.

Supplied with ammunition in this manner, one is able to reload a revolver safely. As mentioned the trick is capping them. This is especially difficult to do from the back of a moving horse but troopers were expected to be able to at any gate.

The cartridge boxes issued by the Federal government came is 3 sizes, navy, army and universal. The larger universal box is generally attributed to later in the period as is the larger universal holster, which were also issued in three sizes.

While it is documented that some troopers did indeed carry more than one revolver, there is no evidence to support the notion that they carried multiple cylinders. Extra cylinders were not contracted for nor do the production records indicate they were ever manufacturerd.

Dave Myrick

[bob 125th nysvi]

I did some research on "combustable cartridges" as suggested. The articles all recommend that you peirce the bottom of the cartridge with a pick in order to ensure ingnition. The articles also talk about residue paper in the chambers on occassion.

Since I don't use the pistol for reenacting and just recreational shooting I think that for my purposes a cartridge box and paper ladies are the way to go.

There is also been some conversation about conical bullets v round balls. The pistol has appears to have no rifling. Would a conical bullet result in improved accuracy?

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[Dave Myrick]

If you use a combustible cartridge properly made you should have few worries.
The tapered cartridge will rupture when compressed by ramming in the chamber and the higher gas pressures involved when live firing virtually ensure no residue left from the cartridge. Even when firing blanks I rarely experience any paper residue. I use hair curler papers and have for years.
While I've yet to see a smooth bore revolver, I don't want to make the assumption that they don't exist. That being said, a conical bullet would be of absolutely no benefit.
Dave

[John1862]

Here is an article on how to make the famous comb. ctg. for live firing. How to make Combustable Cartridges (http://www.civilwarguns.com/9508.html)

I have also attached an excavated .44 Colt Army [Early Model] cartidge I own, from Murfreesboro, TN.

[Jim Mayo]

The pistol has appears to have no rifling. Would a conical bullet result in improved accuracy?

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

Are you sure the barrel is not worn to the point where the rifling is not readily visible? Remove the cylinder and shine a light in one end of the barrel while looking in the opposite end. There should be some rifling there.

All the ready made period revolver cartridges in packages that I have seen were conical bullets. The bullet molds that came with the civilian purchased revolvers have one cavity for the conical bullet and one for the round ball. I don't think army issued revolvers usually came with the molds since issued ammunition would be available but that is just a WAG on my part.

The brass .36 Caliber mold below is marked "Mass Arms Co. Chicopee Falls". The bullets are sitting in their respective mold cavities. This mold was found in an 1862 camp of the 57th Va. along with the bullets shown. IMO it is more likely to find bullet molds in early war camps since the quartermaster issued ammunition was probably hard to get at that time and there were many pre-war brought from home, civilian pistols.

[VaTrooper]

The lubricated bullet, most often conical and hollow based,........
Dave Myrick

I can't recall ever digging a hollow based pistol bullet. Hmmm.

[Rob Weaver]

Cigarette papers, or hair-rolling papers from a beauty-shop distributor make great combustible cartridges. I've used both and had no trouble with cleaning the weapon afterwards.
As to the practice of carrying multiple pistols; the army issued you one (1). The Missouri guerillas tended to cary more, two on the person and two in saddle holsters was common. Civilians who made their living by the gun did indeed carry multiples. Bill Hickok carried his famous matched Navy's that were given to him in 1867 in a red sash. He was still wearing 2 guns when killed in 1876. It was a habit based not only upon the inability to reload in a hurry but the unreliability of the powder. (The pistol that Jack McCall killed Hickok with misfired on every chamber but the one that killed Bill.) Jesse James was wearing 4 pistols on his belt when killed. The practice of carrying extra cylinders apparently never occured to anyone during the historical period. I've never seen it so much as alluded to. Civilians also tended to carry caps, powder and ball separately, often in the boxes that the pistol came in, and reloaded them from them. I know this is a little OT, but it helps to see where some of these reenacting practices come from.

[Dave Myrick]

William,thanks for pointing this out. I have 1 dug revolver, both .44's that are hollow based but I mis-spoke in my previous post. Most were not hollow based. What I intended to say was, they are conical in shape, similar to a hollow based rifle or musket bullet.
Dave

[Jim Mayo]

That being said, a conical bullet would be of absolutely no benefit.
Dave

Accuracy and penetrating power is the benefit. Round balls don't play well with rifling and a pointed object is more penetrating than a broader object.

The only hollow base revolver cartridge I can think of are the volcanic bullets which had the propelling charge in a lead shell. Didn't work too well.

[Dave Myrick]

Jim,
You took what I said out of context. Are you saying that a conical bullet would be more accurate and have more penetrating power over a round ball when fired from a smooth bored barrel?
Without the benefit of the twist imparted by the rifling, a connical bullet will not be overcome the aerodynamic forces and will tumble in flight loosing tremendous amounts of energy in the process. How is this an advantage over a round ball?

Dave

[Jim Mayo]

Jim,
You took what I said out of context. Are you saying that a conical bullet would be more accurate and have more penetrating power over a round ball when fired from a smooth bored barrel?
Dave

Nope, I thought we were talking about rifled barrels.

[Rob Weaver]

Is there such a thing as a smoothbore revolver? If so, I'm not familiar with them.

[harley_davis]

Rob
I feel compelled to comment on this portion of your statement, not to create an argument but to correct an oft repeated inaccuracy. Jim Hickok (there is some question as to when he recieved the moniker of Wild Bill) as he was more correctly known as during the war, had 1851 Navy models prior to 1867. In truth, he shot Davis Tutt with a single shot at a measured 75 yards with a Colt Navy revolver in Springfield Missouri July of 1865. It is possible he had Navy revolvers as early as the fracas at Rock Creek. The famed ivory handled revolvers he acquired (perhaps) in 1869 can not be 100% credited as a gift from either Hays City nor Senator Wilson. There is only one documented photo of Jim wearing his pistols in a sash. It is simply impossible to pull those pistols out of a sash, the sight and/or loading latch will catch in the sash more often than not. A pistoleer would not take the chance. He used a pair of scabbards for his pistols, carried in the plainsman fashion, butts forward. His typical mode of getting his revolvers into action was a method known as the reverse plainsman twist which is to say, twisted your hands backwards and grasping the butts of the weapon. This seems unhandy but if one realizes that the typical revolver of the day carried on the belt, had a barrel usually 6-8 inches long, any other method of getting into action will get you killed. This would be the same difficulty as carrying pistols stuck in a belt and trying to get them into action while on horse back but certainly more believable than pockets full of loaded cylinders. As you correctly point out, Hickok still carried two revolvers up until his death in 1876. Even though there is evidence to suggest he did own and practice with cartridge conversion revolvers, there is no documentation to show that he ever carried them in public.
Civilians who made their living by the gun did indeed carry multiples. Bill Hickok carried his famous matched Navy's that were given to him in 1867 in a red sash. He was still wearing 2 guns when killed in 1876. It was a habit based not only upon the inability to reload in a hurry but the unreliability of the powder. (The pistol that Jack McCall killed Hickok with misfired on every chamber but the one that killed Bill.)
I also find it difficult to believe that there was much use of multiple cylinders during the war, or even after. If one has ever tried to remove the barrel from a Colt percussion revolver to swap cylinders after it has been fired without the use of a small drift, one realizes this practice is probably just a good Clint Eastwood manuevuer.

I do thank you all for your time.
I remain, respectfully,

[RJSamp]

I always thought that the reason that reenactors stocked up on this was
a) OK obviously to increase the number of rounds fired per second.....but more importantly
b) no wadding, paper, staples, bullets in the chamber to lessen the size and number of projectiles down range
c) use granular/can't fly far inert/non-combustible material that can keep the powder in the cylinder....and prevent chain fires. Cream of Wheat/COW.

This means no cartridges.....which means a powder flask ..... and a COW flask..... and a tough job whilst mounted and moving.......

They would have simply rammed combustible cartridges into the cylinders with a bullet towards the chain fire end of the cylinder...and jam on the caps....and not having to muddle around with all of the other reenactorism due to safety happy horse hockey would have been able to fire many more rounds per interval than we can.....hence the need for multiple revolvers multiple cylinders.

If we're saying that in dire emergencies (i.e. life or death) a trained trooper could fire and load their 24 rounds at the trot in XX minutes.......a reenactor can only fire one load in a LONG time.....don't know many cavalry troopers that can use a couple of flasks or pour powder and COW from a 'cartridge' displenser.....get consistent firings AND no chain fires......whilst moving. It's hard enough when you are at the halt (horses move/twitch, column may start up again with 5 seconds notice).

Why is it that we don't use nitrate / hair curler paper cartridges in ACW reenacting when firing at elevation at other living creatures greater than 50 feet away? (OK so the obvious answer is that pistols on moving horses versus moving targets isn't accurate at 50 feet, they would have used them at much closer ranges......and we can't fire at realistic pistol distances due to safety considerations).

So long story short......if they could/would fire 6 rounds in a minute.....and it took them 2 minutes to load 6 nitrate cartridges and jam on 6 caps ....and it takes modern reenactors with flasks and COW 30 + minutes to do the same thing (most have to go back to camp....those brass flasks of gunpowder in a saddle bag remind some of us of hand grenades).....what's a mother to do?

Inquiring minds want to know.....

[bob 125th nysvi]

wasn't visible until I took it apart and held it up to the light.

So I guess the instructions which came with the pistol were meant for a different gun.

I do have a single shot muzzle loading .44 pistol that takes balls not concials. So I really didn't think that I wouldn't use balls with the revolver.

The instructions that came with the revolver talked about how the rammer, when seating the ball, would leave a ring around the chamber and this is exactly what the gun does. So it seemed to make sense.

But if I tried this with a conical, wouldn't the rammer deform the soft bullet?

Thanks for all the help guys.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[1stWiscTrooper]

This means no cartridges.....which means a powder flask ..... and a COW flask.....

Not true. Cartridges for a revolver can quite easily be made with cigarette paper. These are true combustable rounds. I make a tube out of the cigarette paper and put 30 grains of BP in the tube. Next goes about an equal amount of Cream of Wheat on top of the BP and twist the cigarette paper tube shut. If you would like I can show these to you at Wauconda this year. I used them all last season and they have worked great. A lot more authentic than carrying mulitple revolvers/cylinders. It also gives you more of a feel and appriciation for what the troopers had to go through to reload revolvers in battle.

[Frenchie]

Round balls don't play well with rifling and a pointed object is more penetrating than a broader object.

The only hollow base revolver cartridge I can think of are the volcanic bullets which had the propelling charge in a lead shell. Didn't work too well.

I beg to differ. The rifling in precision target black powder round ball rifles is specifically designed for patched round balls, with deep grooves and a relatively fast twist. Also, round balls fired from a revolver are proven to have more penetrating power than conical hollow-based bullets because they're heavier.

The Volcanic pistol and carbine used a conical hollow-based bullet that contained its own propellant and primer in the hollow base, sort of a 19th century version of the GyroJet round. It worked fine when all the stars and planets were aligned, but even then it was underpowered.

Incidentally, it's hard to believe all these claims about this and that. There are books out there that will tell you everything you need to know about shooting percussion black powder firearms, some written by people who've been shooting them longer than some of us have been alive. If someone asks real nice, I might post some links.

[MStuart]

If someone asks real nice, I might post some links.

Please Frencie, would you post some links in order that I may learn?

Your friend in gray,

Mark

[Frenchie]

Pound these into your search engine of choice (except Google, they don't like icky-poo guns):

Lyman 2nd Edition Black Powder Handbook

Black Powder Hobby Gunsmithing by Sam Fadala

The Complete Blackpowder Handbook by Sam Fadala

Gun Digest Blackpowder Loading Manual by Sam Fadala

Percussion Pistols And Revolvers: History, Performance and Practical Use by Mike Cumpston

Black Powder and the Old West: Frontier Cartridge Guns & Cap-N-Ball by Shoot Magazine

Gunsmithing Guns Of The Old West by David R. Chicoine

[Jim Mayo]

Also, round balls fired from a revolver are proven to have more penetrating power than conical hollow-based bullets because they're heavier.



When I went through the phase of shooting black powder pistols I was shooting at a 4x4 piece of plywood at 30 yards. Initially I was using .36 cal round balls and I kept hearing some strange sounds occasionally. Upon examining the target, I figured out that the round balls were bouncing off the plywood ( it wasn't supported too well and had some spring to it). Using the same powder charge on conical bullets produced a hole in the plywood. I attributed this to the increased muzzle velocity from the lighter bullet and better areodynamics which enabled the conicle bullet to penetrate where the round ball would not but that was just a WAG.
That was not a scientific determination of the penetrating power of round balls vs conicle bullets but it was good enough to convience me.

[jda3rd]

I'll admit I haven't carried a revolver on the field since the late '80's, but I still shoot one occaisionally for fun.

What I used to use for blank loads was tissue paper from a stationary store. It comes in different sizes. I would ask for a pack of white or off white square, about 3 x 3 inches, of the sort used in wedding invitations. It's strong enough to form over a dowel. I would not twist closed the ignition end, rather I would fold a single thickness over the end of the dowel, then form the cartridge, fill it, and tie it off with very small cotton thread. I used about 30 grains of powder, with cream of wheat on tap.

I used the same load, substituting a round ball for cream of wheat for live firing. I'm not shooting in competition, but it's fairly accurate. I prefer swaged balls to cast, and when they are seated, a fine ring of lead is shaved off. As long as it is a complete circle, you have an gas-tight seal, and don't need to top it off with bore butter or grease. I do, though, just for lubrication's sake. I made up some conical ball cartridges a few times, and instead of tying the paper over the end of the ball, I used mucilage glue to attach the tube to the ball.

For a while I experimented with trying to make nitrated paper, but decided it wasn't worth the trouble. Another thing I tried was laying the sheet flat on a smooth surface, spraying lightly with starch, then ironing. It sort of stiffened the paper without affecting combustibility, and the cartridges held up better in a cartridge box.

I cap by hand and give each a tiny squeeze to deform it slightly so they grip the cone and don't fly off. I probably don't need to do that, but I do, so . . .

Hmmmm, haven't shot for a while, I may go out this afternoon and make some smoke.

Frank

[Rob Weaver]

Rob
I feel compelled to comment on this portion of your statement, not to create an argument but to correct an oft repeated inaccuracy. Jim Hickok (there is some question as to when he recieved the moniker of Wild Bill) as he was more correctly known as during the war, had 1851 Navy models prior to 1867. In truth, he shot Davis Tutt with a single shot at a measured 75 yards with a Colt Navy revolver in Springfield Missouri July of 1865. It is possible he had Navy revolvers as early as the fracas at Rock Creek. The famed ivory handled revolvers he acquired (perhaps) in 1869 can not be 100% credited as a gift from either Hays City nor Senator Wilson. There is only one documented photo of Jim wearing his pistols in a sash. It is simply impossible to pull those pistols out of a sash, the sight and/or loading latch will catch in the sash more often than not. A pistoleer would not take the chance. He used a pair of scabbards for his pistols, carried in the plainsman fashion, butts forward. His typical mode of getting his revolvers into action was a method known as the reverse plainsman twist which is to say, twisted your hands backwards and grasping the butts of the weapon. This seems unhandy but if one realizes that the typical revolver of the day carried on the belt, had a barrel usually 6-8 inches long, any other method of getting into action will get you killed. This would be the same difficulty as carrying pistols stuck in a belt and trying to get them into action while on horse back but certainly more believable than pockets full of loaded cylinders. As you correctly point out, Hickok still carried two revolvers up until his death in 1876. Even though there is evidence to suggest he did own and practice with cartridge conversion revolvers, there is no documentation to show that he ever carried them in public.

I also find it difficult to believe that there was much use of multiple cylinders during the war, or even after. If one has ever tried to remove the barrel from a Colt percussion revolver to swap cylinders after it has been fired without the use of a small drift, one realizes this practice is probably just a good Clint Eastwood manuevuer.

I do thank you all for your time.
I remain, respectfully,
PMed you (since we were moving OT)

[Frenchie]

That was not a scientific determination of the penetrating power of round balls vs conical bullets but it was good enough to convince me.

Wood isn't flesh. If conicals were more effective man-stoppers they would have been used more, but history tells us round balls were more popular with shootists because they were cheaper and more effective. Cylindro-conical bullets became the norm with metallic cartridges because round balls don't work as well.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

I understand the holster and cap pouch but I have seen both powder flasks and cartridge boxes and that is confusing me. Which was more used, the cartridge box or the flask?... And if it was the cartridge box am I correct in the assumption that the pistol carriers made cartridges like us footsloggers did?


That I understand, infantry officers--particularly line officers (captains and lieutenants) typically did not carry either one. Other posts here have described how pistol ammunition was made and used. The question I raise is the line officer wearing a pistol cartridge box at all. Is there any such evidence? That I have seen, the answer is no.

It's my understanding, based on some first-person accounts by line officers, read by my comrades and me, that perhaps the most common approach for line officers who elected to carry a side-arm was to simply carry the ammo in their pockets, with probably a lot of them electing to carry an entire extra pistol cylinder or two, pre-loaded with rounds, so that in a battle it was necessary only to pop out the cylinder with the five or six spent rounds and slap in a full cylinder and keep blazing away. This makes a lot of sense, because if an officer was in a situation where he was going to use his pistol at all--which was rare and probably meant that his unit was in some serious hand-to-hand combat, seeing how pistols were not really effective or even remotely accurate beyond about thirty feet--he certainly did not want to take time to stop and reload from even a cartridge box.

Period pistol ammo was provided in small packets that were easily carried in a pocket, and so the need for a pistol cartridge box was sort of obviated.

Needless to say, this was the historical reality. I'm not advocating that reenactors carry ammo i their pockets. Personally, when I portray an officer, on the occasions I decide to lug along a side-arm, I don't even bother bringing ammo for it, and it's pretty much just a weighty ornament in that holster on my belt.

Finally, line officers by far and away tended toward privately purchased civilian-style pistols, like "pocket pistols" and "police pistols", instead of this huge, 0.44-caliber "Dirty Harry" style Colts and Remingtons carried by cavalrymen. My first repro pistol was this 0.44-cal. artillery piece that looked like a prop from the Clint Eastwood film, "Magnum Force" or "Sudden Impact", and it must weigh a good 2+ lbs. I finally replaced it in 2002 with a 0.36-cal pocket pistol that is literally half the size and weight of that monster cavalry firearm. And at 30 feet, I suspect the smaller gun would stop a charging man pretty much as "finally" as the larger weapon.

[Jim Mayo]

If conicals were more effective man-stoppers they would have been used more, but history tells us round balls were more popular with shootists because they were cheaper and more effective.

I will have to disagree. I would estimate the number of revolver conical bullets I have recovered from CW sites far out number revolver round balls by at least 50 to 1. In one 11th Pa. Cav. camp I recovered over 200 .36 cal revolver bullets and a good number of .44s. Not one round ball was found. The same results are usually found elsewhere among fired and dropped pistol bullets.

All the government issue packages of pistol cartridges I have seen also used conical bullets.

As for being cheaper, conical bullets may use slightly less lead and both types are cast. Where is the cost savings?

[VaTrooper]

I will have to disagree. I would estimate the number of revolver conical bullets I have recovered from CW sites far out number revolver round balls by at least 50 to 1.

Same here.

[Dave Myrick]

Wood isn't flesh. If conicals were more effective man-stoppers they would have been used more, but history tells us round balls were more popular with shootists because they were cheaper and more effective. Cylindro-conical bullets became the norm with metallic cartridges because round balls don't work as well.

I would be very interested in seeing evidence of this. While far from conclusive, of all of the original revolver ammuniton packets I've examined, I have yet to see any cartridge containing a round ball. I would also like to see some empierical data to back up the assertion that they are more effective. From the ballistics tables I have seen, conical rounds win hands down when compared to a round ball.
Why don't round balls work as well in a metallic cartridge?

It is a true statement that rifling rate and depth affect ballistic performance. Barrels were rifled to make the round designed for the weapon to perform best. Others will still work but not as well as the designed round.



Kevin,
Do you have any hard evidence of line officers carrying extra cylinders? I have yet discover any manufacturing records indicating that extra cylinders were produced or marketed.
Also do you have any eveidence of the practice of carrying a preloaded cylinder in one's pocket? To me this is simply a sure fire way to end up dead. It's too easy for an accidental discharge to occur.


Dave Myrick

[MStuart]

This is a good thread.

Dave:

Is there any anecdotal or even documented evidence that pistol cartridge boxes were issued with any regularity with pistols and/or holsters? Meaning to the troops of the cavalry, or perhaps just the officers?

Mark

[Dave Myrick]

Revolver cartridge boxes were issued to Federal cavalrymen as evidenced in the ordinance returns. The returns do not however indicate whether they were issued with a revolver and holster as a "set" so to speak.

Officers were expected to supply their own stuff. There were dispensations made among cavalry officers that I know of to allow them to draw certain enlisted things such as overcoats for example. Those are listed in the general orders somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.

Dave

[Kevin O'Beirne]

IDo you have any hard evidence of line officers carrying extra cylinders? I have yet discover any manufacturing records indicating that extra cylinders were produced or marketed.

Dave,

Yep, I've seen such accounts, but I'd have to go back into the books to find them. Perfesser Tobey also has some.

do you have any eveidence of the practice of carrying a preloaded cylinder in one's pocket? To me this is simply a sure fire way to end up dead. It's too easy for an accidental discharge to occur.

See above--I think you're asking the same question, except the latter paragraph is about carrying the extra cylinders in the pockets. Again, I'd have to go check some first-person accounts. Of course, if a fellow carried extra cylinders, where else would he carry them? Enlisted infantrymen often carried extra ammo in their pockets. I never said I think that such things are good ideas for reenactors--merely pointing out the historical practice. I've long been against carrying ammo of any sort in ones pockets and, in fact, some battalion/event standards I wrote in 2002 were the cause of the "Great Cartridge Box Tins Are Required Controversy" of the summer of 2002 on this very forum. How ammo is carried by reenactors is one of those areas that I'd tend to err (against history) a bit more toward the side of safety.

[bob 125th nysvi]

that I check Lyman's Black Powder Handbook, I did.

He covers loading and shooting a revolver on pages on pages 65-67 and specifically refers to a "ball"

My revolver is a replica of an 1860 Army with an 8" barrel and that is the gun he test fired. Data is on pages 75-77.

He test fires (for the book) 4 Round Balls and 4 Bullet #450229 Hollow Base.

So it appears either would be historically correct although undoubtably by the end of the war the bullet was preferred.

Interestingly the maximum (safe) charge used with a ball is 37 Grs. and 28 Grs. with the hollow base bullet.

He uses a powder flask to charge the pistol.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

[Phil]

I have yet discover any manufacturing records indicating that extra cylinders were produced or marketed.

At least some of the Paterson Colts were sold with an extra cylinder. That's how they came from the factory.

[2TennCorp]

I was in the cav for 2 years and used cigarette paper (yes I know, farb) but it works. The cap burns the paper and there is no firing delay, just as with pouring it in with a flask make sure the other cylinders are covered so you dont have chain fire