Photobucket

Author Topic: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon  (Read 6463 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Classanr

  • Administrator
  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • BP, the original bug chaser!
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2014, 02:02:52 PM »
In WWI and WWII, Slavic countries issued 6 or 8 rounds of ammo to new "recruits" with the instruction to "find a rifle from a dead body, use that."  Fairly simple supply technique.
My understanding is that a high percentage of available ammo in those situations went into the "individual food procurement" effort.

My interpretation is that Ohio hoped to stem the tide by making more noise than usual.  I daresay the south did not suffer a higher per-shot casualty rate against Ohio.  "Suppressive Fire" is not "Killing Fire" nor is it "Defeating Fire."  It just encourages a momentary lull in the other side's aggression, such as when a losing or outnumbered team is pulling back and needs to get up to turn and run.  Or in cowboy westerns, the "Cover me, I'm going in" action.

These sure do look cool, though.
Jim Beam me, Scotty!  Life here is more intelligent than I.

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3214
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2014, 06:43:13 AM »
Hi, IMO this thread could be an interesting discussion. If you could only have one revolver, either an 8" 1858 Remington or 1860 Army Colt and was going into harms way, which revolver would you choose and why?

My choice would be the 1860 Colt. The 1860 is a natural pointer and the longer sight radius helps with accuracy. The 1860 breaks down for field cleaning (barrel comes off), the 1858 doesn't.

The 1860 is more prone to cap jam compared to the 1858, but good practice can minimize that issue. Both revolvers are strong enough for the purpose and the stronger framed 1858 isn't a practical advantage. Both revolvers allow easy and fast cylinder changeout. Both revolvers have similar parts reliability.

IMO the 1860 Colt is a more visually appealing revolver compared to the 1858.

OK, it's now your turn to pick your favorite (and why).  (^h (^h (^h

Regards,
Richard
There’s nothing better in the morning than the smell of bacon and black powder smoke!

Offline Gunslinger9378

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 2338
  • Some will...some won't....But I do!
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2014, 02:18:11 PM »
Dear Friends,
            It will come as no surprise to anyone who has read any of my previous posts, to learn afresh that I am a confirmed believer in the Supremacy of the Remington Design!  As far as I am concerned, the Colt design, although an improvement of the single shot pistol, was, when compared to the Remington, a Piece of JUNK!  My very first percussion revolver was a replica of an 1860 Army Colt.  The first shot always went off! The remainder were problematical! I never ONCE got all six shots off!  Every time a spent cap would roll off the nipple, and down the channel in which the hammer would fall, and get mashed by the falling hammer, and require a long thin object to fish the bloody thing out, before one could fire the next shot! Sometimes this would happen TWICE during the firing of one cylinder.  Many times I was tempted to hurl the damned gun down range in sheer frustration!  One evening at the gun club, another member showed me a Remington .44 he had recently acquired, and cordially invited me to try it.  To my utter amazement, I got off six consequtive shots! This caused me to closely examine the design of the revolver, and I at once saw that the hammer on this gun, struck the cap through a narrow slot in the frame,
which was too small to allow a spent cap to be drawn back, to where it could cause the infuriating jams to which my Colt replica was so prone!
Added to this, was the undeniable advantage of the ability of the Remington Revolver, to easily and quickly change an empty cylinder for a fresh one.  To do this on the Colt, required the field stripping of the gun! 
            Up until that point, I had been of the impression that ALL guns of that period followed the Colt design, for in antique shops in London, I had examined Colt Lookalikes called Manhattan's!  By the grace of God, I found a person who wanted to buy my Colt Reproduction, and feeling a little guilty for passing on to him such an inefficient piece of junk, I none the less took the money, and the very next day, called the Kent County Constabulary, to arrange for the issue of a Firearm Certificate, so I could purchase a Remington!  I have never looked back!
            Now as to the Battlefield Use of the two weapons, we all know that under stress of any kind, we ALL are inclined to make mistakes! The History of the War of Northern Aggression has numerous instances of soldiers, who, under the stress of battle, loaded their muskets, then either forgot to put a cap on the tit, or just panic'd and then aimed and pressed the trigger!  They apparently did not notice the lack of recoil, and loaded another charge on top of the first, and then repeated their mistake again. I am not sure of the source, but I have read somewhere, that some muskets were picked up on battlefields, with as many as seven charges loaded in the barrel.  So if an Infantry man of that period could do something like that, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a Cavalryman would make a right  Balls-Up of reloading a revolver, which is a slightly more complicated process that loading ONE charge in a .58 Caliber Rifled Musket!  Where such a fumble fingered Cavalryman faced with replacing the cylinder on an empty Colt Revolver, if the poor man didn't drop the whole gun under hoof, the possibility is very high that he'd either lose the barrel, or BOTH cylinders, (The empty one and the loaded one!) and have to fall back on his sabre!  Which come to think of it, would also be possible under battlefield stress. (Makes one wonder how many Cavalrymen were found after he battle, impaled on their own sabres?)
            Now I would be the first to agree that a Cavalryman armed with a Remington revolver could also be stressed out to the point where he might drop his weapon under hoof, but when one takes into consideration how many more things have to be done to successfully reload a Colt type pistol, and then compare it with the far easier method, required  to do the same thing with a Remington, I have no doubt that the Remington was a vastly superior weapon.  Both to use, and reload, and I am certain that to ANY Officer, or NCO, or Cavalryman, to be armed with the Remington, MUST have been a great confidence builder!
            I do not know how easy it was for a man to withdraw the Barrel to Arbor wedge in a  original and new Colt Revolver. I have only had
one original 1851 Navy to play with, and that wedge would jam in tight after it had been fired.  I have NEVER found a Replica Colt where the wedge could be withdrawn with just the fingers!  I have always had to use a tool of some kind to extract that sucker.  Now when our friend Texian visited with me last year, he had some Colt repro's and I saw him pull the wedges out with his fingers, but he told me that this was only because he had worked on them. I guess Texian is some kinda Engineer!!!  To sum up:  I believe that had I been a Union Cavalryman,
and they gave me a Colt Revolver, I'd have done my best to swap it for a Remington, or waited until I knew Remington's were available, and then chucked the Bloody Colt in some Muddy Stream, and told my Sergeant I had lost it when my horse stumbled!
            I do believe that there ARE some legitimate uses for a Colt Percussion Revolver!  They make good paperweights if your office is drafty!
When Deep Sea Fishing, one could use one as a Fishing Weight.  You could use one as a fastener for a hasp on the gate to a field, to prevent your horse from straying!  Placed horizontally across two beams in a barn, it could be used to tie a rope to, to hang a cattle rustler from! It would not be my choice, (EVER!) to defend my life with by actually shooting the Bloody Thing!
                                                                                                        Johnnie Roper,Alias:Gunslinger9378.
Never make the mistake of thinking I will not shoot..........
Because it may be your very last mistake!

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3214
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2014, 02:27:51 PM »
Hi Johnnie, I knew that was coming. We love you man!  {?| {?| {?|

Regards,
Richard
There’s nothing better in the morning than the smell of bacon and black powder smoke!

Offline Axter Klak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • "Grandfather of Cowboy Poetry"
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2014, 08:06:18 PM »
...  I believe that had I been a Union Cavalryman, and they gave me a Colt Revolver, I'd have done my best to swap it for a Remington, or waited until I knew Remington's were available, and then chucked the Bloody Colt in some Muddy Stream, and told my Sergeant I had lost it when my horse stumbled!...

. . . Somebody needed to tell yer story, so here it be:

Johnnie, I carved yer tombstone
'Cause yer plot were hard to find.
I stumbled on the battlefield,
Some farmers had been kind.

Some midnight metalscrappers
Done stole yer rusty sabre
That marked yer gravesite proper
And located your cadaver.

Memories of men gone by
Of soldiers' faded pasts
Little markers for the eye
Locating men's last gasps.

In sound of thunder horse hooves
Against the roar of cannon fire
The Rebel yell come chargin'
Down the hillock, full of ire.

There astride his favorite
His horse all lathered up
Sat Johnnie in his saddle
Catchin' minnies with his gut.

A mighty swish, he swung his sword
But slipped right off his mount
His sabre slung out through the smoke
He didn't plan on that account.

Full of pain he reached in vain
For the pistol on his belt.
Ol' Johnnie's Colt was his bane
So, no handgun could be felt.

A bayonet, a ripping stab
A pain deep in the chest.
A heart that gave up pumping red,
'ol Johnnie's here to rest.

             - Axter Klak, tombstone historian


Offline Mad Dog Stafford

  • The Forum Drunk!
  • Administrator
  • No Life Whatsoever!
  • *****
  • Posts: 23361
  • And away I go! What? Me worry? Nay!!!
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2014, 08:10:59 PM »
RIP Johnnie! (Sam holds up a shot glass)
Tombstone(not the pizza kind)
Heaven didn't want me and Hell was afraid I'll take over!

Offline DD4lifeusmc

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 7542
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2014, 09:47:40 AM »
Well I have several of both and I guess the eminent danger at hand would be the determining factor.
If you are aways off and quite big and determined but in realistic accurate revolver range I would go with my Dragoon
versus Walker. The walkers habit of dropping the loading lever (even though there are fixes) would be inconvenient.
So in that case the Dragoon would be my choice of all my Colts.

But for the average day ruffian that just wants to get in my face etc. I would go with my daily carry 5.5 in 1858.
If I felt I needed to be able to swap out cylinders rather quickly, Again the 1858.
As to accuracy and rapid firepower M.O. both are so close to equal no preference.

If at night in the house awake or asleep I would prefer the shot gun, with ought or slightly smaller shot.
It's probably dark and just a darker spot to aim at. And just waking my eyes and focus aren't the best.
So the wider spread of multiple projectiles in that case would be preferable.
I'd rather repair holes in a wall than have myself repaired.
Actually I'd probably leave the holes and write a short story and post it on the wall with the holes.
The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps.
General Alexander A. Vandergrift, USMC
to the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, 5 May 1946
------------
Marines Birthday  11/10/1775
USA birthday  7/4/1776

Offline Gunslinger9378

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 2338
  • Some will...some won't....But I do!
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2014, 05:17:50 PM »
Dear Friends, (& Especially Axter Klak!!!)
            Well I never really thought I'd get to see my own Tombstone while I was still in the land of the Living!  To say nothing of the Epitaph!
Lt.Col.Freemantle, of her Majesties Coldstream Guards, wrote a book about his adventures in the United States.  He had entered the country at Galveston, and worked his way gradually northward!  He was privileged to meet such legendary figues as Generals Longstreet, Armistead, Kimber, Pickett, and several others. His sojourn through the Confederacy ended at the battle of Gettysburg.  He witnessed the battle, and then went over to where the Union Army Headquarters were, and finished his tour by working northward. I had his book, but it (Like a great many other things!) Vanished in "The Divorce!"  He did make some comments on the Cavalry, both North and South. He said that American Cavalry were not true cavalry, but had become,"Revolver Fighters."  I thought that his comments showed the good sense of the American Cavalry! Why get so close to a man with a bloody great sword in his hand? A Sword that could easily cleave one's skull, when from a much safer distance, you could blow a hole right through him!  The Irregular Cavalry outfits such as Forrest & Mosby, became very good with the handgun
and some of the more radical Confederate supporters showed how good their training had been, when they took up Bank and Train Robbery as a career!  Unfortunately for admirers of Jesse James, he robbed mainly those banks that held money belonging to Southerner's and Ex-Confederates.  Now when he robbed Trains, he was being Pro-Confederate, for many southern Homesteaders were cheated by the railroads, when they "Bought" land from Homesteaders, for the Railroad's "Right of Way!"  It was a turbulent time for this country, and some of the scars of the War of Northern Aggression, remain to this day. I recall being given a small booklet in England, entitled, "How to Speak Southern!"  Among the words listed was: "Atlanta."  After the word was the sentence, "If your name be Sherman, don't tarry long here!" This was in the 1960's! Over one hundred years after the War of Northern Aggression was fought!  The people who gave me the notebook, were Southerners, on vacation in England, and  they came from Savanah!  I remarked about the listing for, "Atlanta," and guessed it was a joke! They quickly put me right, and said that a LOT of people still hold bad feeling toward the North about the war! Many of the fine old families, lost everything, and suffered greatly in the years following that conflict, and STILL feel strongly about the North!  I know that soon after I came to the USA, I moved South to Arkansas, and lived there for roughly ten years. I hated the Humidity, but loved the People, who were SO NICE, and always so considerate.  From there I moved to Nebraska for a very short while, and then to New Mexico, where I lived for roughly five years.  Then my Wife's Mother became terminally ill, and Betty wanted to be near her family. So it was Back to Arkansas for a spell. From there I moved to East Texas. in the Atlanta (Texas) area. Then I heard that there was Cowboy work available in Nevada, and headed (Alone!)
for Elko.  The work was all taken when I got there, but through the church, I managed to find work with a Mormon Family Ranch out of Rogerson, Idaho.  When winter loomed, I came to this state, and worked on Dude Ranches. Then I tried for cattle ranch work in Nevada again with no luck. I got sent by one agency to a ranch in Modoc County in Northern California.  Got the job when I happened to mention that I knew how to build a fence!  I also learned how to operate a Round Baler.  The Tractor they gave me for this job, only had one window left in the cab.
I returned to the little trailer that was my quarters each night, as black as the Ace of Spades!  When you operate a Round Baler the dust rises in monumental sized clouds. As it was very hot work, the dust settles on the Tractor Driver, and when you get back home, ALL your clothes have to be consigned to the laundry Bag, and the person needs a good hot shower!  I was making two trips a week to the laundromat that late summer!  Then I set out for Arizona for Dude ranch work, but was too late that year. I eventually got a job with a Lesbian Woman who bred slow racehorses!  She never did ME out of any money, but her finances were definitely shaky!  I was forever loading the trailer up with bales of hay, and driving over to the Vetinarian with it, to settle some of her vet's Bills!  Then I met wife #6, and with her home as a base, I once more set up the Horseshoeing Business!  When I reached age 62, my arthritis was so bad, I had to give up shoeing. It was taking 2000 mg. of
Aspirin to get through one horse!  So I went onto Social Security, and did some Truck Driving, until I reached 65, when I could access my English Pension.  So while I do not OWE anyone any money, I have to watch the pennies very closely! I thought I was fine this month, then went to get a new tire for the car, and found I needed TWO!  Just when you think you are making both ends meet, some Rotten Bastard moves the ends!   "Oh Well!"  Since I always pay an honest tithing, I am confident I will not wind up in the Poorhouse. The Lord Will Provide!
                                                                                                        Johnnie Roper,Alias:Gunslinger9378.
                                                                                                        Johnnie Roper,Alias:Gunslinger9378.
Never make the mistake of thinking I will not shoot..........
Because it may be your very last mistake!

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3214
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2014, 01:03:52 PM »
Hi, IMO this thread could be an interesting discussion. If you could only have one revolver, either an 8" 1858 Remington or 1860 Army Colt and was going into harms way, which revolver would you choose and why?

My choice would be the 1860 Colt. The 1860 is a natural pointer and the longer sight radius helps with accuracy. The 1860 breaks down for field cleaning (barrel comes off), the 1858 doesn't.

The 1860 is more prone to cap jam compared to the 1858, but good practice can minimize that issue. Both revolvers are strong enough for the purpose and the stronger framed 1858 isn't a practical advantage. Both revolvers allow easy and fast cylinder changeout. Both revolvers have similar parts reliability.

IMO the 1860 Colt is a more visually appealing revolver compared to the 1858.

OK, it's now your turn to pick your favorite (and why).  (^h (^h (^h

Regards,
Richard

Hi, can I change my mind? Today after a long and brutal winter I went out back and shot my 1860 Colt with 6 spare cylinders already loaded. I must admit that the 1860 is a beautiful revolver, a natural pointer, and incredibly accurate. The problem I again found is that the 1860 is a terrible cap sucker. Shooting it fast and trying to make sure it wouldn't jam from a cap part was a real problem. I'm now not sure it would be a good defensive revolver where reliability is a primary requirement. Yesterday shooting my 1858 Buffalo like a machine gun without concern for reliability has me reconsidering my preferred revolver choice for defense.

We live and learn through experience. My experience suggests that the 1858 Remington is the hands down the preferred revolver for defense. If I used a .45LC conversion cylinder, the 1860 would still be my choice since it doesn't use caps.

Regards,
Richard
There’s nothing better in the morning than the smell of bacon and black powder smoke!

Offline PaleHawkDown

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Posts: 1082
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2014, 01:31:43 PM »
I also believe in the superiority of the 1858 but with one additional caveat. I have a book somewhere that is nothing but a collection of battlefield letters with often brutal anecdotes. In one, a Confederate cavalryman told of how his 1860 jammed at the worst possible instant after he was separated from his horse and rifle. He had to reverse the handgun and use it as a club. He described the revolver as "disintegrating under the blows." He later saw an enlisted man using a captured Remington as a hammer for a tent stake and, later the same day, firing same revolver at some glass bottles and hitting every one. He immediately determined that his next revolver would be of the Remington patent.



Gunslinger9378, are you originally from England? The English were big supporters of the South during the War of Northern Interference. Seems like an interesting dichotomy.

Offline Prospector

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2014, 09:26:52 PM »
Hi Pale,
I think I saw that Remington revolver for sale at an auction the other day.  It was an original and was in good shape, except the butt end had a bunch of gouges in both the steel  and the wood, looking as if it had been used as a hammer to drive steel tent stakes.  What a pity. If the owner only knew how valuable that old revolver would be some day, he would hae taken better care of it.  But who am I to talk?  If I would have known how valuable my first car would become, I would have taken better care of it too, and never sold it!

Richard,
I am glad to see you coming around to Johnnie's and My point of view.  However, you still have a little way to come.  We will have to work to convince you that the Remington New Model Army is much more beautiful than the 1860 Colt.  I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and every time I see a cap jam in a Colt, it gets uglier an uglier in my eye.  However, the Remington, with its sleek lines, and smooth, reliable operation, is just a thing of beauty.  It is a marvel of 19th century engineering.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 12:28:08 AM by Prospector »

Offline Gunslinger9378

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 2338
  • Some will...some won't....But I do!
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2014, 11:45:06 PM »
Dear PaleHawkDown,
            Yea, I am from England. However, the reason I support the Confederacy, is that in about 1966/7, I learned of an organisation called, "The Confederate High Command."  There was an article about this organisation in a daily Paper, and it mentioned that one of the members was a Colin Fleetney, who lived in Sittingbourne, a town in Kent, not far from where I lived in Chatham.  I managed to find Colin Fleetney, and soon thereafter joined the CHC!  I remained a member until I left the Kent area,and moved to Portsmouth, on the south coast, where it was too far for me to get to meetings.  The British have always had great sympathy for the "Under-dog!" and good feelings exist in Britain toward the Southern Confederacy!  Amongst our Cowboy Association, "The British Westerner's Association," (Which I formed, and was it's first chairman for two years, before moving to Australia.) Most of the "Cowboy's" chose to wear clothing or attachments that were of Southern Origin!  Some of the members formed a C & W Band, and called themselves, "The Southern Rebel's!" They had the Stars & Bars painted on the drummer's biggest drum, and some wore a rather invalid semblance of Confederate Uniform.
            Shortly after I went to Australia, I discovered that there was a CHC chapter there, so I re-joined.  However after a short while, I lost patience with the Gormless Twit who ran the show,(Or tried to!) and more or less told him he was a disgrace to what was probably the finest bunch of fighting men, to ever wear a uniform, and that as far as I was concerned, he could stick it where the sun never shone!!!  Out in the desert one day, they started what could have been a very serious Bushfire, and if my then wife had not seen the danger in time, and thrown a bowl of dishwashing water at the source, it might have caused great loss of property! She and I almost got a handle on it, and at last a few of the others joined in, and we got it under control.  My horse, Amigo, and I DID make the only recorded One-Horse Confederate Cavalry Charge in Australian History, in our backyard of the house at Wattle Grove, Near Perth! It was the first time I had ever carried a drawn Saber on Horseback, and my wife expressed grave fears for the safety of Amigo's ears!  However all turned out well!  If any of you who are NOT good horsemen, ever try this, DO NOT tie the saber to you with the Horseknot!  That's the black leather wrist hold. The equivalent to the revolver lanyard!  The reason being, if you are about to be separated from the horse, THROW THE SWORD AWAY!  You might otherwise do yourself a serious mishap with it!!!  Like the Famous Russian!  "Igor Knackeroff!"
                                                                                                        Johnnie Roper,Alias:Gunslinger9378.
Never make the mistake of thinking I will not shoot..........
Because it may be your very last mistake!

Offline Gunslinger9378

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 2338
  • Some will...some won't....But I do!
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2014, 12:32:34 AM »
Dear Richard,
            The point you make about the supposed superior,"Pointability," of the Colt Revolvers is ably answered by Messrs Cumston & Bates, in their excellent book, "Percussion Revolvers, A guide to their history, Performance, and Use!"  Near the bottom of page 116, they write:
"Complaints that the Remington 1858 does not point as well, or "Feel," as good as the Colt are purely a function of familiarity.  The shooting qualities of the Remington Pattern, are every bit the equal of the Colt designed Revolvers." What this boils down to is that if you own and LIKE a Colt Style revolver, it may feel better to you, but as the authors point out, Both guns are equal in efficiency, except that under stressful conditions, such as being shot at by an enemy, the Remington, because of it's overall superiority, and not having to field strip the entire gun, just to insert a fresh cylinder, the owner, or user of the Remington has a vast advantage over the wielder of the colt!  I suspect that in the heat of battle, the empty cylinders were allowed to fall where they may, but with only two things to handle, the revolver and the cylinder, the Remington was vastly easier to reload. Imagine if you will, a cavalryman with a Colt 1860! The poor blighter has to take off the barrel, remove the empty cylinder, (Well just drop it!) then he has to put the barrel somewhere while he slides the fresh cylinder over the arbor. The horse might not be co-operating too well, with all the noise and scrap metal flying about, and if he shoved the barrel into his crotch, or the waistband of his pants, the chances are good it will be dropped under hoof.  The sheer simplicity of the Remington, and the ease with which a reload could be carried out, with only ONE PART to bother with, means that the Remington HAD to win, Hands Down!
            YOU may well prefer the feel of the Colt in your hand. I shot Remington's regularly for fourteen years. Then I got some more, starting on October 1st. 2011, and found they felt really good in my hand. Even better than Betsy & Clementine, who had eight inch barrels, and were thus a little,"Front Heavy!"
            To me, Remington's feel, "Just Right!"  Probably because I had SO MUCH FRUSTRATION, with that Thrice Accursed Colt 1860, that I
began with in England, and it was with an enormous sense of relief, that I found the Remington, "The Gun That Always Went Bang!" The gun that STILL always goes Bang!
                                                                                                        Johnnie Roper,Alias:Gunslinger9378.
Never make the mistake of thinking I will not shoot..........
Because it may be your very last mistake!

Offline ssb73q

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3214
  • Gunsmoke junkie
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2014, 06:41:17 AM »
Hi Johnnie, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the people of the 1800's used replacement cylinders with their BP revolvers.

From another message board:

<<
Hawg wrote:
    If it had been done in wartime it would have been documented somewhere. It is well documented about carrying multiple revolvers. There were some cased presentation sets that came with an extra cylinder but its unlikely any of them ever saw use. You didn't just cannibalize another gun for the cylinder because chances are it wouldn't work if you did.
>>

<<
I wrote:
Hi Hawg, fitting may be one issue, but after a little internet searching, it may have been more an ecconomic question?

Someone posted the following costs for revolver cylinders at the time of the civil war:

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

(The dollars in parentheses was the cost of the revolver)

An extra cylinder wouldn't be issued and it would cost more than a weeks wages at that time. It would be easier to acquire an extra revolver on the battlefield than buy an extra cylinder?
>>

Regards,
Richard
There’s nothing better in the morning than the smell of bacon and black powder smoke!

Offline Gunslinger9378

  • Ultimate Forum Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 2338
  • Some will...some won't....But I do!
Re: Colt versus Remington as battlefield weapon
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2014, 11:25:25 AM »
Dear Richard,
            In his book, Colt Sixguns, Mr. Severn DOES show photo's of spare cylinder pouches, and explains why it was that so few are around today.  When the Cartridge guns became more readily available, the need for a fully loaded spare cylinder no longer existed, so the spare cylinder pouches, were then tossed onto a shelf in the barn, where they soon became Mouse & Rat chewed.  However evidence DOES exist that SOME people did carry spare cylinders!  There is a quote from Pony Bob Haslem, an early Pony Express rider, who in telling of his first ride for that legendary operation, wrote that he saddled his horse , put his carbine in the saddle scabbard, and strapped his Colt revolver on with two spare cylinders. 
            Now I have never said that ALL persons who carried pistols carried Spare Cylinders!  But I have no doubt, that man being an inventive creature, SOME classes of people, Law enforcement Officers, Teamsters, Scouts for either Wagon Trains or the Army, and SOME isolated Cavalrymen, (At their own expense!) carried spare cylinders.  I wrote several postings on this subject a few months ago, and even Hawg admitted that it was possible.  In Severn's book, there was even a photo of a spare cylinder pouch for a revolving Rifle. Possibly a Root model of 1855!  Back in the 1990's, when I was carrying Betsy & Clementine, I often used to practice changing cylinders on horseback.  I had a pair of Pommel Bags I made for myself, and After a trial period to get Dear Old Hank used to the explosions off his back, I found that he WOULD co-operate.  I'd bring him to a halt, and growl, "Now Stand You Old Bastard!" Then slip out the empty and drop in into the pommel bag, then unsnap one of the pouches I kept on the belt, remove the fresh cylinder, insert it into the gun, and reholster, then fasten the Doofer on the pommel bag. Then had Hank behaved himself, I'd pat his neck and tell him he was a,"Good Boy!" I guess I could do all this in about 20 seconds.  Now indoors, I could change cylinders on the Remington's in 7 or 8 seconds, I owned at that time a Colt Walker, and even with all the tools laid out on the table, I NEVER was able to remove, and re-install the cylinder on that gun in under 45 seconds!  It was not possible to remove the wedge on that Walker with bare fingers!  So I had a screwdriver and a pair of pliers laid out on the table in case!  I quite frequently shot off as many as four cylinders while riding Hank around that Rainbow Valley area of Buckeye, Az.  I never dropped a cylinder, largely because Hank was SUCH a Good Boy! I REALLY loved that horse, and miss him still! Once he got it into his head, what it was you wanted, he'd do it for you willingly!
            So, to sum up, SOME people whose professions took them,"Into harms way," undoubtedly DID carry spare cylinders for their revolvers, whether they be Colt or Remington.  I have never said that I believed that ALL revolver Owners carried them! Just the men whose jobs put them in situations, where a spare cylinder could have possibly save their lives!  I know very well that had I been born in 1836, instead of 1936, I MOST DEFINITELY would have carried a few.  Just look at the members of this forum, and you will find that the MAJORITY do NOT have spare cylinders. ( Whereas Odd Balls, Like myself, have thirteenl of them!)  At heart, I am a Gunman, and often wish that
some of my problems in the past could have been settled with a gun. But as John Wayne said in the movie, "Big Jake," near the end, when he
was talking to the Indian, "Times Change!" Another 19th. Century Author, whose name temporarily escapes me, wrote a history of the Pony Express, and said, (This is not word for word!) that in the beginning, the riders carried a carbine and two six-shooters, However the pony Express never was a money making business, and Russel, Majors, & Waddel soon forbade the carrying of the carbine. (Because of the weight factor!) and for the same reason, also frowned on the second revolver. Toward the end of the Pony Express, (It only ran for about 18 months!)
Rider's carried one revolver, and the Company even frowned on the extra cylinder.  However, regardless of all this, the Remington Revolver was hands Down the more efficient when it came to, "Handiness," and speed of reloading.  No IF's, BUT's, or Maybe's! The design of the Remington, with it's solid fame. and the ease with which it could be reloaded with a fresh loaded cylinder, makes the Colt Design look like one
of those fanciful comic designs that used to appear from time to time in newspapers and Magazines! My honest opinion of the Colt design, was that it is a piece of JUNK, when compared to the Remington!  To those of you who cherish your Colts, I say, "Well good luck to you!"  However I'll wager long odds, that if you ever had to face a situation where you were being shot at, and had to fire back, when it came to reload that Colt, you'd wish for a Remington! (Or TWO of them!)
                                                                                                        Johnnie Roper,Alias:Gunslinger9378.
Never make the mistake of thinking I will not shoot..........
Because it may be your very last mistake!