I carried a revolver on duty until 2015. With HKS' crappy speedloaders, 3 seconds is still easily attainable with a little practice. Safariland Comp IIs are my preference.
Or better yet, use the opportunity you've created by shooting to get to a rifle or shotgun. Regardless of the time you spend reloading, is it worth compromising your mobility and perception to get - at best - a fully loaded handgun, when you could evade to a better position to obtain a fully loaded long arm?
The spare cylinder scenario would be more plausible if metal detectorists commonly found loose cylinders on old battle sites. I've seen every imaginable piece of Civil War metalic debris, buttons, belt buckles, spoons, and bullets, but never a cylinder found in the dirt.
@andrewphillips8341 I've never been a detectorist, but I spent my early years in Vicksburg, MS, where it was common. There was a 12 inch mortar sitting in the back yard of my house. The house was built in the 1920s and this giant cannon ball was found while digging the foundation. It was just rolled to the side and unmoved in 1963, probably because it wasn't seen as noteworthy. You can view it today in the National Park museum.
EXCELLENT POINT. I never thought of that. Me and my buddies used to go romping through the woods in Arkansas, near Uniontown, and we'd every now and again find a corroded minie ball
My family fought with Forrest. My great Uncle told me back in the 1990s that his Grandfather, who was in the 16th/19th/20th consolidated Tennessee Calvary, told him that nobody had less than 3 pistols, mostly taken from the enemy, and some had up to 6 revolvers. Extra cylinders were never mentioned.
I wish I knew more about my 2nd great grandfather in the war, all I know is he was in a NC regiment that was part of the Army of Northern Virginia, was captured at Gettysburg and spent the rest of the war at Fort McHenry as a POW. But what I do know is that Quantrill, Bloody Bill, the James boys etc. always carried multiple revolvers, like 6 or more. Forrest was the man btw, if Robert E. Lee was as aggressive and vicious as Forrest it might have been a different outcome. Lee played by the rules of chivalry, Forrest knew better.
Actually it was much more common in the Western Theater for cavalry men to carry multiple pistols. Forrest, Wheeler and other notables such as Quantrill and Anderson were famous for having troopers with up to six or more pistols on them and their saddles.
@@joe-ednew2824 and then we are talking high ranking officers, who had to provide their own weapons and uniforms or irregular troops who similar where not issues everything like a private in a regular unit.
More likely, rather than extra cylinders, if they carried any extra gear, it would have been an extra loaded pistol. We know that James Butler Hickok, post war, carried two Colt 1851 Navy's when serving in law enforcement. We also know that he had served the Union in the role of a scout, or perhaps a spy, but that he was not in a regular line company in the Army of the Republic. Likely he didn't aquire them from the Army, but purchased them, himself. As you pointed out, trying to swap cylinders, particularly horse back, would have been near impossible. Even afoot, in the thick of battle, with adrenalin flowing freely, ( been there in real life ) even with the 1858 Remington, it would have taken a lot of practice to accomplish it under pressure. So, I conclude that though there are always exceptions, the rule was that if any extras were carried into a fight, it was more likely that a fully charged and capped pistol might have been carried by a few who could afford the extra ' insurance '.
If forced to reload, you'd need cover no matter what. That said, as an owner of both weapons I can definitly cylinder swap a Colt easier than a Remington. Yes there is a greater chance of lost parts (specifically the wedge), but it does go back together easier...
@@RonaldGilbert-de1ui this is with the factory cylinder. It just seems like my Remingtons are much harder to get the cylinder actually into the gun that it is the Colt. They have to be wiggled and jiggled just right.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374it's definitely possible but they get sticky sometimes especially after firing BP repeatedly. It wouldn't be something to rely on, a gunman would probably rather carry multiple guns
You might want to read "Four Years With Morgan And Forrest" by Colonel Thomas F. Berry. There were Southern units that rode into combat with several loaded pistols. Colonel Berry used four pistols and when he escaped from a prison camp, one of the first things he did was acquire four more pistols. He also fully loaded his pistols (no empty chambers). For the raiders, firepower often made the difference as they were usually outnumbered. But there is no mention of anyone ever changing cylinders on revolver or even having spare cylinders, just spare revolvers. So I believe you are correct that there was no purpose to carry spare revolver cylinders for either side in the Civil War.
My father was an avid collector of US Civil War weapons, gear, historical information..... He never came across anything indicating extra cylinders for revolvers.
I grew up in Hanover County, Virginia, site of two major battles/campaign's of the war (Seven Days and Cold Harbor). I did a lot of relic hunting as a kid, and my grandfather did a lot more. A number of mostly revolver shaped hunks of rust were found, both Colts and Remington (Mostly Colts). Never have I seen or heard of one in a dissambled condition, which you would think must happened. I never heard of a plain cylinder being found, something that you would think would have happened as someone either dropped/lost, or threw away an extra cylinder. Not proof at all, but I never thought there was much chance anyone did it. Extra revolver? Oh, I could see that. The battlefields were probably covered with that type stuff during and after a fight. Want a revolver? There's one over there. Pick it up. It's yours now.
You answered by question- Would a soldier be allowed to buy his own gear? My guess would be that it's much more likely a soldier would buy (or bring from home) a whole pistol and not just a cylinder. I have at least 2 ancestors who fought in the Civil War for the Union. One made it back. The other was taken as a POW and died in the camp.
Soldiers was allowed, lots of accounts where they bought their own firearms and such..you can find videos on here about them spending own money on the newest rifles and revolvers..
All of these extra cylinders may have required some fitting to a certain revolver. To work and be timed correctly, even though mass produced. Cannot imagine that kind of work/fitting being done.
Just go back & look at original photos & you will see both Union & Confederate (more often Confederate) carried more than 1 pistol shoved in their belt. So yes private purchase pistols were fairly common at least with cavalry, but the army wouldn't issue more than one in any case.
Bloody Bill Anderson often carried extra cylinders and pistols. They did not dismount to fight, they attacked from horseback. Remingtons were preferred.
Anderson was a guerrilla, not cavalry. There is a big difference, in tactics, equipage, training, objectives. Beyond that, everyone here would like to see what documentation is available for his use of extra cylinders. Extra revolvers, absolutely, but I have never been shown one shred of evidence that ANYONE carried extra cylinders, much less it being common.
The only discussion about carrying extra cylinders I recall hearing involved Pony Express riders. And this debate regarded whether or not it was worth the extra bulk and weight.
I’ve heard that the Texas rangers carried extra cylinders with the very first Colt revolvers in order to be able to match the continuous firing of the Comanche
Removing and replacing even a Remington cylinder can be tricky, especially when in a hurry. Much better off getting a second pistol! Also, while you might be ok casually swapping cylinders on a modern repro, especially when firing blanks for reenactment, things might have been less convenient back in the day. A second cylinder might have a slightly different timing - quite important to get that right for live firing!
I have a memoir of a member of Terry's Texas Rangers (8th Texas volunteer Calvary) who said some of them did carry extra cylinders, and also tied revolvers together with leather thongs at the trigger guard and hung them around there necks. They would make an attack regroup and change cylinders, or reload. One story is about a cute girl finding a dropped cylinder and bring it to the man after the battle.
I think this would have been more likely if extra cylinders were available, than reloading in battle. Even on remingtons, it is a bit of an ordeal to swap them, definitely don't want to do so while riding.
Extra pistols made much more sense than extra cylinders because they were faster to use and Carrying extra pistols always made more sense. So much so, that it is still common today with police and some military personnel. The extra cylinders were and are not like modern speed loaders. You couldn't and still can't just order a spare and expect it to fit your revolver. Each cylinder must be "tuned" to your specific revolver. Everything needs to line up properly to ensure safe and reliable function. If I remember correctly, the Texas Rangers ordered pistols with extra cylinders because the cylinders were often "overcharged" by the rangers when reloading them, and, as a result, the cylinders were prone to "blow up". That was one reason Colt shortened the cylinders when he made the later model Dragoons and Army pistols.
@jonlanigan3849 yes! You could see how it would work well, if one had extra cylinders, and was on two feet, like Clint was in the movie. Would've been much harder, if not next to impossible, on a horse at full gallop!
Clint was also very proficient at 'fanning' a revolver. Something else that seems like a good idea, but was never common anywhere outside of Hollywood....
Eeehar! Some research , FYI Colt London did supply an extra cylinder fitted to certain pistols upon special request from British Officers being posted overseas ( cased set only ) , this was a replacement in case of a burst cylinder.
Myself I find it easier to load paper cartridges into my colt rather than remove the cylinder. The pin is not so easy to remove without a tool. I make the cartridges myself and they work well.
If you study actual ACW cavalry actions it’s hard to imagine when a trooper is going to have the need for more than 6 (5?) pistol rounds in any action. In a firefight you are going to dismount and rely on your carbine and generally be fighting beyond effective pistol range. In a charge or a melee the action is going to be much briefer and more intense. In Sheridan’s memoirs he talks of sabre regiments and regiments specifically armed with repeating carbines. The latter laid down the fire and the former charged home. I assume each was appropriately equipped for these roles. As modern observers and historical shooters, I think we overate the usefulness of high capacity in historical fights at close range. When you charge in close you are either going to win or get killed before you have time to use all 6 rounds in your revolver-either that or someone is going to retire in a hurry.
Oddly, at the beginning of the war, it was expected that the primary weapon of cavalry would be the sword when in close. The revolver always seemed to be a bit of an afterthought. Think of it in the pdw role that we know of today. That changed rapidly, of course, as the war went on. Revolvers became supplemental, largely, by rapid reloading carbine whenever a troops could get them..... and swords became more and more "lost", tied to the saddle or just left with the baggage train.
@@leewilkinson6372 It makes sense that this would be the thinking. The Arme Blanche, the aggressive spirit of the cavalry and all that. But by and large the revolver or even the single shot pistol functioned as an alternative to the sword in close action: in period you are going to be discharging the weapon quite close up and one handed. And this use is going to be easier for the average trooper than mastering the skill required to use a sword effectively.
I have always found it amusing that some of the same people who preach 'they never loaded all 6 chambers, 'cause it was UNSAFE' would then stuff a loaded and capped cylinder in their pocket.
It just makes sense that if you had to remove the cylinder and reload it off the gun that you could have one or two extra cylinders ready to put back on the gun. That would make going to the range much more enjoyable. Doing it under fire? I wouldn't want to do that. Having A second revolver that you could quickly put into action makes much more sense in the heat of battle. The Confederate Calvary was quicker to take advantage of the revolver in close combat than the Yankees. They caught on quickly enough though. Officers and a few others were issued revolvers. It was common enough for calvary to have a pair of revolvers on their saddles and one on their belts. Ordinary foot soldiers sometimes had a revolver but it wasn't issued. Guys that marched 20 miles a day didn't want to carry any more weight than they just had too. That includes revolvers and certainly extra cylinders. Thanks for the video
Also by the Civil War, both sides generally weren't loading their revolvers with loose powder and ball. Just like their rifle, they're being issued combustible cartridges for the revolvers.
True, but soldier psychology is such that if it is potentially lethal, they will accept the extra weight. I'd bet very few infantrymen passed up a pistol if they had an opportunity to acquire one. They might not feel a second one was worth the weight penalty, though.
Back in the 80s my unit CDR used to change cylinders in the middle of a reenactment. He had been a Marine and it seemed to be the obvious re-load option to someone who had carried an M-16 in Vietnam. He had adjusted the fit so the wedge could be pushed out easily by hand.
I very much appreciate how you gave the short answer at the beginning so viewers can decide how much detail we want. I ended up watching all the way through, but your approach is a great contrast to videos that waste massive amounts of time before they even start addressing what the title promised.
Extra cylinders were available for the Walkers for sure. 🤔 The thing is, if you were involved in a major conflict the priority would be get as many guns as possible. I suspect that it was more practical to just use any cylinders you could get to make more guns. Honestly if I look at shear machining requirements. The steel cylinder is most of the machining work that could not be made out of other materials. For the practical manufacturing cost of the gun the cylinders essentially ARE the guns.
I do not know about cylinders but old family letters from the civll war tell me that more than 1 revolver were often carried whatever regulations said.
the only documented case of revolvers swapping cylinders was Captain John Coffee Hays unit of Texas Rangers early on when he got the Surplus Republic Navy Pattersons, he was able to get. and he DRILLED his men in swapping and shooting on horseback to match Comanche warriors. by the time of the Civil War Colt had developed paper cartridges based on data from the 1840s Rangers, Mexican War to offset the need for spare cylinders which were a costly part to make from what i read 🤔🤔. i been diggin on this one a while myself 😵💫😵💫
I read that they they each carried 2 revolvers and 2 spare cylinders for each revolver and they were indeed able to swap cylinders during running fights with the Comanches.
I formerly lived in the northern Shenandoah Valley. My farm was the site of the Battle of Toms Brook between Custer and Rosser. Mosby's Rangers and White's Comanche Partisans were frequently in our area. Both units carried multiple pistols and some also carried extra cylinders. This is why Mosser's men over and over again whipped much larger Union units, armed with Henry rifles. Mosser's men usually did not even carry sabers. According to the National Park Service historians, who studied our farm, Union Cavalrymen depended on their Henry Repeater Rifles rather than using pistols very much. They also said that many of White's Comanches carried shotguns rather than rifles.
@@antoninolatorre8355 Straight from the memoir of Col. John Mosby. He stated that the multiple pistols were the principal reason that his rangers generally whipped the Yankee cavalry They carried extra cylinders, so if one was damaged they still could get back in the fight. Keep in mind that almost all the arms they carried were taken off of captured, wounded or dead Yanks.
PS - Keep in mind that both Mosby's and Whites men lived alone in homes, until called to join their unit for an attack. There was no quartermaster to resupply them, when a weapon malfunctioned.
There is no doubt that some men carried a backup gun. I believe Walkers were sold in pairs. A custom fitted cylinder is less of a thing in the real world but may have happened.
I'm no expert, but from what I've read, a pistol was a backup weapon for close-quarter situations where a rifle was impractical. Wise officers tried to avoid such situations whenever possible, but if one occurred, having a spare pistol already loaded made more sense than stripping down the pistol to replace the cylinder. When the enemy is approaching from ten to twenty feet away is not a good time to take your pistol apart.
Also its highly unlikely that a soldier could buy an extra cylinder for his issue pistol and have the gun work reliably and safely. You can do that with modern reproductions because they're made on modern machine tools. Historical guns required a significant amount of fitting to ensure they were it proper time, etc. So if you bought a spare cylinder, you would need to have it fit to the gun by a gunsmith. In most cases where I've heard of a percussion revolver with multiple cylinders, they were ordered that way from the factory. As you say, that is not how the US military ordered their revolvers.
Col John Scott used an 1858 Remington. The Mosby riders carried several pistols some being captured Remington's. I'll have to read his book again to find more details. The memoir I remember was on of a enlisted soldier who used a captured Remington with extra cylinders.
Thanks 11th OVC for the presentation. 100% agreeded loading a revolver or changing the cylinder out is more suited for bench work. Hope to see you and the rest of the OVC in the field in 2025. *LIKED* the video --LT
I think you guys covered this topic very objectively because you didn't leave out the revolvers that came in presentation cases, you brought up private purchases, and you talked about the Texas Ranger sidearms. Also I think it's good that you're covering carrying extra pistols in a separate video.
Even on mass produced revolvers, then and now, cylinder timing is an issue. Unless you are owning spare cylinders manufactured in the same factory, same lot, without any production changes the likelihood of a timing match would be almost impossibly rare. Any artificer in any unit likely would had refused to time an individual's pistols due to time, effort and general orders.
Ive never heard of troopers carrying extra cylinders being standard, although possibly a few here and there did. Ive heard of them carrying several pistols tho, which would make alot more sense, as it would have been a whole hell of alot faster to pull out another pistol, rather than go thru the process of swapping out cylinders.
Turner Kirkland once told me he bought a navy with a mismatched cylinder in the 1930's, and later found that gun's proper serial numbered cylinder in another revolver locally. But he attributed it to a trooper cleaning multiple weapons and NOT to interchanging cylinders in combat.
If the army would have issued extra cylinders they would have issued something to carry them in. They would not hand a private an expensive extra cylinder and trust that he would not promptly lose it.
On horse-back or in the heat of combat you are going to break your revolver into three separate pieces, add a fourth piece and put it all back together? Not likely to happen.
There is a great scene in a movie called "The Sister's Brothers" during a gunfight, where the brothers both carry extra cylinders and do some high speed swapping under fire. I know, it's Hollywood, but I was very impressed these actors actually learned to do this, as rapidly as they did. The real question is, could someone well practiced, actually do this while being shot at? 🤔 Good video, well thought out discussion. Thank you.
The cylinder is the most expensive part of a revolver, it could be 50% of the cost of manufacturing, especially back then. It's not like a semi-disposable Glock magazine. People were better off buying a whole gun instead of just a cylinder.
Also, There was nothing made to carry an extra cylinder. Even if there was special made carriers for extra cylinders, that would have been like carrying around hand grenades. The slightest bump to the caps would have set them off.
As far as I’m aware, the only documented instance of anyone ever carrying extra loaded cylinders was the Texas Rangers under Captain Jack Hays. It was documented that early Rangers carried a brace of Colt Paterson revolvers with spare cylinders. By the 1850s, and certainly during the CW, simply carrying more revolvers was what people who relied on them did. Reloading revolvers during combat was almost unheard of.
The only accounts I have ever heard extra cylinders being utilized was strictly with the Patterson pistols. And most likely because as you said there was not really a practical avenue for reloading in the field with a Patterson.
When I did reenacting i had a special pouch made to hold my 3 extra cylinders, had to be custom made because we couldn't find any historical example of a cylinder pouch that held more than one. Also in order to actually be able to switch cylinders in a timely manner i actually had to file the wedge down so that it could be pushed out by hand, so that I would never consider firing live rounds out of the gun now. We did Artillery so it was never a problem of moving around the field and trying to reload and as they say it would be extremely easy to lose any one of the parts as your trying to take it apart or reassemble it. In real life far easier and more reliable to just stick a second pistol in your belt or boot than to try fiddling around replacing the cylinder.
I myself find it quite interesting that of the few thousand 1855 Colt revolving carbines built about 1/4 of them were .64 calibre. That's a hefty bullet-roundball(?) to be throwing downrange. Times five? In this era, .64 calibre was often the minimim go to bore size for dangerous game, India & Africa. Example howdah pistols.
I mean it would be a heavy bullet if it ever got down range. But because the colt rifle and carbine were notorious for chain-firing and filling your hand with ball and parts of the weapon, I’d be surprised if anyone ever hit the broad side of a barn with the weapon.
There is a vast difference between Official TO&E and what soldiers actually carried. Extra cylinders, maybe not, but extra gear, or enemy gear if it was better than yours, absolutely.
In the future, archeologists will find the skeleton of the one soldier who attempted to change the cylinder during combat buried with the disassembled pistol in his hand.
I collect Civil War letters and Documents..Ive got The Garrison of several Union Regiments and Confederate too ..Never have i saw any mention of extra cylinders...
Thank you, gentlemen. Another fine video. BTW, I couldn't ride hard, as you suggested, because of my extra cylinder, LOL! Of course, I'm teasing about the extra cylinder. Many thanks!
A few years ago, a film called "The Confederate," came out. It's climax hinged upon the protagonist having been taught how to change a pistol cylinder. Thank you for a most interesting discussion.
Prussian nay? the Prussians where not involved in the Crimean war... and their "navy" was made up of just about two rowboats and the royal pleasurer yart. In both 1848-50 and again in 1864 the Danish navy had no issue blockading the north German ports... Not until late in the 19th century the Imperial German navy decide to try compete with the royal navy do "Germany" get a actual navy.
Yes, Union Cavalry soldiers during the American Civil War commonly carried extra pistols and/or spare cylinders with them in battle, as it was standard practice for cavalrymen to have multiple revolvers for quick reloading during close-quarters combat on horseback; often carrying two pistols, with the extra cylinders readily accessible in their saddlebags or holsters. Key points about this practice: Common weapon: The most popular pistol for Union cavalry was the Colt Army Model 1860, a six-shot revolver. Extra firepower: Carrying multiple pistols allowed for immediate reloading by simply switching to a fresh weapon when one ran out of ammunition. Spare cylinders: Some cavalrymen also carried spare cylinders for their revolvers, enabling faster reloading without needing to completely remove the cylinder from the gun. Saddle holsters: Extra pistols and spare cylinders were typically stored in specially designed holsters attached to the saddle for easy access. It was common for cavalrymen to carry two revolvers for extra firepower, and John S. Mosby's Rangers often carried four each: a pair in their holsters and another pair in their saddlebag.
truthfully I’m not a trooper from the 1860’s so I don’t care if extra cylinders weren’t a thing lol I do mounted staff running my horse too and from between the lines, i’ll go through 3 cylinders if i have time between messages or orders lol who cares? it’s a hobby not real life
I was a long time infantry reenactor. As an enlisted man I didn’t carry a revolver. I eventually became an officer and carried a revolver, always a Colt variant with my favorites being a Navy or a Pocket Police. Officers at the time bought their own gear or were presented them by family or friends. As stated in the video, it was a pain to remove the cylinder and I never did it in the field and only when doing a thorough cleaning. It was easier to change the cylinder on the Remington revolver and I knew a couple of guys who carried extra cylinders and had a pouch on their belt to carry them. Not many did that and I don’t know how historically accurate it was. When I was a company commander, I often did not load my revolver. I found that as often as not, I didn’t have the opportunity to discharge it and it was a pain to clean it. I regarded my company as my “weapon “ and when I gave the order to “fire” that was enough.
I renacted cavalry when young.... there was no known historical lyrics accurate cylinder pouch for this. Some guys made them look "period" or simply used part of theor cartridge box or another pouch for this, but the guys I was with could find no indication that this acrylic happend during the war. They took pains to make sure the public did not see them swap while in the field. Not strung it could not have been done, but I rather agree with the video... as you state, the revolver was never meant to be the main weapon, it was more of a last Ditch pdw. Cavalry was expected to use the musketoon or carbine then the saber, for the most part. Officers typically were not "line fighters" as you stated so ably! So the revolver and sword were both really tokens of office and last ditch pdw in line units.
Extra cylinders would not have been practical it still would have taken a ton of time to swap the cylinder out. As you mentioned, the only units I've ever seen that were fast with pistols was the Missouri bushwhackers, and they carried multiple pistols on them. But there's no mention of extra cylinders.Great video, keep up the good work.
Dealing with a cylinder for the 51 or 60 Colt is hard enough to deal with at the range let alone in battle or on horse back. Having both these guns plus a 49 pocket Colt or Wells Fargo as it’s called loading in battle even with paper cartridges would be amazing! Thanks Kindly! My GGGrandfather volunteered three terms in the Pa Cav. His tomb stone reads Co. G 21st Regiment. Pa. Cav. 1825-1912. My Grandfather was supposed to get his sword, papers and metals but upon his Grandfathers death someone slipped in the house and took everything. Oh yes, my GGGrandfathers name, Amos Rineer. DaveyJO Lancaster County Pennsylvania
In 1863, Col. Sumner led the 1stCav. 6 troops in a saber charge against the Cheyenne. They had medicine that made them bulletproof. A sabers charge uses no bullets. The Cheyenne fled
To carry more than one revolver was for sure the thing they did If possible . In the civilian market , in the beginning of cartridge conversions, i can imagine that some guys wanted an extra percussion cylinder for the cartridge converted gun to have a possibility to shoot it, for the case cartridges were not available.
Get the R.L. Wilson book, Colt, An American Legend. There are several pics of original 'presentation' cased sets of percussion revolvers, that have extra cylinders factory fitted and numbered to the guns. Pg.11 has a cased set of Patersons with extra cylinders and an extra long barrel. Pg.12 has 2 different cased single, smaller Patersons with extra cylinders. Pg.13 has a cased set of No.5 Patersons and each revolver has an extra cylinder. There are others throughout the book. Remember, early Patersons were generally not equipped with loading levers attached to the revolver.
Off the top of my head, the only pistol that could use an extra cylinders would be the Remington pistols. And while the Remington was a popular pistol, it also wasn't the most available.
Australian Bushrangers mainly active in the 1860s to 70s preferred tranter Revolvers. It were easy to change the cylinders. they were generally 41 cal. A calico bag was carried with at least two cylinders. each bushranger would be carrying up to six revolvers. After loading the cylinders a small amount of bees wax was applied to prevent cross over discharge, 36 cal, colts were not very powerful.
They used everything from single shot flintlock pistols to colts and tranter revolvers. 3 of the 4 Kelly gang members were armed with 1851 colts. They were smart enough to carry extra revolvers and more then likely wouldn't bother trying to use a spare cylinder unless it was possible with a gun they had already stole of someone that had a spare cylinder with the gun .
The thing I always wondered about with this is the safety factor. I can't imagine loaded and capped cylinders bouncing around in a pocket or bag without some discharges. The Prussian Navy belt makes sense because the cylinders are protected. Otherwise carrying capped cylinders would have been stupid dangerous.
Many years ago (before internet days), I read an excerpt from an officer's diary which included his comment on the effect of "18 well-aimed shots". It is my impression he was an infantry officer.
I think most of them wore a second gun belt if they could afford it I think when I studied history and went to visit the battlefields that's what the museum people suggested.
RE extra cylinders: I own a 56 Navy Colt. It's easy to understand why changing out cylinders isn't practical. you have to unscrew the screw holding in the barrel wedge and remove it to remove the barrel.
From a manufacturing stand point. The probablility of two cylinders made in different factories, or different lines in the same factory, fitting the same gun is low. Unless an officer purchased a custom gun that was made with a spare cyclinder, you would be better off getting a second loaded gun. :)
I have always heard that after the CW surplus revolvers were available and the most popular was the Remington. The backstrsp made for a more reliable, strong long lasting weapon.
I know when Frank James surrendered in 1882 in Gallatin Mo, my hometown, he had 4 revolvers, two knives and a shotgun logged in the record. All the original paperwork is still in the Gallitin courthouse vault and can be viewed with proper appointment. Online says he spent a year in jail in Gallatin and this is false. According to the original document he spent one night in the famous round jail there. The documents show he was released the next morning and stayed in the hotel for the next 3 weeks. There are also original documents were all of his belongings were given back to him upon his release from jail including his weapons. The documents show the main court proceedings lasted for three weeks and the entire "trial" process lasted for about a year. He was not in jail nor was his travel restricted during this time. All of the original paperwork and documents are still in Gallatin MO. None of them that I read say how many of the guns or cylinders were actually on hi body at the time of him turning himself in but they were logged into the official court record.
I'm a caretaker for the future generations, collecting since the 1970s, owning many 1860 Colt revolvers under serial 8K with matching numbers, some round, some fluted, some mis-matched, some having replaced cylinders. One was an obvious mishap with the arbor bent and forcing cone chummed up on the edge.
I've shot thousands of shots with my Colt Navy .36 It just doesn't make sense to try and swap a cylinder, instead of just reloading. I'm glad you are debunking this idea. Whoever came up with this idea, oviously had never handled a Colt split frame revolver for real.
Dinging around in the back of my brain is a reference to the Presidio in San Francisco, California getting a consignment of six Colt Walkers that had one extra cylinder each. That was 3 or 4 hard drives ago, so I no longer have the link. But one small consignment to garrison troops in the late 1850s isn't a trend.
Carrying extra cylinders, even one, for the logical reason, is just purely illogical if we're talking about Colts. OTOH, equipping the Army New Model of 1858, with extra cylinders, is extremely logical. But we are talking about the Army, which is not well known for consistently doing what is logical.
I imagine if extra cylinders was ever a thing it would have been early on in the war as a private purchase by a officer who was supplying his own equipment.
I have fired Colt and Remington cap-and-ball revolvers. To change cylinders on a Colt would mean exiting the fight in order to knock out the wedge (don't drop or lose that particular piece of revolver anatomy), pull off the barrel, remove the cylinder, drop the loaded cylinder onto the cylinder pin, put the barrel back on and wack the wedge back into place. Powder fouling will impair cylinder rotation after about 12 rounds being fired which means having to perform some type of cleaning on a disassembled revolver. What a hassle! You would be better off to carry multiple revolvers already loaded. Imaging having to clean multiple revolvers after a action. Failure to do so in a timely manner will result in the firearm starting to rust. Better off with a longbow or a sword (LOL). Now on to the Remington. Drop the loading lever, knock out the cylinder pin (don't lose that piece of valuable revolver anatomy), remove the empty cylinder, insert the loaded cylinder into it's proper place, reinsert the cylinder pin and raise the loading lever back in place and you are ready to go. Powder fouling again occurs quickly and then cylinder rotation binds up. Mosby discarded the Saber. I wonder how revolver only armament worked out after all your firearms are bound up with powder fouling? I wonder how often a percussion cap, on a spare cylinder being carried in your pocket, was accidently struck and that chamber discharged a ball into the body of a soldier or cavalryman?
It depended on the unit whether they carried extra revolvers, but neither Union or Confederate typically carried extra cylinders. A lot of cavalrymen on both sides carried two, three or even four revolvers. I have a picture of my great-great-grandfather and his brother from the war, it's a tin-type and not in the best shape. But you can see my GGGF carried two revolvers and a side-by-side shotgun. One pistol holstered, the second tucked into the belt, and the shotgun carried in hand. His brother carried three pistols, only one holster the other two simply tucked into his belt.
Well, here's the reason. All the way up to the 1900s, pistols were considered a tertiery weapon, according to the U.S. Army doctrine at the time. That's the reason the trigger on Colt Army single actions are offset to the right, and loading gates were on the right. They expected you to fire with the left, and use the sabre (or hold reins) in your dominant hand. Now, in real life, of course the soldiers fought with their pistols and tried not to get in sabre range with the enemy.
I remember reading a bushwhacker memior (could have been Bill Magruder-not sure) where he said that it was far more expedient to carry extra revolvers than extra cylinders and they would loot pistols whenever they had the chance
Pretty much agree with what youre saying. but as you mention there are exceptions. And some evidence of this that ive seen over the years are that some cavalry units did have extra pistols in photos, some pistols probably for officers were actually ordered with extra cylinders and believe there was a remington with a mismatched cylinder found in a field suggesting that soldier swapped cylinders at some point possibly during the fight but maybe also before.
Have you talked how the saber was on its way to being an obsolete weapon in the 1860s? The cavalry charge with sabers was hardly a thing with a majority of cavalry actions being dismounted. It makes me laugh everytime i attend an event with cavalry charging each other with sabers drawn.
But the saber was still used by units trained in it until the end of the war. April 3, 1865, the 2nd NC Cavalry made several charges in column against Custer's advancing forces at Namozine Church (the 5th NC was dismounted on their right). Ordered to 'hold at all hazards,' it was literally their last organized action, and they charged with sabers.
The military issue combustible envelope cartridges were a faster reload than you might expect. There is no fired cartridge to remove and replace. The reloading and recapping isnt fast, but not as slow as you might suspect.
Pale Rider (1985). No one would even be talking about extra cylinders if that movie had never been made! The pistol Clint used was a 1858 Remington. A cylinder change would be sorta' easy. Not so with Colts. In '85 (I was 14) Military style weapons were huge. AK's, Valmets, Mini 14's and Galils were being sold in the US. There was a "Banana Mag" craze going on. Here was this popular movie where the hero used and extra cylinder to get an advantage over the bad guys. I guess over 40 years the idea of changing cylinders has been deposited into gun culture. Ordinance depts. all over the world were adopting single shot rifles as opposed to repeaters to save rounds. The 30-40 Krag had a magazine cut-off, also the Lee Metford. There was no way the penny pinchers were going to spend $ to give extra steel to Soldiers. Also, we all know parts interchange came from the firearms industry but I really wonder how easy (fast) it would be to fit 2 cylinders to a pistol.
Extra cylinders don’t make a lot of sense when considering how quick reloading with cartridges is compared to disassembly, in addition to weighing less and taking up less space
Even today when reloading revolvers, speed loaders and speed strips etc, the fastest reload is pulling a second revolver.
This is true
I carried a revolver on duty until 2015.
With HKS' crappy speedloaders, 3 seconds is still easily attainable with a little practice.
Safariland Comp IIs are my preference.
Or better yet, use the opportunity you've created by shooting to get to a rifle or shotgun.
Regardless of the time you spend reloading, is it worth compromising your mobility and perception to get - at best - a fully loaded handgun, when you could evade to a better position to obtain a fully loaded long arm?
@Treblaine so in other words, run away? Probably not terrible advice but it might not always be practical.
@@Treblaine Sometimes practical, sometimes not.
That said, you ahouldn't be compromising your awareness to reload. It should be done "eyes up".
The spare cylinder scenario would be more plausible if metal detectorists commonly found loose cylinders on old battle sites. I've seen every imaginable piece of Civil War metalic debris, buttons, belt buckles, spoons, and bullets, but never a cylinder found in the dirt.
Have you found any civil war era firearms in the dirt?
@@andrewphillips8341they find them all the time
@andrewphillips8341 I've never been a detectorist, but I spent my early years in Vicksburg, MS, where it was common. There was a 12 inch mortar sitting in the back yard of my house. The house was built in the 1920s and this giant cannon ball was found while digging the foundation. It was just rolled to the side and unmoved in 1963, probably because it wasn't seen as noteworthy. You can view it today in the National Park museum.
EXCELLENT POINT. I never thought of that. Me and my buddies used to go romping through the woods in Arkansas, near Uniontown, and we'd every now and again find a corroded minie ball
A spare cylinder should be fitted to the revolver it is to be used in.
My family fought with Forrest. My great Uncle told me back in the 1990s that his Grandfather, who was in the 16th/19th/20th consolidated Tennessee Calvary, told him that nobody had less than 3 pistols, mostly taken from the enemy, and some had up to 6 revolvers. Extra cylinders were never mentioned.
and this is in a irregular unit.
You simply don't find that in regular cavalry units, where the guns where issued.
Forrest was a confederate too, the confederates are known to have carried multiple pistols in the western theater
Extra pistols, especially those captured in battle would have been definitely beneficial to cavalry.
I wish I knew more about my 2nd great grandfather in the war, all I know is he was in a NC regiment that was part of the Army of Northern Virginia, was captured at Gettysburg and spent the rest of the war at Fort McHenry as a POW. But what I do know is that Quantrill, Bloody Bill, the James boys etc. always carried multiple revolvers, like 6 or more. Forrest was the man btw, if Robert E. Lee was as aggressive and vicious as Forrest it might have been a different outcome. Lee played by the rules of chivalry, Forrest knew better.
My kin in fla 2nd calvary carried extra pistols
Only one I've heard of was Moseby telling men to carry 2 or 3 pistols and/or a shotgun. Made sense for that era.
Actually it was much more common in the Western Theater for cavalry men to carry multiple pistols. Forrest, Wheeler and other notables such as Quantrill and Anderson were famous for having troopers with up to six or more pistols on them and their saddles.
@@joe-ednew2824my third great grandfathers cousin was Archie Clements, Bloody Bill’s “chief skelper”.
@@joe-ednew2824 and then we are talking high ranking officers, who had to provide their own weapons and uniforms or irregular troops who similar where not issues everything like a private in a regular unit.
Mosby was a genius and kept his troops on the move. Having multiple guns loaded and ready to go made sense with his mobile fighting style.
Changing cylinders is not practical for Colts, possibly for Remingtons. Extra Pistols are the practical solution.
I would argue it's not practical for Remingtons. Imagine dropping one of those cylinders at the wrong angle, or falling on it wrong...
More likely, rather than extra cylinders, if they carried any extra gear, it would have been an extra loaded pistol.
We know that James Butler Hickok, post war, carried two Colt 1851 Navy's when serving in law enforcement. We also know that he had served the Union in the role of a scout, or perhaps a spy, but that he was not in a regular line company in the Army of the Republic. Likely he didn't aquire them from the Army, but purchased them, himself.
As you pointed out, trying to swap cylinders, particularly horse back, would have been near impossible. Even afoot, in the thick of battle, with adrenalin flowing freely, ( been there in real life ) even with the 1858 Remington, it would have taken a lot of practice to accomplish it under pressure.
So, I conclude that though there are always exceptions, the rule was that if any extras were carried into a fight, it was more likely that a fully charged and capped pistol might have been carried by a few who could afford the extra ' insurance '.
If forced to reload, you'd need cover no matter what. That said, as an owner of both weapons I can definitly cylinder swap a Colt easier than a Remington. Yes there is a greater chance of lost parts (specifically the wedge), but it does go back together easier...
@@jacobmccandles1767
What did to do to fit the extra cylinder to the gun. Did you have to adjust it so the timing and cylinder gap was correct?
@@RonaldGilbert-de1ui this is with the factory cylinder. It just seems like my Remingtons are much harder to get the cylinder actually into the gun that it is the Colt. They have to be wiggled and jiggled just right.
Brandon Herrera AK Guy can switch out an 1858 Remington in seconds, he's the John Wick of black powder.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374it's definitely possible but they get sticky sometimes especially after firing BP repeatedly. It wouldn't be something to rely on, a gunman would probably rather carry multiple guns
You might want to read "Four Years With Morgan And Forrest" by Colonel Thomas F. Berry. There were Southern units that rode into combat with several loaded pistols. Colonel Berry used four pistols and when he escaped from a prison camp, one of the first things he did was acquire four more pistols. He also fully loaded his pistols (no empty chambers). For the raiders, firepower often made the difference as they were usually outnumbered.
But there is no mention of anyone ever changing cylinders on revolver or even having spare cylinders, just spare revolvers. So I believe you are correct that there was no purpose to carry spare revolver cylinders for either side in the Civil War.
My father was an avid collector of US Civil War weapons, gear, historical information..... He never came across anything indicating extra cylinders for revolvers.
Great job guys. The whole cylinder change was invented by Clint Eastwood and his gun wrangler for the movie "Pale Rider."
He did it in Josey Wales also
Then adopted by yahoo reenactors to satiate their B Western fantasia. Was always an anachronistic pet peeve of mine.
I grew up in Hanover County, Virginia, site of two major battles/campaign's of the war (Seven Days and Cold Harbor). I did a lot of relic hunting as a kid, and my grandfather did a lot more. A number of mostly revolver shaped hunks of rust were found, both Colts and Remington (Mostly Colts). Never have I seen or heard of one in a dissambled condition, which you would think must happened. I never heard of a plain cylinder being found, something that you would think would have happened as someone either dropped/lost, or threw away an extra cylinder. Not proof at all, but I never thought there was much chance anyone did it. Extra revolver? Oh, I could see that. The battlefields were probably covered with that type stuff during and after a fight. Want a revolver? There's one over there. Pick it up. It's yours now.
You answered by question- Would a soldier be allowed to buy his own gear? My guess would be that it's much more likely a soldier would buy (or bring from home) a whole pistol and not just a cylinder. I have at least 2 ancestors who fought in the Civil War for the Union. One made it back. The other was taken as a POW and died in the camp.
officers had to buy their own stuff.
NCOs and privates had it issued. But we obviously do see men use firearms they own. (like the henry)
Soldiers was allowed, lots of accounts where they bought their own firearms and such..you can find videos on here about them spending own money on the newest rifles and revolvers..
@@Yamaha38XCRacer thank you. I meant to say- that is a question had, and you answered it in the video. Nice work.
All of these extra cylinders may have required some fitting to a certain revolver. To work and be timed correctly, even though mass produced. Cannot imagine that kind of work/fitting being done.
Just go back & look at original photos & you will see both Union & Confederate (more often Confederate) carried more than 1 pistol shoved in their belt. So yes private purchase pistols were fairly common at least with cavalry, but the army wouldn't issue more than one in any case.
Bloody Bill Anderson often carried extra cylinders and pistols. They did not dismount to fight, they attacked from horseback. Remingtons were preferred.
Anderson was a guerrilla, not cavalry. There is a big difference, in tactics, equipage, training, objectives. Beyond that, everyone here would like to see what documentation is available for his use of extra cylinders. Extra revolvers, absolutely, but I have never been shown one shred of evidence that ANYONE carried extra cylinders, much less it being common.
Yup pulling your second pistol,when needed is called a NY reload
The only discussion about carrying extra cylinders I recall hearing involved Pony Express riders. And this debate regarded whether or not it was worth the extra bulk and weight.
I’ve heard that the Texas rangers carried extra cylinders with the very first Colt revolvers in order to be able to match the continuous firing of the Comanche
@@ItzJustHistory1916 That's right. I think he mentioned something about it in his video.
Removing and replacing even a Remington cylinder can be tricky, especially when in a hurry. Much better off getting a second pistol!
Also, while you might be ok casually swapping cylinders on a modern repro, especially when firing blanks for reenactment, things might have been less convenient back in the day. A second cylinder might have a slightly different timing - quite important to get that right for live firing!
I have a memoir of a member of Terry's Texas Rangers (8th Texas volunteer Calvary) who said some of them did carry extra cylinders,
and also tied revolvers together with leather thongs at the trigger guard and hung them around there necks.
They would make an attack regroup and change cylinders, or reload.
One story is about a cute girl finding a dropped cylinder and bring it to the man after the battle.
I think this would have been more likely if extra cylinders were available, than reloading in battle. Even on remingtons, it is a bit of an ordeal to swap them, definitely don't want to do so while riding.
Extra pistols made much more sense than extra cylinders because they were faster to use and
Carrying extra pistols always made more sense. So much so, that it is still common today with police and some military personnel.
The extra cylinders were and are not like modern speed loaders.
You couldn't and still can't just order a spare and expect it to fit your revolver. Each cylinder must be "tuned" to your specific revolver. Everything needs to line up properly to ensure safe and reliable function.
If I remember correctly, the Texas Rangers ordered pistols with extra cylinders because the cylinders were often "overcharged" by the rangers when reloading them, and, as a result, the cylinders were prone to "blow up". That was one reason Colt shortened the cylinders when he made the later model Dragoons and Army pistols.
The famous scene from the movie Pale Rider, Clint Eastwood changes cylinders in a dramatic scene.
@jonlanigan3849 yes! You could see how it would work well, if one had extra cylinders, and was on two feet, like Clint was in the movie. Would've been much harder, if not next to impossible, on a horse at full gallop!
That’s the movie I was thinking of.
Clint was also very proficient at 'fanning' a revolver. Something else that seems like a good idea, but was never common anywhere outside of Hollywood....
Eeehar! Some research , FYI Colt London did supply an extra cylinder fitted to certain pistols upon special request from British Officers being posted overseas ( cased set only ) , this was a replacement in case of a burst cylinder.
lol early manufacturing... test fits
That was an excellent video. Well done
The extra cylinders had barrels, hammers, frames, triggers and grips attached to them.
Myself I find it easier to load paper cartridges into my colt rather than remove the cylinder. The pin is not so easy to remove without a tool. I make the cartridges myself and they work well.
If you study actual ACW cavalry actions it’s hard to imagine when a trooper is going to have the need for more than 6 (5?) pistol rounds in any action. In a firefight you are going to dismount and rely on your carbine and generally be fighting beyond effective pistol range. In a charge or a melee the action is going to be much briefer and more intense. In Sheridan’s memoirs he talks of sabre regiments and regiments specifically armed with repeating carbines. The latter laid down the fire and the former charged home. I assume each was appropriately equipped for these roles. As modern observers and historical shooters, I think we overate the usefulness of high capacity in historical fights at close range. When you charge in close you are either going to win or get killed before you have time to use all 6 rounds in your revolver-either that or someone is going to retire in a hurry.
Oddly, at the beginning of the war, it was expected that the primary weapon of cavalry would be the sword when in close. The revolver always seemed to be a bit of an afterthought. Think of it in the pdw role that we know of today. That changed rapidly, of course, as the war went on. Revolvers became supplemental, largely, by rapid reloading carbine whenever a troops could get them..... and swords became more and more "lost", tied to the saddle or just left with the baggage train.
@@leewilkinson6372 It makes sense that this would be the thinking. The Arme Blanche, the aggressive spirit of the cavalry and all that. But by and large the revolver or even the single shot pistol functioned as an alternative to the sword in close action: in period you are going to be discharging the weapon quite close up and one handed. And this use is going to be easier for the average trooper than mastering the skill required to use a sword effectively.
Quantrill's Raiders were 'Revolver Mad' each trooper carrying about 6.
One of the issues with loaded cylinders in combat is that they are VERY susceptible to going off randomly if handled roughly
The Army issued combustible envelope cartridges were often packed in small wooden boxes for protection.
I have always found it amusing that some of the same people who preach 'they never loaded all 6 chambers, 'cause it was UNSAFE' would then stuff a loaded and capped cylinder in their pocket.
It just makes sense that if you had to remove the cylinder and reload it off the gun that you could have one or two extra cylinders ready to put back on the gun. That would make going to the range much more enjoyable. Doing it under fire? I wouldn't want to do that.
Having A second revolver that you could quickly put into action makes much more sense in the heat of battle.
The Confederate Calvary was quicker to take advantage of the revolver in close combat than the Yankees. They caught on quickly enough though.
Officers and a few others were issued revolvers.
It was common enough for calvary to have a pair of revolvers on their saddles and one on their belts.
Ordinary foot soldiers sometimes had a revolver but it wasn't issued.
Guys that marched 20 miles a day didn't want to carry any more weight than they just had too. That includes revolvers and certainly extra cylinders.
Thanks for the video
Also by the Civil War, both sides generally weren't loading their revolvers with loose powder and ball. Just like their rifle, they're being issued combustible cartridges for the revolvers.
True, but soldier psychology is such that if it is potentially lethal, they will accept the extra weight. I'd bet very few infantrymen passed up a pistol if they had an opportunity to acquire one. They might not feel a second one was worth the weight penalty, though.
Back in the 80s my unit CDR used to change cylinders in the middle of a reenactment. He had been a Marine and it seemed to be the obvious re-load option to someone who had carried an M-16 in Vietnam. He had adjusted the fit so the wedge could be pushed out easily by hand.
I very much appreciate how you gave the short answer at the beginning so viewers can decide how much detail we want. I ended up watching all the way through, but your approach is a great contrast to videos that waste massive amounts of time before they even start addressing what the title promised.
Extra cylinders were available for the Walkers for sure. 🤔 The thing is, if you were involved in a major conflict the priority would be get as many guns as possible. I suspect that it was more practical to just use any cylinders you could get to make more guns. Honestly if I look at shear machining requirements. The steel cylinder is most of the machining work that could not be made out of other materials. For the practical manufacturing cost of the gun the cylinders essentially ARE the guns.
I do not know about cylinders but old family letters from the civll war tell me that more than 1 revolver were often carried whatever regulations said.
in a regular cavalry unit?
@@thomasbaagaardyes. Many regular cavalry units carried 3+ revolvers
@@thomasbaagaard yes
Was fighting in a tactical as Calvary dismounted. Had an extra cylinder for my “colt” army. Even dismounted it was quite a juggling fiasco.
the only documented case of revolvers swapping cylinders was Captain John Coffee Hays unit of Texas Rangers early on when he got the Surplus Republic Navy Pattersons, he was able to get. and he DRILLED his men in swapping and shooting on horseback to match Comanche warriors. by the time of the Civil War Colt had developed paper cartridges based on data from the 1840s Rangers, Mexican War to offset the need for spare cylinders which were a costly part to make from what i read 🤔🤔. i been diggin on this one a while myself 😵💫😵💫
I read that they they each carried 2 revolvers and 2 spare cylinders for each revolver and they were indeed able to swap cylinders during running fights with the Comanches.
I formerly lived in the northern Shenandoah Valley. My farm was the site of the Battle of Toms Brook between Custer and Rosser. Mosby's Rangers and White's Comanche Partisans were frequently in our area. Both units carried multiple pistols and some also carried extra cylinders. This is why Mosser's men over and over again whipped much larger Union units, armed with Henry rifles. Mosser's men usually did not even carry sabers. According to the National Park Service historians, who studied our farm, Union Cavalrymen depended on their Henry Repeater Rifles rather than using pistols very much. They also said that many of White's Comanches carried shotguns rather than rifles.
@@peopleofonefire9643, hi, to you ... ‼️
sorry i don't believe your story ... than extra cylinder ...
so long 👋
@@antoninolatorre8355 Straight from the memoir of Col. John Mosby. He stated that the multiple pistols were the principal reason that his rangers generally whipped the Yankee cavalry They carried extra cylinders, so if one was damaged they still could get back in the fight. Keep in mind that almost all the arms they carried were taken off of captured, wounded or dead Yanks.
PS - Keep in mind that both Mosby's and Whites men lived alone in homes, until called to join their unit for an attack. There was no quartermaster to resupply them, when a weapon malfunctioned.
There is no doubt that some men carried a backup gun. I believe Walkers were sold in pairs. A custom fitted cylinder is less of a thing in the real world but may have happened.
If you don't think.a well heeled ranger didn't have 2😊
I'm no expert, but from what I've read, a pistol was a backup weapon for close-quarter situations where a rifle was impractical. Wise officers tried to avoid such situations whenever possible, but if one occurred, having a spare pistol already loaded made more sense than stripping down the pistol to replace the cylinder. When the enemy is approaching from ten to twenty feet away is not a good time to take your pistol apart.
Also its highly unlikely that a soldier could buy an extra cylinder for his issue pistol and have the gun work reliably and safely. You can do that with modern reproductions because they're made on modern machine tools. Historical guns required a significant amount of fitting to ensure they were it proper time, etc. So if you bought a spare cylinder, you would need to have it fit to the gun by a gunsmith. In most cases where I've heard of a percussion revolver with multiple cylinders, they were ordered that way from the factory. As you say, that is not how the US military ordered their revolvers.
Col John Scott used an 1858 Remington. The Mosby riders carried several pistols some being captured Remington's. I'll have to read his book again to find more details.
The memoir I remember was on of a enlisted soldier who used a captured Remington with extra cylinders.
Thanks 11th OVC for the presentation. 100% agreeded loading a revolver or changing the cylinder out is more suited for bench work. Hope to see you and the rest of the OVC in the field in 2025. *LIKED* the video --LT
I think you guys covered this topic very objectively because you didn't leave out the revolvers that came in presentation cases, you brought up private purchases, and you talked about the Texas Ranger sidearms. Also I think it's good that you're covering carrying extra pistols in a separate video.
Even on mass produced revolvers, then and now, cylinder timing is an issue. Unless you are owning spare cylinders manufactured in the same factory, same lot, without any production changes the likelihood of a timing match would be almost impossibly rare. Any artificer in any unit likely would had refused to time an individual's pistols due to time, effort and general orders.
Ive never heard of troopers carrying extra cylinders being standard, although possibly a few here and there did. Ive heard of them carrying several pistols tho, which would make alot more sense, as it would have been a whole hell of alot faster to pull out another pistol, rather than go thru the process of swapping out cylinders.
Turner Kirkland once told me he bought a navy with a mismatched cylinder in the 1930's, and later found that gun's proper serial numbered cylinder in another revolver locally. But he attributed it to a trooper cleaning multiple weapons and NOT to interchanging cylinders in combat.
If the army would have issued extra cylinders they would have issued something to carry them in. They would not hand a private an expensive extra cylinder and trust that he would not promptly lose it.
With all the Dead men laying around I'm going with there were plenty of pistols laying around and why not just carry extra "Guns" ???
On horse-back or in the heat of combat you are going to break your revolver into three separate pieces, add a fourth piece and put it all back together? Not likely to happen.
Cylinders were hand fitted to the revolver. You could not just switch cylinders and expect it to operate correctly. No Cnc machining in those days 😂
There is a great scene in a movie called "The Sister's Brothers" during a gunfight, where the brothers both carry extra cylinders and do some high speed swapping under fire. I know, it's Hollywood, but I was very impressed these actors actually learned to do this, as rapidly as they did. The real question is, could someone well practiced, actually do this while being shot at? 🤔 Good video, well thought out discussion. Thank you.
The cylinder is the most expensive part of a revolver, it could be 50% of the cost of manufacturing, especially back then. It's not like a semi-disposable Glock magazine.
People were better off buying a whole gun instead of just a cylinder.
Also, There was nothing made to carry an extra cylinder. Even if there was special made carriers for extra cylinders, that would have been like carrying around hand grenades. The slightest bump to the caps would have set them off.
I've seen old photos of guys having a couple of revolvers tucked in a belt. Not standard issue, picked up in the field
As far as I’m aware, the only documented instance of anyone ever carrying extra loaded cylinders was the Texas Rangers under Captain Jack Hays. It was documented that early Rangers carried a brace of Colt Paterson revolvers with spare cylinders.
By the 1850s, and certainly during the CW, simply carrying more revolvers was what people who relied on them did. Reloading revolvers during combat was almost unheard of.
The only accounts I have ever heard extra cylinders being utilized was strictly with the Patterson pistols. And most likely because as you said there was not really a practical avenue for reloading in the field with a Patterson.
When I did reenacting i had a special pouch made to hold my 3 extra cylinders, had to be custom made because we couldn't find any historical example of a cylinder pouch that held more than one.
Also in order to actually be able to switch cylinders in a timely manner i actually had to file the wedge down so that it could be pushed out by hand, so that I would never consider firing live rounds out of the gun now.
We did Artillery so it was never a problem of moving around the field and trying to reload and as they say it would be extremely easy to lose any one of the parts as your trying to take it apart or reassemble it.
In real life far easier and more reliable to just stick a second pistol in your belt or boot than to try fiddling around replacing the cylinder.
I myself find it quite interesting that of the few thousand 1855 Colt revolving carbines built about 1/4 of them were .64 calibre. That's a hefty bullet-roundball(?) to be throwing downrange. Times five? In this era, .64 calibre was often the minimim go to bore size for dangerous game, India & Africa. Example howdah pistols.
Back when being able to cast your own bullets meant logistics wasn't complicated by that sort of thing either
I mean it would be a heavy bullet if it ever got down range. But because the colt rifle and carbine were notorious for chain-firing and filling your hand with ball and parts of the weapon, I’d be surprised if anyone ever hit the broad side of a barn with the weapon.
Hey! These films are great. I'm super happy I found you. Love from Scotland.
💙🏴 My grandfather moved here with his family in 1923 & I've always wanted to go there just to see where our family is from.
There is a vast difference between Official TO&E and what soldiers actually carried. Extra cylinders, maybe not, but extra gear, or enemy gear if it was better than yours, absolutely.
In the future, archeologists will find the skeleton of the one soldier who attempted to change the cylinder during combat buried with the disassembled pistol in his hand.
I collect Civil War letters and Documents..Ive got The Garrison of several Union Regiments and Confederate too ..Never have i saw any mention of extra cylinders...
Thank you, gentlemen. Another fine video. BTW, I couldn't ride hard, as you suggested, because of my extra cylinder, LOL! Of course, I'm teasing about the extra cylinder. Many thanks!
"BuT wHaT aBoUt gOrIlLaS"
A few years ago, a film called "The Confederate," came out. It's climax hinged upon the protagonist having been taught how to change a pistol cylinder.
Thank you for a most interesting discussion.
I've always suspected this! Thanks for covering it!
Prussian nay? the Prussians where not involved in the Crimean war... and their "navy" was made up of just about two rowboats and the royal pleasurer yart.
In both 1848-50 and again in 1864 the Danish navy had no issue blockading the north German ports...
Not until late in the 19th century the Imperial German navy decide to try compete with the royal navy do "Germany" get a actual navy.
Yes, Union Cavalry soldiers during the American Civil War commonly carried extra pistols and/or spare cylinders with them in battle, as it was standard practice for cavalrymen to have multiple revolvers for quick reloading during close-quarters combat on horseback; often carrying two pistols, with the extra cylinders readily accessible in their saddlebags or holsters.
Key points about this practice:
Common weapon:
The most popular pistol for Union cavalry was the Colt Army Model 1860, a six-shot revolver.
Extra firepower:
Carrying multiple pistols allowed for immediate reloading by simply switching to a fresh weapon when one ran out of ammunition.
Spare cylinders:
Some cavalrymen also carried spare cylinders for their revolvers, enabling faster reloading without needing to completely remove the cylinder from the gun.
Saddle holsters:
Extra pistols and spare cylinders were typically stored in specially designed holsters attached to the saddle for easy access. It was common for cavalrymen to carry two revolvers for extra firepower, and John S. Mosby's Rangers often carried four each: a pair in their holsters and another pair in their saddlebag.
truthfully I’m not a trooper from the 1860’s so I don’t care if extra cylinders weren’t a thing lol I do mounted staff running my horse too and from between the lines, i’ll go through 3 cylinders if i have time between messages or orders lol who cares? it’s a hobby not real life
Guns back then were custom made so one would not fit another!
I was a long time infantry reenactor. As an enlisted man I didn’t carry a revolver. I eventually became an officer and carried a revolver, always a Colt variant with my favorites being a Navy or a Pocket Police. Officers at the time bought their own gear or were presented them by family or friends. As stated in the video, it was a pain to remove the cylinder and I never did it in the field and only when doing a thorough cleaning. It was easier to change the cylinder on the Remington revolver and I knew a couple of guys who carried extra cylinders and had a pouch on their belt to carry them. Not many did that and I don’t know how historically accurate it was.
When I was a company commander, I often did not load my revolver. I found that as often as not, I didn’t have the opportunity to discharge it and it was a pain to clean it. I regarded my company as my “weapon “ and when I gave the order to “fire” that was enough.
I renacted cavalry when young.... there was no known historical lyrics accurate cylinder pouch for this. Some guys made them look "period" or simply used part of theor cartridge box or another pouch for this, but the guys I was with could find no indication that this acrylic happend during the war. They took pains to make sure the public did not see them swap while in the field.
Not strung it could not have been done, but I rather agree with the video... as you state, the revolver was never meant to be the main weapon, it was more of a last Ditch pdw. Cavalry was expected to use the musketoon or carbine then the saber, for the most part. Officers typically were not "line fighters" as you stated so ably! So the revolver and sword were both really tokens of office and last ditch pdw in line units.
Extra cylinders would not have been practical it still would have taken a ton of time to swap the cylinder out. As you mentioned, the only units I've ever seen that were fast with pistols was the Missouri bushwhackers, and they carried multiple pistols on them. But there's no mention of extra cylinders.Great video, keep up the good work.
Dealing with a cylinder for the 51 or 60 Colt is hard enough to deal with at the range let alone in battle or on horse back. Having both these guns plus a 49 pocket Colt or Wells Fargo as it’s called loading in battle even with paper cartridges would be amazing! Thanks Kindly! My GGGrandfather volunteered three terms in the Pa Cav. His tomb stone reads Co. G 21st Regiment. Pa. Cav. 1825-1912. My Grandfather was supposed to get his sword, papers and metals but upon his Grandfathers death someone slipped in the house and took everything. Oh yes, my GGGrandfathers name, Amos Rineer. DaveyJO Lancaster County Pennsylvania
In 1863, Col. Sumner led the 1stCav. 6 troops in a saber charge against the Cheyenne. They had medicine that made them bulletproof. A sabers charge uses no bullets. The Cheyenne fled
Didn’t they use paper cartridges then too? That would’ve been much easier than loose ball and powder
They most certainly did. Various arsenals in the North made .31, .36 and .44 loads. The Confederates only loaded .36 due to logistics issues.
@ I think if more people knew this it would dispel more myths. They treated them more like front loading revolvers than muzzle loaders
To carry more than one revolver was for sure the thing they did If possible .
In the civilian market , in the beginning of cartridge conversions, i can imagine that some guys wanted an extra percussion cylinder for the cartridge converted gun to have a possibility to shoot it, for the case cartridges were not available.
Get the R.L. Wilson book, Colt, An American Legend. There are several pics of original 'presentation' cased sets of percussion revolvers, that have extra cylinders factory fitted and numbered to the guns. Pg.11 has a cased set of Patersons with extra cylinders and an extra long barrel. Pg.12 has 2 different cased single, smaller Patersons with extra cylinders. Pg.13 has a cased set of No.5 Patersons and each revolver has an extra cylinder. There are others throughout the book. Remember, early Patersons were generally not equipped with loading levers attached to the revolver.
Off the top of my head, the only pistol that could use an extra cylinders would be the Remington pistols. And while the Remington was a popular pistol, it also wasn't the most available.
Australian Bushrangers mainly active in the 1860s to 70s preferred tranter Revolvers. It were easy to change the cylinders. they were generally 41 cal. A calico bag was carried with at least two cylinders. each bushranger would be carrying up to six revolvers. After loading the cylinders a small amount of bees wax was applied to prevent cross over discharge, 36 cal, colts were not very powerful.
6 revolvers? How many arms did each guy have?
They used everything from single shot flintlock pistols to colts and tranter revolvers.
3 of the 4 Kelly gang members were armed with 1851 colts.
They were smart enough to carry extra revolvers and more then likely wouldn't bother trying to use a spare cylinder unless it was possible with a gun they had already stole of someone that had a spare cylinder with the gun .
@@DougShoeBushcraftour troopers were armed with some pretty shit weaponry every thing from smoothbore carbines to rifles and pistols.
The thing I always wondered about with this is the safety factor. I can't imagine loaded and capped cylinders bouncing around in a pocket or bag without some discharges. The Prussian Navy belt makes sense because the cylinders are protected. Otherwise carrying capped cylinders would have been stupid dangerous.
Many years ago (before internet days), I read an excerpt from an officer's diary which included his comment on the effect of "18 well-aimed shots". It is my impression he was an infantry officer.
I think most of them wore a second gun belt if they could afford it I think when I studied history and went to visit the battlefields that's what the museum people suggested.
RE extra cylinders: I own a 56 Navy Colt. It's easy to understand why changing out cylinders isn't practical. you have to unscrew the screw holding in the barrel wedge and remove it to remove the barrel.
From a manufacturing stand point. The probablility of two cylinders made in different factories, or different lines in the same factory, fitting the same gun is low. Unless an officer purchased a custom gun that was made with a spare cyclinder, you would be better off getting a second loaded gun. :)
I have always heard that after the CW surplus revolvers were available and the most popular was the Remington. The backstrsp made for a more reliable, strong long lasting weapon.
I know when Frank James surrendered in 1882 in Gallatin Mo, my hometown, he had 4 revolvers, two knives and a shotgun logged in the record. All the original paperwork is still in the Gallitin courthouse vault and can be viewed with proper appointment. Online says he spent a year in jail in Gallatin and this is false. According to the original document he spent one night in the famous round jail there. The documents show he was released the next morning and stayed in the hotel for the next 3 weeks. There are also original documents were all of his belongings were given back to him upon his release from jail including his weapons. The documents show the main court proceedings lasted for three weeks and the entire "trial" process lasted for about a year. He was not in jail nor was his travel restricted during this time. All of the original paperwork and documents are still in Gallatin MO. None of them that I read say how many of the guns or cylinders were actually on hi body at the time of him turning himself in but they were logged into the official court record.
I'm a caretaker for the future generations, collecting since the 1970s, owning many 1860 Colt revolvers under serial 8K with matching numbers, some round, some fluted, some mis-matched, some having replaced cylinders. One was an obvious mishap with the arbor bent and forcing cone chummed up on the edge.
I've shot thousands of shots with my Colt Navy .36 It just doesn't make sense to try and swap a cylinder, instead of just reloading. I'm glad you are debunking this idea. Whoever came up with this idea, oviously had never handled a Colt split frame revolver for real.
Dinging around in the back of my brain is a reference to the Presidio in San Francisco, California getting a consignment of six Colt Walkers that had one extra cylinder each. That was 3 or 4 hard drives ago, so I no longer have the link. But one small consignment to garrison troops in the late 1850s isn't a trend.
Carrying extra cylinders, even one, for the logical reason, is just purely illogical if we're talking about Colts. OTOH, equipping the Army New Model of 1858, with extra cylinders, is extremely logical. But we are talking about the Army, which is not well known for consistently doing what is logical.
I imagine if extra cylinders was ever a thing it would have been early on in the war as a private purchase by a officer who was supplying his own equipment.
I have fired Colt and Remington cap-and-ball revolvers. To change cylinders on a Colt would mean exiting the fight in order to knock out the wedge (don't drop or lose that particular piece of revolver anatomy), pull off the barrel, remove the cylinder, drop the loaded cylinder onto the cylinder pin, put the barrel back on and wack the wedge back into place. Powder fouling will impair cylinder rotation after about 12 rounds being fired which means having to perform some type of cleaning on a disassembled revolver. What a hassle! You would be better off to carry multiple revolvers already loaded. Imaging having to clean multiple revolvers after a action. Failure to do so in a timely manner will result in the firearm starting to rust. Better off with a longbow or a sword (LOL). Now on to the Remington. Drop the loading lever, knock out the cylinder pin (don't lose that piece of valuable revolver anatomy), remove the empty cylinder, insert the loaded cylinder into it's proper place, reinsert the cylinder pin and raise the loading lever back in place and you are ready to go. Powder fouling again occurs quickly and then cylinder rotation binds up. Mosby discarded the Saber. I wonder how revolver only armament worked out after all your firearms are bound up with powder fouling? I wonder how often a percussion cap, on a spare cylinder being carried in your pocket, was accidently struck and that chamber discharged a ball into the body of a soldier or cavalryman?
In those days, Pistols were not mass-produced and so were not exactly standardized.. They were individually made!
It depended on the unit whether they carried extra revolvers, but neither Union or Confederate typically carried extra cylinders. A lot of cavalrymen on both sides carried two, three or even four revolvers. I have a picture of my great-great-grandfather and his brother from the war, it's a tin-type and not in the best shape. But you can see my GGGF carried two revolvers and a side-by-side shotgun. One pistol holstered, the second tucked into the belt, and the shotgun carried in hand. His brother carried three pistols, only one holster the other two simply tucked into his belt.
Well, here's the reason. All the way up to the 1900s, pistols were considered a tertiery weapon, according to the U.S. Army doctrine at the time. That's the reason the trigger on Colt Army single actions are offset to the right, and loading gates were on the right. They expected you to fire with the left, and use the sabre (or hold reins) in your dominant hand. Now, in real life, of course the soldiers fought with their pistols and tried not to get in sabre range with the enemy.
I remember reading a bushwhacker memior (could have been Bill Magruder-not sure) where he said that it was far more expedient to carry extra revolvers than extra cylinders and they would loot pistols whenever they had the chance
Pretty much agree with what youre saying. but as you mention there are exceptions. And some evidence of this that ive seen over the years are that some cavalry units did have extra pistols in photos, some pistols probably for officers were actually ordered with extra cylinders and believe there was a remington with a mismatched cylinder found in a field suggesting that soldier swapped cylinders at some point possibly during the fight but maybe also before.
I thought that standard procedure was to ride your horse to the battle and then dismount and fight ?
Have you talked how the saber was on its way to being an obsolete weapon in the 1860s? The cavalry charge with sabers was hardly a thing with a majority of cavalry actions being dismounted. It makes me laugh everytime i attend an event with cavalry charging each other with sabers drawn.
Dance of the Saber Fairies!
But the saber was still used by units trained in it until the end of the war. April 3, 1865, the 2nd NC Cavalry made several charges in column against Custer's advancing forces at Namozine Church (the 5th NC was dismounted on their right). Ordered to 'hold at all hazards,' it was literally their last organized action, and they charged with sabers.
Hey, if we’re going to go private purchase, I’d go with a Lefaucheux, a S&W Army and a Henry. Cartridge weapons ftw!
The military issue combustible envelope cartridges were a faster reload than you might expect. There is no fired cartridge to remove and replace. The reloading and recapping isnt fast, but not as slow as you might suspect.
Pale Rider (1985). No one would even be talking about extra cylinders if that movie had never been made! The pistol Clint used was a 1858 Remington. A cylinder change would be sorta' easy. Not so with Colts. In '85 (I was 14) Military style weapons were huge. AK's, Valmets, Mini 14's and Galils were being sold in the US. There was a "Banana Mag" craze going on. Here was this popular movie where the hero used and extra cylinder to get an advantage over the bad guys. I guess over 40 years the idea of changing cylinders has been deposited into gun culture. Ordinance depts. all over the world were adopting single shot rifles as opposed to repeaters to save rounds. The 30-40 Krag had a magazine cut-off, also the Lee Metford. There was no way the penny pinchers were going to spend $ to give extra steel to Soldiers. Also, we all know parts interchange came from the firearms industry but I really wonder how easy (fast) it would be to fit 2 cylinders to a pistol.
As a soldier myself, I promise you I would have extra cylanders as in Iraq, I not only had extra mags, I had extra AK's.
Extra cylinders don’t make a lot of sense when considering how quick reloading with cartridges is compared to disassembly, in addition to weighing less and taking up less space