"Weapon loading Question" Topic

Here's a question for you reenactors out there:

What would take longer to load, A muzzle loading musket or a cap&ball revolver? Thanks

All things being equal, I would probably give the edge to the revolver if comparing round-to-round reloading time. The revolver is a little more "fiddly," which could slow you down. An infantryman would also probably have more experience actually reloading his piece, firing, reloading, etc. than would a person who carries a pistol.

Was swapping out cylinders common practice? Cap&Ball revolvers were all they had in the ACW, correct? They didn't use cartridges?

Here's the thing. Spare cylinders are a "reenactorism" Nobody carried them. Nobody made those nifty "spare cylinder boxes" that you see some reenactors wear.

Revolvers used fixed, self-consuming ammunition similar to the musket rounds, except that they were made with either treated paper or intestines. These came in a wooden block split lengthwise, and drilled to accommodate 6 rounds. They had a thread around the top, under a paper wrapper, that acted like the pull string on a pack of gum. You pulled the string around, it tore open the wrapper and you could get access to the 6 rounds within.

Caps were usually available in small tin containers, although small packets were also sometimes seen. Cartridge boxes designed to hold 2-4 wooden blocks were worn on the belt, though most officers would simply carry a packet of 6 rounds and a small tin of caps in a vest or coat pocket.

When loading a percussion revolver, you would drop the entire cartridge into a chamber of the cylinder, rotate it under the loading lever, and press it down. the "ball" (it was usually conical, but solid based) was made slightly larger in diameter than the chamber, so when it was pressed home, a small sliver of lead was shaved off and the ball was set with a gas-tight seal, so no further wadding, grease, whatever. was needed.

After all 6 chambers were loaded, the revolver was then primed with a cap on each cone, and the hammer rested on a pin between two of the chambers. If you look at most Colt and Remington revolvers, they have a small hole bored into the end of the hammer, or a recessed area to rest on the pin and provide a more "safe" mode for when a loaded revolved is carried.

Anyway, as to the difference between a muzzle-loading long arm and a revolver, the long arm will definitely get off one or two rounds before the revolver is reloaded. however, the revolver then has six shots.

on a point of errata: Pistols are single shot by Army nomenclature of the period. Revolvers have a revolving cylinder with multiple chambers. For all intents and purposes, most accounts, when referring to a hand gun call it a pistol, but in the manuals, a distinction is normally made between the two.

If you go here and scroll down the page, you will find examples of the cartridge packets I refer to:

picketpost.com/bullets.htm

respects,

McSorley,

There were a number of smaller calibre (.31-.36) revolvers which used brass cartridges similar to modern ammunition. In addition, there were some larger calibre (9mm, 12mm, etc) pin-fire revolvers which also used brass cartridges, mostly French Lefaucheux, and European imports. They were the exception, rather than the rule, but present in enough numbers to be familiar to folks.

See here:

link

these were all private-purchase, not government issued arms.

I didn't think the Colt revolvers had a spot in between chambers to rest the hammer on, but the Remington did. Also, on the Colt revolvers, the cylinder isn't easy to remove, so you couldn't change them out in battle even if you had a spare. You could with the Remington revolvers.

What I'd like to know is, how on earth could anyone wearing gloves possibly handle those little percussion caps? In the movies officers are often wearing gloves. I suspect if they thought they might need to reload, they'd not be wearing them. On the other hand, I have a feeling they weren't reloading all that much in battle. You'd have to be reasonably close to have any chance of hitting anyone. And you probably wouldn't be staying that close to the enemy for very long. So I think that the image of officers blazing away with their pistols is probably more common in movies than it was in reality.

No, changing cylinders was not common practice (if it occurred at all). If it was, revolvers would not have loading levers attached underneath the barrel. Also, if you exam the tons of letters written back and forth between the government and revolver manufacturers, it is clearly stated that revolvers were expected to be loaded through the front of the cylinder and rammed home with the "rammer" or loading lever. In addition, if you examine what was shipped, you will see thousands and thousands of revolvers, cones and cone wrenches and some bullet molds, but I challenge you to find an entry in which cylinders are shipped in any quantity to imply that they were used for reloads. Cylinders are also expensive to produce and need to be "timed" in order to align properly. In my cap and ball revolver, the retaining pin had to be pounded out with a punch and a hammer in order to remove the cylinder.

Here's another thing to consider, vis-avis officers.

The officer's primary weapon is his unit. The infantry company commander has a company of men with rifles. He uses THEM as his weapon. When the situation becomes such that the officer is required to defend himself with a personal weapon, then something definitely has not gone according to plan.. :)

And the use of gloves (and gauntlets) is WAY overdone in the movies and elsewhere. Regardless of how it appears, it is nigh impossible to actually USE a revolver when wearing gauntlets, as the trigger guard is so small.

It certainly looks fashionable, but few infantry officers would have worn them.

Respects,

Hi

I agree, I have 3 colts in .44, three in 36(one being the 5 shot police model, a remington .44, a remington 44 carbine and a 31 pocket model

While the remingtons could do the cylinder swap, it looks a lot easier in the movies. THUS, in frontier wars of the 1850s on, people just carried a lot of pistols…al la "Josey Wales".

Oh, and the colts do have the between cylinder safety pin. Oddly, my remingtons are not my favorite, and I have owned several that I traded away. simply, the design of the cylinder is such that they commonly chainfire from concussion. So, I keep ONE .44 just to have, the pocket 31 just to have and the carbine for the novelty.

When a colt chain fires, it is from the spark flow from front of cylinder to front, meaning properly loaded, they don't chainfire.

Also a better shooter in MY hands.

Rocky

The correct way to reload a 19th cent revolver in combat is to draw another one.

Last Hussar has it right! Cavalrymen often carried several revolvers. Foot officers did not, but close combat was quite rare and would not usually last long enough to call for a reload. And as TKindred notes: an officer has more important things to do that shoot.

Thank you all, this was very helpful and enlightening

Gents;

Quote:
"Here's the thing. Spare cylinders are a "reenactorism" Nobody carried them. Nobody made those nifty "spare cylinder boxes" that you see some reenactors wear.

NOBODY … really – nobody …

I find it funny how folks are so sure that they are right when they are spewing so much crap. While I will freely admit that there was no military issued leather spare cylinder pounch, that no soldier was ever issued a spare cylinder, and that not all Colt revolver parts are truely "interchangeable"…

Why did Colt sell boxed revolvers with more than one cylinder [I've seen three beautiful sets] unless you were supposed to change the cylinders???

Since officers' revolvers were private purchases, it is entirely possible that many had multiple cylinders. This would also be true for more than a few finacially well off cavalrymen in Confederate service as well as anyone who had any kind of a gunsmithing background…

Furthermore, the beautiful leather belt pounch that I have that carries two spare cylinders is a period piece – not reproduction …

Charles,

For all intents and purposes, the term "nobody" is correct and I stand by it. We are discussing PEC: Plain, Everyday, Common.

I am certain if you dug deeply enough that you could find mention of a soldier wearing a corset, or ladies' underclothes. I can cite the name and unit of a Confederate officer who went into battle with a frying pan, on several occasions.

That all means absolutely squat when considering rules sets. I have NEVER seen an official US or CS contract that specified spare cylinders. Not. One. Ever. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, there may indeed be a weird purchase order in some forgotten box in the LOC, but as I said, for all intents and purposes the scope of such a thing is negligible when considered as a part of the war effort.

Josey Wales isn't history, nor is Pale Rider, and there are plenty of reenactors and faux historians who will do whatever it takes to justify the impression they want to wear. They decide what they want to look like, and search around for "documentation" to support it, rather than looking at contemporary accounts and actual documentation, and determining what was worn/used/issued, etc.

Basing a statement on seeing three cased sets (out of how many hundreds of thousands produced) isn't worth a bucket of warm spit when considering rules sets for wargaming, or anything other than a "Hey look! A cased set with a spare cylinder! Kewl!)

I'd love to see the provenance on your "cylinder belt pouch" because in more than 40 years of research and collecting, I have never seen one documented to the civil war, or civilian use, the only other ones being produced for Hollywood and reenactors too busy to actually research anything.

respects,

Just because something is sold with a spare doesn't mean you are expected to use it all the time- it is a spare. I'm not sure what the failure rate on cylinders were, but given the stresses they would be put under, having a replacement for one that cracks under use sounds a good policy. That there gunpowder can be a might tricksy.

One guy I used to RP with was not adverse to a bit of live action to test if things were possible. One western game when someone on horse back said they would reload we decided to try it out. He had a toy/replica western revolver, and some caps he had crimped himself. We sat the guy on a chair, which 4 of us lifted off the ground and bucked him like a horse at the trot while he reloaded. Fake bullets all over the floor. Even sitting at a table reloading is fiddly.

The cylinder option looks feasible, until you realise you quickly run out of hands- it's not like an automatic.

If you must reload quickly BUY ANOTHER REVOLVER. However they are badges of rank- I like the description the officer's weapon is his unit! Even in WW2 an officer who wanted to shoot something would acquire a rifle or smg, rather than rely on the short ranged and inaccurate pistol.

Josey Wales isn't history

Heretic.