"Where did Napoleonic cav put their pistols?" Topic

So for the 18th century. They where in front of the saddle under a cover often in the same color and pattern as the saddle cloth. But a lot of napoleonic cav. Seem to only have a blanket roll in front.

I think towards the later period, given the difficulty of getting prime horseflesh, pairs of pistols were abandoned for the dead weight they were…

The pistols were still carried in the 18th Century manner forward of the saddle. They were either covered by distinctive caps or under the sheepskins and blanket rolls. There are pictures showing how the latter would be pulled back for easier access.

Prussians had a pair on front of Saddles, I think after the Landwehr was formed they gave up 1 of the pair.

Artilleryman has it right as to the manner of carrying pistols. Whether a pair of pistols was actually carried depended, I think, on the nation and the exact period. I believe many cavalry units only carried one pistol, especially if they also had a carbine or musketoon (U.S. regular light dragoons of the War of 1812, for example, were not issued carbines).

British cavalry, both Heavy and Light , carried two holsters under that blanket roll , actually the rolled cloak . One had horseshoes and nails in it, the other had the pistol. I should imagine the French did the same .

One had horseshoes and nails in it, the other had the pistol. I should imagine the French did the same .

The French kept their horseshoes in small pockets at the sides of the saddle as shown e.g. in this drawing from Le Goupil, Manuel de l'administration et de la verification des masses d'habillement, et de harnachement et ferrage, 1812 (labelled "Poche de Porte fer"):

Huge variety. Mamelukes across their chest n a double holster, Eclaireurs of La Garde hanging from the cross belt, instead of a carbine. Most as shown in the drawing above, where it could be fetched out from under the shabraque, sheepskin or holster flaps..

and then only used for duelling, to dispatch a wounded horse or sound an alarm. Wonder how many fell to a pistol shot in the Napoleonic era?

Not sure about Napoleonic but it does apear that some drew pistols during mele, and apearntly pistols where used to shoot at fleeing cav. If your close enough, you can hit the cowards in the back!

But you will do them little harm…….

This is very very low velocity weapon and notoriously inaccurate, let alone aimed at a moving target from a moving aiming point…

Not *that* low velocity. Dueling pistols would make about 800fps, which puts them on par with the .45ACP.

(In)Accuracy, though, yeah. That's still a problem. With practice, I'd bet that a cavalryman could time a shot to the gait of the horse, though.

If the enemy is 7 feet in front of you. You won't reach him with a sword. But you will with a pistol.

But you're probably more likely to hit him if you throw your sword. :-)

- Ix

Lion makes a good point about duelling pistols, but I suspect the average trooper's pistol was a very different proposition to what is surely the gunsmith's masterpiece, expensive and still a major collector's item….the duelling pistol

No a flint lock pistol was powerfull as hell, at close range even the soft lead pullet would go through and drag flesh and organs out the other side. And no the flint lock pistol was not super inacurrate.

The inaccuracy of both the pistol and musekt are just myths.

Any half decent shoot should be able to hit a man at 10 yards with a smoth bore pistol.
If they where so inacurate, why where some people known to be great shots. If the weapon is useless you won't be able to hit even if you are good.

You can argue that the avrage trooper might not be very well trained with the pistol(like the avrage infantryman wasn't very well trained with the musket)

But a good shot can easly hit and kill someone from 3 yards with pistol even from horseback.

With practice, I'd bet that a cavalryman could time a shot to the gait of the horse, though.

Agreed, especially in a relatively steady and predictable gait, such as the canter, against target within the left and right forward arcs. Straight ahead risks putting a ball through your mount's head – as happened to a dragoon of the XVLD at Sahagun.

However, the holsters are also an excellent place for a wine bottle. So it'll be just the single pistol for me this weekend

Well I freely admit…yet again I have proved my ignorance. I have learnt a lot here and thanks!

Oh dear, how knowledge can disappear like snow in spring! I beg you all, re-read Col John Elting's Swords around a Throne for some information from a soldier who actually served in one of the last US Army mounted units and was a great Napoleonic scholar – pistols rarely left garrison!

Up their sleevies?

I do not know if any other nation did this, but American troops loaded not only muskets, but smooth-bore pistols with "buck and ball." That entailed a cartridge made up with two or three buck shot on top of a full-caliber bullet. That certainly increased the odds of hitting something!

Usually in pistol holsters carried at each side in front of the saddle – those holsters were usually covered with holster flaps, half sheepskin saddle covers or saddle cloth, depending on whatever branch of arms.

On a lot of miniatures one can see the end of the holsters peeking beneath the saddle cover, holster flaps or whatever.

However, the holsters are also an excellent place for a wine bottle. So it'll be just the single pistol for me this weekend

As opposed to two wine bottles?

I do not know if any other nation did this, but American troops loaded not only muskets, but smooth-bore pistols with "buck and ball." That entailed a cartridge made up with two or three buck shot on top of a full-caliber bullet. That certainly increased the odds of hitting something!

You'd honestly be surprised as how well that *didn't* work. Up to about 3 yards, all the pellets are still touching (which makes for a terrible wound *IF* you hit), but it's not like a shotgun is a can't-miss weapon. At realistic pistol ranges (less than 15 yards), you're talking about an 18" circle. While that is the width of a man's torso, it's still depressingly easy to miss.

@Lion in the Stars,

So, just to clarify, have you actually yourself tried firing buck and ball at targets at varying distance from a smooth-bore pistol? I have experience shooting black powder weapons myself, but have never had an opportunity to experiment with a smooth-bore horse pistol.

Antoine de Brack, in his field manual, Cavalry Outpost Duties, covers the pistol in the chapter, The Use of Arms in War:

-'…I hold the arm bent, the handle a foot from the eye, the elbow inclined to the left and in the line of fire; I embrace the pistol handle, without squeezing it, so as not to deflect the shot by nervous trembling resulting from too great pressure, and fire only at very short ranges. As with the carbine, so with the pistol, the vertical line is more important than the horizontal.'

-[the most effective shots are] 'Those fired at point blank. For them it is not necessary to aim so carefully as for those I have just described [above]; but the muzzle should not be allowed to press against the enemy's body, as the barrel might burst and injure the shooter.'

-[If you miss your first shot, should the aim be 'rectified'?]. Yes; by the involuntary movement made by the enemy in turning his head away from the side on which the bullet passed, if it went to the right, left, or overhead; if you fired too low, you will discover the fact by the dust raised, or by the startled action of the horse.'

-'Whenever about to fire a piece which has been loaded for some time examine the priming and freshly ram the charge.'

-[For pistols carried in holsters] '…an excellent precaution to take is to put the pistol, when placed in the holster, a wooden rod, or mandril, the length of which is equal to that of the barrel less that of the charge; the loaded pistol may then…be turned muzzle down in the holster. The wooden rod will support the charge and prevent [an] accident…When the pistol is drawn for use the rod is left in the holster.'

-'There are some weapons whose worn condition allows the hammer to fall when at half-cock. Never load such arms until needed for use, because if you carry them in the holster loaded, at a trot, a slight shock may cause them to be discharged, severely wounding yourself or [your] horse.'

-'Often a pistol is lost by slipping from the hand, or jumping from the holster when a horse falls; often too, when a trooper has missed his man, and wishes to draw his sabre quickly, for a long time he vainly seeks for the opening of the holster covered by the shabraque, and is exposed in a defenseless condition: the lanyard must always be attached to the pistol. If after having fired his pistol the trooper desires to draw his sabre quickly, no precious time is lost in looking for the opening of the holsters; the pistol is thrown to the right behind the trooper's back to his left side, where it hangs between the valise and the left thigh; the turn which the lanyard makes shortens its length so as to prevent the pistol's touching the ground or striking the legs of the horse.'

The book is available in English on Google Books:

link

@brechtel198. Very nice article, thanks.

@Brechtel,

I second Piet Hein in appreciation.

@Attilla: Shotgun experience, not pistols.

Great source, Brechtel

@Lion in the Stars,

Thanks for replying. I'm not sure that results would be the same with a pistol, due to the short barrel. If I ever get a chance, I would like to put it to the test--just not from the back of a galloping horse!

About the buck & ball.

Remember that modern shotguns(and alteast the ones that used purcussion caps) has a choke that limits the spead of the pelets. A musket dosn't I would think the buckshot behind the musketball would spread alot more then modern shotgun pellets. I'm also not sure how much energy those little pellets would actualy have. In modern 12 guages each of the 9 buckshots have the same enery as a .380, While he 380 ain't know as a man stopper. When you have 9 of them. They will do damage. And of corse a single .380 can easly kill a man. The question is if the energy the buckshots get in a musket would be the same? Also if the spead is higher then a modern shotgun. I doubt the pellets would go very far or straight.

One of the problems in the Grande Armee with firing a period pistol, or for that matter a cavalry carbine, is that the cartridges were the same for both of those weapons as well as the musket. That would deliver quite a wallop when fired, especially with the pistol. De Brack recommended reducing the powder charge on the issued ammunition.

Some French commanders, such as Bugeaud, recommended loading with one ball and cutting up a second and loading it along with the solid ball, similar to the 'buck and ball' round used by the US Army at the time. This was not standard or regulation and was a local improvisation only.

Some French cavalry units would do it with only the cut up ball for their use.