"Handgun Statistics" Topic

"Probably the most used and well known pistols were the Colt Army, Colt Navy and the Remington. They had the monopoly on distribution for some time. Thousands of revolvers were sold monthly. If a new recruit did not have his own pistol or have one given to him as a gift on enlistment, it was deemed most unusual. He would also need a powder flask and bullet mould. Not realising that with the weight of all the other equipment issued, the actual load he would be carrying would be arduous.

Veteran troops didn't unduly burden themselves by adding revolvers to their load.

The troops of 1861/62 took thousands of revolvers into conflict only to lose them, give them away or throw them away if not working!…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Colt revolvers could be interesting weapons. Ramming the soft lead ball into a cylinder could mis-shape it, which could significantly alter the path of the bullet. An out of round bullet will not fly straight. Think of a doctored baseball.

In addition, if the revolver was not carefully loaded, a chain-fire could result, with multiple cylinders igniting at once. This could seriously injure or even kill the person firing the weapon.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a pistol was more of a liability to a cavalry recruit. There were far more of their own mounts accidentally shot than the enemy.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

I used to enjoy shooting an original Colt New Model Army. I found it easy enough to reload. I was not doing it under fire and on a horse though.

I suspect that the revolvers carried by infantry privates before they learned that they wouldn't be needed, were more often little Colt pocket pistols (.32 caliber) than the larger models carried by cavalrymen and officers -- for one thing, they would have been more numerous, and thus more available, at the beginning of the War.

Though if I was a picket out in the dark all alone, a revolver in my pocket would have felt rather reassuring, I would think, in a addition to my one-shot musket.

This article, in the popular phrase of the year, is full of malarkey. 1) While there are exceptions, very few recruits got pistols unless they were cavalry. Even then, the troop preferred carbines if available. Pistols were expensive, heavy, near useless to the infantry man and a pain in the rump to take care of. Most importantly, useless. Way too short of an effective range. You see them in early photos because those guns were props in the studio. 2) civil war era pistols were not generally loaded by a flask and mold if could be helped. Most officers and cavalry men got paper cartridges with a manufactured bullet in it that they put in a cartridge box at the waist just like the infantry got for their rifles. 3) The provost in the army didn't carry all those guns. That is silly tv westerns. Maybe a regular gunslinger/gambler or a civilian sheriff might carry 2 or 3. Even then, I would only expect that in the far west with any regularity. Now, cavalry men might grab a secondary pistol for firing on horse back where reloading was near impossible. Yet, even that is more a 1950s movie thing where the cowboy has a bunch of pistols on ropes to make shooting the mutiple takes of the movie easier. In reality, a cavalry man preferred to shoot on foot rather than horse back. In that case, they can shoot acurately, reload 1 gun and then would rather not carry the weight of a 2nd gun. 4) only a moron has a pistol shoved down the trowsers, even now. blowing a prized family possesion away when you trip over a log sounds really smart. People who carried multiple guns, say a gunslinger, generally had 2 proper holsters at the waist and maybe a jacket rig of some kind. 5) It doesn't mention why pistols were actually important. A symbol of power. There is a reason beyond the silliness that officers didn't want enlisted men carrying a pistol. It symbolized their rank and wealth. Even then, a trusted veteran reenactor who was also a retired Marine Corps officer explained it to a tourist this way when asked about their pistol. It is a tool to me just like the infantry man. I use the infantry man to fire a rifle and fight. I use the pistol to discipline the infantry man. If the enemy kills all my infantrymen, the pistol is a tool inwhich I can kill myself if need be.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

While I agree with many of your comments EJ you overlooked something. Weapons are not just fired to kill people. There is also a moral effect. Revolvers with their multi-shot capability add a new dimension to this. If you are 15 yards away from me and I shoot at you with a pistol and miss, I can fire the pistol again before you close. More importantly you know I can fire the pistol again before you close.

When Bloody Bill Anderson was killed, he was found to be carrying 6 revolvers. Of course a mounted man can let his horse carry some of them.

But I agree that the average cavalryman was lucky to have even one. But they did use them for fighting while mounted. (Carbines or shotguns, musketoons or even short rifles were often carried for dismounted use.) Forrest (and probably others) preferred his men to use revolvers for mounted fights, instead of sabers. Most Union cavalry had both.

Infantrymen, if they had a revolver, bought it themselves. And most soon decided that it wasn't worth carrying because the battles were fought well beyond pistol range in most cases.

And yes, the revolvers you seen in old photos were mostly studio props to make the soldier look warlike. (Same goes for the muskets too, probably -- when a soldier was off duty he left his musket in camp.)