1858 New Army revolver - legit combat arm?

[cynthialee]

Come on..... at age 12 you knew what a revolver nipple was? :v :rotf:

My daddy had me at the range at a young age. I shoot my first fire arm at age 5 and knew never to dry fire that day.
By the time I was 13 I owned my first shot gun.

 

[Dphar]

Do you think the 1858 New Army was a legit combat arm of its day?

Certainly, you could pack multiple cylinders.

There's NO WAY you could re-powder / cap an empty cylinder. Far too fine a motor skill for combat.

The thing that makes me doubt them as a legit combat arm is the way the caps fall off. NO WAY they stay on in combat.

Whatta ya think?

I think you need to remember they were almost the ONLY combat handgun of the Civil War, "they" meaning the various percussion revolvers.
Yes, people used to carry spare cylinders if they could afford them, or find them on the battlefield. If the thing ran empty thats what the sabre was for. If you had time you reloaded. Its not like there was a choice after all. Its also why the James Gang and others sometimes carried 4-5 revolvers. More shots without fiddling with the gun.

If the caps are falling off they are the wrong size for the nipple. Once on they should not be removable at least not without some trouble. This is part of the water proofing, the cap sealed the nipple.
Back in the day there were more cap sizes than now. So find some caps that fit or change the nipples. When I started ML there were 10-11-12 caps. It hard to find 10s now where I live.

The good percussion revolvers of the day were top of the line, best technology during the 1840s-1860s and into the 1870s.
There was little choice until the advent of the large metallic cartridge revolvers, the S&W and the Colt open top and then the SAA etc etc.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Chuck Dixon has a sign in his shop, (paraphrasing)
The only person for whom cap and ball revolvers don't misfire was Josey Wales.

I used to pack a 1860 Army every day under my coat. I shot it about every other day at least. With good caps misfires are extremely rare.
I would bet my life in a 1860 working right if I were the one who loaded it and kept the loads fresh.
Hickok shot his Navys every day, shot one cleaned it and reloaded then did the other. He WAS betting his life...
My son and I had about 20 failures to fire from a 525 (?) rnd box of Remington LR HPs when he was here last. Good dents, even tried some twice.
So anything can fail.
Need to contact Remington about that. Box with some of the misfires is out on the stocking bench in the shop.

Dan

 

[Matt85]

i have a pietta 1858 and i think it would make fine combat weapon. the onley issues i ever have are the occasional cap that binds up the cylinder but this isnt super common.

as far as caps coming off... your using the wrong caps. i use remington #10 caps and they fit perfectly. it takes some real effort to get em off!

 

[barnettshale]

I have a brass frame 1858 that I have owned for over 30 years. I have dispatched feral hogs with it as well as an Axis deer and several rattlesnakes on the ranch. Also finished off a couple of whitetails. It is my competition revolver also. Shoots POI @ 25 and with a 12:00 hold shoots center at 50 with round ball and 25 gr 3F. After I found the right size caps that stay on no matter what (takes a knife or pliers to remove) it has never failed me. I have a couple of others also.

 

[garandman]

as far as caps coming off... your using the wrong caps. i use remington #10 caps and they fit perfectly. it takes some real effort to get em off!

That's really what I'm focusing on. The 1858 sends a 45 cal ball down range at about 900 fps (or so they tell me) which is roughly what the 1911 does. I have no ballistic concerns of the gun.

MY thought is more about the caps falling off. Yes, I do see the need to find a cap that fits correctly.

But when I think bout combat conditions - the mounted rider bounding along on horseback, crawling along the ground with the cylinder exposed, running thru brushy / grassy areas, etc.

The wax idea seems like a possible solution, and so does properly fitting caps. But the caps still seem like a weakness of the gun - an area for problems.

And yes, I know even then, it was still the best option of the day. But I gotta think more than once somebody pulled there 1858, and dropped hammer on a capless nipple.

Click. Oh, manure!!!! :surrender:

 

[Geraldo]

garandman, you're thinking about this in modern terms. The only option to a C&B revolver was a single shot pistol. So the choice was one shot or six. I've never seen a reference to spare cylinders being purchased by the military, and other than a couple of cased sets I've never seen one at all with a period pistol.

Second, only officers and cavalrymen had revolvers. Some infantry regiments specifically forbid the carrying of handguns by anyone other than officers (forget what you see in posed CW pics of infantry privates holding revolvers).

If you really want to understand CW combat, read some diaries. Many are quite well written and all are interesting.

 

[garandman]

garandman, you're thinking about this in modern terms.

Admittedly, yes. But I think at ANY point in history when you gun went "click" instead of "bang" that's a bad thing. And NO ONE in the CW was thinking "Golly, my gun just went "click" because the perc cap fell off, but its still the best thing out there."

:wink:

And yes, I need to read some more CW diaries. Even the common man's grasp of the English language during the CW was in many cases better than many so-called professional writers today.

 

[redwing]

The Texas Rangers were issued an extra cylinder for each Walker. It seems extra cylinders may have been more common. The Union Army was arming foot soldiers with revolvers near the end of the war. There are stories of Remingtons being discarded on roads during long hot marches.

 

[robtattoo]

I think at ANY point in history when you gun went "click" instead of "bang" that's a bad thing. And NO ONE in the CW was thinking "Golly, my gun just went "click" because the perc cap fell off, but its still the best thing out there."

:wink:

Nope, they'll more than likely just thumbed back the hammer & thanked God if they had a few shots left in the thing.

As far as a legit combat arm......no. No one has ever been killed with a Remington New Model Army, in combat, anywhere, ever. Oh, wait.......

Seriously?

I reckon, if you'd have been in the middle of close range, "white-of-their-eyes" distance, smoke, explosions, blood & screaming fight 150 years ago, you'd have probably given up your firstborn plus a couple of cousins for an 1858 Remington.

 

[garandman]

Nope, they'll more than likely just thumbed back the hammer & thanked God if they had a few shots left in the thing.

As far as a legit combat arm......no. No one has ever been killed with a Remington New Model Army, in combat, anywhere, ever. Oh, wait.......

Seriously?

I reckon, if you'd have been in the middle of close range, "white-of-their-eyes" distance, smoke, explosions, blood & screaming fight 150 years ago, you'd have probably given up your firstborn plus a couple of cousins for an 1858 Remington.

Yer missing the point. The Chauchat ALSO killed people. NO ONE knowledgeable about firearms would ever call it a "legit" combat arm.

 

[bob308]

the most noted examples of guns going click are fighter planes of ww1. it was a common problem. i am also sure there were many flintlocks that had a flash in the pan when the troops were firing volleys. there were many rifled muskets found after a battle with more then one load in them.

 

[garandman]

the most noted examples of guns going click are fighter planes of ww1. it was a common problem. i am also sure there were many flintlocks that had a flash in the pan when the troops were firing volleys. there were many rifled muskets found after a battle with more then one load in them.

True. I guess I'm wondering how often that happenned in combat with the 1858.

Would I rather have one that not have on in 1860? Youbetcha. Would I worry about perc caps falling off? That's what I'm trying to figger out, in an 1860 context.

 

[garandman]

There are stories of Remingtons being discarded on roads during long hot marches.

If that's true, it begs the question "Why?"

Was it because the Remington's were known for losing their percussion caps and going "Click." ???

Veteran soldiers aren't known for chucking reliable combat arms.

 

[necchi]

There are stories of Remingtons being discarded on roads during long hot marches.

If that's true, it begs the question "Why?"

I think ya need to do some legit` study.
Opinon of actual history without provenance provide is many times just myth.

 

[redwing]

It is too bad. When their is a post you disagree with it is myth. History is only canned when there is an effort to hid some thing. History is about an open mind join us. :wink:

 

[MSW]

i am reminded of a Christmas card given to me by a supervising attorney for whom i worked when i still wore a necktie. it was of a little boy sitting on Santa's lap and the tag line was "Define 'good.' "

we should define "legit" and i would do so as a weapons system in common and accepted use which would reliably produce enemy casualties. in that context, i would conclude that it was, in truth, legit.

would i carry one into battle today? no, there are better tools; I'm partial to the Model 1911 as a combat handgun, with a pair of spare magazines, but that's just a personal opinion and worth what you just paid.

on the other hand, just 'cause i wouldn't bring it to a fight doesn't mean it's not a perfectly adequate weapon, and anyone on the wrong end of one is in just about as much trouble as the person looking at the wrong end of a '45 ACP.

just one guy's opinion...

 

[garandman]

I think ya need to do some legit` study.
Opinon of actual history without provenance provide is many times just myth.

Agreed. Basically, my question is "What did the soldier issued an 1858 Rem think of it?"

Soldiers have a "No BS" way of looking at the gear they are issued. If soldiers were dumping them along the way during troop movement....

Anyone know of any such resource?

 

[garandman]

i am reminded of a Christmas card given to me by a supervising attorney for whom i worked when i still wore a necktie. it was of a little boy sitting on Santa's lap and the tag line was "Define 'good.' "

we should define "legit" and i would do so as a weapons system in common and accepted use which would reliably produce enemy casualties.

My def on "legit" is more focused. I have no doubts about the lethality of the round, or the acceptable level of accuacy of the gun. I would ABSOLUTELY NOT want to be on the receiving end of an 1858.

My def of "legit" specifically refers to "Did perc caps often / occasionally / almost never fall off the nipples?"

Some have said wax was used. Interesting. Others have said caps were tight enuf back then so it wasn't a problem. Perhaps that's true.

What would be interesting to me is some soldiers firsthand report about the combat relaibility of the percussion cap system.

 

[redwing]

For anyone who has read the history of the war it is mentioned often. Read the last few lines of the first paragraph. There are many notes on this issue.
http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/revolvers.htm