• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

How did they carry cap and ball fixin's?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
8,530
Reaction score
3,259
Location
West central Texas
I know that some men in the day of the cap and ball revolver simply kept a supply of percussion caps and paper cartridges at hand. But the cartridges were somewhat fragile, and I can't imagine them holding up to cowboying or other hard use on horseback. So how did non-military shootists carry their cap and ball fixin's back in the day? Cap pouch, ball pouch and flask in one larger pouch? I was just thinking that I have read and re-read Rattenbury's "Packing Iron" many times, and cannot recall seeing provision for caps, balls and powder in any of the leather rigs he illustrates.
 
It's a good question. I have often wondered myself. Did they carry it all in their saddle bags? Or just a few makings in a possible pouch, with the rest in the saddle bags.
 
If he bought commercial cartridges they usually came in a wooden block wrapped with paper. there were 6 cartridges to a block and usually 7 caps in the packet too. These were pretty rugged but I'll bet most of them were found in a saddlebag. I would imagine the working cowboy left his flask, balls and caps in the saddlebags too as he wouldn't need them and they would just be an encumberment while working. The military issued a pistol cartridge box that was worn on the belt to carry the packets of cartridges.
 
Good question, my thought is powder was usually carried in brass flasks with spring loaded pre-charge nozzles, balls were carried in small pouches and caps in the tins they came in. I think cappers were less wide spread then were powder charging flasks.
The aggregate was probably mostly carried in saddle bags or possible bags.
Connicals were predominate for military use in paper cartridges but balls I think were mostly used by civilians by a wide margin as the guns were designed around them and they are usually more accurate.
Lube probably was carried in tobacco or some other kind of tins with a removable lid.
I don't believe folks used powder measures separate from flasks in the day.
Just speculating and using common sense mostly here.
 
Thanks for the thoughts guys. I know some will claim they just carried a few loose caps and balls in a vest pocket, and a flask slipped in somewhere. I'd hate to rely on a few loose caps staying clean and dry in any old pocket. The darned thing about cap tins is they're so noisy. I won't carry a cap tin in a possibles bag when hunting; I believe a deer can hear it jingling from 100 yards away. A capper makes some sense here. Need to see when they started showing up in the historical record.
 
Well, I just pulled out my copy of "The Muzzle-Loading Caplock Rifle," by good old Ned Roberts. I'd put my money on a flask, a small leather bag of round balls and a spring-loaded capper after reading his thoughts on this.
 
From what I can gather from the few specific references I have come across, and some not so specific , extra powder, balls and caps were carried in pockets, with a few exceptions, if they carried any reloads at all . Almost no one used wads or grease in the field, or anywhere else for that matter. Flasks seem to have been popular. Handguns were considered secondary to whatever long gun may have been carried, if one were available, and only used as a last resort. Not everyone who owned a revolver carried or used it much. Some made use of packs of paper cartridges when available , as someone else here has mentioned . If anyone finds it hard to believe that someone in those times would not carry any extra ammo, think about how many people that you know with carry permits that don't carry reloads nowadays. Civilians in those times did not go out every day expecting to be in a gun fight no more than we do now even if we live in Chicago or Detroit. One of the problems that drove Army escorts detached to travel with the wagon trains in the more dangerous areas to distraction was the high number of immigrants that were traveling totally unarmed . This was the reason for the Army giving away surplus Sharps rifles and cartridges to anyone who wanted them when the extras were available.
 
Who can know what was in their mind.
Maybe that they now had five more shots than before they owned the revolver. Five more repeatable shots than the other bloke.
Get two six shooters. W :shocked2: W, twelve shots would seem like some sorta shootin machine.
If ya can't get the job done with that much firepower, then you need a new job.
So I propose that the reloads were in the Guns & the amount of them carried. Like others said, there was a rifle in there somewhere as well.
Just my opinion. No recorded evidence,
O.
 
I think that since they never saw a Hollywood movie back in the day and didn't know how bad we shoot now (even the good guys will miss their target 30 shots before connecting) that their 6 shots was enough while in town.

I figure their fixins was in a bag on their horse or mule.

Even in a modern western movie where they are using cap-n-ball pistols they seem to shoot them like an automatic with unlimited ammo.

I can see someone back in the day not yanking the trigger unless he was sure he was going to make a hit.


Bob
 
I read a lot, cheap entertainment, and read that on most ranches, the working "cowboy" was not allowed to carry a pistol while working. Access to pistols was severely limited while in the bunk house areas of the ranch.

Thus not a lot of need for carrying extra loading components.
 
back before the ACW we would be talking of city dwellers or mountainmen.
Cities were basically tame, and people that carried, many times just stuck the gun in the belt, or even a large pocket. Not very likely they would need to shoot let alone reload and shoot, in the case of a single shot. and more so with a revolver.
Then we had the ones that hunted. they and the mountainmen had what we call possibles bags.
the bag was just that. A patch knife, nipple wrench / screwdriver, patch material, and balls either loose or in a smaller pouch, flints, etc.
In the case of percussion then caps. Possibly even his lunch, jerky or some such.
Moving up to the civil war and such.
Soldiers had cartridge pouches and cap pouches.
After the war, even though we were moving into cartridge guns, there were still a lot of C&B BP guns around. Not everybody rushed to convert or bought the new cartridge versions.
Again, in many cities, there wasn't much likelihood you would need to shoot and reload immediately.
But cowhands and such might.
They had belt bags. just like a possibles pouch, but smaller, more rigid leather, and mounted on the belt. You can buy replicas of these today.
The bag would have what was needed to basically clean the gun, and reload it.
Not everyone had the big 44, many had the .36.
And what they didn't have in the pouch, could be in saddlebags or rolled up in the bed roll.
And of course on a cattle drive could be in the chuck wagon.
Not to mention many did carry an extra loaded cylinder as needed.
My great grandfather was born in the 1870's. He carried C&B all his life as needed. I only barely remember him, but my grandfather still had his original revolver and rifle when I was 8 or 9.
Don't know what happened to them though. Dang it!!
 
A couple of my ancestors were very well known along the MO - KS border (read - wanted) during the Border Wars, Civil War and period following. One of them was running buddies with Hickok, rode with a couple of guerrilla bands and was just an all around hellion. Hickok is quoted as saying that he was the only person on the planet that he would be afraid to face with a gun.

I have their diaries as well as a couple of obscure books that discuss the subjects of their choice of weapons, how they were used, etc. I will dig them out later and see if anythingis mentioned specific to reloading and things of that nature.
 
Redneck, be interested to hear what you find.
My GGF chased your ancestors on the borders while serving with the Third Wisconsin Cavalry in the ACW.
CC, there was a heck of a lot of activity out my way here in Oregon well before the Civil War: the Oregon Trail migrations really got under way by 1846 (but started in the 1830s); the gold rushes in California (1849) and Oregon (1850) lured tens of thousands; and you can throw in a fistful of wars with the First Nations folks all through the West. Plenty of call for a civilian, miner, homesteader or traveler to go thoughtfully well-heeled.

Here is advice from Captain Marcy, who wrote "The Prairie Traveler" in 1859:

ARMS.

Every man who goes into the Indian country should be armed with a rifle and revolver, and he should never, either in camp or out of it, lose sight of them. When not on the march, they should be placed in such a position that they can be seized at an instant's warning; and when moving about outside the camp, the revolver should invariably be worn in the belt, as the person does not know at what moment he may have use for it.

A great diversity of opinion obtains regarding the kind of rifle that is the most efficient and best adapted to Indian warfare, and the question is perhaps as yet very far from being settled to the satisfaction of all. A large majority of men prefer the breech-loading arm, but there are those who still adhere tenaciously to the old-fashioned muzzle-loading rifle as preferable to any of the modern inventions. Among these may be mentioned the border hunters and mountaineers, who can not be persuaded to use any other than the Hawkins rifle, for the reason that they know nothing about the merits of any others. My own experience has forced me to the conclusion that the breech-loading arm possesses great advantages over the muzzle-loading, for the reason that it can be charged and fired with much greater rapidity.

Colt's revolving pistol is very generally admitted, both in Europe and America, to be the most efficient arm of its kind known at the present day. As the same principles are involved in the fabrication of his breech-loading rifle as are found in the pistol, the conviction to me is irresistible that, if one arm is worthy of consideration, the other is equally so. For my own part, I look upon Colt's new patent rifle as a most excellent arm for border service. It gives six shots in more rapid succession than any other rifle I know of, and these, if properly expended, are oftentimes sufficient to decide a contest; moreover, it is the most reliable and certain weapon to fire that I have ever used, and I can not resist the force of my conviction that, if I were alone upon the prairies, and expected an attack from a body of Indians, I am not acquainted with any arm I would as soon have in my hands as this.

The army and navy revolvers have both been used in our army, but the officers are not united in opinion in regard to their relative merits. I prefer the large army size, for reasons which will be given hereafter.

By the way, here is a link to the entire book, on the Gutenberg site. If you haven't read it, you are in for a treat:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23066/23066-h/23066-h.htm#V
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok... I did a quick look through both diaries and three differing books and the best refernce to the original question I found is a comment made concerning the description of a man who "carried his powder flask on a leather strap about his shoulders and his pistols and knife at his waist in a belt, with ball and caps in a pouch at his back."

This was in reference to Quantrill's guerillas - "The powder-charge of of the Union soldier was made up for him and these charges were uniform in size. The guerrilla made up his own charge. He was compelled to be economical of his ammunition. He discovered that a small powder-charge enabled him to shoot much more accurately than he could shoot with a heavy charge. His pistol did not bounce when fired, and the aim was not spoiled. And the ball ranged as far and penetrated as deeply as did that fired with a heavy charge. Every guerilla carried two revolvers, most of them carried four, and many carried six, some even eight."

What I also found, and had forgotten about was a couple of other pretty interesting things stated. The Army, when conducting their testing and acceptance of the paper charges, accepted a charge that would place five balls into a five inch circle at 50 yards. When bullets were used, that acceptance had to be changed to a 5 shots in a seven inch circle at 50 yards. The other thing was the comment by a Major concerning Hickok. He stated that even though Hickok was a "two gun man", he wad never seen him fire with his left hand or from the hip. He had always witnessed him fire his pistols from his right hand while taking deliberate aim with his left eye closed.

I have a pretty extensive collection of books, references, etc. as a result of researching my 2nd Great Grandfather and his escapades. If I come across more I will provide it...
 
Back
Top