Random thread about myths and gun show tales about percussion revolvers......

[Stantheman86]

That one is easy... if you look at all of the existing 1858 Remingtons with surviving boxes, some of which are paired sets, and some are highly engraved matched pairs..., you find all sorts of extra tools, and a cap box, and box of bullets...., but NEVER an extra cylinder.

What happens is what is known as information creep. An historian correctly points out something akin to, "The 1858 Remington had the ability for the user to change the cylinder, if a loaded spare was at hand, to swap out the cylinders, rather than reload each individual cylinder." THAT then morphs into, "Civil War soldiers carried extra cylinders to swap them out when reloading....."

Then add the ACW Living History community use during reenactment battles... keep reading...,



This one is likely more information creep. While they did issue out some SAA .45 Colts, they didn't issue the Rogers & Spencer revolvers. HOWEVER, a lot of officers carried their own personal weapons. So it's quite possible that a privately owned revolver in the hands of some officer, perhaps even converted to .44 Colt using a Richards-Mason conversion, which were part of the US Army inventory up to 1873, was seen being used. The conversion was of 1860 Army revolvers, so you get a poor observer who sees the guy is using an antique, not realizing it's a conversion... and says "Wow they are issuing Rogers & Spencer revolvers". Probably a "correspondent" screwed up. At that time newspapers would accept stories from "correspondents" that weren't even actual journalists.


This one is a reenactorism from at least the 1970's. The reenactors shoot only blanks, and so the powder when compressed might stay in the cylinder, but you don't want those chambers full of powder open when firing, so you cover the openings with grease. Most of the guys would compress nitrate paper over the powder to act as a barrier and hold the powder in, and then protect the paper with grease. They didn't know about poorly fitted caps back then. Then THAT transferred over to shooting live ball..., never understanding that the ball seals the front of the chamber and if you get a chain fire it was from the loose caps....



That's another hold over from ACW living history ; as I mentioned in the first part of this reply. Most of the umbrella organizations frowned on reloading revolvers during a battle, BUT since the 1858 Remington could swap cylinders, some guys favored those..., and you will find cylinder pouches used by some of them even though those likely are circa 1960... not 1860. Other guys simply went Josey Wales and carried a lot of Colt revolvers. Guys would point to photographs of enlisted infantry with lots of revolvers stuck in their belts (not knowing that such photos were staged). Since most Living History guys in the 1970's and 1980's didn't even know about nitrated cartridges, it was assumed that a guy with one revolver had to use flask and ball to reload in battle.... "since we would have to do that then they must've done that!".... gadzooks!



We get this too with AWI discussions of rifles and muskets. The guns were inaccurate, .... the guns were only good to 100 yards...they didn't practice marksmanship...., they closed their eyes when firing..... ., yadda yadda yadda, folks even today assume that since the tech is old, the accuracy must be "bad", when in fact the accuracy was OK to Good with smoothbore muskets, and very good to excellent with rifles, and continued to be so through the ACW. What changed over time was all weather capability and effective range..., that's all.

This is a fun discussion...

LD

1000%, I vividly remember the Living History guy at the Trenton Barracks pointing to a chimney about 50 yards away and saying a soldier could not hit that with a smoothbore musket

Years later here I am ventilating silhouette targets at 50 yards with a smoothbore musket

 

[Coinneach]

I'm not sure where this thread diverged from muzzleloading, but back some years ago a friend of mine published a monthly called "The Trade Blanket" on black powder stuff, and we did a fairly extensive comparison of the relative force delivered to the target by various cap-n-ball revolvers as compared to that delivered by modern handguns. We tested the .36 Navies and the .44 Armies primarily, with a tip o' the hat to the .31 Pocket models and the .44 Walker. We discovered and documented the following surprising information: The .44 Army revolver - and mine was a Colt 1860 and several clones - delivered slightly more kinetic energy to a target than a modern .22 RF solid nose lead bullet such as Federals. The .36 Navies slightly less. The .31 Pocket was right up there with a .22 Short, and the .44 Walker (DGW Clone) was the "magnum," surprising nobody. All were tested with Dupont powder, CCI caps, felt wads, and round ball loads. We didn't have a chronograph but our test target was a ballistic pendulum with a numerical readout and we shot multiple 5-shot groups and compared the mean values of each sample with the mean values achieved with the modern loads. For the record, the .45 Colt and .45 ACP loads exceeded them all, even the Walker. We published the results. That was at least 30 years ago.
Appropos of nothing, General "Black Jack" Pershing was a serving officer during the Moro Rebellion and distinguished himself by putting down that uprisinng. He favored the 1873 Colt "Artillery" model, I'm told. The Moros were radical Muslims.

"....delivered slightly more kinetic energy to a target than a modern .22 RF solid nose lead bullet such as Federals."

Was the .22 RF a Standard or High Power variant of the .22 calibre genre ?
I'd argue that kinetic energy is only one of the variables, if we're serious about potential "knock down" power then the lump of lead being Calibre and Weight combined with Kinetic energy slamming into the intended victim is the equation.

 

[Stantheman86]

"Gunshow Myths" are fun to listen to if you've ever rented a table at one. Some sellers apparently feel compelled to never simply say "I don't know." Likewise, quite a few customers regale anyone within earshot their expertise of all things regarding the pistols on your table ..seldom complimentary, sometimes downright insulting. Common comment ..(applies to modern shotguns as well) .."That right there's a hard-shootin' gun." Okay. Yup.

A seller told me right to my face that a Colt Signature Series 1863 rifle was made by Colt ....I'm like yeah ok man nevermind all those Italian proof marks

 

[Stantheman86]

That one is easy... if you look at all of the existing 1858 Remingtons with surviving boxes, some of which are paired sets, and some are highly engraved matched pairs..., you find all sorts of extra tools, and a cap box, and box of bullets...., but NEVER an extra cylinder.

What happens is what is known as information creep. An historian correctly points out something akin to, "The 1858 Remington had the ability for the user to change the cylinder, if a loaded spare was at hand, to swap out the cylinders, rather than reload each individual cylinder." THAT then morphs into, "Civil War soldiers carried extra cylinders to swap them out when reloading....."

Then add the ACW Living History community use during reenactment battles... keep reading...,



This one is likely more information creep. While they did issue out some SAA .45 Colts, they didn't issue the Rogers & Spencer revolvers. HOWEVER, a lot of officers carried their own personal weapons. So it's quite possible that a privately owned revolver in the hands of some officer, perhaps even converted to .44 Colt using a Richards-Mason conversion, which were part of the US Army inventory up to 1873, was seen being used. The conversion was of 1860 Army revolvers, so you get a poor observer who sees the guy is using an antique, not realizing it's a conversion... and says "Wow they are issuing Rogers & Spencer revolvers". Probably a "correspondent" screwed up. At that time newspapers would accept stories from "correspondents" that weren't even actual journalists.


This one is a reenactorism from at least the 1970's. The reenactors shoot only blanks, and so the powder when compressed might stay in the cylinder, but you don't want those chambers full of powder open when firing, so you cover the openings with grease. Most of the guys would compress nitrate paper over the powder to act as a barrier and hold the powder in, and then protect the paper with grease. They didn't know about poorly fitted caps back then. Then THAT transferred over to shooting live ball..., never understanding that the ball seals the front of the chamber and if you get a chain fire it was from the loose caps....



That's another hold over from ACW living history ; as I mentioned in the first part of this reply. Most of the umbrella organizations frowned on reloading revolvers during a battle, BUT since the 1858 Remington could swap cylinders, some guys favored those..., and you will find cylinder pouches used by some of them even though those likely are circa 1960... not 1860. Other guys simply went Josey Wales and carried a lot of Colt revolvers. Guys would point to photographs of enlisted infantry with lots of revolvers stuck in their belts (not knowing that such photos were staged). Since most Living History guys in the 1970's and 1980's didn't even know about nitrated cartridges, it was assumed that a guy with one revolver had to use flask and ball to reload in battle.... "since we would have to do that then they must've done that!".... gadzooks!



We get this too with AWI discussions of rifles and muskets. The guns were inaccurate, .... the guns were only good to 100 yards...they didn't practice marksmanship...., they closed their eyes when firing..... ., yadda yadda yadda, folks even today assume that since the tech is old, the accuracy must be "bad", when in fact the accuracy was OK to Good with smoothbore muskets, and very good to excellent with rifles, and continued to be so through the ACW. What changed over time was all weather capability and effective range..., that's all.

This is a fun discussion...

LD

Reenactors are both awesome for keeping history alive but also terrible for keeping completely false info circulating like "thump loading " Minie balls....."guys would drop the Minie ball into the bore and thump the butt on the ground to shoot faster " no they would burst the barrel shooting a Minie that was only a few inches into the pipe but it looks cool for demonstrations.....the rifles had ramrods for a reason.....

The Springfield rifle could hit a man at 1000 yards........yes it's possible they can reach out to 1000 yards with volley fire and drop Minies at 1000 but leading a group of school kids to believe Civil War soldiers were picking each other off with aimed 1000 yard shots is just bogus.......

 

[TDM]

Scratched my head at that one too.

 

[M. De Land]

A forum member who shoots original Colts says they hit high at 25, just like the reproductions

The Colt Paterson and later the Walker were designed with the intent to be used by Rangers to fight Indians , from horseback. Samuel Colt would not have developed the genius design of a revolving pistol and just throw sights on them as an afterthought that all just happened to hit at an 80 yard zero

Rifled-Muskets hit high at 100 even at the 100 yard sight setting, soldiers were trained , if they received training , to aim at the belt of enemy soldiers

A revolver that hits 2 feet low at 100 yards would be way more useless than a revolver that can be held at the belt of an intended target and hit somewhere on a man sized target from 0 to 100

Colt designed the revolvers so he would give his primarily military contract customers, an effective tool to kill people with so he could make money. Hitting people with bullets as intended was the goal, not bullseye shooting.

I doubt very much that each individual pistol was regulated then any more than now for I have never ever seen any indication of sights being adjusted for elevaton or windage.

So you guys really think that the army ordinance dept required Colt and Remington to shoot 12" high at 25yrds and be dead on 75 yards but they never put in writing anywhere . who's pulling manure out of their arse here.. One of the major factors in getting a govt contract was price point and these sights are literally the most cost efective thing they could come up with that still worked. Pistol duels at the time happened at10 paces or about 30ft. these sights are dead on at that range.. Until someone can show written documentation from the army or one of the manufacturers I am going with the 75 yard zero being intentional is an urban myth. Prove me wrong and that would be super exciting and interesting reading. I was working in an attic a decade or so ago and found newspapers from 1861. needless to say my work production was rather limited that day

I doubt factory revolvers were ever individually regulated as to point of aim in the 1860s any more than they are now. I've never seen any indication or attempt at factory sight regulation on new guns. If they had been intended for hundred yard engagement then surely adjustab;e sights would have been installed . I've also never been fortunate enough to shoot a new gun that was sighted in to any range in elevation or windage. All of them I have sighted in were high and to one side or the other especially open frame guns.
My guess is tall front sights (say on 73s) and short on all the rest were installed so they could be regulated or replaced for elevation with a file if desired but mainly they were point and shoot machines with little regard as to sight regulation.
Windage was often accomplished in solid frame guns (by there owners not the factory) by twisting the barrel in our out a bit or bending the front sight.

 

[nick_1]

Like I said. show it to me in writing from colt, Remington or the govt and I will gladly believe that these pistols were deliberately manufactured with a now 100yard zero. you do know that they had rifles and carbines for those distances......

 

[nick_1]

your wife can shoot , so can Deb James and Annie Oakly but most folks cant. that was one of the prime reasons that an expert duelist could bully pretty much anyone back in the days of dueling. Most normal people had zero chance against someone like Andrew Jackson.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Like I said. show it to me in writing from colt, Remington or the govt and I will gladly believe that these pistols were deliberately manufactured with a now 100yard zero. you do know that they had rifles and carbines for those distances......

Nick, instead of us proving a well known historical fact, how about you proving your theory to us.

 

[nick_1]

Its a well known assumption/ common belief which certainly does not make it a fact. Its absolutely fact that the factory sights on this period of pistoles are rudimentary. The evolution of modern pistol sights is pretty good evidence .

 

[Uncle Miltie]

"Those Moros were bad dudes, man. But I was a champion wrestler in high school, and I challenged the leader. Once I beat him the rest fell in line and now, they are civilized."

Joe Biden recalling his time in the Peace Corps working with the Moros in the Philippines.

 

[Whitworth]

Understanding the "full, fine and half" sight concepts will help with your zero. Loading your pistol hotter will bring the POI down as the bullet will spend less time in the bore as it rises during recoil. YMMV

 

[user 53891]

TRUTH!
I'll bet there is a B-17 on the far side of the moon, the National Enquirer said so. So, if they wrote it......

I'll bet ET flew it there

 

[JB Books]

Well actually law enforcement copied the FBI and went with 9x19. They all pretty much dropped the .40s&w. Spray and pray is the modern tactic with high capacity magazines.

From a statistical viewpoint the regular handgun calibers are all about equal in stopping power. That is the .32s, 380, 9mm, .357, .38, .40, 10mm, .41, .44, and .45s.

Heck the lowly .22 rimfire may have stopped more assailants than all of the other calibers combined. The .22s have been around since about 1857 or so too. It is still very popular even today.

Doing the math the old cap and ball .36 revolvers looked to be pretty weak. But that caliber was widely used to good effect in its era. It stopped a lot of men. Plus men were a lot more tough back then as compared to today.

The .31 cap and ball evolved into the modern .32s. But it was still quite popular though. Many people carried them back then too.

A large fraction of those who died from BP C&B wounds died from infection, lack of medical care and poorly developed surgical practices not from one shot stops. There are just as many legends of how many bullets men could soak up before they went down. A 2 or 300 ftlb increase in energy on paper looks insignificant but actually makes a huge difference. Like the difference in being stabbed with an ice pick vs an oversize Bowie knife. Also in the frontier days men weren't protected by automobile structures.

 

[mushka]

Over the years I've purchased three open top revolvers. Two .36 cal. and one .44 cal. Out of the box they all shot high. It was the sights provided. The notch on the rear sight was high due to the height when the hammer was cocked. Can't see the top of the revolver when the hammer is cocked, only the front part of the barrel and the front sight. Front sight is not tall possibly due to the use of a holster where the sight could drag on the inside and cause a bad draw. Mine all shot the twelve to fifteen inches high at 25 yards but the windage was always good and the groups were not bad. The guns are just made that way.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Its a well known assumption/ common belief which certainly does not make it a fact. Its absolutely fact that the factory sights on this period of pistoles are rudimentary. The evolution of modern pistol sights is pretty good evidence .

No one has said that the sights aren't rudimentary. But they were designed to shoot high and are easily adjusted for range by changing the sight picture. If you take the time to learn how.

 

[nick_1]

it always boils down to accuracy. the person who gets the best hits has the best chance for survival.

 

[appalichian hunter]

I had a Pinay girl in Cebu tell me that her grandmother used an R&S .44 revolver to fight the Japanese invaders in WW2, understandably I believed her......until I discovered my Wallet was empty and she explained that Ghosts were responsible. It was around then that I knew something wasnt right......

A little to much San Miguel, will do that also

 

[appalichian hunter]

Russ. show me in period writing. I suspect that the sight picture adjustment was a learned skill after the fact to deal with an imperfect system. BTW I shoot these rigs just fine. was just outside ringing 5" plates @ 25m. not too shabby for a revolver I have only had for two weeks... aint my first rodeo. View attachment 171971
View attachment 171972

I got a bunch of those also. Got them shooting a stock colt 45 1911.

 

[maillemaker]

Civil War soldiers carried spare cylinders for quick reloads in battle...totally false

I used to believe this fully also. However, on a forum a few years back someone provided evidence of issued spare cylinders. I can't remember the circumstances anymore but it was, in fact, done. But I think it was extremely rare.