The "Myth" of Cylinder Swapping?

[DanChamberlain]

Having had an interest in the Civil War weapons and accompanying literature and lore, I have yet to find a credible reference to the practice of carrying additional preloaded cylinders for cap and ball pistols. I've seen it written in modern articles, but cannot find mention of it in any writing contemporary to the war or from that period.

In the past couple of weeks, I've viewed perhaps 25 or 30 cased sets of Colt cap and ball revolvers, and with the exception of two (one Patterson and one was a cased pair of "51" Navies) There were no other accessory cylinders.

In the case of the Pattersons, since they were not supplied with a loading lever on the weapon, I can see where it may be been of interest to the owner to have an extra cylinder when away from his accessories. In the case of the cased pair of Navies, it appeared the extra cylinder was special ordered. At the same time, I have several photos in books in which there are matching pairs of cap and ball pistols in cased sets without additional cylinders in evidence.

I would be interested to know of any period literature in which the practice of swapping out cylinders was referenced.

Regards

Dan

 

[Poor Private]

In the book "Colt Single Action from Patersons to Peacemakers" by Dennis Adler, going thru it real quick here are a few cased revolvers with extra cylinders.
Pgs. 24,26-29, 31, pages 33-38 shows cased
sets of Patersons with extra cylinders and the cases all have placement specific locations for the cylinders. Pg 78 model 1849 Pocket pistol includes an extra cylinder.
I also found on pages 148, 149- cased sets of a 1849 colt pocket and 2 1860 Colt armies with conversion cylinders (gasp).
When I mentioned to my son about documentation of using a 2nd cylinder in the field he stated.
In the Bible they don't ever say Jesus went to pee, or anyone else for that matter. So I guess because there is no documentation no-one took pees."
This book is colt specific, so the references I have is for only on colts. BUt with the ease of converting Remingtons I bet there is a pletera of them that came the same way. Why would 1 manufacturer sell that way and not another.

 

[DanChamberlain]

It's difficult finding cased sets of Remingtons to view as they were less subject to the practice of embellishment, though I've seen some fine examples.

Your Bible anology is interesting, but totally illogical and meaningless. Since there are tons of references in which soldiers carried multiple pistols for the exact purpose of staying in the fight longer, one would think, if the practice of switching cylinders were commonplace, there would be adequate period references of it. That's the reason I'm asking.

Having a spare cylinder as an option, is not something that is beyond comprehension, but attempting to switch them out, even with a Remington (when a second or third gun is available as history indicates was a common practice) during combat seems a tad inconsistent with history.

There is no shortage of memoirs written by Civil War soldiers, in particular those romantic, yet hated guerilla fighters and mention is periodically made concerning the practice of carrying as many as 6 or more revolvers, but it appears lacking concerning the practice of multiple cylinders. Seems to me, if it were a viable practice, why would men resort to 20 pounds of iron, when they could resort to a greatly reduced weight in extra wheels for their hogs.

I'd have to say it's pretty much a modern myth, or so uncommon a practice as to be widely ignored by history.

Dan

 

[tg]

What about the military application,any small belt worn cylinder holders on record there, seems that would be the way to carry them.

 

[uncrichie]

I think the norm would be to carry additional revolvers (in battle) rather than cylinders but I have been wrong before. Its tough enough to get a gun tuned/timed to one cylinder let alone two or more.

 

[Zonie]

While in no way is this saying that anyone switched cylinders on the Remington during the heat of battle, at least the idea of doing so existed and it was the downfall of the Remington 1861 Army Revolver.

This particular gun which followed the Remington-Beals Army Model Revolver intentionally had the upper surface of the loading lever milled off to clear the cylinder pin with the intention of allowing the cylinder pin and cylinder to be removed without lowering the loading lever.

To me, this shows that the idea of changing cylinders in the field was desirable, at least to Remington and Mr. Beals.

How the army looked at the idea of changing cylinders is not known to me however the Army was not at all impressed with the Remington-Beals feature.

By having this clearance cut, the cylinder pin could work itself loose and allow the cylinder to drop out of the gun without warning.

To solve the problem, Remington added a small large head screw to the top of the loading lever. This screw head prevented the cylinder pin from being withdrawn without lowering the loading lever.

When the Remington New Army revolver was designed and issued its loading lever also blocked the cylinder pin to prevent the cylinder pin from moving forward without lowering the loading lever.

This information is available in Flayderman's Guide as well as several other sources.

 

[Poor Private]

I have a Uberi and have 4 cylinders for it. Have never had to time each cylinder for the gun. They worked coming straight out of the shipping box.
Thew analogy is as good as any because some every day common things you do you do not document. Would you document using a knife to butcher a hog? Or just say I butchered a hog today. I put suspenders on today, I pulled up my socks. When aa account says that they reloaded their revolver how do you know that they are just not putting in a new cylinder? Why offer a pistol with a 2nd cylinder if it was intended to be used? It is cheaper to buy spare cylinders than it is to buy more than 1 gun. Also the weight factor how much does a revolver weigh? how much does a spare cyinder weigh? wich would you rather carry on your hip? There are lots of accounts of equipment being tossed along the roadside on a march which would you more likey to drop a pistol or a cylinder?

 

[slowpokebr549]

I saw Clint Eastwood reloading his remington in Pale Rider with spare cylinders. Good enough for me. :haha:

 

[DanChamberlain]

Zonie

Yes, I was aware of the Remington Beals, having worked on an original a few years ago. Also, it's worth noting as you did, that Remington altered their benchmark weapon to rectify that potential problem.

I did a little more research this evening, and discovered a couple more instances where a separate cylinder was often provided in cased sets, but normally only when special ordered. The vast majority of cased revolvers did not come with extra cylinders. I do have a couple of photos of cased sets made during the era of conversions, where a conversion cylinder was provided along with a percussion cylinder.

Now, one case where it appears additional cylinders were regularly provided, is in the case of the early Colt's revolving carbines. I've seen photographic documentation of a couple instances where there were two additional cylinders provided.

Poorprivate:

"Why offer a pistol with a 2nd cylinder if it was intended to be used?"

The answer is obvious. It WAS intended to be used. However, you are ignoring the fact that it was "not" commonplace to have purchased a pistol with additional cylinders, or the number of cased sets extant would be suggestive of such. They are not. It is actually quite rare.

As for your other questions and comments, it was "uncommon" for foot soldiers to even have a sidearm. We are talking about cavalry in general and guerillas in particular, for whom the practice of carrying many revolvers "was" commonplace! Weight was less a factor for mounted troops than for those poor wretches who had to march in July in Virginia in a heavy wool uniform under the weight of a pack, a rifle and cartridge box with a basic load. Those guys dropped everyting they could, including their rifles!

Still, the original question remains. Until one can read from contemporary accounts, that the practice of swapping out preloaded cylinders was commonplace - considering the available contemporary documentation describing the practice of carrying multiple firearms. To suggest that a common practice used in combat wouldn't be documented is bizarre considering the nature of post-war literature.

No, until I can read it for myself, I'd have to strongly consider it a myth. Regardless who did or did not pee during Biblical times and fail to document it on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Dan

 

[Dances With Coyotes]

I saw Clint Eastwood reloading his remington in Pale Rider with spare cylinders. Good enough for me. :haha:

Yeah, and he made it look so easy and effortless....

 

[T.C.Albert]

What serial number would the Colt factory stamp on a spare cylinder? Dont cylinder #s generally match the other numbers on the frame etc? If spare cylinders were fairly common,but not commonly supplied as spares with the pistol at the time of its initial sale, and you just went to the hardware or gun shop and bought your self a spare or two, then I dont think the numbers would or could match. Maybe you could custom order a cylinder to Colt and request the numbers to match a pistol you already had, but in general, if spares were commonly available through secondary dealers after the initial sale of a new pistol, then shouldnt there be quite a few mismatched cylinder and frame numbered pistols in circulation, or even quite a few cylinders sans pistols altogether...and for all I know maybe there are? Just wondering out loud...TCA

 

[smoothshooter]

Dan; having had some experience with Colt and Remington replicas, I doubt that reloading with a spare loaded cylinder was common, but would have been done in some circumstances. It would seem to be more practical in the Remington than the Colt, since when breaking down the Remington you just have two pieces to juggle/deal with (basic gun and cylinder); whereas with the Colt you have three (frame, barrel, and cylinder). Under stress, simpler is usually better. However, I can see some real practicality in having a spare clean, dry cylinder available to put back in your freshly cleaned gun, ready for loading NOW, while the one you just cleaned with water or whatever can completely dry inside over the next few hours or days. Since in the days these guns were in common use it was accepted practice to load them up and keep them that way for days, weeks, or even months without being fired, most people understood the importance of having absolutely dry chambers for long term loading. - Smoothshooter

 

[Dphar]

One must remember that cased guns may not be what was really used in war. If you could get a battlefield pickup revolver and simply keep the cylinders it would save a lot of trouble when in a fire fight.
I thought I might find some reference to this in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" by Garavaglia and Worman but a quick run through found only that some carried 2 revolvers and almost nothing on actual Civil War use most accounts are from before the war concerning the Mexican War or indian fighting.
Based on this limited search there is little to show the use of extra cylinders. Since during the Civil War Colt, and probably everyone else, could not make revolvers fast enough I can't see them making many extra cylinders.

Dan

 

[PRM]

There is some evidence that the Paterson may have been issued with a spare cylinder in some cases. I agree that the concept was probably around during the percussion era, but most of the Civil War accounts (especially Southern partisans and cavalry) carried multiple revolvers, both on themselves and in saddle holsters. It makes sense that it was easier to holster an empty or jammed revolver and draw a fresh one rather than reload.

There exist a following of modern shooters that have started doing this. It was popularized several years ago in the movie Pale Rider. Caution should be stressed in doing so. A capped and loaded cylinder will launch a ball if dropped and detonated the same as a loaded revolver. Less velocity because of the absence of the barrel, but I still would not want to be hit by it. I guess it becomes a matter of how safe one wants to be. Shooters who would not dream of carrying a capped and loaded chamber under a hammer, in some cases have no thought of laying a round capped and loaded cylinder on a shooting bench where it can roll off.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

It was also loaded with cartridges.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

I can't say about the original C&B revolver packers but I have hunted with a C&B .44 - hunting wild/feral hogs.
I did not have either a back up revolver or spare cylinder but my nephew was in the blind w/me toting his 20ga 3" Mag H&R w/#3 buck. didn't have to use it but it felt good to know he was there and ready.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Thank you all for your input. I love this site for the wealth of information I can find here. Gentlemen one and all.

Mr. Phariss, I have Garavaglia and Worman, 1866 - 1894. In the section on pistols, there are two nice examples of cased sets destined for military people. One, a Lieutenant received a brace of 1861 Navies and the other, made for G.A. Custer, which is a nicely appointed Remington 1858. Since these guns were ordered for military men, had the use of accessory cylinders been widespread, I'm thinking that might have been an option considered as well. Thanks for your input.

The point of this thread is not to embarrass anyone, but to suggest that the only place one finds reference to switching out cylinders on cap and ball revolvers, is in modern text references. I'm betting 90% of this belief stems from the very movie referenced earlier, "Pale Rider," which I enjoyed very much.

Now, I don't doubt that the switching cylinders was done to a point. Certainly, with the Patterson pistols, it quite possibly was commonplace. Yet, one does find cased sets of Patterson pistols with both extra cylinders and sans extra cylinders.

In closing, I am NOT a "period correct" sort of guy. But I'm a stickler for historical accuracy when "referencing" items of historical import. I've read lots of guys saying that this was a full-blown common practice among military men, and frankly, I find that little more than passing on myth.

Regards

Dan

 

[DanChamberlain]

Gentlemen,

I must make a correction and I don't see how I can edit my last post.

In fact, I see that the Remington 1858 cased set presented to Custer does in fact have an additional cylinder in the upper right hand corner which I completely missed.

So, for purposes of clarification, I have to admit it's entirely possible an extra cylinder or two was a common feature among soldiers and gunfighters who used that particular brand of pistol, since changing one out is a fairly simple procedure.

When one considers the total numbers of Remington revolvers produced, compared to the Colt's style percussion revolvers, it is easy to see why guerilla soldiers probably found more Colts to carry and therefore needed more pistols rather than extra cylinders.

Thanks again for this discussion.

Dan

 

[jbg]

From a practical point, look at it this way. You are in the heat of battle, scared, thirsty, and guys are being shot all around you. You have just emptied your revolver, and now you have to take the time to partially disassemble it to take the empty cylinder out, replace it with a loaded cylinder, make sure everything is back in place, fire 6 shots and do it all over again.

Or you could reach for another pistol.

And rememember battle shirts? They had 2 big slash pockets sown on the front to carry prerolled pistol cartirdges. I think if anyone wanted to try it, you will find you can reload 6 paper cartridges and recap your revolver quicker than you can replace a cylinder.

I can remember 3 different occasions at reenactments where I saw cavalry reenactors drop either a cylinder or wedge when trying to replace a cylinder. They looked kind of silly, searching through the grass while the battle raged around them. If it were a real battle though, they would have looked kind of dead.

 

[Dphar]

From a practical point, look at it this way. You are in the heat of battle, scared, thirsty, and guys are being shot all around you. You have just emptied your revolver, and now you have to take the time to partially disassemble it to take the empty cylinder out, replace it with a loaded cylinder, make sure everything is back in place, fire 6 shots and do it all over again.

Or you could reach for another pistol.

And rememember battle shirts? They had 2 big slash pockets sown on the front to carry prerolled pistol cartirdges. I think if anyone wanted to try it, you will find you can reload 6 paper cartridges and recap your revolver quicker than you can replace a cylinder.

I can remember 3 different occasions at reenactments where I saw cavalry reenactors drop either a cylinder or wedge when trying to replace a cylinder. They looked kind of silly, searching through the grass while the battle raged around them. If it were a real battle though, they would have looked kind of dead.

It does not take long to swap a cylinder in a Colt. 15-20 seconds maybe. Less time than capping a revolver. Not something to be done in close contact with the enemy, go to the saber.
Being horse back is not a plus for sure. But most re-enactors are not as good on a horse as the cavalry man of the 1850s-60s. The horse basically being a part of their costume not a part of their everyday life. Just as importantly their HORSES know/learn they are not all that skilled and will take "liberties".
If you think it would be impossible watch "Stagecoach" the first version with John Wayne and look at the horsemanship displayed by some of the "indians" in reloading TD Springfields at a dead run.

But still there needs to be some documentation for historical use of this technique. I am SURE its out there. But it could be legend just as easy. We could be applying "modern think" which is familiar with "magazine changes" to the mid-19th century which was not.

Dan