The "Myth" of Cylinder Swapping?

[DanChamberlain]

As an aside, I do have a reference of a Texas Ranger taking the side plate off his 73 Winchester while under fire because a cartridge jammed, clearing and returning it to service all while bullets were wizzing about his head.

I suppose we can never discount cool and deliberate weapons manipulation, when everything in our heads is screaming..."Run!"

Dan

 

[jeepwj992002]

Just another example of what a true warrior will do to keep in the fight. Do you have a source for that account Dan? I find the story of the Texas Rangers interesting.

 

[DanChamberlain]

I'm afraid that it's a little tidbit I discovered while researching. It's not something I have at my fingertips. I can't recall if it pertained to a piece on the toggle link of the 60,66,73 Winchester design, or something I read about the Texas Rangers. It was just a little factoid that I recall. If it occurs to me, I'll try and get it to you before this thread falls into the dustbin of the board.

Dan

 

[DanChamberlain]

Stryker

Found it. In fact, it is in Garavaglia and Worman, 1866-1894, page 186 pertaining to the 73 Winchester.

"A more dramatic incident involving the 1873 occurred the same year, when Texas Rangers ran into a sharp fight with Indians. One Ranger, George Lloyd:

'unfortunately, slipped a .45 Colt's pistol cartridge into the magazine of his .44 Winchester and in attempting to throw a cartridge into his gun it jammed, catching him in a serious predicament. However, taking his knife from his pocket, the fearless Ranger coolly removed the screw that held the side plates of his Winchester together, took off the plates, removed the offending cartridge, replaced the plates, tightened up the screw, reloaded his gun, and began firing. It takes a man with iron nerve to do a thing like that, and you meet such a one but once in a lifetime.'

Hope that satisfies.

Regards

Dan

 

[jeepwj992002]

WOW!!! That was an interesting story! I have put the book on my Amazon wishlist. Thank you Dan!

David :thumbsup:

 

[crockett]

Try, "We rode with Quantrill" by Hale. One of the group, I think Frank James finds a busted up Yankee revolver, a Colt 1851 and he keeps the cylinder for a spare. It is the only reference I have ever read on the practice. SO....I guess it is historically correct but it seems that it wasn't very common.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

But did he take it as a spare part or to carry as a loaded spare?

 

[DanChamberlain]

It's frustrating, I know. We know what they wore; we know how they cooked; we know what they ate; we know how they cleaned their rifles; we know how they loaded them; We know the guerillas carried multiple firearms - when they had them, but this question remains rather enigmatic, considering the number of people who consider it gospel.

Speaking about cap and ball revolvers, I took two squirrel on Saturday with my .51 Navy Pietta. This gun points like a laser! Give me a 20 foot shot and it's meat in the pot! Farther if I accept body shots. It's taken several rabbit and even one red fox some years back. I can see why the gunfighters loved'em.

Dan

 

[mykeal]

Frankly, I'm a bit confused. I don't see very many references to the practice, and to be honest I've not seen anyone, much less a large number of people, who 'consider it gospel'. There's an occasional reference to the practice being used once in a while, but nothing like a 'myth'. Nobody has chimed up in this thread, for instance, with anything more than a, 'it may have been done on occasion'. Perhaps I'm just not widely read, but I don't get the feeling that a number of people are claiming widespread use of multiple cylinders amongst the combatants in the War of Secession.

 

[Poor Private]

I think it is like someone said. How often in modern accounts does some-one mention changing clips in their diaries. It is just an accepted thing. When someone metions reloading thier ak 47 it is just assumed that it is changing clips. Perhaps it was the same thing back then. When they mention reloading, they changed cylinders, it was assumed that is what was meant, because it was a common practice. Alot of PEC (period everyday common) is not mentioned during civil war accounts.

 

[LaBonte]

Earlier than the War by Whatever Name - Josiah Gregg states that he and his brother when traveling to Santa Fe in 1839 each carried a Colt's revolving rifle and a pair of pistols (Paterson's) along with extra loaded cylinders which gave them

thirty-six ready loaded shots a piece; which alone alone constituted a defence rarely matched even on the Priries.

One Colt Paterson revolving rifle with extra cylinder = 16 shots (they were eight shooters)
Two Colt Paterson revolving pistols with extra cylinders = 20 shots (they were five shooters)

Common? Based on currently available doumentation = no, but neither would it be a "myth" since there is some minimal documentation for the practice....as my history and archeology profs beat into my head lo those many years ago
"absence of evidence is NOT evidence of abscence"

 

[DanChamberlain]

LaBonte

I believe it was already mentioned by me that the Patterson pistols and rifles commonly had the extra cylinder feature because they lacked the underlever for loading. At the time the Patterson was making its name, they were a fairly rare pice of equipment and pretty expensive for the day. A soldier having the good fortune to have more than one of them would be a well heeled individual indeed.

As for the "Absence of evidence" quote (do you know who first coined it?), I would agree to a point. Again, has been stated repeatedly, history has countless references to the practice of carrying numerous pistols into combat. One would think that had the innovative practice of carrying multiple cylinders instead, there would at least be passing reference to it. (As a retired federal agent, I am somewhat versed on what makes "evidence" and absence of certain actions are actually considered evidence, as you will soon see on the national stage.)

Regards

Dan

 

[DanChamberlain]

Mykeal

It may be, that you and I don't read the same material or frequent all the same internet forums, but I doubt you are not "widely read."

While it may not be considered "gospel" to this crew (being a fairly historically savvy bunch) it is widely stated in print, particularly among younger writers when the question of circa Civil War pistoleros comes up. Then, once someone reads that, they tend to probagate it in other forums and venues.

I hope you will agree that a careful look at all my posts on this subject will fail to turn up one accusation, or even an inferrence that I am suggesting people here have bought into what I consider the "myth."

At the same time, is there some credo I've violated, by bringing up a topic of discussion concerning the historical use, mytical or otherwise, of cap and ball pistols? My very first post at the beginning of this thread was asking for assistance, not pointing fingers.

Best wishes for the holidays.

Dan

 

[Coot]

LaBonte


As for the "Absence of evidence" quote (do you know who first coined it?), I would agree to a point. Again, has been stated repeatedly, history has countless references to the practice of carrying numerous pistols into combat. One would think that had the innovative practice of carrying multiple cylinders instead, there would at least be passing reference to it. (As a retired federal agent, I am somewhat versed on what makes "evidence" and absence of certain actions are actually considered evidence, as you will soon see on the national stage.)

Regards

Dan

A good point above. While there may not be much documentation of the "common & everyday", there are lots of records on government contracts during the war. Has anyone ever seen a reference to a contract to purchase pistols that mentions extra cylinders? Likewise, if the practice was common, where are all of the extra cylinders today? Just food for thought. :hmm:

 

[mykeal]

Dan,

Didn't mean to be accusatory. I just felt I'd missed a discussion somewhere. It's happened to me before. I've personally just always assumed that the well equipped 1860's pistol shooter carried more than one gun rather than spare cylinders and didn't realize there were those who felt differently.

So, I thought I needed to 'ketchup' (borrowing a pun from Pulp Fiction).

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

One of the members of one of the four shooting Clubs that I belong to is a published author on some aspects of the Civil War. I will contact him to ask about the practice of changing-out cylinders.

I have 3 Colt Uberti revolvers. After firing them and "gunking them up", I can't imagine someone with maybe an eighth grade education would have the time during a battle to swap them, after disassembling the revolver(s). The Remington I have is O-K to play with when it's clean and freshly lubed, but after a couple cylinder's worth of firing, I need a small block of wood and a mallot to get the pin to move enough to get the cylinder out of the frame :shocked2: . Seems lke it would be a lot easier to just switch guns in order to stay "in the fight".

Up to now, I've been sitting on the side-lines, reading all of the posts on this thread. Very interesting topic indeed! I also would want to know where all of the supposed extra cylinders wound up?

Hopefully my friend might know the answer. We'll keep you all posted.

Merry Christmas!

Dave

 

[rebel727]

OK, lets look at this a different way. As far as the C.W. is concerned the main ones carrying and actually using revolvers were cavalrymen. Now I dunno how many of you ride but I can't see me riding a horse and trying to swap out cylinders. I can see me firing a pistol until it's empty, dropping it and drawing another which has been documented as being done. As for civilian use. I kinda doubt anybody saw the need in it but I wasn't there so ...........maybe they did.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Mykeal

Are you familiar with a gentleman named Bilby? I'm thinking his first name is Joe and he writes a lot of articles on Civil War guns. His research appears exhaustive and he appears to have read tons of accounts pertaining to regular cavalry in general and the Confederate guerilla cavalry, in which much time is devoted to the number of guns carried into combat. One reference I recall, mentioned that nearly 30 pistols were recovered from the corpses of six dead Confederate cavalry troopers! In my mind, I can't help but believe that passing reference would be made to preloaded spare cylinders as well, had they been stuffed into pockets or pouches, if only to illustrate the martial determination of these fellows.

What prompted this thread was research I was doing to try and get to the bottom of this idea, after a thread here a few weeks ago, in which it was suggested that the practice was common. I decided to do a little research and I was directed to a couple of muzzleloading forums. Discussions on these forums suggested that it was a common conception that cylinders were swapped off in the heat of battle, and a few posters seemed to belive that it was the gospel truth.

Try as I might, none of my reference books even broached the subject. I love the old Clint Eastwood movies, and while Pale Rider is a neat tale I much prefer Josey Wales, and in the end, you can see him demonstrate the carrying of at least 4 pistols, if not 5. I just can't recall.

No offense taken. Had I been alive and fighting back then, I'd have sold my soul for a Henry! So much so, that I bought an "Iron" framed model a year or so ago.

Love the guns from that era.

Dan

 

[DanChamberlain]

Rebel

Emptying it and switching guns...but not dropping the gun they had. It takes a second to stick it back in the holster or sash. I just can't see them dropping something so valuable.

Dan

 

[mykeal]

I am familiar with Joe Bilby's works, although I'm sure I haven't exhausted all he's done; he's very prolific.