Hello all, when roughly did most cap and ball pistols become replaced with metallic cartridge guns? It seems that while the 1873 Colt came out that year, there would be no way possible that suddenly every gunslinger, outlaw, and lawman had one. I get cartridge conversions of Colt open tops and Remington's were available but the quantity also seems lacking.
It is hard to find outlaws/gunfighters that used cap and ball pistols exclusively, not the Peacemaker, even if they were killed in the 1860s or before that gun was introduced. Mass production is great but if every single other commodity took years to travel westward, guns, even though critical tools, should have as well. I have the feeling dime novels and Hollywood had a lot to do with it. Somehow metallic cartridges for pistols and lever actions are outrageously romantic. What say you?
The entire production of 1873 Peacemakers went to the military for the first several years. The only source of them would be from deserters or black market guns listed as "lost" and likely gone to criminals or not. The cap & ball revolvers were quite affordable as war surplus so they and various conversions were used for many years after the advent of the Peacemaker. The peacemaker was not widely used by the public until well into the 1870s-1880s. Most shooters were quite familiar with"powder & ball" so the percussion arms were the most common revolvers until the late 1870s.
I'm not sure they were ever replaced but rather new people would buy up new models as time went on. Imagine a 40 year old farmer living outside of town working hard to keep his family fed. He's never needed a handgun, but feels safe knowing he has a cleaned, oiled and loaded 1860 army in the house if he ever does. Why would he need to upgrade to a SAA and what practical advantage would it offer? Now a imagine a 16 year old boy being handed his wages in dodge city at the end of a cattle drive. He's looking forward to a night on the town with his friends and happens to see a nickel 1875 remington in a glass counter.
A good analogy is the automobile replacing the horse. It was a gradual transition despite Hollywood BS.
Most of the money that 16-year-old boy had was just spent on a bath, a shave, a new pair of trousers and a new shirt (maybe two) and if much was left - new boots.
The rest he'd spend with his pals on whisky and women.
That new 1875 Remington was going to sit in that case a good long while...
Truth is, the percussions and cartridge conversions lasted a 'long' time - especially when there seemed to be no pressing need for a new revolver, when the conversions were so cheap.
Later on, when the strength of the top strap was evident, and when Army Contracts didn't have a stranglehold on the Single Action Army production, the Model 1873s started to hit civilian sales, and by the time they did, that same boy was older and making more money...
Scouts Out!
Great responses everybody. Thanks!
The 7th Cavalry at Ft Abraham Lincoln, received the 1873 Colts in the spring of 1874 before they went on the Black Hills Expedition. Wild Bill was still using cap and ball in 1876.
Not only these factors, but if a cowboy/gunfighter/whoever felt he really need a cartridge revolver, it might be cheaper to have his cap-n-ball converted to metallic cartridges. There were a number of gunsmiths willing and capable of doing the job.
I doubt a bath shave and trousers would cost most his wages. Colt only made 35000 saa for the cavalry and 20000 large frame conversions fyi. Hardly a stranglehold.
A real good example of new gun adoption would be the AR style rifle. Think about how long they have been available and how long they have been super desirable. People are the same today as yesteryear and while the military rifle is all the rage today not everyone goes out and trades everything they have just to get the latest model. People whose life depended on them may likely have had the latest and greatest as soon as possible. And, just like today, with all the advertising, anyone buying for the first time will probably choose the newest thing available. Also, compare the automatic craze with the revolver. There are still plenty of revolvers being sold today.
Happy trails...
FYI...
A seasoned hand made less than $40, and that was after the heyday of the percussion era.
Cowboys wore their gear out - boots, saddles, clothing - everything wore out and needed replacement, so replacing everything affordable was his first priority, since those were his tools of the trade - 'not' whatever new revolver came down the pike.
These times weren't the times of movies and the 'John Ford Reference Library'.
Colt's production didn't happen all at once, either - and what revolvers that were earmarked for civilian sales got to those same civilians slowly - they didn't get drop-shipped to the Frontier West, they made their way there via jobbers and dealers - each getting their cut - so nothing happened overnight.
The Army had Colt's priority, no matter 'what' you might think - Colt knew which side their bread was buttered on, then as now - and long-term military contracts have been the lifeblood for them.
For the average cowboy, his saddle gun was most valuable, since he could 'probably' hit something with that, rather than his revolver, and since ammunition cost money he didn't have - revolver practice wasn't something many of them did.
Scouts Out!
Powder, ball & caps were available at the time every where. Not so with cartridges. C&B lasted well in to the 1920's in some parts of the country.
Texas outlaw-gunfighter John Wesley Hardin used cap and ball revolvers during most of his career, though he did shoot a sheriff with a Smith & Wesson American cartridge revolver in the early 1870s and made mention of once shooting an 1873 Colt . When Hardin was arrested in 1877, he was carrying a Colt 1860 Army .44 cap and ball revolver.
In the Remington 1877 catalog .44 Henry was $24 per K. That was quite a drop from the initial cost of $30 to $40 during and after the war until the Panic of 1873 destroyed the economy. That date is a milepost. $24 in 1877 = approx. $540 adjusted for inflation, which is tricky due to buying 'power'. So, if a waddy made $40 per mo., then $24 was a Helluva chunk out of his monthly pay. New boots in Kansas started at about $8.00 for a cheap pair. Of course, we have yet to see a Texan that had plain boots. ::) :D ;)
I could see an average waddy buying a 50 rd. box or two of ammo, IF he even owned a ctg. pistol, for the trip home. As well, note that some waddies in later years sold their horses in the north after a trail drive & took the train back south. More expensive yes, but faster and safer. It was a lot smarter to get back to your sweetheart in Texas than sate your desires on a syphilitic 'soiled dove' in Kansas in an age when a venereal disease was the kiss of death.
Don't know if it is true or not, but once read (think it was on the "official" Colt Forum) that some historians believe that Doc Holiday was armed with an 1851 Navy converted to .38 rim-fire at the fight at the OK Corral in 1881. It is known that he also had an 1873 model Colt, but that was after his Tombstone days.
Buffalo Bill Cody also famously carried a .44 Remington cap and ball revolver during his Indian scouting days on the Plains.
I am really enjoying this discussion, the history dweeb in me continues to grow. Thoughtful, intellectual conversations are awesome. Hollywood and books really do tell different stories.
Just for reference; although Wild Bill Hickok used 1851 Colt Navy cap and ball revolvers throughout his "gunfighter" period in the Old West, according to Hickok historian and biographer Joseph G. Rosa, when Hickok was shot and killed in Deadwood in 1876, they examined his body, and the only gun they found on him was a Smith & Wesson "Old Army" .32 rim-fire in a coat pocket.
(not Hickok's pistol, this S&W Old Army is from my personal collection):
(http://i66.tinypic.com/33w1cvd.jpg)
Interesting stuff. I'm usually unsure of what to believe, as the newspapers of the day (and today) tended to sensationalize their stories with dramatic flair to sell more. If one got killed, it easily turned into four, etc etc. I forgot where I read it but there was a newspaper article from when there was a shootout and before dying one of the men had an awesome quote, apparently staying cool as a cucumber. Something to the extent of avenge me, make a posse and hunt the whole gang down, take care of my wife, etc....
Its possible people said that kind of thing, sure, but I highly doubt it was that common. That is interesting about John W. Hardin and the 1860. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
So for those who carried cap and ball revolvers in the late 1860s whether farmer or outlaw/lawman/gunfighter/vigilante/bounty hunter, how would you carry extra ammunition? You have your holster, maybe a cap pouch, but loose powder and balls, or paper cartridges? I've never read anything on that. If on horseback, a Colt should have 5 shots typically, Remington being a wee bit safer with hammer notches that really work but things do get jolted around, caps could come loose, accidental discharge, etc.
Also, how did people keep their powder dry? It would seem that a leather bag can only do so much and once again I haven't read anything on flasks being carried for revolvers.
And, any good first-person books written about the people who were using cap and ball revolvers for their primary "work"? (Whatever that may mean). I am especially interested in the Civil War guerilla fighters, and the reconstruction period of the East. There isn't much I could find, but I know there were bad people over here too and good people who found them, it just wasn't as romanticised. The Wild East just doesn't roll off the tongue all that well and the romanticized vision of a lawless frontier doesn't exist. It seems everything is focused only on the West, which obviously I am also fascinated by but in a different way. Probable because there is soooo much information on it I can just use Google and learn more.
A 'lot' more of your questions can be best answered in the 'back pages' of the 'Historical Society' forum.
All have been well-covered long before, so take a look.
Scouts Out!
Quote from: Flatlander55 on March 06, 2016, 06:26:12 AM
Interesting stuff. I'm usually unsure of what to believe, as the newspapers of the day (and today) tended to sensationalize their stories with dramatic flair to sell more. If one got killed, it easily turned into four, etc etc. I forgot where I read it but there was a newspaper article from when there was a shootout and before dying one of the men had an awesome quote, apparently staying cool as a cucumber. Something to the extent of avenge me, make a posse and hunt the whole gang down, take care of my wife, etc....
Its possible people said that kind of thing, sure, but I highly doubt it was that common. That is interesting about John W. Hardin and the 1860. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
So for those who carried cap and ball revolvers in the late 1860s whether farmer or outlaw/lawman/gunfighter/vigilante/bounty hunter, how would you carry extra ammunition? You have your holster, maybe a cap pouch, but loose powder and balls, or paper cartridges? I've never read anything on that. If on horseback, a Colt should have 5 shots typically, Remington being a wee bit safer with hammer notches that really work but things do get jolted around, caps could come loose, accidental discharge, etc.
Also, how did people keep their powder dry? It would seem that a leather bag can only do so much and once again I haven't read anything on flasks being carried for revolvers.
Paper cartridges and percussion caps were the most likely way to carry extra ammo. However, most folks probably didn't think it necessary to carry a whole lot more than was in the cylinder...law men, gunfighters, and cavalry being the exception. Paper cartridges with ball or conical bullet were packaged together. Caps were usually carried in a CW cap pouch with the wool liner.
A fair number of the paper revolver cartridge boxes had 6 rounds and 7 percussion caps included. Some of them were pretty under powered. The last label on a box of paper cartridges I saw had only 18grs of Hazard powder for a 44 cal revolver. The bullets were pretty pointy. I believe a lot of victims had time to say their last words after being hit by bullets that were slow and dirty. Unless killed instantly many had time to linger & die two or 3 days later of infection but not before expressing their last wishes to their companions and to relay such to their family. It is pure Hollywood to show the bad guy launched backwards off his feet when shot by a Navy Colt. Most real victims probably just slumped forward.
First, my apologies for not checking everything, I really didn't mean to be rude. I do however feel that each day more is learned about the period. Such is the case with the picture of Billy The Kid that turned out to be authentic after being shunned by so many people stating it would NEVER be possible to have been him, but with the appropriate researchers it sure turned out to be real. This is how history stays alive and furthers overall knowledge of how people once lived day to day in a time we have a hard time fathoming.
As to being shot, I become immediately confused. Reports show that bad guys often die "instantly" from a direct hit to the heart from an outrageous distance away from a quick drawing sheriff, while the "good guys" take a while, put up a good fight, but pass on after letting their totally loyal partner know their wishes. Anybody who has ever been in real life ground combat or gunfights will probably tell you that no, 90+% of the time people do not pass away instantly from a gunshot wound, and no, equal chances are that the wounded do not have some heroic message to pass on. I am sure somebody will be upset at me with but let's be honest here about how things happen in the real world.
It is possible for the bad guys to all die instantly before hitting the ground with perfect heart shots while the Deputy made it a few days from sheer determination and grit but no way no how did that happen nearly every time like the papers, books, and movies would have you believe.
The extracted bullet but dying from infection makes a ton of sense, and still does today. It's just the things like when Billy The Kid shot his two guards, his second kill supposidly said that he was killed two before being hit with two simultaneous shotgun bursts. In a life and death situation, would you wait for a mans final sentence? Nether would I.
I honestly feel that cap and ball pistols are easily as lethal as cartridge pistols, as I am sure most here do. To further my own understanding, how often did cap jams happen back then while the piece was actually needed? We are fortunate to have cap choices today but back then it couldn't have been as simple as today, especially out West. Once again, sorry if I ruffled feathers but I do feel that legends are often just that, legends.
And maybe I have a foil hat but the events of Butch Cassidy is in my mind the second greatest truth based story of the era, only surpassed by the Andrews Railroad Raid. Did Butch and The Sundance Kid really get killed in Bolivia, or did they make it? Who knows, but it sure does furnish great conversations and spark imagination.
In over 45 years of reading historical first hand accounts of life in the Old West, I have never seen a reference to a cap jam in a revolver, but have seen the phrase "His pistol snapped" meaning the cap didn't fire. Of course the phrase "Pop a cap" on someone, meaning to shoot them, came from the Civil War era.
The hammer springs in the C&B revolvers were very stout. Most could not be cocked one handed. Thus the caps stayed on the cones.
I recently bought a Centaure Belgium Colt made in 1960. It is as close to an original 1860 Colt as one can be. The hammer spring is very stiff and is built like a truck spring. There is no way a Cap can come off with back pressure from firing.
That makes sense, but since I'm not sure of cap size availability of the day and with the same issues of supply flow out west, paired with only stock nipples, it at least makes me wonder. Same thing with chainfires, I have never read about them except in current times but as we all know that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I chuckled at the pop a cap referance, it constantly amazes me how many phraises from yesteryear are still used.
Quote from: Lefty Dude on March 06, 2016, 03:39:33 PM
The hammer springs in the C&B revolvers were very stout. Most could not be cocked one handed...
http://www.wheaties.com/
;)
What we see and use today, are not the same as those in use in those halcyon days of yesteryear. I'll use Colt as an example. Colt
caps really were waterproof. One of their (Colts) sales gimmicks was to drop a loaded capped pistol in a water source at the beginning of the presentation. At the end of the presentation, the gun was fired. Once stuck on the gun, those "old timey" caps, stayed on the gun.
The guns weren't used the same as we do either. "Speed" shooting, beyond one or two rounds was unheard of, except for the "trick"
shooters in Wild West shows. Most antique guns we see today were fired less than 50 rounds in their entire lifetime. We fire 50 rounds
every match. As mentioned, the original guns of the time period used incredibly heavy springs. Spring technology sucked and the
old cap material took a pretty good whack.
There was little if any "reloading." If an individual were in an occupation that potentially required more than 6 rounds, the individual carried multiple guns. When one ran dry, it was dropped and another gun pulled. The guns were as reliable as circumstances required.
They bore absolutely no resemblance to what we require them to do in a CAS match.
Coffinmaker
+What Coffinmaker said!
Never thought of it that way, especially the honest to goodness waterproof caps. It seems the vast majority of cap and ball pistols are left in their original form, but some, mostly .44 colts were cut down to belly guns. Were other modifications to cap pistols somewhat typical of the day? I've read about "gunsmith specials" in the West, and the validity of a .31 and .36 pocket revolvers or derringers in saloons and the like. At the same time, many of the surviving Colt SAA's of the mid 1870's seem to be of the 7.5" flavor. I would think many of the honest workers whether it be miners, farmers, lumber workers, etc would do as others suggest and simply buy surplus Colts or Remington's. Still, outside of mythology I am curious of modifcations.
If you prowl around in the written accounts of those halcyon days of yesteryear, things were kept pretty simple. Most guns were left/kept in their original configuration. The 7 1/2 inch and 8 inch barrels were the most common/manufactured guns. The vast majority spent
original ownership wrapped in oil cloth and stuffed in a saddle bag or bureau drawer.
Modifications sometimes called "Gunsmith Specials" were not all that common. There were a smattering of guns cut down to be "belly
Guns" but I wouldn't call them common. There were as many .36 ('51 Navy - '61 Navy) cut down for concealed carry as there were '44s.
The most prolific "Gunsmith Specials" were cartridge conversions. It was considerably cheaper to have a Cap Gun converted to cartridge
than it was to buy "new" and right up to the turn of the century many folks actually preferred loose ammunition. Either were distrustful
of "newfangled" cartridges, or couldn't afford "store boughts."
Drop by the "History" section of your local Library or Barnes and Noble. There is a ton of information available. Or, just go with John Wayne. He used Colt 1873 pistols and Winchester '92 rifles to portray 1867. Worked for the Duke dontcha know.
Coffinmaker
One famous cap jam/misfire I remember reading about was when Wild Bill Hickock got jumped by several soldiers in a bar, one of them got a revolver out and managed to get it aimed at or in Bill's ear. The gun misfired and Bill was able to get one of his out during the scuffle and shoot one of the soldiers trying to pin him. That broke up the fight and the misfire almost broke up Bill's path to fame.
Hopefully not too much thread drift, BUT, I suppose the 2 ton truck springs and waterproof cap that stay in one piece on the gun, were the reason that the smaller frame Colt C&B, like the 1862 and Pocket Navy actually worked, unlike the usual results today?
Quote from: Flatlander55 on March 04, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Hello all, when roughly did most cap and ball pistols become replaced with metallic cartridge guns? It seems that while the 1873 Colt came out that year, there would be no way possible that suddenly every gunslinger, outlaw, and lawman had one. I get cartridge conversions of Colt open tops and Remington's were available but the quantity also seems lacking.
It is hard to find outlaws/gunfighters that used cap and ball pistols exclusively, not the Peacemaker, even if they were killed in the 1860s or before that gun was introduced. Mass production is great but if every single other commodity took years to travel westward, guns, even though critical tools, should have as well. I have the feeling dime novels and Hollywood had a lot to do with it. Somehow metallic cartridges for pistols and lever actions are outrageously romantic. What say you?
in the European continent, cap and ball revolvers were quickly replaced in the 1860´s, by the Lefaucheux system revolvers, and later, by conversion and rimfire revolvers, so around the end of the 1860´s cap an balls were out of fashion in Europe and regarded as obsolete in most armies.
the British were making very efective metal cartridge center fire revolvers since the 1867´s, from timid beginnings with rimfire revolvers. They had already adopted a centerfire metallic cartridge for their service rifle in 1866, and soon later in that country Tranter and Adams patented in 1868 both centerfire revolvers, as well as Webley one year before with his Bulldog which became very popular outside the USA, specially, the later.
Many of these revolvers, specially cheaper copies of Belgium and british origin reached the USA market, and it is supposed to have become very popular in the East cities, and among inmigrants heading to the west, who, in many cases, were poor people who could only afford Army surplus firearms and the mentioned belgium revolvers.
it the Post Civil War years, the USA was a devastated nation, with a pletora of surplus firearms, and probably there was not much room for new guns and technology in the market until the 1870´s , for lack of internal demand after such horrible conflict, when the country could afford new weaponry for the US army, later involved in the indian wars, and for a growing market in the West, once the routes for migration were opened and the Iron horse made distances shorter.
so it is obvious that not all guns in the West were COLTS or Smiths, who didnt developed efective metallic cartridge revolvers until very late, when that technology was already popular in other countries by main manufacturers.
in my opinion, the change towards a metallic cartridge in the West took place quickly, as soon as the US economy recovered from the Civil War and the huge demand for new guns started with the expansion to the West. Probably in the middle 1870's.
After all, outside the USA, the metallic centerfire cartridge was already firmly stablished since 1866.
Very astute observation ;D
Coffinmaker
Another European perspective: in the Franco-Prussian War 1870/71 France was low on weaponry in general.
To overcome this among others the USA sold readily available Civil War and Post-CW Surplus rifles and revolvers to France.
Even today you will find like Remington New Model 1863 Armies and its conversions with French proof marks from these imports.
Long Johns Wolf
Transformation to cartridge in Europe using the concept of a bored through cylinder pre dates Rollin Whites Patent by a few years.
Rollin White was able to secure Patent rights here in the US. This allowed him to collect $ 0.25 royalties per firearm using his Patent. (Even from S&W)
When his Patent came up for renewal in 1867/8, the US Patent Office refused to allow it.
This left most US Manufactures scrambling to play catch up. And a US Ordnance Dept. with lots of firearms they wanted converted by anyone with a good reliable conversion design.
My best,
Blair
And somehow Europeans suddenly switched over in one felled swoop? ::) BS. I'm sure it was a gradual transition as well and perhaps even slower as they weren't conquering any frontiers full of hostile indigenous peoples within the boundaries of Europe then.
No, but their armies were out colonizing.
Belgium to the Congo, The Germans to Africa, the French in South America, Asia, the islands and in Africa, the Brits had 'Little Wars' to fight - and so on and so forth.
'We' weren't colonizing in 'that' sense, but 'our' Army was equally busy keeping a lid on hostiles, opening the way for settlers - all these military activities slip under the radar, because 'at that time' - what the military did, was what the military did - unless they suffered a defeat.
Civilians on both sides of the waters just didn't care.
'Look' at the advancements in weaponry post-Civil War - as far as the world's militaries were concerned, the American Civil War was interesting, and class notes were taken, because it was a live-fire weapons demonstration (as are 'all' wars, when one isn't a participant) and a number of new weapons came about as a result - as did ammunition and tactics.
That war changed forever the way 'we' would fight, supply and handle wounded and their transportation - and 'everyone' took note...
Scouts Out!
That makes sense. Heck, even with Iraq and Afghanistan, the technology advances are hard to fathom. Within two tours, ammunition was upgraded, uniforms changed, different materials for body armor, vehicles were beginning to be outfitted with mechanical firing devices, weapon optics updated, IR lasers for all, etc etc. That was just for regular Infantry platoons. Its dizzying how fast things change and how slow supply is to catch up despite their best efforts.
Quote from: Fox Creek Kid on March 08, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
And somehow Europeans suddenly switched over in one felled swoop? ::) BS. I'm sure it was a gradual transition as well and perhaps even slower as they weren't conquering any frontiers full of hostile indigenous peoples within the boundaries of Europe then.
the period between 1820-1871 was one of the most turbulent times in European History, with countries fighting againts each other, in some times small , and sometimes brutal and total destruction wars that configurated the borders of Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, Austria .....such as we know them today (well, almost) plus the colony and imperial wars overseas..
That led to an arms race among the main european powers, specially France and Prussia with many radical designs and experimentation, too many to mention here .
in short, changes were fast and what was ok in 1865, by 1868 could be old fashioned.
Cap and ball revolves were obsolete in Europe for military and civilian use in 1860 . The french tested the Lefaucheux in Crimea and adopted if for the Navy in 1856. The spanish did it 2 years later..labelling their army issue Adams type revolver, as "obsolete" in 1858.
The great amount of surviving examples of Lefaucheux and rimfire, and later centerfire revolves, in the period of 1860-1870 proofs that they were very popular in Continental Europe, but not so in the Uk and the USA, were more powerful arms were very appreciated.
so I think that the change was fast. As soon as there was a working design avaiable by a major manufacturer and money to buy it, everybody threw their cap and ball away and bought the metallic cartridge.
that was specially truth among army officers, who were involved, as I said, in continous fighting, be it againts native or european enemies, and who allways wanted the latest technology avaible. And lets remember that they had freedom, in many cases, to buy their personal revolver, as long as it met the caliber criteria.
.
anyway, I cant imagine an outlaw in 1871 in Kansas state, with a Tranter 1868 revolver. it would make a lot more sense that he was using a cap and ball, ready avaiable and probably cheap with caps and powder allways avaiable.
however, I can imagine a wealthy US army high rank officer in 1870 with a Webley Bulldog revolver. Why not?
if you had the money, I am sure that you could buy the latest centerfire revolver in 1869, for example, coming from the UK in any good gun shop in either San Francisco or Salt Lake city.
I can see that. Another question, how were these cap and ball pistols shipped? It seems that the only things encountered are wooden boxed sets, but I have a hard time believing every pistol outside of the military (crates make sense here) had the handmade boxes. Factory letters can show date shipped, to whom and where, grades of finish, but not a whole lot more.
Depended on the number being shipped, but most went to jobbers and they left Colt in crates.
After it got to the jobber, it was handed to the seller.
If it were mailed - a wooden box was made, the piece wrapped with paper and it was dropped into the mail - no logo, no 'papers', no tools - nothing remotely 'collectible' to pursue at all costs - just an ordinary box.
Incidentally - the boxes you're referring to are called 'cases' and were 'specifically' built to accommodate the weapon and its accouterments - and they came with both hinges and locks.
Scouts Out!
As far as our military going to cartridge arms before the Civil war The USA was pretty much on a tight budget ever since the Rev. War.
The only source of income was Tariff and excize taxes. We have the Rev. war the 1812 war and the Mexican war to pay for. Congress
back then did not spend money they did not have. Also the Rollin White patent prevented anybody from using a bored thru cyl. Look
at the pains Colt went thru trying to circumvent the patent, remember the Thur? White had worked for Colt and offered the idea to
Colt but Colt turned the idea down. So he left Colt and took his idea elsewhere.
If Colt had not turned the idea down the military may have had cartridge pistols a lot earlier. I believe the South could have ignored
White's patent but didn't have the equipment to manufacture cartridges or many arms. That is my understanding of history, feel free
to correct me if I am wrong. Charlie
I have often wondered why the CSA manufacturers didn't ignore patents more. After all, during the American Civil War who was really going to travel down South to try and enforce patent regulations? That is like going past the 38th parallel and trying to sue North Korea for a patent violation. Nobody actually does it. I get that raw materials made manufacturing arms and the like difficult, but there is no way they were THAT helpless with manufacturing products for the Military and also civilian goods. After all, the South was incredibly wealthy even if it was the "99%".
Maybe I am way off but European arms and munitions importation can only go so far. So going from the "Old West" back to the Civil War, Confederate pistols and rifles produced domestically should have been comparable in quality, with maybe brass framed guns being slightly less robust, correct? Why not copy more? It seems like the perfect storm to ride out.The Griswold and similar pistols are a good representation of slight variations of proven designs, but once again let's be honest with each other. Not EVERY single Southern church bell was melted down for the war as some claim and while steel and iron was clearly less available than in the North, no way no how was it a impossible to find item . Brass framed pistols weren't the only guns aside from captured handguns available to the South.
Was there ever any real honest patent lawsuit during the Civil War relating to weapons that was actually enforced during the war?
No Clue ::)
Coffinmaker
One big reason why the Army didn't use cartridge weapons is that there was a war going on...
The revolver cartridge wasn't in play - the large-bore rimfires were, in the shape of the Spencers and Henrys - but no reliable cartridge was available until 'after' the war.
The Confederacy was seriously limited in manufacturing capability - seriously - and patent infringement was far beyond their concerns, and beyond the concerns of the manufacturers, as well.
Suing everybody and their brother is a much more 'modern' thing.
Stop trying to overlay 'Woulda If They Coulda' and today's mores and practices on what went on over 100 years ago, and head to your local Public Library - talk to the Head Librarian, and delve into the stacks.
Self-Contained Cartridge history 'has' been written about - look it up - Confederate manufacturing capacities and limitations have been written about - look those up, too - but sitting and imagining with a nominally 21st Century mindset is 'not' going to give you the answers you seek.
Incidentally, iron 'was' quite readily available in the North - that's what all those weapons were made of, since steel wasn't being used at that time - that's one of the big reasons that the Federals won - they could manufacture more and faster that the Confederates - and they did so with a vengeance.
Confederate weapons' quality was what it was - the best they could do with the extremely limited resources they had - they had talented gunsmiths working for 'the Glorious Cause' - but when there's not enough of something, and no way to get any more - manufacturing suffered.
Battlefield capture and salvage was a great way for them to replenish supplies of all manner - including rolling stock and mules, but that only lasted a short while.
Remember that line John Wayne spoke in 'The Searchers'? when he told the young Cavalry Officer to turn around so he could recognize him, since that was the only way to 'know' if he was Federal Cavalry?
That changed, and quickly, and by mid-war, Federal Cavalry was an implacable killing machine - fighting a 'far' different war than all those Southern 'Cavaliers' - nothing could or would stop them - and didn't, until their hooves were bathed in seawater.
You can look 'that' up, as well.
As to the church bells -that only happened in Macon, Georgia - you can read about it.
Scouts Out!
commercial revolvers were sold in cardboard boxes like today. There many surviving examples. At least we can see several examples in "the GUNS of Remington", specially for small size revolvers.
a wooden case was an extra, I suppose.
military shipments, I suppose too, were probably different in presentation.
the paper of the cavalry and the use of the saber in The Civil war was overexagerated by the press, literature of the time, and by Hollywood later. They played their part as explorers, in ambushes, in quick strikes doing deep penetrations in enemy lines, in speedy destruction, etc, but the Civil war was mainly an artillery and infantry war, sometimes with fortified positions and sometimes with fast movement of troops too, againts with the use of the cavalry was just suicidal.
as a matter of fact, infantry could very well stop them, as well as a group of selected sharpshooters. Not a retiring and almos defeated infantry on the run, of course , but the napoleonic tactics, still used and employed during the beginning of the Civil war, had to be changed when the Minie rifle appeared on the battlefield.
but they played their important part when needed, specially whem mobility was important, but rarely facing face to face the trenched infantry where they would have no chances .
.
It's amazing to realize just how long it took some military strategists to realize Mounted Cavalry had been rendered obsolete by rapid firing infantry weapons and artillery. Intelligence gathering, probing and rapid strikes behind major units was the only practical use of Mounted Cavalry in major conflict unless used for flanking exposed or disorganized troops on the move. Against fixed positions supported by
artillery with canister shot, suicide. After all, in that era, most field artillery pieces were really nothing more than really big shotguns, capable of throwing "slugs." Rifled artillery changed all that. As did the Gatling Gun.
Coffinmaker
Quote from: Coffinmaker on March 11, 2016, 03:17:41 PM
It's amazing to realize just how long it took some military strategists to realize Mounted Cavalry had been rendered obsolete by rapid firing infantry weapons and artillery. Intelligence gathering, probing and rapid strikes behind major units was the only practical use of Mounted Cavalry in major conflict unless used for flanking exposed or disorganized troops on the move. Against fixed positions supported by
artillery with canister shot, suicide. After all, in that era, most field artillery pieces were really nothing more than really big shotguns, capable of throwing "slugs." Rifled artillery changed all that. As did the Gatling Gun.
Coffinmaker
Especially in Europe. It baffles me that the European powers going into WWI refused to learn the lesson that cavalry just could not survive on a modern battlefield, at least used in its traditional role. It's a fascinating time period to look at militarily, in regards to these powers trying to figure out what comes next after well over 3,000 years of horse mobility.
Remember - do 'not' evaluate any event or tactic or leader by using today's criteria.
Our wars are different.
When the Great War began, everyone honestly believed that it would only last a couple of months, at best.
There'd be plenty of time for saber-rattling and posturing, and guidons fluttering atop the Lancers and Uhlans' lance-tops (because no matter 'what' anyone says the Cavalry was 'the' outfit to serve with - still is...) - and every involved Nation's young men would have 'their war', and a few soldiers would, of course, have to die, but not 'too' awfully many, and while all of this was going on, the Heads of State would sort it all out.
Honest to God, that's what they thought.
Then, someone drug out the machinegun, and someone else stretched barbed wire...
************
If you want to 'really' hijack this thread, we can talk about the 'real' game-changer of the Civil War, instead - the Minie' Ball...
It's design and use opened up the battlefield, and quickly - making Artillery positions vulnerable, and Infantry, too - causing Artillery to move further rearward and Infantry to re-think the bayonet charge that would now go up against dug-in Infantry who possessed good shooting eyes. (and it's amazing just how good a shot one becomes when he actually hits his targets.)
Suddenly, the rifled musket on both sides became truly lethal, and men, gun crews and leaders died, because it opened the battlefield from a matter of yards to a matter of hundreds of yards - causing tactics to change forever.
Didn't affect Cavalry much - their real job by that time was reconnaissance, and they paid attention to who could see what.
It opened the field from a matter of yards to a matter of hundreds of yards - causing tactics to change forever.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
in general the US Army did care a lot more about their soldiers´s life than the many classist and aristocratic armies of Europe, where their men´s life was worth nothing.
(http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo129/Boge_1960/Jokes/1386011306966_zpsdcfa08a3.jpg) (http://s368.photobucket.com/user/Boge_1960/media/Jokes/1386011306966_zpsdcfa08a3.jpg.html)
Are there any records of people before metallic cartridges preferring one caliber over another? If I was a not a very good person back in the day a .36 would be easier to conceal and holster, with a .31 also being handy but I'd find it hard not to feel under gunned without a .44. I suppose it was probably like the modern 9mm vs 45ACP argument. They both make you good and dead. Im having more questions the longer this goes on.
The feeling was that any size bullet in your opponent usually stopped the fight.
The 41s were feared because they were generally outside lube bullets and there lube carried all sorts of nasty stuff into the wound. They were also relatively underpowered so the nasty bullet generally stayed in the victim.
In those Halcyon days of yesteryear, we so fondly attempt to portray, Real men could make a piece of soap last 3 months and only own'd
two shirts. A ball going through that cleanest dirty shirt was almost always lethal, regardless of size. Ugh.
Coffinmaker
it depended on the enemy you were facing. And we should not forget that, at that time, people and army officers used conical bullets in most circunstances, while today, for recreational shooting, we use balls, which have far less stopping power.
the British army was about to adopt the 1851 Navy after sucessfully trying it in the Crimean War of 1854. However many british officers soon discovered that it lacked stopping power againts the most hostile muslim enemies they were facing in India, Africa and Afganistan, and most chose the ADAMS double action and Adams Beaumont instead, in the 54 and 44 calibers, which later would become ordnance weapons.
and yes, they used them with bullets mainly.
the Colt Navy 1851 was probably enough at that time for less corpulent enemies like most native (american) indians, and as I said before, most military users employed bullets, not balls, in their revolvers and war charges, as much as the cylinder chambers could cope with.
most civilians liked the 31/32 calibers in urban areas.
strange odd calibers were popular too...42, 41, 40´s.. in both the USA and Europe among many makers for the civilian market....after all, all you needed was a mold to get your balls or bullets...
Captain Walker wanted a big 44 and atonishing velocities to penetrate Mexican lancers steel corace at far away distances...to avoid close combat as much as possible.
the South remained loyal, with exceptions, as a general rule to the 36..at a time when the US ARMY have opted for the 44.....
Quote from: Noz on March 13, 2016, 09:41:45 PM
The feeling was that any size bullet in your opponent usually stopped the fight.
The 41s were feared because they were generally outside lube bullets and there lube carried all sorts of nasty stuff into the wound. They were also relatively underpowered so the nasty bullet generally stayed in the victim.
Outside lubed bullets made no difference as
ANY projectile perforating the thorax would lead to fatal sepsis within a day or so in an age before antibiotics & modern trauma surgery. Of course, the bigger problem at hand is what your opponent does to you in the meantime. He may well die in agony within a few days after the fact, but kill you in the meantime. Then as now, it was quickly realized that handguns are not very good at stopping or killing people despite mythology to the contrary. The smart man took a rifle or a shotgun to a gunfight. Here's a classic account of a of .36 Navy failing (mortally):
Quote... A typical damning report of the '51 Colt's lack of stopping power against the sepoys was related, second hand, by Lieutenant Colonel G. V. Fosbery.
"An officer, who especially prided himself in his pistol-shooting, was attacked by a stalwart mutineer armed with a heavy sword. The officer, unfortunately for himself, carried a Colt's Navy pistol of small caliber and fired a sharp-pointed bullet of sixty to the pound and a heavy charge of powder, its range being 600 yards, as I have frequently proved. This he proceeded to empty into the sepoy as soon as he advanced, but, having done so, he waited just one second too long to see the effect of his shooting, and was cloven to the teeth by his antagonist, who then dropped down and died beside him. My informant, who witnessed the affair, told me that five out of the six bullets had struck the sepoy close together in the chest, and all had passed through him and out of the back."
http://www.gunhistoryindia.com/2009/04/guns-of-indian-mutinee-first-war-of.html
Sorry about the derailment all.
Quote from: Jake C on March 15, 2016, 02:17:51 PM
Sorry about the derailment all.
Don't be sorry. I've found this thread very good read.
But reality and fantasy should be kept apart. Thank God for St. George's interventions to keep reality in check.
I'm either about to be part of the problem....or part of the solution.....
Seems much is made of Frontier Folk making their own balls or bullets and then along
comes the cartridge bullet in handy form. Like the OP I would interested to know
when folks moved away from using bullet molds. For instance, I never hear anything
about the late JB Hickok making his own balls or conicals. I also know that I was
surprised to find an add for balls in a Sears catalog (1920?).
Would pouring molds still be time-appropriate for say the 1870-s?
Would they be balls or conicals? Thoughts? Opinions?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
conicals were much used by the military.
some revolvers, like the first ADAMS Double action revolvers, were specially designed for conicals, which could be pushed by hand pressure on the chambers. The system of course failed, specially for mounted troops, and they have to put a rammer in the following Beaumont revolvers. But it shows that the british and other armies appreciated the stopping power of conicals when facing enemies in the colonies.
some armies specified conicals as the adopted ammunition, including weight.
Most combustible cartridge boxes supplied by Federal manufactures for the 1860 army issue revolver during the Civil War were conicals, based on surviving examples of the period.
in short, conicals were much used, probably as muchs as balls, by civilians, , and they were probably more used than balls by the military, because of their obvious greater stopping power.
Good read !
I would dare say most hand guns going west was likely cap and ball.
But I would also say .
The West was Won with a SHOTGUN !
Rooster
Quote from: Rooster Ron Wayne on May 19, 2017, 06:35:24 PM
Good read !
I would dare say most hand guns going west was likely cap and ball.
But I would also say .
The West was Won with a SHOTGUN !
Rooster
I agree with that. The 'ol Double Barrel isn't flashy or elegant like a single action revolver or a lever-action rifle, but most folks had one and they were darned effective.
SHOTGUNS!! Oh my YES!! During my extended foray into the close combat of South East Asia, it was discovered a Pump Shotgun was THE weapon in the bushes. Then it go close and personal, our adversaries were of the "Spray and Pray" heavy weight of shot mind set. At under 60 yards a 12 Gauge loaded with 00 buckshot was super lethal. Plowed right through jungle growth. As soon as the Shotguns started to bark, those in the little pointy hats immediately withdrew to a more tenable range.
Plus. When enough period photographs of the westward migration in this country are perused, THE most commonly seen weapon is the Shotgun. Defend your homestead, hunt game, dispatch domestics (animals yo), you name it, the Shotgun was king. Close and personal, Me, armed with a Shotgun, you gonna lose!!
Coffinmaker
True dat...
I carried an Ithaca Model 37 back then - a most effective thing it was.
Followed me home, it did.
Scouts Out!