Civil War Revolvers - Peter Schiffers

[PJ Hardtack]

My hot-off-the-press copy of "Civil War Revolvers - Myth vs Reality" arrived today, a worthy companion to his previous book on Civil War carbines.
In this book he tests nine different original ACW revolvers at 28 and 55 yds (he's German) as well as "Privately owned Revolvers" and "Other Revolvers Purchased By The ordnance Department". Some are pretty obscure and new to me.

As he did with the carbines, Schiffers tested for accuracy and functional reliability with ammunition as close to original as he could make it, to include custom bullet moulds where necessary.

I got my copy from "Man At Arms Books" www.gunandswordcollector.com

[Fox Creek Kid]

Here's a direct link:

http://www.gunandswordcollector.com/Templates/book%20pages/schiffers_CWR.html


I never knew there was any "myth" surrounding Civil War revolvers. 

[PJ Hardtack]

Read the book and learn .... ;>)

[rbertalotto]

Amazon Prime has it for $26.00...no shipping!

Just ordered it. Should be a good read.

[PJ Hardtack]

I'm enjoying my copy, especially the reviews of some of the more obscure revolvers.

Be prepared to have some of your pre-conceived notions adjusted about what guns were really effective and those that were not.
If we were to shoot our ACW repros the way they were intended to shoot, they'd be a lot less popular than they are. We've refined the guns and loading techniques to a high degree.

The problems encountered during Schiffers evaluation are exactly the same as those we experience today - fragmenting caps jamming the actions, problems seating conicals, bore fouling, poor quality control of critical measurements, poor sights, poor materials, etc. His examples (more than one in some cases) were in VG+/Exc condition, not beaters.

Apparently a lot of cylinders and barrels did not survive proof testing as makers took shortcuts to meet pressing demands for orders. Another problem was the low quality of US iron at the time - too much carbon. The best material came from England.

All the shooting for the book was done with one paw, as it would have been done in the era. Soldiers then were not given much in the way of training and most had no prior experience with revolvers or repeating arms of any kind. Accuracy expectations were low, despite glowing claims by approving Officers of ridiculous accuracy at  long ranges.

One of the myths he dispels is the unlikelihood of a Trooper changing cylinders in combat with any gun. There is no record of extra cylinders being made available and no cylinders floating around minus the gun. No soldier was going to cap a cylinder in combat, on or off the gun. Carrying a capped cylinder would be akin to carrying a grenade with the pin pulled.  Some guns tested were very difficult to cap under any circumstances!

Clint Eastwood might have changed cylinders on his Remington, but doing so with a Colt ran the risk of losing the wedge or dropping something critical, like the front end of the gun. Simply not practical.

I have a copy of the NRA "Rifleman' magazine showing an Austrian Navy (!) Colt '51 with it's holster. There is provision on the holster for an inline capping tool and attached pouch with a spare cylinder. This is the only such evidence of issuing a spare cylinder I have ever run across.

Something that surprised me were the guns that had the nipples screwed in from INSIDE the chambers! Just what that was supposed to achieve escapes me. These were also amongst the most difficult to cap, suggesting that Army procurement measures were less than thorough.

[Blair]

PJ,

This is a very old discussion. And I only hope to keep it as a potential discussion.
But there is another way of looking at this.
You also don't see "issuance" of replacement parts, such as Main Springs, Hand and Springs, Trigger/Bolt Springs or Nipple/Cones  either.
This is because they were parts, and not considered complete firearms. Cylinders would fall into this parts category.
One can often find spare cylinders (as an example) in presentation cases (or at least provisions made for spare cylinders).
Colt usually marked every major part on a revolver with matching serial number. But one can find Colt cylinders or barrel wedges without a number. Is this because they were replacement parts?
Just a thought on my part.
My best,
Blair

[PJ Hardtack]

I'm aware of the spare cylinders common to cased sets, but we are discussing the arms issued to the rank and file Cavalry soldiers, as well as privately purchased arms.
Then as now, private soldiers were discouraged from working on their firearms beyond daily inspection and cleaning as required. It is unlikely that any of them were replacing parts, especially cylinders.

Unmarked parts were likely intended to be installed and marked by designated unit armourers and/or arsenals. Mismatched parts being common suggests that many parts were salvaged from unserviceable weapons.

[Blair]

PJ,

Miss matched parts were also used to show just who interchangeable the parts were to the Ordnance Board! (but they are numbered)
Miss matched parts may also be from one of several conversion systems that the company employed. (but these too are numbered)
The point being that Colt was one of the very few that marked SS#'s on all the major parts on a finished firearm.
How does one account for major parts that are not numbered?
My best,
Blair

[PJ Hardtack]

Not inspected, perhaps?

[Blair]

PJ,

Inspection numbers are very much different than serial numbers.
All of this is just my take on the information I have seen.
My best,
Blair

[Fox Creek Kid]

I have never read anywhere in history about people changing cylinders in the heat of battle or a gunfight. The guerillas/partisans just simply carried spare REVOLVERS. There are several accounts of them having many in their saddlebags.

[Blair]

fck,

There are Military Manuals for loading various types of Military firearms. Well rehearsed and repeated during training.

One of the problems within the historic records is the lack of documentation for re-loading that same firearm under adverse conditions.

That re-loading is "assumed", within the various Manuals.
The duty falls to the Officer In Charge to insure his men can re-load their arms as maybe needed, while some measure of protection maybe offered to those that are re-loading, by some men held in reserve that have not fired as of yet.
My best,
Blair