Extra Cylinders

[Bruce W Sims]

Hi Folks:

Just picked up a 20# package of hardwood charcoal so I have my ingredients
for trying my hand at making my own BP. More on this later....unless you read about me in the
newpaper......

In the meantime I have been reflecting on the "extra cylinder" talk on the other threads and have to say I can't get my head around vintage pistoleers packing extra cylinders as a regular practice. I remember the problems my brothers in Vietnam had with the M-16 when it first replaced the M-14. There were reports that soldiers were found dead after an action with partially
disassembled rifles attempting to deal with this or that malfunction. I mention this only because these were acts of desperation, to be sure, and if a guy had a choice about field stripping a weapon in the middle of a battle or not, I know the "no way" would win. That said, I can't imagine an ACW guy disassembing his pistol - and risking dropping the wedge -  to save time reloading. Makes more sense to grab a pistol from one of the fallen so to have a spare.

I also notice that the bio I am reading on "Wild Bill" Hickok states that Wild Bill practiced with his pistols each morning to afford a chance to reload his pistols daily. He is also reported to have "needled" his cartridges a bit extra to make sure the caps set off the charge. What this says to me is that Wild Bill carried two guns and relied on accuracy more than anything else. Carrying an extra cylinder would have suggested that he anticipated using more shots than necessary. I also consider that if Wild Bill was using prepared cartridges rather than loose powder, I would expect that carrying extra cartridges with him rather than a whole 'nuther cyclinder would have made more sense. As the product of scouting experience with the Union Army in Missouri I'm guessing that if there had been any advantage to carrying an extra cartridge Wild Bill would have figured that out or seen its worth then.
Anyhow....thats my take on it.  

Any other ideas?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[hellgate]

The "extra cylinder swap" is pretty much myth and didn't happen for the reasons you mentioned. Also the Remington would have been a better candidate for cylinder swapping ala "Pale Rider". The guns were issued with one cylinder each and if you needed more firepower you were to draw your sword and in the case of many Confederates you drew a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 6th extra revolver from various holsters on your body or pommel from the horse.

Keep in mind that the "six shooter" was a recent innovation and only a few years prior you were limited to a single shot pistol. So, a SIX SHOT pistol was 6 times the firepower of before. If you couldn't settle it in 6 shots you drew your fighting knife or sword.

I really doubt that Hickock shot and reloaded his guns daily. One or the lesser publicized duties of the town marshall was to shoot stray dogs that would often chase and spook horses or freight teams. I wouldn't be surprised if every few days he plugged a dog or two and therefore shot the gun dry, cleaned it and reloaded. I think someone would have commented of the annoyance of Hickock going out back and blamming away to empty his pistols just to have to disassemble, clean and reload them every single day. I suspect that is myth also.

[Slowhand Bob]

I swapped cylinders for several years while competing in SASS matches and really doubt that it has ever been a common occurrence under any other situations.  Though it can be done with some 'well' broken in Colts, at the unloading bench, this has primarily been a trick used for Remington's and there are several well publicized advantages to doing this but it is a bit pricey.  Grabbing another loaded gun from the belt will always be faster yet but for the Remington a cylinder swap will be faster than a reload from scratch, if both shooters are equally talented.  I am sure that under the stress of return fire shooters will tend to bobble disassembled gun parts BUT I promise that they would otherwise be dropping lead balls, powder and caps all over the battle field so I expect that argument would be a wash, at best.

My memory is not what it used to be BUT most belt size revolvers I have usually seen worn in old CW era photos has been three, though I am sure a search might turn up one or two more in rare photos.  It must be remembered that those guys were not often very large (betcha most belts were 34 or 36", and the issue belts were typically narrow and soft thin leather, definitely not suited for carrying lots of iron.  A couple of other thoughts, most of those multi pistol photos I have seen were Confederate non-regulars and usually labelled as guerrillas.  The Yankee horseman would have held on to the, then, traditional practice of emptying his 'only' issue revolver before resorting to the sword, while the Reb would have relied on non traditional tactics to help even the odds.   

[Coffinmaker]

From everything I have read, the "spare cylinder" reload is a product of Hollywierd.  I have been unable to fins any references to ANY pistoleros packing spare ctlinders.  I have found lots of documentation that folks in harms way very often packed spare handguns.  If or when one ran dry  it was stuffed back away or simply dropped and fully loaded "extra" was put into service.  That is why Pomel Holsters were invented.  The Pomel Holster carried forward from early flintlock and cap lock single shot pistols to percussion revolvers.
It was not unusual for badmen, lawmen or what have you to go in harms way armed exactly as was portrayed by "Josey Wales."  Four or five guns on the person and Pomel Holsters provided a lot of fire power.
Attempting to reload percussion pistols under fire was not a very successful endeavor.

Coffinmaker

[Sgt Scott]

I am a reenactor, with the remmy this is quite easy but with the colt, quite frankly, I can reload with paper cartridges faster than I can take the pistol apart and replace the cylinder (especially on horseback). The caps are a bit tricky but it can be done.  I don't know if the remmy technique (Eastwood) is Hollywood or not but another occurance in my reenactment experience is quite weird. At one point I had fired one cylinder and replaced with a second, then third. I dropped the used ones in my saddle bag. It wasn't raining but a little misty and I just didn't want to take the time to try and replace them in the cylinder holder I had, my saddle bag was a bit quicker. Anyway, after the battle I was collecting my toys to clean and two of the cylinders had sorta welded themselves together in my saddlebag.  I had to use a hammer to knock them apart. If this were a common occurrence back then I imagine the troopers would settle for one only. One other thing to mention is I did research the number of rounds expended in the Atlanta campaign and when I got to pistols I noticed that the number was quite low. If I assume that primarily cavalry used pistols and look at their numbers compared to the number of rounds expended the troopers may have fired a couple of rounds each. At least it made me think it is not the typical cowboy shooting we see in the movies.
Sgt Scot

[Octagonal Barrel]

...Wild Bill carried two guns...

My take on it is that Wild Bill did carry an extra cylinder, but he didn't leave the rest of the gun at home - he carried the extra cylinder installed and ready to go in the extra gun frame.  Bloody Bill Anderson did the same, in spades.  The famous photo of him shows - I believe - three extra cylinders, all carried inside the rest of their associated guns.  (A total of 4 revolvers in that photo.)  That really is carrying extra cylinders.  We just don't think of it that way.  The issue wasn't the extra weight and bulk of extra cylinders since they clearly carried a whole extra gun or three, not just the cylinders.  They must have been allergic to the "Cylinder Swap Fumble Blues."  (There's probably a good campfire song in there somewhere...)

The point is, we see our favorite historical black powder pistoleros carrying extra cylinders in photos all the time.  It just doesn't register what we're seeing because they're hidden in extra guns.

[Bruce W Sims]

As my grand-daughters would say, "you guys are totally AWESOME!!" I'm right there with you on everything. \

Now....not to muddy the waters...but let me bring in an alternate situation - the pistol "cartridge box".

I recently purchased an all-leather (NOS) black cartridge box with belt loops large enough to accept the wider
cavalry belt. The box is un-stamped, is of solid construction and measures about 5" broad by 4 inches high and about an
inch or so thick and a flap closure secures with a brass post on the underside of the case. Here's the question.

While I would easily see a person possessing and even wearing such an item into action, the inside of the case is simply
an open space with no divisions or insert. I have looked on GOOGLE IMAGES for suggested solutions and the only repeated
situation was a wooden insert with 6-8 locations for a paper cartridge with ball/bullet. I did see a tin insert with twelve (IE 2 rows of 6)  .5 inch locations as well as an insert of tin which was nothing more than a set of 6 tubes tinned together.
Regardless of the loops and pouches I have seen for the extra cylinders I would like to go with the cartridge case---Hollywood not withstanding. I am having a bit of a hard time imagining how a typical Cavalry person might utilize such a cartridge case. I am thinking he probably used some sort of insert to safeguard his roll-yer-own but I would like to stay as close to "period correctness as possible". Anyone have any thoughts or experience on this?

Bets Whishes,
Bruce

[Bruce W Sims]

BTW: Maybe its just me but I seem to see a greater number of "Remmington" and "Griswold" architecture in the
weapons seen in the made-for-tv series (see: Hell on Wheels; Wild Bill; Lonesome Dove). Is this just to add an extra
layer of interest (aka "eye candy") to the program? IMHE regarding pistols of the TV Wild West everybody "went Colt, or went home". In this extra cylinder discussion there have been a couple of references to how switching cylinders would be more likely with a Remmington. I wonder if anyone ever counted noses to get an appreciation for what were more popular pistols and why. With what little research I have done so far, "availability" and "happenstance" seem to have been more of a determinant in getting a gun rather than the modern IPhone drive of "just gotta have it" hunger for a particular piece. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[St. George]

Why carry an extra cylinder when an extra handgun was easier, more reliable and a helluva lot faster to put into action than fumbling around with an extra cylinder - or - attaching a barrel?

Besides, applying the modern-day  'Woulda If They Coulda' principle here only feeds fantasies.

The term 'artistic license' should be first and foremost in mind when viewing these television shows and movies - they play to a romanticized idea of the Old West and not the reality.

The 'drama' of Clint Eastwood slowly installing his cylinders during the scene in 'Pale Rider' was filled with portent - but was hardly accurate - it was merely a plot device that was designed to add to a pivotal point in a movie.

As has been mentioned before, in other threads - folks during the era weren't wandering about like they were at a cowboy shoot, since actual 'gunfights' were few and far between.

There's a world of difference between the 'reel' Old West and the 'real' Old West and they write reference books about the latter...

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Octagonal Barrel]

I recently purchased an all-leather (NOS) black cartridge box with belt loops large enough to accept the wider
cavalry belt. The box is un-stamped, is of solid construction and measures about 5" broad by 4 inches high and about an
inch or so thick and a flap closure secures with a brass post on the underside of the case. Here's the question.

That sounds like a civil war re-enactor's revolver cartridge pouch.  I have a couple, and they are handy at CAS matches for storing a number of things.  Historically, I believe they would have held a box of paper cartridges.  I don't think I can find references on this, so I guess it's hearsay, but I understood a box of paper cartridges would have slid into the pouch, so there was no need for dividers, wood or tin, like with rifle cartridge boxes.  Someone who knows more about civil war ecoutriments would have to weigh in to say more on that.

I just searched my e-reader copy of Hardtack and Coffee, thinking if anyone went into detail on revolver loading, it would be Billings.  He spends no time at all writing about reloading.  That might be in part because the loading process was considered common knowledge, so it never occurred to him to document it.  But he does spend lots of time writing about how the civil war soldier with no revolver at the start of his tour was rare.  Then he writes about how long it took for the average soldier to abandon or sell the revolver once he realized he had to carry it along with his musket, ammo, and everything else (pretty fast).  My impression is that revolver carrying was rare in the war, that actual revolver use might have been rarer, and the opportunity to actually reload in combat might never have really happened.  If the enemy was in revolver range, seems like you most likely would have got yourself trampled, clubbed, or bayonetted before you finished reloading no matter how you tried it.  So I suspect the actual use of the revolver cartridge box under fire was as rare as cylinder swapping...  Guess this all brings us back to that photo of Bloody Bill and his 4 revolvers.  More revolvers is better.  (If you need historical justification for just one more cap-and-ball purchase, there you go...)

(It would be interesting if anyone on this forum knows of documented examples of cap-and-ball revovler reloading for either the civil war or the old west period.  I'd love to read about it.  My fear is I won't be so lucky.  I also hope if I'm wrong about any of the above, I'll be corrected.)

As to Remmies and Griswolds dominating the silver screen, Billings does mention that Colt dominated the revolver market.  Perhaps Hollywood is after the visual version of "elegant variation." 

[Slowhand Bob]

There are some examples of pitched battles between the pale-faces and the Indians in which a fair amount amount of reloading took place, often times this was after cartridges came into being but many battles of the CW would have allowed several reloads as one side or the other traversed open or semi-open battlefields.  Using The Triangle at Gettysburg as an example, small arms fire would have become very heavy as the ranges closed to the last couple or few hundred yards and I seriously doubt that there was much hurry left in those few who made it to the wall.  Not arguing for the actual fact that revolvers actually played much of a part BUT in that last twenty or so yards the extra fire power would surely have been a comfort to the individual.  Revolver or no would likely have been as much decided by the officers rather than the individual and this was likely a lot more true on the US side.  Not a historian and the memory is terrible but I do seem to remember something about the very early Colt Walkers playing important parts in one or two Indian skirmishes even before the CW.  Repeat rapid fire was a very sought after commodity throughout the later 1800s and the lone civilian traveller crossing a wilderness would have desired it as much as anyone.  BUT, as mentioned by someone else, thinking the conclusion would be logical is not proof that it happened that way...  Funny that someone mentions the lack of written examples being lacking for mundane occurrences,  once read an article on wilderness ways lamenting the lack of early knowledge on what preceded toilet tissue!  Perhaps they went back to the use of three shells??       

[Bruce W Sims]

I have not found anything on the ACW practices. A book that I am finishing on the Texas Rangers points out that
with the shift to being a para-military organization - Post-ACW - organized training in tactics was incorporated. According to the
book I have such tactics included fire and advance which allowed for individuals reloading to be sheltered by the covering fire  of a comrade. This was very much different from the Pre-ACW tactics wherein Rangers were used more as "shock troops" (author's words) and the nature of an encouter had more of the spirit of a melee or bar-fight. People needing to sit-down and reload in the middle of the fight need not apply.

From what I can gather from "Empire of the Summer Moon", encounters with Commanche indians as precipitated by organized Military campaigns of the late 1870-s revealed that the Commanche indian was formidable as a guerilla force only. The very nature of their society with its emphasis on personal regard and accomplishment tended to make actions involving more than 100 warriors rather rare. That said, the need to reload a pistol while in action probably never came up. I'm guesing that the carbine was the weapon of choice and the pistol was---essentially--- a weapon of last resort. No real point except to say that it would seem that until the advent of the brass case, use of loose powder and ball......probably even paper cartridges........ was something that was done in camp, before an action or after, but not during. Does this sound about right?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[St. George]

There are numerous threads on this topic and reloading in the 'Barracks Forum', the 'NCOWS Forum', the 'Colt Forum', the 'Historical Society Forum' and others.

They go back several years and are fairly interesting, once one gets to the posts entered by folks who studied the actual written history of the times and not from those who drew their fantastical ideas from what 'they' might've done, without considering abject terror, whirling horses, adrenaline, smoke, noise, dehydration, and mass confusion that accompanies battle.

For the record, paper-wrapped cartridges were in wide use as soon as they appeared on the scene - and once cartridge weapons came about, percussions were dropped by the wayside as soon as practicable by those who had the greatest need of reliability in a sidearm.

For Cavalry - the carbine was always the preferred weapon - simply because the trooper could generally hit something with one and was most effective fighting dismounted - and that wasn't true with the handgun - real life not resembling a Louis L'Amour novel in the least.

Scouts Out!

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I hope we are not relying on McMurtry for history lessons. In my reading of him against other history, he never lets the facts get in the way of a good yarn!

Cavalry in both the US and Canada have always been, when properly employed, more dragoons than anything else. That said, I expect to hear about Custer, and the CSA cavalry generals.

[Bruce W Sims]

Now.... I think I mentioned this on another thread but didn't get any response so I wanted to raise the
question here as well.

We are talking about extra cylinders after the fashion of carrying an "extra clip", as it were. I have also seen
those conversion cylinders and have thought of keeping an extra cylinder but one that is designed to
allow me to shoot brass cartridges if I so choose. I'm thinking that this would put me on the path to loading my own brass cartridges.
I understand that we are currently talking about loading extra cylinders with powder and shot. I'm wondering if
anyone reading this has experience with loading cartridges for converted PB pistols ....maybe carrying an extra cylider of brass cartridges........and whether this is a worthwhile practice in the long-run.
I know this is a pretty general question but if folks make a regular practice of shooting
brass cartridges in BP conversions I would love to hear their thoughts. Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[St. George]

Why?

If folks make a regular practice of shooting a loaded cartridge from a blackpowder forearm - they're shooting a Conversion, and plenty of folks do that, because it was one of the most popular firearms of the time frame.

As soon as they were invented, their immediate value was understood - positive ignition and no more worries about rain.

They dropped percussions like a hot rock and didn't cart spare percussion cylinders about 'just in case' - because for the percussion cylinder to have been of any use at all, it would have had to have been kept capped - both to be ready for that quick IPSC reload and to keep moisture out of the rear of the chamber.

Percussion caps being what they are - and somewhat sensitive - carrying spares of pre-capped, pre-loaded ones really isn't the best of ideas...

Folks using Conversion revolvers also used that new-fangled thing called a 'cartridge belt' and draw their spare rounds from there.

Scouts Out!

[pony express]

I think that in our modern times, it wouldn't make sense to carry a spare cartridge cylinder from an economic standpoint, even if there was some other reason to do it. The Cylinder usually costs as much or more than the C&B pistol you put it in. Might just as well buy another gun, and not have to disassemble/re-assemble, just switch guns.

I tried extra cylinders at one time for my CAS shooting, but just got tired of extra things to clean.

[Coffinmaker]

A couple more "thoughts." 
Carrying a spare capped cylinder is not a swell idea.  Dropped down side up and a cap will go and launch a ball.  While the velocity of the ball won't be optimum, at 3 feet, it'll be lethal. 
I also use the R&D conversion cylinders extensively.  The firing pins stick right out like the contact tines of a mine.  Dropped, same hazard as a Capped cylinder.
The rule for CAS, is to cap the cylinder AT the loading table.  There is a good reason for that.  Personally, I think carrying around 10 spare cylinders is .......... Dumb.  It's like cleaning 10 extra guns.  That's masacistic.
As far as separating real, from reel, from Hollywierd is ........ Speculation.  The "what I would have done" just doesn't cut it.  Having some experience as a professional target, it a fight it's hard enough to keep it together enough to smoothly change  magazines.  I "think" reloading or changing cylinders in the middle of a fight would have been just a bridge to far, as or were.
The problem is the written histories simply don't address the question.
Personally, I thing the real answer is a belt fed weapon.  Right up to the point of a stoppage.  Then, reliance on the Leather Personnel Carrier may well be prudent 

Coffinmaker

[Dick Dastardly]

I did a cursory scan of this thread and one thing seems to be missing.  The C&B guns we are shooting for SASS are mostly not US made.  That means that each cylinder has to be fitted and timed to the individual gun.  Not true for ROAs, but much more common for non USA made guns.

With a brace of Italian made Remingtons it could be quite possible to have to have two sets of cylinders, one set for each gun, and don't mix them up.

DD-MDA

[Lucky R. K.]

I own three Pietta 1858's and one extra cylinder.  All four cylinder are interchangeable with the three guns.

Having said that, I do not try to use extra cylinders when I shoot.  It seems easier to reload just the two cylinders.  Also, there are only two cylinders to clean up.

I also have a pair of ROA'S that I shoot the same way.  My preference is to shoot the '58's.

Lucky