1851 confederate navy from taylors

Status
Not open for further replies.
Relax Hog. We got into a hassle on another thread because I said Remington cylinders could be easily interchanged and that soldiers did it in the Civil War. I didn't realize that was even questioned having believed it all my life, until you and your pal jumped me on it and I defended my point of view. Having been challenged on the historical accuracy of what I'd said, I admitted that it was my OPINION and I provided the basis for my opinion, which I think there is considerable evidence to support. You poo-pooed that, which is your right but hey, that's your own OPINION, which is not neccessarily the final truth, your 10,000 posts on this forum notwithstanding. I admit you've got some evidence for your point of view on the issue. But the guy who was playing Robin to your Batman got a little abusive I thought, and in fact I thought you did too, so I swung back a couple of times. That's all. I've dropped it, or I'd intended to drop it there.

I've been a gun owner and shooter all my life. I figured that during the 150th anniversary of the Civil War I'd give C&B a try. Got on the forum to try to learn some stuff about them, not to engage in historical debates with people.

The folks who really impress me are those like enyaw who clearly know some S#$# about these guns.
 
DG45, ok there's no evidence soldiers swapped cylinders, I guess there's no concrete evidence they didn't. Tho the lack of evidence for one backs up the other. I've been shooting since I was three. I've been shooting black powder revolvers since I was 12 in 1969 and bp rifles since 1970. I'm no expert but I'm no dumass when it comes to them either. I admit I don't know a lot about S&G but when faced with the facts like Fingers gave whatever notions I had about them flew out the window. I don't hang on and keep trying to argue my case when I don't have one because far more learned men than me have done the research and found the facts. It wasn't my intention to jump on you and I apologize for that.
 
Now You Did It.

I want one of them. The steel frame model I looked at was a Uberti with the round barrel and it looks and feels good in the hand. The brass frame model I looked at was put out buy Pietta I Just don't know which one to get :confused: The brass and the steel frame seem to be in the same ball park as far as powder charge go's. Manny CA has no reason to fell stupid. Thought I knew something till I joined the forum. This is why I still keep coming back. You guys have taught me a lot. Believe I'll just wait and see if the buy bug will pass befour I do anything. Thinks fellows for all the help.
 
The brass and the steel frame seem to be in the same ball park as far as powder charge go's.
Click to expand...

No, the brass frame wont hold up under the same charges the steel frame will. The steel frame with the round barrel is a Leech & Rigdon.
 
HH said:
Might as well give up Fingers. He wont listen to anybody but himself.
Click to expand...

I guess Hawg. Can't wait to read the article on S&Gs that Dr. Davis is going to post on the RPRCA website. He and I talked on the phone a couple months ago about the S&Gs. He had been called in by the Davis Museum in Claremore, OK to validate a pistol claimed to be an S&G. IIRC, it turnd out to be a fake.
 
Last edited:
HH, I never called you a dumbbass and I didn't meant to impy that you were, and if anything I said caused you to think I didn't respect your opinion or your knowledge of guns, particularly black powder guns I apologize for that. I do respect your opinion, and I wish I had your gun knowledge. I'd read a lot of your stuff before the late unpleasantness and I certainly did not go into that latest mess out of any disrespect for you, although in that thread I did think you crossed the civility line, but you've apologized, I accept, and I offer my own apology for anything I may have said to you that was out of line.

I think if you'll go back and look, you'll see I only went after your unpleasant pal.

So far as I know I haven't challenged Fingers McGee on anything. I think I posted about Schneider &Glassick pistols before he did, and he may have intended to challege what I wrote, but I thought after reareading it that he was just saying S&G didn't manufacture their weapon, they just sold it. I don't care who manufactured it, if it was sold as a Schneider & Glassick.You think there were maybe 25 of them produced, he thinks maybe 55. I think maybe more, but I don't know. I don't see how with no production figures availiable, anyone will ever know. We'll all have our own OPINIONS. The two areas where Fingers and I both read the same information and got different vibes from it were that he wasn't sure that the 1860 City Directory description of the G&S line as guns & pistols meant revolvers. I pointed out that you and I even agree that there are 3 S&G revolvers still in existence, which is pretty good evidence I think, that the term "pistols" in the 1860 City Directory ad meant "revolvers. Also, Fingers McGhee characterized the December 1861 article in the Memphis Daily Appeal as if it were a promotion for a prototype pistol just coming on the market. I didn't understand it that way. I thought it was an article written in praise of a production gun. I'm not really sure now whose take on that was correct. I would agree that IF the article was intended to hype a prototype revolver just coming onto the market in Dec. 1861 that there probably weren't more than 50 or so made, but like I said, that's not the take I got from the website article. I've never read the actual article from the Memphis Daily Appeal but will try to come up with a copy.
 
DG45, I don't know where you got the idea I thought there were 55 S&Gs made. I have no idea how many were made and don't want to speculate. I stated that there was no evidence that more than 25 were made - cause that is the SN on one of the three known examples. Coulda been more - and coulda been less. Based on what I have read on other manufacturers of the same time period, some guns never made it out of the shops due to failing proof, or other flaws.

It's a pretty long stretch to say that the 1860 business listing for S&G 'meant revolvers' when it said 'guns and pistols'. Are you completely ignoring the "Firearms of the Confederacy" reference in my previous post? Just because there are 3 revolvers that are attributed to and marked S&G, doesn't automatically equate to them making revolvers in 1860. There is no evidence whatsoever that they manufactured, assembled, or stamped any revolvers prior to the showing in 1861.

The four books on Confederate firearms I referenced previously regard Schneider and Glassick as nothing more than footnotes.

I just looked up the website you have been quoting. It's a company in England selling gun magazines. The S&G reference is to a product test done on a Pietta brass framed .36 Navy by one of their gun writers with an historical side note.
http://www.gunmart.net/militaria/article/pietta_schneider_glassick_colt_navy_revolver/
 
Last edited:
Sorry fellows looks like I got my revolvers mixed up. Oh well, live and learn. In this case read and learn. Now I can wear the dummy hat for a spell. :confused: Still going to take a look at the brass frame .36 at Taylors. I been looking at the Leech & Rigdon by Uberti for a while now. One slipped through my hands here at home buy thinking it would be there the next week. Thinks for all the infor posted on this thread. Good stuff. Good stuff. :)
 
Sorry to have misrepresented your views Fingers. I've checked some sources myself and may have to strech this to several postings in order not to be timed out.

1. In the Index to the Memphis Appeal, an ad is shown to have run for Schneider & Glassick Gunsmiths on May 19, 1855 page 3; column 5. So this firm had been in business as gunsmiths in Memphis for at least 5 years before the Civil War began.

2. In the Tennessee state gazeteer and business directory for 1860-61, in which the Preface was written buy the publisher John L. Mitchell on March 1, 1860 there are two separate listing for Schneider & Glassick. On page 429 under the listing for Gunsmiths, Schneider & Glassick are listed, and on page 430 under Guns, Pistols, etc. the firm of Schneider & Glassick is listed again.

So, it seems obvious that this company was in the business of making pistols for a minimum of two full years, ie., from no later than March 1, 1860 until whatever date Memphis fell in March 1862. In fact they may have been manufacturing them for a lot longer than that but the March 1, 1860 date is the earliest date that is in print anywhere.

3. A Dec. 8, 1861 article in the Memphis Daily Appeal reads exactly as follows:

"Memphis manufacture. We were yesterday shown by Msesrs:Schneider & Glassick of Jefferson Street, between Front and Main Streets, a six-shooter Navy pistol of their manufacture. The finish of the whole, the accuracy of the parts, and the excellent workings of the mechanism are admirable. Iron, brasswork and woodwork are all specimens of skill. We are proud that memphis can turn out such splendid worksmanship."

Nowhere is it mentioned that this was a prototype revolver. I don't see how anybody can add all this up and come to that conclusion. I take it that the firm had been manufacturing revolvers for two years, without much demand, and then suddenly, the Civil War is looming, and everyone is interested in who's doing what. The operative fact here is this was a general interest article and not an ad. If Schneider & Glassick had been trying to promote a prototype revolver, they'd have had to pay for the ad.

4. Anyfact.com website shows that a Schneider & Glassick revolver was sold at auction in 2005 by the auction house of Wallis & Wallis (Lot 445). It was said to be a composite copy of a .36 Colt Navy. It had a New York USA America address, London proofs, and was stamped on the left side Schneider & Glassick Memphis Tn. Interestingly. its barrel was only 6.25 inches. (The Pietta copy I have has a 7 1/2 inch barrel).

5. American Firearms website says Schneider & Glassick made .41 cal. Deringer type pistols and a .36 cal. percussion Confederate copy of the Colt 1851 Navy, with a production of 50 or less of the latter. "Only number 6, 12, and 23 are known." No source for their claim of a production of less than 50 was given.

6. In a Question and Answer section on a website called Antiqueguns.com a person identified as Tom Lopiano, who was the expert, was asked a question about a Schneider & Glassick pistol that was .36 cal. and had a brass frame STEEL TRIGGERGUARD, and a "shortened Colt barrel" that was marked Schneider & Glassick, Memphis Tennessee. On the left side of the barrel above the wedge was marked B28, with a W inspection mark on the left of the frame. The bottom of the grip was marked 2 Va. Cav. It was mentioned that the rammer was stouter than a Colt. The answer that was given to the questioner was "Regarding the Schneider & Glassick it seems like it may be a 'composite' revolver, but again, I would have to inspect it. A brass frame may denote a Griswold and Gunnison manufacture. The steel triggerguard may come from another imitation Colt or a Colt. The barrel may be a Colt barrel."

Wow, got it all in without being timed out.
 
Last edited:
2. In the Tennessee state gazeteer and business directory for 1860-61, in which the Preface was written buy the publisher John L. Mitchell on March 1, 1860 there are two separate listing for Schneider & Glassick. On page 429 under the listing for Gunsmiths, Schneider & Glassick are listed, and on page 430 under Guns, Pistols, etc. the firm of Schneider & Glassick is listed again.

So, it seems obvious that this company was in the business of making pistols for a minimum of two full years, ie., from no later than March 1, 1860 until whatever date Memphis fell in March 1862.
Click to expand...

That doesn't say they were manufacturers but gunsmiths and dealers.


3. A Dec. 8, 1861 article in the Memphis Daily Appeal reads exactly as follows:

"Memphis manufacture. We were yesterday shown by Msesrs:Schneider & Glassick of Jefferson Street, between Front and Main Streets, a six-shooter Navy pistol of their manufacture. The finish of the whole, the accuracy of the parts, and the excellent workings of the mechanism are admirable. Iron, brasswork and woodwork are all specimens of skill. We are proud that memphis can turn out such splendid worksmanship."

Nowhere is it mentioned that this was a prototype revolver. I don't see how anybody can add all this up and come to that conclusion. I take it that the firm had been manufacturing revolvers for two years, without much demand, and then suddenly, the Civil War is looming, and everyone is interested in who's doing what. The operative fact here is this was a general interest article and not an ad. If Schneider & Glassick had been trying to promote a prototype revolver, they'd have had to pay for the ad.
Click to expand...

It says they were shown a revolver. My take is that after the war broke out they tried their hand at manufacturing. If they had been manufacturing for two years I doubt they would have gotten free praise. My take on it is it was a prototype and was given a glowing revue because Memphis was proud of her native sons and for helping with the war effort. I don't see any way you can subjugate any of that into they were manufacturing since 1860.
 
First, I didn't understand what the New York address meant on the one that was supposedly auctioned by Wallis and Wallis in 2005 indicated. Did anyone understand the significance of that? I get what the the London proofs meant.

2nd, I've been thinking since I made my last post that as long as Tennessee was still part of the Union, Colt would have still been protected by a patent on their 1851 Navy revolver, wouldn't they?

If so, it may be that the the timeline that controlled what date Schneider & Glassick could begin making Colt clone Navy revolvers was the date that Tennessee voters ratified secession on 6 June 1861.

The differing configurations reported for S&G revolvers seems to me to indicate a small time special order manufacturer, who could build a .36 cal. "composite" Colt type Navy revolver however the customer wanted it built, just like there are companies in business today that can assemble a clone PC type computer according whatever what features you want or don't want.

HH says one of the three known examples of S&G had an iron frame - and what may have been either a 4th known example (or a fraud) was the subject of the Question & Answer mentioned in my last post. It suposedly had an iron triggerguard, and "a shortened Colt barrel"; and the one reportedly auctioned by Wallis and Wallis in 2005 also had a short 6 1/2 inch barrel. Pietta apparently based heir S&G replica on a 7 1/2 inch barrel model.

So S&G may have been a low production special order gun that you could order with several variables.

I sure wish I could find more info on the gun mentioned in the Quesion & Answer on my last post. It may have been a fraud, but if that gun was legit, and if the B27 indicated a serial number 27, that would have been a 4th known model, and the 2 VA Cav, if legit, would have been a very interesting marking. It may not have been legit though.

HH you may be right about it being a prototype. I can't prove otherwise, but I don't think it was. I think it was just a gun they'd just made that they showed the writer when he walked in the door.

I also saw a photo of a short barreled rabbit eared shotgun (coach gun?) on line that was marked Schneider & Glassick. If they also manufactured or had their name stamped on .41 deringer types as has been claimed, then they made or at least had their name stamped on at least 3 different kinds of guns out of this very small firm, so I doubt if they were pumping anything out in Henry Ford assembly line fashion.

I no longer question anyones low production estimates for the S&G Colt clone. I agree that they probably weren't manufacturing that particular gun for even a year before they were out of business, and there were probably very few of them ever made.

However, they seem to have been reasonably well made guns, and to have been considered quality guns for that day and time, and I'm guessing they could be customized to fit the individual customers taste.

Those that were made were probably individually ordered by people who could afford customized quality, for example, perhaps someone in the 2nd Va. Cav. ordered one.

Their overall impact on the war was obviously miniscule, but it seems very likely that most if not all those that were made were used by Confederate personnel in the war, and some of them probably wound up killing or wounding Feds. Their impact on the war would have seemed pretty big to the victims.
 
Last edited:
Fingers,

I think awhile back I told you a reanactor said he had his ancestors 44 Rem style that was made by Richmond Arms during the war. You said that did not happen. Bill, our shop keeper keeps in touch w/ some guy in NY that's all into this and he said they did and to find out about them you have to search thru Conneticut Arms. I haven't tried. I do not know. I do not know about that Glassick--but I ordered 2 for the store today since they are economical and come in a GREAT PIETTA BOX LOL I think I can sell them:) Bill said they only had few left.

WBH
 
Connecticut Arms(not CVA) made Hammond bulldog pistols from 1863-1869 and what would that have to do with a Southern manufacturer of rifles and carbines?
 
In addition to the books Fingers posted two more that offer insight to these Confederate Colts are "The Confederate Brass-framed Colt & Whitney" by WA Albaugh and "The Original Confederate Colt" by WA Albaugh.

As you dig deeper in to the history of the Confederate manufacturers you well find that they were receiving large amounts of money from the CS of A on the promise of producing hand guns. They often sold positions in the company as these positions were exempt from the draft. Plenty of shenanigans.
 
Ok after reading TomKay---and everything else on thread--Our store ordered 2 after carefull consideration and I'm glad I did because there are only a few left. We have customers that don't have alot of money and this is something we can offer for less than 200 that they can see and feel and hopefully buy necessary accessories. But--I have not seen them up personal but the last Pietta 1851 tradional navy (steel) w/ spare cylinder was prisine---and it came in PIETTA BOX :):):) Sold quickly--I called Taylors to get more and they were discontinued. Let you guys know what they look, feel, and action, balance etc----That is if you want me to.

WBH
 
I'm BACK!

The rems on Cabela site are good. In fact we buy them just like you do but we order 44 Pietta conversion cylinders from Taylors. The Rems on Taylors -retail- are 295 and up but they are Uberti. I haven't had a problem yet w/ pietta rems from Cabella which are a lot cheaper and the conversion cylinders fit great! But, these are the only cabella guns I order. All others are thru Taylors. Or Ellett Bros and individuals-- if you have some junkers that you want to get rid of--like old CVA whatever--let me know. If you need a Uberti, I order wholesale and as promised befor for only members on this thread--a 10% markup. Fair?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top