1851 confederate navy from taylors

Status
Not open for further replies.
correction

I need to correct my post #28 above in which I said Memphis fell to Federal forces in March 1862. I don't know where I got that but I'd like to blame it on somebody else.

Actually Memphis fell to federal forces on June 6, 1862, exactly one year to the day after Tennessee voters ratified secession on June 6, 1861.

The importance of this is in the likely length of the Schneider & Glassick revolvers production run.

S&G should have been free of US patent constraints after June 6, 1861.

Even if they didn't produce their first revolver until Dec. 8, 1861, when one of them was exhibited to a Memphis Daily Appeal newspaperman, they had a six month period in which to produce their Colt pattern revolvers.
 
Even if they didn't produce their first revolver until Dec. 8, 1861, when one of them was exhibited to a Memphis Daily Appeal newspaperman, they had a six month period in which to produce their Colt pattern revolvers.



eyeroll.gif
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that's funny Hawg, although before you sent the video I'd have sworn you were a dude.

Lawyers say, when the facts are on your side pound the facts, when the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound the desk. I'm savvy enough to know that that video is your way of pounding on your desk.

Anyway, glad you chimed in, because they've closed our other favorite thread, but most of the same cast of characters is on this one too, so I thought this would be as good a place as any to point out to you that I've discovered since they closed that other thread, that you can type the words "1858 Remington" into a Yahoo Search Engine, and ALL of the first four listings that come up, if you pull them up and read them, including Wekipedia, the free encyclopedia, say that one of the things that contributed to the Remington 1858 revolvers popularity was THE RELATIVE EASE WITH WHICH A SOLDIER COULD RELOAD USING AN EXTRA LOADED CYLINDER.

Just wanted to let you guys in the "it never happened" (and the world is flat, and they never landed on the moon) cult know that there is another point of view out there in the great world outside.

Not saying you were wrong on the facts (although I believe you were wrong), just saying there's a h*ll of a lot of people who don't agree with you, not just DG45.
 
Last edited:
Not saying you were wrong on the facts (although I believe you were wrong), just saying there's a h*ll of a lot of people who don't agree with you, not just DG45.
Click to expand...

They're misinformed just like DG45.:D
BTW I am a dude that was just the best rolleyes gif I found.:D
 
Just for the record, on this question I'm with HH, if that matters.

As for 'the rest of the world', well, Wilkipedia's record for factual reporting of history is probably the best example of how reliance on the internet for truth is foolhardy. Anyone who's had to deal with the Wilkipedia jury knows full well that it's a completely political game and the facts be damned. Wilkepedia's opinion (NOT fact) that the alleged popularity of the Remington New Army was due to the speed with which loaded cylinders could be swapped is hardly proof of that position; in fact, many, like me, will see that as refutation of the claim simply because Wilkepedia said so.

And the other three sources are simply repeating Wilkepedia's falsehoods, a very common internet phenomenon.

I have to admit I'm amused by DG45's glib dismissal of the lack of physical evidence of his position. According to his logic, the fact that we've never found physical evidence of unicorns or mermaids is not sufficient to say they don't exist.
 
mykeal , there are things like Unicorns and Mermaids that there is no physical evidence of that probably didn't exist and things like Santa Claus coming down the chimney that probably didn't happen. On the other hand there are some things of which there are no written records that probably did happen.

Let's say you are E. Remington, and you're going before whatever committee you have to go through to get your pistol approved for use by the US Army. Your major competitor is Colt, whose guns almost have a monopoly with the US military. He may even be paying off Secretary of War Cameron. How do you sell your revolver?

Well first, you better have a hell of a gun. It better be so far superior to everything else like it that anyone who opposes its purchase will be instantly seen as a person more interested in lining his own pockets that in the good of the nation. (Remember, the Spencer repeating rifle was not approved for the Union Army until President Lincoln himself demanded its adoption.)

Well the Remington revolver had a war-winning feature that could be grasped by anyone with half a brain. It could be reloaded easily, by swapping cylinders, thereby increasing its firepower over a Colt 1860 by 100%. Certainly the inventor (Beals?) intended this feature. It wasn't an accident. And surely whoever sold the gun to the army on behalf of rRemington hammered home this great advantage to the military brass as a big selling point.

Now perhaps the Union commanders in the field were too stupid to grasp what they had once they got it. I don't know. Certainly there were stupid officers, like the one mentioned on the other thread who told his troops to go with the sabre instead of their powerful .44 cal. easily reloadable six-shooter revolvers. (Can you imagine any one in a combat setting today preferring a sword to a modern 45 ACP revolver? No, of course not, and a .44 cal. Remington was just about as powerful as a modern 45, not quite, but nearly.)

But Hawg and Co. says that soldiers didn't use this war-winning feature. You agree. My opinion is they did. And many other peoples opinion is that they did. I was just pointing out to Hawg that while his opinion on the subject is obviously the majority opinion among the TFL blackpowder C&B cult, they are probably in the minority when it comes to what people in in the real world outside believe. I mentioned the sources that make me think so. I wanted to point this out because they (Hawg & Co.) had come at me like I was the Lone Ranger for that point of view, and I wasn't ,and I'm not. That is all. The question of whether Wikipedia is right or wrong doesn't really enter into it, other than it obviously satisfied the standards and reflected the views of whoever the people were who agreed to allow the Wikipedia posting. But like I said, my granddad believed the same thing and that was well over 50 years ago. I'm sure most people who'd had ancestors in the Civil War believed it. I can only conclude it was what had been passed down to them as truth. But the guys on this forum think they are the DAR of C&B pistolry. (You know in the DAR, no matter that every citizen between the ages of about 18 and 50 were subject to militia service in the Revolution, and almost all the militia, at least in the South, saw some military service during the long 7 years of war, a woman can't be a member of the DAR today unless there is documentary evidence to prove an ancestors service, no matter how much her great graddad seems to remember his greatgrand dad telling him about his great granddad. None of which means the old guy way back there didn't serve, he almost certainly did, because almost everyone did, it's just that in many cases their military service can't now be proven.)
 
Last edited:
DG,

You are entirely wrong about how Remington got his revolver approved by Army Ordnance. He told them he could sell them to the Army at half what Colt was selling his revolver to them for, in fact, he could produce the Colt for half the price too, if that's what they wanted. It had nothing at all to do with how quickly one could swap cylinders, as I'm certain that the common soldier was not allowed to remove the cylinder anyway because he might loose it or get it mixed up with his buddy's cylinder. It's no different than today's Army. Tear-down is limited at the organizational level.
 
Well, that's why I put in the caveat that Colt may have been paying Cameron off - or paying somebody off - because on that point you are correct. Remington could and did cost less, AT FIRST; however, it was not because they could be produced for less, it was because Colt was price gouging.The proof of it is that as soon as Remington became a threat, Colt dropped the price of his guns to a competitive level. But he was price gouging long before that. The Confederates certainly knew it. They were manufacturing guns to his pattern so they would have known about what it cost to produce them. It can't have been a secret in the north. That's why some people think Colt was paying Cameron off.

None of which bears on the fact that if all else had been equal, Colt would have had a nearly unsurpassable competitive advantage in that they already had the government business and there was a war going on. Any salesman knows that it is nearly impossible to replace a company who already has the market, has all the established personal relationships,etc. and produces a well regarded product, unless you have a near revolutionary product to offer yourself. The Remington revolver was stronger, it was a little less expensive, it was accurate and it was rugged, but it was a near-revolutionary product in only one respect. Due to its easily removable and replacable cylinder, it gave a tremendous firepower advantage over a Colt 1860, and that was it's real advantage and why it became so popular. At least that's my opinion of why it became so popular, and if thats a misconception, it's apparently a widely held one, regardless of the fact that the soldiers apparently didn't throw them away in campsites, etc.. Theres a lot been said about there being no records of sales of cylinders, a contention that may or may not be true. Perhaps there are simply no records surviving. I don't know. I don't have the sales records for Remington. Presumably the people who make this claim that they didn't sell any cylinders do. Surely they would not make such a claim just based on the fact that no such records have survived. Would they??? Surely they have records that specifically back up that claim. Don't they? If they do have those sales figures, I ask them step up and provide them.
 
Last edited:
Mykeal & Junebug1 +1.

It's beyond me how anyone can believe that Remington users carried extra cylinders when there is not one shred of evidence, either written or physical, that it happened. There is no mention in patent records that the ease of replacement of a preloaded cylinder was an improvement. There is no first hand contemporary written record by users of Remington revolvers that they used preloaded spare sylinders. There are no "spare cylinder pouches" that carried preloaded spare cylinders to examine. There are no sales records indicating spare cylinders were sold. There are no Government records to indicate that spare cylinders were bought. Nothing, Nada, Zip, Zero, Zilch. But, it's such a simple thing, it had to be the way they did it back then.

Give Me A Break.
 
Well you know his grandpa "heard" it was done. He must have watched The Outlaw Josie Wales, after all Hollyweird wouldn't possibly lie.:p
 
Sorry Hawg, I've gone back and edited to change spellings.

It's been tough trying to enlighten all you guys at once. Just got too intent on my message at the expense of my spelling.

However, I've learned to appreciate my grandad more thanks to you guys.

When I was a toddler during WWII, my grandad gave my parents a building lot on his farm, where after the war, my dad, who served 3 1/2 years in the Pacific (10th Seabee Battalion; Johnson Island, and 72nd Seabee Battalion; Guam) built with his own hands, the house where I grew up.

Growing up there next door to my grandad,was an experience. He considered that he had been especially blessed that neither one of his two sons nor his son in law (my dad), all of whom had served in combat during WWII had even received a scratch, while the son of his nearest neighbor was killed in France.

Ever after, he saw it as his Christian duty to to defend the Faith. Everyone else I knew didn't answer the door or disappeared when Jehovah's Wittnesses and Mormons visited the farming community where we lived, but my grandad lived for these people to show up. If he knew they were in the neighborhood, there would be no farming that day. He dropped whatever he was doing and got his Bible out. He knew that Bible backwards and forwards and could quote Chapter and verse of it, and if they questioned his version of things, he would prove what he said with the Bible itself. When these unsuspecting chirpy young folks came around, trying to convert him, he saw it as a call to duty to try to save them from Hell, and this great struggle would go on in his living room between God, who he was representing, on the one hand, and the unseen Devil on the other, for control of these hapless young folks minds and souls. He converted at least a few of them, I think, or at least they were agreeing with him as they backed warily out the door.

PS Thought you might be interested in something that I ran accross today: an ebay auction sale in May of this year of an item that was identified as:

"Remington Army Revolver Cylinder ,Very Nice Dug Relic!!!" on an on-line auction that ended May 31, 2011 at 18:23:40 PDT. I'm not sure if I would be breaking the TFL rules by posting a hyperlink to it, but I have it."

So,, there is at least this one "dug relic" loose Remington cylinder that's been found. So far as I know, it's the only one that's been auctioned off on e-bay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top