Dug relic loose cylinders

D

DG45

New member
It's been stated as fact on at least two threads on this forum that no loose revolver cylinders have ever been found in civil war relic digs - or words to that effect.

I took it as gospel. They said it, so it must be true, right?

Today I started looking to see if I could find any evidence of any.

Would you believe that inside an hour I'd already found two?

1. a dug relic loose Remington cylinder was auctioned off on ebay on May 31, 2011 by a seller identified on the ebay site as "onenessapolistic". You can see a picture of it still on the ebay site. You should be able to pull it up at the ebay site or you can get to it via Yahoo or Google search engines by typing in REMINGTON ARMY REVOLVER CYLINDER VERY NICE DUG RELIC.

2. a dug relic revolver cylinder that's in such deteriorated shape that I can't make out what brand it is, it's cylinder pin hole looks too small to be a Colt, but it may be a Remington because the cylinder pin hole is smaller in diameter than its 44 cal. cylinder chambers and that's like my Pietta Remington 1858 New Model Army replica, but the relic cylinder doesn't seem to have the safety slots between the nipples like my gun's cylinder does, but maybe theyve just been obliterated from years in the ground or in water, I don't know.

Anyway, this cylinder was found and discussed online in a website called "Friendly Metal Detecting Forums". The thread name is "Discrimmination for Civil War Relics?" and two photos of this cylinder are shown on post #5 on that thread dated 03-03-2011 at 3:53 pm. The finder (and posters )screen name on that site was tabdog. He was said to be an elite member. At the bottom of the screen he had a further id as "Tabdog the Arkie".

Just Sayin.
 
cylinders have been found but they are not common,

when remington or colt made a revolver they would assemble it. it was to have one cylinder for it. they had no reason to send an extra cylinder with a gun, an extra cylinder would have meant more time and cost to the company becuase it would have had to function correctly with the revolver.

now you can easily find original revovlers lacking cylinders and if its a colt, the whole barrel assembly.
 
"Uncommon" is one thing. "Never been found is another".

In this case, I would agree with you that finding loose revolver cylinders in a dig is uncommon, but I don't think the word "uncommon" should be interpreted to mean rare. The two I located online today both came to light in separate digs made this year. Using that as a rough guideline, I wouldn't be surprised if two or three loose cylinders a year aren't found on average.

Ther is no way to know how many more are already in private collections that is outside of the internets search capability, or how many are still hidden beneath 6 inches of dirt on real battlefields where they will never be found because people aren't allowed to dig there anymore.

But at least no one can say anymore that no loose revolver cylinders have ever been found in digs.
 
Two cylinders does not your case make. As far as "real" battlefields go 99% or more of them are private property. Only a small portion of them are military parks.' You're still ignoring the fact that there's no written documentation, no cylinder pouches to be seen anywhere, no sales records, no pictures, no nothing. You're like a drowning man grasping at straw.
 
That Haggen fellow said:
You're still ignoring the fact that there's no written documentation, no cylinder pouches to be seen anywhere, no sales records, no pictures, no nothing. You're like a drowning man grasping at straw.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS!

Finding a cylinder in a dig does not prove anything. It could have just as easily been a single cylinder from a revolver that was disassembled.
 
Finding a cylinder in a dig does not prove anything. It could have just as easily been a single cylinder from a revolver that was disassembled.
Click to expand...

Or the cylinder pin could have rusted through.
 
A irrelevent correction:

As I read before the former fight thread was closed,
The movie Outlaw Josey Wales didn't have a cylinder swap, it was the movie "Pale Rider" that did that wonderful cylinder swap multiple times.
Same actor different movie. OJW had a whole lot of out of time revolvers, but it still is the greatest movie in history. (that's probably just my opinion):)

It might be easier to find out why a movie writer came up with the idea of the cylinder exchange, than it is to comb through historical documents.

It might or might not have happened in real life, however, it certainly is one of the coolest things done in a western. Now, we all practice it.

OJW
 
The movie Outlaw Josey Wales didn't have a cylinder swap, it was the movie "Pale Rider" that did that wonderful cylinder swap multiple times.
Click to expand...


Yep, my bad. I tend to get his movies mixed up from time to time.:o
 
One thought is the army did request that Remington modify their guns so that it was harder to remove the cylinder fairly early in production. That makes me think that there was a mind set that the cylinders where too easy to remove.
 
One thought is the army did request that Remington modify their guns so that it was harder to remove the cylinder fairly early in production. That makes me think that there was a mind set that the cylinders where too easy to remove.
Click to expand...

The second model had the top of the loading lever milled down so you could pull the pin without lowering the lever to facilitate cleaning but when holstered or during firing it tended to walk out on it's own.
 
Hawg and Madcratebuilder, we're never going to agree on this. I think you're just wrong, and I will point out again that outside of the clique on this forum, I appear to hold the majority view on this issue, not the minority view, and that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia agrees with my take on this issue, not yours - or rather, I agree with their take, and you don't. Anyway, in this argument, I don't have to prove my case. (although I think I have, anyway). You have to disprove it.

If you think you can disprove it, why don't you get Wikipedia to revise its Remington 1858 entry to reflect your viewpoint?

If you can sell them, maybe I'll buy too. But I don't think you can, and I think you know it.
 
Anybody can post whatever they want on Wikipedia. It doesn't make it a fact.
How can you be so blind to the facts? The fact that it's a majority opinion is due to Hollywood. I've said it before I'll say it again.

eyeroll.gif


Think what you want. One day you'll figure out grandpa wasn't always right.
 
Hawg, I can tell you've looked on the scoreboard and seen who 's behind, and in the absense of the facts and the law, have resorted to pounding on your desk again.

If you and your cohorts argument on this issue was sound and supported by the facts, you and I both know that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, would have adopted that position. They have not. Quite the contrary. Their article supports my position and we both know it.

If Wikipedia supported your argument you wouldn't have to roll eyes, you could just direct my attention to their article on the 1858 Remington, the same way that I'm directing your attention to it right now.

If fact, I invite anyone reading this thread to simply use Yahoo or Google or whaever search engine you have to pull up Wikipedia's article on the 1858 Remington revolver, and see what it says about it's advantages. I believe you'll find listed high among them, the ease with which a soldier could change cylinders in them.

At this point I rest my case.

PS. Hawg, I expect there'll be a lot of caterwauling now about the falsehoods that are perpetuated by Wikipedia and the internet. I hope you won't join in that because despite our disagreements, I like you or think I would anyway, and although I don't agree with you, I respect the fact that you actually seem to believe what you're saying. I think everybody else doesn't have a clue, they're either just supporting their old buddy Hawg (I kind of admire that), while others seem to be suckups (I don't admire that) to the Alpa Hawg. But digging in on the wrong side of the internet is an unsound infantry tactic in this battle and in most future battles of this type, I'd say.
 
The second model had the top of the loading lever milled down so you could pull the pin without lowering the lever to facilitate cleaning but when holstered or during firing it tended to walk out on it's own.
Click to expand...

I wasn't even aware there were different models of 1858 Remingtons. My cylinder pin will just fall out if tipped down at half cock with the lever down. What did they expect would retain the pin? Were any alterations made to retain the pin in the 2nd model?
 
Could be many many reasons for a cylinder or a frame to be found on their own. Doesn't mean someone kept extra frames for their cylinder, or cylinders for their frames. I'm sure some folks did but that would be the rarest of occasions. Really no need to. If spare cylinders were popular in the day, there would be record of Remington making way more cylinders than frames. Have to agree with Hawg on that. We'd see old advertisements from resellers, or Remington, showing spare cylinders and their cost. Just isn't any record of it.
 
Hawg, I can tell you've looked on the scoreboard and seen who 's behind, and in the absense of the facts and the law, have resorted to pounding on your desk again.
Click to expand...

Nah, no desk pounding here. No need to, the facts are behind me not you. It's futile to keep this up. Lets move on.


My cylinder pin will just fall out if tipped down at half cock with the lever down. What did they expect would retain the pin? Were any alterations made to retain the pin in the 2nd model?
Click to expand...

There were some attempts to thread a set screw into the pin itself and have it seat against the barrel but that just made it harder to disassemble

beals.jpg


The second model or model 1861 was a transitional model that underwent several changes during its production run. The safety notches were added and the milled lever was added and removed, the frame was cut back so barrel threads were exposed to lessen fouling which the Beals was infamous for. All these changes evolved into the 1863 model we know today as the 1858 Remington.
 
Last edited:
noelf2 said:
Could be many many reasons for a cylinder or a frame to be found on their own. Doesn't mean someone kept extra frames for their cylinder, or cylinders for their frames. I'm sure some folks did but that would be the rarest of occasions. Really no need to. If spare cylinders were popular in the day, there would be record of Remington making way more cylinders than frames. Have to agree with Hawg on that. We'd see old advertisements from resellers, or Remington, showing spare cylinders and their cost. Just isn't any record of it.
Click to expand...

You may be right but what records?
According to the Remington Society research team those records were always closed and kept secret.
So where do those with questions have access to the Remington records about 1858 cylinder production?
Where has anyone read about these cylinder production figures to see what the records actually indicate?

http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/research/

http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/research/archivesroom


Another question that I have is what are the chances that a cylinder from one 1858 could have fit on another 1858 well enough to function?
Maybe there was the random possibility that random cylinders from broken guns could be used for swapping out with if parts weren't available in the field to fix those broken guns.
It only takes a few soldiers to think about the possibility enough to come up with the idea to test available cylinders until they found one that would fit their gun.
The same might even apply to Colt guns which weren't impossible to swap cylinders with if doing that was faster than other reloading options and the situation warranted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top