Dug relic loose cylinders

I agree Hawg. let's move on. We're never going to agree on it.

Actually, I would like to know if you saw the picture of that badly corroded cylinder that was on that Friendly Metal Detecting Forum and if you can identify what kind of gun it came from. The cylinder pin hole doesn't look big enough for a Colt, but it doesn't have safety notches between the cylinders like my Remington 1858 does.
 
Last edited:
DG45,
***noise***
You or I can go to Wikipedia, and edit the pages. Real reliable, buddy. You take the word of one old man, and the fact that you cannot find one historical account of what you claim as fact, but you think I'm the idiot. Funny. I'll go away when you stop beating this, same dead horse.;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No DG, I didn't see it but from what you say it's a Beals or early 61 Cylinder. The safety notches appeared on the 61 model. If you look at the pic I posted earlier on this thread that's a 61 and it doesn't have safety notches.
 
the US army was the main purchaser of percussion revolvers for the entire century. yes small firms made them, but those firms had microscopic outputs that makes those revolvers 50,000 antiques.

a lot of people have the idea that revolvers came with multiple cylinders for speed reloading in the field. the problem is..

1. the us government issued the revolver exactly as it left the factory, assembled in a plastic baggie like pietta or uberti sends it to cabelas who then sends it to you.

2. the us government was ANAL about ammunition usage, they only issued sharps,henry's, and spencers once the BIG BOY in government vetoed the armys procurement department.
the only reason they gave colt the big contract for the SAA was that it was the slowest to empty and reload of all revolvers in the design competition that year.

3. all company and government manuals and broad sheets of the day do not mention a seperate cylinder for any revolver used by the us military.
the us field manuals dictate everything down step by step, second by second, and were the only acceptable way to do things.

4. good record keeping was kept, no mention of a dead mans possessions being sent back home ever mentioned a spare cylinder.

5. photographs NEVER show a spare cylinder, or spare cylinder pouch

6. Elmer Kieth and many of the early gunwriters of the 1900s grew up with and learned to shoot percussion guns from the men who LEARNED either by being in the civil war and having the government give them the pistol, or they learned in the years following the war.
These writers, considered true prophets of steel, NEVER mention not one time a spare cylinder.

7. the only written report of cylinder swapping comes from the texas rangers with the original walkers. According to historians/collectors the fact so many walkers have msimatched numbers for cylinder and barrel and frame is that out in the field the rangers would swap those parts with eachother to get parts that worked better with their internals.
"hey frank, can i have your barrel assembly cuz mine just wont fit my arbor" and so on.

it took over a 1000 years for the catholic church to officially drop the policy of executing people who said the world was round once it was proven to be round.
 
Have enjoyed this "little fuss" of y'alls-and I don't have any dog in this fight.
But I've learned alot.

However, one thing I was thinking about today here at the ranch (no joke),
How would someone actually get an extra cylinder back then?

Well, probably pick it up off a dead guy, right?
Why then, would this trooper throw away the rest of the revolver?
Just stick it in his belt and go on.

Would he-in a fight, want to start fiddlin' with his loading lever and all, to put that extra cylinder in there?
Or would he, like has been written about a whole bunch, just grab that extra hogleg that is tucked in his belt and start blasting away.
There was a reason they had all those pistols anyway.

We know that southern partisin rangers (called outlaws by others) put as many revolvers on themselves and their horses as possible.
I've not read that Nothern troops did any such thing. Redlegs didn't even arm themselves that way. (yes there was actually real Redlegs)

I'm not trying to get myself into this scrape-just sayin'

OJW
 
Would he-in a fight, want to start fiddlin' with his loading lever and all, to put that extra cylinder in there?
Click to expand...

I think not, especially since the ones that actually used pistols were cavalry. I really don't see it happening from the back of a galloping horse. I read in an actual book several years ago an account of Southern cavalry firing a pistol til it was empty and dropping it on the ground and pulling another, then going back to retrieve the dropped ones later. I don't know if that's true or not but it seems feasible. It wouldn't be very easy to holster a pistol on a galloping horse either, especially if you used flap holsters for all of them. Add to that bullets flying all around. I have in excess of 100 books on the C.W. but I really don't feel like going through them just to find one comment to try to find out if it has merit or is authors conjecture. Everybody says that's crazy, nobody would discard a perfectly good gun but I wonder.
 
revolvers were issued to a limited number of people. however the common soldier did get them through non official channels. ive seen sources that show proof the us army general staff created special financial penalties for soldiers who had a handgun that was not issued by the government.
 
Common soldiers(read infantry) didn't want pistols. Both sides issued them to infantry soldiers at the beginning of the war only to have them lose them, throw them away or send them home. Infantry discarded everything except necessary items, usually their rifle, 20 rounds of ammo, a blanket and canteen along with a few small personal items.
 
Before closing a previous thread for being off-topic, Art Eatman posted:
Back before computers, when folks read real books, I saw comments about Texas Rangers of the cap'n'ball era having two and even three spare cylinders already loaded. Trying to reload a cylinder while on horseback at a gallop is not at all an easy feat.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he could find those real books and post the references here now that the subject is on-topic.

Thanks, Hawg, for the education on the 1858 variations.
 
Hi Outlaw Josie Wales and welcome to the brawl. Actually I 'd like to bow out of it, but you touched on something that may illuminate this issue a little.

What you asked about sombody fiddling with a loading lever is an intelligent question. Would they do that? It seems like it would be time consuming and be a lot more difficult than just carrying extra revolvers.

And the answer would be they wouldn't if they were carrying Colts, because Colts broke down into 4 pieces and had a tiny wedge that could be easily lost. You'd probably also need something to hammer the wedge out, and a punch or something, or at least I do in my Pietta replica of an Schneider & Glassick copy of the 1851 Colt navy. You needed about 4 hands and a table to lay everything on to change out a Colt cylinder. So as long as Colts had to be carried, soldiers who could afford it probably carried 20 lbs. of extra revolvers. There is a photo somewhere of a wealthy young young A.P. Hill in the Mexican war wearing a Sombrero and carrying at least two pistols on his person and a couple more in holsters on his saddle.

But thats where a Remington Model 1858 held a great advantage. A few came along early in the war, even the Confederates had some of the early ones but they didn't really begin showing up in great numbers on the battlefield until about 1864. The Rem broke down into just two pieces, 1. the cylinder and 2. everyting else. Not only that, but you could literally take one cylinder out in seconds and replace it in seconds using nothing but your own two hands. If you had one, the first time you cleaned it you would have noticed that. Damn, you'd have thought, that's GREAT! Lemee see how fast I can do that. And before long you'd have the whole thing down to 5 seconds. Perhaps not as fast as pulling a second revolver, but not much slower. Then you'd have started figuring out how to get a second cylinder. battlefield pick up probably. Yeah, I think you'd toss the rest of the revolver, why would you carry an additional 2 + lbs when you could reload in 5 seconds on horseback if you had to? I imagine all the 3 or 4 extra Colts got tossed.

The following comes under the heading of "I remember, I think" but I think it takes me no more than about 3 or 4 seconds longer to change cylinders in my Rem 1858 replica than it used to, to change magazines in my M-14 rifle when I was in the army, particularly considering that I had to pull a magazine out of a pouch then , and I can just pull a extra cylinder from a big jacket pocket. I've never tried it with a loaded cylinder, I admit.

T
 
if commonse sense dictates its easier to sit on a galloping horse, ride back and forth across a battlefield, trying to keep your horse from tossing ya everytime someone ranin front of it, shoot 6 people, control your men,
remove the spent cylinder, stick it in a pocket, pull a loaded cyinder out of somewhere else, use 2 hands to get teh cylinder back in (remingtons are notorious for reinstall issues), get the cylinder pin back in if ya havent lost it by now during one of your horses many jumps, shoot some more, repeat.

to be honest does commonsense dictate that you hold the reins in your teeth so to allow you to swing that saber about while the shooting hand does the gun manipulation, or do we hold the saber in our teeth and use the other hand for reins and re cylindering?

i know its a nice scene in pale rider, but we dont know if his gun is supposed to be percussion or one of those post war 5 shot 46 caliber cartridge conversions that the howell cylinder is based upon..

it looks cool when bogie would slap a the cylinder on his snubby shut, but we know he killed many guns with it, and we know not to do it.

i do not believe i have ever seen any device to hold spare cylinders in any inventory from the civil war or collection.


seriously, officers had INFANTRY as a speed loader. cavalry had the saber, it was there badge of office and their great pride.
 
you could literally take one cylinder out in seconds and replace it in seconds using nothing but your own two hands. If you had one, the first time you cleaned it you would have noticed that. Damn, you'd have thought, that's GREAT! Lemee see how fast I can do that. And before long you'd have the whole thing down to 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

I got my first 58 Remington in 1969. I never thought that. I never gave how fast I could do it or an extra cylinder any thought whatsoever. The first time I had any notion of it was when I saw the movie Pale Rider. I just said that was kinda cool. It didn't make me want to get an extra cylinder or five.
 
You can't sleep either, huh?

We need to let this go. I'm done after this one, I swear. I'm just going to stop reading the thread.

You probably didn't think about changing cylinders in 1969, but I think you would have if you'd been a soldier in the Civil War lugging around 20 lbs of Colts because you knew your life might depend on having more than 6 shots. That, more than any other reason is why police went to high cap automatics in the 1970's.

One thing more that just occurred to me is that someone on one of these threads mentioned that while it was uncommon for relic hunters to find cylinders (although with two being found inside three months on different digs in 2011 it makes me doubt that its really all that uncommon to find them) he said it wasn't uncommon to find pistols without cylinders. That whizzed right by my head without me picking up on the significance of what he'd just said. But it hit me tonight, thats where the extra cylinders came from, battlefield pick ups. They just tossed the rest of the gun

I'm off this one as of now Hawg. Been a thrill and all that . See Ya on another thread sometime.You're a worthy adversary. Ill give you that.
 
captured guns were demilitarised by dissasembly and breakage, tossing the parts away. Many gun parts have been found here in Virginia, rifle barrels, stocks, etc. Virtually always bent or broken. I didn't post no one ever found, only I never saw or heard of a pistol cylinder being found. Which obviously doesn't include outside my local area. I doubt they were common....IMHO:D I hunted McClellan's route up the Virginia Peninsula with my father in law and his brother who hunted the area extensively for several years. His brother was a NASA engineer who designed and made his own machines . These guys found several camps that hadn't been discovered, and came up with some very good stuff. I honestly believe that every square foot of Virginia has had a machine over it, LOL. The guys that had the best relic collections were the park rangers, so I was told....:eek:The best (or luckiest) relic hunters always researched researched and researched the campaigns. The Library of Va, William and Mary Library etc.,were good sources.
 
Imagine being dressed in a long sleeved wool shirt, a pair of shoes with no socks (or virtually none)a hundred degrees outside and you're in a 8 foot high column of dust on the road. You have marched hundreds of miles and tomorrow you will march more. You, like the other common foot soldiers would dump anything not tied to you to get some relief, not add heavy items to your pack. Modern soldiers are the same, if it's not beneficial to carry, it will be dropped. In the 70's and 80's dumped mini's and roundballs were very commonly found in Va. Hillsides were common finding spots, pocket coins were frequently found on these hillsides and holes dug with bullets at the bottom. The guys would lay on the hillsides resting, losing loose coins and dumping heavy items....:D
 
The best (or luckiest) relic hunters always researched researched and researched the campaigns.
Click to expand...

Research wont do you any good anymore. Every place that's been written about has been dug to death. I researched a little known site not too terribly far from me and didn't find any metal whatsoever. The only way I knew it was the right spot was a few bottoms of black glass ale bottles. Nowadays you just have to get lucky.
 
as a Native Texan I believe I have to take exception to the statement about the Texas Rangers commonly carrying extra cylinders. The state of Texas literally put Sam Colt on the map, purchasing his Paterson Colt pistols. The No.5 belt pistol is actually known as the Texas pistol. These guns were mass produced but HAND fitted. Even the grips are not interchangable. If Rangers were carrying extra cylinders it was at a much later date. The only mention of cylinders made that I have ever read is Colt's replacement of some Walker Model guns for the Rangers for blown cylinders. The cylinders alone weren't replaced, the whole gun had to go back. The United States Mounted Rifles (Dragoons) also had a couple hundred guns replaced because of blown cylinders, (The Fluck guns). Same thing the whole gun went back. If they were carring extra cylinders that were fitted to each individual gun then why would they have had the guns replaced? The facts don't jive with the tales....IMHO
 
as a Native Texan I believe I have to take exception to the statement about the Texas Rangers commonly carrying extra cylinders. The state of Texas literally put Sam Colt on the map, purchasing his Paterson Colt pistols. The No.5 belt pistol is actually known as the Texas pistol. These guns were mass produced but HAND fitted. Even the grips are not interchangable. If Rangers were carrying extra cylinders it was at a much later date. The only mention of cylinders made that I have ever read is Colt's replacement of some Walker Model guns for the Rangers for blown cylinders. The cylinders alone weren't replaced, the whole gun had to go back. The United States Mounted Rifles (Dragoons) also had a couple hundred guns replaced because of blown cylinders, (The Fluck guns). Same thing the whole gun went back. If they were carring extra cylinders that were fitted to each individual gun then why would they have had the guns replaced? The facts don't jive with the tales....IMHO
Click to expand...
True or not, I have read accounts that Rangers ( Jack Hays' men) carried extra Patrson cylinders at the battle of Walker Creek. Robert M. Utley mentions this in his book, Lone Star Justice. The Paterson cylinder was a two piece cylinder. Meaning, that the ratchet (teeth) were removable, and could be placed into another cylinder. I stated in the "other" thread, that most of the original extra cylinders I have seen, were with the Paterson revolvers. I believe this is why. Look at this drawing from VTI's site to see what I mean.
http://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=76&cat=Pietta+Paterson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top