Most durable lockwork, Remington or Colt?
- Thread starter couldbeanyone
- Start date
- Status
Thanks, I might do that. This thread piqued my interest, and I did a little online research - I found "Carithers, J.D." on the roster for 20th TN Inf, so I'm confident in that part of the story....
http://www.researchonline.net/tncw/index/index60.htm
http://www.researchonline.net/tncw/index/index60.htm
$400 in Confederate money wasn't worth nearly as much (ie. wouldn't buy nearly as much) as $400 U.S, and this got progressively worse with every month that went by in the war. It could have paid for a thorobred early in the war but probably wouldn't have bought much more than a broken-down nag in the late stages of the war.
It was said earlier in this thread that one of the reasons that cylinders were supposedly "never" swapped, was because each cylinder had to be hand fitted. Did each cylinder have to be hand fitted or is that just more orthodxy?
I have two new Pietta revolvers. One is an 1851 Colt navy near-clone, that cost me $160 and came with two cylinders. I don't think there is enough profit for Pietta in that deal to hand fit a cylinder, but both cylinders fit fine.
Does Pietta use a vastly differing manufacturing proccess today compared to the ones Colt and Remington used back in the Civil War, or not?
It was said earlier in this thread that one of the reasons that cylinders were supposedly "never" swapped, was because each cylinder had to be hand fitted. Did each cylinder have to be hand fitted or is that just more orthodxy?
I have two new Pietta revolvers. One is an 1851 Colt navy near-clone, that cost me $160 and came with two cylinders. I don't think there is enough profit for Pietta in that deal to hand fit a cylinder, but both cylinders fit fine.
Does Pietta use a vastly differing manufacturing proccess today compared to the ones Colt and Remington used back in the Civil War, or not?
Civil War Calvary
http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt_history/talks_text/starr_cavalry_tactics.html
This article by Stephen Z. Starr is a must read for anyone interested in calvary tactics of the Civil War.
Heck read all the articles on the site.
http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt_history/talks_text/starr_cavalry_tactics.html
This article by Stephen Z. Starr is a must read for anyone interested in calvary tactics of the Civil War.
Heck read all the articles on the site.
In this thread above, there are posts that indicate that spare cylinders wouldn't have been useful because they had to be hand -fitted to revolvers, which was probably done at the factory only if the revolver and cylinders were purchased at the same time, in which case both or all the cylinders purchased at that time may have been fitted to the gun, but in no other cases. That seemed to be a sensible argument, worthy of serious consideration, unlike some of the knee jerk stuff that was posted.
I started looking into how weapons were repaired during the Civil War and found some interesting information about ordinance officers. Apparently there were such people, and they were responsible for all sorts of things related to a regiments or battalions (or whatevers) firearms, including taking charge of all that were not in the hands of the troops, and making sure that the weapons that were in the troops hands were in good working order, and stuff like that. Ordinance officers were basically administrators, with command authority but who in most cases possessed no special gunsmithing skills of their own, so were authorized to employ soldiers called "mechanics", to do whatever actual repairs were neccesary.
These "mechanics" would probably be called gunsmiths or armorers today, and they would have been the people who did whatever hand-fitting was neccesary to make a cylinder fit a revolver. So I don't see think that the fact that a cylinder had to be hand-fitted to a gun would have actually been much of a problem during the Civil War.
I started looking into how weapons were repaired during the Civil War and found some interesting information about ordinance officers. Apparently there were such people, and they were responsible for all sorts of things related to a regiments or battalions (or whatevers) firearms, including taking charge of all that were not in the hands of the troops, and making sure that the weapons that were in the troops hands were in good working order, and stuff like that. Ordinance officers were basically administrators, with command authority but who in most cases possessed no special gunsmithing skills of their own, so were authorized to employ soldiers called "mechanics", to do whatever actual repairs were neccesary.
These "mechanics" would probably be called gunsmiths or armorers today, and they would have been the people who did whatever hand-fitting was neccesary to make a cylinder fit a revolver. So I don't see think that the fact that a cylinder had to be hand-fitted to a gun would have actually been much of a problem during the Civil War.
Except for the fact that these "gunsmiths" would have had far more important things to do. For instance, keeping tens of thousands of infantry rifles and muskets in working order. You, yourself said the cavalry didn't fight much, so why would these "gunsmiths" waste their time on hand fitting unnnecessary accessories to thousands of revolvers (which weren't used as much as you seem to think they were) that were used by a support arm of the army? Fitting extra cylinders would still be a time consuming, custom job, done entirely by hand. The U.S. ordinance department, was not in the business of doing custom gunsmithing work for soldiers. Especially in the midst of a war. Their job was/is to keep what is in the field shooting.
Last edited:
DG45, I don't think you understand the mechanics of a revolvers mechanism. The revolver has to be timed to the cylinder not the other way around. Nowadays cylinders from one manufacturer will fit like guns from the same manufacturer. Back then it wasn't always so. Just luck of the draw whether it would or wouldn't. If you change the timing for one cylinder the other one wont work. Some people have bought conversion cylinders and their revolvers weren't timed right for them. They have the gun timed for the conversion cylinder and the original cylinder no longer works. There's no written documentation, no pictures, no dug relics to back it up. You take the word of an old man 100 years after the fact as gospel.
I'm going to talk about a few topics so please bare with me on this. Weapons mechanics ( keep in mind these men are living out of a tiny tent just as the soldiers on the line, with a small desk to work on with sun and candle light and a small fire to work with everything they had fit into a case that they could carry around) Tools of the day were hammers a turn screw( screw driver) wrenches and files and a ball puller as well as an amount of spare springs ad other small parts. These men would not waste their time on custom fitting a weapon together. Trust me on this fact that fresh green infantry privates kept the blacksmith and and or weapons mechanic very busy with malfunctioning and normal wear and tear on their rifles. (anyone with military experience will know this is true). They didn't have a mills lath or machines to hand fit something that needs to be so precise as a revolver. Or even a steady supply line to where they can get parts they needed. The armies north and south were more worried about getting more important items on line like shoes, rifles and food.When dealing with CB weapons even just a small amount of filing in the wrong place too deep or too shallow will cause the weapon to fail and possibly kill the soldier holding the weapon. Most companies of cavalry were funded by the governments. If one trooper had it it had to be all across the board. Revolvers of the day were a hot item and cost a pretty penny, most privates were issued 1 side arm 1 long arm carbine or rifle and saber. The hand fitted cylinders and custom fitted revolvers cost money. When it came to money ,the US and CS government had more important areas to spend its money on like shoes, clothing, food, blankets, shelters, canteens, haversacks knap-sacks, cannon, Shot, powder, cartage's, flags etc... now officers were a different story, officers were required to buy their own uniforms,equipment and accoutrements, some of them even financed their own companies, for example Berdens Sharpshooters were a privately mustered and financed company of rifleman.men like JEB Stuart purchased a pair of Le Mats that he carried on to the field.Keep this in mind other then the Le mat revolvers are 6 shot accurate to 25 yards( Wild Bill is an exemption) by they time the enemy got in range of such a limited ranged weapon that means you are getting closer to your enemy. After your 6 shots in that weapon is up. there is no time to change cylinders. there is no chance or place to hide on an open field or forested area where you are directly engaging your enemy. Modern day Civil War reenacting is no good example. you are a small group of men using blanks portraying a much larger force of men that used lead in their charges not grease,cream of wheat or any other filler. the reason reenactor carry spare cylinders is for the show. So a civil war trooper would look at a spare cylinder extra weight and not needed. A man had to weigh 200 lbs max with tack and all I repeat ALL of his equipment on his horse. Modern day CNC machining methods used by modern weapon manufactures are so precise that their tolerances are something around + or - .0001 of an inch or smaller, compared to back then that no one had an exact way of measuring the preciseness of their machines and tools.The main part of the revolver is the cylinder, the timing for the weapon must fit that cylinder or it will not work properly. To get a revolver timed to fit a new cylinder correctly it takes a little bit of measuring and precise craftsmanship with modern tools.Modern day there is no difference on which Colt or Remington is more reliable or accurate but which European company is producing the replica.
MJN77 questions why a military gunsmith would waste his time hand fitting a cylinder to a gun. Having once been in the military, I feel qualified to answer that question: It would be because he was ordered to. You see ,in the military all the underlings together can't outvote their superior in rank. So yes these armorers had a thousand men in a regiment to worry about (not 10,000) but they also had a bunch of Company Sergeants, a couple of Sergeant majors, about 12 lieutenants, 4 Captains, a Colonel, and about 6 to 12 staff officers to deal with too, all of whom probably outranked the gunsmith, and let me tell you, if it was anything like the army I remember, their wants trumped the regiments needs every time.
Hawg Haggen doesn't think I know much about the lockwork on a Revolver. Well, I know a little, about enough to be dangerous, the knee bone's connected to the ankle bone sort of thing, and call me crazy, but I believe a competent gunsmith could have probably fitted a lets say 1851 Colt Navy cylinder to an 1851 Colt Navy revolver. Not neccesarily perfectly, but good enough so that the cylinder would fit on the arbor and the loading lever would fit into the 6 o'clock cylinder, and that would be enough to get the barrel into reasonable enough alignment so that the ball would make it out the end of the barrel - perhaps without a lot of accuracy, but pistols were close range weapons anyway. I may be wrong. I've never tried it, but the cylinder was always a seperately manufactured part of the revolver wasn't it, that had to be hand-fitted to the gun at the factory by somebody who knew how?
My understanding is that Pietta went to CNC machinery in the last 5 years. Before that, wouldn't one of Pietta's spare cylinders fit into another Pietta gun of the same model with a little gunsmithing?
Hawg Haggen doesn't think I know much about the lockwork on a Revolver. Well, I know a little, about enough to be dangerous, the knee bone's connected to the ankle bone sort of thing, and call me crazy, but I believe a competent gunsmith could have probably fitted a lets say 1851 Colt Navy cylinder to an 1851 Colt Navy revolver. Not neccesarily perfectly, but good enough so that the cylinder would fit on the arbor and the loading lever would fit into the 6 o'clock cylinder, and that would be enough to get the barrel into reasonable enough alignment so that the ball would make it out the end of the barrel - perhaps without a lot of accuracy, but pistols were close range weapons anyway. I may be wrong. I've never tried it, but the cylinder was always a seperately manufactured part of the revolver wasn't it, that had to be hand-fitted to the gun at the factory by somebody who knew how?
My understanding is that Pietta went to CNC machinery in the last 5 years. Before that, wouldn't one of Pietta's spare cylinders fit into another Pietta gun of the same model with a little gunsmithing?
Pietta went to CNC in late 99 or early 2000. Yeah, prolly without any work at all but the equipment they made revolvers with was still more accurate than what was available in the mid 1800's.
Yeah but making things line up isn't exactly what you're after. What you're after is making it line up when you cock the hammer. To do that you file or replace the hand that turns the cylinder. You file the bolt and/or bend the bolt legs to get it to lock in properly. If the next cylinder isn't a perfect match you have to do the same for it. If you time it for the second cylinder the first one no longer works. Ya know, I'm tired of this B.S. go on believing what you want to believe. There is no written evidence, no picture evidence, no museum evidence, no relic evidence, the manufacturing limitations of the time are against it but it must be true cuz you said so.
Quote: "This fool doesn't care about fact.."
Author: MJN77
No, what this fool doesn't care about is your opinion which you masquerade as fact.
In case no one ever told you, you can't prove a positive (No cylinders were used in the Civil War) by a negative argument, (I haven't found any cylinders and don't know anybody who has) and that's what you have been trying to do on this thread.
My own opinion is that there were soldiers who carried loose cylinders for fast reloads in the Civil War. I don't try to masquerade my opinion as fact.
I simply say his:
1. That spare cylinders were known to have sometimes been used with Colt Pattersons as early as the 1840's, a fact which I believe you acknowledged being aware of somewhere earlier in this thread, and if so, then you are aware that the benefit of having an extra cylinder was not unknown, and that was long before the 1860's.
2. The Remington New Model Army Revolver which started making an appearance in the Union Army sometime in 1863 I believe (long after the fighting started in April 1861) broke down into just two pieces, 1.a cylinder, and 2. everything else, a vast improvement over the Colt which broke down into 4 pieces. The Remington revolver made cylinder swapping something that could be done with two hands and done in in a matter of seconds, once someone learned the technique, which has been referred to as a special "handshake".
3. Many Army officers, and many ordinary cavalrymen were independently wealthy, or at least the majority were well-to-do, particularly in the South, where the first requirement of being a cavalryman was that you own your own horse and tack since the Confederate government didn't supply them.
4. Any soldier who was issued or owned a Remington New Model Army revolver would have learned THE FIRST TIME HE BROKE IT DOWN INTO TWO PIECES, TO CLEAN IT, that its cylinder was easily removable, and replacable.
5. My OPINION is that some of the independently wealthy officers and cavalrymen who were issued or owned their own Remington NMA revolvers were smart enough to pick up on this. It has been noted in this thread by hawg haggen that some soldiers carried 5 or 6 revolvers at a time into battle. Surely with the arrival of the NMA in large numbers beginning about 1864, and after their possessors CLEANED THE GUN ONCE those men who'd been carrying 5 or 6 guns around with them would have realized that they could get the same firepower and travel 20 lbs lighter by simply carring loaded cylinders.
6. Nowhere in this thread has anyone and I mean NO ONE AT ALL found issue with the fact that yes indeed it was easy to change cylinders in a Remington NMA, or that it broke down into only two pieces, which I think anyone realizes made it more feasible to change cylinders than a 4 piece breakdown like Colt required.
7. Last but not least it has been acknowledged on this thread that claims have been made for a long time that this happened. I'm not the only one who ever said this. But it was mentioned that it was usually Remington enthusiasts who made the claim. My granddad said so, a long time ago. I don't know why he would have said that if he didn't believe it to be so. he didn't own a remington, and he was from the South, and most remingtons were carried by Union troops not Southern. But I call that smoke, a lot of smoke, and where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
I have no dog in the fight. I own a Colt and I own a Remington NMA. I do know its easier to change cylinders in the NMA and it takes less hands. I belive this was a reasonably common practice late in the Civil War but can't prove it. It is my OPINION. I do not masquerade mu OPINION as a fact.
8. Finally, I bear you no malice sir although you do seem to be a common scold.
This will be my last post on this thread. I expect to see one more from you because you seem to be someone who has to have the last word. You may take your best shot now sir without fear of a scathing rebuttal.
Author: MJN77
No, what this fool doesn't care about is your opinion which you masquerade as fact.
In case no one ever told you, you can't prove a positive (No cylinders were used in the Civil War) by a negative argument, (I haven't found any cylinders and don't know anybody who has) and that's what you have been trying to do on this thread.
My own opinion is that there were soldiers who carried loose cylinders for fast reloads in the Civil War. I don't try to masquerade my opinion as fact.
I simply say his:
1. That spare cylinders were known to have sometimes been used with Colt Pattersons as early as the 1840's, a fact which I believe you acknowledged being aware of somewhere earlier in this thread, and if so, then you are aware that the benefit of having an extra cylinder was not unknown, and that was long before the 1860's.
2. The Remington New Model Army Revolver which started making an appearance in the Union Army sometime in 1863 I believe (long after the fighting started in April 1861) broke down into just two pieces, 1.a cylinder, and 2. everything else, a vast improvement over the Colt which broke down into 4 pieces. The Remington revolver made cylinder swapping something that could be done with two hands and done in in a matter of seconds, once someone learned the technique, which has been referred to as a special "handshake".
3. Many Army officers, and many ordinary cavalrymen were independently wealthy, or at least the majority were well-to-do, particularly in the South, where the first requirement of being a cavalryman was that you own your own horse and tack since the Confederate government didn't supply them.
4. Any soldier who was issued or owned a Remington New Model Army revolver would have learned THE FIRST TIME HE BROKE IT DOWN INTO TWO PIECES, TO CLEAN IT, that its cylinder was easily removable, and replacable.
5. My OPINION is that some of the independently wealthy officers and cavalrymen who were issued or owned their own Remington NMA revolvers were smart enough to pick up on this. It has been noted in this thread by hawg haggen that some soldiers carried 5 or 6 revolvers at a time into battle. Surely with the arrival of the NMA in large numbers beginning about 1864, and after their possessors CLEANED THE GUN ONCE those men who'd been carrying 5 or 6 guns around with them would have realized that they could get the same firepower and travel 20 lbs lighter by simply carring loaded cylinders.
6. Nowhere in this thread has anyone and I mean NO ONE AT ALL found issue with the fact that yes indeed it was easy to change cylinders in a Remington NMA, or that it broke down into only two pieces, which I think anyone realizes made it more feasible to change cylinders than a 4 piece breakdown like Colt required.
7. Last but not least it has been acknowledged on this thread that claims have been made for a long time that this happened. I'm not the only one who ever said this. But it was mentioned that it was usually Remington enthusiasts who made the claim. My granddad said so, a long time ago. I don't know why he would have said that if he didn't believe it to be so. he didn't own a remington, and he was from the South, and most remingtons were carried by Union troops not Southern. But I call that smoke, a lot of smoke, and where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
I have no dog in the fight. I own a Colt and I own a Remington NMA. I do know its easier to change cylinders in the NMA and it takes less hands. I belive this was a reasonably common practice late in the Civil War but can't prove it. It is my OPINION. I do not masquerade mu OPINION as a fact.
8. Finally, I bear you no malice sir although you do seem to be a common scold.
This will be my last post on this thread. I expect to see one more from you because you seem to be someone who has to have the last word. You may take your best shot now sir without fear of a scathing rebuttal.
FWIW. The 58 Remington saw war service from 1861 on. There were three models, the Remington Beals from 1860-1862, the 1861 from 1862-1863 and the New Model from 1863-1875. The early 61's even had the top of the loading lever notched to make removal of the cylinder possible without dropping the lever but no mention was ever made about swapping cylinders.
About thirty years ago I purchased a Griswold & Gunnison repro, and some time later I ordered three spare cylinders from Dixie Gun Works. Yep, you guessed it, the spare cylinders did not function properly in the gun - when the gun was cocked, the chambers would rotate past the bore axis.
If I had some gunsmithing expertise I guess I should have known that the gun must be tuned to the cylinder, but in my abject ignorance, I did it the other way around - I tuned the cylinders by filing the teeth on the rear of the cylinders.
I ruined one cylinder, but I succeeded in getting the other two cylinders to lock up properly when the gun was cocked. I guess it's a good thing I didn't know what I was doing.
If I had some gunsmithing expertise I guess I should have known that the gun must be tuned to the cylinder, but in my abject ignorance, I did it the other way around - I tuned the cylinders by filing the teeth on the rear of the cylinders.
I ruined one cylinder, but I succeeded in getting the other two cylinders to lock up properly when the gun was cocked. I guess it's a good thing I didn't know what I was doing.
AGRRGHHH!!! I swore to myself that I was not going to post again on this thread, but there you go and make a liarout of me, but I had to respond to this last post by Oftig.
Oftig, I'm no gunsmith, but I was pretty sure all along that it wasn't all that difficult to fit a cylinder to a gun; particularly not for somebody who was an expert gunsmith. I APPRECIATE that post. Thank you.
I've thought all along that in this thread, the impossibility of fitting a cylinder to a gun was being "creatively expanded" according to how badly someone's argument depended on it being impossible.
Oftig, I'm no gunsmith, but I was pretty sure all along that it wasn't all that difficult to fit a cylinder to a gun; particularly not for somebody who was an expert gunsmith. I APPRECIATE that post. Thank you.
I've thought all along that in this thread, the impossibility of fitting a cylinder to a gun was being "creatively expanded" according to how badly someone's argument depended on it being impossible.
It was probably "beginners luck", and I don't have a clue how somebody might tune a Remington cylinder.
In any event, I think the other guys have already addressed the most important points - an infantryman equipped with a rifle would have little use for a revolver, and he probably wouldn't want to carry any extra weight - extra weight would not be such a major issue for a cavalryman, so why wouldn't he just carry additional revolvers?
I'm satisfied with the premise that a few officers might have carried spare cylinders, even though no records exist, but it was certainly not a common practice.
In any event, I think the other guys have already addressed the most important points - an infantryman equipped with a rifle would have little use for a revolver, and he probably wouldn't want to carry any extra weight - extra weight would not be such a major issue for a cavalryman, so why wouldn't he just carry additional revolvers?
I'm satisfied with the premise that a few officers might have carried spare cylinders, even though no records exist, but it was certainly not a common practice.
- Status