Speed Loading a Cap and Ball

T

Tinbucket

New member
I have couple of cap and ball revolvers.
There is no such thing as speed loading one, of these is there?
I have CVA Capper which like to shuck primers some times, and a bit difficult getting caps seated at times.
A long time ago when I had another muzzle loader, I made cartridges by soaking onion skin paper in whatever the stuff is. Brain freeze. I 'm tired.
I got varying results. Used thin coat of Elmers to stick the cartridges together, not the best idea and made them more narrow than the chamber. United the end of cartridge. Using the rammer to seat ball on to pof two lubed felt wads ruptured the remainder.
I don't believe it was any faster.
Of course some of our Ancestors carried two or more loaded cylinders.
Always wondered about the caps staying on and charge not rattling out.
Anyone "speed load" or extra loaded cylinders?
 
The old timers carried extra cylinders for there caps and balls, especially the remy 58s. They use what is known as a "paper cartirdge" to reload cylinders but had spares for a fast reload when on the back of horse. The early Petterson revos had to use them, later they had the carts.
 
The speed load during the days of percussion caps and ball was the New York reload. Cavalry troops would often have more than one pistol because the horses could carry them. Bill Hickok carried two revolvers, not to shoot one in each hand.

Today, the 1858 and its easy to remove cylinder makes reloading cap and ball revolvers as fast as can be without having a second revolver and is the fastest reload you can get.
 
There is not much, if any, evidence to suggest that soldiers, at any rate, carried extra cylinders. There are no issue records that I am aware of.

Steve
 
The only written record I've ever seen of a reload done by swapping cylinders was in reference to Texas Rangers using the Colt Paterson. It should be noted that this was before one could reload a Percussion revolver on the gun itself (ie. without disassembly).

Ignoring the aforementioned source, there's no primary sources suggesting it was done (at least in the military (that I know about, I'm not perfect and neither is my research)), and no battlefield finds that support the idea either. It could have been done by civilians, but would have required hand fitting. Given the abundance of military surplus revolvers in those days, I think the few people who would carry a revolver expecting to have to reload it in a fight would probably just buy a spare pistol. And keep in mind, the average person almost certainly wouldn't have needed that much firepower.
 
Last edited:
There is not much, if any, evidence to suggest that soldiers, at any rate, carried extra cylinders.
Click to expand...

There is no record. No written record, no photographic record, no relic record. Nothing, nada, zip. There is a mountain of recorded material for carrying multiple revolvers.
 
I doubt if cylinder changes were done back in the 19th Century. Some, like Hickock, carried at least two revolvers for more than six shots, and some, like Jesse James carried four or more during the Civil War.
 
If people would just put some rational thought or at least do some research and quit trying to give people back then a modern mindset they would realize most of the stuff perpetuated by Hollyweird didn't happen or was very unlikely. I never heard of anyone swapping cylinders on a 58 until Eastwood did it in Pale Rider and after that it was all over the place.
 
If people would just put some rational thought or at least do some research and quit trying to give people back then a modern mindset they would realize most of the stuff perpetuated by Hollyweird didn't happen or was very unlikely. I never heard of anyone swapping cylinders on a 58 until Eastwood did it in Pale Rider and after that it was all over the place.
Click to expand...

Me either Hawg.
 
I actually think one of the more realistic depictions of a realistic "gunfighter" type of person in a movie was Clint Eastwood in "the Outlaw Josey Wales." One man carrying a large number of pistols, especially in the percussion era is WAY more historically accurate than the idea of someone swapping out an unloaded cylinder for a loaded one. That movie has its flaws of course, as do they all.

Having said that, the cylinder swapping scenes in "Pale Rider" or "Hell on Wheels" is about as cool as can be. Folks just need to remember that's all it is, and that it isn't historically accurate, at all.

There is no record. No written record, no photographic record, no relic record. Nothing, nada, zip. There is a mountain of recorded material for carrying multiple revolvers.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If it was done then someone somewhere would have mentioned it like they did the practice of carrying multiple pistols.
 
Model12Win tripped the triggers. :D:D:D

Hey, I trust Clint Eastwood to let me know everything I need to know about the history of swapping cylinders !!! :p;)
 
I did see someone post on facebook a few days ago a supposedly dug-condition revolver cylinder. Of course it doesn't mean it was a spare. But it was, supposedly, a dug cylinder.

Steve
 
I did see someone post on facebook a few days ago a supposedly dug-condition revolver cylinder. Of course it doesn't mean it was a spare. But it was, supposedly, a dug cylinder.
Click to expand...

Dug condition revolvers are usually pretty fragile. Who's to say what happened to the rest of it over the years but if it were done there would be cylinders being dug up all over the place. I dug up a 92 Winchester sans butt plate. Does that mean it came without one?
 
I'd have a VERY hard time believing that the only thing that made it was the cylinder alone, that the rest disintegrated. Wood is certainly a much different situation. One cylinder by itself certainly implies it was solo. But maybe it was removed from the gun and dropped there for whatever reason.

And I'm not pushing that spare cylinders were a thing then.
 
Those who used the Patterson would have certainly understood the value in a swapped cylinder as a reload. Not many of those fighting in the Civil War I'd imagine though. But then to find spare cylinders buried you'd REALLY have to luck on them as they likely weren't common.

Not everyone could afford several handguns and going into war I'd suppose one would do whatever they could to give them an advantage.

And I'm sure this sounds as though I'm advocating for the use of spare cylinders, and maybe I am to an extremely small degree. Common? No. Done? Quite possibly.
 
I'd have a VERY hard time believing that the only thing that made it was the cylinder alone, that the rest disintegrated.
Click to expand...

I never said disintegrated. Most of the battlefields were farmland with over 150 years of farm machinery going over it. Places in battlefield parks like Gettysburg that have had archaeologists go over with metal detectors turned up no single cylinders that I know of.
 
Well in the movies, when someone discards a gun, they take off the slide and toss pieces in opposite directions. Maybe that's what the did with revolvers back in the day too! :D

But also, when you fire off all five shots (because nobody loaded six for safety reasons), the cylinder becomes a pretty good weapon to throw at someone, and the rest makes a pretty good war hammer. Prolly why you just found the cylinder. ;). </troll>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top