1851 confederate navy from taylors

[DG45]

Better make your move on that $160 deal at Taylor's and Co., Inc. if you're ever going to. It's been on sale a long time. Can't last forever. The extra cylinder makes it not just a great deal, but an incredible one, particularly in view of the following:.

It turns out that this $160 deal that Taylor's & Co., Inc. is running is of a historically accurate Pietta 36. cal. replica of a Confederate revolver built by Schneider & Glassick in Memphis TN during the Civil War, based on Sam Colt's .36 cal. 1851Navy model design.

It has a brass frame like the better known Griswold & Gunnison (G&G )Confederate version of the .36 cal. 1851 Colt Navy, but it differs from the G&G version in that it has an octagonal barrel instead of a round one. In this, the Schneider c& Glassick gun was closer to the original Colt Navy Model than the G&G gun, because the original Colt Navy's had octagonal barrels too. In fact the gun Taylor's & Co. is selling is just like the original 1851 Colt Navy model except it has a brass frame and no naval battle scene roll marked on the cylinder. That is exactly what the Schenider & Glassick version of this revolver looked like.
It doesn't make any practical difference. I bought my gun to shoot it, but lots of folks need historical accuracy for reenactments, etc., and the fact that this Pietta replica is provably an accurate reproduction of a weapon manufactured during the Civil War and used by the Confederacy may make it a lot more desirable to some folks.

[Hawg]

the fact that this Pietta replica is provably an accurate reproduction of a weapon manufactured during the Civil War and used by the Confederacy may make it a lot more desirable to some folks.

One of the rarest of the rare. I think there's three known and one has an iron frame. They weren't put into production.

[DG45]

"Rare" yes, and it is correct that there are only 3 known to still exist, but "not put into production", no.

According to the "Official Website" for Gun Mart Magazine, What Gun?, and Shooting Sports magazine -for whatever that's worth - the firm of Schneider & Glassick, of 20 Jefferson Street, Memphis, it's line of trade being shown as guns, pistols, etc. was listed as a business in the Memphis, Tn. City Directory in 1860.

According to the same source, the firm was given a glowing testimonial in the Memphis Daily Appeal newspaper in December 1861 where the pistol it produced was said to be a beautiful weapon, not inferior to Colt's in any particular. (But it had a brass frame). Four months later in March 1862, Memphis fell to Federal forces and Schneider and Glassick was out of business.

I don't know how long before the 1860 City Directory came out that the Schneider & Glassick firm was manufacturing pistols, but it hadcertainly begun manufacturing them no later than that date, and it was certainly still manufacturing them as late as December 1861, and it was probably producing them right up until March 1862, this being a time during which every gun that could be built in the South could be sold.

The same article I've quoted above states that "no production figures for Schneider & Glassick are known"; not that the gun never went into production.

Given the fact that they are known to have been in business producing guns and pistols for a minimum of 14 months and possibly as long as 26 months - or longer if they were inbusiness before 1860, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually produced four or five hundred pistols, although I'm sure they didn't produce near as many as G&G did.

[Hawg]

I haven't done much research on them but what sources I found say they were "supposedly" made in Memphis. Not saying you're wrong but if they made several hundred there should be more than three still around.

[DG45]

I respect your opinion HH, and I can understand it, since only three surviving examples are known. It may be that I'm overestimating the production of S&G revolvers, but I've got a reasonable basis for my opinion,which is that that S&G apparently produced a quality product and managed to stay in business producing it from 1860 (or earlier) to 1862, during a period of high demand for weapons. But bottom line, with no production figures availiable, there's no way to know how many were made. They were never a threat to Colt, that's for sure.

[Shotput79]

I must be one of the lucky ones because I have bought six of the eight revolvers from Cabela's and have found none of the problems that you speak of. All my revolvers are tight as can be. And shoot just find. I was reading post #6 by DG45 and have to agree with him when it comes to the 1858 New Army revolvers. I had a $20 rebate for June and bought another 1858 New Army for $218.94 shipped right to the door. I have a 20 yr. old target model and the 5.5" model so I wanted the 8" model that didn't have the target sights on it. Its a well built revolver. I don't believe Uberti could have done a better job as far as fit or finish. The handles on the two 1860 models I have are longer than the ones on my two 1851s. One of the 1851s I bought here at the gun shop in town is the brass frame .44 models, and its one of the best little shooters I have. It puts all six rounds in 1/2" holes all day long with 20grs of fff powder. I wanted a .36 cal 51 steel frames just to see what all the fuss was about fired three cylinders with it and it is a sweet little shooter also. Its the only .36 I have, so I don't have another to compare it to. I was going to buy the 1858 New Army Police in .36 cal but thats out for now. I bought a Uberti .44 Walker a while back and that is one heck of a hand cannon. Love that revolver. The first time I took it out in the back yard to shoot the hammer spring broke after the third cylinder. A cap went down in the inside and caused the problem. Out of all these revolvers I have to say I like the 58 New Armys the best. They hit where you point them and you can put a little more powder in them if you wish. I wouldn't be afraid to carry one for defense if I wanted to. Make me hafta hunt something and brake out my walker and hunt it. I've been making my own 200gr bullets for it with the lee double mold and they pack a heck of a wallop. Try it some time you'll love it. All my revolvers are .44 cals but the one 51 Navy. All are Piettas but the Walker. When I buy them I don't do all the stuff about making them smooth. I take them apart, clean them put them back together and shoot them they will do all that other on there own. My first 1858 target model is smooth as a baby's behind, and it still looks good. with the target sights you can shoot out there a good long ways. There's no one around to shoot with so I have to shoot by myself also. The two fellows I know shoot BP rifles Hawkens and Inlines and they're not around most of the time.

[mannyCA]

after reading up on the history you guys posted of this fine replica I feel pretty stupid...

...I just bought it to shoot!

[Hawg]

...I just bought it to shoot!

Well shoot it.

[Fingers McGee]

Schneider and Glassick never manufactured any pistols. There is no evidence that they ever did.

From "Firearms of the Confederacy" Fuller & Steuart, page 237: "The south had many fine gunsmiths, but they devoted their time and talents to the manufacture of sporting rifles, fowling pieces and dueling pistols. Also in the South before the war were many firms which sold guns and pistols. They were importers and repairers, rather than manufacturers. Both British and Northern arms makers were accustomed to make guns and pistols for these dealers and stamp them with the dealers names. That expolains the large number of tranter and Adams revolvers and Allen single shot pistols made in the North bearing the names of Southern firms.
Among the better known of these Southern firms, which should be classed as military goods importers rather than gunsmiths, were Samuel Sutherland, Mitchell and Tyler and Kent,...........Schneider and Glassick, Memphis, Tenn; .......... .

"Confederate Revolvers " by William A. Gary, 1987, relegates the Schneider and Glassick to the category of "Confederate Associated Revolvers" because there is no evidence many were produced. Messrs Schneider and Glassick showed their revolver on Dec 8 1861. On March 15th Memphis fell to the North. If they were just showing the revolver on Dec 8, I doubt they had been makin gthem since 1860, and they couldn't have completed many by 15 March.

"Confederate Handguns" by Albaugh, Bennet, and Simmons, 1963, surmises that somewhere between 15 and 55 might have been completed.

"Civil War Guns" by Wiliam B. Edwards, 1962. In the Chapter - Sidearms for Southrons, Other Producers, refers to S&G as follows: "Two partners in Memphis need to be mentioned here though their productivity was nil, their influence on the war nothing, so far as military arms are concerned. Two revolvers of Colt 1851 type exist, identified as output of this partnership."

I look forward to Dr. Davis' article on the S&G

[DG45]

I quoted the source of my information which was a website, and the sources they claimed to have gotten their information from; ie., an 1860 City Memphis City directory listing Schneider & Glassick, guns & pistols, etc., and a Memphis Daily Appeal newspaper article in December 1861 which supposedly gave the Schneider & Glassick revolver a "glowing review". Now maybe the source I quoted lied about the City directory and the newspaper article, I can't guarantee that they didn't, but short of that, I'd say that's pretty good evidence that the firm existed and did produce pistols. How many, I don't know. However both Hawg Haggen and I (who have had our disagreements on other issues) both believe that at least three Schneider & Glassick revolvers are still known to exist. I can't prove that. It's what I've read; however, unless my memory fails me, I believe I've also seen a fairly recent photo of 1 of the three guns that have been identified as an original Schneider & Glassick revolver - somewhere, sometime, online. I could be wrong. I just think I did but I took no note of it, not being particularly interested in the issue at that time. However, I do remember that the gun I saw had a brass frame, a brass triggerguard, a plain cylinder (no naval battle scene), and an octagonal barrel. No other manufacturer of whom I am aware from that day to this made a revolver of exactly that configuration (except Pietta, who produces a replia of what they appear to believe was a revolver made by Schneider & Glassick. The Pietta replica has a brass frame, brass triggerguard , a plain cylinder and an octagonal barrel).

Nevertheless, if you can convince me that the information I have posted is false, I will gladly retract it.

OOPs, my apologies. I just reread your post and I think I misunderstood your meaning the first time I read it. (My reading comprehensions not too good which is a blessing considering some of the things I've been called.) I see now that you are just saying that S&G didn't MANUFACTURE the S&G revolver by which I take it you mean they didn't do the foundry castings, etc. I trust that you do agree they assembled the parts and hand-fitted the weapon (which actually does qualify as light manufacturing but I'm not trying to argue that point. I think I understand the point you're trying to make.) I suppose they could have bought octagonal barrels from Colt or somebody who made them, and brass frames and grip frames from G&G or somebody and just assembvled assembled the weapon out of parts from several different manufacturers at 20 Jefferson St. Memphis.

[Fingers McGee]

I don't say the information you have printed is false. You got it off the internet, so it must be true. I do believe however that you take too much for granted from the info. S&G was listed in the Memphis business directory as "Schneider and Glassick, Guns, Pistols, etc, 20 Jefferson Street". Doesn't say anything about making revolvers. Says they were in the gun business. There was a demo of a revolver by S&G on Dec 7th of a revolver that the press apparently liked and was reported as being of their manufacture. There is no evidence - other than the three currently known examples - that any more than 25 - assuming they were assembled in SN order - were ever completed prior to March '62 when Memphis fell to the North. What I provided was excerpts from 4 books on Confederate firearms written by gentlemen very knowledgeable in their field that pretty much documents that S&G were retailers that put their name on other peoples work.

[DG45]

I don't see that we have any profound disagreement. You say G&S was a retailer; maybe so, I can't say you're wrong. I do think that the fact that 3 revolvers survive indicates that the "pistols" they manufactured, carried, or sold were revolvers. You think 25 may have been made and you could be right, but no one really knows. My guess is that more than that were made, because why not? It was a good quality product, they were in business at least 14 months, and the South needed revolvers for arming cavalry, and officers. Never saw a business yet that didn't try to supply what was in demand if they could.

Colt's 1851 Navy model probably enjoyed some sort of trademark protection in the North, but it seems to have been used as a generic pattern in the South. It could be that S&G purchased guns from another manufacturer to their own specs and retailed them, ala some unique J.C. Higgins guns which were made by other manufacturers that were not clones of other guns in that manufacturers line. I'm thinking in particular of a 22 automatic rifle with a beavetail forearm that I think was unique to Sears J.C. Higgins line, but was made by somebody like Winchester.

Anyway, the possibilities are limited because the Schneider & Glassick revolver , while clearly built on the Colt 1851 Navy pattern, is not a clone of any manufacturers gun that I'm aware of. Brass frame, brass handgrip frame, brass triggerguard. Plain steel cylinder, octagonal steel barrel. Who else made that gun or could have supplied parts for that gun?

They could have probably bought every part from G&G except the octagonal steel barrel. But the barrel came from somewhere else. G&G barrels were round or half round. Maybe they made their own barrels and purchased all other parts. I don't know, but I think they must have done some of the assembly work at least.

[Hawg]

Might as well give up Fingers. He wont listen to anybody but himself.

[Doc Hoy]

Mornin Hawg.

[Hawg]

Mornin Doc.

[DG45]

Relax Hog. We got into a hassle on another thread because I said Remington cylinders could be easily interchanged and that soldiers did it in the Civil War. I didn't realize that was even questioned having believed it all my life, until you and your pal jumped me on it and I defended my point of view. Having been challenged on the historical accuracy of what I'd said, I admitted that it was my OPINION and I provided the basis for my opinion, which I think there is considerable evidence to support. You poo-pooed that, which is your right but hey, that's your own OPINION, which is not neccessarily the final truth, your 10,000 posts on this forum notwithstanding. I admit you've got some evidence for your point of view on the issue. But the guy who was playing Robin to your Batman got a little abusive I thought, and in fact I thought you did too, so I swung back a couple of times. That's all. I've dropped it, or I'd intended to drop it there.

I've been a gun owner and shooter all my life. I figured that during the 150th anniversary of the Civil War I'd give C&B a try. Got on the forum to try to learn some stuff about them, not to engage in historical debates with people.

The folks who really impress me are those like enyaw who clearly know some S#$# about these guns.

[Hawg]

DG45, ok there's no evidence soldiers swapped cylinders, I guess there's no concrete evidence they didn't. Tho the lack of evidence for one backs up the other. I've been shooting since I was three. I've been shooting black powder revolvers since I was 12 in 1969 and bp rifles since 1970. I'm no expert but I'm no dumass when it comes to them either. I admit I don't know a lot about S&G but when faced with the facts like Fingers gave whatever notions I had about them flew out the window. I don't hang on and keep trying to argue my case when I don't have one because far more learned men than me have done the research and found the facts. It wasn't my intention to jump on you and I apologize for that.

[Shotput79]

I want one of them. The steel frame model I looked at was a Uberti with the round barrel and it looks and feels good in the hand. The brass frame model I looked at was put out buy Pietta I Just don't know which one to get The brass and the steel frame seem to be in the same ball park as far as powder charge go's. Manny CA has no reason to fell stupid. Thought I knew something till I joined the forum. This is why I still keep coming back. You guys have taught me a lot. Believe I'll just wait and see if the buy bug will pass befour I do anything. Thinks fellows for all the help.

[Hawg]

The brass and the steel frame seem to be in the same ball park as far as powder charge go's.

No, the brass frame wont hold up under the same charges the steel frame will. The steel frame with the round barrel is a Leech & Rigdon.

[Fingers McGee]

Originally Posted by HH

Might as well give up Fingers. He wont listen to anybody but himself.

I guess Hawg. Can't wait to read the article on S&Gs that Dr. Davis is going to post on the RPRCA website. He and I talked on the phone a couple months ago about the S&Gs. He had been called in by the Davis Museum in Claremore, OK to validate a pistol claimed to be an S&G. IIRC, it turnd out to be a fake.

[Hawg]

I'd like to see that too

[DG45]

HH, I never called you a dumbbass and I didn't meant to impy that you were, and if anything I said caused you to think I didn't respect your opinion or your knowledge of guns, particularly black powder guns I apologize for that. I do respect your opinion, and I wish I had your gun knowledge. I'd read a lot of your stuff before the late unpleasantness and I certainly did not go into that latest mess out of any disrespect for you, although in that thread I did think you crossed the civility line, but you've apologized, I accept, and I offer my own apology for anything I may have said to you that was out of line.

I think if you'll go back and look, you'll see I only went after your unpleasant pal.

So far as I know I haven't challenged Fingers McGee on anything. I think I posted about Schneider &Glassick pistols before he did, and he may have intended to challege what I wrote, but I thought after reareading it that he was just saying S&G didn't manufacture their weapon, they just sold it. I don't care who manufactured it, if it was sold as a Schneider & Glassick.You think there were maybe 25 of them produced, he thinks maybe 55. I think maybe more, but I don't know. I don't see how with no production figures availiable, anyone will ever know. We'll all have our own OPINIONS. The two areas where Fingers and I both read the same information and got different vibes from it were that he wasn't sure that the 1860 City Directory description of the G&S line as guns & pistols meant revolvers. I pointed out that you and I even agree that there are 3 S&G revolvers still in existence, which is pretty good evidence I think, that the term "pistols" in the 1860 City Directory ad meant "revolvers. Also, Fingers McGhee characterized the December 1861 article in the Memphis Daily Appeal as if it were a promotion for a prototype pistol just coming on the market. I didn't understand it that way. I thought it was an article written in praise of a production gun. I'm not really sure now whose take on that was correct. I would agree that IF the article was intended to hype a prototype revolver just coming onto the market in Dec. 1861 that there probably weren't more than 50 or so made, but like I said, that's not the take I got from the website article. I've never read the actual article from the Memphis Daily Appeal but will try to come up with a copy.

[Hawg]

I took it to mean a prototype.

[Fingers McGee]

DG45, I don't know where you got the idea I thought there were 55 S&Gs made. I have no idea how many were made and don't want to speculate. I stated that there was no evidence that more than 25 were made - cause that is the SN on one of the three known examples. Coulda been more - and coulda been less. Based on what I have read on other manufacturers of the same time period, some guns never made it out of the shops due to failing proof, or other flaws.

It's a pretty long stretch to say that the 1860 business listing for S&G 'meant revolvers' when it said 'guns and pistols'. Are you completely ignoring the "Firearms of the Confederacy" reference in my previous post? Just because there are 3 revolvers that are attributed to and marked S&G, doesn't automatically equate to them making revolvers in 1860. There is no evidence whatsoever that they manufactured, assembled, or stamped any revolvers prior to the showing in 1861.

The four books on Confederate firearms I referenced previously regard Schneider and Glassick as nothing more than footnotes.

I just looked up the website you have been quoting. It's a company in England selling gun magazines. The S&G reference is to a product test done on a Pietta brass framed .36 Navy by one of their gun writers with an historical side note.
http://www.gunmart.net/militaria/art...navy_revolver/

[Shotput79]

Sorry fellows looks like I got my revolvers mixed up. Oh well, live and learn. In this case read and learn. Now I can wear the dummy hat for a spell. Still going to take a look at the brass frame .36 at Taylors. I been looking at the Leech & Rigdon by Uberti for a while now. One slipped through my hands here at home buy thinking it would be there the next week. Thinks for all the infor posted on this thread. Good stuff. Good stuff.