December 11, 2010, 10:27 PM | #26 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
I think there is still a misunderstanding on the dates. Remington's .44 revolvers carried the Beals patent date of 1858, but none were actually made until 1861, after the Civil War began. So there never was a Model 1858 Remington, and Remington never used that term for any revolver. It is a modern term, taken from the patent date and today refers to about any Remington percussion revolver or imitation thereof.
As to the story that Remingtons were considered superior to Colts because caps didn't get hung up, the opposite is true. A fired cap in the Remington tended to fall into the mechanism, while one from a Colt would either fall out or could be shaken out by turning the gun upside down and shaking it. The common practice was to bring the revolver back over the shoulder and shake it while cocking it, then bringing it down. Incredibly, the Army taught troops to point the pistol up and back then bring it down on the target through WWII, even though the Model 1911A1 seldom jammed from fired caps. One more point, Civil War cavalry did fight from horseback, or at least Union cavalry did. Some Confederate units fought on foot for the simple reason that they had muskets and shotguns and had no choice, since the unwieldly weapons could not be used from horseback. In general, Union cavalry fought dismounted only where horses couldn't go or where they had to dig in to hold a position. While Federal cavalry was (rightly) discounted in the early years, they learned the trade the hard way and were highly effective as cavalry by war's end. Breechloading and repeating carbines made them even more feared by their opponents. Morgan's famous quote (which has been attributed to others as well) may have been true at the time and place, but his muzzle loading shotguns would not have been very effective against Spencers, and he knew it. (Mosby favored the ambush, where his men would have been effective almost regardless of the weapons carried by the Union forces since they never got a chance to use them.) Jim |
December 11, 2010, 11:50 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: on a hill in West Virginia
Posts: 789
|
"One more point, Civil War cavalry did fight from horseback, or at least Union cavalry did."
.....and as you mention until 1863, the confederate cavalry rode circles around them. Brandy Station, June 9 1863, is the first time man for man that the union cavalry held it's own against their southern counterparts. "they learned the trade the hard way and were highly effective as cavalry by war's end" This statment helps make my above point Read about John Buford's fight with elements of Gen. Heath's division at Gettysburg. That was standard tactics. He fought dismounted and held off a much larger force of confederate infantry for a few hours. I say again, there were very few LARGE SCALE mounted cavalry battles. Also, on the other side of the coin read about union Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth's death at Gettysburg. He died leading a failed mounted attack against rebel infantry from Hood's division.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_J._Farnsworth Mounted attacks seldom worked against infantry or dismounted cavalry, unless surprise was achieved (rear/flank attack) or the infantry was beaten and demoralized and the cavalry was thrown at them to "hasten" their retreat or catch a few prisoners. The main use for mounted troops in the civil war, was scouting, screening, and skirmishing. They were no longer the "shock troops" that they had been in previous wars. The rifle musket saw to that. "but his muzzle loading shotguns would not have been very effective against Spencers, and he knew it." That's why he used them against sabers. Morgan's men adopted shotguns to replace only their sabers. They still had rifles/carbines and revolvers. "Mosby favored the ambush, where his men would have been effective almost regardless of the weapons carried by the Union forces since they never got a chance to use them." If you read the link I posted, you will notice that at Miskel's Farm it was Mosby that was surprised. He was caught and outnumbered more than 2/1. The "yankees" had the upper hand. He won because Capt. Flint decided to order a saber charge. Mosby's men fought back with revolvers. Flint was one of the first men to die (with 6 bullets in him I might add). Last edited by MJN77; December 13, 2010 at 09:04 PM. |
December 12, 2010, 12:43 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: on a hill in West Virginia
Posts: 789
|
reply to jvandy3
"This is my theory that I am proposing as an iterrpretion of these facts"
Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone thinks the same. I agree that Remington may have spurred them on a bit, but I also think that Colt had the 1860 concept in the works before "1858". As I posted previously, the Remington wasn't produced until 1860/61. That's about the same time as the Colt army, although it was patented 2 years earlier. So I agree with you to a point. It doesn't really matter to me, I like them both. |
December 15, 2010, 09:36 PM | #29 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2010
Location: S. W. Florida
Posts: 6
|
The development of the Colt 1860 Army had to wait for better metalurgy and the engineering genius of Elisha K. Root. Colt could buy "crusible steel" from the Allen and Thurber Co who had a propriatary process but they were competitors. Root developed manufacturing shortcuts, improvements in metalurgy, and tooling. He also had to deal with the fact that certain design improvements (like center-hammer top-strap frame) were already patented by others.
|
December 16, 2010, 12:52 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: NEPA
Posts: 909
|
Didn't Colt have problems with the 4 pound Walkers blowing up?
|
December 16, 2010, 10:15 PM | #31 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 13, 2010
Posts: 10
|
You see, the Devil is in the details, it is allways the details in history that are important and that is why I really resent the simplified histories you so often find. Here we have information I did not previously have about developments by Elisha K. Root. This does raise the question as to whether or not the Remington Army was more than just patent drawings in 1858 or was there a prototype? Did Remington have the steel capable of doing the job as your history about Elisha Roots work suggests was necessary to the making of a light 44? If they did, how did they get it when Roots was working so hard to do so?
You imply Roots faced a patent for a top strap frame that blocked him from making one? Didn't Colt say at one time that his company would never make a top-framed revolver while he yet lived? (Maybe I remember wrong.) Someone else wrote that the Remingtons had more trouble with spent caps jamming their works than Colts. I never fired a Colt but have read that the Colts had problems with the caps falling into the works between the hammer and the frame and that the Remington's had a much smaller gap and did not suffer that problem. However, have had a spent cap jam my Remington. Did also read an article in which the author insisted that the original pistols of the period had a cut or gap formed in the backing plate of the frame to guide the spent caps out whereas the modern replicas do not have it correctly copied. But I don't really know. Anyway, I seem to be getting fed some really good information on this thread. |
December 17, 2010, 01:55 AM | #32 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 6, 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,080
|
Hello, This is an interesting post! There is another side to the .44 story, I haven't seen mentioned. Colt had a London factory, and was trying hard to obtain military contracts for it's revolvers...they were pushing the 1851 pretty hard. The Brits bought some, used them in the Crimea, & Indian Mutiny. There were reports of failure to stop...The british were using .45 &
.50 caliber double-action revolvers & liked the stopping power. One thing I read, the British stated the navy Colt had a range of 200yds. And that while they were more accurate & probably suited the American west better, again, it was lacking in stopping power, especially with the conical type bullet. It looks like the small & fast, vrs. big & slow, goes back further than the current 9mm vrs. .45 auto argument of today! |
December 17, 2010, 07:41 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
I can tell you that the pale rider chose the remington over the colt and at the end of the movie, he needed the remington for the solid, closed top frame feature that it had.....
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
December 17, 2010, 02:48 PM | #34 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
According to the movies they didn't have those problems; the Civil War was fought with Model 1873 Colts and Model 1892 Winchesters, with an occasional Model 1896 Krag, Model 1893 Mauser and Model 1903 Springfield thrown in for good measure. And they all wore white cowboy hats.
Jim |
December 18, 2010, 07:50 PM | #35 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 13, 2010
Posts: 10
|
re: movies & History as per Mr Keenan
Uh, Jim, ya forgot that they had those there Gattlin' guns too; I saw it in a movie, once.
|
December 18, 2010, 08:25 PM | #36 |
Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Posts: 32
|
jvandy3, Colt did turn out a revolver with a top strap (albeit with a side hammer) in 1855, seven years before Sam's death. They also experimented with a .44 version of this revolver.
Frontier |
December 18, 2010, 09:40 PM | #37 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
There were some Gatling guns used in the Civil War, but in the only CW movie I can recall seeing one used, it was some kind of fake, maybe a Browning 1919 with a fake sheet metal housing.
What is really funny is when the director or producer brags that the movie is absolutely authentic, even to using the correct button insignia, and then they use Great Western copies of the Colt SAA and 1892 Winchesters. Don't you love authenticity? Jim |
December 23, 2010, 09:42 PM | #38 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2010
Location: S. W. Florida
Posts: 6
|
The 1855 "Root" revolver manufactured by Colt got around the top strap-center hammer patent by mounting the hammer on the side of the frame and installing the cylinder pin in from the back. Both Remington and Eli Whitney paid a royalty for the use of the patent design. Sam Colt felt the open top design was better for the large bore Army revolver (Root psitols are all small caliber) because it was able to be broken down easily for cleaning and the ability to use a large diameter, spiral-threaded cylinder arbor. Most cavalrymen thought so too as it was preferred over the sturdier top-strap designs like Starr, Remington, etc.
|
Tags |
soft coal gunner |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|