Most durable lockwork, Remington or Colt? - Page 4

Hawg · July 8, 2011, 02:42 PM

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.

Buzzcook · July 9, 2011, 10:27 PM

Quote:

In case no one ever told you, you can't prove a positive

The saying is you can't prove a negative. It's more truthy than true.

ofitg · July 9, 2011, 11:27 PM

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.

DG45 · July 10, 2011, 01:29 PM

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.

ofitg · July 10, 2011, 02:21 PM

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.

Hawg · July 10, 2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

"creatively expanded" according to how badly someone's argument depended on it being impossible.

I haven't creatively expanded anything. Honestly I don't see how he managed to hand file 12 teeth and get them lined up true. A Remington is a different story altogether tho. It doesn't have teeth like a Colt does. I don't grasp at straws or twist things around to suit my theories either.

MJN77 · July 10, 2011, 06:26 PM

Quote:

"creatively expanded" according to how badly someone's argument depended on it being impossible

He was referring to me. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was impractical.
He just so desperately wants to believe that everyone that had a revolver in the ACW carried a dozen extra cylinders, because his grandpappy said so.

Quote:

Soldiers did carry loaded extra cylinders too.

Such a definitive statement, without ANY supporting evidence, yet. If there is, I would seriously, love to see it. I enjoy learning new things about history. Until evidence is found, or produced, it's just speculation.

Hawg · July 10, 2011, 07:22 PM

Well I'm out of it. You can't argue with people that refuse to see the truth.

MJN77 · July 10, 2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Well I'm out of it. You can't argue with people that refuse to see the truth.

Amen. He's gonna believe what he wants to anyway. More power to him.

DG45 · July 11, 2011, 07:05 PM

Apparently the extra cylinder question has been extensively debated many time before this thread began and many people believed it to be true. Somebody on this TFL thread said "just show me one case".

Well, personally I can't, but a poster on something called muzzleloader.com on topic # 228232 "The Myth of Cylinder Swapping" on 12-18-08 posted post # 652017 saying " I have yet to find a credible reference to the practice of carrying pre-loaded cylinders for cap and ball pistols", changed his tune on post # 653089 on 12/21/08 saying "I must make a correction and I don't know how to edit my previous post. I see that the 1858 cased set presented to Custer does in fact have an additional cylinder in the upper right hand corner, which I completely missed." (So, apparently it wasn't The Outlaw Josie Wales who thought this idea up after all.)

THis poster later went on to say "So for purposes of clarification, I have to admit that it's entirely possible an extra cylinder or two was a common feature among soldiers ... who used that particular brand of pistol since changing it out is a fairly easy procedure."

I don't know what photo he was talking about, but apparently George Armstrong Custer owned a 1858 Remington revolver that came with two cylinders. Did he carry that extra cylinder loaded in the Civil War, or did he even even carry that gun at all, I don't know. But he apparently had an 1858 Remington with two cylinders, so there's one.

One of the other points made in that forum was that while ordinary soldiers were not issued spare cylinders, some soldiers probably carried battlefield pickups which they would have been able to use since chnging them out was a relatively simple procedure.

Some people on that forum were of the opinion that there's no written reference's to using spare cylinders because it was simply called "reloading".

MJN77 · July 11, 2011, 07:54 PM

I stated at least twice before, that I have seen extra cylinders with CUSTOM, PRESENTATION CASED SETS, like the one you mention. That revolver was givin to Custer after the war, I believe. I also said there were probably a few "spares" in the war. But you now seem to think that the U.S. and C.S. ordinance dept. was in the business of fitting thousands of extra cylinders to thousands of revolvers, when the infantry rifles, that even you said, did the bulk of the fighting, were sitting by the way side in need of repair, in the middle of war. Again, I'm sure that there were few extra cylinders around, but it was in no way common. If it were, you would find mention of them by at least a few soldiers. But, as of yet, I have seen no mention at all. Like Hawg said, you grasp at straws, and make more assumptions to fit your theories. Believe whatever you want. Everyone needs fantasies. I'm also tired of the BS.

DG45 · July 11, 2011, 09:01 PM

I didn't ask for, nor do I need your permission to think anything, believe anything, or say anything. I go my own way and you can like it or you can lump it and I don't care which. You may rest assured that your opinion of what I think, believe, or say will not alter in any way what I choose to post on this thread or any other. I know that just bites your a$$ but that's the way it is.

Model-P · July 12, 2011, 12:01 AM

I have to say that I've never heard of loose cylinders routinely being dug from battlefields. In fact, I personally have not heard of any being found.

Also have to say that I've never seen document evidence that military contract revolvers were furnished with spare cylinders.

Those, plus I've never seen offered verifiable period documentation mentioning cylinder swaps as being standard or common procedure.

Logic, at this point, dictates (to me) that common use of spare cylinders is a myth. Until proven otherwise, that's my position on this off-topic subject. FWIW. Who cares?

Art Eatman · July 12, 2011, 07:56 AM

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.

None of which relates to the opening post.

July 11, 2011, 07:05 PM	#85
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	Apparently the extra cylinder question has been extensively debated many time before this thread began and many people believed it to be true. Somebody on this TFL thread said "just show me one case". Well, personally I can't, but a poster on something called muzzleloader.com on topic # 228232 "The Myth of Cylinder Swapping" on 12-18-08 posted post # 652017 saying " I have yet to find a credible reference to the practice of carrying pre-loaded cylinders for cap and ball pistols", changed his tune on post # 653089 on 12/21/08 saying "I must make a correction and I don't know how to edit my previous post. I see that the 1858 cased set presented to Custer does in fact have an additional cylinder in the upper right hand corner, which I completely missed." (So, apparently it wasn't The Outlaw Josie Wales who thought this idea up after all.) THis poster later went on to say "So for purposes of clarification, I have to admit that it's entirely possible an extra cylinder or two was a common feature among soldiers ... who used that particular brand of pistol since changing it out is a fairly easy procedure." I don't know what photo he was talking about, but apparently George Armstrong Custer owned a 1858 Remington revolver that came with two cylinders. Did he carry that extra cylinder loaded in the Civil War, or did he even even carry that gun at all, I don't know. But he apparently had an 1858 Remington with two cylinders, so there's one. One of the other points made in that forum was that while ordinary soldiers were not issued spare cylinders, some soldiers probably carried battlefield pickups which they would have been able to use since chnging them out was a relatively simple procedure. Some people on that forum were of the opinion that there's no written reference's to using spare cylinders because it was simply called "reloading". Last edited by DG45; July 11, 2011 at 07:25 PM.

July 11, 2011, 07:54 PM	#86
MJN77 Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2009 Location: on a hill in West Virginia Posts: 789	I stated at least twice before, that I have seen extra cylinders with CUSTOM, PRESENTATION CASED SETS, like the one you mention. That revolver was givin to Custer after the war, I believe. I also said there were probably a few "spares" in the war. But you now seem to think that the U.S. and C.S. ordinance dept. was in the business of fitting thousands of extra cylinders to thousands of revolvers, when the infantry rifles, that even you said, did the bulk of the fighting, were sitting by the way side in need of repair, in the middle of war. Again, I'm sure that there were few extra cylinders around, but it was in no way common. If it were, you would find mention of them by at least a few soldiers. But, as of yet, I have seen no mention at all. Like Hawg said, you grasp at straws, and make more assumptions to fit your theories. Believe whatever you want. Everyone needs fantasies. I'm also tired of the BS. Last edited by MJN77; July 11, 2011 at 08:01 PM.

July 12, 2011, 12:01 AM	#88
Model-P Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2009 Posts: 727	I have to say that I've never heard of loose cylinders routinely being dug from battlefields. In fact, I personally have not heard of any being found. Also have to say that I've never seen document evidence that military contract revolvers were furnished with spare cylinders. Those, plus I've never seen offered verifiable period documentation mentioning cylinder swaps as being standard or common procedure. Logic, at this point, dictates (to me) that common use of spare cylinders is a myth. Until proven otherwise, that's my position on this off-topic subject. FWIW. Who cares? Last edited by Model-P; July 12, 2011 at 03:35 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

July 8, 2011, 02:42 PM	#76
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,188	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.

July 9, 2011, 11:27 PM	#78
ofitg Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2010 Posts: 102	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.

July 10, 2011, 01:29 PM	#79
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	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.

July 10, 2011, 02:21 PM	#80
ofitg Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2010 Posts: 102	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.

July 10, 2011, 07:22 PM	#83
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,188	Well I'm out of it. You can't argue with people that refuse to see the truth.

July 11, 2011, 09:01 PM	#87
DG45 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 904	I didn't ask for, nor do I need your permission to think anything, believe anything, or say anything. I go my own way and you can like it or you can lump it and I don't care which. You may rest assured that your opinion of what I think, believe, or say will not alter in any way what I choose to post on this thread or any other. I know that just bites your a$$ but that's the way it is.

July 12, 2011, 07:56 AM	#89
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	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. None of which relates to the opening post.