Guerrilla armament

That was my question, where did these extra cylinders come from? I don't suppose you just walked into a hardware store and "bought" one. There would have been a very limited supply. I still say there were" extras cylinders" around but they were already in an "extra" revolver. Wouldn't Colt have a record of the extras as well, as the finished revolvers?
 
The story of spare loaded cylinders is pure moonshine. One in a pocket rolling around what keeps the caps on? Two a loaded cylinder in a pocket or pouch with nothing protecting the caps from being popped would ba about like carrying a primed hand grenade. Three swapping cylinders during combat on the back of a horse... Yeah, no. Finally access to spare cylinders neither Remington or Colt offered spare cylinders.
 
The story of spare loaded cylinders is pure moonshine. One in a pocket rolling around what keeps the caps on? Two a loaded cylinder in a pocket or pouch with nothing protecting the caps from being popped would ba about like carrying a primed hand grenade. Three swapping cylinders during combat on the back of a horse... Yeah, no. Finally access to spare cylinders neither Remington or Colt offered spare cylinders.

According to this Remington did offer sale of spares, and the practice of spare cylinders began in the 1840's with the colt patterson

https://truewestmagazine.com/got-a-spare/

The pony express account seems relevant as its the frontier, many Missourian riders, and right at the beginning of the CW, and it was in practice. Other militaries such as Prussian navy was ordering Colts with spare cylinders and issuing accruements for the spares, not surprising others might hit on the same idea

Here's a separate reference concerning prewar Texas Rangers by Robert M Utley for American Heritage

"The Paterson Colts were fragile and delicate, but a Ranger armed with a Paterson and an extra cylinder could fire 10 rounds in 40 seconds, and Hays’s men often carried two pistols and spare cylinders. At last they had the firepower to stand up to Comanches in mounted combat."
 
Last edited:
How many guerillas actually carried spare cylinders? I'd think they'd be more like Josey Wales and carry more pistols. Did they use pommel holsters like during the American Revolution?
 
How many guerillas actually carried spare cylinders? I'd think they'd be more like Josey Wales and carry more pistols. Did they use pommel holsters like during the American Revolution?
first question no way of knowing, there were no surveys at the time or even standard issue equipment for guerrillas, they had freedom to arm themselves however they wished. I tend to think usage would have been limited, but from sources I'm finding its not unheard of in the period.....orginally I didn't think spares would be used in a fight, but seems Texas Rangers could manage it

Union army did issue pommel holsters in CW, not sure CS, but more guerrilla equipment was US then CS. and accounts of Archie Clements or death of Anderson indeed place holsters and guns on the horses as well as the riders
 
Last edited:
Union army did issue pommel holsters in CW, not sure CS, but more guerrilla equipment was US then CS. and accounts of Archie Clements or death of Anderson indeed place holsters and guns on the horses.
An account of Archie's last fight (which I tried to document in my thread titled "The Death of Archie Clements") alleges that he expended and dropped 12 revolvers in his attempt to escape. That seems to me like it must be an exaggeration, but there you have it. Photos of guerrilla fighters commonly show them with one or two revolvers in hand and two more stuffed into their belt.
 
An account of Archie's last fight (which I tried to document in my thread titled "The Death of Archie Clements") alleges that he expended and dropped 12 revolvers in his attempt to escape. That seems to me like it must be an exaggeration, but there you have it. Photos of guerrilla fighters commonly show them with one or two revolvers in hand and two more stuffed into their belt.
That's one of the curious aspects of Anderson account, he has double holster set up crossdraw on him with guns in it, he has double holster on horse with guns still in them, and two in his hands...…. would seem to suggest they opened with least accessible firearms, perhaps from saddlebag

It also shows how many unknowns and inconsistencies there are to what we know, Frank James and others said they never fought with reins in their teeth, blazing away with guns in each hand....but fought with a gun in one hand and the reins in the other...……….yet there is Anderson, with guns in both hands, that allegedly no one had removed or placed there......James referred to them fighting with guns in each hand as simply dime novel stuff.

Would note in Clement's case if account is going by dropped revolvers......there were two of em, Hicklin may have discarded a couple as well. And not to stray too far from topic, Hicklin illustrates how vast the unknowns are.....he is in a shootout with one of the more noted desperadoes at the time....and he seems a complete mystery......not a known associate of either Quantrill raiders or Clements/James postwar robberies.....
 
Last edited:
A good rider could have steered a trained horse with his knees.Not me, a good rider and a trained horse. A term widely used in the southwest, Quien Sabe ?(Who knows)
When I was young and careless I used to ride our horse without saddle, bridle or halter. He was a standard bred and a nice sized horse, about 16 hands tall. He'd come when I whistled and I'd jump up on him, grab a handful of mane and off we'd go. It was a thrill. I learned a horse can be steered with your hands, as well as verbal instruction even at a gallop, though I wouldn't recommend it. I got dumped off many a time. The main thing I learned was to keep him away from the fences and trees. I wish I could remember the words my Dad told me they trained their work horses and mules to turn right or left.

edit: I looked it up. Gee and Haw. I could remember Haw, but forgot Gee.
 
Last edited:
When I was young and careless I used to ride our horse without saddle, bridle or halter. He was a standard bred and a nice sized horse, about 16 hands tall. He'd come when I whistled and I'd jump up on him, grab a handful of mane and off we'd go. It was a thrill. I learned a horse can be steered with your hands, as well as verbal instruction even at a gallop, though I wouldn't recommend it. I got dumped off many a time. The main thing I learned was to keep him away from the fences and trees. I wish I could remember the words my Dad told me they trained their work horses and mules to turn right or left.

edit: I looked it up. Gee and Haw. I could remember Haw, but forgot Gee.
Had several through childhood too, the last was a palomino that required a section of PVC pipe to ride......But it was good at racing.
 
A section of PVC huh? Our horses must be related!
The palomino I took once on a trail ride, it tried to pin/rub your legs against every tree...….after that it was just racing and arenas

I used to scare the bejesus of of my friends with him, if walked out in pasture he'd come at dead gallop right at you and at last second sidestep around you, they'd run and he'd chase them
 
Last edited:
Bee, I'm sure Booner will answer, too. Yes, that is exactly what has been suggested by some people. It is certainly possible, but seems unlikely to me. I think it would be much more convenient to simply switch revolvers during the fight and reload all empties later.

Maybe you've seen the movie RIDE WITH THE DEVIL. There's a scene fairly early in the movie where the boys are surrounded in a small farm house. After an intense flurry of firing out of windows (and Dutchy losing the tip of his finger), there's an eerie sound effect where they are all frantically working on their revolvers--perhaps swapping out cylinders. You will hear sounds that could be associated with that, but sound effects and frantic hand movements in a movie don't necessarily mean it was a common practice.
They probably did carry preloadesd cylinders to reload when they had the time, but when you carry 4 to 8 revolvers, stopping to swap out cylinders in a fight is a little too time consuming.
 
They probably did carry preloadesd cylinders to reload when they had the time, but when you carry 4 to 8 revolvers, stopping to swap out cylinders in a fight is a little too time consuming.

Tend to agree, as its known it was done by both Texas Rangers and Pony Express before the war, seems the practice was known on the frontier, will probably never know how widespread the practice was, would seem it was done to some degree however
 
Wouldn't it also depend on what you could get your hands on. I've shot reproes for a number of years and while I've had pistols jam or break, I've never ruined a cylinder. Somewhere I read about "watching officers try to reload while under fire." Yes, it is faster to draw another pistol than to change cylinders but it is also easier to change cylinders than to reload a cap and ball revolver.
 
Wouldn't it also depend on what you could get your hands on. I've shot reproes for a number of years and while I've had pistols jam or break, I've never ruined a cylinder. Somewhere I read about "watching officers try to reload while under fire." Yes, it is faster to draw another pistol than to change cylinders but it is also easier to change cylinders than to reload a cap and ball revolver.
And thats why the Partisans carried Mulitiple revolvers, often taken from dead federal cavalry or raided arms shipments. if you think reloading a cap and ball on ground is hard try it on horse back even swapping a cylinder . During the Price 64 Raid McCorkle writes about a guerilla that lost a clyinder his name escapes me that was found later bi some women and returned. Thats the very reason multipule revolvers were carried.
 
Back
Top