Loading an 1851 Colt Navy

sjw83071

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Location
Dixie Land
As a former reenactor I know all about loading a musket or rifled musket. But I just received a replica 1851 Colt Navy revolver and must admit I am quite surprised with the effort it takes to load this revolver. I want to get input from forum members on what CW soldiers actually did. Many reenactor groups claim that it was common to carry multiple cylinders. Others say that was not common and is a reenactor thing. I also see claims that soldiers, such as cavalry carried multiple pistols. This doesn't seem to ring true either. I guess I am wondering what knowledge members can provide on how CW soldiers actually used/loaded pistols in the heat of battle. Thanks for any input.
 
All weapons of the period, especially in hindsight, seem ridiculously difficult to reload. The thought of going into combat with only that first load- and the possibility of a misfire- is frightening. Yes, as has been discussed in other threads, at least some carried multiple weapons, often purchased at their own- or their family's- expense. See , for example, https://civilwartalk.com/threads/1860-colt-army-for-opinions.141751/
 
Owning a replica 51 Navy myself I can tell you it is time consuming to reload and not the thing you want to do in the heat of battle. I believe that someone wanting to improve their chances of surviving battle, would carry more than one fully loaded pistol. You can be shot a whole lot of times while pouring powder down the barrel, pushing a wad and ball down to seat on the powder, placing a cap on the nipple, cocking, aiming, and finally firing.
 
Seems to me I read somewhere that it wasn't unusual for some soldiers to carry extra pre-loaded revolver cylinders in their pockets for "quick" reloading in the heat of battle, and that Remington revolvers were considered easier (quicker) to swap out cylinders than were Colts.
 
Seems to me I read somewhere that it wasn't unusual for some soldiers to carry extra pre-loaded revolver cylinders in their pockets for "quick" reloading in the heat of battle, and that Remington revolvers were considered easier (quicker) to swap out cylinders than were Colts.
I agree with Jobe, but the Remington would be quicker to swap out then the Colt
 
The loading process during the war may have been a bit easier for them than us. There were pre-made paper (or some other thin substance like nitrated linen) cartridges that could speed up the process. One dropped the entire unbitten cartridge (bullet and powder) into the six chambers of the cylinder, rammed them home, and then capped the nipples. I have tried this a number of times. When I did manage to make cartridges that would hold together to the ramming part it knocked off several seconds per chamber. If the cartridge paper is thin, like cigarette paper, the cartridges sometime fragmented before I could get them into the cylinder. Presumably they employed some kind of material that was both thin and strong and likely to ignite from a pistol sized cap, something, perhaps like the Sharps linen cartridges stiffened with a thin glue. I recall reading that Jefferson Davis, at the time of the Confederate evacuation of Richmond, gave Varina a loaded revolver and a box of cartridges and instructed her on how to load the weapon. As for using revolvers I think the user would be very careful not to fire unless he was close to his target and was pretty certain of obtaining a hit before discharging the weapon.
 
The loading process during the war may have been a bit easier for them than us. There were pre-made paper (or some other thin substance like nitrated linen) cartridges that could speed up the process. One dropped the entire unbitten cartridge (bullet and powder) into the six chambers of the cylinder, rammed them home, and then capped the nipples.

I was wondering if that existed. From the videos I have watched, I was thinking there had to be a faster way to load than what we have to do.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me I read somewhere that it wasn't unusual for some soldiers to carry extra pre-loaded revolver cylinders in their pockets for "quick" reloading in the heat of battle, and that Remington revolvers were considered easier (quicker) to swap out cylinders than were Colts.
I would think that carrying a loaded and capped cylinder in a pocket would be a bit dangerous.
 
This question comes up periodically on a variety of historical forums. Carrying a loaded, capped Remington or Colts revolver cylinder separate from the frame is so egregiously stupid that you don't even want to think about it, no matter what a movie script writer may have had a actor do. It is effectivly a hand grenade, People at the time didn't carry spare cylinders, they carried spare revolvers. There are good historical accounts of Confederate irregulars -- Mosby's people, for example -- carrying four or five; two in holster belts and two in saddle holsters were comon. If carrying a spare cylinder for reloads was safe, the contemporary manufacturers would have sold them with their guns. They didn't. The "bible" for Civil War arms purchases is Executive Document 99, 2nd Session, 40th Congress (14 January 1868). In Ex Doc 99, the President transmitted a War Department report to Congress on the War Department's purchases of arms during the Civil War. There is nothing in the report to indicate the the Federal Army purchased Colts or Remington revolvers with spare cylinders. One can't say that a few individuals didn't have spare cylinders fitted and carry them on their own (getting back to my egregiously stupid comment), but it wasn't institutionalized. For a reenactor to do so is clearly farb; stupidly so

As for issue weapons, one revolver was the norm later in the war. Early in the war, many cavalry companies were armed exclusively with sabers.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Kevikens is correct. The use of the military revolver in the ACW included manufactured combustible cartridges. There was no loose powder and ball, that was for civilians. The Civil War pistol cartridge box was made to hold manufactured cartridge packs, never loose cartridges because of the fragile nature of the cartridges. The action of bouncing around on horse back, or an officer on foot, would destroy loose cartridges very quickly.

I have an idea where the use of a "spare cylinder" may have actually originated. The Pony Express riders were issued one short barreled Colt Model 1849 Pocket Revolver with one spare cylinder. They carried no extra powder, balls, or caps. The small revolver and spare cylinder was for self defense against Highwaymen, and was handed off to each successive rider at the exchange stations.
J.
 
Lanyardpuller has given me another thought! Look at the thousands and thousands of Civil War era Colt & Remington revolvers that are around. The first thing we all ask is "Does it have matching numbers?", and most of the time they are matched. If the use of "spare" cylinders was supposedly so prevalent very few of these revolvers would have matching cylinders!
J.
 
I have read about switching out cylinders on revolvers, but I have usually found this in the context of the guerrilla fighting in Missouri. I don't think it was very common outside of this. I remember one account where some girls in Missouri picked up some loaded cylinders on the ground after a fight. The girls kept them, and I believe they were identified as coming from a Remington revolver. If using extra cylinders were common, I would think there would be more mismatched cylinders on revolvers in existence.
 
I think we have to realize that while cumbersome to reload, the enemy was armed with the same and had all the same handicaps. Once you got within revolver range and emptied out your cylinder, the fight either descended into hand to hand and most likely, the outcome of the contest decided quickly. I read some years ago that the average police shootout ( this would have been with revolvers, not semi auto Glocks) was 3.5 rds per incident. So the contest was decided quickly and with a minimum of shots fired. I realize a police shootout is not the same as a close quarters engagement of troops, but I think it helps illustrate that once you get that close, the contest is decided quickly. Hollywood has done much to give us the image of protracted shootouts with huge volumes of shots exchanged requiring reloading. The gunfight at the OK corral supposedly lasted all of 30 seconds, which probably felt like an eternity if you were involved. ( and dont ask how you fire 3.5 rds!! lol)
 
Relic hunters... help solve this issue.....
Where are all these "extra" cylinders ?? Does anyone actually have a stash of them in a big plastic bucket ?
:unsure:

Lanyardpuller has given me another thought! Look at the thousands and thousands of Civil War era Colt & Remington revolvers that are around. The first thing we all ask is "Does it have matching numbers?", and most of the time they are matched. If the use of "spare" cylinders was supposedly so prevalent very few of these revolvers would have matching cylinders!
J.

Excellent points, the sort of thing that seems obvious - after someone thinks of it! If spare cylinders had been used extensively, they would presumably turn up just like other items of equipment. It would not be surprising if cavalrymen reloading in the heat of battle occasionally dropped the old cylinder.

Revolvers were a relatively recent invention; for most of the history of cavalry and firearms, they had carried a pair of single-shot flintlock pistols. A five- or six-shooter was already a significant increase in firepower.
 
Back
Top