Yank infantry with pistols

[Rob Weaver]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Unused I'll buy, but unloaded may be a bit of a stretch. Largely bepends on what it really was. If a Sharps or a Smith & Wesson, it could be carried around loaded in your pack because they were cartridge firearms. Even a revolver could be loaded and not capped, but I'm speculating now. Just because it was in his pack at that moment doesn't mean it stayed there. Weapon safety was different then than now. He may have dropped it in his belt when he wanted to look tough. Speculation, again.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Likely, this is exactly where the handguns of the day were usually carried, packed back in the knapsack. The infantry didn't have holsters for the most part. Think about that today on your own gear, exactly where would the big revolver holster fit and not get so much in your way that you'd discard it as soon as possible even today after spending the money on it? They certainly could not march long with a handgun tucked into the belt like many of the pictures depict them ether. The gun simply won't stay put and will fall out, or dig the hammer spur into your gut. So to carry a handgun, especially the typical revolvers of the era, the infantryman would have had little choice but to pack it in the knapsack. His only hope of retrieving it would be in the moments when they could shed gear before heading into battle lines, or in a lull in battle. Since space was precious in the knapsack, odds are good these guys shed them asap after the first few marches and battles in which they learned that they were not really needed items. From what these quotes seem to suggest, the handgun became more of a commodity to be traded than an actual battle implement to infantry. That may be a useful item to pack in knapsacks to be displayed when doing living history, but I think the best way to determine whether or not the men carried them is to try it a few times ourselves on a hot march. We only march an hour or two at the most. One can only imagine how they cursed the handguns after a 20 mile march.

[Rob Weaver]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

There's a reason they're also called "pocket pistols;" you can carry them in your pocket! Breast pocket of a blouse, tail pocket of a frock, not to mention the deep pockets of period trousers accomodate a small derringer or revolver fairly commodiously. Not necessarily convenient, mind you, nor all that good for the firearm, but not much of a burden for the bearer.

[stx]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

What accessibility would the average infantryman have to pocket pistols. It seems to me these pistols would be somewhat of a specialty item. Of cource a family member could give them to them, or I supose a sutler or something like that, but a revolver ran around 25 bucks, over two months pay as you all know, and it seems to me that someone with a lot of down time in camp would sooner figure out how to get an army revolver (trade, steal, bargin, etc.) from the sea of equiptment bought by the government than to take it out of the pay you would hardly ever get on time.

[Dutchman Dick]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Yes, but remember that small "pepperbox" pistols were made well into the 1850's, and were generally cheaper than a Colt, Remington, Manhattan, et al pocket revolver (also less accurate and more prone to multiple discharges, but at close range and in a desperate pinch, who cares?). According to Garavaglia's Firearms of the American West Vol. 2 (1866-1894), the occasional muzzleloading pepperbox was still in use even AFTER the war (in the book, a documented incident was mentioned about a fight between Indians and cavalry wherein one young soldier pulled out an underhammer "pepperbox or muley" - either a Blunt & Syms, Mariette, or Bacon - and shot his assailant with it.)

[McKim]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

I have an excellent book with the very long title of "HOW THE COLT NAVY .36 REVOLVER WAS GUNSMITHED AND FIRED IN THE FIELD DURING THE CIVIL WAR".Techniques Learned from Civil War Veterans and Old Time Gunsmiths" By D L Rhea.

It is a rare book with only 1000 copies published but one you should have if you can find a copy.

Many subjects are covered such as mentioned in the title, and also the fact that a revolver was a handy tool to have around.

Rather than attempting to cover an entire book I would say in general, and IMO, a revolver would be best represented as a tool shared by a mess.

[Dutchman Dick]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Yes, but remember that small "pepperbox" pistols were made well into the 1850's, and were generally cheaper than a Colt, Remington, Manhattan, et al pocket revolver (also less accurate and more prone to multiple discharges, but at close range and in a desperate pinch, who cares?). According to Garavaglia's Firearms of the American West Vol. 2 (1866-1894), the occasional muzzleloading pepperbox was still in use even AFTER the war (in the book, a documented incident was mentioned about a fight between Indians and cavalry wherein one young soldier pulled out an underhammer "pepperbox or muley" - either a Blunt & Syms, Mariette, or Bacon - and shot his assailant with it.)

My mistake - I recently was looking through Volume 1 of the series (1803-1865). The above mentioned Indian fight was mentioned in that volume, though it still happened after the war ended (summer of 1865). The incident was quoted in the book in the context of the deplorable state of armament the Western infantry and cavalry frequently had both during and after the Civil War (which is apparently why the young trooper in question was carrying his own personal weapon). Another incident mentioned in the same section of the book told of how one cavalry unit was issued Lefaucheaux pinfire revolvers - sans ammunition! When they arrived on post, they turned in their useless revolvers and drew sabers instead, but when they left the post they were re-issued the same P.O.S. guns that they had turned in earlier! Which just goes to prove that just as it is now, even back then "military intelligence" was often an oxymoronic phrase...:tounge_sm

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Hallo!

"Rather than attempting to cover an entire book I would say in general, and IMO, a revolver would be best represented as a tool shared by a mess."

And the Primary research and documentation to support revolvers being a communal mess tool (to be emulated by reenactors) would be what exactly...?

Curt

[FranklinGuardsNYSM]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

James F. Gibson's May 2, 1862 stereo image "Topographical Engineers, Camp Winfield Scott, vicinity of Yorktown, Va.," call no. LC-B815- 427[P&P] (and its sister image LC-B815- 366[P&P]) shows an interesting instance of pistols being carried by enlisted men: soldiers detailed from various regiments, to assist Topographical Engineers with their mission. At left is a member of the 23rd PA in zouave uniform; third from the right is a New York soldier. Four holsters are visible among the men. Evidently, it was a "here's what we need you to do for us, and here's your gun, make sure we get that back at the end of the day" thing.

[McKim]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Hallo!

"Rather than attempting to cover an entire book I would say in general, and IMO, a revolver would be best represented as a tool shared by a mess."

And the Primary research and documentation to support revolvers being a communal mess tool (to be emulated by reenactors) would be what exactly...?

Curt

Do you have a copy of the book?

[Doconicus]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

I have read several official accounts in our regiments history and official dispatches where the officers left orders that enlisted men along with NCO's bring their available sidearms with thier long arms.

It was common (even in modern warfare) that enlisted men capable of carrying smaller support arms should do so.

Kudos for finding this info! There's a lot out there.

Martin Verna

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Yank infantry with pistols

Hallo!

Moderator hat on...

Herr Martin, welcome to the AC Forum!

It is a Forum requirement that all posts be signed with your full name. You may want to use the automatic signature feature to set up a permanent one for you.

"It was common (even in modern warfare) that enlisted men capable of carrying smaller support arms should do so."

Excluding the more recent modern concept of personal defense weapons (PDW's) for enlisted infantrymen, "should" is more of modern thinking transposed to the Civil War past.

For a researched and documented impression, what is researched and documented for the unit, time, and place being portrayed is the standard that the AC Forum strives for.

While one can find the exception and the exceptional, the standard that we strive for here is not to take the exception and in the absence of documentation make it a rule for all units, all times, and all places as a justification in and of itself.

It is the "culture" of the AC Forum to work from within what is researched and documented until the never-ending and ongoing process of research produces new information that then becomes the benchmark or hinge point until yet new research comes along.

This revived old thread has skated out onto thin ice more than once, and is being closed.

Curt
Moderator