Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

[David Fox]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

For what it's worth, I, too, am from Missouri on spare cylinder carriage by CW officers. Having said that, I recall in the late 1950s or early 1960s an issue of "Guns" magazine featuring a Patterson rifle with its original accoutrement, including a waist belt with two spare cylinders in fitted leather pouches.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

Mr. Davis,

You ask why it is better to not do something because it isn't documented. This is a CW forum, true, but it is one that has always insisted that people have documentation to back their statements/arguments. That hasn't changed and will not do so. So, it is better in this case to not carry spare cylinders because history is about fact and if one cannot document what they are trying to research, one does not go out and say it anyway; at least ethical historical people don't.

As Mr. Chmelar said, doing things because there is no proof that it wasn't done might allow one to bring most anything from pirate hats to bagpipes and kilts (oh wait, they do that one anyway so that's a good example actually) . There's enough wrong being done in the hobby already without adding to it.

If you are looking for justification to do something you're determined to do anyway, you probably won't find it here. But, you could add a lot to the argument if you find documentation that spare cylinders were carried by officers. That would be good info to know.

[john duffer]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

Considering officers typically stand behind their commands during firings...oh wait, drill manuals and logic should never trump wild speculation. :)

[Jerry Ross]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

The answer to the question is NONE! No spare cylinders were carried.Look at the pictures very close. In my 12-14 years of this hobby I have never seen an officer with spare cylinder for pistols.

[fedhead]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

At risk of being shot down in flames , this was debated on another forum and I am not posting this as evidence of any kind as this set could have so many things wrong with it but never the less here it is , please don,t shoot the messenger I have no opinion either way .

I suspect this could have been debated else where excuse me if it has ,

[Doughboy]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

Provenance?

[fedhead]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

Provenance?

This is copied from the original post so I cannot verify if this is true,
"According to J.B. Books this belt set belong to Col F.S.Bass, he enlisted as Captain and rose to the rank of Colonel in the 1st Texas Infantry (Hood's Brigade)"

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

Just a few thoughts. I did a quick search on Google Books for any reference to "spare cylinder" or "cylinder box" combined with the word pistol or revolver for the years 1840 to 1880 and got one hit, from a short story in Putnam's Monthly from the year 1857:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xVYAAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22spare%20cylinder%22%20pistol%20OR%20revolver&pg=PA456#v=onepage&q=%22spare%20cylinder%22%20pistol%20OR%20revolver&f=false

"I will load the spare cylinder of my heavy Texan six-shooter for a reserve, and then dischargo the pistol. It will cause these fellows to break up their party for a reconnoissanee. In the mean time, the quick senses of Kaya will demonstrate to him the class of arm by the peculiar sound of the report. He will know that we are near him."

I think this refers to an older model of revolver than ones carried during the war, but I'm no expert. I do know that's the only reference that came up for that 40 year period and it comes from a pulp western.

FWIW, the list of accouterments for cavalrymen include pistol cartridge boxes, but not cylinder boxes and the cost of a replacement (not spare) cylinder ranged from $2 for the Remington to more than $3 for a Colt -- in neither case a negligible sum.

As a practical matter, you have to ask why anyone would want a spare cylinder. It's not just the weight or the fcost, but the reality that loading real cartridges at the time wasn't quite the hassle it is for reenactors. It's not like they had to bother with cream of wheat.

Officers had a choice of any side arm they wanted to pay for so, as a further practical consideration, rather than spend the extra money for an extra cylinder they could always upgrade to a Smith and Wesson Type II or, if you really want to push the envelope for late war, one of these: http://www.vincelewis.net/20shot.html

But I don't recommend it. Part of the negativity you hear from other respondents on this thread comes from the general experience of dealing with officers who care more about their attire and equipment than their job. Anyone who truly focuses on the duties of an officer during the civil war will find a sword to be as much personal ordnance as they wish to handle.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

This is copied from the original post so I cannot verify if this is true,
"According to J.B. Books this belt set belong to Col F.S.Bass, he enlisted as Captain and rose to the rank of Colonel in the 1st Texas Infantry (Hood's Brigade)"

Interesting photos Martyn. Well, I guess there's a potential case for one example. Thanks for posting them.

[john duffer]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

" As Mr. Goddard proves all the naysayers were dead wrong. "

If that's the criteria then I can prove jaguer pants were the norm .

[Silas]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

This thread, commenced on a slippery slope, has slid out of control. Before it slides further and bends too many more egos completely out of shape, control has been reasserted by closing the thread.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Spare Cylinders An Officer Might Carry?

Mr. Goddard,

Have a look here:

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?25283-Col.-Frederick-S.-Bass-1st-Texas-Infantry&highlight=Cylinder%2C+spare

This rig is, in fact, the exact one I was thinking of when I commented on "humped up fakes".

Like I said, I'm OK with being wrong. I just haven't seen anything convincing.

I'll confess to some "Admin's Privilege" here... I know the thread is locked, but I wanted to respond. I'm sure value-added discussion will continue once the thread is reopened.

Thanks!