Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L

Special Interests - Groups & Societies => The Barracks => Topic started by: Navy Shooter on November 15, 2012, 10:53:25 PM

Title: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Navy Shooter on November 15, 2012, 10:53:25 PM
I read on the internet http://civilwarhandgun.com/load.htm (http://civilwarhandgun.com/load.htm), that in loading revolvers, specific commands were given, and the soldiers would load their revolvers in sequence.  But I can't find anywhere that describes how they were fired. 

I also read that the holster would typically be on the right side, but the pistol would be butt forward. The pistol would be grabbed with the left hand, and then transferred to the right.  But I have no idea if this is correct, though I have seen photos where the pistols were butt forward.

But am also assuming that these things may have changed over time, may have varied from North to South (or South to North, depending on your personal history, I've got history on both sides), and may have varied depending on which part of the service you were in (infantry, cavalry, artillery...).

Also, is there any information on how shooting was taught on horseback?  Or what stance was taught for shooting (one hand, two hand, shoulders square to target, standing, prone, etc.)   I'm assuming that shooting stances have changed over time, and perhaps with the weights of the weapons.

So if anyone can shed light on this, I'd appreciate it.  Especially if there are military manuals on this, it would be great.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Frenchie on November 16, 2012, 12:34:58 AM
Yo, shipmate. Manuals I can't help with as I'm not aware of any. Those commands for loading and firing a revolver are quite naturally similar to the nine times or steps in loading and firing a rifle musket. Thanks for that link, by the way, it's interesting.

As for our comrades in the Army, the majority of handguns were carried by cavalrymen. As their main weapon was the sabre, which was carried on the left side and grasped and drawn with the right hand, they carried the pistol on the right side, butt forward so as to grasp and draw it left-handed. Infantrymen weren't issued revolvers, and would have tossed them into the bushes after the first day's march in any case. Artillery drivers, the only mounted men in light artillery batteries, were issued revolvers, theoretically for shooting wounded or panicked horses.

Officers of all branches were left to provide their own sidearms and carriage for same, which was often a sword (carried mainly as a badge of authority), and if they opted for the extra weight and encumbrance of a firearm, it was like as not a small pocket model such as the Colt Pocket Model of 1848 or 1849, or a Smith & Wesson .22 caliber. I've read the main purpose of the pistol was not as a short-range weapon of last resort, but to prevent a battlefield surgeon from lopping off an injured limb.  

Our shipmates used different, minimalist holsters, called "frogs". These only had to secure the revolver, not also protect it from the elements. These were worn on the right side, butt to the rear. If revolvers, cutlasses, pikes, etc. were issued to repel boarders, the belt, cartridge box and frog were sometimes not bothered with, as more pressing matters were usually at hand.

Now, nothing I've just said should be taken as being engraved in stone - one thing you can probably count on is that every one of the preceding "rules" was broken many times.

Training in shooting from horseback - I dunno (we need a "shrug" smiley). The most common shooting stance was one-handed, lateral (turned to the side) while standing erect. Of course, this was formal shooting or a dueling posture. In combat, you could expect to see just about anything, I suppose. I've drilled in repelling boarders while facing square to the rail, but I had a cutlass in my right hand and a revolver in my left.

Well, that's about all I can say with any real authority, and as I said, don't take it as Gospel. One of the cool things about reenacting the Navy is that you can get away with a wide variety of weapons and accoutrements, as long as they fit with the period and geographical area. Infantryman, on the other hand, is a breeze because you just do what you're told, it takes no thinking at all. ;D
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Books OToole on November 16, 2012, 09:36:11 AM

As for our comrades in the Army, the majority of handguns were carried by cavalrymen. As their main weapon was the sabre, which was carried on the left side and grasped and drawn with the right hand, they carried the pistol on the right side, butt forward so as to grasp and draw it left-handed.

 ;D

Actually from what I was told by my cavalry friends (I was Infantry), the left hand is only used for one thing:  The Reins.That makes the, butt forward holster on the right hip, a twist draw with the right hand. [By the time that revolvers were being used the swords were largely ignored.}


Books
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Sir Charles deMouton-Black on November 16, 2012, 10:01:25 AM
Military arts have a very old tradition;  I'm sure that the sergeants of Alexander the Great were teaching pike drill BY THE NUMBERS.

There are several very good reasons for this;
- Recruits come from varied backgrounds and must be thoroughly trained
- Soldiers MUST act together and in a predictible manner in battle
- Soldiers are scared and want to do the natural thing - GTFOOT - so they must be drilled and disciplined to act together and in a predictible manner
- Soldiers are tired and hungry and would rather sleep and/or eat - so they must be drilled and disciplined to act together and in a predictible manner

Virtually all military endeavors are taught BY THE NUMBERS so that they act together and in a predictible manner whether they are scared, tired, or hungry.  If they vary from their training the sergeants will scream at them, and the corporals beat them and the officers give a speach to motivate them.  All of which the soldier will regret so he must DO IT BY THE NUMBERS!

Whether each act was counted out, even silently would depend on what was going on at that particular time but the act would be done correctly as they were taught to do it - BY THE NUMBERS.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on November 16, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Sir Charles,

Here here! on the officer's lectures ... I would rather have a pummeling from a non-com than endure an officer's lecture!

TTFN,
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Frenchie on November 16, 2012, 10:38:46 AM
Actually from what I was told by my cavalry friends (I was Infantry), the left hand is only used for one thing:  The Reins.That makes the, butt forward holster on the right hip, a twist draw with the right hand. [By the time that revolvers were being used the swords were largely ignored.}


Books

True, my learned friend (how are ya, by the way?). I wanted to talk about that and other things, but I've been trying to reduce my tendency to go on and on and on... and it was getting very late as well. Besides, I knew anything I missed or glossed over would be picked up by you and the other gents.  :)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on November 16, 2012, 10:42:03 AM
Actually from what I was told by my cavalry friends (I was Infantry), the left hand is only used for one thing:  The Reins.That makes the, butt forward holster on the right hip, a twist draw with the right hand. [By the time that revolvers were being used the swords were largely ignored.}


Books

Bookes,

So much so that if I remember correctly, it was called the Cavalryman's draw?

TTFN,
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Trailrider on November 16, 2012, 10:59:14 AM
It is true that the cavalryman's saber was worn on the left side, and, naturally, drawn with the right. The pistol (revolvers were called "revolving pistols" was worn butt-forward on the right side, but NOT generally to be grasped with the left hand, as that hand was to hold the reins while mounted. There were several reasons for the style of holster positioning the gun butt-forward: the angle of the holster on the belt is more comfortable with the 7-1/2 - 8 inch barrels of the various revolvers in use (both Federal and Confederate).  The butt-forward carried permits drawing the gun with either hand, the twist or "cavalry" draw being the method most commonly used, especially while mounted. This style was carried forward from the time of the adoption of belt-worn guns (as opposed to pommel-mounted holsters generally used with Walker and Dragoon Colt's revolvers), and lasted until the adoption of the M1911 semi-automatic pistols. Of course, some officers and perhaps irregular enlisted might purchase their own guns, and adopted non-regulation carry (butt-rear) holsters.

Be cautious, however, about identifying the type of carry shown in some photos. Because the photographic processes of the times reverses the image, many subjects slid the holsters around to their left side, so the gun was butt-rear. After the photo was taken, the holster would appear to be butt-rear on the RIGHT side! (See "The Left-handed gun", Billy The Kid's photo, with his "left-handed" Winchester '73!)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: litl rooster on November 17, 2012, 07:43:15 AM
Actually from what I was told by my cavalry friends (I was Infantry), the left hand is only used for one thing:  The Reins.That makes the, butt forward holster on the right hip, a twist draw with the right hand. [By the time that revolvers were being used the swords were largely ignored.}


Books


In some circles it still is
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Navy Shooter on November 17, 2012, 09:52:56 AM
Yo, shipmate. Manuals I can't help with as I'm not aware of any. Those commands for loading and firing a revolver are quite naturally similar to the nine times or steps in loading and firing a rifle musket. Thanks for that link, by the way, it's interesting.

Thanks for your feedback Frenchie.  Also appreciate your sense of humor.  :)

I dug around on the internet some more, and found another manual, http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/library/books/carbine.cfm (http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/library/books/carbine.cfm). It's called "MANUAL OF ARMS FOR THE SHARPS RIFLE, COLT REVOLVER AND SWORDS (1861)
The Volunteer's Manual No. 1" 

A couple notes of interest:

It's got a lot of detail, I'll be digging into it.  Thanks again for your info.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: S. Quentin Quale, Esq. on November 17, 2012, 03:26:32 PM
I read on the internet http://civilwarhandgun.com/load.htm (http://civilwarhandgun.com/load.htm), that in loading revolvers, specific commands were given, and the soldiers would load their revolvers in sequence.  But I can't find anywhere that describes how they were fired. 

I also read that the holster would typically be on the right side, but the pistol would be butt forward. The pistol would be grabbed with the left hand, and then transferred to the right.  But I have no idea if this is correct, though I have seen photos where the pistols were butt forward.

But am also assuming that these things may have changed over time, may have varied from North to South (or South to North, depending on your personal history, I've got history on both sides), and may have varied depending on which part of the service you were in (infantry, cavalry, artillery...).

Also, is there any information on how shooting was taught on horseback?  Or what stance was taught for shooting (one hand, two hand, shoulders square to target, standing, prone, etc.)   I'm assuming that shooting stances have changed over time, and perhaps with the weights of the weapons.

So if anyone can shed light on this, I'd appreciate it.  Especially if there are military manuals on this, it would be great.

1.  I'm sure that soldiers of the day were trained to do things "by the numbers."  That's been the way of things since before the rise of Sparta.  I read the link and there are some errors in it.  I'll not address them generally as I'm short on time.  Remember, though, that while infantry fought in line formation and did things "by the numbers" cavalry did not.  They would maneuver and attack in a line formation but once the charge was complete it was a "melee" with each trooper engaging the enemy as they could.  If the charge was a saber charge I doubt pistols would have been drawn.  If it were a pistol charge then the weapon would have been fired dry and then the trooper would either withdraw to reload or draw his saber and carry on.  Reloading in the middle of melee was probably a "non-starter."

In some units troopers carried more than one pistol, obviating the need to reload.  It was also possible to carry a spare cylinder, making reloading a much simpler and quicker task.

While mounted you file the pistol either to the side or extend the arm straight forward.  This is so that you don't shoot your own horse in the head (which happened more than once, including to George Custer).  In the days of single shot "horse pistols" a line of troopers would ride towards a line of enemy infantry and, at a short distance, stop, turn left, discharge the pistol to the right, then retire to reload and do it again.  With a revolver, the troopers could empty their weapons and then either withdraw to reload or, if the infantry had broken, draw sabers and attack.

If you were engaging enemy cavalry you had an option to use the pistol or the saber.  During the ACW there were actually very few classic "cavalry fights."  Most cavalry on both sides functioned as "mounted infantry" (sometimes called "dragoons").  Prior to the widespread use of rifled muskets cavalry could engage infantry under the right circumstances, but once the infantryman could "reach out and touch" his opponent at 300-400 yards the smart cavalry officer declined the charge option and looked for some other way to engage the enemy.

2.  The holster did carry the pistol "butt forward" and might, at one time, have been because it was "blade in right hand and pistol in left."  But for a horse soldier it was "reins in left hand and weapon in right."  That weapon could be a blade, pistol, or even a lance.  Reloading on horseback would have been an interesting drill, but a good rider on a well trained horse could do it.  The Army carried the revolver butt forward through WWI.  IIRC a "butt rear" holster for the revolver was issued in 1942.  Some traditions die hard.   ;)

3.  Gunbreaking a horse is an interesting drill and there are many ways to do it effectively.  The best way I've found is to have a group of broke horses mixed with green horses and exercises are performed.  The greenies see the broke horses are not concerned and the calm spreads.  It's putting the horse's herd mentality to work for the rider.  Again, you fire to the side (ideally at 2-3 o'clock position when engaging to the off side).  When firing to the on-side (across the body) you'll be engaging in the 10-11 o'clock position.  Again, you NEVER fire over the horse's head.  If they raise their head at the wrong time you'll join the infantry the hard way!!!   ;D

Go to the U.S. Cavalry Association website http://www.uscavalry.org/ and click on "Photos."  There you will find both historical photos and a number from the modern National Cavalry Competition.

SQQ
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on November 17, 2012, 04:08:05 PM
Hi,

I forgot who made the comment about length of sword, but it brought back a memory .... I went to a military high school, and our platoon sergeant was so tall in my junior year that they could not find a sword long enough .... he cut the bottom of his right ear almost off ... and since I was in the front part of my company, I didn't know if it until we were given "Fall Out" and he passed out from lack of blood ....

But he was back at the school by that night ... and since we didn't have a dress parade (with swords) for a week, he took his place on the next Saturday pass-in-review complete with too short sword ...  but he never cut himself again ....
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: US Scout on November 18, 2012, 07:52:36 AM

  • There are only two paragraphs about swords.  How to carry one, and how to salute with one.  I suppose if you salute wrong with a sword, someone gets a nasty gash.



Many years ago when I was OCS, I was one of our officer candidate company officers, the adjutant to be exact.  Each Friday we held a parade, with the "officers" carrying swords.  Our company commander had a real problem finding his spot and usually ended up standing too close to me, who stood behind him on his left.  Several times my sword just missed him as it came up from the salute.  One day I felt a small tug as I brought the sword up but not seeing any obvious wounds didn't concern myself too much.  However, as we left the parade our commander referred to his watch, but as he swung his arm up the watch fell off.  I'd cut completely through the leather strap without leaving a mark on him.  From then on he always made sure he stood where he was supposed to.

US Scout
Brig Gen, GAF
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Pitspitr on November 18, 2012, 08:31:40 AM
From then on he always made sure he stood where he was supposed to.
I suppose some people just need a gentle...or not so gentle reminder of where to stand. If you have ever noticed the scar on my forhead you'll know why I never stand very close when someone is golfing. It's amazing what waking up in a puddle of your own blood does for one's caution....but I digress.  ::)

SQQ I really enjoyed your post. It never ceases to amaze me the lessons one learns when one actively "lives" history rather than just reads about it.

In respect to teaching by the numbers; in coaching it is said that during a game players will fall back to the level of their training, meaning that when the body starts running on addrineline you do things from the habits learned in practice, not what you know is best. When my Dad taught me to shoot he told me to take a deep breath and hold it before squeezing the trigger. Now I know I should exhale and I've been trying to form new habits, but yesterday after shooting my deer (with a M-1898 Springfield Krag-Jorgenson BTW) I realized I'd been holding my breath.  :-\
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: St. George on November 18, 2012, 09:54:03 AM
I might take a moment to point out that the Infantry didn't 'throw away their revolvers' - that'd be damned nearly impossible to throw away something that they weren't issued.

Infantry fought with their Rifle and Bayonet - the revolver and sword was carried by an Infantry officer, so he could better direct combat operations on the field without being encumbered. (For a contemporary view - see 'Gettysburg' and look at Chamberlain during the famed 'Bayonet Charge'.)

Cavalry fought with Carbine, Saber and Revolver - usually dismounted - and it was Confederate cavalry who were fond of multiple revolvers - not Federal Cavalry - the Federal trooper had a functioning supply system.

The revolver was holstered butt-forward on the right side to be drawn with the right hand - the saber on the left for the same reason - reins were held in the left.

Events at Yellow Tavern, Brandy Station, et al - were the free-wheeling, mad affairs of clashing horses and steel and revolver reports - but massed Cavalry engagements were, on the whole - somewhat rare, since Cavalry's role on that battlefield, as those that followed - was 'reconnaissance' - despite what J.E.B. Stuart thought it was at Gettysburg, since he thought it was about press coverage and was dead wrong.

Cavalry acted as the 'eyes and ears of the Commander' and patrolled, picketed, harassed and such - and being a Cavalryman was glamorous and exciting in the eyes of pretty much everyone - besides, it beat walking.

Infantry, on the other hand - wasn't glamorous, but it was sure effective, and made the Federals into a killing machine.

That small handbook is to train recruits in the Manual of Arms - it's not a 'Small Arms Firing Manual'.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!



Title: Cavalry Tactics
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on November 18, 2012, 10:11:58 AM
Hi,

My great grandfather was in the 2nd Fla Cavalry ... and from what I have read and researched, I have to agree wholeheartedly with St Charles.

For the most part, Cavalry was used for scouting and spying ... during a battle, at least on the Confederate side, they were more used as mounted infantry, being instructed to lay their horses down and use them as a cover to fire from ...

Also, Cavalry enlisted on both sides were not issued revolvers ... most were gotten as 'battlefeld donations'...

I wonder how many cavalryman became infantry because of those tactics ...

TTFN,

(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/WaddWatsonEllis/OSLHcemeterytour020.jpg)

Reenacting as my great grandfather during a Veteran's Day celebration at the old Sacramento Cemetery ...
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: S. Quentin Quale, Esq. on November 18, 2012, 11:30:06 AM
I would agree with the above except that in the American Cavalry the revolver was an issue item.  This, by the way, was a marked difference between American and European cavalry.  In Europe (with the possible exception of the Russia) revolvers were not issued below the NCO level.  Their primary weapons were the carbine, saber, and lance.

A difference between Union and Confederate Cavalry was often that the Union had an effective industrial base and supply system and the Confederacy did not. 

Another issue is likely the "lay your horse down and fight from behind it" thought.  This did happen, particularly if the the troopers got caught in open country.  But no cavalryman worth his salt wanted to lose his horse.  On the Confederate side they supplied their own mounts (and if the mount were lost in the line of duty they were either compensated or a new one was issued).  Most of the time, on both sides, if the troop dismounted the horses were linked together in threes and a fourth man retired behind the fight with the horses.

SQQ
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on November 18, 2012, 11:47:33 AM
Hi,

I did not divulge my sources because it was so long ago that I read them .... (heck, the could have been yesterday ... *S*).

I will research and give the particulars later ...

TTFN,
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Navy Shooter on November 20, 2012, 08:32:35 PM
Military arts have a very old tradition;  I'm sure that the sergeants of Alexander the Great were teaching pike drill BY THE NUMBERS...

Virtually all military endeavors are taught BY THE NUMBERS so that they act together and in a predictible manner whether they are scared, tired, or hungry.  If they vary from their training the sergeants will scream at them, and the corporals beat them and the officers give a speech to motivate them.  All of which the soldier will regret so he must DO IT BY THE NUMBERS!

Whether each act was counted out, even silently would depend on what was going on at that particular time but the act would be done correctly as they were taught to do it - BY THE NUMBERS.

Well, per your note above, they even loaded their revolvers BY THE NUMBERS.  Also, as per some notes above, the left hand was used almost exclusively for the reins, so that in the 'MANUAL OF ARMS FOR THE SHARPS RIFLE, COLT REVOLVER AND SWORDS (1861)', rather than referring to a cavalry soldiers left arm, the manual refers to their 'bridle-arm'.  They do mention in loading that they use both hands, which seems pretty necessary.   :)   However, they may have done things which seem contrary to what is commonly re-enacted. 

In part XLII of the manual, http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/library/books/carbine.cfm (http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/library/books/carbine.cfm) it states that 'The pistol should be worn on the left side, in front of the sabre-hook.'  To draw the pistol, the right hand was reached across to unbutton the 'pistol-case', and remove the revolver.  It sounds like it may be common in re-enacting to have the revolver on the right hand side.  If this manual was used in the Civil War, this may be an error in re-enacting.  I went through the motions they mention for loading, and having the revolver on the left side, with other items (caps and ammo) on the right, and it seems to be convenient.  It also means you don't have to awkwardly remove the revolver from the right side, with your right hand, if it is butt forward.

I'm guessing that this is the way they were taught, and for the most part, how they also used the revolver.  Just a thought.  And yeah, I'm guessing when they used other methods, they got a beating, and a speech...
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on November 20, 2012, 11:49:14 PM
Hi,

Although I find nothing about standard dismounted cavalry using the horses as shields, this paper is a nice summary of 'Civil War' Cavalry tactics ...

http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt_history/talks_text/starr_cavalry_tactics.html

TTFN,
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Navy Shooter on November 23, 2012, 11:55:27 PM
Hi,

Although I find nothing about standard dismounted cavalry using the horses as shields, this paper is a nice summary of 'Civil War' Cavalry tactics ...

http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/ccwrt_history/talks_text/starr_cavalry_tactics.html

TTFN,

That paper is an excellent source, thanks for sharing it.  A couple of items I picked up were that cavalry weren't all trained from the same sources, or to the same standard.  And that early in the war, training was really poor, especially in the North.  So some soldiers probably had the revolver on left or right sides.  But some also apparently had them in their right boot, which was easier to draw from.  Didn't see that in any official manuals...

I'll be spending a fair amount of time digesting this.


Thanks again for sharing,
Ron
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: S. Quentin Quale, Esq. on November 26, 2012, 09:40:54 PM
The paper is very interesting.  I've not been able to read the whole thing but, so far, no serious issues.

Regarding "laying a horse down" this was a commonly taught skill in the horse cavalry.  Here is a film clip from 1898 showing it done.  Note that the riders don't dismount first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvi5AmbwbzQ&feature=bf_prev&list=PL50qKkJcNMgB_aylLI8DmrvpwBc4HS9Tf

Here is a clip of a cavalry charge from a Ft. Myer training exercise in 1934.  It depicts both saber and pistol charges.  If you look carefully you can see the position for using the pistol while mounted and firing forward:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&list=PL50qKkJcNMgB_aylLI8DmrvpwBc4HS9Tf&feature=endscreen&v=HJodGw1Ybmo

There are two good commercial film cavalry charges that come to mind.  The first is in "They Came to Cordura" (set during the Punitive Expedition) and second, by far the best one ever filmed, is at the end of "The Lighthorsemen" (about the Australian Light Horse in Palestine during WWI).

SQQ
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 27, 2012, 12:55:04 AM
There are two good commercial film cavalry charges that come to mind.  The first is in "They Came to Cordura" (set during the Punitive Expedition) and second, by far the best one ever filmed, is at the end of "The Lighthorsemen" (about the Australian Light Horse in Palestine during WWI)

Interestingly, the Australian Light Horse weren't cavalry .... they were mounted infantry.  Repeated attacks on the Turkish positions at Bersheeba had failed that day, and the ALH were sent in as a last ditch effort.  As they approached the Turkish artillery held their fire, fully expecting them to dismount to attack on foot as was standard for mounted infantry.  At the range they would normally do that, they broke into a gallop and charged, managing to get in under the Turkish guns, which couldn't depress sufficiently to keep them under artillery fire.  

Not being cavalry, they had no swords.  They kept their Lee-Enfield rifles slung, and drew their pattern 1907 bayonets to use in lieu of swords.

Photograph purported to be of the actual ALH charge at Bersheeba, but generally accepted as being a "re-enactment" done the next day -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/WWI/beersheba.jpg)

Detail from the photograph -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/WWI/charge_beersheba.jpg)

Here is the depiction of the charge in the movie "The Lighthorsemen":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvjE3h0Ahz8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvjE3h0Ahz8)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: S. Quentin Quale, Esq. on November 27, 2012, 08:04:34 AM
Good pictures, Jack!

In the second photo is one of those horses riderless?

"The Lighthorsemen" gets my top rating of GFF.  My lowest rating is SUX.  I've never developed a middle one.   :-\

SQQ
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 27, 2012, 02:49:38 PM
In the second photo is one of those horses riderless?

Almost appears riderless, but I think the rider may be leaning forward on the far side of the horse's neck ..... 

Mind you, if they wanted any "re-enactment" photos to look authentic, they should have sent in some horses without riders, as there certainly were Australian casualties from Turkish fire.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: S. Quentin Quale, Esq. on November 27, 2012, 03:21:26 PM
Almost appears riderless, but I think the rider may be leaning forward on the far side of the horse's neck ..... 

Mind you, if they wanted any "re-enactment" photos to look authentic, they should have sent in some horses without riders, as there certainly were Australian casualties from Turkish fire.

Looking at the photo again you could be right.  There is something that could be a foot visible on the off side and something else I can't identify near the nose.  Could it be a trooper who lost his seat at a real, embarrassing moment?!?!?!   ;)

Given the sensitivity of the time on casualties, I'd not think they would include riderless horses for "realism."  The casualty lists would be real enough.

If you want to spend a few hours looking at some very interesting historical "newsreels" to to http://www.britishpathe.com/

SQQ
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on November 28, 2012, 11:18:14 AM
"Up the Light Horse!" Far and away one of the most exciting charges ever filmed. Next up would be from the more recently released "War Horse". Charging into a fixed position with entrenched machineguns and riflemen is brave to the point of being foolhardy - which is why we admire it so.

As for a re-enactment being filmed the next day, I doubt that the men and less likely the horses would have been up to that. The march had been gruelling for both and I believe that the charge was a calculated gamble. Had it failed, the Aussies would have been shooting a lot of horses they couldn't water.

Mounted Infantry made a lot of sense compared to strictly Cavalry. The Brits made good use of them in their Colonial wars and the tradition was carried on with the formation of the NWMP.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Sir Charles deMouton-Black on November 28, 2012, 12:07:02 PM
Most of the Canadian-raised forces for the Anglo-Boer War were also Light Horsemen.  Afterwards there were many militia units that patterned themselves on the light horse concept.  Most of them felt the pull of becoming cavalry.  In WW I while Canada did field a cavalry brigade that searved mostly in Imperial formations, the light horse units, as such fell by the wayside. Instead Canada was a pioneer in armoured warfare by creating the 1st Canadian Motor Machine Gun Brigade as early as August 24, 1914, which modernized the concept of mobile firepower.  By the end of WW I Canadians were training on tanks, Three battalions of them, but but the war ended before they were deployed. (2d Canadian Tank Battalion included 226 Mounties among its trainees.)

Of course, the light horse units merely re-created the old idea of dragoons.  It made sense to employ light horse in the Middle East where most of the Aussies served. There is still a light horse association quite active downunder.

In Canada's current regular army two armoured regiments were once light horse;

Lord Strathcona's Horse (LdSH) This unit served in Buller's column under LCol Sam Steele. They were somewhere between light horse and cavalry.
The Royal Canadian Dragoons (RCD) went to S. Africa as the Canadian Mounted Rifles, then elected to becoming dragoons.

My son's Canadian militia unit was the South Alberta Light Horse (SALH) now roled as armoured reconaissance.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 28, 2012, 12:44:43 PM
(I fear we are diverting this thread widely from the original topic ..... but, what the heck, that's how discussions tend to go ....  ;) )

I write from Medicine Hat, Alberta, the home of the South Alberta Light Horse mentioned by Sir Charles .... which perpetuates one of Canada's earliest such units, an irregular provisional "cowboy mounted infantry" raised for Canada's 1885 North West Rebellion - namely, the original Rocky Mountain Rangers (no connection with the present-day militia infantry unit of the same name) after which our local CAS shooting club is proudly named.

Recognizing that the day of such highly mobile units had arrived, immediately following the short-lived Rebellion Canada established a "School of Mounted Infantry" component of its very small "full-time" Permanent Militia force, headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  One of my favourite "period photographs" is this delightful (albeit just a wee bit silly) studio shot of an officer, sergeant, trooper and bugler of that newly-formed unit, kitted out in winter gear -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Canadian%20military/schmtd2.jpg)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 28, 2012, 01:32:39 PM
Further to Sir Charles' post, I should perhaps add that the similar units raised by Canada for the Boer War were dubbed "Mounted Rifles" (rather than "Light Horse") .....

My current Grand Army of the Frontier "Era of Expansion" (and "Wild Bunch") uniform is based on that of the Canadian Mounted rifles sent to South Africa -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/GAF/2011%20Muster/2011_02.jpg)
(..... this over-fed old fart might well be accused of being bigger - or weighing more - than a 'light horse' ....  ;) )

The above uniform is khaki drill (cotton) for hot weather wear, but I am currently researching period photos for the purpose of having a cold weather CMR khaki wool serge uniform made -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Boer%20War/2CMR_med.jpg) (http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Boer%20War/boerwar_detail.jpg) (http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Boer%20War/1970-132-3_detail.jpg)

By simply switching my badging, these uniforms can do double duty for a South African Constabulary impression.  This force was organized at the request (and under the over-all command) of Colonel Robert Baden-Powell by NWMP Superintendent Sam Steele, who had taken leave of absence from the Mounted Police to command Strathcona's Horse in South Africa, and then remained to set up and lead the SAC.  Many men of the Canadian Mounted Rifles regiments re-enlisted in the SAC rather than returning to Canada right away.  The SAC was organized very much along the lines of the NWMP and its uniform was based on that worn by the Canadian Mounted Rifles, including the peaked stetson hat - much admired as practical and durable headgear by Bade-Powell, who also adopted it for the Boy Scouts he created .....
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 28, 2012, 02:02:56 PM
By way of atonement for being largely responsible for the topic drift in this thread ....  ;)

Interestingly, this "Volunteer's Manual" published in 1861 contains an unofficial manual of arms by a Captain Johnson, U.S. Army, which directs that:  "The pistol should be worn on the left side, in front of the sabre-hook" .... which has always struck me as more practical (although admittedly rather unbalanced, weight-wise ....)

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Colts/ColtsRevolver01.jpg)

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Colts/ColtsRevolver02.jpg)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on November 28, 2012, 06:31:47 PM
Damn it, Grant - write a book; a compilation of all the wonderful and detailed postings you've made over the years on this and other forums.
You're always a well spring of factual, documented material, a long established 'go to' source of detailed, historical minutiae.

And I'm looking forward to kicking your butt in any match where we can shoot together ..... ;>)  Loser buys dinner, even tho' I owe you one.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 28, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
As for a re-enactment being filmed the next day, I doubt that the men and less likely the horses would have been up to that. The march had been gruelling for both and I believe that the charge was a calculated gamble. Had it failed, the Aussies would have been shooting a lot of horses they couldn't water.

You are correct Todd!  (Of course ....    ;)  )

I don't know where I got that "next day" thing ..... turns out, when I check the facts, that these photographs purporting to depict the October 1917 charge were apparently taken during a "photo-op" re-staging in February of 1918!
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 28, 2012, 07:27:06 PM
.... And I'm looking forward to kicking your butt in any match where we can shoot together ..... ;>)  Loser buys dinner, even tho' I owe you one.

Todd ..... Yeah, you do!  ;)

At any rate, when you kick my butt, i'll do my best to ensure that it is a tolerably well-dressed one!   ;D
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Sir Charles deMouton-Black on November 28, 2012, 08:15:44 PM
Todd ..... Yeah, you do!  ;)

At any rate, when you kick my butt, i'll do my best to ensure that it is a tolerably well-dressed one!   ;D

Including your "Oliver equipment" belt.  At least that is what I see in your photos of CMR troopers.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 28, 2012, 08:52:18 PM
Including your "Oliver equipment" belt.  At least that is what I see in your photos of CMR troopers.
Yes ..... that is what you see .... and also what you were seeing in the photo of me ( :)  ) though it was likely not apparent with the rifle concealing the buckle area ....
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/GAF/2011%20Muster/2011_03.jpg)

Here is the belt I made, set up for shooting with the 1911 -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Canadian%20military%20firearms/CDN%20Pistols%20and%20Holsters/wildbunchrig_med-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on November 29, 2012, 05:13:42 PM
How would you guys rate the charge in "Lawrence of Arabia" to that of the "Light Horse"? There was an awful lot of similarity and I wonder if one didn't feed off t'other.

As for the Aussies riding under the Turkish guns, their Deutscher Offizier instructor hadn't expected to deal with such a charge or he would have had the gun crews elevate the trails of their guns for a point blank canister volley. Tactically, the audacity of the Aussies carried the day.

"L'audace, toujours l'audace" - Patton quoting Napoleon or one of his cavalry officers.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Tascosa Joe on November 30, 2012, 09:00:34 AM
I attended the Sergeants Major Academy back in the early 90's and I was assigned to do a paper on the battle at Beersheba.  After the battle many of the Mauser Rifles picked up on the battlefield had their sights set at 300-400 yards.  The Light Horse moved so fast the Turks did not have time to lower their sights and consistantly shot over the the ALH.  The ALH had suprisingly few casualties considering all the factors of the battle.  The battle was almost pointless because the wells did not have a high enough flow to support the troops and horses. 
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on November 30, 2012, 10:50:51 AM
So I suppose that resulted in a lot of horses being shot. Pity.

A lesson must have been learned because WW II era howitzers and small field guns (American 105mm, British 25 Pounder, and their German equivalents) were capable of point blank anti-tank fire.
Even the massive German 88mm had this capability and was most effective in the anti-tank role.

As for the Turkish riflemen, putting their sights to 'battle sight' and aiming for the horses would have been effective, especially in volley fire.

Ain't it great being an armchair general and battle tactician?
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on November 30, 2012, 11:04:29 AM
Hi,

Although this seems to be a mostly Brit/Canadian thread now, I thought I might add a few of my pictures from Veteran's Day ..

(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/WaddWatsonEllis/OSLHcemeterytour020.jpg)

(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/WaddWatsonEllis/OSLHcemeterytour019.jpg)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on November 30, 2012, 06:35:02 PM
Do I hear the strains of "The Bonnie Blue Flag"?

I have the honour to serve on the staff of Colonel Stewart Marshall, Her Majesty's Observer attached to the Confederate Brigade of the Washington State Civil War Association.

On occasion, the Colonel and I show off his 1862 pattern Gatling Gun at events. The Blue Bellies would dearly love to abscond with it, but it is kept well regarded. The gun is patterned after one the Colonel photographed and measured at the Imperial War Museum.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 30, 2012, 07:42:12 PM
Since P.J. is being modest (or more likely is too technologically challenged to post images) here he is as Sergeant McMurphy, Royal Engineers, with the Colonel and his Gatling, photographed with (I believe) the Commander of the Confederate Brigade of the W.S.C.W.A. -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Guns%20Misc/Gatling%20Gun/Gat_Ferndalecopy.jpg)

The Gatling itself -

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Guns%20Misc/Gatling%20Gun/Gatling017_sm.jpg)

Colonel Marshall firing his Gatling -

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Guns%20Misc/Gatling%20Gun/StewartMarshallwithGatling_sm.jpg)
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: pony express on November 30, 2012, 11:09:44 PM
Rattlesnake Jack, you need to invite the Colonel (and his Gatling)to the next Muster!
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: RattlesnakeJack on November 30, 2012, 11:53:57 PM
Stewart's Gatling isn't the easiest of things to transport, and I understand the Colonel has so far limited himself to hauling it to events in the Pacific Northwest .....

However, I've been working on P.J. to join GAF and start coming to Musters ..... and if that works out, perhaps the two of us might prevail upon him ......

Alternatively, maybe a Muster in the Pacific Northwest?

By the way. this Gatling is a true Model 1862 - i.e. the hopper holds "firing chambers", each with a percussion cap on a nipple at the rear, rather than "newfangled" self-contained metallic cartridges -

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Guns%20Misc/Gatling%20Gun/n_a1.jpg)

The Colonel must individually machine each chamber and fit a nipple to it ..... not quite as easy as buying a bunch of .45-70 brass to load!
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Pitspitr on December 01, 2012, 08:11:17 AM
Alternatively, maybe a Muster in the Pacific Northwest?

I'd be up for that. It would mean we'd have to get a strong enough GAF presence in that area to want to host, but that would be great. Hopefully GAF can grow to the point where all of the different Departments will eventually host the Grand Muster.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: pony express on December 01, 2012, 08:16:37 AM

By the way. this Gatling is a true Model 1862 - i.e. the hopper holds "firing chambers", each with a percussion cap on a nipple at the rear, rather than "newfangled" self-contained metallic cartridges -

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Guns%20Misc/Gatling%20Gun/n_a1.jpg)

The Colonel must individually machine each chamber and fit a nipple to it ..... not quite as easy as buying a bunch of .45-70 brass to load!

Hmmmm.... The ultimate in C&B revolvers!!
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on December 01, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
Thanks for posting those pics, Grant. You were right, it was beyond my meagre techno skills which are limited to 'on' and 'off'.

While it is true that Colonel Stewart did his own casting (he restores antique marine steam engines for a living) and machining, he farmed out the chamber inserts to a shop that does CNC machining. They cranked out 100 for him in a fraction of the time it would have taken him on his overhead leather belt-driven lathe.
Each could hold an Enfield .577 cartridge, blank or ball round. He didn't rifle the barrels as he saw no need for blank firing. He also purchased the wheels from a wheelwright. He did all the blacksmithing hardware for the carriage and limber.

It is a thing of beauty and roars like a lion! It is classified as a non-machinegun by the BATF due to it's pre-brass cartridge case design. Wal*Mart doesn't sell ammo for it.

He has on hand the castings for a second gun and has refined the innards to eliminate a couple of minor mechanical faults. It would make a splendid acquisition for a re-enactment group, museum or living room conversation piece. All you need are deep pockets and an indulgent spouse .....
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on December 01, 2012, 11:11:17 AM
Since P.J. is being modest (or more likely is too technologically challenged to post images) here he is as Sergeant McMurphy, Royal Engineers, with the Colonel and his Gatling, photographed with (I believe) the Commander of the Confederate Brigade of the W.S.C.W.A. -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Guns%20Misc/Gatling%20Gun/Gat_Ferndalecopy.jpg)

Colonel Marshall firing his Gatling -

(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Guns%20Misc/Gatling%20Gun/StewartMarshallwithGatling_sm.jpg)

PJ Hartack,

I am just getting my stuff togetheher .... I portray my Maternal great-grandfather, Watt Watson Ellis, who actually served with the 2nd FLa Cav from 1862-65. The Fla Cavalry did have some Maynards issued to them, .35 Calibers not .50 like mine (I had already had mine on order when I found out about the .35Calibers) ...

(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab107/WaddWatsonEllis/OSLHcemeterytour019.jpg)

In fact, the Veteran's day tour marked the first time I ever turned out in my Confederate uniform .... complete wth SWAT intervention ... but that is another story for another day ....*S*
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on December 01, 2012, 01:33:35 PM
"... SWAT intervention ..." you say. Pray, do tell .... We've run away with this thread already.

Sounds like a typical 'man-with-a-gun' over reaction.  It's no longer safe for Canadian kids to play outdoors with cap guns or BB guns.
It can and has resulted in armed takedowns, as witnessed by an incident involving the son of neighbours. He was playing with a 'Star Wars' plastic pistol and was taken down at gun point - AFTER he had left the gun at home and was walking to the corner store.

'The War On Terror' has given Big Brother licence to criminalize lawful gun owners. Osama won.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: WaddWatsonEllis on December 01, 2012, 05:26:27 PM
PJ Hardtack,

It was almost like that ... I live right across from Marcy General''s backside and 'smoking area'.  Since I no longer own a car, I was catching a ride with another docent to be a Confederate presence in our old cemetery in Sacramento ....

Now I know about the 'two locks' rule for California for transporting weapons ... and it was my fault that I carried my weapons in the car ... we were only traveling about 20 blocks, right?

The nest thing I know is that five or six police cars with all the lights blazing go past us, all going the other way ... then the driver, in her black 1860s mourning outfit says, "I think they want me to pull over' ...

The next thing I know is that we are pulling to the curb, and a loudspeaker behind us blared, 'Put your hands in the air"

I chanced a glance around and saw the pointy end of all these Glocks pointed at my head .. not a good thing ...

The next command I heard through the loudspeaker was "Driver, don't turn around and walk towards my voice!"

It was like a re-run of Cops but I was not behind the camera! A totally new way of looking at it ..

Then I received the command Passenger,'Get out of the car!'

I replied with more bravado than i felt "I can either get out of the car or hold my hands up ... which do you want?"

They let me get out of the car, and once they saw that I had no live ammo, things started decrease in testosterone several levels...

It turns out that when they got the message, I was (supposedly) roaming the parking lot, making aggressive movements ... which was patently untrue ... I think it was like that '60s parlor game where one is given a detailed  statement and is required to write  down what they remembered ...  by the sixth or so writing it is nothing like what was given ....

The funny thing is that I used to work at Mercy General.

It is a funny anecdote now but it could have been much different .... say if I was of a different race and the car was a bondo-ed 65 Chevy and not a newer Mercedes ....

All I could think of at the time was that I didn't want to be any accident!

Moral of this story; Put the weapons in the trunk ,,, even if the trip is a couple of hundred feet !
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on December 01, 2012, 06:39:40 PM
Yeah, and the world is a safer and better place for all this, right? We have the same laws re: transport - trigger lock and a lockable gun case out of sight. But, that only applies if the gun is left unattended. You can hunt with it in the cab beside you.

Americans have used to laugh at us and our long gun registry, but we lobbied and got that rescinded (except for Quebec, and who cares about that?), but the US is becoming more of a police state all the time.

Obama is embracing the UN policy on small arms, so doesn't have to enact any US laws. As a signatory nation, it will be a done deal and the hammer will drop. It will be a real loyalty test for police and the military.
Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: Steel Horse Bailey on December 08, 2012, 03:25:23 AM
And this post was SO nice, what with great pictures of an outstanding Gatling gun and uniformed men!  Then, the real world and Liberal politics barged in.

WWE, PJ and all - no matter what country, it's so tiresome knowing that patriotic gents such as yourselves, Rattlesnake Jack and others;  law-abiding citizens ALL and of your  chosen country (ries) get harassed by the police, while so many criminals and illegals (yes, I meant to be repetitiously redundant) skate from "doing real time" for their crimes for stoopid technicalities, and yes - even amnesties!  All for the vote to keep certain people in "power," because THEY know what's best for you and YOUR protection, not you.  It's like legislating morality.  And it seems to be disappearing at a VERY fast rate.  Soon, "they" will decide that the voting is no longer important, since the average person's vote doesn't count for much anyway.   (On the other hand, so many who say "I don't vote because my vote doesn't count" have made that statement absolutely true.  Of course it doesn't count - they were too lazy to get off their dead ass and actually VOTE!)

"...Roaming the parking lot, making aggressive movements," my ass!  Breathing is now an aggressive movement?!!  I'm SURE that folks like you (the REAL Patriots, Constitution & Amendments believers) in the formerly wonderful areas you inhabit, like Kalifornia, Kanada, Australia, Britain - to name a few, ALWAYS dress up as Military men and go running through school areas, hospital parking lots, and other public areas waving various edged and projectile-firing weapons to call attention to yourselves!

Yeah, right!

I'll stop ranting and step down from my soapbox now.

Our freedoms are dying, and it's no longer such a slow death.

Shame ...

Title: Re: Revolver firing in the Civil War
Post by: PJ Hardtack on December 08, 2012, 11:15:57 AM
My pal's Gatling is deemed a 'machinegun' in Canada, despite the fact that it only fires single rounds incrementally. That's the power of the RCMP. Gats were used by General Middleton at Batoche against the Metis and the RCMP has never forgotten it.

They arbitrarily decide what guns we can own based on colour, calibre, mag capacity, stock design, etc. Think I'm kidding? Sign up on the Canadian Firearms Digest like a lot of other Americans. You'll learn what's going on in the US, Canada and the rest of the world re: 'Gun control' measures. If it doesn't alarm you, you've already lost.
Rifles chambered for the .50 BMG can only be fired on 'approved ranges'. Guess how many are so approved. But - you can fire your Barrett .338 Lapua on virtually any range, or in the boonies. Same for FN FAL variants which differ only from my Garand in mag capacity and calibre. Why? Because you don't have to be Carbine Williams to convert it to full auto. Or any other semi-auto for that matter.

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get us .... ;>)  and our guns.

You have classes of firearms ownership as well. How many guys do you know who hold class 3 firearms licences to own 'destructive devices' or full autos? Look at the state of California's gun laws. Remember when they banned guns that held 10 rds or more? That meant Winchester and Marlin lever action guns  as well. SASS went to bat over that.

Your gun laws and ours are based on the 1938 Nazi gun laws. Get a copy of "Gun Control" by Aaron Zelman from the office of the JPFO - Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They do more for your 2nd amendment rights than the NRA.