Civil War Revolvers - Myth vs Reality" - Peter Schiffers

[PJ Hardtack]

My copy of this new release by Peter Schiffers arrived yesterday, a worthy companion to his previous book "Civil War Carbines - Myth vs Reality". Check out my posting on "Frontier Iron".

Like his previous book, Schiffers is going to put some noses out of joint with his opinions and findings. Most of what we know about the pistols of the ACW era is from period "testimonials" and maker PR which need to be regarded with suspicion. Nothing new about that.

The shooting (conducted by a European master with BP revolvers) utilized historically correct bullets, powder charges and lubes. This means conical bullets as opposed to the more commonly used RB of today. He also used 1-1/2 g (closest granulation to the historic 'musket powder' used in the era) as opposed to the modern use of FFFg.

The guns were rated on accuracy, efficacy of loading, effects of fouling and even quality control of the samples tested.  His findings will surprise and even offend the biased opinions of some, as did his findings on ACW carbines. If your experience and opinions on these guns is solely based on modern repros, you may similarly be upset by his findings.

I won't give away the top rated three and the overall rankings, but based on my experience shooting cap & ball "Frontiersman" for the past few years, I tend to agree with his ratings overall.

[Mean Bob Mean]

I won't give away the top rated three and the overall rankings, but based on my experience shooting cap & ball "Frontiersman" for the past few years, I tend to agree with his ratings overall.

Spill it man

[Niederlander]

What he said.  I'm curious, and I probably won't buy the book.

[Advertising]

[1961MJS]

Spill it man

Plus 1, I have the money, but not the space.

Later

[PJ Hardtack]

Ain't gonna tell ya ..... the price of the book is not exorbitant and those truly interested in the arms of the era will be happy to acquire a copy.
I USED to loan out my copies of such books until I had to fight to get them back and then be appalled at the condition they were in upon return. I no longer do that.

I'm not about to regurgitate the many comments and points discussed in Schiffers's book. Taking things out of context rarely works and I think the work deserves to be evaluated in the whole.

You seldom see such a comprehensive effort at reproducing historical conditions, unlike most reviews of repro ACW weaponry. Not satisfied with modern repro bullets, he had several moulds made to original specs, as he did for his earlier book on ACW carbines. He had cartridges made for his Lefaucheux pin fire revolver and modified .32 S&W brass to accept a Flobert blank for the rimfire S&W No. 2 Army.
This latter revolver surprised him with it's 28 yard accuracy, the only distance at which it was fired. Despite it's efficacy for reloading compared to a cap & ball gun, he still regarded it as a "last ditch" weapon. Pity it was not offered in a more serious calibre.

With some revolvers, he was unable to get all the powder into chambers and seat the bullet using supposed historically correct loads without resorting to hammering in bullets or trimming them. Subsequently, velocities were lower than expected.

There are many excellent photos showing many soldiers wearing, posing with various revolvers, including several showing the wearing of regulation-type holsters with the butt facing rearwards. This suggests that they found the regulation butt forward position not as useful.

He also comments on the absence of cartridge pouches in most period photos. Reason - they tended to be worn on the back of the belt as it was unlikely that after firing his revolver empty, the soldier was unlikely to fumble with paper cartridges to reload and cap while under fire in combat. That would have been a real challenge on horseback.

[Mean Bob Mean]

Ain't gonna tell ya

Cool, tell me this though:

How many of each type did he fire?  Was it a single example?

[Drydock]

Well, I can see one problem right off:  Modern powder granulations are rated too coarse compared to actual 19th century grinds.  "Musket" powder roughly corresponds to 2f today.  Every Colt Foil cartridge I've examined used a grind between modern 3f and 4f.  Higher density loading.  NO ONE gets the velocity they got back then.  There's not enough emphasis on BP development, nor the industrial compitition nowadays.

Federal Cavalry was trained to fight dismounted.  Nobody reloaded on horseback DUH!  Even at Brandy Station, after the initial clash, everyone got off the horses and went to ground.

Did he use original style foil caps?  Or modern ones that are built too heavy?  Everyone gets that wrong, then draws the wrong conclusion from it. 

What kind of lube did he use?  Japan wax and whale oil reacts a LOT different than most any modern lube.

Every few years one of these studys comes out, and they get most of this wrong.  Then again, most of the conclusions we THINK  we know now are wrong anyways.  Ah well . . .

[Sean Thornton]

I would also be interested in how he made rim fire cartridges. Did he use the old way that Dixie Gun Works once used in that they had a brass case they would insert a .22 case with the bullet pulled and that case acting as the primer.

[Professor Marvel]

snippet can be seen at Civil War News
http://www.civilwarnews.com/reviews/2014br/may/revolvers-schiffers-br051411.html

184 page Book is available from our friends at TOTW
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/271/2/BOOK-CWR

"The percussion revolver was the first mass-produced and truly practical repeating handgun and was barely 25 years old when the American Civil War broke out. But how effective were they? Author Peter Schiffers shares his knowledge of years of research and loading and shooting original antique revolvers using period loads. Includes details of a variety of Civil War revolvers, ammunition and loading and shooting data."

"Chapters include:

The Remington New Model Army
The Colt M1851 Navy and M1860 Army
The Starr M1858 and 1863 Army
The Joslyn Navy
The Whitney Navy
The Allen & Wheelock Army
The Lefaucheux M1854
The Pettengill Army
Other revolvers purchased by the Ordnance Department
Privately owned revolvers
Appendices
Biography"

reading IS fun ...

yhs
prof marvel

[Bruce W Sims]

Not to pee in anyone's oatmeal, but personnally I LOVE research done well. One thing that I know,
however, is that short of building your own Time Machine, its almost impossible to duplicate conditions going back over a century. I remember some folks that wanted to do similar work on WW I ordinance and they had a deuce of a time trying
to get it right. Its just a sign of how far technology moves. Hell, I watched a program on ordinance from Vietnam and understand that it drew all sorts of flack. Of course, there is also a part of me that is not all that invested in the idea of identifying the single "best" weapon, or single "greatest" battle, so maybe I'm not the best person to comment.  Just sayin....

Best Wishes,

Bruce