Historical question about cap and ball

[Flatlander55]

That makes sense. Heck, even with Iraq and Afghanistan, the technology advances are hard to fathom. Within two tours, ammunition was upgraded, uniforms changed, different materials for body armor, vehicles were beginning to be outfitted with mechanical firing devices, weapon optics updated, IR lasers for all, etc etc. That was just for regular Infantry platoons. Its dizzying how fast things change and how slow supply is to catch up despite their best efforts.

[llanerosolitario]

And somehow Europeans suddenly switched over in one felled swoop?    BS. I'm sure it was a gradual transition as well and perhaps even slower as they weren't conquering any frontiers full of hostile indigenous peoples within the boundaries of Europe then.

 the period between 1820-1871 was one of the most turbulent times in European History, with countries fighting  againts each other, in some times small , and sometimes brutal and total destruction wars that configurated the borders of Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, Austria .....such as we know them today (well, almost) plus the colony and imperial wars overseas..

 
That led to an arms race among the main european powers, specially France and Prussia with many  radical designs and experimentation, too many to mention here .

in short, changes were fast and  what was ok in 1865, by 1868 could be old fashioned.

 Cap and ball revolves were obsolete in Europe for military and civilian use in 1860 . The french tested the Lefaucheux in Crimea and adopted if for the Navy in 1856. The spanish did it 2 years later..labelling their army issue Adams type revolver, as "obsolete" in 1858.

 The great amount of surviving examples of Lefaucheux and rimfire, and later centerfire revolves, in the period of 1860-1870 proofs that they were very popular in Continental Europe, but not so in the Uk and the USA, were more powerful arms were very appreciated.


 so I think that the change was fast. As soon as there was a working design avaiable by a major manufacturer and money to buy it, everybody threw their cap and ball away and bought the metallic cartridge.

that was specially truth among army officers, who were involved, as I said, in continous fighting, be it againts native or european enemies, and  who  allways wanted the latest technology avaible. And lets remember that they had freedom, in many cases, to buy their personal revolver, as long as it met the caliber criteria.
.

anyway, I cant imagine an outlaw in 1871 in Kansas state, with a Tranter 1868 revolver. it would make a lot more sense that he was using a cap and ball, ready avaiable and probably cheap with caps and powder allways avaiable.

however, I can imagine a wealthy US  army  high rank officer  in 1870 with a Webley Bulldog revolver. Why not?

if you had the money, I am sure that you could buy the latest  centerfire revolver in 1869, for example,  coming from the UK in any good gun shop in  either San Francisco or Salt Lake city.

[Flatlander55]

I can see that. Another question, how were these cap and ball pistols shipped? It seems that the only things encountered are wooden boxed sets, but I have a hard time believing every pistol outside of the military (crates make sense here) had the handmade boxes. Factory letters can show date shipped, to whom and where, grades of finish, but not a whole lot more.

[Advertising]

[St. George]

Depended on the number being shipped, but most went to jobbers and they left Colt in crates.

After it got to the jobber, it was handed to the seller.

If it were mailed - a wooden box was made, the piece wrapped with paper and it was dropped into the mail - no logo, no 'papers', no tools - nothing remotely 'collectible' to pursue at all costs - just an ordinary box.

Incidentally - the boxes you're referring to are called 'cases' and were 'specifically' built to accommodate the weapon and its accouterments - and they came with both hinges and locks.

Scouts Out!

[cheatin charlie]

As far as our military going to cartridge arms before the Civil war The USA was pretty much on a tight budget ever since the Rev. War.
The only source of income was Tariff and excize taxes.  We have the Rev. war the 1812 war and the Mexican war to pay for.  Congress
back then did not spend money they did not have.  Also the Rollin White patent prevented anybody from using a bored thru cyl.  Look
at the pains Colt went thru trying to circumvent the patent, remember the Thur?  White had worked for Colt and offered the idea to
Colt but Colt turned the idea down.  So he left Colt and took his idea elsewhere.
     If Colt had not turned the idea down the military may have had cartridge pistols a lot earlier.  I believe the South could have ignored
White's patent but didn't have the equipment to manufacture cartridges or many arms.  That is my understanding of history, feel free
to correct me if I am wrong.   Charlie

[Flatlander55]

I have often wondered why the CSA manufacturers didn't ignore patents more. After all, during the American Civil War who was really going to travel down South to try and enforce patent regulations? That is like going past the 38th parallel and trying to sue North Korea for a patent violation. Nobody actually does it. I get that raw materials made manufacturing arms and the like difficult, but there is no way they were THAT helpless with manufacturing products for the Military and also civilian goods. After all, the South was incredibly wealthy even if it was the "99%".

Maybe I am way off but European arms and munitions importation can only go so far. So going from the "Old West" back to the Civil War, Confederate pistols and rifles produced domestically should have been comparable in quality, with maybe brass framed guns being slightly less robust, correct? Why not copy more? It seems like the perfect storm to ride out.The Griswold and similar pistols are a good representation of slight variations of proven designs,  but once again let's be honest with each other. Not EVERY single Southern church bell was melted down for the war as some claim and while steel and iron was clearly less available than in the North, no way no how was it a impossible to find item . Brass framed pistols weren't the only guns aside from captured handguns available to the South.

Was there ever any real honest patent lawsuit during the Civil War relating to weapons that was actually enforced during the war?

[Coffinmaker]

No Clue 

Coffinmaker

[St. George]

One big reason why the Army didn't use cartridge weapons is that there was a war going on...

The revolver cartridge wasn't in play - the large-bore rimfires were, in the shape of the Spencers and Henrys - but no reliable cartridge was available until 'after' the war.

The Confederacy was seriously limited in manufacturing capability - seriously - and patent infringement was far beyond their concerns, and beyond the concerns of the manufacturers, as well.

Suing everybody and their brother is a much more 'modern' thing.

Stop trying to overlay 'Woulda If They Coulda' and today's mores and practices on what went on over 100 years ago, and head to your local Public Library - talk to the Head Librarian, and delve into the stacks.

Self-Contained Cartridge history 'has' been written about - look it up - Confederate manufacturing capacities and limitations have been written about - look those up, too - but sitting and imagining with a nominally 21st Century mindset is 'not' going to give you the answers you seek.

Incidentally, iron 'was' quite readily available in the North - that's what all those weapons were made of, since steel wasn't being used at that time - that's one of the big reasons that the Federals won - they could manufacture more and faster that the Confederates - and they did so with a vengeance.

Confederate weapons' quality was what it was - the best they could do with the extremely limited resources they had - they had talented gunsmiths working for 'the Glorious Cause' - but when there's not enough of something, and no way to get any more - manufacturing suffered.

Battlefield capture and salvage was a great way for them to replenish supplies of all manner - including rolling stock and mules, but that only lasted a short while.

Remember that line John Wayne spoke in 'The Searchers'? when he told the young Cavalry Officer to turn around so he could recognize him, since that was the only way to 'know' if he was Federal Cavalry?

That changed, and quickly, and by mid-war, Federal Cavalry was an implacable killing machine - fighting a 'far' different war than all those Southern 'Cavaliers' - nothing could or would stop them - and didn't, until their hooves were bathed in seawater.

You can look 'that' up, as well.

As to the church bells -that only happened in Macon, Georgia - you can read about it.

Scouts Out!

[llanerosolitario]

commercial revolvers were sold in cardboard boxes like today. There many surviving examples. At least we can see several examples in "the GUNS of Remington", specially for small size revolvers.

a wooden case was an extra, I suppose.

military shipments, I suppose too, were probably different in presentation.

the paper of the cavalry and the use of the saber in The Civil war was overexagerated by the press, literature of the time, and by  Hollywood later. They played their part as explorers, in ambushes, in quick strikes doing deep penetrations  in enemy lines, in speedy destruction, etc,  but the Civil war was mainly an artillery and infantry war,  sometimes with fortified positions and sometimes with fast movement of troops too,  againts with the use of the cavalry was just suicidal.

as a matter of fact, infantry could very well stop them, as well as a group of selected sharpshooters. Not a retiring and almos defeated infantry on the run, of course , but  the napoleonic tactics, still used and employed during the beginning of the Civil war, had to be changed when the Minie rifle appeared on the battlefield.

but they played their important part when needed, specially whem mobility was important, but rarely facing face to face the trenched infantry where they would have no chances .




.

[Coffinmaker]

It's amazing to realize just how long it took some military strategists to realize Mounted Cavalry had been rendered obsolete by rapid firing infantry weapons and artillery.  Intelligence gathering, probing and rapid strikes behind major units was the only practical use of Mounted Cavalry in major conflict unless used for flanking exposed or disorganized troops on the move.  Against fixed positions supported by
artillery with canister shot, suicide.  After all, in that era, most field artillery pieces were really nothing more than really big shotguns, capable of throwing "slugs."  Rifled artillery changed all that.  As did the Gatling Gun.

Coffinmaker

[Jake C]

It's amazing to realize just how long it took some military strategists to realize Mounted Cavalry had been rendered obsolete by rapid firing infantry weapons and artillery.  Intelligence gathering, probing and rapid strikes behind major units was the only practical use of Mounted Cavalry in major conflict unless used for flanking exposed or disorganized troops on the move.  Against fixed positions supported by
artillery with canister shot, suicide.  After all, in that era, most field artillery pieces were really nothing more than really big shotguns, capable of throwing "slugs."  Rifled artillery changed all that.  As did the Gatling Gun.

Coffinmaker

Especially in Europe. It baffles me that the European powers going into WWI refused to learn the lesson that cavalry just could not survive on a modern battlefield, at least used in its traditional role. It's a fascinating time period to look at militarily, in regards to these powers trying to figure out what comes next after well over 3,000 years of horse mobility.

[St. George]

Remember - do 'not' evaluate any event or tactic or leader by using today's criteria.

Our wars are different.

When the Great War began, everyone honestly believed that it would only last a couple of months, at best.

There'd be plenty of time for saber-rattling and posturing, and guidons fluttering atop the Lancers and Uhlans' lance-tops (because no matter 'what' anyone says the Cavalry was 'the' outfit to serve with - still is...) - and every involved Nation's young men would have 'their war', and a few soldiers would, of course, have to die, but not 'too' awfully many, and while all of this was going on, the Heads of State would sort it all out.

Honest to God, that's what they thought.

Then, someone drug out the machinegun, and someone else stretched barbed wire...

************

If you want to 'really' hijack this thread, we can talk about the 'real' game-changer of the Civil War, instead - the Minie' Ball...

It's design and use opened up the battlefield, and quickly - making Artillery positions vulnerable, and Infantry, too - causing Artillery to move further rearward and Infantry to re-think the bayonet charge that would now go up against dug-in Infantry who possessed good shooting eyes. (and it's amazing just how good a shot one becomes when he actually hits his targets.)

Suddenly, the rifled musket on both sides became truly lethal, and men, gun crews and leaders died, because it opened the battlefield from a matter of yards to a matter of hundreds of yards - causing tactics to change forever.

Didn't affect Cavalry much - their real job by that time was reconnaissance, and they paid attention to who could see what.

It opened the field from a matter of yards to a matter of hundreds of yards - causing tactics to change forever.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[llanerosolitario]

in general the US Army did care a lot more about their soldiers´s life than the many classist and aristocratic armies of Europe, where   their men´s life was worth nothing.

[Fox Creek Kid]

[Flatlander55]

Are there any records of people before metallic cartridges preferring one caliber over another? If I was a not a very good person back in the day a .36 would be easier to conceal and holster, with a .31 also being handy but I'd find it hard not to feel under gunned without a .44. I suppose it was probably like the modern 9mm vs 45ACP argument. They both make you good and dead. Im having more questions the longer this goes on.

[Noz]

The feeling was that any size bullet in your opponent usually stopped the fight.
The 41s were feared because they were generally outside lube bullets and there lube carried all sorts of nasty stuff into the wound. They were also relatively underpowered so the nasty bullet generally stayed in the victim.

[Coffinmaker]

In those Halcyon days of yesteryear, we so fondly attempt to portray, Real men could make a piece of soap last 3 months and only own'd
two shirts.  A ball going through that cleanest dirty shirt was almost always lethal, regardless of size.  Ugh.

Coffinmaker

[llanerosolitario]

it depended on the enemy you were facing. And we should not forget that, at that time, people and army officers used conical bullets in most circunstances, while today, for recreational shooting, we use balls, which have far less stopping power.

the British army was about to adopt the 1851 Navy after sucessfully trying it in the Crimean War of 1854. However many british officers soon discovered that it lacked stopping power againts the most hostile muslim enemies they were facing in India, Africa and Afganistan, and most chose the ADAMS double action and Adams Beaumont instead, in the 54 and 44 calibers, which later would become ordnance weapons.

and yes, they used them with bullets mainly.

the Colt Navy 1851 was probably enough at that time for less corpulent  enemies like most native  (american) indians, and as I said before, most military users employed bullets, not balls, in their revolvers and war charges, as much as the cylinder chambers could cope with.

most civilians liked the 31/32 calibers in urban areas.

strange odd calibers were popular too...42, 41, 40´s.. in both the USA and Europe among many makers for the civilian market....after all, all you needed was a mold to get your balls or bullets...

Captain Walker wanted a big 44 and atonishing velocities to penetrate Mexican lancers steel corace at far away distances...to avoid close combat as much as possible.

the South remained loyal, with exceptions, as a general rule  to the 36..at a time when the US ARMY have opted for the 44.....




  

[Fox Creek Kid]

The feeling was that any size bullet in your opponent usually stopped the fight.
The 41s were feared because they were generally outside lube bullets and there lube carried all sorts of nasty stuff into the wound. They were also relatively underpowered so the nasty bullet generally stayed in the victim.

Outside lubed bullets made no difference as ANY projectile perforating the thorax would lead to fatal sepsis within a day or so in an age before antibiotics & modern trauma surgery. Of course, the bigger problem at hand is what your opponent does to you in the meantime. He may well die in agony within a few days after the fact, but kill you in the meantime. Then as now, it was quickly realized that handguns are not very good at stopping or killing people despite mythology to the contrary. The smart man took a rifle or a shotgun to a gunfight. Here's a classic account of a of .36 Navy failing (mortally):

... A typical damning report of the '51 Colt's lack of stopping power against the sepoys was related, second hand, by Lieutenant Colonel G. V. Fosbery.

"An officer, who especially prided himself in his pistol-shooting, was attacked by a stalwart mutineer armed with a heavy sword. The officer, unfortunately for himself, carried a Colt's Navy pistol of small caliber and fired a sharp-pointed bullet of sixty to the pound and a heavy charge of powder, its range being 600 yards, as I have frequently proved. This he proceeded to empty into the sepoy as soon as he advanced, but, having done so, he waited just one second too long to see the effect of his shooting, and was cloven to the teeth by his antagonist, who then dropped down and died beside him. My informant, who witnessed the affair, told me that five out of the six bullets had struck the sepoy close together in the chest, and all had passed through him and out of the back."

http://www.gunhistoryindia.com/2009/04/guns-of-indian-mutinee-first-war-of.html

[Jake C]

Sorry about the derailment all.