How were BP revolvers shot back in the day?

I'd doubt the South had any training in the use of handguns, especially if you were cavalry... you were expected to know. That, and open-top Colts point great with a one-handed grip while you held the reins in the other.

There is actual documented evidence of the Texas Rangers practicing shooting their Paterson revolvers into posts while charging on horseback, and even from hiding behind their mount at a gallop (mimicking the Comanche's ability to fire back with arrows under the neck of their horses). This would have been back in the early 40's. Don't know if that is exactly what you would be looking for.

Well one thing they seemed to just know was to allow recoil to carry the gun up and then cock it again, when the gun was still up, so the spent cap fell away, and not into the action, like we do.

I don't think in many instances when horses were the name of the game you could use a weaver stance very well.

I have seen Civil War re-enactors fire pistols at so called targets (real men) at many to many yards away for these guns to have ever been effective, like well over 150 yards..

Even Hollywood has that down better when in dueling each man takes 10 paces.. 20 paces is pretty realistic. That might be 60 yards if a man takes a 3 foot pace, and unless the shooter is a real crack shot about the best joe average might expect to hit a man size target somewhere.

man takes 10 paces.. 20 paces is pretty realistic. That might be 60 yards if a man takes a 3 foot pace

Click to expand...

feet? lol had to sorry.

i like shootin 50ft b34 they are pretty fun. i can hit them from 350yds with my 22mag, but rifles an pistols are a bit different too lol

You could easily apply the current pistol gunfighting concepts and techniques (movement, sighted to point shooting continuum, etc) to Blackpowder weapons.

There was no official training with revolvers by either side in the civil war. Revolvers were only carried by officers, and officers were appointed by one of three ways: you spent the money to "raise" and arm a regiment; you were appointed by the person who raised the regiment; or you were appointed by the government, generally from the military academy or the ranks of regulars. Officers were expected to supply their own equipment, which included their own sword and firearm, and were expected to know what their duties and responsibilities were.

In the infantry, officers carried revolvers, but in the cavalry, the horse soldiers were equiped with sabres and revolvers.

The grip was simple...use one hand. Aim (novel concept). Press trigger. Remember, these are single-action percussion revolvers. Spray-and-pray wasn't even a theoretical possibility.

The guns are surprisingly accurate. My original Remingtons will handily outshoot most pistols sold today. IF you had the skill, the guns will put a bullet into a man-sized target at 150 yards or more. Smarter to hold your fire, of course.

I was shooting with a 7 1/2" barrel .22LR hogleg revolver the other day for fun, at my (not full-sized) buffalo gong target at 90-100 yards (laser measured). It wasn't hard to hit a one-foot circle.

Now these were hardly combat conditions, but I think people underestimate how accurately you can shoot a handgun that has a longer barrel.

I thought that ordinary soldiers on both sides were allowed to carry their own pistols in addition to the musket that was issued to them. This wasn't so?

Nineteenth century pistoleers (including soldiers) used a one-handed stance that was developed from dueling tradition. This can be seen in many paintings of the period, as well as contemporary reports. An observer of Hickok noted that he held the pistol one handed with a slight bend in the elbow and took deliberate aim. The two-handed hold, along with the drop loop Buscadero holster rig, were twentieth century inventions.
Individual soldiers could purchase their own pistols, and many were picked up off the field of battle. However, there are also reports of foot soldiers tossing their pistols away as they just became too cumbersome to carry on long marches.

trickshot and A. Walker,

Individual soldiers were allowed to carry their own pistols and at the beginning in 1861 most did. There was no regulation against it. It was almost a status thing to go away to war with your pistol in your belt. Lots of early photos you will see soldiers posing with their pistols as well. I believe in 1862 the US did make it regulation that officers only would carry their pistols but I'll have to double check that.

Almost from the get-go though they realized they were pretty much worthless for the type of combat they were in and became nothing more than deadweight. Linear warfare with .58 to .69 caliber muskets at 50-100 yards does not bode well for pistols. The men almost never got close enough to use them. By the time you are in pistol range you are also in bayonet range. Not good to be fumbling for a revolver when someone is bearing down on you full speed with 15 inches of cold steel at the end of their rifle.

By 1862, after one good campaign march most were sent back home, traded, sold or tossed to the side of the road along with any other dead weight the men started off carrying. You learn real quick doing 20 mile marches a day!

Another very interesting thing is that if you look at cavalry and officer's holsters from the period they are all for left hand draw (that is on the right hip, butt forward, to be drawn with the left hand). This is because your saber was your primary weapon, to be drawn and used with your right hand and your pistol was the back up secondary weapon. With only six shots you had NO chance to reload on horseback so your saber was primary and the pistol was only used in dire straights. At least that was how they proscribed it. Actual practice could be radically different. General Nathan Bedford Forrest was known to go into combat with his saber in his right hand, his pistol in his left and the reins of his mount gripped firmly between his teeth!

Weren't the guerillas also known as "pistolmen?"

Bloody Bill Anderson had seven pistols on his person when he was killed. Those who were not engaged in 100 yard linear battles found that rapid fire, shorter-range weapons worked well for them. Since reloading rapidly wasn't an option, multiple pistols had to suffice where modern soldiers carry multiple magazines.

The guerilla fighters did not use the prescribed saber cavalry tactics, and again AFAIK, actually did resemble Josey Wales in many ways.

Apart from their personal stories, one reason we find them intriguing is that they pioneered what are now standard military tactics, while their "regular" compatriots were still fighting like it was the 18th century.

Yes ArmedBear,

But guerillas are a whole different can of worms! That's why they are guerillas. I was just talking about the regular army and cav.

the saber was drawn cross side yes, but that just how it is. doesn't make it your primary weapon. you simply can't draw it on the strong side. during a charge you would have emptied your pistol, or pistols in the case of saddle guns, before you ever hit the enemy line.

I don't think he said that the strong side draw is what made the saber the primary weapon; I think he said that the primary cavalry weapon was the saber, and thus it was worn where it could be easily accessed, reversed on the weak side.

Cavalry tactics were established before pistols were considered military weapons; the pistol was adopted later and tactics modified to incorporate their use. In the limit, fully equipped cavalry carred a rifle, two revolvers and a saber; the rifle was a long range weapon (beyond 100 yards) before or just at the start of the charge, the revolvers were used at medium range (75 down to 25 yards) during the charge and then the saber was used close in. At least, that was the design. Circumstances resulted in many modifications to that.

I was reading either in "The Devil Rides a Horse" or a biography of N.B. Forrest or Quantrill that the there was no documented case of a guerilla cavalryman under one of the two leaders above that was ever killed by a Union saber because they all carried several loaded revolvers as their primary weapons. A few also sawed off shotguns for close range cavalry work. It sounds like to me the saber was used as a last resort after shooting all your guns dry. The movie "Ride With The Devil" is the most accurate portrayal of irregular CSA guerrilla fighters I have seen.

Another factor to consider was that many Americans were used to firearms, few were swordsmen. The natural tendency is to go with what you know, especially if you are fielding a scratch force.

exactly Hellgate, by the time the civil war began both pistols and pistol tactics were hundreds of years old. while tactics changed as well as range and effectiveness you still used all your ranged weapons before you ever get in close enough to pull the sword. thats just common sense. i admit though common sense and the military don't always go hand in hand.

1858rem I have no idea what you think you read, and or what you said..

My pace is about 3 feet when I am hiking, so if i backed up to a man like they do in a hollywood movie for a duel and too the paces and the other man did to. We would be about 60 yards away from each other.

If you got a black powder pistol you can hit anything with at 350 yards, you and the gun are very special.

I am not well versed in what Civil War Calvery may have had, but before this time from the French and Indian War, Rev War, and 1812, pairs of holsters for single shot pistols were saddle mounted. Sometime 4 pistols were mounted this way in addition to more in a horsemans belt AND sash, for a total of who knows.

G Washington became dismounted at a point and was soundly embarressed his horse ran right into the Brits who claimed these guns.

Who knows what guerilla cavalryman would carry. They were not regulars and didn't fight regulars very much.

Shooting remington, colts, and colt clone of that vintage 150 yards MIGHT get you a hit on a very good day. I might guess most shots that had any effect were at no more than 75 yards.. After all they shot little pea's of a ball..

One of the early lessons of the war was that the saber was pretty much worthless out of officer decorations and as a intimidation weapon. With pairs of sixguns and the repeating carbine they where pretty much just decorations is all.

At first, recruits were simply merged into existing units for what we would call "on job training." Later, the Army formed "camps of instruction" for basic training, including weapons training. For cavalry, that included training in the pistol (revolver) and saber, weapons some recruits had never seen, let alone used.

There were even unit competitions, with guns awarded as prizes. If in doubt, you can try to e-mail one James Ewell Brown Stuart, who departed this vale of tears after being shot by a Union trooper using his shooting prize Remington. The range was reportedly 30 feet.

Jim

In the American Civil War, artillery, massed rifle fire and disease were the primary killers. I think it is important to recognize these facts since they help us to recognize how little battlefield importance was attached to revolvers. Yes, revolvers were more of an asset to mounted troops since they proved more useful than sabers. But in the grand panorama of things, they did not play a great role in the conflict. With this in mind, I doubt either side provided handgun training beyond the basics of knowing how to load and maintain your pistol. I would be surprised to discover any sophisticated handgun training methods approaching those currently taught at places such as the Gunsite training facility.

Having said that, I do not wish to imply that men on both sides did not know how to use their revolvers effectively. But I do not believe those skills emerged from formalized training such as we think about it today. Rather, I tend to believe those skills were learned through individual effort. I hope these comments contribute to this interesting discussion.


Timthinker

Read "Sherman's Horsemen"

http://www.amazon.com/Shermans-Horsemen-Cavalry-Operations-Campaign/dp/0253329639

It is a great account of the Union cavalry raids during the Atlanta campaign, and backs up those who have said that the strength of cavalry is in repeating (or at least breech loading) carbines. According to this author cavalry fought best by moving quickly to a good position, dismounting, and pouring in fire w/ fast carbines.

--T