SABER vs PISTOL in the US Civil War CAVALRY

US Civil War cavalry used both the revolver and saber, with different exponents of both. Here we look at an awesome source from a veteran of that war: www.google.co.uk/books/editio... Volunteer Cavalry
The Lessons of the Decade
By Frederick Whittaker · 1871
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
www.pinterest.co.uk/matt_east...
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-swords.co.uk
#saber #civilwar #history

[@coldwarrior78]

A point many forget is that American cavalry is often equipped and used as dragoons. This ticked off many pure cavalry guys. Look at Buford's cavalry at Gettysburg. Armed with accurate, fast firing carbines, they slowed the Confederate advance well outnumbered and set up the battle we know today. Much to the chagrin of those who espoused European styled cavalry, the frontier cav regiments were armed with short rifles, capable of 300 yd accuracy. Like it or not, they were dragoons.

[@gregdodd4729]

A revolver and a cavalry carbine seems to have been a popular option.

[@m0nkEz]

This was what I was thinking the whole time. Sure, a sword is probably handier in a charge, but the reality of warfare of the day is that charging infantry was suicidal. Even with rifled muskets, they could get off at least one or two *accurate* volleys before you're even in range with your revolver. If they had breach-loading or repeating rifles? Don't even think about it. That's not to say that cavalry wasn't useful, but the charge was obsolete outside of very niche circumstances.

[@theamericancristero7390]

​@@m0nkEz charging prepared infantry from the front has never been a good idea. Why else would the square be all but impervious?

[@oldschooljeremy8124]

And in the case of many irregular cavalry, shotguns.

[@seriousmaran9414]

Gradually after the battle of Waterloo the cavalry were used less, especially as machine guns became more prevalent. That meant during the ACW the cavalry became more mounted guns. Due to sheer numbers of recruits arranging training with swords would become more difficult.

[@billpark8988]

Remember, Churchill himself had to use his Mauser pistol to fight when his sword arm was injured. Almost any weapon is better than no weapon at all.

[@starytruten4389]

Mauser pistol was much better weapon, than any cap & ball revolver...

[@andrewstraub131]

That was simply a case of having a absolutely the best weapon of the time at hand …the simple fact that it is ranged means you won’t be poked by a dervish with a pointy stick

[@gregedmand9939]

The best weapon to have, is whatever will save your hide in a moment of crisis. In the melee of a cavalry action between swirling troops of Hampton's men fighting Custer's, often a shotgun was the preferred weapon of choice. The pistol and sabre were tools of last resort.

[@egm01egm]

Are you kidding? You are calling the high-end luxury weapon as "almost any weapon" etc, seriously?

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

The psychology/morale point is fascinating. A silent bomb is more deadly than a whistling one, and yet whistling ones were made.

[@DogWalkerBill]

In WWI, Zeppelin's terrorized London, but Gotha bombers were more deadly.

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

@@DogWalkerBill The Junkers JU-87 also had sirens ('Jericho Trumpets') fitted to terrify the enemy. They would have made the aircraft easier to detect and avoid but the Germans valued the demoralizing effect over lethality.

[@ElkaPME]

I mean, making the enemy fear you would mean you save your resources on more important battles at hand. Forcing the enemy to surrender with terror would ease your logistics when done right

[@beafraidofinsectattack]

Once the enemy gets used to it you can use it to fake bombing runs yes? ​@@nathanaelsmith3553

[@nevisstkitts8264]

28:28 the best back-up to the six round revolver was another six round revolver. Mosby's men carried at least two in saddle holsters and two in their boots. Some carried additional revolvers. In order to ride with Mosby, a man had to demonstrate excellent pistol handling, marksmanship, and horsemanship to the entire unit.

[@MichaelCorryFilms]

Hey Matt! It's likely I am too late but you May want to read Phillip Sheridan's account during 1870. Sheridan was one of the best Union Cavalryman. He was in Europe during the Franco-prussian war as a foreign observer and advisor. He wrote a lot about his observations during the war and compared European warfare versus in America especially insights into Cavalry operations.

[@dustincarner6675]

A trick to not having issues shooting your 1851 Navy is to raise it when you cock the hammer back and the spent cap doesnt get stuck in the action. Also Nathan Bedford Forrest is one general who sharpened both sides of his saber and killed multiple Union soldiers throughout the war with it. Southerners were more fond of swords early in the war than Northerners. Largely due to the culture of dueling still present in the American South.

[@coleparker]

You beat me too my comment about the pistol. I have both the Colt and an Ruger Steel Cap and Ball which as you know is based on the Remington Model. Also when shooting the Remington models, because of their top frames, the loss of caps is greatly reduced

[@johnmoore8067]

The original percussion caps in the 1800s used thicker metal than the ones you can get now. The original hammer springs were stronger. Today with reproduction guns and modern caps you get more jams. The metal of the caps comes apart when it goes off and gets everywhere in the works preventing the cylinder from turning. Even today with the modern caps people shooting totally original Colt guns made in the 1800s find they don't jam as much due to the hammer tension holding it against the cylinder harder under fire.

[@moach57]

Also because they did not have as many revolvers as the Union, nor could make them like that in the early war.

[@coleparker]

@@johnmoore8067 I read the same thing or heard it somewhere. Also, the idea that extra cylinders were not that available is also somewhat false, considering that when you bought the colt or Remington (which most Union officers did) you could also buy extra cylinders and belt holders.

[@kennethhamby9811]

Forrest required his troopers to have pairs of revolvers( he personally acquired them early on from the colt factory) ,to be able to hit a man sized tree at 50 yds at a gallop. He used his mounted troopers as dismounted fighters many times.

[@Squad23jta]

Civil war cavalry, depending on regiment, often also had a carbine or had a secondary pistol equipped. My 4x great grandfather wrote that he used 2 percussion pistols and a carbine and only used his sabre when he had no shots left and it was useless since nobody had trained him to use it. Shotguns were also popular for close engagements, especially for Confederate cavalry.

[@Jelperman]

Cavalry from Texas often carried two shotguns for close-quarters combat. By the end of the war, most horsemen carried at least two pistols.

[@edstringer1138]

Lever action were also used by Confederate calvary

[@richardstephens5570]

@@edstringer1138 The only repeating rifles used by the Confederates were ones they had captured from the Union. And even then, they would have problems getting ammunition for them.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@Jelperman Forrest's men carried double barrel 10 gauge shotguns plus pistols.

[@edstringer1138]

@@richardstephens5570Your absolutely wrong , Virgina, Texas and Louisiana all had units, Confederate officers recruited and equiped units themselves .then donated these units to the Confederacy Google it , your lacking the history on these Henry equipped units

[@J_n..]

To summarize the saber is better in a charge or for set engagement on horseback. The revolver is better for skirmishing and raiding. The carbine is for holding ground or cover fire, especialy if used dismounted. Together they form a set to handle different Situations. Funfact in the mexican-american war the mexican cavalry preferd to use lances against american cavalry armed with revolvers. Second funfact, the weapon the Comanche copied from the spanish with the adoption of horses was the lance.

[@sgress]

Yes and both lost completely to the American's revolvers. Not a genius but your argument is irrelevant.

[@J_n..]

@@sgress in the battle of San Pasqual 6./7. December 1846 Mexican Lancers drove US Cavalry from the field. And in the battles Monterrey 21.-24. September 1846 and Sacramento 28. February 1847 the Mexican Cavalry with driven from the field by US Artilery with US Cavallry not engaging. As an development of the war the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry adopted the Lance until 1863, when breechloading carbines where avaible. The Comanche lost to a steadily loss of territory, not to the Cap and Ball Revolvers they could easily outrange with their bows.

[@sgress]

A few cherry picked examples don't a successful rebuttal make.

[@briarconner5765]

@@sgressputting aside the fact that you are being needlessly argumentative, the original comment did not make the claim that lances are superior to revolvers. He simply stated that some armies preferred their use, and gave good examples in which their use was successful against a force which used firearms primarily. It is a very interesting fact indeed. Oh, and there is a great deal more that goes into winning a war than “hur dur they one because the pistol beats the lance”. The lance can be useful in a very specific scenario and still not turn the tides. The pistol could be an objectively worse weapon and still be used to win a war because of completely unrelated reasons.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Karl from InRangeTV at least couple of times mention that today's percussion caps often not a correct size with at least some reproduction revolvers (and I think particular that old navy colt). I think he was saying that percussion caps nipple change is remedy to it. He stated that with so and correct loading percussion caps revolvers is really quite reliable weapon.

[@dominic6634]

Modern ones come in different sizes usually number 10 and 11 for the navy reproductions. You do need to develop mind your P and Q when reloading. They actually use to carry pre rolled cartridges for reloading the percussion would burn through the thin paper

[@colbunkmust]

Considering that there was only one major cavalry on cavalry engagement in the whole US civil war and cavalry charges were rare, firearms were definitely preferred in the US civil war over sabers, regardless of whether or not they would have been a better option. The US never developed or fielded heavy cavalry or lancers like many European and Latin American nations of the same period(much to Pulaski's dismay) and all US cavalry formations were always organized as dragoons over true cavalry. The first US cavalry formations were divided into three different sections: mounted rifles, dragoons, and regular "cavalry", but all of them fought and were equipped the same way which led to first the mounted rifles, and then the dragoons being renamed as just as regular cavalry by the US Civil War. Keep in mind though, much of the US experience with cavalry prior to the Civil War was based on the use of revolver and carbine armed cavalry and dragoons fighting against, and handily routing lancers fighting in the European style during the Mexican War through sheer volume of firepower. Edit: also I'd love to see you do a review of the LK Chen M1860 US Cav Saber and compare it to your original, and see if Whittaker approves of their sharpening job.

[@andrewsock1608]

A loaded revolver is better than a sword but a sword is better than an unloaded revolver. It’s early rocket science😉

[@HammerDownJohnny]

I mean, this is valid today. An 18th century revolver? I think I’d choose the sword. Guns at the time were way too slow and unreliable at the time.

[@gwynbleidd1917]

It depends on which specific revolver and sword your referring to.

[@HammerDownJohnny]

@@gwynbleidd1917 nah, I’d choose any saber over a gun of that era. Same as how, contrary to movies, in the Wild West, the Bowie Knife was the preferred weapon of self defense because the guns were too unreliable and slow to load.

[@greyvr4336]

@@HammerDownJohnny I'd take the revolver. A cap and ball Colt Army puts out .44 caliber lead balls that are dead on at 50 yards. Surprisingly accurate at 50 yards and effective beyond.

[@SouthernScaffolder88]

@@greyvr4336 you gotta modify the sights if you bought a pietta 1860 army Definitely not dead on. But you can make it that way with work.

[@spartacusjonesmusic]

Carrying an unsharpened sabre makes as much sense as carrying an empty pistol.

[@user-bh4ge1pm2t]

They both make good clubs. Just joking.

[@mpetrison3799]

Probably closer to carrying an aluminum bat, albeit in a 19th century warzone here.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

@@mpetrison3799 That would be better than a pistol with nothing else.

[@brittakriep2938]

​@@user-bh4ge1pm2t: In 1934 the assassin of King Alexander of Jugoslawia and a french minister in Marseille was beaten down by a mounted officer with a saber..

[@greyvr4336]

You'd think so, but remember the importance of the thrust. There are sources (which I disagree with but still) which suggest giving cavalry straight swords with no edge, to encourage the use of the point! I kinda/sorta seem to recall someone back in the day wanted to remove swords with 'blades' entirely and wanted to go to a length of pipe with the end cut at a shape angle so people wouldn't even see them as "blunt swords" but as short spears. (I don't recall who that was, so if I'm not just misremembering a dream and someone knows the source, please share.) The last US saber, the 1913 Patton, is an entirely thrust oriented design.

[@kennethhummel4409]

Your 1851 navy is a London model. Most reproductions suffer from something called cap suck. It is fixable by rounding the sharp edges of the hammer head, also pinch the caps slightly to get a tighter fit.

[@kev_sen]

One of the fiercest cavalry battles of the American Civil War happened at Monterey Pass, Pennsylvania, on July 4-5, 1863, during the Federal cavalry pursuit of Lee's 40 mile long wagon train the day after the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. Kilpatrick's Federal cavalry ambushed the Confederate ambulance train at 0300 in pitch darkness at a narrow crossroad during an intense rain and thunder storm, the battlefield illuminated only from the flashes of pistols, artillery and lightning in the sky. The 5th Michigan Cavalry charged the remnants of the 1st Maryland Cavalry, reformed and charged again several times until breaking them and capturing thousands of prisoners, wagons and many high ranking wounded Confederate officers. There was brutal saber hand to hand combat and point blank shooting and friendly fire in the desperate fighting and confusion. The notorious George Armstrong Custer was at the forefront and gained fame for his bravery leading the charges. Hours later Jeb Stuart rushed reinforcements to save the rest of the wagon train and a horse artillery duel ensued securing the rest of the wagon train's retreat but much damage was already done and many prisoners were secured. A squadron of Federal cavalry bravely attempted to charge the Rebel horse artillery and a Federal cavalry officer had his head blown clean off by cannister, " still strapped in the saddle, headless, erupting blood like a volcano over his shaken troopers who struggled to grab hold of his panicking horse" .

[@tyree9055]

John Singleton Mosby (a Confederate Cavalryman & Raider) carried six pistols on himself and could shoot anything on a full charge. Whether or not he had or used a sword, I cannot say, but he didn't bother reloading, he just switched weapons. 🤔

[@PeterPan54167]

“I had no faith in the saber as a weapon. We did more than any other body of men to give the Colt pistol its great reputation,” - John S Mosby.

[@greyvr4336]

Was just thinking of Mosby. I read somewhere that he said he had an English adventurer working for him, and that he always felt the man died because of his habit of going to his sword too early, while his revolvers still had a few charges.

[@JimTempleman]

@@robertvondarth1730 They sought to break each other's wrists & lower arm. How chivalrous. Many thought it odd when Nathaniel Bedford Forrest decided to put a fine edge on his. (Bad sport old chap.)

[@carlcash1236]

I think Col. Mosby said they might as well be holding a cornstalk or something to that effect in reference to the saber. His raiders rode with 2 revolvers and were so skilled they could wield them both while riding with only legs. those raiders of his were one of the first special forces units in history. He was on the wrong side of history but he commanded one bad @$$ bunch of operators, period. He used to walk in to D.C and drink at bars to get intel.

[@Gambitfan]

I mean, Mosby was almost cut down by Major William H Forbes' saber at Mt. Zion Church (July 6th, 1864 near Aldie, Loudoun, Virginia) and only survived because one of his soldiers threw himself between the pair, so he probably should have had a tad more respect for the weapon.

[@PeterPan54167]

@@Gambitfan Yeah, but what happened after that? The Ranger in question Thomas Richards took a saber wound to the shoulder, and immediately after that, Mosby emptied his revolver shooting Forbes horse from under him.

[@Schupfnudel]

18:04 "The Needle Gun has frightened 10 men off the field for every one that is actually killed." My Halo mind was certainly faster than my history mind here... Created quite funny pictures of Needlers in a Battle of the time.

[@skenzyme81]

All my knowledge on this topic comes from reading Blood Meridian twice. The Glanton Gang mostly relied on enormous Dragoon Revolvers. Mostly it seemed like having 3 or 4 additional loaded revolvers on your saddle seemed like a good idea.

[@CSSVirginia]

The Judge knew a thing or 2 about war.

[@skenzyme81]

@@CSSVirginia And how!

[@tomjackson4374]

Bloody Bill Anderson carried six.

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

Now to do my yearly Google search to see if Blood Meridian will ever be made into a movie. Looks like John Hillcoat is/was signed on to do it. If he can bring the grittiness of The Proposition to the film, it just might work.

[@procinctu1]

Blood Meridian is violence porn and not history.

[@danditto6145]

Confederate cavalry often carried Sawed off shotguns, as many pistols as they could lay hands on and a cavalry carbine usually supplied by their enemy. One of my relatives William Lego Ditto, Captain 1st Louisiana Cavalry thought Sawed off shotgun, six COLT .36 Calibre pistols and a carbine more essential than sabres. He mailed his Sabre home after the first year. Two on the waiste, two on the saddle pommels, and two in the saddle bags made a malfunction of any one pretty irrelevant.

[@BtheLee11]

often too, some might just have "stirrup bags" which is literally just a sack tied to your saddle or stirrups that carried a pistol or 2. You reach down, grab a pistol, shoot all 6 rounds, and put it back and grab another. I've seen some instances where cavalrymen would even carry multiple of these sacks to carry multiple pistols (depending on the era, pistols were expensive so owning multiple usually meant you were someone of import up until colt changed the game)

[@Revolver1701]

Empty pistol? Have another loaded pistol. Have a saber as backup. Or a war hammer!!!

[@althesmith]

And yet with Stuart's cavalry the Prussian Von Borcke used his big Solingen patternwelded backsword very effectively and it was kept like a razor.

[@samirish6696]

Matt, look up slixshot percussion cones. They look no different than any other cone, but greatly improve reliability for your percussion weapons. Happy shooting!

[@johntillman6068]

Matt ignores the carbine and spare pistols. The Prussian cavalry's 1866 needle gun was a breech-loading, paper cartridge carbine. The US cavalry from 1863 increasing were equipped not just with metallic cartridge, breech-loading carbines, but repeaters. This fact justifies the superiority of American over European cavalry of the period. The US cavalry after the war adopted the execrable trap door Springfield, with copper cartridge cases. Hence the Sioux and Cheyenne were better armed in 1876 than the 7th Cavalry Regiment. In 1871, Gen. Schofield invented a top-break, metallic cartridge pistol easier to reload in the saddle. Custer supposedly carried one at the Little Big Horn. It was superior to the older, British Beaumont-Adams. Then came the 1876 Colt Peacemaker.

[@mattbowden4996]

The Dreyse Needle gun was first introduced into service in 1841. By 1866 it's mechanism might have been old hat but in it's proper historical context it was bleeding edge technology. The fact that it was still a perfectly serviceable firearm thirty years later in time of rapid technological change speaks volumes for the fundamental soundness of the design.

[@thomasbaagaard]

regular civil war cavalry did not carry spare revovlers. The northren industry could not produce sufficient number of revolves to even make sure every cavalry man had even one... until 1864. And in the south the situation was even worse where plenty of cavalrymen did not even one for much of the war.

[@blastulae]

@@thomasbaagaardBreech loading and especially repeating carbines were rare in the South, so CSA cavalrymen relied upon muzzle loading carbines and double barreled shotguns. Thus, they carried as many pistols as they could afford and find for sale. A typical arrangement was a brace of belt revolvers and two saddle holstered pistols, ideally of the same models. Failing this, spare loaded cylinders had to suffice. Large calibers were favored, to compensate for lack of breech loading carbines.

[@blastulae]

@@mattbowden4996The Dreyse needle rifle was kept mostly under raps in the 1840s and ‘50s. It was issued to Prussian specialist troops, not line infantry or to cavalry in carbine form. The US army rejected it in favor of Minie ball shooting muzzle loading rifle muskets, as had Britain before the Crimean War. The US cavalry also had superior breech loading and repeating carbines in the Civil War. Some infantry regiments also had Henry repeating rifles and longer versions of some carbines.

[@brucetucker4847]

There's nothing wrong with the Springfield Trapdoor, it was the cartridges that caused the problem. Once proper drawn brass cartridge cases were used it was an effective weapon. What it lacked in rate of fire it more than made up in hitting power, accuracy, and range. The trapdoor didn't really become obsolete until the advent of smokeless powder. Plenty of sportsmen shoot repros of them today.

[@chrisball3778]

Obviously the guy probably knew more about the realities of cavalry warfare than any of us do, but you can't help wonder if really he just thought sharp swords were really freaking cool and badass. I mean, they are, and that was just as true 150 years ago as today.

[@martins.4240]

Real "While you farted about with your peashooters, I studied the blade" energy

[@andrewstraub131]

Did he though I mean he knew the blood and guts reality of hoof on the ground and the crush of lines being thrown against eachother. But we have the benefit of statistics and historical overview there was exactly one more saber issued to the American cavalry and it was rapidly abandoned as were cavalry tactics in general with very minor exceptions, were we to equip a “modern horse cavalry “ they would assuredly not be armed with lances and sabers unless it was Lynn Thompson of cold steel or some other delusional who did the equipping

[@chrisball3778]

@@martins.4240 Yep. Exactly that. Heh.

[@DebatingWombat]

As I’ve written in my own, separate comment, I think it’s worth noticing a huge caveat/hedge in the text, which concerns the phrase “when pressed home”. The claim that melee cavalry would successful when charges were “pressed home” was a standard trope and one that was also used to talk up bayonet attacks by infantry during the latter half of the 19th and early 20th century until being emphatically disproven in WWI. Sure, there were still some uses for the sabre in the mid to late 19th century, but the notion that a prime role for cavalry was to charge in, sabres swinging to scatter opponents like chaff to the wind was more of a romantic and nostalgic plea for the cavalry as the decisive striking arm (quite literally) than anything evinced by actual warfare during this time. But every time the cavalry failed to function in this way, the “cavalry conservatives”, who favoured melee attacks, would always claim that it was just because attacks hadn’t been “pressed home vigorously” enough. And they would then cherrypick any successful melee cavalry action as proof that melee attacks were not only viable, but should be the main role for cavalry.

[@Charstring]

Sabre you could ride on... "a reference to train tracks"? That's a nice polite way of expressing the concept. A lady where I used to work once told me a knife was so blunt "you could ride bare arse to London on that and not cut yourself" (only with more swearwords).

[@jonathanferguson1211]

Very interesting Matt, thank you. Worth noting that modern repros (especially the incorrectly sized and hardened caps we have today) are far, far less reliable than period percussion revolvers. Your point stands though of course.

[@desburnett5406]

Yes and no. Fouling and action seized was no less of an issue (in no small part why open tops persisted so long.) Nor should we don the rose tints; production of all and sundry in the mid-19thC was laughably sloppy by modern standards.

[@jonathanferguson1211]

@@desburnett5406 I should clarify that I was mentally lumping in percussion repro revolvers (cap jams) with the flintlocks (soft frizzens, weak springs). The only thing that makes a repro percussion revolver worse than a period one is the lack of properly sized and hardened caps. They fall off (yes, you can pinch them) and the shatter far more readily than the originals appear to have. As for fouling, that isn't an issue in combat with pistols because you're not reloading - you're firing your six and drawing your sword. Manufacture might be generally sloppy by modern standards across the market as a whole, but precision engineered repros with wonderful metallurgy don't address these two issues. If period revolvers jammed as frequently as repros, they simply wouldn't have been used. In fact I'd like to see accounts of failure in period combat. So far I haven't come across any (but I haven't researched in any depth on that).

[@michaelshelton5488]

You really need to do a collaboration with Ian McCollum/Forgotten Weapons and or Jonathan Ferguson of the Royal Armouries.

[@itsapittie]

Before I even watch the video, I'm going to say that the revolver was definitely superior to the saber with the caveats that it wasn't entirely reliable and when it was empty, it took a long time to reload, so it was probably wise to have a saber as a backup. Of course, for irregulars who could carry as many revolvers as they could get their hands on, the saber would be a distant third (or fourth or fifth) to a revolver and then however many other revolvers you had. Now let's see if Matt agrees with me.

[@bulldrumm]

Pistols( revolvers), and firearms in general caught on fpr the same reason crossbows did: easier to use. Easier to train men to use proficiently, and a big one: distance. Killing someone from distance vs hand to hand is Huge.

[@GH-cp9wc]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Even my 1859 Sharps is only good for a limited number of shots before fouling makes ignition impossible. My 1858 Remington is a little more reliable, but on horseback you're lucky to empty a cylinder and then it's the Sabre, which allows you to continue the fight. Of course, in reenacting, we don't sharpen the Sabres, but if in real life, I wouldn't go into battle without a sharp one.

[@JimTempleman]

(1) A Uberti Colt replica is not a Colt! The original Colts were said to be more reliable. (It's as if you were judging all sabers used in the Civil War by the current crop of Cold Steel replicas.) (2) It's really easy to reload a revolver. You just pick up another loaded revolver. Cavalrymen during the US Civil war carried as many revolvers as they could get their hands on. Some of the revolvers were holstered on the saddle. Carrying 5 or 6 revolvers was not unheard of. (In modern times it's referred to as a "New York reload.) (3) Revolvers have greater reach. (4) Swords cannot block firearms.

[@jeffthebaptist3602]

"A Uberti Colt replica is not a Colt!". The second and third generation Colt percussion guns literally are Ubertis. Second gen is made by Colt from Uberti parts. Third gen were made by the independent Colt Black Powder Company from Uberti parts. Also lots of period sources talk about cap sucking and cap jams which is typically the main source of unreliability with Colts.

[@JimTempleman]

@@jeffthebaptist3602 2nd & 3rd gens are not what he was referring to. I wish they kept & reported the frequency of malfunctions back then. All I know is that 'duelist1954' (Mike Beliveau) reported in several of his reviews that the modern Army & Navy Colt clones are not nearly as reliable as the originals were & still are. And he suggested ways of bringing the replicas 'back into spec.'

[@colbunkmust]

@@JimTempleman That typically has to do with the cap jams though as was stated above. The original Colts had lots of reliability problems, especially with the Walker cylinders exploding if they were overcharged. Also, colts were really expensive at the time and most troopers weren't paid enough, nor was the supply great enough for cavalrymen to just buy a half dozen colts at a time.

[@JimTempleman]

@@colbunkmust Walkers were the 2nd generation Colts. By the Civil War most troopers were using 4th gen, much improved Navy & Army cap & ball revolvers. Most of the Colts used by the South were: bought before the War,, stolen from captured facilities, POWs, or battlefield pick-ups. Remember the Southern forces won a lot of the early battles, but lost eventually due to attrition. As I stated earlier, cavalrymen during the Civil war carried as many revolvers as they could get their hands on. And yes, there was a lot of variation.

[@colbunkmust]

@@JimTempleman Regardless of the generation, the issue of reliability in modern repros are almost always due to modern cap primers, not the guns themselves. 19th century firearms including many Colts were made with inferior steel or in some cases wrought iron that weren't nearly as well made as the modern repros, especially in terms of quality control of materials and heat treatment.

[@jaredmeisel4504]

You forgot also that in the Civil War Calvary on both sides had what they considered advanced repeating carbines like the Spencer and the Sharpes.

[@artwebb6939]

According to some I've heard speak on the matter, the percussion caps falling loose is one of the reasons the practice of pointing the revolver up while cocking the hammer came about The idea was that would allow the cap to fall out of the revolver rather than into the action But of course that's just something I've heard

[@asahearts1]

"caulking"

[@andrewprice1774]

Cocking

[@artwebb6939]

@@asahearts1 🤣🤣🤣 talk to text is hilarious Thanks for the heads up

[@wcf3x]

Although there is certainly a case to be made for the effectiveness of the saber in a charge against other cavalry units, this didn't actually happen very often in the American civil war. Two prominent exceptions come to mind: The battle of Brandy Station and the cavalry battles in the union rear at the conclusion of the battle of Gettysburg (in both of which sabers were used a great deal to good effect). More often cavalry were detached from the main armies performing scouting, screening or raiding tasks as well as pursuit of defeated enemies or in rearguard actions (the functions of light cavalry units in contemporary European armies). In any of these typical light cavalry tasks, actions would very seldom result in a charge against another cavalry unit of close to equal size and not surprised. Most of the mounted fighting done by cavalry in the American Civil War was either skirmishing or hit and run attacks where the pistol was a more effective weapon. When fighting in the battle line or when asked to hold a position in rearguard or blocking actions they would usually dismount and use long arms. The few cases where cavalry tried to charge against a prepared infantry line to break up the infantry formation (as seen up to and including the napoleonic wars) almost always failed with horrendous casualties. (For example Judson Kilpatrick's attempt to charge the against Longstreet's infantry on the confederate right flank after Pickett's charge at Gettysburg). Partly this was due to the fact that neither army had any heavy cavalry units (lancers, cuirassiers, etc.) suited and trained for such actions and the longer range of rifled muskets used in the Civil War. As such, there just weren't that many actions where the sabre would have been useful to an American civil war cavalryman.

[@The_Fat_Controller.]

I once read that there was a common opinion among American Civil War cavalry troopers that the best use for a saber was roasting meat over a campfire. Pistols and carbines were more preferred for combat than a saber most had no serious training with. Average Americans just didn't have the same love affair with swords in combat as their European counterparts.

[@coldwarrior78]

Absolutely matches my research.

[@mattmiraglia3199]

But the loss at Little Bighorn was due to the cavalry leaving their sabers behind

[@zoiders]

It would be a stretch to describe them as cavalry by European or British standards. They were mounted infantry.

[@zoiders]

​@@mattmiraglia3199And lack of training. Would a colonial force of a similar size met the same end?

[@The_Fat_Controller.]

@@mattmiraglia3199 I don't think sabers would have made much difference at Little Bighorn.

[@statmonster]

Great video. I’d be curious about earlier experiences with single shot pistols or even horse archers versus lance or sword. The thinking behind the transitions from the charging Gendarme to the pistol armed Reiter and then to the 18th century Horse with Sword is interesting.

[@thedamnyankee1]

me: I wonder if that's the same Ames that made tools in Western Mass? Matt: Ames from Chicopee Yep.

[@SamuelTyree1]

The sabre was hit or miss in training regimes based on the regimental Colonel's interest in fencing. Post Civil War, in the west, the sabre seems to be universally despised as extra and unnecessary weight.

[@The_Fat_Controller.]

Probably noisy too, rattling in its scabbard and clanking against the body of a horse.

[@itsapittie]

That may largely be due to the nature of warfare in the west. There were few instances (none come immediately to mind) in which Native American warriors could have been defeated by a saber charge. They would simply scatter and reform at a distance. Conversely, the Natives wouldn't charge saber-armed cavalry with just hand weapons, so it wasn't much use in defense either. It's true that occasionally some hand-to-hand action occurred, but it was the exception, and the soldier would probably be as well served with a tomahawk or Bowie knife. There is at least one instance of sabers being used in a surprise attack upon a Native encampment, but I think we can agree that its utility in massacring women, children, and old men isn't a strong argument for its issue.

[@SamuelTyree1]

@@itsapittie Also, it wasn't unusual for Indians to have better rifles than the military through illegal trade.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@itsapittie It doesn't take a lot of skill to chase down old men, women and children.

[@baneofbanes]

Generally weren’t getting into sword fights with the natives.

[@artawhirler]

Excellent video as always! Thanks!

[@allmachtsdaggl5109]

I love those videos of your's, Matt! Amongst the highest kind of educational videos on youtube: Matt Easton presenting, reading and discussing sources :)

[@wowismygame]

The bayonet is still super relevant. I trained with them a lot in the USMC and they were used in the Iraq war

[@jonasbarka]

Always interesting when you find and read first hand information.

[@HarvestMoonHowl]

You, good sir, have made my day in posting this video. Thank you for covering part of an often overlooked chapter in mid-19th century warfare methodology and tactics.

[@spartonblue14]

I loved the format of the video! It’s always great hearing from primary sources

[@leofedorov1030]

Texas rangers were some of the fiercest warriors at the time, engaged in bloody warfare with High Plains Native American tribes (Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Arapaho) for literally decades. They were also one of the first (if not the first) to adopt a revolver and use it in combat regularly. Their standard weapons were a rifle, TWO revolvers and a large knife. Sabres were obsolete in those conflicts (many predate the Civil War) as the braves on horseback used 14 foot long war lances along with bows and rifles. The rangers considered sabres absolutely useless.

[@stevenoconnor3256]

More than likely they didn't want to carry it or had no idea how to use it. Run out of ammo and get stuck with a knife which is far worse against the Lance. Firearms on Horseback probably weren't accurate and were only good at firing at large masses of people. Melee weapons would have been better in individual combat.

[@leofedorov1030]

@@stevenoconnor3256 These guys knew what they were doing, believe me. On both sides. Many rangers were ex-army and many were officers and veterans of Texas war for independence, Civil War and other conflicts. It’s just we tend to assign edged and melee weapons too much significance and truth is they were losing relevance fast with advancements in firearms technology. Consider this: less than 1% of all casualties during the Civil War were by bayonet. Historically documented. Casualties by saber? Historians disagree. Some say very few. Some say none. Think about that.

[@stevenoconnor3256]

@@leofedorov1030 The projectile weapon always kills more people even before firearms. The melee weapon is used when the projectile weapon fails and in contexts where it's superior. There are modern bayonet charges that worked. The bayonet outlasted every single firearm they used in warfare.

[@leofedorov1030]

@@stevenoconnor3256 Look..I like blades and pointy things too, but US Army no longer train bayonets. I think Marines still do, but more as a tradition. The Israeli don’t. They don’t even issue knives to their troops. Trench warfare in Ukraine is all grenades and assault rifles. No bayonet in sight. The list goes on. So to state that bayonets outlasted firearms is just not very accurate. Peace.

[@stevenoconnor3256]

@@leofedorov1030 Your reading comprehension is garbage, the Firearms they used. 1800 rifles are not in use. Bayonet charges were used in the Iraq War. What I hear is that you have to buy your own knives. Machetes are basic tools for Forest Warfare.

[@boydgrandy5769]

In the last year of the Civil War, Union cavalry units were at the very least on par with the Southern "cavalier, in terms of horsemanship, tactics and use of weapons, including the saber. The most effective Union cavalry units were, as seen at Gettysburg under John Buford, actually used tactically as mounted infantry, and armed with pistol, saber and repeating carbines. A brigade of Union cavalry thus arrayed and so deployed was more than equal in firepower (or combat power if you prefer) to a Confederate infantry division armed with muzzle loaded percussion rifles and bayonets, as was demonstrated many times during that conflict.

[@jamesberry3230]

not used as mounted infantry used as dragoons; tactically different

[@tomjackson4374]

In the last year of the War the Confederates were fighting with worn out horses and they had been depleted by three years of fighting.

[@thomasbaagaard]

Bufords men did not have repeating carbiens at Gettysburg. It is a myth. The first spencer carbiens was not even delivered to the federal army until oktober/November 1863. They used Sharps, Burnsides and similar breechloaded carbines.

[@Geep615]

After the South had run out of everything

[@boydgrandy5769]

@@Geep615 Much of what happened to the Confederacy, in terms of the acquisition of modern arms and other military supplies from Britain and France, took place because of a singularly stupid and arrogant move by the cotton growers in the government. Rather than convert their cotton stocks to cash or into P53 Enfield rifle muskets, they decided that the smart thing was to do to boycott the European cotton industry to force the Brits and the French into recognizing the Confederate government. So they South withheld its one staple crop from market during a time that the Union maritime blockade was still porous. Of course, this forced the British to find other sources of cotton for their mills, which they shortly did, long staple from Egypt and short staple from India. By the time the Confederacy got around to seeing the need to sell cotton to make money to support their war, Europe didn't need their product any more. The Confederacy started off with almost no industrial capacity, and cut off from sources in Europe, they had to relay on what were basically artisan shops for the weapons they needed. That, and the pickups they could make from Union sources on the battlefield. By July 1863, the South was still fielding highly motivated cavalry and infantry armed with a hodgepodge of weaponry, from modern rifles to smoothbore muskets using buck and ball. The Union was fielding the Springfield rifle, along with repeaters like the Spencer and the Henry, modern rifled cannon in vast numbers, and every Union cavalryman was armed with revolvers and quick loading carbines of many makes. The other and maybe more telling factor in the late war was that, after Gettysburg, most of the core of Southern veterans under arms was dead on the field, especially on the fields where Lee won tactical victories. After Yellow Tavern, with Stuart dead and Gordon badly wounded, the Union cavalry under Sheridan manhandled the Southern cavalry from then on. In the Shenandoah Valley, he destroyed Jubal Early's cavalry and infantry forces while razing the entire valley to deny food supplies to Lee's army outside of Richmond. At Five Forks on 01 April 1865, he succeeded in cutting off the last supply line into Richmond, and defeated the attempt to force him to retreat under George Pickett, while inflicting 5,000 casualties on Pickett. Eight days later, Lee surrendered, blocked by Sheridan on his western track and pressed by Meade and the AOP on the east.

[@roentgen571]

17:09 Speaking of the morale of the enemy when facing cavalry armed with very sharp sabers, I think this is confirmed by how effective bayonet charges are at routing the enemy, even up to modern conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq against enemies armed with automatic weapons. It's a powerful psychological weapon. Being shot is a pretty abstract idea...but someone running straight at you with a lethal weapon and the obvious intent to kill you has got to be pretty unnerving. Plus, you generally don't survive being bayoneted or run through by a saber. It's POSSIBLE, but usually the guy getting you doesn't stop unless he's sure you've been finished off.

[@SuppressedOfficial]

A local club has an original 1860 saber hanging on a hat rack. Awesome to have a piece of history like that just lying around. 😂

[@11thovc]

Great reference using Lessons of a decade! Great video.

[@carlcramer9269]

In the parts where the author praises the sabre, he is talking about charges. But most cavalry engagements were skirmishes, this is where he says the revolver improves cavalry... And now you got to the place where he says this very clearly indeed. Ninja'd by a man from the 19C. :)

[@janibeg3247]

General John Buford Jr was a Union Cavalry commander at the battle of Gettysburg. He dismounted his men who were armed with repeating rifles and was the first to engage the enemy.

[@leeblount7046]

He was the first enemy we engaged.

[@robertlehnert4148]

The standard loading of Mosby's Raiders or Quantrill's Guerillas was at least FOUR revolvers, two holstered on person, two on the saddle. If you topped off before action, that meant 24 shots, and if you couldn't handle a single engagement with 24 shots, you were doing something wrong. One of Quantrill's troopers was found with over 20 revolvers on his person and horse.

[@JasonMBroyles]

I have hoped that you would make a video about the American Civil War, and this video did not disappoint. Thank you.

[@danielkohli1542]

There was a KZbin channel that covered the author of the book covered in this video. kzbin.info/aero/PL1XBXt5X2oPzTHh6InVN0kXpuQMKiwroa&si=1SJbwkxhQd7Ch9tC

[@joshua7233]

It's interesting that there was so much pushback regarding the maintenance of swords. I would think that in a military context, it would be commonplace for soldiers to be taught and ordered to sharpen and maintain their sabers just like they're expected to stay clean-shaven, etc.

[@johnellis6028]

I read a story where Winston Churchill, while fighting in India, his pistol ran out of bullets and he had to FIGHT WITH HIS SABER. He was a trained fencer too

[@IvanIvanoIvanovich]

Hi Matt, perhaps some of the issues you have with the 1851 stem from it being an Uberti reproduction. Some of the parts like the arbor pin are dimensionally off from the original in addition to other fit/finish issues. There is a lot of good guidance online for tuning up your revolver as well as aftermarket parts like improved nipples.

[@-RONNIE]

Appreciate the video thanks 👍🏻

[@samhay6950]

There was a big argument in the cavalry about sharp sabers. Most wanted their troopers issued dull sabers and if or when they could be trusted not to harm their mount, then they were sharpened.

[@bryanferguson4927]

The sheaths had an internal, metal lining, which dulled the blade. As opposed by Japanese katana, which used wooden sheaths, keeping the metal blades sharp.

[@knate44]

I think it would be interesting to see more videos about black powder pistols from a European perspective, or accounts of sword and pistols being used together. I think theres a lot of interesting overlap until the rise of rapid reloading until later WWI where you'd often have a handgun or grenades with a club, knife, or bayonet for use in the trenches.

[@jessecunningham9924]

I love these episodes!

[@matthewzito6130]

1) It's worth mentioning that cavalry units during the American Civil War did most of their fighting dismounted with carbines. 2) It seems like the saber would be of limited use against well-disciplined infantry in close formations with fixed bayonets. Likewise, even improvised fortifications could make it difficult for cavalry to get within saber range. 3) If a cavalry soldier armed only with a revolver can kill or seriously injure 2 or 3 cavalry soldiers armed only with swords before being routed, then he's already proven the superiority of the revolver over the sword.

[@scottscotty1660]

The recommended changes in the use of the saber by union cavalry was put into greater effect by them during the latter part of the war with good success.

[@johnl.5117]

I understand that many CW cavalry troops carried several pistols with lesser powder charges for lower recoil and used them at very close range to shoot at the head of an enemy as the best way to put him down. In that time, men also carried pre-charged cylinders to "speed load". That started with Colt Dragoon pistols in Texas for fighting Comanches.

[@scholagladiatoria]

I shoot a Colt Dragoon regularly and you absolutely cannot speed load the cylinders. You have to take the whole pistol apart to change the cylinder. It is the Remington where you can change out the cylinder quickly. With Colts the only option is to carry two or more of them.

[@danielmcelroy8533]

Fantastic video as always. While I definitely appreciate first person sources, I'm not sure the actual history backs up the author's thoughts. Your analysis was pretty spot on. My immediate impression is this is very similar to the author of Death Traps, and it's influence of subsequent opinion of way too many people on the Sherman tank. It's his experiences, but they are probably pretty narrow in scope. There's an argument to be made that the carbine was the far more important weapon than either the pistol or the saber. His thoughts that saber armed cavalry could master infantry in open engagements if their blades were simply sharp enough was pretty laughable. The (arguably) biggest cavalry engagement of the American Civil War was Brandy Station. It's telling that the Union order of battle included two hand picked infantry brigades to accompany the cavalry corps of the AotP to the battle.

[@Geep615]

Forrest got himself a few Yanks with a Saber when accidentally charged a line almost completely by himself

[@zalandarr]

Think alot of how effective a saber can be potentially by even cavalry is depending on terrain. The vast open and worked plains of america southeast made it likely seem folly to try when accurate rifles were on the field. When cavarly is charging towards you they are still a predictable relatively large target. Its not like trying to hit a bird in flight. Being a dragoon that dismounted and had accurate long range would make alot more sense in a theater like that.

[@haynesdevon0]

I'm think it was on one of your episodes. But when they British would describe the Americans during the revaluatinary war. They commented the Americans would us tomahawk at long to mid range, then run into melee range and arm themselves eith they're pistols. In my opinion this is an absolutely devastating tactic, not only will every man have a chance to overcome his opponent regardless or physical differences. But after closing the distance and discharging your pistols, you have tomahawks laying in the ranks of the enemy, eventually giving rhw charge more staying power. I'm pretty sure that tactic, (that of using pistols at melee range) was an enduring tactic from those times. And for the exact reason the source said, we had no long standing tactics that invalid the saber.

[@amnewl727]

Thank you for the US spelling of Saber when talking about US units and history :)

[@carloparisi9945]

Hi Matt, the best reason I can think why the sabre was superior is this: when the charge gets in contact and the melee starts, riders that are shooting will hit friends and foes, friends by way of missing or by shooting through foes. I can see why the revolver is superior as far as formations remain separate and shoot at each other, but, as soon as they clash, arme blanche will ensure you hit who you want to hit and firearms won't.

[@jamesberry3230]

at melee distances missing is not an issue and the soft lead balls would not over penetrate

[@josephstabile9154]

Thanx, Matt, for this thought-provoking video. What is your evaluation of the U.S. 1860 Cavalry Sabre? Most U.S. Cavalry men considered it superior to both the 1847 model, termed "Old Wristbreaker" as it was considered overly heavy, and the 1872 model, which was condidered too light and "whippy".

[@daemonharper3928]

Great vid, very interesting. Yes, think Gurkha - knowing they have razor sharp Kukri lends a certain frissance to fighting them 🫣

[@squatch2461]

Please discuss appropriate grinds, angles, etc to sharpen a sword for different uses. 🍻

[@tonybennett638]

Looking at old pics of the civil war very often cavalry troops had more than one revolver especially towards the end of the war.

[@A_Meek_lake_Dweller]

When cocking the revolver point it straight up so gravity can help clear the spent percussion cap from the nipple on the cylinder. Great video!

[@scholagladiatoria]

We're not allowed to do that under range regulations. The best we can do is tip to the right hand side, which helps a little

[@JKLynar]

Hello, Matt! Love your work, and this is a good example of why. Broad ranges of historical perspective give depth to your discourse and make the past alive and hands-on again. Nothing seems to focus that better for tool using homo sapiens than the original tools, hand weapons! Keep up the good work! I just wanted to point out that the Colt Navy's popularity was not based on aimed accuracy, power, design strength or reliability. It was it's handy size, instinctive pointability, easy takedown for cleaning and changing to fresh pre-loaded cylinders. The smaller .36 caliber yielded far more field cast round ball than the larger .44 per pound of lead, and the smaller spare cylinders were lighter and handier to carry. The .36 Navy models, in many forms, were the most popular percussion pistols Colt produced. Please don't judge this model from shooting one reproduction. I have fired quite a few in the last half century, and trust me, they vary a great deal in quality and reliability! Great job! Godspeed, and...Cheers!

[@breaden4381]

From a 16th and 17th century cavalry perspective, the pistol is more like a lance and the sword is still the sidearm.

[@miracleyang3048]

Bullshit many cavalry used the sword as the primary weapon like the Swedish or the British and it in fact it was the reason they dominated against western armies

[@peterullrich9034]

Wouldn't the pistol be the pistol lol? You're talking about the golden age of the caracole

[@breaden4381]

@@peterullrich9034 The pistol took the role of the lance in many armies because you could carry multiple, weren’t outranged by pikes, and probably just as (in)effective against heavy armor.

[@johnmorris4003]

Nice to know , thank you.

[@avoycendeether8869]

I would add that the colt 1851, fully loaded, is a heavy weapon. It is impossible to hold one steady at arms length while mounted on a galloping horse. It's very hard to be accurate with your shots. Try it sometime. Even just placing a shot on a man-sized cutout if difficult.

[@brianvannorman1465]

Aames is the company that makes G.I. issues folding shovel. What, in American"ese" is called an entrenching tool(e-tool).

[@vladimirmihnev9702]

the Texes Ranger order was for 2 Colts per Truper. And imho puting "the "blade one"is a must for kicking in doors, if noting els just for intimidacion aka lookin more bad ass/psicho killer like, and when its life or dead you want any advantage posibele!

[@JCOwens-zq6fd]

I have had the good fortune to handle a few from both sides of the civil war & both sides swords were overly heavy & the CSA swords were not made as well as they could've been either due to having to be made in improvised shops that didnt make sworda normally in many cases. Hence why these swords were termed "wrist breakers" & southerners like my ancestor typically preferred the large Bowie knife or the cabbage chopper instead.

[@Toxoplasma13]

There's an account of some hapless reb having his CSA made sabre bend in half skirmishing with federals. The damned things didn't have fullers half the time.

[@9mmfederalrimmed235]

It is the same issue as with the machetes in Southamerica. Often those are from spanish steel and sold new blunt and unsharpened only with an rudimentary edge. The blade is usually 50 cm long or so and has the shape of an turkish saber. I attempted recently to sharpen such an new machete (Bellota brand, Spain) and even with an electrical industrial flex grinding stone the thing allmost did not get any sharper. I got it sharper but nowhere so sharp as to cut a sheet of paper. Then again the machete is meant to cut woods, brushes, branches and trees of relatively hard wood. So I relaised the part I sharpened more cut better with one or a few strokes the hardwood brushes, but I saw then some dings, break aways and similar on the edge. The metal just broke away and then there was an indentation on the edge. So that's why in the middle ages I bet the swords and axes must not have been to sharp specially if they engaged armoured curassiers or such. The sharp edge is gone allmost immediately once you pound onto steel armour with your sword. Even the ultra hardened spanish blued steel I could not sharpen well with an electrical grinder and the sharp edge showed damages from the hardwood after use on chopping down brushes. That is a freak'n uggly job to sharpen ultra hardened modern steel blades (like the machete) which are meant really for work and not only for costume party or cosplay. I really wonder how those middle age people got sharp their steel weapons. They must have honed and sharpened on them for about an entire week with just modest results. Only for having an uttermost damaged edge after the battle.

[@freestatefellow]

Has your club ever experimented with adding handheld projectiles to your saber sparring? Airsoft or paintball would maybe be closest, but require the most safety add-ons. There are some really nice hobby-grade nerf revolvers that would allow for sword and pistol sparring with minimal extra gear.

[@jgo5300]

Fascinating stuff Matt. But then along came cartridges, magazines…..

[@rogersheddy6414]

I do not know how many people know about rush's lancers. I have handled one of the original lanceheads. They were on sixteen foot pieces of ash, which allowed them to poke holes in people from horseback. The problem... One guy with a sharps or Spencer carbine could take down this guy well before he Reached his Intended target. So wasn't very long before say something or lance's back home and decided they were going to equip themselves as other mounted cavalry units... The only lance's retained where those that had pennons attached. As many people have already said about Mosby, His men didn't even carry swords. They often would have three braces of pistols If each pistol was only loaded with five shots Instead of six that would still be thirty shots a piece. They would advance on the enemy soldiers who would fire a volley, Then draw their swords and charge. Mosquiin, his men would wait until they drew close enough that they could simply draw two pistols each and simply sweep them all from their saddles. No swords needed.

[@theodisius1]

There's an interesting discussion on swords vs revolvers for cavalry in "THE USE OF FIREARMS BY CAVALRY" by G. Tylden in Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, Vol. 19, No. 73 (Spring, 1940), pp. 9-15 (7 pages). Tylden says revolvers were hard to use on horseback without extensive training, with soldiers more likely to hit their own men or horses as the enemy (that comment made me think of the skill required for horse archery). He attributes the greater use of revolvers in US cavalry compared to Europe to Americans' greater familiarity with revolvers in civilian life.

[@shadowcrusader2283]

I have a 1851 revolver myself when you cock it tip it straight up when you reset the Hammer into firing position it will lessen the cap Jamming

[@Odin029]

I know we've moved a very long way in manufacturing since the mid 19th century, but I've handled a few Uberti replicas and they are cool, I wish I had one, but I've also had the chance to handle a real 1860 Colt and a real 1873 Colt. I actually got to shoot the 1873. The actions on both of those originals was as smooth as wet glass. I'm sure they'd been worked on in the last 150 years, but still. A replica gives you the idea of what the originals were like, but they aren't a 1 to 1 that's for sure.

[@CITADEL5]

I believe it was William Quantrill who remarked that he had never had a man killed by a saber. His raiders carried six or more revolvers with a light load according to what I have read.

[@VelikiHejter]

Matt, if you see this post, Uberty's nipples that revolvers come with are trash, buy replacement ones, slixshot are the best, and that is the inexpensive way to make your percussion revolver run much better.

[@austinhuber3131]

Shooting from a horse is very difficult. And who would they have traded favorably with? Dragoon cavalry was very useful in the Indian wars and westward expansion because natives and bandits frequently outmaneuvered infantry, but cavalry could arrive quickly and lay down fire from virtually any position and usually enjoyed numerical superiority. However, in the Civil War, cavalry were often used as classic cavalry, as well they should, their revolvers didn't have the range or accuracy of any of their opponents. Santa Anna knew this, and during his war with Texas the majority of his kills were done by cavalry charge, especially at the Alamo.

[@coleparker]

As seen below, many have made comments about the use of Revolvers and their reliability. One thing I might add though, is that as the Civil War progressive, Cavalry tactics on both sides changed, in that the role of Cavalry became more like light infantry, with the men dismounting and forming skirmish lines and when repeating carbines came to the fore, the charge of saber armed men became more costly.

[@jarrakul]

To your point at the start and end of the video, swords and pistols are both typically sidearms. I would think that the point of taking two sidearms to a war instead of a "main" weapon is so that you can use both of them.

[@OldieBugger]

I have a nice dagger, a 14" one. And I've made every attempt to keep it sharp. I think it's good enough for home defence.

[@kennethhamby9811]

Forrest forbade his men using sabers, although he carried one at times. He developed the dismounted Troopers technique, fighting often on foot ,then mounting and maneuvering to new positions.

[@kaoskronostyche9939]

Thank you for another great discussion, especially that you have presented a source from the time ... with context. BTW, "decimate" means to reduce by one-tenth. Obliterate, annihilate, eliminate are better words if, indeed, the reduction of the opposing force is more than one-tenth.

[@tomhalla426]

Current use, it can mean reduced to one tenth, rather than the original reduced by one tenth. Definitions change over time.

[@kaoskronostyche9939]

@@tomhalla426 So yes, it means reduced by one tenth. Thank you for confirming my assertion. BTW, technical and numerical definitions DO NOT change over time; the meanings are merely mutilated by the ignorant. Cheers!

[@tomhalla426]

@@kaoskronostyche9939 prescriptive language can get obsolete. Consider “terrible” or “pompous”. Use the early 19th Century definition, and it is nearly reversed in meaning.

[@kaoskronostyche9939]

@@tomhalla426 Sure but I specified a defined, technical term. It is from Latin. Deci means TEN and will ALWAYS mean ten as in decimal. Some language evolves and some is mutilated by ignorance and political agendas. If you want to flog a dead horse and use Red Herring arguments, go ahead and display your ignorance. I will no longer respond to your pathetic efforts. Cheers!

[@BuffordEvans]

Lovely subject I had written a bloated comment don’t think it sent . If it did apologies for the second on the first lol Southerners still studied fencing and practiced the art of dueling far more than northerners . Also the military colleges of the time taught saber etc etc those went on to be the great leaders etc etc . I’ve rarely came across well sharpened swords from the civil war the ones I did come across were Bleckmanns and S&k first 500 contract swords the mounted arty type . Both those types saw very heavy use . The S&K pre - civil war Now the often mislabeled 1810 1796 types horseman’s and arty/ inf have almost always still been really quite sharp

[@keepyourbilsteins]

The cap nipples fit poorly on Uberti and other replicas. Replace the nipples and reliability greatly improves. InrangeTV has a lot on the subject and I've followed his (Karl's) advice and eliminated cap jams on my 1851

[@althesmith]

If you grind down a bevel about a tenth of an inch prior to hardening, after hardening and tempering to about 50 RC a good quality mill file will put a decent edge on it in surprisingly short time if clamped to a work table. Finishing with a good stone is then only a few minutes work to a decent "working" edge.