I can hardly believe how stupid my friends and I were back then.  Our favorite loading technique was to pour black powder over the cylinder and into the chambers without measuring it.  When a chamber would fill up, we'd rotate it to the next chamber without stopping the flow.  Of course, powder would get all over the top of the cylinder, a cylinder made sticky because of the Crisco from the previous loading.  After pouring the powder in this way, we'd ram in the bullets.  To prevent chain firing (or so we believed), we'd plaster (glomm) on a thick layer of Crisco to the outside of the cylinder, little realizing that the Crisco actually made matters worse.  Speaking of chainfires, any shot might include a chainfire, so we'd we'd flinch every time we'd pull the trigger.

     Back in those days, I remember that the Crisco made holding the smooth wooden butt of the pistol about as easy as holding on to a greased pig.  I mean, the doggone pistol was so slippery that the muzzle would slide down as I'd try to hold it on target.  Then there was all that nasty grease all over my hands and eventually all over my clothes as I'd forget myself and wipe them on my pants and shirt.  No way did anybody want to ruin a leather holster by putting a loaded and greased pistol in it.  And where did most of this Crisco come from (?), it was blown from the adjacent chambers to the outside of the pistol rather than to the inside of the pistol where it would have done some good.

     To make matters worse, there was the rapid build up of fouling that resulted in poor precision and accuracy (even without flinching).  It was just accepted that after the first three to six shots, the bullets would be all over the target.  Finally, after about 18 shots, the pistol would be jammed with fouling, the cylinder wouldn't rotate anymore and so we'd take it home to wash it out with soap and water and thus stink up the whole house with the odor of rotten eggs.

     I developed a mistaken impression that black powder revolvers were terribly inaccurate, highly prone to chain firing, were as slippery as a greased pig, they jammed up after just a few shots and were a nasty mess to clean, so after my initial fascination with them, I finally gave up and got rid of mine.  For years afterward I shot nothing but cartridge pistols and used nothing but smokeless propellants in my reloads.  Years ago, if anybody would have asked me, I'd have told them that black powder revolvers are a lot more trouble than they are worth.

     Everything changed about 15 years ago when I got into cavalry reenacting and bought good quality Civil War period reproduction firearms as part of my equipment.  I wanted to learn about the Civil War by living the life of an enlisted cavalryman (in so far as I could) and one thing I was eager to know was just how effective these weapons really were and how to get the most from them.  I had to relearn how things were done back then because "much that once was is lost for none now live who remember it."  This gave me an opportunity to do some interesting experiments and the more I experimented, the more I learned to enjoy black powder shooting.

     Well, I have learned a lot since those days and now I never get a chain fire, my bullets hit the target where I intend them to time after time, the outside of my revolver isn't greasy or slippery, I can shoot round after round without the pistol fouling up and cleaning my pistol is fast, easy and odorless.  For me today, black powder shooting is much more enjoyable and satisfying than it was "back in the good old days" and, as I said earlier, it is now my most fun kind of shooting.  In the following articles I want to share with you some of my experiences so that you too will find black powder shooting your most fun kind of shooting.

     Despite the Colt's many and glaring design defects, back in the old days, the Colt’s outsold all other brands and during the Civil War they were issued to troops on a 2 to 1 ratio to the Remington at the beginning of the War (this ratio was to reverse later in the war).  There were many reasons for this.  Sam Colt’s revolvers hit the market as early as the mid 1830's and the early ones, including the powerful dragoon models, made a wonderful reputation for Colt that captured the public's imagination.  For decades, people used the word 'colt' to mean 'revolver' regardless of the actual brand.  For example: "the colt I carried was a 1858 Remington I bought myself."  Colonel Sam was also a master salesman and he made friends with every important general, admiral and government official in America.  He shamelessly presented all important persons with exquisitely hand crafted, engraved & inlayed pistols as gifts.  Finally, even Colt's commercial grade pistols were beautifully made by skilled craftsmen using the finest materials of the day (so-called "Silver Spring Steel" - a homogeneous, phosphorous free steel developed by Colt just before 1860 and made from Swedish ore with a carefully controlled carbon content that made it possible to build a light holster pistol in .44 Army caliber that wouldn't blow up).  Colt pistols have always fit the hand superbly and they have perhaps the finest hammer location and cocking action of any single action revolver ever made.  Many people also insist that Colt single action revolvers, without a top strap, have always had superior "point-ability" (important in combat shooting).  

     For all these reasons and because the Colts had been "battle tested" in wars from India to Mexico and in countless skirmishes by the most famous fighting men of the time, old Sam Colt felt he could charge big money for his revolvers and he did.  Remington was a "Johnny come lately" and had no such delusions regarding the worth of their revolver, regardless of its technical superiority.  Remington's reputation would have to be built from scratch and so they were satisfied to sell a lot of "plain Jane" revolvers without fancy color hardening and cylinder engraving for much less money and by doing so, impress government buyers that way (which they did).  Once in the hands of fighting men, the Remington revolver would speak for itself and at the end of the War, it was the preferred surplus revolver the returning soldier would buy and take home.

     Of course, there are many other types of revolvers on the market ranging from the Starr double action to the huge Dragoons to the 9 shot + shotgun LeMat to the brass framed and historically accurate reproductions of Confederate manufactured pistols in .36 caliber to Pietta's popular, but non-historic brass framed model in .44 caliber (who's brand name I will not mention).  They all work the same, load the same and are equally fun to shoot, but "also ran" models are only a small fraction of what people were shooting then and just a fraction of what people are shooting today, so I am not going to go into any detail about them.  Let it suffice that the general information presented here applies to them just as it does to the Colts and Remingtons.

     The fact is, no matter what type of revolver you have or you decide to get, it will be a lot of fun to shoot and the owners of each type comes to really like what they have.  It is really hard to make a mistake here, so if you like the looks of a particular model or you like some historical aspect associated with it, buy it, you won't be sorry.

     You re-enactors of either side, do you want to "farb" yourselves this way even if the ignorant public doesn't know the difference?  You Southern re-enactors wishing to have "Confederate" equipment to be as "historically accurate as possible," just remember that the vast majority of arms used by the South were weapons that were in armories before hostilities began, captured weapons and weapons bought from overseas - and none of these were in brass.  It is highly unlikely (in my mind anyway) that any front line Confederate officer or cavalryman would have carried a crude, regionally made brass-framed .36 Navy Colt knock-off, but that the very few pistols that were actually made were issued to Home Guard units only.  

     To those new to cavalry re-enacting and who are just now buying their uniforms and firearms, you should know that the Confederate sections of most Civil War re-enactment associations forbid brass framed revolvers unless they are historically accurate copies of revolvers that were actually made in the South.  I think that it is a well known fact that the famous John S. Mosby considered the Colt 1860 .44 Army (loaded with round balls) as the revolver of choice -- and that should tell you something.  Then there is the fact that buyers in the South bought all the Colt 1860 Army revolvers Colt could manufacture directly from Colt before the beginning of the War, so if you buy a Colt reproduction, you will have a "Confederate" revolver without having to resort to a brass framed model.  If you want to own a strong revolver and you want to be as "authentic" and as "period" as possible, if you want to avoid "farbing" yourself and ending up with the "wrong" kind of revolver or something forbidden to carry at a re-enactment, please stay away from brass.

     More important than the historical inaccuracy of brass is the issue of strength.  Let's face it, brass framed Colt type pistols have a terrible reputation and over and over people warn that shooting normal charges will cause the cylinder shaft to pull out of the frame.  As the shaft pulls out, the pistol gets all loose and the thing is ruined.  This is especially true of  the big .44 caliber models that Pietta has the shameless gall to call a "Confederate Navy" model.