Why were cavalry SAAs longer than others?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
1
Location
Garland, Utah
I know this is a history question the likes of which doesn't get asked as often here, but I couldn't find an answer elsewhere. Is there any particular reason why 7.5 inch barrel SAAs were issued uniformly to cavalry troops, while other parts of the Army were less selective on whether they were issuing SAAs with 5.5 or 7.5 inch barrels?
 
Try the burn properties on black powder short or long burn durations to build up pressure
 
Just guessing. The longer barrel allows for more muzzle velocity/power. Since the cavalry SSAs were intended to be used against horses as well as people, the extra oomph was helpful.

STI in comment #2 is on the right track.
Jeff
 
I think this all tracks from the historical use of arms on horseback. You can stab, cut, then then later fire with one hand, as the other controls the reins. Pistols and petronels (stocked pistols, basically) were developed in the single-shot era specifically for horse troops. Likewise, there's a whole related set of dragoons, who are equipped to fight mostly from foot, so carry spears and pikes, then carbines, mostly.

Anyway: for the cavalry the pistol becomes not a backup or badge of honor for officers but a primary combat arm for everyone, and they'll take all the muzzle weight, sight-radius, and muzzle velocity they can to get the most effective one-hand firearm they can. Presumably, no longer barrels for holstering purposes, to make sure it actually is carried, accessible, doesn't snag or interfere with riding, etc. Although I have seen euro armies issue even longer pistols for their cavalry in broadly this timeframe so presumably details of their approach, their gear, etc.

Charles-Schyreyvogel-western-artist-true-west-magazine.jpg
Pistols in hand, carbines stowed.

Though... I have no direct documentary evidence of the Army thinking on this. I bet someone does though.
 
Far as I know the Army only ordered the 7.5 barrels from Colt.. Then in the 1890s the army had many of the barrels cut down to 5.5 inch. And those were the ones then issued to troops.. If memory serves me the 5.5 inch were not official called anything but shortened or altered barrel revolvers but because they first went to the Artillery Units for the war in Cuba. They were nicknamed Artillery models.

Cool, ever stop and think how many of the great names for firearms are not the official names but the nicknames that the end users/buyers give them Thunderer, Rain Maker, Lightning, Artillery Colt Etc

Always bothered me as a kid that the Artillery Colt has a shorter barrel then the original Colts and the Artillery Luger has a longer barrel then the "normal" issue Lugers.. A little shout out here for some naming conventions :)
 
Last edited:
I know this is a history question the likes of which doesn't get asked as often here, but I couldn't find an answer elsewhere. Is there any particular reason why 7.5 inch barrel SAAs were issued uniformly to cavalry troops, while other parts of the Army were less selective on whether they were issuing SAAs with 5.5 or 7.5 inch barrels?
The other parts of the Army carried the same 7.5 inch barrel. In 1892, the Army went to a double action .38 revolver and the SAAs were turned in and put in storage. Around the turn of Century, the Army pulled SAAs out of storage and issued them in the Philippines. In the process, the barrels were shortened to 5.5". Someone dreamed up the name "Artillery model" for those guns, for no apparent reason, and the name stuck. But they had nothing to do with the Artillery.
 
Let me add a history lesson. Colt developed the revolver and manufactured them in Patterson, NJ. The early Colts were not as good as later models, and Colt went bankrupt. A quantity of these early "Patterson" Colts were purchased by the Texas Navy. Texas couldn't afford a navy, so the navy was disbanded and the Colts issued to the Texas Rangers.

The Rangers were having a hard time with the Comanche, who fought mounted. If you dismounted to fight, the Comanche would ride off to attack somewhere else. To fight them, the Rangers had to fight mounted -- with single shot muzzle loaders. The Comanche, on the other hand, would hold a bow and a half-dozen arrows in the left hand, and shoot them one after the other as they charged. So the Texas Rangers carried more guns. and still more guns.

When the 5-shot Patterson Colts were issued, Captain John Coffee Hays had a brilliant insight -- "This isn't a gun! This is FIVE guns, and you can hold all five in one hand. Please, Sir, can I have another?" Rangers with two 5-shot Patterson Colts started whipping the Comanche regularly.

Texas was admitted to the Union in December, 1845, and that meant we were going to have a war with Mexico, so the "Army of Anticipation" was sent to patrol the Rio Grande. The Texas Rangers were taken into the US Army as state troops -- and the Army was glad to get them. The Rangers demanded revolvers, so Captain Samuel Walker was sent east to negotiate with Samuel Colt. Together, they designed a revolver for the Texas Rangers.

Did I mention Walker was a Texan? The "Walker Colt" was ginormous! SIX shots, .45 caliber (although called .44), 9-inch barrel, and huge chambers. The "Walker Colt" was the most powerful production revolver until the .44 Magnum came along about 110 years later. And each Ranger was issued TWO!

The US Army took note, and from then on, our cavalry fought with pistols, and the saber fell out of use. But over time, the revolvers shrank -- the "Walker Colt" was too much of a good thing.

So when you question why the SAA was such a big gun, with such a long barrel, measure it against the "Walker Colt."
 
The revolver was the primary weapon, if not the only weapon used by Cavalry. They were intended to be used at fairly long range if necessary, not just close range
 
I don't know. I do know that longer barrels were thought to produce more power. Weight was an issue, the Calvary man's kit was weighed, and Commanders had to enforce removal of items, because horses were valuable, and had to carry the man and his equipment. But, I think since the pistol was originally carried on the horse, weight was not as critical as it was for the Infantry Officer who carried a revolver. I have read enough Civil War memoirs to learn, guys died of heat exhaustion on marches. Like, hundreds on some marches. Infantry would collapse and be left by the road side as the column moved on. A long and heavy revolver would not be wanted.

The author of Hardtack and Coffee mentioned that Bowie knives, so desired as a fearsome weapon, often issued as gifts early in the war, were rapidly dumped by the road side on marches, along with anything else that was absolutely not necessary to carry.

And there is one other thing, which I think influenced the weight of the Walker Colt. Cavalry used pistols as clubs. Those single shot horse pistols would be reversed and used as a club if things got that hairy. I think the the longer 7.5 inch barrel of a cavalry pistol would work nicely as a handle, as you beat the other guy with the butt.
 
So they didn't shoot the horse in back of the head.

No really. Most likely that was what was available in numbers.
 
So was looking for something else this afternoon.. and came across some SAA gun porn... Now if you do not like to look at SA guns.. Skip to 7:00 for a minute and they talk about the Artillery SAA..

If on the other hand you like looking at SAA Colts and SA side arms.. POP some Corn, get a cool drink and Viddy Well Oh my Brother...



 
Last edited:
A bit more barrel
Weight would help to smooth out the bumps and whatnot from the motion of the horses. Likely it would also be a bit easier to shoot at longer range as well, but those original pistols had sights that were far from optimal so that’s highly debatable.
 
Howdy

I'm really enjoying the video. Mostly because even though many of those revolvers are very valuable, the owner is not treating them like works of art. He is handling them without gloves, and he is just clunking them down on the counter top. No fancy velvet cloth to cushion them.

Anyway, Indy1919a4 has it correct. The first Army contract Colts all had 7 1/2" barrels. I have been poring over my copy of John Kopec's seminal work, A Study of the Colt Single Action Army Revolver (600 pages) and he does not state anywhere why the Army insisted on the 7 1/2" barrels. My suspicion is because most of the old Cap & Ball revolvers had long barrels, to accommodate the loading lever, the Army was just used to long barrels. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of development work going on at Colt while they finalized the SAA design. Several different cartridges were tried, the Army ordered a few chambered for 44 Russian and 44 Rimfire as test guns. The early prototypes had gain twist rifling, but these did not stabilize the bullet very well. I'm looking right now at a copy of a document from 1882 that specifies a 7 1/2' barrel, with a twist rate of 1 turn in 16". Yes, all the early contract models were issued to Cavalry units, that is why they are often referred to as the Cavalry Model. The revolver was actually a secondary weapon for a mounted trooper, his primary weapon was his sabre. His revolver was usually carried on his weak side (the left side for most of us) with the butt forward in his holster. That way he could pull his pistol cross draw style. Trust me, it is much easier to pull a long barrelled revolver from the left side with the butt forward, than on the right side. I discovered a long time ago that trying to pull a 7 1/2" Colt from a strong side holster was next to impossible without getting my elbow tangled in my armpit.

By the way, when the Cavalry fought, they usually dismounted. One trooper would hold several horses while his mates fought standing up, or taking cover. So the weight of a 7 1/2" long Colt really did not matter too much. Neither did accuracy while bouncing around in a saddle.



This is a Colt Richards Conversion. The early examples were made by converting 1860 Army Cap & Ball revolvers to fire the 44 Colt (not 45 Colt) cartridges. Note the 8" long barrel. In 1871 the Army ordered 1000 of these.

pmwIqzDpj.jpg




The Army ordered several other revolvers before settling on the SAA in 1873. The first cartridge revolvers the Army ordered was a shipment of 1000 Smith and Wesson Americans, chambered for the 44 S&W cartridge. I believe this was either 1869 or 1870. This is actually a 1st Model Russian, but the American Model looked just like this, except it was chambered for the 44 S&W cartridge, which used a heeled bullet. Yes, this one has been refinished, that is the only way I could afford a pretty nice 1st Model Russian. Recent studies show that some of these were used at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876.

pne7YNc8j.jpg




Anyway, by about 1890 most of the original contract guns were pretty worn, so most of them were sent either back to Colt, or to the Springfield Armory to be reconditioned. Many of these had the barrels shortened to 5 1/2". Then many of them were reissued to Artillery units, hence the name. Artillery Model. Nothing to do with long barrels, it's where they were sent. Interestingly enough, many of these guns had parts mismatched when they were reassembled, so serial numbers were often messed up.

Unlike the Luger Artillery Model which did have a really long barrel.

pnJv1qw8j.jpg
 
Last edited:
My guess: bureaucratic inertia.

The 1851 Colt Navy had a 7 1/2” barrel.
The Remington 1858 New Army had an 8” barrel.
The Colt 1860 Army had an 8” barrel.

Therefore, Federal purchasing requirements specified a long barrel because revolvers were supposed to have long barrels. Ever been a government employee? Ever tried to convince your boss to try something different?

The 7 1/2” inch barrel was an Army specification. A few hundred civilian models were produced late in 1873, but went to Schuyler, Hartley and Graham in New York. So shorter barrels were available to civilians rather quickly after production began, but the Army initially only bought the long barrel.

So my guess is, mostly bureaucracy more than ballistic performance.

Reference:

Firearms Of The American West, 1866-1894; Garavaglia and Worman, University Press of Colorado, 1985, pg. 287.
 
I would say that the 7.5” barrel had nothing what-so-ever to do with anything discussed above; I think that the Army then is as the Army is of today; was acting like a department of our government just like the Army does at present. Then we sit around and try to inject logic and pragmatism into a process that has no logic and pragmatism. My guess is that the real reason for a 7.5” barrel that the Calvary adopted will never be known. My guess which has the same quality of any guess would be, that the holster maker for the Army talked the Calvary into the longer barrel because they had a lot of holster inventory from the previous longer barrel sidearms that the Army used and told the Calvary that they could buy the excess holster inventory at a cheaper price. Think about it, how do you think our government really works? Remember this: ”Don’t wear a mask, you don’t need to wear a mask, wearing a mask is not needed to protect you from the virus AND (the classic part of the statement) you have a better chance of catching the virus if you wear a mask (THE SURGEON GENERAL, US NAVY).
 
...The revolver was actually a secondary weapon for a mounted trooper, his primary weapon was his sabre. His revolver was usually carried on his weak side (the left side for most of us) with the butt forward in his holster. That way he could pull his pistol cross draw style. Trust me, it is much easier to pull a long barrelled revolver from the left side with the butt forward, than on the right side. I discovered a long time ago that trying to pull a 7 1/2" Colt from a strong side holster was next to impossible without getting my elbow tangled in my armpit.

By the way, when the Cavalry fought, they usually dismounted. One trooper would hold several horses while his mates fought standing up, or taking cover. So the weight of a 7 1/2" long Colt really did not matter too much. Neither did accuracy while bouncing around in a saddle...[/QUOTE

Normally your post are fairly accurate. Today you missed your mark. If the revolver was carried on the left hip, where did they hand that sabre? Also, a sabre is a pretty miserable weapon to be used afoot. I agree, the Cavalry was often used as Mounted Infantry. Yes, the revolver was secondary but i believe it was worn on the right hip, but forward and pulled using (what else?) the Cavalry draw. I also believe the primary weapon was the rifle and in this case the Springfield Single Shot Rifle aka Trapdoor.

And, by the way, we both know, everyone in the military is right handed!


.This is a Colt Richards Conversion. The early examples were made by converting 1860 Army Cap & Ball revolvers to fire the 44 Colt (not 45 Colt) cartridges. Note the 8" long barrel. In 1871 the Army ordered 1000 of these.

View attachment 905689

Nice Richards! I no longer have my pair of originals but i do have a pair of the ASM copies. Great revolvers chamber for the modernized 44 Colt, but that is fodder for another thread.

Kevin
 
Yes, you are correct. The revolver was worn on the right, butt forward. The sabre was carried on the left, and could be pulled from it's scabbard across the body. Don't know what I was thinking. The sabre was an effective mounted weapon, for close quarters fighting, particularly against troops on foot.

And yes, the cavalry also was issued the Springfield Trapdoor rifle. This one was made in 1883. However the cavalry was issued the shorter carbine version, and the 45-70 ammunition was toned down to a charge of about 55 grains because recoil was severe in the lighter carbines.

poiGjuc6j.jpg
 
I wonder if the barrel length had anything to do with existing supply of holsters from the longer barrelled cap and ball revolvers.

Could be. They recycled their musket cap pouches as revolver cartridge pouches.
But it was more likely just military resistance to change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top