Officers side arms

[FlemSmythe]

I have a couple questions for the gentlemen who portray officers in the field.

1) Do you prefer to carry a functioning or non functioning side arm?

2) What is the predominant weapon of choice for a generic Union Officer impression?

Peter,

John Stillwagon had given you two second & final warnings (http://www.authentic-campaigner.com...23135#post23135) for you to sign your posts with your real name, yet you failed to do so.

Consider your posting privelges revoked.

Scott McKay, moderator
Authentic Campaigner Forums

[CavLt]

Re: Officers side arms

I have a couple questions for the gentlemen who portray officers in the field.

1) Do you prefer to carry a functioning or non functioning side arm?

2) What is the predominant weapon of choice for a generic Union Officer impression?

Flem,

Not sure what motivates the first part of your question, but I carry a fully functioning 1860 Colt Army. Depending on the event and scenario, I do not alway choose to load it. I have only had my hands on a couple non-firing replicas, and have to ask whats the point. This is one item I get consistantly asked by spectators to see. To me, pulling out a non-firing replica would be akin to displaying a cap gun. (please take no offense, just my opinion)

As to the second part of your question: If you want a side arm for your impression, and are looking for generic, go with a army or navy Colt or Remington.

I carry the Colt for two reasons. 1) the Cav unit I belong to was originally issued the 1860 Colt Army, and I may portray a 1st Lt. or Sgt. depending on the event and number of bodies in the ranks. 2) Second, and less important to the impression, is the Colt Army fits my hand better than the Remington - even though I prefer the features of the Remington.

Jay Johnson

[Jeffrey Przewozniak]

Re: Officers side arms

Eallo!

A non-functioning sidearm would be unacceptable. Period. It should not even be an option.

It's difficult to ascertain what would be generic when talking about line officers (in the infantry, I assume). A quick glance in the Union
Echoes of Glory reveals

The Union purchased 373,077 handguns during the war. Among revovler aficionados, the Colt and Remington models known as Army (.44 caliber) and Navy (.36 Caliber) ranked as hands-down favories.

It goes on the mention:

Around 115,563 Remington Armys were sold during the war.

and

Between 1851 and 1861, Colt produced more than 200,000 of the Navy six-shooters.

While these support the fact that Colts and Remingtons were popular and circulating like crazy in the Union army, it does not necessarily account for officer's sidearms, which were more often than not privately purchased.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Officers side arms

I carry a functioning (although I have never needed to fire it) 1849 Colt pocket pistol.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Officers side arms

Hallo Kameraden!

"1) Do you prefer to carry a functioning or non functioning side arm?"

The best a "non-functioning" side arm could be is jewelry, the worst, farbery. (Not an appropriate question for this Forum.)

" 2) What is the predominant weapon of choice for a generic Union Officer impression?"

A simple question, with a long answer...

The choice of a defensive sidearm can come down to one's personal druthers then as now. The offensive function of a line captain is to fight with his company, and to a large extent he is protected defensively by is company.
Over time, the role of the "personal protection" weapon has been debated, but even in the 18th century it was not unusal to find officiers allowed to carry arms other than their swords (traidtional symbols of rank) such as fusils and at time banned from them as diverting the attention and focus AWAY from their commands.
In today's CW Community, we are divided on whether they should be present or not- just as "then."

IMHO, and for me, I carry a revolver "loaded," and with period label wrapped cartridge packs.

I have tried the M1860 Colt Army but found the "hog leg" a bit much in terms of weight, inconvenience in dragging down the swordbelt, and a bit large for my "small hands." I did go to an early version of the M1860 that used the M1851 Navy frame, but it did not solve the weight and bulk
problems.
In its place, I briefly carried a Leech & Rigdon .36 as a C.S. lieutenant and later captain.
On the Federal side, as a lieutenant or captain, Iused to carry a M1861 Colt Navy, but now I carry an M1851 "London Colt" Navy .36 revolver in a half flap holster. To me, it is "representative" of the private purchase choices availabe to a CW officer, and a bit more "unique and personal" than the ubiquitious M1851 Navy.
Also on the Federal side, I have carried a M1862 Colt Police with 4 1/2 barrel .36 which is basically a "mini .44 M1860" but still packs the force of the Navy without going to a .31 pocket. The "pockets" and "police" models appear to have appealed to CW officers dealing with the weight and bulk issues I mentioned above.

At any rate, IMHO, the "pockets" and "police" models are highly underrepresented today.

In looking at the types and numbers of "belt pistols" and "pocket pistols" sold, as well as all of the various Colt and Remington, Colt and Remington clones, and other CW era "Army" and "Navy" type revolvers, it would appear that more than one officer looked to a revolver as a personal defense weapon (while others skipped the expense, weight, bulk, and general uselessness.)
So, there is no "predominance."

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Who Actually ONCE Unholstered His M1862 Colt Police As the Federals Surged Over the Works at the Mule Shoe Salient 125st and Threatened To Sieze Our Colors in 1988 Mess

[smithjub]

Re: Officers side arms

Greetings,

I have to agree with everything Herr Schmidt has said above. Personally, I find the most realistic thing to do is get out in the field with a firearm and see if you actually have cause to use it. If your role in a unit never really calls for the need to defend yourself, then it's just another few pounds pulling on your sword belt. I don't know what type of officer you are, and whether or not you ever find yourself filling a gap in the line, but I rarely find the need to be armed with anything more than my sword. But then again I've been a staff officer for several years and just haven't been in harm's way very often.

You can usually tell the new officer in a company because ever inch of his belt has something on it: holster, cap box, cartridge box, etc. It only takes a couple reenactments for him to realize he didn't use any of them all weekend. I recommend a pocket or police pistol like Herr Schmidt was mentioning. That way you can slip it in your coat pocket and have the five shots if you need them, but you won't be carting around a lot of dead weight if you don't.

[Andrew Jarvi]

Re: Officers side arms

Gentlemen,
A fine discussion this is, as a officer of a USCT unit I am often the target as would have been historically. Therefore I carry a 1858 Remington Army Revolver, .44 caliber and usually load it and have used it a "few" times prior to taking a hit.

My question now is what can I do to make my pistol more authentic in appearance. I would gladly do what I can to be part of the solution than the problem.

Andrew Jarvi
Capt. 5th US Colored Infantry

[Justin Runyon]

Re: Officers side arms

It has always been my opinion that my weapon as a company commander is my company. If I need to draw a side arm, that is an indication to me that I have not used my company to the best advantage. As a result, the point in time when I would draw the side arm would probably be just after the point when it ceased to do me any good. Further, if I focus on loading aiming and firing my own weapon, am I paying attention to my boys?

Ultimately it comes to your own opinion as it did with the officers of 61-65, I have here just given you mine. To quote Herr Schmidt I have "skipped the expense, weight, bulk, and general uselessness" of my own fire arm.

[Silas]

Side arms and swords

I think the question about functioning and nonfunctioning was poorly written. The writer probably meant loaded or not loaded.

When I portray an officer, I don't carry a pistol although I do own a navy Colt. I chucked it years ago as unnecessary weight. My company is my weapon. Firing a pistol means you're no longer supervising your troops. You're just one of the troops. Put down the pistol and get back to work.

I chucked the belt also. My standard method of carrying the sword is to run a couple blanket straps through the rings on the scabbard. I sling the straps over my right shoulder keeping the sword on the left side of my body. The advantages are weight and mobility. No belt means less stuff to carry. No dangling sword means I'm much less likely to be tripped by the scabbard. I also get free use of both hands because I'm not using one to hold the sword in place; i.e., keeping it from running between my legs and tripping me.

At my last reenactment, some cavalryman dropped one of his pistols. One of the skirmishers in my company brought it to me. It was an Army Remington with five rounds. I fired it as fast as I could just to make it safe for carrying. It was okay to fire, but I'd rather concentrate on the chess game of the battlefield than be a pawn squaring off against a couple of knights.

[UnionMan]

Re: Side arms and swords

I do not wish to appear confrontational, but merely ask if there is a historical basis with which to ground your decision not to carry a side arm because "your company is your weapon" This sentiment seems like it would be easier for the reenactor to adobt versus an actual soldier...as there are no real bullets or shells flying in our direction. Even the most astute and confident commander realizes that not all things go as planned. I simply cannot see a line officer going into combat without some means of directly defending himself.

-Tad

[Agate]

Re: Officers side arms

Tad,

Agree with you. I believe the sidearm for an officer served as his defense, not always from the foe, but also from his own people. Civil War companies were made up of all sorts of men, both good and bad. John Paver was a Lieutenant with the 5th OVI and in his small post-war work made reference to one fellow in his company named "Scotty."

Scotty must have been a piece of work as Paver makes mention that in Western Virginia he bit off the nose of some poor Negro because he didn't think too much of the haircut he had just received from him.

Scotty also vowed to kill every officer in the regiment. According to Paver the fellow was a good soldier, and ended up doing good service, just wasn't quite all there.

As the sword is a symbol of rank the side arm is the authority to back it up. Soldiers were a weapon en masse. Just another opinion, and one from someone who doesn't portray an officer.

Regards,

John

Jno. Sarver
Cin. O.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Officers side arms

Hallo Agate!

On an unrelated firearm matter..

Four or five years ago or so, you had posted an Ohio report for 1862 that listed the weaaons for all of the Ohio regiments.

I had archived it, but along with tons of material I archived here instead of "at home," it wad lost when the AC Forum was "reborn yet again."

Is it possible you still have it, and could repost it, so that I can not only archive it here, but "save" it at home?

Danke either way!!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Appreciative Mess

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Officers side arms

Hallo Kameraden!

I would still stand on the "personal druthers" side of things here.

There is always the "sword." (a relatively useless thing, those...) But, with a regiment or brigade charging down on one, of what true value is a 5 or 6 shot revolver or its range?
Or as the Mex War story goes, of what value was some Lieutenant named Braxton Bragg's sidearm when the men rolled a lit artillery shell under his tent's cot? ;-)

I believe we can discuss this all around, and up one side and down the other, and stillnot get passed the "personal choice" (then as now) side of things? (But I would agree the reenacting/living history "safety" from the enemy as well as one's own men today is more of a modern one and less of a period factor to weigh on one's choices...) ;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Agate]

Re: Officers side arms

Comrade H.,

Will dig it up and post. Might take a day or so to find it, not the most organized person.


Take care,

John

John Sarver
Cin. O.

[Canton Zouave]

Re: Officers side arms

Flem,

I hope you didnt mean those non-firing pot metal pieces that are strewn across the novelty shops of some of our favorite military sites, but merely a non-loaded correct replica. (If there is such a thing?)

As JJ mentioned being an Officer with a side arm, it would be your responcibilty to acquire your own personal defense sidearm.

Three examples of known weapons that I have examined are:

General Samuel Beaty carried Two Colt 1847 Walkers in .44 Cal, in a pommel holster while he was Colonel of the 19th Ohio. However, he started the war with a Sword and no known sidearms when he was Capatin of Co. A, 19th Ohio (The Canton Light Guards)....he just got heavier as the war went on.

Another identified sidearm from Co. A, 19th Ohio (But I dont have the name of the officer with me) is a Smith & Wesson #2 in a hand made Flap Holster.
(a nice Private Purchase Example...but very pricey one to take into the field today)

Also, a Colt 1849 which I am currently going through our GAR Inventory Records to determine who the sidearm belonged to.


I wont lie, weight is a factor for most. I personally am used to carrying a loaded hand gun on my hip, and when I dont have a belt and holster around my waist...you miss it, but my back sure thanks me for it.

In the field I have carried an 1858 Remington (aka: Boat Anchor) in a flap holster, or an 1849 Colt Pocket Pistol under my coat. However, 99% of the time I have carried just my sword.

For a Generic Impression...I would just carry my Sword. Not only do you have the responcibility as an Officer to Oversee the engagement of your men as you portray a CW Officer, you should also be concentrating on the safety of your men as they engage. You popping caps, keeps you from watching over your men.