Officers side arms

[UnionMan]

Re: Officers side arms

The revolver was most certainly the American officer's best line of defense against his own men. Like in any army, there is bound to be a bit of resentment between the officers and enlisted men. Unlike the stately and wealthy officers in European armies, the American volunteer officer was not likely to be trained in the art of fencing, meaning that his decorative saber was even more useless to him as a weapon for defense.

The market for pistols exploded during the Civil War, and the number of new pistol designs created in response to that demand seems contrary to the concept of an officer going without such a tool. We also cannot ignore the sweeping popularity of the revolver in post war America. Heralded as one of the best tools for personal defense, I find it unlikely that, if a line officer could afford such a revolver, he would not have taken the opportunity to purchase one.

An officer was not under any illusion of being able to turn the tide of battle with his revolver, but it could be very effective in saving his own life. We ought not forget that the revolver was a relatively new and respected weapon. I'm sure that the enlisted men viewed a man armed with such a weapon with a certain sense of respect when compared to his single shot rifle.

-Tad

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.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Officers side arms

Pete,

As you know, when portraying a line officer I often carry a 0.36-caliber pocket pistol; it would appear that a majority of line officers who carried side arms tended toward smaller, lighter weaponry than large "cavalry pistols".

That said, it's difficult to say with certainty what the "typical" line officer carried for weaponry other than his sword. In the end I think it's matter of personal preference. I believe that if I were really a Civil War-era line officer I WOULD have carried a pistol, hence my investment in one for my portrayal. I also tend to think--and mind you this is an opinion--that the reenactor tendency to state that officers were unarmed except for their sword is one of those "campaigner fads", because I've seen little evidence one way or the other about what line officers REALLY carried in the field on campaign.

Whatever you may choose to do, my advice is to invest in other key areas of officer kit first, and save the holster and side arm for later, because they're rarely used in "campaigner" reenacting. If you opt for a side arm, don't buy a big 0.44-caliber black powder Dirty Harry pistol--go for a small revolver instead, such as a police pistol or "pocket" pistol.

If you want, shoot me an e-mail and I'll gladly send you a copy of John Tobey's 2003 article on Eastern Federal line officer kit.

[Mike N]

Re: Officers side arms

<<<... 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...>>>

While I won't make any presumptions as to the attitudes of CW officers, my own first hand experience is that a number of officers choose not to carry a sidearm and see their unit as their weapon. Personally I always carried my sidearm (22 years US Army Armored Cav) but know many officers who did not, regulations be damned. Of course it also has a great deal to do with the nature of the conflict one is engaged in. In current day Iraq I doubt many would go anywhere unarmed.

When portraying a Federal CW officer I generally carry a Model 1851 Colt .36 caliber although I admit I rarely have the opportunity to employ it.

Regarding improving the appearance of reproduction revolvers, I heartily recommend the services of John Zimmerman who does first rate "de-farb" work. His web site is at: http://www.edsmart.com/jz/harpersferryguns.htm

Regards,

Mike Nugent

[Andrew Jarvi]

Re: Officers side arms

Mike,
Thank you for the reference on a good source to defarb a pistol. I know they do a fine job on the muskets but didn't know if they did pistols

Respectfully,
Andrew Jarvi
Capt. 5th USCT

[VMI88]

Re: Officers side arms

In the end I think it's matter of personal preference. I believe that if I were really a Civil War-era line officer I WOULD have carried a pistol, hence my investment in one for my portrayal. I also tend to think--and mind you this is an opinion--that the reenactor tendency to state that officers were unarmed except for their sword is one of those "campaigner fads", because I've seen little evidence one way or the other about what line officers REALLY carried in the field on campaign.

Kevin,

I agree with you 100%. I also believe -- and this is likewise an opinion -- that virtually every officer would have owned a pistol and at least had it available in his baggage. Whether they would have worn it routinely is open to debate, but I can't imagine a soldier going off to war without being armed.

There are frequent references to officers owning or carrying pistols, but I have yet to see an account that specifically mentions an officer not carrying a pistol on campaign. If anyone knows of such a reference I would like to see it. It's easy for us to say that an officer's troops were his weapon, but firearms were an everyday part of American life, much more so than today, and would have been considered essential by most. A pistol may have been a weapon of last resort (as it remains today), but in an era when Napoleonic tactics and grand bayonet charges were still in vogue it would not have been hard to imagine reaching that point. This doesn't even take into account skirmishing, foraging, guard, and other occasions where an officer might be more reliant on his own firepower.

How many modern officers -- even staff officers or combat support officers -- would consider going into a combat zone unarmed? Nineteenth Century combat, if anything, was more up close and personal than Twentieth or Twenty-first Century combat. Until I see documentary evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that officers should be armed.

[tmdreb]

Re: Officers side arms

I would agree with the camp of the opinion that not carrying a pistol smells a bit like a reenactorism, or at least a "hardcorism." Granted, not every officer carried a hogleg with its own cap pouch and cartridge box on his belt. However, as pointed out, the "my company is my weapon" argument tends to forget that then, as is not usually the case now, your company might not have wanted to be on that particular field, or under your command. There are also plenty of times an officer could find himself in a predicament where the company wasn't there to ensure his own safety.

So, 5 or 6 shots in the enemy's direction might have very little effect on turning the tide of a battle, but those same shots aimed at one's own company before it can rout may well have the effect of keeping 50 rifles pointed at the enemy, rathern than tossed to the ground. I would also agree that personal safety was of much more concern then than we give credit for today.

[Silas]

Scoliosis

I would agree with the camp of the opinion that not carrying a pistol smells a bit like a reenactorism, or at least a "hardcorism."

A ten mile march is a great way to find out what one needs and what one can live without.

Carrying that uneven, dead weight on one hip throws out my already touchy lower back. Being a campaigner, everything I tote must pass the benefit and burden test. It may be appropriate for me to wear a pistol, but the weight of the metal and effect on my back make pistols unnecessary for the campaign events I attend.

At least when one marches with a musket, it can be moved from one shoulder to another to equalize the strain on the lower back. Hard to do that with a pistol unless I'm wearing two holsters like Yosemite Sam.

The period drawing of an officer at the head of a column with his holster on the opposite side of his belt comes to mind as a way to balance the weight. Still, I'd have too much weight towards the front and none at the rear over the course of many miles. Better to go without.

If carrying all my necessary gear for a weekend but leaving my pistol at home makes me a farb, then I'm a farb.

[UnionMan]

Re: Scoliosis

I originally posted something fairly sarcastic that could have been taken the wrong way, so I am editing this post out. All have valid points and I have enjoyed the conversation.

-Tad

[tmdreb]

Re: Scoliosis

A ten mile march is a great way to find out what one needs and what one can live without.

Carrying that uneven, dead weight on one hip throws out my already touchy lower back. Being a campaigner, everything I tote must pass the benefit and burden test. It may be appropriate for me to wear a pistol, but the weight of the metal and effect on my back make pistols unnecessary for the campaign events I attend.

At least when one marches with a musket, it can be moved from one shoulder to another to equalize the strain on the lower back. Hard to do that with a pistol unless I'm wearing two holsters like Yosemite Sam.

The period drawing of an officer at the head of a column with his holster on the opposite side of his belt comes to mind as a way to balance the weight. Still, I'd have too much weight towards the front and none at the rear over the course of many miles. Better to go without.

If carrying all my necessary gear for a weekend but leaving my pistol at home makes me a farb, then I'm a farb.

I wouldn't go as far as saying you're a farb, but I will say that the Remington I carried between Mansfield and Pleasant Hill didn't throw my back out. I was probably too distracted by the pain my bedroll was causing me to notice, though.

[DougCooper]

Re: Officers side arms

One possible reason for confusion here is the inconclusive photo evidence of infantry officers wearing pistols. Brian Pohanka once did two non-scientific photo studies on the wearing of pistols and the wearing of swords (pointing front or back). If I remember, many of the photos in the field showed no pistols. I have a photo of 6 1st Minn officers standing against a barn in late 62 - all have swords, no pistols. Why was that? Think about it - the enlisted men stacked arms when not actually using them. Officers probably secured their pistols in camp or even on the march much of the time.

Personally, I have begun carrying my Colt Navy in my knapsack on the march, vice on the belt. Once action is upon us, out it comes, load up and off we go.

...and I keep a loyal private around to ward of fragging when not armed :wink_smil

[Robert Braun]

Re: Officers side arms

The majority of posters here have said it all... personal preference and when the preference was to carry a firearm, the selection fell to (generally speaking) lighter-weight weapons.

Our Civil War ancestors tended to be prudent, sensible people. Officers are not always with their company, nor can they always rely of having that company's firepower available for his "personal defense."

Checking the picket lines, or serving as part of an advance guard or flank guard carries with it its own perils. One cannot always be certain of one's personal safety in a time of war, and prudence seems to be the best course of action when it came to deciding when or when not to tote a personal firearm.

I wonder what advice those Federal officers operating within the confines of "Mosby's Confederacy" might offer? :wink_smil

Regards, Bob.

[RebelReefer]

Re: Officers side arms

I rarely if ever carry a sidearm when i'm on staff as a 2nd L.T.. When i do, i carry a 36. cal colt navy revolver. The few times i've used it, i usually fire it at my own men as they are running away from the line. I too agree that it is a great weight on the sword belt, and being a little guy, "5 foot 5", i don't let my kit get to heavy, otherwise it makes running difficult.

[mightyreb]

Re: Officers side arms

Choosing a sidearm is like choosing a hat, it simply comes down to what fits you best. Except of course one goes on your head & the other in your hand. :)

Steven Hutton

[vamick]

Re: Officers side arms

For me the bottom line is..this is a shooting war, and I'd never wont to be in a position where I couldnt shoot back!! period..oh I know..its sooo heavy, its bothersome ,its this and that. but if you were the officer cut off and in the woods, if you were face to face with some better 'heeled' enemy one on one..you'd think of at least two things #1...that heavy ole pistol that hurt my whathave ya sure would come in handy right now! and #2 dont I feel dumb dying unarmed! :p...its a war...go armed!

[Clsinclair]

Re: Officers side arms

This discussion prompt me to go to my picture books such as "Touched By Fire" and a few others. Many officers with swords but I could not find a pistol. I carried one for a short time and now I just leave it at home. But I have been looking for a smaller caliber.