 |
| Posted: Fri Dec 14th, 2007 02:23 pm |
|
21st Post |
David White
Member
|
Having held an original in my hand this is an awesome weapon.
I think I held a later model because it had the adjustable hammer, I believe the tip of the hammer is lowered to fire the shotgun charge. If I am not mistaken, the earlier model had two triggers one for the shotgun charge and one for the roundshot. Also I thinki they changed calibers of both barrells from the original to the final model too.
Last edited on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 02:24 pm by David White
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14th, 2007 03:37 pm |
|
22nd Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
David,
The only one I have ever seen or heard of is the single adjustivle hammer you described. I have always been facinated by it and look for them in every museum I go to...makes me stand out in Art museums and museums of Natural history (LOL), but you get my point.
I can only envy you getting to hold one.
I would love to have a replica so I could shoot it, but its pretty pricey for a BP replica
Regarding the weight and difficulty of "lugging them around", I believe they were/are considered horse pistols, that is, the holster was on the saddle, not on the calveryman's hip
Ed
Last edited on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 03:40 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
23rd Post |
David White
Member
|
I think one of the advantages of the original model was you could pull with enough force on both triggers to deliver a ball and the shot at the same time. The disadvantage was if you had thick fingers it was tough just to pull the shotgun trigger.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2007 03:38 am |
|
24th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
ball and shot at the same time..that would have been a phenominal weapon... good Lord the damage it could doat close range..(shudder)...
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2007 02:04 pm |
|
25th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Destruction caused would pale next to a double barrel shotgun and any advantage of the buckshot charge is negated by the very short barrel making it's effective range minimal... in fact a pistol really doesn't have that great of an advantage over a sword in a CW era CQB. I've read scores of stories of men w/ pistols emptying their weapons and missing at 6'-15' ranges. The CS thought them unimpressive and overpriced when compared to British & French pistols; and rightly so.
Actually I don't know of a model off hand w/ 2 triggers as such an arrangement would require two hammers unless there was some sort of disconnect. S/N 19 as pictured in Swords work only shows one trigger w/ S/N 1422 pictured in Firearms from Europe also showing only 1 trigger. THere were only some 3000 made w/ only about half that reaching the CS. Among the problems were SERIOUS quality control issues such as the use of poor quality cast iron frames, indexing problems which prevented the cylinder from rotating & worst excessive variances between the barrel & cylinder... this can cause flash fires or injury to the firer in the form of burns. Not exactly endearing qualities in a firearm. The LeMat's failure was in consistant quality control issues which in no way made it compare favorably to it's rivals. It's a fearsome pistol, on paper. THe CS inspectors refused many before they were even put on ship bound for the CS and word of failures in the field only condemns it further.
There are a couple books on the subject. I'm fondest of Swords work: Firepower from Abroad The Confederate Enfield and the LeMat Revolver.
THe men who mattered preferred the Colt, Remington & Kerr. All roughly half the weight of a LeMatt, smaller and more comfortable to carry. The CS was desperetly short of pistols and didn't have the luxury to differentiate. Saddle jolsters were in short supply, not to mention a problem as often when Cav fought it was dismounted, the majority of the time w/ their feet planted squarely upon moma earth. THe Cav charges of Europe were very few & far between; while dramatic when succesful they were devestating upon failure. Forrest was more of a raider and frankly not a Cavman in the traditional sense. The reality is that shooting anything from a moving horse is a challenge and more grounded in hollyweird than reality.
The reality is that the LeMat is like the modern .44 Automag, .454 Cassul, Coonan or .50 AE Desert Eagle in that the men who have to carry and use one on the sharp end prefer something lighter and more handy to use such as the Glock, SIG, CZ, 1911 etc.
Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2007 02:22 pm by Johan Steele
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2007 02:20 pm |
|
26th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
The principal difference between the effectiveness of saber vs. pistol, as I understand it, is the issue of training. A recruit of that era could be reasonabley expected to know at least the rudiments of marksmanship, whereas the use of a saber would require a great deal of training and practice.
According to the sources I have read, the pistol was favored because of basic firepower.... a Colt, Remington, or other "6 shooter" and a carbine equaled 7 shots before reloading. The LeMat was a 9 shot and then the shotgun for a total of 11 rounds (with the carbine also)
The shotgun on the LeMat was used as a last ditch self preservation tool
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2007 06:32 pm |
|
27th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Any idiot can hit any other idiot w/ a big stick. Sword is simple, pointy end goes in the other guy; failing that just keep wacking the other guy w/ it till he falls down or runs away.
Pistol is sooooo much more complicated. Point, pull trigger repeat s needed.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2007 08:38 pm |
|
28th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Try doing that from a horse...oh and you need to keep the stick... also, slashing wounds, thrusts kill.. slashing on horseback infinitely easier than thrusting and keeping control of the saber on horseback MHO
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2007 03:34 pm |
|
29th Post |
Dixie Girl
Southern Belle
|
Poor squirrels!!!!
____________________
War Means Fighting And Fighting Means Killing - N. B. Forrest
When war does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Stonewall Jackson
Sic Semper Tyrannis - John Wilkes Booth
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 04:43 pm |
|
30th Post |
younglobo
Member
|
Saber Fighting on the back of a horse does require some talent but, I would have to agree with Johan Hacking at your opponent comes pretty easy as long as you can handle your mount , leg control is the key (thats using your legs to guide the horse for those of you that don't ride)that leaves you a free hand for a pistol and saber unless you are the duke and can use your teeth. I would have to disagree with the fact that pistols were not very effective, have read several accounts of Bushwackers being feared for their ability to shoot with em. And as we say in the cav. "who would bring a knife to a gun fight anyway"
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 06:49 pm |
|
31st Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Bottom Line...
There is no substitute for skill... Pistols can be VERY effective in the hands of someone who understands them, but the understanding will result in hundreds of fired rounds learning
Merry Christmas
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 08:30 pm |
|
32nd Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
I prefer shotguns... 12 guage sawed off in the hands of a frightened shaking woman. Makes a .38 look pretty small.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 08:46 pm |
|
33rd Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
no argument.. Ask the folks who tangled with Terrell's Texas Rangers. I believe it was their preferred weapon.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 13th, 2008 08:01 pm |
|
34th Post |
Widow
Member
|
Mosby's Rangers gave up on sabers fairly quickly. They much preferred pistols and shotguns. They weren't interested in fighting battles, stirrup to stirrup, but rather they specialized in hit-and-run raids.
Widow
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
35th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
I misspoke, or miswrote earlier..Terry's, not Terrels Texas rangers were the shotgun totin calvary who fought with Gen Forrest ..
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 01:40 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
