a mystery to me

[urbanspaceman]

Hey Jim, thank-you, I guess they must have been prone to malfunction with so few manufactured. Like my series 1 Remington rolling block, the Navy were happy to experiment but quick to abandon. Rim-fire then c/f solved everybody's problems I suspect and they all moved on.
Even so, double-action was still the holy-grail back then.
Still, it gives collectors of the unusual an opportunity to lust over rare examples.
I am tempted by this piece.

[urbanspaceman]

The Army contract was for 20,000.
I guess by 1861 the Navy had given up on percussion caps; I understand they were nothing but trouble out on the high seas.
I've also been told that the caps were prone to dropping off at the best of times and jamming the cylinder.
Still, it is an attractive curiosity.

[Jim McDougall]

It would seem percussion caps would present problems in any kind of a situation where dynamics would impair their intended function.

In the much misunderstood Battle of San Pascual in the Mexican-American war Dec 7, 1846, it has always been heralded that the forces of US Dragoons and Marines were soundly defeated by Californio riders armed only with lances.

The main claim was that the US rifle's would not fire due to wet powder and exposure to rain.
The truth was that the actual combat took place literally in the early morning hours or middle of the night; the US troops were exhausted after being on one of the longest marches in US history, the horses were spent and the men were on mules; it had indeed been raining and they were in rugged, unfamiliar terrain in pitch black darkness....and it was freezing cold in damp fog.

The ball and paper cartridges for the M1833 Hall & North breech loading carbines were held in coated leather pouches, so it was not damp powder.... it was that the men could not see to load the guns........in darkness, and freezing fingers.....the caps were fumbled and fell.

The Mexicans were upon them with lances, and with no defense other than using the guns as clubs, they were instantly victims.

Definitely, the cartridge was a most important innovation for guns.

[urbanspaceman]

Did they not have bayonets Jim or was the no time to fix?
Still poor defence against Lancers of course.

[David R]

Bayonets on Hall Carbines for cavalry I don't think so... Sabres is an other matter! But US combatants seem to have a long standing problem with blades.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you David. I have no idea what a Hall Carbine is.
While we are straying from my initial post I am curious to understand why they had difficulty with edged weapons. What was the weapon of choice for cavalry then?
I really don't fancy the idea of going up against lancers from horseback with a sabre.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Thank-you David. I have no idea what a Hall Carbine is.
While we are straying from my initial post I am curious to understand why they had difficulty with edged weapons. What was the weapon of choice for cavalry then?
I really don't fancy the idea of going up against lancers from horseback with a sabre.

The M1833 musket had a bayonet, but the carbines no. These were dragoons and surely had sabers, but of little use with these Mexican horsemen all over them in pitch darkness with lances. Besides being pretty well dampened, middle of the night, most of them on mules, the horses spent, on unfamiliar terrain.

While sabers were in use, they were hardly a weapon of choice as had become the case prevailing through the rest of the century, with firearms the primary.

[David R]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Thank-you David. I have no idea what a Hall Carbine is.
While we are straying from my initial post I am curious to understand why they had difficulty with edged weapons. What was the weapon of choice for cavalry then?
I really don't fancy the idea of going up against lancers from horseback with a sabre.

Back in the Napoleonic wars a bunch of poorly trained cavalry stood off a charge by following orders. They drew swords, and leaned over their horses necks with sabres extended as a hedge of blades, without moving.
I think the US problem was a matter of training and inclination, guns being preferred. In Europe Cavalry trained heavily with swords, and had confidence in their effectiveness, perhaps too much so. Lances were also a weapon they were familiar with, and again trained to deal with them.