Really interesting discussion, would like to know more. Read a report from Gen. Pershing's troops of on Moro attacker with 32 .30-40 Krag wounds being felled by a .45 Colt round. It is well known that the Army shipped .45 Colt single actions over when the .38 failed.
My grandfather fought 1898-1902 in PI. He wore woolen cavalry uniforms that rotted off, their mules died in the tropic rains, they were armed with .45-70 rolling blocks that he absolutely hated. Their shoulders were black and blue, first shots in morning were extremely painful until numbed, clouds of white smoke. Spanish had 7mm Mausers, couldn't tell where they were shooting from. Everyone wore captured Spanish khaki uniforms, all several sizes too small. Interesting how incredibly ill-prepared and backwards our military forces were at that time.
Gramps loved the Philippines, stayed until WWII, spent the war in Santo Thomas prison camp. Anyway, lots of history there. And, he hated the .38 revolver, said it was about worthless.
If you have more documentation on the C&B revolver being used back around the 1906 period, I would be very interested.
Sorry, to hijack the thread a little, I have not seen any figures relating to C&B revolver usage in wartime in general. Modern handguns are sidearms; C&B revolvers were apparently primary weapons for Civil War cavalry units, and were probably devastatingly effective. Elmer Keith reported 60+ y.o. Civil War veterans were incredibly proficient on horseback with their revolvers. Reason for the sidetrack, a friend, a Marine, says the 45 auto has accounted for more casualties than any other handgun; I say the C&B revolver has, and I can count the number of 45 auto casualties in modern warfare on my fingers. any thoughts?
Anyway, I am fascinated by this Rogers & Spencer thread, would like more info.
