During the American Civil War, why didn't every one get pistols?

Question

pistols were given to officers and higher ups while the majority of the soldiers had long rifles that took about 5 years to reload....while pistols were easy to reload and shoot....

my question is....why didnt everyone just have pistols?

was it a cost problem? or something else?
i would think pistols are cheaper to make

thank you for your response

Answer 1

There have been several good answers so far, and a few that were a tad "misinformed." Here's my two cent's worth.

Officers, artillerymen, and some cavalry were armed with pistols.

Officers were also armed with a sword, and since they were expected to be out in front leading the troops using their sword to help direct the troops (not to slash and cut enemy soldiers as commonly thought), they were not issued a rifle. They were expected to use their pistols if they got close enough to the enemy to have to defend themselves personally, and a lot of times that happened.

Artillerymen were armed with pistols - the officers were, anyway - that were to be used to protect their artillery piece from capture. Their main weapon was the artillery piece itself, and since it took six or seven men to load and fire one, they were kinda busy.

Cavalrymen actually used a small rifle called a carbine as their main weapon, with their pistol and saber as backup weapons. The carbine was used when the cavalryman was dismounted (off his horse), with the pistol being used on horseback first and then the saber for close-up fighting. And the pistols WERE rifled, by the way. They fired a round ball, but the barrels were rifled. It improved accuracy, but even then anything more than 20-25 yards away was a crap shoot.

Infantrymen were issued rifled muskets as their primary firearms. These rifles were accurate to 300 yards, more if you were a really good shot. A trained infantryman could get off 3 aimed shots a minute, so while the rifled muskets were a bit of a chore, they were a lot faster than you might think. Sure, you can rip off 6 shots with a pistol in about as many seconds, but it will take you SIX TIMES AS LONG TO RELOAD as it would a rifled musket. You don't have that long in combat, which is why a lot of officers and cavalrymen carried several pre-loaded spare pistol cylinders with them and just replaced them when their pistol was empty. After the fighting was over they could then reload all of them without risk.

Pistols were also a lot more expensive to manufacture, contained numerous small parts, and were time-consuming to maintain.

And that's the story.

Answer 2

Pistols at that time did not have rifled barrels, which means that they weren't accurate at long range. And even after they did have rifled barrels, their muzzle velocity was too low to make them effective at long ranges. The rifles were much better for long range firing, and were far more accurate. The sidearm was sometimes (not always) issued to officers more as a sign of rank than anything else. Since they were conducting battles they couldn't be burdened with a rifle. They needed the physical liberation that a handgun bestows.

Moreover, the Henry Repeating Rifle WAS easily reloaded, and was issued to union forces. The Confederates couldn't afford to issue handguns to soldiers as they were too expensive. The Confederates actually issued few weapons to anyone really. The soldiers often had to find their own

Answer 3

I'm just guessing but I think your cost suggestion was right. Pisols have more smaller moving parts, which makes it more intricate and more expensive. Not to mention that the pistol rounds were more expensive that the musket loads. Unless someone else knows better, I'd say that's the reason. The only other factor I could think of is that rifles have more knockdown power than pistols, but in close quarter fighting like the civil war I'd think that speed would be more essential than power. Hope this helped.

Answer 4

I'm sure cost had a part to play in it, but also I believe it was a status. Officers were separated from those of the foot soldiers and one of the ways the did that is they were allowed to carry pistols. Not to mention I believe I remember reading somewhere that they carried pistols so they could commit suicide rather then being captured.

Answer 5

Pistols were for the personal defense of officers. It's a status thing. It's not as if handguns would really be much use in battle. A soldier would be mowed down by rifle/artillery fire long before he ever got within pistol range of the enemy.

Answer 6

Most common soldiers (NON OFFICERS) were given rifles because they are designed for longer ranges than hand guns. Hand guns were only accurate up to 25 yards during the Civil War. Rifles up to 300 yards.

It was not cost effective to provide both as the soldier would be required to carry ammunition for both weapons.
So I would state, accuracy and cost, along with the fact a bayonet on a hand gun looks ridiculous and is ineffective.

Answer 7

Pistols were generally only issued to officers and cavalry (and some artillery). They were less available, more expensive, more difficult to maintain, had more moving parts, required more training, were less accurate at a distance, and caused less damage.

Certainly a number of weapons changed hands on the battlefield and in the gambling tents, and people who could afford to do so purchased their own, but for the most part, the infantry troops - the bulk of the forces on either side of the conflict - were armed with long arms.

http://civilwarhandgun.com/

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/soldierlife/webguns.htm

http://www.civilwarhome.com/capballrevolver.htm

Answer 8

pistols used during the civil war where not hte same as what you probably think of as a pistol today. they where basically little hand held muzzle loaders. remember the pistol clint eastwood carried in his westerns?? that was a navy colt (common type of pistol for the time) you had to put a powder charge in it(like a muzzle loader) and then pack a lead ball into it. they where kinda like a the same hassle as a riffle with halfe the power and reach.

Answer 9

Handguns did not have the range and accuracy of rifles. Recall that most fighting was done on wide open battlefields (as opposed to close combat or guerilla warfare).

Answer 10

its not about the cost,pistols are more costly but,the effective range is very less compared to rifle and aiming is much easier than pistol.