I've been shooting cap and ball revolvers since about 1970. The information in those days about these pistols was pretty straightforward, possibly because there still lived men who had known people who used them regularly in the 19th century. Today's proliferation of the internet allows folks to make statements that lack proof, but are taken as historical facts. What I seek are contemporary accounts to verify these statements. By contemporary I mean, "of the same time period," such as might be found in vintage diaries, newspaper or magazine articles, manuals, guides or other publications. Can anyone provide contemporary proof of the following statements we see time and again? 1. Soldiers in the Civil War carried extra cylinders for their revolvers, so they could reload quickly. These were carried in the pocket, or in special leather pouches. Yet, I've never seen an authentic Civil War pistol belt containing these pouches, or any contemporary reference to this practice. 2. If they were issued a Colt revolver, soldiers would immediately trade it for a Remington. I recently read this on the internet, for the first time. News to me. 3. Some soldiers used lubricated felt wads between the powder and ball. Actually, archaeological digs indicate that most pistol projectiles were conical, with a relatively few lead balls found. If a soldier wanted lead balls, he had to cast his own because conical bullets, attached to a paper tube containing the powder charge, were standard issue. Balls were not. The earliest reference I've found to using a lubricated felt wad dates to an American Rifleman magazine of 1929. 4. The load for cap and ball revolvers was standardized at X-amount. In truth, there was a large disparity in the weight of conical bullets and the powder charge their paper tube contained. The February 1975 issue of the American Rifleman has an interesting article in which vintage, original paper cartridges were opened and their powder charge and conical bullet weighed. The charges and bullet weight were all over the map. 5. The Colt design is weaker than the Remington. Actually, I'll allow this is true but only with the recent advent of black powder substitutes that generate higher pressure. Hodgdon's 777 comes to mind. Or when considering conversion to a cartridge gun. I am discounting brass-framed revolvers, which are weaker by the strength of their material, not their design. Not so long ago, the only proper propellant was black powder. Both designs were amply strong for it. Before World War II, some shooters used a bulk powder made for black powder shotguns called Kings Semi-Smokeless. Some swore by it, others felt it was too powerful for black powder revolvers. As long as you use black powder, or black powder substitutes in their recommended charges, the Colt design is amply strong for the pressures involved. I'm sure there are other blanket statements made about cap and ball revolvers in their heyday, that are made today without regard to historical proof. I can't think of any more. If you do, please post them here. And if you have contemporary proof of the above statements, I'd like to hear of it as well.