Cowboys and guns in the 19th century
- Thread starter Ben Towe
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
A cowboy going into town to blow off steam, get drunk and blow a couple months wages is a LOT different than a cowboy working on the range.
The 1875 ad... What model Colt pistol would that have been? New Line? New House? Those were all spur trigger revolvers, weren't they?
I'm assuming that they're also referencing the .38 Long Colt, which came out in 1875...
The 1875 ad... What model Colt pistol would that have been? New Line? New House? Those were all spur trigger revolvers, weren't they?
I'm assuming that they're also referencing the .38 Long Colt, which came out in 1875...
youngunz4life
New member
maybe the statistics is a factor when they look at history: like one gun per family or something?
people didn't own as many, and it took longer to acquire but I think many people worked towards the goal of purchasing a firearm with their hard-earned cash(it doesn't have to be hard earned as much now with credit cards as an example // sort of like when our relatives purchased boobtubes or cars). also, there were places and times when people couldn't lawfully carry for whatever reason.
people didn't own as many, and it took longer to acquire but I think many people worked towards the goal of purchasing a firearm with their hard-earned cash(it doesn't have to be hard earned as much now with credit cards as an example // sort of like when our relatives purchased boobtubes or cars). also, there were places and times when people couldn't lawfully carry for whatever reason.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Well, you'll note in my first post in the thread that I postulated that handgun ownership amongst cowboys was probably pretty high, but it wasn't what we typically see in Westerns - large and expensive Colt SAAs, Remingtons, or Smiths.
I suspect that most cowboys who owned handguns actually owned relatively small and inexpensive breaktops and solid frames made by companies like Iver Johnson, S&W, H&R, Forehand, etc.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that for every large frame "cowboy" gun sold to any buyer anywhere there were upwards of 100 of the small revolvers sold.
There were literally dozens of companies producing small, cheap revolvers at this time, and in enormous numbers.
Hell, from 1884 to 1895 Smith & Wesson made over 200,000 .38 Double Action Third Models, and at the same time they were making other versions that didn't have hammers, versions in .32 S&W, and versions in single action, as well.
Just a rough guess (I've got the book with the numbers, I just don't feel like going page to page adding the numbers up right now), but it looks like between about 1875 and 1900 Smith & Wesson alone made over half a million of these guns; Iver Johnson and H&R made even more if their serial numbers are reliable.
On the other hand, from 1873 to 1940, Colt only made about 357,000 Single Action Armies.
Anyway, yeah, I think cowboys owned handguns, probably in substantial numbers. But not exactly what we normally are led to believe they owned.
I suspect that most cowboys who owned handguns actually owned relatively small and inexpensive breaktops and solid frames made by companies like Iver Johnson, S&W, H&R, Forehand, etc.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that for every large frame "cowboy" gun sold to any buyer anywhere there were upwards of 100 of the small revolvers sold.
There were literally dozens of companies producing small, cheap revolvers at this time, and in enormous numbers.
Hell, from 1884 to 1895 Smith & Wesson made over 200,000 .38 Double Action Third Models, and at the same time they were making other versions that didn't have hammers, versions in .32 S&W, and versions in single action, as well.
Just a rough guess (I've got the book with the numbers, I just don't feel like going page to page adding the numbers up right now), but it looks like between about 1875 and 1900 Smith & Wesson alone made over half a million of these guns; Iver Johnson and H&R made even more if their serial numbers are reliable.
On the other hand, from 1873 to 1940, Colt only made about 357,000 Single Action Armies.
Anyway, yeah, I think cowboys owned handguns, probably in substantial numbers. But not exactly what we normally are led to believe they owned.
Mike, I think that's a great point! If I put myself in the boots of a poor cowboy, I'd probably feel comfortable with a pistol in my pocket, but I sure wouldn't want to spend a ton of money on one, especially if I had a family to support or whatever other necessities that I didn't really have enough money to buy anyway.
But if I could get a .32 revolver for a couple of bucks, that might not be such a bad deal.
It's all conjecture on my part, but since I'm a pretty cheap guy, if I was a cowpoke back then, I might want a flashy SAA, but I'd have to feed that champagne dream on a soda pop budget. Besides, packing around an expensive hogleg like that just might be an invitation to less salacious types to take an interest in my wallet. No sense advertising, especially if you ain't got nothin'!
But if I could get a .32 revolver for a couple of bucks, that might not be such a bad deal.
It's all conjecture on my part, but since I'm a pretty cheap guy, if I was a cowpoke back then, I might want a flashy SAA, but I'd have to feed that champagne dream on a soda pop budget. Besides, packing around an expensive hogleg like that just might be an invitation to less salacious types to take an interest in my wallet. No sense advertising, especially if you ain't got nothin'!
Hardcase + 1 And....
If the employer had a small armory from which a rifle or shotgun could be withdrawn when the hand was out and about, then the hand himself is releaved of the need to purchase his own.
I realize that the OP spoke of "cowboys" "carrying" firearms and also that I am splitting hairs but you have to admit that the mindset could be really different. I know that my attitude toward any weapon issued to me from the ship's aromory was significantly different from my attitude toward a weapon which I purchased myself. But then I never carried my own handgun, because I thought I was threatened. I just wanted to have it. And I spent a lot of time in the woods. Sometimes I took it, most of the time, I did not, opting for a .22 rifle instead.
If the employer had a small armory from which a rifle or shotgun could be withdrawn when the hand was out and about, then the hand himself is releaved of the need to purchase his own.
I realize that the OP spoke of "cowboys" "carrying" firearms and also that I am splitting hairs but you have to admit that the mindset could be really different. I know that my attitude toward any weapon issued to me from the ship's aromory was significantly different from my attitude toward a weapon which I purchased myself. But then I never carried my own handgun, because I thought I was threatened. I just wanted to have it. And I spent a lot of time in the woods. Sometimes I took it, most of the time, I did not, opting for a .22 rifle instead.
Just go look at a old mail order catalog from the 1880s. Last winter here one of the horses kicked up a old belgen made pocket gun in .310 tranter. It had 5old factory .32 smith short BP loads in the thing. There is a old fallen down line shack about 1/4 further back out in the woods here from when it was a cattle ranch here.
My grand father wagoned to texas from chicago in 1871. He thought he needed a hide out gun so, brought a smith and wesson #2 in 32 rf. Elmer Keith claimed that cowboys wore revolvers to defend themselves against livestock or to shoot the horse if they got tossed and stirrup dragged.
J. Fran Dobie wrote on western and rural themes in the 1950s. He told a story proported to be from a cowboy who had gone on a trail drive. This individual got a revolver for the purpose- apparently it being recommended trail equipment or just something that cowboys thought they should have. The cb indicated he found it an inconvenient thing to wear and when he finally did pull it out to shoot a snake, it had rusted into immobility. seems he was unclear on the concept of gun cleaning.
J. Fran Dobie wrote on western and rural themes in the 1950s. He told a story proported to be from a cowboy who had gone on a trail drive. This individual got a revolver for the purpose- apparently it being recommended trail equipment or just something that cowboys thought they should have. The cb indicated he found it an inconvenient thing to wear and when he finally did pull it out to shoot a snake, it had rusted into immobility. seems he was unclear on the concept of gun cleaning.
Bill Akins
New member
Another thing we sometimes forget about is that many people were smaller back then so a smaller cartridge would kill them more efficiently than it would today. The average height of my father's WW2 generation was 5' 8" tall. In WW1 and the civil war many guys were around 5' 5" tall thereabouts. Women were even smaller getting into the 4' plus range of height. So maybe one reason all those .32's that we kind of think of as pop guns today were in such proliferation, was because people were smaller so the smaller calibers were larger in proportion to their bodies than those same calibers are today to many of our bodies.
I believe the reason many of us are bigger and taller today is because of what we have eaten growing up. Chicken, turkeys, beef, in ours and for the past several generations have all been fed growth hormones to make them plump up for sales. They didn't have those chemicals and hormones in the old days. I believe those growth hormones and chemicals over our lifetimes of eating food with them in it, have had an effect on our modern bodies to make many of us much larger than many of our cowboy ancestors. It HAS to have a cumulative effect on our bodies, I don't care WHAT the FDA says about it being safe. I don't trust the FDA. They collude with big growers and big corporate farming. We are what we eat and we have been eating growth hormones in our food that was fed to the chickens, turkeys, cows etc for several generations now.
So a .22 or .32 would seem like a much larger caliber to their smaller bodies than it does to many of us today. Simply put, cartridge size is relative to body of target size.
Just something that occurred to me that I wanted to share.
.
I believe the reason many of us are bigger and taller today is because of what we have eaten growing up. Chicken, turkeys, beef, in ours and for the past several generations have all been fed growth hormones to make them plump up for sales. They didn't have those chemicals and hormones in the old days. I believe those growth hormones and chemicals over our lifetimes of eating food with them in it, have had an effect on our modern bodies to make many of us much larger than many of our cowboy ancestors. It HAS to have a cumulative effect on our bodies, I don't care WHAT the FDA says about it being safe. I don't trust the FDA. They collude with big growers and big corporate farming. We are what we eat and we have been eating growth hormones in our food that was fed to the chickens, turkeys, cows etc for several generations now.
So a .22 or .32 would seem like a much larger caliber to their smaller bodies than it does to many of us today. Simply put, cartridge size is relative to body of target size.
Just something that occurred to me that I wanted to share.
.
Last edited:
Bill Akins
New member
Tell him it's only a pipsqueak caliber until someone shoots him with it. Lol.
.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
The suicide specials (that's what they were actually called) are generally thought of as a class to themselves. There's at least one book on the subject.
I've not counted those in my numbers above.
Guns termed suicide specials are almost universally:
1. Spur trigger.
2. Very short barreled - 3" is long.
3. Chambered for rimfire cartridges, most commonly .22 Long or .32, but some were also available in .30, .38, and even .41 (I've never seen one chambered in .41).
4. Have a loading notch, but no loading gate.
5. Rarely have a maker's name.
6. Often have a "brand name" that might be shared among several makers.
Most makers were relative unknowns, but Iver Johnson, Forehand and Wadsworth, even Marlin made suicide specials.
Here's a great page that talks to makers and names used: http://www.gun-data.com/suicide_specials.htm
My personal favorite brand name is Tramp's Terror. Just love the imagery that one suggests.
As far as I know, there are no figures for how many guns like these were produced, but some sources think the numbers were pretty massive, possibly in high hundreds of thousands, or more.
These truly were the bottom of the bottom for both price and quality, but most would fire a cartridge when the trigger was pulled.
I've not counted those in my numbers above.
Guns termed suicide specials are almost universally:
1. Spur trigger.
2. Very short barreled - 3" is long.
3. Chambered for rimfire cartridges, most commonly .22 Long or .32, but some were also available in .30, .38, and even .41 (I've never seen one chambered in .41).
4. Have a loading notch, but no loading gate.
5. Rarely have a maker's name.
6. Often have a "brand name" that might be shared among several makers.
Most makers were relative unknowns, but Iver Johnson, Forehand and Wadsworth, even Marlin made suicide specials.
Here's a great page that talks to makers and names used: http://www.gun-data.com/suicide_specials.htm
My personal favorite brand name is Tramp's Terror. Just love the imagery that one suggests.
As far as I know, there are no figures for how many guns like these were produced, but some sources think the numbers were pretty massive, possibly in high hundreds of thousands, or more.
These truly were the bottom of the bottom for both price and quality, but most would fire a cartridge when the trigger was pulled.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yep, a bare step above.
True suicide specials are generally held to be spur trigger and single action.
True suicide specials are generally held to be spur trigger and single action.