Did Cowboys Carry Pistols?

[UncleEd]

The simple answer: No

In 40 years of collecting Western books, including the Time-Life series,
very few pictures bear out the image of the cowboy or even very many
people carrying pistols.

Too many 19th Century pictures of "cowboys" are staged.

Now as to lawmen, I'm sure they were often carrying. But think about reports of Wyatt Earp carrying concealed in large pockets of his frock coat.
This was a common practice.

Also, consider manufacturing figures. Most handguns were of the small/intermediate caliber and designed for concealed carry. Now as to
rifles and shotguns, the sales figures soar compared to any model pistol, especially the famed SAA.

As to cowboys in particular, most often they didn't even own any horses but drew from a ranch's remuda, they were poorly paid compared to many other jobs.

As to needing a pistol, the most sound reason I ever read was that range cattle were mean and tough and would/could attack a horseman to gore him.
As a last resort, a pistol might come in handy.

Indian attacks were few and far between. I have one memoir of a cowboy who fought Comanches on one cattle drive and he used a Henry rifle. After
his cowboy days, he took up hunting game to feed the railroads and used a Sharps. Never carried a sixgun. As for Indians, they "liked" cattle drives and cowboys because they could as a toll extract several head of beeves.

Even regarding wagon trains, you'd be hard pressed to find any authenticated
reports of major Indian attacks.

 

[UncleEd]

Briandg,

Funny you mentioning Chicago in those times.

One statistic I saw indicated that Dodge in its heyday had about a half dozen killings in a year while on a given day Chicago would suffer dozens which was true of many big cities. Of course, like Al Swearingen depicted in Deadwood and with a background from Chicago, he used a knife, not a gun, as did his henchman Dan.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

'The Gun That Won the West' was a marketing slogan coined by Winchester regarding the Model 1873. Nothing more, nothing less.

This Model 1873 Winchester, chambered for 38-40, was manufactured in 1887.

I tend to think this is true. Are there any reliable numbers of production of cap and ball revolvers of that era?

Of course there are, but it may take me a while to dig them up.

I don't. I am sure it will kill most things dead. However, so far as capabilities go a run, the run of the mill Glock loaded with full capacity magazines will perform much better under the same circumstances then even the nicest SAA Colt Revolvers produced in that era.

It will be more durable, reliable, faster operating, faster shooting, higher capacity, cheaper, easier to carry, more accurate... practically everything important. Collectible... not so much.

What's your point? Of course a modern high capacity semi-automatic will out perform a single action revolver. So what? Nobody had high capacity semi-automatic pistols in the Old West. Practical Semi-Automatic firearms were not developed until Smokeless Powder became practical in the 1890s. John Browning's first Semi-Auto pistol was designed in 1894, but it was never manufactured. His first Semi-Auto 45 caliber was patented in 1905 and produced by Colt, and it eventually led to the Model 1911. The Luger did not appear until 1908. It's predecessor, the Borchardt appeared in 1893, but it was not a very practical firearm. But so what???? Nobody had a modern High Capacity firearm in the Old West, and anybody who had a SAA, and knew how to use it, was adequately armed against any other pistolero in the Old West.

And what if your Semi-Auto jams? A SAA can still fire if the trigger is broken and the trigger spring is broken. You just thumb back the hammer and let it go.

More accurate??? Surely you jest. You obviously have very limited experience with single action revolvers.

By the way, I know many CAS shooters who can dump five rounds out of a single action revolver faster than most shooters could do the same with a 1911.

If most of the population was running around with lesser pistols then it makes me wonder why they would bother with a handgun, especially when a rifle or even a shotgun would be far more useful on the frontier.

Because a pistol was more easily concealable back then, just as it is today.

By the 1880s, many towns and cities across the country began enacting local ordinances against open carry of firearms. That's why the Gunfight at the OK Corral happened, the Earps were trying do disarm the Clantons and the McClaurys in accordance with a town ordinance forbidding the open carry of firearms.

By this time firearms manufacturers had been making pocket pistols for a long time. Their virtue was they were easily concealable and could be carried unobtrusively in a coat pocket. Many 19th Century men on both sides of the law carried these firearms concealed on their person.

This S&W 38 caliber five shot revolver was made in 1877.

This little S&W 32 caliber five shot revolver was made in 1881.

This double action S&W 38 was made in 1888.

In 1887 S&W began manufacturing their line of Safety Hammerless revolvers, sometimes referred to as Lemon Squeezers because of the grip safety that had to be depressed in order to fire them.

The 38 Safety Hammerless 3rd Model at the top of this photo was made in 1896. The little 32 Safety Hammerless 2nd Model at the bottom of the photo shipped in 1905.

Smith and Wesson actually produced far more of these little pocket pistols than they ever did of the large frame 44 and 45 caliber belt pistols. It would take me a long time to total it all up, but trust me, they made many thousands of these. Of course they were not meant to stop a charging bear, or take down a desperado from a long distance. These were belly guns, meant to be concealed and fired at close range. As such, they were very effective, that is why so many were sold, on both sides of the law.

These are just Smiths, and yes they were expensive because they were the best. Iver Johnson, Harrington and Richardson, and many other manufacturers made inexpensive pocket pistols too.

 

[jackmoser65]

Elmer was a bit ahead of his time.He blew up Colt SAA's trying to invent the 454 Casull before there was a Ruger or Freedon Arms.
There was more steel around the .44 Special chamber,so he pioneered the .44 Magnum instead.

Not true. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he was trying to invent the .454 Casull. I'm quite certain that 260gr bullets at 2000fps was not his goal.

He also only blew the loading gate off one gun that was subsequently repaired.

What he wanted was for the manufacturers to adopt his 1200fps .44 Special load. What he got was the 1450fps .44 Magnum.

Also I am pretty sure that the .38 Super came about before the .357 magnum and I know it is more powerful than the .45 Colt.

Not really. Velocity in handguns is overrated.

 

[Fla_dogman]

My great grandfather carried a Winchester rifle in 32-40. My cousin still has it.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Court and Winchester were the Johnny come lately s. Weapons from the wars, plains muzzle loaders, rolling blocks, so forth. Some volcanic, Spencer's, Henry's, but I suppose that rimfire wouldn't be wanted in the wild. Buffalo hunters even carried molds and powder, recovering the monolithic bullets and recycling. A box of ammo weighed a Lot. If you carried for trail rides, would you prefer to have a box of balls and a flask, at half the price, or those newfangled things?

Where in the world are you getting you information?

Colt made their first Cap & Ball revolver in 1836, the Texas Navy bought 180 of them. When Sam Huston disbanded the Texas Navy, Captain Jack Hays armed his company of Texas rangers with them. Each Ranger carried a pair, and the ability to fire ten shots rapidly was important, their firepower proved decisive in battles with the Comanches, despite overwhelming odds.

Smith and Wesson began producing revolvers in 1857.

The Winchester Model 1866, which fired the old 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge was still being produced until 1898, and lots of them made their way out west. When Custer was defeated at the Little Bighorn in 1876, his troops were armed with Colt Single Action revolvers and single shot Springfield Trapdoor rifles. However battlefield historians have found spent 44 Henry Rimfire cartridges at the battle sight, indicating that some of the Indians were probably armed with Henry and Winchester repeaters.

The Volcanic rifle was a commercial failure because of its woefully under powered ammunition. Sales were slow and many were returned to the manufacturer because they just did not work. I don't have production figures at my fingertips, but I doubt if very many found their way west. However it was the inspiration for the Henry rifle and all the Winchester lever guns that followed it.

By the time of the great Buffalo Hunts of the 1870s and 1880s, commercial Buffalo hunters were using cartridge guns, not muzzle loaders. A commercial buffalo hunter traveled with a well supplied wagon. Weight of ammunition was not a concern. A buffalo hunter could kill 250 animals in a day, not something that would be easy to do with a muzzle loader. The buffalo hunters would often reload their ammunition in the evening, reusing the brass, but many did not take the time to cast bullets, carrying powder, bullets and primers in the wagon with them.

 

[HiBC]

Elmer was a bit ahead of his time.He blew up Colt SAA's trying to invent the 454 Casull before there was a Ruger or Freedon Arms.
There was more steel around the .44 Special chamber,so he pioneered the .44 Magnum instead

I was joking a little bit.
Elmer did begin with heavy loads in the 45 Colt.TheSAA cyl wallswere too thin to hold up.The 44 Spl was more successful.

Not everything has to be 100% serious all the time.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

But so what???? Nobody had a modern High Capacity firearm in the Old West, and anybody who had a SAA, and knew how to use it, was adequately armed against any other pistolero in the Old West.

No, they would be better armed than anyone else with a pistol because more than likely the pistol would be a much lesser gun. Which is my point. If the nice effective guns were so rare and the limited capability belly guns were common why bother on the open frontier? By limited I mean not very effective at anything other than very close range defense.

Not really. Velocity in handguns is overrated.

So a .38 Special and .357 magnum are pretty much the same thing? I am gonna go ahead and disagree...

 

[BigJimP]

My grandfather worked as a cowboy and ranch hand as a young man in the Dakotas and Montana in the late 1890's and the early 1900's.../ and he did not carry a sidearm - but he did carry an 1895 Winchester carbine in .30-40 Krag in a saddle scabbard. ( I still have the scabbard and the rifle ).

In general, he thought the cowboy movies and later the TV shows in the 50's and 60's were pretty funny because they focused on handguns so much... - but we still watched Gunsmoke and Bonanza every week .../ he passed away in the late 60's...but taught me to shoot, reload, track, hunt, etc when I was a kid in the 50's.

He never saw much point in carrying a handgun in the woods at all - even hunting big game..he thought it was silly / but my dad, uncles, etc all carried handguns ...so I started doing it too later...

 

[UncleEd]

Regarding cap and ball pistols and the mention of a modern Glock or even an 1873 SAA reminds me of a fellow I worked with who was from Wyoming.

His great uncle, or great great uncle, had a Remington cap and ball .44 with an extra cylinder. He relied on that pistol till he died near the turn of the century.
According to the fellow I worked with, the story was that the old fellow never saw a need for a cartridge gun and figured six or twelve rounds ought to be enough.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

did carry an 1895 Winchester carbine in .30-40 Krag in a saddle scabbard. ( I still have the scabbard and the rifle ).

A treasure beyond all reckoning. I hope you have a generation to pass it on to.

 

[briandg]

Driftwood, you are right, I spoke poorly. Rather than what it looked like, I was referring to the modern creations. Every brand of cap and ball from Remington to over, I guess, was represented, but in the early years Pantene, colt and Winchester were under represented, and the famed 92 and saa didn't even exist. They weren't in the mines. Protecting a mine was most likely done with scatter guns.

Even after the 1800s were wrapping up, the colt/ Winchester were probably low volume among the 60,000,000 people running around.

Anyone would have liked a 94 or saa, but they were far from the most common. They survive ed a lot longer, but even now, poly passes steel frames, and all of the big names suffered badly over the last fifty or so years.

Does the cheap glock outsell all 1911 labels? Maybe. I want one, just a mil spec relic. In the saa renewal, colt is a barely present fraction. I love the saa, but wow, I can pick up a dope of a copy for a fraction and lots of them sell..



Those folks lived in poverty, and everything was more important than a fine pistol or rifle, right? Even now, pawn shops are full of weatherbys.

God, I want a nice, plain uberty, a nice Browning bolt, a # 1, a mil spec ar, so on, but seriously, medical bills eat that much every few months. Remington, Rossi, stronger, ruger, but I live in a fine bone and drive a pretty good car with no financing.

I don't want museum pieces, but owning plain stuff makes me envy you guys.

 

[briandg]

Did John Hardin carry a thunderer?

 

[sgms]

It is reported that he did own a Thunderer and it was sold at auction for a very large price. At the time of his death court papers state that he had a Colt Lightning and a pocket watch on his person.

 

[Pathfinder45]

It will be more durable, reliable, faster operating, faster shooting, higher capacity, cheaper, easier to carry, more accurate... practically everything important.

Sorry, but only half of these items are true. Besides, where, in the Old West, would you be able to obtain a Glock, or even the ammunition for it?
Also, the original black-powder ballistics of the 1870's and 1880's, 45Colt, 44WCF, and 38WCF, as fired from revolvers, would give most of the leading auto-pistol calibers a tough example to follow. Mike Venturino's article, "Old West Pistol Performance", in Handloader #244 is an eye-opening revelation of the true power of the 44-40 and 45 Colt in the frontier era. Keep in mind, the old balloon-head cases of those days held even more powder than Mike could cram into modern, solid-head cases. Today's, "Cowboy", ammo is a product of gamesmanship, and do not even come close to representing the power of the original cartridges.
But, "Did Cowboys Carry Pistols?"? Well, Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton were both armed with Colt revolvers the day they died.

 

[briandg]

It amuses me to see how few the actual counts of the dead are a pittance according to popular fiction. Millions dead by report, but few actually recorded. Seems to me th a John is officially charged with less than ten. I'm sure that certain gang members in Chicago surpass that, and nobody knows their names.

Guy got a lady cop in Omaha, just to avoid arrest on a warrant on murder, iirc. They were far more peaceful, history tells. Better shut up now. A good cigar and a couple beers has given me a little peace, need to keep it.

Don't wAnt to stray off topic anyway . Please forgive my blathering.

 

[Pathfinder45]

Also, for what it's worth, those Colt Frontier 44-40 revolvers used at the OK Corral were more powerful than most 357 magnum ammo today. There are some "boutique-ammo makers", like Grizzly, Corbon, etc., that have some 200 grain loadings in 357 that will equal the original 44-40-200 ammo, some may somewhat exceed that, but that's some very premium ammo. Don't be fooled, the real 44-40 was every bit in the same league, powerwise as a 357 magnum, even a bit more until perhaps recently.

 

[carguychris]

It amuses me to see how few the actual counts of the dead are a pittance according to popular fiction. Millions dead by report, but few actually recorded.

The Old West was widely mythologized while it was still new. Once newspapermen discovered that Easterners lapped up tales of Western violence and chaos, they often didn't let that pesky concept popularly known as "truth" get in the way of burgeoning sales. Fantastic rumors, exaggerations, and outright hoaxes were often widely published. This makes it hard to discern how wild the West really was.

In addition, many tales about "cowboys" were actually stories of migrant railroad construction labor at frontier camp towns. These places often WERE violent, but in reality, they usually calmed down quickly once permanent settlers arrived and founded churches and businesses, or they basically evaporated as the railhead moved further along and the saloon operators packed up and moved with it. Additionally, the fights and associated mayhem involved guns less often than newspaper reports tended to suggest (see above).

The West was much more peaceful than most people realize, and the myth of the ranch hand as wild gunslinging outlaw is largely just that – a myth.

 

[UncleEd]

One aspect of the cowboy culture rarely mentioned is that some actually thought of unionizing, having picked up those "socialist" ideas from Chicago where the Haymarket Riot occurred.

Those Texas cowboys, tough as they might have been on the trail, were no match for the tough ranch owners. No, the cowboys didn't resort to their non-existent sixguns to get their rights.

And besides, more cowboys existed than jobs, always a bad time to unionize.
This was in 1883.

 

[Mozella]

I have several observations:

Photography was relatively rare back in the day; consequently, I imagine if a person was going to pose for (and pay for) a photo of himself looking like a cowboy, he was likely to strap on his 6 gun even if he didn't wear it all (or even most of) the time.

I remember reading an historical account many years ago which said most every settler, cowboy, ranch hand, and folks like that owned a firearm. But ammunition was very expensive. Therefore, while most men had the capability to shoot, few could shoot accurately. This makes perfect sense to me, nevertheless, as a kid I enjoyed watching Hopalong Cassidy shoot the gun out of a bad guy's hand at 100 yards while at a full gallop.

I remember visiting my uncle in Texas when I was about 6 years old. Naturally I wore my cowboy hat and cap gun whenever appropriate. My uncle's family was from a small Texas town and when we went to visit his Mother, there were always genuine working cowboys sitting on benches outside the barber shop, hardware store, or drug store. It was in the early 50s; not the wild wild west, but there were still hitching posts on the main street. I distinctly remember that nearly all these men were packing 6 guns just as natural as can be. My uncle warned me not to draw on these men. Now I realize he was kidding me, but as a serious 6 year old those encounters formed an indelible memory.