Did Cowboys Carry Pistols?
- Thread starter Old Bill Dibble
- Start date
I think it is difficult to see this stuff in terms of scale and time.
From Buffalo Bill and the Wild West show to the TV and movie westerns I grew up on,certainly we have a distorted picture
Sam Colt produced some Pattersons for the Texas Rangers.They needed some improvement,and the Walker was named after a Ranger.
But Colt went bankrupt in the 1840s.I'm not an expert ot historian,but around 1847 we had a tiff with Mexico,and the Army ordered 1000 cap and ball revolvers.
Production took off,and between the baby Colt pocket models and the larger belt guns,approx 250,000 revolvers were sold ,primarily to civilians,before the Civil war.
Then,of course,the Civil war brought a lot of production.
I'm suggesting the cap and ball revolver was reasonably well distributed.
The idea of rounding up feral Spanish longhorns in Texas and driving them to a better market came about post civil war,with Charlie Goodnight and Oliver Loving among the pioneers.
The Loving Trail did skirt Cheyenne Territory,and conflict with Natives was a fact.Another fact,Loving died of an Indian fight in 1868.
The SAA cartridge Colt came out in 1873,initially for the military.
Only 38 years later,one generation,the 1911 made another change.
Clearly,the early cattle drives required fighting firepower,for maybe a crew of 10 or 12 drovers to protect themselves and the herd.A cap and ball revolver and a Henry or 1866 would be the best available.
I have no idea how many trail bosses there were.I don't know how many drives took place.But,consider a crew of what? 12 men? + or -?.
So what would be the sum total of cattle drive cowboys in that time period?
There were pony express,stages,etc.Armed,but not cowboys.
Would it be 1000? I do not know.But that group of "Cowboys" was one definition.I suggest to not be armed would be very high risk.These cowboys got a major portion of pay end of drive.
Agreed,Cowboys were not burdened with a lot of money.But consider the folks today that have little but their Harley Davidson,or their Ford F-250.
A young Cowboy would prioritize a saddle,a hat,a pair of boots....and guns.
I doubt it was easy for a Mountain Man to afford a Hawken.but some did.
Then rail lines and towns and barbed wire and big ranches came along,with great changes.
Then we get into big ranches,settlers,range wars,the Peacemaker,the growth of the west,along with gunfighters,lawmen,outlaws,etc.
I'll agree,there is less need for packing iron when working for Pa an the Ponderosa,or Barbara Stanwick on The Big Vallley.
The ranch might own its own arsenal.
But how many folks would ride a stage or ride from Abilene to Denver unarmed?
Denver...brings another population to mind.Miners.
A gold miner with nothing but a pan and a shovel had nothing much to steal.
But once he found gold,he would have reason and money to be armed.
From 1873 to 1900 or so,when changes came,was only 27 years.
I,myself,believe the Peacemaker played a significant role for those 27 years.
I'll live with some % of error.
There is a certain....energy? that seems to want to tear down everything in this USA,from George Washington,the Constitution,the American Flag,what John Wayne,Jimmy Stuart,,Hopalong Cassidy etc projected or portrayed...
I'm going to hang on to it.
From Buffalo Bill and the Wild West show to the TV and movie westerns I grew up on,certainly we have a distorted picture
Sam Colt produced some Pattersons for the Texas Rangers.They needed some improvement,and the Walker was named after a Ranger.
But Colt went bankrupt in the 1840s.I'm not an expert ot historian,but around 1847 we had a tiff with Mexico,and the Army ordered 1000 cap and ball revolvers.
Production took off,and between the baby Colt pocket models and the larger belt guns,approx 250,000 revolvers were sold ,primarily to civilians,before the Civil war.
Then,of course,the Civil war brought a lot of production.
I'm suggesting the cap and ball revolver was reasonably well distributed.
The idea of rounding up feral Spanish longhorns in Texas and driving them to a better market came about post civil war,with Charlie Goodnight and Oliver Loving among the pioneers.
The Loving Trail did skirt Cheyenne Territory,and conflict with Natives was a fact.Another fact,Loving died of an Indian fight in 1868.
The SAA cartridge Colt came out in 1873,initially for the military.
Only 38 years later,one generation,the 1911 made another change.
Clearly,the early cattle drives required fighting firepower,for maybe a crew of 10 or 12 drovers to protect themselves and the herd.A cap and ball revolver and a Henry or 1866 would be the best available.
I have no idea how many trail bosses there were.I don't know how many drives took place.But,consider a crew of what? 12 men? + or -?.
So what would be the sum total of cattle drive cowboys in that time period?
There were pony express,stages,etc.Armed,but not cowboys.
Would it be 1000? I do not know.But that group of "Cowboys" was one definition.I suggest to not be armed would be very high risk.These cowboys got a major portion of pay end of drive.
Agreed,Cowboys were not burdened with a lot of money.But consider the folks today that have little but their Harley Davidson,or their Ford F-250.
A young Cowboy would prioritize a saddle,a hat,a pair of boots....and guns.
I doubt it was easy for a Mountain Man to afford a Hawken.but some did.
Then rail lines and towns and barbed wire and big ranches came along,with great changes.
Then we get into big ranches,settlers,range wars,the Peacemaker,the growth of the west,along with gunfighters,lawmen,outlaws,etc.
I'll agree,there is less need for packing iron when working for Pa an the Ponderosa,or Barbara Stanwick on The Big Vallley.
The ranch might own its own arsenal.
But how many folks would ride a stage or ride from Abilene to Denver unarmed?
Denver...brings another population to mind.Miners.
A gold miner with nothing but a pan and a shovel had nothing much to steal.
But once he found gold,he would have reason and money to be armed.
From 1873 to 1900 or so,when changes came,was only 27 years.
I,myself,believe the Peacemaker played a significant role for those 27 years.
I'll live with some % of error.
There is a certain....energy? that seems to want to tear down everything in this USA,from George Washington,the Constitution,the American Flag,what John Wayne,Jimmy Stuart,,Hopalong Cassidy etc projected or portrayed...
I'm going to hang on to it.
bedbugbilly
New member
I'm reading The Log Of A Cowboy", a narrative of the Old Trail Days by Andy Adams right now - about life on the cattle drive to market. In that particular "first person narrative", all are carrying pistols. In fact, it mentions a number of times about their use in firing them to turn stampeding cattle. Another time, how they "hocked" their shooting irons to raise money to cover a bet - which was supposed to be a "sure thing" but ended up being a crooked swindle and they lost their pistols - they hocked them at $10 each - a mere portion of their original cost but they eventually were able to get money to get them back. One was even stupid enough to hock his saddle.
Other accounts I have read talk about keeping their shooting iron in their saddle bag as it got in the way while working the cattle.
I'm guessing it all depended on the circumstances. In the book I'm reading, they run in to rustlers as well as Indians on the trail so I would have to think that having one on their hip was almost a necessity - not only to turn unruly cattle on the run but also for personal protection. It was a long way from Texas to points of delivery.
Other accounts I have read talk about keeping their shooting iron in their saddle bag as it got in the way while working the cattle.
I'm guessing it all depended on the circumstances. In the book I'm reading, they run in to rustlers as well as Indians on the trail so I would have to think that having one on their hip was almost a necessity - not only to turn unruly cattle on the run but also for personal protection. It was a long way from Texas to points of delivery.
moseley123
Moderator
i am an old man now, but when i was 16, i did have an ol timer tell everything i needed
to know about the old west. And no it was not like the rumors or movies, And i know his stories were true because he was alive back then
to know about the old west. And no it was not like the rumors or movies, And i know his stories were true because he was alive back then
Mike Irwin
Staff
" when, as some would have us believe, hardly anyone could afford them."
Yeah... No one ever said that.
What we are saying is that the picture that Hollywood has painted for us, one of every cowboy carrying a 6 shooter or two everywhere he went, is largely a myth.
There were TONS of guns that cowboys could easily afford, even on their salaries. Some of the solid frame rimfire single actions from makers like Forehand and Wadsworth could be bought or $1.50 or $2.00.
Yeah... No one ever said that.
What we are saying is that the picture that Hollywood has painted for us, one of every cowboy carrying a 6 shooter or two everywhere he went, is largely a myth.
There were TONS of guns that cowboys could easily afford, even on their salaries. Some of the solid frame rimfire single actions from makers like Forehand and Wadsworth could be bought or $1.50 or $2.00.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy Again
I can attest that carrying a Colt, particularly one with a short 4 3/4" barrel, is more convenient in a cross draw than a straight hang holster, whether mounted in a truck or on a horse.
Also, going back to the Civil War, the pistol was an officer's weapon. It was always carried on the right, butt forward, because the officer's primary weapon was his sabre, carried on his left so it could be pulled with his right hand. This left his left hand free to pull his pistol, which had the butt facing forward.
Regarding price of revolvers:
This is a Smith and Wesson New Model #3, chambered for 44 Russian. This was the finest revolver available at the time. Yes, it was better than a Colt. According to the factory letter I got when I bought it, this revolver was one of a shipment of four sent to a large S&W distributor in Boston on August 15, 1882. The cost was $13.00 each.
Incidentally, this is the same model that Robert Ford used to shoot Jesse James.
Merwin Hulberts:
According to a reprint of their 1887 catalog, the large frame, 44 caliber single action revolvers started at $17. Double actions with folding hammers started at $15. Smaller 32 and 38 caliber revolvers started around $10.
I already reported the price of a Winchester in 1875 someplace earlier in this post.
According to John Kopec's monumental book about the Single Action Army, the US government paid $13 each for the first contract with Colt for the SAA in 1873. A commercial consortium was able to buy 12,000 of them in 1875 and 1876 for $10.50 each.
My reprint of the 1897 Sears catalog shows the SAA selling for $12.95. It also lists S&W Safety Hammerless revolvers for $10.95 - $13.00, depending on caliber and barrel length. Remington derringers were $5.15. Iver Johnsons started at $2.85. Harrington and Richardsons started at $2.70. There were some no name revolvers as cheap as 85 cents up to $1.55.
I can attest that carrying a Colt, particularly one with a short 4 3/4" barrel, is more convenient in a cross draw than a straight hang holster, whether mounted in a truck or on a horse.
Also, going back to the Civil War, the pistol was an officer's weapon. It was always carried on the right, butt forward, because the officer's primary weapon was his sabre, carried on his left so it could be pulled with his right hand. This left his left hand free to pull his pistol, which had the butt facing forward.
Regarding price of revolvers:
This is a Smith and Wesson New Model #3, chambered for 44 Russian. This was the finest revolver available at the time. Yes, it was better than a Colt. According to the factory letter I got when I bought it, this revolver was one of a shipment of four sent to a large S&W distributor in Boston on August 15, 1882. The cost was $13.00 each.
Incidentally, this is the same model that Robert Ford used to shoot Jesse James.
Merwin Hulberts:
According to a reprint of their 1887 catalog, the large frame, 44 caliber single action revolvers started at $17. Double actions with folding hammers started at $15. Smaller 32 and 38 caliber revolvers started around $10.
I already reported the price of a Winchester in 1875 someplace earlier in this post.
According to John Kopec's monumental book about the Single Action Army, the US government paid $13 each for the first contract with Colt for the SAA in 1873. A commercial consortium was able to buy 12,000 of them in 1875 and 1876 for $10.50 each.
My reprint of the 1897 Sears catalog shows the SAA selling for $12.95. It also lists S&W Safety Hammerless revolvers for $10.95 - $13.00, depending on caliber and barrel length. Remington derringers were $5.15. Iver Johnsons started at $2.85. Harrington and Richardsons started at $2.70. There were some no name revolvers as cheap as 85 cents up to $1.55.
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Folks, I grew up in the 1950s watching Have Gun Will Travel, Sugarfoot, Bat Materson, The Legend of Wyatt Earp, Cheyenne, Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Maverick, and I don't remember what all other shows. I can clearly remember my father telling me the Old West was not really like that.
I don't think anybody would dispute that the Old West was not as it has been depicted in the movies and on TV. Westerns were a staple of Hollywood going back to the earliest days around 1910. Script writers would grind out a script in the morning, and shoot film the same day. The movie going public was eating this stuff up, so of course they gave the public what they wanted, which included lots of guns and gunfights.
TV Westerns did not become popular until after World War Two. TV in general did not become popular until after WWII. Suddenly there were all these GIs returning from Europe and the Pacific. The GI bill sent many of them to college, and many got low interest loans on housing. They started raising families, and many of those families had a TV set right in the living room. I can clearly remember sitting with the family watching Gunsmoke and Bonanza. Again, the TV producers gave the public what they wanted, which included plenty of guns and gun play.
So of course the real Old West was not as it has been depicted in the movies and TV for so long.
Early Western movie actors William S. Hart and Tom Mix were friends of Wyatt Earp. Earp was an old man by this time, but he never gave up trying to get rich selling his story to writers and movie moguls. It all came to nothing, he died in 1929 at the age of 80 while he was negotiating with another writer. But Wyatt used to regularly have lunch with Tom Mix and William S. Hart at a lunch counter in Los Angeles.
Here is a photo of Wyatt Earp as an old man standing next to a Packard that was believed to be owned by William S. Hart. Tom Mix liked much flashier cars.
Incidentally, I have always believed the popularity of TV Westerns is what got Colt to start making the Single Action Army again in 1956. Colt stopped producing the SAA in 1940 to gear up for World War Two. During the last years of production, sales had been very slow, not many people were interested in a revolver that went back to 1873. I believe Colt had no intention of ever producing the SAA again. But in 1953 Bill Ruger introduced the 22 caliber Single Six, and demand was so great, probably fueled by all those cowboys galloping through all those living rooms, that he could not keep up with the demand. In 1955 Ruger introduced the 357 Magnum Blackhawk, and again, sales went through the roof. So in 1956, Colt reintroduced the Single Action Army. I doubt if it was a coincidence.
I don't think anybody would dispute that the Old West was not as it has been depicted in the movies and on TV. Westerns were a staple of Hollywood going back to the earliest days around 1910. Script writers would grind out a script in the morning, and shoot film the same day. The movie going public was eating this stuff up, so of course they gave the public what they wanted, which included lots of guns and gunfights.
TV Westerns did not become popular until after World War Two. TV in general did not become popular until after WWII. Suddenly there were all these GIs returning from Europe and the Pacific. The GI bill sent many of them to college, and many got low interest loans on housing. They started raising families, and many of those families had a TV set right in the living room. I can clearly remember sitting with the family watching Gunsmoke and Bonanza. Again, the TV producers gave the public what they wanted, which included plenty of guns and gun play.
So of course the real Old West was not as it has been depicted in the movies and TV for so long.
Early Western movie actors William S. Hart and Tom Mix were friends of Wyatt Earp. Earp was an old man by this time, but he never gave up trying to get rich selling his story to writers and movie moguls. It all came to nothing, he died in 1929 at the age of 80 while he was negotiating with another writer. But Wyatt used to regularly have lunch with Tom Mix and William S. Hart at a lunch counter in Los Angeles.
Here is a photo of Wyatt Earp as an old man standing next to a Packard that was believed to be owned by William S. Hart. Tom Mix liked much flashier cars.
Incidentally, I have always believed the popularity of TV Westerns is what got Colt to start making the Single Action Army again in 1956. Colt stopped producing the SAA in 1940 to gear up for World War Two. During the last years of production, sales had been very slow, not many people were interested in a revolver that went back to 1873. I believe Colt had no intention of ever producing the SAA again. But in 1953 Bill Ruger introduced the 22 caliber Single Six, and demand was so great, probably fueled by all those cowboys galloping through all those living rooms, that he could not keep up with the demand. In 1955 Ruger introduced the 357 Magnum Blackhawk, and again, sales went through the roof. So in 1956, Colt reintroduced the Single Action Army. I doubt if it was a coincidence.
Jim Watson
New member
Mebbe so.
I know I alus admired Texas John Slaughter (Wonderful World of Disney).
He wore two guns. One straight draw, one crossdraw at 11:00. Sittin his horse interviewing a suspect, his hands were on the saddlehorn, about two inches from that crossdraw gunbutt.
"Texas John Slaughter made 'em do what they oughter, 'cause if they didn't, they died." Disney!
Sorry to come in so late fellas, I'm mainly lurking down around the Hunting and Rifles area of the forum. Anyway for what its worth I had direct relatives back in the frontier days in the Texarkoma region, mainly the Texas part of the region along with West and South Arkansas. My distant great grandfather and his brother were both U.S. Marshal's in Fort Smith, Arkansas for the "Hanging Judge" Parker. They would take a train deep into what is now Oklahoma, back then it was the Indian Territory. There they would get off of the train with there horses and just ride all the way back to Fort Smith capturing, and sometimes killing the fugitives they tracked down on the way back to Arkansas. So essentially they just did the same work that John Wayne did on the movie "True Grit" when he played the role of U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn who was also in the movie based out of Fort Smith, Arkansas under the "Hanging Judge" Parker.
Now this distant grandfather and uncle of mine carried guns in the frontier during the 1870's-1880's. But they were Marshal's so their occupation required them too. But through old family documentations and such from family in deep Northeast Texas and Western Arkansas they were said to have carried their pistols on them at all times. The choice of my pistol for my grandfather is said to have been a Colt .45.
Then in the infamous "Johnson County War" in Wyoming that took place from 1889-1893, the cattle barons of Wyoming that were one of the two factions at war in Wyoming over range land and cattle to put it simply. Anyway the cattle barons of Wyoming came to Texas to hire the best gunfighters, bounty hunters, and guns for hire that they could possibly find to form an army against the settlers, rustlers, and law enforcement that opposed them back in Wyoming. It just so happens that two of the 23 gunfighters that they had hired were two of my uncles from back then, Jim Barling and Bob Barling. My last name is Barling also. You can read more about the "Johnson County War" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County_War . There are also many good books and some movies on it too. I have not seen any of the movies but some of the books are pretty good and accurate. There is also a very famous picture taken of the "Texas Gunfighter Army" and there associates that was taken in Wyoming after they were temporarily arrested and detained. My uncles are the 29th and 37th men in the order of the photo. Anyway they both carried guns as they were gunfighters by trade in Northeast Texas as well as gamblers and saloon frequenters in the area.
This ties in to a somewhat interesting story and twist of events over one hundred years. A couple years ago a Canadian antique gun trader and collector contacted my grandfather in deep Northeast Texas saying that he just purchased a late 1800's model Colt .45 (I forget the exact year). The Canadian man cleaned the gun up and traced the serial number way back to my great uncle Bob Barling, who was one of the Texan gunfighters that was recruited by the cattle barons of Wyoming to fight in the "Johnson County War". So this exact gun that showed up in Canada about 120 years after the war was used by my uncle in that war. The Canadian gun trader offered it to our family for around some crazy amount of money that my grandpa or anyone else in the family was not about to pay. But my grandfather is very very knowledgeable of family history and has researched the "Johnson County War" and our uncles who were involved in it very heavily so he gave the backstory to the antique gun dealer about my uncle Bob Barling and the war. Which the antique gun dealer turned around and used that story to help auction off the gun for a very high price once we passed up on it.
I know none of the men that I talked about were "cowboys" per say. But they were men back in the wild west days of the frontier, and they packed pistols often. And when I'm referring to my distant family in this post I'm implying that they are my "great however many times" uncle or grandfather. So for what its worth...
Now this distant grandfather and uncle of mine carried guns in the frontier during the 1870's-1880's. But they were Marshal's so their occupation required them too. But through old family documentations and such from family in deep Northeast Texas and Western Arkansas they were said to have carried their pistols on them at all times. The choice of my pistol for my grandfather is said to have been a Colt .45.
Then in the infamous "Johnson County War" in Wyoming that took place from 1889-1893, the cattle barons of Wyoming that were one of the two factions at war in Wyoming over range land and cattle to put it simply. Anyway the cattle barons of Wyoming came to Texas to hire the best gunfighters, bounty hunters, and guns for hire that they could possibly find to form an army against the settlers, rustlers, and law enforcement that opposed them back in Wyoming. It just so happens that two of the 23 gunfighters that they had hired were two of my uncles from back then, Jim Barling and Bob Barling. My last name is Barling also. You can read more about the "Johnson County War" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County_War . There are also many good books and some movies on it too. I have not seen any of the movies but some of the books are pretty good and accurate. There is also a very famous picture taken of the "Texas Gunfighter Army" and there associates that was taken in Wyoming after they were temporarily arrested and detained. My uncles are the 29th and 37th men in the order of the photo. Anyway they both carried guns as they were gunfighters by trade in Northeast Texas as well as gamblers and saloon frequenters in the area.
This ties in to a somewhat interesting story and twist of events over one hundred years. A couple years ago a Canadian antique gun trader and collector contacted my grandfather in deep Northeast Texas saying that he just purchased a late 1800's model Colt .45 (I forget the exact year). The Canadian man cleaned the gun up and traced the serial number way back to my great uncle Bob Barling, who was one of the Texan gunfighters that was recruited by the cattle barons of Wyoming to fight in the "Johnson County War". So this exact gun that showed up in Canada about 120 years after the war was used by my uncle in that war. The Canadian gun trader offered it to our family for around some crazy amount of money that my grandpa or anyone else in the family was not about to pay. But my grandfather is very very knowledgeable of family history and has researched the "Johnson County War" and our uncles who were involved in it very heavily so he gave the backstory to the antique gun dealer about my uncle Bob Barling and the war. Which the antique gun dealer turned around and used that story to help auction off the gun for a very high price once we passed up on it.
I know none of the men that I talked about were "cowboys" per say. But they were men back in the wild west days of the frontier, and they packed pistols often. And when I'm referring to my distant family in this post I'm implying that they are my "great however many times" uncle or grandfather. So for what its worth...
Last edited:
Hunter Customs
New member
James K, I take it you've never worked cattle from horseback, nor rode any ornery horses, neither takes a high degree of formal education but it sure requires more skill then flippin burgers.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
And has the added advantage of being accessible to either hand.
As Driftwood said, a cavalry solder would carry his saber on the left side to draw with his right hand. His revolver would be carried on the right, butt forward where it was accessible to his left hand with a crossdraw, or to his right , using a backhand twist "cavalry draw."
To men who had served in the Army, or had simply been around, the advantages of such a carry would have been quickly apparent.
Now that I think of it, I suppose a handgun carried on the weak side, would probably make it harder to tangle a rope around a gun butt, since most people would be working that rope on their strong side.
I know a gentleman who was a working cowboy until he was near 30yrs old.
Then he got married.
He was building a barbed wire fence up the side of a mountain ,pondering havin kids against the fact that he'd never made more than about $7 an hour.
So he enrolled at Colorado State University.Graduated on the Dean's list with a degree in chemistry,then was accepted into Veterinary school
He has had his own very successful practice for many years.
There is no doubt his cowboy education is large part of his skill as a vet.
I've watched him work on injured horses,etc.
He knows a lot they can't teach you in school.Like training a Dingo cow dog to be a useful partner.
Like how to touch and talk to an excited,injured horse to calm it down,at the same time he talks to the owner with the same effect.
An injection,scrubbing,shaving,debridement,sutures..and as soon as he was done,the anesthetic wore off and the horse perked up.
Anybody can buy a pickup,boots,a tin of snuff,and a hat for a persona.
Work spring calving in snow storms a few years and see if it takes more than "You want fries with that"?
(No,I am not a cowboy)
Then he got married.
He was building a barbed wire fence up the side of a mountain ,pondering havin kids against the fact that he'd never made more than about $7 an hour.
So he enrolled at Colorado State University.Graduated on the Dean's list with a degree in chemistry,then was accepted into Veterinary school
He has had his own very successful practice for many years.
There is no doubt his cowboy education is large part of his skill as a vet.
I've watched him work on injured horses,etc.
He knows a lot they can't teach you in school.Like training a Dingo cow dog to be a useful partner.
Like how to touch and talk to an excited,injured horse to calm it down,at the same time he talks to the owner with the same effect.
An injection,scrubbing,shaving,debridement,sutures..and as soon as he was done,the anesthetic wore off and the horse perked up.
Anybody can buy a pickup,boots,a tin of snuff,and a hat for a persona.
Work spring calving in snow storms a few years and see if it takes more than "You want fries with that"?
(No,I am not a cowboy)
I worked for a veterinarian when I was a teen and 95% of his business was cattle and horses. I have worked with cattle and waded in cow crap right alongside real cowboys. I've owned horses. I've had a hand in branding, dehorning, castrating, vaccinations, just whatever. I've been kicked, stepped on, rammed into fences and thrown from a horse. I've seen those guys working up close and it ain't no picanic.
Pathfinder45
New member
Thanks Bob, for your response on the comment about flippin' burgers! I have owned a couple of high-performance horses. My personal, everyday horse had won blue ribbons on the barrel-race events. That horse was too much horse for a lot of would-be riders. Made fools of some of them. Once you get to know and work well with one horse, is one thing. Switch out to another high strung horse that doesn't know you, and there's going to be some things to work out.
My thoughts about cowboys wages could be way off. But I have a hard time believing that experienced and reliable men weren't paid better than someone that was relatively new at it. There's a lot that could go wrong trying to drive a herd of 3,000 or so cattle over 1,000 miles of trail taking perhaps 2 months to complete the journey. Having at least a few top hands would seem pretty important to me. Another threat to consider would be rustlers. So, all things considered, it seems reasonable that in many cases it would have been important to be adequately armed. A Winchester might be better at range but a Colt could be pretty convenient firepower.
My thoughts about cowboys wages could be way off. But I have a hard time believing that experienced and reliable men weren't paid better than someone that was relatively new at it. There's a lot that could go wrong trying to drive a herd of 3,000 or so cattle over 1,000 miles of trail taking perhaps 2 months to complete the journey. Having at least a few top hands would seem pretty important to me. Another threat to consider would be rustlers. So, all things considered, it seems reasonable that in many cases it would have been important to be adequately armed. A Winchester might be better at range but a Colt could be pretty convenient firepower.
FrankenMauser
New member
Preface: I have not read the previous four pages - only the OP and first few replies.
My great, great grandfather was instrumental in settling Central Utah (circa 1847+ -- native and non-Mormon 'Gold-Rusher' deaths as they be
).
He carried DUAL revolvers, eventually upgrading to nickel-plated SAAs ("Peacemakers"), to defend himself, his followers, and the food stores that they had on hand. (He was in a "position of power" in his religious organization of choice.)
His holster rig and revolvers, being seen as specific, influential instruments of settling Utah were actually on display in the rotunda of the state capital for many years. And the cabin that he built, to initially settle the area that was supposed to be the first state capital, is now a historic landmark.
Take a bath with them? Doubtful.
Take a bath with them nearby? Very likely.
Have them on his hip any time he was "out and about" or on his horse? You bet your butt on it!
My great, great grandfather was instrumental in settling Central Utah (circa 1847+ -- native and non-Mormon 'Gold-Rusher' deaths as they be
).He carried DUAL revolvers, eventually upgrading to nickel-plated SAAs ("Peacemakers"), to defend himself, his followers, and the food stores that they had on hand. (He was in a "position of power" in his religious organization of choice.)
His holster rig and revolvers, being seen as specific, influential instruments of settling Utah were actually on display in the rotunda of the state capital for many years. And the cabin that he built, to initially settle the area that was supposed to be the first state capital, is now a historic landmark.
Take a bath with them? Doubtful.
Take a bath with them nearby? Very likely.
Have them on his hip any time he was "out and about" or on his horse? You bet your butt on it!
Every gunshow I've ever been to there's a fellow or three that have a table full of original cap and ball revolvers many of these are still in working order 150 years later, I would tend to believe that they were still working in 1900.
While I'm also sure that every cowboy didn't have a new Colt Peacemaker, I have a hard time believing that at least a few didn't have one and it wouldn't be far fetched that he sold/gave his old "51 navy to a younger cowboy.
While I'm also sure that every cowboy didn't have a new Colt Peacemaker, I have a hard time believing that at least a few didn't have one and it wouldn't be far fetched that he sold/gave his old "51 navy to a younger cowboy.
The question bothers me. It reminds me of a "study" done several years ago that showed that guns were not very common in colonial and frontier America. The media loved it and reported the findings with glee. I still run across people from time to time who cite that study when advocating for gun control.
Here's the problem. The study used a seriously flawed premise and has been completely discredited. The authors of the study looked at probate inventories and saw very few guns listed. From that, they concluded that there simply weren't many guns in civilian hands. It only took a few minutes for a competent researcher to show that other items known to have been in common use, like horses, also didn't show up. By the time a person dies, they have often given their guns and horses to younger family members who can use them. In addition, how many colonial and frontier families actually went through probate? Only the wealthy who lived in town and they were less likely to own guns in the first place. The media seems to have missed that part.
To answer the OP's question, yes they did. Go to Wall Drug in Wall S.D. and look at the photos on the walls of actual working cowboys from the late 1800's and you'll see that virtually all of them are carrying a revolver. These aren't staged portrait studio photos, they are of cowboys in the field or on the ranch.
I see anti-gun bias creeping into the culture all the time and it even happens on this forum. I see hysteria laced questions and answers about lead exposure, gun storage, safe backstops, liability, and the list goes on. My new response is going to be, "Lighten up, Francis!"
I worked in a gun shop once upon a time and it was relatively common for folks to walk in with a used gun and want the registration changed to a friend or relative. Because they've heard about registration and tracing on Law and Order or CSI, they think all guns are registered.
I was at the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center recently and saw a sign that said that accidental shootings was the #1 cause of death on the Oregon, California and Mormon trails. I would like to see the research that was based on!
Here's the problem. The study used a seriously flawed premise and has been completely discredited. The authors of the study looked at probate inventories and saw very few guns listed. From that, they concluded that there simply weren't many guns in civilian hands. It only took a few minutes for a competent researcher to show that other items known to have been in common use, like horses, also didn't show up. By the time a person dies, they have often given their guns and horses to younger family members who can use them. In addition, how many colonial and frontier families actually went through probate? Only the wealthy who lived in town and they were less likely to own guns in the first place. The media seems to have missed that part.
To answer the OP's question, yes they did. Go to Wall Drug in Wall S.D. and look at the photos on the walls of actual working cowboys from the late 1800's and you'll see that virtually all of them are carrying a revolver. These aren't staged portrait studio photos, they are of cowboys in the field or on the ranch.
I see anti-gun bias creeping into the culture all the time and it even happens on this forum. I see hysteria laced questions and answers about lead exposure, gun storage, safe backstops, liability, and the list goes on. My new response is going to be, "Lighten up, Francis!"
I worked in a gun shop once upon a time and it was relatively common for folks to walk in with a used gun and want the registration changed to a friend or relative. Because they've heard about registration and tracing on Law and Order or CSI, they think all guns are registered.
I was at the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center recently and saw a sign that said that accidental shootings was the #1 cause of death on the Oregon, California and Mormon trails. I would like to see the research that was based on!
I own quite a few handguns. None of my (centerfire) semi-automatics are as accurate as my Ruger single-action revolvers. The 7.5" barrels might have something to do with it. 
IMHO having a handgun strapped to your body or a long gun strapped to your horse would make hard manual labor more difficult. It also seems like they would be very vulnerable to being lost or broken. I believe I once read that working cowboys often owned firearms, but that they were normally kept in wagons, saddlebags, ranch houses, etc. because of reasons mentioned above.
As an aside, I am related to Frank and Jesse James on their mother's side of the family. I have a book that another distant relative published which shows quite clearly that most of the photographs purported to be of Jesse obviously are not. Some of them look nothing like him at all. I am amazed that so much nonsense gets published in history books.
IMHO having a handgun strapped to your body or a long gun strapped to your horse would make hard manual labor more difficult. It also seems like they would be very vulnerable to being lost or broken. I believe I once read that working cowboys often owned firearms, but that they were normally kept in wagons, saddlebags, ranch houses, etc. because of reasons mentioned above.
As an aside, I am related to Frank and Jesse James on their mother's side of the family. I have a book that another distant relative published which shows quite clearly that most of the photographs purported to be of Jesse obviously are not. Some of them look nothing like him at all. I am amazed that so much nonsense gets published in history books.
I remember talking to my great grandfather when I was a kid. I asked a very similar question. He said that he carried when the job would allow (some jobs like shoveling mud would ruin a gun). He also said that his horse always carried a rifle. Granted he owned the ranch he worked on so no boss could tell him he couldn't. Even to this day my cousin (who now owns the ranch) still carried but in a shoulder holster and still has a rifle scabbard on his ATV.