How did they do it ???

Actually

Actually, the population of the country was mostly rural until the middle of the century when the farmhand was replaced. Think about the Movie, THE WIZARD OF OZ for a moment. You've got Ma, Pa, and the three farm hands. Where do you see farm hands today? Back then, before mechanical farming, it was a labor intensive thing that required people living on or near the farms. The average farm hand did not commute to and from the farm from a city. Cities grew in population when the ability to employ the people grew.

As somebody else here said, it is doubtful that people back in the old west shot as much as they do in the movies. Farmhands carrying guns? I don't think so.

Look at the guns that at the turn of the century were the best sellers. The small .22's and .32's in top break and remove-the-cylinder-to-reload. The ones that were generally called 'Suicide Specials'. Sure, people bought guns, but it was mainly as a protective thing, and very few were schooled like we were in ballistics and lethal force, etc... Also, wounds were something that could be really fatal, not from the bullet, but from the crud that the bullet brought into the body. Lack of medicine, antibiotics and sterilization or daily showers/baths and clean changes of clothing contributed to the death rate. Those little guns could do the job back then. Also, you were as likely to get sued then as you are now. (Those ancient law volumes are not just filled with dog bite cases).

You could mail-order pistols (wouldn't that be nice to do today) and all other guns. Sub-machine guns, when they first came out, were advertised for western border ranchers to ward off banditos! Check out old Sears Catalogs. They have all sorts of guns, cheap and expensive in them.

Yep, movies have spoiled what people think how the olden days were. While there is a move towards authenticity, I think that due to the time, lack of anybody who was there then, and the tendency to embellish on the old stories, we will probably never see a really accurate movie depiction of how it was way back when.

Makes you hope there's a heaven so you can get the answers from those who made it there! :p

The Doc is out now. :cool:
 
I don't agree with most of what you said...

Wyatt Earp 1848 to 1929... & Virgil Earp 1843 to 1905. They are from the old west and lived and told their story and the story of the life they lived....

There is more accuracy in those old movies than you give credit for. But I do believe that the shoot-outs weren't nearly as prolific as represented.

That's really all I got to say....
 
Most of Wyatt's stories don't match recorded fact. Face to face gunfights were practically non-existent. Shootouts were few and far between. If anybody made a movie about the old west the way 99.9% of it really was nobody would watch it.
 
I don't agree with most of what you said...
Click to expand...

Don't agree with who? There are a number of us commenting here.

Since I know I am always right :rolleyes: there isn't any way that you can be disagreeing with me. :D

(Hawg's right, too, you know)

The Doc is out now. :cool:
 
I think the key here ( for the movies anyway ) is that the movies often hone in on a charictor thats a gun fighter or used to be etc.

where as the "towns people" are always the cowardly group that huddles around the buildings & watches the action ( probably because they didn't have a gun, weren't proficient with one, or didn't have any ammo ??? )...

I guess though ( turning the thread to the left ) my originl question centered around those trecking across country maybe during the gold rush, or westward expansion, but someone who was heading into territory they were not familiar with, & may need to hunt for food, defend themselves & or their party from hostiles ( both Indian & other "bad guys" ), & who might not run across a trading post for several weeks, if at all...

... though I admit, that the soldier information was interesting, I had no eye deer that the soldier carried so little ammo on his person
 
well, generally speaking: when traversing longer distances than town to town in the western united states in the 1800's people would tend to travel in groups with wagons, pack mules and/or whatever they could possibly get their hands on to carry their stuff. If someone were a pistolero/gunfighter/shootist/cowboy/ect, then they would use saddle bags and bandoleers. Five pounds in a single box may seem pretty heavy, but when you spread those five founds over 3 or 4 feet and sling it up, it's not so heavy anymore.
 
Don't forget

That the railroads were being built real fast once the intercontinental link went through. People don't realize it nowadays, but less-than-carload freight was big business in the olden days. Buy something in Chicago, have it shipped to you in central Illinois by rail and pick it up at the Station if Railroad Express Agency did not have a nearby delivery.
Sears used to sell houses in do-it-yourself building kits. Everything you would need to build a house (Google Sears Houses) would be sent by railroad car to your nearest station. Guns and ammo, too, and lots of stores carried guns and ammo. Hardware stores (some still sell today, although few and far between) were a place to buy guns.

However, as somebody else said, if they made a movie about how it really was, it would be too dull for anybody to want to watch it.

Almost like real life today. :D

The Doc is out now. :cool:
 
A story read long ago about buffalo hunters included the facts on the team concept. The team usually consisted of a shooter, a teamster/teamsters and several skinners. The shooter was responsible only for killing the animals and the skinners skinned and the teamster drove the wagons/wagons.
When the skins were hauled to the railheads and sold then a portion of the income went to buy powder (kegs) and lead in pigs. In most cases after food, powder and lead the remainder of the income was divided among the team, sometimes equally, sometimes not.
The shooter poured bullets and loaded his cases at night and carried only a single days supply of loaded ammunition.
These shooters probably used more ammunition than any other people in that era.
 
A Civil War soldier generally was issued 60 rounds before going into battle. That was under circumstances where it was known they were going into battle of course. They could go through that pretty quickly, but resupply was as close as the fallen man next to you if needed.

As I understand it those rounds were packed ten to a pack, each pack wrapped in waxed paper and were carried in a leather cartridge box slung across the chest. They were paper cartridges, with individual rounds being a bullet and powder charge wrapped in paper. Percussion Caps were issued seperatly and carried in a cap box on the belt. I would imagine that 60, 58 cal. Minnie balls were about all you wanted to carry slung across your neck if you had to march very far.

Civil War literature is full of references to men throwing away everything but their weapons and ammo pouches as they marched toward a fight. Many a time after a battle, they regreted throwing those heavy coats and raingear away later on when they may have been somewhat surprised to find themselves still alive, and the night turned cold and rainy.

I'd be willing to bet that by the time of the "old west" there were darn few helpless citizens cowering in fear while the "bad guys" took over the town. A lot of men, north and south, in those days were veterans of the Civil War, and had been both shot at, and had shot and killed men themselves. The idea wasn't new to them. While they may not have carried guns routinely, I'll bet they or someone else had them close by.

A well known example. When the James gang rode into Northfield, Minnesota, they rode into a hornets nest when the local citizens quickly armed themselves and shot the gang to pieces.
 
I'd be willing to bet that by the time of the "old west" there were darn few helpless citizens cowering in fear while the "bad guys" took over the town.
Click to expand...

That was the theme of HIGH NOON, a movie that John Wayne criticized as being a slur on the citizens of the old west for being cowardly.

The Doc is out now. :cool:
 
Trekking across the continent was mentioned. There are two things to consider.

First, the '49er didn't carry fifty rounds of 45-70. That's a post-war cartridge and while cartridge guns were around, they weren't the heavy military cartridges of post-war fame. If the '49er had a rifle, he'd carry lead balls and had his powder in a horn. Second, as mentioned, the market hunter was accompanied by some skinners who drove the wagon (that carried the hides back to the railroad) and a pack mule who carried his spare lead and powder.
 
My great grandfather was a sheep drover who brought sheep from the Chicago area to California in the 1840s. He walked the whole way, probably had a pack animal to carry his gear. He would have had a shelter cloth for a tent, spare clothing, (not much) cookpot, knife, dry food.(flour,salt,coffee,maybe sugar,beans etc) a smoothbore gun(probably .62 or bigger) powder, balls, shot, patches,flints or caps. Bedroll and slicker. Maybe a hatchet. He couldn't have carried much more and shooting was for food or defense. My bullet pouch will hold about 20 .50 cal balls and is not heavy. A larger pouch could have been carried, but probably not more than 50 balls and 2 lb of shot. Any more would not be practical.

His main defense would have been grit and guile, not guns. A man alone, even armed, couldn't fight off a band of Native warriors or bandits. That he made the trip and settled in California in 1846 is history. That he survived is a minor miracle. His name was Daniel Gilmore and he was a neighbor of William Hollister and married Hollister's daughter.(Hollister California)

I don't know the details of his journey, but I can imagine crossing the plains, climbing the mountains, finding passes, descending into Salt Lake, crossing the seven hundred miles of dry land and 52 mountain ranges to California. Walking behind a bunch of sheep, he couldn't have made more than 10 miles a day. What a tremendous effort. I am awestruck by the prospect of that journey. He was a man.
 
Ordinary guys didn't generally carry hundreds of rounds of ammo around. The weight would be prohibitive. Buffalo hunters used large amounts of ammo, and generally loaded their own in camp at night, casting bullets and readying loads for the next days hunt. The buffalo hunters, as mentioned used wagons to carry the heavy camp supplies out to the hunt areas, and bring the hides back to the trading posts for shipment east.

The cavalry carried more than 20 rounds. in 1868, Brevet Col George Forsyth, with Lieutenant Beecher and 50 scouts, took off after Sioux and Cheyenne Indians, carrying Spencer carbines, Colts pistols, and having 140 rounds of carbine ammunition, and 30 rounds of pistol ammunition. They found the Indians. The resulting fight lasted several days, with ammunition running low at the end, but they repulsed numerous charges of the Indians.


The old fashioned cartridge boxes used in the civil war and before, and improved to some degree in the plains wars period, werent the only means of carrying ammo, and were not always used singly. Cartridge belts were also being used by 1866, generally made on the western posts, and later as issued equipment. Regular issue waist (pistol) belts had cartridge loops added by the men themselves, and belts were made up by post saddlers. Several people claimed the idea, but by the mid 1870's, cartrdige belts were being issued, and geneally held 45 to 50 rounds. Extra ammunition was carried in the saddle bags, and on pack animals. When dismounted, every 4th (3rd?) trooper was to hold the horses of the others. One of the tactics of the Indians was to kill the horse holders, thereby stampeding the animals, and separating the troops from their spare ammo. I believe Custers men had an extra 80 rounds of carbine cartridges each in their saddle bags, and some pistol cartridges, tho I don't recall how many. I believe that the 80 extra carbine rounds was not an uncommon number. Cartridges were packed in 20 round boxes for rifle/carbine rounds, and 18 round boxes for pistol rounds.

Cartridges for Winchester 66's and 73's would weigh roughly half what military cartridges do. More rounds could be carried on a person, or in saddle bags for the same weight. Less range and power than the single shots in the various 45 and 50 calibers, but the repeaters could be decisive in an Indian charge. Read up on the aftermath of the Fetterman massacre, where the 2 Henry armed scouts were found just aprt from the main body of troops, with numerous dead Indian horses around them, and about 60 "great gouts of blood" from Indians killed near them. Later reports from the Indians confirmed that about that many were killed near the men. In the Hayfield fight in '67, DA Colvin had a Henry rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition. Finn Burnett, another particpant of the fight commented that he believed that no man living, or that ever lived, had killed more Indians than Colvin on that day. He was shooting steadily from 9:30 in the morning, to about 5:00 pm, most shots were at ranges from 25 to about 75 yards. He fired around 300 rounds that day, the ground around his position was "literally covered with empty shells from his rifle". Burnett also said "...He was a dead shot, and if he missed, we didnt know it..."

Sometimes even Hollywood can't do a better gunfight than real life.


I recall from reading of the mountain men period, they generally started the year with enough powder, caps and lead for 100 rounds. That was riding to St Louis for resupply.


I don't believe bandoliers were common anywhere besides the Mexican border region. Regular waist belts for cartridges were common all across the western frontier. Most civilian belts held around 40 to 50 rounds I believe.
 
Last edited:
Remember most of those people "back then" were a lot leaner and fitter than most of us today, exercise wasn't something they got in a gym or working out to a TV program, it was something they did as part of their regular day's routine.
One analogy I use is the good old "steel pot" AKA M-1 helmet and liner. The first time you put it on, it feels like it weighs a ton, after a while you get used to it. I do a Spanish American War impression, a volunteer with a .45-70. The fully loaded Mills Belt is like a modern weight belt, you wear it enough, you get used to it, plus it feels good when you take it off. Also I think people had a more stoic and uncomplaining attitude back then. I tell people the Cuban Campaign of 1898 was fought in the high summer with wool uniforms
but in that pre airconditioning age people were quicker to shrug off such hardships and annoyances.
Also people setting off on any long journey knew that you packed what you needed, no trading posts or resupply points along the way.
 
The people who do the movies show a lot of ignorance in many ways other than guns.

Yesterday I saw an old Western movie that ended when the hero and his new bride mounted their horses and rode off to start a new life in California. Not even a saddle bag. Maybe it is true that you can live on love alone!

And the "Gunsmoke" episode where they spend hours loading cases of gold into a light spring wagon drawn by two saddle horses!

And riding horses used as dray horses or plow horses. No big horses or oxen in sight, not even a mule.

And the cavalry columns with no quartermaster or ordnance wagons.

And the big Civil War battles fought by the hero and a half dozen troops.

And the "injuns" always giving themselves away with smoke signals.

And many, many more.

Jim
 
You all miss one important factor...

Back in the 1800's and before and even a long time after.... Folks were NOT fat butt, high cholesterol, heart attack having obese lazy American people.

They were LEAN and they were Strong Americans!

Look at our army boy's of today. My cousin and my nephew daily carry around over 60 lbs on them selves...
MY Uncle did a Death Valley March in the Marine Corps back in the 1950's with a rifle and a 40 lb. backpack and a half full canteen... And he only weighed $165 lbs at 6'1...

They were tougher folk, and we don't have near good enough accounting of that life as we need to be able to speculate accurately... In my opinion that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top