movie trivia-PALE RIDER

"Cylinder swapping isn't historically correct. Cylinders back then didn't fit just any gun."

Fitting a cylinder to particular gun isn't a particularly difficult task, even for someone who isn't a particularly skilled gunsmith.

I have no doubt that even back then people realized that and some took advantage of it.
 
No eye witness accounts, no written record, no pictoral record, no cylinder pouches in pics or museums.
Click to expand...

How about this:

The Longest Ride

In 1907 Pony Bob described his experience on “the longest ride” to author William Lightfoot Visscher: “I had already ridden seventy-five miles [from Friday's Station, near Lake Tahoe]; but to my great astonishment, the other rider refused to go on. The superintendent, W.C. Marley, was at the station, but all his persuasion could not prevail on the rider, Johnson Richardson, to take the road. Turning then to me, Marley said: “‘Bob, I will give you $50 if you will make this ride.’ I replied, ‘I will go at once.’ Within ten minutes, when I had adjusted my Spencer rifle, which was a seven-shooter and my Colt’s revolver, with two cylinders ready for use in case of emergency, I started…I pushed on to Sand Springs, through an alkali bottom and sand hills, thirty miles farther, without a drop of water all along the route.”
Click to expand...

And Phil Spangenberger offers this:

For irrefutable documentation of the practice, one can refer to a number of studies by respected firearms historians, R.L. Wilson, Roy Marcot and R. Bruce McDowell, who not only write about it, but also show numerous photos of revolvers produced with spare cylinders. The manufacture of revolvers with extra cylinders was not uncommon, with some revolver makers, like Remington, advertising the sale of extra cylinders.
Click to expand...
 
OldMarksman -

Spangenberger, like many magazine writers, claims evidence exists but fails to provide a credible citation. A true historian would have provided a bibliography specifying the documentation he claims supports his thesis. A politician, on the other hand, simply makes a claim and goes on as if it's supported. It's clear which profession Spangenberger belongs to.

By the way, one only has to read the 5 comments following his editorial (for that's all it is) to see what credibility it lacks. I'd suggest if you're going to cite his opinion as proof of the thesis that you at least be sure the comments that refute it are not immediately available - it makes you appear, well, as if you hadn't done your homework.
 
Brings up a potentially interesting point for the historians among you

We are treated to reports of revolvers being marketed with extra cylinders which certainly gives credence to the practice of keeping extra loaded cylinders as a viable historical possibility.

On the other hand, in a region in which money was scarce, how likely is it that a person who considered his revolver as one of the many tools he had to carry either on his hip, the saddle, or saddle bags, would find a place to buy a revolver in the set described, and then have the money to invest.

I am reminded of Duvall's comment in Open range about how he acquired his revolver. "I took it from a man who could not afford to pay me for some cows."

That comment does not indicate anything in the way of historical fact in and of itself. It is from a movie (fiction)

We are also treated to some reports that ranch hands were issued firearms by the owner of the ranch and who may not have owned their own personal weapon.

So the question for me is:

For the person who felt the need to acquire and carry a revolver of any consequence, where did he (or she) get it?

Trade for it? Handed down from dad or grand dad? buy it from a private individual? Buy it from a store or shop?

And when he did, how much control did he have over what he got? Did the individual have to be satisfied with some slim pickens, or were there enough revolvers available that he could pick and choose?
 
Oldmarksman, thank you for the Spangenberger link. The comments following the article seem to agree with what I posted earlier. Even the pic of the Remington revolvers were, as I posted above, "presentation grade guns".
 
Doc,

I don't think that anyone is claiming that every Tom, Dick, and Shorty carried spare cylinders for their revolvers.

To say money was scarce doesn't, however, mean the same thing as "no hard money was available and never had been so no one could afford to buy, sell, own, or possess anything."

I've always taken a pretty dim view of expressing any historical touchpoint in absolute terms.

It's also odd that you'd dismiss as historically inaccurate the scene from Pale Rider while embracing as historical truth the scene from Open Range.

Odd, but then perhaps that explains the fascination some have with zombie movies... :p

But, in any event, at least one period gun appears to have been offered for sale with not only a spare cylinder, but also a spare barrel.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...20&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&gbv=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1
 
Posted by mykeal: Spangenberger, like many magazine writers, claims evidence exists but fails to provide a credible citation. A true historian would have provided a bibliography specifying the documentation he claims supports his thesis.
Click to expand...
Space and word count limitations, my dear Mr. or Ms. mykeal. A fact of life. How many short magazine articles contain footnotes and bibliographies?

By the way, one only has to read the 5 comments following his editorial (for that's all it is) to see what credibility it lacks.
Click to expand...

First, three of the five are written by the same person. One of them states that Spangenberger cited the illustration of the fancy Remingtons as substantiation. He did not. Great picture--probably chosen by the publisher.

I haven't read the work of R.L. Wilson, Roy Marcot, or R. Bruce McDowell on the subject, nor do I recall seeing the photos, but I have seen photos of real and faked Baby Dragoon Colts with extra cylinders which, as I recall, were taken by or for John S. duMont and/or either Lucian Cary or Herb Glass.

The second refers to large caliber, heavy revolvers. They had loading levers, and anyone who could carry one could carry two--better than an extra cylinder.

The third is just an attack on Spangenberger. Says he did not provide documentation. It does not dispute his citations of Wilson, Marcot, or McDowell.

The fourth refers to literacy stats. I'm not a student of the subject, but I have to question the census report of 95% literacy in a nation of new immigrants. Fact is, many cavalry recruits were illiterate. Might there not have been others?

The fifth cites instructions that reportedly came with 1849 Pocket revolvers and 1851 Navy revolvers and that state “The cylinder is not to be taken off when loaded.” Duh! They had loading levers that cannot be used with the cylinder removed. Doesn't say you cannot remove a loaded cylinder.

The early Patersons, Wells Fargo models, and most Baby Dragoons did not have loading levers. The cylinders were loaded when removed from the firearm.

Uberti and Beretta literature for their replicas state that the Pony Express riders preferred Baby Dragoons.

I read the same thing in 1950.

And then there's Pony Bob's account....

It does make sense that someone who had to weigh less than 120 pounds and who rode fast on a horse carrying mail that bought in revenues of more than a dollar per half ounce in a bag containing a maximum of twenty pounds would choose a very light revolver, and most probably only one, and that an extra cylinder would be desirable.

I personally doubt that carrying extra cylinders was very common among others, but trying to prove a negative is a losing poposition.
 
It's also odd that you'd dismiss as historically inaccurate the scene from Pale Rider while embracing as historical truth the scene from Open Range.
Click to expand...
Mike, maybe you should read Doc's whole post. His next sentence was...
That comment does not indicate anything in the way of historical fact in and of itself. It is from a movie (fiction)
Click to expand...
Doc said he was reminded of that comment. Also in my earlier post I mentioned that most cased revolvers I have seen with extra cylinders were Colt Patersons. They seem to be the one revolver I have seen that spare cylinders were fairly common with.
 
Last edited:
One Other Reference

This is from the Utah State History website:

The Pony Express started with 80 experienced riders, 500 horses, and 190 stations that were 10 to 12 miles apart. Many of the riders were skillful guides or seasoned scouts. All were, by necessity, good horseman and were noted for their small, wiry stature. For risking their lives daily, they received $25.00 per week, two revolvers, a rifle, a bowie knife, and a gold-imprinted bible. The heavy armaments proved to be too much luggage and later on they settled on a single pistol and an extra leaded cylinder.
Click to expand...

Loaded, of course.
 
Nah not enough time to read his whole post. I have just enough time to pass judgement and move on. :p

The problem is, even though it is dismissed as fiction, it is still used as an example to support Doc's underlying conclusion, that money was scarce so anyone having an extra cylinder for their gun is impossible.

My point stands.
 
Mike, I think you missed Doc's point. The way I read it, at least, is that he used that movie line to point out that not everyone could afford to buy a brand new gun. That in some cases other means of procurement were involved.
 
Regarding literacy rates. That figure seems to mesh up with wwhat I have founf online for the literacy rate at the time.

Remember in the pre civil war period immigration was a relative trickle compared to what it would become and most of those immigrants were from western european nations where there were school systems generally in place.

I also suspect that not just English literacy would have been counted. At the time most non English speaking immigrants were German, and if historical documentation is accurate, literacy in that part of society was virtually 100 percent.

Literacy rates in the South are FAR lower, largely I suspect due to the large black populations. That remained an issue in the South for over 100 years.
 
No I fully got Doc's point. The claim and the summary statement from the movie served to reinforce his contention that hard money was scarce so in real life no one could ever have afforded a spare cylinder.

No offense Doc, but not well illustrated.
 
And More

On the Baby Dragoon: read the top of page 47, "customarily reloaded by changing cylinders".

On Patersons:

...rare cased Model No. 2 Paterson Belt Revolver, considered one of the finest cased belt models known, comes complete with accessories and a spare cylinder and is estimated at $125,000-175,000. A rare Colt Model C Pocket No. 1 Baby Paterson revolver, also cased with a spare cylinder and embellished with numerous silver bands carries a presale estimate of $100,000-150,000.
Click to expand...
 
For the person who felt the need to acquire and carry a revolver of any consequence, where did he (or she) get it?

Trade for it? Handed down from dad or grand dad? buy it from a private individual? Buy it from a store or shop?

And when he did, how much control did he have over what he got? Did the individual have to be satisfied with some slim pickens, or were there enough revolvers available that he could pick and choose?
Click to expand...

Most hardware stores carried guns. I suppose it was a lot like today. Some bought them new, some traded, some bought from individuals. A lot of cowboy guns were not what we consider cowboy guns, especially later in the century but were the cheap Iver Johnson, Allen & Thurber type guns. Colt was the weapon of choice if you could afford to pay 13.00 for one. The cheap stuff ran around 4.00 and really no more than they were actually used did a pretty decent job. I would think and this is JMO that most hardware stores carried a decent selection. I remember when I was young going to the local hardware store and looking at guns in the mid 60's and they had a good selection of rifles, most used and were willing to trade. The pistol selection wasn't quite as good but still adequate for a small town. They also still sold horse shoes and mule pulled plows etc. so I doubt things were much different then than 80 or 90 years before.
 
Mike's post is pertinent

I think Mike is right (although I can't cite any evidence, only what I know of human nature and the humanist approach to econimics) about a lot of folks carrying extra cylinders. I said only that only that it was possible to do so.

I also think, (again with not even a shread of evidence) that not every male who lived in what was then the Wild West felt it necessary to carry a firearm. Remember that in some cases, the firearm absorbed resources which might have been directed at what the individual saw as more pressing needs.

We might have a fairly decent idea of how many revolvers were available because we know in general terms how many were manufactured or perhaps imported. While this does not enlighten us as to practical numbers at least it tells us roughly what the maximum number would be. We also have records of the fixed population of the various states or territories from the years between say 1870 and 1890 or so, not counting transients who might not have been included in the official population.


From those numbers we could do an extrapolation. If there were for example 3 million revolvers available of all descriptions, and 21 million inhabitants, then there was 1 revolver for each seventh person. Obviously those numbers are only examples.

I also agree in principle (principle only because I can't cite any evidence) that it was very likely that a person who happened to sell firearms also sold dry goods or other stuff. I bought my first rifle from a hardware store in about 1962 in a small Pennsylvania town. The gun (Thats right, you caught me using the term "gun" applied to what is more correctly small arms ;o) .) rack was right across from the nail bins.

I wonder about such questions as, "How large did a town have to be to support a general store which sold firearms as well?"

or

"How much larger was the town that could support a merchant who sold only hardware and firearms?"
 
"I also think, (again with not even a shread of evidence) that not every male who lived in what was then the Wild West felt it necessary to carry a firearm."

PSHAW!

We know from the historical records (name the movie I reference with that and win... nothing!) that cowboys, cowgirls, cowkids, etc., all positively DRIPPED guns in the old west!

And every one of them carted around a brace of nickel plated, gold filagreed Colt .45s in low-ride Mexican draw holsters!

And 75% of them had "Slim" in their name, while 40% of them had "Kid" in their name.

And an amazing 56.72% of them had BOTH Slim and Kid in their name!

Hum.... excuse me while I refresh this whisky... I'm drinking it, authentically, from a dirty glass!

:p
 
Any town would have a hardware store. Hardware stores sold tools, guns were tools. How good a really small towns selection would be is anybody's guess. I'm sure somewhere there are records that could be accessed to get an idea. A town would have to be pretty big, more like a small city to support a gunshop that only dealt in guns and accessories.
 
"How large did a town have to be to support a general store which sold firearms as well"

Well, from some of the things I've seen over the years, apparently not all that big. Where ever a group of people clustered for some economic reason, it usually drew people who were willing to try to make a buck off those people.

Some of the lumber towns in the Pacific Northwest at the turn of the last century are good examples. Isolated, small, but still had their store and saloon...

What a lot of people also don't realize about these small stores is that they often were much more than simply a store. They were often a restaurant, a post office, an informal bank, the railroad office/telegraph office (if they were located on or near a line) and, in the age of mail order for things that often weren't carried in stores outside the big cities, the order and package acceptance service.

If a town got bigger, sometimes those things would be branched out to other dedicated stores, but you'll still occasionally see places like that in really rural areas -- General store/filling station/post office etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top