Western Authors: Gun Illiterate?

I

Indian Outlaw

New member
It seems Louis L'Amour was a Pietta fan. :D

From Mojave Crossing:

MojaveCrossing.jpg


I see mistakes like this regularly. One author likes to refer to the chambers/flash holes as "cylinders." :confused: Another has his characters loading cartridges into Paterson revolvers. The list goes on. I just smile and keep reading. :)
 
Last edited:
Hey, someone's got to set the standards for inaccuracy. The tradition lives today in the visual media. Why ruin tradition?
 
Is it the fact that it was called a "pistol" or a ".44 Navy" that's inaccurate?
Even to this day, there are no hard, positive explanations as to why a Navy is a Navy, an Army is an Army, etc. There are theories, myths, but nothing cut in stone.
Louis L'Amour knew many old westeners (Bill Tilghman, for example). His research was in-depth and extensive. If he said it, there was a reason based on fact.
 
I have seen, with my own eyeballs, an original Colt .44 Dragoon with an octagonal barrel. This was at the Colt Collection in the Hartford, Ct. State Library.
Here's one that is sure to drive Cap Cross crazy - a brass framed .44.
DSC06153.jpg
 
Paterson Cart. Conversion
Click to expand...

That is too weird.

I have no problem with such a gun being in literature, if the author explains clearly that it's a conversion. Les Savage Jr. neglected to do so, and it was confusing. Oh well. Maybe I'm overly critical 'cause I write fiction.

The ".44 Navy Colt" leaped off the page at me.

a brass framed .44.
Click to expand...

Yikes! That gun would have blown up had they shot it! :D
 
Maybe Tuco (Good, Bad & Ugly) assembled the gun?
Click to expand...
Hell it ain't that hard to take a Rebated 1860 Army frame, an Army .44 cyl. and a Navy grip with a rebored to .44 cal Navy Octegon barrel together.
I may jus' get me a Kirst gated Konverter 1851/.44 cyl in .45 Scholfield / Colt :O)
 
I wrote to Louis L'Amour in 1980 and asked him a question about his writing, and he wrote back to me. The following is a small part of what he wrote to me:
You must remember that many people will read your story, among them will be experts in anything you write about. You have to please them.
Click to expand...
He is my favorite writer, hands down.
But, I have seen other examples of incorrect info in novels, and it does drive me a little nuts.
 
Maybe the editor screwed up. Maybe someone else misread it and made the mistake in the final print version. Would an author read thru his whole own book to see that army had been changed to navy, and would the publisher do anything about it after they were off the press? He would say "who the hll is gonna know the difference?" Well it is too bad, it can spoil the flow of the story being distracted by mistakes. Or maybe the character was mistaken not the writer. Ha.
 
Few fiction authors are 100% on technical stuff like guns. Even the ones with a good background will let something slip every now and then, or fudge it to advance their plot. The few I have seen to make a point of getting things just so are not first rate storytellers. They tend to dwell on the techtalk too much and break up the flow.

I do remember the Louis L'Amour story about the guy with the Walch Navy 12 shot revolver coming out on top with the extra capacity, though.
 
It is weird, because in another story of his -- a Chick Bowdrie story -- he gets it right and calls a certain gun a "Navy Colt in .36 caliber."

Oh, well ... Who am I to judge? They're published and I'm not. :)
 
Last edited:
Louis L'Amour was more accurate than most in his descriptions. He studied his story before he wrote it, as well as having lived a lot before beginning to write.

Tramp freighters, professional boxer, whatever.
The '51 was "Of the Naval Caliber", or .36. I don't know if the recent .44 Navy's are true or not. Only looked at one book.

There are writers who are meticulous in their research. Patrick O'Brian, of the John Aubrey, "Master and Commander" movie with Russel Crowe, and Dick Francis with his English jockey books. Both quit writing, well up in years, when their wives died, their chief researchers.

Lots of others haven't a clue as to what they write. Some of the most famous included. Some of whom I have read dozens of their works. And some of them are just plain dorks.

Cheers,

George
 
George: Louis L'Amour was more accurate than most in his descriptions. He studied his story before he wrote it, as well as having lived a lot before beginning to write.
Click to expand...

That sums it up quite well, L'Amour put a considerable amount of effort into trying to keep his work both technically and historically accurate. One thing most often overlooked is the fact that these are "fiction" novels and not technical historical reference books. Another point overlooked is that over the years there have been quite a number of "small lots" of guns produced for various branches and division within branches of the US Military forces. To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie because 20, 50 & 200 years later and "new" information is still being discovered.
 
To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie...
Click to expand...
That's a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?
A lie is an intentional misrepresentation; it's entirely possible that the statement claiming something 'never existed' is not an intentional misrepresentation. Is the statement, "The unicorn, being a horse with a single tusk protruding from the forehead, never existed" a lie?
 
Quote:
To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie...

That's a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?
A lie is an intentional misrepresentation; it's entirely possible that the statement claiming something 'never existed' is not an intentional misrepresentation. Is the statement, "The unicorn, being a horse with a single tusk protruding from the forehead, never existed" a lie?
Click to expand...


No, it's not an "overstatement" by any means because it's the same catagory as the statement, "That can't be done." Just be you haven't found something yet or you haven't figured out a way to do it yet does not mean that it "never existed" or "can't be done".

Up until very recently, it was claimed that "Life can never exist in the ocean at depths below 3000 feet because sunlight cannot penetrate any deeper and it's required to sustain life." Low and behold in 1977 that all changed when life was in fact found - not only very much alive but also living quite well - at depths of 7000 feet around thermal volcanic vents near the near the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. In addition to the "can never live at depth thing" this same discovery also disproved the claims that "nothing can live in the sulfur-saturated environment of volcanic vents" and "nothing can live in water that exceeds X temperature."

Thus, the only "overstatement" is the claim of "never".
 
To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie
Click to expand...

I would think that if there had ever been a 51 Navy in .44 there would be one in the Colt factory collection. If they had been made in many numbers there would be some floating around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top