[medievalmax]

Morning!

I will be very careful here because my terminology is lacking. I am not as schooled on revolvers as revolver enthusists are.

My question is this: Did the Cowboy type of revolver put the Cowboy at a disadvantage because of its more complicated: specifically the guns that wouldn't allow you full access to the cylinder?

I realize that more modern versions allowed the user to break open the gun, but I am thinking more along the lines of the type that Ruger emulates with its Vaquero line.

I would think that if you were loading from a cartridge belt then there would not be a whole lot of difference in speed to a skilled shooter. I think of this when I had a small Rossi .357 mag (Rossi...junk, please leave 'em in the display case).

If I had six cartridges in my hand, which was bulky without the use of a catridge belt, I usually fumbled one insertion of the six if trying to reload in a hurry.

One hand usually holds the gun and one reloads, for most shooters. As well almost all shooters are loading weak hand anyway.

I am not a SASS shooter so I am leaving this question up for those that are.

Any ideas?

[earplug]

Loading from belt loops would make a SemiPistol with one magazine slow.
The moderen revolver is a system of speed loaders or full moon clips.
And A swing out cylinder can be emptied in one stroke and reloaded faster with loose cartriges faster then a single actions loading gate.
I don't know of any device to speed up loading a old SA revolver.

[Baba Louie]

Everything is relative. You use whatcha got and get proficient if need be.

Cowboys tend to their cattle, ride and mend fence lines mostly. Few hostiles in their day to day.

The US Cavalry however, now that was a different story. Reloading a metallic cartridge handgun was far easier than a black powder cap 'n ball.

Carry a second horse pistol or another brace of them.

Having said that, the swing out cylinder and/or top break revolver was probably invented for a really good reason, don'cha think? Not to mention a certain magazine loaded semi-auto carrying 7 rounds of .45 adopted in 1911.

[bakert]

Baba Louie is right. A lot cowboys carried guns but seldom used them. Actually if those big old .40+ bullets hit somebody, warnt no reason to reload fast:D
A lot of hard headed old timers held on to single actions into the 20th century.
Not sure what year but the Army adopted the S&W topbreaks including the Schofield pretty early and then later like he also mentioned, Mr Browning's pistol came along but there were a lot of the big frame S&W and Colts with swing out cylinders in the inventory too.

[ZeSpectre]

You have to view the relativity of things. As others have said, any re-loading of metallic cartridge arms was faster than the cap n' ball guns that came before. Also, even in modern days I have found an old style SAA pistol to be an excellent "cowboy" gun -because- it doesn't open up. What I mean is this, riding a horse is a very physical experience and you'd be absolutely amazed at how things will jiggle out of allignment, work their way open, and do all sorts of odd mechanical stuff.

I had a modern revolver somehow come open (due to the movement of horse and rider) so that when I pulled the pistol later the cyllender fell open and all the rounds fell out. I've also lost a magazine out of a semi-auto while riding a horse (never found it). By contrast I've never had an older SAA style give me any trouble at all even when wadded up with horsehair (damn the beasties can shed sometimes :D ).

[Gbro]

"Nervous as a Whore in church", "Cool as a cucumber";
Those mannerisms were what made a difference.
Remember the gunslinger, probably had ice water running through his veins. This enabled him to make every motion perfect. you will see that in todays Pro athletes. Take a golfer that can keep a golf ball bouncing from his club, or the hockey bum that keeps a puck bouncing from bis blade(in the air).
If i required concealed carry students to fire a single action revolver in the same time frame as we now do with DA's and Auto loaders, why there wouldn't be many carrying. Its a fun challenge though, everything must go perfect to do it.
Back in the days we shot rats at the local dump, a single action revolver was a pain, but it sure improved reloading skills.

[Jim K]

All true, but the fact is that the gun fighter armed with a Colt SA (technically, the SA Army was only the .45 caliber) really was at a disadvantge over one armed with a S&W breaktop - after the first six shots. Up to then, things were equal, and contrary to the movie image of gunfighters firing enough ammo to make peace in Iraq, that was rarely the case. One of two shots usually settled the issue.

Also, contrary to the movies, not everyone in the Old West carried a SA; they cost a full month's pay for a regular cowboy, who made only $.50 a day when the Colt was $16. Aside from the Army, Colts were usually the property of law officers or quite well off people. Ordinary folk carried those little .32 and .38 revolvers we rather sneer at today, but which were considered good enough at the time, and which sold for $3-7 dollars.

Another myth is that people who carried a SAA carried only 5 rounds, or kept money in one chamber for "burying money." Those are myths ginned up by Colt lawyers in the last decade. In fact, the original owners loaded six rounds and carried the guns either in the safety notch (which is what it was for) or with the hammer nose down between cartridge heads.

Jim

[DragonFire]

Did the Cowboy type of revolver put the Cowboy at a disadvantage

At a disadvantage compared to whom? In their time they were the peak of firearm technology. Plus, if a cowboy thought he'd really need a gun, he would bring his rifle or shotgun.

Not many hollywood-style many-shot shootouts really occurred, especially to the average cowboy.

[Majic]

Those are myths ginned up by Colt lawyers in the last decade. In fact, the original owners loaded six rounds and carried the guns either in the safety notch (which is what it was for) or with the hammer nose down between cartridge heads.
No myth as after so many revolvers got damaged (and a damaged gun meant weeks without it when out on the open range) the idea of loading only 5 cartridges was born.
If that myth was ginned up in the last decade then how did I learn of it as a boy and that was over 4 decades ago?

[Bear41mag]

Actually I think complicated is the wrong term...slower to reload or more cumbersome may be a better discription. The Colt Single Action is actually less complicated than the newer double action revolvers, not as many parts, easier to repair, more robust. As was already said, a cowboy used a gun as a tool to pot a rabbit, kill a critter after his stock, and sometimes to defend himself and faimly. He wanted a simple robust revolver to do the job. As was also said if he figured on getting into a scrap that involved flying lead, he came prepared with a rifle or scatter gun, sometimes a second handgun and used his short guns only if needed.

The "myth" as someone called it concerning carrying the hammer on an empty chamber was in fact very true, with all the jostling that goes with a cowboys work on top a horse, etc. it was not uncommon for their short gun to work loss and drop from the hoslter. IF the hammer rested on a loaded cyclinder struck the ground on the hammer, good chance it would go off. It was a safety thing. You can bet though when they expected trouble that they loaded all six chambers. It goes back more than a few decades, my grandfather taught this to me when I was about 10 years old, told me his dad told him the same thing...and I reached the half century mark a ways back.

Some people don't realize that the most powerful revolvers for many years were the #1 Colt Walker .44 #2 Colt Single Action .45 and they stayed the most powerful until the introduction of the .357 Magnum in the 1930's.
Heck the old .45 colt load was a 250 grain bullet with 40 grains of black powder for about 900 fps. Nothing to sneeze at fer sure and fer certain.

[Vern Humphrey]

One of the findings at the Little Bighorn was that very few .45 Colt cases were found -- the inference being that a man who emptied his Colt in action didn't live to reload.

Now, would his chances have been better with a S&W Schofield? I doubt it -- a small improvement in weaponry wouldn't have changed the outcome of the battle.

[medievalmax]

The 19th century was one of the most turbulent times in US history. You can bet that plenty of the old revolvers were used to defend life, limb, and property.

I realize that now it is a common argument to debate Eastwood and and John Wayne's movies but the idea of Indians, Mexicans, Blacks, Whites, Good, and Evil being at constant war with each other was very real. The west was exploited and conquered, not settled.

Yes, a single action revolver was, at times, just the ticket to getting through the day.

I am, again looking for some MODEST opinions on what anyone personally feels on the subject aforementioned.

John Browning's High Power and 1911? Where the hell did this or any other semi-automatic figure into the this conversation.
Well duh..if I had the same .223 caliber rifle that the Marine Corps loaned me back in the old west, yeah, yeah, yeah...I wouldn't have been using a 45 either. World War I is at least one-hundred years too late for the time period.

Actually, I used the word complicated for a specific reason.
If you look at the misplaced argument of the 1911. Reloading IS simple.

If you look at the illogical argument for speed loaders. It is simple again. I referred to the "catridge belt," for a reason. You either carry ammo on your horse, or in a catridge belt, unless you carried a purse or a bag.

The idea of reloading a single action revolver in these circumstances is very complicated: defined=complex. You don't have the option of opening a cylinder and dropping rounds in. But, I have considered the speed of taking one round at a time out of belt and rotating and inserting a round in each "hole."

Compared to the more recent models where you had the option of breaking the gun open, exposing the entire cylinder, you still have the issues of a catridge belt, a saddle bag, or a horse.

Is this that hard to understand?
Sure you have consolidation with the completely exposed cylinder but I would bet that a proficient shooter with a single action revlover would have little disadvantage compared to the, as so oddly mentioned, 45 auto loader.

Please no more bogus historical ideas.

Just intelligent thought.

Thanks for the comments on ranching/cowboy-ing. This is something that I had never heard of.

and..

Vern,

That doesn't really make sense. It sounds very well thought out but "52% of of one regiment was killed and all of Custer's including himself." If few casings were left at the scene then wouldn't that mean that they should have fired their revlovers? Wasn't there a carbine chambered for the 45 round? Did the Indians not use it as well, possibly? Whatever they were shooting it was cutting right through fallen horses and still killing men.
So, we lost Little Bighorn, completely, and few 45 shell casings were found. How could this mean that the SA revolver was inferior and equated to a lack of survival if used, when you are saying that they didn't use them and facts reveal that few survived regardless?

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern,

That doesn't really make sense. It sounds very well thought out but "52% of of one regiment was killed and all of Custer's including himself." If few casings were left at the scene then wouldn't that mean that they should have fired their revlovers?
No, it means they didn't reload their revolvers.

The indians are quite clear that they saw the soldiers "fighting with little guns" -- meaning using their revolvers. And it makes sense -- in the final hand-to-hand stages, a man would naturally abandon his single-shot carbine and use his 6-shooter.
Wasn't there a carbine chambered for the 45 round? Did the Indians not use it as well, possibly? Whatever they were shooting it was cutting right through fallen horses and still killing men.
The carbine was chambered for the .45-70 rifle cartridge (although the lighter 55-grain poweder charge was authorized for cavalry.) That's quite a bit different from the .45 Colt cartridge -- which was loaded with a lighter bullet and only 40 grains of powder.

The .45-70 case is 2.105 inches long, and the bullet is 405 grains, .458 inches in diameter.

The .45 Colt case is 1.285 inches long and normally was loaded with a .454 bullet weighing 250 to 255 grains.

So, we lost Little Bighorn, completely, and few 45 shell casings were found. How could this mean that the SA revolver was inferior and equated to a lack of survival if used, when you are saying that they didn't use them and facts reveal that few survived regardless?

I'm saying that few men survived to even partially reload. The indians carried off many an empty revoler, fired cases still in the chambers.

[medievalmax]

Thanks Vern,

There was so much crap being posted to this thread that I assumed the worst. Most of these guys just don't know their history.

Now I understand what you are saying. I have the same problem sometimes, getting it all in print.

Good point.

[modifiedbrowning]

The 18th century was one of the most turbulent times in US history. You can bet that plenty of the old revolvers were used to defend life, limb, and property.
World War I is at least one-hundred years too late for the time period.
Please no more bogus historical ideas.


I agree with the last quote at least.
I don't think there were to many SA revolvers around in the 1700s (18th Century). Also, we entered WWI in 1917, the cowboys weren't around in 1817 either.

[Jim March]

I would guess that once the SAA was dry, adding an extra round to the 45-70 rifle would have been faster than stuffing one into the SAA...and there was no time at all for a full SAA reload.

Remember: on a 45-70 Rolling Block, opening the action begins the ejection stroke, at least partways. Unless something goes wrong, in which case you whip out a knife and cut in behind the rim right across the shell and drag it out that way. Lots of knives of that period had characteristic edge damage from such occurances...but it wasn't all that common either.

So a lack of 45LC shells at the Little Bighorn site isn't a surprise to me.

There were no 45LC long guns in the Old West, unless they were one-off customs. The 45LC rim was very small and hollow to boot (being balloon head) so when it was manipulated via a levergun's feed system it took a total dump.

That's why the 44-40 was popular in both leverguns and Colt SAs.

The 45LC was transitioned to solid-head later, after the 1930s at a minimum when it was still giving Elmer Keith a headache. Only solid-head 45LC can be used in 45LC leverguns.

[medievalmax]

On one hand I could agree that you caught me on one of the most common mistakes that people make in revisiting history. Yeah I said 18th century but meant 19th. I am a senior level history student and I have had Professors do the same thing.;)

Actually WWI began in 1914 when Germany invaded France. The US did not become involved until 1917. "The 1911 was adopted by the USN and USMC (Semper FI) in 1913." To say when it was specifically created is more difficult and I don't have the answer.
Have any idea as to who designed the pistol that was used to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand? Yep, Browning's design as well. No, not the 1911 though.

So let's go with 1917 subtract one-hundred years and we end up with 1817. In 1835, the "Corps of Rangers," was created to murder Mexicans living within US borders disturb "Fandagos," and run any other non-whites out of Austin's frontier. Some historians have given the Colt sidearm credit for their success at eliminating the "others" in Texas borders.
I am not sure when the Colt appeared in their hands but your basically quibbling over my rounding.

Did you have anything relevant or useful to submit to this thread?

BTW: When I say Cowboys I wasn't limiting it to whites. The Vaquero WAS cowboy-ing in 1817.

[Cosmoline]

I'd say a single shot big bore is *STILL* a perfectly good sidearm, even today. There is no real disadvantage, within the confines of the sidearm's role. The fist shot is potentially faster than with any other firearm, and you've got your six. It does what a short gun is supposed to do, provide short term backup defensive firepower. Beyond that you use a long gun.

The 19th century was one of the most turbulent times in US history. You can bet that plenty of the old revolvers were used to defend life, limb, and property.

Most of them were not. Sidearms were expensive and rare until the 1880's and 1890's, when inexpensive five shot break tops started flooding the American market. The classic "cowboy" revolver would have been kept well protected in a large leather holster and rarely taken out. And it's highly unlikely a filthy drover, Mexican or otherwise would have been able to afford one. The arms that won the west were far more humble long arms, from single shot scatterguns to surplus rifle muskets. The production figures alone tell that story, with vastly more long guns being produced than revolvers during the 1850's-1870's. You also have to remember the price and availability of ammunition. These guys didn't waste it.

There was so much crap being posted to this thread that I assumed the worst. Most of these guys just don't know their history.

Settle down there, hombre.

[crebralfix]

Ed McGivern, in his book Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting, stated that for every two shots with a single action, one could shoot five shots with a double action revolver.

That's a significant disadvantage.

[medievalmax]

Not likely...

Find better sources and watch the racism.

I have no intention of continuing to watch this thread.

Ignorance and prejudice are invalidating. Thank God it's not my mind that is being invalidated.

[Stinger]

Actually WWI began in 1914 when Germany invaded France

Most of these guys just don't know their history

:banghead:

Both quotes from the same guy. Two historical faux paxs by or young Padawan historian in one thread, and yet he is the critic! :what:

Really seems to be trolling, what with all of the insults and criticism. Certainly not the High Road.

And to answer the original question...the single action didn't put the cowboy at a disadvantage. It was state of the art for its day. They had the advantage. Using a metallic cartridge is much faster than cap and ball anyday of the week.

And as far as 1911's having nothing to do with cowboys, have you never seen the Wild Bunch? :neener:

Regards,

Stinger

[Cosmoline]

I think we've caught a trollfish.

[wcwhitey]

I am not the biggest Old West historian, but, any of my research has led me to believe that the guns in the West were "what was on hand". Colt's, Smith, Remingtons, Colt and Remington conversions plus a mix of old cap and ball revolvers. Wild Bill carried .36's till his death, he was a big proponent of an accurate first shot. I have seen where Billy the Kid used both a Remington in 44-40 and a Colt Lightning. John Wesley Hardin was rumored to have a revolver that he had to hold the cylinder in to shoot. Wyatt Earp's buntline was a present from Colt that surely was not carried on a belt. My point is that handguns were probably not the primary weapon of choice at the time. Big country and open spaces called for rifles and shotguns. Handguns were either used in "Sneeky Pete" fashion, as a last resort or as cattle prods. The more famous use of revolvers was on both sides during the cival war in cavalry raider fashion made famous by Clint in Jose Wales. 2 revolvers were a minimum because reloading was not an option. This is a great discussion, I have learned alot already.

[modifiedbrowning]

I am a senior level history student and I have had Professors do the same thing
BFD. I have a BA in History so what? My point is you said no more bogus historical information but you your post had plenty of bogus information.
BTW: When I say Cowboys I wasn't limiting it to whites. The Vaquero WAS cowboy-ing in 1817.
Were they using SA revolvers? Wasn't the original question if cowboys using SA revolvers were at a disadvantage?

[defiant73a]

Jim March -
Remember: on a 45-70 Rolling Block,
Yep, there were .45-70 Rolling Blocks, but that was not what the 7th Cavalry carried at the Little Big Horn. The 1873 Springfield ("Trapdoor") is not Remington Rolling Block.

FWIW, the SAA was adopted in 1873--a little over a half century after your 1817 vaqueros, max.

It should be noted, while some have pointed out the advantages of the Schofield, the Schofield was adopted for a brief period then retired, and the SAA retained. The DA really didn't come into its own until right at the turn of the century (19th Century).

The big advantage the SAA had over the early DAs was that it was more robust ("took a licking and kept on ticking") than the early DAs.

[RON in PA]

The biggest disadvantage of the Colt SA revolver in comparison with the modern DA revolver (actually available since approx. 1889) is the slowness of unloading. Each shell has to separately ejected. Imagine doing that under the pressure of a combat situation.

[gwalchmai]

To address the original question - was a shooter armed with a SAA in the days of the "old west" at a disadvantage - I'd have to ask at a disadvantage to what?

From the time it was introduced - 1873 - until the DA revolvers and 1911s arrived the SAA was the state of the art. So, no, I doubt the SAA shooter was at a disadvantage.

Students of history (maybe it would be more proper to just call it revisionism today) should be aware that any such contests were decided more by the relative skill AND LUCK of the participants than by what kind of iron they carried. Just like today though, practice makes perfect and a gunslinger who practiced religiously had a definite advantage over someone who didn't.

btw, "World War I is at least one-hundred years too late for the time period" is hilarious, especially coming from a "senior level history student". You may want to review with your professors the state of the US in 1817. Then again, they probably think that's about when Hitler invaded VietNam. :D

[nelson133]

As stated above, the cowboy was generally pretty cash poor. At the time that job was considered to be a low status one and didn't pay very well. While most cowboys were armed with something, it was seldom the newest or best. After the Civil War, surplus revolvers were cheap and plentiful. Rapid reloading was enhanced by carrying more than one cylinder for each revolver, and swapping cylinders. By that token, reloading the center fire SA revolver was slower than swapping the cylinder of the cap and ball.
For man killing, the double barreled shotgun was what was favored. Hollywood shootouts were extremely rare. Small cheap revolvers were available before the Civil War, knock offs of the Colt were imported often, just look at the time Colt put into patent infringement suits. Cheap European pin fire revolvers were also common. Domestic production of various cartridge derringers and revolvers was going full tilt by the 1870s, but their market was more urban, tho some cowboys carried one and two shot derringers as hide out guns. There were several companies in Belgium that did nothing but make cheap revolvers for the export market. In the days before modern medicine, the smallest and weakest cartridge could kill through infection and was thus feared.

[Seancass]

this just made me realise that a tube with a spring in the back could be used to load a single action revolver. have some button to slide an end open and the spring forces the round into the cylinder(holding the tube inside the loading gate against the cylinder. then you just rotate they cyl. and the next round pop in. then after the last round a lil nub stops the spring. somebody make one of these QUICK!

[gwalchmai]

Seancass, you don't even need a spring. I've seen these done using gravity feed. Works great!

[crebralfix]

I disagree that the slowness of reloading a single action revolver is its biggest weakness. I think the primary weakness of the design is the single action cocking action. This is slow and that slowness will be exaggerated by shooters who do not practice frequently. The shooter may be required to get several shots downrange as quickly as possible due to the inherent weakness of handgun rounds. Simply put, the terminal ballistics from handguns are so much lower than that of long guns that multiple hits may be required to stop the attack or attacks.

Double actions are simply superior in *defensive* applications. This does not mean an SA is not sufficient for defense; it just means there are different training requirements to meet the demands of today's goblins.

[Stretchman]

The indians are quite clear that they saw the soldiers "fighting with little guns" -- meaning using their revolvers. And it makes sense -- in the final hand-to-hand stages, a man would naturally abandon his single-shot carbine and use his 6-shooter.

It also indicates that firearms aren't the best last line of defense. His men were probably out of shape. As it stood, the Indians waxed them pretty good. But man, they shore looked purty....

[earplug]

I have reread the first post, and stand by my statement that the SAA type revolver was slow to reload.
If it was not at a disadvantge, we wouldn't have had the progress with revolvers we have now.
As far as the discussion on loading a Colt SAA with five or six rounds, I will defer to people such a Elmer Kieth who wrote about accidents happening with six loaded rounds. Simple accidents such as a sterrup hitting the hammer of a SAA while cinching up a saddle. This is with a cross draw rig.
My comments about slow reloading from cartridge loops with a revolver compared to a empty pistol I stand behind.
Loops are slow to access. A pocket full of cartridges are handier.

[buttrap]

The army adopted the smith and wesson no-1 in .44 as the standard revolver till the 1873 colt came out. From what I can gather the 1873 was not that popular with troops used to the smiths, also did not help that the early colts had issues with not staying in one peice too. Probably the most popular thing on the range was the little 5 shot .32 and .38 pocket guns, a person could pick one up for under 3 bucks back then.

[Jim K]

Reference a previous post, though a bit OT and FWIW, the pistol used by Princip to kill Archduke Franz Ferdnand and ignite WWI was a Browning, Model 1910, caliber 9mm Browning Short (.380), Serial number 19074. The guns used by the other three assassins were numbers 19075, 19120, and 19126.

Jim

[MrAcheson]

Like most have said, a disadvantage compared to what? A Colt SAA is still easier to reload than a cap and ball revolver and more rugged than the open-framed open tops. That is what they were replacing.

Now is the SAA better than a modern double action, no probably not. Were I a cavalryman, I probably would have preferred to have a Schofield so I could reload it faster. Then I'd gin up a wooden speedloader like many people did.

But I would have greatly preferred to have a repeating carbine to either. That is what killed Custer's men. They were using .45-70 trapdoors that had good range but a crappy rate of fire. We now know that the Indians had rimfire repeating rifles and pistol conversions. They probably had cap and balls too, but those don't leave a lot of ammo for the archeologists to find. Once the Indians got within range, they could put up a much higher volume of fire than the cavalry. And if you got shot and went down there were a lot of Indians with clubs to make sure you never got up.

I actually doubt people carried many spare cylinders with a cap and ball. You can't change the cylinder out on a colt quickly enough and capped cylinders for any C&B are really dangerous. One good hit on the percussion cap and it will go off. And they probably didn't interchange any better then than they do now. They probably carried multiple pistols instead.

[Urbana John]

This doesn't have much to do with the SA revolvers "thing", but Custer could have had the Henry lever action repeating rifle at Little Big Horn, but chose NOT to.
Might have changed the out come!!!!

[gwalchmai]

What is the comparative range between the trapdoor in 45-70 and the Henry (44-40?)

Now, if Custer had taken the Gats, then it also may have been different... ;)

[AJD]

I believe the S&W used by the US Army was chambered for .45 Schofied. As a I recall one reason why the US Army liked the SAA more was its ability to fire either .45 Schofield or .45 Colt ammunition.

Custer's and his men's death has as much if not more to do with his own EGO leading them to destruction then what technology they had at their disposal. The SAA was the best single action revolver in a time when the single action revolver was king. Ease of reloading isnt the only thing to consider, the SAA was more durable, was chambered for a more powerful cartridge, had better handling characteristics and points as natural as any firearm every made.

Its no surprise that today the single action revolver is thriving with Freedom Arms, Ruger, US Firearms, Colt, Magnum Research and others with models ranging from the inexpensive Ruger Single Six to the precision custom sixguns of Freedom Arms.

[apachejack]

My Grandpa was a deputy sherrif in the 1890's in Joplin Mo. and he told me he used what he could get. As would most men of law enforcement back then. He showed me his "shooter" as he called it when I was 10 and I was hooked on the gun wagon. I don't even remember what kind it was but it was one of the first cartridge guns. I think my cousin got it but I sure would like to own that little piece of history. Anyway, I think the men of the west used what they could get and took excellent care of it. By the way, screw Custer and his stupidity.

[apachejack]

Sorry about the comment on Custer,, I know this is the High Road, so please don't put me over the coals for the terminology of what to do with Custer.

[Sniper X]

In thruth most firefights in the Cowboy days when the SAA was king were short enough to not need to reload. If you were fighting the "Indians" I guess they (the firefights) could last a while needing reloads and that is one reason Cowboys used multiple SAA revolvers and Winchesters. These could handle anything that could crop up in the desert in those days. These days the slower than modern way of loading a SAA is why no one carries one for police duty, or usually as a SD CCW peice. Now truth be told, when someone has to pull their CCW peice, the fight is over in a shot or two, so then it doesn't matter either. But if for some bad reason the fight lasted more than a few shots you wouldn't want a SAA in your hand, probably a HiCap auto.

Right tool right job I say. I feel that SAAs are very fun to shoot and in .45 Colt, very powerful so I tend to shoot mine for pleasure, and carry the 1911 with a 10 round mag and a backup 10 round mag.

[Chuhhuniban]

I no longer have a SAA, but I used to shoot one quite a bit. They are really fun to shoot.

As to the comments, if you want proof that "stand in the street gunfights" were rare, go find that famous picture of Billy the Kid where he has is rifle at order arms and look at his holster (containing whatever sidearm he was then using). If you could perform a quick draw out of that leather horror, you are a magician — it was mostly designed so the pistol wouldn't fall out of it when you got on a barely broken-to-saddle horse (and he bucked).

In the 1950's, when Colt brought back the SAA, they had a guy (whose name I no longer remember) touring the country at fairs and rodeos giving fast draw demonstrations. He was pretty fast (to me anyway). He did the thing about asking you to stand in front of him and clap and he would draw when you started to clap and he could get his gun barrel between your hands. He gave an interview to a local radio station in Houston, Texas, and when asked if he was faster than some of the Old West gunfighters, he allowed as how he was pretty sure he was (and used the Billy the Kid holster example I quoted above). But then he went on to say that if faced by Doc Holliday, John Wesley Hardin, Billy or any of that ilk, he would be a dead man, fast or not — they were absolutely unhesitating killers and he was a trick shot artist.

[AJD]

And in fact the "quick-draw" holsters used by quick shot artists of the 20th century was in fact mostly a creation of the 20th century as few cowboys actually had holsters resembling anything close.

And I believe it Wyat Earp or Bill Hickock that said that if someone fanned their revolver they didn't bother to get to know him since he wouldn't be alive for very long anyway.

[Tequila jake]

medievalmax,

Do you have documented proof of your statement that, "In 1835, the "Corps of Rangers," was created to murder Mexicans living within US borders disturb "Fandagos," and run any other non-whites out of Austin's frontier."? No doubt the Texas Rangers often meted out frontier justice in a ruthless manner, but they were just as likely to do this to whites as Mexicans and Indians. And, if you think that the Rangers were the only ones who were ruthless, you need to check out the history of Texas during that period a little more closely. Comanches and their allies, the Kiowa, and lawless bands of Mexicans and whites were all pretty bloodthirsty lots and had little mercy on their victims.

Tequila Jake

[Father Knows Best]

Although western movies show every cowboy sporting one or two Colt Single Action Army revolver, the actual historical evidence overwhelmingly shows that they were quite rare on the frontier in the time period we now know as the "old west."

Consider that the modern revolver didn't really appear l until the 1850s. Colt's "Paterson" of 1836 was a commercial failure. The famous "Walker Colt" horse pistol of 1847 was great marketing, but very few were actually made, and they were "horse pistols" -- so big and heavy they could only be carried in pommel holsters on a horse. The first commercially successful revolver was the Colt model of 1851. It was followed by rapid development from both Colt and Remington of various models, culminating in the Colt 1860 Army and the Remington "New Model Army" that appeared in 1863 (and is erroneously referred to as the "58 Remington" because of the 1858 patent date on it). It wasn't until after the civil war that these revolvers began to show up in civilian hands, and then only because of surplus from the war, and surplus manufacturing capacity left over from the war years.

The winning of the west took place following the civil war in the "Indian wars" era that lasted roughly from 1865 to 1890 (and Wounded Knee, the last major battle of the Indian Wars). In the early part of that time, the dominant guns on the frontier were muzzle-loading shotguns and rifles. Rich men may have had a metallic cartridge long guns like Sharps or Remington rolling blocks. A few lucky souls might have had repeating rifles like the Henry, or the Winchester 1866 (Yellowboy) or 1873. Those who had revolvers generally had cap-and-ball sixguns like the Colt 1851 or 1860 or the Remington.

The first successful metallic-cartridge firing revolvers appeared in the early 1870s. Medievalmax is mistaken when he says:
Compared to the more recent models where you had the option of breaking the gun open, exposing the entire cylinder,
Actually, the very first commercially successful metallic cartridge firing sixguns were break-open designs. Smith & Wesson made them, and had the market to themselves until the Rollin White patent (on bored-through cylinders), that S&W controlled, expired around 1871. At that point, Colt and Remington could finally get into the game. Smith & Wesson had already been producing top-break revolvers for years by the time Colt introduced the SAA in 1873 and Remington its competing revolver in 1875. And in fact, the Colt wasn't available to the civilian market for several years later as Colt was selling its entire production at least through 1875 to the U.S. Army.

The U.S. Army did consider the S&W top break to be an advantage, at least for the cavalry. Major Schofield actually tested the S&W Model 3 and made several recommendations for changes that would make it better suited for use by cavalry, resulting in the "Schofield" model of 1873.

In practice, you can certainly reload a top-break revolver quicker than a soli frame design like the Colt or Remington, but only because you can eject the empties so much quicker from the top-break.

Double action revolvers weren't far behind, actually. Colt's first successful double action was released in 1877. There were double action cap-and-ball revolvers before then. I don't know when the first solid frame swing-out cylinder design came along, but I don't believe it would have represented a significant advantage over the S&W top break models that had been around since 1870 or so.

As for what the "cowboys" carried, the average cowboy (or vaquero, if you prefer) would have had a carbine, if he was armed at all. A repeating rifle like a Henry or Winchester (or later, a Marlin) was much more useful on the range than a revolver. Those that carried revolvers generally carried cap-and-ball revolvers or homemade cartridge conversions of them, because they were so much cheaper and easier to get than new Colts or Smith & Wessons.

[Vern Humphrey]

medievalmax,

Do you have documented proof of your statement that, "In 1835, the "Corps of Rangers," was created to murder Mexicans living within US borders disturb "Fandagos," and run any other non-whites out of Austin's frontier."?

In 1835, Texas was part of Mexico. Under the terms of the orginal agreement with Spain and later ratified by the Republic of Mexico, the people of the Mexican State of Texas were obliged to maintain militia forces to patrol the frontier to prevent the Plains Indians from raiding deeper into Mexico.

Texas achieved independence in 1836 and after nearly a decade as an independent republic, was admitted to the Union in late 1845.

[Vern Humphrey]

Actually, the very first commercially successful metallic cartridge firing sixguns were break-open designs. Smith & Wesson made them, and had the market to themselves until the Rollin White patent (on bored-through cylinders), that S&W controlled, expired around 1871.

Smith and Wesson pioneered the development of mettalic cartridges in the 1850s with the cartridge we call the .22 Short today. Their first revolvers were not break-open designs -- they had solid frames and the cylinder had to be removed to reload. Their first successful break-open large caliber cartridge revolver came on the market in 1870.

[MrAcheson]

I don't know when the first solid frame swing-out cylinder design came along, but I don't believe it would have represented a significant advantage over the S&W top break models that had been around since 1870 or so.It didn't. Smith and Wesson released their first hand-ejector model around 1896. They wanted to keep the quick reload of the top breaks with the stronger solid frame of competitors guns.

The same thing about revolvers can be said about most of the long guns too. The cartridge guns out west were much more likely to be a cheap break-actions like the H&R/NEF guns than an expensive Sharps. And there were probably a lot of shotguns you never see as well.

[Boats]

The largest technological mistake of the frontier era US Army was their stubborn refusal to formally adopt the lever rifle and drive its development. As far back as the troops procuring their own Henry repeaters during the Civil War, the lever operated rifle was showing that it was superior to the single shot battle rifles of the day for the average marksmanship displayed by the average soldier at the average combat distance.

The official knocks on levers were that they were delicate, wasteful of ammunition, and shorter in range and lower in power than the single shot rifles that were adopted for primary issue.

At least four Winchester 73 rifles have been found at the Little Bighorn sites. They were plenty lethal enough to be owned by the winning side of that battle.

Seems that fire superiority has been winning the day for as long as firearms have been shot into opposing forces. Why the Army never officially bought into the utility of at least mixing in the "assault rifle" of its day to its TOE has always mystified me a bit, especially for cavalry forces.

Dismounting to fight with single shot rifles seems to be just the recipe for eventually having to go to one's SA revolver in a desperate bid for more rapid defensive work.:rolleyes:

No one was disadvantaged by having a SAA-style handgun back in the day. Choosing poorly with one's long guns had way more potential for disaster.

[Vern Humphrey]

In The Gettysburg Campaign, Edward Coddington in his analysis of "the breechloader question" points out that you cannot find a battle of the Civil War where "superior weapons" had much impact. He cites Milroy, where Bank's men had a couple of hundred Henry rifles, and didn't distinguish themselves against the Confederates armed with muzzle loaders. On the other hand, Wisconsin troops armed with "third class" weapons fought like wildcats.

Custer lost the Battle of the Little Bighorn not because of inferior weaponry, but because of his tactical and command failures. With 12 companies of cavalry under his command, he failed to get more than three of them into action at any one time and was defeated in detail.

Consider this -- if the '73 Springfield was so inferior, how is it that Benteen managed to hold out with his companies and those of Reno on Reno's Ridge?

[RandomMan]

This thread reminds me of a debate that rages among some of my professors, over whether or not Euclids Elements can be considered the basis of modern math and science. It is contended that it can only be considered as the basis, because of our understand of modern math and science, Euclid never intended for it to be, because there was NO "modern" math or science. What's my point with this ramble? I'm not sure how you can suggest "cowboys" had a "disadvantage", when all they knew were single action, gate or top break loaded, revolvers. There were no such things as speed loaders during those days, so the top breaks still had to be loaded via cartridge loops. In short, no the cowboys were not at a disadvantage, until we as modern men, created modern reloading accessories with which to speed the process up.

-Rob

[Bart Noir]

The S&W Model 1 was not a "solid frame" any more than the Model 3 was. The Model 1 was a tip-up model, where the barrel was swung up to allow the cylinder to be removed, for loading as you said.

As to the poster who thinks Custer "could have had .44 Henry's" that is not a very solid understanding of Army supply systems. He could not prevent the Army from replacing the Spencer carbines his regiment had used for roughly 10 years, and he had to use what the generals told him to use.

Or he could resign and go into politics. Actually, some politics came very close to forcing him to resign, but that is not a firearms story.

Bart Noir

[SlamFire1]

I have read lots of period books, and of course Keiths "Sixguns". Keith was a good "bridging" author as he did live in a late West environment and got to interview aged lawmen and gunfighters from the Wild West era.

What I got from reading Keith's writings was that the SAA was considered an excellent reliable horseman's pistol. The typical bar fight he described were over in a couple of rounds. In such a situation a large caliber SAA would be quite acceptable.

I think given that many of the period pistols were extremely slow to reload, the gun fighters made delibrate effort to place their shots. Many of these gentleman had experienced combat in the Civil War so they would have prior experience in stress management and been thirfty about not wasting shots. And if they were using the 44's and 45's of that era, those soft lead bullets were highly effective manstoppers.

Keith claimed that a SAA was the fastest pistol to draw and get the first shot out of the holster. At bar room distance, I can see how that could be more important than time to reload.

[Confederate]

I haven't read all the replies, but I do know that most of the gun fighters and others expecting trouble would carry multiple guns. Even in modern gun fights, cover is still the most important thing. Once a cowboy found cover, if he had three or four loaded guns (including a Winchester) and he had, of necessity, to use single action for his revolvers, I sure would hate to go out against him. Especially back then, when many were dead shots.

[Texfire]

I haven't read all the replies, but I do know that most of the gun fighters and others expecting trouble would carry multiple guns. Even in modern gun fights, cover is still the most important thing. Once a cowboy found cover, if he had three or four loaded guns (including a Winchester) and he had, of necessity, to use single action for his revolvers, I sure would hate to go out against him. Especially back then, when many were dead shots.

I agree that I would not want to have to advance against someone in cover with a single action revolver, and certainly not against one with a lever-action rifle, but I disagree with your assertion that many were dead shots.

Given the cost of ammunition and what your average cowpoke made, practice would have been rare. Historical accounts of shootouts were full of missed shots at short ranges, the Hollywood stereotype of the high noon shootout on main street was rare, and rarely fatal for that matter. I suspect that those who were successful gunfighters made a point to practice. Wild Bill Hickok was famed as a deadly shot and was reported to shoot off both cylinders of his blackpowder pistols each day and load them fresh. This level of practice, while limited according to modern standards, was deemed notable by those writing about Hickok and was probably well beyond the average shooter of the period.

To answer the original poster's question, I do think they were at a disadvantage, but not primarily because of the slow reload time of the actions of the period. Those who needed more than six shots could carry more than one revolver, though given the price of guns back then that was a pricey proposition. Where they were at a disadvantage was in the limited amount of practical experience they were exposed to, and the financial limitations that made practice a luxury few could afford.

Tex

[Confederate]

Historical accounts of shootouts were full of missed shots at short ranges, the Hollywood stereotype of the high noon shootout on main street was rare, and rarely fatal for that matter. I suspect that those who were successful gunfighters made a point to practice.
Even among trained police officers, misses at close range are not uncommon. But consider this. I took a woman who had never shot a handgun before to an outdoor range, gave her very rudimentary instructions, and within literally minutes she was hitting very close to clay targets at 100 yards with a Ruger Security-Six w/2.75-inch snubby barrel. I mean, these targets were about five inches across. If they'd been people, they would have been in bad shape.

Now this woman was about 5' 10" and was a petite lil' thing. Yet after about a half hour of shooting both .38s and .357s, she was hitting one of these targets for about 5-6 that she missed, and she didn't miss by all that much except for flyers mostly caused by flinching.

Shooting under severe pressure would have made a difference, granted, but most folks in the old West did have some experience shooting. And many of them cast their own bullets and practiced with black powder. Once behind cover, anyone who wasn't moving was taking an awful risk; that's all I'm saying.

Conclusion: I don't think many folks using single action pistols were at a disadvantage. Once they were able to take cover, they could put up a reasonable defense, especially if they had a Winchester. Those, also, are fairly easy to shoot accurately with very little practice. No competition shooting, mind you, but enough to take out a man at decent ranges.

[Bart Noir]

Always wondered about that "shoot both and reload" story concerning Hickok. Seems to me there needs to be a cleaning between the shooting and the reloading. Or he dumped out powder, used something to force out the balls, and then cleaned them each day during some quiet time. And then reloaded.

Bart Noir

[MrAcheson]

Hickok would go to the outskirts of town, shoot one revolver dry, clean, and reload it. Then he would shoot the other revolver dry, clean, and reload it. This way he was never unarmed, had freshly loaded guns each morning, got in regular shooting practice, and let people know he was a good shot. He hoped the latter would discourage challengers of the deadly sort.

While many may not have been great pistol shots, a lot of people probably put food on their table with rifles and shotguns. They probably got a lot of practice doing that.

[Boats]

Just in case it was my point being discussed, I don't think Custer could have had lever rifles at Little Big Horn given the hidebound Army procurement system.

What mystifies me, and I admit to not being a serious student of it, is why the Army was so hidebound to begin with.

I realize that brass is always fighting the last war, but the warriors that the relatively small and isolated cavalry detachments were tasked with pacifying weren't ever going to mass in ranks and be cut down like grass. It would seem to me that in almost every respect a good lever, or even an adequate one, like the Winchester 73, brought too much advantage to the tactics, the number disparities, and the fluid tactics of horse mounted warfare to be ignored by the brass in favor of the single shot.

Then again, it was single shots that "Won the West" when the buffalo died in their millions due to their owners.;)

[Vern Humphrey]

why the Army was so hidebound to begin with.

If you know your history, you'll see the Army wasn't "hidebound."

They were, however, strapped for cash, and Congress had ordered the Army to come up with a method to save money by converting muzzle loaders to breech loading. The result was the Allen system, which is the basis of the '73 Springfield. The '73 Springfield is not inferior -- especially as a system which includes both weapon and ammunitioni -- to the British Martini-Henry.

Despite all that, the Army did test many different weapons -- including at least one bolt action. There was not at that time any lever action that would take a full rifle-power cartridge.

And when such rifles were available, they were rarely used by any army.

[AJD]

The Army continued to fight the introduction of small power/caliber rounds in military rifles all the way up to and past the M16.

At least in the Midwest states(Where much of the fighting with Native Americans took place), which are extremely flat and targets can be seen at great distances. The thought of issuing lever-action rifles chambered for pistol cartridges was probably not an appealing one.

[MrAcheson]

It would seem to me that in almost every respect a good lever, or even an adequate one, like the Winchester 73, brought too much advantage to the tactics, the number disparities, and the fluid tactics of horse mounted warfare to be ignored by the brass in favor of the single shot.Except that horse-mounted warfare was rarely practiced with rifles. You don't shoot long range from the back of a horse. You don't shoot medium range from the back of a horse. You either shoot short range or you dismount, give your reins to one of your four friends, and then shoot longer ranges.

The trapdoor was chosen because it was relatively cheap and fired a full power cartridge. The trapdoor out ranged a typical Winchester by hundreds of yards

[Father Knows Best]

The trapdoor out ranged a typical Winchester by hundreds of yards

That's putting it mildly. A trapdoor Springfield firing a standard .45-70 military cartridge of the day could put a man down at well over 500 yards in the hands of a competent rifleman. Using the "volley fire" tactics that were still in vogue, they were effective at over 1,000 yards.

The Winchesters, by contrast, were limited to perhaps 150-200 yards, at least prior to the advent of the model 1873 and the 44-40 cartridge (the Henry and Yellowboy, or "Improved Henry", fired the anemic .44 Henry Flat rimfire cartridge). Even then, the 44-40 has nowhere near the range or hitting power of the 45-70. It wasn't until the Winchester 1876 that you had a repeating rifle capable of firing close to a "full power" cartridge, and even then the 1876 was limited both in terms of ammo loads and because it was a ridiculously heavy and ungainly rifle. The first really successful lever action rifle firing high power cartridges was the Winchester 1886, and as others have noted, it wasn't ever adopted by ANY major army for various reasons. You have to go all the way to the late 1890s to find a major Army using a lever action rifle in large numbers in lieu of a single shot or turnbolt (Russia, which used the Winchester 1895 for a time, and even then only because Winchester could supply arms that Russia badly needed in a hurry).

[Vern Humphrey]

Steady fire, even from muzzle loaders, was highly effective against a mounted enemy.

As far back as 1746, the French commander, Maurice De Saxe had a theory that cavalry couldn't successfully charge good infantry. At the battle of Fontenoy that year, he tested his theory by ordering the French cavalry to charge the English Guards Brigade.

He was right.

[Ranger 40]

Very few "Ranch Hands" carried 6 guns strapped on their sides. Cowboys did to some degree in areas which were having Range Wars. Before the big "Die Off" the winters of 1885-86 Etc. which shut down the open range some men carried side arms. Most big cow outfit forbid Cowboys, ranch hands, fence riders to carry side arms. They were allowed riflles, shotguns on their saddles. Six shooters were more often carried in the saddle bags. There was always a danger that a six gun could fall from the holster and dicharge shooting the horse in the gut. This was one reason many frontier towns forbid riding a horse on the street with a holstered pistol.
Very few so called gun fights were with handguns, they were mostly with long guns. The shotgun more often than not.
These shoot out yarns became popular during WW11. It was during the war that the Book about the Shoot out at the OK corral , was seconed only to the Bible in books read by the GIs. It was was this generation who couldn't get enought cowboys during the 1950s.:) :)

[MrAcheson]

Steady fire, even from muzzle loaders, was highly effective against a mounted enemy.Yes and once you add the bayonet and forming square, infantry became practically immune to pure cavalry attack. Unless they broke or were broken by artillery or other enemy engagement, cavalry couldn't touch them.

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes and once you add the bayonet and forming square, infantry became practically immune to pure cavalry attack. Unless they broke or were broken by artillery or other enemy engagement, cavalry couldn't touch them.

And the lesson we draw from that is that had the 7th Cavalry been properly led and fought as a regiment, rather than a collection of small clusters of companies going into action at different times and places, they would have easily survived the battle.

Of course, Custer (and everyone else) was operating under the assumption the indians wouldn't stand and fight, and that led him to take more risks than he should have.

[North Bender]

Attacking a force as big as they did, even if all companies fought together ... I'm not sure.

It was mentioned that the Trapdoor could be effective to 1,000 yards. I suppose it theoretically could, but I've read that the average cavalry trooper was limited to around 5 rounds of practice a year - or less. The way the trajectory loops on a .45-70, distance hits take a lot of practice. And that's the real limitation of the Trapdoor. It had more range, but it needed a skilled marksman to be able to take advantage of that range, and the 7th Cavalry was not comprised of skilled marksmen.

[Vern Humphrey]

Attacking a force as big as they did, even if all companies fought together ... I'm not sure.

It was mentioned that the Trapdoor could be effective to 1,000 yards. I suppose it theoretically could, but I've read that the average cavalry trooper was limited to around 5 rounds of practice a year - or less. The way the trajectory loops on a .45-70, distance hits take a lot of practice. And that's the real limitation of the Trapdoor. It had more range, but it needed a skilled marksman to be able to take advantage of that range, and the 7th Cavalry was not comprised of skilled marksmen.

The forces on Reno's Ridge certainly survived. That was well over half of the regiment. Had the whole regiment been there, properly deployed, the indians would have found that too tough a nut to crack.

Long range fire was controlled by NCOs, who would have a selected marksman fire (and there were some very good marksmen in the 7th, as well as poorly trained recruits), adjust by strike-of-the-bullet, then transmit the sight setting to the rest of the unit.

Also, in a proper defense, the distances would be stepped out, and range markers placed (a pile of stones, or something like that.) This wouldn't be possible in a hasty defense, but there were lulls in the action at Reno's Ridge where it could have been done.

[roo_ster]

In The Gettysburg Campaign, Edward Coddington in his analysis of "the breechloader question" points out that you cannot find a battle of the Civil War where "superior weapons" had much impact.
Vern:

What do you think about the Union cavalry (really mounted infantry) who arrived at & held Gettysburg the 1st day? Were they not armed with Spencer repeating carbines? And able to repulse several determined attacks by significantly larger Confederate forces. Perhaps the greater rate of fire (due to the Spencers) was what made the Union cavalry useful in such operations.

Perhaps the proper question is not "Is there any Civil War battle where breachloaders had much impact?" due to the small proportion of either side with breachloaders. One Cavalry regiment with SPencers is a drop in the bucket relative to the numerous Corps arrayed in the larger battles.


The result was the Allen system, which is the basis of the '73 Springfield. The '73 Springfield is not inferior -- especially as a system which includes both weapon and ammunitioni -- to the British Martini-Henry.
Hmm, I own a M-H in .577-.450 & comparing the rifles, I'd rate the M-H higher. But, then include the ammo...? Were not the Springer's ammo made from pure copper & liable to having the head ripped off? When did they go to brass? The M-H had the odd coiled cartridge. I do not know if that was a liability, though I do know the Brits eventually went to a longer lever to give them more, uh, leverage when ejecting spent cartridges.

Given quality drawn brass cartridges for both weapons, I'd pick the M-H in a NY minute.

Attacking a force as big as they did, even if all companies fought together ... I'm not sure.
There are plenty of occasions where european settlers armed with firearms held off HUGE numbers of natives. Rourke's Drift, being the most famous, but the Boers made a lifestyle of fighting off many times their numbers.

Same type thing here in America.

The successful battles usually had the settlers formed up quite close with pleny of cover. With no artillery, the natives could no break up the "infantry" concentration of fire & bayonet power.

[Vern Humphrey]

What do you think about the Union cavalry (really mounted infantry) who arrived at & held Gettysburg the 1st day? Were they not armed with Spencer repeating carbines?

They held. They did not overwhelm and drive off the Confederates. They did about what you'd expect a well-handled cavalry unit to do.

The shortcoming of the Spencer (and all other repeaters of the era) was lack of range. They were essentially pistols with buttstocks. They were therefore vulnerable to stand-off attacks and similar tactics.

Not until the development of reliable field radios were the promises of breechloading rifles realized in battle. Only then could the expected reduced manpower density compensated for by greater firepower be achieved.

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, I disagree.....
The S&W Model 1 was not a "solid frame" any more than the Model 3 was. The Model 1 was a tip-up model, where the barrel was swung up to allow the cylinder to be removed, for loading as you said.

You are right, I misspoke. Actually, as you say, the barrel swung up, the opposide direction from the famous #3, the first S&W big-bore pistol.

[PrimaryB]

Spent an hour trying to understand the original posters intent and the various topics that came about. The only disadvantage I see with a "cowboy" or "cowboy gun?" is perhaps he should have hit what he was aiming at. Speaking on Custer. My opinion he was a pompous butthole :neener: . Just because someone kicks in my front door with an AR15 w/30 Rd mag doesn't mean, I'm at a disadvantage because I have a SA 45 Loaded Operator.:neener: I know this is off topic and this is The High Road but I thought this post was at least my opportunity to recoup my time.

People in all trades learn to master their tools cowboys included. It wasn't the fact Custer's troops didn't learn to master their tools. They followed a pompous leader.

I'm not Native American but born American, politically conservative and progun obviously.

[RWMC]

Since most handgun gun-fights are usually won (or lost) in 2 to 3 shots, being fired at a distance of 3 to 5 yards, I would say the cowboy with his single action six-shooter was not at a disadvantage. I for one, would not have wanted to infuriate any tough-as-nails, weathered-to-leather, fence-riding, bean-eating, coffee-drinking cowboy, armed with "just" his six-shooter. He more than likely knew how to use it sufficiently, and probably wouldn't have hesitated nearly as much as I would to do so!

[Vern Humphrey]

Most gunfights were not between rustic knights without armor, but involved cold-blooded killers, on one side, if not both. Not much different from today.

[Mat, not doormat]

I wonder how many "senior level history students," become such because they cannot cope with mathematics? In a discussion of the Colt SAA, you wish to put the time frame 100 years before WWI? That would make it 1814, which was 59 years before the SAA's release. Prior indeed to the widespread advent of any revolver? Colt's first revolver, called the Paterson, and a much different animal from the later SAA was still 22 years in the future.

At any rate, I think that the original question, if asked in a somewhat more informed manner might have been phrased thus: "Would a man, in 1874, armed with a Colt's Single Action Army revolver have been at a disadvantage, when compared to the other sidearms available at the time?" The answer is a resounding NO.

There wasn't much competition in the power field, as the only revolver more powerful at the time was the '47 Walker Colt, of which only 1100 were made. The walker was powerful, but hugely massive, unreliable, and used cap 'n' ball loading, rather than cartridges, also the low production figures indicate that it wasn't the most available thing, either. .45 Colt, or .44-40, either chambering oustrips just about anything else that was widely available.

Rate of Fire wasn't much of an issue, as the SAA is still the fastest cycling pistol around, when in expert hands, for the first 5 or six shots. 1911 can't touch it, nor can a Glock, (even the G18, or so I've heard) or the DA of your choice. S&W's Schofield, which was the SAA's contemporary is far slower.

Reliability was either superior or far superior to anything else available. The earlier percussion revolvers were prone to all manner of problems, such as falling loading levers, wet powder, exploded caps locking the actions, powder fouling doing the same, chain fires, the list goes on. The few DA revolvers around at the time were very delicate little creatures, unlike the rugged SAA. Again, the SAA wins over the Schofield, as the Smith was a much more complex design, and also was prone to the top break breaking open at inopportune moments. I've witnessed this at a SASS match, buzzer goes off, Schofield user draws, and the hinge pops open, ejecting his shells on the ground. Not good, if your hollywood showdown opponent has a Colt, while you're trying to pick up your bullets that just fell on the ground, he's launching his at you.

The only place that the SAA doesn't really shine today is in the time it takes to reload. But in 1874, its only competition would have been the cap 'n' ball 1858 Remington, or the Schofield. The Remmie wins, provided you have spare cylinders loaded, and on hand. Could use about like a modern speedloader. The Schofield is also a touch faster, as it ejects all shells simultaneously, rather than one at a time. However, a practiced hand can unload and reload a SAA in about 9-12 seconds.

The only major failing with the SAA design was the safety notch. It was intended to be fully loaded, and carried with the hammer on the so called safety notch, i.e. the first of the four clicks. However, that notch in the hammer was prone to breakage, which allowed the hammer to fall a short distance to a live primer. Together with whatever force broke the notch in the first place, this usually resulted in an accidental discharge. As such, the only safe way to carry a SAA is with the hammer down on an empty chamber.
Otherwise, you might find yourself with a case of Glock leg. Oops, I meant Colt leg, really, I did.

~~~Mat

[thumper723]

Mat,

Just out of curiosity, becasue I don't know..

How is the SAA faster than a 1911? I can dump a magazine in a 1911 as fast as I can twicth my finger.. But I am not the best pistol handler in the world.

[Jim March]

With a "Five Finger Fan".

During the draw, cock it with your strong hand thumb. Fire it the first time with the trigger...then keep holding back that trigger.

Now with your off-hand, sweep the hammer four or five times (styles differ), once with each digit. It's fast as hell...equivelent to a 600rpm+ full-auto fire rate in very capable hands.

The SA revolver action doesn't need the trigger reset between shots. So you can hold the trigger back and "fan it". Done with too much force (such as using the off-hand palm in typical Hollywood fashion) it tears the gun to hell...but done with a bit of care, it's not too bad.

There's an alternative called "hammer slipping", where you use the strong-hand thumb to repeatedly fire the gun by stroking the hammer with the trigger pulled back. With practice it's about as fast an accurate as using a DA trigger.

[tinygnat219]

There is also historical evidence of gunfighters removing the trigger from the Colt SAA and doing something internal so all they had to do was fan the hammer. The Colt SAA is faster than the 1911, but gimmee the 1911 anyday.

[Gifted]

I thought the safety notch was a section on the cylinder cut between chambers to rest the hammer without it being over a live round.

And be careful how you fan. They put "fanning spurs" on the hammer to make it easier. And less painful, from what I've heard.

[44AMP]

most of what I was going to point out has already been said by some of the more knowledgable posters, but A few things still need clarifying.

First off, the shooter armed with an SAA was NOT at a disadvantage against the other guns of the day, they were nearly all single action as well. Slower to reload than a top break, yes, slightly, BUT, reloading was not considered as important then as it is now. Getting the job done without having to reload was of paramount importance, and had been since the days of single shot muzzleloaders.

True, the amount of practice most of the lower income people got was not much, but balance that against the fact that using the guns were often part of their daily lives, so actual use was greater than today. And that people grew up to use guns at a very early age (compared to more modern times)only adds to the overall skill level.

As has been noted, actual Hollywood type shootouts were quite rare, and that is why the OK Corral was such a popular tale. Most of our ideas about the Wild West are from the minds of Hollywood writers and directors, and have only a passing resemblance to the reality of the day.

As to the "hidebound" Army brass, well, yes and no. Look at things through the eyes of the day and things look a bit different than looking at things from today's viewpoint.

As has been mentioned, the Army was short of cash. So we went with what became the Trapdoor Springfield, because it was cheap. The fellow (don;t remember the name) who designed the conversion worked in the Springfield plant, so the Army didn't have to pay any royalties for the design.

And, range and power were the ideals of the day. The trapdoor rifle had the range and power deemed necessary, and it had a tremendous rate of fire compared to muzzleloaders, AND it could be loaded lying down! It wasn't until breechloading repeaters became common that there was any drawback to the single shot trapdoor, and even then, volley fire was intended to take out the enemy at long range before they got into the close range where their low powered repeaters would be effective. it didn't always work that way, but that was the idea.

One thing that for some reason hasn't been mentioned is that along with Custer's ego, poor use of terrain and scouting, and decision to leave his Gatling guns behind (they would have slowed him down) his men were outnumbered something like 10 to 1 (or more). And that unlike Rourke's Drift, there was no prepared position, and the native attackers did have a quantity of arms, some of which were modern repeaters, and were (apparently) more skilled in their use than the Zulus were with their captured Martinis.

In Custer's situation, even belt feds might not have altered the final outcome, although the Indians would have certainly paid a higher butcher's bill.

Although the Colt SAA is today a historical relic, and no longer considerd suitable for serious social purposes, in it's day it was the pinnacle of advancement. Double actions came along soon after, but the swing out cylinder was still decades in the future. And as has been mentioned, not until the introduction of the .357 magnum was the power threshold of the SAA exceeded in cartridge firing handguns. The first sucessful autoloader was the Mauser C96 "Broomhandle", introduced in 1896, and I doubt very many of them made it to the Wild West before 1900, or even after. And even then, autopistols with detachable magazines came along even later. The Browning designs of 1900, and 1905, which became the 1911 all came along after the west was "won".

Like nearly everything have to do with guns, forming your opinions based on movies and TV will lead to some minor misconceptions, and a host of gross inaccuracies. Hollywood (et al) exaggerates nearly everything for dramatic effect. And they fabricate things that are completely unrealistic, just for their entertainment effect. After a few generations of people watching this type of thing, reality seems to be lacking a certain luster. Don't be fooled. Even the History Channel doesn't get it all correct, but generally they try to, alot more than other entertainment venues.

[Cosmoline]

The only major failing with the SAA design was the safety notch. It was intended to be fully loaded, and carried with the hammer on the so called safety notch, i.e. the first of the four clicks. However, that notch in the hammer was prone to breakage, which allowed the hammer to fall a short distance to a live primer. Together with whatever force broke the notch in the first place, this usually resulted in an accidental discharge. As such, the only safe way to carry a SAA is with the hammer down on an empty chamber.


More discussion about that problematic notch here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=262778

[RPCVYemen]

How is the SAA faster than a 1911? I can dump a magazine in a 1911 as fast as I can twicth my finger..

Actually, I was surprised to discover that there are folks who can shoot (on target) faster with a revolver than can be done with a 1911. Not me :) , and maybe not you.

Look around for videos on the web.

There are folks who can shoot faster than the 1911 slide can cycle.

Mike

[gwalchmai]

Bob Munden - The Fastest Gun Who Ever Lived (http://www.bobmunden.com/) and Another link (http://www.sixguns.com/range/munden.htm).

http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews/lilmiss/graphics/munden.jpg

[cane]

Want to see some good SA shooting? Go to a cowboy action shooting/single action shooting society/western 3 gun match. You might be surprised how fast a SA can shoot and hit targets.

[colonialrob]

I may have mis-understood the context in which I read the information, but I believe I read somewhere recently that there was only ONE documented fast-draw-in-the-street shoot-out in the entire "old west", and that involved Hickok and an opponent, from about 75 feet. Hickok won, attributed more to his accuracy than his speed, apparently. He was reputed to have practiced accuracy and speed regularly, possibly accounting for his reputation.

It doesn't seem likely that there were not actually many more fast-draw incidents, because of the absolutely lawless nature of the Territories during the late '60s through the '80s. There was literally no law in many areas, so the consequencies of shooting an antagonist were virtually nil. I have read of towns having "boot hill" type cemeteries where maybe only one or two people buried there were from natural causes. So, there were apparently a lot of murders, including back-shooting, likely, but also some 'contests'.

If you look at some of the many pictures available of Texas Ranger companies, and common cowboys of the era, most did seem to have the SAAs and Winchesters. The Rangers were required to provide their own firearms, so it seems that the likelihood that a lot of people COULD afford the Colts and Winchesters was high. It is possible, however, that photographers had 'prop guns' on hand, and allowed the cowboys to pose with them to jazz up the picture.

Anyhow, if you enjoy western stories, including many fictional shoot-outs, etc., try some Louis Lamour or Zane Grey books. Both were originally writing at the tail end of the 1910s and '20s, and possibly had some fairly contemporaneous information as a basis for their action and characters.

colonialrob

[dao]

Trained people can be very quick with a S.A.A.
http://awsczech.ketnet.cz/data/videos/gfwidowmaker199.wmv
http://awsczech.ketnet.cz/data/videos/deucestevens280pistol.wmv

But, be serious : for a medium trained man, a D.A revolver or a semi-auto pistol will be more easy and quick to use.

If you want to, use a S.A.A and that's all ! ;)

[Bart Noir]

About that Hickok shot.....it amuses me that some references to that fight give a range of 75 yards. At that range, the front sight must be close to entirely covering the other follow's torso.

That would be some shooting with a .36 Navy cap-n-ball revolver.

Bart Noir
Who can believe 75 feet, and still call it a darn lucky shot.