Most common firearms of the Wild West?

[Carl N. Brown]

I found the gun section of the 1897 Sears & Roebuck Catalogue interesting. There were probably dozens of makes and models in use in the West that we have never seen in the movies.

The movie armories had lotsa working condition Colt SA Army in .45 Colt, Colt Peacemakers in .38-40 & .44-40, and Winchester M1892 in .38-40 & .44-40 and vast quantities of the Five-in-One blanks that would work in all five guns. They were like the Trapdoor breech loaders standing in as Civil War muskets or cutdown as "pirate pistols": they were easy to work with blanks and close enough in looks for movie work.

I'll bet Wild West movies give railroad buffs fits, using the wrong locomotives for the year a movie is set in, and the rest of us not noticing.

 

[Malamute]

I disagree with several points made in posts 23 and 24. I diont recall reading anything about people hunting with bows to any meaningful amount, and the comment

Your typical hunter would have armed himself with a simple bow and arrow setup not at all unlike the ones used by the natives to make that expensive ammo supply last longer.

simply doesnt jive with any historical account I've seen.

I agree that guns werent likely as common as Hollywood makes them seem, but I think it was rare to find many that were entirely unarmed. Poor families had few, many cowboys werent armed, though I believe the majority overall were to some degree, even if with cheap pocket revolvers or a surplus percussion revolver.

Supply by wagon was relatively expensive, but was done on a regular basis. That also wasnt by any means the only transport. The larger rivers, especially the Missouri on the northern plains was a major supply source by riverboat, then freighted to other areas by wagon. Most people think of the small wagons in the movies. Think LARGE freight wagons with long teams of oxen or mules or horses pulling them. If terrain allowed, some were several freight wagons hitched together all pulled by a large team.

Similarly when the general stores bought supplies it was expensive to get things brought in by wagon, so 50 rounds of 45 colt or 50-90 sharps would be a lot more trouble (and expense) than 25-20 or 32 rimfire

Yes, this is true, weight was a factor in getting supplies. There were some smaller calibers around early on, but available info seems to indicate that smaller calibers werent predominating by any means. Until the Indians were finally defeated, any gun was a potential defensive arm, not to mention the amount of game that was available, From antelope to deer and elk, and bears (even on the plains). The 25-20 was a relative latecomer in the Winchester line and came out in the 92. Looking at the 73 production records, the 32-20 was a distant runner up to production of 44-40 and the 38-40 guns. Smaller calibers became more poplular later as less large game was available, and Indians not an issue. Think 1890's on. It was more domesticated and safe overall by then, depending on what part of the country one was in. Some places still had large game and bears for some time after other places were tamed down. Bears are still a determining factor in the guns I own and carry.

 

[j1]

Yes.

 

[WestKentucky]

Forgive my miscommunication. I didn't mean to imply that western settlers were going about unarmed, with no gun to rely on. What I did intend to deliver was the thought that many were in areas of very limited resupply, and in those situations and areas people would have been very keen on resource conservation. Why use up a valuable limited resource when you can use an unlimited resource for the same job, even if doing so is not as efficient. Same thought that eating the horse or ox was a last ditch move to make it through winter, using a round of ammo would have been much harder to stomach than building a dozen arrows and only 1 finding it's mark and bringing meat home. The rifle was certainly there, but would have been used less than what many believe and a lot less than Hollywood depicts.

Also that resupply would and should have been considered. True the small bores weren't as popular as they could snd should have been, but weight and resupply was a factor in choosing what to arm ones self with. Just like today, a lot of small bores are carried because people don't want the heft of a larger gun. People unable to afford a burden animal or a wagon would have had to carry their belongings in a pushcart. These folks would have had a small cheap gun if they had any, and there were more settlers afoot than even the history books indicate.

 

[Agsalaska]

I agree that guns werent likely as common as Hollywood makes them seem, but I think it was rare to find many that were entirely unarmed. Poor families had few, many cowboys werent armed, though I believe the majority overall were to some degree, even if with cheap pocket revolvers or a surplus percussion revolver.

.

I think this was pointed at me from post #24.

Hollywood would lead you to believe that 100 Cowboys had 150 guns between them. My guess is it was more like 50. Again though its just a guess.

You may be right. It may be more than I think. But I am certain it fell drastically as the West settled. Once the areas settled it just wasn't as important yet was just as expensive. Especially handguns.

 

[Malamute]

Charles Russell wrote that if there had been anywhere near as many gunfights in the towns of the west as the early Hollwood movies implied, the Indians would have taken back all the west many years before.

Russell died in '26 I believe.

He had a painting of some cowboys roping a grizzly. He wrote that in the real event they killed it with a rock, because nobody in the group had a gun at the moment. He put guns on some of them in the painting.

Quite agree, that as the west was settled, many less carried. The early days could be rather wooly (reading of the earliest cattle drives to Bozeman is interesting). As someone else mentioned, by the late 80's/early 90's things had changed quite a bit.

 

[12many]

What time frame is the wild west? I grew up in MT and from the stories I hear it was 22 rim fire and 30-30, but that was not the wild west time, more like early 1900 to 1940's. I never heard much about pistols or seem like not much use or not used much.

Malamute, I grew up in Great Falls. CMR was a local hero. We had his pictures (copies) hanging in the house and took school field trips to his museum/gallery. Heck, the high school was even named after him.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

What time frame is the wild west? I grew up in MT and from the stories I hear it was 22 rim fire and 30-30, but that was not the wild west time, more like early 1900 to 1940's. I never heard much about pistols or seem like not much use or not used much.

Malamute, I grew up in Great Falls. CMR was a local hero. We had his pictures (copies) hanging in the house and took school field trips to his museum/gallery. Heck, the high school was even named after him.

I grew up in Colorado and when I was in junior high, we learned all about Colorado history and the history of the West in general (and Native American history too). I went to a public school and I have to say, it was an excellent school and we really, really learned all about the West and Colorado in particular.

The "wild west" started pretty much after the Civil War and lasted until around 1900 or so. Denver was a crazy, crazy town during that time. Gambling, hookers, all the stereotypical stuff you think of when people say "wild west."

That being said, the settling of the West was a long and very cool story. How the states came about, what drove people West (things like Manifest Destiny and gold/silver being found) and how the West was finally "won" is very, very interesting. All the different native tribes and how they got along with the white settlers and other tribes is also very fun to study. Needless to say, so many stories by so many different people, all trying to live together (or not) in a very, very rough environment.

 

[BSA1]

I think the guns that were most commonly used in the real West from 1865 to 1890 are the ones we rarely see. Hard cash money was hard to come by. Guns were a working tool and tools are used until they won't work anymore and can't be fixed.

As correctly discussed a Colt Navy and Army were not thrown away after the War of Northern Aggression. With a pound of black powder, some percussion caps and a bullet mold I could (and still do) a lot of shooting for a long time .

If I was feeling flush after winning a big poker game I would send my Colt back to the factory for conversion to cartridge ammunition. It would cost me $2.50. Compare that to $20.00 for a Colt SAA. Lever action rifles made more sense. For a cowboy more useful for protecting calves from hungry wolves, easy carry for hunters and rapid fire with a magazine full of ammo for self-defense.

 

[montanaoffroader]

I can't say what the majority might have carried back in the day, but I do have an idea what my ancestors carried, as we still have a few of them.

The actual guns they carried: My great grandfather's single barrel 12 gauge shotgun. This one was carried from Wisconsin to Texas then back to Wisconsin, then to North Dakota, on to Whidbey Island, and finally down to Northern California. A different great grandfather started out somewhere in British Columbia with a double barreled percussion shotgun which I believe he obtained from his father (not sure on that one). He worked his way down the Pacific coast into Northern California.

There are also a 2 or 3 other single barrel shotguns, not sure who originally owned them, but they are about used up. I believe 2 of them are 16 gauge and one is another 12 gauge.

Most of the rifles (Winchester 92's and 94's) date from after 1900 although there is a Marlin 1881 in 45/70, but I'm not sure if it was acquired before or after 1900. The 1897 shotgun was definitely acquired after 1900.

All of the handguns date from after 1900. I'm pretty sure none of them actually owned any handguns before then, at least there are none in any of the old pictures we have. The oldest gun in the group is a Colt New Army and I'm pretty sure my grandfather picked it up sometime after WW1.

There are several guns that were purchased by my Grandfather and his brothers between ~1910 and the 1960's, but they really aren't Old West guns.

So in my family at least, it seems that shotguns were in the majority.

 

[Cee Zee]

Shotgun, hands down.

What he said. A shotgun could do almost anything you wanted. Other guns were limited. If you were a soldier you didn't need one much but farmers sure did. They could knock down a hare for dinner or a bear so you weren't dinner.

 

[d2wing]

From reading account of the local Indian wars , histories and family records it depends. In some areas depending on the on needs and finances most of the adult males had a muzzle loading rifle for hunting and defense. Especially in Indian areas. The Indians pretty much were armed the same way with muzzle loaders. Some immigrants came from countries without much in firearm use and almost all were farmers. After the James gang was defeated at Northfield some farmers banded together at a church sharing a single shotgun.
By the 1870's there wasn't that much hunting as there wasn't lots of wild game in farm areas and hunting was more a sport even then, depending on where you lived. Most families that I knew of had a .22 of some sort and that's it. The better off might have a shotgun or even a deer rifle. But most were far to busy with farm work to bother much with hunting.
But again that varied by location. One of my uncles was a cowboy. They did not often carry guns on their person as it would get in the way, and if you fell on it it was bad for you and the gun. Of course if you lived in Deadwood or Tombstone, that was different.
But by the time repeating rifles and pistols came out the country was fairly civilized. Most of the Indian wars were over except for raids and the Sioux uprising. And that was an extension of the 1862 uprising in Minnesota. I have been at the site of the final battle between the James gang and the posse at Medelia, Minnesota. All the participants had repeating rifles and revolvers.

 

[Panfisher]

I would guess that just about every variety, style, type and caliber that had been made prior to that date were in use. Some would have new, stuff just like today, and others (majority) would have whatever was available from muzzle loaders to cartridge guns. Pistols just about anything that would fireandtheycould get ammo for would be in use.

 

[mac66]

I don't think the west was much different than other rural areas in the 1870s-90s. Most people owned guns, usually rifles and shotguns used for hunting and defense against indians and bandits. Handguns were pretty much only carried by police and criminals back then.

I have a great grandfather (GGF) who was the constable of a small mid-western town. He did not even own a handgun but had a shotgun handy when needed. The only time he ever used a gun was when he once got a telegram that a train robber had shot a railroad detective in Chicago and was believed to be headed his way (1882). He had someone watch the train station and then followed they guy to a boarding house. GGF then approached the back door and saw the guy looking out with a pistol in his hand. GGF shot and killed the guy through the back door. The pistol turned out to be the one the guy shot the railroad cop with.

From what I've read those kinds of things were more common than the hollywood gunfights. I suspect that when law enforcement officers knew they were going to confront armed suspects they would have likely taken a shotgun or rifle with them.

 

[Cee Zee]

I have a copy of a letter telling the story of my great, great, great-grandfather who first moved into Kentucky in the 1820's. Game was plentiful according to the letter and wild animals were abundant so much that meat that was killed had to be hung inside the house so that it wouldn't be stolen by bear and mountain lions. They even had to keep the kids close to the house in a yard surrounded by a fence of sorts built by sticking long branches in the ground and tying them tight together to keep out the wild animals. They also talk about the gun he used. It was a muzzle loader of course. Yes the cartridge had been invented as far back as 1808 but it was a long way from the frontier. It would be many years before cartridges became common in the west or the east either for that matter.

The thing we often miss is that many rifles were still smooth bore models in the 19th century and they were still being loaded with various loads other than bullets. Various loads were used which would be called shotgun loads today like using one large ball and 2 smaller balls or using balls attached with wire to each other. The difference between shotguns and rifles wasn't clear until the Kentucky long rifle became popular. And even that got used in a fashion similar to how shotguns were used. They used shot instead of balls at times. So was that a shotgun or a rifle? The distinction is generally whether there was rifling in the bore but it wasn't always that simple.

 

[Deaf Smith]

A cowpoke made about a dollar a day in the west. A Colt Peacemaker or Winchester 73 cost $15 or so. That's about 1/2 a month's pay. Today many a lower wage earner makes $3000 a month BEFORE taxes. So maybe 2000 a month take home pay. So that Peacemaker was the equivalent of a 1k handgun/long gun. Not many people blow 1/2 of their monthly pay on a gun.

So I suspect many had cap-n-ball sixshooters and single shot rifles. Only the more determined, or well paid, could afford the best (not unlike today.) Some maybe got a ex-civil war Spencer or even a Henry.

But a cowpoke could scrape up enough for a levergun maybe after a few years of hard work.

The sodbuster, on the other hand, I doubt could afford anything more than a muzzleloader or two. Farmers had it hard in the west.

Deaf

 

[Cee Zee]

A cowpoke made about a dollar a day in the west.

Just FYI, a cowpoke is not the same thing as a cowboy. Cowpokes herded cattle on foot often in stockyards or similar situations. And they were common in the east. I should know. I was one. A cowpoke herds cattle with a stick. He "pokes" them to prod them along. I spent many hours doing that. Many, many hours in fact. It was an everyday thing pretty much for about 10 years of my life. BTW this is a long way from all of the cattle we had.

 

[another pake]

cluttenfred, the information I'll submit probably covers an earlier time frame than you desire but for anyone interested in researching the topic of firearms used in the west, their search should include the three volume set by James D Gordon, Great Gunmakers for the Early West.

This is a remarkable set complete with abundant photographs. Most of the specimens are from Jim's very sizable private collection, which he has willingly shared with interested parties.

"The West" was a constantly moving line since the beginning of our national expansion. These volumes cover the time frame, late 1700's through 1870's more or less, by maker. Flints, percussions, mostly long guns, nearly all (?) muzzle loaders. Volume III covers the expansion west of the Mississippi,
50's - 70's more or less.

I have a set as my interest in building bp guns made the purchase "justifiable". At least that's what I told my wife.

 

[Browning]

The man at the top link was my great great great grandfather. He was a Mormon pioneer from England who lived through that entire period. From what I understand he didn't even own a gun, he just had a sword from when he was in the British army and a couple times he had to use it to get drunks or angry Indians out of his way-station inn.

Back then only about half the Mormons owned guns and they were usually older obsolete percussion or even flintlock rifles from the pioneer period.

http://www.heartslinked.com/burridge/george_history14.htm

Other Mormon relatives from that same period did own guns and from what I've seen it was usually military surplus percussion and flintlock rifles.

If there were handguns around they were usually percussion pistols. Some were cut down to make them more concealable to in a pocket.



http://californiapioneer.org/for-hi.../11-the-mormon-battalion-and-military-weapons

Musket
Standard military issue in the 1840’s to the infantry was the Model 1816 (M1816) Harpers Ferry, 0.69 caliber, smooth-bore, flintlock musket with a leather sling. Muskets issued to the Battalion were stamped 1827 on the lock plate, indicating the year of manufacture at the armory. The Type II 1827 muskets had the barrel chemically browned to resist rusting. The Type III (1831-1844) M1816 muskets had unbrowned shiny barrels and locks. The M1816 musket was equipped with a lug atop the muzzle for fixing the triangular socket bayonet. The muskets weighed nearly 10 lbs (9 lb. 2 oz-14 oz). The stock was made out of a dense wood like walnut.

------

The other side of my family were all from the South (Alabama, then Texas and then the Indian Territory in Oklahoma) and they were better armed. One wrote a short book describing his four years of service in the Confederate Army (11th Alabama Infantry - Army of the Northern Virginia) and there are several diaries from the women of my family. The diary entries continually refers to hunting and various guns, but doesn't mention make, model or caliber. I just know what some of the types are because of what my father or relatives owned and verbal family history.

Almost all the men on my fathers side of the family served in the CSA Army and out of those most brought back their rifles (my father had a Springfield .58 that had been handed down that my great great great uncle took off a Union soldier).

He also had a Damascus barrel breech-loading double hammered black shotgun from the same relative. I believe that it was 16 Gauge. It was referred to as a 'pot gun'.

When the newer revolvers and lever action rifles came out in the 1870's and 1880's my fathers side apparently made it more of a priority than my mothers side of my family did. Since most of them were Confederate veterans who lived through a war, Reconstruction and the occasional lawlessness of the Indian Territory I guess they figured it was important to be well armed. After the War of Northern Aggression they moved from Perry County Alabama to Bell County Texas and then into Indian Territory (now Harmon Co. Oklahoma) via ox-cart in 1873.

The other side (mothers) were Mormon pioneers where some knew the importance of having a gun around from dealing with anti-Mormon mobs in Illinois and Missouri, hunting while going across the plains in covered wagons and occasionally fighting off Indian attacks their experience wasn't from outright war. Others were like my great, great, great, great grandfather didn't really own any guns and relied on his sword.

At several of my cousins houses (dads side) there were old Winchesters of the 1866 and 1873 variety, a couple 1851 Colt Navy revolvers in .36 and a S&W Schofield revolver displayed on the walls, in shadow boxes and in glass paneled gun cabinets.





At any rate that's what both sides of my family owned and used back then.

 

[cluttonfred]

Wonderful stuff, Browning, thanks very much for sharing your family's gun history. Love the part about the one ancestor who got some use out of his sword.