Montana woods gun early 1900’s

Rifles would have been the weapon of choice. I would think 1876 or 1886 Winchesters would have been prevalent with cartridges ranging from 45-60 up to 50-110.

“In the late 1850’s, US Army Captain Randolph Marcy was asked to compose a guidebook for emigrants based on his 25 years’ experience upon the western frontier. His book continues to supply today’s generations with a wealth of knowledge on what pioneers carried as well at the various methods of travel and survival used while crossing the continent.




“Every man who goes into the Indian country should be armed with a rifle and revolver, and he should never in camp or out of it, lose sight of them.”




From the 1840s-50s onward, Colt’s revolving pistols started to make up a strong presence in frontier arms. Marcy gave a preference for the heavier ‘army’ revolvers (.44 cal.) for their superior penetration making them capable of killing bears over the less-powerful (.36 caliber) ‘belt revolvers’.







Captain Marcy preferred the power of the Dragoon revolver for its ability to kill bears.”

… copied and pasted from:


https://www.frontieramericanillustr...st-ancestors-said-about-the-guns-they-carried

edit:

Even though the smokeless era was started in the 1890s, remember that the Colt Walker was the most powerful handgun until S&W developed the .357 Magnum in 1935. The Dragoon would still have been a choice for bears until then, just a bit less oomph than a Walker.

By 1911, Krag rifles might have become surplus, and Mauser rifles had been in production a while.

Broomhandle Mausers and Colt .45 auto pistols were also in production.

Lots of "modern" smokeless powder choices.

Glacier National Park was established in 1910 and you guys are talking about the rangers there carrying percussion revolvers. Really?

Reading this thread I saw no mention of the black powder 45 Colt. Civilian loadings by both Winchester and Rem-UMC. This was serious ammunition and it was still available at least up to the start of WWI. Winchester had a 255g soft lead slug and Rem-UMC used a 250g of similar design. Both were driven to 900 fps or better in a 7-1/2" SAA. I would expect to see quite a few of those rangers, guides, etc. so armed, along with a powerful rifle in their saddle scabbards.

Dave

I know a little bit of early Idaho and Montana history in that time period. I think that's (the time frame mentioned here) a bit late for cap and ball revolvers, but of course some people would still be using them. Park "rangers" would most likely only have something in .38 Colt CF, or something equally anemic, and a rifle would be the primary weapon. I sure don't see Park rangers being issued a decent revolver. If they could choose to carry their own, could be anything, or none. What might surprise most people is the popularity of the .30WCF and the Winchester 94 when it came out. It was a very widely used and liked, despite what us gun-guys would say about it's power...or lack of. Those sour-doughs used them on bear, elk, moose, and anything else.

Hunting guides, hunters, prospectors, or others wandering the area would most likely, or be more likely, to be packing a Colt revolver in a heavier caliber. Elmer Keith's writings shed some good light on the subject, although he came along a bit later. He was a gun nut, and liked big guns, but a .41 or .38 would not have been an uncommon side arm, and the Winchester 94, again, was very popular.

Of course the '73 Winchester would have been around and widely used, and the '86. Probably would see quite a few Trapdoor Springfield rifles and carbines, and a mixed bag of who-knows-what. Sharps, High Walls, etc. Indeed the .45 Colt was popular, and I believe you could get 1000fps out of a 7.5" barrel with the Remington black powder load. But, might have seen more in .44-40, 38-40 and even lesser calibers.

Somewhere, somehow, some old geezer-hermit might have still carried a Walker or Dragoon, but I think that would be very rare. But possible.

In that time period, I would have chosen an SAA in .44 Special - at least assuming long guns were not an option.

Seems like a lot of folks sell the 30 30 and 32 special short claiming they're only good for 100 yard shots. I watched my grandfather drop more than one deer over 300 yards and have done the same with a 32 special in a 94 Winchester. Neither cartridge is gonna give 30/06 performance but in the right hands both can be very effective.

Oh yeah, had a best friend whose Elk rifle was a .30-30 Marlin. The old timers were quite fond of the .30-30 when it first came out. And the woods of Idaho and Montana were some wild country back then. Still is, but I'm talking REALLY wild remote and crawling with some bad people, bears, grizz, cougars and even Big Foot was probably sneaking around. And some big buffalo bulls maybe. !!! And many thought the .30-30 could handle all that. !!!

Elmer Keith did mention an Old Timer of his acquaintance that used to bait grizzly bears and, sitting up in a tree above the bait, kill them with a Colt Dragoon.

Ugly Sauce said:

Oh yeah, had a best friend whose Elk rifle was a .30-30 Marlin. The old timers were quite fond of the .30-30 when it first came out. And the woods of Idaho and Montana were some wild country back then. Still is, but I'm talking REALLY wild remote and crawling with some bad people, bears, grizz, cougars and even Big Foot was probably sneaking around. And some big buffalo bulls maybe. !!! And many thought the .30-30 could handle all that. !!!

Click to expand...

I usually like Paul Harrell videos and this particular video was no different. However, it was a video about the 30-30 cartridge specifically. It may have been “Don’t Underestimate the 30-30”. Either way, he mentions he had once elk hunted with a 30-30 and to paraphrase, he said, “Don’t do it.” That was it. No further context.

Another channel I like is called Brobee223. He successfully shot and killed a cow moose with a 30-30. He is no slouch to load development and used a hand loaded Barnes TSX bullet so that is probably the best load there is for a 30-30. There really was no drama with the shot or kill.

I admit, there are a ton of better choices for elk, but if your shots are under 100 yds, can the 30-30 really be that bad? There were no scopes of any kind of reliability that anyone would use in the boondocks around the turn of the 20th century so they were using open sights and were often in cover so shots were close.

earlthegoat2 said:

I admit, there are a ton of better choices for elk, but if your shots are under 100 yds, can the 30-30 really be that bad? There were no scopes of any kind of reliability that anyone would use in the boondocks around the turn of the 20th century so they were using open sights and were often in cover so shots were

Click to expand...

I assume they were generally better hunters, could get close, and place their shots well. Also, since many of them were able to use the .44-40 effectively, the .30WCF must have been an impressive round.

I can say I have never hunted Elk. However it's back to the 30 30 is no good under 100 yards argument. Where I grew up and currently live you're darned lucky to get a shot on deer under 100 yards. Most are past 150 or more. I guess we didn't know better and kilt them at those ranges anyway.

Or ya scared them to death. Ah, did you mean "over 100 yards argument"?? I've always considered the .30WCF to be a 200 yard cartridge. I'm thinking that was the advantage over the .44WCF, flatter trajectory to 200 yards. ?

Ugly Sauce said:

Or ya scared them to death. Ah, did you mean "over 100 yards argument"?? I've always considered the .30WCF to be a 200 yard cartridge. I'm thinking that was the advantage over the .44WCF, flatter trajectory to 200 yards. ?

Click to expand...

I agree with that. The .44WCF is good to100 yards.

See the fifth paragraph of the third part of this story for:
"a .32 Special 1894 Winchester rifle with leather scabbard"

https://www.umt.edu/this-is-montana/columns/stories/rmf-first-ranger-1.php
https://www.umt.edu/this-is-montana/columns/stories/rmf-first-ranger-2.php
https://www.umt.edu/this-is-montana/columns/stories/rmf-ranger-3of3.php

https://www.parkcabinco.com/blog/2019/1/31/the-inimitable-life-and-death-of-joe-cosley

The intro did not mention any firearms but this might be interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/First-Rangers-Glacier-Country-1902-1910/dp/1560377496

This is Colorado not Montana but it is an interesting story:

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_aafe8108-044a-11eb-9913-931833f64c87.html

https://www.facebook.com/FirstForestRanger/

His revolver:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbi...NPtc6~;pzHhuXGDxDKOtE~-.bps.a.569569869804259

The picture of Ranger Liebig on page 5 of this link shows a belt with some serious cartridges, definitely not .30-30s. .45-70 or up is my guess.


https://www.amazon.com/First-Rangers-Glacier-Country-1902-1910/dp/1560377496

Coyote3855 said:

The picture of Ranger Liebig on page 5 of this link shows a belt with some serious cartridges, definitely not .30-30s. .45-70 or up is my guess.


https://www.amazon.com/First-Rangers-Glacier-Country-1902-1910/dp/1560377496

Click to expand...

He carried a 45-70 for bears and big cats but his normal weapon of choice was a .22 single shot. He even killed a large grizzly bear with it with one shot.

Smokepole14 said:

Several stories I’ve read so far mentions the fur trappers being very well armed incase of a grizzly encounter, but fail to mention what they’re armed with.

Click to expand...

By the turn of the century (1900) the great "Mountain Man" era (the fur trapper era) had been over and done with for at least 20 years. However, the great .45-70 Government had been around since 1873. That's what I would have wanted to have along in case of a grizzly encounter in 1900.