6 Guns, Cowboys, Hollywood and the Truth
- Thread starter Good Ol' Boy
- Start date
- Status
Tommygunn
Member
"The quickest reload is a second gun," goes an old saying. During the Civil War, many Confederate irregular raiders carried braces of revolvers, emptying one in battle, to then grab another.
During peacetime, and once fixed ammo became common, I suspect indeed few carried two guns. Possibly those who did kept a small Colt 1849 or similar gun, or derringer, as backup.
You didn't necessarily have to carry two FULL SIZED revolvers.
During peacetime, and once fixed ammo became common, I suspect indeed few carried two guns. Possibly those who did kept a small Colt 1849 or similar gun, or derringer, as backup.
You didn't necessarily have to carry two FULL SIZED revolvers.
splattergun
Member
In a military situation 2 guns makes sense, especially when at least one, perhaps both, of the 2 guns is carried in a pommel scabbard when a battle is anticipated. It simply does not make any sense for a working man to be wearing 2 guns all day long as portrayed in movies and pulp novels.
I've never seen a photograph of rangers or cavalry wearing a 2 gun rig. A long gun and a sidearm, yes, but not 2 pistols worn on the hips.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Not too far from where I live, a Union patrol killed six "bushwackers" and took 36 revolvers off their bodies -- they were carrying six guns apiece!
splattergun
Member
Histories of Guerilla raiding squads and irregular cavalry like the old Texas Rangers carrying multiple guns in various pockets, holsters and saddle scabbards while on military mission is all very interesting, truly. I even know that some card-sharps and professional gunmen sometimes carried a second hideout gun.
Yet I still find it most annoying the phoney way old, and not so old, pulp novels and movies portray common cowboys and drifters routinely wearing a 2 gun rig a la Kevin Costner in 'Silverado' or like Ken Maynard in 'The 2 Gun Man'
I might forgive 'The Lone Ranger' in this case. After all, he's a Ranger and needs 2 guns.
Yet I still find it most annoying the phoney way old, and not so old, pulp novels and movies portray common cowboys and drifters routinely wearing a 2 gun rig a la Kevin Costner in 'Silverado' or like Ken Maynard in 'The 2 Gun Man'
I might forgive 'The Lone Ranger' in this case. After all, he's a Ranger and needs 2 guns.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Photos of James Butler ("Wild Bill") Hickok show him carrying two guns -- usually Colt Navies.
splattergun
Member
yep. also some pics of him with one gun... or none. He was one flashy ol' boy, posing with 2 guns and a knife in his sash.
Trunk Monkey
member
When John Wesley Hardin killed Jack Helms all the witnesses agreed that he drew cross draw from what amounted to a shoulder holster under a suit coat.
When John Selman killed John Wesley Hardin Hardin was again wearing a shoulder holster under a suit jacket
When John Selman killed John Wesley Hardin Hardin was again wearing a shoulder holster under a suit jacket
Uh, no, they does not weigh 4+ lbs loaded. The 4 3/4" Colts weigh about 36 oz, which is 2 lbs 4 oz. Not sure exactly what the 7 1/2" guns weight, but its only a couple oz or so difference. The cartridges dont weight 2 lbs for 5 rds. Ive carried Ruger 45s and Smith 4" 29s all day, every day for years in the past. with cartridge belt with 24 or 30 rds, or when in the mts in the north, on a 45-70 belt with 30 rds of 400 gr ammo. The rifle shells do get heavy by the end of the day, the pistol belts, not really. Ive come home from being in the mts all day, or cutting firewood, or whatever, been cooking dinner, and later remembered I still had the pistol belt on. Riding a horse, in any event, the horse is doing all the work, carrying the weight. I walk. I still get along OK.
Ive carried two guns. They weigh a bit after a while, it depends on what your priorities are. I always carry a 44 or 45 when out. Not negotiable. If I want to shoot grouse, then I take a rifle and some light loads, leaving the magazine loaded with full power stuff. Sometimes I take a 22 pistol instead of a rifle, often in a shoulder holster, like a K-22. Ive walked back in several miles at high elevation so supplied with dead weight. Its not as much of a big deal as some would have us believe. If someone feels they wouldnt be caught dead doing so, great. I do, and cant figure out why its an issue. Pretty sure theres no 12 lbs of guns and ammo unless counting a rifle.
Will weigh my belt for the 45 when I get a chance. I'm not where its at.
Mr Ingalls was a farmer. I wouldnt really expect him to carry a pistol, just like most farmers today dont. There are very different types of people in the world. Many, as gun enthusiasts, tend to think everyone would go armed to the teeth (or think one has to carry a 454 and 416 Rigby at minimum) in Alaska, or the frontier west, or grizzly country today, but,... no. Call it what you wish, but there are a metric tonload of people that simply do not care to go about armed, regardless of anyone elses assessment of the risk or danger. I dont go out in grizzly country unarmed, but always see people that look like they are going to the beach out on the trails. It was so on the frontier to an extent. many bought arms because they were told they should, or had Ol Betsy that they shot deer with back on the farm in ohio or wherever, or bought some wreck of a surplus musket, but they wouldnt always even have any significant amount of ammo with them. One account I read checked the arms and ammunition on a westward bound wagon train, it averaged out to less than 20 rds per gun, maybe less, and a hodgepodge of arms. Will try to find that info.
So, its tempting to try to put the world into our perspective, and make blanket conclusions, but the world rarely complies. There have always, and will always be gun people, and not gun people. even among the gun people, theres a wide range of outlooks. True enthusiasts, or perhaps some that have seen the result of not being well prepared have a set of criteria they work with, and everyone else works with their own set of criteria, and most dont understand the others conclusions or reasoning. It not as simple as saying "So and so said this, they were there, so that settles it" No, it doesnt. Theres a lot of different people in the world, and about as many opinions as to whats a good idea on the frontier or out in the hills today, or in Alaska, or wherever. The discussions can be fun, and interesting, but I find it difficult when people try to say its only one way or another.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Fancher wagon train from Harrison, Arkansas, was attacked primarily by Indians at Mountain Meadows, Utah and held out for four days. They were virtually out of ammunition when they were approached by Mormon militia, who told them they had negotiated a settlement with the Indians. They were to leave unarmed, escorted by militia, who killed them.
^^^ And that, sports fans, is the sort of thing that encourages some people to choose not to go about unarmed, and with little ammo. Others, well, they just dont think about it I guess, or conclude it couldnt happen to them.
Speedo66
Member
Wow, did a little research on this, the so called Mt. Meadows Massacre and found an incredible tale of greed, savagery, insurrection, deceit, sellouts, and shady pardons on behalf of Mormon leaders, the US president, local officials, a modern governor, and a host of others. It turns out it was mostly Mormons who attacked the wagon train, dressed as Indians, to steal from the wealthy, well equipped settlers. After lying to the settlers under a flag of truce, they then proceeded to shoot the men and stab and club the women and children to death on the spot and left the bodies to rot in the open, 140 total. Even a hundred years later when more bones were found, the Mormon governor of Utah at the time insisted the bones be buried immediately so the crimes of murder would not be discovered and publicized.
Moral of the tale, never give up.
This is an amazing read: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/books/the-great-utah-mystery.html
Vern Humphrey
Member
And have plenty of ammunition.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Not to stir up the conversation, but how many times have we read even today how many people carry 2 guns (or more!) and spare reloads for all of them.
I figure it was much the same back then. Most carried nothing, some carried one gun, then there's that small bunch that felt the need to carry an arsenal.
I figure it was much the same back then. Most carried nothing, some carried one gun, then there's that small bunch that felt the need to carry an arsenal.
Airman Basic
Member
Trooper told me years ago, when I asked him why he carried 5 speedloaders, "cause I can't get 6 on my belt".
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Or even more importantly keep his .45 Colt for his revolver (center in picture below) and .44-40 (right) for his rifle separate!
Mike
Vern Humphrey
Member
In his book, Six Years With the Texas Rangers: 1875-1881 , James Gillette tells about a ranger who inadvertently loaded a .45 Colt round into a Model 73 Winchester -- and had to remove the sideplates under fire to clear the resulting jam. That would sure cure ME of carrying two similar cartridges for my rifle and revolver!
Jim Watson
Member
I recall that yarn and saw it happen at a CAS match. No fun whatsolutely.
There was also a lawman who went the other way. Tired of .44-40 cases splitting in his revolver, he went to a .45. Brass is better now.
I have also seen .44-40 shot in .45 guns, which is not damaging, just kind of disappointing.
There was also a lawman who went the other way. Tired of .44-40 cases splitting in his revolver, he went to a .45. Brass is better now.
I have also seen .44-40 shot in .45 guns, which is not damaging, just kind of disappointing.
If they had resumes back then, his would say "Calm under fire".
Some children were abducted, their captors assuming they were too young to recollect what happened to them and would be assimilated into their captors culture. They were wrong.
Trunk Monkey
member
Take it FWIW but Louis L'Amour used to write about his Heros carrying both rifle and handgun in .44 due to commonality of ammunition and difficulties involved with transport.
Thunderchicken
Member
A fascinating thread. Thanks to all the contributors.
I just caught up, reading about the "six six-gun" group. I assume that this collection of scrotes had been accumulating guns from people they'd waylaid. Wouldn't there be pretty strong economic forces preventing the typical citizen from having a half dozen revolvers? I suppose the economy was very different on the frontier, with much less cash and more barter, but how many days/weeks pay would the typical handgun represent?
I have trouble deciding where to carry an LC9--I can't imagine carrying six presumably-full-sized revolvers!
Again, thanks for the great discussion.
I just caught up, reading about the "six six-gun" group. I assume that this collection of scrotes had been accumulating guns from people they'd waylaid. Wouldn't there be pretty strong economic forces preventing the typical citizen from having a half dozen revolvers? I suppose the economy was very different on the frontier, with much less cash and more barter, but how many days/weeks pay would the typical handgun represent?
I have trouble deciding where to carry an LC9--I can't imagine carrying six presumably-full-sized revolvers!
Again, thanks for the great discussion.
The center cartridge in the image doesnt look like the old school 45 Colt factory cartridges Ive seen, nd were still standard until the late 1900s or early-ish 2000s, they were more pointed with a small flat tip, the 44-40 was more blunt with a wider flat point. Still, if one grabbed cartridges from different belts or pockets it wouldnt be difficult to get the wrong ones if keeping an eye on enemies more than loading.
Yes, though keep in mind Colt didnt make their revolvers for the 44 WCF cartridge until about 1878. To distinguish them from the 45 caliber guns, they were marked "Frontier Sixshooter" in larger letters on the side of the barrel.
We also tend to think "Well, the new Single Action Army revolver came out in 1873, so everybody would have them right away" Not really, production was low in the first few years, and the Army got most of the production the first few years. Also, the west isnt the only place people bought guns, people everywhere wanted new model guns, the ones that turned up in the west would have been a slow trickle for several years, the percussion conversion guns were likely still attractive, as tons of surplus civil war guns were sold fairly cheaply. This no doubt played a part in the ability of ordinary guys being able to afford a carry gun even with relatively low paying work.
As mentioned just above, there were tons of surplus civil war guns after the war, they were sold to wholesalers who then sold them mail order all over, and no doubt stocked in many local stores as the markets would support.
The people that carried six pistols were not carrying them all on their person, that was more a wartime thing, but the poor horse got to carry most of that. The first revolvers used by the military were horse pistols (the very limited use Walker, and the Dragoons), they were often carried in pairs on the horse, not on a mans belt. It was individuals that started carrying the guns around on them with the saddle holsters so they couldnt be separated from their guns at an embarrassing moment that really seemed to help start the trend of "belt pistols" (1851 Navy and similar sized, like the 1860) as compared to horse pistols, and the smaller "pocket pistols", which were carried in coat pockets more than the tight pants pockets we think of today.
For those that would try to get the best available back in the day, the cost was what they prioritized. I see people saying they have 10 or more ARs, and I think of the investment represented by that. are they all working very good paying jobs? Probably not all, they just made that their priority and proceeded accordingly.
Also keep in mind, S&W was making cartridge revolvers several years before Colt, they held the patents on the bored through cylinder. They had a pretty good 44 cal top break single action in about 1868, the Model 3. Many think of Hickok and seem to conclude the he ONLY had the Navy Colts, though we know he had a variety of guns over time, and was known to have one of the S&W 44s in the late 60s I believe. I believe theres also reason to believe he was given more than one pair of engraved Navies.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
I think telling cartridges apart by bullet ogive would be pretty unreliable in any era. Ken Waters seems to think that handloading/reloading was quite common in the West
Mike
Mike
Absolutely.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
