did cowboys have a real disadvantage?

[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]

Slow

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
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 ).

 

[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]

Still waiting...

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]

Vern

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]

modifiedbrowning

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]

Cosmoline

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!

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?

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.