did cowboys have a real disadvantage?

[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]

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.

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

 

[Slamfire]

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 . 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. 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!