MacAR
Member
I love the show though.
With all of the Western movies and books out there, extremely few tell the story of the railroad race.
The cowboys, lawmen and Indian wars get nearly all of the attention.
The railroad had as much to do with the settling of the west as probably everything else combined.
Oh yes, me too. The railroad race is a rarely covered topic that should be addressed more. Another "group" that gets little attention is the sodbuster; there were probably more "nesters" on the plains by 1885 (thanks in no small part to the railroad) than there were ranchers. Sure, the ranchers and cattlemen were there first; the sodbuster was the one who quite literally "settled" the West. And I think more films should focus on that.
t was nothing but lazy propmasters or propmasters that know nothing about historical arms and/or more than likely they don't care because they assume their audience doesn't know the difference. Costner used the brass framed army in Hatfield and McCoys too.
More than likely, yes. My wife says I have a problem in that I can't enjoy a movie; I have to point out all the things they're doing wrong!
Me, I'm guessing the average Joe back then had nothing but a rifle, and likely a single shot at that. A Henry, Winchester or Sharps was a mighty expensive commodity back then. Also very likely the average farmer probably didn't own a six gun unless he carried it back from the ACW, and even less likely he would have a gun belt and rig for it. In most cases they were probably stuffed down their trousers. Most folks needed a rifle for hunting, shooting a fox in the chicken house, or as protection against Indian attacks, and in all three cases the sixgun is the wrong tool for the job. I think the majority of us who grew up on TV westerns have been fed a lot of misinformation that we just naturally take as fact.
You're exactly right, Cap. I seem to recall reading somewhere that most settlers who went West carried a single shot shotgun, and it was usually a muzzle-loaded one at that. The shotgun was considered the "all purpose" weapon back in the day; load it with shot for small critters and ball for the big 'uns. I also recall that around the time of the Transcontinental Railroad, Bannerman's was selling surplus Springfield muskets for something like $2.50 a piece; just about any settler could afford one. Whereas, I believe the going price for an 1866 Winchester was $17 around that time, and a Sharps was about $12 or $14; I'm going off of memory so I may be incorrect. Pistols likely wouldn't be too popular with the general public, as you said it's 100% the wrong weapon for the jobs you mentioned above. And as such, gun belts weren't too popular either. It makes me wonder (as a person who grew up on TV westerns) just how much guys really carried handguns back in the day. The more I think about it, the more it seems like they wouldn't be too popular. Then again, Colt, Remington, and others sold a LOT of handguns during that time period, so someone was carrying them.
Mac