Javascript DHTML Drop Down Menu Powered by dhtml-menu-builder.com
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2017, 10:34:29 pm

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
* Home FlashChat Help Calendar Login Register
Currently there are 0 Users in the Cas City Chat Rooms!
Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L  |  Special Interests - Groups & Societies  |  BOLD Chambers (Moderator: California Lawdawg)  |  Topic: What Would You Carry in the 19th Century? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: What Would You Carry in the 19th Century?  (Read 12670 times)
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« on: May 30, 2015, 09:30:18 pm »


I was out shooting my Uberti 1873 short rifle today (taking care of the "Campbell's Gang") and thinking what a great gun it was and it got me thinking about what I would choose to carry as a 19th century lawman.  I have to say that my rifle would have to be a '73 in 44 WCF, or perhaps 38 WCF.  It's fast to shoot, reliable, accurate, easy to clean and hits hard.  The magazine holds a lot of ammo and it can be topped up at will.  I have other guns I like, but that would be just about perfect for that role.  I have a short rifle, but either that or a carbine would probably be my choice.  I prefer shorter guns for some reason.

For handguns, I have Colt and Schofield reproductions.  I'd have to choose the Colt as my 19th century law enforcement sidearm.  I'm only familiar with the 4 3/4 inch barrel length, but I particularly like it.  Caliber would be a toss up between 45 Colt and 44 WCF, with a slight edge going to the 44 WCF to match the rifle.

What do you think?  What you chose?  For you law enforcement officers, knowing what you know, does that affect your choice?

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
Forty Rod
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6537



« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2015, 01:12:06 am »

What would you have carried during the first 3/4 of the century?   Roll Eyes
Logged

People like me are the reason people like you have the right to bitch about people like me.
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2015, 08:45:11 am »

Yes, I realized after I made the post that I should have been more specific.   My answer was for the 1870s and 1880s. It would be different before or after.  Pick your specific time period as you choose for your answer.

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
St. George
Deputy Marshal
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4510


NCOWS , GAF, B.O.L.D., Order of St. George, SOCOM,


« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2015, 10:05:01 am »

It would all depend upon where one was living.

Many Lawmen never carried anything at all - never had to.

The era really wasn't like the movies, or a Louis L'Amour novel, so don't draw conclusions or equipage from them - look to the time frame and locale and then make a choice.

Likely a Lawman carried what was the most common thing to be purchased at the Dry Goods or Hardware store, or what he already owned from his previous employment.

That 'generally' would mean a Colt SAA - due to popularity and wide-spread use - but could mean anything at all.

An everyday 'town' Lawman was well-known, and usually never had problems that couldn't be handled with anything more than words.

Men who were Marshals working for a Court and chasing felons were going to be differently-equipped - both for the quarry, as well as for the rigors of the trail.

Probably 'the' most common firearm in use was the shotgun - short or long-barreled - 'everybody' knew what one of those could do...

Scouts Out!
Logged

"It Wasn't Cowboys and Ponies - It Was Horses and Men.
It Wasn't Schoolboys and Ladies - It Was Cowtowns and Sin..."
Forty Rod
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6537



« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2015, 10:05:42 am »

Don't worry about it, Griff.  We'll keep on reminding you... and reminding you... and reminding you... forever.   Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Shocked
Logged

People like me are the reason people like you have the right to bitch about people like me.
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2015, 11:08:51 am »

If YOU were an old west lawman and could choose, which guns would YOU choose?  There are a couple of well-known photos of Texas Rangers which show mostly Colt revolvers and '73 carbines, but there are others too.  This is a hypothetical question.

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
Forty Rod
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6537



« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2015, 12:22:29 pm »

'73 was a prime year.  Both Colts and Winchesters fit my pistol just fine.
Logged

People like me are the reason people like you have the right to bitch about people like me.
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2015, 02:29:09 pm »

See now I thought this would be an interesting topic for discussion. I guess my good idea fell kind of flat.  Oh well. I'll stick with knock-knock jokes.  Wink

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
Trailrider
CAS-L Ghost Rider
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2015, 08:34:45 pm »

Between 1865 and 1874, it would be a Henry repeating rifle, and a brace of M1860 Army Colt's, converted to fire Henry cartridges. If I could afford to change over about 1874, I'd go with a Winchester M1873 and a Colt's Army "strap" pistol (SAA) in .45 Colt's. Only problem with that would be the possibility of getting a .45 round in the rifle. Be a tight fix, especially in a firefight! Therefore, I'd be sure to pack a pocket knife with a blade that could unscrew the sideplates to get out the offending round. (This actually happened to Texas Ranger George Lloyd in a fight with some Indians. He got the round out, and lived to tell the tale!) If I was flush in 1878, I might swap the .45 for a Frontier Six Shooter (Colt's in .44-40), or two! I might even pack a pocket pistol of some kind. But NOT a M1877 Colt's Ligntning pistol. Too delicate. Nor would I pack a Remington O/U double deringer...at least NOT with both barrels loaded, unless I could figure a way to interpose a piece of leather under the firing pin. (The half-cock is the only "safety" on those little beasties, and dropping one on the  hammer would for certain shear the dog and fire it.)  If I was still lawin' by '96, I'd probably swap the '73 for either a '92, or maybe even a Winchester Model 1895 in .30 U.S (.30-40 Krag), just like that Arizona Ranger I saw in a picture. Now, maybe there might be a double shotgun in my arsenal, depending on the circumstances. The '87 levergun is interesting, but I'm not sure I like it, for "serious social purposes"! One of those Spencer shotguns might be good, at least until the '97 Winchester came out.
Well, you asked... Wink
Logged

Ride to the sound of the guns, but watch out for bushwhackers! Godspeed to all in harm's way in the defense of Freedom! God Bless America!

Your obedient servant,
Trailrider,
Bvt. Lt. Col. Commanding,
Southern District
Dept. of the Platte, GAF
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2015, 09:07:47 pm »

I did ask.  That's a great answer.   Thanks!

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
yahoody
NCOWS
Top Active Citizen
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 799



« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2015, 09:24:16 pm »

My answer was for the 1870s and 1880s. It would be different before or after.  Pick your specific time period as you choose for your answer. CC Griff

Nice topic for a fun discussion.  1870/1880 specific?

1870 to 1874?
'66 and a pair of 1860 Army Colt's converted to shoot the 44 Rimfire prior to 1873.  Big change over in 1874.   

Unlimited budget?   SAA. 45 Colt, 4 3/4 for in town.  7.5" in the same for on the horse.  The short SAA mentioned previous as a spare in the saddle pockets.  Both nickeled and smooth ivory for easy of cleaning/care.  More concerned about the early SAA reliability than shared ammo with the carbine.
 
1873 saddle ring carbine in 44wcf for a saddle gun.  Forty round 44wcf ammo belt to go with.  Carbine and ammo belt packing 50 rounds total or a single box of shells.    1876, 22" short rifle, round barrel, in 45/75, pistol gripped and checkered for bigger prey.   40 round ammo belt combo bandoleer for that one too.

I would have changed the '73 out for the same in a '92 to drop weight on the horse.  If I was headed for a known fight I'd take the 73...being more reliable IMO.   Hand gun?   I would have changed out or added to the SAA with an early 1911 asap.  More ammo and easier to reload.  Rifle?  '94 short rifle, again a 22" round barrel rifle, in 30-30 this time around would have made a lot of sense by my standards.  Checkered and pistol gripped now...and a TD.

Likely would have owned a '86 in 45-90 and '95 carbine in 30 US first thing when they became available and abandoned them just as quickly.  Too heavy and a clunky action compared to the '76.  '95 (and 30 US) is a great shooter just to hard to carry on anything but a horse.
Logged

"time leaves tombstones or dry bones"  SASS #2903
Colt Fanning
NCOWS
Top Active Citizen
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 287


« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2015, 08:09:12 am »

Howdy,
According to the  book "Brewery Gulch", John Slaughter when he was a sheriff in AZ circa 1892 carried a shotgun balanced across his saddle when he chased rustlers.  He came back with the stolen stock but the rustlers were never seen again.
Regards
Colt
Logged
Good Troy
NCOWS
Top Active Citizen
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 864


GAF Grand Muster 2017


« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2015, 08:40:46 am »

+1 pn a shotgun...
And for a side arm, I'd opt for a Remington NMA in the C&B days, and a SAA in 45 during the cartridge era.
Logged

Good Troy
SASS#98102
GAF#835
NCOWS#3791
SSS#638
Jake C
Department of the Atlantic, GAF # 834
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 476


« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2015, 11:05:35 am »

Double barrel shotgun, and, if I had an unlimited budget, '75 Remington in .45 Colt, full length barrel (one of those factory order guns that probably existed, but haven't surfaced). Failing that, tough to beat a peacemaker (I just like the feel of those Remingtons).

For any trail work, well, I'm partial to the '76 Rifle in .45-75.

If we're in that 1860's-1873 period, I'd probably go 1860 Army (converted if possible) with maybe a Colt Baby Dragoon as a backup, and a Spencer carbine as a trail rifle.

Sorry to jump in, just a fun thing to talk about.
Logged

Win with ability, not with numbers.- Alexander Suvorov, Russian Field Marshal, 1729-1800
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2015, 01:00:40 pm »

Jump right in.   I wondered when someone would bring up an 1876 rifle. if I was arming, say a squad of Rangers, I would want to make sure that there was at least one higher powered rifle in the group. It would probably be an 1876, then maybe an 1886. When 1894s became available, I'd probably arm everyone with those. A lot like Yahoody said.

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
yahoody
NCOWS
Top Active Citizen
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 799



« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2015, 02:11:45 pm »

Funny, a couple decades ago I shot a lot of .45 Colt in a short rifle and even more ammo through a MP5 on a weekly basis.   Short of the ammo load/reloads I knew which one was the better gun for my "actual" needs.  255grs of lead hits harder than 147gr or 125s.   From that experience I had a custom '92 short rifle built on a Rossi action in 44 mag.  Rossi was one of the few easily available pre SASS mega growth.  Darn Brownings cost too much even back then.   Lots of '92s available now.  I still have  that Rossi and a Browning carbine eventually added as well.

All that prior the easy access to M4 carbines or the switch to AR platforms.

44wcf isn't far from a 44mag.  44mag was just easier to reload for then.
A 1# drop in weight on the '92 over the '73. 

But weight isn't everything.  Reliability is for me.     

I've never thought a lever gun should be run like a full auto.  Not how I use a carbine/rifle even when full auto is available.  But even a stock '73/'76 can be ran damn fast and still be reliable when a '92 gets finicky.  '92s are exceptionally easy to short stroke or over stroke and loose a cartridge under stress.   Same thing for a '86 compared to a '76.   Toggle link actions IMO are simply more reliable.  Not as strong sure...but more reliable.   For a big  bore I'd want the extra range the lighter bullets offer.  The 350 @ 1400fps in a 45/75 or the 300 @ 1500fps in a 45/90 for all practical purposes are pretty much the same.  Match the bullet weights and it is even closer.  Rifle weight?  With similar barrel lengths it is around 1/2#.  My 21" '76 is 5oz heavier than my 22" '86.  Both have octagon barrels.  Majority of the extra weight on the '76 is in the bigger barrel shank diameter coming out of the receiver. 
Logged

"time leaves tombstones or dry bones"  SASS #2903
Jake C
Department of the Atlantic, GAF # 834
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 476


« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2015, 02:20:00 pm »

Jump right in.   I wondered when someone would bring up an 1876 rifle. if I was arming, say a squad of Rangers, I would want to make sure that there was at least one higher powered rifle in the group. It would probably be an 1876, then maybe an 1886. When 1894s became available, I'd probably arm everyone with those. A lot like Yahoody said.

CC Griff

It's tough to beat out those '94 rifles. If we're talking later on in 'Old West' period, I'd have trouble coming up with a better "do-all" rifle. Again, going off of the big budget assumption, I'd want either a Burgess folding shotgun, or a '97 Winchester pump gun. Since I'm personally very used to shooting my '75, I might stick with that for a good while. Depending on the time, I'd get a Colt New Service, 5.5 inch barrel and also in .45 Colt.
Logged

Win with ability, not with numbers.- Alexander Suvorov, Russian Field Marshal, 1729-1800
yahoody
NCOWS
Top Active Citizen
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 799



« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2015, 02:49:47 pm »

Quote from: Trum4n
It's tough to beat out those '94 rifles.


Yep, kinda the '06 of the day (prior to '06)  as the .308 was later and what the 7.62 AK is now.
Logged

"time leaves tombstones or dry bones"  SASS #2903
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2015, 09:38:20 am »

In many situations, even today, I would not feel "under-gunned" with a '94 30-30.

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
Bruce W Sims
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2015, 08:17:05 am »

I noticed that noone selected a Mare's Leg for in-town use. Any particular reason?

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Logged
Jake C
Department of the Atlantic, GAF # 834
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 476


« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2015, 08:28:52 am »

I noticed that noone selected a Mare's Leg for in-town use. Any particular reason?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

The only real benefit I could think of would be the ability to carry 6 rounds. But they're awkward to handle compared to a revolver, and tougher to conceal. I'd rather not walk around looking like I was asking for a fight. Ideally, a revolver could do the same job but a bit better (again, my opinion), and if I'm expecting a fight, I'd rather have a full length lever action rifle or a shotgun than a mare's leg.
Logged

Win with ability, not with numbers.- Alexander Suvorov, Russian Field Marshal, 1729-1800
Coal Creek Griff
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1210


With Cheyenne Luke


« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2015, 06:03:48 pm »

I agree that I would not carry a mare's leg (even if they existed).  They were a Hollywood invention that carries nearly all of the disadvantages of both a rifle and a handgun (large and heavy, but too short to use from the shoulder to gain the accuracy at a distance; requires two hands to effectively operate [despite Josh Randall fanning the hammer for repeat shots]; much lower magazine capacity than a rifle, etc).

I'd absolutely take a rifle or shotgun if I thought there was likely to be trouble (along with as many friends as I could get with their rifles and/or shotguns) and have a good revolver (or two) for those times when bad things happen without warning.  Of course that's pretty much what I do now...  Wink

CC Griff
Logged

BOLD #921
BOSS #196
1860 Henry Rifle Shooter #173
SSS #573
Bruce W Sims
Top Active Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2015, 09:56:20 am »

Thanks...hadn't thought of it quite like that but it makes perfect sense.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L  |  Special Interests - Groups & Societies  |  BOLD Chambers (Moderator: California Lawdawg)  |  Topic: What Would You Carry in the 19th Century? « previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.07 seconds with 21 queries.