What Rifle Really Won the West?
- Thread starter 462
- Start date
fiver
Well-Known Member
what time frame?
there was a lot of leftovers after the civil war and by the time the 73 win. hit the market it was a bit too expensive to be lugging around on a wagon.
the Niners were coming across in 1848
same year Utah become a state BTW, and the Indians in that area sure wasn't giving the Mormons no grief by then. [Ute's, Paiutes, Navajo, Shoshone, Bannock, or the Fremont just to name a few]
so your looking at a lot of muzzle loaders and flintlocks being in use.
there was a lot of leftovers after the civil war and by the time the 73 win. hit the market it was a bit too expensive to be lugging around on a wagon.
the Niners were coming across in 1848
same year Utah become a state BTW, and the Indians in that area sure wasn't giving the Mormons no grief by then. [Ute's, Paiutes, Navajo, Shoshone, Bannock, or the Fremont just to name a few]
so your looking at a lot of muzzle loaders and flintlocks being in use.
smokeywolf
Well-Known Member
I'm thinkin' it was a flintlock, caplock or at the latter stages a trapdoor. The Spencer and Sharps and Winchesters certainly played very meaningful roles in the latter half of the 19th century.
Last edited:
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
From what I read a couple months back as many of the buffalo were killed by disease and a terrible winter as hide hunters. I don't know if that's true, but just as everyone seems to ignore indian depredation on their neighbors, it's probably more true than modern historians like to admit.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
You have to define "won"!
The plains rifle (Hawkins for civilians) and the 1841 Mississippi for the Dragoons in the early days. There was no predominate rifle then until after 1865. Then the Spencer and second place Sharps carbine for the military and 1861 Springfield for the civilians. Post 1866 the Trapdoor Springfield, remember the US Army Infantry never, ever, lost a fight with Native Americans from 1865 on, only the Cavalry. Then the civilian Winchester Model 1873 in 44 WCF.
Prior to 1865, 800,000 buffalo cavies were being born every year. Buffalo hunters never killed more than 150,000 buffalo in any one year. However, "Texas Fever", we know as hoof and mouth disease, killed 1,000,000 in 1874 alone. That is the reason the southern plains Indians fought so hard to keep "Texicans" off the plains, they had seen this for years from the cattle coming up from Mexico.
FWIW, Ric
The plains rifle (Hawkins for civilians) and the 1841 Mississippi for the Dragoons in the early days. There was no predominate rifle then until after 1865. Then the Spencer and second place Sharps carbine for the military and 1861 Springfield for the civilians. Post 1866 the Trapdoor Springfield, remember the US Army Infantry never, ever, lost a fight with Native Americans from 1865 on, only the Cavalry. Then the civilian Winchester Model 1873 in 44 WCF.
Prior to 1865, 800,000 buffalo cavies were being born every year. Buffalo hunters never killed more than 150,000 buffalo in any one year. However, "Texas Fever", we know as hoof and mouth disease, killed 1,000,000 in 1874 alone. That is the reason the southern plains Indians fought so hard to keep "Texicans" off the plains, they had seen this for years from the cattle coming up from Mexico.
FWIW, Ric
462
California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
It was referring to Smokeywolf's link to an NRA article about the Winchester 1873 and the article's mention of Winchester advertizing that the 1873 was the "Rifle that won the West." I reckon that Winchester considered "won" as not before 1873.
Where did you get those buffalo numbers?
Ian
Notorious member
I always thought that slogan was stupid in principle. Won it from whom? Or what? Which time?
The 18th century flintlock, smoothbore "trade gun"--be it French or English-- was the dominant arm for nearly two centuries on this continent. I'd say it "won the west" and a whole bunch of other things.
If the perspective is limited to white man's "manifest destiny", then that small slice might be dominated by a Winchester levergun chambered in a revolver cartridge. However, the fact remains that the lowly trade gun allowed exploration of more land, provided more income, settled more conflicts, and put more food in bellies than any other and likely all others combined.
The 18th century flintlock, smoothbore "trade gun"--be it French or English-- was the dominant arm for nearly two centuries on this continent. I'd say it "won the west" and a whole bunch of other things.
If the perspective is limited to white man's "manifest destiny", then that small slice might be dominated by a Winchester levergun chambered in a revolver cartridge. However, the fact remains that the lowly trade gun allowed exploration of more land, provided more income, settled more conflicts, and put more food in bellies than any other and likely all others combined.
Last edited:
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Defining time frame, defining “won” and maybe even defining “The West” would all be necessary to answer the question, “what rifle won the west”?
It could be argued that the Louisiana Purchase (1803) began the expansion into what we now call “The West”.
The annexation of Texas (1845) was important.
The treaty of Oregon (1846) helped clear the dispute with the British.
The Mexican American war (1846-1848) would certainly be a point in the timeline.
The discovery of gold and later admission of California (1850) was a key point.
And of course, there was that little civil war (1861-1865)
The post-civil war expansion west of the Mississippi was significant. The incredible amount of immigration into the U.S.A. in the 1880’s played role. But parts of the western U.S.A. remained largely lawless well into the 1890’s; although by that point most of the productive land was governed at least by the federal government to some degree.
I would submit that the newest, cutting-edge rifles (or shotguns) of the day (whatever day you pick) were NOT the predominant rifles of the time. It would be the affordable weapons commonly held by the population that would play the largest role.
It could be argued that the Louisiana Purchase (1803) began the expansion into what we now call “The West”.
The annexation of Texas (1845) was important.
The treaty of Oregon (1846) helped clear the dispute with the British.
The Mexican American war (1846-1848) would certainly be a point in the timeline.
The discovery of gold and later admission of California (1850) was a key point.
And of course, there was that little civil war (1861-1865)
The post-civil war expansion west of the Mississippi was significant. The incredible amount of immigration into the U.S.A. in the 1880’s played role. But parts of the western U.S.A. remained largely lawless well into the 1890’s; although by that point most of the productive land was governed at least by the federal government to some degree.
I would submit that the newest, cutting-edge rifles (or shotguns) of the day (whatever day you pick) were NOT the predominant rifles of the time. It would be the affordable weapons commonly held by the population that would play the largest role.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
I've read similar numbers in old American Rifleman mags from the late '30's in a series on and written by some old time buffalo hunters. I've read other stories reports tens of thousands freezing to death in one winter in one area.
I believe Passenger Pigeons were trapped more than shot, al least that's what my so called memory says I read.
I believe Passenger Pigeons were trapped more than shot, al least that's what my so called memory says I read.
Snakeoil
Well-Known Member
I think that you have to define "who" before you can define the weapon. From what I've read, the average individual that went west had a single barrel shotgun and that was out of cost and practicality. It could have been a front stuffer or a cartridge gun, depending on the particular time period. That made sense to me. But I suspect they were talking about the time when cartridge weapons were the norm. I say that because making your own shot is not as easy as casting your own bullets or ball.
I tend to agree that "won" probably does not apply. Settled or tamed might be better terms. If you are talking strictly the taking of the west from the Indians by soldiers, then the assigned arms of the period is your answer. If it is civilians in general, including both hunters, trappers and settlers, then I'm doubtful you could ever pick a brand. For the cartridge gun era, I would tend to believe that the shotgun was more popular than the rifle. For pre-cartridge era, I doubt there is any single gun that ruled since we are talking about many makers, some of them cottage industries, as well as imports from Europe.
Hollywood has created many myths over the years. I think my favorite was Jesse Ventura with his mini-gun. Many have argued that he could never have controlled that gun in the fashion in which he shot it. I was more practical in my criticism. I don't care how big and strong he is, he could never have carried that huge backpack full of belted ammo on his back.
I tend to agree that "won" probably does not apply. Settled or tamed might be better terms. If you are talking strictly the taking of the west from the Indians by soldiers, then the assigned arms of the period is your answer. If it is civilians in general, including both hunters, trappers and settlers, then I'm doubtful you could ever pick a brand. For the cartridge gun era, I would tend to believe that the shotgun was more popular than the rifle. For pre-cartridge era, I doubt there is any single gun that ruled since we are talking about many makers, some of them cottage industries, as well as imports from Europe.
Hollywood has created many myths over the years. I think my favorite was Jesse Ventura with his mini-gun. Many have argued that he could never have controlled that gun in the fashion in which he shot it. I was more practical in my criticism. I don't care how big and strong he is, he could never have carried that huge backpack full of belted ammo on his back.
Passenger pigeons were in a slow decline for most of the 1800s, with a drastic crop in population around 1870-1900. That pretty-much parallels deforestation. They were basically gone in the wild by 1900. Chestnut blight started spreading a few years later, but that wouldn't have been much of a direct factor: chestnut mast wasn't a primary food source. . . if I remember correctly, the seeds were too large.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I've read similar accounts and that rings true to me.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
At least the part that lacked trees.
smokeywolf
Well-Known Member
Not to mention, there's a substantial electric motor that drives the rotating barrels. That electric motor requires a substantial battery. In an aircraft the M134 is powered by the aircraft's 24 volt system. Maybe the lightweight version requires 12 volt power.