Gunfighters Of The Old West

Discussion in 'General Handgun' started by Taurus Fan, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. I believe they would be most amused about our modern concern over which magic JHP gee-whiz boolit is best compared to the crummy vanilla flavored lead round nose projectiles they had to make do with.

    Ya think?
  2. I think they would buy the best bullets they could get. Wild Bill carried the 1851 Colt navy cap and ball and had the cartridge conversion done when it was available. No more weather related misfires or wondering if your gun was going to shoot. Warriors and gunfighters would take advantage of any technology they could afford throughout history. Look what happened to Col Custard when he was too arrogant to outfit his troops with the Winchester rifle.

  3. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    I take offence at your degredation of a true american hero and what appears a misspelling of this hero,s name in order to degrade him.Also,he (his command) carried into battle the arms issued by the command of the Army at the time.Had he even had available lever action repeating rifles he could not have issued them to troops.(witness the debacle of the M14/M16 in Nam.Rifles taken from combat troops and inferior weapons issued and not even cleaning instructions issued with them.(top brass said they didn't need cleaned) Any vet knows you carry what is issued and obey orders,even if it costs you defeat and death.The battle was thoroughly investigated and the findings were that General Custer (a great hero) deployed his forces according to the indian fighting tactics at the time,correctly.The problem was,there were just too many indians.I salute a great American hero,Lt Colonel, George A.Custer.
  4. BigCaneSwift

    BigCaneSwift G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    I guess Lt Colonel ,George A.Custer forgot to count.
  5. Tha Dave

    Tha Dave G&G Evangelist

    I guess Military Intel was a bad joke back then too
  6. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    In reply to the OP, I think there would be some mistrust of a new whizzbang, when what they already had worked well enough.
  7. blaster

    blaster G&G Evangelist

    I believe they would have chosen the best technology availiable. until we had better ways of seeing how bullets preformed, until the late '50s no one thought there was a problem with round nose bullets not delivering all their energy. we just kept shooting till the animal dropped.
  8. Sorry I spelled Custer's name wrong while keeping a eye on my child. I did not say that he was not a patriot I simply stated his arrogance and firearms were two factors leading to his defeat. If his soldiers were outfitted with the Winchester rifles they may have been able to inflict enough casualties to make the Indians retreat or get away.
  9. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    ^ Also,the S&W #3 Schofield revolver was one he*l of an advantage over the Colt SAA.It could be loaded and emptied much faster than the Colt,especially on horseback.What you are possibly missing is the way army ordinance works.As I understand the story President Lincoln tried the LA Spencer rifle which could maintain a rate of fire of 20rds per minute compared to the ML springfield at 3rds per.Lincoln liked the Spencer and ordered 100K of them but the general of ordinance said men would waste ammo if they had them and dropped the order to 10K.And this in the midst of the civil war.Army ordinance,being more political than efficient still orders equipment based on deals made more so than which is most efficient.The latest that comes to mind is the F22 fighter.When tested against (I believe the F15)one F22 took 15 F15,s out but orders were canceled and the F15 is still there.No matter why the army was armed with singleshot rifles the fact remains that Custer was a brave man and used the tactics used at that period in indian fighting.Where the story that he was reckless and foolish came from was General Crook was supposed to rondevous with Custer but had a fight of his own at the Rosebud and after using a lot of ammo and receiving many casualties returned to his post instead of meeting Custer.Crook covered his actions by telling that Custer acted brashly and was not supposed to attack until Crooks forces were there.Later the investigation into Custers actions found that Custer commanded properly except that he may have doubted his indian scouts report that there was a huge indian village.This wouldn't be unusual as army officers often under rated their indian enemy.The Fetterman massicre is one such incident.None the less Custer was a brave and capable officer that led his troops well.He just had faulty intelligence or made one real bad decision.Such things happen in war.
  10. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    Logistics is always boned up for some unexplainable reason !! I would not care to try and count all of the times that operations were halted or endangered by a serious lack of beans and bullets !! I am also sure that, as usual, his intel was old. And like was stated he probably distrusted his scouts to accurately portray his enemy.
  11. G. Green

    G. Green G&G Newbie

    Most of my reading on old time gunmen shows that most of them had an actual professional interest in the tools of their trade and often acquired something that worked best for them.

    Custer: Always an error to judge historical characters that lived in different times by today's ways.
  12. Kodiak32

    Kodiak32 G&G Regular

    A few years before General Custer’s Last Stand, a battle occurred between various Indian Warriors lead by Chief Red Cloud, Crazy Horse against a US Cavalry detachment from Fort Phil Kearney under the command of Major James Powel on July 31st, 1867.

    The Battle sometimes is referred to as the Box Wagon Battle, 32 vs 3000, Batlle of Piney Creek. The number of Indian Warriors involved has been an area of great debate, with estimates ranging from 1500 Warriors to Red Clouds own count of 3,000 Warriors.

    The US count is a well-documented 32 persons, 26 US cavalry soldiers and 6 civilians. The Indians lost and retreated.,15240,120510,00.html

    If you ever come across a book called Indian Fights and Fighters by Cyrus Townsend Brady you will be surprised. This book was printed around 1900 and has first hand accounts of people that were associated with the battle mentioned above or The Battle of Little Big Horn and others.

    It really puts into perspective what Custer saw and why he may have reacted the way he did.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2010
  13. Personally, I think they'd be no more different them most if not all of us are now about and concerning them.

    I also think they'd of been thrilled to see all the choices there now are.

    As previously mentioned, some would rush to get the newest things there was. Be it revolver, rifle, boolit or conversion. They too wanted the best of the best. To make them that much better, quicker or feared.

    I like to think anyhow. lol

    Though Custard, who's mentioned above, sure didn't embrace the newest or the best available to him. As some experts have stated, he just might have survived? Things definitely wouldn't have ended up as bad or as they did I don't think? So, I guess not all embraced or sought the newest and or the best.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2010
  14. As for General Custer, those who have visited his battlefield in South Dakota will really learn a lot. If you are driving nearby, I recommend you take an hour and stop.

    I believe one problem with the Little Big Horn is that Custer underestimated his enemy. He made some tactical mistakes, splitting his forces and moving out of the ready support of Reno.

    There's no way anyone can try to "cook up" the record of the battle to defend Custer.

    Put it plain, he made bad judgments and got his men killed. It is only right that he went down with the men he led into a death trap.

    Unlike General Douglas MacArthur, the famed "dugout Doug," who got his men killed while "observing at 5000 yds, through heavy lenses." Yellow to the core. How this jerk ever got the Congressional Medal of Honor is a travesty.
  15. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    ^ You certainly have a wierd sense of history.Indian tactics of the time were to devide the troops and cut off retreat.That is exactly what Custer did.Don't throw some deal up about General McArther watching his troops slaughtered without verification.Show me any verification in either case that anything you said is substantiated except Custer underestimating his enemy.,,,The truth about MacArther is he tried to stay in the Phillipines but was ordered out and like any good soldier that gets orders he doesn't like,he obeyed orders.A man that amoung other honors won the congressional medal of honor and 8 silver stars is no coward and doesn't deserve the crap you are trying to attribute to him.He was in Australia when the Phillipenes fell,not 5000yds away watching through binoculars.Why,for no reason,do you want to besmirk a really great American hero and leader of men that won great honors in multiple actions defending his country against agressors.It surely makes you feel a little cowardly to do so.Have you ever defended anything besides crap like this that always pops up about truly brave,honorable men that cowards are jealous of so they lie about them and others like you carry the lies on.This is where he got the nickname "Dugout Doug:> He subsequently ordered a retreat to Bataan.[106] Manila was declared an open city and on December 25 MacArthur moved his headquarters to the island fortress of Corregidor in Manila Bay.[107] A series of air raids by the Japanese destroyed all the exposed structures on the island and USAFFE headquarters was moved into the Malinta Tunnel. Later most of the headquarters moved to Bataan, leaving only the nucleus with MacArthur.[108] The troops on Bataan knew that they had been written off but continued to fight. Some blamed Roosevelt and MacArthur for their predicament. A ballad sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" called him "Dugout Doug."[109] However, most clung to the belief that somehow MacArthur "would reach down and pull something out of his hat."[110]> Why do you want to actually belittle yourself by trying to degrade really great men? You can't do it.History speaks for itself,much louder than you and your ilk ever can.
  16. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    At first I was a little angry,but now I just feel sad.Why do a few,(I assume good Americans) want to insult,degrade and otherwise run down great American hero's by lying about them and at the same time make anti gun/anti religeon, perverted, drug sucking, immoral, entertainers,that will lie when the truth would serve them better and repeat tbeir lies and twisted history and make heros out of such as that.
  17. Yeah. A 200-250 gr. lead slug out of a 44-40 or 45 Colt reaching close to 1000fps should do a pretty good job even without todays technology. The original 38-40 round pretty closely matches todays 40 cal. Mark
  18. I am sorry but General McArthur had some serious problems with character.

    The episode that got him the Congressional Medal of Honor cheapened that noble award. McArthur was supposed to be coming ashore under enemy fire. There was no enemy fire. It was all cooked up.

    McArthur was notorious for hanging back at thousands of yards in a dugout, while his subordinates led the troops into hot fire.

    I find it amazing that you can defend this man. You need to go back and refresh your reading of history.

    His own men hated him. Detested him. I assisted a WW II veteran to write a book about the Pacific Campaign. His book was modestly successful-- has sold over 5000 copies so far. He bears out what I've put down here.
  19. BudW

    BudW G&G Evangelist

    First off the battle field is in Montana not South Dakota, 2nd Custer left his most potent weapon the gatling guns big mistake,2nd he split his command despite warnings from scouts of a huge gathering of the Natives, big mistake, earlier Custer was Court-Martial in 1887,he was convicted of 5 charges the most serious leaving his command.
  20. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    RR and BW:Anything can and in this case is written on the internet in forums.Again RR,you make bald statements with no factual accounting.I asked for any verification,you give me your own personal views again with no substantiation.I can't post even contradictory articles now because of Chris' problems over what is posted on here but guarrantee that the info is on the internet if anyone cares to look into it.He was reccomended for the CMO for action in Veracruz and another one for something but didn't get them The MOH he did receive in 1942 was for his leadership pi the Phillipenes before ordered to Australia but only accepted it under the condition that they recognise that it wasn't for him personally but for the brave men that he commanded.This is all documented history and can be found and verified easily.As I said,I would post where but am afraid of getting Chris in trouble.None the less,all anyone needs to do is put General MacArther on their search to find and verify what I have stated.(and debunk most of RR,s ramblings and emaginings) As to Custer,here again are statements with absolutely no factual backing.Custer was "NEVER" courtmarshalled in 1887.They held a court of inquirey for Major Reno in Chicago in 1879 and Benteen testified at it.The inquirey was over why Reno and Bentine didn't act on Custers orders to advance and bring ammo.They were the flank guards.Later enlisted men stated they were "coerced"into giving testimony "gloriying" the two officers.I take that with questions as I have also heard both were pretty busy fighting their own indians.Enlisted men is a poor place to find out what happened for sure.It would all depend on what one or group you asked.At any rate Custer was not courtmarshalled or reviewed personally.He was courtmarshalled in 1867 but that is nothing to do with the battle in 1876.Again if you put "court of inquirey of Major Reno" on your search the info is easy to find.I believe both RR and BW are fine men and members but do not substantiate their vision of this.Telling me about some old vet that has a long harry/scarry story is no documentation,as most that have been there won't talk and the ones that talk usually were never close to what they claim to know all about.(and usually they won the battle single handedly) Most combat vets want to forget,and I feel have the right to do so.I want to thank both RR and BW for discussing this without name calling and such.You are both good men.Anyone intrested can find the facts from multiple sources both in the library and on this internet.