Old west gun safety

[Steel Hayes]

I know we’ve all seen great western movies with spinning,twirling shiny 6 shooters.
In the modern day there is a lot of emphasis on gun safety, how prevalent would gun safety have been 150 years ago?

 

[rodwha]

Most revolvers seemed to have had some form of safety, though I’d guess that’s due to government requirements to purchase.

 

[expat_alaska]

Most revolvers seemed to have had some form of safety, though I’d guess that’s due to government requirements to purchase.

Steel, I don't have an answer to your question, but I will respond to rodwha's post to a small extent.

Taking the 1851 Navy .36 "type" pistols as my sole examples, Colt included safety pins at the rear of the cylinder in between chambers that fit a notch in the hammer. Manhattan Firearms Company patented a 12 stop slot cylinder in 1859 which was much more positive than the fragile Colt pins.

When the ACW started, Confederate manufacturers could not care less about Union patent infringement. Leech & Rigdon's contract for 1500 pistols ceased having the pins around S/N 1100 or so. When the contract was fulfilled by Charles Rigdon, he immediately started producing pistols with 12 stop slot cylinders until he quit the business, having produced ~2300 pistols in all forms. As Rigdon started with the new cylinder sometime after the Augusta Machine Works pistols with the 12 stop slot cylinders, some say he just took that idea for his guns.

Again, Steel, it is probably not what you are looking for.

I think gun safety then amounted to turning in your guns to the marshal/sheriff when in town and picking them up when leaving town.

Jim

 

[Steel Hayes]

Not really looking for an answer, more of a discussion topic. Just one of those random thoughts that popped in.
For instance, trigger control, actually loading 5 for hammer safety.
Did people see gun safety in a different light back then than in today’s society?

 

[Sistema1927]

Nobody was following trigger safety protocol when I started shooting so I am guessing that it was non-existent in the 19th century, especially with single-action weapons. Most holsters did not cover the trigger. No problems with stuffing your guns in a pocket or a sash or a belt. What the heck was a "pocket holster"? I bet that you can't find mention of one until late in the 20th century. No eye or ear protection either. Muzzle discipline? Probably not much of that either.

Load 5? Yes, until you loaded 6.

I am guessing that there were far more negligent discharges back then.

 

[AlexanderA]

I am guessing that there were far more negligent discharges back then.

I think that's right, and also that people didn't get as worked up about accidental deaths. Life in general was cheaper then. People didn't live as long as they do now, in the best of circumstances. And then you look at the casualty rates of the Civil War. Losses like that were accepted then, when they probably wouldn't be accepted now.

Look at period studio photographs of soldiers from the Civil War. Many of them are holding handguns (which, btw, were usually supplied as props by the photographers). I don't recall seeing any period photograph in which the subject was exercising what we would call modern trigger discipline.

 

[labnoti]

more often than not, the safety procedure of choice was to ban guns (from town)

 

[arcticap]

I know we’ve all seen great western movies with spinning,twirling shiny 6 shooters.
In the modern day there is a lot of emphasis on gun safety, how prevalent would gun safety have been 150 years ago?

The question may have a bit of unintentional irony, that is it's a "loaded question" [pun], considering that 150 years ago was 1868, the same year that the 14th Amendment was adopted.

Through "incorporation" by the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment is how most of the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments) are applied to the states, and that has recently also
included the 2nd Amendment through landmark Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010, that upheld the right of individuals to possess guns for self-defense.

So important seeds emphasizing the safety of gun ownership were indeed sown 150 years ago which have most importantly, been legally expanded and grown ever since.

 

[Mike OTDP]

They took safety seriously. But they also understood the technology. Percussion single-action revolvers were carried with the hammer down...on a pin or in a notch that locked the cylinder. DA revolvers like the Adams had a hammer block.

The flossy twirling...pure Hollywood. Pay it no attention.

 

[Steel Hayes]

https://www.quora.com/Did-gunslinge...llets-to-keep-the-firing-pin-off-a-live-round

An interesting read.

 

[Sistema1927]

They took safety seriously.

Really?

The same people who bought narcotics over the counter, put children into mines, and sailed the world in leaky old wooden ships?

 

[cheygriz]

Gun safety was non existent.

One of the main causes of death on the wagon trains was firearms accidents.

 

[MikeJackmin]

This chart only go back to 1933, but it is instructive:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...al-firearms-accident-rate-reaches-record-low/

 

[WestKentucky]

The people were more mindful back then because literally everything could kill them slowly and painfully. An infection from an injury turns into gangrene which turns into a coffin. They were cautious, had common sense, and had grit. 22 rimfire was supposedly one of the most feared guns because it was highly unlikely to kill quickly or lead to an easy death.

 

[woodnbow]

The people were more mindful back then because literally everything could kill them slowly and painfully. An infection from an injury turns into gangrene which turns into a coffin. They were cautious, had common sense, and had grit. 22 rimfire was supposedly one of the most feared guns because it was highly unlikely to kill quickly or lead to an easy death.

I dunno, I’m old enough to remember quite a few uncles and older men who were missing various appendages due to accidents around farm machinery. And I also know more than a few people who were injured by firearms, hunting accidents and the like. People used to have a much more cavalier attitude towards safety of any kind.

 

[Slamfire]

Gun safety was non existent.

One of the main causes of death on the wagon trains was firearms accidents.

Yupe. If they were not dying of disease, they were shooting themselves, or others, by accident.

You just have to read period Cowboy books to understand the good old days were rotten. Injuries and deaths due to accidents were not uncommon:



I love the humor in this, but this cartoon artist created a lot a cartoons with funny accidents. Some of which had to occur in real life:



Recently read about the logistics of food distribution and food evolution in New York City from the Federal period to WW2. People today have no idea how dangerous it was to live in the past. One of five died in infancy. Cholera, typhus, yellow fever epidemics swept through the land, heat waves killed thousands, fires burnt down whole towns. Compared to that, who cares about the occasional accidental shooting?. Especially when the culture was very Calvinistic: God protected the just, and the unjust got what was coming to them! This was one of the less appealing parts of Calvinism to me, that is the belief that the Select were protected by God, therefore you could identify the damned by the misfortunes in their life. Must have been a lot of smug, self righteous individuals worrying about whether the wagon wheel would come off their buggy!

I recall Elmer Keith writing about accidental discharges with Colt SAA's, all pistols with the hammer down and six cartridges in the chamber. Keith started writing in the 1920's, and he knew old timers from the Civil War and through the great Cattle Drive era.

Some of the posters here have been to the Middle East. Bud's who have gone tell me the culture has a "it was written" safety attitude. Which is to say, God willed, or wills the accidents to happen, with the consequence that the road ways are dangerous to be on, and work places ignore safety protocols.

 

[grter]

Slide safeties on revolvers, half cock notches, safety slots and pins. The practice of only loading 5 in a 6 shot revolver cylinder with the hammer resting on an empty chamber. The military had often demanded their arms be made with safeties and or safety features. This is not only in the United States but all over the world.

While there may not have been as much or perhaps nearly as much universaly set safety standards like today, I am sure most people back then were quite aware of safety and either developed a set of standards that worked for them or suffered the consequences for not doing so.

I don't believe they had a cavalier attitude towards safety. Times were rougher without the benefits of proper medical care out in the middle of nowhere and without the benefits of enforced safety standards such as OSHA for example. I think the higher morbidity and mortality was a result of they way these people lived and not necessarily due to faults of their own more so than people are willing to admit.

Maybe one can confuse the familiarity these old people have with death and morbidity due to living in those times as having a cavalier attitude but I think it was very real to them. I think the fact that manufacturers of firearms in that time period spent a good deal of research, development, and money in a time when there were no regulations requiring them to proves that people were willing to spend money (something often not in abundance back then) on safety.

 

[IlikeSA]

The gun spinning the OP mentioned happened, and was frowned upon by the real gunslingers at the time.

Wyatt Earp stated that "the most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the winner of a gunplay usually was the man who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live long on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting — grandstand play — as I would poison. When I say that I learned to take my time in a gunfight, I do not wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that split fraction of a second that means the difference between deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss. It is hard to make this clear to a man who has never been in a gunfight. Perhaps I can best describe such time taking as going into action with the greatest speed of which a man’s muscles are capable, but mentally unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated nervous and muscular actions which trick-shooting involves. Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster than thought, is what I mean.”

I don't believe that people were more cavalier than now, but that they were ignorant of better techniques. They were transitioning from single shot pistols and rifles to single action revolvers and lever rifles.

 

[forward observer]

Here's a story reported in the town newspaper in Wichita when an accidental discharge happened to none other than Wyatt Earp himself. Earp was seated in one of the saloons, when his revolver slipped from his holster and went off because the hammer was resting on a live round. No one was hurt, but Earp did get a bullet hole put in his coat.

Later on he was quoted that professionals in the business always only loaded 5 for safety and convinced the biographer to leave the incident out since he was embarrassed about it. Of course this was the first Stuart Lake biography which is considered to be mostly made up fiction just to sell books and make Earp out to be more of a hero than he ever was in real life.

It's the second example of a dropped firearm discharge in the article.
https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/dropped-gun-inertia-discharge/

I've seen several discussions and debates about whether the old timers followed the accepted safety rule for SAA's of only loading 5. The general consensus always was that most probably did. However, most also agreed that if the person carrying knew they were about to enter into a possible prolonged gun battle they probably would suspend the rule until the danger had passed.
Cheers

 

[edwardware]

One of the main causes of death on the wagon trains was firearms accidents.

Citation needed.

If true, this would be fascinating and surprising.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Nobody was following trigger safety protocol when I started shooting so I am guessing that it was non-existent in the 19th century, especially with single-action weapons. Most holsters did not cover the trigger. No problems with stuffing your guns in a pocket or a sash or a belt. What the heck was a "pocket holster"? I bet that you can't find mention of one until late in the 20th century. No eye or ear protection either. Muzzle discipline? Probably not much of that either.

Load 5? Yes, until you loaded 6.

I am guessing that there were far more negligent discharges back then.

I have been a long time collector and maker of authentic reproductions of 19th and 20th century gun leather. Much of what you just said about holsters is misleading. Many did have the throat profile that exposed the trigger itself but that was on single actions. Most any holster made for early double actions has the gun set very deep or a full flap covering the gun. The holsters with the whole trigger guard showing, fast draw style was non existent in the "real" old west. That is all hollywood invention.

Sure a lot of guns were carried unsafely in pockets or sashes but the holsters that did exist provided a lot of protection and coverage of the guns

 

[Slamfire]

I am sure most people back then were quite aware of safety and either developed a set of standards that worked for them or suffered the consequences for not doing so.

Our safety standards were developed because people got tired of being injured and killed by defective products shoveled out the door by amoral profit maximizing entities. Regulation has always been resisted. Study your history, and observe the world now. Safety requires thought, requires effort, and that costs money. It is far more profitable to shovel dangerous junk out the door and blame the user when something goes bad.

How do you like the post anti biotic world? Pray that this blast from the past does not bite you.

I've seen several discussions and debates about whether the old timers followed the accepted safety rule for SAA's of only loading 5. The general consensus always was that most probably did.

I am going to claim, that most did not. Unless they went to a firearms safety school (which is a modern concept) where would that have been taught? I would like to see warnings in period manuals, or literature, to load only five rounds and put the hammer on an empty. I am certain, they don't exist. And why should they? Where is the profit in creating warnings, in an era in which there is no liability for defective designs?

 

[cheygriz]

Citation needed.

If true, this would be fascinating and surprising.

Read this before the internet was available. Several books from University of Nebraska press.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nervous emigrants - fearful from stories about Indians and wild animals - were heavily armed, and carried loaded guns with no safety devices in jostling wagons. Accidental shootings were not uncommon. Inexperienced hunters shot wildly while pursuing antelope and buffalo, and weary guards sometimes mistakenly shot their comrades believing they saw a thief, a rustler, or a wild animal in the shadows around a wagon camp.

The above is excerpted from the National Historic Trail Interpretive Center

 

[Sistema1927]

Some of are old enough to remember that cars didn't have seat belts, or crumple zones. Steering wheels were hard, edges on dash boards were sharp with protruding knobs. We rode in the back of open pickup trucks (often standing up looking over the roof), babies were carried on laps, etc.

In other words, we did things that are unthinkable today.

Why do I share this? Because I have seen a tendency on this thread to impose our modern safety practices on those living 150 years ago. We think that it is "common sense" to do these things, but recognize that nobody was yelling "trigger, Trigger, TRIGGER!!" even 40 years ago. Gun safety was pretty abysmal, and accidents were common.

 

[cheygriz]

Regardless of the subject, it is wrong to judge any person in the past by today's standards. We wouldn't dream of giving a very excited small child a shot of whiskey before putting them to bed, but that was common practice when I was a child.

Our ancestors were men of their time, not men of today. They should be judged by the social mores of their time, not ours.