Throwing Away Guns on the Emigrant Trails

[Ben]

I was just looking up some history on the Colt 1851 revolver and ran across this bit of text by the National Park Service:

Weapons were considered vital on the emigrant trails. Many men had whole
arsenals after reading about the “Indian problem” in the newspapers. Instead of
firing their guns to protect themselves, often they were the cause of accidents. Hunting
was a pastime that was often unsuccessful although most men wanted to kill a buffalo. After
traveling several hundred miles, it was found that firearms were not as important as assumed
and many guns were discarded along the trail as loads were lightened.

http://www.nps.gov/scbl/planyourvisit/upload/frontier-weapons.pdf


This just seems odd to me. I'm catching an anti-gun tone (oh no - micro-aggression!) which may be my own bias and sensitivity to the firearms issue. But the last part just doesn't make sense to me (the rest of it doesn't make much sense either). Commodities were tight in that period, I would think especially so for those who were making a journey with all their worldly possessions in a wagon. Even if "they had no use for them" I can't see settlers just tossing guns on the side of the trail. They would at least have had to have some significant barter value, making them more valuable than say, an extra cast iron pan or trunk or something (if we use the "lightening the load" argument).

[TechMan]

Yea it doesn't make sense.  I wonder if there is a way to challenge that.

[seeker_two]

With so many trading posts & settlements along the way, I doubt anything as valuable as a firearm was ever discarded. That's better than cash money in those parts.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[TommyGunn]

There were a lot of guns taken west with those who followed the California Trail or the Oregon Trail to the Willamette Valley.  There were also many accidents -- one common type  due to the style of weapon.  Flintlocks and percussion muzzleloaders, with external hammers.   Remember there were no interstates back then or parks and once you got off the "Oregon Tail" (which was well marked by wagon train ruts some made in rock and STILL THERE TODAY)  you were in the wilds.  Pulling a rifle through brush sometimes caused a branch to snag a hammer, or trigger, and *BLAM!* Ol' Trader Sam got it in the hindquarters.  Or the gun owner.  
It wasn't uncommon to have several guns as the quickest reload was a second or third gun, especially prior to repeater rifles.    Throwing them away?  No, not while you still had transportation, for sure.  
Hunting buffalo pretty much became a specialty of buffalo hunters who prefered the big bore Dropping block or rolling block guns in .50-110 calibers but much of this really happened  later in the 19th century.  Those following the trails hunted deer, rabbit, and other food animals which would probably only rarely include buffalo.  Bears were always good for their furcoats.
It's said that it was the "Winchester" rifle that won the west.   In the decades after the Civil War they did become more prevelant, but prior to it was all muzzleloaders.  Even after the repeating rifles, the Henry, Winchesters, Spencers, Kennedy Repeaters, Marlins, etc. came out they were often scoffed at by real hunters as they usually used what we consider pistol caliber (the .44 Henry Flat was powered by 26 grains of BP and not shockingly powerful, its successor the .44-40 only slightly more impressive).  The Sharps and Remingtons in their singleshot capacity but using the large ... "antiaircraft"  shells were more loved by the hunters -- especially those after buffalo.
But the idea of people tossing away guns is silly.  Losing them through accident?  Sure.  
There's a lot of photos extant of people who went off west, who had that photo made to send to family who were staying behind.  It's not odd many of these showed the person holding a flintlock, or percussion rifle or shotgun.  They were saying "don't worry, I'm prepared to defend myself, my wife, my children."

[230RN]

Referring to the Sharps 45-90 in their collection:

The typical load for the 45-90 was a powder charge 90 grains gunpowder with a bullet weighing
400 grams.

Tells me a lot about their "expertise" on firearms matters.  Four hundred grams is almost 6200 grains.

That first article does sound like something from Bellesiles (see REFs), intending to minimize the importance of firearms.

The only way to challenge the statements cited by the OP is to write to them and ask for verification, references, etc.

See also the "Scrutiny" section in the referenced Wiki article to see how we handled the Bellesiles case.

Terry, 230RN

REFs:
Bellesiles--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
Scrutiny--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America#Scrutiny

[White Horseradish]

Dunno about Oregon Trail, but Jack London wrote something like that in the Smoke Bellew stories.

Sometimes he did not make a hundred yards, and each time he struggled to his feet for another short haul the pack became undeniably heavier. He panted for breath, and the sweat streamed from him. Before he had covered a quarter of a mile he stripped off his woollen shirt and hung it on a tree. A little later he discarded his hat. At the end of half a mile he decided he was finished. He had never exerted himself so in his life, and he knew that he was finished. As he sat and panted, his gaze fell upon the big revolver and the heavy cartridge-belt.

"Ten pounds of junk," he sneered, as he unbuckled it.

He did not bother to hang it on a tree, but flung it into the underbush. And as the steady tide of packers flowed by him, up trail and down, he noted that the other tender-feet were beginning to shed their shooting irons.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1596/pg1596.html

[Boomhauer]

The safety aspect, I could definitely see. People have always been careless with firearms.

The jettisoning part, it could be truth, for those on foot, or having to reduce stores after having to leave a wagon behind when it broke.

I don't know much about the historical aspects of the treks west but I do know it was a miserable journey for many.

[Ben]

The safety aspect, I could definitely see. People have always been careless with firearms.

The jettisoning part, it could be truth, for those on foot, or having to reduce stores after having to leave a wagon behind when it broke.

I don't know much about the historical aspects of the treks west but I do know it was a miserable journey for many.

I could see leaving something even as valuable as a firearm on the side of the trail if you were a family alone and lost your wagon or animals. Some of my other reading suggested a common "arsenal" was a rifle, fowling piece, and pistol, so if you suddenly found yourself on foot, you might choose to keep the rifle and jettison the rest.

If you were in a wagon train though, or you had just lost one of your oxen (another piece I read mentioned having to lighten loads because the animals simply became too tired on the Western portion of the trails) it seems you would prioritize a little differently, or maybe trade your firearms to another settler for something of value, but lighter.

But yeah, the westward treks appear to not have been too much of a joyride. The 1930 film, "The Big Trail" has some interesting scenes depicting the hardships.

[MillCreek]

Like the Jack London book above, I have read several books and articles about the massive amounts of goods abandoned along the Chilkoot Trail during the Klondike gold rush.  I can see how for a whole lot of people, the weight and mass of a firearm did not translate into a corresponding benefit, so it was tossed.

[zxcvbob]

Like the Jack London book above, I have read several books and articles about the massive amounts of goods abandoned along the Chilkoot Trail during the Klondike gold rush.  I can see how for a whole lot of people, the weight and mass of a firearm did not translate into a corresponding benefit, so it was tossed.

And yet firearms were the only thing mentioned by the park service (not iron skillets, books, stoneware, etc)  Sounds like propaganda to me.

[Ben]

Like the Jack London book above, I have read several books and articles about the massive amounts of goods abandoned along the Chilkoot Trail during the Klondike gold rush.  I can see how for a whole lot of people, the weight and mass of a firearm did not translate into a corresponding benefit, so it was tossed.

An article on the Oregon Trail specifically mentioned that early settlers wrote letters and even guidebooks for those following from back East with suggestions for travel. One of them was "travel light", with mention of keeping wagon loads under 2000 lbs.

If early travelers were anything like modern travelers, they probably gave lip service to "travel light" but kept their loads at around 1999 lbs. :)  I can see how animals would tire out or drop dead under those loads (not to mention there must have been a bunch of broken wheels and axles).

[Boomhauer]

And yet firearms were the only thing mentioned by the park service (not iron skillets, books, stoneware, etc)  Sounds like propaganda to me.

The PDF is a brochure on frontier firearms, not other household goods. I don't see "propaganda"

[freakazoid]

I don't see something like a firearm having much bartering power when everybody else on the trail probably brought there own.

[seeker_two]

I don't see something like a firearm having much bartering power when everybody else on the trail probably brought there own.

Like any machine, firearms wear out, need repair, get upgraded, etc. Someone who's lived in a settlement on the trail for a few years might look highly on a new gun brought by the incoming tenderfeet.....

....kinda like we do today when we go to the gun show.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't see something like a firearm having much bartering power when everybody else on the trail probably brought there own.

It's a frontier, and it seems we're talking about places not yet reached by rail, or near navigable rivers? Then there's a shortage of pretty much everything made in factories, or by skilled labor.

[vaskidmark]

I could see leaving something even as valuable as a firearm on the side of the trail if you were a family alone and lost your wagon or animals. Some of my other reading suggested a common "arsenal" was a rifle, fowling piece, and pistol, so if you suddenly found yourself on foot, you might choose to keep the rifle and jettison the rest.

...

Kim DuToit, when he was still blogging, ran an almost annual "What gun (historical or modern) would you bring to cross frontier America?" thread.  While there were lots of proponents for handguns and rifles, the consensus seemed to always end up with the shotgun and it's variety of possible loads from birdshot to buckshot to slugs.  Versitility won out over weight.

stay safe.

[TommyGunn]

I could see leaving something even as valuable as a firearm on the side of the trail if you were a family alone and lost your wagon or animals. Some of my other reading suggested a common "arsenal" was a rifle, fowling piece, and pistol, so if you suddenly found yourself on foot, you might choose to keep the rifle and jettison the rest.

If you were in a wagon train though, or you had just lost one of your oxen (another piece I read mentioned having to lighten loads because the animals simply became too tired on the Western portion of the trails) it seems you would prioritize a little differently, or maybe trade your firearms to another settler for something of value, but lighter.

But yeah, the westward treks appear to not have been too much of a joyride. The 1930 film, "The Big Trail" has some interesting scenes depicting the hardships.

There were plenty of graves dug along the Oregon Trail, and the California Trail.
For an interesting read see Honoré Morrow's book "On To Oregon" which recounts the Sager Family's trek from Missouri to Oregon in the 1840s.

[HankB]

I don't see something like a firearm having much bartering power when everybody else on the trail probably brought there own.

You might be able to trade a firearm to an Indian for some pemmican . . .