Western Authors: Gun Illiterate?

Indian Outlaw · May 2, 2009, 10:31 AM

It seems Louis L'Amour was a Pietta fan.

From Mojave Crossing:

I see mistakes like this regularly. One author likes to refer to the chambers/flash holes as "cylinders."

Another has his characters loading cartridges into Paterson revolvers. The list goes on. I just smile and keep reading.

**4V50 Gary** · May 2, 2009, 11:04 AM

Hey, someone's got to set the standards for inaccuracy. The tradition lives today in the visual media. Why ruin tradition?

pohill · May 2, 2009, 11:21 AM

Is it the fact that it was called a "pistol" or a ".44 Navy" that's inaccurate?
Even to this day, there are no hard, positive explanations as to why a Navy is a Navy, an Army is an Army, etc. There are theories, myths, but nothing cut in stone.
Louis L'Amour knew many old westeners (Bill Tilghman, for example). His research was in-depth and extensive. If he said it, there was a reason based on fact.

CaptainCrossman · May 2, 2009, 11:41 AM

and oddly enough, the Italian mfrs. are making "44 Navy" revolvers today, and we're buying them

pohill · May 2, 2009, 12:09 PM

I have seen, with my own eyeballs, an original Colt .44 Dragoon with an octagonal barrel. This was at the Colt Collection in the Hartford, Ct. State Library.
Here's one that is sure to drive Cap Cross crazy - a brass framed .44.

Smokin_Gun · May 2, 2009, 12:29 PM

Paterson Cart. Conversion

Indian Outlaw · May 2, 2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Paterson Cart. Conversion

That is too weird.

I have no problem with such a gun being in literature, if the author explains clearly that it's a conversion. Les Savage Jr. neglected to do so, and it was confusing. Oh well. Maybe I'm overly critical 'cause I write fiction.

The ".44 Navy Colt" leaped off the page at me.

Quote:

a brass framed .44.

Yikes! That gun would have blown up had they shot it!

**4V50 Gary** · May 2, 2009, 01:52 PM

I've second thoughts on the subject. Maybe Tuco (Good, Bad & Ugly) assembled the gun?

Smokin_Gun · May 2, 2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Maybe Tuco (Good, Bad & Ugly) assembled the gun?

Hell it ain't that hard to take a Rebated 1860 Army frame, an Army .44 cyl. and a Navy grip with a rebored to .44 cal Navy Octegon barrel together.
I may jus' get me a Kirst gated Konverter 1851/.44 cyl in .45 Scholfield / Colt :O)

pohill · May 2, 2009, 04:40 PM

I wrote to Louis L'Amour in 1980 and asked him a question about his writing, and he wrote back to me. The following is a small part of what he wrote to me:

Quote:

You must remember that many people will read your story, among them will be experts in anything you write about. You have to please them.

He is my favorite writer, hands down.
But, I have seen other examples of incorrect info in novels, and it does drive me a little nuts.

Tom2 · May 2, 2009, 05:30 PM

Maybe the editor screwed up. Maybe someone else misread it and made the mistake in the final print version. Would an author read thru his whole own book to see that army had been changed to navy, and would the publisher do anything about it after they were off the press? He would say "who the hll is gonna know the difference?" Well it is too bad, it can spoil the flow of the story being distracted by mistakes. Or maybe the character was mistaken not the writer. Ha.

Jim Watson · May 2, 2009, 06:11 PM

Few fiction authors are 100% on technical stuff like guns. Even the ones with a good background will let something slip every now and then, or fudge it to advance their plot. The few I have seen to make a point of getting things just so are not first rate storytellers. They tend to dwell on the techtalk too much and break up the flow.

I do remember the Louis L'Amour story about the guy with the Walch Navy 12 shot revolver coming out on top with the extra capacity, though.

Indian Outlaw · May 2, 2009, 06:13 PM

It is weird, because in another story of his -- a Chick Bowdrie story -- he gets it right and calls a certain gun a "Navy Colt in .36 caliber."

Oh, well ... Who am I to judge? They're published and I'm not.

FL-Flinter · May 2, 2009, 08:58 PM

IIRC, it was in "Flint" that Louis had one of the characters who built his own .75cal revolver.

gmatov · May 2, 2009, 10:37 PM

Louis L'Amour was more accurate than most in his descriptions. He studied his story before he wrote it, as well as having lived a lot before beginning to write.

Tramp freighters, professional boxer, whatever.
The '51 was "Of the Naval Caliber", or .36. I don't know if the recent .44 Navy's are true or not. Only looked at one book.

There are writers who are meticulous in their research. Patrick O'Brian, of the John Aubrey, "Master and Commander" movie with Russel Crowe, and Dick Francis with his English jockey books. Both quit writing, well up in years, when their wives died, their chief researchers.

Lots of others haven't a clue as to what they write. Some of the most famous included. Some of whom I have read dozens of their works. And some of them are just plain dorks.

Cheers,

George

FL-Flinter · May 3, 2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

George: Louis L'Amour was more accurate than most in his descriptions. He studied his story before he wrote it, as well as having lived a lot before beginning to write.

That sums it up quite well, L'Amour put a considerable amount of effort into trying to keep his work both technically and historically accurate. One thing most often overlooked is the fact that these are "fiction" novels and not technical historical reference books. Another point overlooked is that over the years there have been quite a number of "small lots" of guns produced for various branches and division within branches of the US Military forces. To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie because 20, 50 & 200 years later and "new" information is still being discovered.

mykeal · May 3, 2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie...

That's a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?
A lie is an intentional misrepresentation; it's entirely possible that the statement claiming something 'never existed' is not an intentional misrepresentation. Is the statement, "The unicorn, being a horse with a single tusk protruding from the forehead, never existed" a lie?

FL-Flinter · May 4, 2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Quote:
To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie...

That's a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?
A lie is an intentional misrepresentation; it's entirely possible that the statement claiming something 'never existed' is not an intentional misrepresentation. Is the statement, "The unicorn, being a horse with a single tusk protruding from the forehead, never existed" a lie?

No, it's not an "overstatement" by any means because it's the same catagory as the statement, "That can't be done." Just be you haven't found something yet or you haven't figured out a way to do it yet does not mean that it "never existed" or "can't be done".

Up until very recently, it was claimed that "Life can never exist in the ocean at depths below 3000 feet because sunlight cannot penetrate any deeper and it's required to sustain life." Low and behold in 1977 that all changed when life was in fact found - not only very much alive but also living quite well - at depths of 7000 feet around thermal volcanic vents near the near the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. In addition to the "can never live at depth thing" this same discovery also disproved the claims that "nothing can live in the sulfur-saturated environment of volcanic vents" and "nothing can live in water that exceeds X temperature."

Thus, the only "overstatement" is the claim of "never".

mykeal · May 4, 2009, 12:59 PM

The issue is intent. Please read my post and address yourself to the issue.

Hawg · May 4, 2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

To say this or that "never existed" is in itself a lie

I would think that if there had ever been a 51 Navy in .44 there would be one in the Colt factory collection. If they had been made in many numbers there would be some floating around.

pohill · May 4, 2009, 07:20 PM

Don't get too wrapped up in Army/Navy designation. Here's a couple quotes on the subject:

The 'Army' and 'Navy' designations cannot reliably be used to determine the branch in which the weapon saw service. Both were used interchangeably by each service. As a matter of fact, the Army bought more of the Colt Navy model than did the Navy.

R.L.Wilson: The designation "Colt 1851 Navy" was applied by collectors, though the popular name "Navy Revolver" is of early origin, as the gun was frequently called the "Colt Revolving Belt Pistol of Naval Caliber.
Despite the "Navy" designation, the revolver was chiefly purchased by civilians and military land forces(ibid Wilson 1985)."

pohill · May 4, 2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

I would think that if there had ever been a 51 Navy in .44 there would be one in the Colt factory collection.

Like I said, I saw, in the Colt Collection at the Connecticut State Library, a
.44 caliber revolver with an octagonal barrel and a hinged loading lever. Was it mass produced? Apparently not. But it existed. In fact, I saw Bigfoot shooting at stumps with that exact same revolver.

CaptainCrossman · May 4, 2009, 07:41 PM

Pohill, how old are you, 9 ?

every one of your posts is a silly flame, and your posts reflect badly on firearms owners in general. We have enough problems with the US Government trying to take away our guns, without you acting an imbecile on the net gun boards- harassing other gun owners, shooters, and hobbyists.

the anti-gunners would have a field day with a guy like you

"look at how immature these guys are, would you trust them with a gun ?"

grow up, act responsibly when you post- you represent gun owners everywhere, with every post

James K · May 4, 2009, 07:42 PM

One of the old time western writers who knew guns was E.B. Mann. Many of his stories have to do with guns and one involves knowing that the Colt SAA and the S&W Schofield have opposite rifling twists.

Colt never produced a "Navy" in .44, though the common 1860 Army used the same frame with only a minor modification. There was at least one experimental Navy in .40 caliber; it was never put into production, but would have been interesting.

Just out of curiosity, why would a .44 with a brass frame blow up, when .36 caliber brass frames don't? Obviously brass was not as strong as the iron commonly used, but it held up well enough for normal use.

The common terms "army" and "navy" seem to have ante-dated Colt. The Navy often used a smaller caliber; the reason given was that the Navy did not have to shoot horses, while that was the normal way to stop a cavalry charge.

Jim

pohill · May 4, 2009, 08:25 PM

Hey, CaptainCrossman, I'm bent over - kiss my arse. What the hell are you talking about? And who the hell do you think you are? If I could pick one person on this forum that should not own a gun, it is you. God help us if you're representative of gun owners, you self serving moron.

May 2, 2009, 10:31 AM	#1
Indian Outlaw Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2008 Location: Behind a computer Posts: 100	Western Authors: Gun Illiterate? It seems Louis L'Amour was a Pietta fan. From Mojave Crossing: I see mistakes like this regularly. One author likes to refer to the chambers/flash holes as "cylinders." Another has his characters loading cartridges into Paterson revolvers. The list goes on. I just smile and keep reading. Last edited by Indian Outlaw; May 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM.

May 2, 2009, 11:04 AM	#2
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,831	Hey, someone's got to set the standards for inaccuracy. The tradition lives today in the visual media. Why ruin tradition? __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

May 2, 2009, 12:29 PM	#6
Smokin_Gun Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2005 Location: Mojave Desert, CA Posts: 1,195	Paterson Cart. Conversion __________________ "I Smoke Black Powder" "Favor an 1858 Remington" SGT. Smokin' Gun, Mosby's Rangers 43rd Virginia Cavalry C.S.A. SASS# 19634, ... Admin:http://blackpowdersmoke.com/oldcoots/index.php

May 2, 2009, 01:52 PM	#8
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,831	I've second thoughts on the subject. Maybe Tuco (Good, Bad & Ugly) assembled the gun? __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

May 2, 2009, 05:30 PM	#11
Tom2 Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 5,676	Maybe the editor screwed up. Maybe someone else misread it and made the mistake in the final print version. Would an author read thru his whole own book to see that army had been changed to navy, and would the publisher do anything about it after they were off the press? He would say "who the hll is gonna know the difference?" Well it is too bad, it can spoil the flow of the story being distracted by mistakes. Or maybe the character was mistaken not the writer. Ha. __________________ Your gun is like your nose, it is just wrong for someone else to pick it for you!

May 2, 2009, 11:21 AM	#3
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	Is it the fact that it was called a "pistol" or a ".44 Navy" that's inaccurate? Even to this day, there are no hard, positive explanations as to why a Navy is a Navy, an Army is an Army, etc. There are theories, myths, but nothing cut in stone. Louis L'Amour knew many old westeners (Bill Tilghman, for example). His research was in-depth and extensive. If he said it, there was a reason based on fact.

May 2, 2009, 11:41 AM	#4
CaptainCrossman Junior member Join Date: April 2, 2009 Posts: 381	and oddly enough, the Italian mfrs. are making "44 Navy" revolvers today, and we're buying them

May 2, 2009, 12:09 PM	#5
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	I have seen, with my own eyeballs, an original Colt .44 Dragoon with an octagonal barrel. This was at the Colt Collection in the Hartford, Ct. State Library. Here's one that is sure to drive Cap Cross crazy - a brass framed .44.

May 2, 2009, 06:11 PM	#12
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,535	Few fiction authors are 100% on technical stuff like guns. Even the ones with a good background will let something slip every now and then, or fudge it to advance their plot. The few I have seen to make a point of getting things just so are not first rate storytellers. They tend to dwell on the techtalk too much and break up the flow. I do remember the Louis L'Amour story about the guy with the Walch Navy 12 shot revolver coming out on top with the extra capacity, though.

May 2, 2009, 06:13 PM	#13
Indian Outlaw Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2008 Location: Behind a computer Posts: 100	It is weird, because in another story of his -- a Chick Bowdrie story -- he gets it right and calls a certain gun a "Navy Colt in .36 caliber." Oh, well ... Who am I to judge? They're published and I'm not. Last edited by Indian Outlaw; May 2, 2009 at 06:58 PM.

May 2, 2009, 08:58 PM	#14
FL-Flinter Senior Member Join Date: June 24, 2007 Location: West Central Florida Posts: 207	IIRC, it was in "Flint" that Louis had one of the characters who built his own .75cal revolver. __________________ "Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything." Harry S. Truman [email protected]

May 2, 2009, 10:37 PM	#15
gmatov Junior member Join Date: September 20, 2005 Posts: 346	Louis L'Amour was more accurate than most in his descriptions. He studied his story before he wrote it, as well as having lived a lot before beginning to write. Tramp freighters, professional boxer, whatever. The '51 was "Of the Naval Caliber", or .36. I don't know if the recent .44 Navy's are true or not. Only looked at one book. There are writers who are meticulous in their research. Patrick O'Brian, of the John Aubrey, "Master and Commander" movie with Russel Crowe, and Dick Francis with his English jockey books. Both quit writing, well up in years, when their wives died, their chief researchers. Lots of others haven't a clue as to what they write. Some of the most famous included. Some of whom I have read dozens of their works. And some of them are just plain dorks. Cheers, George

May 4, 2009, 12:59 PM	#19
mykeal Senior Member Join Date: October 8, 2006 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 2,772	The issue is intent. Please read my post and address yourself to the issue.

May 4, 2009, 07:20 PM	#21
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	Don't get too wrapped up in Army/Navy designation. Here's a couple quotes on the subject: The 'Army' and 'Navy' designations cannot reliably be used to determine the branch in which the weapon saw service. Both were used interchangeably by each service. As a matter of fact, the Army bought more of the Colt Navy model than did the Navy. R.L.Wilson: The designation "Colt 1851 Navy" was applied by collectors, though the popular name "Navy Revolver" is of early origin, as the gun was frequently called the "Colt Revolving Belt Pistol of Naval Caliber. Despite the "Navy" designation, the revolver was chiefly purchased by civilians and military land forces(ibid Wilson 1985)."

May 4, 2009, 07:41 PM	#23
CaptainCrossman Junior member Join Date: April 2, 2009 Posts: 381	Pohill, how old are you, 9 ? every one of your posts is a silly flame, and your posts reflect badly on firearms owners in general. We have enough problems with the US Government trying to take away our guns, without you acting an imbecile on the net gun boards- harassing other gun owners, shooters, and hobbyists. the anti-gunners would have a field day with a guy like you "look at how immature these guys are, would you trust them with a gun ?" grow up, act responsibly when you post- you represent gun owners everywhere, with every post

May 4, 2009, 07:42 PM	#24
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	One of the old time western writers who knew guns was E.B. Mann. Many of his stories have to do with guns and one involves knowing that the Colt SAA and the S&W Schofield have opposite rifling twists. Colt never produced a "Navy" in .44, though the common 1860 Army used the same frame with only a minor modification. There was at least one experimental Navy in .40 caliber; it was never put into production, but would have been interesting. Just out of curiosity, why would a .44 with a brass frame blow up, when .36 caliber brass frames don't? Obviously brass was not as strong as the iron commonly used, but it held up well enough for normal use. The common terms "army" and "navy" seem to have ante-dated Colt. The Navy often used a smaller caliber; the reason given was that the Navy did not have to shoot horses, while that was the normal way to stop a cavalry charge. Jim

May 4, 2009, 08:25 PM	#25
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	Hey, CaptainCrossman, I'm bent over - kiss my arse. What the hell are you talking about? And who the hell do you think you are? If I could pick one person on this forum that should not own a gun, it is you. God help us if you're representative of gun owners, you self serving moron.