I ran across this article re: Wild Bill Hickok's revolver that was supposed to be on him when killed. Evidence looks pretty good.

Is This the Gun Wild Bill was Carrying When He was Murdered in 1876? | Field & Stream

__________________
NRA & TSRA
Texas CHL Holder

Pretty interesting, thanks for sharing.

__________________
Jorge

It is very intyeresting. Some years ago Mr John Otteman purchased a mondel number 2 owed by Wild Bill Hicock. which was quite well documented,The gun was stolen on the late 1990s. Serial# 30619 let me clarify the gun is lost and hopfully still exists. It would be nice to know which is the true Hickcock gun. I have the documentation. Both agree that the the gun was in the possesion of the Willoth family. However according to documentation in my possesion the gun was sold on the death of Mrs. Willoth.This takes us down a different path, I am mearly a collector of data. I think it would be important to know the truth,
Ron Curtis SWCA 20

__________________
www.model2project.com

Yes it's always a gamble to post a article like this because it may be proven to be inaccurate. Anyway I thought it was interesting. Wild Bill probably had several guns like that but who knows if this is the one that he was actually carrying when shot?
I'd like to have a revolver like that no matter what the history.

__________________
NRA & TSRA
Texas CHL Holder

Ron, Is there a typo in that number 30619 ? I remember the gun when John had it and in my notes I have a different serial number. Ed.

Guys, I hate to be the sour grape here, but I'm flying the BS flag on this one.

And to be clear: the story could be true. We have no evidence to suggest that it couldn't be true, given that the gun was shipped to Storrs, and from there could have gone anywhere (as virtually all of these guns did).

But it really seems to hinge on this affidavit, which is really just a fancy name for written-down family folklore. Being notarized and written in legalese doesn't make it any more true. That there is nobody around to dispute it similarly doesn't make it true; it just means that it hasn't been proven false. Of course, grandpa could also have bought this at a pawn shop in the 1930's on a haunch that someone important owned it, and the rest was a great story to tell the kids.

I'm sure at this point that it's being sold with the most honest of intentions, and that the sellers really want to believe this. I would too, if there was a couple hundred thousand dollars in potential gains on the line.

Somewhere I came across a great saying: buy the gun, not the story. Unless I had evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd heed the same advice here.

Mike

The "mystery" here is that most of the same written provenance was with the Otteman gun when the gun was stolen. The gun now in the Bonham auction is not the gun that was stolen, it's a different serial number, but most of the provence documents are the same. So the question is not so much as to whether Wild Bill ever saw this gun, but how did the current possessor of the provenance get the paperwork and why does the current gun in the auction have a different serial number than the Otteman gun? Bonham's has been asked this question and they say that are "investigating." Ed.