Post Civil War guns in America

[ISCS Yoda]

An item cropped up on television the other day that I didn't quite understand. It said:

Due to technological advancements of rifles, gun ownership in America became widespread after the Civil War.

(c) The History Channel 2019

That simply does not make sense to me. What did technological changes to rifles do to increase gun ownership in America? I would have said technological changes in handguns increased gun ownership BEFORE the Civil War. Post Civil War the various Winchester lever guns became popular, with the 1866 being available directly after the war, but, still, I'd have guessed handguns were far more popular and numerous after the 1849 gold rush.

Did Americans suddenly start buying numerous quantities of rifles due to the availability of "high capacity" tubular magazines?

I guess I need a history lesson.

 

[wetdog1911]

No, due to the availability of self contained metallic cartridges and guns that could fire them.

Light years ahead of percussion muzzle loaders.

Rob

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

A few points to consider:

Guns, post CW were made on equipment that had been paid off by the war production.

The costs in "% of income" went down, due to large quantities of surplus arms.

For a very long time after the Civil War, most people that had a handgun, had a cap and ball revolver, and a cartridge shotgun. The reason? people trying to kill you, is much less common than starvation trying to kill you!

Ivan

 

[THE PILGRIM]

I would think that the sale of Civil War surplus guns might spread the ownership.
Even lots of us Confederates were allowed to take guns home.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

No, due to the availability of self contained metallic cartridges and guns that could fire them.

Light years ahead of percussion muzzle loaders.

THAT makes sense.

I don't imagine too may Confederate Soldiers went home with Henry rifles but Union Soldiers did, I am sure. If the USA sold war surplus that would make some sense, too. A year later the 1866 was available and there you have it, metallic cartridges in a high capacity, tubular magazine that was easy to load from the side of the rifle.

Two plus two makes four. Yup. Now I feel better about the matter!

 

[armadillo]

Maybe the technology of mass production made them more affordable. Prior to the Civil War almost all civilian firearms were hand made.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Maybe the technology of mass production made them more affordable. Prior to the Civil War almost all civilian firearms were hand made.

I like that but since everyone gives credit to Henry Ford in re mass production I am uncertain if it really applies.

 

[UncleEd]

Supposedly Remington developed a mass
production method for rifles in the 1820s or
1830s thus allowing a certain amount of
interchangeability of parts from one rifle to another.

Anything that speeds production and assembly
in theory should bring down costs and increase
availability.

With that said, perhaps guns today with MIM parts
and castings should cost pennies instead of dollars.
Or not.

 

[Absalom]

Supposedly Remington developed a mass
production method for rifles in the 1820s or
1830s thus allowing a certain amount of
interchangeability of parts from one rifle to another.

Much earlier.

That was actually Eli Whitney, who is better known for inventing the cotton gin in 1794 , but should probably be more famous for what became known as his “American System”: Assembling muskets entirely from non-fitted interchangeable parts.

In 1801 he went to Washington and dumped piles of flintlock parts before government officials, proceeding to assemble locks from randomly selected components, and had his audience do the same. By the War of 1812, Whitney had won contracts for tens of thousands of muskets, and the American system spread throughout manufacturing.

PS: Before smarter folks start nitpicking, this is the junior high US History version. While the 1801 meeting did happen, the evolution of the idea of interchangeability in Europe and America was likely considerably more complex and less reliant on Whitney’s “genius”.

 

[wetdog1911]

I would think that the sale of Civil War surplus guns might spread the ownership.
Even lots of us Confederates were allowed to take guns home.

Yeah, I have one that was a barn find in rural GA. Neat, but it is basically a .69 cal shotgun with a very long bbl. There is no rifling and no sights and no comparison to what the Union had with rifled bbls and at least serviceable sights. Even surplus, I doubt if the North would let these superior weapons head south. I'd have to dig it out to be sure, but IIRC it is a Springfield Model of 1812.

I think Ivan the butcher has a valid point, even a single shot shotgun using self contained shells would be miles ahead of either percussion weapon for putting food on the table.

Rob

 

[UncleEd]

The ".69 cal shotgun" sounds more like a garden
variety musket.

 

[Frank46]

Post civil war would include the Peabody carbine and full sized rifles. Every once in awhile I disassemble my Peabody carbing in 56-50 rimfire and sit and look at the machining done to make it. Action is in good shape and can definitle fire, however the bore is in suprisingly good shape.The gent who made these rifles is no longer doing any kind of work. Retired and moved to Colorado. Frank

 

[Racer X]

Much earlier.

That was actually Eli Whitney, who is better known for inventing the cotton gin in 1794 , but should probably be more famous for what became known as his “American System”: Assembling muskets entirely from non-fitted interchangeable parts.

In 1801 he went to Washington and dumped piles of flintlock parts before government officials, proceeding to assemble locks from randomly selected components, and had his audience do the same. By the War of 1812, Whitney had won contracts for tens of thousands of muskets, and the American system spread throughout manufacturing.

PS: Before smarter folks start nitpicking, this is the junior high US History version. While the 1801 meeting did happen, the evolution of the idea of interchangeability in Europe and America was likely considerably more complex and less reliant on Whitney’s “genius”.

True. I am a descendant of Eli Whitney. And the first batch of Colt revolvers were subcontracted to Eli Whitney, as Colt didn't have the capacity yet. 1847 I believe.

 

[Alpo]

1847 would be the Walker. I've heard them called Whitneyville Walkers, so have always presumed that Whitney had something to do with them.


But "the first Colt revolvers" were the 1838 Pattersons.

 

[wetdog1911]

The ".69 cal shotgun" sounds more like a garden
variety musket.

Exactly what it is, a garden variety musket. A rifled musket along with the hollow base Minney (?) ball and even rudimentary sights easily outclasses it. Have one and a round ball that were exposed after rain storms found outside of Decatur by my Grandfather many years ago.

Rob

 

[Bullet Bob]

"I like that but since everyone gives credit to Henry Ford in re mass production I am uncertain if it really applies."

Which is why "everyone" should pay more attention in history class.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Let's keep things in perspective . As historically minded late 20th Century gun enthusiasts , we can use 20/20 hindsight to focus on guns that are really cool , or poised to have eventual lasting impact . But that's not the same thing as what Joe Average would have used back in the day . Then as now, most people weren't dedicated gun enthusiasts , but wanted practical utility firearms that were cost effective .

Those .69cal muskets were just the ticket for the farmer / rural person with just one gun . Load with shot , it's a credible shotgun . Load with round ball, it's a credible " rifle" , out to as far as you would shoot a deer in the woods .

Actual Rifle , whatever the US Gov't sold off into the surplus market in a breech loader .

Handguns ? In newly mfg pistols, SAA were exponentially out sold by various .38, .32, and .22 solid frame and topbreak revolvers . If then wanted a full size belt gun , the various Colt and Remington Cap & Ball revolvers with a local gunsmith ctg conversion were way more affordable than new mfg SAA, or S&W big bore topbreak ,.

 

[Absalom]

Coming back to the original statement which triggered the OP’s question:

From the various angles that have been addressed in this thread, it seems to me that, before spending too much energy trying to figure out why it is true, we should ask whether it is.

To prove the cause and effect which the statement claims, namely that improvements in rifle technology led to widespread gun ownership after the Civil War, you’d have to show

a) that the rate of guns owned by Americans per capita increased significantly after the Civil War,
B) that this increase was driven by Americans buying more rifles,
C) and that they did so because of advances in rifle technology rather than other factors.

I guess any or all of these things could be true, but I find none particularly compelling, so unless I see some verifiable numbers confirming this, I’m not going to treat it as fact.

 

[elm_creek_smith]

US military Spencer rifles and carbines were sent to one or more of the arsenals for refurbishment and storage after the Civil War. With the movement westward and the dislike of "repeaters" by the Ordnance Department and certain generals, the Arsenal's were emptied of Spencers to be sold for a pittance to emmigrants. The price set by the government was so low that it drove Spencer out of business. The Army soldiered on with various Springfield rifled muskets and carbines until the "Trapdoors" were approved for issue.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I would suggest the industrial mobilization in the North made manufacture and economies of scale more economically efficient.