flintlocks and cartridge guns

[Jake MacReedy]

B.R., according to my research, the only cartridge conversion revolvers being made prior to 1870 were the Remington New Model Army revolvers contracted by B. Kittredge & Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio with Remington and Smith & Wesson (for use of the Rollin White patent for bored-through cylinders, which they owned).  This covered several thousand revolvers, all 5-shot .46 Rimfire,  with production starting in 1868, but they were not in common usage, even by the end of the 1860's.  I realize that Mess'rs. Smith & Wesson started looking into producing their #3 .44 American in the 1868-9 time period, but, again, not in common usage until the early 1870's.  If we are talking the decade of the 1860's, up to 1870, then cap-and-ball revolvers are the norm.

Just my $0.02 worth!
Jake

[Ranch 13]

Howdy!
I don't think the date range should be extended further.  Cartridge firearms are already well represented in Cowboy Action Shooting (SASS and NCOWS), rather this is for the earlier cap and ball revolvers and muzzle loading rifles. 
(Cap and ball revolvers are also allowed in SASS, but are extremely rare in comparison to cartridge guns.)

That's where some confusion may be coming in? The period prior to the 1860's is/has been covered pretty well for a couple/four  of decades in various muzzleloading /buckskinning shoots and events.

[Jake MacReedy]

Ranch13, I beg to disagree.  The period of about 1750-1840 has been well-represented in reenactment and buckskinning groups, and of, course, so has the Civil War.  But the period of which we are speaking, 1840-1865 (non-Civil War), has had very little representation in either reenactment or buckskinning groups.  I grew up with muzzleloading and cap-and-ball firearms, and was around the NMLRA for decades...am still a member, and set up as a vendor at Friendship, Indiana, when I have the opportunity.  This period of time has never had the representation it deserves, thus the American Plainsmen Society.

Regards,
Jake

[Ranch 13]

Jake, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because the majority of the "rondezvous" in the Rocky Mtn West and the upper great plains cover about as much of the post 1840 era as the pre 1840 era.
  I'm still waiting for a good explanation as to just exactly what was so different about the 20 years between the end of the fur trade and the Civil War Era? Except of course there wasn't a market for beaver plew, the hide trade was still alive and well. Prospectors came and went, and settlers were still expanding slowly outward from the population centers.

[Jake MacReedy]

Guess we will.  All of the rendezvous with which I'm familiar, either by being there or the advertising for same, almost always specifies "Pre-1840 only."  Maybe there's been a big change in the last 7 years or so...I've been rather busy overseas.

As to the second part, about the difference in this era: well, if you feel there is no difference, then this is obviously not for you, sir.  Then the question becomes, why keep asking what the difference is, if it doesn't really matter to you, and you believe there is none?

Regards,
Jake

[Ranch 13]

 ;)If you can't answer the question Jake then don't try and put anything on me. I asked an honest question others have asked it as well, and so far nothing  but a bit of smak talk from you. sir.

[Jake MacReedy]

Let's start here: the production and use of Colt's revolvers in their various forms.  The production and use of percussion firearms in martial and civilian use on a large scale.  The era of Manifest Destiny, and the beginnings of western migration on a more than casual or business-related basis (as with the Fur Trade).  The era of the Gold Rush in California, and the west-bound travel that entailed.  The era of the Oregon Trail, and it's use to help settle the Northwest.  I'm sure you can come up with some yourself, sir.  As to owing you an explanation of why I am interested in a certain time period, well, I don't.  No one here owes you an explanation for this at all.  If it sounds like I'm being "testy", well, I am.  You, sir have come across as being more than a little "testy" in a number of your posts.  My point is this, and remains this: if you don't think there is any reason to be interested in this time period, and wish to do nothing more than point out that you believe this is so,then why are you bothering to ask at all?  I have listed some of the reasons why I am interested in it.

Regards,
Jake
aka Ron Clark (out of Texas, writing from Kirkuk, Iraq)   

[Ranch 13]

Just what exactly is your definition of a Plainsman? Jake?

[Jake MacReedy]

A plainsman is someone who made their living in that vast area west of the Mssissippi, stretching clear over to the Pacific Ocean.  That is how I view it in the context of what is envisioned for the American Plainsmen Society.  Are there narrower, more concise definitions out there? Yes, there are. One would be someone working as a scout, guide or hunter on what we term the Great Plains of Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado and Eastern Wyoming, on up into the Dakotas, and even into the Canadian Great Plains. A "buffalo runner" of the 1850's could be considered one, as could the freighters on the Santa Fe Trail.  What is envisioned here is having a group that acts as an umbrella for the 1840-1865 time period.

As I said, we are stretching the definition to include those who went west of the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas, in search of new homes and new hunting grounds, as well as those who lived and hunted along what is now the southern border of the United States.

And, of course, Merriam-Webster's official definition: an inhabitant of the plains (origin: Great Plains + man, terms first known use:1870, which, of course post-dates out groups time frame)

Regards,
Jake

[Comanche Kid]

+5 to Jake,
                 Gents, Let's try and keep this on a civil manner. You are starting to remind me of all the other forums.

Jake, Keep Your Powder dry and keep safe..I'm a Veteran of "The Suck" Myself...Thank You for You service....

[Jake MacReedy]

As Comache Kid, said, this exchange is getting nowhere fast.  I will not change your mind, and you will not change mine.  As before, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Been a long night over here, and it's time to get some sleep.  Fire away, Ranch!  It's all yours pard!  Wasted enough of my time dealing with you for one day.

Your "emoticons" are quite cute, by the way...nice touch.

Regards & Out,
Jake

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I have two points;

1.  Please remain civil!

2.  I am another Pard that is having trouble with the details.  When this board first came up I felt it filled in a gap in our living history field.  Now I am having perplexion problems!  This time slot was a period of rapid transition both in technology and in society, and it will lead to debates about what is in and what is not.  If it is left open there will be endless attempts to use a variety of items.  If rules are tightly regulated frustration could set in.

The options are;
a. if a member can prove that it was in (common?) use, bring it and run with it.
b. Set out lists of approved and not-approved kit and stick with it.

Keep up the debate, but be kind to each other.  I hope this can work.

[St. George]

I'll reiterate what Sir Charles said - keep these discussions polite, and keep them focused.

The thing that most folks are missing is the 'Is There a Perceived Need?' - since the Buckskinning and Civil War folks cover much of the era, and NCOWS already has usable guidelines.

Essentially, this is what NCOWS covers authenticity-wise - but with percussion caps added...

Yes - Westward Expansion and the Gold Rush were pivotal - as was the Pony Express and the ever-expanding freighting and railroading operations - those were what filled much of the West, until the veterans of the Civil War wanted new starts, and left behind the battlefields and shattered communities to begin anew, but what most folks 'understand' are the Indian Wars and the Trail Drives, and it's those two things that 'are' the Old West to them.

This short timespan saw many innovations - but if the organization is to build, it needs to offer something truly unique - unique enough to buy the weapons and outfits and build Impressions, and all just to fill a very small niche.

Stay polite and get focused through  intelligent, well-reasoned and well-referenced  discourse.

Good Luck!

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Caleb Hobbs]

I deleted a couple of the more recent posts that did nothing to further the discussion. Jake did a fine job explaining what we're attempting, and it's been covered in several earlier posts, as well. We've got a governing body of folks in place who are excited to see this grow, but it's like I've also said before, we won't be for everyone.

I'm going to lock this thread. It isn't serving any purpose in the direction it's headed now.

Caleb

A plainsman is someone who made their living in that vast area west of the Mssissippi, stretching clear over to the Pacific Ocean.  That is how I view it in the context of what is envisioned for the American Plainsmen Society.  Are there narrower, more concise definitions out there? Yes, there are. One would be someone working as a scout, guide or hunter on what we term the Great Plains of Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado and Eastern Wyoming, on up into the Dakotas, and even into the Canadian Great Plains. A "buffalo runner" of the 1850's could be considered one, as could the freighters on the Santa Fe Trail.  What is envisioned here is having a group that acts as an umbrella for the 1840-1865 time period.

As I said, we are stretching the definition to include those who went west of the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas, in search of new homes and new hunting grounds, as well as those who lived and hunted along what is now the southern border of the United States.

And, of course, Merriam-Webster's official definition: an inhabitant of the plains (origin: Great Plains + man, terms first known use:1870, which, of course post-dates out groups time frame)

Regards,
Jake