Of Modified Guns and Historical Accuracy

[Cypress Sam, SASS #10915]

Most if not all of the advancements in firearms design most likely came from someone modifying an existing design. The cowboys and lawmen of the Old West weren't the ones who were coming up with the new designs. But the professionals in Gunsmithing and firearms manufacturing were always striving to improve their products. There has always been a desire to make guns shoot faster and straighter.

 

John Browning worked in the family's shop, J.M. Browning & Bros., in Ogden Utah during the "Old West" period. His story is well known among gun fanciers. To look at a picture of the building advertizing "Guns, Pistols, Amunition (sic.), & Fishing Tackle" it's hard to believe that some of the people who lived by the gun didn't come in and ask that their guns be "slicked up".

 

There is a picture of a Winchester Model 1873 in my copy of "Small Arms of the World" on page 116 that shows a John Browning modification converting the rifle to a gas operated semi auto. It wasn't practical for "street use", but it was the forerunner of the Colt/Browning Model 1895 "Potato Digger" machine gun.

 

Browning also designed and produced a single shot rifle that became the Winchester Model of 1878 and later the Model 1885. The work on these guns was exemplary and to my thinking better than anything available today. (As a sad aside, I owned a Model of 1878 and after 20 years sold it for a fraction of it's value before I found out what I had!)

 

Another inventor, Hiram Maxim, converted a Winchester Model 66 to a recoil operated semi auto in 1883. According to "Small Arms of the World" pgs 106 & 107, these guns were commercially manufactured and sold to the Turkish army, with specimens sometimes turning up in collections throughout Europe.

 

Back in "the day" people weren't trying to modify guns to meet some rule. They were just trying to improve on a product to gain a competitive advantage, just like business people do today.

 

The point is that if some old west lawman or outlaw just happened to ride through Ogden Utah and see the Browning Bros shop and ask them what JB could do to make his guns run better: What do you think the result would be? I would be very surprised if John Browning didn't come up with an action job that make all of us drool!

[The Shoer 27979]

Well said Cypress Sam

[Smithy]

Cypress Sam you are most probably correct in all your assumptions about Browning and his shop work. I've always had the urge to monkey or tinker with guns ever since I could remember, sometimes with impressive results and sometimes not and expensive results. I learned lessons either way. I had a close machinist friend when I use to live in San Luis Obispo, CA and whenever my project required technical work beyond my capabilities I would go to him and direct him to finish the job. I remember making shrouded barreled MK1 Rugers with Dan Wesson shrouds before Vollquartsons (sp)ever started their "tensioned barrels" and such. We've made a few "shopkeepers specials" out of Ruger Old Armies with short barrels and birdshead gripframes. 77-22's with stock inletted lasers. I was even working on a gas operated semi-auto single action revolver before I moved. The guy was great. Not a gunsmith by trade, just a machinist. I would go in with an idea for a gun project and he would come up with the mechanics necessary for it to happen and be able to happen ie. be machined. Browning was just one step further. He had the quick thinking mind of my machinist friend, but he also knew anything and everything about firearms to boot. What a combination! Smithy.

[August West, SASS #45079]

And, all this time, I thought Browning was the baker who invented brownies.

 

The stuff you learn on the wire...

[Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life]

And, all this time, I thought Browning was the baker who invented brownies.

 

The stuff you learn on the wire...

 

 

You ought to know better than that... JB was the fella who led a raid on the Harper Fairies.

 

ts

[Buffalo Dick, SASS #12880]

I have an old book at home on "Gunsmithing the Colt Frontier" (title may not be quite correct) as the Single Action Army is also known. I believe that the book's first edition was published in the 1940's. In one part of the book the author discusses the changes needed to short-stroke the action. The discussion is matter-of-fact and presented in a way that suggests that this is not difficult, unusual nor remarkable. This is many years before the introduction of the second generation guns and long before Cowboy action shooting was even a notion. Since the guns weren't even being produced then and there would seem to be little reason for people working to develop these guns for speed at that time, the impression I got was that the author was sharing information about a process that had been around for quite some time. When I get home tonight I'll dig it out and provide more specific info about the book and author, but it seems that some things that are considered new and non-traditional may have been around longer than we realize.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Howdy

 

It's a nice premise, but frankly it does not hold much water. At least as far as 'slicking up' guns is concerned.

 

I have read extensively about Browning. His father was a gunsmith and John M and his brothers learned the trade at their father's knee. Frankly, most of a gunsmith's time back then was spent no differently than most gunsmiths' time is spent today. Repairing firearms, not 'slicking them up'. Ogden Utah at the time was a small backwater town. John M's father spent most of his time repairing broken guns belonging to local hunters and trappers. He did design an interesting rifle with a siding block mechanism, but it never went into production.

 

The story of the Single Shot Model 1885 Winchester is that as a young man, John M was working one day doing what gunsmiths spent most of their time doing, repairing a broken rifle. He had the parts spread out on his bench and was disgusted with the quality of the gun. His father Jonathan was semi-retired at this point, and spent most of his time puttering around the shop. John M called his father over and said 'I could make a better gun than that myself'. He did not mean it literally, he was just expressing his dissatisfaction with the quality of the gun in front of him.

 

But his father replied, 'I know you could John Mose. And I wish you'd get at it. I'd like to live to see you do it.'

 

John protested to his father that he had too much repair work piled up to be spending his time designing a new rifle. Up to this point he had not designed any new firearms. His father said '(brother) Mathew is pretty handy, especially at making stocks, and I can tell him how to do things that would tire me too much. We'll get along. The Lord will provide.'

 

So with the blessing of his father and his family John M set to designing his first rifle, a single shot. He actually designed two at the time, but the one that eventually became the Winchester Model 1885 was the one he proceeded with.

 

Available evidence seems to show that John M started working on his new design sometime after his 23rd birthday, which was January 23, 1878, and completed his prototype sometime before applying for a patent on May 12, 1879. The patent was granted on Oct 7, 1879. Record time for anybody's first effort. This also included the lengthy process of conversing with a patent attorney in the East, and drawing up plans for his rifle. Also a considerable effort because prior to this John M had never seen a blueprint, not did he have any prior experience with lawyers. The original patent model is on display in the Smithsonian and the barrel is stamped J.M.Browning Ogden U.T. 1878.

 

A small factory was set up in Ogden to produce the rifle and about 600 rifles were built between 1880 and 1883.

 

This has been distilled down from the book John M Browning, American Gunmaker, written by his son John Browning and Curt Gentry. It is a great read for anybody interested in firearms history.

 

The story of how Winchester came to produce the rifle as their Model 1885 is even more fascinating, but I have already used up more than my share of electrons.

 

My point is, I really don't think there was hardly any activity in 'slicking up' firearms in the 1800s. There simply would not have been the demand. Yes, Bat Masterson did write to Colt with a couple of specifications that he wanted included in a revolver. That hardly indicates a large demand for 'slicked up' firearms. The simple fact is, in the late 19th Century quality firearms did not need slicking up. They were produced by craftsmen and the time was taken to get it right the first time.

 

There is no need today to justify 'slicking up' firearms by inventing historical scenarios that have no basis in documented fact. Firearms should perform flawlessly, with a minimum of effort. Period. If they leave a modern factory and do not perform that way, then there is no reason not to make them do so.

 

Shooters who insist on shooting 'stock' firearms do not understand that quality old guns really were made better.

 

P.S. Jonathan died on June 21, 1879. He did get to fire the recently completed prototype and was immensely proud of his son.

 

I can find no record anywhere of a Winchester Model 1878. The single shot rifle that Browning designed eventually became the Winchester Model 1885. If you really had an original Browning Brothers version of that rifle and sold it for less than it would be worth, I do feel very bad for you.

 

So far I have not been able to find out exactly what the rifle was that John M was so unhappy about. I would love to know what it was. The Browning biography does not mention it.

[Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674]

 

 

Another inventor, Hiram Maxim, converted a Winchester Model 66 to a recoil operated semi auto in 1883. According to "Small Arms of the World" pgs 106 & 107, these guns were commercially manufactured and sold to the Turkish army, with specimens sometimes turning up in collections throughout Europe.

 

 

 

Are you saying that Maxim converted Winchesters were sold to the Turkish Army? While it is well known that Turks made use of Winchester repeaters against the Russians, I have never seen any reference to them using any such modified weapons.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Speculation.

[Blackwater 53393]

I have an old book at home on "Gunsmithing the Colt Frontier" (title may not be quite correct) as the Single Action Army is also known. I believe that the book's first edition was published in the 1940's. In one part of the book the author discusses the changes needed to short-stroke the action. The discussion is matter-of-fact and presented in a way that suggests that this is not difficult, unusual nor remarkable. This is many years before the introduction of the second generation guns and long before Cowboy action shooting was even a notion. Since the guns weren't even being produced then and there would seem to be little reason for people working to develop these guns for speed at that time, the impression I got was that the author was sharing information about a process that had been around for quite some time. When I get home tonight I'll dig it out and provide more specific info about the book and author, but it seems that some things that are considered new and non-traditional may have been around longer than we realize.

 

Hey B.D. how ya' been? Willy McCoy has a copy of that book and I've examined it extensively. It does kinda' indicate that many of the operations described had been done for many years, and the accumulated knowledge would have taken many years to compile or aquire. At no point does the author claim to have any proprietary claim to the techniques or knowledge he offers.

 

To accept the thought that many of these "tricks" were indeed handed down over a number of years is NOT much of a reach. That some of them originated before the turn of the century, (1800s to 1900s) is not only possible but highly likely. J. Browning is a classic example of seeing a better way or a smarter design and taking it upon himself to improve what already exists, or invent the needed product or process. We are who we are because of these visionaries.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

You ought to know better than that... JB was the fella who led a raid on the Harper Fairies.

 

ts

 

 

I thought he invented JB Weld.

[Boon Doggle]

I thought he invented JB Weld.

 

 

Ahh, JB Weld and a Dremel Tool. The gun plumbers best friends.

[Doc Coles SASS 1188]

Most if not all of the advancements in firearms design most likely came from someone modifying an existing design. The cowboys and lawmen of the Old West weren't the ones who were coming up with the new designs. But the professionals in Gunsmithing and firearms manufacturing were always striving to improve their products. There has always been a desire to make guns shoot faster and straighter.

 

John Browning worked in the family's shop, J.M. Browning & Bros., in Ogden Utah during the "Old West" period. His story is well known among gun fanciers. To look at a picture of the building advertizing "Guns, Pistols, Amunition (sic.), & Fishing Tackle" it's hard to believe that some of the people who lived by the gun didn't come in and ask that their guns be "slicked up".

 

There is a picture of a Winchester Model 1873 in my copy of "Small Arms of the World" on page 116 that shows a John Browning modification converting the rifle to a gas operated semi auto. It wasn't practical for "street use", but it was the forerunner of the Colt/Browning Model 1895 "Potato Digger" machine gun.

 

Browning also designed and produced a single shot rifle that became the Winchester Model of 1878 and later the Model 1885. The work on these guns was exemplary and to my thinking better than anything available today. (As a sad aside, I owned a Model of 1878 and after 20 years sold it for a fraction of it's value before I found out what I had!)

 

Another inventor, Hiram Maxim, converted a Winchester Model 66 to a recoil operated semi auto in 1883. According to "Small Arms of the World" pgs 106 & 107, these guns were commercially manufactured and sold to the Turkish army, with specimens sometimes turning up in collections throughout Europe.

 

Back in "the day" people weren't trying to modify guns to meet some rule. They were just trying to improve on a product to gain a competitive advantage, just like business people do today.

 

The point is that if some old west lawman or outlaw just happened to ride through Ogden Utah and see the Browning Bros shop and ask them what JB could do to make his guns run better: What do you think the result would be? I would be very surprised if John Browning didn't come up with an action job that make all of us drool!

 

 

There is a big difference between a fundamentally experimental "proof of concept" gun, which Browning's gas operated 73s were, and a gun anyone would carry around. Last year I went to the Springfield Armory Museum and the cases were full of odd things built by Johan Garand and others to test ideas and designs. These are just stepping stones on to better things.

 

As for the, "Browning would have invented a short stroke kit for the 73" argument, popycock. Browning invented just about everything under the sun, hundreds of improvements and designs, many not produced. He knew that the 73 was an obsolete design and didn't waste any time on it. He just built its replacement, the 92, which was a much better design. So, in a way, you could say that Browning did try to improve on the 73 after all, he just did it by starting from scratch and building a better gun.

 

This is just another effort to knock up some pseudo-history for a modern development in order to somehow justify it as historic. Like so many things in SASS, the short stroke 73 is not historic, and this sort of "well they coulda done it" stuff will not change that. Look at it another way, by your own logic, if people were actually interested in having a short stroke 73 in the 19th century, they would have done it, but no one did. So what is the natural conclusion? No one wanted it.

 

Just the view from my saddle.

[DocWard]

Ain't John Browning some Mormon guy?

[Grizzly Adams 3674]

This is just another effort to knock up some pseudo-history for a modern development in order to somehow justify it as historic. Like so many things in SASS, the short stroke 73 is not historic, and this sort of "well they coulda done it" stuff will not change that. Look at it another way, by your own logic, if people were actually interested in having a short stroke 73 in the 19th century, they would have done it, but no one did. So what is the natural conclusion? No one wanted it.

 

Just the view from my saddle.

 

+1 .......and mine.

 

There is no need to justify any of the modifications we do to our firearms. It's a game, and not a historical reenactment! If it's historical accuracy your after, you need to look elsewhere.

[Brasspounder]

+1 ...and mine too. But the "modifications" do seem to be getting a little

out of hand.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Howdy Again

 

Regarding prototypes and experimental guns, I have taken the liberty of scanning an illustration from the Browning biography. This is an artist's illustration of one of his early experiments with semi-automatic mechanisms. This was not meant to be a production model, in fact, it wasn't even for a rifle. Browning was experimenting with the concept of gas operated firearms at the time he was designing what later became known as his A-5 semi-auto shotgun. Be sure to read the caption. This was not a firearm designed for production. It was simply something that he cobbled together one day for what we would call today proof of concept. Once he proved to himself that the concept was viable, he tore it apart and used the parts for something else. He only used the '73 Winchester for the experiment because that is what he had laying around. He was not trying to improve on the '73 Winchester mechanism.

 

 

Illustration

 

I completely agree with Doc Coles. Browning did not mess around trying to make the '73 a better gun. Instead he designed a rifle that was stronger, lighter, and cheaper to manufacture than the '73, the 1892 Winchester.

 

And if some 'old west lawman or outlaw just happened to ride through Ogden Utah and see the Browning Bros shop and ask them what JB could do to make his guns run better' he would have been politely shown the door. The Browning brothers were much too busy cranking out their new single shot rifle to take the time to 'slick up' this imaginary person's gun.

 

After Browning established his relationship with Winchester, a relationship that lasted almost twenty years, the great majority of his time was spent at the drawing board and fabricating parts for his new designs. However, he seldom sent complete, production ready prototypes to Winchester. Almost all of his designs were tweaked by Winchester's in house gun designers to make them truly production ready.

 

It was not until he established his relationship with Fabrique Nationale in Belgium in 1903 to produce his semi-auto shotgun that Browning became personally involved in finalizing his designs for production. Even then, he spent most of his time with the draftsmen and on the shop floor working out the details of production. He was not 'slicking' anything up. He was perfecting the manufacturing process.

[Cypress Sam, SASS #10915]

Ah Driftwood, It would be nice if I could post something that you could agree with. For a reference to the Model of 1878, look in the Blue Book of Gun Values (I believe mine is a 2008 version) under Browning. It gives a little history of the gun and lists it's values as between $6,000 and $10,000 depending on condition. Earlier versions of the Blue Book listed the Model of 1878 for as much as $20,000. I don't know why the decline in value. Maybe they averaged in what I sold mine for - $500.

 

The Blue Book says that less than 600 of these rifles were produced. The rifle that I had was just like a Model 1885 low-wall and was in .22 caliber. It was equipped with an unmarked tang sight that is identical to a Winchester model 62-A tang sight (Please note that this is the model number of the sight, not a reference to the rifle of the same model number.) I still have the sight mounted on a Winchester Model 92.

 

Steel-eye Steve, I gave my reference for stating that Maxim sold modified '66's to the Turks: "Small Arms of the World" by W. H. B. Smith, Eighth Edition Published in 1966. The reference to the Turkish Army follows a description of how the mechanism worked along with drawings. To quote:

 

 

"This was the first truly successful automatic functioning of any firearm of which we have evidence.

 

This epochal development occurred in 1883. It acheived tremendous attention throughout Europe. It was applied to many Turkish Winchester .44's, specimens of which are occasionally encountered in arms collections abroad."

 

To those saying that I claimed that John Browning invented a short stroke kit: I never made any such claim. The first short stroked '73 that I know of was done by "Just Wild Bill" aka Bill Brotherton sometime in the late '90's.

 

Short stoked revolvers were used pretty extensively in bullseye shooting. I never saw any SAA's used for that purpose but there were a lot of S&W K-framed revolvers short stroked. If any of you have read Elmer Keith's "Sixguns" or Ed McGivern's "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" you can drool over some of the modified guns pictured there. Most of these were done in the 1920's and '30's though, not in the old west.

 

Then as now, modified guns were probably found on the competition circuit, not in deadly use. Competition is what leads to the modifications, which are then adapted to field firearms.

[ChuteTheMall]

I used to clean my guns in an old browning pan.

 

Wish I still had it.

 

[Dawg Hair, SASS #29557]

You ought to know better than that... JB was the fella who led a raid on the Harper Fairies.

 

ts

 

 

HARPER'S FAIRIES?????

[Subdeacon Joe]

HARPER'S FAIRIES?????

 

A bar in the Castro, I think.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

John M had the parts spread out on his bench and was disgusted with the quality of the gun.

 

"Disgusted by the quality of the gun" - remember this line as it might be important later.

 

The simple fact is, in the late 19th Century quality firearms did not need slicking up. They were produced by craftsmen and the time was taken to get it right the first time.

 

So we are to assume this poor quality gun came from the future?

Perhaps a RG Rohm fell into a random Delorean and ended up in Ogden Utah?

 

There is no need today to justify 'slicking up' firearms by inventing historical scenarios that have no basis in documented fact.

 

Firearms in the 19th century (exactly as in the 21st century), ran the gamut from quality pieces of fiream art to out and out junk.

A person who purchased a piece of junk (say one that would disgust an artist because of it's poor quality), might well take that gun to a gunsmith to be "slicked" up or repaired to operate correctly.

Just as we do with modern firearms that are poorly finished and over sprung to compensate.

As long as people have been building things - some things were built well and other were not - everyone that held a tool in the 1800's was not a craftsman, as everyone who posts online is not a wordsmith.

 

 

[Johnny The Kid , SASS 22917]

Damn, Sam...........You shore know how to stir the pot...!!!!

JTK

[Danite SASS #27034]

Yes, I've heard of him. He invented our state firearm........

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

John M had the parts spread out on his bench and was disgusted with the quality of the gun.

 

"Disgusted by the quality of the gun" - remember this line as it might be important later.

 

The simple fact is, in the late 19th Century quality firearms did not need slicking up. They were produced by craftsmen and the time was taken to get it right the first time.

 

Creeker

 

Please look a little bit closer at what I wrote. Yes, there was junk produced then just as there is junk produced today. But I did qualify my statement by referring to quality firearms.

 

I have no idea exactly what the gun was that prompted John M to make that statement. I would love to know, but I have never seen any reference to it.

 

I still stand by the statement that quality firearms, which included the products of Winchester, Smith & Wesson, and Colt to name a few were better made than some of the firearms we use regularly in this sport. I am speaking specifically of some Italian imports. I have been inside enough of them, deburring and smoothing rough surfaces that never would have left the Winchester, S&W, or Colt factories to name a few, that I feel qualified to make this statement.

[Doc Coles SASS 1188]

 

Then as now, modified guns were probably found on the competition circuit, not in deadly use. Competition is what leads to the modifications, which are then adapted to field firearms.

 

 

While shooting competitions did exist in the 19th century, there was nothing like SASS. They were much more interested in tests of absolute accuracy. As such, what modifications were made to competition guns in the 19th century were done to make them shoot more accurately, not faster. Speed in 19th century competition shooting (with very few exceptions such as running stag shooting or the Winchester Cup, which was shot at a moving target) was usually not a factor. Even when rapid fire shooting was important, as with the Winchester Cup, it did not prompt modifications like the short stroke. Why? Because companies were interested in promoting the products the manufactured, not telling folks that they needed to be improved. For example, the first Winchester Cup was won using an 1876 rifle in 45-75. No coincidence as it was thought up by Winchester as a promotional stunt for the 76. Winning it with a highly modified gun would have defeated the purpose.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Creeker

 

Please look a little bit closer at what I wrote. Yes, there was junk produced then just as there is junk produced today. But I did qualify my statement by referring to quality firearms.

 

I have no idea exactly what the gun was that prompted John M to make that statement. I would love to know, but I have never seen any reference to it.

 

I still stand by the statement that quality firearms, which included the products of Winchester, Smith & Wesson, and Colt to name a few were better made than some of the firearms we use regularly in this sport. I am speaking specifically of some Italian imports. I have been inside enough of them, deburring and smoothing rough surfaces that never would have left the Winchester, S&W, or Colt factories to name a few, that I feel qualified to make this statement.

 

On the above - we ABSOLUTELY agree.

But we are not using "Quality" firearms - We are (for the most part) using mass produced appliances - not works of art.

Whether American, Italian or Chinese, we are using firearms that are slapped together as quickly as possible.

Replication and parts interchangability are the words of the day - not craftsmanship or hand fitting.

 

So my contention would be - whether it was the gun giving JMB fits, or my new rifle - certain firearms have required a gunsmiths aid to run properly.

I also question if the firearms of the era were subject to same abuse that we heap upon their modern counterparts, if they might not require a little work to keep running as well?

[Smithy]

I also question if the firearms of the era were subject to same abuse that we heap upon their modern counterparts, if they might not require a little work to keep running as well?

 

Otherwise, what would be the need of a "local gunsmith"? If and more rarely when your Colt, S&W, or Remington did go on the fritz, you could simply have the original factories repair the problem, couldn't you? With what has been written about various outlaws and such, there was a fair number of folk seeking out the services of their local gunsmith to bob barrels and round grips, cut hammer spurs. Heck saw off rifles and shotguns if nothing else. I propose that there was quite a fair amount of modification work being requested beyond the simple "repairing of firearms" that has been mentioned. Now sure a fellow could talk to a representative or call up Colt directly and spend his hard earned $16.50 (3 months salary) on a gun where he determined what finish, barrel length, caliber, etc. that it was going to be. Not that many folks had that luxury to do that. However a fellow that picked up a gun through a fight, a wager, or bought it from a widow, now you're talking. But, it may not be to his liking at all and he might say, "If that dang Colt had a 3" barrel instead of a 7 1/2" one I could stick it in my pocket and no one would know I was packing". Thus the need for a local gunsmith for modification work. As others might say, Just my view from the saddle. Smithy.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

On the above - we ABSOLUTELY agree.

But we are not using "Quality" firearms - We are (for the most part) using mass produced appliances - not works of art.

Whether American, Italian or Chinese, we are using firearms that are slapped together as quickly as possible.

Replication and parts interchangability are the words of the day - not craftsmanship or hand fitting.

 

So my contention would be - whether it was the gun giving JMB fits, or my new rifle - certain firearms have required a gunsmiths aid to run properly.

I also question if the firearms of the era were subject to same abuse that we heap upon their modern counterparts, if they might not require a little work to keep running as well?

 

Colt, Winchester, S&W, et al were mass producing firearms too. Look at the production numbers sometime. A few high points of Model 1873 Winchester production 1876 - 11,825 produced, 1879 - 14,019 produced, 1880 - 22,0115 produced 1909 - 26,604 produced. Total production for the Model 1873 from 1873 until the end of production in 1923 was 720,609. Almost 3/4 million! If that ain't mass production, I would like to know what is. I have no idea how many Uberti produces per year, but I'll bet it is nowhere near that many. First Generation Colt yearly production numbers were not quite as high, but they were no slouches either. 14,800 produced in 1874, 17,000 in 1883, 17,000 in 1901, 18,000 in 1902. By 1908 production dropped to 4,000 and continued to decline until the end of production in 1940, with the low points being only 100 produced during the height of the Depression in 1935 and 1936. Still, total production for the entire first gen of the SAA was 357,859. Not a bad showing. All of this done long before modern CNC equipment existed to help boost production. Make no mistake, 19th Century firearm manufacturers were masters of mass production. In fact it could well be argued that they helped create modern mass production manufacturing techniques.

 

Uberti ain't gonna get a pass in my book for all the poorly finished parts they let out the door, Oliver Winchester would have been firing department heads for that kind of shoddy workmanship.

 

Now the question of abuse, that is a very valid question. Absolutely no question that we treat our guns rougher and shoot them more than most of the 19th Century manufacturers ever envisioned. Absolutely no question that those guns would probably have broken down more if shot by some CAS shooters today.

 

Just thinking about it, the only real parallel I can draw to the amount that we shoot our guns and the 19th Century would have been exhibition shooters like Annie Oakley. I once saw a photo of close to 1000 wood blocks she had shot out of the air with a rifle in one exhibition. Yes, she did it with a rifle, not a shotgun. I do not recall exactly what rifle she used, but I have sometimes wondered if she was using a stock factory model, or if it may have been specially tuned for her.

 

Just for fun, I googled to see how many different firearms Annie Oakley was photographed with. No, I don't really know which of them she really shot and which ones were photographer's props.

 

Poster

 

Mirror

 

Several Firearms

 

Single Shot

 

Rifle

 

Actual Performance Photo

 

Pistol

 

And just for fun, here is an early movie of her shot by Thomas Edison inside his Black Maria movie studio. I suspect her assistant is her husband, Frank Butler.

 

Movie