Rocketman on June 22, 2007, 07:26:01 am
Well as we leave our little band of intrepid travelers we will shortly learn the answer to the question of why the are "unarmed".  I noticed that Bettie's choice of long arms was a Marlin in 45-70.  While it has plenty of stopping power she might be better off with something in .30-30 caliber which would be better for fast follow up shots.   ;D

jrl on June 22, 2007, 10:19:38 pm
A LONG drum roll 'till next week and (hopefully) the answer.

jrl on June 23, 2007, 03:58:30 pm
You know, given the landscape, wouldn't something in the realm of .30-06 or one of the Mauser cartridges make a lot more sense? In our time line the 45-70 had been obsolescent for what, a good 40 years by 1947? Maybe longer, since 30-40 had been military standard for about a decade before '06. IIRC late Winchester model 95s came in '06.

.45-70 was a powerful cartrige in its day, but it's range would be quite limited compared to the .303s the Gurkhas are carrying. And IIRC Gurkhas are generally pretty good shots. . .

Of course. given Texican advances in technology, they might be running rocket assist or explosive bullets in what looks like an old fashioned .47-70 cartridge.

Rocketman on June 23, 2007, 06:06:34 pm
JRL:
     Your absolutely right.   A 30-06, 7mm mauser or 8mm mauser would be better for long range shots.  But in many cases it's the man (or woman in this case) that makes all the difference.  Google "Billy Dixon" sometime and read about the shot he made to kill and indian cheiftain with a sharps rifle.  I think you'll be impressed when I tell you that he had to aim about 53 feet over the top of the Chief to kill him.  ;D  That was a man who really knew the capabilities of his rifle.
     And that reminds me of another question that needs to be asked.  During the Vietnam war a gun called the Gyrojet was developed.  this gun was revolutionary from the standpoint of using a projectile that was an actual small rocket engine instead of just a chemically propelled lead weight therefore it could be fired in outer space.  Wouldn't an advanced version of that weapon been available to Gokk and his class?  The only reason that I could see would be maybe the timeship didn't carry any lethal weapons because they were worried that killing or seriously injuring someone could alter the timeline.

Roberta X on June 24, 2007, 08:36:31 am
     Could it be Our Miss Bettie simply likes her lever-action .45-70?  (I'm often tickled by the way many shooters pretend choice of a gun is driven only by reasoned, rational considerations.  For whom do they make all those highly-decorated ones, then?  Beretta is just foolin' themselves embellishing shotguns and my .38SA 1911 Colt should never have had the chamber jewelled, let alone been polished and reblued?)

     An' who says the teeny-bikini students are unarmed merely because they look to be?  --One is tempted to mention another LNS invention when the topics of attire and weaponry come up.  (Oh, how I miss easy ROT13!  Let us point at attire with cleverness and leave it at that).  ...In the most basic sense, an awful lot of objects will serve as weapons  including one's own limbs, so "disarmed" is a misleading concept.  (Gee, didn't LNS make just that point in The Crystal Empire?)

     Apologies to those who find my manner of speaking Victorian.  I'm working seriously on spinsterhood.  ;)

     Roberta X
By 1913, it was too late.

Rocketman on June 24, 2007, 02:49:27 pm
Okay, TECHNICALLY your correct.  Except for the people without arms everyone without a gun is not "disarmed" but virtually everyone I know says that if you don't have a gun on your person your considered "disarmed".  I liken it to everyone calling a semiauto pistol an "auto" even thou they don't fire muti-shots with one pull of the trigger.  ;)  But your right about favorite guns.  Every "gun person" I know (and I know quite a few) who have more than just a gun or two have a favorite piece.  Maybe it's the appearance of the gun, or a certain memory that the gun invokes.  I have a Winchester model 12 made in 1914 that was purchased new by my great grandfather, passed down to his son, my grandfather when he was young and eventually given to me when I was ready.  How did my grandfather know I was ready?  I got it on the day I finally beat him shooting clay pigeons.  I was twelve.  Good memories.

Rocketman on June 24, 2007, 06:57:33 pm
For those of you who are interested the Billy Dixon that I referred to in an eariler post shot an indian chief that was standing on a bluff a measured distance of 1538 yards with a Sharps rifle probably in 50-90 caliber.   ;D

jrl on June 24, 2007, 10:39:53 pm
A friend of mind pointed out that back in the '40s guns were (relatively speaking) a honking lot more expensive than they are today and VERY few people had more than one each .22 rifle, center fire rifle, shotgun and pistol.

So if you inherited a good 45-70 from Grandpa, that was probably your deer rifle. and your ONLY center fire rifle even if the cartridge was getting to be old-fashioned.

People with guns by the dozen seems to be a rather modern phenomenon.
 

Rocketman on June 25, 2007, 03:02:20 am
Yes in relative terms a firearm was more expensive that they are now in terms of the amount of hours of work to purchase said new firearms.  Another point is that from about 1940 to 46 with lend lease to the british who even back then short on civilian guns to the end of the war you just couldn't obtain a brand new rifle or shotgun because production back then was going full bore to produce weapons for our armed forces as well as pretty much all of the allies.  I remember reading once that back during the revolutionary war that firearms were about the same cost to them as we spend today on automobiles and that George Washington who was the richest man in America had an astonishing (for the time) fifty guns.   ;D

Frank B. on June 25, 2007, 01:24:36 pm
Yes in relative terms a firearm was more expensive that they are now in terms of the amount of hours of work to purchase said new firearms.  Another point is that from about 1940 to 46 with lend lease to the british who even back then short on civilian guns to the end of the war you just couldn't obtain a brand new rifle or shotgun because production back then was going full bore to produce weapons for our armed forces as well as pretty much all of the allies.  I remember reading once that back during the revolutionary war that firearms were about the same cost to them as we spend today on automobiles and that George Washington who was the richest man in America had an astonishing (for the time) fifty guns.   ;D

Of course, that was true of swords in their day too.  Yes, a good sword is still expensive today ($1k+).  But a good sword more than 200 years ago (or so), would be comparable to buying a new car today ($30k+).  This is why, even without considering the cost in time and money in learning to use the thing effectively, it was cost prohibitive for a lower class person to ever own one (without stealing it anyway).


Rocketman on June 25, 2007, 06:33:02 pm
You should also add that the southern laws right after the war between the states also took full advantage by outlawing cheap firearms for the poor masses.  Funny thing though if you were a poor white the enforcement of the law was generally ignored but it you were a poor, recently freed slave that was a different matter.   ;D
     In the 1960's when the civil rights marchers began demanding long over due rights the same restrictions on firearms were brought out and dusted off although this time it was coming from the other side of the fence.  Many white pro civil rights marchers coming from a liberal education were shocked and appalled that the blacks they were aligned with were arming themselves.  Some things never change.

Roberta X on June 29, 2007, 07:24:30 am
...And LNS fooled us all.  It would seem along that timeline, the Kel-Tecization of personal arms has continued apace!  ;)
By 1913, it was too late.

archy on August 23, 2007, 12:26:06 pm
     And that reminds me of another question that needs to be asked.  During the Vietnam war a gun called the Gyrojet was developed.  this gun was revolutionary from the standpoint of using a projectile that was an actual small rocket engine instead of just a chemically propelled lead weight therefore it could be fired in outer space.  Wouldn't an advanced version of that weapon been available to Gokk and his class?  The only reason that I could see would be maybe the timeship didn't carry any lethal weapons because they were worried that killing or seriously injuring someone could alter the timeline.

Waaay back in the days I actually got to run off a magazine's worth of MBA Gyrojet rounds, which at the time went for around $10 each. The nice fella running the demo claimed that if you held your hand over the muzzle you could deflect the rocket projectile from the barrel/launch tube...but that if you tried it at arm's length, the thing would knock a 13mm hole right thru your hand. And the sharp-pointed nose of the 15mm version would go through quarter-inch steelplate if it had a couple of meters to reach its max velocity.

The REALLY neat one was built into the swagger stick of a certain salty old spook who liked to be better armed than it looked like he was. Which attitude could easily apply to our wise old teacher of Terrestrial History in the storyline, too. And of course, a lot of the *tools* aboard a time/space travel vehicle could probably make AWESOME weapons when used around technologically ignorant savages of the XX/ XXI Century Earth period.

   
Ah'm just a lowly salesman for the Deef Smith Greeting Card Company....

Rocketman on August 23, 2007, 11:08:34 pm
It seems to me that there would be an opening for such a weapon in the hands of the U.S. military today.  With the new technology and materials available I would think that the problems of accuracy would be solveable
and with it's armor pierceing capability it would be excellent in say UAV firing into the back of enemy tanks for example.   ;D

enemyofthestate on August 27, 2007, 02:25:44 am
And of course, a lot of the *tools* aboard a time/space travel vehicle could probably make AWESOME weapons when used around technologically ignorant savages of the XX/ XXI Century Earth period.

Any space drive capable of "interesting" performance will be, potentially, a weapon of mass destruction.  The better the performance, the greater the potential.

Judging from the performance of the magic rings, the off worlders have some very effective batteries and, almost certainly, room temperture superconductors.  A lot of potential there...