I may be wrong on this, and I figured one of the ways to get a take on being right or wrong was to throw this topic out for discussion.
My opinion / observation: back in the day writers didn't go to great lengths to describe the type of gun being used - it was a long gun or a buffalo rifle or a revolver or a Colt or a six-shooter and not aor a Springfield 1870 Remington Navy. I'm getting the impression modern writers feel they have to spell it all out.
What's your take on this? I certainly wouldn't say - I'm shooting my Smith and Wesson Model 19 Combat Masterpiece .357 caliber; I'd say I'm shooting my 357.
Comments and opinions? Puma
Well, for the most part, I disagree, and for more than one reason. First, I think you really have to keep in mind that we don't live in an age where the majority of readers know nearly as much about the weapons people carried as they used to. Someone alive in the 1930s didn't need much detail because they may have been part of the old west, and if not them, then at least their parents. They knew what kinds of weapons people carried, and may well have used most of them.
People today, even those who read westerns, probably live in a city,and may never have fired, or even held, a real handgun or rifle. They would know a Glock from an XD from a PPQ, let alone a Colt from a Starr.
Great detail may not be needed, but some solid detail is. When writers just say something like "buffalo rifle", they've probably either already told what type of buffalo rifle it is, or they aren't very good at what they do. A character might well refer to his rifle simply as a "buffalo rifle", but this does not let the writer off the hook. True buffalo rifles came in several types, and a good writer is supposed to paint a picture. Is that rifle a Remington, a Sharps, or maybe a Hawken? Which it is can say a lot about the character.
The Winchester '73 may have been the gun that won the west, something new readers will likely want to be shown, but it had a
lot of help. Having everyone simply carry a rifle is just lazy writing, and having everyone armed with a Winchester '73 would be highly inaccurate.
Same with revolvers. There's no need to write "Colt Single Action Army Peacemaker", but real people in the old west carried a wide assortment of revolvers, and if you don't go into some detail, you're not being realistic. Give everyone a six shooter, and I'll think you haven't read a western written since about 1920. Give everyone a Colt Peacemaker, and I'll think you know nothing about the old west.
Many carried Starr revolvers, for instance. They were common, but had their own peculiarities. Unlike other revolvers, they began life as a double action, and
then became a single action. Because they were designed to be fired double action, the hammer is higher than the one on the Colt or the Remington. It fans well, but trying to cock and fire it with one hand is awkward, and much, much slower than either the Colt or the Remington.
A detail of two about weapon tells much about character, and sets the novel at a particular time and place.
It also lets the reader know what is and isn't realistic when the character actually uses the weapon.
And if you've actually shot your S&W .357 around many people, you don't just tell them you're shooting your .357. They'll want to know what kind. Readers usually want to know, as well.
A writer who doesn't go into some detail about weapons is either going to have few readers, or had better not be writing for an audience that does know.
Just a brand or model here and there will usually do,but the more uncommon the weapon, the more detail you need. Either way, you need enough to to come off as something other than a generic writer the reader will probably believe knows nothing about guns, and is too lazy to research.
Details make setting, and add verisimilitude, be it details about the weapons, of the clothing, or the type of food, drink, cigars and cigarettes, etc., people in a given era used.
Too much detail can be bad, but too little is even worse.