quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
I was watching a show on all the various odd hidden and odd self defense firearms that were used in the 19th early 20th century.

Most of these palm pistols, ring guns, small derringers etc. all seem so incredibly anemic even at contact distance.

Were folks more likely to stop an attack/psychologically go down because any wound might very well be fatal vs today where fast medical attention and wonder medicine are so available?

It just seems to me that all these tiny single shot type things would be 1 in a million type things and I would imagine I would have preferred a good blade.

Were any of these things viable??? I mean hell we argue 7 shots of semi auto .32 is damn near unarmed in the modern world.

To answer the OP's question.

No.

The "firearms" available were not "viable" when we're talking about the myriad of "self defense" offerings. Either due to being wholly ineffective, or actually more dangerous to the user.

If they were effective, you would see a lineage through to modern use today, or a record of note historically.

Indeed, killing someone and stopping them are not the same.

There is a reason that we are where we are with what is available today for self defense. Safety for the user, reliability, and effectiveness.

One other thing that should be taken in to consideration:

They weren't primarily intended for shooting other people. 100+ years ago it was mostly for shooting snakes/dogs/raccoons/wild animals that we don't encounter frequently today. There was a specialty market for guns to shoot stray dogs with while the users were riding bicycles.

No true gentleman back then would leave the house without a firearm. Why? Because decades before that, the family history was to prepare for a duel. Duels became unlikely and tradition moved on, so the guns became smaller. It became fashionable to have a firearm that would fit in ones vest pocket. Not to be outdone, there was even status on who's pistol was smallest.

All interesting input especially the thought of the “talisman effect”.

I guess all things considered I would have far preferred a cane sword.

For one thing, people were smaller and lighter back in the day, noticeably so prior to WWII. (The U.S. Army Quartermaster Museum has an article on the web that states the average male inductee in WWII was 5' 8" tall; 144 pounds in weight; 33 ¼" chest measurement; 31" waist measurement). So, it would seem, easier to knock down with a smaller bullet. At the beginning of the last century, the standard American police round as a .32 S&W Long (.32 New Colt), supplanted later in the century by the .38 Special, then the 9mm, the .40 S&W, etc. The continual increase in caliber over time represented an effort to get better results, to some extent because of the growing bulk and strength of criminals -- as well as their increased firepower.

Why did people have small caliber, single-shot, ineffective self-defense guns? A contributing reason might be that, back in the day, most people did not have the ready knowledge of ballistics, wound effects, etc., that we have today -- from gun magazines and the internet. So maybe they simply thought it would work. The exception, of course, would be people who had been in the wars, or lived in rural areas and worked a lot with guns - thus the proclivity for .44 and .45 revolvers out West, starting in the 1870's or so, for people who had experience shooting large animals or people.

It seems that people in that era had multiple weapons on them. It was extremely common to carry a knife, a revolver, and one of these well hidden gems......now these were easily concealable in their hand while walking down the street. The purpose might have been to stun the attacker just long enough to get their revolver or knife out. Who knows.

In chatting and comparing most of the people shot in the 1800s black powder was present and a lot of the ammo sold in hardware stores had long shelf lives. In addition a lot of the ammo was carried a long time and in all kinds of weather before the firing pin hit the cap.
It was common for outlaws to be carrying any number of bullets in their bodies all of their lives.
Most of the hits never reached a vital or had a lot of penetration.
So, maybe the poster was on to something about those
small "vest pocket" guns?
Great discussion, though, eh?
Stay safe
Poli Viejo