My prompt:
Switching now to the Texans firearms. We know that the introduction of Colt's revolvers, first the five-shot model and then later the six-shooters, was the decisive event that gave mounted Texans at least equality with the Comanche. Can you give a time line of the introduction of Colts into Texas, with whatever information we have about numbers and how widespread was their use? The Texas government seems to have been on-and-off about providing them. Private purchases, no doubt, but how expensive were the revolvers? At what point would it be reasonable to assume that most Texans are carrying at least one? as well as, I assume, still a long arm, a rifle or shotgun?
ChatGPT:
Absolutely — and this is a great way to frame it for your Comanche/Texas "arms race" narrative, because the Colt story in Texas is not a smooth curve. It comes in bursts (small numbers, sudden battlefield effect, then slow diffusion), and the Texas government really was on-and-off.
Below is a timeline you can use, with "how widespread?" notes, plus cost and a practical "when can I assume most Texans have one?" answer.
1) The Colt Timeline in Texas (with "how common?")
1836–1837: Colt Paterson (5-shot) arrives — tiny numbers, huge effect
Weapon: Colt Paterson revolver (5-shot .36), folding trigger.
Texas connection: The Republic of Texas and Texas Rangers are among the first users anywhere.
How widespread?
Still rare. Think dozens in Ranger hands, not hundreds across the frontier population.
Why it mattered anyway:
Even a few Rangers with repeat fire could shock Comanche tactics built around "close, lance/bow, withdraw while you reload."
Wargame assumption: "Elite Ranger detachments might have them; ordinary settlers almost certainly don't."
1838–1842: A "known weapon," but not a standard one
Colt's business troubles and the revolver's finicky reputation (and cost) limit spread.
Rangers/volunteers who do have Patersons tend to be:
better-funded,
more "professional,"
or personally connected to supply networks.
How widespread?
Still uncommon, but no longer unheard of.
1843–1845: The turning-point years (Hays era) — Patersons in Ranger culture
1844 (Walker's Creek): this is the iconic "revolver proves itself" Ranger moment.
How widespread?
Still not "most Texans," but now it's plausible that a significant fraction of active Rangers on Comanche-facing duty have at least one revolver, sometimes two.
Wargame assumption: By 1844–45, a Ranger troop is the first place you'd expect to see multiple revolvers per man.
1846–1848: Mexican–American War = revolver credibility + demand spike
War creates:
more procurement,
more men trained with pistols,
and a broader market for handguns.
1847: Colt Walker (6-shot .44) appears (the "horse pistol," famously heavy).
Issued in meaningful numbers to mounted troops; Texas men are prominent among the users.
How widespread in Texas?
Still not universal, but this is when you start seeing revolvers as a normal mounted-fighter expectation, not an exotic tool.
1848–1851: Dragoon era — the practical big Colt
Weapons: 1st/2nd/3rd Model Dragoons (still .44, but more durable and manageable than the Walker).
Effect: This is the first period when a hard-riding mounted man can carry a "serious" revolver without it being absurdly oversized.
How widespread?
This is the first time it becomes reasonable to imagine revolvers appearing beyond Rangers:
frontier militia,
experienced Indian fighters,
some prosperous settlers.
1851–1856: The diffusion phase (Navy 1851)
Weapon: Colt 1851 Navy (.36, 6-shot) — lighter, handier, cheaper to carry daily.
This is the model that really spreads socially.
How widespread?
By the mid–1850s, among mounted Texans in the frontier belt (not cities), it's plausible that many have a revolver—maybe not every man, but enough that it changes expectations.
1860–1865: Civil War accelerates handgun culture
Texans in Confederate service see and use revolvers widely.
Postwar, many revolvers remain in private hands (and a lot of wartime arms are floating around).
How widespread?
By the late 1860s, revolvers are common among adult males who can afford them—especially veterans.
1870s: Metallic-cartridge revolvers + repeaters = the final shift
By the Red River War era, the Comanche face:
more repeat-capable weapons,
more ammunition reliability,
more standardized sidearms among enemies.
2) How "widespread" were Colts? (a practical rule-of-thumb)
Here's the clean way to model it:
A. 1836–1842
Rangers: some have 1 Paterson, occasionally 2
Most Texans: no revolver; maybe a single-shot pistol if anything
B. 1843–1847
Rangers on Comanche duty: many have at least 1 revolver; some carry 2
Ordinary mounted settlers: still mixed; plenty without
C. 1848–1856
Mounted frontier Texans: "revolver ownership becomes normal," especially among men who expect trouble
By mid-1850s: you can reasonably assume most serious frontier riders carry at least one revolver (not necessarily Colt-branded, but often Colt-pattern)
D. By the late 1860s
It's reasonable to assume "most adult men who travel armed" have a revolver.
If you want a single "switch flips here" year for gameplay:
✅ 1851–1855 is your best "revolver becomes commonplace" window (because the Navy model makes everyday carry realistic).
3) Texas government supply: why it was inconsistent
You've already sniffed out the right explanation: the Republic of Texas was often cash-poor, and priorities whipsawed between:
coastal defense / Mexico concerns,
internal politics,
frontier protection.
So even when leaders wanted to arm Rangers, they might:
authorize it,
fail to fund it,
or fund too few to matter broadly.
Result: private purchase + Ranger initiative mattered as much as formal procurement.
4) Cost: how expensive were revolvers (in "felt reality")?
Exact dollar prices fluctuate by model and year, but the historical "feel" is consistent:
A Colt revolver was expensive enough to be a serious investment—not something every farmer casually bought in 1838.
For many men it was comparable to buying:
a good saddle,
a good horse,
or a significant portion of a month or more of wages (depending on occupation).
Practical takeaway:
Early Colt ownership signals elite status (Ranger, wealthy, or unusually committed to fighting).
By the 1850s, prices and availability make ownership much more achievable.
5) Would Texans still carry long arms too?
Yes — overwhelmingly.
A very solid "Texan frontier loadout" assumption:
Mounted Indian-fighter (Ranger / militia / hard frontier rider)
1 revolver minimum (often 2 by the late 1840s–1850s for men who can afford it)
1 long arm:
rifle (accurate, but slower),
or shotgun (devastating close, common in some settings),
later a carbine in military contexts
Settler traveling locally
maybe one long gun
maybe one pistol (often single-shot early; revolver later)
Town/city Texan
sidearm ownership possible, but less "always on the body."
6) A simple "ruleset-ready" adoption model (you can drop straight into a sidebar)
Colt Adoption in Texas (suggested probabilities):
1836–1842
Ranger: 25–40% have 1 revolver; 5–10% have 2
Settler/militia: 5–10% have 1
1843–1847
Ranger: 60–80% have 1; 20–40% have 2
Settler/militia: 10–25% have 1
1848–1855
Ranger/frontier fighter: 75–90% have 1; 35–60% have 2
Settler/militia: 25–50% have 1
1856–1865
Frontier adult male likely to travel armed: 50–75% have 1
(Those aren't "census facts," but they behave correctly and match what you want on the tabletop: early rarity, then a rapid frontier saturation.)
Bottom-line answers to your key questions
When do Colts enter Texas? 1836–37, but in small numbers (Patersons).
When do they become decisive? 1844–47, when Ranger tactics + repeat fire collide with Comanche expectations.
When does "most Texans have one" become reasonable?
Mid-1850s for mounted frontier Texans; late 1860s more broadly.
Do they still carry a long arm? Yes—almost always for serious trouble.
If you want, I can turn this into a one-page teacher/wargame sidebar with: "Why the revolver mattered," "How it changes tactics," and "What a typical Ranger carried by decade."
