Guns were very expensive items and so was ammunition. People could not afford to be armed like they are now.
Wow. That is a silly statement.
If figured in gold, silver or oil, rather than currencies, the cost of small arms and ammunition hasn't changed all that much since the introduction of the fixed cartridge if you factor out the military surplus items prior each of the World Wars. Even then, you could buy a Carcano and 500 rounds for how much in 1962? Probably wouldn't work out to be much more than you would pay for Mosin and 500 rounds now. And the reason I'm not hitting the range every week is because I can't afford it- I make right around the average in this area, to.
Uhuh, and a new rifle in 1780 would have cost more than 2 English Pounds. (Dollars were not current yet.)
That was more than most people made in a month back then.
50 Pounds a year was considered a small fortune.
I can buy a new rifle today for less than a 2 day's wages
By 1870 mass production had lowered the prices, but repeating rifles were still extremely expensive compared to how much they would cost in labor now.
Arguing prices based on commodities like gold is not very good. Metals fluctuate a lot in value.
Gold was cheap enough at one point that they actually used it as currency.
You need to count the cost in comparison to what people earned.
Previous Topic
Index
