How proficient were the man killers of old?

[Malamute]

Probably a cap-and-ball revolver of that era would group into 18"+ at 75 yds...

I have no trouble believing the guns were capable at that distance. Hickok was known to have a variety of guns over time, and was believed by some to have had a Colts Dragoon that day (capable of using up to 50+ grs powder, just slightly less than the Walker which it evolved from).

This was from a repro Colt 1860 Army, (the medium size for 44 cal) using modern powder and caps, most of which I believe is inferior to the powder used in the period. One hand, 15 yards. Ive not shot it much. Point of aim was the bottom of the black. Most of the Colts belt and horse pistols were sighted pretty high by todays standards, like somewhere around 50-75 yards.



Some also think the guns gummed up within a few rounds, again, thats using modern powder and methods. the Colts Navy was fired pretty much all day in a test by the Navy or Army in the mid 1800s, they said the rifling wasnt visible from leading, but the gun continued to function. Correct, quality powder (such as Swiss today), bullet lube etc, the guns seem to run quite a while.

[TiroFijo]

Good group! But this is at 15 yds, IME they open up greatly past 30-40 yds or so... the grouping is not lineal.

[Malamute]

That seems to vary some. My g19 shoots slightly larger groups two handed at 25 yards, but when i was shooting a lot, was capable of hitting the 18" plate roughly 6-7/10 at 300 yards. Made little sense, but was shown to be pretty consistent over a number of years. I havent had too bad of accuracy degradation in general use, though past 300 yards they seem much harder to shoot well for medium frame guns and up.

[jlw]

I've seen Ayoob referencing newspaper article that Wyatt Earp was winning local shooting competitions, no idea what the course of fire was.

I don't know how to tag someone but someone needs to ping Randy Harris.

You mean like @Randy Harris?

[TiroFijo]

That seems to vary some. My g19 shoots slightly larger groups two handed at 25 yards, but when i was shooting a lot, was capable of hitting the 18" plate roughly 6-7/10 at 300 yards. Made little sense, but was shown to be pretty consistent over a number of years. I havent had too bad of accuracy degradation in general use, though past 300 yards they seem much harder to shoot well for medium frame guns and up.

...we are talking lead ball rounds here, for the old revolvers. They open up much more at longer ranges than modern ammo.

I also like to plink with all sorts of modern handguns at 100-200 m, from snubbies to long barrelled magnums. They are surprisingly accurate sometimes, but of course one tends to remember more the hits than the misses...

[HCM]

[While this topic is not about revolvers directly I think it would be of interest to the folks in this forum more than the others. My apologies if this is not appropriate.]

The Bat Masterson Colt thread reminded me of something I have been thinking about over the last several months. A book I was reading made the statement (paraphrased), "in a time when most men were good shots, Capt. Frank Hamer was an exceptional shot." Capt. Hamer was no doubt an excellent marksman (among other things) as attested to the fact that he was involved in approximately 2,453 gunfights during his career but he died at 71 of something other than lead poisoning. I was more focused on the author's earlier statement about the the general proficiency of marksmen in the 19th Century U.S. Was marksmanship generally better back then or is this more Old West myth?

I'd have to think that if you were a settler on the frontier in the 19th century being proficient with a firearm was a matter of life-or-death. But how much practice could you get? Powder and lead was expensive and likely difficult to find most of the time. Even more so with the introduction of cartridges. If you did have access to ammo and the money to afford it, you had the pleasure of dealing with black powder and it's ability to start to gum up revolver and rifle actions after just a few shots. And the sights on most firearms, particularly revolvers, were not great by our standards today. I would imagine that the average participant on any of the common gun forums today practices shooting significantly more (in quantity at least) than anyone from the 19th century frontier solely due to economics.

There are many accounts of marksmanship exploits among civilian, law enforcement, and the U.S. military of the 19th century. I have read fewer accounts of firearms training but this could just be my selection of reading (I am certainly open to suggestions if you have any). I recall that Capt. Hayes would have the Rangers practice hitting a fence post at a gallop on horse back with their Colt Patersons. The book I was reading this anecdote stated that this type of practice was unusual. There was another book that talked about the Plains Indians typically not being afraid of the U.S. Cavalry soldiers because of their poor marksmanship. I believe the author stated that the Army didn't practice shooting very often due to limited supplies and not wanting to waste ammunition.

I was thinking here about "pure" firearm proficiency rather than just the ability to kill people due to, mindset, tactics, close range, familiarity with violence, the fact that everyone is drunk all the time, health/vision problems etc. I am also aware that this period is heavily romanticized, both then and now, and accurate accounts (of shootings and training) that are not embellished are mostly few and far between.

But if Bat Masterson was transported to next week's local IDPA revolver match, a CAS or SASS meet, or metallic silhouette event would they impress the modern participants with their performance?

If you gave Wild Bill a Glock 17 (or a brace of Glock 17s to make him feel more comfortable) and a couple months to practice would he be above average at a local shooting event?

If you randomly selected a Private in the Frontier Battalion and a random pf.com revolver forum participant and ran a couple defensive drills with Colt SAAs who would come out ahead?

Just something I have been curious about, certainly nothing important.

Skewer Skelton answered this question in his 1969 article entitled “The Gunmen Of Old El Paso.”

http://www.darkcanyon.net/gunmen_of_el_paso.htm

The TLDR version is while many Hobby shooters today, (IDPA, USPSA) are far more technically proficient a drill is not a fight.

The devotee of firearms may draw some valid conclusions from El Paso's bullet-spattered history. While the gunmen of that place were as good as the best of the time - all of them had survived many battles before arriving in the tough border town - nothing in their performances, with the possible exception of Dallas Stoudenmire, indicated that they were outstanding sixgun men. Their close-range encounters, often from ambush, suggested murder and assassination rather than an open contest of skill between men at arms. Examination of their widely diverse methods of carrying their pistols - Hardin's shoulder holsters sewed to his vest, Stoudenmire's pocket draw, the high-ride, pistol-in-the-front-of-the-belly style of Selman and Outlaw - all point to the fact that a fast draw was of small importance to these men. When disputes found them, their sixguns would already be clear of leather and, hopefully, pointed at an unwarlike portion of their opponent's anatomy.

Today's handgunners could skunk any of the oldtimers. Slick, accurate, double-action guns, scientifically designed belts and holsters, a plentitude of practice and ammunition - all these factors make the handgun man of the present easily the master of the best of the 19th-century gunfighters. But turn the Selmans, Hardins, Stoudenmires, and Outlaws loose in the same wild border town against any of today's civilized sixgun experts, and I submit that there would soon be no experts. the reason is one that many of today's antigun fanatics fail to grasp. A shooter and a killer are two different things.

Hickok Shot his cap and ball revolvers daily to “clear” them and have “them freshly loaded, often at playing cards. 12 round a day, every day adds up and the benefits of frequency vs volume in practice are well established. Hardin was also known for shooting at playing cards.

[Stephanie B]

Working with guys like him are why I don’t get overly impressed with folks who have mastered a very small percentage of the shooting problem and have never tested the rest of the equation or been in a position to develop the other skills that many of those old exceptional shooters of men possessed. Those who have mastered the “whole package” are very few and far between and a vast majority of the firearms world have never taken the time or made the real effort to really look into the entirety of what made these people successful....instead, one line memes seems to be the norm.

To reduce it to meme-length: "Good against targets is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else.

The townspeople did pretty well against the James and Younger gang in Northfield, MN
after the civil war. The gang tried to rob the bank there and the town took exception.

That's the thing that has always griped me about the "guy with a gun bullies a town" westerns. The menfolk in those towns, especially those over 30, were often vets of the Civil War. They had sand. They would have grabbed up a rifle and drilled the bullying bad guy without a qualm.

It's happened in modern times, ie, Ken McElroy in Missouri. He was a town bully, he went too far, and one or more people finally shot him dead in the middle of the town in the middle of the day. In essence, everyone in town who could have seen the shooting was either making a phone calls or taking a whiz when it happened.

[HCM]

Amen. Once I may have sprained my eyeballs rolling them when I heard my canine handler had an email address "manhunter". Nope, he wasn't. I recently recommended The Chiorboys to someone to get an ide what the ROEs were like in the late 60s early 70s, before Grahm became an issue.

pat

Or Charles Askins autobiography “Unrepentant Sinner.”

[HCM]

I would like to see Jelly Bryce on the timer, I bet his splits would be amaaaazing.

It seems Bryce, like Bill Jordan was gifted with above average eyesight, reflexes and hand eye coordination. That raw talent, combined with hard work can produce exceptional results.

Think Ted Williams allying the same gifts in baseball and as a successful fighter pilot.

[UncleEd]

Marksmanship had to be better in the olden days
as men weree shorter and much, much thinner,
thus presenting a much smaller back to shoot at.