A modern day duel.


PDA

jsalcedo
March 24, 2003, 11:16 AM
Say, for example, men were still expected to defend their word
and family honor with pistols at 10 paces, what would you choose?

You would have a pristine matched set of any pistol and ammo type for you and your opponent.

Remember both participants would have the same gun.
No extra mags or speedloads.

What handgun would you pick to face your nemesis and have aimed at you?

Each pace would be 3 feet with both moving 10 paces in opposite directions for a distance of 60 feet or 20 yards.

If you enjoyed reading about "A modern day duel." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
braindead0
March 24, 2003, 11:17 AM
Nerf gun....

Or a double-barrel 12ga pistol ;-)

cordex
March 24, 2003, 11:24 AM
As the challenged party, I'd pick .22 Derringers loaded with Colibri.

My second (and third, and fourth, ....) would bring a nice rifle and set up about a hundred yards off. Then I'd give the other guy a chance to back down.

Never play fair, give the other guy a way out and make sure the big guns are on your side if the feces strike the rotating bladed air movement device. You'll live longer.

VaughnT
March 24, 2003, 11:25 AM
Smith&Wesson 686 w/4" bbl. One round in the cylinder. Cylinders spun by the Seconds as in russian roulette. Luck and skill will determine who walks away.

MrAcheson
March 24, 2003, 11:27 AM
Airsoft

jjmorgan64
March 24, 2003, 11:29 AM
Traditional dueling pistols, single shot, flintlock, no sights.

Practice point shooting daily and pray they don't.

Joe Demko
March 24, 2003, 11:33 AM
Traditonal flintlock or percussion duelling pistols will do just fine. Large caliber, loaded smooth and single just like they used "back in the day." Duelling was supposed to be primarily an affair of honor, not simply a killing.

I posted these, once, in a thread at TFL. You might enjoy looking this over.

From "The Duel a History" by robert Baldick copyright 1965

"The most important and comprehensive of these works for the English speaking world was undoubtedly the Irish code duello 'adopted at the Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, for the government of duellists, by the gentlemen of Tipperary, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, and Roscommon and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland'. This code, although relating particularly to the pistol duel in Ireland towards the end of the eighteenth century, was basically the same as earlier and later codes enforced in England and on the Continent. The rules which it contained were known in Galway as the twenty-six commandments, and were as follows:
I. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offence and (after fire) B may explain away the retort by subsequent apology.
II. But if the parties would rather fight on, then, after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first and A apologize afterwards.
N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offences in retort not of a stronger class than the example.
III. If a doubt exists who gave the first offence, the decision rests with the seconds. If they will not decide or cannot agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit if the challenger requires it.
IV. When the lie direct is the first offence, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms, exchange two shots previous to apology, or three shots followed by explanation, or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.
V. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore, are:The offender handing a cane to the injured party to use on his back, at the same time begging pardon; firing until one or both are disable; or exchanging three shots and then begging pardon without the proffer of the cane. N.B. If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well bloodied, disabled, or disarmed, or until, after receiving a wound and blood being drawn, the agressor begs pardon.
VI. If A gives B the lie and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offences), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges or a severe hit, after which B may beg A's pardon for the blow, and then A may explain simply for the lie, because a blow is never allowable, and the offence of the lie, therefore, merges in it. N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be conciliated on the ground after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offence transpired.
VII. But no apology can be received in any case after the parties have already taken their ground without exchange of shots.
VIII. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required to do so by the challenged before their meeting.
IX. All imputation of cheating at play, races, etc. to be considered equivalent to a blow, but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.
X. An insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as by one degree a greater offence than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regarded accordingly.
XI. Offences originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the agressor. This to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favourably to the lady.
XII. No dumb firing or firing in the air is permitted in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offence, and the challenged ought, if he gave offence, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore children's play must be dishonourable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.
XIII. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal and equality is indispensable.
XIV. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intends leaving the place of offence before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hotheaded proceedings.
XV. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapons unless the challenger gives his honour he is no swordsman, after which, however, he cannot decline any species of weapon proposed by the challenged.
XVI. The challenged chooses his ground, the challenger chooses his distance. the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.
XVII. The seconds load in the presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honours that they have charged smooth and single, which shall be held sufficient.
XVIII. Firing may be regulated, first, by signal: secondly by word of command,; or, thirdly at pleasure, as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.
XIX. In all cases a misfire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or a non-cock is to be considered a misfire.
XX. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits as specified.
XXI. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake must end the business for the day.
XXII. If the cause of meeting be of such nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses. In such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.
XXIII. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol, but in gross cases two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.
XXIV. When the seconds disagree and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals. If with swords, side by side, with five paces' intervals.
XXV. No party can be allowed to bend his knee or cover his side with his left hand, but may present at any level from the hip to the eye.
XXVI. None can either advance or retreat if the ground is measured. If no ground be measured, either party may advance at his pleasure, even to the touch of muzzles, but neither can advance on his adversary after the fire, unless the adversary steps forward on him.
N.B. The seconds on both sides stand responsible for this last rule being strictly observed, bad cases having occurred from neglecting it.
N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway at the quarter sessions for that purpose.

Crow Ryan, President
James Keogh, Amby Bodkin, Secretaries"

Sharpie1
March 24, 2003, 11:38 AM
Although I don't currently own one, I would choose a 1911 in .45 ACP (of course). Also, it would be nice if the pistol would have a 100 lumen (if available) light on it, so as to blind the other guy, even in daylight.

TD

Oleg Volk
March 24, 2003, 11:39 AM
The trouble with duelling is the escalation of a forgettable situation (verbal insults) to combat. Plenty of real reasons to fight exist, why go inventing more?

jsalcedo
March 24, 2003, 11:45 AM
I think I would choose a S&W 29 loaded with 180 grain JHP

Sarge111
March 24, 2003, 12:18 PM
damage to a man's honor, or particularly that of his wife, sister, or daughter were not seen as "forgettable situations" during the time when duelling was acceptable. Today we bankrupt ourselves paying legal technicians (who frequently have no personal honor themselves, and will represent any lie as the sworn truth, or any abominable practice as morally acceptable) to fight our battles for us.

Is the world a better place without duelling? Most days, I'm not so sure. People are still getting beaten, shot and cut on a regular basis. 95% of the time, these people are (relatively) innocent and don't have a clue that a fight is about to occur. At least in duels both parties agreed to the terms and conditions of the contest, and both had some opportunity to prepare for the event.

And, of course, there was at least a 50% chance that the right person was going to get their medicine, and without the legalists getting 50% of the cost of the perscription.

Mutual combat and defensive combat are different animals entirely, and should be viewed in a different light. Most of us would be rather offended (if not hospitalized) by a flurry of punches from a champion boxer- but we don't feel very sorry or the contender who willingly climbs in the ring with him. Personally, I see duelling in much that same perspective.

Tom C.
March 24, 2003, 01:12 PM
When Hamilton shot it out with Burr, no one was really expected to hit the other. The pistols were .45 cal smooth bore single shot pistols with out sights. Hamilton tried to game the situation and borrowed a pair of 50 cal. rifled guns, with sights, and single set triggers, to really kill his enemy, Burr. History shows that he screwed up and paid the price.

Blackhawk
March 24, 2003, 01:14 PM
Hard to think in anachronistic mode, but single shot dueling pistols would be in order.

Fast forwarding to now, I'd stay out of duels by neither giving nor taking offense. :)

Country Boy
March 24, 2003, 01:14 PM
Unmodified Browning Hi-Powers. Load one round from magazine, drop magazine, magazine disconnect does it's work. If the gun actually does go off, it's Providence at work.

Standing Wolf
March 24, 2003, 01:17 PM
Pythons at fifty paces.

Jim March
March 24, 2003, 01:21 PM
Supersoakers loaded with Jack Daniels at 10 paces, both "parties" have to keep their mouths wide open, "last man standing" wins.

cratz2
March 24, 2003, 01:23 PM
What's 10 paces? 60 feet or so? I'd take my chances with a 1911 with only one round. Always let the other guy shoot first unless known to be a crack shot. Anyone that just shot at me is in pretty serious trouble 60 feet away from me with a 1911.

Nathaniel Firethorn
March 24, 2003, 01:37 PM
...cow cookies at two paces. :neener:

- pdmoderator

Croyance
March 24, 2003, 01:43 PM
Thompson Contenders in .308 Win.

buzz_knox
March 24, 2003, 02:15 PM
Forget sidearms. Flatulence at side by side bar stools. First one to keel over loses.

jsalcedo
March 24, 2003, 02:17 PM
WMD are not allowed.

Labinnac
March 24, 2003, 02:24 PM
Some one mentioned that nowadays everyone gets their lawyers to fight for them. Well then...

Maybe lawyers should duel for us then!

In that case I say they duel with WP grenades in a 10' X 10' X 8' underground concrete bunker.

Flame throwers would be fun too...

Mike Irwin
March 24, 2003, 03:00 PM
Duel?

Like hell.

You cut the offender's throat at the time of insult.

YankeeRebel
March 24, 2003, 03:23 PM
Peter Woodward on the History Channel's Conquest had a show on dueling in the 16th or 17th century. In the set up between two men Peter had one say that they had known the other's wife from a time before. Guess what, that was an insult
as the person had just insulted the husband. It to the husband. That innocent statement in this day and age insunituated back then that the wife was a women of loose morals and a duel was required to settle the insult. My how times have changed.

buzz_knox
March 24, 2003, 03:29 PM
WMD are not allowed.

Ah, I see you are familiar with my ordnance. ;)

As for lawyers dueling, that was the premise of an episode of Sliders, where Texas remained a separate nation, conquered the west, and lawyers were gunfighters. It brought a smile (and a shudder) to this lawyer. I can outshoot most of my kindred. :)

ajacobs
March 24, 2003, 04:13 PM
P7m8 chances are they can't figure out how to use it.

pax
March 24, 2003, 04:31 PM
Mark Twain had the right idea.

Why play fair?

pax

I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise, and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me now, I would go to that man and take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot, and kill him. -- Mark Twain

seeker_two
March 24, 2003, 04:51 PM
Forget pistols...

Poleaxes at 10 paces...:evil:

Ryder
March 24, 2003, 06:53 PM
"XXIV. When the seconds disagree and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals... "

Wow, I didn't know this one. Looks like they thought of everything.

cool45auto
March 24, 2003, 07:26 PM
ajacobs has the right idea. Pick something with a weird safety or something!:D

Billll
March 24, 2003, 08:08 PM
I built a pair of percussion cap, single-shot dueling pistols in .73 cal, and loaded them with paintballs. (5 gr ffg, 3/4 in ethrafoam wad). Smooth bore, front sights only. Several of us tried these in mock duels against a target at 20 yds. and decided that if you try this for real, the distance should be more like 60 yards, otherwise you're _both_ leaving the field of honor feet first. :what:
Typical was to see 2 red hits each within 6 in of bullseye in well under 1/2 sec. The longer distance will increase aiming time and give a larger CEP.

HABU
March 24, 2003, 08:12 PM
IIRC, the challengee gets to choose the weapon's, fists, sword's, pistolo's or whatever.

One of our past presidents, Andrew Jackson was involved in a duel. I dont recall the details though. I saw it on the History Channel years ago.

As for me, I spose I would want a 1911, as that is what I am most proficient with.

ahenry
March 24, 2003, 09:19 PM
One of our past presidents, Andrew Jackson was involved in a duel. I dont recall the details though. I saw it on the History Channel years ago.
This is one of my favorite historical duels, and epitomizes why Andrew Jackson was nicknamed “Old Hickory”.

Jackson knew that he would never be able to shoot before his opponent, Charles Dickinson, got off a shot so he decided beforehand to forget speed and ensure accuracy and resolved that he would shoot Dickinson even if Dickinson managed to "put a bullet in my brain pan”. Dickinson, who was a renowned shot, did indeed get off the first shot and the bullet struck Jackson in the chest, breaking two ribs and lodging near his heart where it remained for the rest of his life. Making no effort to shoot first, Jackson slowly raised his pistol after he had been struck in the chest and took careful aim and killed Dickinson. After discharging his pistol he turned and walked away. His second, Major Overton, asked Jackson if he had been hit and Jackson replied, “Oh, he pinked me”. Overton then noticed Jackson’s boot filling with blood and tried to give aid, which Jackson refused until out of sight of Dickinson’s group.


BTW, the duel was mainly over derogatory comments Dickinson made about Jacksons wife, Rachel.

ahenry
March 24, 2003, 09:21 PM
Why play fair? Because fairness and honor were the entire purpose of the duel.

pax
March 25, 2003, 12:44 AM
ahenry,

You are quite correct. I was being flippant.

pax

One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them. -- Thomas Sowell

kannonfyre
March 25, 2003, 02:09 AM
What about expandable batons?

The first person to loss conciousness, fall to the ground or yield is the loser.

Spectators can be charged a few dollars to watch. Proceedes will be split 60/40 in favour of the winner.

12.7x99mm
March 25, 2003, 04:18 AM
yep 1911 for me as well and I'd have more than one bullet

Dave McCracken
March 25, 2003, 06:33 AM
The heck with firearms,large knives at one pace.
The winner is he who needs the smaller transfusion post action...

Ol' Badger
March 25, 2003, 07:53 AM
Kevlar Body Suit

Mikul
March 25, 2003, 11:43 AM
A Glock with the New York Plus trigger (17-1/2 pounds).

Chris Rhines
March 25, 2003, 11:50 AM
In a serious duel, fought for resolving a serious conflict, I would pick whatever gun I normally carry. If the duel was a joke, I'd simply decline to participate.

Revolutionary General Israel Putnam once was challanged to a duel, and when his opponent showed up at the arrainged time and place the general was sitting on a powder keg and holding the fuse in his hand. Rules were simple; both parties sit on the keg, the fuse is lit, last man to hop off the keg and take cover wins. Elegant, especally considering that General Putnam disliked dueling and had filled the powder keg with onions... :D

- Chris

Country Boy
March 25, 2003, 12:00 PM
General Putnam sounds like he would like "Arena Poker" at some rodeos.

Contestants sit around a table in the middle of the rodeo arena, and are dealt oversize cards (the cards are a mere prop). A bull is released, and the last one sitting is the winner.

Joe Demko
March 25, 2003, 12:19 PM
XII... The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offence, and the challenged ought, if he gave offence, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore children's play must be dishonourable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited...

RON in PA
March 25, 2003, 01:29 PM
Cream pies at one pace. Dueling was the epitomy of exhuberent testosterone and stupidity. That show on the History Channel stated that approximately 40,000 Frenchmen were killed in dueling in a fifty year period (16th or 17th century). Extreme Darwinism at work, perhaps helps to explain their current behavior or demonstrates a long standing national problem.

jsalcedo
March 25, 2003, 01:33 PM
I didn't know about the 40k frenchmen.

I guess that means all the ones with cajones removed themselves form the gene pool a good while back.

ahenry
March 25, 2003, 02:02 PM
I think it is worth reiterating this point:
XII. ...the challenged ought, if he gave offence, to have made an apology before he came on the ground;

yucapote
March 25, 2003, 08:20 PM
:neener:

cool45auto
March 25, 2003, 08:27 PM
I think it was Clint Smith who said"

"Always cheat, always win!":D

Tim Burke
March 26, 2003, 08:26 AM
Dickinson, who was a renowned shot, did indeed get off the first shot and the bullet struck Jackson in the chest, breaking two ribs and lodging near his heart where it remained for the rest of his life. Making no effort to shoot first, Jackson slowly raised his pistol after he had been struck in the chest and took careful aim and killed Dickinson.If I am thinking of the correct duel, Dickinson's comment after he fired was,"My God, have I missed him?"

Kahr carrier
March 26, 2003, 08:41 AM
Desert eagles at ten paces.:p

Joe Demko
March 26, 2003, 08:59 AM
People who did things to give themselves better odds during a duel (i.e. cheated) were held in some scorn. I remember reading somewhere that Jackson's victory in his duel was considered questionable by many at the time. IIRC, he is suupposed to have deliberately worn voluminous clothing. Combined with his rather slender build, it made scoring an accurate hit on him more difficult. I consider duelling to be rather a foolish idea all around, but I also believe that if you are going to do it, then do it by both the letter and the spirit of the code. Otherwise, why not just shoot him in the back and be done with it? It is either an affair of honor or it isn't. There is no way to reconcile honor and cheating.

ahenry
March 26, 2003, 10:53 AM
Tim,
If I am thinking of the correct duel, Dickinson's comment after he fired was,"My God, have I missed him? In line with what Golgo-13 said, his loose clothing probably did save his life. IIRC, the bullet Dickinson shot went through a button on Jackson’s chest, which, because he wore loose clothing, was about two inches below his heart. In other words, Dickinson got off a perfect shot (based on his perception) and got it off first but he was still the looser.



Golgo-13,
I think a lot of the outcry was because Jackson might have pulled the trigger but the hammer didn’t fall all the way so he recocked it and fired again, this time successfully. As you have shown us, the rules of the day said that a failure of the gun was sufficient to satisfy ones honor. I am not completely convinced that Jackson’s gun did actually fail, but conventional wisdom does say that it did.

George Hill
March 26, 2003, 08:04 PM
Autocockers at 10 paces!:neener:

Tommy Gunn
March 26, 2003, 10:24 PM
My thinking is that it should remain traditional.

1) Sword & dagger

2) Sword

3) Dagger or knife (ala Jim Bowie)

4) Traditional dueling pistols (flintlock, smoothbore)

Benjamin
March 27, 2003, 01:44 AM
Say, for example, men were still expected to defend their word
and family honor with pistols at 10 paces, what would you choose?

You would have a pristine matched set of any pistol and ammo type for you and your opponent.

What handgun would you pick to face your nemesis and have aimed at you?

Smooth bore paintball guns. Single shot, or only one round loaded at a time.

Consider the following.
Oleg Volk brought up a very good point: not worth killing someone over a verbal insult.

Dueling presupposes a strong measure of honor in each party - otherwise one party would simply horsewhip the other (or attempt to).


If you feel so strongly the need to take a shot at someone in such tightly regimented circumstances, you don't really need to use a conventional slug thrower. Take the shots per rules agreed upon.
Consider it the projectile equivalent to going to first blood.
Whom so ever is struck first acknowledges defeat, and must make appropriate apologies.

If you enjoyed reading about "A modern day duel." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!