Old school vs New in shoot-out


May 14, 2003, 01:04 AM
Who do you think would win in a gun fight if people from this time in history-Robbie leathem, Massad Ayoob, Clint Smith, ect......-Had to shoot it out with the gunmen from the old west- John Wesly hardin, Earp brothers, Bill hitchcock, ect...

I'm not comparing weapons here.....we have much better weapons now, just the mentalty and overall fight in the men.

If you enjoyed reading about "Old school vs New in shoot-out" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 14, 2003, 02:18 AM
I would say old school.

They are not worried about law suits that might make them hesitate. They are just rough, rugged, and raw. They don't care who dies, or who might be suing them.


May 14, 2003, 10:04 AM
I would say old school, too. Much more accustomed to everyday bloodshed/violence. Slaughter your own animals, Apache raids, wars on US soil, etc. They had not analysed the 'mindset', but I guarantee that they lived it.

H Romberg
May 14, 2003, 10:30 AM
I say any PFC from the 3rd ID would whupp both sets if he had his whole "army of one" set-up. He'd just call in his buddies with the napalm, and call endex.

May 14, 2003, 11:03 AM
I believe John Wesley Hardin had more experience at killing than Massoud Ayoob.

4v50 Gary
May 14, 2003, 11:03 AM
New school because of mindset & superior training.

Dave T
May 14, 2003, 11:41 AM
List the names of the "victims" of your old school characters and compair it to the "victims" of your new school. Guess which list is going to be the longest.

Experience counts.

4v50, where do you think the best "mind set" comes from - a classroom or the real world?

May 14, 2003, 11:45 AM
All things being equal, I'd bet the shooter that got the jump on his opponent would "win" :evil:

May 14, 2003, 11:49 AM
If you look it up most of those old boys had no qualms about back shooting if that's what it took. It was dead or alive and you didn't have to feed dead men or worry about keeping an eye on them when you slept. Plus a lot of sawed-offs were carried then or close at hand. Just clear the room and sort them out later!:what: :scrutiny:

Mike Irwin
May 14, 2003, 12:32 PM
I'd take Bill Jordan or Charles Askins in a shootout any day.

Stone killers, especially Askins.

May 14, 2003, 12:34 PM
Wouldn't a more accurate comparison be between the "old school" and their actual modern counterparts: McVeigh, Ted Bundy, etc?

Dean Speir
May 14, 2003, 12:37 PM
 Stone killers, especially Askins. Yeah, he sure loved back-shooting those "pesky Meskins" as they were hightailing it back across the Rio Grande!


May 14, 2003, 12:40 PM
Reckon the ''old school'' would have a definite edge.!

Joe Demko
May 14, 2003, 12:47 PM
Given that the body counts for the "old school" tend to be grossly exaggerated and that there was more danger from starvation, pestilence, and weather on the frontier than from Indians or badmen...I'd still go with the old school since most of them appear to have been pretty sociopathic characters and are therefore more likely to kill unhesitatingly. Askins is in a class by himself. The man has to be the world's most widely read murderer.

May 14, 2003, 12:54 PM
Heck, I'd be happy to have Bob Munden on my side, with his crack shot and super duper fast quick draw skills. I'll bet none of them old schoolers could hit an egg at 200 yards with a .45.

But I say new school wins.

Ol' Badger
May 14, 2003, 12:58 PM
how else are you going to shoot those "pesky Meskins" when they run away from you?

Sorry man. Had to do it, Bill Jordan fan here.

4v50 Gary
May 14, 2003, 01:07 PM
Why new school indeed? While real life training has substantial advantages and there's quite a difference between punching as opposed to slaying a man who throwing lead your way, let's not forget the new school advantages. Better training and most of all, intense practice supplemented by more practice. Anybody here seriously think Wyatt Earp can draw faster than Rob Leatham or whether Hardin can outshoot either John Pride or Louis Awerback (sp)?

To be more fair, can our modern Cowboy Action Shooters outshoot a real western gunfighter?

May 14, 2003, 01:08 PM
I say OLD SCHOOL. Cause They just did not give a crap. Live or die. :neener:

Mike Irwin
May 14, 2003, 01:22 PM
Askins had more than his fair share of "front" shootings, as well.

And the transparent attempt to smear Askins by alluding to some violation of the "code of the Old West" is also bunk.

Shooting fleeing suspects was a recognized and valid law enforcement technique at that time.

No BS formalities such as "stop, or I'll have to think about asking permission to possibly draw my weapon from its holster" required.

Guy's got a gun and a pannier on his back, and is wading across the Rio Grande?

Hey, guess what. He's not coming for the waters at Berkley Springs.

Chris Rhines
May 14, 2003, 01:36 PM
It is hardly a smear to call Charlie Askins a murderous thug; that is exactly what he was. But that's not really relevant to the question of how good a gunfighter he was. By all accounts he was quite good, but I doubt that he would match up against Awerbuck or Rogers. Modern technique and modern equipment count for a lot.

- Chris

Art Eatman
May 14, 2003, 02:17 PM
Anybody wanna dispute my belief that Chip McCormick is a lot faster that I am? I've shot against him, so I know firsthand. Among comparative performances, his best time on the Steel Challenge's "Double Trouble" was 1.03 seconds; mine, 1.30.

One day (in 1982) while "meddling" at Chip's range out from Austin toward Dripping Springs, the subject of Hollywood gunfights came up. I came up with a gunfight deal for me and Chip.

We started with holstered pistols (Old daze IPSC leather) and our hands in the "Surrender" position. The targets were 8" steel plates at about ten yards.

The deal was that Chip couldn't draw until I moved. Whoever's plate fell first was the winner. I "killed" him every time. He could not overcome that 0.2 seconds of lag time that everybody is subject to.

Old West winners usually already had their gun out before the other guy got started or realized there was a problem. You walk up behind a guy with your gun out and maybe already aimed and call him by name. He turns, going for his gun, and you shoot him in the front. "Fair fight; he was going for his gun; I shot him from in front." Yeah, right.

John Selman's bullet that killed John Wesley Hardin entered Hardin's back. Selman's claim: "He was looking at me in the mirror of the bar!" Hardin killed a bunch of guys, but I doubt there was ever anything like a "fair fight".

Overall, for one with a high skill level, the combination of mindset and "out-thinking" that other guy will do more to win a shootout than equipment and elaborate training.


May 14, 2003, 02:41 PM
Lets compare apples to apples. Are there any modern shooters that have the mano-mano combat experience of the "old school".
Quessing, but probably not. What about a guy like Jim Cirello?

Mike Irwin
May 14, 2003, 02:55 PM
Murderous thug, sociopath, cold blooded, perhaps even psychopath, are all attributes that can be realistically ascribed to Atkins.

The inference I took from the message, however, was that he was a coward and had to shoot people in the back.

Of all attributes, coward is probably the one that can be least attributed to Askins.

As for modern equipment are you saying that Askins favorite handgun, the Colt 1911, isn't modern enough to stick with today's boys?

Uh oh, you've gone and done it now... :evil:

Personally, though, I'd say that equipment and techniques still fall far behind the individual's attitude.

May 15, 2003, 01:25 AM
Thanks for the replies to the thread....my point for this is that in the middle-late 1800's everybody carried a gun, everybody treated everybody like they had a gun, and nobody got careless about it. the reason there were so many ambushes is b/c you don't want to face a man you know is armed. I believe that history repeats it self, and the "bad guys" have mostly gone back to carrying guns(have they ever stopped?) Now we as people of the US are finally standing up and using our right to defend ourselves. It's almost as though the trainers have been trying to bring back the mentality our ancestors posessed...granted, wyatt earp would rather have ambushed you than "pie" a room, and we have some very well thought out tactics they didn't....but we still need to be aware that others besides us have guns, and are ready to kill us if we get in thier way. The diffrence is that we have to be able to turn it off......we aren't trying to be "gunfighters" in the sense that we go looking for it, but we need to be able to defend against an attack effectively, and hopefully with greater skill than our attacker. Then we must go home to our family's and hug our babies, without remorse for defending our way of life. It's the diffrence between being a killer as a way of life, and becoming one for long enough to gain control of circumstances.

I belive new school would win, b/c of tactics such as cover fire, suppresive fire, room clearing, use of cover..ect.. that we train for, tactics that are gifts of swat teams and military units. But if you were to ever have to fight somebody like hardin...just be sure you kill him real good , or you will not live to regret it.
Just food for though...fell free to disagree

May 15, 2003, 08:33 AM
Definitely old school. They didn't have to think about consequences of lawsuits, biased juries etc. Most of them already had the mindset since they killed before and it was second nature to them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Old school vs New in shoot-out" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!