• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Gunfights in history

Status
Not open for further replies.
BruceRDucer

Yep, I read "Shooter" also and what I took away from that was the VERY disruptive effect of accurate aimed fire on the battle field and how that can be a force multiplier in an urban environment. Hense the aggressor sets the tone of the battlefield.

Back on the Texas Rangers, and even afterwards the standard cavalry tactic was to ride to location, dismount and shoot. So cavalries were effectively only swift moving foot soldiers. However the potential fo the Colt 6 shooter changed that whole paradigm.

Another one from the Texas Rangers, the Battle of Enchanted Rock. Again, here the colts helped, but it was attitude that carried the day.

http://www.forttours.com/pages/jackhays.asp#ENCHANTED ROCK

Sun Tsu said it first, if you want men to fight, put them in a position where there is no retreat and the only option is kill or be killed.

To follow up on what 1811Tuner said, in Clint Eastwood's movie "Unforgiven" the whole discourse between Little Bill and Beauchamp on gun fighting is worthwhile. Little Bill explains that most drovers, teamsters and the like carried guns, but were not killers - Like he and English Bob were.

But I also remember watching an interview with Louis Lamour when I was a kid. The interviewer asked him about the "High Noon" scenario. To which Louis Lamour laughed and said the townspeople would have shot Frank Miller and his gang deader than donuts. He reasoned that even in the 1880's you had a lot of Civil War veterans that (1) knew how to use firearms, and (2) wouldn't stand for any two bit bank robbers endangering their town.

In fact most "dangerous" men were either lawmen, or outlaws that stayed close to home where they had family to hide them or warn them when the law was coming

Just for fun check this link if you want see the story of Bill Longley - the real deal when it came to bad hombres.

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/TX-BillLongley.html
 
Your local library is full of books about this, many of them with eyewitness accounts and thorough research.

"Lawyer with a Gun" is a good biography of Temple Houston, the lawyer son of Sam Houston. It's by Glenn Shirley, who was a Stillwater, Oklahoma officer. Good account of an actual gunfight in a bar in which there were plenty of witnesses and sworn testimony was taken.

When I was in graduate school I read this book, which I still think is an outstanding book:

Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes: Violence on the Frontier
by Roger D. McGrath

Despite the racy title, it's an academic study of violence in two mining towns, one in California and one in Nevada. McGrath concludes that because essentially everyone, even the prostitutes, was armed, there was almost no petty crime. However, sometimes disputes did escalate. It's not about gunfights as such, but does include good accounts of when violence occurred and why.

The history of what is now Oklahoma from the Civil War to the 1900 contains many gunfights, most of were two groups of people shooting at one another from behind cover. When there was no cover you had things like the Going Snake Massacre, which last time I checked was the largest single loss of life by U.S. Marshals, who tried to cross open ground and enter a fortified building.

From my reading I would say that accuracy with handguns was not very common in the old west, and someone who could be accurate under fire was rare. But there seem to have been plenty of good rifle shots, perhaps due to hunting.

I also have read plenty of instances of people who "just needed shooting" and these mostly back up the "shoot them from ambush" comment above.

What surprised me was how few jams there were, considering the arms they had.
 
Does speed of reloading in a protracted conflict make a real difference?
I know of a case where it did, but the good guy (CHP officer) was killed because of slow reloading (revolver with loose cartridges).

Newhall Incident
On April 6, 1970, four CHP officers, Officers James Pence, Roger Gore, Walt Frago, and George Alleyn, were gunned down in less than five minutes in Newhall, California (CHP History) during the course of a traffic stop of two heavily armed career criminals, Bobby Davis and Jack Twinning. Two of the officers, Frago and Gore, made the initial stop of the vehicle for brandishing a weapon. When the officers began to search the suspects they were fired upon and killed. Almost immediately thereafter, the two responding backup officers, Pence and Alleyn, arrived at the scene and were fired upon before they could see either the downed officers or the suspects. The officers managed to wound one of the suspects before being shot and killed. Davis was caught in the ensuing search of the area and Jack Twinning committed suicide. Davis was convicted and sentenced to death in the gas chamber, but the sentence was changed to life in prison when the California Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. He is currently imprisoned in Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California.

The incident at Newhall led to major reforms in training procedures, firearms use, and arrest techniques. The Newhall Incident has since become an important part of the training of all law enforcement officers. It was the beginning of the term "officer safety" (i.e. "You will train how you will fight as you will fight how you train.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Highway_Patrol

According to an account elsewhere, one of the officers killed was trying to reload when the killer came up on him. Also note how little time elapsed.
 
How could Columbine, St. Valentine's Day and the Beltway snipers come to be called "gun fights"? Shooting down unarmed people in a surprise attack is not a "gunfight" in any sense that I understand - it is murder, and should not be glorified for the amusement of those who get their kicks out of the idea of slaughtering people.
I would agree, they are not gun fights. The death of Bonnie and Clyde was not a gun fight either, even though they were armed, like the St. Valentine's Day shootees.

But I don't think the "Written in Lead" book talks about these shootings so they can to "glorified for the amusement of those who get their kicks out of the idea of slaughtering people." It try to explain the events behind them, inculding the overall situration in the country at the time, to explore how news of them affected people and (in some cases) changed the country, to to seperate what really happened from myth.
 
I dont have the issue with me, and can never remember the guys name, but there was an ex-Army Officer in the old west Gold Mining days who defeated something like 14 bandits by himself with good shooting. His two partners were both hit, one killed the other injured (died later), almost immediately. He drew his pistols, stood his ground, and shot dead like 9 of them. The rest approached him with knives and even a sword, and this guy, out of ammo, drew his own knife and cut two of the guys to death. The rest got wise and ran off. I'll look up his name at home.

-
George Patton also shot dead several men in a gunfight in the early 1900s. He stood his ground in the middle of the street and took aimed fire at an approaching mexican 'general' and shot him dead.

-
Wild Bill Hickock stood his ground, let David Tutt blindly fire off a bunch of rounds, steadied his aim and shot him at a great distance, perhaps 75 yards.

-
At the OK Corral, the Earps + Holliday outnumbered the cowboys in terms of guns, and won the fight. However all but Holliday and Wyatt were wounded. They say most of the cowboys ran around for position, but Wyatt stood still and took aimed fire.
-
Gotta run, but I have more to provide! I love the Wild West, and have read a bunch.
 
all but Holliday and Wyatt were wounded

Everyone was hit except Wyatt and Ike Clanton. Ike was unarmed and ran when it started. Holliday was hit in the hip. It's been debated as to exactly who hit him. Lemme go look...

EDIT TO ADD

Billy Claiborne was also unhit, and ran from the fight shortly after it started...but it's generally believed that Holliday was either hit by Claiborne or Frank McLowery early on...but still unknown for sure.
 
Brass didn't like the idea of multiple shot metalic cartridge firearms beleiving they were wasteful and the single shot muzzleloaders made the troops take aim.

We had a police chief in the 70's who did not want the officers to carry high cap autos, believing that they would aim better with wheel guns.
 
Old West Gunfights

This web site has details of some of the most famous gunfights in the old west.
www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-Gunfights.html

About a year ago I became interested in what guns and techniques were used by the gunfighters of the old west and have accumulated a small library of books on the subject. Fascinating reading. It appears that the guy who who was able to shoot accurately under fire had a big advantage, because many people would loose their cool and shoot wild. Also many people lost a gunfight because they were ambushed or deliberately distracted and tricked into looking the other way.
 
Clay Allison etc Western Gunfighter

I studied the history of the gunfighter Clay Allison on the website just above. It seems to defy some of the conventional wisdom.

I've copied the Lance Thomas article and will read it tonight. It will prove useful for us I think. :)
 
Lance Thomas etc

"When you got to shoot...shoot! Don't talk!"

Yeah, that's about the "drama queen" scenario, where a guy holding a gun suddenly decides to have a momentary soap-opera melodrama. Anyone who needs to hold a gun to start up a conversation, probably has no business holding a gun.

Last night I read the story about Lance Thomas, who owned the Rolex Watch shop in L.A.

The story is amazing and highly instructive.

For example, note this:

He's in his watch shop, and a man or several men walk in, and one pulls out a handgun and says, "Don't move".

At that point, the visceral courage of Lance Thomas shows: He does not "freeze up". He reaches forward under his counter and pulls his gun and begins firing away.

That struck me as significant.
 
At that point, the visceral courage of Lance Thomas shows: He does not "freeze up". He reaches forward under his counter and pulls his gun and begins firing away.

That struck me as significant.

Yep. Lance Thomas understood that he could work inside their reaction times...especially given the fact that they didn't expect anything except an immediate freeze-up and compliance.

It takes the average human brain 1/2 to 3/5ths of a second to recognize that something has happened, and and another 10th of a second for the synapses to fire and move a trigger finger.

Unless the invaders had their guns leveled at him...sights aligned, and fingers on the triggers...he probably had a full second to respond. If he was also well practiced at rapid target aquisition and the snap shot...he was able to shoot the first one and lock onto another while the rest were scrambling around, trying to adjust to the fact that he'd just decked one of'em.

When he was faced with just one...he'd already made up his mind what he was going to do beforehand, and...being alert and aware that something was wrong when the guy entered the shop...was able to take the initiative...and win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top