Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,216
(Not being ugly, just curious as to the maximums . .
No, you can't be Ugly. I am Ugly.
(Not being ugly, just curious as to the maximums . .
Exactly even the vaunted Walker isn’t really a sure fire item. Not to mention the difficulty in unlimbering such an unwieldy piece while a half wild bronch is chewing on your ear and tap dancing on your duodenum… it ain’t for sissies, as gramps used to say. Probably just really get him motivated is what you’d accomplish.Having owned, broke, trained and worked on horseback, I'm pretty sure that the 1860, as much as I love and respect it, would not stop or drop a horse, other than with a very lucky shot. Yes, you could kill a horse with it, but I don't see it dropping or stopping a running/charging horse. So no, in that sense I don't see how it could be a "requirement", or be expected to do so.
Probably just really get him motivated is what you’d accomplish.
Jay Massey was once asked by a sport if the .357 magnum was enough for defense against Grizzlies. Jay say, “Oh hell, yeah! 357’s kill grizzlies! Eventually…”Oh yeah, the hoss would die...later. Possibly much later. Maybe the next day.
Jay Massey was once asked by a sport if the .357 magnum was enough for defense against Grizzlies. Jay say, “Oh hell, yeah! 357’s kill grizzlies! Eventually…”
When Monty Browning killed the largest brown killed with a longbow, he said it ran 80 yards away before it died with the top of its heart cut off. His guide said, “He’d have had plenty of time to do a lot of damage before he expired…”Like a good heavy broadhead arrow from a powerful bow...it will kill a grizzly, after he's done mauling you.
Apparently the best thing you can do if a grizz tries to take you down is play dead. Not saying I would or could but that’s what the experts say. With blacks you’re supposed to fight like the devil is after your soul. Confusing huh?Truth. Generally speaking, they will break off the attack/mauling sooner if wounded badly. I heard of/saw/read about one incident where that was the case. I think they sense, or know when they are wounded bad. So I'd still put one in a charging bear had I the chance, and then it's K-bar time. I'm sure as hell not gonna play dead while something tries to kill me. !!!
Apparently the best thing you can do if a grizz tries to take you down is play dead.
Incuding the myth about the requirement to kill a horse at (fill in a number) yards. That one has been repeated many times but no one has been able to document it as part of any criteria. But, it does sound good and it should have been included.
Kevin
I have seen where it said they were sighted in at 75 yards but not what the target was. I have heard speculation it was to hit either a horse or the man on the horse. Disable a troopers horse and you've pretty much taken him out of the fight.
I have seen where it said they were sighted in at 75 yards but not what the target was. I have heard speculation it was to hit either a horse or the man on the horse. Disable a troopers horse and you've pretty much taken him out of the fight.
Was it not mostly cavalry that carried cap and ball revolvers in the civil war? I’m not exactly sure how far apart each side was from one another when they were within shooting distance of each other? I could see were the skirmish lines would be approximately 75 yards apart and then you could just hold center mass and shoot if u had a revolver instead of a Springfield/enfield.
some of them just threw them away on the side of the road.
Oh man, what road was that??? I'm gonna go look! But seriously, at the end of the war, when entire armies surrendered, the woods were littered with rifles leaning against trees as the soldiers returning home didn't want to carry them. Some kept them, some were surrendered, but from what I understand the locals could pick up rifles by the hundreds.
Exactly, I would think that a Springfield rifle would be very useful back home on the farm. Heck it would probably be the most valuable thing they owned monetarily.I can't imagine a soldier not wanting to take a perfectly good rifle home, especially the poorer ones.
Whatever road they were on when they started getting heavy.
I think it was harder on union soldiers. Their officers were more spit and polish than most southern officers. They pretty much had to carry all of their field gear. Most southerners didn't even have backpacks. They carried everything they had in a rolled up blanket. They tossed everything they didn't need. Many of them even tossed their bayonets.
Also consider having to walk home two-three-four hundred miles and packing that Springfield with you. I do suspect many pistols made it home, but don't say nothing.
I don't think the walk would bother them too much packing a rifle. They didn't move much during the winter months but in summer they marched a lot of miles. Going home with a good rifle would help a lot.
Yes, but, the terms of surrender did not allow them to take their rifles home, and Union patrols ( and I imagine some of them were very nasty people, out for revenge) were active after the surrender. I suppose some snuck home if they were not far from home with their rifles, but for the majority it wasn't an option. Didn't happen, other than in rare instances. Could not just go home with a rifle.