The commonality of the street gunfight/duel at high noon at twenty paces is a myth. It may have happened but not nearly as much as movies, TV or paperback westerns would have you believe. It was rare because both gunfighters stood a likely chance of eventually being hit. It was too much of a risk even for a fast drawing pistolero.
A much more typical gunfight went down like this -
Gunfighter A and gunfighter B have a beef with each other and are itching to gun one another down. They see each other in town, at the shop, maybe on the trail. Gunfighter A enters a saloon where Gunfighter B has been drinking, playing cards and entertaining women. Gunfighter A, seeking the advantage this day, remains sober and starts agitating his opponent casting verbal insults, poking fun, doing whatever necessary to bring Gunfighter B to the edge. When Gunfighter B, in a drunken or irritiated (cards) or embarassed (women) state finally has enough and fumbles for his piece for some closure of the agitation whence Gunfighter A calmly and smoothly draws, and at a range much closer than 20 paces, delivers an accurate and fatal blow by which Gunfighter B will have a very difficult time returning fire.
Gunfighter A has several witnesses that will testify to the fact that Gunfighter B went for his gun first and therefore had to act in self defense. He is not prosecuted and remains a free man while his opponent has been killed.
It was all about gaining an advantage through trickery and treachery at very close ranges because the revolvers used weren't nearly as accurate or reliable as anything the movies and western fiction writers would have you believe.
Source for this is respected firearm writer George Nonte who's book Revolvers I have been reading.
Share some other myths.
A much more typical gunfight went down like this -
Gunfighter A and gunfighter B have a beef with each other and are itching to gun one another down. They see each other in town, at the shop, maybe on the trail. Gunfighter A enters a saloon where Gunfighter B has been drinking, playing cards and entertaining women. Gunfighter A, seeking the advantage this day, remains sober and starts agitating his opponent casting verbal insults, poking fun, doing whatever necessary to bring Gunfighter B to the edge. When Gunfighter B, in a drunken or irritiated (cards) or embarassed (women) state finally has enough and fumbles for his piece for some closure of the agitation whence Gunfighter A calmly and smoothly draws, and at a range much closer than 20 paces, delivers an accurate and fatal blow by which Gunfighter B will have a very difficult time returning fire.
Gunfighter A has several witnesses that will testify to the fact that Gunfighter B went for his gun first and therefore had to act in self defense. He is not prosecuted and remains a free man while his opponent has been killed.
It was all about gaining an advantage through trickery and treachery at very close ranges because the revolvers used weren't nearly as accurate or reliable as anything the movies and western fiction writers would have you believe.
Source for this is respected firearm writer George Nonte who's book Revolvers I have been reading.
Share some other myths.
Last edited:
