Vern Humphrey
Member
Most gunfights were not between rustic knights without armor, but involved cold-blooded killers, on one side, if not both. Not much different from today.
did cowboys have a real disadvantage?
- Thread starter medievalmax
- Start date
- Status
peacemaker45
Member
I wonder how many "senior level history students," become such because they cannot cope with mathematics? In a discussion of the Colt SAA, you wish to put the time frame 100 years before WWI? That would make it 1814, which was 59 years before the SAA's release. Prior indeed to the widespread advent of any revolver? Colt's first revolver, called the Paterson, and a much different animal from the later SAA was still 22 years in the future.
At any rate, I think that the original question, if asked in a somewhat more informed manner might have been phrased thus: "Would a man, in 1874, armed with a Colt's Single Action Army revolver have been at a disadvantage, when compared to the other sidearms available at the time?" The answer is a resounding NO.
There wasn't much competition in the power field, as the only revolver more powerful at the time was the '47 Walker Colt, of which only 1100 were made. The walker was powerful, but hugely massive, unreliable, and used cap 'n' ball loading, rather than cartridges, also the low production figures indicate that it wasn't the most available thing, either. .45 Colt, or .44-40, either chambering oustrips just about anything else that was widely available.
Rate of Fire wasn't much of an issue, as the SAA is still the fastest cycling pistol around, when in expert hands, for the first 5 or six shots. 1911 can't touch it, nor can a Glock, (even the G18, or so I've heard) or the DA of your choice. S&W's Schofield, which was the SAA's contemporary is far slower.
Reliability was either superior or far superior to anything else available. The earlier percussion revolvers were prone to all manner of problems, such as falling loading levers, wet powder, exploded caps locking the actions, powder fouling doing the same, chain fires, the list goes on. The few DA revolvers around at the time were very delicate little creatures, unlike the rugged SAA. Again, the SAA wins over the Schofield, as the Smith was a much more complex design, and also was prone to the top break breaking open at inopportune moments. I've witnessed this at a SASS match, buzzer goes off, Schofield user draws, and the hinge pops open, ejecting his shells on the ground. Not good, if your hollywood showdown opponent has a Colt, while you're trying to pick up your bullets that just fell on the ground, he's launching his at you.
The only place that the SAA doesn't really shine today is in the time it takes to reload. But in 1874, its only competition would have been the cap 'n' ball 1858 Remington, or the Schofield. The Remmie wins, provided you have spare cylinders loaded, and on hand. Could use about like a modern speedloader. The Schofield is also a touch faster, as it ejects all shells simultaneously, rather than one at a time. However, a practiced hand can unload and reload a SAA in about 9-12 seconds.
The only major failing with the SAA design was the safety notch. It was intended to be fully loaded, and carried with the hammer on the so called safety notch, i.e. the first of the four clicks. However, that notch in the hammer was prone to breakage, which allowed the hammer to fall a short distance to a live primer. Together with whatever force broke the notch in the first place, this usually resulted in an accidental discharge. As such, the only safe way to carry a SAA is with the hammer down on an empty chamber.
Otherwise, you might find yourself with a case of Glock leg. Oops, I meant Colt leg, really, I did.
~~~Mat
At any rate, I think that the original question, if asked in a somewhat more informed manner might have been phrased thus: "Would a man, in 1874, armed with a Colt's Single Action Army revolver have been at a disadvantage, when compared to the other sidearms available at the time?" The answer is a resounding NO.
There wasn't much competition in the power field, as the only revolver more powerful at the time was the '47 Walker Colt, of which only 1100 were made. The walker was powerful, but hugely massive, unreliable, and used cap 'n' ball loading, rather than cartridges, also the low production figures indicate that it wasn't the most available thing, either. .45 Colt, or .44-40, either chambering oustrips just about anything else that was widely available.
Rate of Fire wasn't much of an issue, as the SAA is still the fastest cycling pistol around, when in expert hands, for the first 5 or six shots. 1911 can't touch it, nor can a Glock, (even the G18, or so I've heard) or the DA of your choice. S&W's Schofield, which was the SAA's contemporary is far slower.
Reliability was either superior or far superior to anything else available. The earlier percussion revolvers were prone to all manner of problems, such as falling loading levers, wet powder, exploded caps locking the actions, powder fouling doing the same, chain fires, the list goes on. The few DA revolvers around at the time were very delicate little creatures, unlike the rugged SAA. Again, the SAA wins over the Schofield, as the Smith was a much more complex design, and also was prone to the top break breaking open at inopportune moments. I've witnessed this at a SASS match, buzzer goes off, Schofield user draws, and the hinge pops open, ejecting his shells on the ground. Not good, if your hollywood showdown opponent has a Colt, while you're trying to pick up your bullets that just fell on the ground, he's launching his at you.
The only place that the SAA doesn't really shine today is in the time it takes to reload. But in 1874, its only competition would have been the cap 'n' ball 1858 Remington, or the Schofield. The Remmie wins, provided you have spare cylinders loaded, and on hand. Could use about like a modern speedloader. The Schofield is also a touch faster, as it ejects all shells simultaneously, rather than one at a time. However, a practiced hand can unload and reload a SAA in about 9-12 seconds.
The only major failing with the SAA design was the safety notch. It was intended to be fully loaded, and carried with the hammer on the so called safety notch, i.e. the first of the four clicks. However, that notch in the hammer was prone to breakage, which allowed the hammer to fall a short distance to a live primer. Together with whatever force broke the notch in the first place, this usually resulted in an accidental discharge. As such, the only safe way to carry a SAA is with the hammer down on an empty chamber.
Otherwise, you might find yourself with a case of Glock leg. Oops, I meant Colt leg, really, I did.
~~~Mat
thumper723
Member
Mat,
Just out of curiosity, becasue I don't know..
How is the SAA faster than a 1911? I can dump a magazine in a 1911 as fast as I can twicth my finger.. But I am not the best pistol handler in the world.
Just out of curiosity, becasue I don't know..
How is the SAA faster than a 1911? I can dump a magazine in a 1911 as fast as I can twicth my finger.. But I am not the best pistol handler in the world.
Jim March
Member
With a "Five Finger Fan".
During the draw, cock it with your strong hand thumb. Fire it the first time with the trigger...then keep holding back that trigger.
Now with your off-hand, sweep the hammer four or five times (styles differ), once with each digit. It's fast as hell...equivelent to a 600rpm+ full-auto fire rate in very capable hands.
The SA revolver action doesn't need the trigger reset between shots. So you can hold the trigger back and "fan it". Done with too much force (such as using the off-hand palm in typical Hollywood fashion) it tears the gun to hell...but done with a bit of care, it's not too bad.
There's an alternative called "hammer slipping", where you use the strong-hand thumb to repeatedly fire the gun by stroking the hammer with the trigger pulled back. With practice it's about as fast an accurate as using a DA trigger.
During the draw, cock it with your strong hand thumb. Fire it the first time with the trigger...then keep holding back that trigger.
Now with your off-hand, sweep the hammer four or five times (styles differ), once with each digit. It's fast as hell...equivelent to a 600rpm+ full-auto fire rate in very capable hands.
The SA revolver action doesn't need the trigger reset between shots. So you can hold the trigger back and "fan it". Done with too much force (such as using the off-hand palm in typical Hollywood fashion) it tears the gun to hell...but done with a bit of care, it's not too bad.
There's an alternative called "hammer slipping", where you use the strong-hand thumb to repeatedly fire the gun by stroking the hammer with the trigger pulled back. With practice it's about as fast an accurate as using a DA trigger.
tinygnat219
Member
There is also historical evidence of gunfighters removing the trigger from the Colt SAA and doing something internal so all they had to do was fan the hammer. The Colt SAA is faster than the 1911, but gimmee the 1911 anyday.
I thought the safety notch was a section on the cylinder cut between chambers to rest the hammer without it being over a live round.
And be careful how you fan. They put "fanning spurs" on the hammer to make it easier. And less painful, from what I've heard.
And be careful how you fan. They put "fanning spurs" on the hammer to make it easier. And less painful, from what I've heard.
Lots of good info, and some errors as well
most of what I was going to point out has already been said by some of the more knowledgable posters, but A few things still need clarifying.
First off, the shooter armed with an SAA was NOT at a disadvantage against the other guns of the day, they were nearly all single action as well. Slower to reload than a top break, yes, slightly, BUT, reloading was not considered as important then as it is now. Getting the job done without having to reload was of paramount importance, and had been since the days of single shot muzzleloaders.
True, the amount of practice most of the lower income people got was not much, but balance that against the fact that using the guns were often part of their daily lives, so actual use was greater than today. And that people grew up to use guns at a very early age (compared to more modern times)only adds to the overall skill level.
As has been noted, actual Hollywood type shootouts were quite rare, and that is why the OK Corral was such a popular tale. Most of our ideas about the Wild West are from the minds of Hollywood writers and directors, and have only a passing resemblance to the reality of the day.
As to the "hidebound" Army brass, well, yes and no. Look at things through the eyes of the day and things look a bit different than looking at things from today's viewpoint.
As has been mentioned, the Army was short of cash. So we went with what became the Trapdoor Springfield, because it was cheap. The fellow (don;t remember the name) who designed the conversion worked in the Springfield plant, so the Army didn't have to pay any royalties for the design.
And, range and power were the ideals of the day. The trapdoor rifle had the range and power deemed necessary, and it had a tremendous rate of fire compared to muzzleloaders, AND it could be loaded lying down! It wasn't until breechloading repeaters became common that there was any drawback to the single shot trapdoor, and even then, volley fire was intended to take out the enemy at long range before they got into the close range where their low powered repeaters would be effective. it didn't always work that way, but that was the idea.
One thing that for some reason hasn't been mentioned is that along with Custer's ego, poor use of terrain and scouting, and decision to leave his Gatling guns behind (they would have slowed him down) his men were outnumbered something like 10 to 1 (or more). And that unlike Rourke's Drift, there was no prepared position, and the native attackers did have a quantity of arms, some of which were modern repeaters, and were (apparently) more skilled in their use than the Zulus were with their captured Martinis.
In Custer's situation, even belt feds might not have altered the final outcome, although the Indians would have certainly paid a higher butcher's bill.
Although the Colt SAA is today a historical relic, and no longer considerd suitable for serious social purposes, in it's day it was the pinnacle of advancement. Double actions came along soon after, but the swing out cylinder was still decades in the future. And as has been mentioned, not until the introduction of the .357 magnum was the power threshold of the SAA exceeded in cartridge firing handguns. The first sucessful autoloader was the Mauser C96 "Broomhandle", introduced in 1896, and I doubt very many of them made it to the Wild West before 1900, or even after. And even then, autopistols with detachable magazines came along even later. The Browning designs of 1900, and 1905, which became the 1911 all came along after the west was "won".
Like nearly everything have to do with guns, forming your opinions based on movies and TV will lead to some minor misconceptions, and a host of gross inaccuracies. Hollywood (et al) exaggerates nearly everything for dramatic effect. And they fabricate things that are completely unrealistic, just for their entertainment effect. After a few generations of people watching this type of thing, reality seems to be lacking a certain luster. Don't be fooled. Even the History Channel doesn't get it all correct, but generally they try to, alot more than other entertainment venues.
most of what I was going to point out has already been said by some of the more knowledgable posters, but A few things still need clarifying.
First off, the shooter armed with an SAA was NOT at a disadvantage against the other guns of the day, they were nearly all single action as well. Slower to reload than a top break, yes, slightly, BUT, reloading was not considered as important then as it is now. Getting the job done without having to reload was of paramount importance, and had been since the days of single shot muzzleloaders.
True, the amount of practice most of the lower income people got was not much, but balance that against the fact that using the guns were often part of their daily lives, so actual use was greater than today. And that people grew up to use guns at a very early age (compared to more modern times)only adds to the overall skill level.
As has been noted, actual Hollywood type shootouts were quite rare, and that is why the OK Corral was such a popular tale. Most of our ideas about the Wild West are from the minds of Hollywood writers and directors, and have only a passing resemblance to the reality of the day.
As to the "hidebound" Army brass, well, yes and no. Look at things through the eyes of the day and things look a bit different than looking at things from today's viewpoint.
As has been mentioned, the Army was short of cash. So we went with what became the Trapdoor Springfield, because it was cheap. The fellow (don;t remember the name) who designed the conversion worked in the Springfield plant, so the Army didn't have to pay any royalties for the design.
And, range and power were the ideals of the day. The trapdoor rifle had the range and power deemed necessary, and it had a tremendous rate of fire compared to muzzleloaders, AND it could be loaded lying down! It wasn't until breechloading repeaters became common that there was any drawback to the single shot trapdoor, and even then, volley fire was intended to take out the enemy at long range before they got into the close range where their low powered repeaters would be effective. it didn't always work that way, but that was the idea.
One thing that for some reason hasn't been mentioned is that along with Custer's ego, poor use of terrain and scouting, and decision to leave his Gatling guns behind (they would have slowed him down) his men were outnumbered something like 10 to 1 (or more). And that unlike Rourke's Drift, there was no prepared position, and the native attackers did have a quantity of arms, some of which were modern repeaters, and were (apparently) more skilled in their use than the Zulus were with their captured Martinis.
In Custer's situation, even belt feds might not have altered the final outcome, although the Indians would have certainly paid a higher butcher's bill.
Although the Colt SAA is today a historical relic, and no longer considerd suitable for serious social purposes, in it's day it was the pinnacle of advancement. Double actions came along soon after, but the swing out cylinder was still decades in the future. And as has been mentioned, not until the introduction of the .357 magnum was the power threshold of the SAA exceeded in cartridge firing handguns. The first sucessful autoloader was the Mauser C96 "Broomhandle", introduced in 1896, and I doubt very many of them made it to the Wild West before 1900, or even after. And even then, autopistols with detachable magazines came along even later. The Browning designs of 1900, and 1905, which became the 1911 all came along after the west was "won".
Like nearly everything have to do with guns, forming your opinions based on movies and TV will lead to some minor misconceptions, and a host of gross inaccuracies. Hollywood (et al) exaggerates nearly everything for dramatic effect. And they fabricate things that are completely unrealistic, just for their entertainment effect. After a few generations of people watching this type of thing, reality seems to be lacking a certain luster. Don't be fooled. Even the History Channel doesn't get it all correct, but generally they try to, alot more than other entertainment venues.
Cosmoline
Member
More discussion about that problematic notch here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=262778
Actually, I was surprised to discover that there are folks who can shoot (on target) faster with a revolver than can be done with a 1911. Not me
, and maybe not you. Look around for videos on the web.
There are folks who can shoot faster than the 1911 slide can cycle.
Mike
gwalchmai
Member
colonialrob
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 13
Old West fast-draw shootouts
I may have mis-understood the context in which I read the information, but I believe I read somewhere recently that there was only ONE documented fast-draw-in-the-street shoot-out in the entire "old west", and that involved Hickok and an opponent, from about 75 feet. Hickok won, attributed more to his accuracy than his speed, apparently. He was reputed to have practiced accuracy and speed regularly, possibly accounting for his reputation.
It doesn't seem likely that there were not actually many more fast-draw incidents, because of the absolutely lawless nature of the Territories during the late '60s through the '80s. There was literally no law in many areas, so the consequencies of shooting an antagonist were virtually nil. I have read of towns having "boot hill" type cemeteries where maybe only one or two people buried there were from natural causes. So, there were apparently a lot of murders, including back-shooting, likely, but also some 'contests'.
If you look at some of the many pictures available of Texas Ranger companies, and common cowboys of the era, most did seem to have the SAAs and Winchesters. The Rangers were required to provide their own firearms, so it seems that the likelihood that a lot of people COULD afford the Colts and Winchesters was high. It is possible, however, that photographers had 'prop guns' on hand, and allowed the cowboys to pose with them to jazz up the picture.
Anyhow, if you enjoy western stories, including many fictional shoot-outs, etc., try some Louis Lamour or Zane Grey books. Both were originally writing at the tail end of the 1910s and '20s, and possibly had some fairly contemporaneous information as a basis for their action and characters.
colonialrob
I may have mis-understood the context in which I read the information, but I believe I read somewhere recently that there was only ONE documented fast-draw-in-the-street shoot-out in the entire "old west", and that involved Hickok and an opponent, from about 75 feet. Hickok won, attributed more to his accuracy than his speed, apparently. He was reputed to have practiced accuracy and speed regularly, possibly accounting for his reputation.
It doesn't seem likely that there were not actually many more fast-draw incidents, because of the absolutely lawless nature of the Territories during the late '60s through the '80s. There was literally no law in many areas, so the consequencies of shooting an antagonist were virtually nil. I have read of towns having "boot hill" type cemeteries where maybe only one or two people buried there were from natural causes. So, there were apparently a lot of murders, including back-shooting, likely, but also some 'contests'.
If you look at some of the many pictures available of Texas Ranger companies, and common cowboys of the era, most did seem to have the SAAs and Winchesters. The Rangers were required to provide their own firearms, so it seems that the likelihood that a lot of people COULD afford the Colts and Winchesters was high. It is possible, however, that photographers had 'prop guns' on hand, and allowed the cowboys to pose with them to jazz up the picture.
Anyhow, if you enjoy western stories, including many fictional shoot-outs, etc., try some Louis Lamour or Zane Grey books. Both were originally writing at the tail end of the 1910s and '20s, and possibly had some fairly contemporaneous information as a basis for their action and characters.
colonialrob
Trained people can be very quick with a S.A.A.
http://awsczech.ketnet.cz/data/videos/gfwidowmaker199.wmv
http://awsczech.ketnet.cz/data/videos/deucestevens280pistol.wmv
But, be serious : for a medium trained man, a D.A revolver or a semi-auto pistol will be more easy and quick to use.
If you want to, use a S.A.A and that's all !
http://awsczech.ketnet.cz/data/videos/gfwidowmaker199.wmv
http://awsczech.ketnet.cz/data/videos/deucestevens280pistol.wmv
But, be serious : for a medium trained man, a D.A revolver or a semi-auto pistol will be more easy and quick to use.
If you want to, use a S.A.A and that's all !
Bart Noir
Member
About that Hickok shot.....it amuses me that some references to that fight give a range of 75 yards. At that range, the front sight must be close to entirely covering the other follow's torso.
That would be some shooting with a .36 Navy cap-n-ball revolver.
Bart Noir
Who can believe 75 feet, and still call it a darn lucky shot.
That would be some shooting with a .36 Navy cap-n-ball revolver.
Bart Noir
Who can believe 75 feet, and still call it a darn lucky shot.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
