For years I've read about 19th century examples of marksmanship by our western heroes (and villains). I'm not talking about hip-shooting moving mounted men at 50 yards, I mean real, practical shooting as well as some of the more amazing (and believable) stuff, such as Hickok and Hardin's skill with the revolver. There were many men of that time who were quite skilled with the pistol, but my question is, how did they get so good? Ammunition at the time was quite expensive (for the era) on the frontier, not to mention hard to get. True, most of the more famous shootist attained their fame with the percussion revolver. But that, too has a weak link, the percussion cap. Many of the great marksmen of the day were counted among the poorer class of society so money, or lack thereof, was a valid consideration. Moreover, 19th century society, especially on the frontier required a lot of time and work, including things that most of us today either take for granted or wouldn't even consider. So not only where did they get the money, but where did they find the time? Our modern replicas, with better steels and manufacturing techniques, require quite a bit of fiddling, not to mention a reasonable supply of spare parts, to keep in shooting condition. There was no Dixie Gun Works and telephone orders, with same day shipping and get it early next week. If you needed a part, you either ordered it and waited or made it (or had it made) yourself. Which all took MORE time and money. Also, it takes quite a bit of shooting to even get proficient with most handguns, let alone to be able to reach the level of skill that those great men possessed. Guns wear out and need to be replaced. So I wonder, how did the 19th century shootist find the time and money to become a legend 150 years later? Of course I'm not talking about the average ruffian who shot his man in the back or whatever, I'm referring to the honest-to-goodness marksmen who had to "learn the hard way." Any thoughts?
How did 19th century "Shootist" get so good?
- Thread starter Dithsoer
- Start date
- Status
RedAlert
Member
The trouble with history is that it is written after the fact and filtered through the author.
I'm sure there were many skilled marksmen/women and the exceptional ones stood out in history. Were they really that good. By all accounts and witness reports, there were some really great individuals. Trouble in my opinion is that it involves more opinions and witness reports than known facts available to us now.
Back then many folks grew up having to shoot game to put meat on the table; and as you said ammo/guns were expensive. So they had to make each shot count.
If it was a matter of a rabbit in the pot or go hungry, versus punching holes in a target, I'd be more motivated to get "good."
Several modern days marksmen are true Shootists, but I suspect, like in the 1800s they are few and far between.
RDF
I'm sure there were many skilled marksmen/women and the exceptional ones stood out in history. Were they really that good. By all accounts and witness reports, there were some really great individuals. Trouble in my opinion is that it involves more opinions and witness reports than known facts available to us now.
Back then many folks grew up having to shoot game to put meat on the table; and as you said ammo/guns were expensive. So they had to make each shot count.
If it was a matter of a rabbit in the pot or go hungry, versus punching holes in a target, I'd be more motivated to get "good."
Several modern days marksmen are true Shootists, but I suspect, like in the 1800s they are few and far between.
RDF
Last edited:
DrLaw
Member
Like the story of a more modern rifleman, Audie Murphy, of whom it is said he had to get rabbits with a .22 for the family dinner.
I suspect that a few of them got their money by card and other games of chance, which were the big thing back then. After all, Hitchcock was killed playing poker and was too wanting of the game to wait for his prefered seat.
The other thing is that while we hear of proficient gunmen, they are also few and far between when you consider the rest of the population. People like Billy the Kid are considered gunmen, but you never hear HOW they shot, well or not.
Anybody remember that line from the movie "THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE" at the end of the movie? Something about when the legend becomes truth, print the legend. I, too, suspect that is also the way it was.
The Doc is out now.
I suspect that a few of them got their money by card and other games of chance, which were the big thing back then. After all, Hitchcock was killed playing poker and was too wanting of the game to wait for his prefered seat.
The other thing is that while we hear of proficient gunmen, they are also few and far between when you consider the rest of the population. People like Billy the Kid are considered gunmen, but you never hear HOW they shot, well or not.
Anybody remember that line from the movie "THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE" at the end of the movie? Something about when the legend becomes truth, print the legend. I, too, suspect that is also the way it was.
The Doc is out now.
J.T. Gerrity
Member
Annie Oakley is a prime example; she was responsible for bringing meat home from an early age. It was out of necessity that she learned to hit what she aimed at. She became one of the greatest sure-shot shootists of the Nineteenth Century and, fortunately, we have it on film to prove it.
Attachments
Last edited:
more to it
ammo wasn't cheap in 19th or the early 20th centuries. People couldnt go out and burn up a 100 rounds blasting away...each shot meant going hungry or not. Most of the nation was simply rural until the 1950s.
Another point is that the vast number of "shootists" shot their victims either in the back or from ambush and were often close enough to reach out and touch them. Hickock while a great marksmen was as well known for backshooting and ambushing his victims as was Hardin and other famed men with guns
As for the guns themselves my own great grandfather ran a dray between Deadwood and Fort Abraham Lincoln in the 1870s...the only gun he owned was a Springfield percussion rifle bored out to 20 gauge. He saw no use in sidearms nor could he fathom the necessity of the new repeaters as they were too delicate and required ammo that was hard to come by on the frontier, not to mention expensive. Until the laws were changed in MN and the Dakotas the most popular Deer rifle round was the .22LR. Have a good number of early hunting photos of sodbusters from the early 20th century in the upper Great Plains with a half dozen often more deer dead and a hunting party proudly standing at attention, over maybe 40 odd photos one can MAYBE pick out a dozen centerfire rifles with the vast bulk being .22s or shotguns.
shot placement is everything
ammo wasn't cheap in 19th or the early 20th centuries. People couldnt go out and burn up a 100 rounds blasting away...each shot meant going hungry or not. Most of the nation was simply rural until the 1950s.
Another point is that the vast number of "shootists" shot their victims either in the back or from ambush and were often close enough to reach out and touch them. Hickock while a great marksmen was as well known for backshooting and ambushing his victims as was Hardin and other famed men with guns
As for the guns themselves my own great grandfather ran a dray between Deadwood and Fort Abraham Lincoln in the 1870s...the only gun he owned was a Springfield percussion rifle bored out to 20 gauge. He saw no use in sidearms nor could he fathom the necessity of the new repeaters as they were too delicate and required ammo that was hard to come by on the frontier, not to mention expensive. Until the laws were changed in MN and the Dakotas the most popular Deer rifle round was the .22LR. Have a good number of early hunting photos of sodbusters from the early 20th century in the upper Great Plains with a half dozen often more deer dead and a hunting party proudly standing at attention, over maybe 40 odd photos one can MAYBE pick out a dozen centerfire rifles with the vast bulk being .22s or shotguns.
shot placement is everything
If you get away from fictional books, movies and television shows; and read some original contemporary documents – which fortunately have been reproduced in books verbatim, you will find some examples of excellent shooting combined with some that were so bad they were funny.
First of all, those old timers didn’t engage in spray & pray. The good ones were cool under fire and made each shot count. When they practiced they didn’t see how fast they could go, but rather how fast they could hit.
As for the revolvers – Colt Single Action style in particular. We have better materials, but the older guns were better fitted up, and as a consequences were less likely to break small parts and springs. Also everybody in the Wild West wasn’t armed exclusively with Colt’s and Winchesters.
Years ago I had the opportunity to have a short interview with one of the last living Arizona Territorial Rangers. He was well into his 90’s, physically feeble, but his mind was sharp as a tack. In that few minutes I learned far more about western lawmen and gunfights then I’ve ever got out of books.
One of the things he told me was that that when approaching an outlaw to make an arrest they were under specific orders to have their revolver “in hand,” and not “in the scabbard (holster).” Also, never go with a six-shooter, when they could use their rifle instead. He died in bed of old age, with his boots off. Can’t say that was always true concerning some of those he encountered.
First of all, those old timers didn’t engage in spray & pray. The good ones were cool under fire and made each shot count. When they practiced they didn’t see how fast they could go, but rather how fast they could hit.
As for the revolvers – Colt Single Action style in particular. We have better materials, but the older guns were better fitted up, and as a consequences were less likely to break small parts and springs. Also everybody in the Wild West wasn’t armed exclusively with Colt’s and Winchesters.
Years ago I had the opportunity to have a short interview with one of the last living Arizona Territorial Rangers. He was well into his 90’s, physically feeble, but his mind was sharp as a tack. In that few minutes I learned far more about western lawmen and gunfights then I’ve ever got out of books.
One of the things he told me was that that when approaching an outlaw to make an arrest they were under specific orders to have their revolver “in hand,” and not “in the scabbard (holster).” Also, never go with a six-shooter, when they could use their rifle instead. He died in bed of old age, with his boots off. Can’t say that was always true concerning some of those he encountered.
DrLaw
Member
My mind has a hard time wrapping around the fact of shooting deer with a
.22.
Oh, I know it can be done, as I know of a case in my county of a kid who took a deer near his house with a .22, out of season, etc...
It's just that I cannot wrap my mind around using a .22 when this state only allows pistols of certain calibers and muzzle energy, muzzleloaders or shotgun with slugs, no buckshot for firearm seasons. (and of course, I know of other states that allow centerfire rifles).
I guess it is a matter of conditioning.
Also, I would have prefaced JW's remarks about backshooting, but I was being nice this morning.
The Doc is out now.
.22.
Oh, I know it can be done, as I know of a case in my county of a kid who took a deer near his house with a .22, out of season, etc...
It's just that I cannot wrap my mind around using a .22 when this state only allows pistols of certain calibers and muzzle energy, muzzleloaders or shotgun with slugs, no buckshot for firearm seasons. (and of course, I know of other states that allow centerfire rifles).
I guess it is a matter of conditioning.
Also, I would have prefaced JW's remarks about backshooting, but I was being nice this morning.
The Doc is out now.
steveracer
Member
The one famous shot Hickock made was at 75 yards, one shot, right in the guy's heart. I'd call that "good enough".
As has been stated before, most gunfights were at contact distance.
It's easy to kill a deer with a .22, and I killed several as a young boy with .22MAG out of a single shot Ivor Johnson. Laws have changed, and now I'd end up in a cell.
Deer are plentiful, and in the right part of the world, they come right up to you. Lots of us have shot them with our CCW guns.
I know, "they aren't shooting back", but in the old West, they weren't always shooting back, either.
steve
As has been stated before, most gunfights were at contact distance.
It's easy to kill a deer with a .22, and I killed several as a young boy with .22MAG out of a single shot Ivor Johnson. Laws have changed, and now I'd end up in a cell.
Deer are plentiful, and in the right part of the world, they come right up to you. Lots of us have shot them with our CCW guns.
I know, "they aren't shooting back", but in the old West, they weren't always shooting back, either.
steve
desidog
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,595
This brings up an question i've thought of for a while now: what was the cost per shot in 1700, 1800, 1880, etc?
I know scarcity of gunpowder on the frontier played a factor in conserving shots, but was wondering of cost/round, mainly in comparison with current, modern cartridges; and taking inflation and buying power of money into account.
Also, at the time of the Revolution, flintlock guns cost exorbitant amounts, like the equivalent of a years' pay. I think that by the conclusion Civil War there were many (comparatively) cheap guns to be had.
With a flintlock, when subsistence hunting, you pretty much have one opportunity to get it right; or starve.
I know scarcity of gunpowder on the frontier played a factor in conserving shots, but was wondering of cost/round, mainly in comparison with current, modern cartridges; and taking inflation and buying power of money into account.
Also, at the time of the Revolution, flintlock guns cost exorbitant amounts, like the equivalent of a years' pay. I think that by the conclusion Civil War there were many (comparatively) cheap guns to be had.
With a flintlock, when subsistence hunting, you pretty much have one opportunity to get it right; or starve.
NobleSniper
Member
Alot of the skill and popularity of the early shootists I beleive is attributed to the pen. Most were not that skilled. Only a handful I would call true shootist and I beleive Hickok would be at the top. I think the most proficient shootist was the one who did not hurry a shot but carefully took aim. Which is fine as long as the inteneded target is nto a quicker aim and better trigger man than you are
GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL
Member.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,632
JW Hardin, that was a very good post you just put up here. I enjoyed reading it....
Matt-J2
Member
I reckon the good ones didn't get so good by sittin round talking about it. They likely did it the same way that the good ones did it before them, and the ones that come after.
Practice.
Good practice, that is.
Practice.
Good practice, that is.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Hickock was said to go out early every morning and shoot the loads in his guns that might have drawn dampness overnight.
I doubt he wasted 12 shots by shooting them in the dirt.
Even 12 rounds a day focused practice, for most of your adult life would make you a pretty good shot, I betcha.
Others, as noted, grew up with flint-lock rifles & sustenance hunting. You either learned good trigger control and follow-through with them, or you simply missed badly and went hungry.
Later, transitioning to a cap & ball, or cartridge arm would be like us going from a motor scooter to a Corvette.
And life was different then, or even 60 years ago for some of us back on the farm.
I started shooting a .22 when I was barely old enough to hold one up.
By the time I was 10 - 12, I was potting jack rabbits at 150+ yards in our spring wheat fields with an iron sighted .22 LR, and feeding the carcases to the hogs every evening.
By the time I entered the Army, I shot expert with every weapon they let me touch on a range. A few years later, I was shooting for 5th. Inf AMU.
rc
I doubt he wasted 12 shots by shooting them in the dirt.
Even 12 rounds a day focused practice, for most of your adult life would make you a pretty good shot, I betcha.
Others, as noted, grew up with flint-lock rifles & sustenance hunting. You either learned good trigger control and follow-through with them, or you simply missed badly and went hungry.
Later, transitioning to a cap & ball, or cartridge arm would be like us going from a motor scooter to a Corvette.
And life was different then, or even 60 years ago for some of us back on the farm.
I started shooting a .22 when I was barely old enough to hold one up.
By the time I was 10 - 12, I was potting jack rabbits at 150+ yards in our spring wheat fields with an iron sighted .22 LR, and feeding the carcases to the hogs every evening.
By the time I entered the Army, I shot expert with every weapon they let me touch on a range. A few years later, I was shooting for 5th. Inf AMU.
rc
Last edited:
steveracer
Member
rcmodel,
That sounds a lot like my upbringing, 'cept I joined the Navy.
That sounds a lot like my upbringing, 'cept I joined the Navy.
Mike OTDP
Member
Yup. I was raised shooting black powder, and never understood the attraction of blasting bullets into the backstop. You can get pretty good if you focus on what you are doing.
fineredmist
Member
If you think about what is required to get a C&B revolver into ready to fire you will soon realize that it can't be done the way it is portrayed in the movies. Drawing and cocking while the pistol is in motion is asking for trouble with caps falling off which will surely put you at a disadvantage when the pistol doesn't fire. The playing field was level as everyone had the same type of equipment. The name of the game was draw the weapon, take aim and make the shot count. Draw fast, shoot fast, miss fast will get you killed fast. I was always impressed with the super fast IDPA shooters until I saw their targets, more poor hits than good hits. The "shootists" had to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less so they had to get the most out their practice.
Gaucho Gringo
Member
Lets not forget that most women on the frontier knew there way around a gun. Annie Oakley has already been mentioned but I am sure there were others. During the 1880's-1910's target shooting was a very well attended sport as both spectators and participants by the fairer sex.
AdmiralB
Member
Yes, but he had (and took advantage of) the luxury of time to rest his pistol on his weak-side arm, and take careful aim....since his opponent fired first, and missed.
Rules of dueling, and all.
It was probably akin to what I experienced as a kid. I was given an Ithaca lever action single shot .22 to squirrel hunt with. To me, back then, having 2 or 3 50rd boxes of Super-X .22 short was a MAJOR MAJOR "stash". I made every shot count whether it was a running squirrel or rabbit, or a flying quail. I can't EVER remember missing a squirrel until I was in my teens and got my first 10shot autoloader, then later a semiauto shotgun...and my shooting skills went to sh__. Took me a while to realize I had quit concentrating on my shots and I no longer followed my target in a calm, cool and confident manner. It was years later before I realized what had happened...now I never forget. I take every shot, even with a hicap 9mm, as if there is only the one bullet.
You know, it's interesting to read the posts about life on the farm as a kid. Such a childhood probably does more for shooting skill than anything else. I recall reading the words of a W.W.I era US general who stated that while our technology of the time may not have been equivalent with what most Europeans were fielding, our soldiers possessed the finest accuracy of any army. Even in W.W.II the fact that so many young men learned to shoot-and shoot well-on the farm gave our boys an edge on the battlefield. In other words, most of our young men back then joined the service already possessing much more than the rudiments of marksmanship. Compare that to today, were the ignorance inherent in so many of our youth is astounding.
Last summer I did something I had never done before. I went to the indoor range and just watched from behind the glass for over half an hour. There were a LOT of people who weren't shooting 1" or 2" or even 3" groups...some of them were having trouble with 8.5x11" groups...seriously!!! It makes you just want to go help them.
J.T. Gerrity
Member
Contemporary reports are that the two fired almost simultaneously. None of the witnesses at Hickok's subsequent trial mention anything about Hickok "rest[ing] his pistol on his weak-side arm, and tak[ing] careful aim", but say that the shots came so quickly no one was sure who fired first, and some thoought that only Hickok had fired until it was noticed that the cap on Tutt's revolver had been burst, and the chamber had been fired. The real trouble is seperating fact from legend. Had Hickok really taken his time to fire after Tutt's first shot, he would have been dead from the second, as it was commonly agreed that Tutt was actually a better shot than Hickok.
AdmiralB
Member
I'm wrong about the elapsed time between shots, but not about the resting on the arm part:
From the wiki entry, FWIW.
From the wiki entry, FWIW.
GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL
Member.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,632
JT Gerrity, you are right..Tutt was given up to be a better shot then Hickok and was supposed to be a little faster to.
John Wesley Hardin was faster than Mr. Tutt and was certainly way faster than Hickok. People that jump on this thread and talk out their ass about how good Hickok was and how he was the very top and all, just demonstrate that they haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. He was mean, and a cold blooded killer, and he would shoot somebody's ass off for them, but he wasn't real fast with a gun. Besides all that, Hickok seldom went anywhere without a couple of shotgun toting deputies trailing along with him....
John Wesley Hardin was faster than Mr. Tutt and was certainly way faster than Hickok. People that jump on this thread and talk out their ass about how good Hickok was and how he was the very top and all, just demonstrate that they haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. He was mean, and a cold blooded killer, and he would shoot somebody's ass off for them, but he wasn't real fast with a gun. Besides all that, Hickok seldom went anywhere without a couple of shotgun toting deputies trailing along with him....
J.T. Gerrity
Member
Well, I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a resource for anything. If you want to learn the true story, I suggest you check out a copy of "Wild Bill Hickok, Gunfighter" by Joseph G. Rosa, which examines the fight in detail and gives eyewitness testimony from Hickok's trial. Most agree that it was Tutt that reached for his gun first, but that the subsequent shots "sounded as one". Hickok was found not guilty, having shot in self defense. This shoot-out is considered the classic face to face gunfight, and Hickok's trial and acquittal has become legendary in legal circles, being studied even today.
As for Hickok being fast and accurate with his gun, there is no doubt about it, and he used a reverse draw to boot. His main claim to fame was that he was cool-headed in the face of certain death.
As for Hickok being fast and accurate with his gun, there is no doubt about it, and he used a reverse draw to boot. His main claim to fame was that he was cool-headed in the face of certain death.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked