[email protected]
Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,153
Here is a 1847 with a modern .22
THEN and NOW
- Thread starter BOOM-BOOM
- Start date
- Status
You weren't specific in your original post--you said "superior" which is a loaded word. If you can't stand us discussing things that we're actually interested in with each other, and somehow feel that you're entitled to a simple, terse answer from people who owe you one, then be more specific or pay for a professional to give you an answer.
No, the .357 Magnum is not "superior."
ScratchnDent
Member
Light and fast VS slow and heavy
I think this will be argued until the end of time.
CajunBass
Member
loadedround
Member
I have been shooting handguns for over 45 years; single actions, double actions, and autoloaders and with the exception of rapid fire for multiple targets, I would take the 45 Colt and it's 255 gr lead bullet over anything else for a man stopper. What do I carry, a Colt 1911A1 with 230 gr JHP's. 
I don't know, maybe the average gun enthusiast is, but I think that the average gun owner knows only enough to operate a gun, and rarely practices with it at all. At least that's the impression I've gotten, for what it's worth.
Likely true, but the expert gunslingers of the day probably practiced as much as they could afford to. It is well known that Wild Bill Hickok had been practicing since he was a boy, and that he often put on shooting exhibitions and matches. Additionally, it is said that he emptied (the loud and smoky way
) and reloaded his carry weapons (two Colt 1851 Navy revolvers) every day. I think that mostly what he practiced, however, was quick sight picture acquisition, which one can do without expending ammunition. That's how he won gunfights, putting aside the fact that most Wild West shootings and assassinations were bushwhacks.Yep, real gunfighters and gunfights were rare, but then again, legendary feats don't need to be common (nor did they need to be all that amazing or dramatic in reality).
I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but this has nothing to do with me being high and mighty. This is a discussion forum for people, mostly common folks like me rather than professionals or experts, to talk about things we're interested in and learn from one another. Answering questions, like yours, that spark discussions is a big part of that, but this is not an answer hotline. Nobody even has to answer your question if they don't want to, but I've seen plenty of people on other forums who presume to demand an answer. I guess they paid for their Internet service and expect its other inhabitants to do their bidding, which is quite detached from reality. Your attitude reminds me of these people, except that you asked more of a question than you realized and then got more of a reply than you wanted. Well, tough cookies. Deal with it rather than complaining, especially since you got the answer you wanted immediately from Larry. Why come back in here and complain about people discussing the issue after you got your answer? Who's high and mighty now, presuming to tell people how to share their interests on a publicly accessible forum? Only the forum moderators can do that, and only when we break the rules.
Last edited:
If one truly examines the Wild West, I think we would find that there are individuals both then and now who are exceptional shots, and willing and able to take a life if necessary (or out of sheer mean temper.)
In regards to the superiority or equivalency of modern rounds to antiquated rounds, I would tend to say that the modern rounds are more efficient, but the antiquated rounds were just as capable of taking a life, given the medical technology of the time. If I were to take a firearm back in time and pit it against an antiquated firearm, it would still come down to skill of the user. I've seen some very quick modern SA fastdraw shots out there. I certainly wouldn't want to take on at handgun ranges a Wyatt Earp or Hickok then, nor a Miculek or Leatham now, regardless of the firearms they were carrying or I was carrying. Heck, going back further, I wouldn't want to take on some of the longbow armed individuals in medieval times with a handgun. I believe I'm an average shot although I don't get to practice much, but those people lived off of their weapon.
In terms of the average man, well...my daddy always told me "There's always a bigger man around the corner." In other words, there's always someone better out there, and you never know who he is.
In regards to the superiority or equivalency of modern rounds to antiquated rounds, I would tend to say that the modern rounds are more efficient, but the antiquated rounds were just as capable of taking a life, given the medical technology of the time. If I were to take a firearm back in time and pit it against an antiquated firearm, it would still come down to skill of the user. I've seen some very quick modern SA fastdraw shots out there. I certainly wouldn't want to take on at handgun ranges a Wyatt Earp or Hickok then, nor a Miculek or Leatham now, regardless of the firearms they were carrying or I was carrying. Heck, going back further, I wouldn't want to take on some of the longbow armed individuals in medieval times with a handgun. I believe I'm an average shot although I don't get to practice much, but those people lived off of their weapon.
In terms of the average man, well...my daddy always told me "There's always a bigger man around the corner." In other words, there's always someone better out there, and you never know who he is.
The question starts off on handguns, and than addresses calibers. I hope this is on point.
Many of the handguns in the "wild west" were in fact cavalry arms. Many of those that were not issued to cavalrymen were nonetheless carried by horsemen.
The first Colt .44 revolvers were cap and ball weapons; they were really .45 caliber, but that's another story. They were far superior to single shot weapons, but they could not compare to cartridge conversions or to the Model 1873 Colt, to the later Remingtons, or to the Smith and Wesson top-breaks when it came to use in a firefight, where the ability to reload quickly was very important. Thus, the Army adopted the Colt Single Action Army revolver and the Smith and Wesson Schofield, and civilians ultimately switched to the various cartridge revolvers that were availbale.
How does "our" .45 ACP compare with the revolvers of the old days? Well, the SAA was first replaced by a double action revolver with a swing-out cylinder and simultaneous ejection, for reasons that should be patently obvious.
When the cartridge used in the new .38 revolver proved to be quite inadequate, a return to a .45 was embarked upon. Before a modern revolver in .45 (the Model 1909) could be adopted, the semi automatic pistol had evolved.
The result was the Colt .45 Automatic, which in later form was adopted by the Army as the Model of 1911.
The Model 1911 in .45 ACP was intended for the same purpose as the Single Action Army: it was primarily a cavalry sidearm; there were no mechanized units in the Army when the trials began, and automobiles really did not appear in combat until 1916.
Thus, the semi-auto in .45 ACP replaced the earlier guns, including the .45 Colt revolvers, in cavalry applications, because was clearly very superior to revolvers in terms of effectiveness.
By that time the "wild west" had been largely "civilized", and the ability to reload rapidly and repeatedly was a lot less important for civilians, of course, so there was probably no really compelling need for them to switch to more modern weapons.
That having been said, more modern double action revolvers squeezed the single action models completely out of the commercial marketplace, with the later resurgence of the latter coming about as a result of demand driven by movies and television.
As to the question of the .357 Magnum vs. the older calibers, one can only assume that the lighter weight of the ammunition load would have made the .357 very appealing to the western horseman, had it been available.
Guillermo
member
No Manco, you shouldn't.
Either he was messing around or being a tool.
It is more High Road to assume the former.
If the latter is the case ignore him as this is an interesting discussion and you are offering some great insights.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
