Wild Bill Hickok used a .36
- Thread starter Dot_mdb
- Start date
- Status
MrAcheson
Member
Hickok didn't really travel that much day-to-day. His fame comes from being a town marshall in the "cow towns", so most of his traveling was on foot rather than long stretches being knocked around on horseback.
Part of the reason Hickok shot every day was because he like to reload his guns fresh each morning. If the powder charge got damp with the morning dew or expanded/contracted too much because of temperature change over night, it could cause problems. Every morning he would go to the outskirts of town and would shoot one empty, load it, shoot the other empty, and then load it.
Daily Cleaning
Hickok's pair of engraved Navy Colts (with ivories, as I recall) were on display this last year at Cody for the Colt Exhibition. They were pretty well authenticated and together for the first time in about seventy years. Quite something to see.
It's a permanent part of the legend now--but I have my doubts about the daily firing and cleaning routine that Hickok allegedly engaged in. Back in the 70s I shot a 2nd Gen. Navy a lot; and cleaned it a lot, too. It gets pretty tedious and doing two of them every day would consume a good hour with no time out for "refreshments".
Actually a percussion revolver can be somewhat waterproofed by the grease over the loaded chambers and dripping candle wax over the capped nipples to seal them, making sure that the hammer can get a good clear hit in spite of the wax drippings. I once loaded a Ruger Old Army cylinder that way, put it under water for about an hour, put it back in the revolver, and fired all six chambers just fine.
I will have to try it one of these days with a Uberti '61 Navy--but it should work just as well.
Hickok's pair of engraved Navy Colts (with ivories, as I recall) were on display this last year at Cody for the Colt Exhibition. They were pretty well authenticated and together for the first time in about seventy years. Quite something to see.
It's a permanent part of the legend now--but I have my doubts about the daily firing and cleaning routine that Hickok allegedly engaged in. Back in the 70s I shot a 2nd Gen. Navy a lot; and cleaned it a lot, too. It gets pretty tedious and doing two of them every day would consume a good hour with no time out for "refreshments".
Actually a percussion revolver can be somewhat waterproofed by the grease over the loaded chambers and dripping candle wax over the capped nipples to seal them, making sure that the hammer can get a good clear hit in spite of the wax drippings. I once loaded a Ruger Old Army cylinder that way, put it under water for about an hour, put it back in the revolver, and fired all six chambers just fine.
I will have to try it one of these days with a Uberti '61 Navy--but it should work just as well.
BluesBear
member
Yes they did, because they were generally of smaller stature. Just look at the clothing in museums. People, 150 years ago, on average just weren't as large at we are now. In fact just 50 years ago anyone who was 6' was considered tall. Nowadays that is considered average.
Today it can. But you have to remember the quality of black powder 150 years ago. Consider the way it was manufactured, transported and stored. Also the quality of percussion caps factors into the reliability equation.
No one here criticizes anyone if they change their carry loads once a month. In fact many people advocate just that. It was the same with Hickok. He felt the need to refresh his carry "ammo" on a daily basis "just in case". Shooting his day old ammo every day, in addition to making him more proficient with his arms, was also most assuredly a bolster for his confidence. Would any of us here want to carry a gun that we weren't confident would go BANG any time we needed it?
Well I'm a millwright in a corrosive chemical industry. Everyday after my shift I have to clean all the tools I have used or they rust by the next day. Hickok being a lawman 24/7 needed his tools also and I can see him doing a daily cleaning as part of his job routine. Time is factored in as part of the job. By doing it everyday he probably had a routine and a setup that took very little time.
If you read Triggernometry you'll find that in addition to being the deadliest pistoleer to walk the streets of a cowtown, Bill Hickok subscribed to the theory that "tis a poor piece of cloth that can use no embroidery." He was a shameless self promoter and told whoppers like most of us would like to be able to. Somebody said, "it ain't bragging if you can do it," and Wild Bill most definitely had his bona fides in the area of marksmanship and gunfighting. Somebody asked to see his prowess one day so Bill and he walked out of whatever saloon they were in, drew his pistol, and put all six balls into the center of the "O" in the hotel sign across the street. Sompin like 50 yards, iirc. 
BluesBear
member
50 yards is ½ the length of a footbal field. That's a mighty wide road!
shootist2121
Member
Being a bit of a history buff and having done a fair bit of geneology and feel it's only fair to mention that most distances such as things like 50 yards or 75 yards were possibly misinterpretations..It was a habit to pace off ( adverage stride) and convert to an estimated yardage...
So considering the average stride to be say between 20 to maybe 30 inchs, and so 50 yards actually comes out more like 34-35 yards and so forth.
I am not trying to dispute any claims here or trying to push fact over myth..I'm just suggesting that history is sometimes just a tad embelished by the writer and teller.
It had to be such a blow to Hickok to be loosing his eye sight and in his last days to be considered a has been...I sure wouldn't had want to face him even in his last days...Perhaps that is why his assasin shot him from behind..
Just my two cents
Be Safe
So considering the average stride to be say between 20 to maybe 30 inchs, and so 50 yards actually comes out more like 34-35 yards and so forth.
I am not trying to dispute any claims here or trying to push fact over myth..I'm just suggesting that history is sometimes just a tad embelished by the writer and teller.
It had to be such a blow to Hickok to be loosing his eye sight and in his last days to be considered a has been...I sure wouldn't had want to face him even in his last days...Perhaps that is why his assasin shot him from behind..
Just my two cents
Be Safe
MrAcheson
Member
Sorry, but I'm 6' and it isn't that uncommon for me to be the tallest guy in the room. Actual average height today is around 5' 9" or 10." A lot of western heroes would be considered short today, but a big part of that was probably because cowboys and cavalrymen tended to be short. A milspec cavalry trooper was 150 lbs and 5'6" if I recall correctly. Anything more was hard on the horses.
TallPine
Member
The horses were smaller then, too.
Slightly different conformation than today, also. They really were "cow ponies".
Another thing that I have read, is that there were a lot of black ("negro" or even some other word back then
) cowboys. Not much else a newly freed slave could do after the Uncivil War, along with a bunch of ex-soldiers from both sides.Mike Irwin
Member
Blues,
It's generally felt that the black powder of 100-150 years ago was superior in just about every way to that that we have now.
The manufacturing process has chaged hardly at all in the interim.
I used 110-year-old Du Pont black powder in my flintlock back in the early 1990s.
It gave less fouling and better accuracy than Goex, with no reliability problems at all. I was very sorry when the last of the 3 pounds I had was shot up.
As for people dying easier in the past, it was a tongue in cheek comment, not a statement of fact, and it has nothing to do with the supposed stopping power of any particular handgun or cartridge. Crapping out 3 or 4 days later due to infection and shock doesn't say anything about stopping power.
It's generally felt that the black powder of 100-150 years ago was superior in just about every way to that that we have now.
The manufacturing process has chaged hardly at all in the interim.
I used 110-year-old Du Pont black powder in my flintlock back in the early 1990s.
It gave less fouling and better accuracy than Goex, with no reliability problems at all. I was very sorry when the last of the 3 pounds I had was shot up.
As for people dying easier in the past, it was a tongue in cheek comment, not a statement of fact, and it has nothing to do with the supposed stopping power of any particular handgun or cartridge. Crapping out 3 or 4 days later due to infection and shock doesn't say anything about stopping power.
People really do underestimate the power of soft lead ball ammo. The Minie bullet from the Civil War (not a ball) still made massive wounds, and a direct hit on a bone would literally vaporize like an inch of bone, necessitating amputation since they had no way to fix it (other times, they just didn't have time to fix it and amputated anyway) I read up an account by the Surgeon General of the Army I think? Of the Civil War era describing just how horrific Minie hits could be. Pistol rounds, while less devastating, were bad news. Soft lead at high speed versus a body is bad, bad news. Toss in infection and you're screwed.
RobW
Member
Actually, the photos of old western towns I saw, show very wide streets. In one book it was described that the width was chosen to turn around a 20-mule train.
dfariswheel
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 6,662
Hickock's daily shoot and clean routine is well documented from several different sources. At least two different writer's actually got to watch Hickock's daily weapons routine.
Hickok rented a cabin on the edge of Dodge City, and every day when he got up, (around noon) he would either go out for target practice, or he'd shoot one gun empty out the door, then meticulously clean ,lube, and reload, then do the other gun.
Powder charges were carefully weighed, each bullet and cap was individually inspected, and the guns were carefully inspected.
In either case, the guns got cleaned EVERY day.
When asked about the tiresome routine, Hickok said "When I draw my pistols, I have to be SURE".
It was a common occurrence for a pistol to misfire in those days. Most people just didn't take too much care with them, and cowboy's often went for weeks without maintaining their gun.
When firearms were unreliable as it was, Hickok believed in reducing the chances as much as possible.
Remember, Hickok was the first, and greatest of the Cowtown gambler/lawmen. They kept the peace by the simple formula of "Don't make trouble......or I'll kill you".
Hickok maintained the peace solely due to his reputation of being a deadly gunman who would shoot you dead with NO hesitation.
Since he was a single man in a town filled with hundreds of wild cowboys, many of them combat veterans of the war, all drunk, and hating Northern lawmen, he would have been an incredible fool if he DIDN'T take that good of care with his guns.
As for the super long range shots Hickok made, from the shooting in Springfield Missouri at a VERIFIED 75 yards (some sources list it at 100 yards) and his famous grouped shots across the typical very wide Dodge City street, a few years ago a test was conducted with a high-grade modern 1851 Navy.
The test showed that the modern replica was not capable of that kind of accuracy. Doubt was cast on how reliable the story about Hickock's accuracy, but the shooting in Missouri was witnessed by most of the town.
Bottom line here is: If you had to try to keep the peace in a town filled with drunks with guns, who needed NO excuse to shoot them, and who would have been overjoyed for a chance to shoot you down, would you have cleaned and maintained your pistols everyday?
Given modern stainless steel, non-corrosive ammo, and modern lubricants, I don't CLEAN my CCW everyday, but you can be damn SURE I check it carefully. I don't care HOW tedious it gets, or how in a hurry I am.
If I had to carry a black powder revolver, you'd find me every morning in the kitchen sink with a cleaning rod and the ground out the back door full of fired lead.
Hickok rented a cabin on the edge of Dodge City, and every day when he got up, (around noon) he would either go out for target practice, or he'd shoot one gun empty out the door, then meticulously clean ,lube, and reload, then do the other gun.
Powder charges were carefully weighed, each bullet and cap was individually inspected, and the guns were carefully inspected.
In either case, the guns got cleaned EVERY day.
When asked about the tiresome routine, Hickok said "When I draw my pistols, I have to be SURE".
It was a common occurrence for a pistol to misfire in those days. Most people just didn't take too much care with them, and cowboy's often went for weeks without maintaining their gun.
When firearms were unreliable as it was, Hickok believed in reducing the chances as much as possible.
Remember, Hickok was the first, and greatest of the Cowtown gambler/lawmen. They kept the peace by the simple formula of "Don't make trouble......or I'll kill you".
Hickok maintained the peace solely due to his reputation of being a deadly gunman who would shoot you dead with NO hesitation.
Since he was a single man in a town filled with hundreds of wild cowboys, many of them combat veterans of the war, all drunk, and hating Northern lawmen, he would have been an incredible fool if he DIDN'T take that good of care with his guns.
As for the super long range shots Hickok made, from the shooting in Springfield Missouri at a VERIFIED 75 yards (some sources list it at 100 yards) and his famous grouped shots across the typical very wide Dodge City street, a few years ago a test was conducted with a high-grade modern 1851 Navy.
The test showed that the modern replica was not capable of that kind of accuracy. Doubt was cast on how reliable the story about Hickock's accuracy, but the shooting in Missouri was witnessed by most of the town.
Bottom line here is: If you had to try to keep the peace in a town filled with drunks with guns, who needed NO excuse to shoot them, and who would have been overjoyed for a chance to shoot you down, would you have cleaned and maintained your pistols everyday?
Given modern stainless steel, non-corrosive ammo, and modern lubricants, I don't CLEAN my CCW everyday, but you can be damn SURE I check it carefully. I don't care HOW tedious it gets, or how in a hurry I am.
If I had to carry a black powder revolver, you'd find me every morning in the kitchen sink with a cleaning rod and the ground out the back door full of fired lead.
jimbo
Member
Call me skeptical but I can't take it on faith of all the claims that round ball is more lethal than FMJ for a given caliber, weight bullet and muzzle velocity.
Lethality is about temporary wound channel, permanent wound channel, shot placement and blood loss. If the shot placement is the same for a 158 gr. .38 FMJ at 1000 fps vs a 158 gr. .36 round ball at 1000 fps, are you saying the temporary wound channel is larger for the ball, or is it the permanent wound channel that is larger or does it magically somehow promote more blood loss? As far as I can tell, modern FMJ should penetrate deeper allowing a better chance for the jacketed bullet to get to the CNS.
Somebody mentioned "splash" factor. Doesn't this imply shallow penetration? If it splashes the surface tissue, it doesn't stand to penetrate deeply. I thought deep penetration to the CNS was one of the critical factors ammo manufacturers are trying to achieve.
Someone else said soft lead is devestating. If soft lead is so devestating, why don't the manufacturers make soft lead slugs for CCW rounds, which are mainly used at contact distances where ballistic coefficient isn't an issue?
As for Civil War rifles being so effective, I think .58 caliber anything would be a formidable stopper. FMJ, hollow-point, beer can profile, umbrella shape. Anything that puts a 3/4" hole in your body, you are going to know it.
So what I am asking is, can someone please explain to me the MECHANISM by which .36 lead ball is more lethal than .38 FMJ? Because frankly, I just don't believe it.
Lethality is about temporary wound channel, permanent wound channel, shot placement and blood loss. If the shot placement is the same for a 158 gr. .38 FMJ at 1000 fps vs a 158 gr. .36 round ball at 1000 fps, are you saying the temporary wound channel is larger for the ball, or is it the permanent wound channel that is larger or does it magically somehow promote more blood loss? As far as I can tell, modern FMJ should penetrate deeper allowing a better chance for the jacketed bullet to get to the CNS.
Somebody mentioned "splash" factor. Doesn't this imply shallow penetration? If it splashes the surface tissue, it doesn't stand to penetrate deeply. I thought deep penetration to the CNS was one of the critical factors ammo manufacturers are trying to achieve.
Someone else said soft lead is devestating. If soft lead is so devestating, why don't the manufacturers make soft lead slugs for CCW rounds, which are mainly used at contact distances where ballistic coefficient isn't an issue?
As for Civil War rifles being so effective, I think .58 caliber anything would be a formidable stopper. FMJ, hollow-point, beer can profile, umbrella shape. Anything that puts a 3/4" hole in your body, you are going to know it.
So what I am asking is, can someone please explain to me the MECHANISM by which .36 lead ball is more lethal than .38 FMJ? Because frankly, I just don't believe it.
badgerrr
Member
My 2c on the topic:
There's been lots of comparing the 36 navy with the .38 special. Now I know for a fact that the "38" is a .36....but I'm a bit more sketchy on the black powder stuff. I was under the impression that the 36 cap&balls were much closer to being true "38's". Am I right? Are we talking apples & oranges here?
"So what I am asking is, can someone please explain to me the MECHANISM by which .36 lead ball is more lethal than .38 FMJ? "
Sure wish I could explain that Mechanism. But the lack of explainable "mechanisms" doesn't make something less true....just harder to explain. From what I've read from E. Keith and other sources, it seems pretty clear to me that people who were regularly shooting animals & people with the sidearms of the 19th Century were sold on the round ball over pointed bullets. This came from the experiance of killing things...not studying theory. I have learned to always trust experiance over theory.
There's been lots of comparing the 36 navy with the .38 special. Now I know for a fact that the "38" is a .36....but I'm a bit more sketchy on the black powder stuff. I was under the impression that the 36 cap&balls were much closer to being true "38's". Am I right? Are we talking apples & oranges here?
"So what I am asking is, can someone please explain to me the MECHANISM by which .36 lead ball is more lethal than .38 FMJ? "
Sure wish I could explain that Mechanism. But the lack of explainable "mechanisms" doesn't make something less true....just harder to explain. From what I've read from E. Keith and other sources, it seems pretty clear to me that people who were regularly shooting animals & people with the sidearms of the 19th Century were sold on the round ball over pointed bullets. This came from the experiance of killing things...not studying theory. I have learned to always trust experiance over theory.
Yes, Wild Bill carried .36s, probably for accuracy.
.36 BP 80 grain near 1000 f/s or similiar to .380 9mm Short which also uses a fixed barrel.
From:
http://www.milesfortis.com/mcump/mc18.htm
"Elmer Keith, in his talks with survivors of the Western Expansion, gained the strong impression that the .36 caliber round ball was much more effective than the conical bullets and was in fact, much more effective than the paper ballistics would indicate. Velocities of 1,000 fps with the 80 grain .375" ball over FFFG Black powder have been reported.
.36 BP 80 grain near 1000 f/s or similiar to .380 9mm Short which also uses a fixed barrel.
From:
http://www.milesfortis.com/mcump/mc18.htm
"Elmer Keith, in his talks with survivors of the Western Expansion, gained the strong impression that the .36 caliber round ball was much more effective than the conical bullets and was in fact, much more effective than the paper ballistics would indicate. Velocities of 1,000 fps with the 80 grain .375" ball over FFFG Black powder have been reported.
Bart Noir
Member
Let's do an old time comparison...
Say that I have the .36 C&B revolver, which is the same bore diameter as the modern .38's. I can shoot the 80 grain ball (you will never get a .36 to weigh as much as a .36 conical bullet) and I have the .36 conical bullet, maybe somewhat close in weight and shape to today's .38 lead round nose bullet. Figure maybe at about .150 grains.
The ball is lighter and takes less room in the chamber. So more powder can be in the chamber behind the ball. So the ball rips out of the muzzle at a much higher speed than the bullet. Never mind that the ball will loose speed at a faster rate than the bullet, we don't care, the road-agent is twenty feet away and he will stop a very fast ball. Doesn't surprise me that people thought the ball was better.
And you thought the light-fast versus heavy-slow argument started with Super-Vel ammo in the 1960's
Bart Noir
Say that I have the .36 C&B revolver, which is the same bore diameter as the modern .38's. I can shoot the 80 grain ball (you will never get a .36 to weigh as much as a .36 conical bullet) and I have the .36 conical bullet, maybe somewhat close in weight and shape to today's .38 lead round nose bullet. Figure maybe at about .150 grains.
The ball is lighter and takes less room in the chamber. So more powder can be in the chamber behind the ball. So the ball rips out of the muzzle at a much higher speed than the bullet. Never mind that the ball will loose speed at a faster rate than the bullet, we don't care, the road-agent is twenty feet away and he will stop a very fast ball. Doesn't surprise me that people thought the ball was better.
And you thought the light-fast versus heavy-slow argument started with Super-Vel ammo in the 1960's
Bart Noir
One point being overlooked. Those guys were killers. They could aim at a man and kill him without thinking about it any more than you or I would think about stepping on a spider. They had no fear of the law and most of the time no fear of their opponent. They didn't do "fair fight" if a shot in the back would serve the purpose. They practiced with one goal and it had nothing to do with beating a timer.
There are guys like that today, on both sides of the law; cold-eyed killers who would gun down people in a heartbeat, just for the hell of it. I have known a few, some with badges; they scare the bejeesus out of me, and I don't scare too easy.
Jim
There are guys like that today, on both sides of the law; cold-eyed killers who would gun down people in a heartbeat, just for the hell of it. I have known a few, some with badges; they scare the bejeesus out of me, and I don't scare too easy.
Jim
MrChicken
Member
One note about his routine. I dont know if it is true that he spent that much time shooting and cleaning his guns every morning or not.
But we should consider how life was back then, no TV or radio and other modern day distractions. It makes that a lot more plausible when you consider how much more "free" time they had back then.
But we should consider how life was back then, no TV or radio and other modern day distractions. It makes that a lot more plausible when you consider how much more "free" time they had back then.
MrChicken
Member
One note about his routine. I dont know if it is true that he spent that much time shooting and cleaning his guns every morning or not.
But we should consider how life was back then, no TV or radio and other modern day distractions. It makes that a lot more plausible when you consider how much more "free" time they had back then.
But we should consider how life was back then, no TV or radio and other modern day distractions. It makes that a lot more plausible when you consider how much more "free" time they had back then.
riddleofsteel
Member
True but....most of the rifles of the Civil War were .60 and fired HEAVY maxi balls. If one hit you in the arm or leg it would have to be amputated if it struck bone or artery.
1800's + amputation = INFECTION
If you took a .60 maxi ball to the chest infection was not much of a problem.
Just the trouble it took to bury you.
jimbo,
The round ball is far less aerodynamic than a FMJ. The (inefficent with regard to penetration) spherical shape as compared to the longer, more stabilized LRN/FMJ decellerates much more quickly when it contacts the target than does the more efficient penetrating LRN/FMJ designs. Decelleration is work. Hollowpoints produce bigger "temporary cavities" than LRN/FMJ because the bullet's expansion causes it to decellerate in tissue. Work of this type, consequently, is *not* F x D. Work of this type would be an integration (as the work exhibited isn't constant due to the bullet changing velocitiy/size), PROBABLY between point of impact and point of rest/exit of the function of the displaced and damaged fluid/tissue, though I'd have no idea how to produce a function for such. You'd probably need to ask a biologist and a mechanical engineer.
As another poster mentioned, the round ball was also lighter. As a result it had a higher velocity which exaggerated the aforementioned effects. IIRC, the soft lead round balls also upset, further exaggerating this effect. I could be wrong on that last one, though. I'm not a BP guy.
So, to answer your initial question, the mechanism that the round ball uses is the exact same mechanism used by a modern, exotic JHP. Both bullets produce inefficient profiles for penetration and thus more of their energy is spent on "temporary cavity" and less on perforating the target. A .36 caliber round ball uses the same principles that the 127gr +P+ 9mm Ranger T JHP uses. My, how far we've come.
The round ball is far less aerodynamic than a FMJ. The (inefficent with regard to penetration) spherical shape as compared to the longer, more stabilized LRN/FMJ decellerates much more quickly when it contacts the target than does the more efficient penetrating LRN/FMJ designs. Decelleration is work. Hollowpoints produce bigger "temporary cavities" than LRN/FMJ because the bullet's expansion causes it to decellerate in tissue. Work of this type, consequently, is *not* F x D. Work of this type would be an integration (as the work exhibited isn't constant due to the bullet changing velocitiy/size), PROBABLY between point of impact and point of rest/exit of the function of the displaced and damaged fluid/tissue, though I'd have no idea how to produce a function for such. You'd probably need to ask a biologist and a mechanical engineer.
As another poster mentioned, the round ball was also lighter. As a result it had a higher velocity which exaggerated the aforementioned effects. IIRC, the soft lead round balls also upset, further exaggerating this effect. I could be wrong on that last one, though. I'm not a BP guy.
So, to answer your initial question, the mechanism that the round ball uses is the exact same mechanism used by a modern, exotic JHP. Both bullets produce inefficient profiles for penetration and thus more of their energy is spent on "temporary cavity" and less on perforating the target. A .36 caliber round ball uses the same principles that the 127gr +P+ 9mm Ranger T JHP uses. My, how far we've come.
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
Just a couple of points - - -
The .36 percussion revolver did not fire .36" lead spheres. The bore diameter was .36 all right, but the round balls were cast at .375 to .380". In the loading process, ramming the balls down on a charge of powder, the balls were swaged into cylindrical shapes, with somewhat rounded ends. I hasten to add, the noses were far blunter than the LRNs later loaded in .38 S&W and .38 Special cartridges, and undoubtedly enhanced the terminal effect.
The cylindrical shape gave a far greater bearing length to be engraved by the rifling than was the case with the patched round balls used in rifles of the time. Depending on the quality of the individual arm, this combination could yield a pretty high degree of accuracy.
The round balls used in Hickok's Navies weighed about 80 grains, depending on the cast diameter and the composition of the lead used. With a healthy charge of high grade powder, one ended up with a load similar to a modern .380 ACP, sans hollow point, but of very soft lead. Call it a .360/80 at 950+ fps. Not a magnum by today's standards, but not a thing at which to sneeze.
Mike Irwin wrote,
In the 1880s, some very tough people died of gunshot wounds which are easily survived today.
As to some shooters being very good marksmen - - This is only natural. Even with "a pair of Navy sixes," a cool headed pistolero would realize he had but a finite number of shots before needing a lengthy time out to regroup. Using a flask and loose caps, it was the work of over a full minute to reload for a practiced shooter to reload a '51 Colt. Even paper cartridges didn't speed this up significantly. It truly behooved one to make one's shots fly true - - -
Best,
Johnny
The .36 percussion revolver did not fire .36" lead spheres. The bore diameter was .36 all right, but the round balls were cast at .375 to .380". In the loading process, ramming the balls down on a charge of powder, the balls were swaged into cylindrical shapes, with somewhat rounded ends. I hasten to add, the noses were far blunter than the LRNs later loaded in .38 S&W and .38 Special cartridges, and undoubtedly enhanced the terminal effect.
The cylindrical shape gave a far greater bearing length to be engraved by the rifling than was the case with the patched round balls used in rifles of the time. Depending on the quality of the individual arm, this combination could yield a pretty high degree of accuracy.
The round balls used in Hickok's Navies weighed about 80 grains, depending on the cast diameter and the composition of the lead used. With a healthy charge of high grade powder, one ended up with a load similar to a modern .380 ACP, sans hollow point, but of very soft lead. Call it a .360/80 at 950+ fps. Not a magnum by today's standards, but not a thing at which to sneeze.
Mike Irwin wrote,
I agree, but not entirely. The absence of antibiotics and modern surgical techniques in those thrilling days of yesteryear has been remarked. Add to this a couple of other factors related to personal hygiene - - Even weekly bathing was rare, and many of the troublemakers in the cowtowns had been on the trail for months. Their washing was limited to deepwater river crossings and thunderstorms. Outer clothing, at least, was seldom laundered. Fabrics were typically quite heavy and could become mighty grimy before they fell apart. ANY penetrating wound, especially from a low-to-medium velocity, blunt nosed, bullet, carried a lot of rather narsty foreign bodies into the wound. NO ONE got tetanus shots back then.
In the 1880s, some very tough people died of gunshot wounds which are easily survived today.
As to some shooters being very good marksmen - - This is only natural. Even with "a pair of Navy sixes," a cool headed pistolero would realize he had but a finite number of shots before needing a lengthy time out to regroup. Using a flask and loose caps, it was the work of over a full minute to reload for a practiced shooter to reload a '51 Colt. Even paper cartridges didn't speed this up significantly. It truly behooved one to make one's shots fly true - - -
Best,
Johnny
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
