Auto pistols and accuracy versus wheel guns.

[skycop]

I was reading an article about a gunfight Wild Bill Hickok was involved in with a guy named Davis Tutt. It is said that this is one of the only truly documented quick draw gunfights that actually happened and was witnessed by a number of people. Long story short, Hickok drew aimed and fired hitting Tutt center mass at 75 yards, killing him. Tutt missed. No small feat.

It got me thinking then about how those old gunfighters had to rely on supreme accuracy based on a number of reasons, such as weapon and ammo reliability and relatively low ammunition capacity by todays auto pistol standards. Today's handguns are much more reliable, and more so the ammo we use.

I then wondered how much the high capacity auto's we use have an effect on our accuracy. If we had fewer rounds would we concentrate more on being that much more accurate, as well as where we placed our shots?

[General Geoff]

Wheel guns are (usually) inherently more accurate than most automatic pistols.

As for getting a COM shot with a pistol at 75 yards (while under the gun, so to speak), it's not easy but it can be done with just about any quality pistol on the market today.


What it comes down to is training and practice. If you put in the time and effort, you will be capable of such shots. As a wise man once said, "Volume is fine, but accuracy is final."

[RobW]

And ole Wild Bill was probably firing a revolver with a 10+ inch sight radius, which certainly helps. If you keep your cool, of course!


--RobW

[d90king]

A Custom 1911 or a Baer (yes I am sure that others will have some brands too) would be the only thing close to lets say a Python or it's equal.

The old SAA's were and still are very accurate in the hands of someone who can actually shoot a revolver from that era well. I am not one of them............

Heres a Python target to judge accuracy.

[denjask]

What made Wild Bill"s shot so remarkable ?
He used .36 cal cap and ball pistols. He didn't trust the new fangled cartridge guns.

[Wasz]

I would think that a revolver is inherently more accurate simply due to the fact that the barrel doesn't move at all nor does anything around it. That's just my thinking though.

[bloomautomatic]

According to wikipedia, the gunfight happened like this:

At approximately 12 Noon, Hickok was seen calmly approaching the square from the north, his Colt Navy in hand. His armed presence caused the crowd to immediately scatter to the safety of nearby buildings, leaving Tutt alone in the center of the square. At a distance of about 75 yards, Hickok stopped, facing Tutt, and called out, "Dave, here I am." He cocked his pistol, holstered it on his hip, and gave a final warning, "Don't you come across here with that watch." [3]

Despite the gunfight launching Hickok to fame as a gunfighter, Davis Tutt showed courage by all accounts. Both men hesitated briefly. Then Tutt reached for his pistol. The two men quick-drew and fired a single shot each, both shooting at essentially the same time, the reports combining as one. Tutt missed. But Hickok's .36-caliber bullet struck Tutt in the heart, killing him in moments.

If wikipedia is to be believed, I suspect he was point shooting, not using the sights. If that's the case, and while this may be blasphemy to even suggest this, I'd call it more of a lucky shot than pure skill. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure ol' Bill was quite skilled at quick drawing and point shooting, but I doubt he'd be able to repeat the shot consistently.

Vince

[Spotter98]

1. I agree with bloomautomatic: At that range, firing without aim, it was either pure luck or Hickock spent hours and hours and hours practicing.
2. There's a show that pops up every so often on the History Channel. It analyzes the shootout at the OK Corral. It comes to the conclusion that the shooter who takes an extra half second to aim scores far more hits.
3. There was a "celebrated" case that was and still might be incorporated in NYC police training. Took place around 1970, give or take. Hostage situation in a court room. The cops make a deal with the gunman to send in an attorney to replace the (as I recall) women and children the guy was holding. Gunman agrees. The attorney was really a cop with a revolver strapped to his ankle. After allowing quite some time to pass, waiting for the gunman to get lazy and drop his guard, the cop pulled out his revolver and fired it at the bad guy as fast as he could pull the trigger, until empty. Range was across a legal table or about 5 feet. Missed him completely with all rounds. However, momentary shock allowed other cops waiting just outside to burst in and, as I recall, kill the perp.
This incident brought about, or at least was a big factor in changing in the way NYC cops practiced shooting. No more just fixed paper targets at 25 yards.

[pred]

I personally shoot most revolvers better that a semi auto, I ind that with the same weight and caliber, the wheel gun has less recoil, The semi actually has 2 recoils, one when the cafe fires, another when the slide recoils, I guess I am a bit recoil sensative,,,,, But all the same, I can shoot better with a revolver.
There are many factors,,, I would like to see ransom tests on both.
Peter

[Jim1911]

I got out of shooting regularly for 20+ years.
I used to be 1 hell of a shot and now I am having a real problem dialing it back in and I cannot blame it all on getting older.


I would go through 6 .410s, 25 .22s, 4 or 5 30-30s, and 1/2 a box of 12 ga a year and every shot had to count. The one and only time I saw my grandfather fire a weapon was when he shot a rattler in the head at 25+ yards with the 38.

Now I am dumping 100 22s and 50 .45s a week down range and I hit the paper and sometimes the target.


My point is when you must be frugal with you ammunition, you make every shot count.

Ammunition was expensive as hell back then so I believe that was a good shot combined with a little luck.

On paper revolvers are more accurate than pistols but what are we talking about + or – 1/2" at 50 yards. Pistols just make the shooter lazy.