How accurate were the original cowboy shooters?

I've read lots about the old west my entire life and it's true that not everyone was a cowboy, which no one said as far as I know. I seriously collect old western guns and do have some personal family connections to the west as well. My grandfather was a trick roper and bronc rider in the 101 Ranch Wild West Show with Tom Mix. His name appears on one of their rosters. During WW1, because of his experience he was a mule skinner in the army in France and was mustard gassed while transporting supplies in no man's land, which drastically changed his life. He was a lousy shot from what my father said and my father had no interest in guns either. As a matter of fact, my father sat on TM's horse Tony when he visited New Boston Illinois in the 1930's. I never said no one could shoot back then, only there's better shots today for what I think were valid reasons that I gave. It's only opinion, that's all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:
In one saloon fight, two groups of rival ranch hands fired over 200 shots at each other. Result - one dead cat!

Well, the day wasn't a total loss.
Click to expand...

Sarge, that was the greatest come-back line I've seen in a long time. Bravo.
 
I did a little checking a while ago and learned..

...That accuracy in small arms combat involving police does not result in very high number of hits.

Can't remember precisely but I think it is under ten percent. It would be easy enough to check.

We (Meaning myself and some other of the emergency response coordinators) were trying to rationalize the school's gun free zone policy. For that effort I interviewed around thirty police officers and every one of them though it was a bad idea to permit guns in classrooms. They supported the gun free zone status to a man.
 
Read the book "How I became a Crack Shot" by W Milton Farrow.

Mr Farrow was one of the best shooters in the world, the copy right date of the book is 1882.

Mr Farrow held a 200 yard shooting competition in Glendive Montana, still in the wild and wooly west, for the locals, with, according to him “a sprinkling of Officers from Fort Keogh”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glendive,_Montana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Keogh

The target was of the regular Creedmoor pattern for 200 yards, four feet wide and six feet tall, with eight inch bullseye. After a few preparatory shots the practice was begun, and in many cases did the hunters and scouts astonish the celebrated shot (Mr Farrow) and themselves, at the ease and frequency with which they could miss , not only the bullseye, but the entire target.
Click to expand...
 
Since I have NO idea what I'm talking about, I think I'll join in too. :p

I would say that in history the general populace of THAT day were better shots than the general populace of THIS day for several reasons. There was a larger portion of the population living in rural area than in urban areas. Rural people shot guns more often than city folks. However, city folks of history shot guns much more, as a percentage than city folks do now. (gangster excluded) I didn't say that shooters of that day were better than shooter of TODAY, I just can't see how that's possible.

Therefore, if someone is shooting more often and FOR A REASON (trying to kill their food), then it stands to reason that they would be a better shot than those who never do shoot at all or just shoot for fun one or twice a year, no matter how GOOD the gun or ammo is.

However, the OP question had NOTHING to do with rural vs. urban, nor modern day, but that's not going to stop me-no sir. :)

Today's shooters would be considered very accurate shooters if put in a historical perspective because we have so much more money and so much more time to practice-as has been stated several times in this thread.

Chronologically, as close away as my father and his brothers having to provide meat for the table in the late days of the Depression era, HAD to be good shots. This was NOT that long ago, or so I keep telling myself. So, having to learn how to aim and shoot was part of their everyday life. They were-as I was, born in the rural south. It was a necessity to shoot well for them.

For me, it was just fun. I never HAD to shoot anything to keep meat on the table, my shooting was all for fun. I learned to shot BB guns with my cousins as a young child. We walked "patrol" on dirt roads and (sadly now) shot and killed just about anything that crawled or flew day after day. So, we got pretty good at it. We hunted as kids in a large group of relatives. You shot good because everybody did.

Something else to consider-People can also SEE a whole lot better now than they used to, don't neglect that either in your theories. My Grandfather (b.1899) was considered a very good shot because he could see really well, my Dad (b. 1929)was a bad shot because he had astigmatism. It could come down to simply the fact that people of history didn't have glasses or at least glasses that were much good.

Now back to people who know what they are taking about.
OJW
 
Not really knowing for sure, but how accurate were the statistics back then, or did anyone even keep records? As a matter of fact, who kept records back then regarding how much people shot? My guess and it's only a guess would be no one. There were more important things to do unlike today.

Gee, I've always read that gun shops and hardware stores weren't everywhere and that's why pistol and rifle ammo in many cases were compatable. Many back then did their own reloading out of necessity and didn't have the opportunity to just walk into the neihborhood Walmart, or Dick's and buy a few boxes of ammo to just practice with. I'm sure that even those who hunted for their food were afraid to waste ammo. Many did live away from civilization and were forced to hunt in order to eat, as well as defend themselves from the two legged threats they encountered, but these people were few and far between, because the population was very low compared to those who lived in towns.

Today it's not so uncommon to see people regularly going to a range and firing 2, or 300 rounds, or more. I would just be guessing, but I think in the 1800's that would probably be considered unrealistic and unaffordable.

There were expert shots during the Revolutionary War and Civil War as well who made with primitive weapons unbelieveable shots. But as good as Annie Oakley was she used gimmicks like shot in her 22's to make those trick shots. They weren't stupid back then either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for shooting with revolvers many did not use the sights on their pistols. They pointed, and shot. It was noted that Jesse James emptied his Scotfield revolver in a bank at a teller, and missed him with all six shots. He then knocked him out by clubbing him over the head with the gun. All the smoke inside of the building made it hard to see more than past the end of the gun itself.

Though there was a case where it was noted that Jesse fired one shot at a man while riding out of town after a bank job, and hit him in the heat dropping him dead on the spot.

Ok now I am off to the range to shoot the Navy .36 today. Last time I shot it I was making decent hits on a B-27 at 100 yards with it. So today I will see if it was just a case of even a blind dog catches a squirrel every now and again.
 
For what it's worth, almost all of the pistol shooting done in the Boise Basin area here in Southwest Idaho back in the mid to late 1800s was at close range - not quite spittin' range, but not much more. And most shootings happened in saloons or at mining claims.

After reading Governor McConnell's and John Hailey's histories of the state, I get the impression that gunfights in the area were more common than they might have been because the prevailing wisdom was that if both parties were visibly armed, each could claim self defense. Woe betide, though, the bushwhacker who carried concealed. There was certainly a sense of fair play and hiding one's hogleg was a serious violation.
 
SARGE sarge sargE

quote In one saloon fight, two groups of rival ranch hands fired over 200 shots at each other. Result - one dead cat!
Well, the day wasn't a total loss.

I just wanted you to know I have a cat that thinks he is a dog. He is also coal black. I named him Sarge as the only good Sargent' I had in SEA were all black. They kept me from being stupid and getting killed.

One note the shooter today are not a bit better than they were back then. We figured Overseas that it took at least a thousand rounds to drop one bad guy. So much for one shot one kill. I even wound up the time over there as being a sniper. I did shoot more than two. to rub together.

dray
 
Back in the 1880's, a gun, holster and ammo, could cost a poor guy a whole month's wages. So, unless they were naturally born good shots [and there were a few] they didn't have money to waste practising. Reloading cartridge ammo wasn't that common back then. They couldn't carry around the equipment needed for one thing, and secondly, they didn't have the slightest idea how to do it. A box of 25 or 50 rounds might have to last a year! Although, Wild Bill shot and emptied his revolvers each morning with his first whisky. But , he was paid considerably better than most people back then. And he used, and continued to use black powder into the cartridge age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top