Fun Civil War Handgun Challenge.

[leftyhunter]

I was thinking of this challenge based on a debate I had with another poster about did troops go from shooting to wound vs shooting to kill. has we know just hitting a man during combat is harder then it sounds. Pointshooting.com has an article about a NYPD Study released in 1981 that documents 6,000 NYPD shootings from 1854 to 1979. The actual ability for a a police officer to actually hit a criminal during a gun fight is
0 to 3yds 38%
3 to 7 yds 11.5%
7 to 15 yds 9.44%
In a 1992 follow up study the figures got worse.
0 to 3 yds 28%
3to 7 yds 11%
7 to 15 yds4.2%
Over 90% of shootings take place from 0 to 5 yds.
0 to 3 ft 34%
3 to 6 ft 47%
6 to 15 ft 9%
Question using an authentic replica era hand gun that would be used by a large urban police dept of the Civil War Era( the Colt 1854 Army and Naval models come to mind) could you in say a 100 or more trials ( does not have to be on the same the same day) in low light conditions using an authentic holster used by police of the CW era draw your revolver and hit a standard police target at 5 yards with two shots in 3.2 seconds which was the average time of a gun fight? Obviously you won't be in a life and death situation so no the stress won't be so bad but it would be an interesting experiment.
I have to practice a lot with my Glock for work qualification but I don't live near a black powder range or area that I can shoot black powder. The closest rang for black powder for me is over an hour away.
I look forward to any results.
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

A friend of mine is a pretty good pistol shot, ( and kind of proud of it-if you know what I mean), capable of hitting a paper plate at ten yards with his 1911, 5-6 times out of 8 rounds in 5-6 seconds with regularity.
We can up with an idea to add some stress to his shooting by throwing tennis balls at him from 20 feet while he shot.
He hit the plate once, and came pretty close with two other shots.

 

[reading48]

The percentage, I would say would be much less...Tennis balls won't hurt you...
Add the scenario of other men shooting lead balls back at you, a smoke filled atmosphere, people shouting, yelling and the din of battle all around you, would greatly decrease the composure or accuracy of any man...

 

[7thWisconsin]

"Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living?" (Han Solo)
I think those stats are pretty revealing, though they don't tell the whole story. Under 10 foot shots may be indoor shots. The longer ranged may be outdoor, surrounded by unarmed civilians, distractions, low light circumstances, etc.. I'm a good shot, but I tell people pistols have a lot shorter effective range than you think. They're melee weapons.

 

[leftyhunter]

"Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living?" (Han Solo)
I think those stats are pretty revealing, though they don't tell the whole story. Under 10 foot shots may be indoor shots. The longer ranged may be outdoor, surrounded by unarmed civilians, distractions, low light circumstances, etc.. I'm a good shot, but I tell people pistols have a lot shorter effective range than you think. They're melee weapons.

I don't know what percentage of close range shots where outdoors vs indoors. In 20 years I have drawn my gun 5 times all outdoors and almost all where under 7 yards. Fortunately I didn't have to fire .
Next scenario. just how easy is it for a cavalry man to really hit some one with a cap and ball revolver while shooting one hand on horseback on uneven ground at another man also on a moving horse? Not saying it was not done but imagine the fun of trying to recreate a horse and man model that is moving while one is riding a horse and firing?
Another fun scenario would be having a partner wearing protective cloths try to rush you with a rubber knife and at other times with an axe , a full size replica CW rifle with a rubber bayonet while one draws a replica CW revolver from an authentic era police or military holster and fires a low velocity wax bullet at a rnge of seven yards and seeing if one could actually hit the target.
My guess is very few people where killed by revolvers in combat not saying I am right but it would be interesting to do some sort of experiment.
Leftyhunter

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

Pistols, in my opinion, are "point & shoot" weapons (ie, point your "finger" which is the barrel, and fire) and are very short range weapons.......As to firing a rifle, while in line firing against another line, one, under conditions of being shot at also, maybe winded from coming into line, adrenaline pumping from excitement, etc., may also have only time enough to shoulder the weapon, level it, and fire....Not much time to aim....At the distances most lines fought one another, I should think most shooters had just enough time to generally aim at a target, rather than to take the time to deliberately, specifically aim at a body part......Just my opinion......What do Primary Sources say?

 

[Glen_C]

The last thing either side needed was more wounded to care for.

 

[rosefiend]

I don't know what percentage of close range shots where outdoors vs indoors. In 20 years I have drawn my gun 5 times all outdoors and almost all where under 7 yards. Fortunately I didn't have to fire .
Next scenario. just how easy is it for a cavalry man to really hit some one with a cap and ball revolver while shooting one hand on horseback on uneven ground at another man also on a moving horse? Not saying it was not done but imagine the fun of trying to recreate a horse and man model that is moving while one is riding a horse and firing?
Another fun scenario would be having a partner wearing protective cloths try to rush you with a rubber knife and at other times with an axe , a full size replica CW rifle with a rubber bayonet while one draws a replica CW revolver from an authentic era police or military holster and fires a low velocity wax bullet at a rnge of seven yards and seeing if one could actually hit the target.
My guess is very few people where killed by revolvers in combat not saying I am right but it would be interesting to do some sort of experiment.
Leftyhunter

For the horse and man model, I wonder if there's any way to modify a revolver so you can try shooting paintballs with it? (or, more likely, modifying the ammo.) If you say "I'm doing it for science!" that's all the justification you need, when really you just want to dash around on a horse with your buddies shooting paintballs at each other.

 

[John Winn]

I think I could pass the first test if I had a modern double action revolver (I've practiced a lot and used to shoot competitively). However, I'm not at all sure about black powder single action. Obviously there were some gunfighters after the war who could have been able to do it but I'd guess the overwhelming majority wouldn't come close.

I've read a lot of accounts of shootings or attempted ones in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and it's pretty clear that most people missed entirely if not at point blank range.

When I've read of CW use of a revolver it seems that the target was always close and it was daylight. I'm sure officers sometimes used theirs in battle in the same way as infantry used muskets - just fire in the general direction of the enemy - but I'm guessing they likely wouldn't have drawn the thing unless right in front of the enemy.

As for a guy on a horse, I can see that working if one had closed ranks and it was close enough to also use swords. You wouldn't be galloping and the target(s) would be pretty large. Just a guess, but I have read about it being done (e.g. Forrest).

 

[leftyhunter]

For the horse and man model, I wonder if there's any way to modify a revolver so you can try shooting paintballs with it? (or, more likely, modifying the ammo.) If you say "I'm doing it for science!" that's all the justification you need, when really you just want to dash around on a horse with your buddies shooting paintballs at each other.

I would think to keep the test somewhat authentic the tester would have to fire live rounds at man size target using cheap lumber for the target supports. Black powder makes a lot of smoke plus their would be somerecoil. Setting uprealistic shot scenarios would not be easy.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I think I could pass the first test if I had a modern double action revolver (I've practiced a lot and used to shoot competitively). However, I'm not at all sure about black powder single action. Obviously there were some gunfighters after the war who could have been able to do it but I'd guess the overwhelming majority wouldn't come close.

I've read a lot of accounts of shootings or attempted ones in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and it's pretty clear that most people missed entirely if not at point blank range.

When I've read of CW use of a revolver it seems that the target was always close and it was daylight. I'm sure officers sometimes used theirs in battle in the same way as infantry used muskets - just fire in the general direction of the enemy - but I'm guessing they likely wouldn't have drawn the thing unless right in front of the enemy.

As for a guy on a horse, I can see that working if one had closed ranks and it was close enough to also use swords. You wouldn't be galloping and the target(s) would be pretty large. Just a guess, but I have read about it being done (e.g. Forrest).

I agree firing a black powder cap and ball in any combat scenario and hitting the target consistently is no easy feat. Even with the 1992 study conducted right around the time when NYPD transitioned to the Glock NYPD officers still had trouble hitting their target at 5 yards or less. I would have to think that unless in a CW combat scenario the target is no further then 7 yards hit probability is rather low and even 0 to 5 yards it was most likely under 20%. I base this if modern police officers with more training and double action revolvers have trouble hitting their targets so would CW officers in a very chaotic battle situation.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Pistols, in my opinion, are "point & shoot" weapons (ie, point your "finger" which is the barrel, and fire) and are very short range weapons.......As to firing a rifle, while in line firing against another line, one, under conditions of being shot at also, maybe winded from coming into line, adrenaline pumping from excitement, etc., may also have only time enough to shoulder the weapon, level it, and fire....Not much time to aim....At the distances most lines fought one another, I should think most shooters had just enough time to generally aim at a target, rather than to take the time to deliberately, specifically aim at a body part......Just my opinion......What do Primary Sources say?

I would think your right. Add being too hungry, too cold or to hot plus suffering from various disease and let us not forget army marksmanship training was not that through overall. Then we add the fatigue factor from marching and sleep deprivation and the fact many soldiers had very little if any experience using fire arms prior to military service then overall marksmanship was not that good. I suspect most hits with a rifled musket where under 50 yards. I don't know how to prove or disprove that.
Leftyhunter

 

[rosefiend]

I would think to keep the test somewhat authentic the tester would have to fire live rounds at man size target using cheap lumber for the target supports. Black powder makes a lot of smoke plus their would be somerecoil. Setting uprealistic shot scenarios would not be easy.
Leftyhunter

Well, you got me there, though at least you could pursue the "how well can I shoot a moving man on horseback with a one-handed firearm" idea.

 

[leftyhunter]

Well, you got me there, though at least you could pursue the "how well can I shoot a moving man on horseback with a one-handed firearm" idea.

If I owned a horse and a meadow or rolling hills then yes I would. It is a doable experiment but it does require the above plus of course a good quality replica revolver.
Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

Y'all make it sound impossible. I will double-dog guarantee ya that it wasn't so hard to hit a mounted target from a rearing horse. (With an handgun.) You might not do a beteen-the-eyes aimed shot, but a bodymass was hard to miss.

But this is an oversimplification based on an imaginary, classic scenario.

 

[Legion Para]

If I owned a horse and a meadow or rolling hills then yes I would. It is a doable experiment but it does require the above plus of course a good quality replica revolver.
Leftyhunter

An experiment such as this should be conducted with original revolvers and not replicas.

 

[leftyhunter]

An experiment such as this should be conducted with original revolvers and not replicas.

I don't believe in possibly destroying what few original guns remain.
Leftyhunter

 

[Legion Para]

I agree firing a black powder cap and ball in any combat scenario and hitting the target consistently is no easy feat. Even with the 1992 study conducted right around the time when NYPD transitioned to the Glock NYPD officers still had trouble hitting their target at 5 yards or less. I would have to think that unless in a CW combat scenario the target is no further then 7 yards hit probability is rather low and even 0 to 5 yards it was most likely under 20%. I base this if modern police officers with more training and double action revolvers have trouble hitting their targets so would CW officers in a very chaotic battle situation.
Leftyhunter

With all due respect to Law Enforcement, you can't compare a combat experienced veteran to a police officer. Most police officers don't shoot often enough to become truly proficient marksmen.

 

[leftyhunter]

With all due respect to Law Enforcement, you can't compare a combat experienced veteran to a police officer. Most police officers don't shoot often enough to become truly proficient marksmen.

My point about bring up the NYPD study is that compared to CW era soldiers modern police officers are better trained and also to show at extreme close range 0-15 feet its is difficult at best to hit human target. I was curious to see if anyone could using a CW era replica revolver meet basic police combat standards. In 150 years the combat ranges have not changed and a man charging an officer with a knife in 1865 is the same has in 2015. I would think some departments spend more time on qualifications and refresher training then others so marksmanship standards could vary quite a bit.
Leftyhunter

 

[Legion Para]

I don't believe in possibly destroying what few original guns remain.
Leftyhunter

Thousands of original Civil War firearms have survived and and there is little fear of destroying one if examined by a skilled experienced gunsmith. Many originals are still being shot in 2015.

To keep the experiment as pure as possible, original revolvers should be used.