There's probably no real way of knowing but I think had many of them applied themselves there could have been some very good marksman. Very few had the natural born talent of a say Annie Oakley. She learned with her dad hunting but she had a extraordinary talent that was recognized early on when she shot the head off a squirrel with her daddy's muzzle loader off the front porch of her house at age eight.

I'm also imagining a lot of drawing and dry firing with those single action revolvers.

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
President Garfield died of infection resulting from his wound.

Yes, although he probably would have recovered if the doctors had left him alone.
It’s hard to comprehend how bad some medical practices were even 100 years ago, but infections were major killers. I once read someone’s question asking why so many people lived so long after something like an abdominal gunshot wound. The answer of course was that infections don’t kill immediately, but the victims usually knew they were doomed. There’s that one old song’s line, “I’m shot in the breast and I know I must die.”

quote:

Originally posted by ss9961:
Some guys are just lucky when it comes to killing folks.
It also helps to have an edge.
And chewing tobacco.

I heard that in William Munny’s voice…the notorious killer

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
President Garfield died of infection resulting from his wound.

Yes, although he probably would have recovered if the doctors had left him alone.
It’s hard to comprehend how bad some medical practices were even 100 years ago, but infections were major killers. I once read someone’s question asking why so many people lived so long after something like an abdominal gunshot wound. The answer of course was that infections don’t kill immediately, but the victims usually knew they were doomed. There’s that one old song’s line, “I’m shot in the breast and I know I must die.”

Assassin: The doctors killed Garfield. I only shot him.

I've forgotten where I read it, but ammunition in the West in the 1800's was extremely expensive, I guess having to be shipped from the ammo factories in the East.

Would that factor in how much they could have praticed?

Not saying it was all of it, but I think ambush tactics account for a portion. I also think history sorta belongs to who wrote the books & articles. After all, the goal was to sell books or personalities.


The lines get cross between facts of the time & spun fiction.

How many would have been hardened by the fire of civil war battles?

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
I also read once that Wild Bill Hickok, would discharge and reload his Navy Colts every day before he went on the street. No idea if that is true, but Hickok was widely known as a skilled pistol shot so it may be real. John Wesley Hardin was known to shoot playing cards and then sign them for cash and free drinks. It been attributed to Bat Masterson, who survived the gunfighter era and went on be a sportswriter, that he said the secret to gunfighting was to "hurry, but take your time". I would guess for most of the men who achieved notoriety during that time it was experience under fire and a cool head that equaled success, as opposed to lot of practise.

This... and what the previous posters said.

Practice is great, and I encourage people to practice as much as they have time and money for.

But, some people "just have it" and by that I mean the mindset.

I see it all the time with new officers in training, and now as a supervisor, even more. You see what someone is made of when they get challenged. The first time someone tells them "no." The first time they get punched in the mouth. Some people are just cool under pressure. Some people aren't.

Someone who both possesses the mental ability and has practiced enough to build the skill will be the most likely victor.

Kevin

I've read every book about the old west "Gunfighters" that I could find and it seems that they only existed in the dime novels of the time.
I doubt many of them practiced on a regular basis. Ammunition wasn't cheap and far fewer men than we've been led to believe carried firearms on a daily basis.
For every account of a skilled man who could hit his target while under fire, there were dozens involving two men who started shooting from across the room, emptied their guns and only shot holes in the walls.
I imagine that most gun fight killings were the result of ambushes, dumb luck and firearm malfunctions.
No doubt there were some amazing marksman of the time but I bet todays average firearm enthusiast shoots more in a year than the so called gun fighter shot in a long lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
Alvin C. York was considered an excellent marksman, I've seen his skills attributed to his poor Appalachian upbringing.

Same story with Audie Murphy.

It has been reported that most shootings in the Old West were not "High Noon" events, but took place at much shorter distances without pre-planning. Hollywood has corrupted virtually everything about the Old West, and we've learned to believe it. Real History is much different.

I suspect that the notorious gunfighters succeeded to a large part by being aware of their surrounding and having very fast reflexes. Precise accuracy was not essential at short range, and a shot person was probably going to die, anyway, no matter where the bullet hit. Those big diameter soft lead bullets did a lot of damage.

flashguy

Everyone got shot in the back, word has it.

I don't doubt it a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by sigspecops:
I've read every book about the old west "Gunfighters" that I could find and it seems that they only existed in the dime novels of the time.

Thanks. It’s good to have one’s suspicions confirmed by someone who has actually researched the matter.

If you use the military as an example of thrift of ammunition use, and imagine that it could apply to civilians. I think military strategists were concerned about ammunition waste when they went from the trapdoor to the Krag. I'll guess that for the most part, they made shots count.

But how come the Mexicans were so ammunition rich? Running around with the X bandoleers full of ammo. Always the Mexicans dripping with ammo.

^^^ Revolution. The first task was to take over a port or port of entry, so you guaranteed yourself access to (generally black market) ammunition and rifles from the United States and elsewhere plus you got to keep and spend all the customs duties. The second task was to take over at least one major extractive resource - the silver mines at San Luis Potosi were popular in the west, oil became fairly popular in the east during the revolutions around the turn of the last century. Then you made money off of whatever you stole, and you spent it on rifles and absolutely massive quantities of cartridges.

If you happen to have the chance and the inclination, "The Secret War In El Paso" by Charles Harris and Louis Sadler and "In Plain Sight: Felix A. Sommerfeld, Spymaster in Mexico, 1908-1914" by Heribert von Feilitzsche cover the subject in great detail.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Ammunition was more or less handmade back then, wasn’t it?

I can’t imagine it was cheap and I doubt they fired a whole lot of it.

Cases might've been hard to come by but reloading tools (think of the old Lymans - mold and press combined) were fairly common and both bar lead and gunpowder were apparently widely available.

Current histories do mention both Billy the Kid and John Wesley Hardin were known for plinking more often than most.

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
But, some people "just have it" and by that I mean the mindset.

Mindset/attitude/mental fortitude is obviously extremely important as has been demonstrated countless times in military combat: Alvin York who started as a conscientious objector, Rodger Young who had serious physical disabilities, and Audie Murphy who was originally rejected by the Marines are just a few of the most obvious examples of men who rose to an occasion (or more than one).

But to return to the original question about shooting skill which is different from fighting prowess, there’s no question that just as physical differences have profound effects on success in other types of athletics, the same is true of shooting skills. I practice with various shooting drills a lot and have been doing that for years. My total round count of over 4000 this year was less than most years due to various factors beyond my control, but when I do shoot the vast majority is intended to be skill building, not putting 50 rounds through a single target at 7 yards.

Despite all that, though, I know many men who can shoot better than I with a fraction of the practice. One friend is a full time firefighter who works countless overtime hours. He gets to the range not a couple or more times a month, but maybe that many times a year. But when we shoot together after his not having shot in months, he is always faster and more accurate than I am despite my session the previous week.

My point is that innate physical, and often mental, differences govern how good a shooter a person is capable of becoming. No one will become as good as they’re capable of without training and practice, but some people’s training and practice will permit them to become far better than others who train and practice just as much, or even more. And of course when someone is really good at something, they tend to spend more time and effort on that activity which makes them better still.

I agree with sigspecops assessment.

Another thing to consider is the quality of their leather gear. Those fancy leather formed holsters are a Hollywood creation and designed specifically for the 'fast' draw. Most early cowboys and gunfighters used holsters strictly as a means of carrying their gun and keeping it secure. I remember reading somewhere that on many occasions John Wesley Hardin carried his gun in his pants pocket. Even Wild Bill was known to carry his guns in a sash around his waist.

Those steely-eyed, high noon face offs were more a figment of the dime novel authors embellishments, than actual reality.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
President Garfield died of infection resulting from his wound.

Yes, although he probably would have recovered if the doctors had left him alone.
It’s hard to comprehend how bad some medical practices were even 100 years ago, but infections were major killers. I once read someone’s question asking why so many people lived so long after something like an abdominal gunshot wound. The answer of course was that infections don’t kill immediately, but the victims usually knew they were doomed. There’s that one old song’s line, “I’m shot in the breast and I know I must die.”

Assassin: The doctors killed Garfield. I only shot him.

I heard a podcast once that described the doctors' attempts to "save" Garfield. Everything they did made him worse. The cut him open to find the bullet and dug around without sterile technique. Of course, they didn't know much about germ theory, and surgery was primitive, so they were doing their best, but their best made him worse.

I suspect the theory behind becoming a gifted gunslinger is akin to what my old basketball coach said about a gifted basketball shooter:

(quoted as best I can remember a long time ago)

"Son, the first requirements are that you have the reaction time and the coordination of an exceptional athlete - ie the potential.

The second requirement is to give your body enough repetitions of the physical action of shooting a basketball, ie muscle and nerve trained memory.

Third and most important, the ability to turn over to the body the skill that it has learned and leave the mind and thinking out of it. The only mental action required is to picture the ball going through the goal, which tells the body what action it needs to perform."

Unfortunately, I never became an exceptional basketball shooter, likely because of the first requirements. I did become an adequate player by mastering the second and third areas. I suspect the same was true of old-time gunslingers - a few were probably exceptional good, but most were just adequate.

I see the same results among my fellow gun owners. A few of them are horrific, most of them are adequate or better, and a very few are exceptional. I can't say for sure that my old basketball coach was 100% correct, but I sure do see where his philosophy is somewhat applicable when I analyze the abilities of my friends.