I was watching a show on all the various odd hidden and odd self defense firearms that were used in the 19th early 20th century.

Most of these palm pistols, ring guns, small derringers etc. all seem so incredibly anemic even at contact distance.

Were folks more likely to stop an attack/psychologically go down because any wound might very well be fatal vs today where fast medical attention and wonder medicine are so available?

It just seems to me that all these tiny single shot type things would be 1 in a million type things and I would imagine I would have preferred a good blade.

Were any of these things viable??? I mean hell we argue 7 shots of semi auto .32 is damn near unarmed in the modern world.

This is probably relevant about abdominal wounds:

quote:

Prior to the advent of antibiotics and general surgery, wounds that penetrated the gastrointestinal tract were pretty much a death sentence. The GI carries tons of bacteria, that, when spilled into the abdomen, tend to cause uncontrollable sepsis.

That may be why we read old accounts of people wandering off saying things like "I've been killed" after being shot or stabbed in the gut. I would also guess that the near-certainty of a slow and painful death might have a profound impact on a person's reaction to being wounded.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gc70,

I read on the internet that a famous trauma surgeon could not distinguish the wound channels made by ring guns, 9mm, 45ACP, or .338 Lapua. Bullet technology really advanced between 1700 and 1850.

It all comes down to shot placement and training with what you carry.

Seriously, as noted above, getting shot in the days before antibiotics would have genuinely sucked.

I’m not talking about anything close to martial rounds. Most of these things .22 is THE BIG CALIBER. This is not a caliber debate discussion at all.

It’s more that there was a period in history where folks carried so very ingenious and very small firearms for self defense yet between having almost no barrel in most cases and rounds that make .22 look like artillery I just cannot imagine these things being effective beyond psychologically. Even the if you pulled some tiny odd looking pinfire thing with no barrel I probably wouldn’t be all that worried beyond my eyes. If you pulled a decent hidden blade with a gleam in your eye, I’d probably be way more likely to remember another appointment I was late for.

Just an interesting historical observation.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:This is not a caliber debate discussion at all.

I get that, thus the smile after my first two BS sentences.

Causing something/someone to die is quite different than STOPPING them from their aggression.

^^^^^

True, but I think the historical context does matter. One certainly has a good reason to completely avoid likely fatal events even before experiencing the direct effect.

We don't avoid high voltage power lines for nothing.

Just because they were popular doesn't mean they were useful or effective.

You have to keep in mind that back then, just like today, a decent number of people would own a firearm purely because it makes them feel safe.

They see it almost as a magical talisman that will ward off evil.

It may not be an effective caliber. They may not practice with it. They may not regularly maintain it. They may not carry it. It may not even be readily accessible or even loaded. They buy it just to have it, because having it makes them feel safe.

Gentlemen with 5mm pinfire pepperboxes concealed in their canes likely never had to employ them against anyone. But they liked having them because it made them feel safe.

Same with your neighbor lady with the unloaded .22 revolver in her dresser drawer.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Just because they were popular doesn't mean they were useful or effective.

You have to keep in mind that back then, just like today, a decent number of people would own a firearm purely because it makes them feel safe.

They see it almost as a magical talisman that will ward off evil.

It may not be an effective caliber. They may not practice with it. They may not regularly maintain it. They may not carry it. It may not even be readily accessible or even loaded. They buy it just to have it, because having it makes them feel safe.

Gentlemen with 15mm pinfire pepperboxes concealed in their canes likely never had to employ them against anyone. But they liked having them because it made them feel safe.

Same with your neighbor lady with the unloaded .22 revolver in her dresser drawer.

exactly


I would imagine the percentage of use for self defense vs owned is not that far off from what we would see today,


folks bought them, stuck them in the purse, vest or coat pocket, etc etc or simply left at home, and not used often if at all,

we know some were shot, going by the number you see that are worn, pitted barrels, nickel flaking etc, but betting that was practice

The majority of snakes and spiders aren’t poisonous to humans. People still dance a jig every time they see one, though.

Back when I worked in trauma ICU we had a patient rendered brain dead...which by definition is clinical death by a 25 acp.

Sure it can happen, but as others mention there is a difference between "mortally wounded" and "incapacitating wounds".

Also don't forget many Americans are more tactically padded these days, in comparison to the 1900s.

what was that old story about the mountain man and the greenhorn with a S&W #1/ 1/2? "Son, if you was to shoot me with that thing, and I found out about it, I'd be a mite angry?"

I wonder what people 200 years from now with their sub-compact disintegraters and Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulators will think about us.

Now, but also no doubt then, what will deter a personal attack at close range (other than in military combat)?

1. Being obviously alert to one’s surroundings and possible threats. If that doesn’t work:
2. Displaying a demeanor that indicates one is probably armed. If that doesn’t work:
3. Verbal warnings. The first three will deter the majority of attackers, but if that doesn’t work:
4. Displaying a gun—any gun. That will deter a majority of those who were not deterred before, but if not:
5. Firing a gun—any gun. Again, most of those left will be discouraged at that point, but if not:
6. Hitting the target with any gun anywhere. Once again the majority will decide to find something else to do.
7. And finally: Hitting the target in a vital spot with a powerful enough projectile that will quickly physically incapacitate him will (obviously) deter the tiny fraction of aggressors who weren’t discouraged earlier.

As stated, and despite what we might fear based on the sensational pronouncements of the people who have plenty of time to play with gelatin blocks and anatomical diagrams, only a vanishingly small number of attackers ever make it to level 7. We do tend to hear about such individuals for a couple of reasons. The first is that they are the dramatic tales. The countless incidents in which someone decides that a potential victim might not be worth the trouble and that he should look elsewhere are never reported. Police gain compliance far more often by pointing their guns at suspects than by shooting them.

On the other hand, other than in military situations police also encounter far more aggressors who are prepared for a fight and determined to win than anyone else. That means that they will more likely need to deliver actual debilitating damage to their targets than the rest of us.

In bygone eras it’s quite possible that people recognized and feared the danger posed by any firearm more than today. The teevee and movies present a paradox. On one hand we’re led to believe that bullets will knock people across a room. On the other, if they’re not killed immediately, being shot isn’t any big deal; a bandage and perhaps an arm sling for a few days is all that’s necessary for a complete recovery, not major surgery, weeks or months of rehab, and permanent disability.

At certain times and places in historical America violence was far more common among ordinary folk than today. I just finished reading a book about a “frontier” town in 1850s Illinois that mentioned how common it was for men and older boys to be armed with large knives that were frequently used in minor disputes. Being shot or stabbed in the torso in those days carried the very high likelihood of ultimate death.

The gelatin and anatomy charts crowd’s claim that men are physically able to continue fighting until their bodies physically shut down isn’t incorrect, merely exaggerated. They often scoff at so-called “psychological” stops that result from minor, easily-survivable wounds. The simple fact is, however, that psychological forces “stop” aggressors far more often than their being shot to pieces. And anyone who rejects the value of such effects is either a fool or incredibly naïve. I would much rather scare an attacker into compliance than having to shoot him. That doesn’t mean that I personally would choose a derringer chambered for a .22 rimfire cartridge for self-defense. If it ever comes to defending myself and family, I will want all the advantages I can get: as much accuracy, ammunition capacity, power, and projectile effectiveness that are reasonably available to me. Even today, however, most people have no way of defending themselves with firearms, and of those who do, most are willing to compromise in one or more ways as we read about here all the time.

I think the issues back them were similar to what they are now. People wanted a level of concealed armament that precluded larger rounds.

While the vision of the wild west was that people went everywhere with a Colt SAA on their hip, a lot of towns banned carrying guns in the town itself. Of course, the towns could be rough, and people wanted protection, so they concealed. People would carry anything from cut down SAA (and similar from other makers), to peashooters. The first rule of gunfighting was as valid then, if not more so, as it is now.

I think people were shooting much closer in those days as well, with sights being either non-existent or very crude.

Wasn't Lincoln shot at like 3 feet? At that range, it doesn't much matter if it's .25 caliber or .50 caliber.

If you look at the ranges of most LE and civilian shootings nowadays, most are at contact to a few yards.

Yes, there are police sniper shootings, and the occasion crazy long range gunman (thinking Vegas, DC sniper, etc.). But statistically, those are a small blip. Most shootings are handguns at bad breath range or just slightly more.

BTW, there was the occasional long range shootouts in the old days, also.

So, I don't think that's changed much either.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I think people were shooting much closer in those days as well, with sights being either non-existent or very crude.

Wasn't Lincoln shot at like 3 feet? At that range, it doesn't much matter if it's .25 caliber or .50 caliber.

yes, IIRC there is an report that says the vast majority of self defense shootings in the US confirm to the 3-3-3 rule. 3 rounds (or fewer) in less than 3 second inside of 3 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
yes, IIRC there is an report that says the vast majority of self defense shootings in the US confirm to the 3-3-3 rule. 3 rounds (or fewer) in less than 3 second inside of 3 yards.

That was supposedly the findings of an FBI analysis of law enforcement related shootings. If it was actually conducted, it has entered the realm of anecdote by now, not to mention being suspiciously neat and tidy with its 3/3/3.

In any event, how would anyone possibly determine that sort of detail for non-LEO incidents? And why would an agency like the FBI spend the time, money, and effort for something that would have no relevance to them or other LEOs? The speed and distance claim of LE shootings at least makes some sense because LEOs are required to approach suspicious people and are likely to be very close to anyone else during routine contacts such as traffic stops.