Wild Bill and his '60 Armies???

[Slowhand Bob]

Guys recently we had a WB Hickock discussion on another site take an unexpected turn and someone posted a couple of sites that I found very interesting.  What really caught my attention while taking in some of the information was quotes from two of Wild Bills contemporaries that made reference to the fact that the guns he was known to favor was the Colts 1860 Army.  We all know that these most famous fighting men of the old west were frequently linked to several guns of the time frame in which they lived, is it possible that we and or the writers focused in on the most attractive guns he was know to have owned rather than the utallitarian models that he actually most used in combat?   A beautiful pair of 1851 Colts with carved ivory grips on display in a museum would paint a much prettier image of the dashing figure than would a pair of utalitarian plain Jane .44 Armies.  I honestly can only remember one of the names now but that was in a letter from Custor describing Hickock and he refers to it being well known at the time that WBs favorite guns were Colt .44s.

[hellgate]

It could well be that when he was a scout for the army during the CW he was issued a single 1860 Army and became fond of its more powerful caliber but when "packing" as a civilian lawman the two navies were less cumbersome. Just my thoughts. The favoring of the '60 Army is new to me beyond him using an issue gun. His unit may have only been issued 44s. I wonder if WB ever used or commented on the Remington. This thread could be interesting.

[Slowhand Bob]

I found one of the resources that I mentioned and it contains several good articles on other gunfighters.  There are three Hickock related links on the left side and at least one has the reference to his guns, as made by Custer, and further up the article states that the Ivory gripped guns, presented to him by a man named Wilson, were in fact, Colts Army revolvers??  Is it possible that the Navy models that exist today were more for his use as displays and for showmanship?  Sometimes the answers only raise more questions and it will be an argument without end.  What would go a long ways towards settling such issues would be court recorded numbers from the guns, as frequently done for court cases involving killings in those days.   We know WB was tried for murder involving a couple or several instances in his life.   http://www.jcs-group.com/oldwest/saints/hickok2.html

I think the original Navy was actually a heavier gun than the Army was and thus would actually have been more cumbersome to carry.  I just recently scanned back through the John Wesley Hardin Bio for some gun related info and did find one reference there to his use of a borrowed Remington to kill someone.  I think I remember it being around 1869 or 70 and he referred to it as a .45 Remington six shooter???  This was prior to the development of the 45Colt so it leaves me to wonder if the terms 44 and 45 were used interchangeably when speaking of the two old Army cap and ball pistols as he also made reference to Colt .45s prior to '73 coming out.  Also remember that his book was written years later from his recollections and letters that were saved.

[Drayton Calhoun]

 I read somewhere that he carried '51's on a daily basis, but, if he expected particular trouble he would carry either '60 Armies or even a Dragoon. Case in point, the fight with Dave Tutt. It has always been accepted that he used a '51 Navy and that may well be a fact, but, I read in Guns Of the Old West magazine an exerpt from the autopsy on Dave Tutt and found something a bit odd. It said the bullet entered through the 5th rib on the right side and exited through the 5th rib on the left side. While the '51 Navy is a beautiful pointing and accurate revolver, it is not exactly a powerhouse. At a range of approx. 75 yards, that small, light ball passing through the bone of a living rib, muscle and cartilidge, through the lungs and heart, then exiting through more muscle, cartilidge and living bone, with no deflection strikes me as a little amazing. Accounts also state that he assumed a two-handed hold in a dueling stance. Having tried that, I found it a bit awkward. I don't recall any eyewitness' statements that he was using a Navy. This is all conjecture, of course.

[Forty Rod]

Saying that such-and-such person in the "old west" owned one type of gun is like saying Forty Rod drove a 1954 Dodge his whole life.

That doesn't make sense to me now.  It never did.

[St. George]

As to the 1851 Navy being heavier...

1851 Navy Colt - 2.5 lbs - 12"

1860 Army Colt - 2.75 lbs - 14"

As to the killing power of the .36 - read Elmer Keith's book - 'Sixguns'.

Those .36's emptied a lot of saddles in their day just as efficiently as did the .44.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Dick Dastardly]

Since the proof is in the shooting, I'll be shooting a brace of 1860 open tops with Kirst Konverter cylinders this weekend at Mississippi Fandango.  I'll be loading C45Spl Brass with a full charge of 20 grains of FFFg Schuetzen under the new 45SLIM Big Lube®LLC bullets.

From test results this should he an interesting annual shoot.  Naturally, I'll not be cleaning my guns between stages or even days to maintain accuracy or function.

I sure like the way those 60s point.

DD-DLoS

[Slowhand Bob]

St George, I was going to research this out last night, knowing I was right that the Navy would weigh more but alas, my logic didn't hold water I'm afraid.  I could have given the shorter length to the '51 very easily, we know it is a 1/2" shorter barl as well as a slightly larger grip frame, though I would never dreamed the grip frame alone would have counted for a full 1 1/2" extra.  A search for specs yielded one that site measured 2" variation between the two while most showed the '60 as being closer to 1" longer.  If I can find an old Army frame in the gun room I will try to measure the difference between it and the Navy version.  Oh, I have recently learned that the earliest Armys were assembled with Nave grip frames as well as the 7 1/2" barls but that would not be the standard by any stretch.

The weight is what really threw me, until I started looking at that cylinder, and realizing that even with all the extra boring for the larger ball there was more to it.  I wanted to call it even on the extra weight added by the Armys cylinder swell by zeroing out the cylinders rebating done on the frame but that really wouldn't be an even swap when we are counting oz very closely.  It appears that the big weight difference would rest in the extra length of the cylinder.  I do not have an Army model, clone or original, to work from so I can not actually check assemblies to see where that extra weight resides.  I am still surprised that the cylinders weight difference is not made up by the hex barl with a smaller bore, which usually means extra weight.  I am somewhat comparing apples to oranges, as I said earlier, the several sites I checked out all had small variances with your two measurements being actually exact with the highest variation I found listed but are these variations because of Uberti vs Pieatta vs Colt vs whichever maker???

Last but not least is the caliber argument,  this is one that has been raging for at least as far back as my memory goes.  I will not get into whether big holes in means more blood out, etc and go strictly with foot pounds of energy.  The Army model specs I found rated it at 160FPE while those for the Navy were listed as 120FPE, for a 25% reduction in power.  To put this in perspective the .31 caliber '49 model was rated at 60FPE so that appears that the Army does what the Navy does plus an extra hit from a light loaded .31!  Remember the old say did not go, "walk softly and carry a little stick".  When at most we are talking less than a ten percent in wt or length, I would make the swap for an extra 25% on the power side in a belt pistol. 

I will ask on another site concerning the guns that can be pinned to Hardin, in particular those used prior to his going to prison.  I have seen a couple of guys post there in the past who had actually researched him fairly well.  If I get anything there I will add it in here.  I am guessing that when I see references to pistols made prior to '73 as being 44 in some cases and 45 in others, it is just references to the same guns and the two designations were used interchangeably??

[Jake MacReedy]

Forty Rod, do you still have that '54 Dodge?!?   Seriously, pard, I totally agree with you!  I am quite sure that Mr. Hickock owned a number of different revolvers and rifles during his life.

Regards,
Jake

[St. George]

As to interchangeable terms - it was common during that time to describe 'all' revolvers as a 'Colt' - and all lever action rifles as a 'Winchester'.

Kinda like how today - all dog bites are written up as being done by a 'Pit Bull', because 'Vizsla' is more difficult to spell...

One thing that the 1851 Navy Colt has that the 1860 Army doesn't is 'pointability'.

Men (and women) of the time frame weren't built on the grand scale of today - 'Wonder Bread' wasn't helping with their nutrition, and there weren't the additives, so folks stayed pretty much on the small side - growing incrementally as the generations passed and the gene pools were disturbed.

Look at the extant original clothing, gunbelts and saddlery and you'll see that Great-Great Grandpa likely wasn't going to play for the NBA.

That said - the smaller grip was likely more ergonomic and thus 'faster' to the shooter's hand - making it more comfortable to handle, and with easier recoil, to boot.

Then as now - the killing power lies in shock, and a round-nosed lead bullet hits pretty hard, so a well-placed .36 was a force to be reckoned with.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Wolfgang]

Wild Bill was a gambler . . . gamblers tend to loose there stuff and aquire more stuff . . guns included.  He probably lost or sold a bunch of guns and bought or aquired others in his career. 

In regards to calibers.   A fellow named Bell killed a lot of elephants with a 7x57 Mauser cartridge in a bolt action rifle. 


However, . . . it is not advisable to go elephant hunting with a gun like that.

[44caliberkid]

A recent Guns of the Old West article showed a 44 Richards conversion that Wild Bill owned and also made mention of a pair of S&W's that were a present from Buffalo Bill when he left the Wild West show.   If anyone ever tried to chronicle my gun ownership it would be a long list and depend on what type of shooting I was interested in at the time.

[wildman1]

If we can be reasonably sure which guys carried which guns in the settlement of the West with no or very little gubmint "record keeping" imagine what is gonna happen if someone decides their gonna want ta know what we owned or did. Makes me want ta go live in the hills and disappear. WM

[Slowhand Bob]

There is a big difference between some of those individuals and us, they tended to be much more mobile than we are.  Something I have leaned about the in-between periods of my life is that eagles can not fly high with luggage.  Most avid shooters today would require a wagon to haul our guns, with some getting by with one mule and others needing four to pull it.  Men like Wild Bill or Hardin were known to be very mobile, and without the storage rental sheds widely available in those days, what did they do with the extra hardware?  After they became famous, I'll bet they did just like Bat Masterson and sold off the extras to raise money for the trip.  One last thought, I'm sure these guys took care of the guns that they staked their lives on BUT how can a gun in pristine condition show up in a modern museum and be called THE gun used by so-and-so?  Exposed to the conditions that a travelling gunman would encounter on wilderness roads and trails between well separated points, any gun that must be kept at the ready would not look new for very long.     

[Noz]

Any story along this line begins with an assumption that some writer in the past was accurately reporting facts that he may or may not have checked for accuracy but listed anyway for dramatic flair.

Have I told you about my winning a Silver Star in Vietnam?

[Slowhand Bob]

Noz, you are one of my heros anyhows, you offer it up and I will buy in!  Did you see the post about the cap and ball Lematt carbine just above this one.  I want SASS to promote production of that with a pre-emptive acceptance....   Sorry I missed you when you came down south visiting and hope I do get to meet you one day.

[Bryan Austin]

Those .36's emptied a lot of saddles in their day just as efficiently as did the .44.

I'm pretty sure a .22 could do the same thing! I got knocked off my saddle many times and it weren't even due to a bullet!  However, that wasn't the point....the point is how the wound was created, not that it "knocked him out of the saddle" so to speak!  ;)l

[Claypipe]

St. George,
No disrespect intended, but I hear people quoting Elmer Keith whenever this question comes up as if it settles it, but what does that prove? Elmer Keith never carried a .36 as his duty pistol or shot a man out of a saddle with one. Elmer Keith spent his life in search of a more powerful pistol, he didn't think the .36 caliber Navy he started with as a kid was sufficient.

My personal opinion, I think you are giving Mr. Keith a raw deal. His search for a more powerful handgun was for long distance shots. Not combat. He states as much in his book, "Hell, I was there!"

Mr. Keith did, however, give an accurate first hand account  of a shoot out between a Chicago police officer and an American of African descent cowboy. If I recall the details correctly, the officer emptied his .30 Luger into the cowpoke in a case of mistaken identity. While the officer was reloading, the cowpoke pulled his .45 Colt and killed the officer with a single shot. The cowpoke  lived long enough to give an address where his effects were to be sent. .30 Luger is no pipsqueak round. It is known for stripping out the rifling in guns chambered for it. As well as one of the few rounds that can penetrate body armor with just a copper jacketed bullet.

Elmer Keith was indeed a proponent in favor of handgun calibers of .40 or better. I, also, believe while in the service, he was stationed at a US Government armory. Back in the days when weapons were given extentsive field trials before they were issued to our troops in the field.

You want first hand accounts as to why handguns of .40 caliber and above are better for stopping power. Then I recommend you seek out the medical reports from the Moro Rebellion (1899–1913). There's several lessons forgotten. One is why heavier calibers are better in dealing with religious fanatics. Two, a good use for pork grease and hides. You may, also, wish to review Israeli medical reports from the Six Day War.

CP

[Claypipe]

My parting shot. In reference to small caliber kill shots, it comes down to two things. Sheer Luck or Steady nerve with good shot placement.

In the case of the young NA girl killing a grizzly with a twenty two, I credit sheer luck.

However, in the cases of Wild Bill and Bell, the elephant hunter. Steady nerve with good shot placement. These men were both experienced professionals at what they did.

Though I do favor the idea that Hickock was using a Dragoon when he had it out with Dave Tutt. As for the bullet passing through the body, penetrating two ribs at 75 feet. Seeing that this incident happened the 21st of July, 1865, one has to suspect that Dave Tutt, a former Confederate soldier, was malnourished and as tin as a rail. Such was the state of many a Southern soldier.

[Claypipe]

claypipe,
Unlike Keith, I have shot people. His stories about the .36 caliber are second and third hand accounts given many years after they were supposed to have happened. Unlike Keith I have been less than 20 feet away from suspects shot with ball ammo out of  M9s and didn't even realize one of them had been shot until we pushed him to the ground. I even remember arguing with the man while we applied quickclot packs to a wound that went through his stomach, pancreas and kidney. Keith may have written Hell, I was there!, but I was actually there. The 115 grain bullet out of the M9 is hotter than any load ever fired from any Navy model. Keith's experience was all second hand or greater, he had the advantage of being associated with many colorful individuals, nothing more.

I don't have to review the ballistic performance of the .40 caliber or larger pistol, unlike you I have seen the difference in results between a 9mm wound, .40 S&W and .357 Mag wounds. I didn't read about it, I wasn't told stories about it 50 years later, I witnessed it. I usually carry a pistol every day of the week, and the performance is important to me. I know you don't habitually carry a pistol and since you have never been involved with any reported shooting incidents anything you can report is merely hearsay or from a written account.

Based on my experience in two tours as an MP in combat zones I am glad we were issued M4s because our issue sidearm and ammunition is not anymore effective in stopping a fight than a Navy model was.  You get lucky shots and in most cases fights stop because the wounded individual realizes he has been shot and gives up in his will to resist, not because he has been incapacitated.  I never drew my M9 once but used my carbine many times and sometimes wished it was a larger caliber.
SM

Swampmouse,
First, let me say I appreciate all you have done in service to this country, and thank you.

However, two misunderstandings here.

While I have never been under fire in a firefight. I have seen first hand the damage done by .22lr, .38 Special and .44 magnum on the human body. I, once, had to recover a man's family jewels after they had been shot off in a bar room scuffle. One of the six rounds that castrated the fellow, richocetted off a cinder block wall behind him, came back and passed over my shoulder striking  the water heater behind me. I've looked down the muzzle of a double barrel shotgun with an irrate individual looking to blow a hole in me, in a case of mistaken identity. He re-thought his actions when I told him to "Pull the trigger, I'll be dead, but, they're going to light you up like a Christmas tree." I've, once, had to plug bullet holes with my fingers, when a friend of mine was shot with a .44 magnum in the back. I've been fortunate enough not to have to discharge my weapon. Though I had to pull it on a dumb kid, who heard I shot competition and decided to draw on me. He wanted to see how fast I was. His weapon never cleared his service holster. His employment was terminated soon after that incident. Then, there was the family friend, I knew growing up, who was shot in the forehead in a case of "He fit the description." He had large protrusion just above the division of his eyebrows from a .38 special.

Second, you may not fully understand my post. One of the lessons forgotten from the Moro rebellion is that larger calibers get the job done. The lament of our troops being under gunned is a long one that dates back to Viet Nam. I am from a military family whose service dates back to 1769 in North America alone. Why, the M14 has not been reissued in the current theaters of deployment is beyond me.

Israeli reports concluded that the 9mm round was deficit, as the bullets had a tendency to pass through enemy soldiers, at times taking organ tissue through the exit wound, but failed to immediately immobilize the enemy. Enemy soldiers would continue to fight on till they finally bled out.

Finally, I don't recall ever reading that Keith ever claimed to be a combat shooter. But, he was the inspiration for the.357, .41 and .44 magnums. All of which were intended as sporting rounds, not combat.