Wild Bill and his '60 Armies???

[Claypipe]

At age 13, I was tending bar with a double barrel shotgun. In what could easily be described as the sleaziest dive in the city of New Orleans. The nickname for this tavern was "Little Angola", as the doors and windows were all secured with iron bars and chains. My Sicilian stepfather was the law on that block. The one time that he called the NOPD, they turned out in force. They knew if he couldn't handle the situation, it was damn bad.

Personally, after having been a sc pc detective, I prefer oc to cc. And when you have been an undercover trouble shooter for a national guard service, what can I say, you have war stories. I was recruited by a former Federal Marshall for that mess.

My life has been a long strange trip. I wasn't lucky enough to grow up in a white bread world. My branch of the family was that broken limb that no one wants to talk about. My Mother ran a traveling girls show in the 50's, my father was a carnie, ran the midway. Mom later worked Burlesque on Burbon Street.

Mom taught me an important rule of thumb. Opinions are like underwear. Most people have them, and some of them are full of feces. As long as its the truth, it doesn't matter what others may say or think.

CP

[StrawHat]

A couple of posts have tried to compare the .36 roundball to the 9mm or 380 or .  The 36 while slower has a blunter shape and will hit a bit harder than the pointy nosed bullet.  It is still not a 44 or 45 but a bit better than many give it credit for.

[Noz]

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


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.

The .41 Mag was invented to be the replacement round for the 38 special. It was designed as a police round from the get-go. Was certainly adequate for the job but was too easily loaded up into the magnum range giveing far too much recoil for the part-time shooters on the police forces.


And I didn't win a silver star. My point being anyone can claim anything and it is usually more trouble to disprove than to accept.  I'll stay with WB and his navies.

[Slowhand Bob]

Well,I dawnt want to shoot nobody BUT as a SASS gunman I must say that I trust the 44/45s to offer more fun per pound of black than the 31s or 36s and I am in this fer the fun!   

[Mako]

A couple of posts have tried to compare the .36 roundball to the 9mm or 380 or .  The 36 while slower has a blunter shape and will hit a bit harder than the pointy nosed bullet.  It is still not a 44 or 45 but a bit better than many give it credit for.

Strawhat,
I believe many of us tend to "romanticize" the efficacy of cartridges and bullets of old... I too have heard stories my entire life about the incredible performance of "this cartridge, or that one."  How many times have we heard of someone being blown off of their feet, or "knocked down" by the bullet?

One of my favorite movies for a more realistic fire fight was  Open Range, I only have one complaint about it.  Hollywood has forever distorted the perceived power of a shotgun, and they perpetuated the myth in the scene where Robert Duvall shoots the man creeping down the alley through the side of the building he was in. He lets loose with what appears to be both barrels.  The man is thrown across the alley into the opposite wall before he bounces off, falling to the ground and  twitching (which is eerily accurate) in a pile.  I don't care if it was a 8 gauge double firing 2 ounce loads, that doesn't happen.  At least not on the planet I live on...

A lot is made about the killing power of a lead ball and many try to give it credence by pointing out the ogive is blunter than a "pointy" lead bullet.  This is a Remington 95 grain FMJ and a 80 grain Ø.375 ball side by side:



My eyes may be getting older, but I don't see why that ogive makes the lighter ball at a lower velocity a better killer or stopper.

Some may say it is the fact it is a LEAD ball that makes it a vicious stopper.  Well if that were true then everyone shooting a .380 ACP would be shooting loads like these:



Forget the hollow points! The real killers are lead bullets!    Notice the first one has a rounder ogive and the second has a flat meplat.  Surely those must be better than modern bullets.

I think the reality is that we get caught up in the stories and our perceptions of what the Old West was like.  Just like when you are shot with an arrow from a relatively low power bow the Indians carried you immediately fell dead.  The reality is you bled to death slowly and were usually shot multiple times and finally clubbed to death.

I think Swamp Mouse was trying to tell us that he considers a .380 as being marginal, I tend to agree.  Unfortunately I can't shoot a Kahr 380, the pistol is too small for me and I will slice my hand with almost every shot, I had a PPKS once and finally sold it after tiring of bloodying myself almost every shooting session.  I do have a Kahr PM9 which is about the smallest frame I can shoot without the slide biting me.  I considered the Hornady Critical Defense 9mm loads, but went with the 124 grain Speer Gold Dot.  Since he's a cop I guess he reasoned based on his experience that he wanted the filled cavity to help stop clogging the cavity with clothing, etc., which might be a good idea with the smaller .380.

I think this illustrates why SwampMouse is dubious about the claimed performance of .36 caliber balls:



Those are correctly scaled comparisons.  You have a roughly Ø.36 fired ball that distorts very little unless it hits bone compared to a fully opened .380 ACP  Critical Defense bullet he carries in his hide out gun.  The Hornady is heavier and has a higher velocity even out of his short barreled Kahr.  Which bullet do you think is a better killer or stopper?  Those petals look like nasty flesh shredders to me, what about that relatively smooth ball?

I think Swamp Mouse originally said the .36 caliber revolvers were on par ballistically with a .380 ACP, I also think he has a valid argument.  If anything he was being generous to the old .36 caliber.

There is one more thing most people overlook.  By the late 1850's the preferred ammunition for revolvers was paper cartridges. Colt's, D.C. Sage, St. Louis Arsenal, Watervliet Arsenal, Eley's, Johnson and Dow and many, many more companies produced cartridges for both the .36 and .44 caliber revolvers.  It was the exception rather than the norm for Union troops to use balls instead of conical bullets in their revolvers.  From all accounts the Confederate troops preferred conical bullets themselves even if they couldn't get a paper cartridge.



Those ogives don't look very blunt to me...

The stories that were told Elmer Keith by the old veterans were probably with pistols shooting bullets just like that.  There are stories and then there are stories, many are a lot like what Swamp Mouse has told us he has heard.  I hear similar stories from my own friends and many should know better.  Just like the movie depiction of a shotgun's power in the movie I recounted,  gun fights tend to take on a life of their own. They seem to grow a bit with recounting and with time.

Based on what I have seen in ballistic gelatin testing I believe a .36 caliber ball or pointed bullet creates a small wound channel and unless the bullet strikes the central nervous system the threat is you may die of blood loss or organ damage.  It's all about the wound channel, it's not about "knock down" power, energy transfer or anything else.  Unless you put one through the brain or spine it's all about how much damage the bullet does as it passes through.

Another thought along those lines, a bullet that does not exit, doesn't "dump" all of it energy and is thereby somehow more efficient.  I want at least two holes when I shoot someone or something.  Holes mean blood loss, it also means the bullet had sufficient power to pass all of the way through while doing the maximum damage on the way.

I shoot 1860 Army models which ballistically are the "same" as a .38 spl.  It's a 147 grain bullet traveling 850 fps or so.  The bullet starts out with a bit larger cross section, but a decent .357 bullet will mushroom enough to make up the difference.  A 200 grain or larger conical bullet with a blunter ogive or a flat meplat starts making the .44 Army shine, but up until that point I treat it and consider it as I do a 145 grain to 158 grain .38 spl in power and effectiveness.

Regards,
Mako

[Jamie]

One thing to keep in mind relative to the "deadliness" of the cap and ball guns vs. today's rounds is the infection/lack of medical help problems associated with the cap and ball era.  The internally lubricated (yeah, it's external to the bullet, but internal to the case) bullet cut back substantially on the crap that entered a wound with the bullet.  The jacketed round far more.  In the days before antibiotics, there was no such thing as "merely a flesh wound."  People lost limbs and lives due to scratches, let alone bullet wounds.  You can bet that people were aware of this, and the psychological shock factor was probably fairly dramatic.  With plenty of stories (yes, second, third, fourth etc. hand) demonstrating large numbers of bullets fired with relatively few connecting, the death rate per wound was probably dramatically higher, regardless of caliber. Today, it isn't unusual to read about someone having been shot several times in what would have been quickly lethal body parts in the old days surviving to stand trial, little the worse for wear.  Lots of factors enter into the perceived (real or not) lethality of a given gun/round. 
Never shot anyone, hope I never do - just some thoughts to add grist to the mill.
Jamie

[Slowhand Bob]

Only assassins and murderers shoot to kill, we are shooting to end hostilities as quickly as possible.  I would rather miss and see him faint than deal him a fatal blow that allows him to fight for a few minutes longer.  Everyone has a different opinion on this but a low velocity large caliber round just makes me feel more comfortable, under low threat levels, and I figure comfort factor is what you will have to base your opinion on also.  When Zombies are running wild in the streets I will not be choosing a handgun anyway.  Every time I hear a tail about a starving southern boy killing a dear with his .36 revolver while returning from the CW, I figure he was really wishing that his finger was milking the .58 Enfield trigger right before the hammer fell.

[Mako]

Only assassins and murderers shoot to kill...

Bob,
Are you calling me or any of my men assassins and murderers?  Do you know of a better way to stop a Hadji and assure he doesn't pose a threat?  Should we romance him with song and invite him to high tea?

~Mako

[Montana Slim]

....and here's one tidbit I've been sharing with soldiers since the recent "hostilities" started , regarding the puny & assumed inneffective 5.56mm & 9mm cartridges:

"Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting again, then repeat as needed".....Combat is no time to be getting stingy with your boolits.

Slim

[St. George]

'Never point your weapon's muzzle at something you're not prepared to destroy'.

That was good advice when I first heard it during Infantry AIT at Fort Polk a few decades ago and the advice still stands.

You shoot to kill - period.

Trying to shoot to wound gives the other guy too much of an edge, since it's likely he's not invested in singing 'Kumbaya' - plus it takes up too much time when someone else may also be armed and ready, so ending the immediate threat is of paramount importance, as is keeping your eyes open for the next target.

If you can - carry something that begins with a '4' - but if you can't - shoot twice or more, until the target's no longer capable of doing harm, and the S4 already knows they'll be resupplying you soon.

Now that said - the question of exactly 'what' Wild Bill was really carrying all those years ago will never be known, but bullet placement was what got the job done.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Claypipe]

Only assassins and murderers shoot to kill, we are shooting to end hostilities as quickly as possible.  I would rather miss and see him faint than deal him a fatal blow that allows him to fight for a few minutes longer.  Everyone has a different opinion on this but a low velocity large caliber round just makes me feel more comfortable, under low threat levels, and I figure comfort factor is what you will have to base your opinion on also.  When Zombies are running wild in the streets I will not be choosing a handgun anyway.  Every time I hear a tail about a starving southern boy killing a dear with his .36 revolver while returning from the CW, I figure he was really wishing that his finger was milking the .58 Enfield trigger right before the hammer fell.

Once you have actually been in an altercation where an individual intends to send you to whatever "L" they believe in, maybe you will get over that naive sense of fair play that is going to get you or someone with you killed.

"Hostilities" are never ended till the person shooting at you is permenently neutralized. If you fail to close the book, you are morally responsible for what that individual does after that. Are you prepared to be responsible for the death of an inocent person, because you didn't have the intestinial fortitude to close the book?

As for wishing for an Enfield, I assure you that "starving southern boy" was either praying to God his aim be true or thinking just how good that meat was going to taste. The war had long educated him to making do with what he had at hand. If wishes were fishes, all we would need is taters for the fries.

In reference to zombies, I'll go with a good old fashion m1911a1 with the holy dark, and lots of loaded magazines. Laugh if you want, but the movie "28 Days Later" makes a good case senario.

CP

[Claypipe]

'Never point your weapon's muzzle at something you're not prepared to destroy'.

Sound advice. My first step-father took me out and showed me an old .38 special S&W revolver. I was 7 years old at the time. I was up close and getting a good look at the piece, when the S.O.B. pulled the trigger. I got a face full of hot gases from the cylinder gap, and my ears were ringing for days. Seems it was a tradition in his family, a rite of passage, if you will, to instill a sense of how dangerous handguns are. Also why it was important to treat all guns as if they are loaded.

but bullet placement was what got the job done.

Thank you. Once you read this account, you can see Bill had a quick mind, as well.

"When Wild Bill saw Mulvey he walked out to meet him, apparently waving his hand to some fellows behind Mulvey and calling to them: 'Don't shoot him in the back; he is drunk."

Mulvey stopped his horse and, wheeling the animal about, drew a bead with his rifle in the direction of the imaginary man he thought Wild Bill was addressing. But before he realized the ruse that had been played upon him, Wild Bill had aimed his six-shooter and fired-just once. Mulvey dropped from his horse - dead, the bullet having penetrated his temple and then passed through his head."

Bullet placement with a little slight of hand misdirection.

[Drayton Calhoun]

 Regardless of what Wild Bill was using, he lived, Dave Tutt died. That much is documented. It was a violent time, much like today. In fact, if you go per capita, it is acutually a lot more violent today as it was then. Stopping power, knockdown power, ballistic coeficinents, downrange trajectory is purely academic. Hickok was one of those rare individuals that had the ability and willingness to do what had to be done without compunction. What I stated in my earlier post about the ball's traversing Tutt's body with no deflection, as reported in the autopsy, just shows that projectiles can be unpredictable. The event was almost 150 years ago, both participants and all the witnesses are long dead. Why do we sit here second guessing it? Like I said, what I had read somewhere was that he may have used a Dragoon. It really didn't matter to Dave Tutt, he died.

[Slowhand Bob]

If you are in a battle zone and worrying about making head shots, I fear you will get yourself and your comrades killed.  While you are wasting time playing assassin your friends are taking the brunt for you, take the quicker center mass shots that will hopefully neutralize the enemy, what you elect to do with the enemy wounded after the battle is won will be up to you but while the battle rages, you know when bullets are flying your way the only thing on your mind is stopping the source.  It seems that there was once a philosophy going around that a severely wounded enemy combatant was worth several dead ones but alas, now days we always seem to pick adversaries that care little for their own brothers and expect us to do the rescuing for them (go back up to the after the battle statement above)?

If you are starving and have a choice for bringing down a deer and hunger does not prevent you from thinking realistically, you would wish for a rifle over a pistol, more power and range could mean the difference in real survival.  Amongst some hunters it is considered sporting to accept the handicap of pistol hunting but a starving man has no such sense of fair play, he would wish for every advantage.  You are right, survival aint about fun but if there is choice, that choice can make the difference in survival.

Once upon a time there was an old magazine called Survival Guide that addressed many different scenarios every quarter and we could kinda relate their street riots scenarios to Zomby movies.  In the movies the only thing that must be considered for stopping zombies is enough power to penetrate the skull and high capacity/rapid delivery for facing large numbers.  In the magazines scenario for escaping street riots the writers actually selected the same type weapons, though for different reasons.  Naturally the high capacity and rapid fire we can understand but they actually selected less than lethal ammunition, fmj preferred.  It was their theory that if one fired large volumes of ammo into the legs and lower body of those with riot mentallities it would act somewhat like the old cowboy movie deal where if you dissuade the stampede leaders it would tend to turn the heard??  Lots of wounded individuals laying on the ground screaming and bleeding would turn the mass much quicker than one or two well placed shots that dropped them silent and dead on the spot?    

CP, If I ever must face a man at close quarters and he gets first choice between the pistol OR the shotgun laying on the floor between us, I pray to God that he selects the pistol!  At any rate we are getting far from the board topic with our little macho p__ p__ contest here!

[Mako]

If you are in a battle zone and worrying about making head shots, I fear you will get yourself and your comrades killed.  While you are wasting time playing assassin your friends are taking the brunt for you, take the quicker center mass shots that will hopefully neutralize the enemy, what you elect to do with the enemy wounded after the battle is won will be up to you but while the battle rages, you know when bullets are flying your way the only thing on your mind is stopping the source.

You've dug yourself a deep hole with me Bob.  Just what is your actual combat experience?  And where do you come off calling us assassins?

~Mako

[Slowhand Bob]

Only if you wish to consider yourself as one Mr Maklo.  If you take your shot  across the battlefield aiming for a Generals head, you sir are performing as a sniper.  If you let loose across the battlefield with a barrage intended to to inflict as much damage on the enemy as possible then you are a soldier.  If your govt sends you into an enemy's territory to kill a specific individual, you are an assassin.  If the battle is over and you walk around head shooting the enemy wounded, now you tell me what your definition for this is.  If he does it to my wounded, I call it turn-a-bouts is fair play, otherwise it becomes a matter of expediency so you tell me what YOU gonna do?  If you are fighting an enemy that does not murder your wounded and captured then how would you feel you should treat theirs?  These are not American terms and this is not an American only scenarios, so answer it like an ___________ (you fill in the nationality of choice)  and tell me which of the terms above you want to talk about.

Mr Mako, this was a topic and a conversation based on old west and primarily considering self defense.  You sir decided to open the boundaries to cover other forms of conflict, so you tell me, what are the rules YOU set for yourself and which are you willing to set for the other side?  You know as well as anyone with a 'pea brain' that when the other side has no rules then that should be considered as the terms of combat for us as well BUT that was not the terms of the conversation before you started playing hop scotch PARD!  As stated earlier, these boards were supposed to be established to talk cowboy and what would have been accepted in the CW might well be of interest also but do not try this crap of throwing your terms of morality  elsewhere and then use a modern war that is in no way applicable to standards of acceptable behaviour that we consider applicable to our conversation.  If you party to hard and stumble into my house uninvited one night, my shots will be fired to stop you from hurting me, after your down my friend, your a-- is mine.  Now you tell me, do you want me to take prisoners or not?   You set the rules of engagement and we will both play by them if the need should ever arise PARD!

[Lefty Dude]

Lets get back to playing "Cowboy", pards.

This thread might be just getting on the heavy side.

[Mako]

Lets get back to playing "Cowboy", pards.

This thread might be just getting on the heavy side.

I agree...

[Slowhand Bob]

Your PM was well after you agreed to drop it, why was I not surprised but I will consider the issue dropped.


PS:  Sorry to those who have shown more restraint and want this to be about guns of old and their history.

[Drayton Calhoun]

Lets get back to playing "Cowboy", pards.

This thread might be just getting on the heavy side.

Amen Brother, Amen...