Subdeacon Joe Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 New Tales of the Old West Yep...the Old West was relatively non-violent because the weapons were no good. If these two books actually do manage to help deconstruct anything, it's the myth that the West was extraordinarily violent. Violence in that time was much less common than violence is now. Men weren't having quick-draw duels on frontier streets—they couldn't, for eminently practical reasons: The guns they carried were so liable to misfire that only a fool would keep a live round in the chamber. Wyatt Earp himself had never been in a shootout before the O.K. Corral. When shootouts did happen, they were usually confused and unpredictable—and, in general, given the crude and ineffectual weaponry, they were far less lethal than they would be today. The great Tombstone showdown, in its rarity, is eloquent testimony to how things have changed. There was no other gunfight that extreme in the history of the West—and of the eight gunmen, only three received fatal wounds. Wyatt Earp walked away without a scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 New Tales of the Old West Yep...the Old West was relatively non-violent because the weapons were no good. Ahhh, been into the Datura Stramonium again, Joe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 Ahhh, been into the Datura Stramonium again, Joe? Nope, not me, unless someone slipped a bit into my salad over the weekend. Maybe that book reviewer got into some though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Men weren't having quick-draw duels on frontier streets— I'd have to say true. That is the impression the dime novels and Hollywood have fostered. Historians know that's inaccurate. they couldn't, for eminently practical reasons: The guns they carried were so liable to misfire that only a fool would keep a live round in the chamber. - That's a mixed bag. Some guns were unreliable (if carried by farmers) but the weapons carried by bad guys and law dawgs wer the tools of their trade and efficient mankilers. Wyatt Earp himself had never been in a shootout before the O.K. Corral. When shootouts did happen, they were usually confused and unpredictable—True. Shootouts are always confused and unpredictable, even with AK-47s and hand grenades. I'd venture to guess the reviewer has never been in one. and, in general, given the crude and ineffectual weaponry, they were far less lethal than they would be today. - Not necessarily. They shoot a lot more rounds today but generally with smaller calibers. What was crude and ineffectual in many cases were the shooters, not the weapons. The great Tombstone showdown, in its rarity, is eloquent testimony to how things have changed. There was no other gunfight that extreme in the history of the West .- If you're talking face to face in the street shootouts probably. But there were some land/cattle war shootouts that were bigger and deadlier. I'd say the reviewer needs to do a little more of his own research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'd say the reviewer needs to do a little more of his own research. Yep...my point exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 "....and, in general, given the crude and ineffectual weaponry, they were far less lethal than they would be today." I guess the reviewer is unaware of the 50,000 casualties at Gettysburg in 3 days of battle? Seems those weapons were lethal enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Frontal assaults on prepared positions tend to do that The weaponry was way ahead of the tactics.As far as our period goes, they were plenty lethal enough when used by an experienced shooter. methinks the reviewer is full of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden A. Grudge Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I knew it! I knew it! That is why I can't shoot a clean match, its those danged ol' "crude and ineffectual" guns I'm usin that are making me miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Branch Louie Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Methinks he's confusing a misfire with an AD. Keeping a live round in the chamber has nothing to do with a misfire. You drop the hammer on a hard surface with a loaded chamber and it ain't no misfire, the gun is doing exactly what it was designed to do: fire! As stated here, look at Gettysburg and Antietam, guns seemed to work pretty good back then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I've read of a couple of shootouts that rivaled the OK Corral, they just lacked the famous (or infamous) participants. I will pull out a book or two if I get the opportunity and list them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.