Two-Handed Hold

I've been wondering about this for quite awhile now. It seems every movie I watch which features cap'n ball revolvers in it show some of them being shot by guys using a 2-handed hold.

Most use an isosceles hold but I've seen some resembling Weaver(!).

Can there possibly be ANY documentation on how folks shot these pistols back in the day? I realize, like all things that were done as "nuthin' special", it just wasn't written down.

But what do you think? I tend to think they were shot with one hand as that would have seemed the most obvious way to hold a pistol.

But again, what's your thought on the subject?

If you look at old illustrations, even into the early 1900's, I doubt you'll find a two-hand hold.

All things considered, a two handed hold causes you to face the opponent or target squarely. A one handed hold allows you to face the opponent with a smaller cross section of your body exposed.

My thoughts are the one hand hold was likely the only way handguns were shot. If you were afield and saw a far off critter and had plenty of time and some sort of rest and no one was looking- might have rested the gun over a log or used two hands.
I may be wrong, and "bravado" is sort of out of vogue these days, but I've always had this notion that if a guy used both hands to hold a gun "back in the day", he might have been laughed at. Sissy stuff.
And....I'm talking about back then, not now a days. As best as I can figure this bravado existed in a few forms: duels were common, some mountain men didn't carry a canteen as it was deemed you weren't tough enough to make it to the next water hole. I have no documentation- just a feeling that handguns were primarily shot with one hand.

There's little doubt that they were well aware of the accuracy gained by using a two hand hold back in the early days.

That is why they made using the 2 hand hold illegal in dueling. It wasn't considered to be gentlemanly.

Likewise, using pistols with rifled barrels or with sights was against the rules. At least in a formal duel.

(Strange that they would say a man shooting another man was OK but only if they followed a number of strict rules.)

I don't know if any rules really applied to the gunfights in the Old West but I do know that taking careful aim before shooting was commonplace. At least it was for the one left standing.

(The Hollywood versions of these shootouts is about 99 percent manure with their lightning fast draws and quick shots).

So everyone has the same feeling as I do. One handed hold of pistols is natural and makes the most sense to those who have never encountered them.

Unless you really want to hit something.

Spence

Mountain Dewd said:

All things considered, a two handed hold causes you to face the opponent or target squarely. A one handed hold allows you to face the opponent with a smaller cross section of your body exposed.

Click to expand...

That argument goes back to dueling; the side stance presented a smaller target, but also set you up for getting both lungs punctured, whereas the square-on position would only risk one lung ( unless you were hit in the heart - which rendered the argument mute.)

unless you really want to hit something.

Click to expand...

Practice. It just takes practice. After years of shooting Bullseye matches, I shoot one handed better than two handed.

Pete

As has been demonstrated by countless champion target shooters, and some of our best gunfighters, 10-X, and fight-stopping accuracy can be achieved with a one-handed grip of the pistol.

I think, for the most part, that's how it was done in the "old days".

It is easier, and faster, to achieve the level of such accuracy with a proper two-handed grip. But I think the technique is more modern, and its prevalence today is due to its being championed by Col. Jeff Cooper.

I agree, (and you are quoting George, not me.)

ff , but to prove your point, I can shoot a revolver more accurately double action (just pressing the trigger) than I can single action (cocking the hammer, then pressing the trigger).

That's because I spent a year or more dry firing the gun double-action, 5-600 times a day.

During his gunfight with Dave Tutt, Bill Hickock rested his pistol across his opposite forearm for better accuracy at the long range the fight took place at(75 yards). According to the accounts I've read Tutt actually got off the first shot but missed while Hickock's taking time to be sure of his aim and steadying his shot made for a direct hit in Tutt's heart. This was in 1865. As for before then, I don't know of any two hand usage of pistols.

People in earlier times did not, as a rule, study, analyze, or write endlessly about all of the minutiae of shooting techniques and equipment like we do now.
Not to say there wasn't some discussion from time to time, but those would not have been common.

The reason Wild Bill Hickock was famous during his lifetime and now ours was not just because he was good, but because he WAS the exception who practiced regularly and worked to develop shooting techniques that were effective for him.

Then, as now, the vast majority of armed confrontations took place at conversational distances where extremely precise marksmanship or technique were not as valuable as recognizing the threat in time and being WILLING to use lethal force in a timely manner.

Some historians claim that Hickock was using something other than a Navy Colt in the gunfight with Dave Tutt. I have never found out if there is any supporting documentation for that view, but I have to admit I have wondered about that myself.
I have fired several thousand rounds out of .36 caliber percussion revolvers over several decades at steel targets and smaller live critters. Considering that Hickock shot Tutt at approximately 75 yards, with a complete pass-through in the upper chest, I am somewhat skeptical that a .36 caliber revolver could have that much penetration at that distance.
That little ball really poops out past 50 to 60 yards even with a full charge. Still potentially lethal, but I wonder.
More likely Hickock was using some kind of .44 that day, maybe even a Dragoon, as has been suggested.

A two hand hold takes the sights out of the dominant eye's center of vision and draws the other eye to the sight as well. The standard one hand hold keeps the sight in front of the dominant shooting eye. Just my thoughts

Here is my 2 cents: At first the pistol was an accessory to the sword & held in the weak hand as a last ditch defense. Early smooth bore pistols were not suited nor intended for longer distance shooting & fine sights and a steady aim were not important in a 'point & shoot' weapon. Later, with revolvers & then semi-autos, the calvary held the gun in the strong hand & the reins in the weak. The US military was still teaching a single hand hold at least thru the early 70s. In more recent times, the two hand hold has become near universal as the preferred hold - young extras in a movie are likely holding antique weapons in the same manner as they have been tought to hold modern ones. In earlier times, a two hand hold would likely have been considered as more 'womanly'.

Maybe if more of those guys back in the day used two handed holds, they'd be around to tell us about it.. :rotf:

As Coot said "In earlier times, a two hand hold would likely have been considered as more 'womanly'". The reason for the "womanly" referrence I think is that a woman is not as strong as a man and would need two hands to hold up the revolver. None of the men would want to be looked down upon by using two hands to shoot a revolver.

Let me see if I have this straight”¦ when a howling Shawnee comes charging and screeching at me, I stand erect, turn my body almost 90° from the line to him, move my off foot back a bit and get well balanced, hold the pistol in my strong arm extended toward him, hold my breath, squeeze the trigger smoothly and slowly until the shot breaks”¦ or else my epitaph will say, "head split in half by a tomahawk because he shot like a woman"?

Is that about right? Boy, the cool stuff you can learn on this site never ceases to amaze me.

Spence :wink:

If a howling Shawnee comes at you, you most likely have a single shot muzzloading pistol at close range and barely have time to draw the gun and fire a point blank shot. You also probably already used your single rifle shot. I'm betting you don't. Have time or distance permitting a two hand hold.