Dueling Pistol set...

did they ever use swords in a duel of honor? and when was all forms of dueling, knife's, if they were used, swords, and pistols out lawed, stopped?

denster said:

I have heard that stated as a game changer in the past. Actually Pedersoli had nothing to do with the these pistols they were all made by Uberti who had access to the originals. The brass forend weights were added after the guns left Wogdon's shop. Probably a decade or so later and reflect the change in attitude toward dueling pistols. I have owned and shot two sets of these pistols. After the screw was added the bores were lapped and the screw has no effect whatsoever on anything except as a point of contention among modern day experts. I believe that Uberti duplicated the method of attachment on the originals. Remember he was being paid a considerable sum to exactly replicate the originals which he had in hand at the time and I doubt he would have jeopardized that commission over so simple a matter. If it matters to you fine but you will never be able to duplicate the quality of these pistols in todays world at the prices they sell for.

Click to expand...

I guess the answer to the question I raised lies in the original Wogdon pistols. I have inspected, handled and shot a fair number of original duellers, both flint and percussion, and currently own and shoot a J.Probin "Maker to His R. H. the Prince of Wales" 20 bore flint dueller. In no other case have I ever found any unnecessary holes into the bore, and do not believe any contemporary gunmaker would have fitted such an attachment to the Wogdon pistols in the observed manner. The original Wogdon stock was, as is customary, keyed to the barrel, and the weight could have been (should have been) attached in the same way to the existing barrel lug. My objections are to poor practice, and the fact that duellers, in common with higher grade arms of the time, were made to be easily dismounted for proper 'washing-out', which would apparently be very difficult in the case of the foreend weight attached by a screw into the bore. In addition, the screw hole would almost certainly be a seat for corrosion and, with continued use, damage to the patch, if not a safety problem. Perhaps someone knows the facts of the original pistols' construction, and can solve the puzzle definitively. Mr. Person? Anyone?

mhb - MIke

mhb said:

I guess the answer to the question I raised lies in the original Wogdon pistols. I have inspected, handled and shot a fair number of original duellers, both flint and percussion, and currently own and shoot a J.Probin "Maker to His R. H. the Prince of Wales" 20 bore flint dueller. In no other case have I ever found any unnecessary holes into the bore, and do not believe any contemporary gunmaker would have fitted such an attachment to the Wogdon pistols in the observed manner. The original Wogdon stock was, as is customary, keyed to the barrel, and the weight could have been (should have been) attached in the same way to the existing barrel lug. My objections are to poor practice, and the fact that duellers, in common with higher grade arms of the time, were made to be easily dismounted for proper 'washing-out', which would apparently be very difficult in the case of the foreend weight attached by a screw into the bore. In addition, the screw hole would almost certainly be a seat for corrosion and, with continued use, damage to the patch, if not a safety problem. Perhaps someone knows the facts of the original pistols' construction, and can solve the puzzle definitively. Mr. Person? Anyone?

mhb - MIke

Click to expand...

The gunsmith who attached the weights unfortunately is lost to history but likely was a gunsmith living in the colonies. Keying the brass to the barrel would not have been a secure manner of attachment. The brass stays with the barrel on dismount for cleaning and as I mentioned previously the barrel is polished internally and the screw is almost invisible and not a point for corrosion with competent cleaning. While it hasn't been mentioned the original wooden ram rods have also been replaced with tapered steel rods that further secure the barrel to the stock. The set by Uberti represent the pistols as they were when borrowed from the Church family by Hamilton for the duel.

Toot - you can easily discover all you need to know about duelling with swords or sabres by watching the epic movie 'The Duellists' that portrays the careers of two antagonists over a long period of time engaging in amazingly non-fatal duels. You can also watch the epic sword-fighting of 17th and earlier century Europe as portrayed by a Czech re-enactment and sword-fighting training team on Youtube. If you don't mind me saying so, you do appear to be asking a lot of questions without in any way contributing to the thread, except asking more questions that lead to inevitable thread drift - like this, in fact. Is there any thing more that you REALLY want to know about duelling with pistols? As you've probably guessed by now, this website deals with muzzleloading firearms and accoutrements, not fighting with pointy hardware.

Your profile page remains totally empty, apart from your age, so we have no way of knowing even what country you are in.

Kansas Jake said:

I think it is hard for us on this side of the pond to understand the class and to some extent the wealth distinctions of English society.

Click to expand...

Why single out the English?

Duels were fought by every 'civilised' nation since the beginning of recorded history. Hector and Achilles comes to mind at the Siege of Troy, and so, in some ways, was the fight between David and Goliath. Mythical Ireland and the tales of the Tír nan Óg are filled with duels and single combat.

Duels were a means of settling an argument, or an insult, real or imagined, and certainly took place in the Americas, hence the main subject of this thread, the Hamilton-Burr duel. In general, duels in America were fought for exactly the same reason as they were anywhere else - somebody's reputation had been sullied, their gentlemanly attributes called into question, a lady may or may not have been involved - the husband looking for 'satisfaction' from the man who was cuckolding him, in blood, and so on.

The fact remains that, as Rudyard notes in post 38, only the rich - gentlemen, IOW, and those in high society had the means to engage in physical dueling of the kind we are are discussing here. With a pair of the best pistols costing fifty times the annual wages of even a tenant farmer, personal 'duels' were often settled by ordinary folk behind the ale house, with bare fists. A 'gentleman' in England, not necessarily any kind of aristocrat, a 'Freiherr' in the Germanies and any kind of aristocrat in Italy, Spain or France may have had recourse to using pistols to settle an argument or an insult, simply because their idea of honour was part and parcel of their lifestyle.

However, if your particular lifestyle revolved principally around scraping horse apples off the street crossings, so that the 'quality' could cross with their footwear unsullied, then a pair of pistols that would cost as much as every penny you were ever going to earn in your short and miserable life would be the last thing on your mind.

TFoley, I was only referencing having extremely expensive dedicated dueling pistols and the more rigid class distinctions.

I don’t doubt the settling of differences with fisticuffs and other means among “lower” classes.

TFoley, thanks for the come back. I was just curious about the subject of defending ones honor. I apologize if I offended you? and I am an AMERICAN, and a VIETNAM VETERAN.

what does what country i am in have to do with you. i didn't know i had to let you know what country i am in ? do you ask every one on the site what they are in ? I take exception to that remark. are you the big brother? what country are you in?

Sorry if I came off wrong in my response. It was a comment after Rudyard's post about no second grade dueling pistols. I did not mean to disparage anyone. I'm not arguing with anyone. I still think it is hard for Americans to understand the titled/royal aspects in English society. It is not a critique, just an observation. I'm not questioning dueling historically or by different means. toot, my comments weren't directed at you or anyone else.

Kansas Jake said:

Sorry if I came off wrong in my response. It was a comment after Rudyard's post about no second grade dueling pistols. I did not mean to disparage anyone. I'm not arguing with anyone. I still think it is hard for Americans to understand the titled/royal aspects in English society. It is not a critique, just an observation. I'm not questioning dueling historically or by different means. toot, my comments weren't directed at you or anyone else.

Click to expand...

Gentlemen, sounds like you may need a set of duelers..!!!

Here is most of everything anybody would wish to know about duelling in America -

The fatal duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr shocked the nation. But it was the identity of the man killed, not the fact of the duel itself, that produced such dismay. By 1804, dueling had become an American fixture. And for another thirty years or more, its popularity would continue to grow.

Like many early American customs, dueling was imported. Starting in the Middle Ages, European nobles had defended their honor in man-to-man battles. An early version of dueling was known as "judicial combat," so called because God allegedly judged the man in the right and let him win. In an era known for its bloody encounters, judicial combats probably prevented men from killing in the heat of passion. Still, numerous authorities, including heads of state and the Catholic Church, banned dueling -- with little effect.

In 1777, a group of Irishmen codified dueling practices in a document called the Code Duello. The Code contained 26 specific rules outlining all aspects of the duel, from the time of day during which challenges could be received to the number of shots or wounds required for satisfaction of honor. An Americanized version of the Code, written by South Carolina Governor John Lyde Wilson, appeared in 1838. Prior to that, Americans made do with European rules.

In a typical duel, each party acted through a second. The seconds' duty, above all, was to try to reconcile the parties without violence. An offended party sent a challenge through his second. If the recipient apologized, the matter usually ended. If he elected to fight, the recipient chose the weapons and the time and place of the encounter. Up until combat began, apologies could be given and the duel stopped. After combat began, it could be stopped at any point after honor had been satisfied.

Edward Doty and Edward Lester, of the Massachusetts colony, fought the first recorded American duel in 1621, just a year after the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth. Armed with swords, both men sustained minor wounds. A unique aspect of this duel was that Doty and Leicester were servants. For the most part, only gentlemen dueled.

Most duelists chose guns as their weapons. The large caliber, smoothbore flintlock pistols Hamilton and Burr used in their encounter typified the American dueling weapons. Many American men owned a pair of such pistols, and, from about 1750 to 1850, many were called to use them.

The chance of dying in a pistol duel was relatively slim. Flintlocks often misfired. And even in the hands of an experienced shooter, accuracy was difficult. Generally, pistols had to be discharged within three seconds; to take aim for a longer time period was considered dishonorable.

In an 1802 duel, DeWitt Clinton was challenged by John Swartwout, a friend of Aaron Burr. Swartwout accused Clinton of trying to ruin Burr with political smears. The men exchanged five rounds. After each round, as the code provided, seconds encouraged the combatants to mend their differences. Clinton adamantly refused to sign a letter of apology. Swartwout, despite being shot in the thigh and ankle, refused to quit. Unwilling to continue shooting at a wounded man, an exasperated Clinton left the field. Surgeons standing at the ready tended Swartwout's wounds.

In America, duels were fought by men from all walks of life. But many of America's most important citizens defended their honor on the dueling grounds. Button Gwinnet, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, was shot down by General Lachlan McIntosh in a duel. Commodore Stephen Decatur of the United States Navy, an experienced duelist, died at the hands of another commodore, James Barron. And Abraham Lincoln narrowly averted a battle with swords by apologizing to an Illinois state official he had ridiculed in a local newspaper.

Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were among the most prominent Americans to condemn dueling. Franklin called duels a "murderous practice…they decide nothing." And Washington, who undoubtedly needed all the good soldiers he could get, congratulated one of his officers for refusing a challenge, noting that "there are few military decisions that are not offensive to one party or another."

Religious and civic officials worked hard to stop duels. But diatribes such as Reverend Mason Weems' illustrated pamphlet "God's Revenge Against Dueling" did little to change public sentiment. Anti-dueling ordinances also failed to stop the flow of blood. Duelists ignored or evaded such laws. In fact, the most popular dueling ground in America was at Bladensburg, Maryland, near the nation's capital. Dueling was banned in Washington, but not in Maryland, which was a short carriage ride away. Irate legislators could simply shuttle out to Bladensburg and fire at will.

Due to the partisan nature of their work, politicians frequently received challenges -- as did newspaper editors and attorneys. As a young man, attorney Andrew Jackson, future president of the United States, earned a reputation as a formidable duelist. His honor suffered, however, after a duel against Charles Dickinson in 1806.

Dickinson fired his pistol, slightly wounding Jackson. Jackson's weapon misfired -- which according to dueling rules counted as a shot. Technically, the duel should have ended there. But Jackson coldly pulled his hammer back again and fired, this time killing Dickinson. In the eyes of many, Jackson's behavior amounted to little more than murder.

By the time of Hamilton and Burr's deadly encounter, dueling had begun to decline -- at least in the North. In the South, where the chivalrous novels of Walter Scott held sway, dueling remained the preferred way to defend one's honor -- or even to commit murder. A jilted lover need only wait for a rival's insult, or even manufacture one. He was then free to challenge and kill the rival without condemnation.

Some men -- accurate shots in particular -- practically made careers of the duel. Among these men was Alexander McClung, who once killed an opponent at over 100 feet with a smoothbore pistol. This remarkable shot -- and subsequent killings at shorter distances -- honed McClung's fearful reputation. Yet it was said that he was haunted by the ghosts of his victims, and maybe this was so. The last man McClung killed with a pistol was himself, in 1855.

For every man who gloried in the duel, there were many others who feared it. A word or two passed in private company on a Friday night could well mean a challenge on Saturday morning and death on Sunday. Avoiding a challenge wasn't easy. Particularly in the South, where men who refused to duel would be "posted." A statement accusing them of cowardice would be hung in public areas or published in a newspaper or pamphlet.

When Congressman John Randolph of Virginia refused to meet General James Wilkinson in a duel, a furious Wilkinson posted him. The post declared "In justice to my character I denounce to the world John Randolph, a member of Congress, as a prevaricating, base, calumniating scoundrel, poltroon, and coward." Wilkinson, a co-conspirator in Aaron Burr's treason plot, had little character to damage. Randolph lost little by his posting.

By the time of the Civil War, dueling had begun an irreversible decline, even in the South. Not surprisingly, public opinion, not legislation, caused the change. What once had been a formal process designed to avoid violence and amend grievances had deteriorated into cold-blooded murder. People at last were shocked by it, and they showed their disdain. It may have been too late to save Alexander Hamilton. But if American was to become a truly civilized nation, the publicly sanctioned bloodshed would have to end.

Kansas Jake said:

Sorry if I came off wrong in my response. It was a comment after Rudyard's post about no second grade dueling pistols. I did not mean to disparage anyone. I'm not arguing with anyone. I still think it is hard for Americans to understand the titled/royal aspects in English society. It is not a critique, just an observation. I'm not questioning dueling historically or by different means. toot, my comments weren't directed at you or anyone else.

Click to expand...

not to worry. I did not take offence to anything that you said. I merely had questions, that I rely wanted to know about and thought that the questions were in line with the use of and pertaining to dueling pistols? and apparently they were perceived as not.

dave_person said:

Hi Toot,
No there was no standard caliber. Dueling pistols were made by many British and European makers each with their own style. All pistols were bought in pairs and the party challenged to the duel had the right to select the weapons. Both pistols were supposed to be identical and almost always were a pair owned or borrowed by the challenged party. Unlikely any duel would use different pistols. In the Hamilton-Burr duel I mentioned, Hamilton died in agony from his wound the day after the duel.

dave

Click to expand...

thanks so much for the reply.

mhb said:

I guess the answer to the question I raised lies in the original Wogdon pistols. I have inspected, handled and shot a fair number of original duellers, both flint and percussion, and currently own and shoot a J.Probin "Maker to His R. H. the Prince of Wales" 20 bore flint dueller. In no other case have I ever found any unnecessary holes into the bore, and do not believe any contemporary gunmaker would have fitted such an attachment to the Wogdon pistols in the observed manner. The original Wogdon stock was, as is customary, keyed to the barrel, and the weight could have been (should have been) attached in the same way to the existing barrel lug. My objections are to poor practice, and the fact that duellers, in common with higher grade arms of the time, were made to be easily dismounted for proper 'washing-out', which would apparently be very difficult in the case of the foreend weight attached by a screw into the bore. In addition, the screw hole would almost certainly be a seat for corrosion and, with continued use, damage to the patch, if not a safety problem. Perhaps someone knows the facts of the original pistols' construction, and can solve the puzzle definitively. Mr. Person? Anyone?

mhb - MIke

Click to expand...

Hi Mike,
Glad to have you post. IMO, the brass weights on the Church pistols destroyed the balance and feel that would have been experienced when the pistols were new from Wogdon's shop. In my opinion, those changes were an abortion. I too have handled a number of original duelers by Wogdon, Manton, Nock, and Innes. The latter 3 were 19th century pistols with heavy barrels and half stocks. I understand the desire for weight in both a target pistol and the concept with respect to "nervous" duelers tending to shoot high. However, the balance and feel of the full stocked, swamped barrel Wogdons was the epitome of handling. I had absolutely no doubt that I would hit whatever I aimed at with those pistols. The pair I built inspired by Wogdon are the same way.

dave

dave

toot said:

did they ever use swords in a duel of honor? and when was all forms of dueling, knife's, if they were used, swords, and pistols out lawed, stopped?

Click to expand...

The first recorded duel in North America was fought right here in Virginia with swords between Captains Eppes and Stallinge in 1619.
Jay

I know this is a muzzleloading site and i do have a lovely late 17 hundreds duelling pistol myself but i think duels should should be restricted to swords

jonathan hawkin said:

I know this is a muzzleloading site and i do have a lovely late 17 hundreds duelling pistol myself but i think duels should should be restricted to swords

Click to expand...

yes I agree there is a good chance of droping the pistol and putting dings in it when you are hit! LOL!

Jay Templin, thank you for that piece of history, I will put it in my records. toot.

dave_person said:

Hi Mike,
Glad to have you post. IMO, the brass weights on the Church pistols destroyed the balance and feel that would have been experienced when the pistols were new from Wogdon's shop. In my opinion, those changes were an abortion. I too have handled a number of original duelers by Wogdon, Manton, Nock, and Innes. The latter 3 were 19th century pistols with heavy barrels and half stocks. I understand the desire for weight in both a target pistol and the concept with respect to "nervous" duelers tending to shoot high. However, the balance and feel of the full stocked, swamped barrel Wogdons was the epitome of handling. I had absolutely no doubt that I would hit whatever I aimed at with those pistols. The pair I built inspired by Wogdon are the same way.

dave

dave

Click to expand...

Dave:

Thanks for the response. I certainly agree with you that the alteration of the original Wogdon pistols was a mistake, not to say a complete desecration. I have handled 2 pairs of original Wogdons, though I was not able to shoot them. They are, to my mind, the perfect development of the duelling pistol; handling like a thing alive and pointing perfectly. I understand that an individual user might well feel that added weight would help steady the piece when presented, but it also makes it a clumsier tool. Aesthetics and user preference aside, my major objection to the method of alteration involving a screw into the bore is lack of forethought and poor mechanical practice on the part of the 'smith doing the work. There are better ways of attachment available to do the alteration, but the poorest (in my opinion) was chosen. Having the screw and the threaded hole intrude into the bore certainly IS cause for concern over corrosion, if not safety. I've examined a great number of contemporary screws and threaded holes in firearms from that time period, and they are neither standardized nor closely fitted. Corrosion commonly takes hold and locks such combinations together, ultimately leading to failure of the screw. Even were the modern practice of using much tighter thread fit for critical application followed in the Uberti reproductions (and I doubt that it was), that would not improve the situation much. If the bore were lapped after the screw was fitted, making the presence of the screw and hole hard to detect visually, moisture would eventually work its damage. The very thin sections of the internal and external threads remaining at the bore surface would eventually crack and flake-off, if only from the continued stress of firing, which would obviate the attempt to make the juncture hard to detect. Then, too, it would be desirable to remove the weight to prevent moisture from becoming trapped between the weight and the barrel, leading to hidden rusting: simply removing the screw to do so would obviate the the cosmetic work done by lapping the bore, as the screw could not be returned reliably or repeatedly to its original position. It was a bad job originally (if that is the way it was done), and a bad job in the reproduction. The photo is of my J. Probin 20 bore dueller, atop a target with 5 shots fired at 12 yards, in duelling cadence (within the count of 3, from the 'lowered pistol' position). While it is not a Wogdon, it is a fine example of the fully developed (and not over-developed) flint duelling pistol.



.


mhb - MIke

dave_person said:

Hi,
Those copy some sort of 19th century continental European design for dueling and target pistols. I assume the components are probably pretty good but the lock doesn't impress me at all. The case is completely wrong and what I call the jewelry pillow design, perfect for storing your wife's diamond tiara but not so good for pistols. Continental pistols were usually cased as in the photo below.

Precise cut outs in a wooden block were made and then covered fabric and the edges lined in leather.

dave

Click to expand...

Well if you were walking into the duel knowing that one of you might not walk away, fighting with such a fine weapon as that would be a fine last action.