Two-Handed Hold

[tenngun]

You may well be right. I am forced to wonder when we read about long shots that the fact they are written down was due to the exception. Moving back in time before Colt's we know 300 yard kills were made with long rifles, however how many of us today could hit the figure of a man at 300 yards...how many with uncorrected vision, and on a target that is likly to move before the round gets there. I would wager a lot more Indians fell just beyond arms reach then at any notable range. Even Some years later, during the WBTS when guns were better then the pattersons I dont doubt that most men fell by a pistol ball were closer then 10 yards.

 

[jamesthomas]

I find it interesting that someone used to be willing to sacrifice his life in order to defend his honor. I think these days many would do the exact opposite (exchange ones honor for his life).

There are a few folks I would like to challenge to a duel! Mostly a couple of ignorant an stupid doctors. :slap:

 

[crockett]

On the duel thing....I'm currently reading a book on the life of Burr and he followed the Irish Rules of first writing Hamilton to ask if the comments were made by him and if so, does he retract them, etc.- all according to the rule book.
On the walker. For some reason I have this idea if you were right handed you could hold up your left forearm (all this on a horse) and rest your right hand on the left forearm to steady the shot- the Walker being such a big hog leg, and it was acceptable. But...that's some thought in the back of my head- no documentation.

 

[Billnpatti]

It seems that any time you make an absolute statement, you will be wrong. However, I am of the opinion that the two handed hold was seldom, if ever, used "back in the day". The two handed hold didn't really come into vogue until late in the 20th century. I was in the Marines in the late 50s and we were never taught to use a two handed hold when shooting a handgun (Usually a 1911). Only the one handed hold was taught as recently as that. I don't know, but they likely are now teaching the two handed hold.

So, my opinion, and that's all it is, is that "back in the day", the one handed hold was all you were likely to ever see.

 

[Billnpatti]

Okay, here comes another free opinion. I would be very reluctant to rest a revolver, modern or otherwise, on my off arm when firing because of the flash from between the cylinder and the barrel. Even a modern revolver will have a pretty good flash from that gap. I'd think that one shot from that position would satisfy anyone that they should find a different rest when firing a revolver. That's my opinion, :hmm: and its free.....probably over priced at that.

 

[ZUG]

I think the scenario of holding the revolver in one hand and placing the revolver barrel in the crook of the elbow of the opposite arm would be done once or maybe twice as upon discharge of the revolver it would throw flame & debris into the elbow :hmm: .

 

[azmntman]

Unless u have loose caps then that n maybe a few round balls :shocked2:

 

[Kansas Jake]

I shot one of my cap and ball revolvers of sand bags, resting the front of the trigger guard on the bags. After seeing the amount of soot on the bag in front of where the trigger guard is at you would be hard pressed to get me to shoot a revolver by resting it on my forearm or in the crook of my elbow.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I really think the use back in the day was for point blank fire power. A horse pistol was point and shoot at close range at something large and close. I don't think walkers were fast draw pistolero tools

 

[smoothshooter]

Would not have been an issue.

People did not normally wear short sleeved shirts out in public in those days; and Hickok was known for being very conscious about his appearance. Sometimes they rolled up their long sleeves, usually when doing hard work in hot weather. Most just didn't go out in public with sleeves up.

And besides, in a life and death situation one would not normally worry too much about damaging one's clothing.

Different standards of propriety then, compared to now.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

I agree about not resting the revolver across the arm. Past the arm, but not across. I have seen lots of burned fingers and hands from the hot gas jet that comes from the forward end of a cylinder. I had to retire a couple of S&W Model 66's due to gas cuts on the top strap. There is a reason why you don't grip forward of the cylinder. Just my experiences... :hmm:

 

[Kansas Jake]

My oldest 58 remington replica is starting to get erosion on the cylinder pin below the forcing cone. I don't want my hand or arm in front of that cylinder.

 

[Billnpatti]

It's not a matter of propriety, it is a matter of not wanting the hot gasses, unburned powder and fragments of shaved lead that fly out of the gap between the cylinder and the breach of the barrel to hit any part of your body. Hot high velocity stuff that can make you dance and holler OW! OW! OW!.

 

[Zonie]

Speaking of that, Col. Colt tried many times to sell his revolving rifle to the military.

He succeeded too.

The men using these revolving rifles absolutely hated them because in order to support the heavy, long barrel they had to put their hand and arm forward of the cylinder.

The flying lead and powder blast out of the sides of the receiver caused the soldiers much grief.

I know this is the handgun forum but the similarities were too good to pass mentioning it.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The only original revolving long gun I have been able to examine was a shotgun. It had a crude shield fastened around the lower part of the barrel breech to deflect any splatter.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

After watching old Westerns all day today, I have come to the conclusion that a two handed hold is superior to a single hand hold. I stopped counting the number of misses when they shot at each other using the one hand hold. One sly bad guy even slid the barrel of his Colt across his left wrist for added support. Good thing he was wearing a leather wrist cuff. He also got his opponent with that shot. So that proved my point to me that even the cowboys in the old movies knew two hands, or supported firing hand was superior than single hand holds. :hmm: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[smoothshooter]

Even old paintings and lithographs can be suspect as to authenticity sometimes because some artists based their work on hearsay or how they THOUGHT something might have looked.
Researching the artist can sort these things out sometimes.

Charles Schreyvogel may be the ultimate in America as far as accuracy of details go. He painted mostly Indian War period events and based his work on extensive communication with as many actual participants as possible, and maintained a treasure trove of American Indian, Army, and white civilian arms and equipment that he would have people wear in his studio while he painted or drew the individuals shown in his paintings working in his studio back east.

A couple of my favorites are " Dead Sure ", and " My Bunkie ".

 

[nkbj]

Wasn't there a scene where Henry Fonda puts on his spectacles and uses two hands with his '73 Colt... but I'm probably reccomembrin' it wrong.

 

[Billnpatti]

Hmmmm :hmm: Henry Fonda born May 16, 1905, died Aug. 12, 1982. Ol' Henry goes back a ways but I don't think he counts as having lived "back in the day". :haha: Good try...but no cigar. :haha:

 

[crockett]

I fully agree, that's why I said you rest your HAND not the gun, on your forearm. But that's just a hunch- I have no idea if they ever did it that way.
On the two hand hold. One other issue is the grip on a Colt revolver and the trigger. A more modern hand gun- Colt 1911- with a wide trigger- you may have a big jump in accuracy with a two hand hold. On a Colt percussion with the thin smooth trigger and a pretty good size grip- I suppose a two hand hold is an improvement in accuracy but maybe not as much as a two hand hold with the 1911 or similar type handgun- just thinking.
Just had a thought- I have to buy a Walker and test out the theories.