History

[BobJ]

Just read in Handloading magazine about Wild Bill Hickock/Davis Tutt shootout. I live in Springfield, MO, where the incident took place. In magazine, Tutt was supposed to have fired four shots and Hickock one. Checking official accounts, both men fired one shot apparently simultaneously according to witnesses. Wild Bill is supposed to have used his Colt Navy .36. He only carried one pistol. Don't know what Tutt had. He served in the Confederate Army, his family in AR was well to do. Anyway, both fired across the town square, said to be 75 yd, which sounds right. Tutt was hit in the left side between the 5th and 7th ribs, and collapsed minutes later.


Tutt's body was buried in the city cemetery, was disinterred in 2010 by a former Tutt family slave (or descendant, war was 140 yr ago) and reburied in Spfd's Maple Park. Will try to attach a pix.


Sorry, this was in July 1865, so both had cap & balls. I guess. I was at the range today with my Army .44; it will keep 8" - 9" groups of 12, 18, 24, whatever, at 50 yd. I think Tutt would be toast at 75, but that was still a really good shot.

[Hellgate]

Just to stir the pot (or beat a dead horse) I had read that WBH used a Dragoon rather than the Navy(s) he championed later.

[BobJ]

My bad, just assumed .36. Court documents are reported to be lost. I would sure rather take the shot with a .44 than lob .36 balls that distance. Conicals? The incident has passed into the realm of myth and legend, I'm afraid. He was just a professional gambler at the time.

[BobJ]

And former Union scout, he prolly kept his Cavalry weapon.

[Gatofeo]

There is disagreement over what kind of revolver Hickock used in that incident. I doubt it will ever be known for certain. With any cap and ball revolver, it was an extraordinary shot. But then, Hickock was an extraordinary shooter. Years ago I read an interesting article about Hickock the rifleman. Apparently, he also excelled at rifle shooting.
The Tutt shot was all the more extraordinary because it was made under fire. It's one thing to stand and shoot at a silhouette target, but quite another when the target is human and shooting back!
I also feel that the old, original Colts may have been more accurate than today's replicas because of their gain-twist rifling. Elmer Keith wrote of having an old 1851 Navy that would cut cloverleafs all day long with lead balls, lubricated wad and FFG powder. I've read other accounts of amazing accuracy from the original Colts, even from the 1849 in .31 caliber.
A very high grade Remington .44 made in Italy (Uberti or Pietta, I can't recall which) has modern adjustable sights and gain-twist rifling. It carries a hefty price tag of about $800 the last I saw. The other Remingtons with adjustable sights that sell for $400 to $500 don't have gain twist rifling.
So what is gain twist rifling? The rifling starts out straight at the breech end of the barrel, then is given an increasingly quicker rate of turn all the way to the muzzle. It's only useful of projectiles with short bearing surfaces, such as balls or very short conicals. Long bullets don't work as well in it, the front of the bullet wants to turn faster than the rear because of the increasingly faster rate of turn of the rifling.
I don't own an original Colt. And those with bores decent enough for experimentation are probably too valuable to be fired. I believe the old Remington cap and ball revolvers had gain twist as well.
I know it would be more expensive, but I wish gain twist rifling were available in modern replicas as an option, outside of the high-end target revolver.

[coyotejoe]

No doubt any good C&B revolver has the accuracy to make a 100 yard shot, what is rare is the man who has the ice cold nerve to make that shot with someone shooting back.

[Hellgate]

Joe,

I read somewhere that gunfighters like that have a focused mindset where, in their mind, getting killed or injured is not their focus or concern, they are bound and determined to kill the other SOB and fear doesn't enter into their thinking. Like you said, it is a rare man. You hope they are in the right side of the law.