Old West Gunfights - Duelist or Fanning?

[RB Rooson]

I think I read that it was Duelist Style; it was "manly" to stand straight up and take dead-aim one-handed from probably no farther than ten (10') feet away.  Plus due to the lack of being able to practice (either economically or just not having the inclination to do so), it was only conceivable "to stand deliver".

"Fanning" was simply not very accurate and may have been a movie invention more than anything.

Two-hands on a gun "was considered what a woman would do" and no self-respecting gun-toter would even entertain the thought of it.

Remember that actual pay may have been about 25 cents a day, and bullets cost about .35 cents each - people just didn't run around shootin' tin cans or whatever.......the Civil War probably produced the greatest influence on gun-handling (post 1865) with basically the government "footing the bill" on learning to shoot.

The modern day CAS Shooter may shoot more in one (1) match than a cowboy ever did in his lifetime.......and Duelist was probably the choice.

[Holiday]

RB, ya have several valid points. I have read accounts where most folks knew that fannining was innaccurate, only tin horns did such. I hear a lot of folks say the two handed stance wasn't invented until the sixties. This means that folks were too dumb to realize that TWO hands were sturdier for several hundred years(I'm including the age of single shot pistols here) and only a man named Weaver figured it out. Bull. What you said, that men felt it "sissy" to use two hands makes much more sense. And I agree with your idea on the lack of practice as well. Thats why Colts and the clones don't stand up as well as Rugers, they were never designed for such extensive use!

[Capt Hamp Cox]

I agree with what's already been said on this issue.  Undoubtedly, the average cowpoke didn't shoot enough to become proficient.  Those "fortunate" enough to have participated in and survived the Civil War most assuredly knew the basics of gun handling, but without occasional practice wouldn't stand a chance against our concept of a gunfighter.  I also agree that most confrontations involving handguns (including back shootings) would have been close up affairs.    

If you don't read Wild West magazine, you might take a look at this article on Wild Bill Hickok.  It has considerable info on his shooting "style", and indicates that he used two hands (but each hand had a different handgun in it).  

http://www.historynet.com/we/blwildbillhickok/index.html
http://www.historynet.com/we/blwildbillhickok/index1.html
http://www.historynet.com/we/blwildbillhickok/index2.html

[lostone1413]

In Stuart Lakes book Wyatt Earp says when it comes to gun play the ones who shoot from the hip or fanned their guns didn't live long in the West. Wyatt went on to say he learned alot about gun play from Wild Bill Hickok He said Wild Bill was the best shot he ever knew and could do all the trick shooting better then the rest But Hickok always told him in a gun fight he never did anything fancy just took care of the business. Wyatt also said the most important thing Wild Bill taught him about gunfighting is to always take that split second to be sure of your aim that the fastest draw alot of times isn't the one who stays alive.

[Cheyenne]

While i don't believe that Weaver invented the , now common, two hand hold, we have to consider that police and military training concentrated on the pistol being fired with one hand in the Duelist, or target stance.

This was still common to new recruits as late as 1983, as that was how we were directed and trained to fire at Naval "boot" camp in San Deago, can't spell it, but that town in California!  

Cooper writes that it was when Weaver started winning the old style leather slap compitions with his two hand hold was when it started becoming "the way" to fire a pistol.....I have an old article talking about this and it shows an old photo of Cooper going against Thell Reed....Cooper is using a 1911, one handed firing from the hip, while Thell is doing likewise with a SAA....Thell won!

Through out history, the average gunfight is measured at a distance of "feet", not "yards", and the typical, Victorian style of shooting was duelist style......I believe that the Code Duello states the pistol has to be fired with one hand, I may be wrong on that one.

Many of today's shootists have grown up with the 2 hand hold as standard and common and balk at the notion that it was uncommon in the 1880's, but they forget that in the 1880's, the horse was the primary common means of transportation, and today it is very uncommon.

When looking at history, we cannot judge information using the standard of today as society has changed quite a bit.  By today's standards, Wyatt Earp may be judged to be a corrupt cop......it is doubtful he would remain in law enforcement if he frequinted prostitutes and ran gambling concessions in saloons.....yet, in his prime, "Sporting" men were considered "honest" businessmen, and it was common for married men to visit houses of ilrepute to vent their ravenous desires as their wives did not have effective birth control, and that act was for making babies......maybe that's the origin of the phrase:

" THE GOOD OLD DAYS!"  :eek:    :-D

[RB Rooson]

Cheyenne,

Like your analysis very much and especially the reference to "Coda Duello", many forget to formulate thoughts in the context of history and try to reason things out by modern day standards.

When researching my family history, I had to be taught to rethink my conceptions of England in the 1800's.  The morals, mores, etiquette (of which the Coda Duello was one.....), style of dress, travel, meaning of work ethic, families ties, etcetera were much different than today.

Much of the "Old West" was influenced by Victorian virtues and values, ("Heck, they were actually living during the Period.....")!  Women did not do certain things and Men did not do certain things - and they all did things by a definite moral code of the era.

I shake my head when I hear someone say "Well, that just doesn't make sense....." - but, they do not understand the history that went before them and make statements from an uneducated reference point.

Thanks for listening.......

RB

[Big Hext Finnigan]

Howdy,

That's the classic problem of historical studies.  I can't tell you many folks I used to have to explain, slow and steady, about perspective back in my history classes.

Well played amigos,
Hext

[RB Rooson]

Hey Big Hext,

Do you get the book?  And were/are you a History Teacher/Professor?

Take care and.....

RB :-)

[Big Hext Finnigan]

RB,

Yes, I got the book and apologize for not replying sooner.  I have not had time to read it fully.  The stories are great.  I will send you an email with a review, once I have finished it.

I was a History major at A&M and took my time, I concentrated on Medieval times and to a degree the American South.  I thought I might teach and did a few grad assignments, while still an undergrad.  God graced me with the ability to suspend my own ego and enter into the times I am studying.  I do miss it, but not much freedom and students are a pain.

Adios,