|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Ask The Expert > Rapid fire shooting with a six-gun | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
crystalwizard
Forum Moderator
      
Date Joined Nov 2006
Total Posts : 5196
| Posted 7/8/2008 3:08 AM (GMT -5) |   | I have this:
I shot three more times as fast as I could
I really want to reword that. So first question is ... suggestions for rewording?
Second is... what's the correct western slang way of saying "I held the gun in one hand and used my other one to pull the hammer back and let it go really quickly." ? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Rob Santa
Sage
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 1485
| Posted 7/8/2008 9:12 AM (GMT -5) | | Charles, excellent suggestions on the rewording, though truth be told, I'm not totally sure why it needs to be. CW, the line, while hardly filled with flourish, expresses exactly what your protag wants.
Question, CW? Do you know why cowboy movies show this type of shooting, the fanning of the hand against the hammer? It's the difference between single action revolvers and double action revolvers. Modern revolvers are double action: pulling the trigger both pulls the hammer back and releases it. Single action revolvers are just that...pulling the trigger is a single action and only releases it forward. You would have to pull the hammer back then pull the trigger to fire a bullet.
So, by holding the trigger down (for lack of a better laymen's phrase) you could pull the hammer back and let it go as fast as possible to get off quick (and highly inaccurate shots). Fanning would be an effective strategy in a circumstance like the OK Corral or across a card table where everyone's about ten feet apart and all you want to do is put a bullet somewhere on your target, not necessarily a killing shot.
All you have to do now is pull the trigger repeatedly. The first stage of one of my shooting exams involved putting ten shots (two sets of five with a freehanded reload inbetween) on a target eight feet away in less than ten seconds. It's easy to do; I did it in about seven seconds. The world record holder puts twelve shots on target at something in the neighborhood of twenty feet in less than three seconds.
Rob Santa
Hopelessly Addicted Writer of Speculative Fiction
and CEO of Ricasso Press | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hermit
Diavhrati Luminary
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 1785
| Posted 7/8/2008 9:34 AM (GMT -5) | | | | |
|
crystalwizard
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Nov 2006
Total Posts : 5196
| Posted 7/8/2008 4:41 PM (GMT -5) | | Rob Santa said...
Charles, excellent suggestions on the rewording, though truth be told, I'm not totally sure why it needs to be. CW, the line, while hardly filled with flourish, expresses exactly what your protag wants.
because it's bland when phrased that way. It's a firefight that ends with a stampead (sp?)
Rob Santa said...
Question, CW? Do you know why cowboy movies show this type of shooting, the fanning of the hand against the hammer? It's the difference between single action revolvers and double action revolvers. Modern revolvers are double action: pulling the trigger both pulls the hammer back and releases it. Single action revolvers are just that...pulling the trigger is a single action and only releases it forward. You would have to pull the hammer back then pull the trigger to fire a bullet.
didn't know that.
Rob Santa said...
So, by holding the trigger down (for lack of a better laymen's phrase) you could pull the hammer back and let it go as fast as possible to get off quick (and highly inaccurate shots). Fanning would be an effective strategy in a circumstance like the OK Corral or across a card table where everyone's about ten feet apart and all you want to do is put a bullet somewhere on your target, not necessarily a killing shot.
That's a pretty good description of what the protag wants to accomplish. he's trying to keep the bad guys busy until the herd of cattle gets there and runs through their campsite. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Mancebo
Adept
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 987
| Posted 7/9/2008 2:22 AM (GMT -5) | |
crystalwizard said...
I have this:
I shot three more times as fast as I could
I really want to reword that. So first question is ... suggestions for rewording?
Second is... what's the correct western slang way of saying "I held the gun in one hand and used my other one to pull the hammer back and let it go really quickly." ? This is really more intricate than it looks on the surface. So much is dependant upon the character. The point is well made that 'most' people would never fan a revolver. They only had five shots. Yet there really are old 1800s revolvers with triggers wired back or filed or otherwise butchered for fanning so, there were stupid people who did it. However, most people drew-aimed-and fired with one hand while looking down the sights. Take a look at period drawings of people shooting and the portrates of Remington and Russel(Nothing can be taken as gospel, but they all show pretty much the same posture). Written tales of the period follow the same line, cocking on the way up and--bang--when the barrel comes level with the eye.
Even in the 1900s there are descriptions of gunmen raising the pistol muzzle to the sky to cock the revolver. This strange action is left over from decades of cap & ball pistols that drop spent caps into the pistol action when you don't raise the muzzle of the pistol to make them fall free. A Colt 'plow-handle' grip also makes the barrel naturally raise up under heavy loads to mute the 'felt recoil'. This action puts the hammer right under the thumb to cock for the second shot.
Modern Cowboy Action Shooters use a two handed grip and the left thumb to cock while holding the sight picture with the right--however, never forget that CAS is a sport and they generally use impotent target loads with little or no recoil. A full-charged .45 Colt tends to have a lot more muzzle rise than a little target load. Also, a western man was generally a horseman, meaning that he might very well have reigns in his off-hand controlling his mount. (Unless you were a Confederate guerrilla with seven pistols and reigns between your teeth!  Grrrrr! )
I shot three more times as fast as I could:
'I let blast three more times just as fast as I could ear back that hammer.'
'I loosed three more shots in a rolling volley.'
'I peppered their camp with .44s.'
'I dusted 'em off with my last three rounds'.
'I concluded our meeting by emptying my last three rounds into their camp.'
'I emptied my Colt into their camp gear as a farewell gift.'
'I finalized our meeting with a barrage of .44s.'
'I gave 'em a final volley of .45 slugs as a farewell.'
The Wastelander
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jaqhama
Adventurer
Date Joined Oct 2007
Total Posts : 530
| Posted 7/10/2008 1:49 AM (GMT -5) | |
crystalwizard said...
I have this:
I shot three more times as fast as I could
I really want to reword that. So first question is ... suggestions for rewording?
Second is... what's the correct western slang way of saying "I held the gun in one hand and used my other one to pull the hammer back and let it go really quickly." ? As fast as I could, I fired off three shots...
With the trigger pulled back and held in place, I used the base of my left hand to fan the hammer.
Three shots I fired, in rapid succsession.
Note: A leather brace around the palm/base of the left hand would stop the hammer flaying the skin as one fanned it.
Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach have worn the leather guards in some of the western they've made.
Lot's of tricks to making fanning easier, lighter spring action, larger hammer of a particular shape, thick glove or guard on the fanning hand.
John Wayne had a custom designed Winchester...a much larger and rounder lever for the ratcheting cocking movement.
He used it several of his movies.
What can I tell ya...I'm a huge western novel/movie fan.  Louis LaMour westerns have sold more copies of more books than any other novellist.
Cheers: Jaq.
You can read some of my stories here: Swamp Story. Down South. Florida Haze.Wild Justice...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Mancebo
Adept
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 987
| Posted 7/10/2008 2:17 AM (GMT -5) | |
Charles Gramlich said...
Rob, why are you saying they had five shots? Are you talking about the fact that for safety they usually carried the gun with the hammer down on an empty cylinder?
- Yes. Most pistols, caplock and cartridge, needed to be carried with the hammer lowered onto an empty chamber. The Remington belt pistols were a very strong, safe, exception, but they never kept up with Colt in popularity.
You're looking at (very loosely) 350,000 remington revolvers during the civil war/western era compaired to 1,500,000+ Colts.
- The Remingtons were generally a more solid gun--at least till 1872 when the SAA became available--but they were crankier and harder to clean. (Harder to clean was a big problem with black powder)
- So the majority of the people would have pistols that they loaded 5 shots into. The majority of the people really never had to use them either. For most people, guns were like modern car insurance, you really-really don't want to use it, but it's there in an emergency.
The Wastelander
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Santa
Sage
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 1485
| Posted 7/10/2008 2:05 PM (GMT -5) | | Okay everyone, fun with experimenting...
I'm a crack shot. The first time I fired a revolver (twenty years ago) was when I was training for the police force. We were run through a baseline shooting exam as soon as we walked through the door where 50 shots were fired, with each having a maximum point value of 5 (this was a small circle inside the head and another, larger circle around the heart), and smaller values for less critical areas of the body. I already mentioned the first ten shots above. Second ten shots were right handed for five and left handed for five in a profile stance at about eighteen feet. Third ten shots were Winston stance, two handed at about twenty-five feet. Fourth ten shots were right then left handed braced around a door at about thirty-five feet. Last ten shots were prone at about forty-five feet. First time through the exam I shot a 242. There's lots of ways to calculate that number, but most of those shots have to be a 5-pointer. Here's the funny thing: the range officer said I missed the target completely with one shot. I cried foul; after all, I put 49 shots not just on target but in the K-5 most of the time. I would rather think one of the shots passed exactly through another bullet hole than missed. After some "training" to improve our skills, I shot a 247. That's 47 5-point shots and 3 4-pointers.
So, immediately after this thread started I called up my friend who is a gun nut, I mean, firearms afficianado. I asked if he would take me to the range to fan some single-action revolvers. The result from from a guy who could shoot the eye out of the Jack of Spades at fifty feet: missed the target with everything but the first shot. We were drawing from waist-high, break-front holsters and firing as soon as we felt the gun barrels were on target figuring you'd only try this stunt if you needed some fast lead. Couldn't hit a damn thing even with the target an embarassing eight feet away. After four times trying it I decided that was enough flesh shredded from my hand for one day (probably should have waited to read that part about the leather hand protectors - a glove sure as hell didn't work). If it means anything, Tony didn't hit the target either, and he'd practiced the technique before.
Would more practice help? Undoubtedly. Still, from this point forward it's going to take some massive suspension of disbelief whenever I see this done in the movies.
Any other of you shooters try this? By the way, it seems a terrific way to shoot your toe off if you're not 100% careful.
Rob Santa
Hopelessly Addicted Writer of Speculative Fiction
and CEO of Ricasso Press | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Mancebo
Adept
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 987
| Posted 7/10/2008 2:14 PM (GMT -5) | |
edward-mckeown said...
This was solved in the modern revolver by putting an interrupter plate between the hammer and the round that moves out of the way when the trigger is pulled or the hammer cocked.
As many others have said, fanning = shots going all over the place. Unless you are point blank range you might be better off throwing it at them  - Or by having a Ruger-style 'transfer-bar' that drops down when the trigger isn't pulled so that there is no possible contact between the hammer and firing pin. Most modern guns are 'perfected', 1800s guns were still newly created.
- Amazingly, there are people who can hit small targets by fanning. In my miss-spent youth I was good enough to draw-and-shoot running rabbits while just walking through the woods with my caplock .44. I wouldn't have ever bothered 'fanning'.
However there is that 1-in-10,000,000 person who can actually fan and hit something. Like Annie Oakley shooting the heads off flying birds with a .22 rifle, there's always someone with un-explainable skill.
- Hence, blanket statements are generally correct, yet not 100% correct. There's always that one, &%$#@!, exception to normal reality (which can make for lively arguements!)
- I think you seldom hear about any real 'gunfighters' fanning because if someone was that good, someone else would just shotgun them from an alley(which was known to happen) or put a bullet behind their ear like McCall did Hickock. In a time when millions of men had been through the civil war, people who tried to make a living with guns were better off hiding who they were or they were liable to have a very short career.
The Wastelander
| | Back to Top | | |
| | |