Pistol shooting technique in our period

[Daniel]

I was taught to fire a pistol two-handed. I was always a lousy pistol shot even that way, but at least I could group 7 shots about 3 to 6 inches low and left of the bullseye at 25 yards. With one hand? Fuhgeddaboutit: I'd be lucky to put the shots on the paper at all. Basically every manual I've ever seen about modern handgun shooting agrees: use two hands, whether in the squared off police stance or the sidewise Weaver stance.

In the movies, handguns used to be invariably shown used in one hand. Since about the '90s, films set in the modern era more often show an accurate two-handed use of handguns, at least by police and other trained shooters, but Westerns and movies of the 17th-18th centuries still pretty much always show people firing handguns one-handed.

So, do we know anything about whether people in the 17th-18th centuries actually fired flintlock pistols one-handed or two-handed? I realize that with a smoothbore flintlock, a loose-fitting ball and black powder, the flintlock pistol isn't accurate beyond 10 yards or so even in the best of circumstances. But does that mean it's not worthwhile to use two hands? If you add muzzle wobble from a one-handed grip to the aforementioned problems, wouldn't the effective range be even less than 10 yards?

On the other hand, we're not concerned with whether shooting one-handed was a good idea, but whether it was done. The contemporary practice may not have been the ideal practice.

[Mission]

You need to come out to a re-enactment and try it. Then you'll have direct experience.

[theM.A.dDogge]

Classic Duelling Techniigues(not that it was legal mind you) tells us ,as to give the opponent as small as target as possible, hence standing sideways profile, with arm full extended(one handed) toward your opponent.....

and many of the Pistols were meant for Calvary, therefore a one handed grip would be necessary, other to be controling the horse.

even a quick search on google brings up many (from the 18th century) woodcuts of famous duells which show a one handed stance....

i'll dig a little deeper later looking thru some of my weapons and tactic books, looking for when the 2 handed stance was adopted

[theM.A.dDogge]

seems the more modern version of the Prefered 2 handed stance was pushed in the last century after WWII

The Weaver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver_stance) stance came out in the 1950's.

The Isosceles (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910635/) stance came out in the 70-80's.

But i would also agree that 2 handed stance was probably around since the creation of "Guns", for the longer distances to help steady, as would have been leaning against a tree or proped with a stick

[Jas. Hook]

My opinion in the GAoP were talking one shot at body mass, hit 'em or make 'em flinch, with a follow up with blade or axe that was in the other hand. Comparing then with now multi-shot pistols and revolvers I don't feel that the combatants had much time to take up any formal stance as there was no second shot or 50 foot accuracy.

Jas. Hook

[rusty spike]

as has already been mentioned the weaver stasnce classic two hand didn't show up until the 20th century so this is a settled question. The important question is where al this nonsense about the inaccuracy of muzzleloading firearms comes from. I have been shooting black powder for nigh on 31 years and muskets and pistols in the hands of people who practice is legendasry. I used a brown bess ( supposedly inaccurate and hit a 12 inch gong 2 out of three times at 150 yards. and I was only fair at shooting. My Brother in law with a 50 cal. flint pistol hit squirrel targets at better then 50 yards shooting one handed and standing unrested. Also one of the favored losds on pistols and smoothbore was shot, and buck and ball. Any gun is only as good as the man on the end and he or she is only as good as their practice makes them. Sorry about the rant but we have finally hit my pet peeve.. thanks

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Agree with Rusty here. I know a couple of smoothbore shooters that make rifle men walk back to camp with heads hung low.

Pistol shooting with one hand is the "norm" prior to modern combat training. I still do no matter what I'm shooting, as I shoot instinctively and the sights are merely a reference point in my secondary vision, not my primary focus. he primary focus is always on the spot of the target i want to hit. (aim-small/miss-small). It's like pointing your finger at something and knowing when to squeeze without taking a lot of time to line up sights . After sufficient practice it just becomes "natural", like hitting the trash can with a paperwad everytime from your desk at the office, etc.

Bo

[Jas. Hook]

Again to the practice. When the arms chest was brought up and pistols loaded and passed out I wonder how much prior practice most had before facing an armed combatant.

Jas. Hook

[Daniel]

Thank you, gentlemen; your findings match very well with mine. Apparently when Weaver invented his two-handed stance in the late 50s, the dominant method was point shooting, which is the exact method that Captain Bo described, and which is generally done one-handed, just as he does. I'm not sure how old point shooting is, but an 1835 self-defense manual by the Baron de Berneger shows him suggesting a similar method to point shooting, and clearly suggesting practicing with one hand; indeed, he recommends learning to shoot left handed so as to keep the right hand free for other work. Can't find any paintings of pistol duels older than the 1804 Burr-Hamilton duel, but that too represents a one-handed grip (and if I were a second in a pistol duel, I would definitely not be standing that close to my principal). Another point: when WIld Bill Hickok fatally shot Davis Tutt in 1865 in Springfield, MO, at a range of 75 yards, he steadied his Colt revolver by laying the barrel across his forearm, not by gripping the butt with two hands. This would be further evidence against the popularity of the two-handed technique before the 20th century. I suppose this doesn't prove 100% that the one-handed technique was already dominant in 1700, but it seems likeliest.

As for the accuracy of black powder weapons, my understanding was that it wasn't so much the black powder itself that made it inaccurate, although old style black powder didn't burn as uniformly as modern commercial black powder. But the smooth bore I have universally heard as being very inaccurate. If a Brown Bess can only hit a 12-inch gong at 150 yards 2 out of 3 times, that's quite consistent with what I've heard about its inaccuracy; when I was in practice with a quite ordinary Savage .30-06, I could put three bullets in a 4-inch circle at 200 yards, and shooters with actual talent (unlike me) can do much better than that. On the other hand, sniping squirrels at 50 yards one-handed with a smooth bore black powder pistol is way, way better than anything I've ever heard of. I think both your brother and his pistol must be well above average, considering how often pistol duelists missed each other completely at 10 to 20 paces.

[Cascabel]

Smoothbore accuracy has a lot to do with the manner in which it is loaded. If loaded in the military fashion with a loose fitting ball, accuracy will be quite chancey, but if loaded with a tightly fitting patched ball, accuracy can be very good. Much of the poor accuracy stories come from the loose fitting ball situation using military muskets and pistols loaded "military style". Military expedient called for multiple shots and rapid re-loading, rather than careful aiming, thus the reason for a loose fit of the ball. Duelling was another matter entirely.

[rusty spike]

Sir while I can agree about a loose fitting bal, I never use one. All of the round ball I shoot bare ball are as close to bore size as possable. Also military stye would have favored the paper cartride for most od the golden age and so would not have been loose.. After the first feww shots in mu experience you have to dropp the paper to get the ball down the muzzle. What I think was the reason for the problem is that soldiers were not to aim at a person but at a massed group.

[MarkG]

I have found from experience that a loose ball can develop a spin going down the barrel. This will make it veer to one side. I use a patched ball, even with a smoothbore to prevent this.

As for shooting stance, pistols were short-range weapons. Barrel length has a major effect on ball speed with black powder. The muzzle velocity of a pistol ball is less than half that for a musket. Pistols typically shoot smaller balls which means lower mass to surface which also affects the range.

Bottom line - if you have time to assume a Weaver stance then your target is too far away.

[John Maddox Roberts]

I remember when two-handed pistol shooting first appeared in the movies and television. I believe the first instance was when James Coburn made a long-distance pistol shot in "The Magnificent 7." Soon it was standard in the Bond films and tv spy shows like "I Spy" and "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." I don't know of a single art work showing a handgun being used with two hands from before that period. As to the famous inaccuracy of the Brown Bess, even period writers said that it was due to the very poor and crooked bores of the government contract arms, and that it would shoot quite accurately when "true-bored" which was a rarity.

[Daniel]

OK, I have no trouble accepting that a true-bored gun with a tightly fitting ball will be more accurate than a loose-fitting ball fired from a bad bore. But no matter the ball's fit or the quality of the bore, a smooth bore ball still won't spin, at least not on an axis parallel to the ball's flight path. So how can a smooth bore achieve comparable accuracy to a rifled bore?

[MarkG]

Let me be more specific, a loose ball can roll down the barrel giving it a spin along an axis at a right angle to its direction. The spin changes the aerodynamics a bit making the ball curve in the direction of the spin. A tight ball doesn't develop the spin so it goes straighter. This never approaches the accuracy of a rifled barrel but it does make the gun more predictable.

[John Maddox Roberts]

I should amend what I wrote above. While we never see people prior to the mid-20th century holding a pistol with both hands on the butt or one hand supporting the other, we sometimes see or read about a person making a long shot resting the pistol barrel across the left forearm (assuming he's right-handed). This is two-handed shooting of a sort.