How Come?

mooncoon

mooncoon

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island
Here is my question for the day. How come most older revolvers shoot at least 1 foot high at 15 yards. My latest treasure is a .38 double action S&W from the 1880s and while it groups well, at 15 yards it is roughly 10" above the point of aim. Frustrating because I would like to use it in black powder competitions. Had the same problem with some early Webleys, european copiees of the double actiion S&W and an original Colt navy.

cheers mooncoon
 
I'm not 100% positive, but I believe that in the old days, they used to zero in their six-shooters at longer ranges (50 yards or so).

This ideology of long range accuracy is the same as with the old/antique battle rifles - they were meant for long range warfare, where soldiers needed to be accurate at very long ranges (trench or plains warfare being a good example). Today, rifles are built with an emphasis on their firepower a lot more than their actual long range accuracy, as they need to work well in urban environments. Pistols are pretty much the same these days, with ranges beyond 25 yards being considered as obsolete.

Please feel free to correct any inconsistencies in my post.
 
mooncoon said:
Here is my question for the day. How come most older revolvers shoot at least 1 foot high at 15 yards. My latest treasure is a .38 double action S&W from the 1880s and while it groups well, at 15 yards it is roughly 10" above the point of aim. Frustrating because I would like to use it in black powder competitions. Had the same problem with some early Webleys, european copiees of the double actiion S&W and an original Colt navy.

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why Bat Masterson said "If you want to shoot a man in the heart, you aim at his croctch!"
 
marsden said:
people were shorter then. just messin with ya.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say that cowboys were taller then :>) :>)

I think that long range shooting would be appropriate for the percussion Colts, particularly the .44 caliber ones. My impression is that they were carried by calvary and shot at the enemy during a charge. On the other hand by the 1880s and the era of the double action S&W guns using cartridges, I would have presumed the revolvers were more for close quarters of 5 to 10 yards and that particularly applies to guns with 4" barrels (which for me also shoot quite high). A gun like the one I shot today, I am guessing may have been a target gun in its day and for that I would have expected it to be sighted for 15 to 25 yards maximum. Most puzzling

cheers mooncoon
 
mooncoon said:
Here is my question for the day. How come most older revolvers shoot at least 1 foot high at 15 yards. My latest treasure is a .38 double action S&W from the 1880s and while it groups well, at 15 yards it is roughly 10" above the point of aim. Frustrating because I would like to use it in black powder competitions. Had the same problem with some early Webleys, european copiees of the double actiion S&W and an original Colt navy.

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...
Remember when we shot my vest pocket pistol and realized just how high it shot?
a022c92e.jpg

Well, who needs lonng range accuracy across a card table??!!:D
Cat
 
Hmmm, maybe guys had problems with premature release back then? Put the sights high so when the trigger goes pointed at their knees it still hits center of mass? (that answer was only partially tongue in cheek :p )

Could it be something to do with grip style or style/design of the majority of the guns out there that they tend to rotate/kick up a lot more in the hand than later designs?
 
It's a good question. 100 yd zero in a mk1 webley is kinda silly. I guess they practised an extreme 6 o'clock hold back then, but don't ask me why.
 
I'm not an expert, but different weight and velocity bullets coming out each have their own path. If I remember correctly, faster ones shoot low due to being in the gun for less of the gun pushing up. Heavier, slower bullets rode the barrel through a bit more of the recoil of shooting and go higher.

have you tried a lighter bullet with a bit more speed? small guns flip up more so maybe this could be the reason.

I'm not the answer, but I play the answer on TV:)

Ryan
 
If you check the old-time target matches, you will find that the entire idea of a 5-yard shoot would have been laughed away as completely ludicrous. They shot 25-yard and 50-yard matches and they shot big, heavy bullets because they were a lot more stable than little, lightweight ones.

Calculate the time it takes a bullet to do 50 yards...... say, at 600 ft/sec. And then remember that that bullet drops 16 feet in the first second.... and you get the idea that your sights are right on for what they were doing with the guns.

The whole idea of a handgun, at least the military ones, was to prevent some anti-social type in a different uniform from doing a very messy gastrectomy on you with his very shiny bayonet, spoiling your pretty uniform in the process. So you took him out at the longest distance you could count on your gun to do the job.

The result was that 25 yards was considered close-range shooting. What we do today may be more real-world-effective NOW, but it wasn't, back when your revolvers were new.

There are some good discussions on revolvers in "The Gun.... and its Development" (W.W. Greener, 1911) and in "Text Book of Small Arms - 1909" (HMSO, London).
 
x2 smellie - plus when you consider that your enemy may have been armed with a smoothbore musket or a piece of cowhide and a stabbing spear, you darn well wanted to drop him before he came anywhere within range with plenty of time to spare in case he didn't oblige you by dieing...
 
smellie said:
If you check the old-time target matches, you will find that the entire idea of a 5-yard shoot would have been laughed away as completely ludicrous. They shot 25-yard and 50-yard matches and they shot big, heavy bullets because they were a lot more stable than little, lightweight ones.

Calculate the time it takes a bullet to do 50 yards...... say, at 600 ft/sec. And then remember that that bullet drops 16 feet in the first second.... and you get the idea that your sights are right on for what they were doing with the guns.

The whole idea of a handgun, at least the military ones, was to prevent some anti-social type in a different uniform from doing a very messy gastrectomy on you with his very shiny bayonet, spoiling your pretty uniform in the process. So you took him out at the longest distance you could count on your gun to do the job.

The result was that 25 yards was considered close-range shooting. What we do today may be more real-world-effective NOW, but it wasn't, back when your revolvers were new.

There are some good discussions on revolvers in "The Gun.... and its Development" (W.W. Greener, 1911) and in "Text Book of Small Arms - 1909" (HMSO, London).
Click to expand...

Interesting observations that make some sense. But I do not think that battle doctrine of the time seriously considered using a revolver to engage rifle/bayonet armed enemy at 25 to 50 yds and beyond, when a rifle is so much better for the task. Using a revolver to fight against a rifle at those ranges is flawed strategy.

Handguns of the time were mostly used by officers. Officers did not usually actively engage the enemy except as a last gasp defense. Officers exhorted their own men to fight, and sometimes may have needed protection from their own troops as much they needed protection from the enemy. Native and colonial troops didn't always take kindly to being forcibly required to die for the mother country.
 
Last edited:
The officer carried HIS sword in his right hand and he carried HIS revolver in his left hand. Note the emphasis: they were his personal weapons, purchased privately in most cases. Officers were NOT issued rifles at all.

If they wanted to play at the party, they had to have something to engage at longer distances than the point of their sword. The task fell on their pistol.

This attitude lasted much longer than people think. Check out a Luger some time. Everybody says that a Luger is a clumsy gun to use... and it can be..... if you shoot right-handed only. Doctrine was that the gun was removed from the holster and the safety flipped off by the right hand, gun put into the left hand and operated from there..... while the right hand used the schwert (oh, par'm me: sword) in the Manner Befitting an Offizier in der Kaiserliche Heer.

Even the P.-38 has the ejector on the left-hand side, tosses its empties out to the left.

Me? I prefer the MP-40: throws them straight up and over your shoulder; you just turn around and your brass is right behind your right boot.

But that's why.
 
Oh, my! Messed up again!

P.-'38 EXTRACTOR is on the left, which is why it EJECTS to the left.

P-1 and P-4 also, if I recall rightly.... and they aren't all THAT ancient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom