Why the one hand grip?

Big_red_truck

Big_red_truck

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Location
Labrador , the big land
Having a high interest in black powder firearms I've always wondered why the methods chose to shoot these pistols was always the one hand grip. From the dragoon flint lock pisol to the 1851 colt navy. Even in a 1904 U.S. Army training manual the method shown to shoot a pistol is one handed. Was it because of a safety issue with your second hand around the chamber /frizen/cylinder? Hoping one of you history buffs could shed a bit of Light.

Cheers

Big_red_truck
 
From what I have been told, the one handed grip began with the flintlock pistols; you only had one shot and that would normally be made with your weak hand, since your strong hand would be normally holding an edged weapon of some kind. That certainly makes sense to me. Maybe the one-handing tradition just continued as multi-shot pistols developed, eventually allowing the use of one pistol in each hand. In Cowboy action Shooting that is called 'Gunfighter' style. JMHO.
 
A guy is generally expected to be pretty busy when he has to resort to a pistol in war.

As mentioned, it was second place to the sword or the reigns of your horse. For a very long time the pistol was more dress uniform than practical weapon.
There was also the whole tradition of chivalry and the honorable dueling positions of gentlemen prior to WWI.

My German M1879 and M1883 Reichsrevolvers don't even come with a rod or method for ejecting empty cases. 6 shots for last resort and you are done one way or the other.
 
Technically the one hand grip is still taught even to this day in the Canadian Forces. Personally I doubt it will make it to the next generation of pistol, but you never know with old military traditions.

You also have to remember that the way people shot handguns was different than we do it today. It wasn't the quick shooting, rapid acquisition IPSC type shooting we do now, rather the thought process was more a aimed shot, at longer distances (which is also why the sights on many earlier handguns are so fine, because when your shooting 50m or more away, you need that fine sight). Shorter range shooting was meant to be more instinctive, but at those ranges your pistol was more meant to be a back up for your sword than anything else. When your shooting one handed, your also presenting a smaller target to the enemy, which in the days before body armour, could actually make a big difference. Finally, you have to remember you had things like dueling still, if you look at the Luger, the grip is similarly angled as how someone would grasp a fencing sword. Since sword fighting was taught anyways (and up to WWII in some cases, even expected to be used in combat), holding the pistol in a similar grip, would make sense.
 
What? You mean I'm not supposed to shoot one handed? Yes I do use a Weaver or Modified Weaver or whatever the newest fad name is, but I also practice regularly with one hand. Shooting with one hand, especially your weak hand, is never a bad skill to have
 
Keep in mind also that during the US Civil war, those revolvers of that period were cavalry weapons. I think a modern two handed grip would be tough if you're fighting on horseback.
 
coburn1_zpsfrdxn205.jpg


mcqueen1_zpsy0gojjdm.png
 
One hand grip is in the name of firearm which is "handgun" not "handsgun"

Big_red_truck said:
Having a high interest in black powder firearms I've always wondered why the methods chose to shoot these pistols was always the one hand grip. From the dragoon flint lock pisol to the 1851 colt navy. Even in a 1904 U.S. Army training manual the method shown to shoot a pistol is one handed. Was it because of a safety issue with your second hand around the chamber /frizen/cylinder? Hoping one of you history buffs could shed a bit of Light.

Cheers

Big_red_truck
Click to expand...
 
a good movie , and i think you are correct. I read that in 18th - 19th century duals "during a gentleman's dual it was not considered dishonorable to turn sideway's to your opponent to present a smaller target"
 
The 2-handed grip didn't come into vogue until after WWII. Ed McGivern, famous exhibition shooter ( think Jerry Miculek of his day) did most of his impressive shooting with one hand.
 
I would expect the one handed method was (and probably still is) used when time is of the essence, sometimes counted in milliseconds & at close range.

The two handed when there was more time & longer distance involved. In my younger days I practiced the so called "quick-draw" - never became a record

breaker but most guys that just fiddled around, then / now, wouldn't stand a chance with all their new fangled "stuff", holds included. --- John
 
Big_red_truck said:
a good movie , and i think you are correct. I read that in 18th - 19th century duals "during a gentleman's dual it was not considered dishonorable to turn sideway's to your opponent to present a smaller target"
Click to expand...

General Isaac Brock (1812) had an Officers Mess altercation before being stationed to Canada and prior to being given the rank of General.

Arguably there was some measure of alcohol involved when another young officer who shared the same rank as Brock felt slighted with a position the young Brock was taking and publically (during mess) called him out to a duel with pistols at 10 paces...Brock, who was not known to imbibe in alcohol to any great measure was arguably sober-er {its a word :redface:} and instantly became enraged at the brashness and insult of the other officer. Isaac reached for his handkerchief and throwing it on the table bellowed "10 paces!?...Pistols across this handkerchief!" {read, ain't no-one NOT going to get shot in the face mother fu<ker! :)} The altercation ended with an apology from the young officer to Brock, who accepted his apology. ;)...the guy had balls. It's no wonder why he was so respected by those who he led.

The point being; a) don't fu<k with Brock. And; b) the pistol was intended to be used with one hand from the on set. In this example, Brock's suggestion is that the other officer take a corner of the handkerchief in one hand, pistol in the other, Brock will do the same and on the count of (fill in the blank) both men fire. (and subsequently die of terrible wounds several days later is what usually occurred.)
 
Last edited:
It's really interesting to learn a bit of history. I can't see my sights clearly (middle-aged eyes) if hold the pistol two-handed. With a one-hand hold the pistol is further away, just enough to focus on the front sight. As it is, I don't shoot anything but ISSF.
 
I have nothing against two handed pistol shooting. Whenever the rules permit, I will shoot two handed. Those of us who don't practice as much as we should will definitely shoot better two handed than one handed. I am often bested by more skilled shooters who shoot one handed. Two handed shooting, however, is definitely a modern innovation. It is not something that one would have even considered until the second half of the 20th. Century. I suspect that it was done on occasion throughout history, but it was not the norm.

Music Man
 
with revolvers you want to make sure where your second hand is when firing and not in the path of the blast when the shot goes off as it can mangle things pretty good. That is one reason. plus times change and it is what you learned when you started to shoot and who gave you pointers.
 
Imagine if you can shoot well single handed you can do twice as well with both. Also think of the situation where you must use the other hand for something else or have one damaged or more interestingly have two pistols.
The one hand shooting came from riding a horse and using other hand for it also one hand would hold a sword the other the revolver. Interestingly enough the French service revolver of 1892 was meant to be shot with left hand and cylinder would swing to the right side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom