|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2014 23:10:51 GMT
Since this was brought up elsewhere:
Source - "Stories From The Life Of Porter Rockwell" documentary DVD. Covenant Communications, Inc. (C) 2010.
The account is as follows.
Rockwell, a controversial Wild West gunslinger, was working in his field when the sheriff came riding up. The sheriff claimed that he was being chased, and deputized Rockwell on the spot to help him deal with his pursuer.
In short order, a rider appeared in the distance. When the sheriff identified the man as his pursuer, Rockwell sighted off of the man's belt buckle and fired.
Reportedly, Rockwell was at the maximum effective distance for the weapon he was using (I don't recall the specific model). The rider was also still on horseback, and so was in motion.
Rockwell dropped him with his first shot.
Would such a shot even be possible with weapons from the era in which this took place? (I want to say mid-1800s; I'll have to dig my copy of the DVD out as I have time).
Would such a shot even be possible today?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2014 23:35:16 GMT
Since this was brought up elsewhere: Source - "Stories From The Life Of Porter Rockwell" documentary DVD. Covenant Communications, Inc. (C) 2010. The account is as follows. Rockwell, a controversial Wild West gunslinger, was working in his field when the sheriff came riding up. The sheriff claimed that he was being chased, and deputized Rockwell on the spot to help him deal with his pursuer. In short order, a rider appeared in the distance. When the sheriff identified the man as his pursuer, Rockwell sighted off of the man's belt buckle and fired. Reportedly, Rockwell was at the maximum effective distance for the weapon he was using (I don't recall the specific model). The rider was also still on horseback, and so was in motion. Rockwell dropped him with his first shot. Would such a shot even be possible with weapons from the era in which this took place? (I want to say mid-1800s; I'll have to dig my copy of the DVD out as I have time). Would such a shot even be possible today? so let me see if I understand this correctly: he had a moving target at the maximum effective range of his rifle, and he began shooting and kept shooting until he hit his target. - which only took one shot. can you have a hit on a snap shot at maximum effective range on the first try? yes. does it mean you are a flawless marksman? not necessarily. - the key question here is whether the claim was made that he committed to making his first shot. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 14, 2014 7:38:48 GMT
As LTW says, the shot is possible, it's a question of could he do it consistently, a person can do something once as a pure fluke and then everyone thinks that they are very skilled at that task quite easily.
Once I was asked to play a Monster at a friends LRP event, so as a favour I said yes, after about half an hour waiting for the party to,arrive we began to tell stories and jokes to each other, I was telling one using the sword I was carrying to gesticulate with. Just as I was doing this the party archer came round a tree and fired an arrow. From his point of view I was told afterwards it looked like I had heard the arrow inflight and with lightening speed flashed my sword up,to block it. Pure luck on my behalf, but it became a story.
Someone could quite easily hit their target at a great distance with their first shot, the key is could they hit targets at such range repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 14, 2014 9:15:45 GMT
He hit the man, but missed everything else....
I suppose what I am trying to say is the lead had to go "Somewhere".
Yes he had skills, but even so, he had luck as well.?..
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 14, 2014 10:08:40 GMT
The effective range of a gun is (usually) the maximum distance at which a reasonably skilled 'average' shooter can expect to hit a target, not the maximum range the projectile stops being lethal.
An above average marksman can often hit targets outside the 'effective' range of the weapon they are using - such as a SWAT officer being able to hit a target the side of a human head at some 200 yards with a pistol (pistols are usually given an effective range of 50 yards).
The problem here is that such a shot is more than possible, since the gun would be capable of throwing a bullet that far. So the myth comes down to either luck or the skill of the shooter. The former is impossible to test, the latter is also impossible as you could spend a week attempting such a shot with skilled marksmen without any of them hitting the target, but showing that the rounds could travel that far.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2014 13:59:45 GMT
The effective range of a gun is (usually) the maximum distance at which a reasonably skilled 'average' shooter can expect to hit a target, not the maximum range the projectile stops being lethal. An above average marksman can often hit targets outside the 'effective' range of the weapon they are using - such as a SWAT officer being able to hit a target the side of a human head at some 200 yards with a pistol (pistols are usually given an effective range of 50 yards). The problem here is that such a shot is more than possible, since the gun would be capable of throwing a bullet that far. So the myth comes down to either luck or the skill of the shooter. The former is impossible to test, the latter is also impossible as you could spend a week attempting such a shot with skilled marksmen without any of them hitting the target, but showing that the rounds could travel that far. the famous last words "They couldn't hit an elephant at this range" come to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by tom1b on Sept 15, 2014 2:10:00 GMT
It's a...it's a biblical story for lack of a better phrase. How it played out depends on which version you want to investigate. Not sure this will work Americana volume 6 published in 1911. "At this point Sheriff Blackentos overtook three men with teams enroute for Nauvoo whom he summoned as a posse to aid him in resisting his pursuers. The Sheriff himself took a position in the road pistol in hand and shouted to the approaching horsemen to halt. Instead of doing so one of the horsemen raised his gun either to intimidate or shoot the sheriff, when one of the newly drafted posse (Porter Rockwell) fired upon and killed him. The fallen man, who died before his fallen party could reach Warsaw with him, was Frank A Worrel who was in charge of the guard of Carthage Greys at the prison when Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered." September 16 1845. That account has the posse stopped, and has the 2 parties within shouting range of each other. There is another account listed as a footnote if that google books link worked. I say biblical because the account appears mainly on Mormon history websites. It's also briefly mentioned on history of Utah sites. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 15, 2014 8:06:31 GMT
THOUSAND yard shot anyone?...
Modern snipers are expected to make that shot during training are they not?....
But afterwards?..
Yes the round is lethal, but, does anyone really expect you to make that shot?....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 15, 2014 13:37:03 GMT
THOUSAND yard shot anyone?... Modern snipers are expected to make that shot during training are they not?.... But afterwards?.. Yes the round is lethal, but, does anyone really expect you to make that shot?.... only a thousand yards? certainly. I think the current record is closer to 2000 yards. - and mind you that is a CALLED shot, not just "oh look it hit something" |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 16, 2014 8:07:03 GMT
The shot taken was "On the fly", a Moving target, not sniper weapon or conditions, and a time sensitive shot.
I suspect the only way to do this is get a bunch of snipers on a range where random targets will open for a random period of time, anything from 10 to 100 seconds, no prone position, no spotter scopes, only battle sights, "period" weapons, and see how many can make the shot.
Repeat with possible moving targets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 16, 2014 10:07:31 GMT
Which only proves that the shot is technically possible - which we already know because the weapons are more than capable of throwing a bullet that far.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 16, 2014 14:08:25 GMT
Which only proves that the shot is technically possible - which we already know because the weapons are more than capable of throwing a bullet that far. which brings us back to my original statement that he kept shooting until he hit the target. - which only took him one shot. it is similar to people's claims about Lee Harvey Oswald being unable to make his shot. - even I can miss two times out of three on a man sized target at 100 yards. |
|
|
|
Post by rick4070 on Sept 16, 2014 15:37:48 GMT
"September 16 1845."
So, muzzleloaders would have been used....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 16, 2014 15:54:47 GMT
"September 16 1845." So, muzzleloaders would have been used.... Nope. Revolvers and revolving rifles had been around for about a decade at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 16, 2014 16:25:48 GMT
tried to find specifics on what model of rifle he would have used - but wasn't successful. there were alternatives to muzzleloading rifles - but they were not in widespread use. also - if rate of fire was an issue, there may have been a desire to get a quicker first shot to give more time for reloading for a follow-up shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick4070 on Sept 16, 2014 20:27:17 GMT
"September 16 1845." So, muzzleloaders would have been used.... Nope. Revolvers and revolving rifles had been around for about a decade at that point. True, I was thinking more along the lines of a rifle being used, because at long range, (do we even know the range?),a handgun, would not be the firearm I'd choose. But, Bill Hickock DID shoot a guy in the heart from something like 75 yards, with IIRC, a .36 cal. cap and ball revolver, so such a shot is POSSIBLE. REPEATABLE is anyones guess. Revolving rifles never worked out so well, what with chain fires, and the fact that your off arm was always in harms way from the "spit" coming from the cylinder gap. As to effective range of handguns, it might be interesting to test various ones, after all, Massad Ayoob could put five holes in a man sized target from 100 yards, with a 2" barreled .38 special, and that was repeatable. A friend of mine could hit a 3 pound coffee can from 100 yards with a 6" barreled .44 Mag. Model 29 S&W, using a two hand hold, standing, with pretty much every shot he fired at it. I'm not sure what firearm was used for Rockwell's shot, and until we know that, we are just guessing whether or not the shot was possible. In the first account, Rockwell "sighted off of the man's belt buckle," while the man was on horseback. Is it even possible to see a mans belt buckle while he is on a horse, (I would guess riding toward you, and facing you?) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 17, 2014 2:14:56 GMT
Nope. Revolvers and revolving rifles had been around for about a decade at that point. True, I was thinking more along the lines of a rifle being used, because at long range, (do we even know the range?),a handgun, would not be the firearm I'd choose. But, Bill Hickock DID shoot a guy in the heart from something like 75 yards, with IIRC, a .36 cal. cap and ball revolver, so such a shot is POSSIBLE. REPEATABLE is anyones guess. Revolving rifles never worked out so well, what with chain fires, and the fact that your off arm was always in harms way from the "spit" coming from the cylinder gap. As to effective range of handguns, it might be interesting to test various ones, after all, Massad Ayoob could put five holes in a man sized target from 100 yards, with a 2" barreled .38 special, and that was repeatable. A friend of mine could hit a 3 pound coffee can from 100 yards with a 6" barreled .44 Mag. Model 29 S&W, using a two hand hold, standing, with pretty much every shot he fired at it. I'm not sure what firearm was used for Rockwell's shot, and until we know that, we are just guessing whether or not the shot was possible. In the first account, Rockwell "sighted off of the man's belt buckle," while the man was on horseback. Is it even possible to see a mans belt buckle while he is on a horse, (I would guess riding toward you, and facing you?) depends on the man - some rodeo cowboys, you could see the belt buckle from extreme range with a tomahawk missile. some armchair cowboys, you would have to be lying on your back next to his feet to see the buckle. |
|
|
|
Post by rick4070 on Sept 17, 2014 3:37:05 GMT
Were there even "hubcap" sized belt buckles in 1845???
Still and all, from the first accounting, Rockwell used a "rifle," and the shootee was within shouting distance. (What distance would that be??)
That rifle could be anything from a Tennessee squirrel rifle to a "Kentucky" rifle to a Hawken rifle to a........
Let's pick one, I choose a percussion Hawken rifle, 40 balls to the pound, loaded with about 100 grains of black powder, and at a "shouting" distance of 100 yards.
Could an average shooter that is familiar with his rifle hit a guy in the middle of his torso even on horse back, at that range pretty much with every shot?
Most certainly.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 17, 2014 6:00:03 GMT
Did he make the shot?... as we were not there, we can only call "Plausible".
Could he repeat that shot?...
Same answer.
Can anyone else?... go to the range.
Easy?... no.
Can I do it?... possibly yes, but I got "Marksman" qualified back in the 80's.
With a little practise, sure I want to try.
But I cant design-and-build a house on my own......
And I dont expect any tradesman that I would ask for help to be able to drive a 40 ton truck, or make a 500yd shot either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 17, 2014 10:53:25 GMT
As I noted the effective range is that at which a reasonably skilled shooter can expect to hit a target. The practical figure will therefore vary depending on the skill of the individual, the sights used (scopes give a longer range than iron sights), the velocity of the projectile (higher speed means a flatter trajectory), the familiarity the shooter has with the gun and the situation in which a shot is attempted - most pistols are given an effective range of 50 yards/meters* but in practice you'd be lucky to hit a target 10 yards/meters away in a real firefight. Heck, a lot of people in that situation would be lucky to hit a target in that situation with a rifle.
(*Some shorter barreled/smaller pistols are given an effective range of 30 yards, which has more to do with the length of the barrel and the quality of the sights and barrel than because the bullet isn't capable of going further than that.)
Testing the effective range of firearms is not really practical for MB. They would need a VERY large clear area - for example the middle of a desert - in which they could carry out such testing without risking anyone's life. Even then the distances and area mean that the chances of them actually finding a bullet are very low if not close to impossible. They showed this clearly when they tested firing bullets in the air. They couldn't find most of the bullets they fired in that case, even though they would have all landed in fairly small area around the testing area. Doing this over several square miles is just not practical as they are rather unlikely to find any of the bullets.
|
|
