What do seconds in a duel do? How common?

[drhess]

I read recently that Abe Lincoln, when younger, would serve as seconds in some duels. Questions:

1) How common were duels at their "peak" (peaks?) in the U.S.?

2) Were deuls always to the death? What were the rules and variations?

3) What the heck did a second do? Just observe?

[Sublight]

3) the job of the 'second', I believe, was to get you to a doctor (or some form of medical care) if you were wounded, or take care of your body (and any attending legal matters) if you were killed.

I believe he was also supposed to take your place if you chickened out or otherwise couldn't make it.

[Ike Witt]

Here is the Code Duello (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html). Seconds do all sorts of things like load the weapons and set the terms of firing.

[Sublight]

2) Just going by books from the time, duels with pistols weren't specifically to the death, but you could definitely get killed. Each duellist received a pistol with one bullet, and they would stand back-to-back and walk a set number of paces away from each other. After that, they would turn, aim and shoot. These duels weren't quick-draw contests like in Westerns, but more matters of willpower and bravery; duellists would typically take careful aim before firing, but might also intentionally fire into the air or into the ground. If you took your shot first and your opponent was still capable of taking his, you were expected to stand there until he had fired or forfeit your honor (of course, shooting your opponent after he had deliberately missed probably wasn't considered that honorable either).

I don't know how many duels ended in death, but now you've got me curious about it. Anyone know?

[lieu]

They probably also held a clean pair of pants for you.

[Sublight]

Well, adam yax's cite goes directly against some of my speculation (no firing into the air, for example), so I'd go with he says. American duelling traditions, though, may well be different.

[clairobscur]

duellists would typically take careful aim before firing, but might also intentionally fire into the air or into the ground........(of course, shooting your opponent after he had deliberately missed probably wasn't considered that honorable either).





According to the link given by the previous poster (rule 13) deliberatly shooting in the air, into the ground, etc...would have been unacceptable (because it would have meant that the man engaged in the duel without good cause. He should have apologized previously, if the offender, or not have provoked a duel at the first place if the offensee).

[Catalyst]

If I recall correctly, Alexander Hamilton fired into the air before being shot by Aaron Burr, so I guess it happened at least once in a while.

[SettingSun]

3) the job of the 'second', I believe, was to get you to a doctor (or some form of medical care) if you were wounded, or take care of your body (and any attending legal matters) if you were killed.
Carry the loser off ...

[Sublight]

According to the link given by the previous poster (rule 13) deliberatly shooting in the air, into the ground, etc...would have been unacceptable (because it would have meant that the man engaged in the duel without good cause. He should have apologized previously, if the offender, or not have provoked a duel at the first place if the offensee).

True, but that's for English and Continental duelling, and the heading does say that "In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations." Also, this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246818) currently on the first page of GQ mentions incidents in both America and England where participants intentionally missed without loss of honor.

[Sublight]

Looking further into the Code Duello link, I found this page on American duelling (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/dueling.html), which mentions that an American duelling code was compiled in 1838 (but doesn't give the content of it) and also goes into the specific role of a second.

[quote]
In a typical duel, each party acted through a second. The seconds' duty, above all, was to try to reconcile the parties without violence. An offended party sent a challenge through his second. If the recipient apologized, the matter usually ended. If he elected to fight, the recipient chose the weapons and the time and place of the encounter. Up until combat began, apologies could be given and the duel stopped. After combat began, it could be stopped at any point after honor had been satisfied[quote]

Some other interesting points:

- the first duel in America was fought with swords between two servants in Plymouth in 1621

- the pistols commonly used in duelling were very inaccurate, and even experienced shooters had difficulty hitting their target

- duellists were expected to shoot within three seconds, anything more being considered dishonorable

Doesn't mention anything about firing into the air, though.

[Dogface]

2) Just going by books from the time, duels with pistols weren't specifically to the death, but you could definitely get killed. Each duellist received a pistol with one bullet, and they would stand back-to-back and walk a set number of paces away from each other. After that, they would turn, aim and shoot.

From my reading, this was not the most common method of the pistol duel. Instead, they would each be at a distance from each other, already facing. That was certainly how the duel involving not-yet-President Andrew Jackson was done.

[racinchikki]

- the pistols commonly used in duelling were very inaccurate, and even experienced shooters had difficulty hitting their target.
This is because the guns of the day were inaccurate anyway, and duelling pistols were unrifled.

"Rifling," for the uninitiated, is spiral grooving inside the barrel of the gun, which provides "spin" to the bullet - which was, back then, a round lead ball. Round lead balls make inaccurate projectiles anyway, because their shape is so non-aerodynamic that it's hard for them to fly true. The "spin" helps stabilize it. (Ever try to throw a football without spiralling it? Same idea.) So even your average gun of those days was pretty inaccurate by our standards. However, duelling pistols (yes, they were made specifically for duelling, and usually came in pairs) were unrifled so as to level the playing field a little and, hopefully, lower the death toll, because the balls would pretty much just go loopydoop in the general direction of where you'd aimed.

Now, some folks had cheater guns, which were partially rifled, stopping just far enough up that you couldn't see it by looking down the barrel. But the majority were completely unrifled.

[snorlax]

Slight hijack but check out Barry Lyndon by Stanley Kubrick if you want to see the workings of a duel and the involvement of the "seconds". Given Kubrick's legendary attention to detail I would suspect the duels featured in the film are reasonably accurate (and very tense as well).

[Exgineer]

racinchikki has me curious, because all the information I've seen indicates exactly the opposite.

As far as I can tell, the most expensive guns of the late flintlock era were duelling and travelling pistols, because gunmakers were especially persnicketty when producing them. Making matched sets in the time before mass production was difficult, and that contibuted to the expense I'm sure, but people writing about quality guns generally praised them for their accuracy. I've never actually seen a duelling pistol, but I once had the opportunity to examine a travelling pistol produced c. 1750 and it was most definitely rifled. My understanding was that the only real difference between the types was that duelling pistols tended to have lighter triggers, like modern target pistols. Admittedly, it's sometimes difficult to categorize equipment produced in a time when everything was a custom job.

Smoothbores, like muskets, were generally military weapons expected to maintain high rates of fire.

Also, how do you partially rifle a gun barrel? It seems to me that the only options are to rifle the whole thing and then bore out the lands in part of it (which would render that section of the barrel useless) or rifle from the breech end and plug it which would leave the smooth section at land height, rendering the rifling useless.

[racinchikki]

Of course a travelling pistol would be rifled, because it would need to be accurate - I would assume from the name that it's for protection from highwaymen and other dangers of the road. On the other hand, I've never heard of a duelling pistol that was fully-rifled, although I've seen several in displays, none of which had visible rifling.

Of course, now that it actually comes down to it, I can't find a very clear cite on the web concerning the matter of rifling in duelling pistols, one way or the other. Here's what I did come up with:

from http://armscollectors.com/gunhistorydates.htm
Duelling pistols became officially standardized weapons -then it was laid down that they should be 9 or 10 inch barreled, smooth bore flintlocks of 1 inch bore, carrying a ball of forty- eight to the pound
1777

from http://www.fencingonline.com/academy/reginald_magee.htm
In early duels (16th century), wheel-lock pistols were used, and in the 18th century they were replaced by the flintlock. English duelling pistols were usually smoothbore and the calibre was approximately 0.5"inches. Pistols with rifled barrels were denounced by the codes of duelling, but some had ‘blind’ rifling which stopped a few inches short of the muzzle and gave the impression of a smoothbore. French duellers were usually rifled.

The information I've had regarding duelling has always been about England, so I've only been half-educated. I apologize.

I will make further note that with plenty of practice, one could learn the vagaries of even a smoothbore flintlock and become fairly accurate. The second page I've cited has further reference to accuracy.

[Exgineer]

Thanks for the links. I'm beginning to think that things were even less standardized than I thought, but I'm now willing to stipulate smoothbore duellers.

After perusing your second link, though, I'm still inclined to consider "blind rifling" as complete BS.

[Scumpup]

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410621+%22single+and+smooth%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]See (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:5b0L8x9WnJAJ:[url) here for an explanation of loading "single and smooth."[/URL]

Also, see what you can find on "scratch rifling" in duelling pistols. I've seen it mentioned in print resources, but can't find anything on-line. It was essentially a way of cheating. Shallow scratches in the pistol's bore spun the ball just enough to give the user an edge in accuracy over a smooth bore pistol. BTW, a smooth bore pistol with a properly fitted ball fired from a clean bore is far more accurate than you think, more than accurate enough to kill a man at the distances at which duels were fought. Andrew Jackson survived his famous duel (barely) against a noted marksman by wearing voluminous clothing and having his tailor relocate his jacket buttons, which he knew his opponent would use as an aiming point.

[Scumpup]

Well, I see my link to a caced version of a page didn't survive. The pertinent bit from the article was

Although more deliberative courtroom proceedings supplanted judicial combat in the 16th century, European gentry continued to avenge insults through duels of honor regulated by elaborate codes of conduct.[5] In the 1600s, after flintlock firing mechanisms replaced erratic matchlocks and wheel locks, pistols superseded swords as the preferred dueling weapon favored as less likely to give unfair advantage to strength or skill. Elegant dueling pistols crafted in England and Ireland from 1770 were single and smooth to limit the morbidity encouraged by multiple shot capability and rifling of the barrel.[3] Duelists generally stood 10 to 15 paces (30 to 45 feet) apart. "Cool and alternate" firing was largely replaced by simultaneous firing on signal after introduction of the percussion cap in the early 1800s lessened chances of a misfire ("flash in the pan"). As long as both opponents were able to continue, and honor remained unsatisfied, three rounds of firing were usually permitted.[6]

[Gunslinger]

Duelling pistols were very well-made because they were custom-built for rich people who wanted them to work perfectly every time.

As Scumpup mentioned, a smoothbore duelling pistol is entirely different from a smoothbore musket -- the latter used a ball quite a bit smaller than the bore size, to allow for powder residue* to build up after repeated firing without cleaning; they were inaccurate (especially on the first shot) because the ball was small enough to rattle around in the barrel. If the ball was the size of the bore, the first few shots would be accurate, then you wouldn't be able to ram the ball down the barrel because of the buildup.

Duelling pistols, OTOH, used a ball and patch that fit the bore tightly, because accuracy was important; they were only expected to be fired a few times per duel, so the residue buildup wasn't an issue. A smoothbore pistol with a well-fitted ball (and a little practice) could be accurate enough at the short ranges at which duels were fought.


* Black powder is very messy. Something like half the volume (sorry, no cite) stays in the barrel as solid soot.

[Exgineer]

I'm aware of the fouling problem, but my experience is mostly with rifles. As far as accuracy goes, I once got an eight inch group with a repro brown Bess after a little tinkering with the charge weight, and I'm nobody's idea of an expert.

The smoothbore pistols surprised me, because it's sort of counterintuitive.

[Dogface]

Slight hijack but check out Barry Lyndon by Stanley Kubrick if you want to see the workings of a duel and the involvement of the "seconds". Given Kubrick's legendary attention to detail I would suspect the duels featured in the film are reasonably accurate (and very tense as well).

If you want accurate, get "The Duelist" (Ridley Scott).