# Did Western Gunfighters Really Face Off **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 25, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-western-gunfighters-really-face-off/252255 "2004-06-25T23:00:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-western-gunfighters-really-face-off/252255/21 "2004-07-09T00:57:43Z")
What the heck happened here? I just dropped by to nitpick, and I found a bunch of posts I don’t understand at all. Am I thick? Anyway, on to the nitpicking: > [@Raytracer](#): > > The bullets of the time would most likelyhave been hand cast lead ball, not the sleek, copper jacketed aerodynamic wonders we have today. Commercial buffalo hunters and other people who shot for a living routinely handloaded, but for big stuff like the .50-120. That wasn’t the norm for other loads. True, bullets were unjacketed, but most pistol ammunition was factory loaded and there wasn’t much handloading for those cartridges. After 1875, most manufacturers chambered handguns for ammunition designed for the Winchester Model '73, so I’m specifically including things like the .44-40, .38-40, and .32-20. > [@](#): > > Likewise, the cartridges would have been loaded with black powder (not nearly as consistent in its combustion characteristics as contemporary smokeless powder) and without the benefit of modern precision loading equipment. True, blackpowder is a crappy propellant, but in this case that’s an advantage. You have to use a _lot_ more blackpowder than modern nitro powders to get the same ballistic results. The difference between 17.5 and 18 grains of Hodgdon’s Clays is much bigger than the difference between 39.5 and 40.0 grains of blackpowder. > [@](#): > > While the barrel was indeed rifled, it was only 4 to 6 inches long as opposed to a long gun. Even a cabine like the Winchester Model 94 had a 20" barrel. The increase in accuracy imparted by rifling is highly dependent on barrel length. Not exactly. The difference in barrel length (for say, a Colt SAA and a Win '73, both in .44 Win.) gives you more muzzle velocity and a longer sight radius in the longer barrel. That’s your accuracy advantage. Spin is spin, and you only have to rifle the full length of a rifle barrel to keep the gas seal (again, we’re talking blackpowder). The actual angular velocity on the bullet is the same whether it comes out of a 4.5" barrel or a 24" one. Like I said, nitpicks. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-western-gunfighters-really-face-off/252255/22 "2004-07-14T18:15:57Z")
> [@Veronica37](#): > > Duels have been around since before medival times. A show of strenth and skill. If you picture in your mind two men dueling with swords over a misunderstanding…it is not far fetched to imagine a western gun fight. A show down would show nerve and skill. What you imagine, and what the historical record shows, can and often are, two different things. I can picture in my mind a medieval monk making a rolodex out of wood, leather and parchment, but until I find one it’s not likely to have happened. The historical record shows very little in the way of Hollywood-style dueling. A modern-day comparison, how many Los Angeles gang members have been in shoot-outs where they face each other down and do a ‘fast-draw’? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-western-gunfighters-really-face-off/252255.md?page=1)