Colt pistols used in Cavalry operations.

[BatBoy]

Based on the fact every Army of the day was still using linear tactics; the Colt sighted at 75 yards or 100 yards was not a mistake. Mounted on a horse or standing on firm ground, chances were pretty good you were going to hit someone in the enemies formation. The fact you had 6 shots only upped the chances.

 

[Bad Karma]

The amount of gunfire that a horse was exposed to in the 1800s and exposed to today are two very different things. Gunfire around horses for varmints, etc. was probably pretty common back then.

I’ve worked with, on and around horses and firearms all my life. My family all carry firearms either on them or nearby for dispatching varmints etc. Horses don’t like loud noises. They have very finely tuned hearing and just guessing, I’d say it’s at least twice as acute as ours. Touching off a round from a 44 right here would be hazardous… might start a rodeo.

 

[BadDaditood]

Two things I dislike are a tall front sight hanging up in the holster which also forces me to cover the target at ranges longer than 20 yards.
75 yd zero is just about perfect for me.

 

[Stantheman86]

Well that is definitely true. Some folks have a hard time judging history by today's standards and practices. If you think about it, it's rather brilliant. A 100yd zero for when you really need the sights. "Aim for the buckle" for up to 50yd shots and point shooting at close range. I have found no other firearm more suited to point-shooting than the Colt 1860.

It's a genius design feature , these are fighting guns not target pistols

During my days as an Army 11b we did point shooting training with M4's, no one is using optics or sights at close range. The ACOG had a 100 yard zero and we trained for hitting man sized targets , not shooting tight groups . Not much has changed

 

[M. De Land]

I’ve worked with, on and around horses and firearms all my life. My family all carry firearms either on them or nearby for dispatching varmints etc. Horses don’t like loud noises. They have very finely tuned hearing and just guessing, I’d say it’s at least twice as acute as ours. Touching off a round from a 44 right here would be hazardous… might start a rodeo.
View attachment 172606

Horses not only hear many times better than humans they can see in the dark and have a very keen sense of smell. We really like them here in AK for hunting trips because they can smell a bear at very great distance and alert the rider wither while mounted or in camp at night.
Your picture brings back many pleasant memories of my horse "Ted" a Palimino Guilding I lived on and with from a small lad in Michigan until I learned to drive and discovered girls.
I used loop reins and used to swim him in the Norvel mill pond jumping off a cut bank into the river about 8 ft deep. The Osborn boys I hung out with had a Welch pony and a Shetland or two and we'd drop the saddles, mount up and run them into the river from the cut bank. They'd bunch up a bit at the edge from a full gallop then leap out into the water in a big belly flop. You'd have to grab a good fist full of mane and pinch your knees together at the leap or the horse would come right out from under you ! He'd do a big belly flop then I'd slide off and hold on to his tail as he pulled me around for a bit. He'd eventually head back to the bank and we'd do er all over again. They seemed to really like jumping into the water and swimming around ! Best friend I ever had I believe ! Once you slid off and grabbed unto the tail you had to hold the very end or their hooves would hit as they come out a good ways behind as they swim.
What's this have to do with shooting percussion revolvers from horse back you ask............. not a dang thing but it gave me great pleasure to remember my beloved horse who I'll ride again on the other side !
I never would shoot off of him though or he'd come unglued, unload me and leave me in the air with no horse under me !
I used to love riding him bare back in the winter on moon lit nights on our farm in our fields and woods. His winter hair would keep me warm and I could tell he really enjoyed it as well.
I remember when we first got Ted all we had was a bridle and halter and he was about 13-14 hands high so I had to carry an ear of corn in my pocket so I could get on from level ground. The tactic to mount was to pitch the ear of corn on the ground and when Ted would lean down to pick it up I'd climb on his neck at which time he'd raise his head and I'd shinny down his neck unto his back. He would always tolerate this knowing full well what I was up to. Horses are very smart hense the term "horse sense" !

 

[smoothshooter]

Captain Walker wrote about routinely shooting his Walkers past 100 yards

He wrote "The Colt is as good as a rifle to 100 yards and as good as a musket to 200"

He actually used them to shoot Mexicans , not paper so I'll believe the guys who actually used original revolvers in armed combat

I would take CPT Walker’s comments with a grain of salt.

The Dragoon would not have the power of a musket at any distance. Almost all muskets in those days were smoothbores, and neither pistol or musket would have been very effective at 200 yards, unless fired at massed targets; not a likely situation on the southwestern plains.
Unfortunately we have no idea as to what Walker’s definition was of “effective”".

 

[earlwb]

One other thought is that the black powder guns used way back then are somewhat more quiet than the modern guns using smokeless powder. You hear more of a whoosh like whomph sound when firing the black powder guns. Thus the noise is different from what it is today with modern guns.

I was thinking that the horseback archery competitions that they hold are showing some amazing accuracy skills with shooting arrows. Guns probably improved on that to some extent.

 

[Stantheman86]

I would take CPT Walker’s comments with a grain of salt.

The Dragoon would not have the power of a musket at any distance. Almost all muskets in those days were smoothbores, and neither pistol or musket would have been very effective at 200 yards, unless fired at massed targets; not a likely situation on the southwestern plains.
Unfortunately we have no idea as to what Walker’s definition was of “effective”".

He was probably no doubt excited about his new Revolving Pistols because they were at that time a technological leap light years ahead of a single shot smoothbore pistol, and being able to shoot 6 times without reloading was an amazing feature for 1847 . He was killed fighting Mexicans so he had probably fired at some massed formations of Mexican troops who were armed with Brown Besses using inferior powder. Compared to all that, he had superior firepower.

There was an account of Mexicans being hit at over 100 yards by Walkers, which is completely possible.

Him claiming it was "more effective than the Mississippi Rifle" is a stretch

 

[smoothshooter]

I can drill a man sized target all day long at 100yds but from a galloping horse?

He would not have been shooting from a galloping horse unless he just had to.
Dismounting to fire would have been a little extra time well spent, especially if you only had 5 to 12 shots in your pistols with no time to reload; and maybe one shot in a rifle or two shots in a shotgun.

 

[smoothshooter]

One other thought is that the black powder guns used way back then are somewhat more quiet than the modern guns using smokeless powder. You hear more of a whoosh like whomph sound when firing the black powder guns. Thus the noise is different from what it is today with modern guns.

I was thinking that the horseback archery competitions that they hold are showing some amazing accuracy skills with shooting arrows. Guns probably improved on that to some extent.

I don’t know about the noise level, but black powder guns belch a lot more fire and brimstone than smokeless powder does.

 

[smoothshooter]

He was probably no doubt excited about his new Revolving Pistols because they were at that time a technological leap light years ahead of a single shot smoothbore pistol, and being able to shoot 6 times without reloading was an amazing feature for 1847 . He was killed fighting Mexicans so he had probably fired at some massed formations of Mexican troops who were armed with Brown Besses using inferior powder. Compared to all that, he had superior firepower.

There was an account of Mexicans being hit at over 100 yards by Walkers, which is completely possible.

Him claiming it was "more effective than the Mississippi Rifle" is a stretch

Agreed.
Most of these old accounts contain some exaggeration, too.

 

[smoothshooter]

I’ve worked with, on and around horses and firearms all my life. My family all carry firearms either on them or nearby for dispatching varmints etc. Horses don’t like loud noises. They have very finely tuned hearing and just guessing, I’d say it’s at least twice as acute as ours. Touching off a round from a 44 right here would be hazardous… might start a rodeo.
View attachment 172606

True.
I, for one would not want to risk being “un-horsed” in the face of the enemy.
The plains Indians and some Mexicans were famous for doing all kinds of unpleasant things to captured enemies, and took their time at it when possible.

 

[smoothshooter]

Skeeter Skelton talks about the quick, almost "throwing" motion Cavalry vets described to shoot from horseback because it gave you a second of stability to aim a snap shot on a galloping horse .

Honestly if I were a Cavalryman fighting other cavalry I'd shoot at the horse, a much bigger target than trying to pick a rider off. I'm pretty certain I can hit a horse size target at 100 without even using sights. I'm sure the odds are 0 any of us will ever or have done this so all we can do is read and talk about it.

How many documented battles were there in the Civil War that actually involved mounted Cavalrymen shooting at each other? Probably not many. Or Cavalry charges into Infantry? Probably very few.

They were used as reconnaisance and as fast moving "shock troops" that could dismount and like was said, use carbines or whatever weapon they carried, in the case of some Confederate cavalry, a full length rifle-musket if nothing else could be issued.

As a high mediocre pistol shot who just enjoys shooting, if I can hit a B-27 Silhouette at 100 yards with a .44 percussion revolver , standing with one hand than anyone can do it with a little bit of practice. It's not like you need to be an expert. Put it in your sights and squeeze, it will hit somewhere on the target. At 50, hold at the belt or belly, you'll hit it. This is the whole design of the sights. I'm not sure why people feel this is a "flaw" when even original revolvers hit high at 25.

It would be a rare trooper who would have the ability to make themselves shoot a horse when you are looking down the barrel of it’s rider’s pistol or carbine, who may be an instant away from sending you into the hereafter.
Shooting a horse with a pistol often had little or no immediate effect.

 

[gunpa]

I sure wouldn't have stood at 100 yrs and let those Texas Rangers shoot at me with Walkers!

 

[M. De Land]

Agreed.
Most of these old accounts contain some exaggeration, too.

Well point shooting out to 25-30 yards is totally possible from horse back. It's a poking motion and snap shot not a lining up of a sight picture.

 

[Bad Karma]

Agreed.
Most of these old accounts contain some exaggeration, too.

My how times have changed…. ;-)

 

[Stantheman86]

My how times have changed…. ;-)

My coworker claims to have shot a deer at 1000 yards with an iron sighted 30-06......nothing has changed

 

[Red Owl]

Well several things. I think George Custer wrote about shooting buffalo with a 44 caliber Colt at point blank range- that is riding along side the buffalo. The date he mentioned would indicate it was a Dragoon of some sort (before 1860). In any event I realize that with all that has been written, I haven't actually read a lot about cavalry fighting on horseback. Did they use swords only, swords and pistols? Actual diaries of horseback fighting- I have no idea.

 

[GYJ]

He was probably no doubt excited about his new Revolving Pistols because they were at that time a technological leap light years ahead of a single shot smoothbore pistol, and being able to shoot 6 times without reloading was an amazing feature for 1847 . He was killed fighting Mexicans so he had probably fired at some massed formations of Mexican troops who were armed with Brown Besses using inferior powder. Compared to all that, he had superior firepower.

There was an account of Mexicans being hit at over 100 yards by Walkers, which is completely possible.

Him claiming it was "more effective than the Mississippi Rifle" is a stretch

Colt's guns were not the first revolving pistols. His contribution was the cylinder advancing as the hammer was cocked. Only made possible by the invention of the percussion cap in the early 1820's.

He would not have been shooting from a galloping horse unless he just had to.
Dismounting to fire would have been a little extra time well spent, especially if you only had 5 to 12 shots in your pistols with no time to reload; and maybe one shot in a rifle or two shots in a shotgun.

It helps to read all the comments so posts aren't taken out of context.

 

[M. De Land]

Well several things. I think George Custer wrote about shooting buffalo with a 44 caliber Colt at point blank range- that is riding along side the buffalo. The date he mentioned would indicate it was a Dragoon of some sort (before 1860). In any event I realize that with all that has been written, I haven't actually read a lot about cavalry fighting on horseback. Did they use swords only, swords and pistols? Actual diaries of horseback fighting- I have no idea.

What I posted I got from Elmer Kieth books described to him as a young man by actual civil war cavalry vets. They used and preferred revolvers, Spencer carbines and sabers ! My great great grand dad used a Sharps paper cartridge carbine, a saber and pistol would have completed his issue armament . We still have the Sharps in the family which he most likely would have purchased personally.