Colt pistols used in Cavalry operations.

[M. De Land]

Colt revolvers and later pistols used on horse back for cavalry operations would have had little use for sights. When one is on horse back and in constant motion anything other than point shooting at close range is hopelessly impossible as to sight alignment .
Consistent hits on man size targets who are themselves in motion (mounted) at 75 to 100 yards is a ridiculous expectation. Point shooting at spitting distance is the only practical reality revolvers could have been successfully used at (25-30 yards) !
If you have ever owned a horse and tried to align sights (front and back) from any fire arm ,when mounted and moving, (at even close and stationary targets) you will quickly know that what I'm saying is true.

 

[Stantheman86]

100 yards is not far, and Cavalry often dismounted to fight, i.e. Gettysburg

This is why the Army Ordnance Dept never let go of the Shoulder stock concept for the Dragoon and later 1860 Army, but no one really used them.

The Walker was clearly not designed for point blank spitting distance shooting , and the Rangers routinely dismounted to use their Patersons, with written accounts of Indians believing themselves outnumbered 10 to 1 because of the volume of fire from 30 troopers with braces of Patersons, and they shot from behind cover at extended ranges

It's better to have the ability to shoot longer with usable sights than with useless 25 yard sights

Written accounts of Rangers hitting Mexicans at over 200 yards exist, the Walker had a mythical reputation among the Mexican army and they feared them

 

[Salt River Johnny]

Here in Missouri . Guerrilla Warfare was common. I read an account where at night while on horse one could aim your pistol just above your horses head in between there ears and fire at close range at your enemy. Also one could in a very close skirmish place your weapon just above your enemies horses head in the same manner pointing down Your target would be fairly accurate that way. Of course this would need to be a front attack. Also when advancing the cylinder for the next round you would put your weapon up in the air at a tilt to make sure the spent pistol cap falls off the pistol and not jam the cylinder.. Food for thought.

Salt River Johnny

 

[springfield art]

Colt revolvers and later pistols used on horse back for cavalry operations would have had little use for sights. When one is on horse back and in constant motion anything other than point shooting at close range is hopelessly impossible as to sight alignment .
Consistent hits on man size targets who are themselves in motion (mounted) at 75 to 100 yards is a ridiculous expectation. Point shooting at spitting distance is the only practical reality revolvers could have been successfully used at (25-30 yards) !
If you have ever owned a horse and tried to align sights (front and back) from any fire arm ,when mounted and moving, (at even close and stationary targets) you will quickly know that what I'm saying is true.

As Ed McMahon would say, "You are correct, Sir!"

 

[springfield art]

I'd have enough to do to just stay on the friggin' horse!

 

[TDM]

I agree.
Civil War era revolvers can’t be judged or compared by modern standards. They performed as they were designed to under the conditions needed for that time and what the technology of that period allowed.

 

[BatBoy]

Cavalry had been regulated to scouting, skirmishing, raiding and mounted infantry roles by the cap and ball era.

Traditional cavalry charges against infantry almost always ended in disaster for the Cav Troopers.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

Infantry fought battles and they were issued rifles and were not issued revolvers. Cavalry had other tasks usually, and when they were made into dismounted cavalry they were issued carbines. The Federal army considered the sabre to be the primary weapon for cavalry, at least in the beginning of the war. M Deland is right - horses wiggle a lot, even when they're standing still!

 

[Stantheman86]

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.

 

[Andreas Jager]

I had an Arabian who I trained ( I use the term “trained” loosely) to allow me to shoot my Ruger Old Army whilst riding. We hunted groundhogs with great success. Of course, the Ruger had Partridge sights which are amazing on a handgun. And the shots weren’t terribly far.

The sights on Colt percussion revolvers are express sights. Not the most accurate type of sight, but the fastest for target acquisition. They are used on dangerous game rifles deployed in Africa. Minute of man is all that is really needed for the Colt. Wounding is often preferred to killing in warfare.

 

[TDM]

I had an Arabian who I trained ( I use the term “trained” loosely) to allow me to shoot my Ruger Old Army whilst riding. We hunted groundhogs with great success. Of course, the Ruger had Partridge sights which are amazing on a handgun. And the shots weren’t terribly far.

The sights on Colt percussion revolvers are express sights. Not the most accurate type of sight, but the fastest for target acquisition. They are used on dangerous game rifles deployed in Africa. Minute of man is all that is really needed for the Colt. Wounding is often preferred to killing in warfare.

Correct on all counts IMO. Especially on the Arabian. We had horses growing up and in my late 20’s to early 30’s I had 4 Appaloosas. Some cows too. Thank the Good Lord I got all that out of my system. Too much work.

 

[M. De Land]

100 yards is not far, and Cavalry often dismounted to fight, i.e. Gettysburg

This is why the Army Ordnance Dept never let go of the Shoulder stock concept for the Dragoon and later 1860 Army, but no one really used them.

The Walker was clearly not designed for point blank spitting distance shooting , and the Rangers routinely dismounted to use their Patersons, with written accounts of Indians believing themselves outnumbered 10 to 1 because of the volume of fire from 30 troopers with braces of Patersons, and they shot from behind cover at extended ranges

It's better to have the ability to shoot longer with usable sights than with useless 25 yard sights

Written accounts of Rangers hitting Mexicans at over 200 yards exist, the Walker had a mythical reputation among the Mexican army and they feared them

OK, try using sights while holding onto an excited horse in the middle of a pitched battle. The whole point of cavalry is to use horses to break up infantry cohesion in charges which is why they were issued sabers as well.
I think you are probably confusing and referring to mounted infantry in your example.
No hand gun ever issued for military use was designed for anyhting other than short range engagement and the Walker was no exception .

 

[smoothshooter]

Here in Missouri . Guerrilla Warfare was common. I read an account where at night while on horse one could aim your pistol just above your horses head in between there ears and fire at close range at your enemy. Also one could in a very close skirmish place your weapon just above your enemies horses head in the same manner pointing down Your target would be fairly accurate that way. Of course this would need to be a front attack. Also when advancing the cylinder for the next round you would put your weapon up in the air at a tilt to make sure the spent pistol cap falls off the pistol and not jam the cylinder.. Food for thought.

Salt River Johnny

I'll bet that method of shooting just above your horse’s ears only worked ONE TIME.
Few horses would have tolerated having that done to them twice.

I’ll have to call B. S. on that one.
I have no doubt you saw the reference; I think the reference is pretty fanciful.

 

[M. De Land]

I'll bet that method of shooting just above your horse’s ears only worked ONE TIME.
Few horses would have tolerated having that done to them twice.

I’ll have to call B. S. on that one.
I have no doubt you saw the reference; I think the reference is pretty fanciful.

Absolutely true about horse toleration of gun fire! Mine wouldn't tolerate any! Horses can be trained to tolerate it to a certain extent but never c;lose to their heads or between the ears and it has to happen when they are still young and they never do particularly like it! I remember Kieth talking about one of his horses that would hold his head down and off to one side when he sensed Elmer was about to fire.
Also another point I would like to make about cavalry action is that generally these were best configured as flanking actions not frontal assaults which lends itself to close range,surprise engagement .

 

[GYJ]

I seriously doubt anyone was shooting people at 100yds with a sixgun, from the saddle. The saber was the primary weapon, which is why the sixgun was carried on the right side, butt forward for twist draw action.

I'm not saying they weren't implemented in that way but traditionally, cavalry was trained to fight on horseback. Dragoons were mounted infantry, they were not trained to fight on horseback and fought on foot. They were used as a cheaper alternative, as it was much more expensive and time consuming to produce competent cavalry.

 

[Bighorserider]

Anyone ever watch mounted cowboy action shooting? They fire hundreds of rounds from horse back at a gallop. They are shooting very close targets with blanks, but it does show that shooting from horseback is possible.

 

[GYJ]

Anyone ever watch mounted cowboy action shooting? They fire hundreds of rounds from horse back at a gallop. They are shooting very close targets with blanks, but it does show that shooting from horseback is possible.

Not at 70-100yds and they're also depending on the spraying blackpowder granules to break the balloon. Not a singular bullet.

 

[kaotikross]

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.

 

[Dale Lilly]

I'll bet that method of shooting just above your horse’s ears only worked ONE TIME.
Few horses would have tolerated having that done to them twice.

I’ll have to call B. S. on that one.
I have no doubt you saw the reference; I think the reference is pretty fanciful.

I bought a Pinto pony in 1975. He was trained by someone else and a great mountain horse. I rode along a river, hunting deer, when a nice buck showed himself about 70 yards away. I had never shot from or around the pinto, but the adrenaline kicked in and I shot right over the horse's head. When I pulled the trigger, knowing it was a mistake, I prepared for a hard bounce on the rocks. It did not happen; he never even flicked an ear. stood absolutely still. I was in disbelief. BTW: I missed. Polecat

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

Anyone ever watch mounted cowboy action shooting? They fire hundreds of rounds from horse back at a gallop. They are shooting very close targets with blanks, but it does show that shooting from horseback is possible.

With good training, horses can be desensitized to just about anything. Case in point, there exists a WW1 film of horses pulling wagons not far below the level of field guns on a hill sending a salvo downrange.