Tut, Tut, David Tutt

[mec]

Every body has heard the story(s) about Hickock's set-to with Dave Tutt in Springfield Missouri in 1965. The details are usually reported as follows:

Hickock and Dave Tutt blew into Sprinfield after the war and became good buddies, gambling, raising cain and having a real nice time. A sort of rivalry developed and Tutt is said to have enjoyed strolling around down with Hickock's x girlfriend on his arm. Then one night Tutt cleaned JB out in a card game and took his Walthum Repeater watch for surity. Hickock asked him as a personal favor not to flaunt the watch or wear it in public. Tutt just laughted at him.

Next morning Hickock shows up on the town Square inquiring after Dave and his watch. Sure enough, Dave appears across the square showing off the watch. According to news paper and magazine stories they stepped into the street about 75 yards apart and commensed shooting. Most versions say they shot simultaneously with Dave hit through the heart and keeling over after saying, " I'm Killed." He was hit through the heart with a single shot fired by Wild Bill from a standing two-handed stance.

The stories start diverging when it comes to what revolver Hickock was using. The most popular version has him with a 51 Navy Colt. Second most popular is a Colt Dragoon. Sometimes it is reported that he had an 1860 Army.

Just about everybody agrees to the 75 yard range. It is a popular passtime to try to duplicate the shot. Keith Carridine hit one out of five on the History Channel. With my Pietta (probably) with the chambers that didn't strictly line up with the barrel, I could do two to three out of six.

My 61 Navy- an accurate revolver is better. Today I shot two targets and managed to land five out of six on each. Since I didn't find number six on the second one, it is possible that two shots went through one hole- but I don't think so

In any case, a 75 yard shot with a percussion only requires a little luck to produce the Hickock result- not too hard to hit a mansized target- a bit tougher to luck on into the myocardium. My 36 is sighted dead on at 25 yards and my best shots hit only a little below point of aim at 75 yards. If it had been one of those navies that hit a foot high at 75 feet, I would have over shot the target neatly at the 75 yard distance.

 

[Gatofeo]

Dang Mec, remind me never to tick you off --- at any distance!
Interesting report.
Hitting a man at 75 yards is well within the Navy's capability, and the capability of most over cap and ball revolvers.
I live way out in the Utah desert, separated from Oblivion by a screen door. A local mountain range is my backstop.
I've plinked with my Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy out to a measured 300 yards and been able to hit man-sized rocks or bushes about 1 out 6 or 9 shots. You just have to learn how far up to hold the muzzle.
A few years ago, I built my own little range in the desert, with a benchrest. Target frames were 4X4 sheets of plywood, with fencepost legs sunk in the ground. I used a 100 foot tape measure to erect target frames at 7, 25, 50, 100 and 200 yards.
I had 300 yards measured, and marked with a small pile of rocks, intending to build a frame later.
Then the Bureau of Land Management came along and made me take it all out! Said I couldn't build any permanent structures on government land!
Sheesh.
Anyway, that's how I know I was hitting man-sized targets at 300 yards with the Colt Navy.
That pile of rocks would give a puff of gray dust when hit, which differed from the brown dust kicked up around it. That's how I determined a hit.
A check of the rocks sometimes revealed lead splashes on them, confirming hits.
But frankly, it was mostly pure luck to hit that rock pile with the Navy. The top of the hammer had to be aligned with the rear of the barrel, just where the flat met the round forcing cone. I was lobbing those lead balls onto target.
At 100 yards, someone had left an old tire, lying on its side. I used to hit that tire about half of the time, sometimes more often. It gave a resounding THUNK! when hit.
::
This required nothing more than dead-on sighting. My Colt Navy hits dead-on at about 100 yards, enough to hit a man.
At 200 yards, I could hit a double sheet of newspaper about half the time, sometimes less.
Mind you, all firing was done from a benchrest. If I had to stand on my hind legs, everything from snakes to helicopters would be in peril! ::
My Navy was loaded with 24 grains (by measure) of Goex FFFG, greased felt wad, .380 inch ball and Remington No. 11 cap. No grease was placed over the ball.
This load will generate about 1,000 feet per second at the muzzle, perhaps a little less.
The only problem with shooting black powder handguns at long range is seeing the hits. Unless there's a light, crossways breeze to quickly wipe the smoke from your view, the smoke will obscure it.
It's best to have a partner, standing to the side, to call your strikes. Here, when the desert is dry, there's plenty of dust raised to spot where the ball hit.
I have no doubts that the Colt Navy, 1860 Army or Dragoon are killers are 75 yards, and even longer.
Hickock was one of the deadliest pistol shots this country has ever produced. He proved it many times, in front of witnesses.
I recall reading many years ago that he once stood between two telegraph poles, drew both his Colt Navies at once, and quickly emptied each gun into the poles.
At that time, telegraph poles were 50 yards apart, so he was firing in oppositie directions at the same time and placing all shots into an area about 12 inches wide.
The account I read of this said that witnesses were flabbergasted. So he reloaded and did it again --- and never once missed a pole.
Hickock often shot by "feel" not aim, as many phenomenal gunmen did (and still do).
There is a famous photo of Ed McGiven breaking two clay pigeons with a double-action .38 revolver --- and the gun is clearly below his line of sight. He's just pointing it, aiming by feel.
It's interesting that Hickock raised the gun and sighted, but he probably figured he had the time to make his hit certain.
Mec, once again, thanks for an interesting report. It's reports like yours that add credence to what many have dismissed for years.

 

[mec]

I wish I lived in the desert. It sounds like your' navy's are "sighted" for onehundred yards like they talk about. I was impressed by the relatively flat shooting performance from this one. I was using 22/gr/vol pyrodex P which gets you about 1040 from this one. I've stuffed in 25 fffg goex and got five to average 1000.8. With the .375 balls that far out in the chamber, I had to whack them to increase the diameter for a good grip on the chambermouth. Once that was done. the velocities got consistent.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[mec]

The "whack" being delivered with the balls on a hard surface to fatten them up a bit. Then oriented flat end upward in the chambers- kind of like you do with the sprue nub with cast balls.

 

[CrackStock]

I have alwys smirked at the concept of placing a rear sight on something as movable as a hammer spur. Seems silly for any serious target work, although adequate for close up work where one really only needs or uses the front sight. This is why I never owned any of the Colts. I got Remingtons instead.

BTW, Wouldn't that have been 1865?

CS

 

[Ppsh41]

I was always under the impression that shooters back then used factory produced nitrated paper cartridges with a heavier conical bullet, I know the military at least did. That's why I think many cap-n-ball revolvers shoot high with lighter weight round balls. Maybe duplicating this 19th century 'factory load' might improve accuracy. Has this discussion ever come up before?

 

[mec]

Absolutely. Gatofeo is pretty well versed on it. Actually Bullets, which weighed any thing from 110 grains to 150 for the navy caliber, shoot a good bit higher than ball- something generally seen with heavier bullets in any handgun. The velocity is lower but the barrel dwell time is longer and the barrel has recoiled higher by the time they launch.

Some of Gat's references have them loading loose powder or combustable cartridges with 15 grains of unspecified powder - maybe the generic "Sporting Powder". I/ve loaded 15 and 18 grains of fffg and pyrodex under 110 and 120 grain bullets and they hit higher than the ball loads at 25 yards.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The real point of that story is not Hickock's marksmanship but the fact that he had the steady nerve to carefully aim and fire that one shot while Tutt was shooting back, "That just plain rattles most folks". :haha: :haha:

 

[Gary]

Well done Mec. Good to see you guys here.

Gary

 

I don't think I'd give Keith Carradine much credit as a marksman unless I saw some training credentials in his background.

Any man that uses a gun regularly (read daily) will likely be a good shot. Wild Bill was probably above average so I'm reasonably sure that he could plug a guy in the chest at 50-100 yards.

In addition, the assumption for Colt's sighted high was that you could aim at a man's belt buckle and hit him from a range of anywhere from point blank to 100 or so yards. I think this might be why JW Hardin often hit people in the head. He may have aimed at the chest instinctively and hit a bit higher.

 

[Husky]

The shooting actually took place on the square in downtown Springfield. If you look carefully you can find the bronze markers in the pavement at the locations where each of them was standing. It is interesting to see it in perspective with a friend standing on one marker and yourself on the other.

 

[hmeier4799]

What is the rifling twist in your '61 Navy?

 

[mec]

The only information provided by uberti is that it is seven grooves with a left hand twist. Nothing about the rate of twist.

 

[piteruu]

Try measure rifling twist with felt wad (for example). In my '51 Navy, if I am looking along groove, I can see it as horizontal line at first end of barel and near vertical at second end of barel. So groove makes near 1/4 of turn at 7.5". 4*7.5=30", but I said "near 1/4" so I suppose rifling twist is 1:32". Does groove in '61 Navy make more then 1/4 of turn at 7.5" or not?

 

[hmeier4799]

My Pietta revolver w/ target sights, 36 cal. has a twist between 1:36 and 1:38. Using .375 ball. Can such a slow twist in a pistol be made to shoot accurate at 50 yds? with 20 grains I get over 15" group for 5 shots and the next group will be in a different location!!!!!!
All shots from the same cylinder. Fired random chambers and got much larger groups.
Tried 25 grains and the cylinder quickly became tight to rotate.

 

[mec]

Rifle barrels designed for round balls have slow twists - like one in sixty-six inches. Dedicated bullet barrels are much faster- something like one in 40. The lower velocities of handguns might need a faster twist for stability. the Lyman Plains pistol is one turn in 30 inches and it stabilizes ball, 250 grain real and the 385 grain frontier bullets very well.

The revolvers are also promising at that range

http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Miscellaneous_and_Oddities/stockedarmy.jpg

The Pedersoli LePage pistols in .36 or .44 both have a one in 15 twist and seem to group about the same as the 1-30 as the .50 cal lyman
http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Muzzleloaders_and_Blackpowder/lepage50yds1.jpg

My .36 mode.51 navy was found without markings and partially finished -bought in bulk as a lot that had been rejected. The grip shape is like Pietta and the nipples and internal parts are the same as Pietta. It is moderately accurate at close range but nothing like the Ubertis. The primary problem seems to be that the chambers do not line up particularly well with the barrel.

 

[rayb]

mec, you sure do a good job of writing these up.

Thanks for posting the information

rayb

 

[mec]

Thanx. Just eye-balling, it looks like this navy has less than a quarter turn in the 7.5" barrel. I'd hate to trust my eyes, perception and math enough to come up with a good guess.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The Dixie GunWorks catalog is a great source of info for any gun they sell. They list the Uberti as have a 32" twist.
Even though I seldom order from Dixie I'd never be without a DGW catalog even if it happens to be several years old.
I still think Hickock must have been one cold-blooded hombre to pull off that shot. Anyone could do it on paper but with lead in the air--- :master: :master: :master:

 

[mec]

Excellent. Uberti didn't have this. I understand the Dixie Catalogue is a lot easier to use than the web site. Would you mind looking to see if they have any springs and lock parts for the Lincoln Derringer?