I'm still amazed when I read accounts of the famous quick-draw duel between Wild Bill Hickok and Davis Tutt in 1865 in Springfield, Mo.

From 75 yards, which is a long way for a revolver, Hickok's one and only deadly shot struck Tutt in the left side between the fifth and seventh ribs. Tutt, who was said to be the better marksman, missed as both fired at about the same time. Tutt collapsed and died almost instantly after shouting, "Boys, I'm killed!"

Hickok was carrying his favorite gun, a Colt 1851 Navy (see photo), which is a cap-and-ball revolver favored by other famed gunfighters including Doc Holliday and the fictional Rooster Cogburn. Hickok also holstered his guns backwards, enabling the so-called Cavalry Draw. Hickok killed 36 men before he was shot in the back of the head during a card game, holding the famous "dead man's hand" -- aces and 8's.

That was well over 100 years ago and considering the improvements in revolvers since Sam Colt first made them popular, I remain fascinated at Hickok's precision shot in the Tutt duel from such a long distance.

I'm lucky from 25 yards to get a 5-inch grouping with a full load from my 9-shot H&R .22 much less a bullseye. Of course, at 70, I'm not nearly the shooter I once was. But from 75 yards I'd be startled to be on the paper anywhere.

So, I ask, can you fire a revolver accurately from 75 yards with or without a scope?

Yikes, embarrass me, why don't you!

Well, with a Tussey 1911, I can put 13 shots into a poker chip at most distances.

With a Bren Ten I could hit a golf ball at 80 yards, first time, no bracketing, using my handload and a cast bullet.

I had an early Ruger 22/45, and none of my friends would bet me for money if I pulled out that pistol. For some reason, that was 'my gun.' It liked me, and I liked it.

However, with any "cowboy gun," and especially blackpowder, I'm the guy who can't hit his own butt with both hands and a canoe paddle. I'm just not a guy who can grip that style of handle.

So to answwer your overall question, Wild Bill would have laughed at me, dumped out a round ball from his possibles bag, and thrown it at me bare-handed. I would be no threat to him, or his kid sister.

Might have been an interesting shootout if Hickock could have caught up to John Wesley Hardin after Hardin shot the man in an Abilene hotel for snoring too loud. From what I understand, Hardin admired Hickock's ability with a sixgun and left Kansas before Hickock could find him.

CW

__________________
μολὼν λαβέ

Speaking of Hickock...

Go to youtube and watch hickok45 ring that gong with revolvers from 80 yards (I think). Even a J frame.

I used to shoot with the firearms instructor for the Lowndes COSO (GA) twenty five years ago. He could consistanly shoot three inch, 25 yard groups with a J frame Chief's Special. Deadly accurate with any revolver.

I am sure Wild Bill was more than proficient with his Colts I am also sure that a wee bit of luck had something to do with it as well. Now if I had been ole Tutt I would have shot him in the back;-)

Yeah, I've seen Hickok45 on YT, but I sometimes wonder how many takes before he posts. He's pretty accurate, though.

I regularly face off against targets at that distance with a handgun, but it is for fun. With adrenaline, knowing your butt is on the line, etc I think accuracy with a handgun might suffer anything over 10 ft. Then again maybe I am just a bit of a coward.

4" clays at 100 with a 29-2, 4". (from sandbags)
10" steel, same distance, with ruger flattop .44 special, standing two-hand hold.

A lot of shootings in the Old West were IN THE BACK, and were judged to be GOOD SHOOTS.

__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO

While I admit I am a good pistol shot, there is no one shooting back at me. Most of defensive shooting is instinct and the rest is luck. If you look at the gunfighters of note they were all tough men, period. Bill Hickok, John Wesley Hardin, Frank Hamer, Jelly Bryce, these guys were all tough as nails in any situation. In my career I have met a few guys that I have seen with the "deliberation" as Bat Masterson called it that would take on long odds. I know the one time when I was 19 and I got shot at by some guy who thought I was trespassing on his property didn't do well for my nerves and I am not too proud to admit I found cover pretty fast until the shooting stopped. I can't say what I would have done if he had come into the woods looking for me. I think the choice of weaponry that Hickok could make the shot at was impressive, but he practiced A LOT. I know I am pretty good at 25 yards with a handgun, the shots will be in the ten ring, at 50 maybe and 75 if I have a good rest then the target is in trouble, but at 50 and 75 yards those are well timed and aimed shots, Hickok was under fire and while he aimed he didn't have all day. I have met a few shooters like him, calm under any situation and I think that's how he was from accurate writing about him. I think Hickok practiced what Bill Jordan later wrote about, that speed is fine, but accuracy is final.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

I folded a coyote in half at about 30 yards with my snub-nose SP101 .357 mag.
I'd have to say that's my best shot to date with a handgun.

In the days before TV and video games what else did you have to do but be a good shot.
and luck was likely a factor.

75 yards? I"m sure there's never been any stretching of the truth on that...LOL. I doubt any 'quick draw' gun fight would have been at such a distance.
I can get all my shots on the human outline size target at 50 yards and I know a few that get them all in the 8/9 or better area.
I've met a number of silhouette shooters that hit the ram at 100 yards - smaller than the vital area of a man if I recall. The turkey at 75 yards is toughie.

But overall, yeah, there were some extraordinary shootists back in the day. Annie Oakley still amazes me and she did many of her 'tricks' over and over again and lots of documentation exists.

At 90 feet Annie could shoot a dime tossed in midair.

In one day with a .22 rifle she shot 4,472 of 5,000 glass balls tossed in midair.

With the thin edge of a playing card facing her at 90 feet, Annie could hit the card and puncture it with with five or six more shots as it settled to the ground.

I'll generally hit what I'm pointed at.... but then again it isn't shooting back.

__________________
A closed mouth gathers no foot

I used to be able to get all six shots from revolvers or a Colt Gold Cup .45 auto in a ragged hole at 25 yards from "offhand" as target shooters called that stance. This included a Model 29 with full .44 Magnum loads. Couldn't always do it, but the guns did when I was at my best. That happened quite a bit, with several guns.

I once tried my luck on a plastic jug at about 100 yards with a .45 Auto, not the Gold Cup. Once I saw where the first shot hit, it was pretty easy to walk the bullets on target.

The Colt style single action points very well. I once tried to see how well and how quickly I could point and shoot with a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum. I set a silhouette target at 15 yards and pretended that I was a British officer at Rorke's Drift, trying to keep a Zulu from getting the blade of his iklwa (stabbing spear) into me, or that I was near the Khyber Pass, trying to keep Pathan or Afghan warriors from getting to me with swords or Khyber knives.

Even with the very heavy recoil of the Magnum, it was ridiculously easy to swing up the gun quickly and fire as the sights more or less aligned on the midsection of the target. Almost all hits would have been kills. I think the 7.5-inch barrel helped pointability. But I have also found the Colt .45 SAA with 4.75-inch bbl. to point and shoot very well at normal combat ranges. So does the Colt Govt. Model 45 auto, if one knows how to use it.

My experience with cap and ball sixguns is limited, although I own both Colt and Remington New Model Army .44's like served in our Civil War. They do point well. I'm sure that Wild Bill knew how to use his .36 to best advantage. BTW, he had a matched pair, with ivory grips, engraving and silver (?) plating.

When Rex Applegate was chosen to teach close quarters combat to OSS agents in WW II, he searched for accounts of how wild west gunmen described their techniques. He found letters from Hickock telling that he just extended his arm full length and fired. That is basically what I was doing with the Ruger .44. With skill and practice, I don't doubt that he could have killed Tutt as described, although luck was on his side that day. Applegate taught the Fairbairn technique for closer DA fire or with .45 autos. Troops that he or the Commando instructors trained were deadly at average gunfight ranges, far more effective than the average soldier so armed.

I am constantly amazed that some post groups on forums like this that show really inept shooting. Some actually brag about being able to fire groups at seven yards that they can cover with a hand. I see people at public ranges, especially indoor ranges, who run the target up to ten feet or less and brag when they hit anything in the black! Quality handguns are capable of far better than most of the public think. Even under stress, the trained gunfighter can shoot quite well. I asked my son about this, as he has killed more men with a handgun in close combat than anyone I know. And he did this with just 9mm NATO ball ammo, with Beretta M-9 and Browning Hi-Power guns. He admitted to stress, but said that it seemed to make him focus more closely on what he was doing and then follow through as trained. That worked, although he had to shoot a few men more than once.

I think a man like Hickock, with nerves of steel, ample practice, and the knowledge of where to hold on a man at 75 yards could indeed kill Tutt with relative ease. What I do not understand is why some men cannot hit a barn if firing from inside it! We have a new member who posted in one of the forums here that someone had given him a M-65 with three-inch bbl and he can't hit anything with it. From his description, I think he doesn't know how much front sight to hold up and hasn't ever received basic handgun shooting instruction. That gun will probably drive tacks at close ranges once he learns to shoot it. And I think it'd stand a good chance of laying out dead a foe at 75 yards, in the hands of a capable shooter.

When I was younger and could see without help I would take new hires to the range for familiarization shoots with the Dept. weapon a Model 59. Enroute to the range I would ask the new hire what he thought the effective range of a hand gun was. Usual answer was short range 25 yrds or so. Before hand I would place a B27 shillioutte target on the range so that when we approached the range I would stop on the road at approx. 165 yards from the target. I would set up a spotting scope for the trainee and have him sight in on the target and to verify it was clean and not pre shot. I would pull out a Model 28 6 inch with .357 158gr SPs. I would shoot six rounds at the target. When we checked the target up close I'd have a 5-10 inch spread in the kill zone. The lesson was never underestimate your opponents ability with a handgun.
Could I do it today: most likely not.
I was once told 'When he is in range, so are you!'

By the way that guy Tutt brought the wrong weapon to the fight. He should have brought a rifle. Ie. Tom Sellack's Covington character in Crossfire Trail shoot out at the general store.

Well with my 29-2 8-3/8s Barrel I am no slouch, But then again paper targets and steel plates are not shooting back.

150 years ago ya needed to be better then good with a handgun to get along if that was your undertaking. Then again most of the population new which end of the gun the bullets went in and came out of.
And a firearm sitting on a table or rack was nothing more then an inordinate item/object that had its place and could bring no harm then to what the individual with it wanted to do, Then ya needed be prepared for the consequences.

There were some in the old days who were very good, I'm sure the amount of practice they got helped. Hickock reportedly practiced almost daily, wanted fresh loads in his guns in case of trouble (cap and ball handguns can be finicky). Many of the wild west show shooters and later gun company exhibition shooters burned up a lot of ammo and they were very good.
One of the keys for gunfighters was no doubt the ability to stay cool when someone was firing back though. When i had more time to shoot i got good at hitting the 100 yd gong at a local range consistently with a SA 45 Colt and a couple of my other favorite guns. However no one was returning fire either!

Back in the early 1990's, several of us went to an outdoor range. Someone had left 4 one gallon milk jugs filled with water on top of posts at 100 yards. My first 2 shots from a Colt series 70 Gold Cup with iron sights hit the jugs I was aiming at. Forty-eight rounds later, I had not hit either remaining jug. All my shots were close, but no hits. Lucky? Yes!

__________________
S&WHF 366

I don't shoot my single action guns more than three or four times a year but if I practiced with them more, I might be able to hit closer to the center than I did on this 25 yard target.

Mark

Not only no, but hell NO...

Sir, in a word, yes. When I was in college, a buddy and I used to shoot a lot at a dump where distances ranged from 65 to 75 yards or so. With a modern handgun, gallon milk jugs were easy to hit at those distances, and even pop cans weren't safe. Might not actually hit the can every time, but we were almost always close enough to make them bounce.

The few times we tried our cap-and-ball replica revolvers there, we didn't do so well, though rather better than one might expect. We could usually hit close enough to a gallon jug to bounce it, if not actually hit it.

Of course, we were taking our time, and the targets weren't shooting back, but the accuracy was certainly there. Even with a cap-and-ball gun, a man-sized target at 75 yards is well within the realm of possibility.

Hope this helps, and Semepr Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

OH No Scope needed when you are talking minute of beer KEG? at 75 yds

"So, I ask, can you fire a revolver accurately from 75 yards with or without a scope?"

By accurately defined as hit a man sized target? Yes, I can. With precision, no.
With a cap and ball revolver I have no idea, but just but a replica of the same gun so will have to try it some time,

History and facts are not always the absolute truth.

I have caught some realllly big fish.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I really enjoy watching Hickok's videos...and he is truly phenomenal with whatever he picks up. I can't come close to matching him, no way no how.

Having said that, and meaning no disrespect by what follows, there is a vast difference in shooting at targets on a range and in shooting at a man who is shooting back at you. Accuracy is of course important, but so are calm nerves in the face of mortal danger, as well as the will to kill another man.

Again, meaning no disrespect to Hickok whatsoever, but there is simply no way to tell how well a man would perform in a real gun battle simply by watching him at the range. If he shoots accurately, it is an indication he would do well...but it isn't the final determination.

100 yards. No scope no corrective glasses. 55 year old eyes.

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Some of you may remember this story from 2011 where this local Deputy returned fire and hit his attacker at 60+/- yards AFTER being shot. Morrow County Deputy Honored with

Since the Deputy was using a S&W M&P I tried, without success, to get S&W to use him as a spokesman while he was recovering.

In the age of semi-auto's I have little experience with revolvers. Going to be getting a lot more soon as I just picked up a snubby for concealed carry. My father's S&W 686 with 6" barrel was the first 357 I ever shot, and I just can't seem to get it figured out. However, I shot a Dan Wesson 6", not sure of model, and had a nice tight group probably 2"--granted it was only at 10 yards, but that is good for the way I shoot. Shot one of the Ruger .22's my father-in-law has, and was able to hit pretty good with that. I have a Heritage Rough Rider, and first time out couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside.

How many of you read about the USAF cop who drilled a baddie shooting at him with an AK-47 at about 80 yards? One round from the airman's 9mm Beretta killed the villain.

If Massad Ayoob sees this (he's a member) he can tell us the guy's name. He has written several times about that incident and interviewed the cop. I think this was at Fairchild AFB, WA, maybe 5-6 years ago.

Hitting a target at 75 yds. with a modern firearm is one thing, be it revolver or auto. I do a lot of long range shooting, some of it much, much farther than 75 yds., and consider myself at least semi-proficient at it. I've killed a fair amount of big game at 75 - 100 yds. with a 4" M29-2, for example.

Hitting at 75 yds. with a .36 percussion revolver is a whole 'nother deal. I have an 1861 Colt Navy and have tried to duplicate Wild Bill's shot with only very limited success. For starters, the rear sight is a notch in the hammer nose and the front sight is more of a bead than a blade. A clean sight picture is nearly impossible. Ignition is noticeably slower than a modern revolver too and, let's face it, a round ball just isn't as accurate as a modern jacketed bullet. I've tried the 75 yd. shot from a rest and can usually put a ball somewhere on a man-size silhouette target at that distance, but hitting a lethal area is more luck than anything. It would be just that much harder if one were trying it under fire.

I don't doubt that Wild Bill made the shot as claimed. People who know way more about it than me seem to agree that it was about 75 yds. I'm simply saying that, if anything, Bill was an even better shot than many give him credit for. The inherent limitations of the .36 percussion revolver would have made that shot MUCH harder than it would be with any modern handgun. The fact that he pulled it off just proves to me how really good he must have been.

Elmer Keith is reputed to have hit a deer at 600 yards. This article says more than once:

Elmer Keith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once, with a substantial margin of luck, I can believe. More than once is absurd. A .44 magnum should be classified as a mortar, not a gun.

So I take every long range revolver shot with a grain of Unique.

Now, I once shot 6-rounds of .44 SPC from a Ruger Super Blackhawk into a single, one-inch hole at 25 yards, Weaver stance. I think I could have hit a 6-inch circle at 100 yards.

I haven't read the Wiki article, but Elmer began firing at that WOUNDED deer (shot with a .300 H&H Magnum by another hunter, if memory serves) at around 250 yards. It fell as he fired at 600 yards and he believed that this shot killed it.

I knew Elmer and I think he truly believed that. But Charlie Askins was more dubious and not always the most tactful man. Askins wrote an article called, "Elmer's Little Mortar" in which he questioned whether the shot was made as described.

I saw Elmer shoot at 200 yards, when in his 70's, and he hit the mark. Whether he really made the finishing shot at 600 yards or the deer just dropped then due to prior wounds, we'll probably never know. I certainly don't encourage anyone to try to duplicate the shot. Elmer himself said that he fired only because the already wounded deer was suffering and was escaping.

He fired at some caribou with a .41 Magnum and had bad results, the animals taking a long time to die. I forget the range, but it was unrealistic, given the situation.

I have no doubt that James Butler Hickok was an excellent pistol shot, especially in confrontational situations. But, reading one of his biographies "They Called Him Wild Bill" by Joseph G. Rosa, there is some controversy regarding both the weapons he used in the Tutt fight and the distance of the shot.

On page 74: "The distance between the men when they opened fire is disputed. The first report of the affair established the time of the shooting but ventured no comment on the distance. Nichols gives the distance as both fifty paces and fifty yards; later writers record it as seventy-five yards. The pistols used by both Hickok and Tutt have caused some speculation. Tutt's has never been officially recorded, but Hickok's weapon has been a controversial issue in itself. Later writers have credited Wild Bill with using either a .44 caliber Colt Dragoon or a .32 caliber Smith and Wesson rim-fire no. 2 Army revolver" However, Nichols stated that Wild Bill carried a pair of Colt Navy revolvers when in Springfield."

And on page 80.: "However, another early version asserts that when Hickok ordered Tutt not to come 'any farther and carry my watch', the 'men walked to within forty steps of each other, both drawing their pistols and firing simultaneously, the reports sounding so near together that bystanders could not tell which man shot first. Tutt was encumbered with a long linen duster and his pistol caught in his coat, it was believed he fired before he was ready, and he received Wild Bill's ball through the body near the heart. He retreated to the court house and fell dead near one of the pillars."

Whether it was 75 yards or 'forty steps', Dave Tutt got too darn close to Bill.

And I would be very surprised to hit any vital spot on a man sized target I was aiming at with any black powder revolver at 75 yards.

If you google the Hickok-Tutt duel, one of the first hits shows a diagram showing the area to be 80 yards. Even if you don't accept 75 yards and cut it down to, say, 40 or 50 yards, it's still an amazing shot. Perhaps lucky, but from earlier posts, it appears Wild Bill practiced a lot and honed his aiming skills well. The back story is interesting. Apparently, Hickok and mediators offered to settle the debt he owed to Tutt, but Tutt was adamant and wouldn't budge. I have a feeling Hickok drew a "red line" and decide enough was enough.

I have never failed to hit the earth from 75 yards. Heck, I can do it weak hand!

I've only fired a couple of cylinders out of a cap and ball so can't comment on that. But....last month I brought my new-to-me 27-2 8 3/8 inch barrel 357 to the range. I had previously sighted it in at 100 yards. There was a 12" X 15" steel plate at 200 yds. Off a rest I hit it 4 times out of 12 (two cylinders full) and a friend hit it 3 times out of 12. I think with practice I could have hit it almost every time. Practice makes perfect. Being shot at definitely spoils your accuracy.

Kinda amazing how many people were killed with .36 cal. Colts, about the same as .38 special 158 grain lead ball ammo. When I am shooting a handgun the safest location is in front of my target.

Men like Hickok relied on their firearms to keep them alive. These handguns were the ultimate tools, and became extensions of a man's body for the best of the best. With extensive practice, God-given mental & physical toughness, and some luck, a skilled person could do some rather remarkable things with a gun in the old days ... even more so now, with the modern era's high tech firearms technology and craftsmanship. I'd like to see a pistolero of yore go to work with a finely tuned race gun in a current competition.

__________________
I'm with the banned ...

I generally don't have much problem hitting a clay bird at 50 with my Model 14 as long as I take my time and concentrate. I gave 100 yard shooting a try about a month ago at the range, using my my Model 14 I was able to hit a 5 gallon Gerry can 4 out of 6 times. Could I hit the can if it were shooting back at me, probably not.

__________________
Regards,
Guy-Harold Smith II

Texas Star, you have a good memory. It was indeed the Fairchild AFB incident, circa 1994. Andy Brown, the first responding officer, engaged the mass murderer who was armed with an AK clone equipped with drum magazine. Andy, a bicycle officer that day, had no cover as he came under rifle fire. At a measured 70 yards, he put a 9mm ball round from his M9 through the killer's brain and ended the slaughter.

The interview with Andy telling his story can be downloaded from proarmspodcast.com, and my article on his incident should be archived at American Handgunner.

On the Tutt incident: there's a plaque on the sidewalk still, showing where Hickok stood. I found a local historian who was able to show me Tutt's position across the square. The two positions were about 70 paces apart.

Massad, I'm sure glad you weighed in. Always great to hear from one of the most respected firearms/personal defense experts in the world! Thanks for all you do to support gun rights in this great nation!

He may have him hit in a lethal place at 75 yards but I guarantee you he was prepared to empty the gun at him if he had missed. Maybe the most surprised was Hickock.

My best shot with a Ruger Old Army was a 40 yd hit on a crow shooting from a rest. There was an explosion of feathers.

I have shot 2" groups from a rest at 50 yds with my 8 3/8" 27-2. I also hit a 2 ft square plate at 225 yds consistently once I figured where to aim.

In my youth when I shot every week, I could put 6 shots in a paper plate at 100 yds with a 6" Model 19 shooting .38 wad cutters.

I shot a just over 12" 6 shot group at 300 yds with a 10 1/2" .44 mag Super Blackhawk. The group was about 18" lower than I was aiming.

Long distance shooting is like any other. You have to practice to get good at it. You have to learn where to aim. There are some other threads On the forum discussing the techniques.

__________________
Corripe Cervisiam

I hit the "o" in a stop sign from the sun-roof of my cousins car when we were teen-agers barrelling down the highway, half drunk. Gee, that was a long time ago. That was before I dedicated my life to law and order.

__________________
Why, I aughta.....

[QUOTE=
In my youth when I shot every week, I could put 6 shots in a paper plate at 100 yds with a 6" Model 19 shooting .38 wad cutters.[/QUOTE]

Now that's interesting, Joe, because typically wad cutters are not much accurate beyond 25 yards and beyond 50 are usually very unreliable. So, you must have been a helluva shot.

I don't know. Back around 1980, also with a 6" Model 19 with wadcutters, I was regularly putting 4 of 6 shots at 80 yards into a piece of 8.5x11" typing paper. Not outstanding shooting, but easily done with that revolver and that ammo.

Greg does it right. What you see is what the gun will do.
Or what he can do.

Give me a large target at about 100 yards. I will hit it with anything. He does too. Can't say I shoot at his speed.

Guy22

Someone here has posted a link to Skeeter Shelton's writings (Skeeter Skelton) from the late 60's to the 80's, he has several articles on long distance shooting, LEO types, Bill Jordan etc..Read them, yes it can be done by someone with a good eye and a steady hand. I ain't no Elmer or Skeeter by any stretch, but yes I can still hit paper that doesn't shoot back at 75 yards,not a consistently as when I was younger with better eyes. And their are far better shooters than I am out there. My brother out shoots me regularly..always has.

As far as shooting under stress, let's not forget, this was not Hickok's first rodeo. He had been through the War of Northern Aggression as a scout. Personally, I don't doubt the accounts of the gunfight. The old timers had plenty of opportunities to practice their skills. A man with skills and nerve was deadly.

__________________
Proud anachronism

With iron sights? I think I'd risk a hundred bucks on that bet.

I have a .357 Mag H&R Handi-Rifle. I shot 3 148gr Wad cutters over 2.7gr Bullseye into a pretty one hole cloverleaf at 50 yds from a rest. I will have to try that at 100 yds now.

I do not consider myself "a helluva shot". I do have brief moments of brilliance.

There are fewer of them as I get older.

__________________
Corripe Cervisiam