PDA

View Full Version : Ten historic shoot outs on Discovery tonight.


g.willikers
February 29, 2012, 08:00 AM
The Discovery channel is airing what sounds like a very interesting show tonight, at 10pm.
The ten most historically important shootouts, the stories and the guns used.

Mike Irwin
February 29, 2012, 09:25 AM
Is there a list of the shootouts they're going to review?

I'll have to remember to set the DVR. By 10 p.m. I'm in bed.

Technosavant
February 29, 2012, 10:41 AM
Looks like it's a couple guys from Sons of Guns and American Guns talking about it. Here's the description from the Discovery Channel page (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=1.14298.26512.0.0):

SONS OF GUNS' Will Hayden and AMERICAN GUNS' Rich Wyatt countdown ten iconic American shootouts--from Wild West standoff to mob hit to world war. Firing the historic weapons, they give rare insight into the guns--and the gun owners--that changed history.

Might be interesting. At least it shouldn't be worse than most other stuff on.

Mike Irwin
February 29, 2012, 11:46 AM
"Looks like it's a couple guys from Sons of Guns and American Guns talking about it."

And that right there is more than reason enough for me to erase it from the record schedule on my DVR.

Jeff F
February 29, 2012, 02:07 PM
"Looks like it's a couple guys from Sons of Guns and American Guns talking about it."

And that right there is more than reason enough for me to erase it from the record schedule on my DVR.

HaHaHa, that pretty much sums it up for me also.

44 AMP
February 29, 2012, 09:49 PM
I think seeing the guns in action is worthwhile, even if the commentators are morons.....

BarryLee
March 1, 2012, 12:53 AM
Overall the show was ok, but to me nothing real special with one notable exception.

They profiled a gun used by “Baby Face” Nelson of the John Dillinger gang a Colt 1911 .38 Super converted to full auto with a fore grip and I believe a 20 round magazine. While many of you may be familiar with this gun I had never seen it before and thought it was a neat historic handgun.


Here's a link to a picture of the gun.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:1911Full.jpg

Ben Towe
March 1, 2012, 06:12 AM
That's a wild looking 1911!

Uncle Billy
March 1, 2012, 08:44 AM
I wonder what criteria they used to pick the "shootouts" they showed. The full auto 1911 was very interesting; Clyde Barrow's sawed off BAR was too. The 10 gauge SXS that Doc Holiday used at the O.K. corral was probably fueled with black powder cartridges. I wonder if that's what they used for the demo.

"Looks like it's a couple guys from Sons of Guns and American Guns talking about it."

And that right there is more than reason enough for me to erase it from the record schedule on my DVR.

Yup, I agree as well. I watched it, though, and wished I could have handled the Thompson. I was in the local Gander Mountain store yesterday; they have a new "Tommy gun" in their showcase. It's semi-auto of course, but otherwise it's the real deal. They let me handle it after I asked- it's heavy but felt great in my hands. That's the first time I've had an opportunity to actually hold one and I got so enthusiastic about it I almost bought it- until I thought about it a bit: .45 ACP ammo is expensive, the gun is pretty much useless for anything, and it costs $1499.99 before sales tax. That would buy me the Kimber .45 I want, or so many other nice guns, so I gave it back to the clerk.

MoBart
March 1, 2012, 10:43 AM
I watched a program last night with the hosts/stars of Sons of Guns and American Guns. They more or less listed some more famous shoot outs and demonstrated.the main weapons involved. Kind of a neat show, not from a tactical or teaining standpoint at all, just entertainment. It did raise a couple questions though, for me at least. While in the Marine Corps and when working as an armed security officer I watched countless documentery and training films, situation recreations, shot drills based on situations taken from detailed reports. Good training.

What would you consider to be infulential or game changing incidents? For me, the North Hollywood shootout/robbery was a major one. It validated a small but growing number number of people saying the carbine should or coukd replace the pump shotgun as a primary law enforcement longarm. How many ar15s are in cop cars now?

Id love to hear your input on what situations and what lessons were learned

Glenn E. Meyer
March 1, 2012, 10:48 AM
Miami - FBI.

Columbine on police tactics with active shooters.

However, if I watched a show with those two guys, I would go blind. :D

Mike Irwin
March 1, 2012, 10:53 AM
"The 10 gauge SXS that Doc Holiday used at the O.K. corral was probably fueled with black powder cartridges."

The gunfight happened in 1881.

There were some very early smokeless powders (nitrated wood pulp, and other things) that were being used in shotshells, such as Schultz's White Powder, but I suspect that their penetration into the marketplace at this time, especially in the west, was VERY low.

Hiker 1
March 1, 2012, 10:56 AM
Definitely the North Hollywood and the 1986 Miami FBI shootout were the most influential in changing LE mindsets. That would be 1 and 2 in my book.

A lot of other gunfights had huge historical/political impacts as well as equipment R&D:

IMO, in no particular order:

3. The OK Corral gunfight
4. Little Big Horn
5. countless gunfights in Iraq and Afghanistan
6. the "Black Hawk Down" incident
7. countless gunfights in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam leading to new weapons development
8. the attempted assassination of Harry Truman
9. the 1974 SLA shootout
10. multiple shootouts in the NYPD Stakeout Squad (Jim Cirillo)

kraigwy
March 1, 2012, 11:04 AM
I think the one incident regarding the changing of LE training that is too often left out of these conversations is the "Onion Field".

The incident was brought to light with Wambaugh's book of the same name.

I know we changed our training after studying the incident.

It certainly is more common and pertinent to the street cop then the North Hollywood and the 1986 Miami FBI shootout.

MightyAchilles
March 1, 2012, 11:11 AM
Just curious... I do find the Sons of Guns guy to be way over the top... but what is the beef with them? It appears as if everybody here absolutely hates them.

kraigwy
March 1, 2012, 11:14 AM
but what is the beef with them?

Some of us, or me anyway, like guns without the dramatics.

MightyAchilles
March 1, 2012, 11:24 AM
Fair enough... Yea they are definitely over the top haha. Just thought the responses they got from a bunch of posters was kinda funny.

Pbearperry
March 1, 2012, 11:26 AM
I gave the program a 3 out of 10.I was not impressed.

Uncle Billy
March 1, 2012, 11:49 AM
That's what I thought. I certainly don't mean to say that a 10 Gauge shotgun, both barrels, would be insignificant using early propellants. But just how much more power do you think there would be in a 10 gauge shell these days, using Blue Dot, say, than in the days of black powder?

MoBart
March 1, 2012, 11:51 AM
Not always but sometimes we get good discussions and interesting topics on here, you guys seem to be adding another to that list. Thank you for your responses. The SLA shootout (forgive me if Im wrong here) was the first deployment or at least serious deployment of the new and crazy lapd swat team right? If that isnt considered historical and gamechangeing what would?

I have read the onion field but its been a long time, and ears a little research, thank you.

And now Im embarresed, I live in KC, my gf lives and is from Independence, and Ive.never heard of an attempt on Pres. Truman. I will be reserching that today. I eat at Arthur Bryants in the cirty pretty often, its the BBQ place Truman used to play poker at. Every Presedent after him (except Obama unless Im mistaken) has eaten there. Funny to think about the leaders of the free world, eating in a dirty little hole in the wall bbq joint. If your ever in kc, try it. Fantastic burnt ends lol.

Back on topic, another one that I can remember makeing an impact on me and my thought process and training was the Richard Blackhurn video. After seeing that video it made contact distance shooting a regular part of my training as well as maintaining control of peoples hands when working. I still hate seeing peoples hands in their pockets because of that risk.

MoBart
March 1, 2012, 12:00 PM
Forgot to post my thought on Columbine. It was a dramatic situation and did cause a lot of changes. Most seem to have been more political knee jerk reactions.then tactical or preventative responses. My 6 yo daughter did learn what they call bad guy drills along with fire and tornado drills. I was happy about that. We have school resource officers here but they are required to remove their duty belt and secure it in the trunk of their car. I think thats a retarded response, the defense of it Ive heard was a kid mihht get the officers weapon away. Thats always a risk that has been recognized and addressed when regarding grown adults. Safety holsters, Lindell training, sound familiar? I think restricting the proven and department approvex equipment %ssued to/available to leo's in that situation is insane. The principal I discussed it with, in a friendly and easy conversation, agreed totally.

Mike Irwin
March 1, 2012, 12:31 PM
Actually, not much at all.

For MANY years modern shotshells were talked about being loaded in "dram equivalents."

That means that the velocity/power of this shell, when loaded with smokeless powder, matches that of an old timey shell loaded with X drams of black powder.

It's only in the past 10 to 20 years that most manufacturers have stopped putting the dram equivalenency on the packaging.

You'd see things like 2 3/4, 7 1/2, 2 3/4, meaning a 2.75 inch shell, 7 and 1/2 shot, and a smokeless loading equivalent to 2.75 drams of black powder.

Of course, modern shotshells have gotten more powerful as the longer shells have been introduced, the 3" and later 3.5" 12 gauges come to mind.


Doc Holiday's 10 gauge was probably 12 to 15 pellets of buckshot and loaded with 4 to 4.5 drams of black powder (about 100 to 120 grains of black powder).

Mike Irwin
March 1, 2012, 12:34 PM
OK, I'm going to merge this thread in with the ongoing thread in Tactics and Training. It's pretty active and this thread will supplement it nicely.

Mike Irwin
March 1, 2012, 12:40 PM
"I do find the Sons of Guns guy to be way over the top... but what is the beef with them? It appears as if everybody here absolutely hates them."

A good part of it is that I want this kind of show to be delivered in a rather matter-of-fact manner without a lot of really baseless speculation and a decided lack of huge, glaring, historic and technical errors.

And I'm sorry, the two shows that provided the hosts are just full of huge, glaring, historic and technica errors and are delivered as Gen X Mind Candy bereft of any sort of significant value.

Those guys are part of the "Valley Girl Reality Show" movement. Brainless and daft but hey, they cut a nice profile. :rolleyes:

MightyAchilles
March 1, 2012, 12:48 PM
I have only seen one episode of American Guns and it was ridiculous to say the least. Re-finished a 1911 in silver and threw about 10g's worth of diamonds all over the grip and sights. I can certainly see what you mean about "valley-girl" with all of that thrown on a very nice pistol..... The daughter was pretty cute though.

K_Mac
March 1, 2012, 01:06 PM
I watched the show last night. It had me talking to myself a couple of times, and was about as informative as a Readers Digest article. With that said, compared to most TV programs today it was less mindless than most.:D

MightyAchilles
March 1, 2012, 01:15 PM
Yea definitely. Compared to some of the crap(My fair Wedding... Real housewives...blah blah blah) that my lady watches it is pure fun.

Lee Lapin
March 1, 2012, 03:53 PM
I live in KC, my gf lives and is from Independence, and Ive.never heard of an attempt on Pres. Truman

MoBart,

See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WPQIEA/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0743260686&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0F6D5YB15VG45C7X9W4J

American Gunfight: The Plot to Kill President Truman--and the Shoot-out That Stopped It, by Stephen Hunter and John Bainbridge Jr.

MoBart
March 1, 2012, 07:36 PM
Il check that out thank you. Im pretty impressed with anything Steven Hunter attaches himself to.

Let me make a couple points about the tv showsbwe are discussing. Yes, they make mistakes, bad ones. But, they are entertaining people, and they are attacting people to the firearms world, or at least makeing our passion more acceptable and accesable to a wider audiance. People make mistakes about.details, Ive seen it in countless guj shops and.god.help us walmart and kmart gun counters. Hell,.I had a.drill instructor ojce, a.Marine Staff Seargent,.who I asked the bullet and.poweder weights of the 5.56 round. His anwser? Its a gas operated weapon, not gun powder. Followed by me doing a lot of sweating lol. Ignore the goofy parts or the whol show, but cut them some slack, they mihht be good for us in the end. And yes, the daugjters are both cute lol

jrothWA
March 1, 2012, 08:29 PM
1949/1950, during the renovation of the White House and the Trumans, were occupying the Blair house across the street.
The attackers were on a Puerto Rican terrorists that did a frontal attack and killed three Secret Service agents and wounded five(?) others.

The Trumans were not in residence at that time.

WJC pardoned the last remaining terrorists (2) before leaving the White House, not informing the S.S. until the last minute and over their objections.

A year later, the same group attacked the House of Representative during session from the Gallery, and wounded several Representatives and killed(?) some Capitol Police.
There are in the ceiling the bullet holes from that attack.

jmfc606
March 1, 2012, 11:36 PM
They left out the FBI "Miami shootout" also. Just my 2 cts. I also agree the North Hollwood shootout should have made it also.

Glenn Dee
March 2, 2012, 04:26 AM
Have not had the chance to see the show yet...

I have to agree with Kraigway. As a police officer the most influential gunfight (one way as it was) was "The Onionfield". I'd read the book, and seen the movie. At the time I was a pretty active cop. Every current Officer should see this movie if not read the book.

While the FBI shootout and L/A bank robbery are landmarks... these situation's have presented before. The FBI shootout at little bohemia, and the triangle sports shootout in NY are just two examples.

Based on the conversation in this thread... It seems the show is a politically correct popular history view of well studied shootings. IMO comparing war to a shootout is like saying a bathtub is just a very small ocean.

jyatesmp
March 2, 2012, 12:55 PM
I missed it, but to the sounds of it the show needs to be expanded to a series, with someone else hosting it....lol

markj
March 2, 2012, 04:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Click on the pres you wish info on and it will open a new page. his attempted assasanation is towards the bottom. Great page to learn everything about each pres.

Hiker 1
March 2, 2012, 05:10 PM
I bet Waco also rattled some cages.

Roger G
March 2, 2012, 05:23 PM
I watched the program. I am not impressed with WILL of SONS A GUNS. He is like someone said "OVER THE TOP" a little. I however was impressed with the guns.The machine pistol conversion that I had never heard of before. I was instrested in what the BAR could do.I would have never thought the FBI would have been "out guned" by the likes of BONNIE AND CLYDE.
I really enjoyed the actual content of the show,but not the theatrics.

Pbearperry
March 2, 2012, 05:29 PM
How can you call it a shootout when only one side has guns?Yes,the Valentines Day massacre is history,but I really can't call it a shootout.

DasGuy
March 2, 2012, 05:41 PM
Glenn, what was the triangle sports shootout? I can't find anything about it on the google-a-machine.

Stevie-Ray
March 2, 2012, 06:18 PM
I thought it was worthwhile, even though I dislike Hayden and tolerate Wyatt.

MoBart
March 2, 2012, 07:02 PM
There actually was a history channel series called shootout several years ago that was very good.

orthosophy
March 2, 2012, 10:02 PM
I agree on Waco.

Also, the thing I hate about Sons of Guns (Is that the one in Arkansas or wherever?) is that they seem to try to perpetuate every stereotype of deep south America.

Maybe it actually is that way...I've never been there. But that's kind of my point.

g.willikers
March 3, 2012, 10:30 AM
They are from Louisiana, and they're Southern Lite compared to the folks on the show "Swamp People."

MoBart
March 4, 2012, 01:35 AM
It seams like they are finding a lot of shows lately exploiting some more rural folks and tradjtions. Handfishing on tv kinda blows me away. Usually not good examples

Glenn E. Meyer
March 4, 2012, 10:54 AM
Turn the thread back to critical incidents as compared to comparative whackos on TV, if you would - please.

BTW, wrestling isn't real either (like those two shows).

Don P
March 4, 2012, 11:15 AM
I think seeing the guns in action is worthwhile, even if the commentators are morons.....

Maybe some truth to both assements above, but here we are talking about them here on the forum, meanwhile they are the ones on TV being watched by America, making money and getting there business names out there in the public eye.
I don't see either one of them talking about any of us here on TFL.
So in closing I'll ask who's the morons? Us, them both or none of the above?

Patriot86
March 5, 2012, 01:34 PM
As a business man, all gun stuff aside I do not like the owner of American Guns as they portray him on the show. It might all be an act for all I know but im sorry, pushing a new shooter to a highly custom 1911 as her first gun is moronic and borderline immoral.

In regards to the show; echoing a lot of what others have said: The custom fully automatic 1911 in 38 super was pretty damn cool. It looked sort of like a Beretta 93R , I wonder if they didnt get the idea from his gun.

old bear
March 5, 2012, 02:08 PM
They profiled a gun used by “Baby Face” Nelson of the John Dillinger gang a Colt 1911 .38 Super converted to full auto with a fore grip and I believe a 20 round magazine

Interesting looking weapon. I would hate to be on the receiving end of that, but it looks far from easy to conceal. Why not a cut down rifle or shotgun? These guys were not overly worried about having illegal weapons..

P.s Don P, I like your train of thought. Some folks should remember, "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all."


There were some very early smokeless powders (nitrated wood pulp, and other things) that were being used in shotshells, such as Schultz's White Powder, but I suspect that their penetration into the marketplace at this time, especially in the west, was VERY low.

Mr. Irwin, if I remember correctly most of the accounts of the fight at the Ok coral mention how quickly the area was filled with “gun smoke,” I also believe that Holiday got his 10 gage into the fight early on. So it would be reasonable to believe that Holiday’s ammo was of the black powder verity.

markj
March 5, 2012, 05:20 PM
Little Big Horn


Wasnt much of a gun fight them Indians had no bullets as it was against the law to sell ammo to them. They used arrows, go to the actual battle ground park and listen to the park rangers tell the story. Indians could fire 3 arrows per second. 8 Indians died there. Markers show where they fell.

ltc444
March 5, 2012, 09:27 PM
After a 6 pack and an number of shots, I love the idots on Son of A Gun.

I watched the show and found it to be idoitic. The flame thrower segment shows exactly the type of imbecilic behavior which the media uses to cast all of us as buffoons.

SPEMack618
March 6, 2012, 07:59 PM
The lady friend liked the show in regards to the Prohibition era gunfights. (that was her assigned topic for a history paper once and I am constantly asked when we can shoot a Thompson.)

However, I too agree with the lack of mention(in this show and most other media for that matter) of the Truman Assasination Attempt.

I think that is a critical incident to study, especially for the principle of practice with what ammo you carry.

SG29736
March 7, 2012, 02:25 AM
"Wasnt much of a gun fight them Indians had no bullets as it was against the law to sell ammo to them."

This is hilarious. I can't believe I'm reading this on a gun forum.. I guess that's why the criminals today have such a difficult time getting guns and ammo, it's illegal to sell to them.. Actually, the indians were the ones who had repeating rifles while the cavalrymen had their single shot rifles and some revolvers. Mark

Powderman
March 7, 2012, 03:30 AM
As far as influencing law enforcement doctrine and tactics, IMHO there are actually four major incidents.

1. Lots of people have never heard of the Norco shootout in California. This is a riveting account of a running gun battle with armed bad guys. The cops were armed with revolvers, two reloads and pump shotguns. The BG's (IIRC) were armed with an AR15, a HK91, and multiple handguns.

2. The infamous FBI shootout in Miami woke the LE community up to more modern equipment that gave officers more immediate firepower. After that shootout, the emphasis was on replacing revolvers with semiautomatic handguns. Research and testing done as a result of that incident gave birth to one of our most popular cartridges to date, the .40 Smith and Wesson.

3. The Onion Field incident also caused a major shift in law enforcement training and doctrine. This one was where two officers were abducted; one was executed in an onion field; I believe the other one escaped.

4. However, the second single most important incident concerning law enforcement officers--and another incident causing a major shift in training, doctrine and tactics--was the Newhall massacre. Police officers pulled over a car load of armed killers. When the shooting stopped, four officers laid dead. This incident gave us our current procedures for the felony (hot) stop and also placed a major emphasis on officer safety.

Crioche
March 7, 2012, 04:07 AM
IMO here's one shootout from the British Army in Northern Ireland that shows what a very highly trained professional can do to terrorists:

One evening in the Londonderry area of Northern Ireland an SAS man was working alone on a surveillance task; he was in an unmarked civilian car driving around some very dangerous areas of that city. He had his Browning Hi-Power 9mm Pistol on his belt and several other weapons stashed inside the car, including an MP5 & a G3K 7.62mm assault rifle.

Somehow the opposition (the IRA) became aware of his presence and hastily brought together a team of 4 shooters armed with AK47s & AR18s; they got a car and began to follow the SAS man. Given that he was an expert in both surveillance and counter-surveillance, it was fairly obvious to him he'd outstayed his welcome in the area and they were onto him. So he began to drive calmly away from the area, but this quickly descended into a pursuit and the other car forced its way infront, stopped and created a barrier. The first burst of fire from the AK47 effectively immobilised the SAS man's car.

Whatever the circumstances it appeared that a fast reverse and a J-turn to escape were now out of the question; so the SAS man engaged them. He drew his Browning and went on the offensive. Despite being massively 'out-gunned' he used his Browning so quickly, accurately and effectively that three out of four terrorists were killed or incapacitated.

The 4th terrorist dropped his AK47 and ran away. The 'rumour' is that the SAS man let him go, despite being quite capable of killing him, so the terrorist could tell the others what it was like to take on an SAS man and lose!

A nice piece of quick thinking psychological warfare on his part.

I'm sure there are numerous similar examples of very high skilled shooters, whether military, police or a civilian protecting himself that can be mentioned. I thought you might like this one. It's quite relevant for our US audience too, because the SAS were credited with bringing Jeff Cooper's Modern Technique, including the Weaver Stance, etc, to the UK in the 60s/70s. The influence of their training meant that the UK Police adopted it (where do you think they get their training then??)

Mike Irwin
March 7, 2012, 07:36 AM
The tide of the Norco shootout turned in favor of the police when one of the assistance response deputies brought out what might have been a personally owned AR-15.

IIRC he killed one of the robbers outright and made the others displace from the ambush that they set up. Apparently these guys not only wanted some money, they wanted to kill some police officers.


"The infamous FBI shootout in Miami woke the LE community up to more modern equipment that gave officers more immediate firepower."


Three of the agents in the Miami shootout were armed with 9mm Smith & Wesson semi-autos.

It was the failure of the Winchester 115-gr. Silvertip bullet to reach Platt's heart that resulted in the modern era of bullet and ammunition design.

This months' American Rifleman has an interesting article by Bill Vanderpool, who is former chief of FBI's ballistics dept. It is, unfortunately, a rather short article, and doesn't go into much detail, but he talks about the aftermath of Miami and the effect it had on ammunition design and testing.

Agent Mirelles ended the shootout with a Smith & Wesson Model 19 revolver loaded with 158-gr. LSWCHP .38 +Ps, which were standard issue to agents at that time.

SPEMack618
March 7, 2012, 08:13 AM
From the account I read in "Weapons and Tactics for Law Enforcement", the officer that ended the Norco shootout instead got his personal AR-15 up and running to aquire the iniative.

Didn't Agent Mirelles also have a Remington 870?

JimPage
March 7, 2012, 08:37 AM
"Interesting looking weapon. I would hate to be on the receiving end of that, but it looks far from easy to conceal. Why not a cut down rifle or shotgun? These guys were not overly worried about having illegal weapons.." This was in reference to Baby Face Nelson's fully auto 1911 .38 super.

They weren't illegal until 1934. I'm not sure what dates Nelson was in business.

Mike Irwin
March 7, 2012, 09:40 AM
'Didn't Agent Mirelles also have a Remington 870?'

He did. He shot it dry to no apparent effect.

kraigwy
March 7, 2012, 11:10 AM
3. The Onion Field incident also caused a major shift in law enforcement training and doctrine. This one was where two officers were abducted; one was executed in an onion field; I believe the other one escaped.

This, the Onion Field, affects more officers and I'll add civilian self defense then all the others combined.

Yes it involved the two officers you mentioned, both were captured, one was killed the other escaped.

BUT that's not the theme of the subject. The Officers gave up their guns, one escaped but because the gave up their guns the second was killed, the first was haunted the rest of his life.

LE changed their tactics, stressing NEVER EVER GIVE UP YOUR GUN, and just because someone has the drop on you doesn't mean you are at an disavantage. You can still respond and you can still win.

Most departments started training session where we drew on a subject who had his gun pointed at you, we found it doesn't take much to pull it off, (this was covered in a subject I started a few weeks ago, "drawing on a bandit who has the drop on you".

We also got into a heavy training program of "take a ways" or ripping the firearm from an individual who has the drop on you.

Anyway, the chances of the massive gun battles are quite un common in real life, the "one on one" situation of the Onion field are much more common.

In reality cops spend more time on traffic stops, disturbances, field interviews, etc, then in multi bandit gun fights at banks.

I'd say the same for Civilian SD, its home invasion, its convience store robberies, ATM rip off's, or car jacking situations not multi bandit gun fights.

markj
March 7, 2012, 05:37 PM
This is hilarious. I can't believe I'm reading this on a gun forum

Well all I can say is I was at the battlefield and listened to the park ranger describe the battle and went by the fact the soldiers were riddled with arrows and not to many were shot. But hey belive what you wish. I was very surprised to hear this from the ranger. There are numerous books on it if you wish to research it. My good friend Gary Spotter War Bonnets Grandpa made coup that day he was 14. I heard his tale on the res while visiting Gary.

While some warriors were armed with rifles (including antiquated muzzle-loaders and Army Sharps carbines which they had acquired years before in trades with settlers), the Indians also carried a large variety of traditional weapons. These included bows and arrows and several styles of heavy, stone-headed war clubs. According to the Indian accounts, at least half of the Indian warriors were armed only with bows and "many arrows," making this the primary weapon.[52] Many of the Indian participants, including the thirteen year-old Black Elk, claimed to have acquired their first gun from dead troopers at the battle.[53] The Sioux warrior White Bull described the Indians' systematically stripping slain troopers of guns and cartridge belts. As the losses mounted among Custer's men, the soldiers' fire steadily decreased, while the gunfire by the Indians with newly acquired weapons increased until reaching a crescendo.[54] Cheyenne participants gave similar testimony: the Indians' firepower was increased by the new carbines they took off the soldiers, and ammunition recovered from the saddlebags of the troopers' captured horses.



Tactics the Indians used then are common to gurilla warfare used to this day. Tied brush on the horses tails to make dust, burned brush to create smoke and separate the soldiers. But hey what do I know? It is history not TV made movies crap. Custer got his due after he killed countless women, children and old men.

kraigwy
March 7, 2012, 05:49 PM
Indians could fire 3 arrows per second

I want to see that.

I wont address the rest but if I was you I'd demand your money back from your history teacher.

markj
March 7, 2012, 05:59 PM
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/How-the-Battle-of-Little-Bighorn-Was-Won.html

Read up. Do research.

SPEMack618
March 7, 2012, 06:42 PM
Okay, I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say that the 7th Cav Troopers killed far more than 8 Lakota, Arapaho, and/or Northern Cheyenne warriors.

Those eight markers are for the eight leaders of the various tribes that fell in battle.

Since the Native American warriors had no S-1 shop, I doubt anyone will ever know the exact figures of those killed at the Little Big Horn

And this isn't just chest bumping because I'm a 19D.

ltc444
March 7, 2012, 07:26 PM
When I toured the Little Big Horn it was just after I had finished the Air land Battle doctrine portion of the Army Command and General Staff College.

I was impressed with the effectiveness of the Indian attack. Even though air land battle doctrine had not been concieved, the principles on which it is based were evident in the Indian actions in destroying Custer's Command.

SG29736
March 7, 2012, 11:31 PM
"Wasnt much of a gun fight them Indians had no bullets as it was against the law to sell ammo to them."

This is the statement that I was referring to as hilarious. Are you saying they had rifles but no ammo, because it was illegal to sell ammo to them. 3 arrows per second, not bad. Mark

The 3 arrows per second comment might be a clue that someone had an agenda to make things look as favorable to the Indian side as possible. I'm no Custer fan, just trying to be as accurate as possible.

SG29736
March 7, 2012, 11:46 PM
A quick search found this:

"There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered."

The above was from the history.net website.

This from the National Park Service/ Midwest Archeological Center:

Indian arms included, 44 caliber Henry, 44 caliber Model 1866 Winchesters, 44/40 caliber 1873 Winchester, all repeating rifles. The army in 1876 did not issue repeating rifles.

They do also mention that the indians of course had bows and arrow, clubs, old muzzle loaders etc. Mark

markj
March 8, 2012, 05:38 PM
Yes, if a person sold them ammo and was caught they were hanged. The guns used by the indians were picked up on the battlefield for the most part. The guns used by many of the soldiers had bad ammo and the shells would not eject due to expansion. Wounded indians were carried off the field there were 8 dead left not 8 chiefs. I was told this by the park ranger not any history teacher. Now if you wish to see the markmanship of a native I suggest coming to Nebraska and go on a guided hunt up north of Omaha in Black Elk park, it will cost you but you will have a pro indian guide. You may use a target to practise up on your arrow skills, then ask one of them. He will show you some tricks and they hit what they aim at.

Custer wasnt that nice of a fellow, he was almost kicked out of the acadamy for rebellious stuff. He led a attack in the civil war took out some guys and saved the day, but it sure could of gone the other way. Luck was his till Little Bighorn. Indians wdere upset over being kicked off the res in the black hills due to gold was found there. It is still in the courts to this day.

Indians actually saved our rear ends in ww2, korea and nam with their code talking, still unbroken today. Thank an indian next time you meet up.

My friend had a Sioux ceremony at his service, also fire dept honor guard and 3 round volley by the VFW as he served bravely.

The books were written by those that oppressed the indians so are you surprised at the slant?

kraigwy
March 8, 2012, 06:03 PM
Indians could fire 3 arrows per second

That part voids all the rest in regards to credibility.

Plus it hasn't much to do with the topic, but that's for moderators to decide.

2damnold4this
March 8, 2012, 06:07 PM
Custer wasnt that nice of a fellow,

I agree with you there. But I've seen spent cartridges and bullets dug up from the site and there are a large number that didn't come from Custer's men.

SPEMack618
March 8, 2012, 06:28 PM
A lot of people nearly kicked out of West Point.

Wasn't one of the deciding factors, aside from Custer's bumbling stupidity the fact that the Indians had Winchester repeaters compared to the 7th Cav's single-shot trapdoors?

Further more, eight dead left behind would probably equate to several more times KIA.

Mike Irwin
March 8, 2012, 09:54 PM
In theory it was illegal to sell firearms to the Indians.

In theory it was also illegal to sell alcohol to the Indians.

In practice, both were largely disregarded by hundreds of traders who did very brisk business with many indian tribes in both commodities.

The simple matter was that, once a trader cleared "civilization," and got into Indian country, there were few, if any, effective policing mechanisms to stop him from selling anything he wanted to the indians.

And the theory that an Indian could fire 3 arrows a second?

Balderdash.

Not even the best bowmen could do that.

SG29736
March 8, 2012, 10:46 PM
I guess you figure that criminals today don't have guns because they are prohibited from having them. How did the Indians pick up Winchesters, Henrys etc from the battlefield, when the soldiers did not have them? Part of the information that I put in my post came from the same park service that you are saying gave you the information. They have actually done forensic studies of the battle field and have been able to track by the expended ammunuition the movement of some of the shooters.

"There were 2,361 cartridges, cases and bullets recovered from the entire battlefield, which reportedly came from 45 different firearms types (including the Army Springfields and Colts, of course) and represented at least 371 individual guns. The evidence indicated that the Indians used Sharps, Smith & Wessons, Evans, Henrys, Winchesters, Remingtons, Ballards, Maynards, Starrs, Spencers, Enfields and Forehand & Wadworths, as well as Colts and Springfields of other calibers. There was evidence of 69 individual Army Springfields on Custer's Field (the square-mile section where Custer's five companies died), but there was also evidence of 62 Indian .44-caliber Henry repeaters and 27 Sharps .50-caliber weapons. In all, on Custer's Field there was evidence of at least 134 Indian firearms versus 81 for the soldiers. It appears that the Army was outgunned as well as outnumbered."

This is the kind of detailed information they got when they actually studied the battlefield. You think all of the above is just baloney?

I have no problems with Indians and their contributions. That doesn't however change the fact that they had repeating rifles and the soldiers didn't. I also didn't mention any books. I've seen a lot of information about the Little Big Horn through the years, from both sides, some contradictory, not just some story from a tour guide.

You don't think your credibility is questionable when you believe that someone can shoot 3 arrows per second with a regular bow and arrow? (one arrow at a time, I'm assuming). You seriously believe that. Mark

markj
March 9, 2012, 05:28 PM
You seriously believe that. Mark
I have watched and seen some amazing stuff done with bow and arrow.

SG29736
March 9, 2012, 05:58 PM
"I have watched and seen some amazing stuff done with bow and arrow.."

I'm sure you have. I saw a guy split an arrow the other night on a program. I've seen amazing demonstrations. 3 arrows in one second is not among them. That's all I'm saying on that part of the discussion. There are some claims that would be difficult to achieve that I would be willing to believe without actually seeing it. I'd have to see the 3 arrows shot that fast to believe it. Mark

kraigwy
March 9, 2012, 06:31 PM
When my granddaughter was about to become of age to hunt I took her to her Hunters Ed Class.

They had a session on Bow Hunting talking about how bows were the cats meow.

My Granddaughter pops up, "if bows and arrows are so great, how come the Indians lost".

I've seen some dern good bow hunters, (I'm not one, I couldn't hit the ground with a bow), but there is no way a guy, any guy, can shoot three arrows in 1 second.

g.willikers
March 9, 2012, 06:34 PM
Here - three arrows in 1.5 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggDfJLB8jTk&feature=related

SG29736
March 10, 2012, 10:30 PM
That's not bad, but you can't really see how he's handling the arrows or how it's being timed. Start signal to last arrow fired, or time from first arrow fired to third arrow fired? Also, the original example would be an Indian firing arrows with 1870's equipment, with enough draw weight to do some serious damage to a soldier. Even at 1.5 seconds, if possible, that's 50% more time than quoted. Mark

g.willikers
March 11, 2012, 08:30 AM
There's lots more on youtube.
Search for "fast archers"