The opening gunfight: speed vs. accuracy - Gunsmoke (1955) Discussion

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

Handguns aren't particularly accurate, simply because the barrel is so short. The consensus is that accuracy is more important than speed.

With respect to the opening tableau, Matt has to shoot second, or it would look as if he shot first (and by implication, drew first).

By the way, Matt is a terrible shot. He just pulls and fires, the gun bobbing all over the place. Chester and (especially) Festus take careful aim.

reply

[–] ZurichGnome 8 years ago

With respect to the opening tableau, Matt has to shoot second, or it would look as if he shot first (and by implication, drew first).

I think you may have misunderstood. Matt did start to draw first (you can clearly see his hand move first, although he fired second). That's exactly what helps to reinforce the idea that accuracy is better than speed. Matt drew first, but the other guy fired first; the other guy missed, while Matt did not.

This sentence is false. -- The Zurich Gnome

reply

[–] SixtiesHoldout 8 years ago

You are correct. The sequence shows that Matt is both faster on the draw and more accurate. He could have shot first, but he probably wouldn't have been as accurate if he had done so.

❇ If you can remember the '60s, then you weren't there. ❇

reply

[–] pt100 8 years ago

As Wyatt Earp once said:

Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein

reply

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

Just to clarify a point... When I said Matt was a poor shot, I meant in respect to all his shooting (not the opening scene, which is an exception). He just fires, without aiming well.

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

He just fires, without aiming well.

Well, in this fictional show, Matt can be deadly accurate while shooting from the hip. You seem to be talking about real life, in which case I would agree with you. Well, maybe some rare talent could do it, but then he/she wouldn't look this bad while doing it.

Now, on the flip side you don't necessarily have to aim super carefully to achieve useful combat accuracy at limited ranges. Some folks can point-shoot (no use of the sights) quite well after training hard, and personally, while I do use the sights for indexing, I don't take the extra time to line them up in the classic manner--from thousands of rounds of practice and many thousands more with airsoft and boresight lasers, I still know when I'm on target, while gaining a lot of speed. Everything involves trade-offs, and often concentrating on one thing too much to the detriment of another is less than optimal--that goes for both speed and accuracy.

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

As Wyatt Earp once said:
Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry.

And in a similar vein, Ross Seyfried said: "You can't miss fast enough to win."

Earp's second sentence is interesting, by the way, because it speaks to a fundamental truth of marksmanship in the context of a gunfight that involves fast shooting--to be "slow" (so to speak) is to be deliberate and smooth, not actually slow (that's why he said "in a hurry"). You start your training by moving slowly and smoothly, and then increase your speed as much as possible--but gradually, bit by bit--while maintaining your smoothness. If you're no longer smooth (and therefore no longer accurate), then slow down and work on it more. That's what he meant, I'm pretty sure, and it shows that he knew his stuff (assuming that the quote attribution is accurate).

Having said all that, realistically, being slightly more accurate, for example, is sometimes not a worthwhile trade-off for being slower. I think that all of these quotes and themes we're talking about here are reminders about the often-neglected importance of accuracy, and are not intended to imply that speed isn't important--speed may be "second among equals" in a way, but it can nevertheless be the decisive factor in some cases.

reply

[–] pt100 8 years ago

Agreed. I think we could say that speed is necessary but not sufficient, and accuracy is necessary but not sufficient. If one is too inaccurate, speed will not help; and if one is too slow, accuracy may not help--but it may if the other guy is slower and/or less accurate.

Earp also always said to aim for center mass (stomach/mid-torso), because you're more likely to hit something even if you're a bit off. And hitting something may disrupt your opponent's ability to respond, thus allowing you to more easily get off a second, accurate shot.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

Handguns aren't particularly accurate, simply because the barrel is so short.

At the risk of seeming pedantic, barrel length has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy of a firearm--a gun with a shorter barrel is just as accurate as one with a longer barrel, provided that everything else is equivalent. That said, it is true that most every shooter (the person) is more accurate with longer barrels because of the longer sight radius that generally comes with that--this is what makes the difference, not the accuracy of guns themselves.

The consensus is that accuracy is more important than speed.

Both are important and both are needed. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, accuracy always beats speed--and vice versa.  If you're faster and accurate enough, then you'll win even if the other guy is more accurate (had he gotten off a shot, that is), but if you miss then you'll lose no matter how fast you are. It's a matter of balance, although I think you're right that the show emphasizes accuracy more, and that's probably because it's the more easily forgotten/neglected of the two attributes.

By the way, Matt's sidearm has a pretty long barrel for a handgun--the original 7.5" barrel of the Colt Single Action Army or Peacemaker--which seems to imply, whether this was intentional or not, the importance of accuracy over sheer speed alone.

With respect to the opening tableau, Matt has to shoot second, or it would look as if he shot first (and by implication, drew first).

Perhaps so, but one would think that in such a situation, as unrealistic as it is, Matt would be justified in shooting first because his life was in imminent peril. That's how it works in real life (no one who is in the right has to let their would-be murderer shoot first! ), and although this isn't real life, in the vast majority of duels Matt was involved in, he was the one who drew and fired first (usually taking no return fire).

By the way, Matt is a terrible shot. He just pulls and fires, the gun bobbing all over the place.

No, Matt Dillon is a fantastic shot no matter how bad he may look. James Arness, however, almost certainly was a terrible shot.  But yes, that is bad form, albeit nowhere near as bad as Lucas McCain's in The Rifleman--that guy is all over the place, yet he always hits his marks at full speed. Ironically, I believe that unlike Arness, Chuck Connors was a shooter in real life--the problem is that few can have good form when shooting in that manner, rapidly with the lever instead of the trigger.

Chester and (especially) Festus take careful aim.

Well, that's because they're less awesome than Matt (I mean the character, not the actor)--he doesn't have to squint through the sights to hit a man in the heart at 25 yards. 

reply

[–] pt100 8 years ago

barrel length has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy of a firearm--a gun with a shorter barrel is just as accurate as one with a longer barrel, provided that everything else is equivalent.

Well, everything else is not equivalent. In addition to length of site radius, long guns are typically heavier, can be steadied more easily, and have less muzzle flip. This makes them inherently more accurate in the same hands.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

Well, everything else is not equivalent.

It rarely is in reality, but my points were that barrel length, in and of itself, does not determine accuracy (the bullet doesn't care about length--it flies straight out of the barrel regardless), and that any impact on accuracy (for all practical purposes) is due to the effects on the shooter, not the gun itself directly.

To simply state that handguns are not accurate implies that even with perfect aim (maybe held in a vise) they'll fling bullets way off the mark in every direction, differing with each shot, which is not true--some people actually believe this, and I don't want people to. If this were true, then aiming and accuracy on the part of the shooter would not be as important as it is, and would go against the main point the show and we are trying to make.

In addition to length of site radius, long guns are typically heavier, can be steadied more easily, and have less muzzle flip. This makes them inherently more accurate in the same hands.

Many long guns are also mechanically designed to be more accurate than most handguns because they're designed to be used at long ranges, but for all practical purposes any decent handgun in good condition (undamaged crown, good timing, and mechanically sound, etc.) is considerably more accurate than the shooter. It's about the accuracy of the shooter, not of the gun. Yes, the particular characteristics of the gun can affect the accuracy of the shooter, but it's still about what the shooter can do with it--the gun itself is inherently accurate (more than enough for the purposes of this discussion).

By the way, ammunition quality (consistency) also has an impact on accuracy, and probably more so than the gun itself. But this still pales in comparison to the variance between shooters or individual shots from the same shooter, especially in a gunfight, when you can't take your sweet time lining up your shot and controlling your breathing and such.

reply

[–] pt100 8 years ago

I frankly don't understand why you continue to try to downplay the inherent accuracy differences between long guns and handguns. Of course the skill of the shooter is important (duh!), but in the same hands a long gun in inherently more accurate, for all the reasons I already mentioned.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein

reply

[–] ZurichGnome 8 years ago

Yes, I don't think that rbrtck is really listening to what you said before. The length of the barrel on a long gun has a huge impact on accuracy. And no one has yet pointed out that a longer barrel has more rifling, which increases accuracy due to the increased gyroscopic effect on the bullet. As you said, a longer barrel also provides more inertia due to its greater heft, which limits muzzle flip. All this is in addition to the greater site radius.

There is little question that barrel length is, in fact, the single greatest factor in the greater accuracy of a long gun. As you said, in the same hands, a long gun will be more accurate.

This sentence is false. -- The Zurich Gnome

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

Yes, I don't think that rbrtck is really listening to what you said before.

I did, very precisely, and I responded very precisely. Human shooters are inherently more accurate with long guns than handguns, but putting humans aside, that doesn't mean that longer barrels--in and of themselves--are inherently more accurate than shorter ones.

The length of the barrel on a long gun has a huge impact on accuracy.

Not for a gun held in a vise--bullets fly straight out of it regardless of its length. Other factors such as the consistency of ammunition, the smoothness of the barrel's crown, and in some cases its twist rate are the main factors, followed by other factors involving the design of the gun as a whole.

Barrel length on its own is an insignificant factor, if it is even one at all. In fact, under some conditions, longer barrels can be less accurate. How? If you put a lot of rounds rapidly through a barrel during a single session (such as during combat), the barrel can get so hot that it actually droops under the influence of gravity, which has a negative impact on accuracy, and naturally the longer the barrel the more it tends to droop under such conditions.

And no one has yet pointed out that a longer barrel has more rifling, which increases accuracy due to the increased gyroscopic effect on the bullet.

No, what actually matters here is the rifling's twist rate, not the length of the rifling. A shorter barrel with a more aggressive twist rate will spin bullets faster than a longer barrel with a less aggressive twist rate. Read up on this--there are plenty of references online.

By the way, for completeness this is partially mitigated by the fact that (all else being equal) bullets will usually be faster out of longer barrels and therefore spin faster with the same twist rate, but twist rate typically matters more (when it's different), and regardless, as long as it meets a minimum level of stabilization for a certain bullet design the differences between spin rates makes little if any difference in accuracy. Ammunition quality and consistency are far more important, and even this doesn't usually matter enough for combat (unless you're a sniper). Going back to one of my original points, compared to humans all guns are inherently accurate.

As you said, a longer barrel also provides more inertia due to its greater heft, which limits muzzle flip. All this is in addition to the greater site radius.

All of these factors impact the accuracy of human shooters, but I'm talking about what is inherent to guns themselves.

There is little question that barrel length is, in fact, the single greatest factor in the greater accuracy of a long gun. As you said, in the same hands, a long gun will be more accurate.

A longer gun is in itself not inherently more accurate than a shorter one, but human shooters are inherently more accurate when shooting longer guns than shorter ones--for all practical purposes, both are undeniable facts, and there is no contradiction between them whatsoever.

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

I frankly don't understand why you continue to try to downplay the inherent accuracy differences between long guns and handguns.

Because it's insignificant in comparison to the accuracy issues of the shooter.

Of course the skill of the shooter is important (duh!), but in the same hands a long gun in inherently more accurate, for all the reasons I already mentioned.

I agree that a given shooter will generally shoot a long gun more accurately than a handgun, but putting human shooters aside altogether, one gun is not necessarily inherently less accurate than another just because it has a shorter barrel. That was my point about guns--what is "inherent" to them has nothing to do with people at all, just the guns themselves. If anyone doesn't care about that, then fine, you're not that interested in guns themselves, just how people shoot them, but others may be interested.

reply

[–] pt100 8 years ago

I agree that a given shooter will generally shoot a long gun more accurately than a handgun, but putting human shooters aside altogether, one gun is not necessarily inherently less accurate than another just because it has a shorter barrel.

You don't seem to realize how illogical and self-contradictory you continue to be, just because you don't want to admit what all experts and most non-experts know as a fact: a longer barrel affords more accuracy, for the reasons already mentioned. It is irrelevant to keep talking about skill differences between shooters. Of course a baby trying to shoot a pistol will almost certainly be less accurate than an expert marksman. In arguments, that is called a red herring.

The key point is that in the same hands, a long gun will be much more accurate than a pistol; and the difference increases with distance. This is due almost entirely to barrel length. We're not talking about putting a gun in a vice and firing it. We're talking about gunfights, or at least human shooters. But even if one were to put a pistol and a rifle in a vice and fire them a long distance, the extra rifling in a long gun will make the bullet fly truer.

That you can't seem to see this makes me think that you either don't really understand what you're talking about, or else you're just a troll.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

You don't seem to realize how illogical and self-contradictory you continue to be, just because you don't want to admit what all experts and most non-experts know as a fact: a longer barrel affords more accuracy, for the reasons already mentioned.

Longer barrels do give human shooters greater accuracy.

The key point is that in the same hands, a long gun will be much more accurate than a pistol; and the difference increases with distance. This is due almost entirely to barrel length.

The longer barrel will make the shooter more accurate, yes. Not the gun itself, though. I'm just trying to address the common myth that a longer barrel physically makes a bullet fly truer. If there is a difference, then it's relatively insignificant, and like I pointed out in another recent post, longer barrels can sometimes be less accurate under certain conditions (e.g. barrel droop due to high heat).

We're not talking about putting a gun in a vice and firing it.

I am because it can be useful or at least interesting to know about guns themselves in addition to the effects that their characteristics can have on shooters.

But even if one were to put a pistol and a rifle in a vice and fire them a long distance, the extra rifling in a long gun will make the bullet fly truer.

To the extent that this may be true, the difference is insignificant in the scenarios we're talking about. For all intents and purposes here, all guns (that are functioning properly) are inherently accurate, even if some help shooters shoot more accurately (mostly due to barrel length).

That you can't seem to see this makes me think that you either don't really understand what you're talking about, or else you're just a troll.

I'm equally perplexed that you're making such a big deal about a simple distinction that I made between what is inherent to guns and the effects of their characteristics on the accuracy of shooters. In general, long guns are inherently more accurate than handguns for a variety of reasons, but apart from precision shooting at long distance with plenty of time to aim, the difference is insignificant next to the other ways in which long guns help human shooters shoot more accurately--it's a human factor far more than a physical, mechanical one.

reply

[–] Moon_Doggie 8 years ago

First you wander off topic and stay focused there. Then you make some unsupported claims. By the way, the standard definition of barrel droop doesn't even match your definition. Barrel droop is when the barrel of your rifle is not perfectly aligned with the action of your gun.

Barrel droop is a condition that affects scope mounting in a major way. One might think that a rifle's barrel points straight out from the gun it’s mounted on, but most of the time that’s not the case. This downward angle makes mounting and sighting in much more difficult.

When the manufacturer installs a barrel, there is no guarantee that it will point straight ahead and this applies to both break and fixed barrels. These barrels can all be out of alignment and most of them usually are.

Unless the manufacturer takes special steps that require careful measurement and hand machining, the barrel will almost never point straight out from the rifle's action. Thus, when you mount a scope on the action there is no guarantee that it will be set in the exact same direction as where the barrel is pointing.

This is true for air guns as well as firearms. Those special extra steps usually add hundreds of dollars to the manufacturing process so you can be sure they’re not done on lower cost rifles.

And you insist on bringing up all sorts of odd situations that have nothing to do with everyday gun use. No one in a gunfight is going to fire a gun so much that the barrel droops. This can happen when a machine gun is fired too much, but it is virtually impossible for a pistol or rifle--especially in real-world situations such as a gunfight.

A person's a person, no matter how small. -- Dr. Seuss

reply

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

At the risk of seeming pedantic, barrel length has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy of a firearm--a gun with a shorter barrel is just as accurate as one with a longer barrel, provided that everything else is equivalent. That said, it is true that most every shooter (the person) is more accurate with longer barrels because of the longer sight radius that generally comes with that--this is what makes the difference, not the accuracy of guns themselves.

Be as pedantic as you like. I'm a pedantic person, so I have to be tolerant of it in others.

I used to shoot black powder. Longer-barreled weapons are generally considered more-accurate, because the ball or bullet has more time to develop a good spin. As far as I know, most handguns are rifled, too. Ergo...

The old joke about not being able to hit the side of a barn is true with respect to non-rifled weapons. I saw it demonstrated on a History Channel program (I think).

The question of whether Matt is justified * in shooting first depends on how you view the opening scene. This contretemp appears to be a call-out -- not Matt defending himself against an unexpected attack. There are several Gunsmoke stories in which a bad'un tricks people into drawing first, so he can claim self-defense. (As I write this, I realize I don't fully understand the "etiquette" of call-outs.)

* The cable series Justified is a successful attempt at a modern Gunsmoke.

PS: You can eliminate the wide spacing around quoted text by jamming what precedes or follows onto the same line.

reply

[–] braddy4 8 years ago

Some don't know that James Arness was an infantryman in WWII. He was badly winded in Europe by machine gun fire, Chuck Conners taught tank warfare in the states.

Both of them would have been comfortable with rifles, and had the warrior mentality.

Too bad more of our modern actors don't have that same familiarity with such masculine pursuits.

reply

[–] ben-thayer 8 years ago

The reason you hear the other shot first is that the producers didn't want you to hear one gun shot...which would have happened if Dillon shot first.

As the seasons progressed the opening had some amount of variation. The most commonly used opening had Dillon's gunshot AFTER the man in black's gunshot. But there are some episodes where things are different...we see the same setup with Dillon stepping onto the street to face the MIB, but the two shots ring out simultaneously. And I have seen some openings where Dillon's gunshot is heard first. It's not as if they re-shot the scene, but rather the sound editor makes a subtle change in the sound effects during the opening.

I have no idea how many episodes are like this, but I've taken notice of this many times over the past few years watching the series.

I'll note the episode title the next time I see one these openings where the gunshot sequence is altered.

reply

[–] stargazer1701-1 8 years ago

We interrupt our regular thread for some comic relief, so........

Folks, does your head ache from too much facts and figures brought on by over worked rationalization over speed and accuracy? Well, have I got some something to tell you! Had I been a producer of the show, I would have done what they did on the later seasons of the Dick Van Dyke Show. You know the opening sequence shows him coming home and half the time he trips over the foot rest and half the time he skirts around it? Well, in the case of Gunsmoke, at random, half the time you see would the current opening sequence and the other half you would see Matt's hat zing off his head from the bullet of his opponent. Hence the Marshal would have been named Matt Van Dyck or Dick Dillon.

Now back to our regularly scheduled serious discussion...........

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast

reply

[–] stargazer1701-1 7 years ago

"The harder you pull the trigger, the further the bullet will travel".

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast

reply

[–] liscarkat (16576) 7 months ago

I like the way they shoot in the old western serials--they sling the gun or thrust it forward every time they fire, thereby giving the bullet an extra few feet per second of velocity. Much more deadly! The modern-day movie equivalent would probably be the super-lethal sideways-gun.

reply

[–] rbrtck 8 years ago

The opponent's shot misses Dillon, but Dillon's shot hits its mark. So Dillon was slower to shoot, but more accurate.

Wasn't this the main point of the very first episode, too? Matt is so deadly because of his combination of speed and accuracy, but partially as a result he isn't the very fastest around. In that episode, he lost the first gunfight against an ultra-fast gunman but survived (well, duh! ), and later he defeated the same gunman by putting some distance between them--the gunman was faster again but missed this time, while Matt was deadly accurate with a shot to the heart.

In the vast majority of episodes Matt is faster, of course, although at least one of the color episodes reprises the theme of accuracy over sheer speed--Matt gets outdrawn and is shot (in the shoulder), but then kills the bad guy anyway (from the ground) with a more accurately placed shot. I guess it shouldn't be surprising to see this theme reflected in the intros of many of the seasons.

reply

[–] puterkatz 8 years ago

So glad someone noticed this too and posted about it. All comments were very informational. I thought the first time I saw the opening sequence that it was just out of synch audio...sort of like the opening to The Rifleman.

reply

[–] steve-108-710778 8 years ago

Of course, many of us realize that this is strictly theatrical staging of a fictional event, so no real-life conclusions can be drawn from it.

But you enjoy drawing your life lessons from your little fantasy world.

reply

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

Gunsmoke presents its own view of ethics and morality. This off-topic discussion is how the "trademark" opening does or does not jibe with Gunsmoke's moral world-view.

reply

[–] SixtiesHoldout 8 years ago

This off-topic discussion

It's not OT. Just because you have some issues with it, and you insist on refusing to acknowledge the inherent accuracy difference between pistols and long guns (due largely to barrel length and the resulting qualities associated with that) doesn't make it OT.

In fact, if anything, your comment about Matt's not shooting properly during episodes of the show (even if it were correct) has little to do with that opening gunfight sequence. So, in a sense, you sort of wandered OT.

❇ If you can remember the '60s, then you weren't there. ❇

reply

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

It's not OT. Just because you have some issues with it, and you insist on refusing to acknowledge the inherent accuracy difference between pistols and long guns (due largely to barrel length and the resulting qualities associated with that) doesn't make it OT.

It would help if you had actually read what I and others have written.

I was the person who brought up the point about short-barrel weapons being less-accurate. I have no "problems" with the truth of that assertion.

I should have been clearer that, by off-topic, I meant the direction in which this thread had just veered.

reply

[–] SixtiesHoldout 8 years ago

Sorry, I confused a comment by you vs. by rbrtck, due to the length of the thread and a memory error.

❇ If you can remember the '60s, then you weren't there. ❇

reply

[–] Tresix 8 years ago

The best example of speed vs. accuracy occurs in the episode "Mannon". In this episode, Steve Forrest plays a gunslinger so fast, Festus says "he's like greased lightning running downhill". When he finally confronts Matt, Mannon draws and shoots first, hitting Matt in the shoulder. While lying on his back, Matt then returns fire, dropping Mannon (as the movie" Gunsmoke: Return to Dodge" showed, though, this shot wasn't fatal either).

In real life, Wild Bill Hickok had a gunfight ( one of the few that happened the way that they do in the movies and TV shows). His opponent drew and fired first, Hickok returned fire from 75 yards and hit the man right in the heart.

"There will be blood. Oh, yes, there WILL be blood."-Jigsaw; "Saw II"

reply

[–] Fingaroo 8 years ago

His opponent drew and fired first, Hickok returned fire from 75 yards and hit the man right in the heart.

I know that is the distance that was reported but I have always had my doubts about it. I wonder if it was actually a shorter shot-- maybe 75 feet-- and that the distance was either misreported or else embellished over time. A shot like that (under fire, at 75 yards, and with an old-time cap and ball revolver) would have been close to miraculous. 

reply

[–] Tresix 8 years ago

Maybe it was feet.

"There will be blood. Oh, yes, there WILL be blood."-Jigsaw; "Saw II"

reply

[–] SixtiesHoldout 8 years ago

It must have been feet, because accuracy drops off quickly after about 25 yards. Typical handgun courses seldom teach much shooting beyond 25 yds (75ft). And I think, historically, it would be rather odd to have a gunfight at 75 yards.

❇ If you can remember the '60s, then you weren't there. ❇

reply

[–] gary-64659 8 years ago

I recently saw a documentary on Wild Bill Hickok and I'm certain the distance quoted was in YARDS, not feet. I noted it especially because Americans (which this commentator was) almost always call distances in feet rather than yards (which is the preferred term around the British colonies) and this long distance of yards as he indicated it on a Western street surprised me. However, 75 feet is quite a short distance -- about as long as a baseball pitch -- and would not have been surprising at all. I'm not sure in the case of this particular gunfight, but one commentator did make the point that gunfighters did not generally stand front on, so presenting the broadest possible target -- but usually like duellists, side on, to present a narrow target. Obviously if Wild Bill's opponent shot first and missed, Bill could aim and shoot at relative leisure.

reply

[–] SixtiesHoldout 8 years ago

It's hard to know how much is true and how much is embellished, and there are widely differing accounts. As has been noted, it's a lot easier to hit a distant target when doing target shooting; but when in a gunfight against a live opponent, it's a lot more stressful. Below are two different comments from the same Historynet article, which can be found here:
http://www.historynet.com/wild-bill-hickok-pistoleer-peace-officer-and-folk-hero.htm

Although tests carried out during the 1850s had proved that Colt’s Model 1851 Navy revolver was accurate in the hands of an expert at 200 yards, Wild Bill, like most of his contemporaries, was more concerned with its accuracy and reliability at 10 or 20 feet.

If we ignore Hickok’s Civil War service, during which he is reported to have killed a number of bushwhackers and guerrillas, it was 1865 before he was again involved in a face-to-face shootout. This was between himself and his friend Davis K. Tutt, an ex-Confederate turned Union man who, like Hickok, was an inveterate gambler. The pair played cards on the night of July 20 in Springfield, Mo., and Hickok lost. Tutt claimed he was owed $35, and Hickok said it was $25. Dave took Wild Bill’s Waltham watch pending payment. The pair then spent most of the 21st arguing over the amount. Hickok stated that Dave had loaned him money many times in the past, but he did not believe that he owed his friend $35 and they should compromise. But Tutt stormed off and reappeared on the public square at 6 p.m. sporting the watch. When Hickok told him to stop, Tutt drew his pistol, and Hickok did the same. Seventy-five yards apart, both men opened fire, the shots sounding as one. Tutt had turned sideways (in dueling fashion) and missed, but Hickok’s ball entered Dave’s right side and exited through his left, piercing his heart.

Thus, while some gunfights may have taken place at greater distances, the commonly preferred distance was apparently relatively short.

❇ If you can remember the '60s, then you probably weren't there. ❇

reply

[–] liscarkat (16576) 7 months ago

Dude, I love my little fantasy world. You get out of it!

reply

[–] tles7-676-109633 8 years ago

I love all the rationalization, but if you did some research on the show...
The reason you hear the other shot first is that the producers didn't want you to hear one gun shot...which would have happened if Dillon shot first. It might make a negative impression on viewers, as though Dillon was ruthlessly killing someone. That is the only reason you hear him shoot second.

reply

[–] ZurichGnome 8 years ago

And I suppose you can point us to the source of your research? If so, then why didn't you do so in your post? I don't see any links to back up your info, that looks like it may be just an opinion of yours.

FYI, I've done lots of research on lots of shows. That's how I know, for example, that Paul Richards was the first actor to shoot Marshal Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke (and also the first person about whom Steve McGarrett on Hawaii Five-O said "Book 'em, Dano!").

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

reply

[–] liscarkat (16576) 7 months ago

This is an informal forum, not a term paper. Citation of sources is not obligatory.

reply

[–] bear022013-588-696101 8 years ago

Great cast in Jayhawkers.

reply

[–] DawgBreath 8 years ago

Sometimes Matt just wasn't fast enough 😁

https://youtu.be/Rqpa8i7R4uM?t=30s

reply

[–] ZurichGnome 8 years ago

Thanks for the link. That's funny.

But seriously, sometimes he really wasn't fast enough. As I mentioned just now elsewhere in this thread, a bit of trivia: Paul Richards was the first actor to shoot Marshal Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

reply

[–] ben-thayer 7 years ago

There Was Never a Horse (S4, Ep35)

Kind of a different episode for Matt, when he finally does draw against Creed (Jack Lambert) it doesn't go well for Dillon, the 2nd time he was outdrawn in a gunfight. Plus the citizens turn on Matt, believing he's afraid of Creed.

reply

[–] stargazer1701-1 7 years ago

On YouTube, there is a gag reel showing Matt losing the draw for the opening sequence.

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast

reply

[–] ZurichGnome 7 years ago

Yes, DawgBreath posted that link three posts up from yours on 4/29/16.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

reply

[–] stargazer1701-1 7 years ago

oops... I missed Dawgbreeats post. Sorry. I am usually good about these things..

The thing I love about gag reels and bloopers is that it gives you an idea about the chemistry of the actors. I noticed the Gunsmoke team were relaxed and in good humor. James Arness especially appeared in good humor (and professional) about missing a cue or a failing prop.

MASH, on the other hand, one gets a sense that there was a tense atmosphere among the actors.

Gunsmoke was a great show. I am glad I have the opportunity to watch them again.

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast

reply

[–] ZurichGnome 7 years ago

Yes, your point about chemistry is a good one. When I see outtakes from some movies or TV shows, I get very different impressions from different ones. Sometimes the actors seem painfully aware they are on camera, so they mug it up too much. Others forget they are on camera, so their response is more natural. (I'm not talking about the Gunsmoke joke reel, where it was obviously crafted, not accidental.)

And on some shows everyone seems to be especially deferential toward the stars, not wanting to laugh over a blooper until the lead actors laugh. This was especially noticeable on some outtakes from Seinfeld. I think some supporting actors were painfully aware of their supporting status, and they didn't want to do anything to offend the lead actors who were experiencing celebrity status at the time. And while Jerry Seinfeld and Julia Louis-Dreyfus seemed pretty loose and not at all full of themselves, others, such as Jason Alexander and Michael Richards, sort of seemed to be basking in their celebrity and mugging it up a bit too much. Ironic, given what has happened to the careers of the latter two.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

reply

[–] stargazer1701-1 7 years ago

I may have seen the Seinfeld bloopers a while ago, ZG, and I remember them having loads of fun at each others mistakes. I remember the main cast was making most of the bloopers while the guest stars were actually in tune to the script and rather professional about the retakes. Some how, I remember Micheal Richards cursing himself on his mistakes. That was a great show... with the exception of that horrible final episode.

:P

Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast

reply