I found this interview with Wyatt Earp online and reposted it here. It was first formatted/posted to the internet by a members of the primaryandsecondary.com forum.
Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal
Wyatt Earp. 1848 – 1929
by Stuart N. Lake
“I was a fair hand with pistol, rifle, or shotgun, but I learned more about gunfighting from Tom Speer’s cronies during the summer of ’71 than I had dreamed was in the book. Those old-timers took their gunplay seriously, which was natural under the conditions in which they lived. Shooting, to them, was considerably more than aiming at a mark and pulling a trigger. Models of weapons, methods of wearing them, means of getting them into action and operating them, all to the one end of combining high speed with absolute accuracy, contributed to the frontiersman’s shooting skill. The sought-after degree of proficiency was that which could turn to most effective account the split-second between life and death. Hours upon hours of practice, and wide experience in actualities supported their arguments over style.
The most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the winner of a gunplay usually was the man who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live long on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting—grandstand play—as I would poison.
When I say that I learned to take my time in a gunfight, I do not wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that split fraction of a second that means the difference between deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss. It is hard to make this clear to a man who has never been in a gunfight. Perhaps I can best describe such time taking as going into action with the greatest speed of which a man’s muscles are capable, but mentally unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated nervous and muscular actions which trick-shooting involves. Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster than thought, is what I mean.
In all my life as a frontier police officer, I did not know a really proficient gunfighter who had anything but contempt for the gun-fanner, or the man who literally shot from the hip. In later years I read a great deal about this type of gunplay, supposedly employed by men noted for skill with a forty-five.
From personal experience and numerous six-gun battles which I witnessed, I can only support the opinion advanced by the men who gave me my most valuable instruction in fast and accurate shooting, which was that the gun-fanner and hip-shooter stood small chance to live against a man who, as old Jack Gallagher always put it, took his time and pulled the trigger once.
Cocking and firing mechanisms on new revolvers were almost invariably altered by their purchasers in the interests of smoother, effortless handling, usually by filing the dog which controlled the hammer, some going so far as to remove triggers entirely or lash them against the guard, in which cases the guns were fired by thumbing the hammer. This is not to be confused with fanning, in which the triggerless gun is held in one hand while the other was brushed rapidly across the hammer to cock the gun, and firing it by the weight of the hammer itself. A skillful gun-fanner could fire five shots from a forty-five so rapidly that the individual reports were indistinguishable, but what could happen to him in a gunfight was pretty close to murder.
I saw Jack Gallagher’s theory borne out so many times in deadly operation that I was never tempted to forsake the principles of gunfighting as I had them from him and his associates.
There was no man in the Kansas City group who was Wild Bill’s equal with a six-gun. Bill’s correct name, by the way, was James B. Hickok. Legend and the imaginations of certain people have exaggerated the number of men he killed in gunfights and have misrepresented the manner in which he did his killing. At that, they could not very well overdo his skill with pistols.
Hickok knew all the fancy tricks and was as good as the best at that sort of gunplay, but when he had serious business at hand, a man to get, the acid test of marksmanship, I doubt if he employed them. At least, he told me that he did not. I have seen him in action and I never saw him fan a gun, shoot from the hip, or try to fire two pistols simultaneously. Neither have I ever heard a reliable old-timer tell of any trick-shooting employed by Hickok when fast straight-shooting meant life or death.
That two-gun business is another matter that can stand some truth before the last of the old-time gunfighters has gone on. They wore two guns, most of six-gun toters did, and when the time came for action went after them with both hands. But they didn’t shoot them that way.
Primarily, two guns made the threat of something in reserve; they were useful as a display of force when a lone man stacked up against a crowd. Some men could shoot equally well with either hand, and in a gunplay might alternate their fire; others exhausted the loads from the gun on the right, or the left, as the case might be, then shifted the reserve weapon to the natural shooting hand if that was necessary and possible. Such a move—the border shift—could be made faster than the eye could follow a top-notch gun-thrower, but if the man was as good as that, the shift would seldom be required.
Whenever you see a picture of some two-gun man in action with both weapons held closely against his hips and both spitting smoke together, you can put it down that you are looking at the picture of a fool, or a fake. I remember quite a few of these so-called two-gun men who tried to operate everything at once, but like the fanners, they didn’t last long in proficient company.
In the days of which I am talking, among men whom I have in mind, when a man went after his guns, he did so with a single, serious purpose. There was no such thing as a bluff; when a gunfighter reached for his fortyfive, every faculty he owned was keyed to shooting as speedily and as accurately as possible, to making his first shot the last of the fight. He just had to think of his gun solely as something with which to kill another before he himself could be killed. The possibility of intimidating an antagonist was remote, although the ‘drop’ was thoroughly respected, and few men in the West would draw against it. I have seen men so fast and so sure of themselves that they did go after their guns while men who intended to kill them had them covered, and what is more win out in the play. They were rare. It is safe to say, for all general purposes, that anything in gunfighting that smacked of show-off or bluff was left to braggarts who were ignorant or careless of their lives.
I might add that I never knew a man who amounted to anything to notch his gun with ‘credits,’ as they were called, for men he had killed. Outlaws, gunmen of the wild crew who killed for the sake of brag, followed this custom. I have worked with most of the noted peace officers — Hickok, Billy Tilghman, Pat Sughre, Bat Masterson, Charlie Basset, and others of like caliber — have handled their weapons many times, but never knew one of them to carry a notched gun.
There are two other points about the old-time method of using six-guns most effectively that do not seem to be generally known. One is that the gun was not cocked with the ball of the thumb. As his gun was jerked into action, the old-timer closed the whole joint of his thumb over the hammer and the gun was cocked in that fashion. The soft flesh of the thumb ball might slip if a man’s hands were moist, and a slip was not to be chanced if humanly avoidable. This thumb-joint method was employed whether or not a man used the trigger for firing.
On the second point, I have often been asked why five shots without reloading were all a top-notch gunfighter fired, when his guns were chambered for six cartridges. The answer is, merely, safety. To ensure against accidental discharge of the gun while in the holster, due to hair-trigger adjustment, the hammer rested upon an empty chamber. As widely as this was known and practiced, the number of cartridges a man carried in his six-gun may be taken as an indication of a man’s rank with the gunfighters of the old school. Practiced gun-wielders had too much respect for their weapons to take unnecessary chances with them; it was only with tyros and would-bes that you heard of accidental discharges or didn’t-know-it-was-loaded injuries in the country where carrying a Colt was a man’s prerogative.”
My thoughts on Wyatt Earp’s thoughts
Wyatt Earp’s most succinct quote is “Fast is fine, But accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry.“. It wasn’t in this interview. However, it basically sums up what he says.
I have read that he always took the time to align his sights even at a distance of 5-10 feet. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Earp didn’t die in a gunfight. He died at home at the age of 80.
I think this fact makes his advice well worth heeding.
I have said many times that you can’t miss fast enough to win a gunfight. I was rather delighted the first time I read Wyatt Earp’s thoughts on the topic. I loved learning that my opinions are shared by arguably the most famous and successful lawman in the American West.
My stepson is all about ammo capacity in a gun and is always telling me how much better a gun is the more ammo it can hold. He is always questioning my preference of revolvers,bolt actions,lever rifles and single shots to semi autos. I never can get him to understand that one shot is all that is needed if you are good. I’ve tried to explain to him that semi auto guns usually make a person a poor marksman because they tend not to concentrate on their first shot because they know they have quick follow up shots. I’ve read about a hunting guide that makes anyone who brings a semi auto rifle to hunt with load only one bullet and he keeps the rest. I think he has the right idea. Wish I could get thru to my stepson and others that more isn’t better. Loved the article. Thanks.
For hunting yes combat ‘no’. Or the military would still be issuing weapons that used a 10 round stripper clip.
Great comment!!
excellant commentary!!!!always leaving an empty under the hammer!!!side draw versus cross draw comment would be interesting.especially when using a two gun rig….in a firefight,to me,more rounds handy,beats few.
Hunting, yes. Combat . . . maybe. Depends on whether one’s talking about the sort of sustained firefight that military and police must consider or you’re talking about personal defense. For LEO and military, more is definitely better. For personal defense, I must agree with Mr. Livingston. In personal defense situations, I doubt that many shooters can get off more than one or two rounds no matter what their magazine capacity. Shot placement trumps spray ‘n’ pray.
A semi auto doesnt make you anything. You will bexa good or tertible shot based on your own merit. Everyobe i kniw thst catties a semi auto makes those shots count
In regards to one shot being enough
https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/
I think one shot in the right place is enough, which I think is what Donald Livingston was saying. Wyatt Earp held the same opinion (fast is fine but accuracy is final). In that article, the gunfight was ended by a well placed shot to the head.
It was about 1957 or 58 that I met an old prospector who had once been many other things, including a commercial artist. I have a piece of his art on my wall. It wasn’t but two or three years later that he, Maggie Magnuson, stayed with us for a time. One evening he, an old man at the time, and I not yet into my teens were watching some western.I think it may have been the Hugh OBrian show “Wyatt Earp”. There was a gun fight. Maggie got very quiet and said “That’s not how it was”. He then got up and walked away and into his room.
I’ve never been able to find out who Maggie really was, but I don’t think the name he went by was the name he was born with. But experience has taught me that when an old man says something in a quiet voice, especially such as Maggie did, there is almost certainly a good deal of truth and a serious back story to be found.
You were young Lawrence, most of us when young think, there is always tomorrow to ask. I imagine, you wish you had. Maybe you did, but got no reply.
For hunting, I started at age 12 with a 16 ga. single barrel Ithaca in 1966. Smartest (or first opportunity ha ha) decision I ever made. Brother had one of those single shot Sears .22’s. I won most every contest i was in, when young. Boy Scouts, .22 and M1 carbine. USMC range at P.I. I fired a 239 out of 250, with the M14. Qualified Expert too a year later with the M16. There’s always some luck or happy accident, but I owed it all really, to the way I began shooting. I am positive I was buying my own ammo, at age 14-15 at the Western Auto, ha ha. I’m so sorry kids, that we did not remain vigilant. I’m 65 and I take my share of the blame, for not fighting for your rights sooner and harder. Lawrence, your story just took me back to my younger years. Sorry for blathering.
I also learned to hunt around 15 with an old 30″ open choke 12 ga single shot. Dad had an old .22 single shot Remington that had 1000s of rounds shot through it and where I learned to shot pretty good. By the time I went to MCRDSD in 67 I could handle the M14 very well and better than most of the boys who never touched a rifle or shotgun. Safety was always the #1 priority, and as Dad would say, before you shoot be sure of what it is and what is beyond that. I will always be grateful for those formative years and learning how to find food and defend myself if necessary.
My book, The Red Dot Club, details eleven officers, including myself in gunfights as they are bring shot. My partner and I put seven rounds into a suspect until he was down for good. I do believe after being in shootings and interviewing many officers for my books, that you just can’t have too many bullets. The only sure shot to end a gunfight is that band around the eyes.
You might enjoy my article on how many rounds you need for concealed carry. There’s a reason my CCW is a double stack. I’ve never heard of a gun fight survivor saying “You know, I just had too many bullets.”
BTW, I looked up your book on Amazon and added it to my list. Looks like a good read about something I have no experience in. (being in an actual gunfight.)
That’s a very good story! I myself learned at an early age to listen to old people. I got my ass handed to me by someone who looked so harmless as to become unnoticed. (I’ll not share the embarrassing incident, just surfice that I’m glad I learned it early in life, as it turned me into a different person….) I now am old myself and find that that lesson needs to be taught to young people everywhere. Learning to respect your elders is no longer a thing taught by parents today.
Back in the 1970’s I was just about out of college and newly married, living in an efficiency apartment on Camp Street in New Orleans, in the Garden District. On older gentleman, in his 60’s, rented a room in a house next to ours. He was a script writer, doing research for a Charles Bronson movie ‘Hard Times.” He was about 5’6″, pleasant guy and unassuming. He had a slight limp and walked with a cane. Every day he would put on his french beret and go off to the market to get french bread and food.
As it happened, this part of the Garden District was peaceful enough, but it had its moments. Walk a couple of blocks in any direction and the neighborhood’s change. So he’s on his way home one evening and he looks like a very easy target. Two guys jump him. He destroys them! Turns out he was a member of OSS during World War Two, and jumped into France as part of a 3-man Jedburgh Team to aid the Resistance. Gotta watch out for those old guys! The training they received was designed to kill, no quarter even considered. Way different than dojo training or “self-defense.” Simple, direct, and lethal….all out deadly.
The OSS was trained at what is now Camp David, and the hand-to-hand combat instructors were William Fairbairn and a young Rex Applegate. Fairbairn developed the “point shooting” technique which Applegate later refined. Fairbairn favored automatic pistols, fired with a “death grip” one-handed, raised to eye level and fired immediately. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of this method. Applegate was given a free hand by “Wild Bill Donovan, head of OSS, to develop practical fighting techniques that could be taught very quickly. He tells the story of going to Deadwood, SD, and reading an original newspaper article on Bill Hickok on gunfighting: “i deliberately raised my pistol to eye level and shot.” Basically, affirming Erp’s comments about making the first shot count.
I happen to be a competitive shooter specializing in the Civil War. I belong to the N-SSA (North South Skirmish Association). During the team matches I always tell people that the careful shot is the winning shot. As that I shoot a muzzle loader, I load quick and take my time with a shot. We shoot at various types of breakable targets- clay birds, small flower pot silhouettes, and ceramic tiles. Time is of the essence but to miss a shot is to loose about 15 to 20 seconds. I personally think that to shoot quick is to waste a shot.
In today’s world I prefer an autoloader due to the higher capacity and thugs traveling in packs. I do also shoot a revolver in IDPA & USPSA sometimes. After doing a few matches with a wheelgun, accuracy is improved as you learn that you must make the shot or suffer the consequences. That carries over even when switching back to the auto. In matches that’s only time and points, but in a real situation that could mean life or death.
The only gun my wife is comfortable with is a Ruger .357 kept on her side. It is easier to operate than any automatic and is just point and click. I have a 12 gauge pump with buckshot in the first 2 and then a slug. Hopefully we never need them but we are getting older so we have a plan just in case. If my daughter is home (Navy vet) she has a Walther .380 that she likes. She also has a place to be if necessary. My only worry is how well practice will do in a true threat situation when something is shooting back.
In another interview in 1923 with the LA Times (…. which is consistent with what I have read here….) Wyatt Earp said the Following: ” I never was the fastest gun in the west… just the most deadly. ” I guess that says everything!
Revolvers vs. autoloaders…love them both, for their respective pros. It just comes down to what’s more importand to you. a semi-auto is great for a combat-like situation, where more shots needed is a realistic prospect, or when facing multiple attackers…
Revolvers are great because they don’t malfunction under high stress (limp-wristing) scenarios, and they’re simple enough that your wife, girlfriend, kids, etc. could manipulate it in your absence, if needed.
Realistically, you’re looking at a few rounds, at a few feet, in a few seconds. Just choose what you’re comfortable with. If you’re comfortable, you practice. If you practice, you become proficient. It doesn’t matter what it is; you’re more likely to save your skin with a gun that you are well versed in handling.
Exactly Bugsy! I love my old 6-Shooters ,but when it comes to self defense, nothing beats a gun that fits your hand like a glove and as much practice as you can get with accuracy.. The only reason that I prefer a semi-automatic is because whether its a double/single or single action only, you are always shooting in a single action form. With a revolver, you mostly will fire all rounds in double action. It’s a split second slower on every shot and hast makes waste. In this case, waste means your life.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read and some of the best replies. I have both 5 to 7 shot revolvers and I have 17 round semi auto’s. I have a hard time deciding on what gun to carry. I think I may carry with higher capacity and shoot like it’s a revolver. The only issue is what state or city you reside. They can limit your carry choices. That’s a bad thing. I like making practical choices. They like control.. I win.
I remember a tip as to what to concentrate on when facing a potentially armed opponent. One expert said that it is better to watch his EYES as opposed to his HANDS.
I believe that it was the late Jeff Cooper that said something like “shoot as fast as you can accurately, but not any faster.” That pretty well sums up what his predecessor Wyatt Earp believed. RIP Cooper and Earp, men like you are few and far between.
Great article & even better replies & when you think about what was said it makes so much sense like someone just smacked you on the back of your head! Thanks so much!
Excelente artículo y muy buenas opiniones Què lejos va quedando el viejo oeste.