It can be done, but I cant think of a scenario where it is better to be holding two guns than one. Having a backup isn't necessarily a bad idea, but trying to shoot two at once is a lot harder for no real gain.
>The former doesn't exist in any practical sense
True but it's a theoretical situation in which hosing a target with two P90s would be better than one.
>the latter is just asking to get yourself killed.
I suspect you could drop an elephant with 100 5.7 rounds.Tyke was killed with less.
Carrying multiple pistols at a time was certainly a thing for centuries, even up into the 20th century with methods like New York reloads. However using more than 1 at a time is mostly the realm of fiction, though there's nothing saying pirates never held 2 pistols at a time instead of using then 1 by 1. What I'm saying is, it could've happened but for the most part it never does
>though there's nothing saying pirates never held 2 pistols at a time instead of using then 1 by 1
Although it is just a song. Is there any documentation of Whiskey in the Jar being sung with references to using 2 pistols prior to the 20th century? I know the Metallica cover includes it, but other version of the lyrics I've seen never mention more than one pistol.
Dunno about the song, there are a hazillion variations of the lyrics, and many mention pistols plural, for example the Thin Lizzy version, though that's clearly 20th century.
Anyway, it was very common for people to carry two pistols back in the day. If you look at antique guns it is common to find matched pairs, and they are nearly always identical rather than having a left-hand and a right-hand gun, this suggests they were likely used in the same hand rather than dual-wielding. Although a lot of modern people think of any pair of pistols in a fancy presentation box as "dueling pistols" the fact is that guns were found in pairs like this in all sorts, not just dueling pistols.
Duelling pistols would not have rifled barrels and sights, since using accurized weapons in a duel would have been seen as dishonorable and very likely to bring about murder charges, due to elimination of a factor of randomness that evens the odds of the opponents making the duel a fair trial of courage rather than their martial skills or craftsmanship of weapon maker. Pairs of rifled guns were ordered for sporting purposes or war/self defense. Also the captive ramrods and sliding safeties, like on your pics indicates military pistols, both being desirable for guns handled and loaded on a daily basis in difficult environment.
The russians tried it for a little, with revolvers.
Made some little copium claim that it was "acktually better than an SMG for real guise".
But mostly died out, never really used seriously in real life.
IIRC there was some glowBlack person raid during WWII where a British commando who was EXTREMELY proficient in the use of handguns took a pair of pistols into a house where some Wehrmacht officers were having a meeting and killed all of them. But even then, he was essentially performing the military equivalent of a mob hit because they were caught completely by surprised and likely unarmed.
I remember watching History Channel, like, 20 years ago and there was this story about a marine who saved some of his guys by dual wielding some 1911s when he ran out of ammo for his primary gun. Killed quite a few of the Japanese and got a Medal of Honor. I do not know his name.
i remember reading an account one time of an american soldier, in the west sometime in the 1870s, fighting along with the natives in some tribal battle, and he said that one of the native american warriors was riding around on horseback, with a spencer rifle strapped to his back, with a colt revolver in each hand, just riding through the middle of a battle and firing at everyone he could. One of the coolest stories ever, I will see if I can find it and link it
I found it, it was roman nose, a cheyenne warrior. I have read a few different books with him in it and it says he was one of the most famous indian warriors among the american soldiers and he would always ride into the ranks of the americans soldiers in a battle because he thought he was protected by some native american spiritual protection against bullets. This is from one of the books:
"He (roman nose) put on a U.S. officer’s dark blue blouse with brass buttons and gold epaulets, a slung carbine and two revolvers, along with his bow and quiver, man arrows and all. Riding out before Hanwiener and the troops, he made a huge impression on the whites who finally got a look at him: “Of all the chiefs, Roman Nose attracted the most attention,” the contract surgeon Isaac Coates noted. “He is one of the finest specimens, physically, of his race. He is quite 6 feet in height, finely formed with a large body and muscular limbs….His manner showed plainly that he did not care whether we talked or fought.”
Holy frick, Roman Nose. Used a the musket length Spencer IRRC. I heard an account of him waving the thing above his head as if it was light as a feather.
Mosbys calvary that ran guerilla tactics against the Union were well known for going into combat with 2 or more colts. >attack Union targets at any time day or night with anywhere with anywhere from 20 to 80 and rarely upto 150 men >each soldier had at least 2 horses to switch out during their attacks >some soldiers went in shooting colts in both hands >some 1 at a time >all of them trained to not start firing until they could see the whites of union soldiers eyes >union calvary never could put a dent into em as they would either break apart and regroup being the union calvary and contine attacking or they'd just scatter in every direction to regroup later at predestined farms
I think I saw some Russian thing that taught that you could use two handguns to improvise suppressing fire if you don't have an SMG or something better suited to it. It does not seem like something you'd ever plan around though.
I have two primary handguns for home & self defense that I live, breathe, and (hopefully won't) die by. I practice both ambidextrously. I would prefer my primary shooting hand every time if I have the choice ... However, if I'm in a situation where I don't have a choice I can shoot quite reasonably well with my offhand. Let's imagine, say, my primary hand/arm is injured or restricted by some object, my dominant eye is injured, etc.
And, I do practice dual wield for funsies. I'm "good enough" at it I *could* do it if a situation truly called for it. I have a hard time imagining it, but it'll be a Hell of a surprise to someone not expecting it if I think it could be a good tactic. I've been able to produce some surprising hits shooting at two separate targets simultaneously, up to about 20 feet apart out at 30-ish yards.
So, you said "ever." That's a really big word and the answer to that is "Yes."
What advantages/disadvantages would an infantryman have going akimbo vs traditional combat training?
more bullet
It can be done, but I cant think of a scenario where it is better to be holding two guns than one. Having a backup isn't necessarily a bad idea, but trying to shoot two at once is a lot harder for no real gain.
>but I cant think of a scenario where it is better to be holding two guns than one
>*blocks your path*
Maybe trying to overwhelm some kind of armor that degrades with successive impacts when you cant opt for a bigger gun?
magdumping on an elephant?
The former doesn't exist in any practical sense, the latter is just asking to get yourself killed.
>The former doesn't exist in any practical sense
True but it's a theoretical situation in which hosing a target with two P90s would be better than one.
>the latter is just asking to get yourself killed.
I suspect you could drop an elephant with 100 5.7 rounds.Tyke was killed with less.
his lightening effect is kind of funny i like it but im not laughing
Carrying multiple pistols at a time was certainly a thing for centuries, even up into the 20th century with methods like New York reloads. However using more than 1 at a time is mostly the realm of fiction, though there's nothing saying pirates never held 2 pistols at a time instead of using then 1 by 1. What I'm saying is, it could've happened but for the most part it never does
>though there's nothing saying pirates never held 2 pistols at a time instead of using then 1 by 1
Although it is just a song. Is there any documentation of Whiskey in the Jar being sung with references to using 2 pistols prior to the 20th century? I know the Metallica cover includes it, but other version of the lyrics I've seen never mention more than one pistol.
Dunno about the song, there are a hazillion variations of the lyrics, and many mention pistols plural, for example the Thin Lizzy version, though that's clearly 20th century.
Anyway, it was very common for people to carry two pistols back in the day. If you look at antique guns it is common to find matched pairs, and they are nearly always identical rather than having a left-hand and a right-hand gun, this suggests they were likely used in the same hand rather than dual-wielding. Although a lot of modern people think of any pair of pistols in a fancy presentation box as "dueling pistols" the fact is that guns were found in pairs like this in all sorts, not just dueling pistols.
Duelling pistols would not have rifled barrels and sights, since using accurized weapons in a duel would have been seen as dishonorable and very likely to bring about murder charges, due to elimination of a factor of randomness that evens the odds of the opponents making the duel a fair trial of courage rather than their martial skills or craftsmanship of weapon maker. Pairs of rifled guns were ordered for sporting purposes or war/self defense. Also the captive ramrods and sliding safeties, like on your pics indicates military pistols, both being desirable for guns handled and loaded on a daily basis in difficult environment.
That Hungarian guy on CapandBall was able to reliably hit a man sized targets with smoothbore flintlocks at pretty decent range.
The russians tried it for a little, with revolvers.
Made some little copium claim that it was "acktually better than an SMG for real guise".
But mostly died out, never really used seriously in real life.
IIRC there was some glowBlack person raid during WWII where a British commando who was EXTREMELY proficient in the use of handguns took a pair of pistols into a house where some Wehrmacht officers were having a meeting and killed all of them. But even then, he was essentially performing the military equivalent of a mob hit because they were caught completely by surprised and likely unarmed.
NKVD trialed it
you can execute two people at the same time
100% purge throughput
but in trial there were other limitations so no faster
Only back then where reloading your handgun was a long affair, in the era of wheelgats and flintlocks
>Imagine thinking just two will do
not if you want to hit something
>covering fire has no advantage
I have good news for you!
Holding two guns is great if you are Holding someone up. They literally can't disarm you, they go for one gun you just shoot them with the other.
if you haven't mag dumped dual pistols inna woods, can you even call yourself a man?
Didn't the Virginia Tech shooter dual wield pistols for his massacre spree?
no those were dangerous assault machine pistols!
I remember watching History Channel, like, 20 years ago and there was this story about a marine who saved some of his guys by dual wielding some 1911s when he ran out of ammo for his primary gun. Killed quite a few of the Japanese and got a Medal of Honor. I do not know his name.
i remember reading an account one time of an american soldier, in the west sometime in the 1870s, fighting along with the natives in some tribal battle, and he said that one of the native american warriors was riding around on horseback, with a spencer rifle strapped to his back, with a colt revolver in each hand, just riding through the middle of a battle and firing at everyone he could. One of the coolest stories ever, I will see if I can find it and link it
Absolutely based if true. The natives should have won the war.
I found it, it was roman nose, a cheyenne warrior. I have read a few different books with him in it and it says he was one of the most famous indian warriors among the american soldiers and he would always ride into the ranks of the americans soldiers in a battle because he thought he was protected by some native american spiritual protection against bullets. This is from one of the books:
"He (roman nose) put on a U.S. officer’s dark blue blouse with brass buttons and gold epaulets, a slung carbine and two revolvers, along with his bow and quiver, man arrows and all. Riding out before Hanwiener and the troops, he made a huge impression on the whites who finally got a look at him: “Of all the chiefs, Roman Nose attracted the most attention,” the contract surgeon Isaac Coates noted. “He is one of the finest specimens, physically, of his race. He is quite 6 feet in height, finely formed with a large body and muscular limbs….His manner showed plainly that he did not care whether we talked or fought.”
Holy frick, Roman Nose. Used a the musket length Spencer IRRC. I heard an account of him waving the thing above his head as if it was light as a feather.
Perfect for cutting down hordes of Jaffa
I have heard of some people doing it in close quarters combat when their rifle either ran out of ammo or stopped working.
Mosbys calvary that ran guerilla tactics against the Union were well known for going into combat with 2 or more colts.
>attack Union targets at any time day or night with anywhere with anywhere from 20 to 80 and rarely upto 150 men
>each soldier had at least 2 horses to switch out during their attacks
>some soldiers went in shooting colts in both hands
>some 1 at a time
>all of them trained to not start firing until they could see the whites of union soldiers eyes
>union calvary never could put a dent into em as they would either break apart and regroup being the union calvary and contine attacking or they'd just scatter in every direction to regroup later at predestined farms
I think I saw some Russian thing that taught that you could use two handguns to improvise suppressing fire if you don't have an SMG or something better suited to it. It does not seem like something you'd ever plan around though.
It can be.
I have two primary handguns for home & self defense that I live, breathe, and (hopefully won't) die by. I practice both ambidextrously. I would prefer my primary shooting hand every time if I have the choice ... However, if I'm in a situation where I don't have a choice I can shoot quite reasonably well with my offhand. Let's imagine, say, my primary hand/arm is injured or restricted by some object, my dominant eye is injured, etc.
And, I do practice dual wield for funsies. I'm "good enough" at it I *could* do it if a situation truly called for it. I have a hard time imagining it, but it'll be a Hell of a surprise to someone not expecting it if I think it could be a good tactic. I've been able to produce some surprising hits shooting at two separate targets simultaneously, up to about 20 feet apart out at 30-ish yards.
So, you said "ever." That's a really big word and the answer to that is "Yes."
Used to, back when cap and ball was still a thing.