Readyrod
Member
Isn't it just a kind of spray and pray.
Not necessarily. A person mounted on a horse firing at multiple targets on each side of the horse would be faster than one revolver switching sides. All that would be required would be turning the head not shifting the weapon.firing the left, then the right, or vice versa - but this would undoubtedly be much slower than firing multiple shots from a single gun.
Not an option during the Civil War. There were very few repeating rifles(a 3 band 1858 Enfield from horse back?) available and the enemy had all of them. Shotguns were single or double barrel muzzle loaders. So a mounted partisan's best option was multiple revolvers. Made a lot more sense than anything else available at the time.Why bring two handguns to a fight if you could bring a rifle or a shotgun?
1. The guys name is CountGlockula.
2. He asks about "Dual Wielding" pistols. As opposed to.. "Single Wielding?" What is "Wielding? even MEAN in the non-video game world.
3. And the term "Gun Battle?" Gun Battle? Really?
"Yes officer, a drunk broke into my home, I engaged him in a gun battle, dual weilding my glocks. He is in fact dead now."
yeesh.
There is no reason to shoot with 1 pistol in each hand, it is hard enough to defend yourself accuratly with 1 pistol, and even harder to defend yourself legally with that sort of non-sense.
Hence the advent of the saddle holster.Assuming you can only carry so many pistols reachable with your strong hand, you may as well have some that can be reached with your weak hand too.
Would have been more usefull if monstrositeis like the Walker Colt and such like weren't invented. Seriously though, saddle holsters are a good idea. but isn't there a saying about: "If you ever NEED more then 4 or 5 revolvers, your're not short of revolvers, you're short peolpe on your side of the fight", or something like that?Hence the advent of the saddle holster.