Billy Dixon's Shot - Fatal?

[Chris J. Flynn]

Just returned from a trip through Southwest (including a brief visit to SHOT show where I was able to pay my respects to Kirk and Heather AND purchase a copy of MLV's book on "Shooting Buffalo Rifles of the Old West." Also managed to visit Adobe Walls and Lincoln, N.M., site of Billy the Kid's jailbreak. While not taking proper notes, the Museum(s) in Lincoln did provide some interesting information which might shed some light (or more confusion?) on whether Billy Dixon's shot (reportedly 1538 yards) actually killed the Indian on the bluff, or whether (as was reported in earlier posts) the Indian recovered after being knocked off his horse following the bullet's striking his groin -- as reported by the Indians later.
In Mike's book (pp. 228-229) it is noted that Dixon used a borrowed "Big 50" for the fight on June 26, 1874, as his own .44 was short of ammunition. The famous shot, however, was fired two days later, so it is possible that the shot was made with Dixon's own rifle -- either a .44-77 or possibly .44-90. (I don't know whether historical literature identifies the rifle used for the long shot -- it may have been the .50)
There has been some discussion as to whether a projectile at long range would have had sufficient power to inflict a lethal wound, and this was one of many thoughts which occurred when viewing an exhibit at the Montano store in Lincoln. An exhibit noted that the "5 day fight" which ended in the death of Alexander McSween and the running gunfight escape of Billy the Kid and others from the burning McSween house was initiated when one of Billy's Regulators fired a shot at a posse of returning Murphy/Dolan supporters from the roof of the Montano store. (The exhibit in the store identifies the distance as being in excess of 700 yards (736?) and another drawing in the Lincoln Courthouse exhibit credits the shot as being 900 yards -- possibly the typical story of the fish that got away growing longer?) At any rate, the first exhibit states the shooter (Herrera?) was using a .45-120-550 caliber Sharps. The bullet struck one of the posse (I didn't note the name, but he was identified) on the belt buckle, and knocked him from his horse. The bullet did not penetrate, but caused internal injuries that resulted in the victim's death a week later. (I would guess peritonitis, but no autopsy results were noted.) This shot "opened the dance" which resulted in the Regulators being surrounded in the McSween house and ultimately burned out with generally fatal consequences.
The ranger on duty was a vast storehouse of knowledge, but admitted he wasn't familiar with Sharps nomenclature. MLV's book notes that the nomenclature of Sharps cartridges has changed over the years, so it is likely that the actual cartridge used in the Lincoln shot was a shorter (possibly .45-110/.45 2 7/8ths) shell using 120 grains of powder -- the exhibit does not cite a source for the description of .45-120-550.
To make a long story longer, it was interesting to note that at a range of approximately one-half the distance of Billy Dixon's shot, a Sharps bullet inflicted a fatal but non-penetrating wound. This was apparently a well-documented incident. It certainly supports the possibility that Billy Dixon's shot might have also been sufficiently deflected by leather breech cloth or whatever, resulting in a painful but not fatal wound. Either way, it's one heck of long way from the Adobe Walls site to the bluff at issue, and even Billy's "scratch" shot would have been remarkable.
Finally, it was noted that several bullets were left on top of Billy's grave, in memoriam. Next visit, I'm going to take along a Sharps round!

[13Echo]

At the range cited for the Dixon shot the bullet would arrive with better than 600ft lbs of energy. This is more than most pistols have at the muzzle and is plenty adequate to cause a lethal wound. The shot that hit the Regualtor hit the belt buckle. If the buckle was anything like what a cowboy wears now it might stop a lead bullet from penetrating, particularly if a lot of energy was absorbed by forcing the buckle into soft tissue. However, it could do considerable damage just from the blow to the abdomen, certainly enough to cause internal injuries such as ruptured gut, bladder, spleen, bruised pancreas, fractured liver, etc. depending on the location of the buckle.

Jerry Liles

[pete]

Good post Chris. It has been quoted in many books but on pg. 179 of "The Encyclopedia of Buffalo Hunters and Skinners" Dixon is quoted as saying "....some of the boys suggested that I try the Big 50 on them" when referring to fifteen Indians appearing on the bluff June 29th and the self proclaimed "scratch" shot. So in his words he used the 50. Scratch shot or nor that was a hell of a shot though.
It just dawned on me that this would be an excellent topic for Discovery Channel's show "Unsolved History" where they take historical events and look at them with modern forensic science. They could make a target that replicates a human in size and physical makeup and duplicate the shot and see what happens... Cool. Some body with connections call the show and suggest it.

[rdnck]

Chris--In Dixon's autobiography, he states that he used 'the Big Fifty'. It's on page 180.

As far as hitting a man on the belt buckle at 700 or 900 yards with a 45-120-550 and not shooting through the belt buckle and the man, I sort of doubt it, unless the belt buckle was made of steel and at least a quarter inch thick.

I have repeatedly shot through sun dried oak 2x6 planking that is so hard that you can't drive a nail in it. The distance is a surveyed 800 yards. The rifle was a 45-70 using a 540 grain Creedmoor bullet and at a chronographed 1107 fps. The planking was hit a total of seven times, and all seven hits blew through with no sign of slowing down.

My 45-110 chronographs 1256 with 106 grains of Goex 1f and a 530 grain paper patched bullet, and 1332 with a 540 grain grease groove Postell. Where I am going with this is that I don't see how you could shoot through that much oak at 800 yards at 1107 fps and not shoot through a common belt buckle and a man with the same bullet with 150 to 230 fps more punch.

Two things come to mind. One is was the man really shot with a 45-120-550, or a much smaller, lighter caliber? The other is what kind of belt buckle was it? Could it have been steel, and if so, how thick was it?

I still have my doubts about the belt buckle stopping penetration from a Sharps. Penetration in oak at 800 yards not withstanding, I have a bullet that I shot at Kenny Wasserburger's 1000 yard 3/8 inch thick steel Creedmoor target a couple of years back. It hit and bounced off, and Kenny found it when we went down to look at the target and he handed it to me. It is a near perfect mushroom, and while I haven't weighed it, I would guess it still weighs close to 500 grains. If THAT had bounced off and hit someone in the abdomen or groin, or wherever, it would DEFINITELY penetrate, even at 1000 yards.

I certainly would not hide behind a piece of leather or a belt buckle if someone was shooting at me with a 45 or 50 caliber Sharps at any distance that he could reach and hit me. Shoot straight, rdnck.

[gmartin]

Okay all you guys,

Please note the article "Sharps Rifles, just how far will they shoot" in the SHOTGUN NEWS, April 2000, by Mike Venturino. Actually I have a reprinted article from I can't remember what site. To paraphrase the part of the article concerning a possible lethal wound at Adobe Walls; The bullet was found to be traveling at 669 fps. at 1430 yds., and though traveling nearly straight down at 3500 yards still movig at 350 to 400 fps. Supposedly, a projectile from BB on must speed along at least 300 fps. to instill a possibly fatal wound. This was at the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona in 1992.
So yes the wound I believe very well could have been fatal. Please do not forget the desperation that the Native American must have felt to fight in such a non ritual mode in the first place. See THE BUFFALO WAR by James Haley for a great (thorough) expose' on this particular 2 year fight of the southern plains indians.

Thought I'd put in my two cents worth. Gregg

[Chris J. Flynn]

As expected, my observations only shed more heat than light on whether Billy Dixon's shot caused a death vs. "near-mortal" wound. Like rdnk, I would certainly think that penetration at either range with either caliber would be an almost certainty, yet the exhibits in Lincoln seemed well researched -- thus my curiosity was piqued enough to write the post, and my only point being that sometimes strange things happen twice. Now, if we can just identify the real shooter on that grassy knoll to the left....

[Mike Hansen]

[quote="gmartin"]Okay all you guys,

Please note the article "Sharps Rifles, just how far will they shoot" in the SHOTGUN NEWS, April 2000, by Mike Venturino. Actually I have a reprinted article from I can't remember what site...[/quote]

For that article, see the web site below.

http://the_montanan.tripod.com/Sharps.html

Mike

[horsefly]

Good Morning, Board;

I don't doubt the ability of a .45-70 at 600 or 800 yards to penetrate a "cowboy" belt buckle.

I do think that everyone is missing one possibility and that is that the shot didn't hit straight on. A heavy bullet could hit a buckle at that range and glance off while still delivering a lot of energy to soft tissue behind the buckle.

Y'all be good.

horsefly

[horsefly]

Good Morning again, Board;

Need more coffee!

Consider, also, that there is a very big difference in penetrating ability between hitting something hard and unyielding and something that "gives" with the hit. Example - airbags in your car.

Just a little slower deceleration makes a world of difference in the damage it causes.

I see no problem between the story about the cowboy shot in the belt buckle and what we know about that kind of bullets.

Come onnn, coffee.

Y'all be good.

horsefly

[Omak Cowboy]

We all may be argueing on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but here's my two cents worth;

I've no idea who wore a belt buckle or who just tied his pants on with a rope. I've also not figured out how much energy a 45 70 or anything else has at that range. BUT...look at a seated figure and where a belt buckle might ride. We are talking maybe 5 inches above the groin. Now behind the buckle is a bladder, pelvis, intestines and so on. I'm willing to bet that a soft tissue strike to this area would produce shock, severe deep tissue damage, lots of bleeding, not to mention rupture of the bladder and God only knows what else.

I'd say said indian was in very deep trouble even if a bullet hit but did not enter the body.

[SteveA]

In the tests done at Sandy Hook NJ in 1879 a 500gr bullet fired from a specially chambered 2.4" cartridge trapdoor Springfield penetrated 5.25" of wood at 2500yds. Interesting reading: http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/sandyhook.htm

[rdnck]

In as much as we are speaking of dancing angels, more or less, I would like to amplify my original post a bit. I agree with Omak and the esteemed horsefly (complement intended) that the angle of the bullet strike on the buckle could hardly have been anything other than obtuse. Given this, the bullet, if it did not penetrate the buckle, could only have glanced off and struck the body of the cowboy.

I have just weighed the 540 grain bullet I spoke of in my previous post. It was cast of 30-1 alloy and has mushroomed to 1.20 to 1.250 inch in diameter depending where it is measured, and still weighs 521.5 grains! I have to believe that a piece of lead of this dimension and weight traveling at 850 fps or thereabouts will penetrate any flesh it strikes, regardless of the initial angle of impact.

If this bullet had glanced off of a belt buckle toward the groin or leg, you can bet it would have taken off body parts and/or gotten the femoral artery. If it had gone upward or to the side, I cannot see how the abdominal cavity could not have been penetrated.

My bottom line on this as it now stands is that I think our cowboy was hit with something besides a 45-120-550 Sharps. I honestly feel that if it was a Sharps, and the belt buckle was a silver buckle of the type we are accustomed to, the bullet would have gone through the silver buckle, exited about the coccyx of the cowboy, and either lodged in his saddle or the spine of his horse.

This would not be the first time a local low budget museum has been victimized by poor local research and legend concerning acquisition of artifacts. I'm not saying the cowboy didn't die a week after being shot on the belt buckle at long range by a rifle. I just don't believe it was a 45-120-550 Sharps that did him in without shooting through him, buckle or not. Shoot straight, rdnck.

[Omak Cowboy]

Hmmm a 540 gr slug traveling at 800 ft/sec?

What comes instantly to mind is a .45 ACP which is 200 + grns at 950 ft / sec. So what we have here is pretty much a point blank hit with a heavier bullet. I can't imagine anything short of 1/4 inch steel stoping this kind of energy.

But the trajectory bothers me. Here we have a seated man, probably with his hands resting on the saddle horn and a horse neck in front of that,....so how could a bullet hit him in the buckle?..unless it was fired from a "grassy knole"?

Omak

[RMulhern]

One other VERY GOOD POSSIBILITY! In reference to the Dixon shot on the Indian; it could have been a ricochet! More than likely......WAY UNDER THE INTENDED TARGET!!

[8iowa]

Ah......the stuff legends are made of.

In the Revolutionary War, one of Dan Morgan's rifleman, Tim Morgan, supposedly Killed a British General Frazier at long range, turning the tide of the battle at Freeman's farm. Although in later life Murphy was well satisfyed with his fame, Whether this happened or not, or happened differently is still controversial. Murphy claimed he made the shot with a double barrel Kentucky rifle, and it's now known that such a rifle was not developed until many years later.

In the Civil War, at the battle of Shiloh I believe, a long stand legend was that a Union Sharpshooter killed a Confederate General at a range of one mile. This story persisted for over 100 years before it was finally disproved.