Lantz on "The Shot"

"Gun Smoke Over Adobe Walls: The Shot That Shook The Southern Plains" by Gary Lantz

Published in the June 2003 issue of America's 1st Freedom (Official Journal of the National Rifle Association)

This is an odd article with lots of background information (particularly about Cynthia and Quanah Parker) and not much detail on the event of June 27, 1874 itself.

The author failed to address many of the controversial points of the shot. Maybe Lantz worried that uncertainty about what actually happened might detract from the author's far-ranging social conclusions.

Esa-tai was one of the leaders of the attack. Lantz failed to provide a translation for the name. Some accounts give it as "Coyote Dung" and others as "Rear End of a Wolf." Maybe the author was trying to be politically correct by avoiding what might seem unflattering (but historically correct) names. Or maybe not, since Lantz seems otherwise prejudiced against the medicine man, dismissing him as arrogant and a sleight of hand trickster. [How could Lantz possibly know that Esa-tai was arrogant? Either Lantz has additional information that he chose not to share with us, or he is woefully ignorant of the belief systems of the people about whom he is writing.] The author speculated that Quanah Parker had little faith in Esa-tai's magic without providing any evidence that this was in fact the case. Lantz mentions the skunk incident out of context and dismisses it as a lame excuse for the failure of Esa-tai's medicine. Other accounts more fully explain the incident and place it in its proper context.

The author failed to mention that the initial attack was repelled at close range with handguns. This was a very important aspect of the battle. "The Shot" was the punctuation of a very bad day for the attackers, rather than the one big event that changed the course of western civilization as protrayed by Lantz.

Billy Dixon used a borrowed rifle to make the shot. The author failed to identify the owner of the rifle. Some accounts say that Bat Masterson was the owner. Lantz failed to mention that Bat Masterson was even present at the battle. This is an odd omission considering that Bat was the most famous person at the battle [face facts, more people have heard of Bat Masterson than either Quanah Parker or Billy Dixon].

This author's version stated that the unidentified gun owner offered the unloaded rifle to Billy, who then loaded the rifle and fired the shot. Most accounts state that Billy asked for the loan of a loaded rifle so that he could fire immediately without taking the time to load a rifle. There is a certain logic to the latter scenario that is absent from Lantz's account.

The author failed to identify the caliber of the rifle. By all accounts, the rifle was a Sharps.

Lantz failed to mention the controversy surrounding the range of the shot. Most versions give the range as 1,538 yards (as does Lantz). Since the range was measured well after the event, there is some legitimate uncertainty. An analysis of the ballistics of a shot fired at this extreme range make the success of such a shot seem very unlikely. And all existing sources indicate that the shot was a success. Even if the shot were fired at a shorter range (say one thousand yards, for example) it would still be one of the greatest shots of all time.

The author failed to identify the target of the shot. Some versions say it was Esa-tai himself. [My favorite version is that a warrior, unhappy about the way the attack was going, threatened Esa-tai with a quirt. Before he could strike Esa-tai, he was knocked off his horse by Dixon's shot. In this version, it would seem that Esa-tai's medicine was not so weak after all.]

In most ways, this is a very disappointing article. The author seemed more interested in engaging in speculation to further his own political agenda than in trying to explain the facts of the case.

"The Shot" is one of my favorite events in American history, and it was poorly served by this author. Of all the accounts of the event that I have read so far, this is the weakest, by a huge margin.

The editors of the NRA magazine deserve a hefty portion of blame for the sad state of the article. They obviously agreed with this less than stellar rendition of one of American history's most interesting events, or they would not have published it as is.