I heard from a History Channel TV show that for most western

>wouldnt that be a shitty hindrance to self defence
It's still better than literally everything else available at the time.

File: Smallsword fencing.jpg (254KB, 1456x971px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1456x971px

>>2086803
>As it took less training than, say, a sword and was easy to use.
Maybe in fucking America, but in Western Europe, fencing schools literally became super fucking popular in the 18th century as the middle class increased in the continent and some gentlemen found the time to practice swordsmanship.

It was too fucking common that the smallsword became a popular fashion piece.

>>2086803
no.

not everyone was zorro when it came to sword fighting

>>2086803
Judging from the keyhole, I didnt know flintlock pistols were so fucking big.

I havent seen one my whole life.

>>2086884
What is your point, exactly? Of course people still fenced, but it's absolutely true that functional competency in fencing took (and still takes) a lot longer to achieve than functional competency with a firearm.

>>2086803
>But seeing as this is a flintlock muzzle loader, wouldnt that be a shitty hindrance to self defence?

Due to their high calibre and solid, bare lead composition, musket balls caused absolutely horrific wounds at close range, given that the already very large projectiles would flatten and/or fragment easily on contact.

You would be far less likely to survive a musketball chest wound than a 5.56 NATO chest wound. Even modern expanding bullet wounds aren't as lethal, due to their significantly smaller size, as musketballs could be over an inch in diameter (the Brown Bess, for example, was .75, while pistols and earlier designs often favoured larger balls, to compensate for their reduced velocity).

They were, however, of extremely bulky and heavy construction by modern standards, and of course, single shot. But this also was an advantage. You'll notice how almost all pistols of the era have large brass caps on their butts, this, as you might imagine, was so that once your shot was expended, you could simply turn the weapon around and club people. How effective this would be for personal defence is debatable, but for actual combat, such as naval boarding actions, it was common practice to carry a brace of pistols, usually 3 to 5, fire them each in succession, then either draw your sword, or simply flip your last pistol over, and proceed to melee (as an example, doing this effectively is some thing Edward Teach was famous for).

The problem with swords as personal defence weapons in an era with pistols is that you only, generally, have one target to defend (yourself), while an attacker only has one target to kill, and with the weapons in question, one shot, if accurate, may well be enough to kill you before you can even think of defending yourself. Of course, if the first shot is missed, and you draw your sword, the attacker is in serious trouble, but if you have a pistol yourself, the same is also true.

>>2086916
They come in all sizes. People typically made their own bullets with a mold that was given to them with the gun, so the caliber was up to the gunsmith.
Military pistols would usually be larger because an officer wasn't trying to hide it under his coat or something.

Why would it be a shitty hindrance?
You only need 1 shot to incapacitate/kill someone. All you need to to do is point and pull the trigger.
Are you under the impression that it's bad because it takes too long to reload? The weapon serves more to warn people that you're not an easy target and you can brandish it to make your enemy back away. Plus if the pistol goes off people are going to hear it and come running. People weren't keen on getting into shootouts on the street.

>>2087509
Or you could just carry multiple flintlocks.