Looking at this Comanche issue, we have a few overwhelming Texan victories on the one hand, contradicting the fact that an "impenetrable barrier of Comanche violence" (I forget which author put it that way) stalled the development of about half of modern-day Texas for more than thirty years.
Perusing the written histories, one finds that three out of four of these lopsided Texan victories had a common element; a superior force of mounted Comanches attempting to press home a victory against a much smaller force of Texans, and getting shot for their trouble. Perhaps ego and peer pressure came into play here, the Comanches simply not willing to cede the field to such a small number of opponents.
The first was Bird's fight in 1839, thirty four rifle-armed men versus two or three hundred Indians. IIRC five KIA among the White guys (including Captain Bird) versus at least thirty among the Indians.
The second Moore places in 1842, on the Guadalupe not far from the 1844 Walker's Creek fight. On this occasion Jack Hays and sixteen companions went out from San Antonio on the trail of the same Yellow Wolf who would be present on Walker's Creek, on this occasion he led 80 warriors in his raiding party.
Catching them on the Guadelupe, the two sides made a number of charges and counter-charges, the rifles of the rangers inflicting a reported 36 deaths and 13 wounded among the Comanches in return for perhaps five wounded on their own side.
Then the vaunted Walker's Creek fight in 1844; fifteen rangers versus eighty Indians (plus a few Mexicans in the party). Apparently the first time revolvers were used as a primary offensive weapon by an entire group of men. Against Indians as yet unfamiliar with the weapon. Twenty-three Comanche dead, thirty wounded versus one ranger dead, four seriously wounded. The Comanche totals being so high on account of they repeatedly pressed the fight. Even so, as Hays recounts, the fight might have gone against them at the end, requiring one of his men to take out a Comanche leader with a carefully-aimed rifle shot, finally demoralizing the remaining twenty Comanches on hand and bringing an end to the action.
Interestingly, the number of Comanches and Rangers engaged was similar in both Guadalupe River fights, as were the number of Comanche and Ranger casualties. One fought with mostly with rifles, the other fought first with rifles, and then revolvers, ended by a rifle shot.
I dunno that such one-sided results in a pitched battle between parties of adult males would be obtained for another thirty years, that being at Adobe Walls, again an overwhelming majority of mounted Comanches pressing impulsive attacks against a few White guys with rifles.
At Plum Creek two hundred White guys faced four to five hundred Comanche warriors. On this occasion though, the Comanches exposed themselves to rifle fire to buy time for the main body to escape.
The exact tally of Comances killed or mortally wounded is unknown, Huston said forty, Burleson said sixty, later estimates ran to eighty and above. Apparently only twenty or fewer dead bodies remained on the field. The loss on the Texas side were one killed and perhaps ten wounded.
One thing that does become apparent in the Texas era is the primacy of the rifle. In the eighteenth century, despite the vaunted accuracy of the long rifle, research reveals that the majority of frontier weapons were probably smoothbores, including an odd but seemingly common weapon referred to as a "smooth rifle"; that is a smoothbore having the heavy barreled configuration, stock form, and sights of a rifle. Indeed, I believe research has revealed that a significant proportion of the personnel of Revolutionary War rifle units were actually carrying smooth rifles.
Modern reenactors can wring surprising accuracy out of these weapons, some claim comparable results with specific loads to actual rifles. OTOH you dont read much of these smooth rifles on the plains, there a premium was placed on precision marksmanship, as the dynamics of several fights of that era attest.
Birdwatcher
