|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 20, 2016 6:47:39 GMT
It sure does carry well. It's pretty much usurped my glock 26 out of sheer convenience, even though I have much more faith in the glock as a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 20, 2016 8:16:08 GMT
It sure does carry well. It's pretty much usurped my glock 26 out of sheer convenience, even though I have much more faith in the glock as a weapon. You really have to train to use the snub nose revolvers. For people, I don't think I would go over 38+p for that Ruger of yours. They call those Glock's (G26) sub compact, and the G19 compact (only diff with the G17 is a 1/2" shorter barrel), yet all three are thick as bricks. Then, once you decide to go single stack, the rounds get to a point where you look at a revolver again. The only logical solution is to purchase every single firearm made. Done. Still, the Ruger is one light weight packing gun...that packs a punch.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 20, 2016 19:48:33 GMT
Every manufacturer of firearms or ammunition has something to sell you and there is a lot of hyperbole in advertising. It's a matter of one-upmanship. Ours is better than theirs. If you don't have ours, you'll die; that sort of thing. Older guns, both handguns and long guns, weren't that powerful compared to the elephant guns everyone is selling now. But they still managed to kill off a high percentage of the dangerous (and not so dangerous) wild animals in this country. For example, a .44-40 was considered a good bear cartridge in the past, although no doubt many were happy when the high speed version became available.
Of all those hyped as the outdoorsman's perfect handgun, I've always liked the Colt .38 Super, but nobody talks about it much today. I owned a couple. I haven't owned a .357 Sig, which seems to pick up where the .38 Super ends. I also think a .357 S&W K-frame to be just about perfect, with either a three or four-inch barrel. I never used any 158 grain ammo but the 125-grain rounds are easy to shoot, although the blast is really awful.
I'd feel more comfortable with a .44 magnum, just the same. Again a 4" N-frame is the best compromise. It's not at all difficult to draw with or to take aim with and not too heavy either. The blast is naturally terrific and although the recoil is pretty stiff, to say the least, using it one-handed isn't difficult. That's all based on my own experiences and I'm not exactly a heavyweight. No, you don't need to go out and shoot up a box of ammo every weekend to be sufficiently proficient. Notice also that I didn't mention any brand of ammo.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 20, 2016 21:20:30 GMT
Every manufacturer of firearms or ammunition has something to sell you and there is a lot of hyperbole in advertising. It's a matter of one-upmanship. Ours is better than theirs. If you don't have ours, you'll die; that sort of thing. Older guns, both handguns and long guns, weren't that powerful compared to the elephant guns everyone is selling now. But they still managed to kill off a high percentage of the dangerous (and not so dangerous) wild animals in this country. For example, a .44-40 was considered a good bear cartridge in the past, although no doubt many were happy when the high speed version became available. Of all those hyped as the outdoorsman's perfect handgun, I've always liked the Colt .38 Super, but nobody talks about it much today. I owned a couple. I haven't owned a .357 Sig, which seems to pick up where the .38 Super ends. I also think a .357 S&W K-frame to be just about perfect, with either a three or four-inch barrel. I never used any 158 grain ammo but the 125-grain rounds are easy to shoot, although the blast is really awful. I'd feel more comfortable with a .44 magnum, just the same. Again a 4" N-frame is the best compromise. It's not at all difficult to draw with or to take aim with and not too heavy either. The blast is naturally terrific and although the recoil is pretty stiff, to say the least, using it one-handed isn't difficult. That's all based on my own experiences and I'm not exactly a heavyweight. No, you don't need to go out and shoot up a box of ammo every weekend to be sufficiently proficient. Notice also that I didn't mention any brand of ammo. Really, its the awesome power of the Brown bear (and sometimes Moose) that make you go .44 or higher. That .357 is so insanely versatile, what with the ability to shoot low recoil .38 special, standard .38, .38+p, reduced 357 loads, standard, hot. Hell, we are talking 110 grain to 200 grain, and under 200 ft. lbs. energy to over 700 ! Pick your poison. I think they S&W went from K to L frame as people were shooting hot rounds and shooting the k's a lot, which created issues. Interestingly, the .357 was the first of the magnums, created in the mid 30's as the "Registered Magnum" (in N frame) and adopted by the FBI, who loved it, until it was superseded by the polymer semiautoes. That .38 Super has nice ballistics and I wish it caught on more.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Aug 21, 2016 2:42:13 GMT
I have to be honest, I'm not a big fan of the six shooters. I have a Ruger Vaquero ( cowboy gun ) which is fun to shoot and looks great hanging on the wall above my Henry Big Boy both in 45 Colt and below my Sharps 45/70. But for get down and serious I rather have a auto loader. They hold more rounds and changing magazines is quick. It's a lot easier to carry a couple magazines in your pocket than it is to carry a couple speed loaders. I shoot a Sig 229 in a 40 S&W which has never jammed or misfired on me, trick is don't use cheap ammo and keep the gun clean. But I can see the point to the larger calibers. 6 rounds 9 to 10 rounds
|
|
|
Post by 1776 on Aug 21, 2016 4:05:49 GMT
I have an LCR in 357 magnum. The recoil is unpleasant. I think that a heavier sp101 or gp100 would be fine. While .357 seems a little anemic for bears, it's better than 9mm and would do the trick for cougars or people just fine. THAT was a big reason (among many) I purchased the 3" sp101 (it is sort of a jack of all trades firearm). I'm not a huge fan of snub noses, and that extra inch of barrel is HUGE, from a ballistics standpoint, when talking .357 performance. Still, if a Griz is salivating for a bit of "Sword Connoisseur A La Red De Mike" to go with the huckleberries and salmon, you absolutely will not even notice the recoil of that LCR...and it is pretty easy to pack (for its punch). I just shot a Ruger Gp100 with a four inch barrel yesterday. Loved it, I thought it would hurt to shoot. It didn't. I'll be trying a .44 mag soon now too! A .357 Mag snub nose for bear... well, not a good idea. You need at LEAST a 4 inch barrel to burn all that powder in the .357 mag casing. Not to beat down on your LCR (a very good gun for self defense against people), but I don't think that will work any better than a 9mm. Here is a good article to read on carrying handguns for protection in the field: www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm "There are a many makes and models of magnum revolvers in the marketplace. The reliability of any good revolver is unquestioned. Thus, my choice for protection in the field would be a magnum revolver with a 4.0" (absolute minimum) to 6.5" barrel, with a 5.5" to 6.5" barrel preferred. Ballistic performance is good and the sight radius is long enough to allow precise shot placement, which is critical.
This barrel length is necessary to achieve the requisite ballistic performance from magnum cartridges and remains reasonably handy to carry in a good shoulder or belt holster. A revolver with a shorter barrel may be slightly lighter and a bit handier to carry, but a short barrel simply does not allow a magnum cartridge to reach its full potential.
Never even consider a magnum revolver with a barrel shorter than 4.0". A magnum with a 2.5"-3" barrel is ballistically castrated and hardly any lighter or more convenient to carry than a 4" model. In addition, the decrease in practical accuracy between a 4" barrel and a 3" barrel is pronounced, due to the latter's decreased sight radius. The recoil and muzzle blast from a snub-nosed magnum are severe, which is also detrimental to accuracy." So, yeah. I've decided that I'll carry my full sized 9mm with Buffalo Bore 9mm +p outdoorsman loads right now until I can afford to buy something more powerful. 9mm Buffalo Bore is better than nothing right now.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 21, 2016 4:28:38 GMT
I have to be honest, I'm not a big fan of the six shooters. I have a Ruger Vaquero ( cowboy gun ) which is fun to shoot and looks great hanging on the wall above my Henry Big Boy both in 45 Colt and below my Sharps 45/70. But for get down and serious I rather have a auto loader. They hold more rounds and changing magazines is quick. It's a lot easier to carry a couple magazines in your pocket than it is to carry a couple speed loaders. I shoot a Sig 229 in a 40 S&W which has never jammed or misfired on me, trick is don't use cheap ammo and keep the gun clean. But I can see the point to the larger calibers. 6 rounds 9 to 10 rounds Is that Vaquero single action (if so, that's a problem)? As you pointed out, for the larger stuff...ONLY REVOLVER. Now, high cap magazines (double stack) really work for group shootouts (police and military). I do have a S&W N frame .357 with 4" BRL. that holds EIGHT rounds, and is recessed to accept full moon clips...a HUGE difference between that and the Vaquero, and almost as fast as semi. The reason I say all this is that you will be in the bears gullet long before you get to ten rounds (let alone 15 or 17)...if we are talking about outdoors guns. The semiauto/magazine interface will ALWAYS be faster and easier to use (seems to be less recoil because of the slide action), and that Sig 229 is a pretty sweet gun (and 40 is very potent...much better than 9mm for critters). I have a Glock 22 (40 S&W) and am considering getting a 9mm conversion barrel. You must be a quasi western aficionado with all of those wonderful guns you have.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 21, 2016 4:45:50 GMT
THAT was a big reason (among many) I purchased the 3" sp101 (it is sort of a jack of all trades firearm). I'm not a huge fan of snub noses, and that extra inch of barrel is HUGE, from a ballistics standpoint, when talking .357 performance. Still, if a Griz is salivating for a bit of "Sword Connoisseur A La Red De Mike" to go with the huckleberries and salmon, you absolutely will not even notice the recoil of that LCR...and it is pretty easy to pack (for its punch). I just shot a Ruger Gp100 with a four inch barrel yesterday. Loved it, I thought it would hurt to shoot. It didn't. I'll be trying a .44 mag soon now too! A .357 Mag snub nose for bear... well, not a good idea. You need at LEAST a 4 inch barrel to burn all that powder in the .357 mag casing. Not to beat down on your LCR (a very good gun for self defense against people), but I don't think that will work any better than a 9mm. Here is a good article to read on carrying handguns for protection in the field: www.chuckhawks.com/protection_field.htm "There are a many makes and models of magnum revolvers in the marketplace. The reliability of any good revolver is unquestioned. Thus, my choice for protection in the field would be a magnum revolver with a 4.0" (absolute minimum) to 6.5" barrel, with a 5.5" to 6.5" barrel preferred. Ballistic performance is good and the sight radius is long enough to allow precise shot placement, which is critical.
This barrel length is necessary to achieve the requisite ballistic performance from magnum cartridges and remains reasonably handy to carry in a good shoulder or belt holster. A revolver with a shorter barrel may be slightly lighter and a bit handier to carry, but a short barrel simply does not allow a magnum cartridge to reach its full potential.
Never even consider a magnum revolver with a barrel shorter than 4.0". A magnum with a 2.5"-3" barrel is ballistically castrated and hardly any lighter or more convenient to carry than a 4" model. In addition, the decrease in practical accuracy between a 4" barrel and a 3" barrel is pronounced, due to the latter's decreased sight radius. The recoil and muzzle blast from a snub-nosed magnum are severe, which is also detrimental to accuracy." So, yeah. I've decided that I'll carry my full sized 9mm with Buffalo Bore 9mm +p outdoorsman loads right now until I can afford to buy something more powerful. 9mm Buffalo Bore is better than nothing right now.
I'm glad you pointed the ballistic loss for .357 snub noses, as I briefly mentioned that to Redmichael. Many of these snubs are 1-7/8" brl. length. Most of the loss is between that and 3" (though 4" is better than 3" as 5" is better than 4"). I can actually use the sights on my 3" Ruger sp101, where the 1 7/8" make one feel like a seventies rerun of Barnaby Jones, you know, where the good guy doesn't even need to aim the gun, just shoot from the hip, and the bad guy falls dead 50 yards away...like a LASER BEAM. But yes, I like my 4" brl. more than my 3"brl., but one can justify using .357 in a 3" FAR, FAR, more than a 1 7/8". Bottom line...DONT BE BARNABY JONES!
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 21, 2016 6:29:23 GMT
I did in fact gravely consider the 357's drop in velocity from a shorter barrel. I came to the conclusion that the extra few ounces of the 357 model would improve follow up shots with 38+'s, that the steel frame would be more durable than the 38's aluminum frame, that being able to accept both kinds of ammo would be helpful if ammo were scarce, and that, come on, carrying something with MAGNUM on it is totally badass.
I thought about a 9mm LCR, but 5 rounds of 9mm? I'd be better off with a Glock 43, but that's BORING. I had already talked myself into the wheelgun. Anyways, my redneck ballistic trials showed that 357 does seem to smash things apart a little better than 9mm even out of a short barrel. At the very least, it would be heard three counties over. I'm carrying it with 357 JHPs, but I'll be probably picking up some 38 gold dots if Cabela's ever restocks those.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 21, 2016 8:37:08 GMT
I did in fact gravely consider the 357's drop in velocity from a shorter barrel. I came to the conclusion that the extra few ounces of the 357 model would improve follow up shots with 38+'s, that the steel frame would be more durable than the 38's aluminum frame, that being able to accept both kinds of ammo would be helpful if ammo were scarce, and that, come on, carrying something with MAGNUM on it is totally badass. I thought about a 9mm LCR, but 5 rounds of 9mm? I'd be better off with a Glock 43, but that's BORING. I had already talked myself into the wheelgun. Anyways, my redneck ballistic trials showed that 357 does seem to smash things apart a little better than 9mm even out of a short barrel. At the very least, it would be heard three counties over. I'm carrying it with 357 JHPs, but I'll be probably picking up some 38 gold dots if Cabela's ever restocks those. Between those Ruger's, you definitely made the right choice. You want a hard cast monster .357 load in that thing if in the woods with the Browns. You wont even feel the recoil when the monster is fixing to devour you. Does that 9mm LCR use moon clips? 9mm out of revolvers in intriguing due to the velocity gained while still in the cylinder (I believe that is why, anyway), giving you extra barrel length to work with. But still, the versatility of the .38 rounds combined with the .357 is a tough give up. If you get near .357 with the 9mm AND do not HAVE to use the moon clips, I would be very interested in the 9mm...though I wish the manufacturers would make more 3" barrel models (as you can still conceal).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 21, 2016 8:38:10 GMT
I did in fact gravely consider the 357's drop in velocity from a shorter barrel. I came to the conclusion that the extra few ounces of the 357 model would improve follow up shots with 38+'s, that the steel frame would be more durable than the 38's aluminum frame, that being able to accept both kinds of ammo would be helpful if ammo were scarce, and that, come on, carrying something with MAGNUM on it is totally badass. I thought about a 9mm LCR, but 5 rounds of 9mm? I'd be better off with a Glock 43, but that's BORING. I had already talked myself into the wheelgun. Anyways, my redneck ballistic trials showed that 357 does seem to smash things apart a little better than 9mm even out of a short barrel. At the very least, it would be heard three counties over. I'm carrying it with 357 JHPs, but I'll be probably picking up some 38 gold dots if Cabela's ever restocks those. Between those Ruger's, you definitely made the right choice (between just +p and .357). You want a hard cast monster .357 load in that thing if in the woods with the Browns. You wont even feel the recoil when the monster is fixing to devour you. Does that 9mm LCR use moon clips? 9mm out of revolvers in intriguing due to the velocity gained while still in the cylinder (I believe that is why, anyway), giving you extra barrel length to work with. But still, the versatility of the .38 rounds combined with the .357 is a tough give up. If you get near .357 with the 9mm AND do not HAVE to use the moon clips, I would be very interested in the 9mm...though I wish the manufacturers would make more 3" barrel models (as you can still conceal).
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 21, 2016 17:11:30 GMT
The 9mm LCR can but doesn't have to use moon clips.
I do wish they would make the 3" LCRx in 9mm and 357 as well as 38.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 21, 2016 20:20:02 GMT
The 9mm LCR can but doesn't have to use moon clips. I do wish they would make the 3" LCRx in 9mm and 357 as well as 38. I would purchase BOTH.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Aug 22, 2016 1:51:10 GMT
Hey Howler, yeah the Vaquero is a single action cowboy gun and because of that I wouldn't use it in the woods for defense. Why, because I don't want to die. I also have flintlock musket, rifle and pistols, I love history. Probably why I collect swords and armour as well.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 22, 2016 3:13:29 GMT
Hey Howler, yeah the Vaquero is a single action cowboy gun and because of that I wouldn't use it in the woods for defense. Why, because I don't want to die. I also have flintlock musket, rifle and pistols, I love history. Probably why I collect swords and armour as well. Man Walls...now THAT is what I call "interior decorating"! Nice.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 22, 2016 11:05:16 GMT
I don't have a single action revolver at the moment but I've had several and I'd take one to the woods with confidence. One, a Ruger Bisley, was a .44, and would have been adequate for anything. The thing is, with the recoil of a .44, you don't lose anything by using a single action over a double-action and six (five if you're using a real Colt) shots is plenty, assuming you're not expecting to be in a gunfight. If you're expecting maybe to come up against a brown bear, take a rifle.
Richard Proenneke, who built a log cabin near Lake Clark in Alaska and lived there for most of 30 years, had two guns. One was a .357 single action and the other a sporterized 1903 Springfield .30-06.
I once owned a 9mm S&W K-frame, though I don't remember the model number (lost track when they went to three digits). It had a 4-inch barrel. It was pleasant enough to shoot and did not require clips. I enjoyed having it, along with most (but not all) of the other guns I've owned but eventually I decided there was little point to that particular chambering in a revolver, though others may have different opinions. I've never fired a 10mm in any handgun but that cartridge appears to have possibilities, as one acquaintance likes to say.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 22, 2016 20:46:47 GMT
I don't have a single action revolver at the moment but I've had several and I'd take one to the woods with confidence. One, a Ruger Bisley, was a .44, and would have been adequate for anything. The thing is, with the recoil of a .44, you don't lose anything by using a single action over a double-action and six (five if you're using a real Colt) shots is plenty, assuming you're not expecting to be in a gunfight. If you're expecting maybe to come up against a brown bear, take a rifle. Richard Proenneke, who built a log cabin near Lake Clark in Alaska and lived there for most of 30 years, had two guns. One was a .357 single action and the other a sporterized 1903 Springfield .30-06. I once owned a 9mm S&W K-frame, though I don't remember the model number (lost track when they went to three digits). It had a 4-inch barrel. It was pleasant enough to shoot and did not require clips. I enjoyed having it, along with most (but not all) of the other guns I've owned but eventually I decided there was little point to that particular chambering in a revolver, though others may have different opinions. I've never fired a 10mm in any handgun but that cartridge appears to have possibilities, as one acquaintance likes to say. For the big stuff (.44 on up) your right, as I did not think of it (rapid firing hand cannons ) in those terms. 10mm (with the right loads) is a potential improvement on the .357 (bigger slugs).
|
|
|
Post by 1776 on Aug 23, 2016 2:20:15 GMT
Hey Howler, yeah the Vaquero is a single action cowboy gun and because of that I wouldn't use it in the woods for defense. Why, because I don't want to die. I also have flintlock musket, rifle and pistols, I love history. Probably why I collect swords and armour as well. Man Walls...now THAT is what I call "interior decorating"! Nice. AGREED!
|
|
|
Post by 1776 on Aug 23, 2016 2:26:09 GMT
I don't have a single action revolver at the moment but I've had several and I'd take one to the woods with confidence. One, a Ruger Bisley, was a .44, and would have been adequate for anything. The thing is, with the recoil of a .44, you don't lose anything by using a single action over a double-action and six (five if you're using a real Colt) shots is plenty, assuming you're not expecting to be in a gunfight. If you're expecting maybe to come up against a brown bear, take a rifle. Richard Proenneke, who built a log cabin near Lake Clark in Alaska and lived there for most of 30 years, had two guns. One was a .357 single action and the other a sporterized 1903 Springfield .30-06. I once owned a 9mm S&W K-frame, though I don't remember the model number (lost track when they went to three digits). It had a 4-inch barrel. It was pleasant enough to shoot and did not require clips. I enjoyed having it, along with most (but not all) of the other guns I've owned but eventually I decided there was little point to that particular chambering in a revolver, though others may have different opinions. I've never fired a 10mm in any handgun but that cartridge appears to have possibilities, as one acquaintance likes to say. The only thing I have against the single action in this respect is that you have to thumb the hammer back each time you want to fire. And that means that with a one handed grip, you kinda "let go" of the grip each time you thumb that hammer back. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE single action revolvers. I really wish they were the best option. But I really think that the double action wins here. With a DA you can keep a complete grip on your handgun. And with a monster griz on top of you, chewing you, you might just lose that single action because you had to thumb back the hammer. Just my 0.2$
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 23, 2016 2:44:44 GMT
I don't have a single action revolver at the moment but I've had several and I'd take one to the woods with confidence. One, a Ruger Bisley, was a .44, and would have been adequate for anything. The thing is, with the recoil of a .44, you don't lose anything by using a single action over a double-action and six (five if you're using a real Colt) shots is plenty, assuming you're not expecting to be in a gunfight. If you're expecting maybe to come up against a brown bear, take a rifle. Richard Proenneke, who built a log cabin near Lake Clark in Alaska and lived there for most of 30 years, had two guns. One was a .357 single action and the other a sporterized 1903 Springfield .30-06. I once owned a 9mm S&W K-frame, though I don't remember the model number (lost track when they went to three digits). It had a 4-inch barrel. It was pleasant enough to shoot and did not require clips. I enjoyed having it, along with most (but not all) of the other guns I've owned but eventually I decided there was little point to that particular chambering in a revolver, though others may have different opinions. I've never fired a 10mm in any handgun but that cartridge appears to have possibilities, as one acquaintance likes to say. The only thing I have against the single action in this respect is that you have to thumb the hammer back each time you want to fire. And that means that with a one handed grip, you kinda "let go" of the grip each time you thumb that hammer back. Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE single action revolvers. I really wish they were the best option. But I really think that the double action wins here. With a DA you can keep a complete grip on your handgun. And with a monster griz on top of you, chewing you, you might just lose that single action because you had to thumb back the hammer. Just my 0.2$ Now, do you shoot those monster handguns with one or two hands (though it is nice to have the one hand option). If you use two hand grip, then you can pull back the hammer with the other hand. Clearly, it is best to have double action, but the rapid fire need is clearly reduced with the hand cannon revolvers (.460, .500, .454 casull). What do they call that rapid firing single action revolvers..."fanning the gun" or something? Could you imagine "fanning" a .500 or .460...you would be lucky if your barrel was facing straight up (into the sky) on the second shot.
|
|