|
Post by 1776 on Aug 23, 2016 2:57:08 GMT
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. You got a good point. I would totally shoot those hand cannons with two hands. No other way to do it. BUT what if you have to use one hand? And, like I said, I love single action revolvers. But I think the double action is better in this case. Easier to use one handed.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 23, 2016 3:12:19 GMT
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. You got a good point. I would totally shoot those hand cannons with two hands. No other way to do it. BUT what if you have to use one hand? And, like I said, I love single action revolvers. But I think the double action is better in this case. Easier to use one handed. I think the final verdict would be that the DA is better (more options), though less important in larger powered handguns, as rapid fire is rendered near meaningless. A final question, however would be, is a single action simpler therefore more reliable and durable?
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Aug 23, 2016 4:29:16 GMT
We have so many experts in here I am just going to stay out of this. Think some of this is very funny.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 23, 2016 6:21:23 GMT
We have so many experts in here I am just going to stay out of this. Think some of this is very funny. Experts...where...where? I'm just an internet talker with an interest, myself. I don't really know jack, experience wise, but some real deals are around here, however. If you get someone who recommends carrying a .22 short derringer (easy recoil) for brown bears, and to "shoot for the eyes" (because there is NO REASON to miss)...your either reading a joke, or a pre-Obituary.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 23, 2016 11:35:26 GMT
I'm no expert but everything I post is based solely on my own experiences (both good and bad) unless I say otherwise.
Are single action revolvers simpler? I doubt it and I also doubt that revolvers are simpler than automatics. I've owned automatics that were "double-action only" and they were perfectly fine. One, the old Browning BDM, could be switched from so-called traditional DA/SA to DA only. I'm not sure what you call Glocks. I've also had jams (literally a jam) with revolvers and stoppages with automatics. And I've had things break on both kinds. Some things are better than others but nothing is perfect except for things you can't afford.
Are revolvers better for women (aside from any power factor)? I doubt it. But aren't automatics supposed to be too complicated for women? If they are, then so are sewing machines.
I still think a single-action is perfectly fine for the woods, which is not to say I'd pick one as my first choice. A .44 magnum revolver is as big as I'd go and a 4-inch barrel is as short as I'd use, too. For a .357, though, a 3-inch barrel is okay. I also prefer fixed sights but that's not critical. Anyone ever actually try to shoot a .44 magnum fast and with one hand? It's easy enough but if you're going to hit anything with the second shot, you have to be pretty good. However, of all the guns I've fired, a .44 magnum N-frame S&W was not the most difficult to shoot. That title went to a Colt lightweight Officer's ACP, which was a real handful to shoot. Not painful, nor was the blast as bad as a magnum revolver, but you really had to hang onto it. All of this is assuming shooting with one hand, which is half the reason for using a handgun. The other half is that it's "always there," or should be. If you want something better than a .44 magnum revolver and I don't blame you, then get a trapper-style lever action, if you can find one. Some people who know what they're talking about prefer a shotgun with slugs. Of course, if you're in the woods to go hunting, then you should be set.
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Aug 24, 2016 7:07:37 GMT
Yes a sinlge revoler is simpler, less to go wrong with it.
If you are jamming revolver a lot you need to look into your training. I have jammmed a revolver but out of thousnads of rounds only twice, in 46 years.
|
|
|
Post by bigpete on Aug 24, 2016 11:02:38 GMT
I remember reading an article with an experienced guide where he said the only handgun he'd ever seen drop a grizzly with one shot was a 454 casull. Aside from that observation I have nothing more to add.
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Aug 24, 2016 12:10:06 GMT
We have so many experts in here I am just going to stay out of this. Think some of this is very funny. Me I'd like the .30 carbine, plenty of zing and a big mag
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,675
|
Post by Scott on Aug 24, 2016 13:50:37 GMT
Smear Vegemite on your face. Works for drop bears, might keep other types of bears away too. Only one way to find out.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 24, 2016 14:08:01 GMT
The revolver I had that "jammed" was a Model 29 S&W with a 4" barrel. After the first six shots when using lead bullets, it was get tighter and tighter until finally the cylinder wouldn't turn. Basically, it was too tight, if you can believe that. Exactly the same thing could happen with a single action. The only things that might go wrong with any handgun, provided you keep it clean, is to have a spring break. But on the other hand, I can't imagine how a reload would ever enter into a dangerous animal encounter.
Fred Bear, you remember, killed bears with arrows. Elmer Keith killed bears, along with everything else he ever saw, with revolvers, in once case using a .41 magnum. And elephants are killed with some regularity with cartridges that are basically a souped-up (to use an old expression) .45-70. An elephant weights something like fifteen times as much as a grizzly bear. A cape buffalo is only about twice as heavy as a bear, a grizzly, that is. Weights of all these animals vary by age and sex, of course.
Black bears are general smaller than brown bears but are still dangerous. There was even a fatal black bear attack in New Jersey, of all places, a few years ago.
Someone mentioned that shot placement is critical with a .30-06. Well, frankly, shot placement is critical no matter what you're using. A bear's head is not solid bone but it's not very big either. One skull I examined was smaller than a football and the shape wasn't much different.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 24, 2016 21:31:32 GMT
I remember reading an article with an experienced guide where he said the only handgun he'd ever seen drop a grizzly with one shot was a 454 casull. Aside from that observation I have nothing more to add. I'm not positive, but I believe a .460 shoots three types (.460, 454 casull, and 45LC)...don't quote me on this. So, if I was going to buy a "hand cannon" (on a high riding rig...for fishing in Alaska) it would be the .460.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 24, 2016 21:32:29 GMT
I remember reading an article with an experienced guide where he said the only handgun he'd ever seen drop a grizzly with one shot was a 454 casull. Aside from that observation I have nothing more to add. I'm not positive, but I believe a .460 shoots three types (.460, 454 casull, and 45LC)...don't quote me on this. So, if I was going to buy a "hand cannon" (on a high riding rig...for fishing in Alaska) it would be the .460 (great versatility...and that .460 rivals the .500 in many ways).
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Aug 25, 2016 13:44:49 GMT
Then on the other hand with a little practice with a single action revolver..
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 25, 2016 19:46:21 GMT
It is interesting the way essential techniques come and go with so much regularity. In the 1960s and on into the 1960s, fast draw like that was all the rage. It diverged into to forms, one with blanks, the other with either live ammunition or wax bullets. That's when Jeff Cooper came into the picture. Trick shooting was an ancient art even then and it was usually done with stock firearms.
Single action? For a while, back when policemen carried either a Colt OP or a S&W K-frame, some instructors taught people to always shoot single action. S&W even manufactured some K-38s that were single action only. Everybody has their own idea of perfection. Bill Jordan thought the S&W Model 19 revolver was the greatest thing since gunpowder was invented. Elmer Keith thought it was a good choice, too, for people with weak hands. I don't think Elmer Keith ever met Bill Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 26, 2016 14:10:04 GMT
I just wanted to add another caliber to the confusion, not that I have any experience with it. The .357 Sig has been around for a while now and is available in smaller handguns, if that is ever a factor. The thing is, it isn't everybody who spends all their extra money on guns and has one for every purpose.
Oh, wait, just remembered; we spend all our extra money (and then some) on swords. With what's left over, we buy guns. Or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 27, 2016 1:38:53 GMT
I just wanted to add another caliber to the confusion, not that I have any experience with it. The .357 Sig has been around for a while now and is available in smaller handguns, if that is ever a factor. The thing is, it isn't everybody who spends all their extra money on guns and has one for every purpose. Oh, wait, just remembered; we spend all our extra money (and then some) on swords. With what's left over, we buy guns. Or something like that. For many (those who shoot a lot, particularly non re-loaders), the real killer is the ammo. In the same package, I still like the .40s&w over the .357 Sig, as you do get that larger slug. However, you are very right in putting that caliber (a light .357mag for semi) into the mix with the other candidates. If someone is looking at a versatile package, that person should consider the Glock .357 Sig or Glock .40s&w, as both can have conversion barrels of each placed into the other...as well as the 9mm. The .357 Sig and 10mm are sort of the outer orbiting cartridges, circling around the "big three" (9, 40, 45), in the semi world, and they definitely overtake the 9mm for larger animals.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 29, 2016 14:50:26 GMT
Yes and the ammo is what does the work. But when you start doing your own handloading, you begin to become more of a reloader than a shooter. The shooting is to justify the handloading. Anyway, shooting is an expensive hobby, much more so than fooling around with swords, just not as dangerous.
If there is one thing that is more important than bullet placement, it's confidence is what you're using, here referring to the combination of cartridge and firearm. For most people, you can't afford to have a different gun for every situation, so you try to pick something with some versatility. In this particular instance, as a sidearm for a woods loafer, you want the most powerful handgun that you can and will carry all the time. It would be nice if it were suitable as an all-round sidearm, too, and there are lots to choose from. It doesn't have to be an exotic caliber nor need it be the most powerful handgun available, either, which you probably can't afford in the first place anyway. This is all because bullet placement is more important than caliber. You can't shoot something in the paw (Who shot my paw!) and expect to make an animal flip head over heels. This, by the way, is true for humans. There are places you can shoot either an animal or a man that will cause an instant stop or even a knockdown. The problem is actually hitting that spot, if you think you know where it is. The probably is also getting the target to hold still.
There are those who say there is no such thing as a "knockdown" hit. I just say those people have never been knocked down. I don't mean being knocked off your feet and being thrown backwards for six feet, merely knocked down. Not do I mean that you can't get up again. Chances are, you can and chances are, so will the animal. What happens next is next to impossible to predict. David knocked Goliath down with a head shot but he immediately cut off Goliath's head. A head shot is very likely to knock down a person even if it doesn't penetrate. Ask any boxer if it's possible.
One of the more unusual variations of S&W revolvers, from back when they came out with something new ever month or two, was a J-frame with a five inch barrel in .357. It was probably a handful to shoot and the blast from a .357 is always terrific, too. I thought long and hard about buying one, though I never did. But it sure seemed like the handiest little gun to have.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Aug 29, 2016 16:16:49 GMT
I don’t have time to read the entire thread so maybe this has been said. I’ve been out of it for a couple of decades now so possibly there is new stuff maybe on the market that I am not familiar with such as the Ruger GP 100 you mention. I found a .357 mag. the best all around calibre for me and used a Colt New Frontier in that calibre as my trail gun. The loads that a 357 mag. is capable of handling is its best feature. I used shot for snakes, mice, and rats. CCI now makes shot shells but I loaded my own before CCI put them into production and continued to do so. I would step it up for, say chucks, and used semi jackets and would take chucks reliably out to 75 yds. For general purpose I cast semi wad cutters and they bagged many a squirrel. If I had my choice now I would have chosen a S&W Model 27 but cut my teeth using a Colt SAA and that New Frontier was the last before discovering S&W more to my liking. In your area maybe a .44 mag. is better if you think a bear encounter is likely. Remember that you can shoot .44 S&W Specials in the magnum as well. As for the two pistols in that calibre I am familiar with a Ruger Blackhawk and S&W Model 29 and I preferred the later. The Ruger not only had the same faults as a Colt SAA but with a full load hurt my hand. It recoiled upwards pivoting in my hand catching the web of my hand. The Smith would torque to the left and I had no problem. As for the GP 100 you mentioned, I have no experience with that but the geometry looks good. Personally I don’t like a 5” barrel except for carry. My Model 25 with a 6½” barrel and loved it. That was in .45 ACP and they have since shortened the barrel to 6”. My New Frontier had a 7½” barrel. A longer barrel will give a long sighting radius, reduced muzzle blast, and more velocity. Not only did I have the Model 25 in .45 ACP but a M1911A1 that I packed. I found this not ideal for the field with that calibre’s rain bow trajectory and the auto would throw my cases. At least with the Model 25 I could save the empties.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 29, 2016 17:33:01 GMT
I've owned seven different N-frames over the last 30 years in three different chamberings. I never had one in .45 ACP or .38 Special. All had adjustable sights. Over the years they came in just about all variations you could think of. But for the life of me, I don't know why I don't own one at the moment. One was a pre-war .357 Magnum, too, but it had some serious finish problems.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 29, 2016 19:33:52 GMT
Yes and the ammo is what does the work. But when you start doing your own handloading, you begin to become more of a reloader than a shooter. The shooting is to justify the handloading. Anyway, shooting is an expensive hobby, much more so than fooling around with swords, just not as dangerous. If there is one thing that is more important than bullet placement, it's confidence is what you're using, here referring to the combination of cartridge and firearm. For most people, you can't afford to have a different gun for every situation, so you try to pick something with some versatility. In this particular instance, as a sidearm for a woods loafer, you want the most powerful handgun that you can and will carry all the time. It would be nice if it were suitable as an all-round sidearm, too, and there are lots to choose from. It doesn't have to be an exotic caliber nor need it be the most powerful handgun available, either, which you probably can't afford in the first place anyway. This is all because bullet placement is more important than caliber. You can't shoot something in the paw (Who shot my paw!) and expect to make an animal flip head over heels. This, by the way, is true for humans. There are places you can shoot either an animal or a man that will cause an instant stop or even a knockdown. The problem is actually hitting that spot, if you think you know where it is. The probably is also getting the target to hold still. There are those who say there is no such thing as a "knockdown" hit. I just say those people have never been knocked down. I don't mean being knocked off your feet and being thrown backwards for six feet, merely knocked down. Not do I mean that you can't get up again. Chances are, you can and chances are, so will the animal. What happens next is next to impossible to predict. David knocked Goliath down with a head shot but he immediately cut off Goliath's head. A head shot is very likely to knock down a person even if it doesn't penetrate. Ask any boxer if it's possible. One of the more unusual variations of S&W revolvers, from back when they came out with something new ever month or two, was a J-frame with a five inch barrel in .357. It was probably a handful to shoot and the blast from a .357 is always terrific, too. I thought long and hard about buying one, though I never did. But it sure seemed like the handiest little gun to have. That "knockdown" (incapacitation) effect you mention is very real (though people correctly point out it cant be SOLEY relied on). It REALLY showed up when police used certain .357 rounds, like Federal 125gr. on bad guys and noticed they would drop for a period of time (often recovering later). The round hit, and kinetic energy was delivered near a major nerve plexus (like the solar plexus)...like (again, you mentioned) a boxers punch, which will drop a fighter when they are hit with a body blow...yet no permanent or observable damage.
|
|