Search results

I'm guessing 1970. I have D11XXX from 1968, D123XXX which was purchased new January 7, 1970, and D362XXX which shipped inJune of 1971.

Either square butt or round butt, 38 Special or .357 Magnum, I don't much care which, but make mine a K-Frame Smith & Wesson please. Model 10 Model 13

Here's an old thread I stuck up here on the Forum years ago showing some of the .38 Special load testing that has been undertaken over the years here. Some .38 Special Chronograph Tests

What if a person is not a true believer in the efficacy of the hollow point? Bears some thought when discussing the great .357 Magnum cartridge. Have hollow points been oversold over the past decades? Does the hollow point really turn bad hits into good hits? Could the hollow point be...

I always enjoy thoughtful articles by writers who can avoid the dithering, "" sky is falling" cautions we see these days.

I'm not for loading the .38 Special up to Elmer Keith levels or .357 Magnum levels, whichever comes first.

Pre-war advertising, both Colt and Smith & Wesson, indicating that .38-44 loads were suitable for use in their smaller .38 Special revolvers.

It is here. I only shoot 158 grain bullets, cast or jacketed, and avoid lighter weight bullets offered for .357 Magnum. Unfortunately, its a handloading proposition these days.

The Swedish Lahti and the Italian Glisenti models both come to mind as less substantial as well as any of several different rushed wartime production models of 9mm pistols, along with a host of century old worn out, reworked, or abused 9mm pistols that remain out there. In the Sea of Used...

Yep alwslate. I have a chronograph that is prejudiced against the 9mm Luger, for the cartridge has never proven inspiring with any factory loading, using any factory provided bullet weight. Now I have not tested nearly all the factory 9mm Luger offerings out there, but a sampling of factory...

I think it's laughable that the .38 Special (1899) is supposedly held back "because there's millions" of old .38 Special revolvers out there, while the 9mm Luger (1902) gets a pass with all the supposedly latest expanding bullet technology and +P and +P+ loadings, though there are also millions...

The older ones still shoot very well, are sturdy, and are easy to look at.

Early 1970s Colt SP-1. It's fine for what it is. I've owned and used it since the late 1980s. It was mostly acquired as a stand-in for a US small arms collection. It's probably my least favorite rifle on the place. I don't admire anything about it, its design, its ergonomics, its appearance...

Save us from micro-automatics!!!

Dyslexia perhaps?

I like weight so the J-Frame Smith & Wesson of any persuasion is my least favorite frame size. I have fairly large hands and long fingers. Only three J-Frames live here and I only ever make serious use of one of them, a Model 649. The scandium models are for someone else.

N-Frame non-registered Magnum if it's a pre-war.

Me either. I can hurry things up no end and make a good showing double action when shooting favorite K-Frames or N-Frames double action and I do practice double action regularly. But, I don't live and breathe double action shooting with my double action revolver shooting. I'm not a lawman and...

I'm not seeing revolvers shooting tighter groups when used double-action either. From the long time Smith & Wesson "Parts List, Instructions For Use, Maintenance, Specifications, Guarantee" provided with each revolver: "In single action shooting the hammer is pulled or cocked to its extreme...

It's still a .32-20 rifle, one of the ultimate cartridges and chamberings.