BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,221
- Reaction score
- 6,683
All a matter of marketing. Jeff Cooper questioned the designation "Combat Masterpiece" as he thought the 38 Special-especially in the then standard 158gr RNL-was inadequate as a defensive round. The Combat Magnum was the brainchild of Bill Jordan who thought the 357 in a K-frame was "the answer to a peace officer's dream" though he acknowledged that the 38 Special was the most powerful round the average man could hope to master.And given his large size I would think the N-frame would be more suitable.
And after WWII the virtues of adjustable sights on issued/carry revolvers were being acknowledged.
That's the first I've heard of the federal government mandating model numbers on firearms. GCA 68 required serial numbers on all firearms. Colt and Ruger use model names, not numbers.
My understanding is that the Combat Magnum has treating to allow it to stand up to 357 pressures, hence merely reaming out the chambers of a Combat Masterpiece or changing cylinders will not convert it-safely-to a 357.
And after WWII the virtues of adjustable sights on issued/carry revolvers were being acknowledged.
That's the first I've heard of the federal government mandating model numbers on firearms. GCA 68 required serial numbers on all firearms. Colt and Ruger use model names, not numbers.
My understanding is that the Combat Magnum has treating to allow it to stand up to 357 pressures, hence merely reaming out the chambers of a Combat Masterpiece or changing cylinders will not convert it-safely-to a 357.
Last edited: