Revolver General: Hand Cannon Edition

>>33386157
Almost impulse purchased an LCR in 357 tonight. I'm still going to get one I think. I want a pocket gun.

File: 1435634002584.jpg (44KB, 620x370px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 620x370px

>>33386157
I understand that S&W made the X-frame to accommodate a new cartridge that would regain them their position as makers of the most powerful production handgun in the world, but I think they're wasting its potential by just chambering it in their gimmick elephantfucker rounds.
Imagine the possibilites: an eight-shot Scandium .44 Magnum that, weighing about 32 oz., was light enough to carry all day but heavy enough to comfortably practice with; a fifteen- or sixteen-shot .22LR that balanced nicely in hand even with a 8.375" barrel and had literally no recoil, ideal for novice shooters learning handgun marksmanship fundamentals; and so on.

File: 1487226667961.jpg (31KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x480px

>>33386157
>tfw Toklat not on Cali roster

>>33386368
>a fifteen- or sixteen-shot .22LR that balanced nicely in hand even with a 8.375" barrel and had literally no recoil,
stop giving me an erection anon

>>33386368
I want that .44 you speak of

>>33386225
My mom just picked hers up. It's comfy to hold, but full power 357 is pretty killer. Especially compared to my GP100.

Then again it's a polymer framed compact, it's to be expected, 38s are good though.

Overall, I like it. And the sights are decent.
Wouldcarry/10

File: Colt M1909 - Great Grandpa's.jpg (497KB, 2560x1354px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2560x1354px

>>33386157

How's the recoil on that with .454 Cassull?

>>33386512
That's my only concern. I wonder if I shouldn't carry 38 special +p. I don't have glasswrist or anything but I can't get my pinkie finger on the grip.

>>33386536
kicks harder than the 500 imo

File: ruger alaskan.webm (357KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 720x404px

>>33386536
Not him but I mad this of my Ruger Alaskan shooting 300 grain Hornady in .454
>>33386631

>>33386606
Same here, I'm 6'3" with bear paws so the GP100 is great for me. The LCR has a good grip minus the hanging pinky, but even then, the finger grooves and rubberized grips help the predicament.

That being said, 357 is pretty snappy, I haven't used +P 38s yet, but if it's anywhere close to 357, I'd stick with the bigger round personally.

Still, can't beat it for the price.
> $310 with Employee discount
Gonna get myself a Redhawk .44 soon

>>33386646
Christ

>Still want one

>>33386631

I'd been considering a Ruger Redhawk in .45 Colt/,45 ACP or the Super Redhawk in .45 Colt/.454 Cassull to go with the M1909 in .45 Colt (since its an heriloom that served in two world wars and I don't want to shoot it often).

I kind of like the concept of being able to fire a monster round like .454 Cassull and be confident knowing that I can safely shoot really hot .45 Colt if I want; but being able to plink with .45 ACP would probably be more practical.

PS: I know the M1909 was actually chambered in its own cartridge; but it handles .45 Colt fine and its custom ammo is unobtanium anyway.

>>33386678
I'm just gonna get it at the peasant full price in Gunbuyer unless I find it somewhere cheaper.

File: picture 070.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg (271KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 800x533px

>>33386382
It'd probably be OK with a 10" half-underlug barrel, too.
At that point it might start to become a little front-heavy for some people's liking, but boy, that sight radius...

>>33386710
What even is the price? I know they MSRP for $500 ish. So if you can get one in the low $400s, I'd jump on it. My LGS has them with digicam frames and they're pretty neat.

>>33386368
9-10 shot 327 mag

Well, I just scrubbed the living fuck out of my 329pd barrel with the lead away cloth. Still a fair bit left in there but what the fuck...I only put ~60 rounds through it. HSM cowboy action

>>33386736
Something like $498-ish. Basically $500. All my LGS's want upper $500's almost $600 for it. Living in my area is pure suffering.

>>33386780
Jesus Christ. If I was able to get you one for my cost, I would do it on sheer principle. That's ridiculous when you can get full sized handguns for similar pricing and cheaper. I'd personally hold out if you can, I like the LCR, but not for that price.

File: ria 206.jpg (28KB, 600x391px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x391px

sup /k/ I really want another snubnose that i'll actually carry. i got a the short barrel gp-100 in the mindset that I could carry one day. of course i don't so i've been looking at these in a couple lgs. they run about 250 in my area. Does anyone have some hands on experience with the RIA? i fucking love cheap guns and pocket guns so i don't think i'm thinking straight here.

>>33386809
I really only want it because it's so light. If it weren't for that, I would just get the SP101.

>>33386834
It's a great beater gun. Tool marks are clearly visible, and it's rather large but its all steel and will handle any +p 38 with ease.

>>33386850
Idk, it's only a 9oz difference. I'd honestly go for the SP101 because it's steel, less recoil, etc. Just wish it had a 6 round capacity. Idk, can't go wrong either way desu.

File: swairweightsizesbi.jpg (56KB, 450x321px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 450x321px

>>33386834
>carrying a gun that you bought specifically because of how cheap it was
This will end well.

Do you not have any pawn shops in your area where you can go and buy a J-frame somebody got murdered with for that price?

File: 744VH.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33386157

File: magnurms.jpg (83KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 960x960px

My two wheelguns.
I like to feel like I'm contributing.

>>33386897
>>33386909
lol i know that it is not ideal for carry. i live in a mostly rural area with a lot of mexicans, but they are the good kind so murders a VERY uncommon here. i have the money for a s&w but i like the idea of a gun that i will always have with me or in my car for easy access

>>33386958
So get a 638 and have it with you all the time.
I don't see what the problem is.

>>33386380
>living in commiefornia
>2017

>>33387087
Some of us can't just up and leave because we have responsibilities that require us to stay. It's called being an adult, you do things you don't want to because they need to get done.

File: trr8.jpg (3MB, 3984x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3984x2988px

Brought her home today.
It's my first firearm.

>>33387185
Before people freak out about it being loaded, those are snapcaps

>>33387079
i work in labor and sweat. a lot. even with a good holster there would be no stopping these torrents. i guess i should just grit my teeth and deal with getting a s&w stained and filthy

>>33387185
You're off to a good start.

File: skeleton-martini.jpg (34KB, 336x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 336x400px

>>33387185
how much did it cost anun

>>33387440
About $1300 after after tax and the FFL transfer fee, and $200 for the Burris.

I lubed the internals, the bore, cylinder, ejector rod, and the exterior with Hornady one shot HD extreme. Superlube grease on the underside of the rail, the creases of the side plate, trigger, hammer, and the crane. Wiped the whole thing down with silicone cloth afterwards.

File: BB6439EBC59757E73BCB130E902014C14B9A94EF[1].jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>33387523
>13000
my inner poorfag just jumped backwards

>>33387544
I live in CA so the transfer fee was $75 plus $25 dros and sales tax is 9%.

>>33386917
What is this gat

>>33388033
Probably a Dan Wesson 744

>>33387185
Welcome to gun ownership, anon. Take good care of her and she'll be good to you.

>>33386940
I like your taste anon

>>33386754

This. I would definitely carry a snubbie with 10 shots of .327

>used Raging Judge for sale shortly after debut for $600
>didn't buy it
The regret is stronger

>>33386368

Wait, does the .500 really use the same grip profile as the old guns under that huge rubber grip? If it does, kek.

My Gunborker .44 mag Redhawk should arrive today. Good/bad/indifferent idea?

>>33389958
>The regret is stronger

Don't worry about it, you saved yourself the hassle of owning a memegun made by illiterate BRs.

>>33390436
Have fun with it. Redhawks are good guns.

>>33390412
It uses K-/L-frame grips.

File: Mister Seventy-Three.png (946KB, 958x572px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 958x572px

I'd like to thank EKO Cobra for the MR-73

>>33390519
Does it shoot as bad as it looks?

File: pix786696346[1].jpg (30KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x425px

>>33390466

Yay, just talked to the store. Gonna go grab it after work.

I'm kinda nervous. Never bought anything off Gunbroker before and it has some cosmetic issues. Hope it's not fucked.

>>33390519

Weren't those trade-in Manhurins all shot out? I saw talk on the boards when they arrived. Guys complaining they needed lockwork that no one outside France could get parts for.

>>33390644
I was pretty nervous the first time I bought on GB too. Just inspect it carefully, make sure it locks up okay and you should be alright. You can always cancel the transfer and return it is it isn't as described.

>>33390655
Yeah, imported Manurhins are a bit of a meme, most are in an awful state.

>>33390655
>>33390852
I got one of the classic ones about a year ago. It's been parkerized but it still locks up tight as a drum and I shot a 100 for my CCW with it. Probably a 3" group across 50 rounds double action. Granted max distance was 10y?

File: mr73.jpg (554KB, 3999x2666px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 3999x2666px

>>33390519
What's so special about the MR73? I see lots of praise for it and it just seems like an above average import revolver, and a little pricey for one that isn't beat to shit.
Are the listings I'm seeing just overpriced?

File: Gign-11.jpg (46KB, 517x511px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 517x511px

>>33391258
They're meticulously hand-fit by master craftsmen and overengineered so that French counterterrorist commandoes can practice with 1,000s of rounds of full-power .357 Mag / day without deterioration of the gun's 1" group at 50m accuracy standard

>>33391258

As another poster told you they're great guns. Amazing guns. But yes they're over priced due to the fact they're rare imports.

They'd be cheaper in France.

File: tmp_3996-IMAG11881719818758.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>33386157
>hand cannon edition

>>33391441
>>33392007
That's pretty compelling, actually.
It's a shame they seem to go over $1000 when they're not beat up. Is there a place that gets decent condition ones at a fair price? I can only think of classic firearms and they're iffy.

File: 4dd14784dd9dc9d206ab3a7049d3c4bb.jpg (36KB, 564x396px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 564x396px

>>33392239
$$$$ is a fair price.
It's not like a SCAR where the gun costs $$$ to make and they mark it up tenfold to recoup their R&D costs and to position it in the market as a premium weapon; the man-hours involved in making a bombproof Swiss watch like a MR73 or a Korth are really that expensive and the product is priced accordingly.

File: DSCN1339.jpg (34KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x300px

I just bought a Dan Wesson 15-2. It came with a 4" barrel but I'd like to find some thick target barrels like pic related. I know CZ has new standard barrels but I want something heavier duty.

File: IMG_20170301_223114.jpg (1MB, 4752x1784px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4752x1784px

I like hunting with my Blackhawk .44

File: PPC01.jpg (31KB, 758x358px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 758x358px

>>33392452
thicc

>>33392452
EWK Arms is where you want to go for a barrel like that. The guy who runs the place makes barrels in large batches at intermittent times throughout the year. Just wait and you'll get one eventually. I love ther barrel I got from him.

File: speed6.jpg (1MB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1152px

muh ruger

>>33392617
Ruger revolvers would look so much better if they didn't cover them with text.

>>33386909
There are no pawn shops with an FFL within 200 miles of me

I really want a wheel gun, most likely Ruger's Match Champion. Someone talk me out of it.

>>33393133
Yeah, it's their one fault in my opinion.

>>33393263
Do it.

>>33392451
That makes sense.
Does anyone import decent ones to the US at least semi regularly or am I stuck with gunbroker auctions and pawn shop hunting?

>>33393263

You're not going to like what I'm about to tell you.

I held and tested the triggers between a 1200 dollar performance Smith and the much cheaper Ruger....


The ruger's trigger felt by far way better

File: GIGN_weldingsSPAS12.jpg (137KB, 500x606px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x606px

>>33393358
http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/pistols/manurhin/manurhin-mr73.cfm?gun_id=100666856

File: 1278571121842.jpg (172KB, 1500x889px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1500x889px

>>33393263
if you buy a ruger you wont have a smith

:^)

>>33393455
>giving money to S&W while they still have the damn hillary hole
no thanks

File: 1480166081461.jpg (116KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1280x960px

>>33393466
sad to say, but life is about making compromises

File: 1489938929120-2.jpg (46KB, 560x442px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 560x442px

>>33393455

Smiths are fucking beautiful there's no denying that.

Not him but since I already own three smith revolvers the next one I'm looking at is a Ruger

What I would love is pic related but not available in Commiefornia

>>33393546

Beautiful fucking pic. What guns are those?

File: DSC_0006.jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

>>33393566
gemini customs does SICK work on custom rugers, but they are like . . . 1200 or something iirc

4" SS security six is the best .357 revolver ever, unless you just have to have 8 rounds.

File: 20151021_213548.jpg (284KB, 1920x1055px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1920x1055px

>when you have a clip of 10mm

File: gp100-ultimate-3-inch-high-polish-blue.jpg (97KB, 800x545px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x545px

>>33393623
more shiny

File: IMG_4387.jpg (2MB, 3648x2155px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2155px

How viable is this design?

>>33393669

Holy hell look at the Polish on that

My 642 is the only wheel gun I own sadly..

File: IMG_4388.jpg (2MB, 3663x2505px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3663x2505px

>>33393724

File: IMG_4386.jpg (1MB, 3582x2510px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3582x2510px

>>33393822

>>33393874
italian space magic

File: 100692264_19081_20F4FB5F9A0912A9.jpg (4MB, 3000x2023px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3000x2023px

>>33386157
I want a Bodeo 1889 so bad: http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/revolvers/military-revolvers-non-us/world-war-i-italian-model-1889-bodeo-revolver-spanish-made-.cfm?gun_id=100692264

http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=bodeo+1889

>TFW 18
>TFW you can't buy a old AF revolver whose firerate is slower than some repeater guns until you're 21 but you can buy an AR-15 for some fucktarded reason

HELP PLS

>>33393921
Keep playing with it in your vidya til you're of age?

>>33393921

>be 25
>can't get a Korth mongoose revolver that holds six shots but own two abomination tier AR15s
>Because it's not on the CA roster

>>33394147
Sarcastically, the Korth Mongoose is clearly a dangerously poorly-manufactured gun that you chould be grateful that your state has prevented you from being suckered into buying.

File: HPIM0620.jpg (918KB, 1952x1596px) Image search: [Google]

918KB, 1952x1596px

>>33386157
.44 and .45 pinned and recessed master race.

Guys, do revolvers in .22LR also exhibit frame stretching at high round counts ?
Would they be easy to maintain ?

>>33393367
>I held and tested the triggers between a 1200 dollar performance Smith and the much cheaper Ruger....

I've had Rugers, now I have Smith's, Dan Wesson's, and Colt's. Smith's across the board have better triggers than Rugers and Taurus'. You may run into a bad one, or one that needs to be cleaned, but the large majority are not even close. That was one of the reasons I swapped my Rugers out. I didn't like that they were cast either, but mostly it was the amazing triggers.

>>33386368
Have you ever seen an X-frame in person? Those are both retarded ideas

>>33386770
So now you understand why bare lead and high velocity don't play well, besides mid-flight fragmentation.

>>33386157
>you will never have an L-frame in .41 Magnum
Why even live?

>>33391258
It's probably one of if not the best standard b production revolvers ever made WITHOUT going full retard luxury gun. For a gun that's made to be used and used hard, it's far better than just above average.Not as Gucci as a Korth or Jan but nowhere near as expensive either

>>33392451
Anon if you honestly believe that's why SCARs are expensive then you are a retard of the highest order. Or lowest, depending on how you look at it

>>33386157
Super Redhawks are neat. Very sturdy, good shooters. IMHO, they just look like dogshit compared to original Redhawks though.

>>33393566
I promise you that gun isn't worth whatever they're asking for it. Better off just using the custom shop or sending or to someone like Hamilton Bowen

>>33393623
Gemini chooses to waste talent on making hideous guns.so much ability, so little understanding of aesthetics

>>33393724
That's how pretty much every revolver is made. The modern ones at least

>>33395084
Apart from Dan Wessons and S&W R8/TR8, I'm not aware of any other revolvers that incorporate a barrel nut. How well would a shroud/nut barrel hold up when chambered in .454?

>>33395195
Most of them use shrouds, they just can't be popped off like a DW. If you can put a cannon a .50 BMG then the nut will be fine.

File: DSC_0172.jpg (417KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1500x1000px

>>33395032
Okay, explain in detail why an aluminum extrusion with a bunch of shit screwed into it costs the civilian end-user $3000 even though it only costs the military ~$700 and presumably costs even less than that to manufacture.

>>33393623
>"That looks ni-"
>jewelling on hammer and trigger
Ugh.

>>33393724
That looks like it'll be fucking sick, make sure to polish the gun up real good when finished, and get some nice wood grips for it.

>>33394592
Unless the frame is like zinc castings or something, I don't see .22LR causing any measurable frame stretching in numerous lifetimes.

>>33395663
Not my pic. http://offsetarms.com/?page_id=16

>>33395605
because the military has a contract for thousands of units, parts, training, and possible additional contracts down the line causing an economy of scale and a guaranteed purchase. whereas the civilian version might only be niche enough to gather some interest but not enough to cause a drop in the price.

>>33395605
I'd really like to design a rifle with an extruded aluminum receiver a bit like that some day, except I want to make sure that the MSRP of the thing is under $1000, so it'd involve a few off the shelf parts for simplicity (and user friendlyness)

File: dsc_0001_2.jpg (110KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x531px

>>33395647
P I M P
I
M
P

File: HTB1B9veFVXXXXcmXFXXq6xXFXXXG.jpg (144KB, 600x434px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 600x434px

>>33395726
>sten build from an extruded aluminum window channel

fucking send it

>>33395723
So how many things are different between military and civilian versions? The trigger group?

>>33395768
Well actually I was thinking more something along the lines of the Leader T2, with the triangular bolt-head and all (though it'd vary, if I could incorporate a normal AR15 radial bolt into an AR18 style bolt-carrier, that'd obviously be better and it could be pretty cheap)

>>33392556
What about a more comfortable grip? The dirty Harry grip looks good but sucks to shoot.

>>33395774
Barrel length, lower receiver also probably has different milling to it.
That isn't the point though; if you're a manufacturer you're not going to make more than what it takes to fulfill the contract order. If the contract says make 17 thousand and change you make 17 thousand and correct change only. the military scale of economy doesn't translate into civilian sales at all.

>>33395732
That is some deeep bluing.

File: SCAR-stock.jpg (90KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 960x960px

>>33395774
The FCG, the 16" barrel on the 5.56 guns, the lower receiver, and the entire civ gun being made in Wafflestan and shipped to America in sporter config.

File: 07f331c0140f5c84f115cab89a7f7d2c.jpg (205KB, 735x1600px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 735x1600px

>>33395723
>the military gets a 77% discount because they did a 200,000 unit group buy
>$3000 is a totally honest and fair price that accurately reflects the costs involved in bringing the FN SCAR family of rifles to the civilian market
>no price gouging here, nosiree

>>33395874
is that the import stock? thats hilarious.

>>33395922
Do you actually know how much bullshit we put forging manufacturers through to get a rifle to market in the US? Like Jesus, its almost not worth doing.

>>33395689
but technically, if we were talking about numerous lifetimes, is the pressure strong enough to stretch steel ?

File: AAA-SAP_bolt_003.jpg (60KB, 1936x1044px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1936x1044px

>>33395835
that . . . sounds very doable, but my 1/2 sec of googling doesnt show any precedent examples. The cam pin hole/channel/thing always seemed like it would be kind of funky to mill

>>33395922
Remember the msrp of the SCAR when it hit the market? Now compare that to the demand it has today while FN is ALSO trying to fill orders for contracts. Again, MSRP, not what everyone sells them for.

Why the fuck would FN choose to move fewer units of a guy that obviously has demand

>>33393822
Does that barrel just fucking screw in ?
Is that safe ?
I need to know more.

>>33396167
Yes and yes. normally from the factory it gets torqued in.

>>33396193
Are there more revolvers that share this design ?

>>33395965
That's a legitimate point.
The point of the original original post, though, was that the SCAR is highly optimized for modern manufacturing processes and costs almost nothing to manufacture; most of its cost is the result of externalities.
All we're doing at this point is arguing about what specific externalities are involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUXoNUzAyvk

File: funs.jpg (554KB, 1594x897px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1594x897px

my two. looking for a .357 for occasional carry, any suggestions?

>>33396213
Most newer revolvers do, its just some smith pulled the barrel out and made that custom thing. Older dan wesson revolvers had a similar thing going.
>>33395965
>>33396220
Foreign** not forging muh bad.

>>33396228
>a .357 for [...]carry
Glock 32

>>33396228
You look like you like Smith and wesson so that narrows it down a bit. Taurus model 63 obviously.

>>33396228
S&W Model 66 2.75 inch barrel

File: 44mag.jpg (28KB, 753x424px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 753x424px

>>33386917

my dw 744 at the range.

File: dw44.jpg (239KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1280x960px

>>33396453

and deep cleaning

File: tmp_3996-14874365398741836441925.jpg (25KB, 480x553px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x553px

>>33396794

File: sp101in22.jpg (48KB, 800x809px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x809px

>>33395948
Honestly, I think the frame of the gun will outlive the bore (I have no idea how long a .22 bore lasts but this is a light bullet at gentle pressures, so presumably really long), by significant margin, and numerous firing pins and spring changes.

I mean looking at something like a Ruger SP101 in .22LR, if you take even remotely decent care of it, it could probably last for a couple of hundred years and still be in decent condition, and after that last a couple of hundred years more, assuming laws don't change and people in your family have an interest in weapons, you could pass a gun like that down many generations.

This is strong and thicc steel, handling a very gentle cartridge.
Basically what I'm saying is that frame stretching isn't something you'd realistically have to consider with a steel framed .22, and even some potmetal piece of shit would probably hold up to a lot of use.

>>33396035
>>33396958
FUCK

File: 1458708024362.jpg (260KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1600x1200px

>>33397150
>tfw even webleys with shaved cylinders are like 8-900$

existence is suffering

File: ms16-webley-taper-682x383.1443468409.jpg (47KB, 682x383px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 682x383px

>>33397675
It sucks, but if you handload .45 AutoRim brass to proper levels and with suitable bullets, you can still enjoy them.

http://www.tactical-life.com/tactics/reloading-the-webley-revolver/#ms16-webley-lead

Even though the cylinder of your Webley is crippled, it can still live a pretty good life.

>>33396958
I just ordered a Ruger SP101 in .357, I was very torn on which version to get, because dat half lug on the .22lr is aesthetic as fuck.

File: match champion.jpg (93KB, 1000x700px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1000x700px

>>33397830
The Match Champion has a sexy halflug and is overall quite nice.

Has combat and target sights, and isn't actually that expensive, balances nicely with it's 4" barrel.

File: Ernest borgnine eating a popsicle.jpg (15KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 270x270px

>>33397675
>go to gunsmith
>talk with gunsmith about brit guns
>mention how I can't find an unfucked Webley
>he's holding on to 6 of the fuckers in the back for a man working in Germany for a few years
>mfw

>>33393623
Is there a science to the porting? I tried looking online, cause I own a drill, and it looks like something I could do.

File: 586 L-Comp.jpg (37KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x480px

>>33398125
It'll be ugly, but simply drilling one or more upward-pointed holes in your barrel will absolutely push the muzzle down during firing.
The science comes in the form of 1. determining how forcibly the muzzle will be pushed and 2. optionally designing the hole(s) in a manner that doesn't create too much additional muzzle flash.
Ideally you would want porting that acted like certain extremely fancy AR-15 muzzle devices, keeping the barrel totally flat while generating negligible blast and flash, but I'm not sure if that's actually a thing for revolvers.

File: barrelportfail_2.jpg (174KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x1067px

>>33398125
> I own a drill, and it looks like something I could do.

nervouslaughter.com

File: 1478726494086.jpg (68KB, 662x610px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 662x610px

>>33398247
Poor gat

File: revo.jpg (33KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x375px

>>33386157

here is my new backup gun

:)

>>33398125
Honestly I would leave it to a professional, because it seems like something that could damage the lands and grooves of your bore if you do it wrong.

File: 1.jpg (15KB, 475x223px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 475x223px

>>33386157
>ruger redhawk model 5033
I have such a need to own one of these, but I want to hold out for like a 4 or 6 inch barrel; does anyone have this 2.75" model, and how do you like it?

>>33395726
You would have to post machine it so much you might as well CNC it.

Extrusions don't hold tolerance well, tends to warp. You can hand that tolerance on a rail or upper but probably not the receiver

File: 12074506_931049100277301_5902350161662810656_n.jpg (85KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x640px

>>33396958
Okay I'm seriously considering getting into the revolver category now, I'm thinking of .22LR with a threaded barrel so i can hopefully swap barrel lengths. What is required to keep the timing good ?
Can you just replace a cylinder ?
I need to know because there's up to 6 months waiting time in this shithole, so I can't willy nilly purchase something and I need to know I can maintain and work on it.

>>33400720
Also, how does a person open the frame ?
It looks like I can use a punch on some of them to get to the trigger group.

File: SW 686+ 4 inch.jpg (48KB, 928x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 928x600px

I have a raging hardon for pic related right now, a 686+ with a 4" barrel. I figure that's a nice hybrid length, with some weight savings while still getting some value out of .357 mag.

I already have a Redhawk in .44mag, so the 686 might be superfluous. But then, the Redhawk has a scope and a 7.5" barrel, and is thus enormous. Got a shoulder holster for it, but I'm thinking the 686 would be a better choice for hiking.

Or at least that's the excuse I'm using to justify the purchase.

>>33386834
bought the m200 after i was impressed with their 1911.

haven't had any issues with it and i've shot at least 1000 rounds through it.

even put a few +p rounds through it. yea wouldn't do it again unless i'm using it for self defense, which for me won't be likely.

File: DSC01615.jpg (101KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1200x900px

>>33400776
Get a 69 so you don't have to add another caliber to your inventory.
It's 1.6 oz lighter and only .125" longer, so it'll still be fine for your intended application.

>>33400720
You're seriously overthinking this.
The only maintenance you actually need to do on a revolver is cleaning the barrel and cylinder when it gets dirty enough to impede normal function.
Nearly all revolvers will run forever without ever being disassembled for more detailed maintenance.

>>33401030
Not a bad idea, but how's .44 mag out of that light-ish weight gun?

I have a Ranch Hand in .38/.357, so the cartridge concern is squared away anyway though.

>>33401056
It's not brutal and ruthless like the 329PD, but it'll definitely get your attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_i_8Elcdzc

>>33396267

Doesn't have the reliability of a revolver my dude.

>>33387114
It's not called being an adult, that's just being born long enough ago to be drafted and executed, you are simply valuing stability (or something you never said what) over not living in that place.

File: S&W model 29.jpg (34KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 700x466px

I got this one from an auction.
Previous owner got ill and had to sell all of his guns

File: 1489514896395.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

>>33401048
I might be, but I shoot a lot and it's mostly cheap ammo.
And due to the lack of gunsmiths, and the paperwork involved for replacing certain parts, I need to know exactly what I'm getting into. And for some reason I can't seem to find many revolvers in .22LR, there's only 2 from S&W, one from Ruger and one from Dan Wesson. And I was kind of hoping for a black or blued one.

>>33401333
I mean of course there's Taurus, but I'm unsure about their quality.

>>33401333
A stainless gun like the 4" S&W 617 will be easier to clean, will never rust, and is slightly sturdier than a carbon steel gun of the same dimensions.

>>33401706
That does sound nice, but won't it get scratched ridiculously ?

>>33386754
If they can get an 8-shot .44mag model they should be able to do a 12-shot .327.

>>33401365
My first carry piece was a Taurus Ultralight in .38. About every fifth time you pull the hammer back, it gets bound up internally somehow, and you have to return it to rest and try again. It's not an issue if you fire double action, but that mile-long trigger pull sucks. I am not impressed with Taurus revolvers.

>>33401869
Scratched by what?

>>33398125
>Is there a science to the porting?
naw just get in there and start drilling my nigger lol

>>33401706
>is slightly sturdier than a carbon steel gun of the same dimensions

Is this actually the case? I had heard that early stainless revolvers like the Model 65/66 encountered some problems as a result of being made of stainless steel.

>>33387185
That's fantastic anon, makin me jelly n shit
Tell us how she shoots

So I just got back from the LGS with a 7.5" SS Redhawk in .44 Mag. I feel like rewatching my Dirty Harry VHS set now.

>tfw couldn't get a Smith 29-2 for $500

>>33401869
>That does sound nice, but won't it get scratched ridiculously ?

Anything that scratches a stainless gun will scratch a blued gun. And with an SS gun you can just polish them out forever.

>>33402206
Wanting a Model 29 but only being able to find/afford a Ruger is the authentic "just got back from seeing Dirty Harry at the theater" experience, really.

>>33401333

Good wheelguns don't go out of time until you're into 25,000+ rounds at worst. If they ever do, and it can't be fixed with a simple catch or something, chances are the rest of the gun is totally shot out.

I mean really, there are guys who dump 50K rounds of hot .44 out of a Ruger or Smith without wearing out the gun.

>>33402167
If stainless were [still] a problem, would they make the .500 Magnum out of it?

>>33402206
You are better off with the Redhawk. The 29-2 and earlier have durability problems when it comes to holding up to regular use of full power .44 Magnum.

>>33393703
Why the clips with primerless bullets?

>>33395732
That hammer is asking to be blued..
Trigger is fine though

>>33402237
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_4/160140_High-round-count-pistols--100-000---observations.html&page=5

Scroll down about 60% on this page and read what Henderson Defense has to say about the 500. If you do not know who he is, he is one of the owners of the Battlefield Vegas shooting range and is sharing his experiences in how the weapons owned by his range hold up under use.

The reason stainless sees such widespread use today is not because it necessarily has better mechanical properties but simply because it is unequivocally the cheapest to manufacture and finish.

>>33402292
Yeah, the .500 was a bad example.
Still, stainless clearly isn't a problem for normal guns.

>>33402240
>the 29-2 and earlier have durability problems when it comes to holding up to regular use of shit-hot 300+ grain loads that didn't exist when it was designed
ftfy

>>33402235
To be fair, a .44 Blackhawk can probably last literally forever.

>>33402240
Most people don't shoot the kind of loads that would put a heavy toll on an M29, not often anyway.

Not even people with the big fat Rugers, that are designed to take the hottest heaviest cartridges you could fit in there.

>>33402235
Python/10

File: eJwFwcENwyAMAMBdGACwKbbJMggRRFIlAQF9Vd29d1_1GZfa1LFWn5sx-zlzG7ueq41Ui66t1aukfk6d223SWikfd3nWNIiBPbuAYAnIAopBEofAgp7EiwMSA-7lXQCIYB0jA0EgIcsUhQOBDxIf_e5V_f4HWyfx.jpg (12KB, 300x359px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x359px

I would love a top break revolver but i will never get a REX what is the best alternative that is actually obtainable?
Pic unrelated

File: 20150917_215955.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

Did somebody say Wheelgun? Also check out my shitty desk. Also Incendiary boolits.

>>33396267
.357 Sig has ballistic characteristics close to only anemic police .357 Magnum loads. While hot .357 Magnum can better than 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP, .357 Sig can not.

>>33403329
Enfield and Webley
H&R and a million other early 1900s revolvers in .38S&W and .32S&W.

I am going to someday whip out my C&R and just buy a dozen tiny top breaks for no particular reason.

File: IMG_20170323_165234.jpg (1MB, 1444x1083px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1444x1083px

Colt Trooper .357 FHP, and Ruger GP100. My two wheel guns.

>>33392451
Working on this look for mine actually. It's a 6 inch match, but still has pre-drilled holes for a scope mount. A local guy is making a short weaver rail for me so I can mount a pistol scope :D

>>33403505
>cop killer bullets

woa you got a permit for that thing bud

>>33402167
>Is this actually the case? I had heard that early stainless revolvers like the Model 65/66 encountered some problems as a result of being made of stainless steel.

There are a lot of both stainless and carbon steel metals that each possess unique traits. There are a lot ways to heat treat both as well that affect those traits. In general carbon steel is more ductile and stainless steel is more brittle. This is why you generally don't see stainless hardware on vehicle suspensions.

>>33403631
I want a top-break in a currently relevant caliber, though.

File: H&R 999.jpg (29KB, 444x385px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 444x385px

>>33404757
>I want a wheellock in a currently relevant caliber
There's some pretty good reasons as to why top-breaks aren't really made any more.

There's some Schofield replicas in .45 Colt that are kind of expensive, you probably can't hotrod it to .44 Magnum levels or it'll kB.

Anderson Wheeler makes a 7 shot Webley in .357 Magnum, it's sweet as shit but costs like $9000+ and they only make like 50 a year.

Then the other easy one in a caliber you can find, is the H&R Sportsman 999, a .22LR top-break revolver, 9 chambers, has a bit of a Webley look to it.

File: IMG_4503.jpg (283KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1600x1200px

>>33404757
I reload for mine, so ammo isn't much of an issue. The Webley & Scott .22 'aiming tube' is fun, but I'm still keeping an eye out for the 6-shot Parker-Hale .22 kit.

>>33405220
I'm always envious of that No.2 with an intact hammer.

How's their ammo? Can you just substitute .38/200 with .38 'Short' and that'll work or is bore diameter different?

File: IMG_5385l.jpg (260KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 2000x1125px

>>33405270
.38/200 was a Kynoch loading of .38 S&W with a 200gr bullet. It was adopted as the '.380 Revolver MkI' but has nothing in common with the 1860's-circa .380 Revolver Short (and .38 Short Centerfire) which was the forefather of the .38 Short Colt.

.38 S&W cartridges and their kin use a bullet diameter of 0.360" while the .38 Short Colt family use 0.375" heel-base bullets. The current production .38 Short Colt actually uses 0.357" diameter bullets - the same diameter as .38 Special and .357 Magnum.

Short answer - use .38 S&W not .38 Short Colt.

File: Rhino without beard.png (291KB, 1000x581px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1000x581px

>>33401333
Do you ever get the urge to just file off the rail? I feel like it would look so much better. Purest love ruined by a wrinkly underside

>>33387185
Kudos on kickass start to ownership!

>>33405164
>H&R Sportsman 999
That's fucking cool. Definitely going to pick one of those up at some point.

File: hr9996u038.jpg (123KB, 900x1336px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 900x1336px

>>33406492
They're actually not that uncommon, so you shouldn't have any greater difficulty finding one for a decent price if you spend some time searching, they made a fair few of them.

Don't think H&R makes them anymore though, come to think of it, not sure H&R exists as a company anymore.

Either way, the 999 makes for a pretty decent allround .22, practice, plinking, and probably trapping, if you're in that kind of business.
You might be able to find speedloaders for the thing too. Really, any 9rd .22 caliber speedloader should fit and work.

File: sportsman999.jpg (29KB, 450x439px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x439px

Come to think of it, it's kind of odd that nobody has aped the Sportsman in more recent times, the fact that top-breaks have a weaker lockup isn't significant because it's .22LR, and there'd definitely be some market appeal for the thing, even if niche, there's always gonna be some people who appreciate the novelty of an automatic ejector.

>>33406603
I picked up a really clean 999, early 40's generation for less than $300 otd.

It's nice. Pre-lawyer single action trigger, pretty accurate, easy to unload and load.

I read that the current speed loaders for Taurus 9 shot .22 revolvers will work with the 999.

>>33394834
You're a retarded idea. Retard.

>>33406603
>not sure H&R exists as a company anymore
RIP H&R (1871 - 1986)
peperony and chease

>>33406648
Oregon Trail is pretty nice.
Organ Trail is pretty fun too.

I really love the idea of the S&W 460XVR

It's not enough to shoot hot loaded .45colt and
.454 handbruiser , nope. I want to have a third
option.
I want 460 wristbreaker, because life is all about
choices.

Is there any reason it wouldnt chamber and shoot .410 shells as well?

File: sw460.jpg (10KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x168px

>>33406785
aaannnnnd I forgot the fucking pic

>>33386897
Lol it's not rated for +p

>>33406797
1996 called it wants its resolution back

>>33406810
True, but it's not like it'll kaboom from a cylinder, that it's not rated for +P just means that it'll not stand up to frequent use of it, it's fine to carry as your defensive ammo.

>>33406785
Cylinder isn't long enough.
Maybe someday they'll make a Y-frame for .461 S&W Ultra Turbo Mega Magnum that'll have a long enough cylinder for such versatility.
>tfw no revolver that chambers .45 Schofield, .45 ACP, .45 Auto Rim, .45 Colt, .454 Casull, .460 Mag, .410 bore shotshells, and a hypothetical ultra magnum cartridge .7" longer than the .460

>>33392515
Looking back I wish I got the Hunter model for my .357 Blackhawk. Do you have a scope for that?

>>33402167
The 65/66 had issues involving the forcing cone because the k-frame wasn't meant for hot .357 loads

>>33393746
>unfluted

God that's so sexy

File: 1437639812291.jpg (23KB, 219x200px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 219x200px

>>33389944
>>33386754
>>33401934
>>33386368
>10 shot .357 snubbie

File: wm_7813678.jpg (235KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1600x1200px

>>33408595
See, now you're thinking with X-frames.
If S&W can make a gun like pic related, why NOT the next size up?
They have no excuses but failure of imagination.

>>33408720
For the size, weight and price they might as well just start aping the Coonan or something.

>>33386368
>skipping leg day

File: blackhawk long.jpg (501KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 2000x1500px

Anyone else here love Joker tier barrels?

>>33405584
You also edited out the seam, which is worse than the rail in most people's opinions.

File: lematrevolverbarrel.jpg (216KB, 420x590px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 420x590px

I want a modern lemat style gun with 9 shots of 327 and one of 410/454 casull!

File: taurus-1-tau_2_513069.jpg (53KB, 650x306px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 650x306px

>>33406785
youre thinking of a raging judge

File: NxYiZzs.jpg (33KB, 650x412px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x412px

>>33386382
>30 or so rnds double barrel X-frame .22

File: 39971.jpg (20KB, 446x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 446x400px

>>33408750
>For the size, weight, price
The 2.75" bear defense kit M500 weighed 54 oz.
Scandium guns typically weigh about half as much as their steel counterparts, so a X-frame 329PD snub would weigh about 27 oz.
The Coonan weighs 42 oz empty and only holds 7+1.
For innawoods open carry where the thickness of the cylinder doesn't matter, the revolver is clearly the better option.
As far as price goes, Coonans typically retail for ~$1500, which is right up there with the MSRP of the most expensive Performance Center S&Ws, so the scandium X-frame would have to be implausibly expensive to not be competitively priced.

>>33409016
kek

File: 1490185985891.jpg (9KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x240px

>>33387185
One of the S&W revolvers I want. Super sexy

>>33408720
I-is that y-yours /k/oman-kun?

File: Chapuis-Manurhin-MR73-Sport-5-1-4-1.jpg (41KB, 976x510px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 976x510px

>>33411700
>bear defense kit M500

bear defense revolvers are a meme. especially if you needlessly go north of 357mag. the only time you'll need to shoot a bear is when he surprises you and he is possible surprised by you. so you'll need to be quick on the draw and will need to be able to fire quickly and in volume. 10 mememeter in a G20 is the way to go. or pic related if you really, absolutely, have to put style first.

>>33412508

>semi auto
>when a bear is on top of your clawing away at you

You're asking for the gun to jam or be put out of battery. Good luck tap racking and banging.

>>33411067

You should just trip as the Lee mat guy.

>>33412552
>You're asking for the gun to jam or be put out of battery. Good luck tap racking and banging.

Noguns detected. You can easily press the palm of your hand against the back of the slide and fire the gun. It will not blow you hand off. But ofc your whole premise is retarded.

>>33412508
>needlessly go north of 357mag
>for griz
wew
I mean, sure, you can hunt any game in North America with a sufficiently hot .357 if you want to, but self-defense is a whole different ballgame.

>>33412508
>.357
>10mm
>for brown bear
>for grizzly bear
I'm fucking sick of seeing your posts you French fuck.

>>33412508
.44 mag or up for bears or youre not prepared

>>33412616
That's only good for one shot though. Darren Wilson didn't have a fun time with that and it was just a big nig, not a fucking bear.

>>33412809
10mm is bearly adequate.

>>33412926
>>33412786
>>33412809

I wouldn't go innawoods without an AK. but that's just me, I suck with handguns. but I'd suck more with 44mag than I suck with 357mag - which is a uniiversal rule of thumb.

File: tmp_3475-1484194940702394167015.gif (895KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 500x450px

>>33412932
Alright Carlos, you need to go back.

>>33412947
Not necessarily. Bigger .44's have more mass and can therefore absorb more recoil than a smaller, lighter gun. Also, .44 Mag isn't that bad in terms of recoil. People seem to think 240gr factory loads are gonna snap their wrists when they won't.

>>33412695
always these kids with their .casul and .500 memes, as if I'd ever believe any of you has even shot those calibers once.

>>33413009
anecdotal internet evidence points towards 44mag being almost universally deemed to be at least unpleasant to shoot. it has little to do with pain from my perspective but with quick follow up shots. if I miss the zigg-zagging bear with 700 nitro it's the same as if i missed it with 22short. it doesn't matter with what round you miss a threat.

>>33413048
.44 mag is basically the upper end of what normies can shoot comfortably

>>33391258
it shits all over even 70s S&Ws and snkes in terms of build quality and you can adjust your trigger to be a 1lbs hair trigger without any impact on hammer spring force. if you have to take a revolver into combat, bring a MR73.

>>33413048
Basically what >>33413067 said. Big bore revolvers are different to shoot compared to an autoloader in a normal service caliber, but once you've learned to shoot one, you can get pretty good with them. You should go check out the video of Jerry Miculek playing with a Model 69, a .44 mag generally considered to be harder to shoot since it's as light as it is.

If you're afraid of .44 Mag, you can always go with .41 Mag too. The thing with shooting a handgun at a bear is that you need deep penetration. .357 is probably okay for smaller bears, but for something like a grizzly bear, you want heavier bullets that have more momentum and therefore take longer to stop inside of the target so you can get better penetration. You might miss with that .357 or with a .475 Linebaugh, but you still want to make sure that your hits will do what you need them to.

>>33411067
Have you made sure that it would fit? That sounds like a nice modern mini-LeMat setup, although perhaps the .410 bore is too small. Maybe a 28ga? Anyway, a true-to-size modern LeMat would be 20ga with 9 .41 Magnum, the idea of which makes me hard as diamonds.

File: trr8 bipod.jpg (3MB, 3984x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3984x2988px

>>33387301
>>33387440
>>33389601
>>33402197
>>33405926
>>33412470

Thanks guys. Going to zero into the irons and sight tomorrow with this setup.

>>33413134
>.475 Linebaugh
Why would anyone ever get that over .460 S&W Magnum?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lkoafcsLo

>>33413242
Heavier bullets, probably slightly less recoil, not a Smith X-Frame. Shorter .45-70 is pretty cool. The round was displaced by .460 S&W before it could really take off though.

File: 1483753876468.jpg (26KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x480px

>want to buy and shoot revolvers
>they're too impractical to part from my Glock 19

I could definately fuck with a S&W Model 66

>>33413314
Why does buying a revolver require you to part with your Glock?

File: summerspec.jpg (154KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 640x480px

>>33413328
I meant to say carry as well. I really only shoot what I carry and I couldn't see myself shooting a revolver regularly as cool as they are.

>>33413328
most of us are pretty fucking poor.

>>33413357
Eh, most of mine are just range toys. Pick up a Security Six for a couple hundred bucks and have some fun with it.

>>33413373
One day I'll pick up some decent K frame. Right now, I'm just spending all my money on ammo and practicing.

>>33413366
You can't scrape up $350? Just save for a few paychecks. You don't have to sell something you don't want to sell just to buy a gun you want but don't necessarily need. Just take your time, save for a little while, and buy it when you can afford it.

The "I can't afford something because poor" excuse is just sad. I grew up in a house where we had so little money our power got shut off a few times, but I've got a safe full of guns at home. Don't abuse credit and get yourself into debt, keep your eyes open for opportunities to improve your station in life, and stop identifying with poverty so much.

>>33413396
I wouldn't bother with a K-frame magnum. .38's are fine, but you want an L-frame if you plan to shoot a lot of .357's. The reason I suggested a Security Six is that they can take more use than a K-frame but used ones cost about as much as police trade-in Model 10's and 64's.

File: securitysix.jpg (863KB, 3310x2237px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 3310x2237px

>>33413373
>>Security Six
>Looks sexy as fuck with a 4" barrel, rubber grips and polished stainless finish
>For being a .357 it's built like Arnold Schwarzenegger, can handle fucking anything that fits in the chamber, like retard hot handloads

They really are a steal for how cheap you can get them.

>>33413415
>You can't scrape up $350?
not for frivolous shit like a 44mag I can't. I just have two Glocks for HD. the best way out of poverty is to not spend money on stuff you don't need.

>>33413459
Yeah, my LGS has a 4" Service Six for like $280. I'm pretty tempted.

>>33413499
>.44 mag
Hold the fucking phone, nobody STARTS with a .44 revolver

File: Ruger Security Six.jpg (46KB, 800x446px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x446px

>>33413519
Do it, that's a real good price for one, about as cheap as they get.

Even if you find you don't enjoy it, it's an asset, it could either be traded, or gifted/borrowed to a person in need.

>>33413499
If you consider it so frivolous then don't buy one.

Street price for a Model 69 is about $750, and for a Redhawk is about $700. You'd have to save up about $60 a month for a year to buy yourself a .44 mag, and it's not like they're just gonna go away on you. If you really do want one, you can make it happen.

>>33412947
My angle for innawoods is pack light. If i can get AK stopping power in a handheld package ill take it. My fav is .44 because itll stop a large animal but wont snap your wrist if you shoot 5 or 6
>implying you need that many

>>33413538
Yeah, I really want to, but I've got a lot of projects I'm in the middle of. Hopefully it doesn't sell before I can get to it.

>>33413662
>If i can get AK stopping power in a handheld package ill take it.

But you can't, the AK has twice the energy of the 44mag.

>>33413704
>implying i said 44=7.62x39

>>33413522
Why not?
Out of a gun that size you'll get less recoil with .44 specials than you would with common service calibers out of a Glock, and while the ammo is more expensive per round, you won't go through it as fast since you can't just load up a bunch of magazines and burn through a few hundred rounds in half an hour so it evens out.
The long, heavy DA trigger and long sight radius are more conducive to handgun marksmanship fundamentals than a Glock or something, too.

>>33413775
then what did you say?

>>33413775
I said if i could get an AK in a handgun that would be great to have that much power in a small package. Then on a separate note, .44 is my favorite revolver cartridge

>>33413784
Why not? Because the ammo isn't cheap enough to shoot enough to get good. You don't want the ammo price to discourage you from going to the range.

>>33412616

The gun gets put out of battery and it jams with niggers punching you, but surely with a bear it won't right?

And uhhh... idiot... if I do what you said it's only good for one shot.

You really feel comfortable shooting a bear once with baby 10mm when it's on top of you?

>>33413048

Oh is this bear special forces? It knows to zigzag? Auto or revolver, doesn't matter, if a bear charges you, it most likely did it from somewhere hidden near you. You're only going to get off a few shots before it's on top of you.

If you can take your time to aim properly and shoot it plenty, at that point you have time to use your rifle.

>>33394381

Any proof? That's one hell of a citation needed.

>>33414602

>>33414602

>>33414602

New thread up

>>33413704
Well some .44 loads are similar to .223 in foot pounds, which is similar to 5.45mm, so you could say that you could sort of get some AK style power.

>>33413459
>>>Security Six
>>Looks sexy as fuck

you have no taste in guns

>>33413522
>>.44 mag
>Hold the fucking phone, nobody STARTS with a .44 revolver

yeah, they do...

my first revolver was a redhawk. I thought it was junk, so I traded it for a DW 44 mag. I still have the dw 30 years later.

>>33415506
Faggot.

>>33415583
Most people aren't dumb enough to start on a .44