Revolver general: concealed cannon edition

>>33414602
There have been attempts at revolver generals before I think. They usually fizzle out after a few threads and then come back later on.

>want to get a S&W 442 for pocket carry
>too poor
At least I still have my 686+..

>>33414673
>too poor for a J-frame
Are you a homeless person posting from a library computer?

>>33414764
No, just saving up for other more important things.

>>33414673
Guess it's time to get bigger pockets, then.

File: revos.jpg (963KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 2272x1704px

>>33414602
recently sold the blackhawk...
going for a stainless model, .357mag

>>33414673
you better cc that cannon anon..

File: barkbark.jpg (129KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1440x900px

>>33414602
Kill them all, Sam!

File: 10.5 460 X-Frame vs Kimber Micro Carry.jpg (537KB, 2729x1173px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 2729x1173px

I likes 'em big.

I seriously regret selling my 4" Ruger security six. whats a good price to pay for a new one, are there any similarly priced quality alternatives that you would recommend? I prefer half underlug fwiw.

>>33414650
That's actually good, that way we don't build up too much circlejerk or deplete discussion.

Just have a few threads sometime when the mood strikes or when there's things to talk about.

File: BFR .45-70 and Seecamp.jpg (2MB, 2698x1230px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2698x1230px

>>33415222

File: Bone Collector 460 Leupold FX-II.jpg (2MB, 3822x1429px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3822x1429px

>>33415240

File: .454 Casull Ruger Super Redhawk.jpg (774KB, 1536x1026px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1536x1026px

>>33415256

File: S&W Performance Center X-Frame .460S&W 3.5in.jpg (930KB, 1604x844px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 1604x844px

>>33414602

One Charter Arms I want is a South Paw left handed revolver.

>>33415191
*David

>>33415227
For a Security Six? ~$350 for a beater one and ~$450 for one in good shape. Add $50 if it is a 200th Year of Liberty one, as those are popular and command a small premium over normal ones.

>>33415236
You speak the truth. It sucks, but that's how it has to work if we don't wanna see the same 8 guns over and over. At least it's better than the usual influx of "redpill me on whatever the fuck we've had 9 identical threads for in two weeks"

Lately it's been lever actions

You know what would be fucking boss?
If Ruger made a special variant of their Blackhawk line of revolvers that could fire in double-action.

No other change to the frame, no swing-out cylinder or anything, you reload it like normal, and same aesthetic.

Except you can cock the hammer with the trigger.

>>33415279
Looks nice but where's the ejector rod fäm?

>>33414602
Does anyone on /k/ shoot .410 out of their revolver? Anyone have the S&W 500?

>>33416234
A 7.5" Performance Center 500 is on my "eventually" list.

File: 20305-single-3ww-l.jpg (25KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x600px

>>33416209
>where's the ejector rod

pic related

>>33416234
I would much rather a .460 Mag. .50 caliber cartridges created after 1934 are all memes. If the reason for the bullet size is "if it were larger, it would be illegal", I want no part of it.

>>33415378
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz
I always assumed he was called that cause the demon called him Sam. The more you know.

>>33417402
Not a fan of .510 DTC EUROP, then?

>>33415222
Whats your opinion on the 460? Is the 500 just superior? I read that the 460 cartridge travels faster

>>33415122
I've been looking for some nice looking grips for my Blackhawk. Sure, the big grips are comfy, but so fugly

>>33416234
Have a S&W Governor I shoot .410 out of sometime. Hard to hit clays with, but fun to try.

File: IMG_7538.png (586KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 750x1334px

>Taurus

File: IMG_3863.jpg (37KB, 644x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 644x500px

>poly model 85
Yeah, probably wouldn't trust it. But it definetly looks cooler than the LCR. Anyone have one?

>>33418206
>selling it for what i have into it
Why do people do this? No one is going to pay $$$$ for a Taurus, no matter how Valhalla-ready it looks.
The Python angle doesn't make sense, either, since anyone with that kind of money to throw around who wanted a Python would just buy a Python.

can we make a modern nagant like revolver, with out the 20 pound trigger pull and anemic cartridge?

>>33418326
The grips were a decent purchase at least

>>33418264
>looks cooler
It looks like it's molded from cheap ABS plastic like some piece of shit Muzzelite, it does NOT look nice.

>>33418264
>looks cooler than the LCR
wat
i see a piece of br trash

>>33418206
yes, paying 1700 for a fucking taurus is much less outrageous than python pricing and i can't even finish this sentence

File: heh.jpg (102KB, 487x496px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 487x496px

>Almost bought a taurus .357 as my first gun because I liked the grips
>grandmother who was buying it for me told me to buy S&W instead because american exceptionalism
thanks based grandma

Also, I was in a gun shop tonight helping my mom pick out a snubnose .38 for home defense and some guy came in with a taurus "glock" complaining that it would jam and double feed
>mfw

>>33418326
>>33418206
Idiots who made poor choices and are trying to get you to drink their cyanide laced coolaid.

Whats the best mid size revolver to carry? Not really interesting in J frames.

File: 1350360_01_smith_wesson_model_66_4_rare_3_640.jpg (47KB, 640x456px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x456px

>>33419461
S&W 66 3"

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

93KB, 1000x700px

God I can't believe a factory gun is this sexy.

>>33417905
Not that anon but if you were looking at buying one or the other get the one that gives you the gun tingles. The energy levels are within 100j of each other right around 3900 joules. And the loads overlap pretty well a heavy 460 is like a medium weight 500 and a light 500 is like a medium 460.

File: Ruger-Redhawk.jpg (18KB, 650x438px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 650x438px

Tfw an 8 shot 357 magnum redhawk comes out and I already blew my gun budget this month.

File: closeart3578sht.jpg (194KB, 590x728px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 590x728px

>>33420702

File: IMG_0309.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Here's mine. Trigger is pretty boss.

File: 1345864817121.jpg (58KB, 640x736px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x736px

>tfw no bull pup autorevolver

>>33420752
How does it not burn your hand? Is it an SS secret?

File: 1490263281197.png (55KB, 580x580px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 580x580px

>>33420789
space nazi tech at this point desu famalam

>>33420789
>>33420825
I guess the bottom frame is set up in a way that it redirects gas upwards.

Also this is probably a target gun so wadcutters moving relatively slowly compared to other .44s are going to be all it eats

File: 1314165419429.jpg (54KB, 740x543px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 740x543px

>>33420789
occult nazi super science

>>33420702
>only available as a snub
Feels batman

>>33420846
Seriously, who the fuck is going to CC this?

redpill me on .38

there's no reason to pick one over .357 in terms of ammo variety but why not just buy a .38 if it's gonna be $100 cheaper with cheaper ammo and it will only ever be a range toy?

How are my groups?

Ruger GP100 6" and S&B 158gr FMJ .357 Magnum ammo. Standing and holding the gun with both hands. 25m range.

File: grouping.jpg (1MB, 2204x3920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2204x3920px

>>33420981

Forgot pic.

>>33420850

Not sure but idgaf I still want it, kek.

>>33420985
I'm going to wait for longer barrel versions.

>>33420982

Id be happy with those.

>>33420969

I would like to have the option to run either ammos incase so I'll buy the 357 instead of 38 special only everytime.

>>33420989

I should, but I think with a longer barrel the grip will look too small? Id need to see a photochop to be sure.

>>33420996
Grips can be replaced, anon.

>>33420555
.460 is still a very strong round. IMO its worth the little bit of a round, but you can use .454 casull, and .45 colt in the same revolver, for much cheaper shooting, and 45 colt can exceed .44 magnum if you load it right, and i think an X frame can handle them

>>33420993
But why do you want to run .357 when it's more expensive and you're not actually shooting anything

>>33420702

>tfw I bought a Redhawk in .44 mag because why would you buy a .357 that huge

>>33421002

But that stainless spine is sexy af.

>>33421091

The same reason I own revolvers larger than .38 specials even if it's just to plink. Im not a poor faggot, and get a kick out of recoil.

File: 29_2128160627[1].jpg (118KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x720px

should i get an 8 3/8s or a 6 inch mod 29?

>>33421186
8 3/8, and get a mowhawk.

>>33421186
is that a 6" or an 8"

>>33421359
thats a mint overpriced 8 3/8s currently for sale

File: l_1875061535[1].jpg (127KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 960x720px

>>33421359
this one is a 6.5"

>>33421186

6 is most classic, but if you like long barrels go all in anon

>>33421364

How far overpriced? I have the chance to get a blued 4in Model 29-3 locally for $1,300. It's mint as fuck. Appears unfired. Barely a turn line on the cylinder.

>>33421395
13000 nok which is 1500$
>>33421382
was sold for 9000

>>33421443
>$1,500 for
>>33421186
??
That's absurd, I could get something similar at my local pawn shop for less than $500, maybe less than $400

And this one is ~$1000?
>>33421382
good lord am I missing something

>>33421461
they are 29-2s pinned and recessed, also in norway the market is small enough that the market for specific guns fry up and prices get wonky

>>33421461

I'd like to know where you're finding Model 29s for $400, please.

>>33421473
How much is a glawk?

>>33421477
Used, in pawn shops. You wouldn't believe what I see in my hodunk redneck town, the last time I went looking someone was selling a WASR for $339. I would've bought it on the spot but I didn't have the capital, I paid more for my model 67 S&W.

>>33421473

Can you import from Finland?

We have plenty of used 586s and 686s in 400-500€ price range.

I bought my Ruger GP100 6" which had 100 rounds through it for 370€.

>>33421548
>Can you import from Finland?
yeah, the question is if any finns would bother to export. As far as I understand, finnish shops can only send guns to your home adress, and no courier will transport firearms to norway.
It might be worth it to pick it up myself though.

.357 are pretty cheap here too, though. 29-2s are getting rarer by the day

swedes on the other hand have it easy.
4 inch 29-2 for 300€

>>33421589
>Glock costs like $700 on average
>all kinds of enormous and arbitrary restrictions
>self-defense is all but illegal, criminals typically have more rights that their victims
>cops are BEYOND useless
>entire country is a banking scheme
Yeah, so easy.

File: 2017-03-25_13.28.40.jpg (1MB, 1505x2352px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1505x2352px

Top break 38 with an aftermarket safety installed in 1917.

>>33421081
No disagreements from me. I'm saying that they are damn near equal so pick your favorite.
Part of me would want the 500 just to say I have a 50 and the other would want the 460 so I can do as you said.

>drunk bought new grips last night
>totally forgot about it
>get an e-mail that I paid $65 to ebay
>oh yeah
Hurry up and get here, or make me forget again so I can have a nice surprise on my doorstep

File: Colt 1911 Badger Grips.jpg (2MB, 1959x1469px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1959x1469px

>>33422005

I did that with these grips years ago. Didn't realize I had bought them until they arrived at my doorstep. It was like getting a present from myself. Drunk me knows what I like.

File: s-l1600.jpg (154KB, 1203x1024px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1203x1024px

>>33422045
this is what I thought I would like

turns out I was right, I can't wait to get these old polymer grips off

>>33422188
Oh, were you the anon in the BST thread looking for grips?

File: S&W.jpg (161KB, 724x687px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 724x687px

>>33422406
Yeah, I realized after I posted that and looked at the auction someone linked that I actually needed square butt grips instead of round.

I think I deleted those posts and went looking for square butts on ebay, that's about where it gets fuzzy. I actually can't stand the grips I have on it right now, it was a police trade in when I got it and that fucker must have been 6'9 with gorilla hands because this thing is uncomfortable.

File: mpr8-gwlefm-682x382.1423081912[1].jpg (24KB, 682x382px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 682x382px

>8 shot
>.357mag/.38spc
>5 inch barrel
>rails!

File: DSC_0118__48930.1449177697.1280.1280.jpg (327KB, 1280x686px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1280x686px

>>33421787
Man I like well done safeties in revolvers

>>33422444
>stainless
>4"
>those plain synthetic grips
>.357
>DA/SA

I just fucking love this style of wheelgun, be it a Smith, Ruger or Colt, it's 10/10 utility.

File: im so fucked up.jpg (34KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x364px

>>33422698
It's chambered in .38 not .357

I actually don't mind one bit, I never shot .357 out of my .357 before I sold it to my buddy, just .38 +P and I can run that in a .38

It's probably my favorite gun to shoot, that thing can drive nails.

>>33422768
That's pretty utilitarian still, .38 Special is nothing to sneeze at (certainly not a good +P), it was a functional service cartridge for significant parts of the world for a long time (military and police), and it did it's job then, it can still pull it off today.

File: dpd2.jpg (251KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 2048x1536px

DPD model 10-7.
Wish it was easier to find IWB K frame holsters.

>>33422469
Mallory Archer much?

>>33420850
You can't CC a flamethrower, this is the closest thing to it. That muzzle flash is going to be epic.

>>33420752
wait, does that fire from the 3 o'clock position?

File: 20170323_164821.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

my first revolver

File: 1490304184804.jpg (28KB, 279x302px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 279x302px

>>33424392
what were you thinking

File: s&w&s&w.jpg (734KB, 1328x1672px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 1328x1672px

My first and only revolver

>>33420752
dat easy cylinder reload

>>33422813
It's ballistically inferior to 9mm Luger, yet more bulky, which makes it unacceptable as a carry caliber.

>>33424529
"it'll be really easy to conceal and it can't be THAT hard to shoot a 14 oz gun with terrible sights and a 14 lb trigger"
That's what he was thinking. Guarantee it. That's what everybody who buys a J-frame thinks.

>>33424997
It's not hard to shoot at all you pussy

>>33424894
>carrying a range gun with a 4" barrel
y tho

File: DSC_8613.jpg (278KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1536x1024px

My 1981 Redhawk .44 arrived yesterday. $450 plus fees off Gunbroker. Figure it'll be my new pocket piece.

>>33425204
What's wrong with carrying a 4" gun?

File: NCM_0029.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33422469
Don't have all that stuff on mine but my cat seems to like the grips I got for my trr8

>>33425389
man, that thing is the cat's ass

>>33418168
>fugly
disgustingly ugly
i have big hands & i think they are very uncomfortable

File: S&W J.jpg (103KB, 750x474px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 750x474px

>>33424392
hey I have that gun, it's a nice 5 shooter

I gave it to my mom for HD

>>33425339
I would rather carry something shorter and lighter

File: NCM_0018.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33425468
I see what ya did there...well played sir, I give you my redhawk pic

>>33415122
You done goofed.

File: 4E0E6F8E-98B2-4854-9832-10C8E4C67F83-9758-0000097188E5E865_tmp.jpg (805KB, 1200x681px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 1200x681px

>>33418437
>>33418447
Both don't look good, but the LCR doesn't look as good. LCR looks like it has much better quality. If they were both made with the same level of standards, the 85 would look better.

>>33428640
i think you may find other types of grip more effective anon

>>33428640
Thumb over bore, soon to be thumb out the door

>>33417905
>Whats your opinion on the 460? Is the 500 just superior? I read that the 460 cartridge travels faster

.500 S&W magnum is faster at the muzzle than .460xvr but at just about any distance for hunting the .460 is faster and carries more energy.

With the .500 you can shoot magnum and special, neither of which are cheap. The .460 can shoot .454 and .45lc which keeps costs down.

I don't really think the X frame is big enough for the .500 anyway. There are many reports of frames stretching and forcing cones breaking by 1000 rounds, which would be less than 10 outings for me. The .460 seems to be considerably more durable.

>>33420492
>God I can't believe a factory gun is this sexy.

Too bad they're cast.

File: 1449608488058.gif (3MB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 540x300px

>>33428640
>>33428660
>at the range today
>showing my friend how it will cut paper if you hold it near the cylinder gap
>get a little too close
>fire
>feel the heat and pressure wave of the gas on my fingertips

>>33425778
Nice dip good sir

File: 1436484553727.gif (2MB, 316x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 316x213px

>>33428926
>Thumb over bore, soon to be thumb out the door

>>33429205
Yet they're stronger than a S&W and with no lock.

You sound like the same kind of faggot who cries about plastic frames on automatics.

>>33429163
>by 1000 rounds, which would be less than 10 outings for me
Just buy a new one, Mr. Moneybags, unless that would dip too much into your orthopedic surgery budget.

>>33429551
I thought that was Pierre Sprey from the thumbnail.

File: afc1e0313e7a879148c65ddb4595d4ad.jpg (13KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 564x423px

why do revolvers have a chain link on the bottom. its cool for personalization i guess.


also. i used to be a semi auto guy but now since i like to shoot targets alot, who wants to mess with clips all the time? i like to just carry loose rounds and reload when i want to.

>>33432560
It's actually a lanyard loop, and it's mostly only seen on military guns. The idea is that you can attach a lanyard to the handgun so that if you dropped it or ot slipped out of your holster accidentally while in combat or mounted on horseback, you don't lose it, and can recover and keep using your sidearm.

File: 20170325_144733.jpg (3MB, 3984x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3984x2988px

Posted my new TRR8 a thread back. Went shooting with it yesterday, first time ever.

Metal plate at 25 yards was fun. Didn't do so well on paper targets though, too bright to properly see the white/red target sheet.

Overall a pretty good trip. It was a good range. I prefer the .357s over the .38s, the .38s felt too weak.

>>33433030
I'm happy for you anon. Also, .38's are nice for comfy casual shooting K-frame days.

File: NiOiior.jpg (107KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 768x1024px

Has anyone shot .357 magnum from LAX Ammunition? Better yet, has anyone chronographed it out of a 6 inch barrel? Thinking of buying some because it's so cheap.

>Can get Ruger LCR or LCRx for $450
Do I want the hammer or not? They're both the same price and both in 357. It's going to be a backup carry gun.

>>33435555
i personally like having the option, and have decent enough draw technique to not worry about the "but the hammer will catch on your shirt" meme

>>33435594
Same. My other carry gun has a hammer too so I really don't see it being a problem.

>>33435555
I've got a LCR in .327 Fed Mag. I like it a lot, but I wish they made a .327 LCRx. The DA pull is really nice, but like Anon said, it'd be nice to have the option of SA.

File: 008.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg (429KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 800x600px

>>33435555
It's a shame Ruger doesn't make an open-back LCR analogous to the Bodyguard.

>>33435594
>>33435843
Is $450 a decent price for it? The closest I've gotten locally is $520 before tax.

>>33436079
I paid about $500 for my .327 about a year ago. $450 would be a good price to me.

I'm thinking of getting another .357 wheelgun, maybe a medium frame since I already have a large frame. What's a 6" Security Six worth? I heard they're pretty solid and a great value.
I'm also thinking of a 4" GP100, how do the two stack up?

>>33436345
I see 4" Security and Service Sixes go for $300-400 pretty regularly. The GP-100 is stronger and heavier than the Security Six but both are good options.

File: 20170314_193637.jpg (3MB, 2075x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2075x2988px

Hallo
I want to purchase my first revolver, budget would be around $400 american
I have shot the .357 in the picture and liked it, however I found it hard to shoot on target
With the 1911 in the picture, I could get about 4 inch groupings at 30 yards, however I had difficulties even hitting center mass with the .357
Question is, what are a few good revolvers that are in .357 (or any other caliber you could recommend), and would a longer barrel assist with hitting the target at further ranges?
I don't plan on CCing it BTW, just want to have a fun first revolver to shoot at some targets

File: securitysix.jpg (28KB, 745x530px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 745x530px

>>33436613
If you did OK with the 1911 and poorly with the revolver, you probably have bad trigger control.
Longer sights won't help nearly as much as hours and hours of dry-fire practice will.
A Ruger Security Six should fit your budget and serve you well.

>>33430773
>Yet they're stronger than a S&W and with no lock.

Oh except they're not unless you're talking about one specific .38special. Take your fudd tales to another thread.

>>33431250
>Just buy a new one, Mr. Moneybags, unless that would dip too much into your orthopedic surgery budget.

I just bought a .460xvr like a normal person.

File: 1475504905210.jpg (242KB, 637x462px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 637x462px

>>33438519
>normal person
>not buying The Most Powerful Handgun In The World™
wrong

>>33438487
>fuddlore
>when reloading manuals explicitly earmark especially strong loads as "Ruger Revolvers Only"
Shoo shoo Smith & Wesson marketer.

>>33438855
>>fuddlore
>>when reloading manuals explicitly earmark especially strong loads as "Ruger Revolvers Only"
>Shoo shoo Smith & Wesson marketer.

Lol. You're dumb as fuck.

>>33438855
Maybe you should look up the "ruger stronk" meme before you spout any more dumb shit.

> Saw it in a word book.
> Must be true!

>>33418183
Kinda want one for baby's first revolver do you recommend?

>>33438919
Cool argument bro.

>>33438949
>thick frames
>thick cylinders
>locks up front and back
>uses more robust coil springs for mainsprings

Oh yeah, how could they ever compete with the increasingly more cheaply made Smith & Wesson revolvers?

>>33438979
Dreadful first revolver.

.410 is questionably useful from a tiny rifled barrel, it's not particularly cheap, and .45 has substandard accuracy from it.

Don't get a .410 revolver as your first gun.

>>33439012

You could continue to shitpost or you could figure out why buffalo bore doesn't have restrictions on .357 or .44.

>>33438855

>Whole revolver is MIM
>Says other revolvers are shitty

File: 2017-03-26_20-23-18.jpg (194KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1920x1080px

>>33414602

>>33439089
>buffalo bore doesn't have restrictions on .357 or .44.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54
>This new load is designed ONLY for certain firearms. They are as follows; Ruger Red Hawk, Ruger Super Red Hawk (the Ruger Alaskan is a short barrel Super Redhawk), Ruger Super Blackhawk or Vaquero, Freedom Arms Model 83, Taurus Raging Bull, Colt Anaconda, Magnum Research BFR and Dan Wesson Revolvers.

File: large_54_4d-250-cb.jpg (40KB, 250x470px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 250x470px

>>33439089
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54

>Heavy .44 Magnum +P+ Ammo - 340 gr. Hard Cast, L.F.N. - G.C.
>(1,478 fps/M.E. 1,649 ft. lbs.)
>NEW HEAVY 44 MAGNUM +P+

>APPROVED FIREARMS
>This new load is designed ONLY for certain firearms.

>They are as follows; Ruger Red Hawk, Ruger Super Red Hawk (the Ruger Alaskan is a short barrel Super Redhawk), Ruger Super Blackhawk or Vaquero, Freedom Arms Model 83, Taurus Raging Bull, Colt Anaconda, Magnum Research BFR and Dan Wesson Revolvers.

>Please note that this website list of approved firearms is more up to date than some of the lists found on our boxes of ammo.

WHOOPS! That's the sound of you being a fucking retard!

>>33439110
>investment castings are metal injection molding

>>33439110
Aren't current Smiths chock full of MIM parts?

>>33439149
>>33439152

Call them.

>>33439162

>Autism so powerful he doesn't understand jokes.

File: smug pacman at computer.png (2KB, 100x200px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 100x200px

>>33439187
>told to look it up
>look at Buffalo Bore's own site
>their own product description
>"b-but that info isn't correct!"

>>33439175
>Aren't current Smiths chock full of MIM parts?

Probably. Not sure why it matters.

>>33439234
>Gun websites
>Always accurate

Pick one.

>>33439252
>their own words
>"b-but it's not always accurate!"
Man you're desperate to move those goalposts.

>>33439282
>Man you're desperate to move those goalposts.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of that euphemism.

>>33438855
>>fuddlore
>>when reloading manuals explicitly earmark especially strong loads as "Ruger Revolvers Only"
>Shoo shoo Smith & Wesson marketer.

Is this level of cognitive dissonance required to own a Ruger?

>>33439252
>websites that are explicitly the most current source of info about a product
>always accurate
Uh, yes?

>>33439359

No guns says what?

>>33439356
Where's the cognitive dissonance? Is it from Buffalo Bore who explicitly state that only a select number of revolvers can safely handle their +P+ .44 Magnum and none of those is a Model 29?

>>33439393
>F-fuck! Maybe I'll smack talk him!

>>33439402
>Where's the cognitive dissonance?

if I had a Smith I could replace the cast parts with quality parts. If I had a Ruger the whole gun is cast. I'd have to replace it with a new gun.

>>33439402
>Is it from Buffalo Bore who explicitly state that only a select number of revolvers can safely handle their +P+ .44 Magnum and none of those is a Model 29?

What does that have to die with my argument? Are Rugers cast?

>>33439412
Back to middle school.

>>33439476
>the S&W is better because I feel I have to replace all the parts to make it good

>Are Rugers cast?
Yeah, and they also happen to be stronger in build. I'd like to see a 629 Stealth Hunter eat those +P+ and not get timing issues within a few hundred rounds or stretching it's frame.

A Super Redhawk won't even flinch at that shit for thousands and thousands of rounds, and it'll handle it out of the box.

>>33439476
Castings and MIM parts aren't necessarily bad.
Ferrari engines are full of both, and they run just fine.

>>33439351
I really dont get the point of a 9mm revolver, I mean I can see it as a backup if you want to use the same ammo as your primary but otherwise I cant see any other reason.

>>33439489
>FUCK THIS GUY! FUCK HIM!
Lol calm down bro.

>>33439526
Glocks have MIM parts and they run pretty admirably.

It's all about how you use them, and who makes them. MIMber is a word for a reason.

>>33420492
>MATCH CHAMPION (TM)

Nah, G.

>>33439515
>>the S&W is better because I feel I have to replace all the parts to make it good

Are you being dense on purpose?

>>33439515
>A Super Redhawk won't even flinch at that shit for thousands and thousands of rounds, and it'll handle it out of the box.

It's a giant cast revolver. I bet an X frame would handle those loads fine too.

>>33439526
>Castings and MIM parts aren't necessarily bad.
>Ferrari engines are full of both, and they run just fine.

How many Ferrari's last 3+ generations while only being occasionally lubed? It's not even close to the same maintenance expectations.

>>33439537
Cheap plinks at $.19

then again they make .22 revolvers at $.07

>>33429205
Dunno man, I don't hate S&W wheelgats but the sleeved barrel and keylock on a 686 isn't exactly looking that hot next to the Match Champion.

>>33439515
>Yeah, and they also happen to be stronger in build. I'd like to see a 629 Stealth Hunter eat those +P+ and not get timing issues within a few hundred rounds or stretching it's frame.

Why the hate for the stealth hunter? Seems like an odd model to single out.

>>33439537
Cheaper ammo, less weight due to shorter cylinder, better performance with a short barrel, uses moonclips by default, uses the same ammo as your automatics, easier to reload w/ moonclips because the cartridges are shorter and can't flop around as much, better accuracy with soft competition loads because there's less empty space in the case...

>>33439618
>Dunno man, I don't hate S&W wheelgats but the sleeved barrel and keylock on a 686 isn't exactly looking that hot next to the Match Champion.

So buy a DW or Colt. I don't know why someone calling out Ruger for being cast immediately means they're a Smith fanboy. There's more than two brands.

>>33439605
>Are you being dense on purpose?
>if I had a Smith I could replace the cast parts with quality parts

>b-but S&W has special expensive framed revolvers that can take it

>>33439642
It's an example, and one of their common frontline .44's

I like the 29 line, really, it's iconic, but it's old and not as strong as it could be if you compare it to some later designs.

>>33439681
>some later designs
The Super Blackhawk is stronger and hit the market first.

File: SWad.jpg~original.jpg (66KB, 500x651px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x651px

>>33439678
>I don't know why someone calling out Ruger for being cast immediately means they're a Smith fanboy
It's a joke about this old ad.

File: Ruger Blackhawk.jpg (47KB, 777x582px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 777x582px

>>33439692
Actually true, I forgot about that.

Didn't they kind of beat S&W to the punch even?

>>33439681
So you're bring dense on purpose? I don't have any S&W revolvers. I don't fanboy for them. I just dislike Ruger for being cast. Apparently you can't have an issue with Ruger without every Ruger nut sucker coming out of the framework to talk shut about S&W.

>>33439692
it hit the market with a dragoon style trigger guard that is so painful to shoot that they virtually have no value outside of noobs and retards that don't know any better buying them

>>33439696
>thick burgers are better
absolutely not

I can't tell you how many BBQs I've been to where the host loads up a half lb of beef into one giant ball before slapping it on the bun. These people could take a lesson from McDonalds, you need equal proportions of meat and toppings. If you want more meat, use more smaller patties layered with cheese, don't use one big patty.

God damn, there's this restaurant in my town whose gimmick is having "fat" patties and the entire menu is just atrocious. They serve you a lb of ground beef with a few slices of cheese and a thin assortment of veggies, the proportions are completely out of whack but everyone in this shithole town just flocks to it.

File: 2Pcoz.gif (358KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 500x366px

Alright guys, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong here: I shoot almost every one of my revolvers like a laser out to 30 yards in both SA and DA (.22s, .38s), but I struggle to get even rudimentary combat accuracy with my semi-automatic 9mms and 1911. Honestly I just don't know what would cause such a large discrepancy.

>>33439763
Do you twist your elbow to absorb the recoil? That's more of a revolver technique

>>33439732
>it huht my wittwe wingers ;_;
Then put on some gloves if it bothers you, you little sissy.

File: IMG_20170326_222348_01.jpg (502KB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 2016x1512px

Finally acquired my first revolver (bottom is my dad's, passed down from my granddad)! It's got a lock, but that doesn't really bother me. Ammo arrives on Tuesday, and then I'm off to the range.

Is it just me, or is .38spl not all that cheaper than .357 is?

>>33414602
350 for a .44 magnum? Fucking where? I can't even find a used .357 for that price.

>>33425778
What knife?

>>33439779
You could try shopping around for some really cheap brands.

I think Tula used to make some .38 Special but I heard it's a bit tough extracting.

Or you could handload and start shooting for dimes.

>>33439779
The real cheapness of .38 special comes if you start to reload it; with a decent setup I'm under 13 cents a round with 158 gr LSWC

>>33432560
>chain link
It's called a lanyard loop, you ditz. It's to link your gun to your belt with a lanyard so you can retain the gun on horseback, near water, etc. Was popular in 19th C. Went out of fashion. May be making a comeback? I have a lanyard-equipped "frame tool" on my M&P9 pistol, a couple of bucks from REDACTED.

>>33439763
.22 and .38 wheelguns usually have less recoil than a 1911. Maybe you're anticipating recoil. Try slowing down, going back to your fundamentals, and letting the break surprise you.

>>33439775
it's objectively a shit design that nobody enjoys shooting. that's why they were forced to eventually change it.

>>33439750
Let me guess, this faggot's burgers come out a foot tall because he doesn't flatten to compensate for the 1/2lb of beef?

File: sonofsam7a-17-web.jpg (153KB, 750x1050px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 750x1050px

>>33439782
It's a .44 Special that was cheap to begin with and now only desirable as part of a "weapons of famous murderers" collection.

>>33439817
>>33439816
That's what I'm hoping to do. Got my eye on a nice progressive press.

File: 05-re-the-ultimate-burger608.jpg (50KB, 608x380px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 608x380px

>>33439872
You can't buy a bun big enough to flatten a half lb of beef into one patty.

You can definitely make it work with 2 stacked patties, but pic related is unacceptable. They would have been much better served going with two patties that are half this thick and layering

>>33439898
And with something like your pic related monstrosity, they never manage to cook the damn thing correctly. Half of it will look like an atomic shadow burnt onto the plate while the other side is attempting to crawl off the table

>>33439942
Thick burgers make me legitimately mad

Thick shakes are the only way to go though

File: sword_revolver1.jpg (7KB, 383x217px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 383x217px

>>33432560
Why post a fake cosplay gunblade instead of the real thing?

>>33439885
Godspeed, reloading can be a real penny pincher.

Consider maybe a rifle in .357 some day, and imagine shooting a light centerfire rifle for that cheap.

>>33439898
You could bake buns.

But then there's cost.

>>33439898
I often make half pound burgers but I flatten them and use 2 slices of cheese. I get some overhang from the bun (usually sesame or brioche) but that doesn't bother me. I typically throw in some Cape Cod chips and a beer and I've got a meal.

File: picture?inviteid=4A78789FE870F3C&size=ORIG&ext=.jpg (148KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x681px

I want a QSPR even though the gun is mostly impractical and unobtanium.

What would be the closest approximation to it?

The frame was a converted M29, but was similar ammo was close to a .410 shot shell, so I was thinking a S&W Governor with service grips.

Any other suggestions?

I'm looking for a cheap .22lr revolver with a swing out cylinder - anyone know of one? All the cheap ones I see are gate loaded and I'm not about that.

>>33440260
Don't even try.

File: aBfJU.jpg (549KB, 2113x2193px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 2113x2193px

>>33440286
save up and get a S&W 617 4", it's worth it

File: IMG_0488.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>33414602
Postan most underrated wheelgat

>>33440360
>colt
>underrated
doubt.jpg

>>33414602
I didn't want to make a thread just for this so I'm going to just ask here.
I just bought a Sig P320 a few days ago and I want to buy a Ruger LCR now. How much shit am I or my FFL dealer going to have to go through with the ATF in regards to the paperwork since I'm buying another gun so close to when I got my last one?

>>33440348
I'd drop that much cash on something I'd carry, but I'm just looking for one to dick around at the range with, that kind of quality would be wasted on me in a .22. Just don't like gate loaders is all and was wondering if there's a swing out in the same cheapo ranges I see in the gate loaders

>>33440551
None.

>>33440551
None?
I think there might be some mandatory reporting for your FFL to do if you buy more than 10 firearms at the same time, or something like that, but federally you're A-OK in the situation you've described.

>>33440568
>>33440586
Thanks anons. I heard some wives tale about how you have to answer a bunch of additional questions if you buy guns back to back too close together. I get what I deserve for listening to fudds.

>>33440556
Why do you hate having nice things?

>>33440612
certain states have restrictions on number of guns bought simultaneously but that's it

>>33440637
I love having nice things, problem is I also love having money. It's all about marginal utility. 300 maybe 400 bucks or so maximizes my utility for a swing out 22lr

>>33440637
>>33440797
Also I'm looking to buy a nice .308 or a 30-06 in the near future so I've gotta keep it low if I get another revolver.

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

123KB, 900x1336px

>>33440797
You could look for an old H&R 999 Sportsman, they crop up for about $400 from time to time.

They're top-breaks, which isn't something you see a lot of these days, but for low pressures like .22LR, it's fine.

>>33440901
I'd actually been following one of those on an auction site, inflated to 500 something then I had to let it go. Definitely one I'm keeping on the radar for future purchases though. If I can't find anything in the cheapo range i'll probably end up getting a ruger - just figure there's gotta be something cheaper out there that isn't a single shot gate loader.

>>33441004
Not that guy, but I own a H&R 929 target model and it's fantastic for plinking .22lr all day long. It might just be the most overbuilt .22 revolver out there, and I'm pretty sure they can be had for cheaper than the top-break counterpart

>>33441057
Another one to keep an eye out for - that's exactly what I'm looking for. 200-400 range double action swing out in 22lr. Thanks!

>>33439730
Your beef with it being cast is that you perceive it as being a lower quality and not as durable firearm. If that isn't the problem and you just genuinely have a problem with the idea of casting I'm sorry but you are retarded

>>33441555
I'm not that anon but he's right. I'm a machinist by trade and cast parts are only on par with fully machined parts in very few, unique circumstances. Things like engine blocks don't require super precision and can be cast. The parts that require precision are replaced with forged, machined parts. It would cost an arm and a leg to forge and machine a whole engine block so they cast them and then do cleanup.

There's no reason to cast a handgun frame other than to lower costs. It results in a larger gun for no reason. It is an inferior practice in this application.

>>33442655
You're a shit machinist if you think inherent design is below material used, is a war time P38 more durable than a Glock because of the 'higher quality' material?

Kill yourself and actually finish high-school instead of spouting bullshit online.

>>33442655
Investment casting has been going on for a long time in the firearms industry, and cast frames and receivers actually perform pretty well. You can always cast the part and then machine in the bits that need to be more precisely made. Something to bear in mind though is that not all casting processes are created equally, and something poorly cast from pot metal shouldn't be considered representative of quality investment casting in terms of strength or consistency. The fact that parts are interchangeable between Ruger firearms tells me they're casting parts that are consistent from part to part and that their process is well engineered.

Has anyone got the special edition Ruger Superblackhawk Bisley in 454 or 480? Those are pretty sweet based on in store fondling

>>33420492
I have wanted one of these but whenever it comes time to buy it never really interests me enough.

>>33420850
There are people out there that will CC anything... doesn't mean it is the smart move though

>>33439351
this korth looks like trash and the other ones are way too expensive
inb4 you pay for the quality, I'd rather have a few semi-custom 1911's at 3500-4500

>>33441555
trips don't lie, cast is good to go

>>33443200

All other things being equal, a cast design will be weaker and more prone to stress fatigue than a similarly sized forged piece. If you disagree with that then we have have a disconnect that were not going to resolve here.

>>33445331
All other things being equal is retarded specifically because I pointed out the DESIGN is as if not more important than the material. S&W are forged but they won't be able to go through nearly as abuse as a Ruger because the design isn't suited for that.

>>33445383

Both of you silly cunts have a point. The Smiths now use MIM parts so Ruger wins hands down in the toughness department.

>>33420982


Pretty good anon. Those are around the same groups I score with my 6 inch .357 Smith.

>>33439710
Im in the market for either a ruger Blackhawk in 45 colt/45acp or a ruger redhawk in 45 colt/ 45 acp to go with my 45 colt lever gun. Pros and cons of both? Don't mind SAO or DA

>>33445331
All things aren't equal though. The Smith design uses a large cutout on one side of the frame that the Ruger design doesn't have, and Ruger's frames are thicker.

That's not to say that Smith & Wesson revolvers are a bad or inherently weak design, but rather that Rugers can take more hard use and abuse than Smiths.

>>33443353
This, Ruger has been doing investment castings for a very long time and they know how it's done.

File: Blackhawk .45.jpg (178KB, 1001x716px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1001x716px

>>33445512
If you have a levergun in .45 Colt, then the Blackhawk would fit pretty well thematically. But the .45 Redhawk is also quite fucking good, it comes down to what you prefer.

For now I'm just gonna say Cowboy Rifle + Cowboy Revolver.

What kinda rifle is it? Marlin? Henry?

>>33446141
.460 S&W Magnum Redhawk fucking when?

>>33445383
>All other things being equal is retarded specifically because I pointed out the DESIGN is as if not more important than the material. S&W are forged but they won't be able to go through nearly as abuse as a Ruger because the design isn't suited for that.

You're fanboying so hard you're arguing a point I never made. I simply stated that in most cases casting is inferior to forged. I've made no claim to the design being adequate. If you can't divorce yourself from your preconceived argument points then there's no reason for you to even post here. Start a Ruger General thread and get the echo chamber that you're looking for.

>>33445518
>All things aren't equal though. The Smith design uses a large cutout on one side of the frame that the Ruger design doesn't have, and Ruger's frames are thicker.
>That's not to say that Smith & Wesson revolvers are a bad or inherently weak design, but rather that Rugers can take more hard use and abuse than Smiths.

The same with you. Why are you here if you just want to rep Ruger instead of fostering conversation?

>>33420702
If I could get one with a standard length barrel I'd own one in a heartbeat.

>>33420702
>having a budget
bourgeois scum

>>33446178
Probably never because they wouldn't be interested in putting S&W's name on the side of a Ruger.

>>33447388
I just want to say that I unironically think all communists should be destroyed.

>>33447481
Or they could mark it .460 Magnum or whatever
I mean when they still made .40S&W pistols it's not like they avoided marking caliber because of S&Ws name attached to it.

>>33447523
Fair enough. The Super Redhawk could probably handle it. They might just be trying to push .480 Ruger harder.

>>33447523
>Or they could mark it .460 Magnum or whatever
>I mean when they still made .40S&W pistols it's not like they avoided marking caliber because of S&Ws name attached to it.

They should release one in .460ruger. It's just like .460xvr but it only uses cast bullets.

>>33447579
Oh right, they're doing their own thing with that.

>>33447594
I suppose that's also a way to do it.

>>33447727
>I suppose that's also a way to do it.
Tee hee

File: tmp_27533-IMAG1247~21383424802.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>33446925
Yup, just pure fanboying here :^)

Fostering conversation means one person talking out of their ass constantly and nobody offering counterpoints, right?

>>33439710
So what a you guys think about the new Blackhawk from Ruger?
Whats new or different about it?
Is it any better, or worse than older ones?

File: IMG_4542.gif (584KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 320x180px

>>33439774
You're pretty good.

File: 20170327_174505.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>33447897
Bump for answers.
Also, Security Six is best Six

>>33445331
Not the guy you're addressing, but that's only if all other things being measured ARE equal, which they never are.

Compare, for example, a Ruger Security Six and a Smith and Wesson Model 19-3. Both are the same size (each fits snugly in a holster designed for the other), both are of the same vintage, and both have the same capacity and target market.

Despite this, the two guns couldn't be more different when it comes to the details. The Security Six detail strips like a semi-automatic and takes drop-in parts, while the Smith and Wesson requires either a shop manual or gunsmith for major disassembly. The Ruger has an investment cast monolithic frame, while the Smith and Wesson is forged and uses a sideplate. The Ruger is equipped with a transfer bar, frame-mounted firing pin, and offset cylinder stop, while the Smith and Wesson has a hammer mounted firing pin. The Ruger's cylinder stop, barrel shank, forcing cone, and other parts that bear the stress of firing are significantly thicker/reinforced. The Ruger has a heavy factory trigger, while the one on the Smith and Wesson is perfection.

In real world situations, the Security Six has significantly better long-term durability than the Model 19. The Border Patrol actually conducted extensive testing on the durability of the Security Six vs. the S&W Model 66 (a stainless version of the 19) back in 1985, and they found that the Rugers were far better at handling full power magnum loads. Where the Model 66s would typically experienced cracked frames, cracked forcing cones, or timing issues within the 1.5k to 3k mark, the Security Sixes were all able to go over 10k rounds with no issues at all.

>>33448050
Amusing that you posted a Security Six right before I posted. I wish I could help you about the Blackhawk, but all I can tell you is what I know, which is that the older Blackhawks are more collectible while the newer ones are safer and at least as good if not better in terms of actual performance.

>>33448228
How much could a Security Six trigger be improved?

>>33448540
It can be made as good as any S&W trigger with some shims and a little bit of stone work. Some people also change the factory springs, but I do not see the need to do so. The factory springs are great once they've worn in a little bit with use.

File: 20170327_185921.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>33448340
Ok thanks. I saw a newer Blackhawk for sale in 45lc. Was thinking about getting it.
I love my Security Six.

>>33448605
Heard of using sand paper to smooth it out but never heard of shimming, makes sense given problems of fit are far likely the problem than a spring.

>>33417338
lmao

>>33448648
>>33448605
>>33448228
How do I into gun smithing? Is this something you can learn without taking classes/buying super expensive tools? I've been a computer fag most of my life and just got into Guns a few years back. Everything I own is factory I just have no idea how to get into custom work/tune ups

>>33448540
You could probably use a weaker mainspring and have a qualified gunsmith polishing. My LCR's trigger is really nice, about as nice as my 70's Model 10, so I know Ruger is capable of making a gun with a nice trigger.

File: 1483794367968.jpg (261KB, 600x551px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 600x551px

>>33448715
i did an SRT kit on my P226. easy as could be and helped learn more about the internals of the gun.
and i modified my series80 1911 into a series 70 with a basic shim kit and removing certain other stock parts. also easy and helped me learn about internal workings.

>>33448715
Professionally? You should go a head and get a couple classes so at the very least people have proof you kind of know what you are doing.

Just messing about you can learn most of it yourself.

>>33414602
Does anyone make a kydex IWB holster for the LCR that isn't some massive hybrid holster?

>>33448715
It depends how in-depth you're getting.

There's decent information available online, but you need to have enough basic knowledge to distinguish between a quality tutorial and bubba-tier home gunsmithing that results in things like filed down sears or unreliable ignition as a result of mainsprings having been cut too short.

As a rule of thumb, unless you are quite mechanically inclined (machinist, engineer, etc), I would not try anything more complicated than a spring change/light polish in a revolver without a shop manual--and that's if the revolver in question is a Ruger or S&W. If the revolver is a Colt, no one should be messing around with its internals other than a certified Colt armorer.

>>33448902
Have you considered a pocket holster? The LCR is perfect for front pocket carry, and there's no kind of carry that offers a faster draw or more convenience than pocket carry apart from open carry.

>>33448946
Yeah but I'm still looking for some kydex to cover the trigger while it's in there. I don't really trust leather or nylon.

>>33448966
Leather's fine as long as you buy one that's made of quality full-grain leather and not suede or some other cheap material.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1336334686/bianchi-152-pocket-piece-pocket-holster-leather-brown

I use one of these, and I couldn't ask for better.

>>33448918
>>33448770
>>33448767
Got it, dicking around/small stuff I'm go to look it up and carefully proceed otherwise classes. Im not super mechanical, i was a software guy, so ill be sure to be careful. Thanks all

>>33439149
I think yall just got owned, tired of, and traded back to the dealer at a discount.

>>33448228
>Not the guy you're addressing, but that's only if all other things being measured ARE equal, which they never are.

A swing and a miss.

I'm comparing two processes, not two products. You either agree that forging is superior to casting or you don't. If you agree then there's no issue. If you don't then there's no point continuing to argue with someone who doesn't grasp basic manufacturing.

bump..

>>33449797
No the entire point that was being driven into your shitty fucking brain is that forging is not necessarily always better.

Christ, no wonder American manufacturing is going to hell if these are the kind of sub IQ fucking retards working the machines.

>>33449039
Do J-Frame holsters work for the LCR?

>>33452417
Some of the really cheap generic ones do, but they're usually made of flimsy materials and don't properly cover the trigger. Just get an LCR holster, there's plenty of aftermarket for the gun.

>>33452620
Thoughts on pocket carry with just a trigger guard?

File: 640pro_1_zpspbunzqx2.jpg (182KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x512px

Smith and Wesson 640 Pro.
Does anyone own one? What's your thoughts on this gun? I want one but they're $700, will they get cheaper in the future with Trump in office?

File: Cuger, Colt Python barrel mated to a Ruger Security Six frame.jpg (281KB, 1722x958px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1722x958px

The sexy barrel without the flimsy lockwork.

Anyone know where I can find a gunsmith that works on Iver Johnson topbreaks?
I have a 7 shot .22 that needs the barrel relined and the ejector fixed

>>33453158
Aren't Iver Johnson's top-breaks almost identical to the safety hammerless Smith & Wesson? Or very similar?

>>33453175
more or less the same as H&R topbreaks, but the S&W's have sideplates for the lockwork
the others don't generally have sideplates and the lockwork is completely enclosed by the frame
not really a problem for me as the lockwork doesn't need fixing, just the ejector/extractor

File: 135488_41a7c050b9e7e25a12b8a5d97bc07da4[1].jpg (169KB, 1400x1050px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1400x1050px

>>33453175
what mine looks like

>>33451961
>No the entire point that was being driven into your shitty fucking brain is that forging is not necessarily always better.
>Christ, no wonder American manufacturing is going to hell if these are the kind of sub IQ fucking retards working the machines.

Jesus Christ you're fucking dumb.

When is casting structurally superior to forging in the same design? I'll wait.

>>33453154
People really do this?

>>33453104
Only things that would get cheaper are ARs and maybe .22

>>33455754
The whole argument you've jumped into is over Smith vs Ruger frames. You're essentially moving the goalposts by taking a conversation about the relative strength of two differemt designs and turning it into a cast vs forging argument as if that's the only factor at play.

Not all forgings are created equal. A shitty forging could easily be weaker than a well made casting. If you put two parts of the same size side by side, cast amd forged, and both were the best quality they cpuld possibly be, then yes, the forging would be stronger, but that doesn't mean that universally every forging will always be stronger than every casting.

>>33455846
It was pretty popular back in the PPC days. Nowadays it's not very common for new ones to be made since Python barrels aren't as plentiful, but at the time Colt was still mass producing them.

>>33455754
You're shifting goalposts a lot here. Casting can work fine. I suppose you could forge a gp100 but that would be pointless with the proper casting.
Generally I prefer forged but casting can be used where appropriate to cut costs which is exactly what Ruger does. I won't buy a Ruger because they're chunky looking but they're affordable and have earned a reputation for durability. You've been shitting the whole thread up with this crap, what are you even trying to prove now?

>>33439314
not an argument

>>33445414
Ruger also uses mim triggers and hammers in the sp series and mim triggers are being phased in with the rest, all with more positive reviews than equivalent cast. Mim is the future of small parts manufacture, don't be so salty about it

>>33453058
I've carried automatics with the little Kydex trigger guard covers quite a bit. I dunno that it'd be ideal for pocket carry, since it's not being held upright, but it'd probably work okay.

>>33421461
>That's absurd, I could get something similar at my local pawn shop for less than $500, maybe less than $400

Bullshit

File: Smolt Smython.jpg (264KB, 1024x625px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1024x625px

>>33455846
The Python had a very nice barrel, while featuring a real nice trigger, also had a pretty weakly structured and flimsy lockwork, timing issues are common at high roundcounts.

So what some people would do is to take a spare Python barrel, and mate to the frame of another revolver, like say a Smith & Wesson or Ruger, making for nicknames such as "Smolt", "Smython" and "Cuger"

You could polish and work the trigger on a Security Six or M28 pretty well, and it had a much hardier lockwork. Some also preferred the push-style of cylinder release, as opposed to Colt's pull-style.

>>33457470
MIM is fine if you care about quality control. Colt makes some pretty good 1911 parts with MIM

MIM is not fine when you don't, like a company such as Kimber

>>33439692
Not true the 29 came out in January of 1956 and the super Blackhawk came out in November of '56. Quit spouting bullshit like it's facts.

>>33453158
Hyatt's in Charlotte.

File: DSC_8625.jpg (285KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1536x1024px

Finally cleaned up my Gunbroker Redhawk from last week. Tiny bit of polish gives it classy finish.

How retarded was buying a .44 mag? I have no idea what I'm going to do with this thing other than learn reloading because fuck paying $35 for a box of ammo.

File: 2liezat.jpg (122KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x480px

>>33458798


>>33458798


>>33458798


>>33458798

File: off_ti_siberia.png (171KB, 333x313px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 333x313px

>>33415122
>selling a gun ever

>>33455980
>The whole argument you've jumped into is over Smith vs Ruger frames. You're essentially moving the goalposts by taking a conversation about the relative strength of two differemt designs and turning it into a cast vs forging argument as if that's the only factor at play.

I made a statement and you tards can't evaluate the statement on its own merit. Now you've finally attempted to counter my statement and you're still emotionally invested in your answer. This is the ignorant logic of an antigunner. Come at the question from a disingenuous position to try to prove your preconceived notion.

>>33456027
>You're shifting goalposts a lot here.

Every post I've made in this thread has been the same statement. Forgings are generally more durable than castings, yes or no?

I've spoken about process not product. Fags here are balls deep in their Rugers and can't fathom that something about it's creation might not be perfect. They've missed the fucking point of the comment because of their own insecurities. The comment was never directed at Rugers, the fanboys keep bringing it up.

Sounds like you guys have an issue with Ruger being cast.

>>33457438
You're right. You don't know what move the goal posts means, so there was nothing to rebut.

>>33458563
I'm honestly waiting for octagon barrels to come back. The python barrel is ass ugly and reminds me of a shelving rack.

>>33458776
I'm in PA
think it's worth their time?

>>33459847
It's worth thier time if they do it on your dime.