BarryinIN

Yeah, it seldom matters what the area of interest is. Deer hunter, home defender, small gamer, plinker- it doesn't matter. They back the car or truck up to the bench, pile everything on the bench, shoot from it, gather up the target and point to it and smile, saying "That'll get a deer (or intruder/squirrel/tin can)". Maybe it will. If they have a bench handy when they need to do that. The black powder guys are an exception. Usually, at least. I've seen some of those that are glued to the bench, but the coal burners have a smaller percentage than the other shooters, that's for sure.

Any AR lower rcvr should work with any pistol caliber upper, but a magazine block must be used. The block fits in the magazine well and is (usually) what the pistol caliber magazine latches into. They also might have a spacer/feedramp, and usually the ejector. Most made now latch into place using the regular mag catch, but some are pinned into place by roll pins going through holes added to the receiver. The original Colt 9mm used pins. The bolt will be different because it will be a blowback system rather than a locked breech. I mention this so you will be careful when shopping. The bolt isn't always included in the price. I'm not nuts over pistol caliber ARs. I wanted one for a while, then when I finally got a Colt 9mm in the late 90s I hardly used it. I had a Marlin Camp 9 that I had sort of gave up and settled for before finding that Colt, and I ended up favoring it because it was more reliable and more accurate. Guns are usually best in their original configuration. I do think they are nice for an indoor range (I had one in a barn when I got mine) or other ranges with cartridge/velocity limitations. And they are nice with a suppressor (another reason I got mine). But I guess the .22 ARs that are pretty common now could do those things too.

Hey, if the cost of postage can get a holster I'm not using to someone that might otherwise have to buy something...marginal...while they wait for an order to come in, what the heck. Consider this a standing offer to anyone here. If you have a holster on order that will take a while, let me know and I'll check the holster library for a loaner. This reminds me- I have some out to a guy who asked for my address to return them...a few months ago. I haven't seen them. I hope he just hasn't sent them yet. The alternative is that they got lost along the way. Dang, I forgot all about that.

My brother bought a 9422M in about 1973. The wood has always intrigued me because it's fairly plain grain and figure-wise, but has the nicest color I could ever imagine. I could sit and stare at that "plain" wood for an hour. And yes they are really really smooth. I have one lever action .22 (Browning) and don't really need another, but would like a Winchester because they are so slick. They now bring too much money for me to get one because of that, though. Why the rust? I used to immediately associate it with neglect, but I guess it happens sometimes even when people care. I hate to admit it, but my first real rifle has a touch of rust. It happened when I lived in humid SW Louisiana and worked 7 days on and 7 off away from my apartment. I treasured it dearly and would oil it down when I headed out on Thursday, then would come back the next Wednesday to find a spot of rust forming. I would have to oil it up again and at least once more through the week. After a few months of this, I had a rust speckled spot. Maybe some of the products available now would have prevented it, but they weren't around then or not available to me if they were. That was a rough environment for metal. Cars suffered worse there than in the northern "Rust Belt" from what I could see. I worked closer to the Gulf and when the dew fell on cars at night, you could wipe your finger across it, taste it, and taste all the salt. And now, my sentimental first rifle is one I usually keep out of sight!

Pure genius. When he held it over his head, I could almost hear Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or whatever their version of Dueling Banjoes is there.

Isn't it sad? Sad because they could do better. If it was a Cordura material like their other holsters, it would be so much better. It would be thicker than most leather IWBs but at least it would be more useable. I have one of their ankle holsters around here somewhere, and I think it was of that same Cordura as the hip and shoulder holsters but thinner. But I could be remembering it wrong. If so, that would be better than what they do. If had an IWB that fit that gun, I would have offered to send it as a loaner but I don't have any. I've done that a lot for people waiting on their real holster order. I guess that says a lot about both the amount of not-in-service holsters I have and the lack of decent temporary holsters available.

OK. You don't want a collector's gem. You want a good looking shooter. You've made the point many times. How does that change the fact Mitchell's is calling post-war Yugoslavian Mauser M48s "WWII German 98k" Mausers? That's not what they are. They didn't slip and do it once either. Their entire sales campaign is built around it, so they can sell rifles that "tell a unique story from WWII". Deceptive at the very least. It doesn't matter if their deceptive rifles look good, they are still not what they are represented to be. And that's my point. Maybe they are the best looking, best shooting Mausers in the world, but if they are selling them as "original WWII German 98k" rifles, they are either mistaken or lying. And with the way they present them, it's no mistake. Whether they lied a little bit and only said they were "from Germany" because the Mauser brothers were from Germany, or lied a lot by claiming they were from Hitler's personal bodyguard staff (each with an "A.H." stamping) it's still a lie. The fact you don't care doesn't change anything. If they are selling one thing as something else, whether guns, cars, or real estate, it doesn't matter if it looks good it's still deceptive and misleading. If you want to use the car analogy, let's do that. I'll stay with a German product and say someone advertised "collector grade original" Porsche 917s, each with "a unique story from 1970-71 LeMans races" and "matching numbers". Now let's say those 917s turned out to be fiberglass Lancer 917 kit cars built on VW Beatles in the early 80s, whose only connection to LeMans is the builder saw the movie once, and the matching numbers were put on last month. That would be just as honest as what Mitchell's is doing. Maybe they are nice cars...but they sure aren't what was advertised. Is there anything wrong with that? Continuing the comparison, you might buy one and think everything is fine because, to paraphrase, you got a clean, good looking car.

How deceiving is it? What does it say on the side of the box? It doesn't say "Nice Clean Good Looking Yugoslav M48", It says "Collector Grade Mauser Rifle". What does their website say across the top? It doesn't say "Cleaned up, sanded, numbers match because the Russians re-numbered them, Yugoslavian M48s for sale" What it does say is "original WWII German 98k rifles for $499". Here's one more from the website: "Every rifle in our collection is original, and tells a unique story from WWII". Don Mitchell. What story from WWII do those post-war M48 Yugoslavs tell exactly? If that's not deception, then what is it? I suppose you're right. Deception isn't strong enough. You may know they aren't what they are advertised to be. I may know. Half the buyers may know. Every single person could know, and it would still be wrong to advertise them that way. It's still deception whether anyone knows better or not. I don't know why you think it's harmless. What happened here? The OP asked about them, and when he got wind that they might not be as claimed, he bolted. What if he hadn't had a chance to ask? He might have found out after he sunk $500 into one.

And that's where we started. I agreed then and now they sell some good looking rifles. If that was how they advertised and described them (as nice looking but not necessarily as German or original rifles), I would have nothing bad to say. But they don't. They act like they found them in a secret bunker in Oberndorf. So I'll steer people elsewhere when asked about their Mausers, and it's all because of their deceiving advertising. Anyone selling post-war Yugoslavian-made M48 rifles as "original German 98k rifles" will get no help from me. How is that scheme justified by not everyone wanting an all-original collector-grade rifle? If you want to help them continue to deceive people, that's your business.

They are definitely misrepresented, whether buyers are complaining or not. Do they realize they were misrepresented? Since the knowledgeable Mauser guys don't seem to want to touch the Mitchell's (otherwise they would have sold out years ago) does the average buyer know they were misrepresented? Would they accept it if they were told or shown? People don't like to accept learning they got taken, as exemplified by the people I've seen swearing their Universal M1 carbine was a WWII bring-back in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Maybe they don't care. Some want a good looking rifle and will buy it for that reason even if they know they "history" accompanying it can't be true. Regardless of whether they know, care, or are complaining or not, they are definitely not as Mitchell's claims, and in multiple ways. You don't see anyone complaining about the Mitchell's they got? Only criticizers who never bought one? I've seen a few buyers knocking them in milsurp forums (some that you have posted in) but they seem to chalk it up as a learning experience and go on. As far as those criticizing them who haven't actually bought one, I think the reason is obvious. Those that could already tell something was up (like seeing the polished bolts on "original finish" rifles when the Germans never did that) of course aren't going to be buyers. Your numbers match? OK, I'm sure they do, but are they the original numbers, or numbers added later by the Russians or someone else? You know the story there, I'm sure. Anyone who does not, and is considering one of these, would be advised to do a search on Russian Capture Mausers. How many matching sets of numbers are there on yours? Mitchell's is big on talking about all six numbers matching...but that only accounts for about a quarter of the numbered parts.

I never said they weren't good looking rifles. But Mitchell's is...misleading...at the very least. They advertise "Own the original German WWII K98 bolt action rifle collector grade $499". Any I've seen aren't German, but Yugoslavian. They therefore weren't K98s either, but M48s. Which means they weren't from WWII either, since they didn't exist during the war. Other than that, they are spot-on: they are bolt action rifles, that Mitchell's grades as collector grade within their system, and they are selling them for $499. It's that "German WWII K98" part that's a little fuzzy. I wonder... Would they sell more of them, or fewer, with a more accurate description? That's just their opening statement. It doesn't get any better as you look more. They could be the most beautiful Mausers in the world, shoot quarter moa groups, and sell for $49.99, but since they continue to mislead the uninformed into thinking they are buying a rifle that was carried in blitzkriegs across France or survived the siege of Stalingrad, they have ZERO credibility with me and I will continue to point out their chicanery whenever people ask about them. This is not just some mis-matched numbers being hidden or something of the sort. It's way worse than that. It's advertising one thing to sell something else, while being fully aware of what they are doing. The fact some buyers might never know or even care does not matter. Deception is deception. A lot of potential buyers don't care about collector grade things like matching numbers. Most care about flat-out misrepresentation.

I'd guess the most I shot in a single day of my brief trap experience was 125. I might have done 150 once, but I doubt it, and I know I did 125 a couple of times. I was probably willing to do more, but I think I remember feeling that the next day. It wasn't the front of the shooting shoulder from recoil, but the outer part of both shoulders from swinging the gun so many times. I usually got three or four rounds (75-100 shots) in per night. I was lucky to do that. This was a club that shot on Thursday nights, so there was only a few hours to shoot in. Plus, all the old regulars in the clique got their rounds in before us new guys that were low on the pecking order. The last time I went, I shot one round (one 25 shot round). Those sporting clays guys can build up a round count quickly, with 100-bird courses!

You might check Gunbroker. There are usually some of everything on there, new or used, common or unusual. The only online firearms retailer I've dealt with much has been Bud's Gun Shop. The problem is that finding any Colt is not always easy because their supply is so spotty. Most gun shops around here will have a period of a couple of months where they have a reasonable stream of Colts coming in, then they will have a stretch where they won't have any at all and that might last for months on end. My regular gun shop is one of the best stocked ones around here, and I never know if they will have any at all. I bought a new Colt .38 Super there in 2008, and it was the first new Colt pistol I had seen there in nearly two years. They got a few more in after that, then I didn't see any for a year, when they got a couple of Delta Elites in. They got a few more of those, then nothing for maybe eight months or so, and then all if a sudden they actually had a reasonable Colt assortment on hand for a year or a little over. That was the first time they had many Colts on a regular basis since the mid 90s. Lately I haven't been in there much, but Colts were looking scarce again. It's like Colt makes some guns whenever they feel like it, and then only until they get bored with it. I always hear it has to do with big contracts (usually military) getting priority, but I haven't seen that the pattern follows that very closely.

I'm digging this thread up because last weekend I saw my first AR malfunction o since this thread began, and the first one I've seen this year. It stood out because it was so unusual to see. I'm not getting to any carbine classes this year (the year isn't over yet) but that is where I usually see them crash, if any crash at all. Classes are hard on guns; that's all there is to it. But without a doubt, I've seen more rounds go downrange from a ARs this year than any other rifle, and malfunctions have been nonexistent until that one last weekend. I don't know what brand of rifle that was by the way, but I'm pretty confident in saying it was a magazine problem. The lips were wider than they should be, which led to the double feed, and I'm kinda surprised it happened before from the looks of the magazine. This happened at a 3-gun match FWIW. Also since this thread began, I recalled having one problem AR of my own. It was a FrankenGun (parts gun) and the trouble was asked for. I had bought an Eagle Arms lower receiver in the winter of 1988-89, when they came to a gun show. They were just getting started and would not own the ArmaLite name for a couple of years or more. I bought one receiver for $90 and passed at two for 160 because they were an unknown company. I should have gambled and bought them all. Anyway...I bought that receiver because it looked pretty good, and I wanted a CAR-type to match my old A1/Viet Nam era style 20". I thought I'd do it someday. Then the first "Assault Rifle" scare came in mid year (1989), and I decided I'd better complete that lower receiver like everyone else was scrambling to do. Remember, in 1989, there were only a handful of AR parts sellers, and they ran out fast. I had to settle for my last choice, Nesard. What arrived six months later was a box of junk, but I got my little CAR. And I still had well under $500 in it. I still have that nasty barrel somewhere around here, although I wisely buried it deep in my junk so I haven't seen it in years. Roughly turned in and out, strange contour, and my favorite- the gas port hole drilled so a big chunk of steel was hanging down into the bore. I could barely see light past it. I also could barely knock it out by banging against it with a cleaning rod from each side until it broke free. And a huge gas port it was. I got it to the range, chambered a round in the rough chamber, and got it to function most of the time. Back then, 22 years ago, we didn't know about short ARs needing a little more attention in areas like extractor tension (at least I didn't, and I was one of two people I knew of who owned one), so I suppose I was lucky to get it working at all. As rough as it was, I still got it working pretty soon. Looking back, I'm pretty impressed it ran at all, let alone most of the time. I guess that's a testament to the design. I was disappointed with the accuracy and after a year or two, ordered a new barrel from Quality Parts (they became Bushmaster*). I was kinda disappointed with that barrel because even though it looked a lot better, it only trimmed a quarter inch off the ragged barrel's groups. How did that nasty barrel do? 1.5" at 100. I was unhappy with that, but should have been in shock over it. Any rifle that could shoot 1.5" with that rough sewer pipe of a barrel is doing something. * Does anyone here remember the toll-free number that Quality Parts/BFI had in the late 80s? 1-800-556-SWAT. That might still be their number for all I know. What was significant about it was that when you called it, you heard the monotone voice of Tom ("Hello, this is Tom at Quality Parts...) who would give you a running report on the firearms legislative news of the day. Some people don't remember, or want to remember, that things were touch and go for "Assault Rifles", especially for a few weeks there. They made up a small portion of the market, and believe me, no competitor would have cared much if Colt couldn't sell them anymore. It was also in the old days when a toll-free hotline was the most rapid source of info. How things change. Some things

Yeah, with all that going on at the range, I can see how you wouldn't hear any difference. I'm still wondering how I didn't hear that one last Saturday at the match. I would have thought it wouldn't be that way, but with the couple of squibs I've had, I'm pretty sure I heard them more than felt them. I'm not sure if I've had it happen in anything more than 9mm though. I doubt I had more than two or three ever, before getting into a bad batch of primers about two years ago which gave me 15 or 20 that summer They were Small Pistol primers, so every one happened in 9mm and I think I heard more than felt them. Until then, it was one of those things I seem to see, more than have happen to me for some reason, so I didnt have much to go on.

I don't know how it could ever be determined, but yes, the appearence does suggest a squib. I think both projectiles (the stuck one and the one pushing it out) usually leave the barrel, even if the barrel blows. Inertia/objects in motion staying in motion carries them on out I guess. A shooter had a squib at last weekend's 3-gun match and I was ten feet away watching him and didn't catch the sound difference. I guess sometimes the noise difference isn't much. The RO was on top of things and yelled "STOP!" in time to save a split barrel. I always worry about it happening in one of my subguns. Thats where I've seen it happen most, and I haven't been to that many MG shoots. It's awful hard to stop before the next round when they're coming that fast. Maybe that's why I almost always shoot two and three round bursts.

Thanks. I just get the feeling it has become one of those things that doesn't get enough thought. People might ask why it's done, and since the given reason makes sense, that's as far as the questioning goes. Sure, it makes sense to look around for accomplices or enemies you might have just made. But with a known threat right in front, make that scan count if you are going to do it. Some things that are accepted as The Way could deserve a moment spent asking if they should be. A few techniques started out as little items that were taught because they might be handy in some cases, but then become the accepted way things are done. The Tactical Reload might be one of the better examples. It was originally taught as a handy thing to know for certain situations (and for keeping mags out of the sand during a week-long class) but has now become the way things are done. If someone does a Speed Reload, the assumption is they let the gun run dry or simply don't know any better. But if there is any chance the fight is not over, I think the gun should be reloaded by the fastest method (if at all). If you need more ammo in the gun, you probably need it now, and time and concentration spent on swapping magazines and pocketing one of them could be put to better use. I read a comment from an instructor once that "the Tac Reload is what you do for the trip home, not something you fiddle with when the problem might remain unsolved". I wish I could remember who that was. But it has become the preferred method, while the Speed Reload is looked at as a last resort. I don't think that should be, and am not sure it was ever intended.

I've used them a long time ago in the mid 80s. They were awful. They don't fit, don't hold their shape, don't stay in place- awful. They are like a sock with a belt clip on them- a poor belt clip. They were what turned me off IWB carry for several years until I tried something better. If needing a holster just to get by, I'd try to get a Don Hume holster. The quality is plenty good enough and much better than a UM, the price isn't much more, and they are usually available.

I've read that in places before. I wonder what they think is an acceptable trigger weight. At the National Tactical Invitational one year, participants were provided with a pistol having a 14 pound pull, then ran through an exercise that was basically a setup for a startle situation. IF they were not maintaining proper trigger finger discipline, they had an ND every time. If they were using proper trigger finger discipline, they did OK. An article in Police Marksman by George Williams a few years ago covered a medical study showing that "involuntary convulsive reflex" (startle response) caused the larger fingers to generate 50 lbs or more of force. The problem is the finger being in the wrong place. I'm pretty convinced that an ND with a four lb trigger would still have happened with a seven lb trigger. Or ten. As long as all else is equal. I do suspect the pull travel might prevent one now and then. Maybe. I'm not saying we should petition Jewell to start making 2 ounce triggers for the most popular pistols. Not all NDs happen when the shooter has the gun in position to fire. Plenty of them happen when holstering (the majority I've seen or saw almost happen were while holstering) or when clearing a gun for cleaning or odd things like when something shifts in the pocket where a gun is carried and gets pressure on the trigger. In some of these cases, a little more trigger weight or travel might help. I carry my Kahr in a pocket (in a pocket holster covering the trigger guard) but would not carry a SA auto that way. But back to my point (it's the finger, not the trigger). I'm guessing most self defense NDs happen when holding someone at gunpoint. How were they doing this? Or, more specifically, where was their trigger finger? While I haven't been to a ton of classes, of the ones I have been to, only one addressed holding someone at gunpoint. That's not to fault those other classes, because they were shooting/gunfighting classes and not detaining classes. And besides, I think the aspect of having to hold someone at gunpoint is something that doesn't get much thought devoted to it. It crosses most people's minds, but that's about it. Then they are stuck having to do it. There they are, having to hold someone at gunpoint who broke into the house at 3 am. It's also about the time the initial shock wears off and the adrenaline hits, the wife starts yelling from the bedroom asking what's going on, the kids start crying, the alarm is getting annoying... Where is the trigger finger? Probably on the trigger. If thinking with reason, the homeowner reasons out he needs to be ready to shoot this guy immediately if needed and the time needed to get his finger on the trigger is too long. If thinking unreasonably, the homeowner is so angry at this guy that he hopes he makes a move. Either way, the finger is on the trigger and we have a time bomb. I think if that trigger is going to get pulled, it is going to get pulled whether it's four pounds or 14. At any rate, I think it's hard to say a trigger pull of X pounds is more prone to ND than one a couple of pounds heavier. Its a gunhandling problem; not a trigger problem. BTW, As for the presumed need to have the finger on the trigger when holding someone to save time "in case he makes a move", time it sometime. If one has a shot timer, they can easily check how much difference it makes between keeping the finger registered on the frame or on the trigger. Hold the gun with sights on target ready to shoot, and time it both ways, with the only difference being trigger finger placement. I bet that if you see any difference at all, it will be about what the shot-to-shot variation is. It sure won't be enough to matter. It can sure matter on whether you ND.

I generally hate DAO guns and don't like regular DAs much either. I carry either a 1911, Browning HiPower, or HK P7 as "primary", which should tell you something about my trigger preference. But the gun in my pocket is a Kahr. The trigger is...different, but very useable, even to someone like me whose shots are 99% SA. People are always comparing the Kahr and J-frames because they see similar use. I hear a lot of them say the Kahr pull feels longer than a J-frame, but I don't think so at all. Quite the opposite in my opinion. I think the Kahr trigger feels like a greatly shortened J-frame pull. They get compared to Glock triggers too, but I don't think they feel very similar. A couple of things to know about Kahrs: I would avoid the "Micro" Kahrs. My first one was an MK9, which is the shortened (slide and frame) version of the K9. I had some instances where the slide failed to fully close on a chambered round. It got better after a break-in but still happened about one time in a hundred shots, which is unacceptable in a carry gun. The Micro models use a dual recoil spring (Kahr uses the Seecamp patent). When the slide was almost closed on mine, only one spring was pushing. This happened right about where the slide stopped on the feeding problem. So I blamed the recoil spring design. I looked at some other MK9s in the gunshop and they were the same, with one spring not exerting pressure at the end. I checked online, and found reports almost identical to my experience. Maybe Kahr could have done something, but I traded it off. I liked Rhe general idea of the gun, so when I found the regular size K9/P9 used a single recoil spring, I started looking for one. I got that P9 Covert, which has the K9/P9 slide on the short grip frame, and it has been fine. This was maybe six years ago or more, and I've heard Kahr has made a change to the short ones to correct that problem mine had. I don't know what they did, if anything. Second- Don't carry a spare magazine loose in the pocket. Besides being a bad idea generally (gets pocket fuzz in it and it turns around so you never know which end is which) the magazine can self-empty. The top round pops out pretty easily compared to most magazines, and they can come out while moving around during the day. I found as many as three live rounds loose in my pocket after a day of carrying the mag without a pouch. I made a little pouch thing that covers the feedlots and it keeps it mostly upright, and it has been fine. And lastly, I want to make another pitch for the 9mm over .40 in this size gun. The recoil can be sharp in the .40, practice ammo that is a must with these costs more, and since I think we are getting on the ragged edge of size/function we need to give it all the help we can get by staying with the cartridge it was chambered in first.

I am firm believer that guns work best in their original form, especially semiauto pistols. With that in mind, I am not overly crazy about most chopped versions of guns. That leaves guns that were designed to be small from the start, like Kahrs, Rohrbaughs, etc. Even though smaller, I've had better luck with guns like that than larger "compacts". That's one point. Hang on a minute and I'll come back to it. Second point- I think the .40 is a snappy round in a medium sized gun and in the little near-pocket sized guns it can be almost rough. I know people who shoot a lot more and a lot better than me, who also like big bores, but don't like shooting little .40s. Third point- These guns aren't the easiest to shoot although they aren't bad (I love S&W J-frames but can shoot almost any pocket 9mm better). Still, practice always helps, and 9mm ammo is usually cheaper than .40. Which brings me to liking pocket size (or near pocket size) 9mms. I'm sort of a Kahr fan, although I only have one of them. One thing though- even though they work pretty well, we are asking a lot of them. They are a lot smaller than what we thought were small 9mms as recently as 1995. The S&W 3913 and HK P7 were considered really small, and these little nines make them look huge. Don't expect service pistol performance from them. I cut them a little more slack because they are smaller than I ever though we'd see, and might be pushing things. If you can go a little bigger, I like the S&W 3913 and HK P7 I just brought up. I love the P7 in fact. Both of these guns are bigger than the Kahr-class guns but are a easier to shoot and I feel are a little more dependable. They are also thinner than Glocks, P229s etc, which makes a huge difference to me. Most people get concerned with a gun's weight but its the width that effects whether I carry a gun or not. These size guns are what I use on those rare times I don't feel I can conceal my usual gun well. They practically vanish IWB. I've had a couple of 3913s and even though I'm not a DA auto fan, I like them still. The only reason I let mine go was because I liked the P7s better. I think the P7 is a great gun, that, despite being handy in size, is one of the easiest to shoot well. I've let people shoot mine and some shoot it as well as their carry gun even though they've never shot a P7 before. I have been planning a post here just to sing it's praises. And to shoot down a lot of the myths surrounding them (too heavy, too complicated, unique manual of arms cause problems, they get too hot, etc). There have been a lot of German police surplus first style P7s sold here in recent years and they are a bargain. I got one for a spare. So there are my thoughts. And what I do. I carry a Kahr PM9 Covert in my pocket as a BUG everyday. When I need a gun smaller than my usual HiPower or 1911, I carry an HK P7 (plus other times when I don't have to, just because). When I need something really small as a main gun, like the annual beach trip, it's the Kahr. And I can shoot buckets of ammo through them for less than a .40, .45, etc.

I never saw this thread before. I've loaded quite a bit of .44 Magnum, but almost all of it has been for carbines. I never kept a .44 revolver very long; I just don't have the need. Not that I really need the carbines either. H110 is pretty much my standard too. That or Win 296 (same difference). I like Accurate Arms #9 some too. I think H110 is pretty foolproof in the .44 Mag. Win 231 and Titegroup seems pretty good for mild loads. I have a Ruger 77/44 that has been fun to load for. I've loaded bullets from 133 grains (an old Lyman 429105 gallery mold) to an SSK design that is supposed to be 320 grains from Linotype but runs closer to 340 from wheelweights. In between has been round balls, double round balls, wadcutters of two weights, and several more typical SWCs and TCs. In jacketed, Hornady XTPs in 240 and 300 grains work well. They all do fine. Most of the same bullets work great in my .44 Spl Blackhawk. I guess if you count the AutoMags, I load .44 Magnum(ish) for handgun. My standard load there is 22 grains of H110 and the Nosler 240 JHP, which is just enough to cycle the action. The .44 calibers are pretty good, period.

I wanted to hold off on responding until I had read some of it. But there is a lot of information to get through, so I will go ahead: thanks!

He's a big man for putting that up. I'm not sure what he is for calling his parents before 911, but... OK, I don't want to ridicule the guy but I have to disagree with one thing: Things don't just happen. There was an unusual mix of circumstances here (not the least of which was using a holster with a retention device located approximately where a 1911 safety is) but nevertheless, at least two of the Four Rules were broken. Rule 2- Never let the muzzle cover anything you don't want to destroy. Rule 3- Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on target. How he arrived there was unusual, and it may not have been through crass recklessness, but he did. This also follows with the observation that one pretty much has to break two of the four rules to cause injury. And thank you for putting this up because it made me realize the need to make sure I have two IBDs (Israeli Battle Dressing) with my range gear. One fit entrance wounds and one for exit wounds. As shown, they aren't always located close enough for one IBD to catch.

Just a few comments after watching two guys practicing their tactical coolness last week. In the last ten years or so, it has become fashionable to do threat scans after engaging "threat" targets. You bang away, then look around to check for any partners of the bad guy and break any tunnel vision effects. The basic idea is good, but it's my opinion that most people are doing it wrong. And when doing it wrong, you might be better off not doing it at all. Louis Awerbuck pointed this out in a class. He said to watch how people do this. After watching, I'd say at least nine out of ten people fire their shots, then snap their head left and right spending about a quarter second doing it. And they don't see a thing. Louis will ask them: How many fingers was I holding up when you scanned? They don't know. He will even forewarn them that he will ask them that at some point after a scan in the next two hours, and they still won't know. I've seen him open his folding knife and hold it up in the air by his face during their scan, then ask them if they saw anything unusual- they never do. Try it sometime in not so familiar surroundings. The next time you fill up with gas, do one of these lightning fast scans while you wait on the pump to fill. Be honest, and do it like you see people do, or maybe like you do it yourself. After the scan, ask yourself what you saw. Can you tell yourself the color of every single car within your scan range? If you can't name the color and location every one of those huge chunks of metal, or have to think about it, how will you spot a gun held alongside someone's leg? If you can't really see anything useful, all you have done with a supersonic scan is take your attention away from a known threat- someone who was trying to kill you three seconds before. If they were a deadly threat a few seconds ago, there is no guarantee the danger is gone just because you put three or four bullets in them, even if you saw them crumple. A lot good guys have been killed by "dead" people. Once the body goes horizontal, blood pressure can rise again and they could miraculously heal...at least enough to pull a trigger. Don't count them out. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I am reluctant to take my eyes off my potential killer to spin my head around not seeing anything. I DO think you should check around. If you shot someone, you just made some enemies. But make your check worthwhile and don't forget the original danger. I'll look a few degrees right or left as I step in the opposite direction, then snap right back to the target representing the downed threat. Then I'll look a few degrees the other direction while moving back, and again snap back to the threat. Then I might expand my search. Of course, the actual situation might dictate you looking somewhere else right away, but without a reason to do otherwise, I'm going to start searching the area close to the known threat. Then I can expand my scan zone outward from there, looking farther and more carefully. Another minor point against the head spin over-the-shoulder check is how it looks. I saw a video of a guy doing it recently, and the first thought I had was that he looked like he was looking to see if anyone saw him. That quick head spin to look over his shoulder in both directions looked just like a little kid seeing if he could get away with something. To the little old lady peeking out between the shades, her impression would be "He's checking for witnesses" so she marks him as a bad guy and her view is then tainted. Everything she sees from that point on will be from the standpoint of finding things wrong with the survivor, not the downed guy. They won't even notice if they had a gun. This is not the kind of witness that will help you. On the other hand, if her first view is you carefully watching the downed person and moving to see behind and around him, then looking around (slower than the head-spinners) it should look like what it is. The witness will be looking where you are, and see the gun or knife on the ground or maybe other things that help solidify in their mind who the good guy and who the bad guy is. I wouldn't change my procedure based only on what some old lady might think, but I do think it makes a good secondary reason.