BarryinIN

If they know some S&B has steel jackets, which is a bit unusual in current commercial ammunition, a little note about that wherever they post the "No Steel" rule might help. Something like: "In addition to military ammunition, some varieties of S&B ammunition might contain steel bullets.". It would beat going into a full blown panic upon learning someone And obviously, asking you to open up the boxes and produce one round from each while they get their magnet out would have made a big difference in how it all went. I understand that a crater in one of the backstops would require the entire section to be refaced, which is no cheap thing, but once you were told, you produced it. It's not like they had to pounce on it and hurry to get it open before you escaped. People hear "steel" and panic. Some of the steel used in bullet jackets is pretty soft as steel goes. I've never seen any of the numbers from it, but have heard some testing was done on some steel jacketed .30-06 that appeared from off shore a few years ago and it was right in line with most similar bullets for hardness and "softer" than some copper jackets. I know a range owner has to say "no steel at all" of course, but it's almost amusing to watch when people turn pale and lose all control over the mention of the word "steel" when it's no more specific that saying "gun" or "ammo".

Sounds great! Wish I could be there. And remember: When 'arf your bullets fly wide in the ditch, Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old xxxxx; She's human as you are- you treat as sich, An' she'll fight for the young British (or Australian) soldier"

Buds Gun Shop shows none in stock yet, but they do list the price as $364.

I have an M&P 45, and wish I had got a 9. It's OK but wider than a Lwt Cmdr while only weighing a couple ounces less. I still think the M&Ps are the best of the Glock/XD/M&P group. The grip alone is reason enough.

I'm sure the SR40C is OK, but I just shot a friend's M&P 40 Compact this morning, and that (the M&P line) is still the direction I'd go if wanting another gun of that type. I think they are the top of that heap at the moment. Could change though.

I haven't been to FAL Files in a while, but have spent some time on there. It's where I saw Dan's advertising the Rhodie parts kits when I got mine. WECSOG is a guy or two guys who were FAL Files regulars when I was on there. It stands for Wyle E Coyote School Of Gunsmithing, as their forte was doing gunsmithing with regular shop tools. They had a nice photo essay up at one time on building an FAL from parts. My feeling is everyone needs THREE Garands (so they can be stacked by the stacking swivels!).

I really need to finish some projects involving my first love (Garand) but should go ahead and buy the receiver to complete that Rhodie kit whenever I get to it. Even if I don't get to it for a while, there might come a day where I really wish I had bought it when I could. I printed off a bunch of stuff from the WECSOG place a few years ago for guidance. I am looking forward to your account. More info is always good.

Yeah, mine is on a Century and it's been OK. My Rhodesian kit does indeed have that green paint all over it. Pretty neat. I wouldn't change it. I was trying to remember where I got mine. Does a place called Dan's sound right?

I need to complete that Rhodesian FAL parts set I got a few years ago before I get any more FN rifles. Who is making good receivers now (that are mostly available)? I remember hearing something about some more Coonan receivers becoming available a year or so ago- Did that ever happen?

Oh yeah, very important: If you do order one, opt out of receiving their email sales notices unless you really like them, because you will get at least one a day on average.

Nice-for-the-money range or grab'n'go bag on sale: http://www.lapolicegear.com/tabaoutbag.html They show it listing at $60, and their usual price at $45, but they have a sale on them every two or three months. I think they are usually $20 when they go on sale, and not $15 like now however. They come in a few colors, but you only get the Henry Ford choice of black in this sale. I have some of these, plus one of the smaller size, and they are pretty decent bags. Actually they are pretty nice bags. There is velcro and snap hooks and puches and flaps all over the place. The problem (perhaps): I can't remember where they are made, but it isn't the USA. I couldn't find a tag on mine now. It wasn't China, but I can't remember where. Not many of these are made in the USA. Eagle gear usually is, but when I got my bags from LA Police Gear a couple of years ago, I couldn't find an Eagle bag in stock anywhere. Even if I could have found an Eagle, I could have only bought one. Since I was buying the cheap ones, I got several in different colors. It's been handy having them. With plenty of bags, I don't have to unload and repack a single bag for different uses. I have different ones filled or set up according to the gun(s) and situation they will accompany. One is for ARs, another for Garands, one for the Steyr Scout, and one for handguns. The AR one has things I might need to respond to a bump in the night- mags, light, first aid stuff, etc. Anyway... Mine have held up. The material is thick enough. The handles run all the way under to become reinforcing webbing like they should instead of just being tacked in place and looking cool. The zippers are plastic, but robust, and mine have been used a lot without trouble. There is a velcro'd in place divider in the main compartment that you can move or remove. It has a shoulder strap, which I'm not sure the description mentioned at the time. The strap's snap hooks are plastic, as are the bag's D rings they hook onto, but...$15.

Haven't seen one in person. I honestly forgot about it. The first I heard of it was when they showed up on Buds Gun Shop website with a sku number but no price a few months ago, which created a stir for a while among some M&P fans I know. There was much debate over whether it would have early teething problems like the first Walther P22s (I guess Walther is going to make the M&P22?). Then I forgot all about it. My question back then was: How big will it be? Will it be the same as the centerfires or scaled down? Do you know? EDIT: Once I actually followed the link, I saw it's pretty much the same size and weight as the 9/40 cal standard size guns. The reason I ask is- I wouldn't get one as a companion/practice piece to my M&P because I don't use my M&P that much. But- I might be interested in a smaller one. So many .22 pistols are either tiny things or full size. I want one that's in between- big enough to shoot easily but no bigger. The Walther P22 and Sig Mosquito are the right idea, but DA, and I'm not a DA auto fan. An SA or Glock/M&P/XD type trigger would be OK. That's why I'm interested in that new Browning 1911-.22 in 85% scale. I always liked the Beretta 87 Cheetah though, even if they are DA. How much will the M&P .22 run?

And all FALs are not FNs. Mine is not, being an L1a1 parts set on a cheap receiver. Some parts on mine are wore slap out but it runs like a top, which to me is a testament to the design. That Saive guy knew some things, and should get more credit than he does IMHO. I'd like to have an FN49 someday, speaking of Saive. Those are some nice ones you have there, FNFAL.

Oh, we're counting all FNs? I'm in good shape then.

Welcome. I like the FAL too. I only have one, but would like a few more.

Doesn't surprise me. I didn't shoot trap much, so haven't spent much time where I would hear it. However, almost every time I've started some new shooting sport I hear some "fact" that two minutes of thought would debunk. If only they would stop to think about it. I think it's just that they have heard it for so long, from people that otherwise know their stuff, they have never thought to question it.

EDIT: I just read the first post instead of the most recent post. What I said below doesn't apply quite as well then. A burr on the same place could do it though. Does it only do it if you cock it slowly? Or sort of slowly? If it does, and only on one chamber, you may have a worn "nub" or "tooth" on the cylinder ratchet (the part on the ejector star the hand pushes against to rotate it). If each chamber did it, it could be the hand or hand and ratchet, but one cylinder sounds like one tooth of the ratchet is worn. At one time, this would have been not so big a deal, but Colt revolver parts are scarce now, if it is the ratchet, it will need replaced or welded up and re-cut. For some reason, his first name escapes me, but _____Cunningham is a revolver smith who specializes in Colts. A search on his name and "revolver" should locate him. He would be my first pick, and is who I will send my two old Colt DAs to for a rebuild if I ever get to it. Or you can just cock it sharply to get by.

I don't know if I've heard that before, but I can believe it's been said. Just like the claim all long barrels hit harder. (I suppose some might with some loads- by about two fps,) Before watching the video, since I had not heard this before, I thought about the question. Could swinging the shotgun faster make an oval cloud? Hmmm. Well, knowing that you can move a handgun barrel enough to change point of impact because the gun can move before the bullet leaves the muzzle was the only reason I even thought about it. The pistol may fire when the muzzle is pointed at one place, but by the time the bullet left the barrel that muzzle is somewhere else. I guess I can see how one might think it should carry over and change the pattern shape, but that isn't the same thing. If the shot load filled the barrel from one end to the other, yes, I could see that you could easily make an oval pattern. But it doesn't fill the barrel. The shot column is an inch long at the most in the shell, and might get compacted even shorter when being forced down the barrel. The frontmost pellet must leave the bore ever so slightly before one in the rear, but the barrel swings hardly any during that time- less movement than the vibrations from the shot I'd think. I guess I can see how some think it, but it doesn't stand up to much thought, let alone shooting to check it.

It's probably heavier because of the smaller hole drilled through the barrel leaving more steel behind than the 44. That's how it is with revolvers that are different calibers but otherwise identical like Ruger Blackhawks and some S&W N-frames: larger caliber, lighter gun. I doubt I will ever buy a 77/357 but I do like my 77/44 even though I never thought I would. I'm not much of a pistol caliber carbine fan (if I'm going to carry a rifle around, it might as well shoot a rifle cartridge) except for just plain fun. That's why my other PCCs are lever actions- fun. But the 77/44 is enough lighter than the others to make a difference. Given the choice of my 7 lb .41 Mag and a 7.5 lb .308, I'll take the .308. But with the 77/44, the difference is two pounds, and that's a lot when you're talking in this weight range. FWIW, the .357 carbines I've had were a little more accurate than the .44s I've had (average, generally speaking, on the whole, etc).

I'm glad you (appear to have) got it straightened out. I tend to cut a little slack to pocket-size 9mms because I think we are asking a lot of them. Most come within one round of the capacity of the original S&W 39, which was considered a regular/service size gun. A pocket nine holding only one less round than a 39 yet as small or smaller than a lot of .380s is something I never expected to see. I'm a fan of the HK P7, and most of the early tests of those marvel over it's small size. It dwarfs current small nines. When I got my first Kahr, an MK9, I had a little trouble. Maybe one round in a hundred failed to feed. The slide stopped just short of closed. Even that small number was too much for a carry gun so I traded it off. Ordinarily, I might have sworn off the design but I didn't here because, like I say, we are asking a lot of these little guns. I tried another, a PM9 Covert with longer slide and different recoil spring system. It worked fine. Its one of my favorite guns and gets carried every day, but the only reason I gave Kahr a second chance is because I was honestly surprised the first one came so close. These little guns are getting close to the limit, IMHO, if not riding right on the edge of it.

OK, so it looks like it's another variation of an existing gun, but it's kinda new. It appears to be similar to the 77/22, 77/44, etc series except in .357 Mag using a five round rotary magazine. What will it do that a lever action won't? Hmmm. Well... Errr... OK, it should weigh less. I have a 77/44, and never thought I'd own one or like it if I did, but I do like it and it's because of it's lack of weight. It weighs 1.25lbs less than my Marlin .41 Mag, which is saying something. That 1.25 lbs may not sound like much, but it is sure noticeable between rifles that light to start with.

Oh, almost! I gotta keep trying. If only you were anywhere close by so I could let you shoot mine. I hope to "sell" one in about a week to a friend in AL. Have you looked around at Father Frog's pages yet? That should help set the hook. Did I mention that after about the third day of the Gunsite 270 class (General Rifle), they have students breaking straightaway clay pigeons with them? Just thought I'd throw that out there. Not that I'm trying to steer you toward spending any money or anything. Not me, no sir. I should warn you that some think the recoil is a bit stiff. I'm a recoil pansy but don't think it is too bad at all. Maybe it's because I was expecting more. The stock fit is wonderful, which surely helps a lot. Somehow, everyone who has picked mine up liked the stock, even though sizes and builds varied greatly. Strange but true. I think the recoil is better than say, the HK91 I used to have but of course it's more than my AR10 that probably weighs double.

BTW, the Savage weight is 6.65lbs without sling, scope or rings. The Scout ideal weight limit is 6.6lbs and the max is 7.7- including sling and mounted scope. That weight limit is a killer. Jeff Cooper knew that, though, and knew it would give a dandy goal to reach for. He also knew the Remington 600 came close or met it 40 years ago. I'd like to have a Rem 600 in .308 by the way. Or any of a few other calibers too. I have one that was in the somewhat uncommon .222 caliber that gets a premium, but it had been beat to death, cut on, and otherwise devoid of collector value so I had it rebarreled to .221 Fireball for a "walking varmint gun". The Mode 7 is pretty neat, but the 600 is bulldog ugly/cute to me.

As I said above, I don't recall what the problem(s) was but I did just read at Father Frog's sight that the early magazines could give headaches and I think I saw something about cracks in the bolthead. EDIT: I just read that website page closer and saw that the problems were with earlier versions (which is what Cooper would have known about) and they have been corrected. The part on the bolt that cracked was a pin. The front sights also tended to fly off. Again, these things appear to be corrected now. Classes are hard on guns. If there is any weakness, it will be found. I don't know why that is, but it is. I haven't had a ton of classes but I haven't been to one yet that every gun made it through problem-free. In every case, the story is the same "but I've had this gun for x years (or x rounds) and it has never given me a bit of trouble" and I believe them (usually). Classes eat guns alive. My only guess is something heat-related. That assumption is that being shot almost continuously half the day for several days without more than a few minutes' rest and cool-down fatigues or otherwise screws with parts in some way. Beats me why, but it happens. The guns may never see that kind of stress again, but its better to use it to find trouble there than some other places. Speaking of Savage... I know it wouldn't "make weight" but I would like to see how close a Savage 99 can get to specs. I have a made-in-1927 one that I love, and thought many times a 99 could make a nice pseudo-scout. I bet Cooper tried, because he was a 99 fan.

Oh I forgot- You can probably find a wood stock for the Savage!