BarryinIN

Some of you may know Mr Camp from his forum and blog, or from the many forums he has contributed to over the years. Josh Smith has posted on a couple of sites that Stephen suffered a brain aneurism around noon on Friday, was taken to the hospital, but taken off life support later that night and passed away. He was not quite 60. I'm shocked. He was extremely knowledgable, but mostly, he was a nice guy. I think I've read his posts probably since the day we got Internet and I don't think ever seen any feelings hurt at all. He was always an example of courtesy. You can't say that often about the Internet.

It was nice having that eye doc who catered to shooters, and interesting how him correcting for the distance to the sights instead of the distance to a newspaper in the hands made a difference. Correcting for reading and using that for shooting was a small compromise, but still a compromise. I need to find another gun-friendly eye doc. I also miss that doc because I got in to see him not too long after a doc in the box eye exam, and he was the one who found glaucoma and they did not. It was early, it got lasered, and seems to be gone before doing any noticeable damage. I'll always give me his due for that.

Sounds good. I've never had a side focus scope but it looks like it would be nice to have on some rifles. I like Leupold. I've had slightly better scopes (only two) but they cost a lot more money to be slightly better, and I've had a few worse that cost the same or not enough less that Leupold to be worth getting instead. Bruno's is one of my secret sources because they often have things others can't keep in stock. I haven't bought much there, but should, just out of gratitude for bailing me out before when I ran out of something. I dont know of many who shop there, and I never could understand why more didn't.

Since posting this, I have seen five shooters besides myself shooting without using the bench. That's more than I've seen over the last three years all together. Three were people I had seen doing it before, who were silhouette or NRA Highpower shooters who were practicing for a match, and one was about to shoot his first silhouette match. That left one who was doing it in order to practice a realistic field position. But I have to give credit- The percentage has climbed. Maybe there is hope.

I've used Shooter's Choice copper solvent. It's similar to their bore cleaner but you can tell right away it has a much higher ammonia content. It must work because when used on previously "clean" barrels, the patches come out blue-green. I do admit to being a little nervous about using it due to the alleged metal erosion possibility. I don't know enough chemistry to know if I should or not. Experience with their regular bore cleaner tells me it can only work for so long before getting "full" and stopping or at least slowing down. Per the instructions, a followup pass with their bore cleaner neutralizes it, but I have serious doubts about that. I have some of the old WWII oily bore cleaner I hit it with also. That might not do anything, but it makes me feel better. I never leave it in for more than ten or fifteen minutes and set a timer so I don't forget. It doesn't always help. Sometimes it hurts. I've used it in barrels that were pretty tired, and they shot worse for a while. My theory is the cleaner took out copper fouling that had been filling in all the rough spots. After some use, they returned to normal, and I attributed that to copper "grouting" up the rough spots. Something I like that is perhaps more controversial is JB Bore Paste. I've used it quite a bit. I also like my Outers Foul Out electronic bore cleaner. It's especially good on lead fouling. I always seem to out of the solvent for it, though. I wonder what it really is, so I can buy a big jug of both kinds. One of these days I'll buy an ultrasonic cleaner for general cleaning. I came close in a Harbor Freight store last winter. I'd have to think a 50-60 dollar ultrasonic tub filled with a couple dollars worth of Simple Green would clean a frame and slide a lot faster than me with an old toothbrush and solvent or Ed's Red.

I'm not a Mauser collector but I don't hear or read many good things about Mitchell's Mausers when I'm browsing around that area of firearms. I think the general feeling is he is packaging fairly common guns and selling them for about double the going rate. But as I say, that isn't something I paid that much attention to. If I were you, I'd look at places like www.milsurps.com forum and search Mitchell's Mausers. To briefly answer some of your questions... Military Mausers have been made in dozens of calibers but the Germans used 7.9x57mm, which is usually called 8x57mm or 8mm Mauser here. Ammo is available from the major makers, plus a little surplus has been showing up from places like Turkey. Quality of surplus varies widely. Original scopes can be had but can be very expensive. They never were that common, then got separated from the rifles when "liberated". The most used one was probably the zf41 (about 1.5x). A search on one of the online gun auction sites showed one zf41selling recently... For $3500.

If I wanted something in the Python size, I would get a S&W 586 or 686 and send it off to a really good revolver tuner like Grant Cunningham for their best action job. I honestly think you would have a gun that might not be quite as well finished but at least as good a shooter. And spend less. When I was a kid, I didn't want to grow up to be a fireman; I wanted to grow up so I could buy a Python. I drooled over them in the Colt catalog. When my eighth grade art teacher said we could sketch whatever we wanted as long as it had lots of fine detail, I drew a Python with extra detail on the checkering. When I was going to buy my first handgun, I found a used 6" nickel Python for $350 and had to have it or a new Gov't Model for the same price. I went back and both were gone, so I bought a used S&W 19. My next few revolvers were S&Ws, so that is what I got used to. When I did buy a Python, I was kind of underwhelmed. It was a beautiful gun but the DA

Yes, the Oz-made Winchester Power Point was sought after here for a while. It was very accurate in many guns, plus the bullet was supposedly more effective than it had a right to be. I had some Winchester Silhouette that shot well in a couple of guns. It was only sold for a brief time. Between the quality and short time on the market, I suspected it came from the same place. I still have a small supply of each and will look when I can, just to satisfy my curiosity. I've never used Paco Kelly's tool, but have heard of it. If I were to get back into rimfire silhouette again, I'd at least want one.

The cost is relative. What does Federal Gold Medal Match .308 cost? I don't think the quality is as good and consistent as Eley. In .22 LR ammo, RWS R50, Lapua Midas and X-Act, and other true Match grade ammo (not "target ammo") is right in line with Eley's better grades. When I moved back to IN from IL, I had to stop shooting Highpower competition for a while. As a substitute, I started shooting .22 handgun silhouette. I went around buying as many different types of .22 LR ammo I could, in order to test in my .22 Contender. There was a supplier in Maryland who only carried Eley ammunition. Unlike most suppliers, he actually stocked every variety Eley made, which was something like 12+ levels at the time, not including hollow point and/or High Velocity. They have trimmed the line quite a bit after falling on hard times a few years ago. I ordered two boxes of every variety they made then, to test them out. I was amused by how low the cost was. You see, I had been handloading my ammunition for Highpower, and always used Sierra bullets. The projectiles alone cost more than the loaded Eley ammunition. And I was buying my Sierras from the cheapest place in the country for Sierra MatchKings (by far). Yes, I'm comparing .22LR to .308, but I'm I'm also comparing component bullets that still need to be loaded against the finest loaded ammunition in the world that is capable of winning any Olympics held thus far. I always keep plenty of Eley around just for testing if nothing else. I've noticed that the vaunted Tenex does not always test out to be the most accurate, but if it isn't first, it's second. As much as .22s can be picky about ammo, that's always been pretty interesting to me that one type will always be first or second. FWIW, I found Eley Practice 100 to be the give about the most accuracy for it's place in the lineup. I don't think they make it anymore, but it was in the lower third of the lineup. It cost about twice what the Winchester T22 and Remington "Target" cost, but was a lot less than anyone's Match level ammo. It might have ran $3.50/50rds when T22 was $1.50, and worth it. On a side note... Although not a win at all costs guy, it was always curious to me how people wouldn't even notice the match fees being $10 at one club and $20 at another (for the exact same type of match), but would never pay an extra two bucks for ammo that would have made a difference. I guess it cut into the $100 or more they put into gun mods every month. One neat thing about Eley was that no matter which line I used, the velocity and point of impact was the same. I could chrono all of it and expect 1085 fps. This way, a match shooter can practice with their cheapest level and switch to the good stuff for a match, and if they had to make a sight correction it wasn't due to the ammo change. I don't know how true this is, but an ancient man who was always at a gun club I used to belong to was an old Smallbore shooter, and he explained the way Eley graded the various ammo in their lineup. He said that when they make new case forming dies, bullet swaging dies, and other tooling, they make it as well as they can then use it to make Tenex...but only for a certain number of rounds. Let's say 10,000 rounds, although I just picked that number out of the air. After that, the ammo made on that tooling was graded as Eley Club for maybe 50,000 rounds. Then the next ammo it produced would be sold as Eley Match Extra for 200,000 rounds. And so on and so on. I don't know if knew what he was talking about or not, but it makes some sense, I guess. I can see that it might be a better system than making it all at once then gauging it all in various ways to grade it and sort it. I seriously doubt they have a top notch production line, a slightly sloppier line, an even more sloppier line, etc. Anyway, if that's the case, it would explain why it's all good stuff but some is a little better than others.

With me, that decision comes down to what I'm buying it for. If I want one to practice with a defensive gun using ammo I can shoot cheaper without reloading, I want it to be as close to identical to the original as possible. That is usually best done with a conversion unit. Some are neat in their own right, and then a complete gun is better. Example of the first would be the .22 AR-15s. I wanted one to use as a trainer/practice piece for my home defense AR. I can shoot a .22 AR in the woods behind the house for quick, close range practice without causing every dog in three miles to bark for hours, or spend every spare moment reloading for the high volume of ammo required in close, fast drills. I was going to get a Colt or S&W .22 AR, but they had little details about them that varied from the 5.56 guns. I saw little point to getting a training rifle that felt or operated differently. I went in to buy one, looked at both, and bought a .22 conversion unit. It isn't 100% true to original in that it doesn't engage the bolt hold-open, but is closer than the complete rifles. For the second example, are the .22 pistols that are scaled down versions of the originals. They are so different in size that cross-training value might be questionable. Some don't even use the same type of action. But I would like one anyway, not as a trainer but as a handy sized .22 pistol. I always wanted a .22 pistol in what I thought was the appropriate size. Target .22s are too big to be very handy. Pocket guns go too far the other way. I like the Beretta 87 Cheetah because it fell in the middle, and now some others have been showing up since the Walther P22. I briefly owned a P22, but traded it off. When I thought about replacing it, I'd hear of another new model coming out (like the Sig Mosquito) and held off. Now I want to see one of the 85% size Browning .22 1911s. So I can see some of both ways- complete gun or conversion unit.

I was mostly thinking of rifles, but thinking back, the handgun shooters can't resist the bench either. It's not as bad as with rifles, but it's pretty bad. I would guess I've only seen one out of 20 pistol shooters shoot from any position besides the bench, and I'm probably being generous there. Most shoot handguns by laying all over sandbags arranged in a pile on the bench, but some will do it half way by still sitting at the bench but sit upright without supporting their upper body. Again, I see the purpose of the bench and will shoot from a rest or somewhat supported position if testing various handloads, which I do often. But once I've settled on a load or loads for a given gun, I'm done with doing that. I'd like to swipe or hide all the sandbags or bench stools sometime. I bet the screams would be heard for miles.

The only thing I've had in that ballpark was a Kimber .22. I had thought about getting one of their conversion units, but came across a complete pistol used for not much more than a new conversion and got it. It was OK. It worked fine (which is unusual if you listen to others), and was accurate. I honestly didn't use it as much as I expected. I'm not sure why. I know I kept wishing I had more magazines to get more mag changing practice, but every time I thought about getting more, I thought about what I could get instead. For the cost of a magazine, I could get a pound of powder, or a couple thousand primers, or enough lead to cast a bunch of bullets. Three or four mags equalled a lot of reloading components that I could quickly turn into ammo that gave me full benefit. I traded it off, but do sometimes wish I still had it. I did like the idea of having a complete gun instead of a conversion unit. If shooting the .45 and I detected a shooting error creeping in, I'd just stow the .45, pick up the .22, shoot a couple of magazines until it was gone, then switch back. Pretty simple and quick. If I would have needed to stop, sit in the dirt, and swap slide assemblies, I doubt I would have swapped off as much. And, I always knew where the gun was, but a conversion unit is the type of thing I would store in a different place every time and never recall where. I do use a .22 conversion unit with an AR, and I like that better than the dedicated .22 ARs I looked at because they each had some function that differed from the real thing. Even a little change or two can spoil the whole idea. I don't know how close or far the .22 copy of the Glocks are (ISSI or something like that?) but if they differ much, I'd get a conversion.

I thought I replied to this a while back, but I guess not. Maybe I forgot to enter it. Anyway... Anything you named should work fine; it's just a matter of fast you want them to go. And it doesn't sound like you need or want them to go very fast. H110 and 2400 will give the highest velocities, and use the most powder in the process- neither of which I'd think you were after with plinking loads. I've never used Green Dot in the .357, and it's been a while since I loaded any 231 in it either. I did just shoot some 231 loads up in a .357 rifle that I had loaded at least a couple of years ago. They did pretty well, and would be OK for general playing around. My guess is you will end up using Unique. It seems to do just about everything well except super high speed loadings. Just a word of warning about 2400. I know you aren't looking for full throttle loads, but I'm going to throw this out as a general comment for everyone. Printed "long time standard" loads using 2400 sometimes worry me, because the 2400 we have today is not the same as the 2400 Elmer Keith had. It is a faster burning powder now, which means the loads that were listed in books and magazines for 50 years may be little bombs with today's 2400. These loads have gone down in gun history as gospel, but might not be a good idea with current production 2400. I despise warning labels all over every product we buy, but this is one case where I wish Alliant would have put a note of some kind on 2400 containers a while ago. If a guy used X grains of 2400 for a long time that was perfectly safe, then finally ran out of it and bought a new can of it last week, he might run into trouble. I know of no blowups from this, but haven't gone looking either. I discovered this change in 2400 several years ago by doing about that same thing. I loaded up some .357 Magnums using the load Skeeter Skelton loved and named in his articles countless times. I had used it when I started reloading around 1981 and it was stout, but OK. I didn't blow anything up, but the first six rounds fired were tough to eject and gave flattened primers. Pretty interesting, especially since Skeeter Skelton was not known for loading things right at the firewall. Pulling the rest of the ammo down and re-checking charges showed it was right on the dot on weight. This was when I started poking around and found 2400 was a little faster burning now that it had been over most of it's existence. Current manuals should be OK. It's the old "standard favorite loads" we need to double check.

I've been a member of my current gun club for three years now. It's the closest club and range to me, but it was closed to new membership until 2008. When they opened it up, I was one of the first few new members in years. During the school year, I drop the kids off at school, head to the range where i spend the day shooting until going back to pick them up in the afternoon. I do this at least three times a week in decent weather seasons, and usually at least once a week no matter the time year. At first, I had the place to myself at least half the time, but membership has grown to where it is busier now and it's common to see at least one other shooter if not two or more besides myself. Point being, over the last three years, I have seen a lot of people using the range. I see how they use it. One thing stands out. People are glued to the bench. I knew one of the members before I joined from when I shot Highpower, and I've seen him shoot offhand at the club range a few times. The club holds .22 rifle silhouette matches once a month, which are shot from standing, and I have seen one man practicing for those a couple of times. I shoot at least a little bit from prone every trip, and usually throw in some offhand or some field position also. Other than that, I have never seen anyone else shoot from any position other than sitting at the bench. Three out of at least a hundred. The rest all shot their rifles and handguns from the bench. Every single one of them. Every single round. When they see me unrolling a shooting mat or carpet and getting down on the ground, it brings stares. They don't know what to make of it. I guess I can understand that, since they aren't used to seeing it. Some are almost fascinated. I spend my share of time doing bench work testing handloads, and I think that is how it should be done. There is a time and place for it. Even if I have a lot of loads to test from the bench, I get some prone shooting in at least, even it's it's only five rounds just to have done it. It's their business, but I don't know if they realize what they are missing. Right before deer season, I see them out there firing a couple of rounds from the bench and calling it good. Maybe it's not good. The obvious reason to shoot away from the bench is because of point of impact changes. A rifle zeroed from the bench may not be zeroed from sitting or offhand. I rarely find my bench zero to match my actual field position zero, but it does happen. Some rifles are more forgiving of this than others, so some of these guys might get away with it. And sometimes they are setting themselves up for frustration when they repeatedly miss in the field in spite of doing everything right. Usually, my sitting zero will be different from my prone and offhand zeroes. And not just by a little; sometimes by enough to really matter. Do these guys know this about their rifles? I don't see how they could. Besides the point of impact reason to shoot them for real, some rifles can be different animals when shot from your own two hands. I've had rifles that shot great from the bench but fit me so poorly I never could shoot them well in the field. It was disappointing because I couldn't come close to getting the potential out of them. I knew it was there, but couldn't use it. Conversely, some rifles that were mediocre from the bench have been like sure things when in real-deal use. A typical issue-grade Garand with the original barrel is lucky to make 3 MOA, but will "hang" so nicely in offhand for most people that they can get most of that 3 MOA out of it. Then I've had bolt action varmint rifles that were so poorly stocked I never could a good position with them, even in prone, and it felt like the accuracy was wasted. I'd be struggling so hard getting the rifle into position that I couldn't concentrate on the basics of shooting the thing. And from looking at them, I would bet at least half of the scopes out there are mounted so they won't work from sitting or prone. They might be fine at the bench, but the fore and aft placement in the rings will have the eye relief so close that the shooter might bump their brow on the scope just getting into position, let alone what would happen if they actually fired a shot. We have to get away from the bench to find these things out. Of course, most of us don't do as well away from the bench, and human nature is to avoid things we don't like or feel we aren't good at. We don't get as much satisfaction from it. These guys need to forget about doing it for the satisfaction and do it for what they might find out. I've watched guys shoot the same exact ammunition into group after group from the bench. How much can they learn from that? Dropping onto their belly and firing five rounds, or even three, into a shadowed spot on the berm would tell them a lot more. One day last year as deer season approached, people were waiting for a bench (we only have four). Yet the open space by the benches was wide open, freshly mowed, and dry. You could walk right up, throw your gear down, and start shooting from the position of your choice. No. Not these guys. Maybe I should tie some strings to each bench and tag them "shooter's umbilical cord". So... You guys who belong to clubs or go to public ranges: Do you see this there too? How often do you see people shooting from any position but the bench? Looking back over the years, it's been about the same everywhere I've been, although this club might be worse than average. Has the "nation of riflemen" become a nation of people tied to the bench?

My WASR was $340 but that was three to four years ago. I have not paid any attention to their prices since, but I have doubts they have come down even during that period of grand economic growth. The first two I had were $219 each, so yes, it was hard enough for me to grasp the $340 of the last one, let alone the figures that are apparently out there according to that Gunbroker link. By the way, I just happened to be trying cast bullet loads in mine this week. I can make it run just fine with a 160 grain bullet at velocities at least as low as 1354 fps. Even with that being a heavier than standard bullet, it operating at nearly 1,000 fps below normal (almost exactly 60% speed) still impressed me some. I have now got it working with a range of 85 grain bullets (32 revolver) at nearly 3,000 to bullets weighing nearly double traveling half as fast. Not bad for a rifle designed around one bullet. A year or so ago, I briefly experimented with some 210 grain bullets (for the .303) trying to get it to function at subsonic speeds. It was unsuccessful but close enough for a first attempt that I think it can be done. If so, that would be a really broad range.

I had to do a search to see what a Draco was. Now I see; an AK pistol. Romanian-made, right? Just an FYI type of thing; Some people think the Romanian AKs are extra rough around the edges. I have a Romanian-made WASR, and while it was literally rough around some edges, a few minutes with a stone made it easier to work with. There are also complaints about canted from sights, but a good eyeballing should spot examples that are bad enough to really matter. All in all, the Romanian I bought was worth the need to spend a few minutes work on in order to save a hundred dollars or more compared to buying a "better" one. In my opinion, there is a point of no return on making AKs "better". How nicely finished do they need to be? Drifting a little, do you have an AK now? I think everyone with an interest in guns should have an AK. Not because I like them particularly better than anything else, but because I think it's a good idea to have some familiarity with a potential adversary's weapon. You might have need of that knowledge someday. Looking back over my lifetime, almost everyone who wanted to kill us was armed with AKs, from the Soviets to the Jihadists. As a matter of fact, the Romanian WASR, being a bit rougher, was a plus to me because that probably makes it more representative of the typical terrorist-quality AK. So the Draco might be good to get for a couple of reasons. It would be a fun toy you will use and shoot. And by extension, if you should (heaven forbid) happen to be in a shopping mall someday when something bad happens and you find yourself in possession of an AK a terrorist doesn't need anymore, but his buddies are still active, you won't have to stand there learning how to operate one efficiently and effectively. If the Draco is the AK you would be most likely to shoot and get comfortable with, then that's the one to get. BTW, while they may be a bit rough, I think they shoot better than most people give them credit for. A lot of people simply don't bother trying to see how well they will do because they "know" they don't shoot well. They might be surprised.

Are you going to have to wear tweeds and consider any shotgun grotesque that isn't a side-by-side?

Sounds like a good price to me. I'd probably get it and I don't like them much.

Oh yeah, he used to do each run with a choice of either .357 or .359 diameter. The intent, I assume, was to offer a diameter for 9mm use and another for 38/357 use. The last two runs I am aware of were made in .359 only, even though it was pushed as both a 9/38 bullet. I would guess the .359 outsold .357 by a fair margin, which might tell me that others find the fatter bullets more useful.

That depends on the lube-sizer. I have three lube-sizers because I tried to go cheap at first, then when I upgraded I could have gone two directions: get a better one that will do everything, or get a better one that was also faster but perhaps a little more limited in what it could do. I went for versatility, then found a deal on the fast one and got it. That made three. The most common ones, like the Lyman, RCBS, and Saeco are incredibly slow. When I started casting, I was prepared for the actual casting to take time but was surprised at how slow going the lube and sizing process was. It really sucked up the time. Until I got the Star sizer, that is. With the conventional types, the bullet has to be placed with some care, then you work the handle to force it down into the die, then you bring the handle back up to push the bullet back out the top of the die. There is lube in a reservoir that is pressurized by screwing a spring-loaded piston down against the lube. An opening into the die holding area let's the lube to the die, which has a series of holes around it's body. As the bullet passes through the die and it's lube grooves pass over these holes, lube is injected into to groove. The process is slowed because of the need to start the bullet square and having to run it down into the die and back up and out again. Then I got the used Star lube-sizer (now made by Magma). It is like the Dillon of lube-sizers. With it, you drop the bullet in the die nose-down and it aligns itself in the gently tapered die. Then you swing the handle, and it pushes it through the die, lubing it at the bottom of the stroke, and pushing the previous bullet out the bottom. There is no in and out stuff; the bullets go through one after the other. As fast as you can drop bullets in and swing the handle, you lube and size bullets. I can do 100 in maybe five minutes. That is ten to twenty times faster than the other type. And you can get bullet feeding tubes and air pressurized lube reservoirs to go faster yet. The Star's drawbacks (that I see) are that dies cost more and its harder to seat gas checks only (without lubing). It is probably uncommon to seat checks without lubing, but I use one bullet a lot that I do that with. Dies cost nearly double to buy new than Lyman/RCBS/Saeco types, and used ones for those are plentiful for a lot less than that. But I have dies for the sizes I use in .44, .45, and the 9mm/.38s, and that covers all of my handgun bullets and the majority of my casting.

Including shipping from Slovenia, where the maker has machine shop, it was $108. Considering where Lyman, RCBS, and Saeco prices have gotten in the past two years, it isn't bad. I usually size 9mm bullets to .358 anyway. Most 9mm pistol bores run larger than the supposed .355 we have always been told. When I slugged the bores of my 9mm pistols, I found one at .356 (Sig P210) and the rest were at or around .357-.358. From what I've gathered from others since then who have slugged the bores of 9mms, that is typical. The 9mm had or still has a reputation for poor accuracy with cast bullets. I have a theory that is why. I'm guessing most run bigger than the .355 bullets that get tried in them.

That's another thing I've wondered about. I wonder if they have a slight taper to them? Reb?

This arrived the other day. I've wanted one for a while. They aren't cheap, and are only made in small runs several months apart that sell out quickly, so it took a while before I caught one. It's a pretty thing, but it's pretty versatile too. It makes all of these bullets by swapping the HP pins around, or in the case of the Flat Point, by turning them over: They are in .359" diameter, so I can make them work in several calibers I have from .38 S&W through 9mm and 38 Super to .38 and .357 mag. The HPs are 125 grains and the FP is 130 grains (approx- depending on the alloy used). The shape matches the bullet in my 9mm carry load almost exactly. Casting HPs can be a pain. Messing around with a single cavity mould that needs the HP pin put in and taken out for each cast (while wearing gloves) is clumsy and slow. This mould is different, and uses captive pins that slide out when the mould is opened, and they slide back into place when it is closed. Bullets almost always dropped free when the pins started to move. It is about as fast as using a regular two-cavity mould. Actually the brass construction might make it as fast or even faster in the long run, because I didn't have to stop and let it cool very often. I usually get about 20 casts when I start using a mould, then around 10-12 thereafter, before I have to put it aside to cool. I was getting twenty casts easy with this one. This was not a cheap mould, but it was so easy to use and I can use it's bullets for so many things that it should be well worth it. The only way I could feel otherwise would be if it's bullets won't hit the broad side of a barn in any gun, but it should succeed in something. I guess when I think about it, it wasn't much more than a regular production Saeco mould, which wouldn't be a HP or brass. I cast up some from four different alloys, and will make some from about that many more. I'll then shoot them into the Fackler Box (fixture that holds water filled ziploc bags) for some testing. I know water isn't the best test medium, but nothing else is perfect either and water is free. I'll work with 9mm first, but since it's bullets can be used in guns/calibers that will shoot them from around 800 fps to 1,900-2,000 fps, I expect there will be a lot of testing in order to find what works best in which gun/caliber.

Nice! At first look, all I thought of was the 1975 Colt Catalog that I got when I was a kid and studied until it fell apart. There must have been a nickel DS in there. I like the Colt D-frames and still kick myself for trading off the .38 Cobra I had. It was no easier to carry than a K-frame S&W, so I let it go, but it was a stupid accurate snubby with a nice trigger. I have been wanting a Detective Special for a while now. I'd want blued because I can see the sights better, but if I ran across a nice nickel one like that one, I know I'd grab it.