Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:48 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 New revolver 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:50 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am
Posts: 3752
Location: East Suburbs
I think we need some before and after shots of your hand to see the damage. Also action shots showing the recoil would be good. I looked at one of those at the State Fair Gun Show and thought who in their right mind would buy one of those! Now I know! :wink:

I see lots of 38s in your future. :shock:

_________________
Srigs

Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:22 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Rosemount
The visit to the range went about as expected.
Started with 50 .38's which went well.
Then got into the .357 mag.
Holy Moley.
It's like setting of cherrie bombs off in your hand.
Well maybe not that bad.
Got thru 10 rounds and quit. I'm going to try and increase the numbers of .357 each time out.
I have no noticable pain in the hand today.
I like the revolver a lot. It has no noticable weight so it's carryability it great.
Oscar


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:40 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:00 pm
Posts: 1013
Location: North Suburbs
The first time I fired a .357 magnum, I was lucky enough to have two separate guns for direct comparison.

The first was the one I currently have, a Colt King Cobra with a 4" barrel and about two pound of bulk. The bang/recoil is still significant, but nothing compared to the next one I fired...

Which was a Ruger SP101. Not a snub-nose, but significantly smaller than the Colt. The difference in recoil was substantial. My dad fired it after me and even with a two-handed grip the gun came back and just about smacked him in the forehead.

Lessons learned:

1. Barrel length and probably more importantly, weight, make a big difference in how a piece feels in your hands (or forehead).

2. .357 mag is a mean mofo and I sure wouldn't want to have one slice through me!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:25 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:53 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: South Minneapolis (East of Lake Nokomis)
Yeah, macphisto, The SP101 is a bit over half of the weight of the King Cobra, and just about twice the weight of Oscar's new alloy snubby. I like my Ruger, it's about the smallest gun you can shoot .357 with in reasonable comfort.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:49 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:00 pm
Posts: 1013
Location: North Suburbs
Thank God for .38 Special!

(not the band. I feel stupid everytime I ask for .38 Special at the Wal-Mart gun counter.)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:03 am 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
Nothing wrong with the band... :wink:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:05 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Rosemount
True. The recoil is outragous in .357 but does no physical damage.
Probably going to be though to get back on target quickly.
Practice, Practice, and more Practice.

On another note:
I went to buy a glock 27 magazine last night and saw two different packaging offerings.
One was the old standard plastic bag that had the 9 round magazine.
The other was a hard plastic front with a nice cardboard backer.
The later said it was and 11 round magazine but was the same size as the 9 round.
The guy at the store didn't seem to know what it was but the back of the magazine only went to 9 rounds on both.
Anyone know about these?
Oscar.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:42 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:37 am
Posts: 606
oscarswanson wrote:
On another note:
I went to buy a glock 27 magazine last night and saw two different packaging offerings.
One was the old standard plastic bag that had the 9 round magazine.
The other was a hard plastic front with a nice cardboard backer.
The later said it was and 11 round magazine but was the same size as the 9 round.
The guy at the store didn't seem to know what it was but the back of the magazine only went to 9 rounds on both.
Anyone know about these?
Oscar.


Unless the magazine says "Glock" on it, I wouldn't touch it


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:46 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Rosemount
These were both Glock brand magazines in two different packages. Both showing 9 holes in the back. One said it had a 9 round capacity while the other stated 11 rounds.
Just wondering what gives???
If it indeed one holds 11 rounds you would think it would be longer and have 11 holes in the back as these are double stacks. Maybe they came out with a way to do it. I don't know how.
Oscar


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:05 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:11 am
Posts: 572
Location: West of Hope, MN (S. Central MN)
One of the mags is a pre- or post- ban (11 round) the other is a "ban" mag. I had a Golck 27 at one time, pre-ban. I couldn't load the 11 th. round in the mag and one in the chamber without an occasional malfunction with the first round. There is a stop in the mag base I shortened a bit and it helped. I sold the Glock. (Glocks just don't feel right in my hand. Other than a 36.) I'm a 1911 guy.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:19 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Rosemount
I have never shot a 1911. Are they more difficult to strip down for cleaning?
They sure look good but seem to be kind of heavy for carry.
I have been thinking about getting one full size to shoot at the range but don't know anything about them yet.

I like to stay 20 ozs. or less.
Glock 26, 27, 33, are about my Max. weight. Nice thing about them is 9 rds. per mag. and carry a double round mag carrier on the other hip and your loaded up pretty darn good.
Oscar


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:00 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Rosemount
I'm bringing this back because I have shot it some more. Have not traded it in yet.
Got some 125 grain Remington to try as someone mentioned that the lighter bullets help reduce recoil.
NOT!!!
At least for these remington's.
I wished I had a camera with me. I only shot ten and had skin hanging off my thumb.
A guy came over to ask what it was I shooting because a women a few lanes down jumped about 3 feet into the air when it went off.
Everyone else seemed to be shooting .22's so the difference in sound level was quit the change.
Oscar, Who just scored a Glock 36 a couple days ago.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:57 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:53 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: South Minneapolis (East of Lake Nokomis)
oscarswanson wrote:
I'm bringing this back because I have shot it some more. Have not traded it in yet.
Got some 125 grain Remington to try as someone mentioned that the lighter bullets help reduce recoil.
NOT!!!
At least for these remington's.
I wished I had a camera with me. I only shot ten and had skin hanging off my thumb.
A guy came over to ask what it was I shooting because a women a few lanes down jumped about 3 feet into the air when it went off.
Everyone else seemed to be shooting .22's so the difference in sound level was quit the change.
Oscar, Who just scored a Glock 36 a couple days ago.
I know those 125 grain Remingtons; they're what I carry in my nice heavy Ruger snubby. They'll make you the center of attention, all right. If you want, I'll buy the rest of the box from you.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:23 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Rosemount
No thanks. No need to sell them off. I have a K frame that will handle them just fine.
I did however find a .357 that does shoot much better in the 360. it's Remington Golden saber in 125 grain. They are suppose to be there self defence load but they sure are a lot more mild than anything else I've tried.
More than 38's but not the knuckle rippers like the other Remingtons.
Why is it that they say the .357 Sig and Magnum's are similar in power in the lighter bullets when the Magnum recoil seems to be about double?
What did I misunderstand?
Oscar.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:31 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:53 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: South Minneapolis (East of Lake Nokomis)
oscarswanson wrote:
No thanks. No need to sell them off. I have a K frame that will handle them just fine.
I did however find a .357 that does shoot much better in the 360. it's Remington Golden saber in 125 grain. They are suppose to be there self defence load but they sure are a lot more mild than anything else I've tried.
More than 38's but not the knuckle rippers like the other Remingtons.
Why is it that they say the .357 Sig and Magnum's are similar in power in the lighter bullets when the Magnum recoil seems to be about double?
What did I misunderstand?
Oscar.

Haven't tried the Golden Sabers -- good to know, thanks!

As far as the recoil of the .357 SIG, yeah, I thought the whole idea was to match the .357 Magnum ballistics. Apparently from what I read, though, it really doesn't quite. Also, is there any .357 SIG pistol that's as light as your snubby? The Glock 33 must be one of the smallest, and it's 20 oz., only 5 oz. less than my 'heavy' Ruger SP101. Plus, the slide of an auto soaks up some of the recoil. If there was such a thing as a 12-oz. scandium-alloy revolver in .357 SIG, it'd probably be a knuckle ripper too.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group