Over the years, a number of 4x4 vehicles have come under fire for being "prone" to rollover accidents: the Suzuki Samurai. The Jeep CJ. The Ford Explorer. The Isuzu Trooper. While the government probes their safety and juries award inflated damages, one pertinent fact is conveniently ignored: a four-wheel-drive isn't a family sedan, and can't be driven like one. The results are predictable.

Guess what? The same relationship exists between the autoloader and the revolver.

In the last couple of decades, the revolver has become the red-headed stepchild of the shooting world. Since autoloaders became the dominant handgun platform, the necessary skills to efficiently run a revolver have fallen by the wayside. Many instructors, particularly in police service, have little to no experience with the wheelgun. This lack of familiarity has led to the wholesale adoption of handling and shooting techniques that work fine with autos, but don't work so well with revolvers.

Last week I linked to a little problem that Robb Allen experienced, and used the phrase which serves as today's title. The thumbs-forward grip that works very well on the autopistol is simply out of place on a revolver, as Robb painfully discovered. Robb's singed thumb is the perfect illustration of my contention: the auto and the revolver are different tools, and need to be handled differently.

Autoloader techniques imposed on the wheelgun lead to reduced efficiency, and sometimes more. For instance, trying to emulate the reloading techniques of the autoloader - shooting hand staying gripped on the gun while the support hand does the reloading - forces the revolver shooter to perform a complex, fine motor skill with the hand least suited to do so.

That's not all, though; leaving the cylinder unsupported can result in crane damage during the reload cycle, particularly on the newer light alloy guns. It's much better instead to use a reloading method that is designed from the ground up to work around both the shooter's and the revolver's weaknesses. (One such method, and the one I espouse because it has the fewest operational weaknesses, is the Universal Revolver Reload.)

It's time that firearms training reflected the strengths and weaknesses of the revolver, instead of assuming it's just like an autoloader "except for that round part." I'll have more to say on this in the coming months.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Having trouble coming up with anything to say today - a consequence of working too hard combined with some sort of illness (nothing serious, just annoying.)

I'll simply suggest that you first read this little tale from Robb Allen over at Sharp As A Marble, then repeat the following until you attain enlightenment: "the revolver is not a low-capacity autoloader...the revolver is not a low-capacity autoloader...the revolver is not a low-capacity autoloader..."

-=[ Grant ]=-

MY WEEKEND: It's not often I get to be a student these days, but it's important for any instructor to do so now and again. Last week I got an invitation from Jeff Varner, one of ICE Training's certified Combat Focus instructors, to sit in on his class in Vancouver. Unfortunately I had to cut out a bit early due to a prior commitment, but I enjoyed the class nonetheless. Thanks, Jeff, for the invite!

DRAW FAST, HOLSTER SLOW: Tam alerts us to a ND that happened at a Todd Green class. In his commendable reporting of the incident, Todd says "Never be in a rush to holster your pistol. We all know it, we say it, we teach it. Not all of us do it." So true.

As instructors it's easy for us to forget that reinforcement, and sometimes enforcement, are necessary parts of our job. Especially when we're dealing with "advanced" students, we tend to go easy on the reinforcement of fundamentals for fear that we'll be resented for belittling their ability or experience. We have to resist that tendency, and we need to do so consistently. When warranted, enforcement (up to and including ejection from class) has to happen.

The only instructor I've ever seen who is absolutely consistent in this regard is Georges Rahbani (TBRIYNHO.) Even in his advanced rifle classes, which are invitation only and have stringent prerequisites, you will hear "safety on" and "finger in register" (index, if you prefer) commands at the end of a string of fire. He never wastes an opportunity for reinforcement at any level of training or ability.

When Georges encounters failures to heed commands or instruction, he has a way of bringing the point home to the student: he/she has to publicly deposit a dollar bill into a pot. (The students have a friendly shoot-off at the end of class to win the pot.) This has a non-confrontational, yet still very chastening, effect on both the offending person and the rest of the students; I've seen it work on countless occasions. I don't know where the idea comes from, but I'm giving Georges the credit.

THE PROBLEM WITH ELECTRONIC SCALES: I recently sat down to work up a new .308 load. I turned on my RCBS electronic scale, waited a couple of minutes, and starting weighing charges. Much to my surprise, the weight of the charges thrown by my powder measure increased each time! I'd forgotten that electronic scales need protracted warmup periods before accuracy and repeatability can be expected. After a half-hour of warmup, it settled down and gave correct readings. Word to the wise: keep your mechanical scales around to double check the electronic ones, or buy a set of check weights.

HERE COMES DA JUDGE: From The Unforgiving Minute comes this gem:

"The inexplicable success of the Taurus Judge still depresses the hell out of me. Taurus keeps cranking out new versions, each more grotesque, hideous and nonsensical than the last, and people KEEP BUYING THE GODDAMN THINGS. Just another sign that our culture is doomed, I suppose."

(The opinions of the contributor do not necessarily reflect the views of the Management of this blog. Then again, they just might.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: combat.focus, gun.skool, safety, bloggers, georges.rahbani

A LITTLE BIRDIE TOLD ME - Frankly, I've never found much of a use for Twitter - until last week, when I started following tweets related to the SHOT Show. It was one of those 140-character messages that lead me to these:



They're from a company in Turkey called, appropriately enough, handmadegrips.com. The grips are of ebony, while the designs are inlaid metal and mother-of-pearl. While they may not be something you'd want to carry on a daily basis, you have to admire the superb craftsmanship. They'd be great for a presentation piece, or perhaps to commemorate an important milestone. Prices are incredibly reasonable, bordering on a steal.

MORE ABOUT THE CHIAPPA RHINO REVOLVER - First is this take from "Richard" at Guns, Holsters, and Gear. Then there's this counterpoint from Massad Ayoob. Since I haven't handled one I'll sit on the sidelines, but the stark difference in opinion is intriguing.

HUH?? - I'm not quite sure what to make of these. (Now it could be that I've been married too long, but if my memory is correct and my supposition of the target market is accurate, they should have a fur lining...)

NOW THIS I CAN GET BEHIND - I don't own any Magpul products, but their new iPhone case may be my first. Unfortunately it only fits the 3g/3GS, not my Original iPhone, but I've been meaning to upgrade anyhow. As Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media says, "now that there’s an iPhone case that makes hippies cry, I’m all in."

LAUNCH PARTY - The Personal Defense Network held an official launch party at SHOT, and from what I'm hearing the industry response was terrific. If you haven't seen it yet, head on over and check it out. (Hey, join in the new forums while you're there!)

SOMETHING YOU WON'T SEE ANYWHERE ELSE - I conned Gila Hayes into visiting the Chiappa booth, and she managed to get this great shot of the Rhino's open cylinder:



This gives a much better perspective on the cylinder's shape. Note the crane lock sticking down from the topstrap, where the barrel would be on a normal revolver. Also note the unusual design of the ratchet.

(The Chiappa folks wouldn't let Gila dry fire or even handle the gun; the female person holding it is a Chiappa employee. One is left to wonder why an anonymous blogger got to play with it, while a well-known trainer and author - a person who's held highly visible positions in the industry for years - got the cold shoulder?)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: shot.show, grips, rhino.revolver, pdn

The 2010 SHOT Show is just getting started. I've compiled some of the more interesting (to me) tidbits about Day One from around the 'net:

S&W GOES TO THE DARK SIDE: I'm surprised that there's not more noise about the new Bodyguard .38. It's a real departure for S&W, having a cylinder that rotates clockwise like a Colt, an integral laser sight, and an ambidextrous cylinder release. There's a good picture of it at Massad Ayoob's blog.

THE RHINO GOES PUBLIC: Chiappa is showing the Rhino revolver in short and long barrels. Here's a pic from Jeff Quinn at Gunblast - those wood grips look great!

A DARN SIGHT BETTER: S&W has introduced a version of the 640, one of my favorite guns, with very prominent tritium sights. While I'm relatively agnostic with regards to glow-in-the-dark feature, the large front and deep rear blades sights should erase one of the Centennial's few criticisms. Again, a good pic from Gunblast. (Are my eyes deceiving me, or is there no internal lock??!)

FLYWEIGHT SHOTGUN: Mossberg has introduced the Model 510, which is a very scaled-down pump shotgun chambered in .410 and 20 gauge. According to Mas Ayoob, it "weighs only five pounds, if that." As you may recall I'm a big fan of the 20 gauge, and I'll be interested in taking a look at this. (Mas' picture makes it look tiny, but the guy holding it isn't exactly a lightweight...)

UH-OH: It wasn't all milk and honey for S&W. The FBI arrested 21 people at SHOT, including a S&W sales exec, for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The indictments were handed down on December 11, but only unsealed yesterday. (Interesting choice of timing and venue, don't you think?) Note the second line of the Reuters story: "21 arrested at Las Vegas gun show" Naaah, no message being sent to the masses there...

COLT OPENS THE DOOR??: Check out this little tidbit, courtesy of Massad Ayoob:

"A Colt exec told me that rumors of a new double action revolver from this fabled old company are false…for now. He indicated, however, that both plans and equipment are in place for this to happen, somewhere down the road."

This doesn't sound like the Python is coming back, but it's intriguing nonetheless.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: shot.show, s&w, rhino.revolver, sights, colt

THEY'RE BA-AACK!: The ProArms Podcast gang has returned from a forced hiatus. The servers at Podbean, which had been handling their podcast feed, went south in December leaving ProArms high and dry. It took them some time to get back, but they have a new site (www.proarmspodcast.com) and they're also available on iTunes. You can listen to the stream on their site, or subscribe to the feed - whichever you're most comfortable with.

The newest episode features interviews with two attorneys. One of them, Brian Hallaq, is an acquaintance; he's an interesting guy who went from being an antigunner to owning Norpoint, a range facility just north of Seattle. Definitely worth a listen!

SHOT SHOW OPENS TOMORROW: I only wish I were there! The ProArms team is, and they promise updates on their site. Jeff Quinn over at Gunblast always has good coverage of the show (with lots of pictures), while Outdoor Channel has Rob Pincus there with a video crew. Rob tells me that they plan to have online coverage of the show, as will Down Range TV. Fear and Loading is already there spending money on beer, and The Firearm Blog is trying to crash the best SHOT parties. There are lots of others, of course, but just these should give you enough news to satisfy your curiosity!

TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT: I'm amazed that people still buy targets these days. There are tons of downloadable and printable targets out there, and here's a good collection of some of my favorites. (If you haven't tried "rimfire tactical" shooting, you're missing out on a lot of fun. Scroll to the bottom of their site for targets for this emerging discipline. The targets have instructions printed on them; try "Know Your Limits" with iron sights!)

OUCH: The Firearms Blog is reporting that Ruger will be showing a .357 Magnum version of the LCR at SHOT. I'm not a fan of uber-light guns in Magnum calibers, but some are, and Ruger apparently aims to supply them with all the pain they can stand.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: proarms, shot.show, ruger

Ruger let slip this week that the GP100 and Blackhawk will now be available chambered in .327 Federal Magnum. The GP100 will carry 7 rounds with a 4" barrel, and the Blackhawk will chamber 8 rounds behind a 5.5" tube. This is welcome news for people who, like me, see the .327 Magnum as not fitting its originally advertised role.

The first chambering of the .327 was in the SP101, as Ruger & Federal were touting it as a self-defense cartridge. The theory was that one could get the "stopping power" of a Magnum cartridge but with less recoil than the .357. My testing suggested that any recoil difference was negligible, while serious doubts remained about the round's effectiveness against an attacker. I didn't consider it a good tradeoff, and said so in print more than once.

I also said that I thought it would be great for hunting predators and other medium game, and I still believe this is where it will find a niche. The .327 offers a significant boost in power over the .32 H&R Magnum, which should measurably increase the effective range of the caliber. The longer barrels and adjustable sights of the GP and Blackhawk will bring it into the hunting field; all that remains is for Marlin to chamber their 1894 lever gun in .327!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: ruger, gp100

HAPPY NEW YEAR! 2010 is finally here, and I'm still surprised about that. Back in 1979 the twenty-first century looked sooooooo far away that I thought I'd never see it. Here we are in the second decade already; where did the last ten years go? (So, this is what it's like to age....)

I took a four-day weekend for the New Year, though it wasn't really time off: I spent the time doing work around the farm, to the screaming protest of my muscles and joints. This brief respite reminded me that it's been many years since my last vacation (which, as it happens, I spent in a shooting class), and I think it's high time for another. I say so every year, but this time I'm going to do it. Of course, I say that every year too!

S&W GOES PRO: Remember a year or so ago, when I wrote about a limited run of no-lock Model 642? At the time S&W claimed that they'd "found" a stash of pre-lock frames and decided to put them together for sale. Apparently they were popular enough that the company has managed to "find" some more NOS frames, as they've brought out a couple of new editions: the "Pro" series 442 and 642. They're just like the non-Pro models, except they have no locks and have cylinders cut for moonclips. There are a whole lot of questions one could pose about the decision to bring these to market, but I'm glad to see them all the same.

(I do wish they'd get consistent with their naming conventions: they have the 642 PowerPort Pro Series revolver, which has a ported barrel AND a lock, but no moonclip capability. The only thing these models have in common is a matte black finish, which harkens me back to the days of selling high end camera gear: you could get many cameras in either chrome or black finish, the black models inevitably referred to as "professional". At least they're not calling them 'tactical'!)

SPEAKING OF MOON CLIPS: I get several queries per month regarding moonclips for a carry revolver, and I recommend to all that they be limited to range use. Yes, they are faster to reload (the margin depending on the cartridge) - but I don't believe that outweighs the fragility of the clips themselves, as even a small bend will tie up the gun. (There's always someone who writes back "well, I've carried moonclips in my pocket for years and have never had a problem!" I'm sure that's true, just as I'm sure that someone, somewhere has a perfectly reliable Colt All American 2000. I'm not willing to bet my little pink bottom on either one, however.)

MORE SMITH NEWS: The regular Model 642, along with the 637 and 638, will now be available with 2-1/2" fully lugged barrels instead of the 1-7/8" tubes. I always liked the .357 version of the Model 640 for its slightly longer barrel, and am glad to see it come to some other models. That little extra weight up front helps with control on the lightweight frames, as well as providing longer extractor travel. (Sadly, they are still afflicted with the silly lock.)

WELCOME TO OREGON: This holiday season saw three groups of people lost in the Oregon woods - thanks to an over-reliance on GPS navigation. This should serve as a cautionary tale: ceding your health and safety to something (or someone else) is an invitation to disaster. Take responsibility for yourself; make sure your brain is always engaged. You'll notice that these are consistent themes here at The Revolver Liberation Alliance, and they have application well beyond protecting yourself from human predators. (Oh, and buy a decent map when venturing out of the confines of the suburbs.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: s&w, snubby, oregon

THAT TIME OF THE YEAR: I hope everyone had a great (as in safe and happy) Christmas weekend. I hope you'll accept my sincere wishes for a happy New Year - may 2010 be a darn sight better than 2009!

HERE WE GO AGAIN: Maryville, TN has had a couple of accidental shooting deaths in the past weeks. Both incidents involved guns that (brace yourselves) people thought "were unloaded." The Maryville Police Chief, one Tony Crisp, concludes that people just weren't pretending hard enough:

"Treat a gun as always being a loaded gun," he said. "Once you cleared it, check it again."

A more nonsensical statement I cannot imagine! I hope that you will save me the trouble of tearing it apart by seeing for yourself the logic failures therein. How much better it would have been had he taken the opportunity to do some real education by saying something like: "never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you're not willing to shoot. Don't let anyone around you do so, either."

SOMEONE ELSE FOR A CHANGE: A couple years back I made an offhand remark about Charter Arms guns. That one little sentence generated a ton of hate mail, including some from Charter's president/owner and their largest distributor. Well, M.D. Creekmore over at thesurvivalistblog.net made a more pointed statement regarding Charter's "quality", and he too heard from Charter's owner. It's in the comments; scroll to the bottom.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: safety, i.told.you.so

From The Firearm Blog comes news of yet another AR-15 accessory: the Magpul AFG (Angled ForeGrip). Just for fun I ran it by Georges Rahbani, TBRIYNHO ("The Best Rifle Instructor You've Never Heard Of"), a man who's actually used said firearm - uncounted times - to protect innocent lives in a war zone. His reply was succinct, and one for which he's become slightly infamous: "Thou shalt not hang crap on thy rifle."

(We have a running joke about foregrips in general: we refer to them as 'Pharaoh's Beards', for their uncanny resemblance to a certain dead King of Egypt:



If you're getting the idea that Georges isn't a fan of the things, and that I've been slightly influenced by his "less is more" philosophy, you're right. I do not apologize for repeatedly emphasizing that hardware is not a substitute for skill, no matter how vitriolic the response from the Mall Ninja Society of America.)

===

The Management wishes to apologize for the previous crack about Ninjas. We do not mean the real ones, of course. And now, for something completely different...

===

Reader Mik alerts me that The Daily Gun Pictures blog has some new images of the Chiappa Rhino revolver, including the longer barreled variants. Interesting stuff.

===

I'd be surprised if you haven't heard of the murder of four police officers in our neighbor to the north. There is a training lesson in that tragedy, though it may not be the one you're expecting. I'll get to it next week.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: ar15, georges.rahbani, tacticool, rhino.revolver, bloggers, attacks

Uncle has resurrected, for the umpteenth time, the "Gospel of John Browning." Like a certain cult popular in Hollywood, fans of the bottom feeder keep trying to convince others to join their weird little group. Luckily, there is a Holy Book which you can use to defend yourself against their evil blandishments.

Many years ago I came across an obscure part of Scripture that deals with this subject. I was able to get it translated from the ancient Hebrew in which it was written, and here are some of the more relevant portions:

"In the beginning, the universe was without form; the Lord made the
earth in the shape of the sphere, that is to be round, for the Lord
looks upon roundness with great favor."

"The Lord said to Adam and Eve, lo I give you the cycle of seasons,
so that you mayest understand that one thing must follow another, in
their natural order. Do not doest in the Spring that which is meant
for the Autumn, for nature which I hath given to you shall always
complete a circle. The earth doth not shuttle back and forth, nor the
moon travel to-and-fro, for reciprocation is an abomination before
the Lord."

We learn of the birth of His Ballistic Holiness:

"...and she named her son Shmuel, that is Samuel, which means 'he
would be destined a prophet'. And the Lord would listen to Samuel, and
shower him with great favor. As the boy did grow he became known as
Samuel the Colt, for he was exceedingly fast and lithe, with graceful
manner and of great wisdom."

The people were in need of deliverance from the evil around them, and from that need sprang The Gift:

..."and the people, needing protection from their pursuers, looked to
the Lord. The Lord said, I will give Shmuel, who you call Sam, the gift of invention
and artistry. From him will come the means of your rescue, which you should
never forget nor abandon; for the Lord wishes you to have only the best."

Of course, people never recognize a good thing even when it stares them in the face. From that flows what has become known as the Browning Apostasy, and the punishment which results:

"And Shmuel asked Yonaton, that is the same as John, how the
detestable thing came to be, and Yonaton answered 'I threw these
parts into the fire, and it sprang whole from the flames as you see
it here, save for the grip safety which was added by the mob.' And
the Lord knew that Yonaton was lying, and vowed to punish him."

"The Lord said to Yonaton, 'you hath committed an abomination unto the
Lord, and from now on you will be cursed. Your followers, though they
be many, will fight amongst themselves in vain; they will revile each
other, none of them seeing the truth, for their eyes will be blinded
by their lust for their own kind. Your devices will be functional but
not accurate, or accurate but not functional, but never both at the
same time, thus always serving to you and your followers as a sign of
your transgression. Some will try to bring peace to your camps, that
is to marry function and accuracy, but their attempts will be
thwarted by my wrath, which will become known in latter days as 'KahBoom'."

"And the Lord said to Shmuel, yours too will be many, and they will
be entrusted with serving as a light unto the world. They will be
mocked and ridiculed by those whose devices are either functional or
accurate, but never both at the same time, whilst yours will continue
to be functional and accurate, each at the same time, and fairer to
look upon as well. Whilst I made man and woman, you will make them
equal; for the world is not flat, neither should your gun be."

With tongue planted firmly in cheek, I wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Not much to say today. I've got a ton of work to do, and have a rare (for me) headache. Seriously - I don't often get headaches. When I do, perhaps once a year, I'm twice as annoyed as those who get them more regularly. I don't do NSAIDs, so I just suffer until it goes away. In the meantime, children, small animals, and insufferable boors are advised to keep their distance.

---

Freedom Arms has lost a lawsuit alleging that their Model 83 is defective. As Uncle points out, there's supposed to be a law that prevents such things.

---

Tam reports plenty of ammo on shelves. I went to a gunshow this weekend and noticed the same thing; unless you want .380ACP, stocks are just about back to normal. As I explained a while back, it's just a matter of the supply chain refilling itself.

(There are folks out there who flunked Econ 101 and continue to believe it's all some great conspiracy. The value of any theory is in its predictive ability, and so far I'm ahead on that count. Read the comments on my article and you'll find that they're still not happy.)

---

Thanks for all the comments regarding our dog. We've come to understand that he'll do what makes him comfortable, regardless of how it looks to us.

---

That's it for now - back to work I go, pounding head in tow!


-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: bloggers

To all our veterans: my sincere thanks for your service and sacrifice. Enjoy this day knowing that there are people in this country who appreciate the job you do.

===

Rob R. sent me a tip that Jeff Quinn at Gunblast saw the Chiappa Rhino exhibited at the National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers show in Reno. (Scroll down to just about the bottom of the page for the pics.) Looks like they're actually coming, though no pricing yet.

===

George Ure over at the Independence Journal has an interesting take on government holidays:

A couple of major insights usually come from Veteran's Day. First is that I've always held that if you give someone a day off to 'observe' something, then they ought to be honor (if not legally) bound to do some observing. I don't mind the bond traders and bankers that get the day off, but if they aren't laying flowers on graves, showing up at a parade, or in some other way honoring those who have paid freedom's highest price, then WTF are they getting the day off for?

===

Deer season in western Oregon ended last Friday, and I have an observation. While I don't wish to sound like Statler and Waldorf, I'm not at all impressed with the trend toward more powerful cartridges for deer hunting. I've talked to quite a number of hunters in this neck of the woods, and these days the most common caliber chosen for the task appears to be a .300 Winchester Magnum. If one ever needed a perfect illustration of the term "overkill", that would be it.

When I was coming of age, if someone said "deer rifle" that meant a .30-30. If they said "elk rifle", that meant a .30-06. My Uncle Bob, one of the best hunters I know, used a .300 Savage for everything. To find a .30-30 in the woods today is something of a rarity, a little like seeing a red plaid hunting coat: "how quaint!" I can't believe that these calibers have become any less lethal over the last few decades, but I can believe that hunters have become less skilled. Why bother with skill building when you can buy hardware to compensate, right?

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: bloggers, rhino.revolver

Regular readers know that, despite my (occasionally) bombastic promotion of the wheelgun, I'm the first to admit that it is not the perfect tool for all jobs. The revolver's suitability for self defense depends on the nature of the threat one expects to encounter.

The revolver's greatest weakness is its limited capacity, while its greatest virtue is its resistance to externally induced failures.

It is something of a trend among today's fashionable criminals to attack in multiples, i.e. more than one assailant. If each of the assailants is committed to the success of the attack, especially if each of them will have to be shot more than once, the revolver may in fact be at a disadvantage. Remembering that there is no such thing as a magic bullet, if you have three assailants and only five rounds you may have some hard choices to make.

This scenario often plays out during home invasion robberies. In these types of incidents, a revolver for home defense may be sub-optimal; a high capacity autoloader may be a better choice.

While many may scoff at the idea of more than a single attacker, or believe the old saw "shoot the leader, the rest will run", this is a very real risk. This is particularly the case in areas with substantial gang activity (which is just about everywhere these days.) If you keep a revolver for home defense, this is a possibility you need to consider.

On the other hand, most assaults are still of the good ol' one-on-one variety, and those outside of the home tend to fit this profile. These are personal crimes, and the action tends to be close in, fast, and violent - conditions in which the revolver, being the quintessential reactive tool, shines. It is quick into action and is less likely to experience functional failure in a close fight; there is no slide to be pushed out of battery, or slowed to induce a jam.

That isn't to say an autoloader is useless in that environment, only that it requires a bit more management. Gabe Suarez is at the leading edge of teaching close-in handgun deployment, and he's developed techniques to keep autos running in tight conditions. A revolver, though, is largely immune to the mechanical difficulties of fighting "in the hole", and remains a viable choice for that reason.

Is that a reasonable tradeoff for capacity? I think so.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: attacks

The Firearms Blog reports that KBP, the Russian arms maker, has introduced a "tactical" version of their MTs 225 revolving shotgun. (Basically, they took their standard sporting arm and added a folding stock.) You can make what you will of the revolving shotgun concept, but I liken it to the various revolving rifles which have come and gone: this is a good idea, why?

What's more interesting to me is to take a wander through their website. They make several unique revolvers, and the descriptions are worth reading too. "...for suppression of hooligan actions" ?!?

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: bloggers, tacticool

Tommy The Pharmacist sent me an email suggesting I check out the latest ProArms Podcast. (I'm a week behind on my listening schedule, despite being subscribed to their feed.) This week it's the "Revolver Roundtable", and it's great - have a listen.

(Oh, they do mention a certain revolversmith. Wonder who it might be??)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: proarms

From the Firearms Blog comes the news that Emilio Ghisoni's "Rhino" revolver is going to make it into production. The gun was first shown, with little or no explanation, at the German IWA show a number of years back. Chiappa Firearms apparently picked up the design from Ghisoni, and plans to introduce it next year.



Ghisoni is the owner and chief designer at Macchine Termo Ballistica in Pavia, Italy. The company is better known by its acronym MATEBA, the brand under which the MTR8, 2006M, and Unica 6 revolvers were all sold. I do not yet know if they Rhino will carry the Mateba brand.

(A quick rant: the people who use 'Mateba' as a synonym or replacement for the model 'Unica' annoy the heck out of me. Mateba is the brand, Unica is the model. It's like referring to Word, Excel, or PowerPoint as simply "Microsoft." Yes, it's petty, but I'm complicated. Ask my wife.)

The Rhino looks like an interesting gun, and is certainly the most practical of Ghisoni's designs. Don't get me wrong, I like the MTR8 and would love to own one, but it's hardly a practical gun:



The Rhino, on the other hand, might be a viable carry piece. We'll just have to wait and see!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: rhino.revolver

I'm currently working on a special project based on a Ruger GP100. One of the client's desires is for custom grips made to his specifications. This is where I'm hitting a dead end!

I've spent countless hours looking, with no results, for a custom gripmaker who will work with the GP100. This is why I'm asking my readers, who are some of the most savvy gun enthusiasts around, for help.

The client wants true customs with top notch fit and finish. This automatically disqualifies all of the mass producers, as well as places like Eagle and Ahrends. Since he wants grips made to his desires, the "pattern makers" like Spegel are out, as well.

Are you aware of a custom gripmaker who is not widely known, and perhaps isn't even on anyone's radar? The ideal candidate MUST:

1) Produce first-class work - nothing less.
2) Be able to make grips for the GP100.
3) Understand the unique needs of concealment ("combat") grips.
4) Be able to produce a grip to fit the client's desires/hands.

Beyond that, someone who works in non-traditional materials (micarta, stabilized spalted wood, etc.) would be most welcome. The client isn't set on any specific material; as long as it complements the gun, he'll consider it.

Price is not a concern, as long as it isn't significantly out of line for work of the caliber required. The client knows what first tier work is (this is not his first custom gun), and is willing to pay appropriately.

Now, understand that I've been looking for a while; if the person appears in the first 10 or 15 pages of a Google search for "custom revolver grips", I've probably already contacted him/her. Yes, I've heard of the smaller custom shops like Herrett's, and have contacted countless makers who list Rugers - just to find that they only do grips for Cowboy shooters using guns such as the Vaquero. So, before you send that email, please re-read the criteria above and be sure that your candidate can meet all of them.

As an incentive, the person who supplies information leading me to the right maker will get his/her choice of any shirt in my CafePress store collection! For the gripmaker, in addition to becoming a customer I'll do my best to get his/her name in front of a much larger audience. It's a win for me, the client, the gripmaker, and you!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: ruger, gp100, grips

Yesterday, Tam asked "I laugh at the sight of the pimped tactical N-frame, too, but why?" Allow me to explain with some fuzzy dice.

Yes. You read that correctly - fuzzy dice.

If you go to a car show featuring hotrods from the '50s and '60s, a common sight will be a pair fuzzy dice hanging from the rearview mirror. They're always carefully chosen to complement the paint color, and I've even seen fastidious owners arranging the dice "just so" to get the proper look. Fuzzy dice are an accepted, and expected, part of the decor.

Take those same fuzzy dice, run over to the Tour de France, and hang them from Lance Armstrong's bicycle. No matter what color dice you pick - to go with his jersey or the bike's paint - they'll just look silly. Fuzzy dice on a racing bike? Preposterous!

Yet, objectively, the function of the dice has not changed. That is, they really have no function. They don't do anything, they serve no architectural or mechanical purpose, they simply have mass and occupy space. They derive whatever value they possess from the context in which they occur, but that value is not intrinsic; it exists only because the context allows it to exist. Think of it as Second Life with mag wheels.

Once taken out of the expected setting, stripped of the value of that context, the reality of the fuzzy dice becomes apparent. Understand this: whether on a '57 BelAir or Lance's Trek Madone SL, fuzzy dice are silly. In the former case, we don't see them as silly because we've been conditioned to accept them in that environment. In the latter, if every Tour de France competitor were to carry them for a few years - perhaps a decade or more - they would become part of that context too. They'd still be silly.

The same is true for the tacticool accessories Tam questions. (A bit of a correction: the device hanging at the muzzle isn't strictly a white light - it's a combination light and laser.) We're accustomed to seeing lights, lasers, and milspec red dot scopes attached to autopistols. In the gun rags, in the movies, and especially in video games, we're told that "serious" guns carry these things. Tough guys, warriors and operators, have these on their guns. Thus the context is constructed, such that we no longer objectively analyze the value of those things.

Putting them on a revolver takes them out of context. (After all, "operators" don't carry revolvers!) Once out of context their true worth becomes easier to evaluate, and laughter is the result.

This whole idea of context is particularly important to those of us interested in the concept of self defense. There are a lot of instructors out there who teach what can only be termed range tricks. In class, the instructor's reputation and manner of delivery combine to create a reality distortion field that even Steve Jobs would envy; in that context even the silliest ideas sound valuable. They may be useless and even counter productive, but if the student can't evaluate them outside of their context that reality will be hidden.

The same thing happens with people who get their firearms training from Hollywood - what I've heard called the "Mel Gibson School of Firearms". In the movies, the good guy always orders the bad guy to drop his weapon. The good guy gives the bad guy a chance to redeem himself, to straighten out his horrible life and repent for his sins. Naturally the bad guy doesn't take that opportunity, wheels around to shoot the good guy, at which point our hero drops him neatly with a single shot. Roll credits.

Inside the context of the movie script, this seems perfectly plausible. Through repetition the scene is burned into our subconscious, to the point that we start to accept it as normal. Unless we learn to force ourselves to evaluate the behavior outside of the theater we may find ourselves repeating it.

This apparently happened to a certified good guy up in Washington a few years ago, who faced a gunman in a mall. From all reports, it seems the good guy drew his legally carried gun, then challenged the bad guy to drop his. Life isn't like a movie, and the rampaging gunman simply shot him - five times, paralyzing him permanently.

It's important to develop both the ability to look at things objectively and critically, and the judgement to recognize when it's necessary to do so. I'd say that anything dealing with defensive firearms needs such evaluation.

As for fuzzy dice...

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: tacticool, gun.skool

Back from the 3-day weekend, and I hope all of you had more fun than I did. I worked on projects around the farm, in between horrendously heavy rain showers and winds gusting to 40mph.

Not much else to say today, as I didn't even think about work while I was busy, uh, working.

Something did catch my eye this morning, as Tam asks an interesting question. I'll have an answer for you tomorrow - but it may not be the answer you expect.

Stay tuned.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: bloggers, tacticool

No, I do not work on these.



(From The Firearm Blog.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Getting a late start today, and that means I'm already behind for the week. Sheesh - where does the time go?

---

Tam talks about the checkering on her gun. While this would seem to be an issue limited to autoloaders, sharp edges on the trigger and frame (particularly inside the cylinder window) have the same effect for wheelgunners. When people ask "what's the best modification I can do to my revolver?", I usually say round the trigger and dehorn the gun. It makes shooting much less of a chore.

---

Every so often a client will send me one of the S&W Scandium guns for work, and I'm always reminded of how much I dislike shooting the little beasts. Even with standard pressure Specials, the recoil gets to me very quickly. I can't imagine actually shooting one with Magnum loads, and I intend to never find out!

For me it's merely discomfort, but for others the experience could prove more serious.

I constantly encounter women who've been sold those guns, because the sales clerk wrongly assumed that "light" was synonymous with "best for the little lady." This weekend I ran into yet another such case: a thin, older lady. She wanted to know if the Magnum rounds the shop had sold her with the gun would be good for her to shoot! (My immediate thought was "only if you use them on the idiot who sold you this thing!", but I held my tongue.) I cautioned her that the combination of those rounds with her very thin, somewhat frail build could result in permanent nerve damage to her hands. I hope she got the message.

The best recommendation I have for such cases is a box of the 125gn Federal Nyclad standard-pressure Specials.

---

Serendipity...I wrote last week about a 2" Model 15 I'd recently worked on, and since then I've run into several of the things. The latest was yesterday, when buddy Jim Jacobe opened a case and said "weren't you just talking about how much you liked these?" I swear, if I wrote about a .577 Tranter he'd pull one out of his safe to show me...

---

Now it's time for me to get some work done. Happy Monday!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: bloggers, s&w, .38, snubby

A recent job on a 2" S&W Model 15 brought back my admiration for the medium-framed "snub." This is a class of revolvers that seems to get no respect, and for reasons I can't quite fathom.

They're easy-carrying belt guns, quick out of the holster and carrying six shots - not to mention a delight to shoot. In the last month or so I've found myself contemplating a modern example on a Ruger GP100. Anyone else interested in such a thing?

The only major hangup I'm having is finding someone who can make proper concealment grips. They need to be short with no silly fingergrooves (I believe I've made my feelings about those quite clear), and getting that combination is proving to be a challenge. I'm told that Eagle will make their "Secret Service" grips to fit the GP, but a) I've not seen any, b) they don't have pictures of them on their website, and c) I've never been terribly enamored with their quality to begin with. The search continues...

---

One necessary mod is a reworking of the sights. As my eyes continue to age I've learned some important things about shooting with degraded vision, and any new gun I make for myself must carry some sort of "enhanced" sighting system. (Yes, I have some ideas, but nothing I'm ready to talk about!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: snubby

It appears that our spell of excessively hot weather has ended. Last week the digital thermometer at our house recorded a high of 111 degrees. (Yes, that's in the shade - who'd be stupid enough to go out into the sun on a day like that?) We set an all-time record for consecutive days over 90 degrees (9 and counting.) I'm just looking forward to being able to spend a full day (more or less) in the shop.

---

From The Firearms Blog comes the news of a(nother) special edition S&W 627 in .38 Super. This one should have a sticker on the box that says "Now With More Ugly!"

---

I'm pleased to note that QC at Ruger is improving - the last couple of SP101s I've seen, of recent production, are much improved over those of years past. Gail Pepin at the ProArms Podcast tells me that she's visited the plant recently, and their production floor has changed considerably. She credits their new emphasis on 'lean manufacturing', with its attendant focus on reducing waste and rework, for the quality bump.

---

The Firearms Blog also brings us happy news of Winchester's reprise of the Model 92 Takedown. I'd be tempted if they'd make it in .357 Magnum...

---

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to go to work!


-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: bloggers, ugly, ruger, proarms, lever.actions

I hope everyone enjoyed their Independence Day holiday! I've been burning the candle at both ends lately, so I took a long weekend, during which I managed to overexpose myself to the sun. (The weekend was hot by Oregon standards - we hit 100 degrees at our house on Friday, and only slightly cooler on Thursday & Saturday.) What's that line - "feel the burn?"

---

Since it was so warm, I drank a huge amount of water. Having been in the ER more than once for severe dehydration (and accompanying heat exhaustion), I'm a little more attentive to this detail than most. For several years, my choice of liquid container has been the classic Nalgene bottle - the translucent white variety, made of #2 HDPE, free of those nasty plasticizers currently suspected of causing cancer. A side benefit is that HDPE is flexible, making it more suitable to hard use than the much more rigid clear varieties. This proved beneficial this weekend, when I ran over my Nalgene with a tractor. Smashed it nearly flat, and collapsed the bottom inward. I managed to squeeze the walls back into roughly cylindrical form, but wasn't able to fix the floor. I filled it with water, threw it in the freezer, and in a couple of hours the expanding ice did the trick! Good as new (more or less), and none the worse for wear.

I just wish they'd make the things in "earth colors" - OD, coyote tan, etc. Nalgene, are you listening?

---

The S&W "J" frame is a generally reliable piece, but lately I've gotten reports of ignition issues with newer examples. S&W has transitioned to a new firing pin, which is much lighter and much shorter than the previous varieties. (This may be their solution to the drop testing standards in California.) They seem to be the source of the problem.To insure reliability, I replace all those I encounter with the Cylinder & Slide Extra Length firing pin. Highly recommended, and an easy "do it yourself" modification for those so inclined.

---

The supply chain is finally starting to recover; AR-15 rifles are becoming a common sight in the stores again, and I'm receiving reports of ammo shelves being restocked. Shortages of certain products (most notably .380ACP ammunition) can be expected to continue for the next few months, but by and large we're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.


-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: reliability

One of the great advantages of the double action revolver is that the mechanism makes dry firing easy. Unlike the majority of autoloaders, you don't have to break your grip to operate the slide or recock the hammer; just maintain your grip and pull the trigger, over and over. As a result, I suspect most revolvers are dry fired with greater frequency than most autos.

Various pundits have opined over the years that it is perfectly safe to dry fire any modern gun without regard to mechanical consequences. Some have even gone so far as to claim snap caps to be some sort of conspiracy against dry fire!

In my experience, that point of view is a bit misguided. I recommend the use of snap caps for any extensive dry fire practice, and with good reason: I have to fix the guns that break!

The problems involve broken firing pins, both hammer mounted and the in-frame variety. I do occasionally see broken pins that, upon investigation, would seem to have been caused by dry fire practice. Colt revolvers are probably the worst offenders; their firing pins tend to be harder than those of other makes, and subsequently a tad more brittle. I've seen many broken pins in Pythons and Detective Specials, and more than a few in the other models. If you have a Colt, I consider snap caps an absolute must.

Smith & Wesson revolvers seem to be a bit better in this regard, as I've not seen the number of broken pins that I have with the Colt products. They will occasionally break, however, and as a result I do recommend the use of snap caps if one is planning to do a significant amount of dry firing.

I've never seen a broken Ruger firing pin (though now that I've put this in print I'll no doubt hear about a rash of them!) However, snap caps seem to reduce peening of the back side of the firing pin, which serves to maintain ignition reliability. I don't consider their use as important as for their competition, but I believe them to be a good long-term care strategy.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: practice

Welcome to all the new readers from the U.S. Concealed Carry Association!

(For those who don't know, I've written an article or two for their various publications. Their editor, Kathy Jackson, is not all that far away from me, and I've discovered it's pretty cool to be able to say "sorry, can't make it - have to meet with my editor this afternoon!")

---

Massad Ayoob is in town (well, in the region) this week, and I got a chance to get together with him and his ProArms Podcast partner Gail Pepin. Gail and I recorded a fun little chat; what will happen to it is a decision made at a pay grade higher than mine, but as things progress I'll let you know.

---

Corvidae cuisine time: I've opined that the Ruger LCR was so ugly that no one would buy the thing. While I stand by my assertion that it is ugly, apparently people are in fact buying them. I think that's great, actually, as it shows that the marketplace is ready for innovation in even a staid product category such as the revolver.

---

Jim Jacobe recently bought a Ponsness-Warren electric drive for his Dillon 1050 press. Now he just sits on his stool watching brass go in and rounds come out, with no more exertion than a silly grin. He likes it so much he became a dealer for the things. If you're flush with cash and tired of pulling that handle, drop him a note and get one on order.


-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: uscca, massad.ayoob, proarms, ruger

Someone sent me a link to this video yesterday:



The crane worked its way out of the frame, taking the cylinder with it. (You can hear the distinctive ring of the crane hitting the ground at 1:04.)

The submitter of the video - who is also the shooter - calls it a "defect", but is careful not to identify just what the defect might be. He then goes over to ar15.com, where he posts the cause as "shitty metal" and says that some gunsmith claims to have seen several with identical failures. (I should note that I have yet to see even one such failure.) He also says that the crane retention screw was still in the gun.

Some background: the crane, which is the piece on which the cylinder rotates, is held in place with a screw. (Those of you with S&W revolvers can look at the right side of the gun, and the screw that sits just above the forward attachment point of the trigger guard is the crane retention screw.) On newer guns it contains a spring-loaded plunger which holds the crane, on older models it was simply a slightly longer screw.

Since he claims this to be a "newer" gun, it's no doubt of the spring-plunger variety. (As an aside, note that the other participants in the thread seemed surprised by this, to their minds, "recent" change. Apparently none of them are aware that the spring plunger was adopted clear back in 1986, no doubt before some of them had even been born!)

Back to the topic at hand...if that screw works sufficiently loose, it will give the crane enough clearance to slide out, but the screw will remain in the frame. On quick glance, is may even appear to be properly installed. If the screw is out just the right amount, the crane will be just barely retained, but will separate with a little forward pressure - during a speed reload, for instance. Under those conditions the tip of the plunger and the mating surface on the crane can both be slightly damaged, leading the inexperienced to conclude that they were defective in some manner.

So, faulty gun - or something else?

In the forum post, the shooter tells us he changed the mainspring, but insists he didn't remove the sideplate. Now understand that I do that task on a very regular basis, and even I remove the sideplate to chainge the mainspring - it's a serious hassle to do otherwise, especially with the new (post-lock) guns. Once finished, it' easy to replace the sideplate but neglect to fully tighten the screw. (It's even easier to forget to check that screw every so often, even if one hasn't messed with it!)

Remember that I don't have the gun in hand to inspect, and I'm willing to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt, but I have not heard of, nor seen, any crane retention failures caused by "shitty metal." I have, however, seen lots of them from failure to tighten the retention screw.

If you remove screws from your revolver, be sure you do two things: first, make sure you put them back in their proper holes (they are different), and make sure they're very tight. A dab of low-yield LocTite ('purple', type 222) will ensure that they stay in place but won't hinder their removal.

Even if you don't remove them, it's a good idea to check them occasionally. It's part of normal revolver maintenance and the responsibility of the informed user.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: s&w, failures, maintenance

I recently received an email asking about the feasibility of mounting a light on a revolver. The writer was concerned about clearing his house at night and being forced to shoot one-handed with a separate flashlight. Would it be possible, he asked, to somehow mount a light to his wheelgun, to approximate those that are widely mounted on autoloaders?

That's a tough one to answer, because it's really two questions in one: can it be done, and should it be done.

I'll address the feasibility portion first: yes, it can be done, though the approach varies a bit with the make/model. In all cases, their are some limitations - mainly, the light has to clear the ejector rod as it swings away from the frame. The larger the light, the smaller the gun, and/or the more closely the light is mounted to the bore axis or to the cylinder, the more likely it is to interfere with proper cylinder opening.

The best choice is to make provision to mount the light in a forward position, in front of the ejector rod. This is the approach taken by S&W in their 327 TRR8:



The problem with this is that it makes activating the light on a momentary basis from a firing grip difficult (if not impossible.) One is left with the necessity to turn the light on and leave it on if one wants to shoot with a two-handed grip.

To provide a platform on which the light can be mounted, a short section of Picatinny rail can be attached (via screws) to the barrel's underlug. If the particular gun doesn't have an underlug, the barrel itself can be carefully drilled & tapped to accept the rail - only, of course, if the barrel is of a bull (heavy) configuration. There are also some clamp-on solutions available.

The other half of the question is "should you?" I'll put on my Tactical Tommy hat here, and say that I think it's a bad idea except in very specific circumstances.

For a gun to be used in an ensconced position the attached light has merit. All you're required to do is wait, and the light is nothing but a shooting aid: confirm the target, and allow a clear sight picture.

Using it to check your house, on the move, is another matter entirely. In this case, the light takes on multiple functions: navigation, search, identification, and (in the worst case) shooting aid. The trouble is that if it's attached to your gun, then you have a loaded weapon pointing in all sorts of directions that proper safety habits say it shouldn't!

A loaded gun is not a tool for navigation or searching, and using it as such is (in my opinion) irresponsible. Think of it this way: would you be pointing your gun in all directions and places in the daylight? I would hope that the answer would be 'no.' If that's the case, why would you deem it acceptable to do so in the dark?

The light on the handgun is a limited-use device. Don't try to make it into something it shouldn't be.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: tacticool, ugly, s&w

I'm gratified - and somewhat surprised - at the tremendous response to last week's post "Risk assessment, or lack thereof." One of the difficulties I've found with this whole blog adventure is predicting what will resonate with my readers. In some cases I've been deliberatively provocative in order to get people to think outside of their comfort zone, while in others I've tried to deliver solid technical information not readily available in the swamp that is the internet.

On occasion (as with the article under consideration) I worry about whether I'm talking over my audience, that the subject might be a bit too abstract. I'm happy to find that my readers are significantly more discerning than average.

---

One complaint about the Bianchi SpeedStrips is that they're not available in calibers other than .38/.357. I'm surprised that, until tipped off by a reader, I didn't know about Quick Strips from Tuff Products. They appear to be a clone of the Bianchi product, but are available in a wide range of calibers. Check 'em out.

---

You may have heard that the U.S. Attorney General called (not surprisingly) for reinstating the infamous Assault Weapons Ban. What was surprising was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's adamant refusal to consider such legislation. Mr. Obama's administration may find their road tougher sledding than they'd originally anticipated. All the better for us!

---

A while back I wrote about the iPhone/iTouch ballistics application iSnipe. While it worked well, it was pretty basic; as I explained to the author, it needed some features added to enhance utility for the serious long-range shooter.

It didn't take long for competition to appear: Ballistic FTE has everything I ever wanted, and then some. It is superb in every respect; you must see the target recording function! It even has a calculator to help with rangefinding (mil-dot) reticle use. Ballistic FTE is a bargain at $9.99.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: apps

I've written about this before, but it's getting worse. All across this country are people standing behind gun counters who need to be taught that women are people, too.

I've lost track of the number of times I've run into a woman who was sold (as opposed to deciding to buy) a revolver for self defense. Now it should be pretty clear to even the densest web denizen that this is a revolver-friendly blog, so it should not come as a shock that I think revolvers are a great tool.

They are not necessarily, however, the right tool. As I mentioned last week, the revolver is the easiest gun in the world to shoot, but the most difficult gun to shoot well. That long, heavy (in stock configuration) trigger requires a certain amount of hand strength, without which the gun cannot be fired.

Herein lies the problem: the female of the species, in general, tends to have less strength in her digits than does the male. It's not unusual, therefore, to find a woman saddled with a brand-new revolver on which she cannot manipulate the trigger. I've seen countless numbers of women who actually have to use two fingers to get the trigger moving!

It's not so much a matter of gun fit (though that enters into the equation far too often), but simply the trigger offering more resistance than a slim finger is capable of overcoming. In reality most women would really be better served with the shorter, lighter trigger action of an autoloading pistol, but the wisdom of the gunstore commando is that autoloaders are just "too complicated for the little lady."

Hey, Bubba, I've got news for you: women actually drive cars these days! Yes, automobiles, with their myriad switches and levers and pedals and buttons. Women have no problem figuring those things out, yet you think they can't handle the concept of a slide stop lever?

The usual rejoinder is that women don't have the upper body strength to manipulate the slide of an autoloader. This is fact turned on it's side to bolster a flawed assumption; yes, women tend not to have our arm strength, but that deficiency can be rendered immaterial through proper technique. It's a simple matter, and nearly any female (and a more enlightened male) firearms instructor can teach it inside of thirty seconds.

This whole issue wouldn't bother me so much - and I wouldn't be writing about it again - but the inferiority attitude is so pervasive that some women are themselves buying into the notion that they're not "capable" of handling an autoloader. I've actually had students to whom I've taught the autoloader manipulation techniques (and who've shot very well with one) go out and end up with a revolver. Not because they wanted one, mind you, but because some dolt behind a counter convinced her that it was all she could handle.

Mind you, I'm not some new-age "sensitive man". I'm as big a neanderthal as the next guy; I believe that women and men are different, and you can thank your favorite deity for the difference! I'm just tired of people assuming that my wife, sisters, nieces, and mother are so stupid that they can't handle a simple mechanical device. I'm annoyed that they are doing their level best to indoctrinate women to this nonsensical point of view, and I'm appalled that it actually seems to be gaining some traction among women themselves!

I don't have a prescription for this problem, other than to continue to educate every person - man or woman - I run across. If that means I repeat myself every so often, I'm willing to do so. I hope you'll forgive me!

Yes, revolvers are wonderful, but they're not for everyone. We need to help people to make intelligent decisions, and if that means they choose a self-shucker, so be it. Heretical? No, just realistic.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: gunstore.goons, women

A recent SHOT show write-up, regarding the new Ruger LCR revolver, contained the (sadly common) comment that the gun would be perfect for "non-dedicated personnel."

I hereby give public notice that I am officially tired of reading excrement like that.

The snub-nosed, double-action revolver is the easiest gun in the world to shoot, but It is the hardest gun to shoot well. Mastering the double action pull takes time, dedication, and practice; that's just a fact of life. The nice, light, short trigger pulls on autoloaders are much easier to become proficient with, which is part of the reason they are popular.

Let's look at what happens when the "non-dedicated" person buys a double action revolver. Because he (or she) is "non-dedicated", he's not going to put in the range time to thoroughly learn how to shoot the gun to a good standard of accuracy, which means his target hit potential is quite low (but the innocent bystander hit potential is quite high.) If it has a short barrel the small sight radius compounds the accuracy issue, and those lightweight models make the gun difficult to control in recoil. Does this sound like the gun for an inexperienced shooter? Not me!

If that wasn't bad enough, if the "non-dedicated" person doesn't become proficient with that heavy double action trigger pull, he reverts to doing what he sees in the movies: cocking the gun to single action. Comes a deadly encounter and we end up with a poorly trained individual whose adrenal gland is going into extra innings, holding a cocked gun with a very light, very short trigger action. This doesn't sound like a Good Idea to me! (Of course, this doesn't apply to the LCR or the S&W Centennial, neither of which can be cocked.)

In terms of administrative handling, I'd agree that the revolver is certainly more suited to this type of person. When talking In terms of hitting the target, though, it just isn't. In my mind, the non-dedicated person is better served by a gun that is easier to shoot well. Learning a slightly more complex manual of arms is a small price to pay to ensure that projectiles aren't flung over half the county.

The revolver, particularly the short-barrelled variety, and especially with a lightweight frame, is a gun for serious shooters. A pox on those who would insist otherwise!

-=[ Grant ]=-

iPhone users: now you can turn your phone into a handy shot timer!

Surefire has released a shot timer app for the iPhone, and it's free! All the normal functions are there: fixed delay (user adjustable!), random start and par times, along with sensitivity adjustment.

The timer works quite well, with good sensitivity even in a jacket pocket. Having a list of the shots and splits (as opposed to scrolling through them singly, like a regular timer) makes for easier use. It also boasts the ability to email the output of the timer; I'm not sure if that's of any use, but it's kinda cool!

Check it out at the App Store.

---

There is now an online ballistic calculator formatted expressly for the iPhone. I still want a native (i.e., off-line) ballistic calculator, because so many shooting areas are in cell phone dead spots, but for the time being this scratches the itch.

---

Marko has written a good article for Dillon's Blue Press on the virtues of the revolver. There's nothing in it that would surprise a die-hard fan of the wheelgun, but it's so well written (as is everything he pens, darn him all to heck) that you should read it anyhow.

Here's a link to the online edition; the article is on pages 60 & 61.

---

As long as we're on the topic of good writing, go and read Xavier's post about exposing a new shooter to the revolver.

---

I'm busy as a beaver returning emails for waiting list reservations. Don't worry, I'll get to you sometime this week!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: apps, bloggers

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has been getting hate mail over his coverage of the Cooper affair. I feel for ya, buddy, as I've gotten a few of those myself. As has been said, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits - and some of the emails received here have obviously not limited out.

---

For better or worse, it'll all be over tomorrow night. Thank (insert your favorite deity).

---

This weekend I finally got around to listening to the latest Pro Arms Podcast. This episode covers the snubby revolver, and in it Massad Ayoob mentions that he suspects Ruger will introduce an aluminum version of the SP101 next year. Sharp-eyed readers will recall that I'm a fan of the SP, though sometimes I tire at the weight of the thing. A lightweight SP would be Da Bomb, and I'd be first in line to get one.

---

Apparently, I'm not the only one who picked up on Mas' comments. Glad to see this great podcast getting some listenership!

---

I don't have the time (or the stomach) to prowl the forums, but others do - and luckily Xavier caught this thread on a Ruger Redhawk shedding it's barrel. (I'm mentioned about midway through the entire exchange.) It appears as though it might be the stress corrosion cracking (SCC) problem that Ruger fixed many years ago. There are evidently still a few Redhawks out there that didn't get caught in Ruger's warranty net, and perhaps is something to think about when buying a used example from early in the production run.

---

Someone emailed that he thought my writing was starting to resemble Jeff Cooper's. I'm not sure whether to be flattered or concerned.

---

From SurvivalBlog.com comes this story: it seems that the Brits have a machine gun that shoots itself. Isn't this the same army that fields the SA80 rifle, the gun M-16 haters should thank their lucky stars we're not using? (Owners of British sports cars will understand.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: turncoats, proarms, massad.ayoob, bloggers

A long-time client called me a while back, and told me that he'd just acquired one of the Smith & Wesson Model 25 "Lew Horton" editions with the 3" barrel. He wasn't happy with the gun, and asked me to do a makeover.

If you've hung out here for long, you know that I love 3" barrels. I don't know why, exactly, except that I like 'em. This gun is no exception, and to say I was excited about the prospects would be an understatement.

I've actually written about this gun once before - it had the worst double action trigger I've felt on a factory gun in a long, long time. He wanted that fixed, and the gun converted to DAO. (It's an IDPA/carry gun for him, so he sees no need for single action capability.) The gun came replete with sharp edges, so sharp that I sliced open my left forefinger when I first handled it! Those needed to go as well. He also wasn't happy with the stock S&W sights, for which the gun had already received warranty repair - the first rear sight actually broke in two when shooting! Finally, he wanted general competition-friend modifications that would also be usable "on the street."

I started by getting rid of all the sharp edges, on all surfaces. The gun then went to the bluing shop for my Black Pearl finish. (This particular gun has the very hardest barrel steel I've ever encountered, and it caused no end of headaches in refinishing. The result is that this gun has a little more shine to it than any other Black Pearl finish I've done.)



Speaking of the barrel, the crown was both crooked and rough. The hard barrel, with its thin walls, made a normal crown out of the question. I made a very, very small crown, just enough to correct the problems.



The rear sight was replaced with one of Hamilton Bowen's superb Rough Country units, and the front carries a gold bead sight from SDM Fabricating. The result is a fast-acquisition sight picture, useful for both competition and defense.



Of course the gun received a Super Action Job, along with chamfering the chambers. The trigger was reworked to the modern, thin S&W style, rounded and polished smooth for comfortable double action work. The DAO conversion required bobbing the hammer, and on this gun I tried a new style: a kind of "scalloped" hammer. I've already decided that the next one needs a bit of modification (the bottom scallop is too deep to balance the top), but I'm pleased with the result and the way in which it offsets the cylinder-heavy profile of the gun. The trigger weight dropped from 15 lbs. to 9 lbs., and is of course smooth in both pull & reset.

Finally, we needed some decent concealment grips. They're made of a very nice walnut in a "boot" style by Don Collins, with some specific modifications to his basic design (to better fit my client's hands.)



The result: a more "special" Special Edition. (My client reads this blog, and hasn't seen the gun yet. To him I say: don't worry, it's coming back to you this week, but I couldn't wait to show it off!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: s&w

A reader asked me to comment on successfully shooting lead bullets in revolvers. It seems that he's been getting indifferent accuracy coupled with severe leading, and would like to know the "secret" to using lead in his gun.

I thought I'd covered this topic once before, but a thorough search of the archives failed to turn up the expected article. Guess I'll have to do this from scratch!

Please note that I'm not a "hardcore" cast bullet shooter. I don't cast my own, which means that I'm dependent on commercial sources for my projectiles. As a result, it's taken me longer to learn this stuff than it would have otherwise. Thus I'm no expert; but Ed Harris, who sometimes checks in here at the RLA, is - hopefully he'll see fit to comment. (Ed, if I get anything wrong please drop me a note - I'll make your response into it's own post.)

The first thing to understand is that your lead bullets need to fit the chamber throats of your gun. If, for example, your throats measure .358", your bullets should be no smaller than .358, and no bigger than .001" over that measurement. Smaller bullets won't be as accurate, and will let the erosive combustion gases blow past the bullet causing severe leading around the forcing cone.

(Many bullet makers will size their products to your preference; if they don't make that service obvious, just ask. A surprising number are happy to oblige, usually at no extra cost.)

The forcing cone of your gun must also be in good condition; roughness in that area will result in leading at that point.

Assuming that the gun part of the equation is in good shape, and the bullets are of correct size, the hardness of the bullet becomes the critical issue. Most bullet makers advertise really hard bullets as being the "cure" for leading. It sort of stands to reason, doesn't it? A harder lead won't smear as much as it goes down the barrel, and will leave less residue - right?

Guess what - it isn't true. In fact, it's completely off base!

Think about this: you probably have a .22 rifle hanging around. Most .22 LR bullets are plain lubricated lead - very soft lead, no less. Compared to your average hard cast bullet, a .22 slug is almost like butter - soft as can be. Yet I'll bet that if you looked at the bore of your rifle, you probably won't see much leading - if any at all. My .22 rifles will fire a thousand or so rounds between cleanings, and I've never seen lead in my bores despite the bullet traveling at 1,200 fps.

What's the reason? Obturation.

A bullet, under great pressure from the expanding gases behind it, grows in size to fit whatever hole (chamber throat, barrel bore) it is being shoved into. This phenomenon is called obturation. As the bullet obturates it seals the hole, and keeps the gases where they belong until the bullet actually exits the barrel.

If the bullet doesn't obturate, the very hot gases will rush past while it is in the bore. The lead where the gases pass is melted and deposited on the barrel's walls - producing leading. This kind of leading is the most difficult to remove, as it really "sticks" to the bore - as if it's been soldered there. In fact, it has!

It follows that we need to make sure that they bullet obturates in our bore. In order for a bullet to obturate, the metal used needs to be soft enough to deform easily under the amount of pressure being applied to it. If the bullet is too hard, it won't obturate and there will be no sealing.

So, the bullet has to be soft enough to obturate. Why not just make all bullets out of super soft pure lead - won't that cure the problem? No, it won't; a bullet that's too soft will also cause leading, as it won't be strong enough to maintain the necessary seal in the bore. It also won't be resistant to the heat generated by the friction of travel down the bore. Both result in lead left in the barrel.

The bullet has to be hard, but not too hard; soft, but not too soft! The variable is the amount of pressure generated by the firing cartridge.

The higher the pressure, the harder the bullet needs to be to resist excess deformation - but remember that it has to be soft enough to obturate properly. A mild .38 Special target load needs a softer bullet than a fire-breathing .357 Magnum in order to obturate; putting a too-hard bullet in a mild cartridge is as much a problem as a too-soft slug in a hot one.

Bullet hardness is rated on the Brinell (BHN) scale. Pure lead is 5 BHN; "hard cast" bullets can be close to 30 BHN. Somewhere in that range is the ideal bullet for any given cartridge; how do we find it?

As it happens, there is a way to determine the optimum bullet hardness. First, you need to know the amount of pressure your load develops. That's easy - your loading manual will have that information. (Pressure is listed in either CUP or PSI; they are slightly different, but for this particular question either will be close enough to get the answer we need.)

There are two formula: one for the ideal hardness, one for the maximum hardness.

Ideal hardness in BHN = Pressure / 1,920
Maximum BHN = Pressure / 1,422

Let's say it's a .38 Special using 4.5 grains of Hodgdon Universal Clays and a 158 grain SWC bullet. The pressure for this load is 16,700. Our formulae look like this:

16,700 '/ 1920 = 8.69 BHN ideal hardness
16,700 / 1422 = 11.74 BHN maximum hardness

You can (and should) round those to the nearest whole number. Thus, for this load I want a bullet of around 9 BHN, but no more than 12 BHN for best results.

For a heavy .357 Magnum load, using the same bullet, the numbers are dramatically different:

33,600 / 1920 = 18 (rounded) ideal
33,600 / 1422 = 24 (rounded) maximum

Big difference! If I buy bullets of 21 BHN for my Magnum, and use them in the light Special loads, they won't obturate properly and I'm likely to get leading.

Guess what? That's exactly what happened! It wasn't until I bought some bullets of a nice 10 BHN for my Special loads that my leading problem was solved. As I said at the beginning, it doesn't seem logical that softer bullets leave less residue behind - that is, until you understand the physics behind the problem.

With this information you can now go bullet shopping with confidence. You'll probably find that purveyors of "cowboy" bullets are your best choice to get the alloy hardness that you need to keep the lead where it belongs: on the target, not in your barrel!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: accuracy

I recently received an email asking my thoughts on Taylor Throating - the procedure where a reamer removes the rifling for roughly a half-inch past the forcing cone, and the edges of the lands are chamfered to match. The concept is to make an area that allows the bullet to 'stabilize' after jumping the barrel gap, but before entering the rifling.

Taylor Throating is somewhat controversial, with some holding it to be the greatest thing since peanut butter, while others claim that it is pure snake oil. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't offer the service - even though I've invested in the equipment - simply because I remain agnostic regarding its value.

Reports of miraculous results seem not to have occurred under controlled conditions. By that, I mean tested on a gun without any changes other than the throating. The glowing reports tend to be from those who had a lot of other work done at the same time, including timing and forcing cone changes. It's hard to say if the positive reports are in fact due to the throating, to other work, or to something subconscious on the part of the shooter doing the testing.

I've experimented with Taylor Throating on a properly maintained Dan Wesson .357, using several 6" barrels, and shot by two different people (one of whom was your author); the results were inconclusive. When a barrel with just the throating was tested, there was a slight increase in accuracy - but it was not consistent, nor large, enough to rule out normal shooter performance variation. A barrel prepped with a proper crown and an 11 degree forcing cone (as pioneered by Ron Power) achieved a definite positive result, roughly equal to what is said to be expected by some Taylor advocates.

My preliminary opinion, based on my admittedly limited experience with the technique, is that a proper forcing cone and a perfect crown still produce the most noticeable accuracy improvement. Of course, this is assuming that the gun is in perfect condition (timing, cylinder/barrel alignment, etc.) to begin with.

There are a couple of specific conditions where Taylor Throating might prove useful as a salvage technique: when the barrel/cylinder alignment is just a hair off in the vertical axis, or where there is a noticeable constriction in the area where the barrel screws into the frame. In those cases accuracy changes in excess of what would normally be expected have been reported, and may be legitimate. There are also some indications that it may extend the useful life of a severely worn barrel, where replacement is difficult or economically unwarranted.

Some specific downsides have been identified, however. If the throated area is even a tiny amount bigger than the chamber throats (or the bullet diameter), lead bullets will suffer "blow by" and gas cutting - severely leading the barrel, and definitely decreasing accuracy.

In the end, it's your choice. I'm not ready to call it a fraud, but neither do I see a definite positive benefit to having it done. When I come up with solid evidence on either side, you can bet I'll report it here!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Regular readers know that I'm not a fan of the internal locks on current Smith & Wessons, and I refuse to personally carry a gun so equipped. I've documented far too many cases of spontaneous lock activation, which renders the gun inoperable in the middle of a string of fire, to ever feel confident in that mechanism for self-defense applications.

If you have the same opinion, you'll be excited to learn that Smith & Wesson has released a very limited run of Model 642 Airweight Centennials without the internal locking system! These are new production guns made with "leftover" non-lock frames, according to S&W. In addition, these guns have the traditional screwed-in barrels, as opposed to the sleeved liner type that the company is now using.

They were able to put together approximately 4,000 of them, and there will be no more.

The unexpected availability of these guns makes it possible for the person who wants a "non-lock" gun to get one new in the box, as opposed to hunting gun stores and gun shows for an example in decent shape. I urge anyone interested in an Airweight Centennial to pick one of these up.

RSR Group is the exclusive distributor of these revolvers. Their stock number is SW103810FC, and as of this morning they had 1,136 left in stock.

RSR Group is a distributor, not a retailer, and require an FFL and a dealer account with them to order a gun. Ask your local dealer to contact RSR and order one in for you - chances are that there will be more than yours in the package, as the dealer will probably want one for personal use too!

Folks, these won't last long. You'll need to move fast if you want one!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: s&w

A reader emailed me this link to a rather unusual bar-b-que setup.

Me want. (If you have one, don't ask me for an action job!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

I don't usually post on Tuesdays, but I couldn't resist: I think I'm on some spammer/scammer list.

Roughly every week for the past couple of months, I've received an email inquiring about the feasibility of "building" a rather odd gun. I just got the second one of the week.

The details vary a bit from email to email, but they have several things in common: they all want a custom made top-break revolver in a large caliber, they all are from foreign countries, and they all have a gmail return address.

The first couple I actually responded to; after noting the repeating pattern, I've elected to roundfile subsequent occurrences.

On the off chance that someone is truly, legitimately interested in having such a gun made, here are a few things to consider before contacting any gunsmith:

1) If you're not in the U.S., you can pretty much forget it. Don't even ask.
2) Having a custom top-break revolver made will cost money. Lots of it. Yes, more than the "$5,000 US Dollars" one such email offered.
3) I'm not the guy to be asking. In fact, I can't imagine who would attempt such a job, so please don't ask me that, either.

-=[ Grant ]=-

A client recently sent me a brand new S&W Model 25 for some work. As part of my normal checkout routine, I measured the trigger pulls. In single action, it was a nice and crisp 3-1/2 lbs. In double action, it....pegged my digital force gauge!

I had to get out the old mechanical unit to read the trigger pull of nearly 15lbs. Holy Sore Forefinger, Batman! Not only that, but the trigger return feels like a mile of bad gravel road. (Since I live on a mile of bad gravel road, I am something of an authority on the topic.)

Oh, did I mention that this was one of S&W's "Special Edition" Lew Horton models? That's right - S&W apparently doesn't feel that handing them close to a grand for one of their revolvers entitles you to a decent trigger. On the other hand, perhaps I should look at it as a perverse form of job security...

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: s&w

It sometimes amuses me how often one hears the same question, with only slight variations. One that I've heard over the years goes something like this: "Is it true that the GP100 isn't very accurate?" Personally, I've not noticed that any of mine are, but there is more to this story.

Assuming that the gun is "in spec" with regards to its construction (forcing cone, crown, chamber/barrel alignment, etc.) it should shoot quite well. Many GP owners, however, continue to complain about the accuracy of their individual example in the absence of those identifiable deficiencies. It so happens that there is a design defect in certain models of the GP100 that will definitely reduce the precision of the gun: the sights.

Owners of fixed-sight Rugers are generally much happier with the accuracy of the GP than those who have the adjustable sights, and I can't say I blame them. The first problem is Ruger's rear sight: it stinks, to put it bluntly. Don't get me wrong, the rear sight picture isn't bad (in fact I prefer it to Smith & Wesson's); the problem is that the Ruger rear sight often won't hold zero all that well.

It starts with a body which has a very loose fit in the frame's sight channel. It continues with universally sloppy fit on the sight pivot pin - the pin that holds the sight onto the gun, allowing the body to pivot up and down for elevation changes. The elevation screw, likewise, has a lot of "wiggle" in it, and the windage screw is often not any better. The net result is a sight that can't be relied upon to stay where it's set from shot to shot.

The rear sight isn't the only problem, just the biggest one. The interchangeable front sight often shows deficiencies of it's own. It is investment cast (like the rest of the gun), but without subsequent machining the edges and serrations remain quite indistinct. The sight picture isn't all that crisp, making a sure hold on target a bit like driving a well-worn 1951 GMC 2-1/2 ton flatbed farm truck. (For those who've never had the pleasure, imagine going down the street having to constantly move the steering wheel a half-turn in each direction just to maintain something like a straight line. Now try it in the rain. At night. Get the idea?)

I've seen more than a few front sights which also weren't secure in the dovetails, causing them to wobble a bit, and there are quite a few that don't have parallel sides. (Or worse, lack a straight top!)

The fixed-sight GP100 doesn't have any of these problems, which explains why their owners tend to be more satisfied with that model's performance.

There are solutions. The best is to replace the rear sight with the terrific Rough Country sight from Bowen Classic Arms. It fits precisely, and the opposing screws that adjust windage and elevation also serve as lockdowns for those adjustments. (If you've ever adjusted the rear sight on a FAL rifle, you know the concept.) The Rough Country sights have the easy change capability of an adjustable sight, but once locked down are as rugged as a fixed sight. There is nothing better on the market, period. Absolutely the best.

The Rough Country sight has a superb sight picture, and is available with a plain black blade, a white outline blade, an "express" (shallow "V") blade, and a blank blade - so that your friendly gunsmith can provide the notch that you feel is best.

The front sight can also be replaced with a Bowen unit. The Bowen front blade is precisely made, with perfect dovetails and parallel sides. It comes as a "blank" - it must be machined to shape and height, then blued, before it is of any use. It is an expensive part, and the additional machining adds to the cost, but if you're looking for the absolute best GP100 sight picture it is the way to go.

Outfitted with decent sights the GP100 really comes into its own, easily keeping up with the best from the competition. If you've not been happy with the way your GP100 shoots, take a hard look at those sights - my bet is you'll find they aren't terribly great!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: ruger, gp100, sights

A few weeks ago the online gun community started buzzing about an impending product announcement from Freedom Arms. FA, for those not familiar with the company, makes the world's best production single-action revolvers. They are strong, accurate, and well made - and dominate the revolver divisions in metallic silhouette competition.

When the news was leaked, speculation abounded. Like many others, I was hopeful that the product would be a double-action wheelgun. I've even mentioned in this blog that I believe FA to be the only company capable of bringing back the era of finely made double action revolvers.

Sadly, we find at gunblast.com they instead brought out a single-shot pistol for the hunting/silhouette market. To quote Gomer Pyle, "I'm sure it's a sight to behold", but I can't help thinking that the engineers at FA are wasting their talents.

I still hold out hope that FA will see the light and bring us a double action. Soon. Please??

-=[ Grant ]=-

Back in my February commentary on this year's SHOT show, I made mention of a new Taurus 6-shot revolver. I also made mention that I couldn't find it on their website, which isn't at all surprising - the latest entry on their "news" page is from October 2006!

However, reader Dave McDaniel had enough time (and tenacity) to scrounge through their site and find the information for us. (He did note that it wasn't easy. No kidding!)


Courtesy of taurususa.com

The new model is coined the 856, and comes in three delicious flavors: blue, stainless, and magnesium. (No "Total Titanium"? Hmmm...I thought that was their claim to fame in the lightweight handgun derby.) Here are the direct links to the products:

Model 856B2 (blue)
Model 856SS2 (stainless)
Model 856HL2MG (magnesium)

According to Taurus, what they've done is to take the "J" frame-sized "85" series and shoehorn in a 6-round cylinder. If there is no noticeable increase in overall size (other than cylinder diameter), this will beat even the late Colt Detective Special for size efficiency! I had hoped that it would actually be a .357 gun, and the fact that it isn't may hurt sales, but I'll settle for a true, readily available compact six shooter that is +P rated. I'm also happy to continue seeing blued versions available.

Of course, there are hurdles yet to clear: first, Taurus has a bit of a reputation for vaporware - announcing products that just never seem to make it into production (or at least take so long that you can't tell the difference.) They're promising the 856 for "third quarter", though of what year they are not specific.

Second is their lack of quality control, about which I've made my feelings quite clear. If the quality is typical of Taurus, the thing might not be worth owning. However, even I acknowledge that the 85 series has generally been their best revolver product; it's mature, well engineered, and generally pretty well fitted. So, there is hope - though I will remain uncommitted until one is actually in my hands.

Third, even if it does make it into production and it is worth owning, Taurus is also well known for discontinuing products at the drop of a hat, even before they can build sales momentum. If the first two hurdles are crossed you'll hear it here first; after that, it's up to you to snap one up before Taurus decides they don't want to make them any longer.

I'm pulling for Taurus on this one. I'd like to see them hit a "home run" for a change, and this is the product that could gain them serious "street cred" amongst devoted wheelgunners. Hopefully they won't screw it up, like they did the last time they had this opportunity (I refer, of course, to the late and shoddy "445" series.)

Stay tuned!

-=[ Grant ]=-

So, you've got snazzy new grips on your 'heater'! Have you checked them to make sure that they won't get in the way of the operation of the gun?

It's surprising how many revolver grips, even from respected manufacturers, interfere with the use of speedloaders. Sometimes they even obstruct the ejection of fired cases!

Check your grips with your preferred loaders; make sure that they don't bind or affect the release of the rounds into the chambers. If they do, you can usually take some material off the grips with sandpaper or a sanding drum on a Dremel. If you don't want to go that route, you'll need to look for grips that don't have the problem.

Either way, check speedloader use with your grips - it's an important part of being revolver-savvy!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: grips

Tam alerts us that today is the "official" birthday of the revolver - courtesy of The Great One, Samuel Colt. (I'm surprised, yet gratified, that she acknowledges someone whose last name is not Browning or Wesson!)

---

As long as I'm doing the link-love bit, over at Michael Bane's place there is something of a brouhaha regarding his assessment of the new Ruger SR9 pistol. Read the first part, then read Michael's response. (Be sure to read the comments on each - that's where the fireworks happen.)

One of the commenters has invoked Massad Ayoob's name as some sort of "proof" that Michael's opinions are "wrong." In the interest of full disclosure, I know Mas Ayoob on a personal basis, and I've done work for Bane. I've read their reviews, and what it comes down to is that they are both opinionated people with very definite tastes and preferences in firearms. That they have different points of view with regard to this particular gun is simply evidence that nothing appeals to everyone. I trust them both, and my feeling is that it's sad they couldn't find a new, innovative Ruger revolver to disagree about!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: ruger, bloggers

I've gotten a number of inquiries over the past few months regarding ignition troubles in otherwise stock revolvers.

As ammunition prices continue their climb, many enthusiasts find their budgets strained. In order to continue shooting, those who do not reload their own ammo have been looking at less expensive options for feeding their guns. Brands like Fiocchi and Sellier & Bellot ("S&B"), brands that didn't have many takers a couple of years ago, are now being featured at many sporting goods outlets.

For the most part there is nothing wrong, from a quality control standpoint, with this ammunition. It must be remembered, though, that many foreign ammunition companies do not have the range of cartridge components that we do. Since much (if not most) of their production is often military contract, they are known use the same components for their commercial products - said components to include primers.

Military specifications, regardless of country, usually require a certain level of slam-fire resistance, which necessitates heavier primer cups. Those thicker, harder primers can be more difficult to ignite in firearms that expect to see a "civilian" (more sensitive) primer. It's no wonder, then, that ignition problems with Fiocchi and S&B ammunition are being seen; it's not that the ammo is "bad", but rather that the components used are intended for guns with more robust firing systems!

If you're using foreign ammunition, and your stock firearm is proving to be a bit unreliable, don't blame the gun. Try some "normal" (read: American produced) ammo - I'll bet it returns to 100% function.

(You say that using U.S. ammunition will cut into your shooting activities because of the cost? Well, it's time to learn how to reload your own - it's easy, fun, and economical!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Remember last Wednesday, when I wished for some new revolver introductions - then reminded Taurus that revolvers which chambered shotshells weren't terribly interesting?

Guess what they introduced at SHOT?

Yep. More revolvers that chamber shotshells.

Obviously the things are selling (Taurus being notorious for discontinuing products at the first whiff of a sales drop), but I haven't quite figured out the attraction.

---

Taurus did introduce something interesting, but it appears to be getting zero press: a 6-shot compact .38 special revolver. If it's any good at all, this could be the long-awaited replacement for the Colt Detective Special.

Knowing Taurus quality control I'm apprehensive, but I'll reserve judgement until I can get one in my hands. (Reports are, oddly, listing it as a Model 85, which is their nomenclature for the 5-shot line. Hmmm...of course, there's no info available on the perennially out-of-date Taurus website.)

---

Since I haven't gotten any nasty emails from Charter Arms partisans since the last SHOT Show, I'll just mention that they introduced a new .327 Federal chambering for their "affordable" guns. (If it performs as well as the brand-new .38 Special Charter I encountered on the firing line at a class last weekend, potential buyers may want to update their life insurance before filling out the 4473 form. Yes, it was that bad.)

---

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: shot.show

First off, you're unlikely to see this on any other gun blog: I've been privy to the formation a new organization in the last several months, and sworn to secrecy until it was officially unveiled at SHOT. Well, my tongue is now loosened!

The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network is a membership organization designed to give those who are involved in a self-defense situation the legal resources to survive the inevitable legal aftermath. The Network gives exclusive access to qualified attorneys and court-recognized experts in the field of self defense, as well as up-to-date education materials in the legal use of force, free case review from nationally respected use-of-force experts, and special discounts on classes by member trainers. This is an idea whose time has come, and I'm proud to bring the news to you!

Smith & Wesson announced several new revolvers, Scandium-framed "carry guns" in .357, .44 Special, and .45ACP. I'm not all that enthused about these lightweight guns - frankly, they hurt to shoot and I'm wary of the self-engaging locks - but apparently I'm alone in my assessment, as S&W seems to sell all they can make. What's interesting about these entries to the field are the new fast acquisition sights: a tritium "Big Dot" style front paired with a new u-channel rear sight.


Courtesy of Call Me Ahab

Note the rather crude, unfinished appearance - one hopes that the production versions will be cleaner:


Courtesy of Gunblast.com


The 5mm Remington Magnum rimfire was a neat round that didn't deserve to die. Introduced back in the '80s, it was discontinued just a few years later in the wake of underwhelming sales. Aguila has decided to reintroduce the round, and Taurus is chambering their Tracker series in the "new/old" cartridge.

I've spoken about Ruger's new blood, and it is in evidence at SHOT this year. They've introduced a new polymer .380 pocket pistol (bearing more than a passing resemblance to the Kel-Tec .380), which is a radical departure for the staid maker. I'm hoping - really, REALLY hoping - that their revolver line will see some new introductions soon. (Chant with me: ".44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100....44 Special GP100..." Maybe they'll get the collective vibe!)

Finally, though not specifically my thing, USFA has introduced their replica of the large-frame Forehand & Wadsworth single-action revolver. This is an instance where the reproduction will no doubt be of higher quality than the original! USFA has been steadily expanding their range of top-quality guns, and I think they are our best hope to introduce a real, high-quality American double-action revolver. How about it, USFA - give us a Python. Or a Diamondback. Or a Registered Magnum. Cowboy shooters aren't the only people with money, you know!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: shot.show, s&w, rimfire, ruger

I got an email the other day, asking in effect "why just revolvers?" I dashed off an answer (with so many emails demanding a response, it's hard to write essays for each one.) I always feel that I haven't done the subject justice, so here is yet more about why I choose the round gun over the flat one.

Why revolvers? Because I like them! I like their lines, their reliability, their accuracy, their power; I like their history, and that they are prototypically "American" firearms. (I like lever action rifles for that same reason.)

I like revolvers because they can be made to fit the hand in a way a slab-sided pistol never can. I like them because of their almost Zen-like operation: the cylinder goes 'round, the gun discharges, and when the operator wishes, the process is repeated. I like them because you can see what's happening; because they are easy to load and unload.

I did not come to these opinions quickly or easily, you understand. When I was a kid, all the other kids wanted a Colt "Peacemaker" and a Winchester '94. Not me - I looked in the Sears catalog (yes, they carried guns when I was a kid) and dreamed of owning a .45 auto and an M1 carbine. I was definitely a contrarian from the start!

It wasn't until my advanced years that the lure of the revolver affected my soul. (Though, as I've related in past posts, it was more of a challenge to my ballistic manhood than an intellectual appreciation. Introspection came later.)

Oh, the best thing about revolvers? They aren't made of plastic!

-=[ Grant ]=-

In a recent article, I expressed my thought that perhaps we would see some new, innovative revolver offerings from Ruger in the coming months.

Pardon my curmudgeonly demeanor, but I really don't think this is it.

A number of people have emailed asking my opinion of this new .327 Federal cartridge. As a defensive round, I'm not sure it really has a place. They're advertising a 20% reduction in recoil compared to a .357 (exactly which .357 loading isn't specified), but we don't know what the reduction in terminal effectiveness will be. That's the $64,000 question (apologies to the younger generations who may not understand the reference.)

The rub is that we already have a cartridge with half the recoil of the .357 and proven performance: the .38 Special +P. The old 158 grain LSWCHP +P load has a sterling reputation for effectiveness, even from a 2" barrel; the new Speer Gold Dot 135 grain +P is developing an enviable track record with even less recoil. Why go smaller?

Of course, there is always the 6-round selling point, but I don't think it makes up for what will probably be reduced terminal effect.

I do think that the new round has a place as a small- to medium-size hunting cartridge (it would rock from a lever action rifle!), but beyond that I just don't think it has much of a future.

(I remain fully prepared to eat a large helping of crow should it prove to be a runaway success.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: ruger

I just can't think of anything to say today. This is beyond writer's block - my mind is simply blank.

I'd thought of commenting on an email I received that was critical of my position in the article On Safety, but it seems like beating a dead horse.

Tam put up an interesting post on the S&W Model 53, but a simple link is hardly sufficient for a whole blog post.

A tragic shooting in small-town America shows just how ridiculous it is to insist that only the police and military have guns. I could comment, but I think the story is self-explanatory.

I guess I'll just fall back on this: it's stupid to make pets out of wild animals. Especially heavily-armed wild animals.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: s&w

It occurs to me that not everyone who stumbles into my little corner of the internet necessarily knows whether he or she needs my services. I receive quite a number of emails that essentially ask "should I have a trigger job done on my revolver?"

(I am aware that asking a gunsmith that question is tantamount to requesting that the fox guard the henhouse. Still, I'd like to take a crack - hopefully a fairly objective one - at the topic.)

There are a lot of factors involved in this decision. Are you happy with the action of the gun as it is? Do you have a frame of reference to really know if you're happy with it? Are you able to tell the difference? Is your experience level such that you can take advantage of the results?

Believe it or not, it's the second of those questions - having a frame of reference - that is the most important. Without it, the others can't be addressed in any meaningful way. Simply put, have you had the opportunity to handle (and preferably shoot) a revolver whose action has been tuned by a good gunsmith? I don't mean a factory "custom" gun - I mean a real custom from someone who knows their stuff. The difference can be like night and day, and until you have one in your hands everything might seem good.

It's a little like eating a great steak; if all you've ever had is hamburger, you can't imagine how good a steak is. Once you've had the steak, though, the hamburger is far less satisfying than it used to be. Your ability to judge has been expanded by your experiences, and the same is true with the action on your revolver.

True story: I was at the gun counter of a large outdoor retailer one day, and they had just gotten in a then-new S&W "Performance Center" wheelgun. (If memory serves, it was a 627.) I'm always interested in what's coming out of the P.C., so I asked to see it. Right away I noticed serious shortcomings in the fit and finish, but when I pulled the trigger I was taken aback: the double action quite literally felt like someone had stuck a playing card in a bicycle's spokes! I shook my head as I handed the specimen back to the clerk.

Before he could put it away, however, someone else came to the counter and asked to see it. This fellow and his buddy gushed enthusiastically as they looked the gun over, finally pulling the trigger. The guy holding the gun said "man, you have got to feel this trigger - it's like butter!" The second fellow tried it and concurred that it was the "best trigger I've ever felt - boy, you sure get what you pay for with a Smith & Wesson!"

Propriety forbade me from educating them and possibly ruining a sale for the store, but the incident serves to illustrate that some people perhaps don't know that there can be something better. (In some cases, a whole lot better!)

Once you have a standard - a frame of reference - against which you can judge, you can then answer the first question: are you happy with what you have now? You may in fact be quite happy; your gun may be good enough for the task at hand, even if it isn't the very best. For instance, my wife and I have gotten along for many years - quite happily, I might add - with a plain old RCA 21" television. (Yes, a twenty-one-inch!) Your children probably have better televisions in their bedrooms, but for us it is good enough. We don't watch much TV, rarely play a movie (we own exactly 3 DVDs), and thus for our use it is perfectly fine. On the other hand, someone who likes to watch lots of sporting events, or is a movie buff, would find it annoyingly limited.

Can you appreciate - and take advantage of - a highly tuned action? Can you tell the difference between what you have now and what it could be? This isn't as silly a question as you might believe.

Case in point: I'm not much of an oenophile. I can count the number of bottles of wine I've drank in my 40-plus-years on one hand, with fingers left over. (Yep, I'm a lightweight.) I have, however, tasted some very expensive and special wines at various functions over the years, and therefore have the necessary frame of reference. On me, though, the differences between a good wine and "Two Buck Chuck" are lost. I simply can't appreciate the difference, and what's more I don't care because I don't drink enough wine to enable me to care!

The same is true with revolvers. Many people, some of them very good shooters, really can't feel a difference between a factory action and a tuned one. One day at the range I handed my personal Colt Detective Special to a fellow who had been shooting a bone-stock example. They were like night and day - the factory one stacked horribly, was rough as a gravel road, and weighed in at roughly 12 pounds. Mine? Buttery smooth, no stacking, and broke right at 9 lbs. This fellow, however, couldn't tell the difference - he handed it back with an apologetic look and said that he was sorry, but it didn't feel any better to him!

As you might surmise, I was a bit disheartened. But it illustrated to me that not everyone cares about this stuff as much as I do, and it would be unconscionable of me to talk them into something that they really don't need - at least, not right now.

The foregoing is a long-winded way of saying that if you don't know there is a difference, can't feel the difference, or don't care about the difference, don't feel pressured to spend money - with me or anyone else. Whether it comes from shooting magazines, gunstore commandoes, or even my website, don't buy what you know in your heart you can't use. Spend the money on ammunition instead, and enjoy yourself.

(Boy, I hope I haven't talked myself out of a job!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

First, I'd like to thank everyone for reading this series, and for the terrific emails I've been getting. I'm gratified that many of you share my interest in good looking revolvers, and in what garners that appellation for each of us.

While not exactly part of the series, I'd like to take some time to convey my thoughts with regard to customization, and the kinds of work that adds to, or detracts from, the look of a wheelgun.

To start, I consider very carefully what I do to a revolver before taking file (or anything else) to metal. I think the project through; how will my work affect not only how the gun functions, but how it looks? In some cases the work helps (or at least doesn't hurt) the aesthetics of the gun, while in other cases it looks horrid.

For instance, let's take the act of bobbing a hammer. Not only does the result have to work correctly, but it has to serve the same visual function as that which it replaces. For the Colt and S&W guns, I've come up with two different approaches to the problem, which I believe look good on their respective marques. (Can you believe that I don't have a single picture to show? I've been quite negligent in documenting my own work!) Both are different than what most others do, and both are harmonious with the overall design of the guns.

In the case of the Ruger revolvers, I haven't yet hit on just the "right" modification. I do a lot of them, and have come up with something that isn't too bad, but it's no different than any number of people already have done - and I'm not really happy with the look. I've recently gone to the extent of scanning a Ruger hammer in to Photoshop so that I can "play" with the design - which I hope will lead me to the nirvana I seek. Wish me luck, as there isn't a lot to work with in their existing design!

Sometimes clients ask me to do things which I believe in my heart will look awful. A common request of late is to mill flats on the sides of barrels, ostensibly to shed weight. (I think the real motivation is a desire to make it look "modern" and "custom" and - dare I say? - "racy.") Sadly, in every example I've seen - and I've seen a LOT of them - the look is at odds with the rest of the gun. (Remember the concept of unity we discussed in Part 3?) Consequently I shrink from the prospect of doing them, and gently steer the client to something else. (In some cases I've sent the most intractable to another gunsmith, rather than be the proximate cause of yet another ugly gun!)

Are there instances where that type of embellishment might be appropriate to the overall design, and where I might consent to doing the job? Perhaps - but off the top of my head, I can't think of one. (Save, perhaps, for the already-blocky Dan Wesson heavy barrel shrouds - but I think there is a better approach to that particular assignment.)

This is where the marketing and customer relations parts of my head chime in, no doubt in concert with a few readers: "it's your job to do what the client wants, not what you want!" Yes, that's true - but the selfish part of me wants to ensure that a decade from now, people won't be referring to my work as "butchery." I confess to giving in to my selfish side, though in this case I believe that it is in the best interests of the client to not butcher his/her gun!

On down the line the deliberations go, each part of the work carefully considered both on its own merits, and in tandem with the other parts of the design. It has to work well, and it has to look good; I can't bring myself to do either separately. Perhaps I'll never become a huge gunsmithing conglomerate with such an attitude, but at the end of the day I can look back at what I've done, and smile with the knowledge that I've contributed - in a small way - to making the world just a bit better looking.

Life is too short to shoot - or to make - ugly guns. We'll leave that to the autoloader brigade!

-=[ Grant ]=-

The internet "experts" just can't let this one go!

If you're new to this discussion, please read this short article on the use of +P ammunition in Colt revolvers. Apparently, the fact that a manufacturer would dare tell a customer what kind of ammunition they should use rubs some people the wrong way!

The latest argument from the "experts" delves into Colt advertising history. Way back when, Colt's advertisements stated that their small revolvers were suitable for use with the .38-44 "Heavy Duty" round, which was the predecessor to the .357 Magnum - but in a Special-length case.

When the Magnum was introduced, the .38-44 went away. It wasn't until many years later that the more hotly loaded .38 Special +P made its appearance. It wasn't a throwback, however - it was still lighter than the .38-44. (Think of the +P as being between the regular .38 Special and the .38-44 in terms of power, and you won't be terribly far off.)

The "experts" quickly point out that the .38-44 is far more powerful than the .38 +P, and the fact that Colt advertised the use of .38-44 ammo in their guns is some sort of “proof“ that Colt's last factory recommendations for proper loadings are somehow “wrong.“ They conclude from all of this that using unlimited amounts of +P ammunition in small frame Colts is perfectly fine.

Such opinions, aside from flying counter to those of the people who actually designed and constructed the gun, ignore certain realities of the times involved.

Yes, Colt did say in print ads that their guns were rated for the .38-44 round. It doesn't say that the guns wouldn't experience increased wear, however, nor did it say that they could use that load regularly! When one examines the ads, it is obvious Colt was saying the guns wouldn't suffer catastrophic failure from firing those rounds, and not that there would be no long-term consequences from doing so. There is a difference!

It's important to remember that, at the time, a) there were a huge number of trained Colt gunsmiths; b) Colt was producing, and had available, parts for all of the guns (including the frames); c) shipping restrictions, as in sending guns back to the factory, were non-existent making factory service far more affordable.

Finally, there was a different gun culture in existence. Today we think nothing of shooting a hundred rounds just in a quick trip to the range, but back then it just wasn't like that. A Colt revolver, even in police service, might only see a hundred rounds a year. Outside of that, it was extremely common - perhaps the norm - to buy a new revolver and a box of ammunition, and a decade or two later still have more than half that box of ammo!

Handguns just weren't shot all that much back then. Handgun hunting was virtually unknown, handgun sports (outside of regulation bullseye) didn't exist, and handgun shooting as recreation wasn't common. Handguns simply weren't used as frequently, and under those conditions the very occasional cylinder of .38-44 rounds wasn't going to hurt anything.

That's why Colt makes the 3,000 round recommendation for the use of +P ammunition in their recent production revolvers. 3,000 rounds doesn't sound like a lot to us, but even a police officer back in those days wouldn't expect to shoot that much in his entire career.

Once you consider all of the facts, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between what Colt said then and what they say now. Times have changed, and their recommendations have changed as well.

-=[ Grant ]=-

If you're just joining us, I ask that you peruse the earlier parts of this Series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Now, on with the show!

The challenge of revolver design today is in how to bring the aesthetics up to date, to allow (or take advantage of) advances in material and manufacturing technology, while simultaneously maintaining the essence of just what a revolver is. At first blush this seems like an impossible task: make a modern looking traditional firearm. Some would say that it's akin to fitting a muzzle loader with LaserGrips!

I disagree. I think that the essence of the revolver isn't a traditional look, but rather a familiar operation; of simplicity, not complication. Don't get me wrong - I like a traditional revolver as much as anyone, but for me it's always about how the gun WORKS. I don't shoot, carry, compete with, train with, and work on revolvers because I'm a nostalgic Luddite; I'm a thoroughly forward-looking Luddite!

Heretical? Some might say so. Inconsistent? I don't see it. At the end of the day, it's the cylinder (and the way that it works) that makes the revolver, regardless of what the packaging looks like.

Let's take a look at efforts to modernize the wheelgun.

One of the more successful changes in the look of the revolver was the introduction of the Colt Python (which we've already covered) back in 1955. The lugged barrel, still debated (and despised) by some, was a real departure in revolver design.

Smith & Wesson has had their share of "pushing the envelope" designs too. Some of their more recent efforts are styling disasters, but they haven't all been - take the groundbreaking "hammerless" Centennial series, first introduced in 1952.


Photo courtesy of www.snubnose.info

The Centennial, with its fully enclosed hammer, was a sleeker, more modern approach to the small frame revolver. The design is much more forward looking than its "Bodyguard" stablemate; unlike some designs has aged very well and is still in production. Note the back end of the gun, where the hammer would normally be - the way that it comes down to integrate the rear sight and the top of the grip is so simple, yet so effective. Great design, and can truly be called a "modern classic."

Sometimes a design needs an iteration (or two...or three) before it really hits its stride. Take a look at the original Dan Wesson design:


Dan Wesson photos courtesy of www.notpurfect.com

The DW was an exciting revolver when first introduced in the late '60s. Combining modern materials and revolutionary features, it was sadly lacking in the appearance department. Karl Lewis, though one of the greatest firearms designers in American history, was not terribly adept at making his guns look as good as they worked, and the original DW design was proof.

Where to start? The ugly barrel retaining nut, the inelegant matching of the "L" shaped barrel shroud and the frame, the ungainly front sight, the the use of a traditional barrel shape on an otherwise modern frame all combined to make a look that can only be described as "horrendous."

A few years later, with some work on both the engineering and aesthetics, the DW Model 15 finally hit the mark:



The square-slab lugged barrel with vented rib (they learned from Colt!) finally combined to serve as a perfect match for the frame. It had a sort of industrial look to it that still looks good today. Even on this 6" example, it is visually balanced - a tough thing to do with a heavy barrel, but the DW pulls it off.

Ruger went through the same kind of evolution, but it took a little longer. Their original double action design was, like the Dan Wesson, groundbreaking in many engineering ways - modern materials, production methods, and the elimination of screws. These were combined to make the "Six" Series (Speed-, Security-, and Service-Six models):


Photo courtesy of www.landro.no

Now understand that I'm a big fan of the Sixes, but let's face it - they were pretty ugly. The barrel just didn't mesh well with the squarish frame (note the steep drop from the top of the frame to the barrel shank.) It looks for all the world like one of those cheap .22 revolvers from the various German makers that were common here in the '60s. The inelegant hammer spur didn't help matters, either.

They did significantly better with the GP100 - the lugged barrel balances the heavy frame much better - but the barrel still doesn't quite match the lines of the frame:


Photo courtesy of www.ruger.com

They kept at it, and finally hit a home run with the SP101 - a thoroughly modern design, in both construction and aesthetics. It is, in my humble estimation, the best attempt at a modern appearance of all of the currently available revolvers.


Photo courtesy of www.ruger.com

The barrel was a radical departure in profile; no longer constrained to rather simple combinations of basic geometric shapes, the SP101 barrel is instead a sensuous "S" curve, which mates to the lines of the frame exceptionally well. The barrel's "rib" fits right to the top of the frame, and the recoil shield is sculpted on the right side. It seems to grow from the frame wall, rather than being merely attached to it in the manner of the older Sixes. The ugly hammer spur remains, but it doesn't seem so bad on this gun - probably because the rest of the design works so well. (Yeah, the grips stink, but one can at least replace the cheesy plastic panels with aftermarket wood or micarta.)

How about really pushing the envelope? How about setting out to produce a radically different revolver? There have been attempts - the original Mateba designs, the MTR8 (and later 2006M and Unica) certainly tried:



Photo courtesy of www.worldguns.ru


These, however, were attempts to change the very nature of what a revolver is; how about if we take the accepted design envelope, and simply...update it? That, folks, brings us to the very radical, yet still familiar, Manurhin MR 93:


Photo courtesy of www.army-discount.com

The barrel shroud is square in profile, which compliments the distinctly angular frame. The cylinder - now something of a round peg in a square hole - is brought into the design with its squarish fluting. The recoil shield flares into the frame, in an extreme update of the SP101 we saw above. The triggerguard features the same sort of updating (though I could live without the faddish hook on the front.) Even the hammer spur was simplified, angled, and minimized to fit the overall theme. The very European grips complete the package by bringing the otherwise austere gun back to its roots - rounded so that the hand can comfortably grasp them, and wood to warm up what could have otherwise been a very cold appearance.

Remember what I said a while back about the difference between what you like and what you can appreciate? This is it. You may not like it; you may think it blasphemous. You may not wish to own it. All of that is fine and very normal; but you have to admire the elements, how they hold together and compliment each other, and how the design is unified, even if you wouldn't want it in your safe. The eye moves through and around the design very well, and even the choice of materials is "correct" from an aesthetic viewpoint.

Back on August 29 I wrote that this part of the series might put off more than a few of you. Here it comes: I think it's one of the best revolver designs ever. Yes, I'm serious. It pushes the envelope, but skillfully uses all of the design criteria we've learned about in this series. It is thoroughly, unabashedly modern, but manages to retain the essence of what a revolver is. All of the design elements work so well together, and the design as a whole is striking - but not in the way the Mateba MTR8 is. At its heart it is still that traditional machine we all appreciate, even if its clothing is of a different era.

You don't like it? That's fine! Don't ignore it, though, for how it looks can teach us much about revolver design, and may even help us identify just what it is we do (and don't) like.

I hope this series has exposed you to ideas and concepts that you might not have otherwise considered. If it has done so, I will have succeeded in my original aim to expand our wheelgun horizons. I welcome your comments!

Next week, the Epilogue: how I approach customization in relation to revolver aesthetics, and why I've chosen not to do certain things.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Well, that's an easy story: I didn't have a summer vacation! I did, however, take part of Labor Day off and head to the range. (You were wondering why there was no post on Monday? Did you really miss me?)

You see, I don't get to shoot much any more - at least in the sense of being able to sit down, concentrate on one thing, and just enjoy myself. When I go to the range, it's always with a half-dozen client guns, each of which needs to have 50 rounds of test ammo put through it. The order of those days is "get in, get out, get back to work." It's not at all fun, it's work. Seriously. Quit laughing!

Monday was different. I went to the range with a friend and just enjoyed myself. (Okay, I did have a client's gun to test - but that went pretty quickly.) I got a chance to play my favorite game: see how many shots I can place on the 200 meter metallic ram target, using a snub-nose revolver, from standing, shooting double action only. Yes, it can be done, though admittedly a good result is a round or two per cylinder connecting. The rest will generally hit just a tad low, because it's a bit difficult to estimate holdover when the barrel of the gun is obscuring the target.

My friend was shooting a Ruger New Model Single Six with the .22WMR cylinder installed. He is a phenomenal shooter, and has always been unhappy with the groups from this particular gun. At 15 yards it would print patterns of 4 or 5 inches in diameter, no matter what ammo was put through it. The poor performance wasn't limited to this example, either - this was the replacement he purchased for the first example, which would do no better! To say he was disappointed with the Single Six is a massive understatement.

He figured that he couldn't possibly make the situation any worse, so he examined the gun with an eye to figuring out what was wrong. He notice that the barrel crown was slightly off center and out of square (not unusual, sad to say, with Ruger.) He took a 45-degree chamfering cutter and made a deep, properly centered crown on the barrel.

The results were night-and-day. The gun, which formerly produced groups that my shotgun would beat, now puts rounds on target with all the holes touching. At one point, we stood in front of the targets and I said "you know, we really should have kept the old targets so that we could make a before-and-after picture!" Another lost opportunity...

The muzzle crown is a phenomenally important contributor to accuracy in both handguns and rifles. It is the last thing that the bullet touches, and if it is nicked, off center or out of square accuracy will suffer. That's why I closely inspect the crown on every gun that comes in, and if I think that recrowning will help I'll suggest to the client that it be done. It isn't always needed, but it can pay huge dividends when it is!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Monday's post, a design analysis of the Colt Python, generated a number of interesting emails - no doubt in part to a mention at The View From The Porch.

The general gist of my inbox was of the "I don't think the Python is the best looking/I think the XXX is better looking" type. I suspect this is because readers were "coming in late" and hadn't read Part One and Part Two of the series.

This series of articles isn't about what I (or anyone else) likes, or what we prefer to own. The idea is to study design with regard to the revolver; to learn about the aesthetics of industrial design so that we can appreciate what goes into it, even if we don't happen to like it.

Yes, I like Pythons; I also like the old skinny-barrel S&W "K" frames, and for different reasons. I appreciate the skill that went into the design of the Python, a design that could have very easily (the S&W 686 springs to mind) turned out to be less graceful than it did. One can admire the skill of the designer, even if one doesn't care to have an example for him or her self. This can only happen if one is conversant with the qualities of good design.

What we like isn't always what's good; this is an important concept to understand. For instance, the S&W "Bodyguard" series of "J" frames is - by just about any measure - an unsuccessful design from a styling standpoint. From any angle, it's an ugly gun. That doesn't stop me from liking the little things, in the same way that I like bulldogs - they're so ugly, they're cute!

On the other hand, one can appreciate guns that one doesn't actually like. I'm not a fan of autoloaders, but that doesn't stop me from admiring the Ferrari-like lines of the Benelli B-76 (I consider it to be the best looking autoloader ever made, which is a little like contending that one has the best deck chair on the Titanic.) My feelings about Taurus revolvers are almost infamous, yet I have to admit that the 4" Tracker series is a good styling exercise (even given the inelegant shape of their triggers.)

Regular readers will have their ability to differentiate between feeling and appreciation sorely tested in a couple of weeks, when I present the final article in the series. I suspect than more than a few of you will be put off by some of the conclusions in it, but with an open mind - and the background in this series - I think you will find it challenging, compelling, and perhaps more than a little instructive. You may still not like what you see, but (hopefully) you'll understand a bit about why the designers did what they did.

Stay tuned, and keep those cards and letters coming!

-=[ Grant ]=-

As promised in the last installment, today we'll be taking a look at one iconic revolver and discover how it follows the design principles we've explored.

The Colt Python easily makes just about everyone's "top 5 revolvers" list. Much of its popularity is due to its gilt-edged accuracy and superb out-of-box action (though, of course, it can always be better. This has been an obvious plug.) However, it's drop-dead-gorgeous looks are no doubt a huge part of the reputation it enjoys.

So "right" is the look of the Python that S&W paid it the honor (though they'll deny it) of copying the distinctive barrel profile in their "L" frame guns. They couldn't get the rest of the gun, though, and that's sad - because, as we'll see, the Python's appearance is a function of the whole gun. (Before you shoot off that hate email, understand that the 686 series are pretty good looking guns in their own right; it's just that they don't achieve the high level of design excellence that the Python does. Keep reading, and hopefully you'll begin to understand why.)



We're using a typical 4-inch Python as our example, since it is not only the most common, but also the best looking of the various Python incarnations.

What do we see when we look at the Python?

The first principle we learned about is proportion - the relationship of elements to each other, and of the whole design, in all measurable aspects.The 4-inch version is near ideal; the barrel, which often looks skinny on other guns, has sufficient volume to hold its own against the cylinder and frame; in fact, one gets the feeling that if the barrel were to be compressed lengthwise, its width would grow proportionally to end up the same dimension as the cylinder. The trigger and triggerguard are perfectly proportioned to each other, and the combination to the frame. Note the hammer tang; having a large pad for easy cocking could have made the hammer proportionally too large for the rest of the design. Through judicious thinning and shaping, the designers made a hammer that complimented the design rather than stood apart from it.

Closely related to proportion, we learned, is the concept of balance, or of visual equilibrium. Here again the Python design simply shines. The Python's gripframe, often criticized for flaring too much, gives needed visual balance to the heavy lugged barrel and frame. The gun has a visual center of balance right in the center of the gun. Contributing to this is the barrel's vent rib; were that top rib solid, it wouldn't look as balanced as it does. Take, for example, the S&W copy:



Without the vents in the barrel, it simply looks front heavy compared to the Colt original; there is a feeling that it will tip forward, while the Python doesn't. (That huge front sight ramp doesn't help, either.)

Eye movement in the Python design is almost classic. If we start at the muzzle, the lines of the barrel - repeating between the lug, the central portion, and the rib - serve to draw the eye toward the cylinder. Once there, the pointed ends of the flutes send the gaze to the cylinder release, whose shape directs the eye to the hammer tang. This is were the design shows a particular genius: the gentle curve and overall shape of the hammer directs the eye in a clockwise spiral to the grips, where their shape sends the gaze to the trigger. The strongly curved trigger - much more curved than on any other brand of revolver - is a sort of "ski jump" that propels the eye back to the barrel.

Note especially the cut of the frame under the barrel down to the triggerguard, and compare it to the S&W. Note how the Python has just a bit of an angular cut with just a hint of curvature, which serves to visually lighten the gun and give it a "flying" feeling. It also serves to help redirect the eye from the trigger back to the muzzle; the S&W, in contrast, looks "blocky", far less graceful, and stops the eye dead at that point. Design is often about such "minor" details!

Which brings us to emphasis, or design elements that arrest the eye without causing visual fixation. It is a design touch that causes the gaze to linger, rather than stop. It's terribly easy for the eye to leave a revolver at the hammer or muzzle, because those are points to which the eye tends to be sent by the barrel and cylinder combination. That gorgeous Python hammer hammer begs to be looked at, but it isn't so overwhelming that the viewer's gaze ends at that point; it serves to slow the eye down, then redirect the gaze to the next element. Were it larger or smaller, it wouldn't serve the same purpose. It is a perfect example of design emphasis, as is the thumb latch that slows the eye down just enough to make sure it doesn't miss the hammer spur.

The front sight shape - and the barrel vents - tend to keep that from happening at the front. If we look back at the S&W picture, you'll notice that the front sight ramp tends to serve as a launch point unto itself, sending the eye right off the front sight into space. On the Python, the sight is enough to stop the eye from taking off into the hinterlands, but not so much that it becomes a stopping or launching point on its own. The vents are a point of contrast, being quite angular in comparison to the smooth curves of the rest of the revolver. That contrast is just enough to catch the eye, but not enough to look out of place or in conflict with the rest of the design elements. (As we'll see in the next part of this series, making a contrast without creating visual dichotomy is a tough task - and not always achieved.)

Finally, when we look at the Python we see an overall unity, the feeling that every element is working to support the overall design. Achieving unity starts with the finish (which is a point of emphasis all by itself.) That deep, glassy "Royal Blue" finish for which the Python is famed is a strong component that ties together all of the elements. It's not the only unifying feature, however!

The shape of the thumb latch repeats the shape of the cylinder flutes, which themselves appear to be continuous from the barrel lug. (So good is that combination, when you look at the gun as a whole it almost seems to be one solid piece of steel from the muzzle to the end of that latch.) Note too how the barrel cross-section matches the frame contours where the barrel is attached, and how the contour of the frame under the hammer is reminiscent of the curve of the triggerguard. (Take a look at the S&W; note how that same curve is much shallower, and doesn't really recall that of any other part of the frame.) Even the points where the triggerguard meet the frame are identical front and rear, which augments that feeling of cohesion.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. One must look at revolver design not just as a series of parts, but also at how those parts work together to produce a design at which the eye can't seem to stop looking. The Colt Python is, in that regard, the ne plus ultra of revolvers.

In the next installment, we'll look at designs gone awry, and find out why some guns are just plain ugly. Until then, always remember: life is too short to carry (or shoot) an ugly gun!

-=[ Grant ]=-

A gentleman wrote in asking about small backup revolvers - that is, a revolver to carry as a backup to a primary revolver.

I know that many people carry their primary gun on their hip, with a lightweight (aluminum, titanium, scandium) wheelgun in an ankle holster, and I know a couple of folks who carry a S&W "J" frame in a front pants pocket as a second gun.

This is not what the writer had in mind, though. He was thinking of a very small (smaller than a "J" frame) "subcompact" revolver for a second gun, in the same way that there are subcompact autoloaders (Seecamp, Kel-Tec, etc.) to serve as backups to a larger autoloader. Sadly, the market in this case is pretty limited.

The only one that comes quickly to mind is the North American Arms "Mini" revolver in .22LR and .22WMR. (The Magnum, of course, would be a better choice than the Long Rifle, ballistically speaking.) The trouble with these guns is that 1) I've never seen one that could be even charitably referred to as reliable, and 2) they are harder than heck to even keep on an IDPA target at 7 feet, let alone be assured of a solid hit in the vitals.

Beyond that there are only the much larger S&W "J" frame guns (and the Taurus equivalents, though I'm not wild about them.) However, there may be a "blast from the past" that is worth considering: the Colt Pocket Positive. Never heard of it? Well, you're in for a treat!

The Pocket Positive was nothing more than a scaled-down "D" frame (Detective Special, etc.) After all, the "D" frame was just a scaled down "E" frame (Official Police, etc.) so why not go even smaller? The Pocket Positive was a tiny little gun - considerably smaller than even a "J" frame. (A cylinder on the Colt measures 1.240", while the "J" frame comes in at 1.310". What really makes the difference, though, is the frame - the Pocket Positive is a tiny, almost jewel-like gun, noticeably smaller than the popular "J".) The action is, as noted, of normal Colt design, and should smooth up as nicely as its bigger brothers.

The Pocket Positive was most commonly chambered in the .32 Colt Police round, aka the .32 S&W Long. Now the .32 S&W round isn't terribly powerful, of course, but neither is the .32ACP - a cartridge used and praised in the backup role for many years. The .32 revolver round has a significantly heavier bullet, so it should have better penetration than the .32ACP - always a good thing when shooting a "mousegun." Ammunition is still being made, though the factory offerings are limited to lead round nose.

Pocket Positives have not yet captured the collecting world's imagination, and are still available at reasonable prices. I picked one up a while back for $150, and it's been sitting in my "to do" pile awaiting some spare time. I think I'll dig that out and put it back into working order; I think it may be the answer to the need for a good backup revolver!

(Now if only someone would reintroduce it in titanium...)

-=[ Grant ]=-

In Part 2, we looked at the ideas of proportion and balance as they relate to revolver design. Today, let's look at some more concepts of good design.

Movement seems like an odd concept for an inanimate object, but it doesn't really deal with the object itself - movement instead refers to the path your eyes follow as you look at the gun.

Movement is important to control in a design, because a designer doesn't want the viewer's eyes to fixate on on detail to the exclusion of the rest, nor to keep moving off of the design into space. Both can (and do) happen!

Movement can be directed by edges and lines, by shapes, and the skilled use of color and texture. For instance, a natural line on a revolver is the barrel; it naturally directs the eyes back to the cylinder, where the flutes further direct the eye along the frame. The same movement happens in reverse. However, that movement needs to be arrested at some point, so that the eye doesn't wander off the design into open space at either end of the design. At the barrel end, the front sight serves to arrest a redirect the eye back along the barrel; at the other end, the hammer can do the same thing.

Those points of focus or interruption comprise the principle of emphasis. Points of emphasis are those which most strongly draw the viewers attention. There is usually a main point of emphasis, though there may be smaller points in other parts of the design. The eye should linger on a point of emphasis, then continue through the design. The idea is to hold the viewer's interest without causing fixation.

Emphasis can be achieved with repetition of color, shape, or texture; through contrast, again of color, shape, or texture; a change in scale or proportion; a position in a strategic location; or through intricacy, or the details of an element. The front sight is a good example of emphasis due to location, while a checkered cylinder release can be an example of intricacy.

Finally, all of the design principles should have as their end goal in unity of design. Unity is the feeling of harmony between all parts of the design; it should create a sense of completeness, of wholeness, of a solidity in the design. There should be a sense that all of the parts are working together to achieve a common result.

Consistency is the watchword of unity, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a contrast - perish the thought! As we learned in the discussion about emphasis, there needs to be some contrast in a design; unity is not to be confused with sameness!

However, contrast for emphasis is a one thing, while contrast that disturbs the unity is quite another. Contrast that supports the function or underlying concept of the design is not the same as contrast for contrast's sake. For instance, a matte part where the others are polished; a checkered part where the others are flat; a round part where others are square, are all examples of contrast for emphasis. Combining all of those contrasts in one part, however, produces disharmony, as does using all of those types of contrast willy-nilly across the whole design. The former promotes unity, the latter does not!

Unity is obvious, and perhaps the first thing we see when looking at a revolver. In a small canvas like a revolver, attention to unity is extremely important. As we'll see later in this series, it isn't always followed!

There is nothing like learning through example, so in the next installment we'll take a look at one iconic revolver from the perspective of these principles.

-=[ Grant ]=-

As I mentioned in Part 1, there are some recognized design principles that are universal. Let's look at some of them.

Proportion is the relationship, in terms of size and scale, among the various parts of a design, and of each element to the design as a whole. Proportion is about measurements: length, width, etc. and how those measurements compare to

Remember that a revolver is a three-dimensional object: proportion is not just about length or width, but also volume. If we were to increase the barrel diameter of a revolver, even a small amount, its proportion to the rest of the gun would change dramatically - possibly more so than a simple increase in length. One could also alter the proportion my using visual tricks to make a part look more "3D" and increasing its visual volume - even if the part is essentially unchanged in physical size!

Proportion also applies to every part on the gun. If we were to increase the size of a hammer spur or triggerguard, it would change the proportions and alter the design. Maybe it would be better, maybe not - but each element has to be judged not just on how it relates to each other element, but how it relates to the entire object. Proportion is all about relationships!

Balance, on the other hand, is the concept of visual equilibrium. When balance is not present, the whole design looks as if it will "fall over" in some direction (if not literally) Achieving visual balance can be done symmetrically, where the elements are arranged equally on each side of an imaginary balance point, or asymmetrically, where the elements on each side of that point are arranged non-identically so that the whole looks balanced.

The latter is kind of a hard concept; imagine a teeter-totter. Balance is made when we have two children of equal size on each end of the beam (symmetrical), but could also be made with one really fat and two really skinny kids on opposite ends, of of one fat and one skinny kid, with the fat kid closer to the balance point and the skinny child at the end of the beam. These are examples of an asymmetrical balance, and the same principles apply to design balance.

The interesting thing is that balance is variable, because it relies on a visual fulcrum for your eyes to focus on, and can be very complicated, because there might be more than one balance point. Let's take an example of varying barrel lengths; radical changes in barrel length might change the visual balance of the gun depending on where your eye finds a fulcrum. In a good design, there might be several such points for your eye to rest on, resulting in good balance with a variety of barrel lengths.

What kinds of things can serve as visual balance points? The cylinder, the triggerguard, the cylinder latch, the recoil shield, and so on. Anything that can serve as a reference point on which to "arrange" other objects is a fulcrum.

Understand that this is distinctly different than physical balance, and it is important to separate the concepts. A great example is the Colt Python; while there are small visual changes in the earliest guns to the latest, the design was essentially unchanged from start to finish. An early 4" example has the same visual balance to a late model, yet the physical balance changed dramatically - because the lug on the earliest models was hollow, giving a distinct rearward weight bias. So, the guns had the same visual balance, but very different physical balances.

Next time, we'll examine some more concepts of design as applied to the revolver!

-=[ Grant ]=-

What makes one revolver look better than another? Have you ever stopped to think about the design cues that make the difference between a classic and an eminently forgettable gun?

In this series, I'm going to relate my opinions and prejudices regarding revolver design, primarily (though not exclusively) from the standpoint of factory guns. All of the concepts, however, are equally applicable (perhaps "especially applicable") to custom guns.

One thing to keep in mind as you read that these are my opinions, nothing more. I don't claim to be a design guru like, say, Jonathan Ive. What I can claim is to be a casual student of industrial design, and of art in the larger sense. (Growing up with a mother who was an accomplished artist and designer assured that I would understand such things, even if I wasn't terribly creative myself! I guess that's the best description of a critic.)

There exist well accepted design concepts, but that isn't to say that good design is carved in stone; if it were, we could just program robots to spit out our stuff and get some extra sleep! It is in the combination of design elements, with the occasional surprise or personal interpretation, that keeps the process of designing from becoming formulaic.

Some of what is people consider "good design" is really quality of execution. A great design, badly executed, is crap; a less grand design, but well executed, can be superb. Sometimes learning to recognize quality is a necessary prerequisite to appreciating good design.

(Engraving is a good example; I've been to gun shows where there was a good cross section of engraving quality. Invariably those guns with the most coverage get the most attention, but to the trained eye their lack of quality detracts from what might have been a great work of art. In my view, bad engraving is worse than no engraving.)

Finally, remember that 'popular' isn't necessarily the same as 'good'. I dare say that there are far more Velvet Elvii floating around this world than works of Rembrandt, but that hardly makes them equivalent!

Stay tuned for more...

-=[ Grant ]=-

Stacking is defined as an increase in trigger pull weight toward the end of the trigger's rearward travel. Some people like it, some don't, and different guns have varying amounts of it. What causes it?

Some people come up with odd explanations. I recently got an email asking about stacking; the writer had read "on the internet" that stacking was caused by the type of spring - coil or leaf - used in the action. It's a simplistic answer, and it's not terribly accurate.

An "L" frame S&W uses a leaf spring, and has little to no stacking; a Colt uses a leaf spring, and has lots of stack. A Dan Wesson uses a coil spring and it's trigger stacks horribly, where a Ruger GP-100 uses a coil spring and stacks very little.

The cause of stacking isn't the spring itself; the biggest determinant is the geometry of the double-action mechanism. In general, guns using a design where the hammer strut does double duty as the double action sear (Colt and Dan Wesson) will display lots of stacking, while those that use a separate strut and sear arrangement (S&W, Ruger) will display less.

(Some nomenclature: a sear is any pair of surfaces from which the hammer is released; a strut is the pivoting piece on the hammer, which the trigger pushes on in order to start the hammer moving backward. In some guns, the trigger pushes on the strut, and at some point the sears come into contact and the strut leaves contact with the trigger; after some additional hammer movement, the sears slip out of engagement and allow the hammer to fall. The other design is where the strut actually pushes the hammer all the way back, at which point it slips off of the trigger and releases the hammer.)

This isn't a guarantee, though, because there are still a number of angles between surfaces and pivots that can introduce stacking into the mechanism. It is possible to design either system to have the characteristics of the other, though in practice it doesn't happen all that often.

That's how it all stacks up! (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Much as it pains me to admit this, my eyesight is degrading with distressing rapidity. No, it's nothing out of the ordinary, nor is it anything serious - it's just that I'm getting older!

I'm close enough to the big "five-oh" to count the years left on one hand (with fingers left over), and the closer it gets the further out I need to hold the restaurant menu. Oh, yes, my prescription is current - but after wearing bifocals for the better part of the last decade, I'm now told I need trifocals. The indignity!

Sound familiar? It should, given the number of questions I field about sight options. Consistently, the two most common queries concern fiber optic front sights, and the "Big Dot" from XS Sight Systems (or whatever they're calling themselves this week.)

I have some personal experience with the fiber optic inserts, and frankly I'm not terribly impressed. Aside from their fragility (the encased ones are somewhat better in that regard), they don't really help the sight visibility all that much. Yes, their neon glow does attract the eye, but if your eyesight is like mine the resulting sight picture isn't all that crisp. The bright fiber tends to "bloom" - that is, it looks larger than it really is and develops a fuzzy corona. This makes precise shot alignment more difficult; it's very much like when someone turns on the bedroom lights in the middle of the night, and your eyes struggle to adjust to the situation - everything seems to be "flared." Squinting helps, but wasn't that what you were trying to avoid in the first place?

The "Big Dot" sights are another matter. The Big Dot is just what its name says: a very large, round front sight. The idea is to make the sight so big that even Mr. Magoo couldn't miss it. While I've never owned a set personally, I've test fired guns that carried them, and I've found the sights are so large that they just can't be shot all that accurately. Their sight picture (particularly with the companion "express" v-notch rear sights) is just too coarse for good shot placement.

I'm not alone in my opinion of the Big Dot; I've installed several of them on client's guns, and they have all elected to switch back to the original sights. If that isn't enough of a non-endorsement, I've watched one of the best handgun shooters I know - a police officer who has been a state IPSC and PPC champ - struggle to keep in the A-zone at 15 yards with the things, when at that distance he usually shoots single, ragged holes. Most people who aren't as good as he is do far worse. As you might guess, he doesn't like them either.

What works for those of us who are pushing 50 (or dragging it, as the case may be)? Well, for quite some time I've been told to simply use a wide rear sight notch - one big enough to have roughly one-third to one-half a sight-width of light on either side of the front sight. (I must admit that a very good friend has been preaching the widened rear sight for the past several years. Frankly, though he is one of the best instructors I've ever met and a phenomenal shot, I thought he was nuts. As the front sight got harder and harder to see, however, I grudgingly made room for the idea that he might be right.)

Recently one of my clients asked that I widen the rear notch on his sight to give "lots of light on either side." I did so, making the space on each side of the front sight appear to be roughly 1/3 of blade width. Surprisingly, it was definitely easier to shoot the resulting gun. It focused sharper and much cleaner, and the sights aligned a lot faster. It was a definite increase in shootability compared to my own guns.

Of course, now I need to find time to do the same to all of my sights....

-=[ Grant ]=-

Spent part of last Tuesday at the range, schmoozing with A Famous Gun Writer Who Wishes To Remain Anonymous (hereafter referred to as "AFGWWWTRA".) We tested a few guns, talked about revolvers - the kinds of things you'd expect a gunsmith and a gun writer to do on a range.

AFGWWWTRA happened to have a Ruger Alaskan model in .454 Casull that was being evaluated. Since I hadn't yet gotten the chance to shoot one, I really wanted to see what it was like with full-house loads. I elected to shoot a couple of cylinders worth while AFGWWWTRA took pictures of the whole debacle. (AFGWWWTRA, it turns out, is easily amused by masochistic idiots. I'm sure it was meant as a compliment.)

The first cylinder was fired, sedately, in single action from the 25-yard bench. At that point I was thinking "heck, that wasn't bad. I wonder what it'd be like in rapid fire?" The second cylinder full, standing from about 7 yards, was fired as quickly as I could get the gun back on target between shots.

The second cylinder hurt more. A lot more. As in: my poor wrists may never be the same. What the hell was I thinking?

Just to retain my machismo cred, here I am in the midst of that sequence, the mighty .454 loads in full fireball-producing glory:


Courtesy of AFGWWWTRA

Note the flash from the round just fired, and yet the gun is back on target and the hammer is about to drop again. Yes, I am just that damn good! (I must be - I tell myself so all the time!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: afgwwwtra

Pardon my French!

This is a term used by tool & die makers to indicate unobtainable levels of (perceived) precision. Why do I bring this up?

Last week, I was advising a reader on selecting pin gages for use in measuring chamber throats. The discussion revolved around which gages to buy, and whether or not he needed both plus- and minus-tolerance gages (no, in case you're wondering.) He was concerned about their variance of .0002" (that's 2/10,000th of an inch, or 1/20th of the thickness of an average human hair. In machinist parlance, that would be "2 tenths.") As I explained to him, in practice it's not really possible to measure to that level.

As I thought about my answers to his questions, I flashed back to a conversation related to the posts I've made about measuring tools. A fellow who identified himself as a gunsmith contacted me to argue about my advocacy of quality measuring tools. "I don't need any of them overpriced tools - I use [insert name of well known retailer of low end Chinese tools here], and I can measure down to a ten-thousandth!" I asked him if what he was measuring was under the same environmental conditions as the calibration on his micrometer, and he replied "my mic reads to a tenth - it don't need to be calibrated!"

Sigh.

When a measuring instrument is calibrated - that is, checked against known standards and certified as to accuracy - the environmental conditions of that calibration are recorded. The calibration is really only valid for those same conditions; if the temperature goes up or down, that accuracy is not guaranteed.

How much different does a change in temperature make? I did a little experiment. I got out my Grade 2 Brown & Sharpe gage blocks, and picked out the .125" block. (The tolerance for Grade 2 blocks is +/- .000002", or two-milliionths of an inch.) On the calibration certificate, it gives you the deviation from the nominal dimension in millionths of an inch for each block. In the case of my .125" block, it has no variance - in other words, it is guaranteed to measure .125000" at 68 degrees F. Coincidentally, that is the temperature that my shop generally maintains outside of the coldest winter and warmest summer months.

After checking the temperature, I pulled out my best Etalon (Swiss) micrometer and the .125 block. I handled the mic with gloves while I secured it in its stand; the block was handled with insulated tweezers (yes, there are such things.) I measured the block under these conditions, and not surprisingly it measured .1250" on the nose.

I took the block out of the micrometer, and held the non-measuring surfaces between by thumb and forefinger for about a minute, then remeasured. Guess what? Just that small amount of heat had caused the gage to grow to a bit more than .1251" (a typical mic only measures to a ten-thousandth, and this fell just between the .1251" and .1252" marks.) Had I held on to it longer, it would have grown a bit more. Had I held the mic in my hand while measuring, it too would have been "off."

That's why they're called "bullshit tenths" - because, without knowing exactly the temperature of both the micrometer and work, and at what temperature the micrometer was last calibrated, you really don't know to the ten-thousandth of an inch how big that part really is. In other words, until you've met all of the above, you can't measure to a ten-thousandth of an inch, no matter how optimistic you are!

Since pin gages are usually held in the hand, as is the piece to be measured, it would not be possible to get closer than several ten-thousandths. Factor in the other environmental variables, it's clear that a) the gages are more accurate than they need to be for the job asked of them; b) you can't measure to the limit of the gages, so you don't need both the plus and minus coverage; and c) worrying about their allowed +/- .0002" isn't at all productive. Save your stomach lining for more important things.

Hope this all makes sense!

-=[ Grant ]=-

This week is just absolutely stuffed. Since I don't have the time to write anything profound, I'll just link to an article about this:



Hell In A Handbasket has the full story on this unusual revolver.

(Oh, and Tam has yet another revolver on her blog. I don't know what's gotten into her lately, but I hope she keeps with it!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

If you're here, it's probably because you like (or at least appreciate) our friend the revolver. My feelings, of course, are well known: I believe the revolver to be the single greatest firearm that one could ever hope to own. I believe that people who shoot revolvers demonstrate themselves to be of above average intelligence, more refined sensibilities, and generally better looking than those who do not. (I exaggerate, of course. Except in my own case, where these things are certainly true. I tell my wife so every day.)

However, even in my zeal I cannot recommend the revolver to every single person; it is not the best choice for everyone or every circumstance. I've said this before, and I'll probably being saying it again and again as time goes on.

I particularly cringe whenever I see some fellow buying (or hear someone recommending) that the revolver is always the "best choice" for a woman, hinting that women are incapable of operating a semiauto properly. Sometimes the revolver is the best choice for a female, just as it sometimes is for a male - though not always, and not even most of the time!

Not being a woman, I've been at a loss to explain my discomfort in any terms other than "that seems stupid to me." Luckily, over at the View From the Porch, Tam does a good (and concise) job of explaining just why.

-=[ Grant ]=-

It's one of those days: I can't come up with a decent topic. It's a combination of a lack of creative urge, coupled with a ton of "real" work to be done. The two conspire to give me keyboard constipation.

(Speaking of work - what's with all of the 9mm revolvers that are coming in lately? I've had a half-dozen in the last 4 months, with several more to come! And to think - I don't own one of my own. One of these days I'll have to look into remedying that oversight.)

Back to the non-topic: since I can't seem to do any "thinky", I'll do some "linky": Tam finally puts a revolver in her blog. Is the world as we know it coming to an end?

-=[ Grant ]=-

Found this notice on the Winchester website:

Olin Corporation, through its Winchester Division, is recalling several lots of its WILDCAT® 22 (Symbol Number WW22LR) and XPERT® 22 (Symbol Number XPERT22) 22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition.

Lot Numbers containing Letters: XN, YA, YB or YC

Through extensive evaluation Winchester has determined the above lots of WILDCAT® 22 and XPERT® 22 ammunition may contain double powder charges. Double powder charge weight ammunition may cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable, and subject the shooter to a risk of personal injury and/or death when fired.

To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Lot Number. If the Lot Number contains the letters XN, YA, YB or YC return the ammunition to Winchester.

Checked my stash...luckily, all of my Xpert ammunition was from the same lot, and is not subject to the recall. Check yours carefully!

-=[ Grant ]=-

In response to Monday's blog post about .22 accuracy, a couple of readers asked about the loads that had proven to be accurate in the Dan Wesson .22LR Model 15-2.

Before I answer, you need to keep in mind that your individual DW may not like the same ammunition mine does. With that understanding, my DW likes the Remington Match Target (subsonic, LRN bullet) and the Remington "Golden Bullet" bulk pack. Of the 23 different rounds I tested in the gun, these two came out on top in their respective categories (target ammunition and hunting ammunition.)

This is quite surprising to me, as Remington rimfire ammo is not generally held in high regard by experienced rimfire shooters. It is often criticized for lack of accuracy and consistency, but in this gun those two loads work extremely well. The "Golden Bullet" also exhibits excellent terminal effects on small game (ground squirrels) as well as being accurate.

Oddly, the Federal Gold Medal Match - a terrific load that shoots well in just about everything - doesn't do well in this gun. Why? Who knows? That's the joy and mystery of the rimfire addiction!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I've been shooting a lot of .22LR on a recreational basis lately, and am reminded how fickle this round can be.

Many people seem to be unaware that you can't put just any old .22 round into a gun - be it rifle, pistol, or revolver - and expect it to function correctly, let alone hit where it is aimed!

It is not unusual to find that any given .22 firearm will not function with certain ammunition. I've seen guns that didn't have enough firing pin energy to detonate certain brands of ammunition; autoloaders that wouldn't load and eject certain bullet shapes or velocities; and guns that would shoot tight groups with some ammo but shotgun-like patterns with everything else.

This would all be a lot easier if it were predictable by gun brand and/or model - sadly, it just isn't. You can take two identical guns and one will shoot incredibly accurately with a specific round, while the other gun throws them every which way; I've seen it happen with a pair of Ruger 10/22 rifles.

Some guns are more picky than others regarding their ammunition preferences. The Dan Wesson Model 15-2 in .357 is renowned for its accuracy, but the same gun in .22 is regarded as very inaccurate. I suspect that this reputation has more to do with ammunition that with any fault of the gun. I have one, and had to test many different .22 rounds before I found a couple that it would shoot well. The difference wasn't minor, either! With most ammunition it will shoot 3- to 4-inch groups at 25 yards; with its preferred ammunition, it will quite literally put a cylinder full into one ragged hole at the same distance. There seems to be no middle ground with this gun!

Bullet velocity also plays a role. Generally, it is assumed that the higher velocity rounds don't shoot as well as their slower brethren - but not always! My personal Marlin 39A, for instance, has a surprising preference for the hyper-velocity Quik-Shok round, which is widely considered to be a very inaccurate load.

The moral of the story is that you have to test - and sometimes test again, and keep testing - until you find the round(s) that shoot and function well in your individual guns. When you find that/those loads, buy a case (or two or three...!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Those who have highly polished guns - Royal Blue, nickel plate, or bright stainless - often ask about the best way to keep these fine finishes looking good.

My recommendation: Selvyt. It's not a paste or a wax, it's a cloth - a pure cotton, non-impregnated cloth that jewelers have been using for many decades to give the finishing touches to highly polished gold, silver, and platinum.

The Selvyt cloth is simply a specially woven cotton that has a unique nap. That's it, there is nothing more! The process used to make the Selvyt results in what can only be compared to a cross between fine velvet and chamois. The result is hundreds of thousands of miniature "brushes" on the surface that gently polish without harming the finish in any manner whatsoever.

Selvyt's special cloth also suspends any dust or microscopic grit inside the nap, so that it doesn't contact the surface being polished. This is in stark contrast to chamois, which seems prone to scratching if someone even mentions the word "dust" in the vicinity in which it is being used! (I'm exaggerating, of course.)

The Selvyt is especially good for the Colt "Ultimate Stainless" finish, which is notoriously soft. The Selvyt brings back the high shine without harming the surface of the steel; it's really remarkable.

When the Selvyt gets dirty - and it will - just wash like any other cotton fabric. It will come out of the dryer like new, ready for more use! I've had one of mine for more than a decade, washed several times, and its performance is unchanged.

So good is the Selvyt that Purdy - the makers of hyper-expensive shotguns - sells them under their own name for polishing their fine pieces. If that isn't an endorsement, I don't know what is!

You can find it at many jewelers, any jewelry supply house, many silversmiths, and (of course) online. Be careful - you want the genuine Selvyt cloth, made in England (there are pretenders out there.) Selvyt also makes an impregnated cloth for tarnish protection on silver; you do not want that model! Ask for the plain, un-impregnated, original Selvyt cloth.

The Selvyt comes in several sizes, from 5x5" on up. I like the 14x14" size, which will probably set you back around $10 or $12 these days (I haven't had to buy one in years, so no hate mail if I'm wrong!) It may seem like a lot for a small piece of cloth, but it's worth every penny.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Last week I told you about our trip to my cousin's ranch, during which we hoped to help rid the place of the nefarious Sage Rat (aka Ground Squirrel.) Today let's talk about the shooting aspects.

Normally a field infested with Sage Rats is a "target-rich environment." When they are at their peak, you almost can't reload the guns quickly enough! In those conditions, an open-sighted .22 rifle is more than sufficient for the plethora of targets that pop up in the 5-50 yard range.

In really good years, I've taken many with a Dan Wesson Model 15 in .22, shooting the bulk-packed Remington "Golden Bullet" load. This ammo doesn't shoot worth a darn in my rifles, but in the DW it is superb. (Anyone who has shot any real amount of .22 ammunition will immediately recognize the truth of the round: you never know what will shoot well in which gun, and there is no such thing as a prediction!) I usually use the 8" barrel, though I've also used the 6" to good effect.

Nevertheless, this is really a job for a rifle, and most Sage Rat shooters gravitate to the very popular Ruger 10/22 platform. I've shot one fairly frequently myself, but in the last couple of years I've been using a very nice early Marlin 39A (which I picked up for a song a number of years back.) The accuracy and 18-round magazine are much appreciated on those small targets, though it wears only open sights; somehow, a scope on such a classic rifle just seems "wrong."

Last year I ended up visiting two different cousin's ranches (my family is big in the beef business.) The first was heavily infested and the Marlin was the right tool at the right time. The second ranch, however, is at a higher altitude; their population comes out of hibernation later, and as a result they didn't have nearly as many to shoot. Most of the shots were well over 50 yards, and the open-sight Marlin (coupled with my aging eyes) was severely handicapped. I wished that I'd had the presence of mind to bring along the scoped 10/22!

As a result of that experience, I installed a Marble's tang sight on the old Marlin. This year I was ready - and good thing, too! This trip was just as the rodents were emerging from their burrows, and once again long shots were the rule. The tang sight greatly extended the range of the unscoped gun - I made quite a few shots in the 90-100 yard range, and a couple that were actually verified to be 115 and 128 yards. Not bad for a .22!

My ammunition preference is for a hollowpoint round to provide a quick, clean kill at all ranges. (Regardless of the problems the little buggers cause, I still live by the old hunter's credo of causing no more suffering than is absolutely necessary.) Since so many rounds are expended - on a good day it's not uncommon to shoot several hundred rats - I look for the most accurate bulk-packed ammunition. This usually limits the choices to a high velocity 36gn load.

For the last few years my choice has been the Winchester Xpert hollowpoint bullet. The wide hollowpoint cavity gives it some of the best terminal effects I've seen in a .22 cartridge. Accuracy is a bit better than average in this rifle, and It's available in bulk at very attractive prices. That doesn't stop me from desiring something better, of course; I'd like to find a load that is a little more accurate but not much more expensive. I've heard good things about the Federal Champion hollowpoint loading, and when I get time I plan to take some to the range and test it against the Xpert.

The search for the "perfect" .22 ammunition never ends!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread at THR is why this wonderful medium is often called the "errornet."

And to think...I do what some internet "expert" says is "impossible" every day of the week; twice yesterday, in fact. (Oh, get your minds out of the gutter and go read the link!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

This is an expansion on an email I replied to recently. A loyal reader noted that my name had been brought up on one of the forums (sadly, he couldn't remember which one) regarding my blog article on measuring chamber throats.

Apparently, the gist of the discussion was that the forum's "expert" (every forum has one) opined that I was full of it for suggesting that throats couldn't be measured accurately with a caliper. What's more, someone expressed the thought that a caliper would show an out-of-round condition, whereas a pin gage wouldn't, and therefore anyone who didn't use a caliper didn't know what he/she was doing.

Sheesh! Let's start from the top.

A caliper - whether vernier, dial, or digital - is most assuredly not a precision measurement tool. Feel free to ask any tool & die maker the question: "how accurate is a caliper?" I have yet to meet one who would trust a caliper for anything less than 2/1,000ths of an inch (.002") For reference, this is the difference between measuring, say, .357" and .359". On a good day (meaning a very experienced operator) with good equipment (meaning not a Harbor Freight special) one might be able to do a bit better, but most people aren't all that experienced, and most do not possess the top-quality equipment necessary.

This is actually extremely easy to test: take a caliper to a local tool & die shop, and ask the owner if he'll let you measure his certified, calibrated toolroom gage blocks. If he lets you (he probably won't), you'll probably find that getting to within .002" with any consistency is not possible. I have a set of said blocks, and I can't do much better - even though I'm experienced, and have top-end Swiss Etalon calipers with which to work!

There's a reason watchmakers measure parts that must be fitted to incredibly close tolerances with micrometers, and not calipers. The same goes for precision machinists. Do I need to keep flogging this deceased equine?

(I haven't even touched on the need to hold the calipers perfectly perpendicular to the axis of the bore, and to get the jaws as close to centered on the inside surface as possible. It's darned difficult to do under the absolute best toolroom conditions, let alone at a kitchen table! Errors multiply under less-than-ideal conditions.)

Let's tackle the second criticism: that one can't measure an out-of-round condition with a pin gage, therefore the best way to do it is with a caliper. By now, the answer should be obvious: if a hole is, say, .002" out of round, and the measuring system can't get within that range to begin with, it follows that one can't measure the condition because it's within the amount of "slop" already present!

In other words, if a caliper indicates that the hole isn't round, we can't trust it because we don't know if what we're seeing is real or simply the result of the errors inherent in the device. Conversely, the absence of a round error doesn't mean that the throat is round - because it may be within the normal error of the caliper being used! (This is why one does not use imprecise instruments when one expects a precise result.)

The exception is if the condition is sufficiently severe that it exceeds the error of the tool - but if it's that far out, it can be easily spotted with the pin gage anyhow. While we can't measure an out-of-round condition with a pin gage, we can certainly identify that an out-of-round condition exists, and elect to measure it with more accurate means.

Whew!

Now I'd like to expand on the recommendation in my earlier article. The reason I suggested using calibrated pin gages for measurement is because they're cheap (a set to cover, say, the range of a .357 cylinder costs less than $20), readily available, and last forever. There are other tools that can be used, but all are much more expensive and require occasional testing & recalibration, as well as a certain amount of technique.

The best choice is a "tri-mic", made by various companies, which measures holes at 3 points spaced 120 degrees apart. This is extremely accurate - the most accurate way to measure a hole - but that accuracy comes with a price tag of several hundred dollars for the least expensive example. That's why I didn't recommend them, though in hindsight I should have at least acknowledged that they exist.

Bottom line: there is no substitute for knowledge, experience, and the proper quality tools when one is doing precision work.

I hope this puts the matter to rest - though I somehow doubt it!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I've updated the "Recent Projects" page with an unusual item: a S&W Model 66.

Not that unusual, you say? What if I told you it was one of the rare 3" models? Would that pique your interest? I thought so - because it sure excited me when the owner asked me to work on it!

Check it out!

-=[ Grant ]=-

John Linebaugh is a custom revolver maker who specializes in caliber conversions on Ruger single actions. Not just any conversions, mind you - he is the originator of the fire-breathing .475 Linebaugh and .500 Linebaugh cartridges.

John first became famous for his modified revolvers that would should heavy .45 Colt loads (250 grain bullets at 1,700 fps.) His work with those heavy loads lead him to develop the .475 Linebaugh and the mighty .500 Linebaugh: 435 grains traveling at 1,300 fps!

Now I just know that some wag is reading this and saying "So? The .500 S&W shoots those slugs faster!" You bet it does, Pilgrim - at insanely high chamber pressures, in guns that are big enough to qualify as crew-served weapons. The Linebaugh cartridges do this at moderate pressures, and in guns based on nice, relatively lightweight Ruger Bisley frames.

John has a new website that, sadly, isn't linked to his old site and doesn't yet show up in the search engines. Here it is - be sure to bookmark it:

http://www.customsixguns.com/

Be sure to check out the video of shooting one of his creations - that's what I call recoil!

-=[ Grant ]=-

So, you're in the market for a S&W 625, and you're torn between the "standard" 625 and the Jerry Miculek edition 625. Which to choose?

Well, you have to decide whether the "niceties" - such as the Miculek grips, interchangeable front sights, and the serrated trigger - are worth the extra money. There are some internal differences, though, which you may want to consider.

The Miculek edition is a little unusual, in that it uses a mix of MIM (metal injection molding) and forged parts. As you may know, S&W has been using MIM technology for several years now, and overall it's been a successful transition. However, in order to get the serrated trigger that Jerry specifies, they decided that to use one of their "old fashioned" forged parts.

There are a couple of problems with this. First, the interface of the forged trigger and MIM cylinder stop makes the trigger feel a bit rough at the very beginning of the trigger stroke - and it's difficult to get rid of this feeling. Second, the MIM hammer is given a flash chrome treatment to match the chromed finish of the trigger. Unfortunately, chrome applied to an MIM part doesn't seem to stick as well as it does to a forged part, and I've seen several where the chrome started flaking from the sear surfaces! As you might imagine, this makes the action quality degrade quickly, and the problem can only be fixed by replacing the hammer assembly with a non-chromed version, as comes on the "plain" 625.

Of the 625JM models I've worked on, all of them came in with a request to remove the trigger face serrations - one of the major features that Jerry insists on! It seems that serrated triggers, as much as he likes them, do not fit well with everyone.

Once the hammer has been replaced and the trigger face smoothed, you're left with the JM grips and an interchangeable front sight - and the grips are widely available as an accessory. I guess the whole thing boils down to this: how important are those interchangeable front sights?

To a person, every one of the JM model owners I've talked with said that if they knew ahead of time that they were going to put in the money for custom work anyhow, they'd have bought the "plain" 625 and saved themselves a few dollars. I agree!

-=[ Grant ]=-

A common complaint about the old-style Colt Detective Special is the unshrouded ejector rod. Many people believe that the exposed ejector rod is a liability; should it get bent during a struggle, the theory goes, it will tie up the gun and make it inoperable.

Not quite.

Many folks have experienced this problem with a Smith & Wesson. Since their ejector rods are locked at the front and rotate about the front latch pin, any small amount of runout (deviation from true) will impose an inordinate amount of friction to the system. This usually manifests itself as an action that locks up, being completely useless in double action (and often in single action as well.)

The unshrouded Colts, however, are a different matter. Since the ejector rod doesn't have any function other than the ejection of spent casings, even a large amount of runout has no effect on the action. In fact, you would have to bend the ejector rod to the point that it actually hits the underside of the barrel before you would encounter a problem! Because of the plasticity of steel, about the only way you could do that would be on purpose, with the cylinder open - I honestly cannot conceive of any accidental way to get it into such a sorry state.

I would be remiss if I didn't address the effect of small bends on the ejection process; a relatively modest bend in a Colt ejector rod can cause the ejector to stick in the cylinder, so that the ratchet (ejector star) is stuck in the extended position. This isn't as much of a problem as you might think - just shove the ratchet back into the cylinder and the gun is usually ready to be reloaded.

Every gun has strong and weak points in its design, but in the case of the unshrouded Colts the exposed ejector isn't one of them!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I hear the advice all the time: "buy a stainless gun, because they won't rust." This kind of comment is what prompted General Norman Schwarzkopf to say "bovine scatology!"

Yes, stainless will in fact rust under the right conditions. What are those conditions? Generally, if you get moisture trapped in a place where it doesn't evaporate normally (say, under a grip panel or inside the action), you have a situation that is ideal for corrosion. The situation is worse in very corrosive (salt water, perspiration) or very humid conditions.

That's not the only thing; even if the frame of your gun is stainless, there will be some parts in the action that aren't, or are made of a much less resistant stainless. It's not unusual to find springs, some screws, cylinder parts, and more that are made of plain carbon steel. These are just as susceptible to rust as they would be in a blued gun.

I see quite a number of stainless guns that have corrosion. One commonality of those I've encountered is that, since the rust is usually hidden (and less likely to be found because of the belief that stainless "doesn't rust) it usually does more damage. Stainless corrosion tends to be deeper, leaving surface pitting that is more serious than it might be on a blued gun.

If you live in a harsh environment - near the ocean, or in a very humid climate - or if you perspire heavily, you should treat your stainless gun more like a blued equivalent. Take the grips off every time you clean the gun and look for any signs of corrosion; use gun oil on the entire surface of the gun; clean the bore immediately after shooting; take the sideplate off occasionally and lubricate the interior; and always remember that the term is "stainLESS", not "stainFREE"!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Someone recently asked me what gunsmith(s) I admired or respected, or that I would allow to work on my own guns. I gave him a few names, and thought you might be interested as well!

My first entry in this occasional series is Hamilton Bowen. Bowen is perhaps the gunsmith that the rest of us aspire to be; he combines technical ability, commitment to quality, and a definite style that is hard to define but easy to recognize. Bowen does it all - sophisticated caliber conversions, unusual high-tech customization, and superb restorations.

Bowen has been building superior revolvers for many years, and his work has become well known from appearances in various gun magazines. His fame doesn't stop there, however - he also wrote what is the definitive book on the subject, titled simply "The Custom Revolver." If you're into revolvers, this is a book that you simply must own. (You can buy it through my Amazon store here.)

Hamilton Bowen is truly the "gunsmith's gunsmith." I'd love to have him work on one of my guns!

Bowen Classic Arms website

-=[ Grant ]=-

Well, it's more precise to say that it's time for someone else to make double-action revolvers!

With Colt out of the revolver business, Taurus showing no signs of moving past the low end of the market, Dan Wesson functionally deceased, and Smith & Wesson producing mere shadows of their former greatness, it's time for someone else to step up to the plate. It's time for someone to take over the badly-served upper end of the revolver market.

It's time for Freedom Arms to branch out from making the best single actions to making the best double actions.

Why Freedom Arms? Because they've already proven their ability to make a high-grade revolver. They're used to producing and selling high-end guns, and they know how to make those guns both superbly accurate and incredibly durable. They have a well-regarded brand name, and an established dealer network.

They have everything it would take to introduce a top-flight double action revolver.

It is, admittedly, a small market. The best of anything is always a small market. That doesn't seem to stop Rolls Royce or Patek Philippe, and I don't think it would stop Freedom Arms. There are a lot of people who would have purchased Pythons were they still being made to their former standards, and those would be Freedom Arms' customers.

How about it, FA?

-=[ Grant ]=-

I get the most interesting phone calls!

A client who works for a public agency in California contacted me with a problem. As you may know, California has pretty strict ideas about what constitutes a carcinogen. Management in his agency won't let him use any lubricants that contain "substances known to the state of California to cause cancer." That, ladies and gentlemen, excludes most anti-wear and anti-corrosion additives!

After some consultation with experts, I was able to come up with a recommendation. In general, if you need a "clean" lubricant with good protection against wear and corrosion, look no further than lubes made for the food service industry!

They have to be non-toxic and non-staining, and since food production often involves contact with acids and liquids, they have to be very resistant to those substances as well. They also typically perform very well in colder temperatures and almost invariably are superb at corrosion resistance.

If you've read my article on lubricants, you know I'm a big fan of Lubriplate's SFL series of greases, which are designed and approved for food service. Another good choice is their FGL series, which is a bit easier to get in the small quantities shooters use. If you prefer an oil, their FMO-AW series of oils (available in a wide variety of viscosities down to 5W) are a superb choice.

These products should also be fantastic choices for those who have allergic reactions to the additives present in other oils and greases.

In this case, I recommended the FGL grade 00 grease to my client. This is a very light, almost fluid grease with superb anti-wear and anti-corrosion properties. It should pass muster with even the most strict requirements that he has to meet!

-=[ Grant ]=-

The lure of a personalized and decorated weapon is centuries old. Embellished swords and knives from the 17th and 18th centuries are well known; before that, soldiers in high standing had their armor decorated. Some of the earliest firearms in existence are lavishly treated, with inlays and fine woods.

Today many people desire to have their favorite guns engraved. But where to start? There are so many engraving styles, not to mention engravers - how are you going to make sense of it all?

I've recommended to many clients that they start by studying the art of weapon engraving. With just a bit of research on your part, you will quickly learn the difference between quality engraving and the firearms equivalent of the "Velvet Elvis."

If you're like most people, you'll be drawn to a specific engraving style. Once you've identified what you like, you can then start looking at the work of the engraver. Every engraver has a specialty; while they may do many different styles, sometimes quite well, they'll generally do their best work in one particular style.

How do you get this education? I've found one book to be incredibly useful: "Steel Canvas" by R. L. Wilson. (Yes, I know all about his shady business dealings - but the book is superbly done, perhaps the most accessible of all books on the subject.) This large-format coffee table book is a bargain at about $30. In it, you'll see the very best examples of all the styles from every well known engraver, current and past. This one book will help you identify the style you like most, and will show you the best examples so that you can judge for yourself if the engraver you've chosen is any good.

I can't recommend this book enough. Even if you don't have any intention of having an engraved gun produced, you should get it just for the superb photographs of "best quality" firearms. Of all the gun books I own, this is the one I thumb through most often!

If I may be so bold, you can get this book through my Amazon store here.

Look at it this way: to get a good engraving job will cost you time and money (quality engravers don't work cheaply or quickly.) Spending just a fraction of that cost, and a few pleasurable days looking at stunning photos, is a very small investment that will repay you for years to come!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Well, SHOT has come and gone, and Colt had no revolvers in their display. (You may remember that one of their spokespeople bragged in a magazine interview that Colt was working on a new revolver design. Everyone on the forums got all worked up about what Colt might be doing, endlessly speculating on what they might bring to market. Some breathlessly suggested that they might be working on a new high end revolver to replace the Python. Excitement ran and, for some, continues to run high.)

Except here at the Revolver Liberation Alliance.

As I blogged just recently, Colt has demonstrated through their actions that they aren't interested in the revolver market. I even suggested that mention of a new revolver might be a ploy to make the company more attractive to potential buyers. You'd think that if they really had something going on, they'd show it at the industry's biggest trade show.

They didn't. End of story. (I remain ready to eat my words if they ever introduce this mythical new gun at some future show, but I suspect that I won't be needing to do so.)

In other SHOT news, Charter Arms, makers of "value priced" wheelguns, announced a line of left-handed revolvers. This would be big news if the guns were coming from a maker of high quality firearms, or even Taurus. From Charter it's just a curiosity. The honorable lefties amongst us deserve better.

Dan Wesson, lethargically owned for the last couple of years by CZ-USA, was finally showing a new Model 715. This would be exciting, except that the folks in Norwich proved that they couldn't make this decades-old design correctly last time, and I remain unconvinced that CZ management can do any better. (Let's face it: they've taken two years to produce one display example of a gun that they already had the plans, machinery, tooling, and parts to produce. Methinks they have hired some former Colt people to run the Dan Wesson division...)

Smith & Wesson is fast becoming the schizophrenic gun maker. One the one hand they're making modern "reproductions" of the guns from their heyday (though not to the same level of craftsmanship), while on the other they are coming up with such monstrosities as the new "sniper revolver." (Saw pictures, but the site that hosted them seems to have gone away. If I can find another, I'll post it.) S&W styling has always been a bit "hit and miss", but in the 21st century seems to have devolved to "miss and miss."

Glad I didn't go; I would have been too depressed to leave the hotel room!

-=[ Grant ]=-

An often misunderstood aspect of revolver construction is the idea of endshake. Endshake is nothing more than the amount of back-and-forth movement (or front-to-back, if you prefer) that the cylinder is allowed to make.

Measuring endshake is easy: using a set of feeler gages, the cylinder is pushed forward and the barrel/cylinder gap is measured. Then, the cylinder is forced backward as far as it will go, and the gap measured again; the difference between the measurements is the endshake. (When making the second measurement, it is important to push the cylinder all the way back - even past any cylinder latch resistance.)

How much is acceptable? That varies depending on the gun; Colts are the most stringent, and need to have no more than .003" of endshake for "factory level" condition. A S&W is generally allowed a bit more leeway.

The amount of endshake any given gun will experience will vary a bit over the life of the gun. As the cylinder pushed backward by the force of the firing round, the ratchet (aka "ejector star") ultimately hits the rear of the frame opening, which stops the cylinder movement. With each round fired, the ratchet/star is slightly deformed, and the frame is very slightly stretched. Over a long period of time, this results in more space between the ratchet/star and the frame, which increases the endshake.

As the endshake increases, the amount of "free run" the cylinder has will increase the battering effect against the frame, resulting in even more wear - which increases the endshake, and the cycle repeats itself, getting progressively worse.

Why should endshake be a concern? Under the best of conditions, the revolver cylinder would have zero movement. Of course, that rarely happens in the real world; some endshake is inevitable. As endshake increases, though, several things happen: first, the impact on the frame, and frame stretching, increases; this can, in extreme cases, result in the frame becoming unsuitable for use.

The immediate effects can be more visible. In a Colt revolver, excessive endshake results in increased hand wear, which causes the timing to fail prematurely; in extreme cases, it can also cause bolt (the little "pop up" half-moon shaped piece in the bottom of the frame window) to wear to the point of replacement. In a Smith & Wesson (and to a slightly lesser extent Ruger), excess endshake manifests itself as an inconsistent trigger pull which gets worse as the endshake increases. These guns can also experience increased bolt wear, though not nearly to the degree of the more closely-fitted Colt.

(Interestingly, the Dan Wesson guns are very robust in terms of their endshake handing; the spring-loading bearing detent at the rear of the frame locates the cylinder at the forward-most position every time, and also serves to absorb a bit of the recoil force of the cylinder.)

An excessive amount of endshake can also affect accuracy. Not only does it change the relationship between the chamber and the forcing cone with every shot (and not necessarily consistently), but it also changes the barrel/cylinder gap; both can have a negative effect on the accuracy of the gun/load combination.

Setting the endshake to as close to zero as possible results in increased frame and ratchet/star life, better action quality in S&W guns, extended service intervals on Colts, and better accuracy on all guns. That's why it is one of the first things I check on any revolver that comes in to my shop!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Sorry to be late today, but my cable internet connection has been experiencing spotty outages lately. For the money I pay, you'd think they'd give me better uptime than this!

GRRRRRR! But I digress...

Anyhow, today's topic once again comes from that fountain of firearms misinformation, the local gun store. A fellow is looking at several guns, and asks to see a Ruger SP101. The clerk tells him that for concealed carry (ostensibly the prospect's use), a revolver is "just no good. Too hard to hide the cylinder."

"Odd," I think to myself - "I've been doing it quite successfully for some time now. In fact, I'm doing so right in front of your face!" I did not, of course, say that out loud. I wanted to, but I didn't. At least, I don't remember doing so.

That, however, seems to be the common perception. Many people think that a revolver just has to be more difficult to conceal, because the cylinder is so much thicker than an autoloader's slide. I'm here to tell you that it is just not the case!

The cylinder really isn't a big problem to hide. Yes, it sticks out from the body a bit more, but it really isn't all that much a concern. Why? Because it's a gradual bulge - there are no sharp edges to give away a profile under a garment. What's at or below the beltline just doesn't seem to make much of a difference; it's what sticks up above the belt that makes a gun difficult to hide!

An autoloader, for instance, presents a very angular profile above the belt. The top of the slide, where the rear sight is, comes to a sharp point relative to a revolver. What's more, that point sits farther above the belt than does the rear sight of a revolver. These two factors combine to make the back corner of the autoloader stick out more prominently than a revolver, and consequently more difficult to hide under a piece of cloth.

Of course, the disparity doesn't end there! The other end of the gun - in this case, the lower back corner of the magazine well - is (again) a sharp angle relative to the rest of the gun. Even an autoloader with a very rounded grip shape tends to come up higher - and stick out the back more - than a round-butt revolver. Again, this makes the auto more difficult to hide than our blessed companion, the double-action revolver.

Now I'm sure that some will argue with me; some will, in their misguided zeal to promote the self-shucking handgun, insist that I am being "partisan." To them I say: OF COURSE I AM! What the heck did you expect from someone whose blog is titled "The Revolver Liberation Alliance"??

(Of course, none of that negates the fact that I am right!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

First things first: Happy New Year!

Now, down to business: once again, I feel it necessary to inject some sanity into a topic that is all over the internet forums.

The latest concerns Colt and their supposed "re-entry" into the revolver market. Several months ago, a Colt executive was quoted in (if memory serves) Shotgun News to the effect that Colt was working on new revolver models.

As you can imagine, this set off a firestorm on the 'net. People were opining like there was no tomorrow about the possible wonderfulness that Colt could be coming up with. I still, months later, am reading the occasional thread wherein some eager enthusiast gleefully anticipates something new from Hartford "any day now!"

Let's look at this logically, OK?

Developing a new gun takes money and talent - and Colt has all but two of those. It's been fairly well established that they have little ready capital, and their massive layoffs over the last several years means that their pool of talent is a fraction of what it used to be - and I doubt that they had anyone as talented as the late, great Karl Lewis to begin with, let alone now.

What they do have, though, is a mothballed line of proven sellers - in this case, the Anaconda, King Cobra, and Magnum Carry revolvers. All are well regarded (even the King Cobra, which always lived in the shadow of the more famous Python), and are made of modern materials and designed from the ground up for automated production. They're sitting in the vaults, waiting to see the light of day, because Colt just voluntarily stopped producing them a few years ago.

So, imagine that you're the CEO of Colt. On the one hand, you've got some ready products that you know will sell, just waiting for you to flip the "on" switch. On the other hand, you could choose to design a new gun from scratch, even though you don't have the resources to do so. Which are you going to choose?

Well, if you're smart (and Colt hasn't been accused of that recently), you bring back the designs you have in the safe and simply start up the production lines again. Easy. Built in market. No development costs. Just start shipping.

But Colt isn't doing that.

Look at it this way: just the Magnum Carry alone would put them back squarely in the hottest segment of the market, which is concealed carry. The MC is a superb gun, and used examples are selling at multiples of their original prices. There is nothing on the market that is competitive with it; it could have a niche all to itself. Scarcely bigger than a S&W "J" frame, it carries a full 6 rounds of .357 goodness! What other gun can boast that? None.

Be absolutely clear on this concept: these are guns that have a built-in market, that they have facilities to produce, that they know how to produce, and that they've chosen not to produce. (That is, if they really wanted to be in the revolver market...)

So why would Colt imply that they're working on a new revolver design, when they won't even produce the proven sellers they have now, and likely don't even have the resources to come up with a new product?

Well, we know that they're up for sale, and the company has reportedly garnered little-to-no interest from potential buyers. But maybe, they're thinking, if they start a rumor that they've got this new, exciting design, it will stimulate enough industry buzz to interest someone in what's left of the grand old name.

Could I be wrong? You bet. In fact, if I am, I'm willing to eat a hearty plate of crow. But actions speak louder than press releases, and Colt's actions say that they have no interest in selling their existing revolvers - let alone make a new one.

(Hey - maybe CZ-USA could buy Colt, which would give them even more revolvers to not make!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

It's surprising how little attention is given to the back of a revolver's trigger. I recently came across a gun that had been worked on by another gunsmith (more on this in a future blog post), and one aspect of the gun illustrated the limited understanding of revolver shooting by many 'smiths.

The face of the trigger had been polished smooth, but done in such a way that the sides tapered to meet the back, leaving an untouched knife edge. For anyone with more meat on their bones than Nicole Richie, manipulating the trigger results in a very nasty "pinch" as the sharp edge traps flesh against the frame.

So, what should the trigger look like? The back edges of a proper double action trigger should be slightly rounded and polished, to prevent pinching. The larger the radius of the back edge, the less chance the trigger will trap flesh. This allows the shooter to concentrate on the act of shooting, not on avoiding pain.

This is similar to the "biting" problem that many shooters experience on a 1911 with the standard grip safety. On that gun, for some reason, everyone "knows" about the situation, and beavertail safeties are expected equipment. Sadly, this same level of knowledge has not yet filtered down to the revolver-buying public - perhaps this will help spread the word!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Are you familiar with the concept of a Blog Carnival? If not, you're missing out on a great way to read about your favorite hobbies, activities, and interests!

A Blog Carnival (or Festival) is a collection of links to blog entries that fit the subject matter of the Carnival. For instance, a Carnival of shooting will have links to blog posts that deal with the shooting sports, self defense, and other related topics. It's kind of like a gun show in concept, but without Beanie Babies.

For instance, for shooting and firearms topics there is the Carnival of Cordite, the Shooting Sunday Carnival, and the 2nd Amendment Carnival. If you want a lot of great information in one place, check them out!

But, you're asking yourself, how does one find out about Blog Carnivals? There's a great resource to locate carnivals on all sorts of topics: the Blog Carnival List. Check out some of their more interesting entries: the Carnival of Cheese, the Hellenic Religion Carnival, or the Naughty After Forty carnival.

(Hmmm...wonder which one of those will get the most hits??)

-=[ Grant ]=-

The internet forums sporadically ignite with a common debate: what "J" frame is the best?

The disagreement seems to center around the fans of the exposed hammer models (who hold out the dream of needing to make a "precise, long range" single action shot) and those of the enclosed hammer Centennial models (who opine that the lack of entry points for dirt outweighs ever needing single action capability.)

I'm not qualified to talk about tactics, but there is one salient point that is missed in the crossfire: the Centennial models simply have better actions!

The enclosed hammer Centennial models have slightly different sear geometry than do the exposed hammer models, which gives them a pull that is more even - more linear - than the models with hammer spurs. For the savvy shooter it's a noticeable difference, making the Centennial a bit easier to shoot well.

The Centennials also have one less part than the other models: since they have no exposed hammer, they don't have (nor do they need) the hammer-block safety common to all other "J" frames. That part, which is quite long and rides in a close-fitting slot machined into the sideplate, is difficult to make perfectly smooth. Even in the best-case scenario, it will always add just a bit of friction to the action. Not having the part to begin with gives the Centennial a "leg up" in action feel.

(In fact, at one point in time a common part of an "action job" was to remove this safety, in the same way that some "gunsmiths" would remove the firing pin block on a Colt Series 80 autopistol. Today we know better!)

So, if your criteria is action quality, the choice is clear: the enclosed hammer Centennial series is your best bet!

-=[ Grant ]=-

If I had a nickel for every time I've been asked that question...!

On every forum, in my daily email, and in the phone calls I receive is a common query: "of the guns available at a dealer, which one should I buy?" These folks are looking for some guidance beyond the simple choice of caliber and barrel length - this is more along the lines of "who makes the 'best' revolver?"

The answer I give? Ruger. This, from an admitted revolver snob who's known for working on Colt Pythons!

The GP-100 and SP-101, which are the most popular models, are mature designs. Their design is simple and rugged, and their construction has not changed due to fashion or cost-cutting.

The actions respond nicely to gunsmithing work; a well tuned Ruger can have a buttery-smooth, perfectly linear double action pull that will rival any of its competitors. The SP-101, in particular, has an action that is many people feel is more "shootable" than its nearest competitor, the S&W "J" frame.

Speaking of the SP-101, it has another advantage over its competition: superb sights. The rear fixed notch is wide and deep compared to other guns, giving the little SP a much nicer sight picture.

The GP and SP guns, because of their stud grip frames, have trigger reaches that fit people with small hands very well; the GP-100, fitted with the "compact" Ruger grip, has a shorter trigger reach than a S&W "L" frame! This is great news for those of us with smaller-than-average mitts.

The downsides? Fit and finish on Ruger revolvers is not up to the level of, say, older S&W guns. (Of course, new S&W's aren't up to the old S&W's either, so that's hardly a condemnation!) Rugers have lots of sharp edges, and their finishes are not terribly pretty - but, if you're having custom work done anyhow, these are things that can be easily rectified.

Rugers don't get the credit they deserve; if you don't like the new MIM-internal lock S&W models, and want something of better pedigree than the Taurus line, take a hard look at Ruger. You might be surprised!

-=[ Grant ]=-

One day I was at the range testing client's guns - in this case, a Detective Special and a Python. I generally start shooting at 50 yards, because that's the closest steel target we have and shooting paper is boring.

(Besides, 50 yards is the point that I stop blinking when I shoot a steel target. Seriously - I'm paranoid about bullet splashback. When the 50 yard target becomes boring, I usually switch to the 200 yard target - you silhouette shooters know it as the ram. Shooting the ram, standing, double action, with light .38 Special ammo is something of a trick, as I need to aim about 15 feet above the target! If I get a hit per cylinder under those conditions, I'm a happy camper.)

Sorry for the gap in the narrative...anyhow, I'd just walked over the to 200 yard shooting position when this fellow comes up and stands next to me. As I'm loading he asks me what I'm shooting at. I motion to the 200 yard ram, and he squints his eyes. "No way you can hit that", he says. "I've got a GLOCK, and I couldn't hit that!" (The brand name was pronounced in a manner intended to evoke awe and wonder on the part of the listener. Sadly for him, it did not.)

I finished loading, looked at him and said "Well, it is pretty hard to hit." I turned my gaze back to the target, and squeezed off 2 rounds. From off in the distance came a distinct "clang....clang." I turned back to him and just grinned. He walked off, shaking his head in disbelief.

It's all about knowing when to stop!

-=[ Grant ]=-

From Michael Bane's blog we learn of the new "accessory" CZ is offering. Sheesh.

Let's see if I've got this right: instead of devoting time to producing Dan Wesson revolvers, they're spending their time on junk like that?!?

CZ bought Dan Wesson almost two whole years ago. In that time all they've been able to do is assemble a few SuperMags from apparently leftover parts; the .357 frame guns, which for every other maker are the "bread and butter", are nowhere to be found.

Supposedly they've been spending their time doing "market research" (no kidding, that's what they said) on the revolver line. One would think they would have done that before plunking their money down for an acquisition, but maybe the Czechs work differently in that regard. They obviously don't work terribly quickly!

But hey - they'll gladly make you a bayonet for your autoloader. Yessirree, that's certainly gonna contribute a whole lot to their market share! (That's sarcasm, in case you missed it.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

This article over at the GunZone alerts us to the sad end of a nice gun. Be sure to read the owner's narrative - and note the reloading press used.



I've been following such stories of gun blow-ups for several years, and in the cases I've run across a huge percentage - a majority by far - have been the result of ammo reloaded on a Dillon RL550b press.

No, I don't think the RL550b is inherently dangerous, nor do I believe that it should be blamed; blame always rests with the person doing the work. However, that particular machine does make it easier for a momentary lapse of concentration to result in a catastrophic failure, because it doesn't auto-index. Relying on the human being to remember whether or not he/she advanced the shellplate makes it far too easy to end up with either double charges or squibs. I've documented this happening with relatively new reloaders, and with very well experienced reloaders.

If you own an RL550b, you need to make absolutely sure that you are not distracted when reloading; this means no radio, television, screaming children, or talkative friends in the room when you are operating that press. (This is good practice regardless of the press you're using, but absolutely imperative with the 550b.)

Reloading is generally safe and rewarding - as long as you supply the appropriate vigilance!

-=[ Grant ]=-

One of the hazards of this job is that it can cause one to develop a certain jadedness. By that, I mean the loss of wonder and excitement for the simple joys of shooting a fine gun.

What brings this up? Well, something that happened recently...you see, I work on a LOT of Pythons. I see many, many pristine Pythons, sometimes even apparently unfired examples. In fact, the vast majority of Pythons I see are in exceptional condition.

A few weeks back, someone sent me yet another Python. When I unpacked this one, though, something was definitely different. I was really surprised at how used the gun was; I honestly can't remember seeing one with that much wear in a very long time. The blue was heavily worn, there were lots of scuffs and scratches, and though it still carried its original checkered grips, they were worn down to the point that they were actually smooth! I've never seen original grips as worn as those were.

I did the work requested, then headed out to the range to do the live fire test - along with one of those pristine Pythons which also needed testing. In the course of the shooting, I found out some interesting things: first, those well worn grips were comfortable! I've never liked any of the stock Python grips, as the only ones I'd ever used were sharp and clean and really uncomfortable. My hands, though, felt completely at home with those old, worn grips. (Felt a little like a Single Action Army, actually.)

In fact, the whole gun just felt "right". I usually don't get too wrapped up in test shooting - I do a lot of it and it has long since ceased to be exciting - but I really enjoyed shooting this old gun, in part because I knew that it had been shot a lot. I didn't worry about getting it dirty, or scratching it. It was a machine that was designed to shoot, and had obviously lead a life where it had been allowed to fulfill that design.

I could only imagine the people that had owned this revolver; had it been carried by a policeman who understood fine machinery? Perhaps a bullseye shooter who took pride in the accuracy the old Colt could deliver? Maybe a hunter, perhaps a forest ranger - or just someone who liked to plink at the local shooting range? Whoever it was, they obviously liked the gun - in the way that a series of small children will latch on to an old, worn teddy bear.

My thoughts turned to the pristine Python, awaiting its turn. It just wasn't as exciting to realize that this gun spent most of its time in a box in a safe, being taken out only occasionally (with appropriate pomp and circumstance) to send a few careful rounds downrange. I wondered what the people who designed and built this superior machine would think; would they want their hard work to be secreted away, hoarded like a rare coin or stamp - or would they be happier to have the gun worn out by a series of appreciative people who enjoyed every shot it would make? Were it me, I'd want the latter. I hope they would too.

That worn Python - some would call it a "beater" - is a special gun. No, it's not pretty and it probably won't turn any heads at the range. But it shoots well, and because of its condition it just seems right to shoot it. Yes, I told the owner so.

I guess I'll just never be a collector.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tamara K., the irrepressible scribe at the View From The Porch (and my favorite firearms blogger) had this to say about Taurus revolvers:

I reluctantly decided to hold off on stocking new Taurus handguns even though they had once been a great profit center for me, because I didn't want to use my customers as guinea pigs for the company's newly-spotty QC.

Read the whole thing here.

While you're at it, check out Tam's new blog, The Arms Room. (I'm hoping to see a little more revolver content there....hint, hint!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

..and it isn't what you think!

As you may have gathered from hints in my previous writings, I'm of somewhat shorter stature than the average American male. Because of this, my hands are proportionally smaller; I have short, relatively thin fingers. Heck, my wife's hands are bigger than mine!

It goes without saying that finding guns that fit is a challenge. Even a S&W "K" frame, which very few people would describe as being "big", are on the outer edge of comfort for me. Your basic "N" frame? Not even close!

I've discovered that I'm not alone. One well known instructor of my acquaintance is a much larger fellow than I, yet he has small hands as well. There are a lot of us who have trouble finding guns that are comfortable to handle and shoot. Happily, we're not restricted to small-frame revolvers, as there is a good option in a larger gun.

That gun is the Ruger GP-100. It's a large frame .357 Magnum revolver, but they've done some superb engineering to make it fit a wide variety of hands. Ruger ships the guns with two different grips, depending on the gun's features - adjustable sight models come with the standard (large) grip, while the fixed sight versions ship with the "compact" (small grip.) The great thing is that the grips are completely interchangeable between models, easily changed, and cheap!

The compact grip fits even my small hands well, and makes for terrific concealment. Of course, it's of the same construction as the standard GP-100 grip - soft rubber with wood inserts. This makes it comfortable to shoot with the stoutest loads, but less likely to grab onto a concealing garment. They are, in my estimation, the best factory grips available on any revolver.

Want a pair of the Ruger compact grips? You can get them from Brownells - only $23.70!

-=[ Grant ]=-

• This thread at GlockTalk seemed oddly familiar to me. People routinely ask about the lifespan of a particular gun, while at the same time suggesting that somehow the guns of yesteryear would last longer under use than today's offerings. I'm not sure that this is the case.

Let's jump back to, say, 1935 or so. Someone has just bought a new .38 Special revolver (take your pick of quality makers) and a box of ammunition - a box that might last them for a decade or more!

What I've managed to decipher from the "old folks" I've talked with is that they just didn't shoot guns all that much. There weren't a lot of competitive shooting events back then, and even those that existed demanded less ammunition in a year than a typical IDPA match consumes in a weekend. A box of handgun ammo (50 rounds) per year was considered a "lot" of shooting by many of these folks; at that rate, our mythical revolver would be considered to have been heavily used, having only seen a total of 3500 rounds!

Flash forward to 2006, and a certain maker says that their gun has an "expected lifespan" of 6,000 rounds. Doesn't sound like much to us, but it may be two or three (or possibly ten) times the number of rounds that guns sold in 1935 would expect to see over their lifetime.

Perspective, people. There is a lot to complain about in the craftsmanship (or lack of same) coming out most of today's manufacturers, but one generally can't fault the durability of the guns. There are exceptions, of course, but in the aggregate I suspect that your average GP-100 will last longer than the folks of 1935 could even imagine.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Heard about "MIM" parts? MIM is an injection molding process for metal parts, and it has been revolutionizing many industries. In the revolver business, both Smith & Wesson and Taurus have made use of MIM parts. Like any new process, however, there are those who decry the new technology; some gunsmiths spread the misinformation that MIM parts can't be worked on, and refuse to take in guns using MIM parts. Adding fuel to the fire are a few well-publicized parts breakages, most notably with 1911 autopistol sears.

Is there something inherently wrong with MIM parts? No, but the story is a bit more complex than that.

I have some experience with MIM parts in revolvers; I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!

MIM is just another metalworking method, like forging and casting. Like those well-established metalworking methods, it has strengths and weaknesses. Far too few engineers apparently understand them.

First off, a steel MIM part can be treated like any other steel part; it can be welded, soldered, blued, hardened, and tempered. This is important to understand, as there is a perception out there that the parts are not "real" steel. They are!

The advantages of an MIM part do not generally include raw cost; the material is expensive, and the molds are horrendously expensive. The benefits come in the area of post-fabrication. The MIM part, as noted, can be heat treated - the benefit is that they don't need to be, as the hardness of the part can be engineered in when the part is made. The parts come out ready to use; no additional surface finishing is generally needed. Finally, the parts can be made in shapes that would be extremely expensive or nearly impossible to economically machine.

The downsides? Cost, as already noted. Additionally, the tolerances for an MIM part generally need to be larger; it's hard to hold them to .001" in all dimensions (though they're getting better all the time.) Another problem is that the technology doesn't work all that well for parts that are more than about 3/8" thick (again, this gets better on an almost monthly basis), nor on stressed parts that are very thin.

There are other, less obvious pros and cons of MIM parts, but you get the idea - MIM, like anything else, is a balancing act.

Now here's the part that those of you who aren't fond of MIM should understand: the problem isn't with the technology, but with the engineering behind the part itself.

As noted, MIM on a per-part basis is pretty expensive, but since they can be engineered with specific traits they can eliminate some expensive secondary operations - hardening, for example. Here's the problem: let's say that you are building 1911 sears, and MIM seems a good method for producing them. You decide that the sear has to have a certain hardness (so that it doesn't wear), and since the surface finish is good "as produced" you think you're home free.

The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like them!

The bottom line: if you have trouble with MIM parts, it's not the part's fault - it's the fault of the engineers in the company that designed the part. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy an entire gun from a company that botched the engineering that badly, regardless of whether or not I replaced the parts in question. I'm funny that way!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Forgive my deviation from revolver centrism, but a recent rifle class in which I assisted brought to mind a topic which is just not understood amongst gun owners: "reliability."

What is "reliable"? You'll hear all kinds of definitions, all kinds of criteria. My definition is deceptively simple: the next time you pull the trigger, the gun will function perfectly. That means zero, zilch, nada, nyet failures. Every single time, regardless of how many rounds you've just shot. Not just "bang", but feed, fire, eject, and feed again.

Sounds like I'm easy to please, right? You'd be surprised at how few guns actually do perform to this standard. I expect a reliable gun to do this after a full weekend of shooting, regardless of the number of rounds I've shot, as well as right after cleaning. Every single time, without exception.

Note that I don't specify any particular number of rounds, because I've encountered instances where reliability was defined by some arbitrary round count, such as 500 - and when the gun crapped out on the 501st round, it was still deemed to be reliable since it had met the number! Sorry, not in my book.

One test I've heard (for autoloading rifles) is "six magazines of duty loads, fired as quickly as you can change magazines." Sounds great, right? I've seen an AR-15 which would only pass such a test one time, yet the owner decided it was reliable because it met the test criteria! The fact that it couldn't perform the feat again did not dissuade him in his opinion.

The only caveats are that 1) the gun be maintained according to the maker's recommendations and 2) fed ammunition which conforms to industry standards for that caliber. Anything else - such as the ever-popular mud wrestling test, making it into a popsicle, and other such activities - can be considered the ballistic equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotters game: entertaining to watch, but no indicator of an ability to win the NBA finals.

I've seen more than one gun which happily ate a magazine of ammo after being dropped into a mud puddle, but couldn't be counted on to function perfectly at any unannounced time. Mind you, it malfunctioned maybe once every 400 or so rounds, but sooner or later it would fail. Reliable? Not by my definition.

You'll run into many people who will tell you that this is "no big deal - I've got lots of guns that will do that." At the risk of offending someone - believe me, it's not my intention - I will quote Hugh Laurie, playing the namesake character in the TV series 'House': "everyone lies."

When I say "every time you pull the trigger", I mean EVERYTIME. When I say zero failures, I mean ZERO. One fellow of my acquaintance is known locally for his promotion of a particular gun, which he insists is "absolutely reliable." This is a fellow with a good reputation, someone that other people consider honest and, presumably, look up to. Trouble is, he lies - I've seen his gun fail, and I know others who have witnessed it too. Yet, he continues to insist that his gun is "perfectly reliable." In one class, I met someone with an HK 91, supposedly the epitome of functionality; of course, the owner insisted it was "reliable". It suffered a FTF the first day, and an FTE the second. The owner continued to refer to it as "reliable".

If your gun will not function with ammunition that meets industry-standard specs, then it is unreliable. I had an encounter with a gunstore commando a while back; he was going to loan his "custom built" AR-15 to another employee. He gushed that his pride and joy was the most reliable gun he had ever seen - then, almost in the same breath, told the other fellow not to shoot Winchester ammunition in it, as "it won't feed Winchester all of the time." Even if it functioned 100% with everything else (though I doubt it), that it wouldn't work with one specific brand means that it simply wasn't reliable. (Back to revolvers - if your wheelgun won't fire every brand of ammunition in its caliber with zero misfires, it's not reliable!

My favorite rifle instructor, Georges Rahbani, always says that you are only as good as you are on demand - the same goes for your gun!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I had an interesting email recently. The writer said that he'd contacted a number of gunsmiths to inquire about action work. In every case, he said, all he could get out of them was "we can make it lighter." Occasionally I'll get an inquiry from the other side of this phenomenon - someone whose only question is "how light can you make it?" Why this fixation on pull weight? I believe it's because people just haven't been properly educated!

If you've read my essay on "What makes a good trigger?", you already know about the factors that go into a quality action job. (If you haven't read it, go ahead and do so now; I'll wait.)

Back already? OK!

When having action work done, there are three competing performance criteria: weight, reliability, and return.

Weight is self explanatory, and is what most people relate to. I've covered this in the article referenced above, so I won't go into more explanation - except to say that weight isn't the only thing you should consider, and if that's all your gunsmith can talk about you might want to re-think having him work on your gun!

The second performance criteria is reliability. When I speak of reliability, I mean the expectation that the gun will ignite primers from all common ammunition 100% of the time in both single and double action. That means even the hardest primers being made (currently CCI Magnum primers) will light off every time that the hammer falls; anything else is less reliable. A gun that fires off Federal primers all the time, Winchester most of the time, and CCI Magnums about half the time isn't reliable; it may be acceptable for the use that the gun will be put to, but it is not reliable. (As it turns out, the more reliable the ignition, the more accurate the gun will be. There are a number of reasons for this, which I'll go into in a later article.)

Finally, there is return, or the action of the trigger resetting itself. In the article I referenced above, I talked about the qualities of trigger return - but there is more to consider. One way of lightening the overall pull weight of the action is to reduce the spring tension that powers the trigger return. This can introduce a couple of undesired side effects; first, the return spring tension can be so low that the trigger "sticks" and doesn't return (most prevalent on guns where the quality of the trigger return, in terms of smoothness, isn't understood or is ignored.)

The second side effect is that the return speed is lowered. This results in the shooter being able to "outrun" the trigger, shooting faster than the trigger will reset itself. This can cause premature cycling of the cylinder (the cylinder rotating without the hammer being cocked and dropped) or action locking (requiring the shooter to stop his/her pull, let the action reset, and then restarting the pull - most common on Rugers.) In a competition, these side effects can lose points - in a self-defense scenario, they might cause you to lose something more precious!

Here's the "kicker": when getting action work done, you get to choose any two of the three performance criteria, but not all three. For instance, if you want light pull weight and good reliability, you're going to sacrifice return. If you want light pull and good return, you're going to sacrifice reliability. If you want reliability and fast trigger reset, you're going to have to learn to deal with heavier pull weights!

There is no free lunch, and there isn't a gunsmith in the world who can repeal the laws of physics; you get any 2, but not all 3 in the same gun. You have to make the decision as to what is best for your intended use!

Let me illustrate: I am starting work on a Ruger SP-101 that is to be shot by an older lady. She only shoots reloads that her husband makes for her, and only at the range (this is not a defensive or competition piece.)

The primary concern is ease of cocking the gun in single action; it won't be used in double action at all. So, the criteria that is important in this case is action weight; we don't care all that much about return (other than it actually do so - the speed isn't a consideration), and since the fellow can load the ammunition to shoot in this specific gun (he will use whatever primers necessary to make the gun run), reliability is not a concern. This is a great example of tuning the action to fit the use!

For a defensive gun, reliability is the first consideration, with return second. For a competition gun, say for ICORE or USPSA (or even IDPA), the speed of the action reset is paramount - followed by a light pull weight. The competitor will usually select or reload ammunition to suit the gun, which makes reliability (in the sense that I use the term) less a concern.

If all a gunsmith can talk about is how light he can make the action, he's ignoring fully two-thirds of of action performance. This is a two-way street, though - its not just gunsmiths who don't understand this stuff! Shooters raised on the typical gun rag articles never learn about this either, because all most writers know how to discuss is pull weight.

When I get an inquiry from someone whose only question is "how light", I try to educate him or her to make more informed choices. I hope I've been able to do that here!

-=[ Grant ]=-

The Shooting Gallery has this to say:

One thing is for sure: Colt is looking for a sugar daddy.

According to Jim Shepherd of "The Shooting Wire"  (unfortunately, an article available only to subscribers and not available as an independent Internet link), one possible buyer of Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC might have been STI:

"Other stories, including the sale of Colt, have dragged on longer than the Florida elections. Today, there's still no definitive resolution to the saga. An arbitrarily high valuation of the civilian side of the business ended that outright sale option in the Colt soap opera.

STI, the company that was ready to buy the civilian operation, has moved on, announcing upcoming production of a single-action revolver called the Texican. It will be aimed at the upper echelon cowboy action competitors, following the same model that has made STI's "race guns" major players in practical shooting.

With a highly successful, manufacturing-oriented business model, STI may, indeed, make a dent in the cowboy market - especially if STI contributes bonus money to cowboy action the way it has in practical shooting. The Texican may find its way into the holsters of the new generation of single-action shooters, despite the fact SASS has continually shied away from the idea of "win money" and sponsorships. STI's move into cowboy action may lead to the recognition that professional shooters exist in cowboy action."

-=[ Grant ]=-

I recently stumbled across The Ten Ring, a great firearms blog by Denise and Bill. They describe it as "A blog by two self-described gun nuts. One who started as a liberal and the other who started as a conservative. We helped each other grow and thrive over the past nine years."

You've got to start by reading their eight-part series "On Being A Gun Nut." It's some of the best prose I've ever read about firearms ownership. Part VII, about being a female gun nut, is particularly good. Don't miss it!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Well, the guns are certainly real, in the sense that they were made by Colt. What's not real, though, is they way they came from the factory!

With the prices of collectible Colts going well north of a grand, some unscrupulous sellers have taken to faking the rarer, and more valuable, variations. The most commonly faked is certainly the 3" Python.

A number of years ago, Colt sold off their remaindered barrels to companies such as Numrich Gun Parts. Amongst the prizes were a number of 3" barrels - brand new, mind you - for the Python.

When prices started their ascent a few years ago, some enterprising people took more common 4" Pythons, stuck the 3" barrels on them, and sold them as the far rarer variant. It didn't take someone long to figure out that one way to overcome buyer resistance was to include a Colt box that had the 3" label on the end - of course, the label is a complete forgery, but enough to fool most people into parting with far more money than they should.

Well, the more astute buyers soon wised up to this scam, and started demanding factory letters to prove the provenance of the piece in question. In today's digital world, faking a Colt letter is as easy as faking the box label - so now there are 3" Colt Pythons running around with "original" boxes and "factory letters" to calm even the most jittery buyer!

It's gotten bad enough that I now recommend anyone contemplating the purchase of a 3" Python to call Colt and order their own factory letter. If the seller shows any reticence to letting you do this, you've probably just saved yourself a whole bunch of money!

(I have been approached by a number of people over the past few years to swap barrels on Pythons - replacing a stock barrel with a 3" tube to be supplied by the client. In each case, I've told the caller that I'd be happy to do so, but I would be stamping and indication under the grip panels that the gun was not original. Not too surprisingly, none have taken me up on my offer. I will not be a party - knowingly or otherwise - to fleecing Colt buyers!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Thanks to the precision machining abilities of the Swiss, we now have the world's first revolver that presents a greater hazard from choking than from firing!

I'm not sure whether I'm more amazed with the workmanship, or that police organizations in this country are so imbecilic as to believe that this thing actually constitutes a hazard. As one blogger put it, someone armed with a Sharpie marker is more dangerous!

So, in salute to the vacuous hand-wringers in our media (and their sycophants everywhere), I hereby resurrect the feel-good mantra "won't SOMEBODY PLEASE think of the children?!?!?"

(You heard it here first, folks!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Many people ask me where to get finger grooved grips for various guns (often for the Colt Python, but the Ruger GP-100 seems to be a common request as well.) Personally, I usually try to talk them out of that style grip, and I'd like to share my reasoning.

First, the grooves rarely fit any given person perfectly; for my hands, for instance, every grooved grip I've ever tried required me to spread my fingers to an uncomfortable degree. If I didn't, my fingers would wind up on top of the separating ridges, making shooting far less comfortable and secure! Women, who often have hands that are significantly smaller than their male counterparts, are particularly sensitive to this problem.

Second, anytime you add spacing between your fingers the combined strength of your grip is reduced. You simply grip harder with your fingers together than apart. There's a reason that hammers don't have finger grooves!

Third, having grooves on your grips slows down your acquisition and draw. No less a personage than Jerry Miculek, in a television interview, eschewed finger groove grips. As he put it, "no one gets a perfect grip out of the holster every time." A smooth, non-grooved grip allows you to get a workable grip immediately, where a grooved model requires that you get perfect finger placement from the outset. That is not what you want on a self-defense firearm!

I could point out that another revolver shooter who was "pretty good" was Bill Jordan, and you'll note that the grips he designed and used don't have finger grooves.

It's possible that if one is accustomed to holding a revolver in a light target-shooters grip, finger grooves may help in control. (I don't, I don't know anyone who does, and it's not what most trainers teach today.) Outside of that, I think they are an abomination and suggest that you not use them!

-=[ Grant ]=-

There is a huge amount of misinformation regarding revolver accuracy. Folks, assuming that you have a gun in proper repair - timing, lockup, chamber-to-bore alignment - the most important factor in accuracy is the chamber throat dimension.

What is the chamber throat? It is the slightly constricted opening in the chamber, just in front of the cartridge mouth, that the bullet passes through on its way into the forcing cone. The throat gives the bullet its first stabilizing guidance, and many people better than I have demonstrated that it is critical to good accuracy - perhaps more than the bore itself!

The best accuracy is obtained when the bullet diameter and the throat diameter are exactly the same; in the case of lead bullets, it can be up to .001" smaller than the bullet diameter with good results. If the throat is larger than the bullet, then the bullet sort of wallows through the throat and never does get that initial guidance. Accuracy will suffer.

It is therefore important to serious shooters to know what their throat diameters actually measure. Now, I took heat from some internet experts recently when I stated that one cannot get proper measurements of throat diameters using calipers - dial, vernier, or digital. One fellow wrote me that he'd been doing it for years with nothing more than a cheap dial caliper, and the readings were always "nuts on!" While I don't wish to argue with anyone, let me relate a little test I did.

I took a cylinder that happened to be on my workbench - a S&W Model 60 "J" frame cylinder - and measured its throats with calipers, then with a set of certified pin gages. There were three different calipers - a vernier, a dial, and a digital electronic - all of Swiss origin. The Swiss make the finest calipers on the face of the earth, and substantially better than the Chinese tools most stores sell. In addition, I've been measuring very precise watch and clock parts since I was a teenager, and have more experience using quality measuring devices than the vast majority of people you are likely to meet. In other words, I know what I'm doing and I've got the best tools to use!

I started by checking the throats from several angles, to eliminate the possibility that they were oval instead of cylindrical. Since this is a brand-new cylinder, the readings were identical, showing that the throats were indeed machined correctly.

What did I find? The vernier caliper indicated the throat diameter was .355+", the dial caliper showed .3560", and the digital read .3555". Now for the moment of truth: the certified pin gages, which are the most accurate method of determining a bore size, proved that the bore was in fact .3585" ! That is between .0025" and .003" discrepancy!

Precision machinists will quickly tell you that a caliper - even the best, like I have - are only good to a "couple of thousandths" (.002"), and not reliable at all for inside measurements under a couple of inches. (Frankly, I was surprised that I got as close as I did!) The verdict? One simply cannot measure throats precisely with a caliper, even using the best that money can buy - they aren't sufficiently accurate.

(It should not come as a surprise that I'm not a big fan of calipers; I don't use them for anything remotely critical. I consider them to be "ballpark" instruments at best, and rely on best-quality Swiss micrometers for about 90% of my work. What does your gunsmith use??)

-=[ Grant ]=-

In case you missed it, the IRC (International Revolver Championship) were held last month. As usual, Jerry Miculek won (no news there!) This year, however, a new entrant came in at second place, edging out the man who usually takes that slot: Vic Pickett.

The shooter was...Rob Leatham! That's right, good ol' Rob, he of 1911/IPSC fame. What you may not remember is that Rob is a revolver shooter from way back; he shot revolvers at the Bianchi cup before switching - with the rest of the field - to autoloaders. He's no stranger to the wheelgun, certainly!

But that isn't the most interesting thing - the intriguing part is that he shot in the stock gun class, shooting against Jerry (and Vic) who are in open class (optics and compensators.) That's a show of sheer talent, folks. When you can shoot with essentially no hardware assistance against top competitors who are equipped with the best technology available, you're good. Very good. Of course, anyone familiar with Rob's shooting career already knew that!

-=[ Grant ]=-

As previously mentioned, I acquired one of the recently imported FN "Barracuda" revolvers, and am in the midst of determining what to do to improve the action. I have to make a living, too, so this isn't on the top of my priority list....be patient!

In the meantime, I have managed to develop some information about the lineage of this gun. Some less-informed sellers have been insisting that the Barracuda was made in Belgium, and that the very similar Astra was either a rip-off or a licensed copy. To quote one internet 'expert': "The FN Barracuda was the only revolver FN ever made. They were made a little over 20 years ago and dropped as they never sold as FN thought they would. They are not Astra's nor are they copies, they are entirly FN made."

Trouble is, that is a complete untruth. If you have a Barracuda, pull the grips off; on the left side of the grip frame, next to the mainspring adjustment ring, you'll see the gun's proof marks. You'll note that the proof marks are all from Eibar, Spain - there are no FN Herstal or Liege (or any other Belgian) proof marks on the gun.

Serendipitously, I also have a cross-check: I recently came into possession of an Astra-badged version of this gun. Guess what? Same Spanish proof marks, in the same spots, as the FN version.

Conclusion: The FN Barracuda revolver was definitely NOT produced in Belgium, and was definitely NOT made by FN. It was in fact made in Spain by Astra, for it is their proof marks that adorn the gun. I hope this settles the controversy once and for all!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Occasionally someone will call or email: "I'm looking for a good gunsmith - do you work on Taurus revolvers?" When I politely inform the person that I do not, the result is often indignance, as if to say "how dare you decline to work on my fine possession! You have insulted me, suh!" (Delivered in the best antebellum manner, of course.)

Taurus revolvers possess many positive traits: they're available in a wide variety of calibers and configurations, they are usually fairly reliable, and they are priced right. Unfortunately, it's that last bit that gets me into trouble.

You see, the most expensive part of building a handgun, particularly a revolver, is the finishing work. You can't automate the polishing process, and Taurus revolvers are generally very well polished and finished. Given their low price point, this means that finishing is a large percentage of the purchase price. This means that they have to skimp somewhere, and the place that they do is in parts fitting.

Taurus guns have parts that simply do not fit as tightly - as precisely - as some other manufacturers. Yes, you can do a shadetree action job, maybe swap springs, and improve the action - but it will never be truly 'great' without rebuilding the gun.

I've purchased a couple of Taurus revolvers (Taurii??) to work on, to evaluate. While I like the guns (the now-discontinued model 445 is really neat, and I carry it occasionally) the effort to put a truly world-class action job on one results in huge labor costs.

Look at it this way: if you want a top-end wheelgun you have to pay for fitting parts at some point. With a Taurus, it doesn't happen at the time of purchase; it can only occur in the gunsmith's hands, which drives the cost up considerably. Like the folks who commissioned custom Norinco 1911s about a decade ago, what you end up with is a really expensive $300 gun that no one wants to buy.

I'd rather spend my time working on revolvers that will actually see an increase in value after quality work has been done, and I suspect their owners are the same way. That just won't happen with a Taurus, because after all is said and done it'll still just be a Taurus.

-=[ Grant ]=-

If you don't like finger-pointing rants, stop here. I'm in one of my moods.

Internet forums are a varied lot; sometimes informative, sometimes inflammatory, and sometimes downright exasperating.

This is a story about one of those exasperating ones.

On one of the forums someone made mention of a new gun from USFA (United States Fire-Arms, the single action folks headquartered in the historic Colt factory.) USFA produces superb quality firearms, and though one can occasionally take issue with their styling, one cannot fault the quality of their products.

The discussion on this forum soon centered around the "high cost" ($1400 or thereabouts) of this new gun. Several people chimed in to the effect that they, too, would "never pay that much" for a gun.

Why did this disturb my sensibilities? Because on forums and in magazines, there is an almost-constant complaint that guns "aren't made the way they used to be", along with the obligatory pining for a return to "quality" firearms. "Why can't anyone make a good gun, with beautiful blueing and perfect fit?" is a typical lament.

I saw one discussion where folks were asked to put in their wish lists to a particular manufacturer. Of course, they all specified high-end features, peerless accuracy, superb metalwork and finishing, and - get this - actually expected it to sell for "less than $500!"

Folks, this just isn't rational. In fact, it's downright silly.

The reality is that a high-quality gun - a gun that could compete with, say, something from the 1930's - is going to cost north of the thousand-dollar mark, and there is just no way around that fact. Even the best of the S&W Performance Center guns don't approach the kind of fit and finish that were commonly available in, say, 1935, but are still pushing a grand. If they were capable of finishing those guns to the degree of the famed Registered Magnums (and I don't think they are,) you'd see a minimum 50% increase in the cost - if not more.

We all have to face the reality that quality costs, it'll cost more tomorrow than today, and if you're not willing to pay for it then you really don't have much room to complain - buy a Taurus.

Rant off. (I feel better now!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Poor Dan Wesson. The marque, famed for their switch-barrel revolvers, has suffered through more inept management regimes than your average banana republic (no, not the clothing chain!) Today you can ask ten random shooters about the company, and almost none will know that Dan Wesson is still in business. Their innovative revolvers - the work of the incomparable Karl Lewis - are no longer found on dealer's shelves.

How did we get to this sad state of affairs? To understand, we need to go back to the beginning of the Third Dynasty....

At the time, Dan Wesson was located in Palmer, MA. Production had reached new lows in both quality and quantity, and their strongest market - handgun silhouette shooters - were  tiring of their on-again, off again production history. Despite some interesting introductions (a line of fixed-barrel guns and a true small frame concealed carry piece, dubbed the "Lil' Dan",) the company was forced into bankruptcy. 

Into our story steps a fellow by the name of Bob Serva, who bought the company and moved it to Norwich, NY.

The problems surfaced almost immediately. The machinery included in the purchase was found to be "worn out", and supposedly incapable of making quality guns. (The irony of that statement will be revealed later.) You'd think that someone would have scrutinized a little thing like that out before writing a check, but no matter - the company invested in some new equipment, and then spent quite a long time resetting the new shop to produce guns.

Let's stop for a moment and review the revolver market at that point in history. Colt, stung by their association with certain anti-gun political elements and fresh out of bankruptcy, had all but abandoned the revolver market - and really didn't seem to care. Ruger was selling lots of guns, but their line was limited and had precious little to offer either competitors or the growing concealed carry market. Taurus was moving up in the market, but suffering from a reputation for having quality control problems (a perception which persists to this day.) The market leader, Smith&Wesson, had problems of their own: an apparently effective grassroots boycott, a persistent rumor that they were a hair's breadth away from bankrupcty, and being put up for sale by their British owners. 

The market was in turmoil; it was ripe for a quality product, particularly one with unique features not available anywhere else. With all the competitors preoccupied with their own problems, market share was there for the taking - and Dan Wesson was in a good position to grab some. They had a line of revolvers that was strong, accurate as all get-out, and far more versatile than anything the competition had to offer. In addition, they had the Lil' Dan, which with some attention could easily address the burgeoning demand for concealed carry guns, and a fanatical (though shrinking daily) customer base. (I oughtta know - I'm one of those crazies who loves his Dan Wessons!)

So, with a brand new acquisition, new machinery, and a market ripe for the picking what did the owner of Dan Wesson do?

Right - he introduced a line of 1911 pistols!

The introduction of the 1911 guns seemed to take the wind out of revolver production. During this time, Dan Wesson made only one run of frames for the world's most popular revolver caliber, the .357 Magnum. Quality was so poor that I personally had to return a gun - ordered in for a special client - because the sideplate gap approached .006" in places! The action was awful, and the hammer and trigger had been slapped into the gun with no finish work whatsoever. The production manager apologized profusely, and hand-selected a replacement - which was only marginally better. This is when I learned that all of the frames had been made in a single run in the first year of the company's revived production, and most (if not all) apparently suffered from this egregious fault. 

Remember the irony I alluded to? Even the much-maligned Palmer guns - the worst of the lot, made on that "worn out" machinery - had sideplates that fit correctly!

To their credit, they did try - sort of. Dan Wesson placed small black-and-white advertisements in relatively inconspicuous places in the gun magazines. The ads were pitiful: poor design, bad graphics, and too much room taken up with religious symbolism. (Before the hate mail comes in, understand that I have no problem with religious symbols in the right place and at the right time. An advertisement for a firearm in a gun magazine is neither the time nor the place.) The average small-town "nickel shopper" advertisement looks more professional than anything Dan Wesson was able to insert into glossy national magazines.

Magazines weren't the only marketing avenue, however. Recognizing the power of the internet, they put up a website - but it would be a couple of years before they bothered to procure their own domain name, instead using the site under the domain name of their ISP. The site was horridly designed, didn't work on anything other than a 17" monitor, and didn't even have much information. (Hey, I know their product line, and if it was difficult for me to figure out what was what, imagine what a new customer would go through!) They didn't understand what a website was really for: I saw a listing of various new grips that were available, but no pictures. An email to the company netted the information that the pictures were only available in their printed catalog, for which they charged $5! That's what we call "behind the times."

Things weren't much better with industry relations. Gunwriters, love 'em or hate 'em, are how the general public learns of, and forms opinions about, new products. I've heard first-hand stories of Dan Wesson management personally making multiple promises of test-and-evaluation samples to individual writers, but never delivering. With behavior like that, it's no wonder that Dan Wesson remained in a publicity rut.

Once the 1911s started rolling off the assembly line, revolvers took a definite back seat - way back. Parts became hard to get; Brownells even dumped the line, rumored to be tired of non-delivery. What little "innovation" centered around odd and useless chamberings. (Yep, I'm sure that the .460 Rowland - aka .451 Detonics Magnum rebadged to assuage someone's ego - was a big seller. I'm being facetious, in case you missed it.)

I suppose the argument for the switch to 1911 production was because revolvers "weren't selling very well." Of course, given the poor management of the whole mess, one would expect sales problems!

In my mind, the only saving grace during this period were some of Dan Wesson's employees. The aforementioned production manager was pleasant, honest, and seemed genuinely saddened that revolvers had been relegated to the back burner; the gal who essentially ran (and still runs) their parts and customer service operation has always been efficient and helpful (and has something of a following on the internet forums!)

That brings us more or less to the present. Roughly a year and a half ago, CZ-USA somehow acquired Dan Wesson and Mr. Serva took a job with the parent company. (He has since left CZ-USA.) So far, CZ doesn't seem to be all that interested in Dan Wesson revolvers - their website didn't even mention revolvers until just recently, and it's taken them over a year just to make their first .357 gun. Supposedly they are busy doing "market research", which to me means they still don't have a clue what to do with the wheelguns.

CZ, if you're reading this, here's some free advice:

1) Concentrate on building up to a standard, not down to a price. Saying you make high quality products, but not actually delivering high quality, doesn't count. If you need proof that this works, look at the company who took you main market from you: Freedom Arms. (If you need still more examples, Google "Tom Peters". Heck, Google him anyway - you need all the help you can get.)

2) What sells best? Historically, it's been mid-size guns in .357 Magnum. Start there; make 'em better than anything else on the market. Hunting guns in common calibers should be next (the .445 SuperMag, as neat as it is, isn't a common caliber.) You need a concealed carry piece; the market is crying for a good, small 6-shot .357 to fill the shoes of the late and much missed Colt Magnum Carry.

3) "Quality" means some attention needs to be given to the double action lockwork. They aren't smooth or consistent enough, they stack horribly, and their trigger return is sluggish. Spend some engineering money and fix those traits, and don't for a minute think that you can slide by with what you've got now.

4) Forget locks and MIM parts; make them the way the market wants them to be made, not the way some politician deems they should. (There's a big backlash against the built-in locks of your competitors; ignore this at your peril.)

5) You need a presence in competition; be visible in IHMSA, ICORE, USPSA, Steel Challenge, and IDPA. Revolver divisions are attracting more and more shooters; fInd people to sponsor, at all levels of ability. (Quantity counts in this game.)

6) You need actual marketing: proper advertising, editorial content, and a strong web presence. (Your current website doesn't cut it; if you plan to keep the Dan Wesson name, you need to establish a separate domain for it. You'll notice that the Mercedes website is separate from the Chrysler website for a reason.)

7) You'd better come up with an innovative dealer program. No matter how much you advertise, if it isn't on the dealer's shelves - and the dealers don't actively support you - you've lost a sale. (Hint: kiss up to the retail salespeople, not the boss. The guy sitting at the desk in the back room isn't who's selling the things.)

8) Don't ignore the growing women's market, but understand that pink grips and shiny finishes aren't what they want. They are sharp, savvy consumers who have different buying patterns and criteria than men. You need to learn what those are and supply products and services to match. (You have one huge advantage that no one else has, and it has never been exploited by any of the previous ownership. If you can't figure it out on your own, give me a call.)

9) Finally: if you're not going to do it right, don't do it at all - sell the revolver division to someone who will. Dan Wesson and Karl Lewis deserve it, and the legions of Dan Wesson enthusiasts deserve it. Don't let us down.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Markoo Kloos writes a blog called "the munchkin wrangler" (no typo - he doesn't use caps on the title.)

One of his posts is titled "why the revolver?" (again with the no caps.) It's a great treatise on the joys of the wheelgun, and well worth bookmarking.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Saturday, June 3, Montenegro declared independence from Serbia. Montenegro, along with Serbia, had been a part of Yugoslavia since they joined the Balkan union in 1918.

Just what does this have to do with revolvers? Well, there is a revolver commonly known as a "Montenegrin revolver", and often said to have been designed or made in Montenegro.

The trouble is that there isn't a shred of truth to those tales!

The Montenegrin is more properly termed a Gasser, having originated in the Austrian arms factories of Leopold Gasser. Gasser had factories in Vienna and St. Polten. His guns were widely available in the Balkans, and were in fact adopted by the Austro/Hungarian army.

Why, then, did these 11mm revolvers get attributed to Montenegro? There are two explanations: first, that their 11mm Long chambering was originally issued to the Montenegrin army for a single shot carbine. The second, more romantic and interesting, is that King Nicholas of Montenegro had made the ownership of such arms mandatory for his male citizenry. It was also said that the King had a financial stake in their sale!

As interesting as the tale is, though, there seems to be no hard evidence to support the King's supposed order. The name continues to live on, even if we never know absolutely where it originated.

Today, original Gasser revolvers fetch a pretty penny on the open market. If looking at one, make sure it is marked from the Gasser factory - there were any number of knock-offs made in workshops in Austria and Belgium. Such arms are sometimes of questionable manufacture and value, though are often labeled with the misleading moniker of "Montenegrin revolver" by their over-enthusiastic (if ill-informed) sellers.

Happy Independence Day, Montenegro!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I'm seeing new Ruger GP-100 and SP-101 revolvers coming into the local dealers with what can only be described as horrid factory workmanship. Wobbly cylinders, gritty triggers, and uneven parts fitting are out of place for this fine maker.

Let's be honest: Ruger has never at the "top end" of fit & finish. Admittedly, the long-gone "Six" series of double-action revolvers were awfully good, but I don't think many would argue that their replacements are in the same league. The most recent offerings, though, are looking more like the bottom of the barrel.

At the same time, their autoloading pistols are better than ever. The new P-345 is, I hate to say, really a well-fitted and finished gun - for a bottom feeder, of course! It's definitely a step above anything they've offered in that line.

Here's an idea: Ruger, transfer some of the talented folk making bottom-feeders to the revolver division - they obviously need the help!

-=[ Grant ]=-

A new toy just arrived at the shop: an FN 'Barracuda' revolver in .357!

The Barracuda was FN's only foray into the revolver market; they were produced for a few years during the 80's. Various "authorities" say the gun was made by Astra and marketed by FN, others hold that it was made by FN and later licensed to Astra. Frankly, from my examination of the construction techniques and general build quality, I'd venture to say that it was made by Astra - and that's not bad, as Astra is a good manufacturer in their own right. A small quantity of new-in-box specimens were recently unearthed and brought into the country.

The gun has a 3-inch barrel and fixed sights, the rear having a slightly unusual profile reminiscent of the Dan Wesson Model 14 - sort of "humpbacked." Surprise: the barrel is pinned and the chambers are recessed, just like Smith & Wessons of days past. Another S&W-like detail are the four screws holding one the sideplate, with a fifth screw in front of the triggerguard. The cylinder yoke is held in with a push-button arrangement, very similar to Korth practice. Size is somewhere between a "K" and an "L" frame, and uses "L" frame speedloaders (not "K" frame, as is usually reported.)

The grips, of very nice walnut, show a definite resemblance to the checkered wood grips Colt supplied with Detective Specials in the 1980's. The grips are well-fitted to the gun; my only complaint is that they're a bit shallow (front-to-back) for my tastes. Trigger reach, even for my small hands, is quite comfortable for a "service" sized arm.

One thing I could do without is the hooked triggerguard, but it does lend an interesting profile to the piece. I'm also not a big fan of the serrated trigger (Jerry Miculek notwithstanding), though I'll admit this one is less painful than most of its breed.

Fit & finish is pretty good, but the interior is quite crude - on a par with Rossi arms, at least in terms of parts fitting. Metallurgy, though, appears to be better than expected.

The action is fairly smooth for a factory gun, but not very consistent in its travel. Single action breaks with almost no creep and just a touch of overtravel; double action has near zero overtravel, similar to a Colt action. One nice touch is the user-adjustable pull weight; on my sample, double action weight could be varied from approximately 11-1/2 pounds down to 9-3/4 pounds. I might add that my analysis and measurements were done with the gun "as is", from the box - the action is bone dry, and I expect things to improve considerably with a little lubrication.

After I get the chance to range test it, I'll be getting into the internals to see what can be done to improve this gun.

Unfortunately I didn't find out about these in time to snag one from the distributor, so I had to content myself with paying retail. (Ugh. I feel so violated!) Still, for the $300 it cost, it really is a good deal - and with only 400 imported, it's not likely that another will show up next to you on the firing line!

Pictures and an in-depth test will follow in a few weeks. Stay tuned!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Many people talk about the Colt Detective Special using the term "generation." I get emails asking which "generation" is best or which should be purchased. I recently got a nasty email from a potential client who asked if I could work on a certain "generation"; when I replied that I wasn't sure what he meant by 'third generation', he decided that I wasn't qualified to work on his guns because I "obviously don't know anything about Colts!"

Folks, here's Fact #1: The Colt factory, the people who made them, do not refer to any of the "D" frame guns by "generation." If you ask, they'll tell you that generations are something "the collectors invented" (their exact words!)

Fact #2: there is a lot of controversy, but not a lot of consensus, regarding the various incarnations of the Detective Special and into what "generation" any given one falls.

Some hold that there is a generation change between the square-butt (long) and round-butt (long) in 1933, but not when the "C" frame was changed to the "D" frame in 1947; some that the change from plastic stocks to wood stocks in the mid-50s was a generation, but the reintroduction (after a seven-year absence) in 1993 wasn't.

Like Colt, I prefer to refer to any given gun by its production date. This information is readily available through the Proofhouse site, and is a sure way to prevent miscommunication!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: colt

Yes, it appears to be true.

Various "internet experts" have been littering the online forums telling anyone who would listen that Colt was going to start making revolvers again "real soon." That sounded odd to me, as Colt seems to have been doing everything possible to avoid making revolvers. So, I decided to call the source - Colt.

I talked to several people at the company, and I learned that:

- they hadn't actually produced any Pythons for "a couple of years";
- they'd sold their last Python from remaindered stock over a year ago;
- they didn't have "any plans at all for resuming Python production", and:
- the topic of revolvers wasn't even being discussed at any of their planning meetings.

One can only conclude that revolvers - at least, the Pythons - are dead as far as Colt is concerned.

All this happened about 6 months ago. I was speaking with a well-known industry figure recently (someone whose name you would instantly recognize), who passed along what he called a "credible rumor": Colt had sold all of their revolver tooling and jigs for scrap. Since this person has well-placed sources everywhere, including Colt, the chances of it being mere gossip were remote. Still, he referred to it as "rumor" - so I held out hope. However, I broke the story on the Colt discussion forum.

Well, the "other shoe" has now dropped. On the discussion forums at sixgunner.com, Michael Bane - well known and respected in the industry himself - confirmed the rumors. It seems Colt really is out of the revolver business - permanently.

I still hope that all of this is simply a put-on by someone at Colt, but as yet no one has been able to authoritatively refute the information given.

RIP, Python.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Many people have been following the situation with the North Carolina Dep't of Corrections and their self-destructing S&W revolvers. If you haven't, here's a link to the story.

These pictures of one such occurrence have been floating around the net:





I've been exchanging emails with C.E. "Ed" Harris, who many will remember from his days as the head of Q.C. at Ruger - when they experienced a similar problem. Here's what he had to say:

"Old problem rearing its ugly head again, not really a new problem. A troublesome sporadic one when people forget about good shop practices and get sloppy.

Stress corrosion cracking is generally caused by contamination by solvents or cutting fluids too high in chlorides. Over-torquing barrels barrels creates a stress rise at the root of the thread which makes the problem worse. Microscopic examination of the failed barrels would be obvious to a competent
engineer, especially familiar to those with aerospace or nuclear power systems experience.

Ruger had a short run of this back in the 1980s when they first starting making stainless magnums. I saw a few dozen guns come back when I worked there. All were traced to one guy on night shift who was over-torquing barrels on Redhawks which didn't quite line up, instead of taking a pass off the front of the frame on a Blanchard grinder as he should have done. He also used a wrong, slippery high sulphur thread lubricant intended for chrome-moly instead of the anti-seize compound used with SS.

This condition is aggravated by tight fit of barrel threads, such as when using a class 3A, combined with high stress, high temperature, and high barrel torque. Ruger fixed their problem by changing to a looser 2A fit on the barrel threads and assembling barrels to the frames using a Loctite product to cement them solidly while reducing stress on the threads and positively preventing any seepage of cleaning solvents into the barrel threads after they left the factory."


If true, this wouldn't be the first time S&W has over-torqued a barrel: the Model 442 Airweight Centennials, particularly in nickel finish, are somewhat notorious for frame cracks under the barrel. A phone conversation with a S&W representative confirmed to me that the cracked frames were caused by barrels that had been screwed in "too tightly."

However, there's always the possibility of user error, such as the use of certain products that contain chlorine compounds (brand name removed for obvious reasons):

"Use of [lubricants containing chlorine compounds] "could" do it, as could any number of other cleaners, especially if used with an ultrasonic which enhances thread penetration."

There are certain "miracle" gun lubricant products out there that contain chlorine compounds, and have become popular amongst the more "martial" crowd. In addition, ultrasonic cleaners have been very popular at many police agencies over the last decade or so.

Well, I got an email from one of the employees at the agency, and he claims that they use Hoppes bore cleaner, and that they do not have an ultrasonic!

So we're back to the first possibility. Given Ed's expertise, I suspect that his analysis is the correct one.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: s&w, kaboom

There is an assertion that comes up with surprising frequency, particularly in the internet age where everyone is an expert: the Colt Python (and all other Colt revolvers) are "delicate", "go out of time easily", or "not as strong/durable as a S&W."

Let's start with the construction: a Colt revolver, for any given frame size, is as strong as any gun with that frame size. Their metallurgy is absolutely the best, and their forged construction is of superior quality. They are superbly made, and their longevity is a testimony to that fact. You are never compromising when you choose a Colt!

How about the charge of "delicate" or "goes out of time easily"? In my work, I see a lot of Colts; I shoot them extensively myself. With proper maintenance, I've seen no tendency for any Colt to go out of time. Yet, the rumors persist!

Why do such opinions exist if there wasn't some basis to them? Is there some amount of truth? I think I can answer that!

Let's start with some facts: Colt revolvers have actions which are very refined. Their operating surfaces are very small, and are precisely adjusted to make the guns work properly. Setting them up properly is not a job for someone who isn't intimately familiar with their workings, and the gunsmith who works on them had better be accustomed to working at narrow tolerances, on small parts, under magnification.

Colt's design and construction is unique; it uses the hand (the "pawl" which rotates the cylinder) and the bolt (the stop at the bottom of the frame opening) to hold the cylinder perfectly still when the gun fires. The action is designed so that the hand - which is the easiest part to replace - will take the majority of the wear, and is expected to be changed when wear exceeds a specific point.

This is considered normal maintenance in a Colt revolver, which is not the case with any other brand. To get their famous "bank vault" cylinder locking and attendant accuracy, you have to accept a certain amount of maintenance; it goes with ownership of such a fine instrument.

I've often made the statement that a Colt is like a Ferrari; to get the gilt-edged performance, you have to accept that they will require more maintenance than a Ford pickup. Unlike gun owners, however, folks who own Italy's finest don't complain that they are more "delicate" than an F-150!

I truly think that the negative reputation that Colts have in some quarters is because their owners - unschooled in the uniqueness of the Colt action - apply the same standards of condition that they would to their more pedestrian S&W guns.

What standards? A Colt, when the trigger is pulled and held back, should have absolutely no cylinder rotation. None, zip, zilch - absolutely no movement at all! Not a little, not a bit, not a smidgen - zero movement. A S&W, on the other hand, normally has a bit of rotational play - which is considered absolutely normal and fine.

There's another measurement to consider: at rest, a Colt cylinder should move front-to-back no more than .003" (that's 3/1,000 of an inch.) This is - in the absolute worst case - about half of the allowable S&W movement!

Now, let's say a S&W owner, used to their looser standards of cylinder lockup, buys a Colt. He goes and shoots it a bit, and the hand (which probably has a bit of wear already, as he bought it used) is approaching the normal replacement interval. He checks his gun, and finds that the cylinder has just the slightest amount of movement when the trigger is back, and half of his S&W's longitudinal travel. Heck, he thinks, it's still a lot tighter than his Smith so it must be fine to keep shooting it.

WRONG! It's at this point that he should stop shooting, and take it to an experienced Colt gunsmith to have the action adjusted. Of course, he doesn't do this - he keeps shooting. The cylinder beats harder against the frame, compresses the ratchet (ejector), causing the hand to wear even faster, and the combination of the two leads to a worn bolt. If left unchecked, the worn bolt can do damage to the rebound lever. When it finally starts spitting lead and misfiring, he takes it in and finds to his astonishment that he's facing a $400 (or more!) repair bill, and perhaps a 6 month wait to find a new ratchet.

Of course, he'll now fire up his computer and declare to anyone who will listen that Colts are "delicate" and "go out of time easily" and are "hard to get parts for." That, folks, appears to be the true origin of these fallacies.

Colts do require more routine maintenance, and a more involved owner; that's a fact. But, as long as the maintenance is performed properly, a Colt will happily digest thousands upon thousands of rounds without complaint. The owners who take care of them will be rewarded with a gun that is a delight to shoot, wonderfully accurate, and visually unmatched. Those who don't will sell them off at a loss and complain on the internet.

I sincerely hope that you will choose to be the first type of Colt owner. If, however, you are the second, please drop me a note - I'm always in the market for Colt revolvers at fire-sale prices!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: colt

Lots of people ask me about speedloaders - as in "what speedloader should I buy?"

Well, there are really only a couple of choices these days: Safariland and HKS. (The superb SL Variant models are no longer imported, the Maxfires don't - at least in my mind - qualify for the "speed" part of the name, and the Australian "Jet" loaders are close enough to the Safariland Comp III that we'll consider them the same.)

Personally, unless I'm using a gun for which they don't have a model, I use only Safariland speedloaders. Here's why.

First, they're simply a whole lot faster to use. Not only are they faster to release their payload, they hold the rounds in a solid, fairly rigid package. That rigidity makes it faster to align the bullets with the chambers than the "floppy" HKS style. This is an important, and often overlooked, advantage.

Second, they're more secure. Over the years I've listened to people bad-mouth the Safariland speedloaders, with the statement that they release their rounds too easily - when in a pocket or dropped, the story usually goes.

I've been carrying Safarilands on my person for about 10 years now, and I've never had a single round released when I didn't want it to. They won't, unless you forcibly jam an object into the release button which is in the middle of the rounds. I've had more than one HKS let go while in the speedloader pouch, let alone my pocket!

Dropping? When this argument comes up I pull out the oldest, most used Comp II that I have. (It's been used for practice for a decade, and I stopped counting when it reached 5.000 reload cycles. I keep it loaded with dummy rounds - regular bullet, case, but no primers- for practice.) I drop it on the floor or ground, then pick it up and throw it on the ground; if there's a wall nearby, I'll either kick it or throw it into the wall. I've done this little demo hundreds of times, and I've never had a round fall out.

However, the only way to get this kind of performance and reliability is to load the things correctly! Safariland doesn't help their case, as they sell competition "loading blocks" that force you into loading the things improperly.

Most people will put the rounds into the speedloader, then turn it face-down onto a table so that they can push on the button to lock the rounds. This is almost guaranteed to leave a round (or two or three) that isn't fully seated, and when the speedloader is dropped it/they fall out. No wonder people think they don't work well!

The key is to hold the speedloader BULLETS UP, and push the button up while simultaneously turning it to the right. You'll feel the rounds "lock in", and they won't come out until you want them to!

UPDATE: I've now seen several guns whose cranes (yokes) have been bent apparently due to the side loading forces of Maxfire speedloaders. I strongly recommend that you not use Maxfires!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: speedloaders