Author Topic: A gun question for those that know better... (Read 2539 times)

hyena426 · « **Reply #120 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:58:03 PM »

ya..bad thing about auto's..once ya get a 44 mag in one..you can hardly get your hand around it...i got big hands..but even i can hardly get around a desart eagle with one hand..its allmost big as a 2x4..lol..revolver are more powerfull and more accurate long range...all counts if you want more shots.or to be more accurate

my bud who works in a federal building showed me a bunch of video's..were cops with autos..get to scared or excited and miss with every shot spraying....of cource there taught to be cool and collective,.,.but if your not cool during a fire fight doesnt matter how many shots you got

i got a tiny auto i carry and revolvers too...both diffrent flavors..but when im wanting to go shooting at the range i take my revolvers...when im going into town..i take my little astra 22 short cub..lol<~~it can hardly hit anything 30 feet away..but its so small you cants see it when im packing it..good little gun:)

as for hunting..i was reading online were a guy using a black powder walker in montana<~~i think montana...to hunt deer..i guess he has nailed them at 75 yards with no troubles with 60 grains of powder

AmRaaM · « **Reply #121 on:** July 07, 2005, 01:08:56 AM »

if you want to really carry it,

Taurus ultralite titanium 38spec or 357 with low profile hammer, integral locking and lifetime warranty, add the belt hooking grip so you dont have to "holster up" just to go make a night time trip to the bank to make a deposit

14.4 oz loaded , no autoclip springs to worry about(they do break and fatigue),

use hollowpoint max loads.

its narrow and the grip is something that is actually comfortable for most instead of trying to shoot holding a cig lighter size straight auto grip like the keltec.

higher energy loads for their sze compared to auto, unless you like the fat as a shoe box grips the autos will have.

easy to clean

can play gunslinger with it when no ones watchng, autos just dont get you in the mood for that.(i know i own 3 sigs 9mm,40,45)

lazs2 · « **Reply #122 on:** July 07, 2005, 09:23:07 AM »

dago... if you have owned the .45 for 30 years I would suggest that you get some ammo for it and shoot it a bit. go out to a large field or desert and go with a guy who has a revolver and just pick out rocks and such at varying distances from 20-150 yards and show the guy how inferior and outdated his revolver is.

You can get .357 revolvers in guns that will fit in the palm of your hand or in the front pocket of your levis that weigh 12-20 ounces... they will have 5 shots but if you watch a lot of movies and think you need more than that... you can get a few speedloaders...

There is no semi auto that will do what these revolvers will do as a CC gun.

There is no semi auto that will match the long range accuracy of a good revolver in a decent caliber (you know.. the ones semi autos ain't chambered for)

And... if you like to reload... you don't have to play pick up the brass.

I have a Kimber in 45 that I am very fond of for short range shooting and the nightstand. I have owned many other ,45's that were either very inaccurate or unreliable or both. I have never owned a revolver of any type that was not accurate.

lazs

Martlet · « **Reply #123 on:** July 07, 2005, 09:31:28 AM »

I've put the accuracy of my P220 up against revolvers in the past.

I'd do it again.

lazs2 · « **Reply #124 on:** July 07, 2005, 09:43:59 AM »

really? I have no trouble with the accuracy of my Kimber eclipse custom but I have no isllusions when it comes to ranges much past 50 yards. With your 220 you can't even see the target at over 100 yards because you can't hold up any more front sight.

you are not being serious. I would put the accuracy of my Kimber against that of your 220 any day but any of my 44 magnum revolvers will shoot better at 50 yards and beyond... under 50.... there isn't enough difference to matter.

lazs

Martlet · « **Reply #125 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:00:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
really? I have no trouble with the accuracy of my Kimber eclipse custom but I have no isllusions when it comes to ranges much past 50 yards. With your 220 you can't even see the target at over 100 yards because you can't hold up any more front sight.

you are not being serious. I would put the accuracy of my Kimber against that of your 220 any day but any of my 44 magnum revolvers will shoot better at 50 yards and beyond... under 50.... there isn't enough difference to matter.

lazs

Are you kidding me? With the Sig Sauer stock combat sights I can consistently target 100 yds. Those are with stock sights.

We don't shoot anything less than 50 yds at the range.

lazs2 · « **Reply #126 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:05:52 AM »

Ok martlet... I only shot two sigs in 45 in my life.. neither was that impressive to me... nice gun but I like the klimber better. colt type 45's don't have enough front sight... maybe you can hold enough with the sig... how bout 200 yards? 400?

for out plinking at unknown distances there is no way that you can compete with a good revolver in .357 44 or more powerful.. There is a good reason why all the really powerful new cartriges like 460 454 480 or even 500 are all revolver rounds.

You simply can't get a sig in 44 mag or better.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #127 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:10:53 AM »

Guys don't confuse the accuracy of the weapon with the inherrant accuracy of the projectile. Look at the .45, it's short stubby and has a very poor length to diameter ratio. In order to get a decent accuracy the projectile has to be better designed than that. Look at your top accuracy rounds and you will see that they have a much larger ratio of length to diameter. It is a funtion of the ballistic coefficient ratio that determines accuracy of the round.

Comparing a .45 to a .44 with a longer projectile is not terribly valid, the same for the 9mm vs a .357 with a heavy bullet.

Frankly the vast majority of handgun shooting is far less than 100 yards and this is in the acceptable accuracy range of the weapon and round.

lazs2 · « **Reply #128 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:25:30 AM »

yep... balistic coeficient is hard to argue with. Long heavy bullets (heavy for the caliber ie 300 grain 44's) are known to be more accurate.

I have no problem with the short range accuracy and power of the .45 but.... if I could only have one handgun.... it would be a revolver in .357 or 44 mag... most likely the 44

My first choice would be a semi auto carbine or shotgun... next would be a revolver.

for carrying in the real world (not in your glove box) I would have to go with the 12 ounce shrouded hammer 340 pd with 5 125 grain hollow points in the chambers.

put that sig (or my Kimber) in your front pocket of your levis and carry it around all day. Not gonna happen.

For plinking with the guys at any range that might come up (far as you can see)... give me my 44 mag revolvers.

For reloading.... the 45 is easy but not quite as easy as the 44 mag and... I keep more of my brass with the 44.

for the nightstand... my Kimber has tritium sights and the 45 won't overpenetrate... 230 grain hydroshocks... with one in the chamber and the hammer down it is all but impossible for a child to fire before I can stop them. It is my choice for that duty.

in a pinch? my $150 makarov is plenty good for any use I may have and is ded reliable.

But... we are talking about best case scenarios here.

lazs

Gunthr · « **Reply #129 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:28:54 AM »

Quote

my bud who works in a federal building showed me a bunch of video's..were cops with autos..get to scared or excited and miss with every shot spraying....of cource there taught to be cool and collective,.,.but if your not cool during a fire fight doesnt matter how many shots you got

It happens, but I wouldn't generally characterize police shootings this way. Cops really aren't "taught" to be cool and collected in shootings, either. Its semantics. Its about surprize and adrenalin. A lot of police combat shootings are the unexpected "OH ****" scenarios where the cop is doing well if he can draw, point, pull, pull, pull without getting hit. That is what a lot of repetitive training is focused on. When the smoke clears, often the cop will not remember hearing his weapon fire, will not be sure how many rounds were fired, and be incapable of judging the actual elapsed time of the incident. The more often a person practises drawing, pointing and shooting that gun in response to a threat, the more likely he is to quickly get rounds on the target. He/she may even survive. Rather than being trained to be "cool and collected" during a shooting incident, its more like they are trained to react to threats without even thinking about it, and their hands arms and body simply do what they have done so many times before. (hopefully)

Martlet · « **Reply #130 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:30:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Ok martlet... I only shot two sigs in 45 in my life.. neither was that impressive to me... nice gun but I like the klimber better. colt type 45's don't have enough front sight... maybe you can hold enough with the sig... how bout 200 yards? 400?

for out plinking at unknown distances there is no way that you can compete with a good revolver in .357 44 or more powerful.. There is a good reason why all the really powerful new cartriges like 460 454 480 or even 500 are all revolver rounds.

You simply can't get a sig in 44 mag or better.

lazs

Well, now you're just doing the "what if" game until you find something better.

Like I said, I can consistently target 100yds. I rarely shoot over that. Why the heck would I shoot 200? Why would have to? I guess nest time I'm out I'll try to sight 200 yds.

If you prefer your revolver, then shoot it. I usually prefer autos. I'd put my P220 up against any revolver of comparable caliber.

Martlet · « **Reply #131 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:32:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Guys don't confuse the accuracy of the weapon with the inherrant accuracy of the projectile. Look at the .45, it's short stubby and has a very poor length to diameter ratio. In order to get a decent accuracy the projectile has to be better designed than that. Look at your top accuracy rounds and you will see that they have a much larger ratio of length to diameter. It is a funtion of the ballistic coefficient ratio that determines accuracy of the round.

Comparing a .45 to a .44 with a longer projectile is not terribly valid, the same for the 9mm vs a .357 with a heavy bullet.

Frankly the vast majority of handgun shooting is far less than 100 yards and this is in the acceptable accuracy range of the weapon and round.

At 100 yds, with the only variable being the gun, I'm more accurate with my .45 than my 9mm. Drastically more accurate.

So, while the round may have quite a bit to do with it, the quality of the gun seems to hold more sway.

lazs2 · « **Reply #132 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:43:43 AM »

martlet... I have no doubt that you are very good with the sig but... bolted to a ransom rest... it aint that great.... good.. but not as good as revolvers in .357 or 44 Most of these revolvers are capable of sub one inch goups at 25 yards. Most of us can't shoot 4" groups at that range standing up and blasting away.

I simply pointed out all the uses one might have for a handgun except maybe hunting (revolver wins that one) and told what most agree would be the best for each of those situations.

lazs

Martlet · « **Reply #133 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:51:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
martlet... I have no doubt that you are very good with the sig but... bolted to a ransom rest... it aint that great.... good.. but not as good as revolvers in .357 or 44 Most of these revolvers are capable of sub one inch goups at 25 yards. Most of us can't shoot 4" groups at that range standing up and blasting away.

I simply pointed out all the uses one might have for a handgun except maybe hunting (revolver wins that one) and told what most agree would be the best for each of those situations.

lazs

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I definately don't fall under that "most" category.

There are very few instances in which I'd prefer a revolver over an auto. CCW certainly isn't one of them.

lazs2 · « **Reply #134 on:** July 07, 2005, 10:58:25 AM »

but you would admit that a 340 pd is lighter and more powerful than anything you can get in a self shucker? Would you be more likely to have the 340 on you 100% of the time or the sig?

lazs