H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

No two handed shooter would have to shoot duelist style. The "question" is if Gunfighters would need to shoot "double duelist" style if there are split pistols. Let's quote the Shooter's Handbook... Gunfighter Style - Gunfighter style is defined as shooting with a revolver in each hand. Revolvers must be cocked and fired one handed, unsupported, one right-handed and the other left-handed. There is no set pattern as to how the revolvers are to be fired, but alternating revolvers is clearly the most efficient. - Only Gunfighter style or Double Duelist style may be used. Double Duelist IS a type of Gunfighter shooting. In a "split pistol" stage, it might be more efficient for the Gunfighter to use this style than Gunfighter style. It's entirely up to the shooter.

This is a Winchester 92. It started life as a .38-40. Someone changed it to .44 Magnum and put this loop on it. When I got it, it had some sort of a rail for a scope on the barrel. I removed that and put on the tang sight. No idea how the lever was made. This is a Mares Leg. Made by Chiappa, this, D shaped lever is what came with the gun, and is an option across their 92 line. I changed it to this... Chiappa calls this their "Rio Bravo" lever. It is an option on some of their 92's, but not the Mares Leg for some reason. I had to order it a part and put it on the pistol myself.

I really, REALLY want a derringer in .38 S&W. But nobody makes one today. Closest you can get is running .38 Short Colts in a .38 Special.

I have several clones in my collection by a few different manufacturers. For the most part, they are really not all that different from real Colts. Their finish is probably not as nice, and there are some subtle differences, but for the most part, it's either a decent gun, or it's not good at all. That you can tell pretty much right away. The most significant difference in the different clones is what kind of a safety does the thing have. There are more than a few different kinds, with varying degrees of how "intrusive" they are.

Pistol, something else, pistol, other gun. or Pistol move pistol, rifle and shotgun. I very rarely see either option, and I would consider either to be a "split pistol" scenario. I like te occasional split pistol scenario, it mixes things up. At a big shoot, let's say 10+ stages spread over 2 days, I don't care if there are 0, 1, 5, or if all of the stages are split pistol. I just shoot at the targets, try for a clean match and have fun. I think your complainers don't have a legitimate complaint. And remember, there is no requirement for a gunfighter to draw both pistols at once. The one time I shot gunfighter, just to try it, there was a stage where it was pistol, move, pistol, etc. All of the other gunfighters drew both pistols, shot the first five targets, awkwardly kept their pistols pointed downrange, moved to the second position and shot the second five targets. I drew my left pistol, shot the first five, holstered, moved to the right, drew, shot, holstered, and then moved on to rifle and shotgun. Perfectly allowable within the rules.

.38 Super!

I have a 93/97. Any chance you have a long barrel, say 30 inches, with a full choke that'll fit on it?

I have to admit that seeing the title of the thread, this was more or less my first thought as well.

Ah, that makes sense now.

Without the SA it would be a 1st Generation gun. Those come up on the Colt Website.

According to most sources I have been able to find, SAA serial number are as follows... 1st Generation. 1-357859 2nd Generation 0001SA-73205SA 3rd Generation SSA80000-SA99999, S02001A-current production How then can there be an SAA for sale on Gunbroker, at this very moment, with a serial number of SA27100? This is not the first time I have seen a Colt with such an "out of range" serial number. Nothing comes up when you search for this number on Colt.com, and I have had the same result, number not found, with one of my 3rd Gen Sheriff's models. Anybody know what's going on?

I was going to say the same thing. There is much more to .38 S&W than chamber size. The bore is also larger. You'd really need a whole new set of barrels to do it right. As much as I love the .38 S&W caliber, and REALLY want a derringer chambered for it, I have come to terms with the fact that the only way I'll ever find one is to locate an old Great Western or an FIE. My own current derringer is a RG-17, chambered in .38 Special. I run .38 Short Colts in it for SASS events. My father used to carry it as a hideout gun. Aside from the odd thumb safety on the left side, the thing looks very much like an original Remington. With .38 Specials, it is surprisingly accurate. I've never tested accuracy with the Short Colts, but it does well enough for me at the side matches.

I've not been to one for a long time, but a few clubs in my area used to hold an annual Iron Man match. Instead of 6 stages of 10-10-4+ is would be 3 stages of 10-10-10-10-8+ Two Main Match rifles, 4 pistols and lotsa shotgun targets. Same amount of shooting as a normal match, just compressed into 3 stages with more targets. There was always someone ready to help with taking the extra rifle and the pistols to the place where they would be staged and place them there "generically," but then the shooter would come and make sure they were the way they wanted them. There were also people standing by to pick up guns and take them to the unloading table. They tended to run the posse a little larger than normal, and then they'd, say, "Half of you are shooting, half are helping. When the last person in the first half shoots, everybody switch." It was a lot of fun. I think one club around here still does it, but they shoot on Sundays now.

Yep, that's where I shot the match that made me think of this idea. If ever anyone gets a chance to get out to ROOP County, I highly recommend you take a chance to shoot there. Great range, better people, and just an all around sense of fun. Only the fact that it's in Nevada and I'm in New England prevents me from shooting there more regularly.

Anybody shoot it clean?

This does come up every so often. I too shoot either stock guns, or guns with a minimal amount of tinkering if there is something seriously not right with them out of the box. I shoot a mixture or originals and modern replicas. If I recall the earlier discussions rightly, the consensus was that it was not really worth the effort to have such a stock category. For one thing, there are plenty of top tier shooters who can hold their own against those using so called "race guns." For another, there is no real requirement to have a lot of that work done. A top shooter is a top shooter, and a middle of the pack is likely to stay in the middle, no matter how much his or her guns get slicked up. In the end, I think functionality is the more important factor. As I said above, I either shoot stock, or just with what is needed to make a gun work. When I obtained an Armi San Marco 92 a few years back, to make a long story short, it was unusable. It was the first gun I ever took to have an action job done too because it truly NEEDED one. I told the smith that I did not want a race gun, just something that worked like a real Winchester. The gun is now an excellent shooter, and that's all I needed or wanted. I am sure it could be highly special tuned to be a race gun, but I'll never be able to run it like one. That's my experience.

I once shot a match where the regular main match rifle was replaced with a long range rifle, either a single shot or a repeater, with alternate targets that were a bit farther away owing to being shot at with much more powerful cartridges. It was fun. Those who chose that option were scored in a separate category from the folks who went with the "standard" targets on the stage. They called it the Tom Horn category. I got to thinking about something similar. 10-10-5-4+ Ten rounds at the pistol targets, with a .22 rifle. 10 Rounds at the "Main Match Rifle" targets, with a Main Match Rifle. Five Rounds at the "long range" targets with a Long Range rifle. 4+ Shotgun, which always has to be last to set off the timer. I think it would make for a cool side match. Doing it as an "unofficial" category would probably be too logistically difficult, but I think as a side match it could work.

This is my .32-20 Lightning. I have had people say to me, "Wow! That looks beautiful! Must have cost you a lot of money!" (Or words to that effect.) Then I tell them, no, it's been, according to the person I bought it from, "Lovingly restored with an expert action job." It is a very beautiful gun, and it runs like a Swiss watch. And I probably was able to buy it for the price I got it because it has been redone. If course, there is a difference between just rebluing something, and going to the effort to have something as close as possible to the original finish recreated. I have no idea what this gun was like before it was redone, I just know it's nice now, and I bought it to shoot it. If you find a gun that just barely functions, or even doesn't, has lotsa rust and other really ugly looking stuff about it, repairing and having the finish restored probably won't hurt its value and may even enhance it, as it had no value to begin with. On the other hand, if you've got a gun that's in excellent shape mechancialwise, but has an appearance that leaves much to be desired, it could go either way. For example... This second generation Colt works great, and it has no finish left whatsoever. I got it for $700 about 7 years ago. Not much value, but I think I got it for a bargain. Having this gun restored would probably hurt its value. On the other hand... This 1st Gen Colt I got for $500 about a year before Covid. As you can see, its grips are worn, it has a "bad chrome refinish," and the trigger, hammer, cylinder pin and ejector housing have been gold plated. This gun has no collector value whatsoever. Someone suggested to me that it was a prime candidate for a Turnbull restoration. Maybe someone like that could make it look like new again. It would certainly be worth more than the $500 I paid for it if I did that, but having it done would in and of itself be very expensive, and even then it would not be worth anywhere near as much as a pistol made the same year that still has all it's original finish intact. I could probably get back what I paid to have it restored, but not more. Is it worth it? Eh... Maybe. If you want to have a vintage gun like this that looks like new, finding one beat up like this and having it "fixed" will cost you less than finding one in pristine original condition, but it's not an investment. So when it comes down restoring old guns, it's entirely up to you. As to how they affect the "value" of the piece, much of it depends on what you started out with. I am sure some of those guns we've seen videos of here on the wire that look like solid bars of rust that get brought back to life and are made to look pretty good are worth more than when they started, but those are extreme examples. And sometimes, a gun that has had it it's "value ruined" can be a good thing. Someone like me can then afford it! And over time, who knows? Maybe never as much as a true original, but as long as it's shootable, a restored gun will be able to be sold, and will likely see its value go, slowly, up over time. Happy shooting!

It's that pesky comma! If it were not there, it would mean specifically hands not touching the firearm. With the comma, it means nothing touching the firearm. Oh good grief... Grammar!

Top is a .32-20. Bottom a .44-40. It's not nickel, it's just got no finish left. Both are real Colts. I've used the top one at a match a couple of times. I normally shoot a modern made AWA in .45 Colt, but bring the .32 out once in a while for fun. I have not yet fired the .44, but I will eventually. Lightnings are FUN guns to shoot. So much so that eventually, you'll have a plethora of them! See what I mean?

Left pistol is a Walker. Right Pistol is an SAA to military specifications. I cough a lot at one point in this video. Lost a bit of weight since it was shot too.

Much has been said here on the wire of the benefits of shooting a matched pair of pistols. But how essential is it, really? Sure, a pair of Colt SAA's with 4-3/4" barrels, nickel finish and two piece hard rubber grips are for all intents and purposes, identical. A Colt Walker and a Russian Nagant are about as radically different from each other as can be. But there is a wider range in between those two extremes. A Colt Buntline and a Sheriff's model have radically different barrel lengths, but identical grips. One SSA with a 5.5" barrel and another with a 4.75" tube are so close that it probably makes no practical difference. Then there are whole host of pistols that you could say are "similar but noticeably different." The first think I think of is a Remington 58 and a Remington 75. And so on an so forth. And then there is the question of how you shoot. If you shoot both pistols with the same hand, I can see how having to two that are very different could be confusing, but not so much so if you shoot double duelist style, or even two handed but one with the right, and one with the left as the primary hand. While I normally shoot a pair of pistols that are similar to each other, I've never worried about them being identical, and I've found that shooting two pistols that are radically different does not hinder me. I shoot double duelist style, and am at best, a bottom third shooter, but I do have fun. What do others think? Is this a super important thing, or does it not matter all that much? Or are are their too many factors and we are just left with, it matters for some and not for others?

Magtech all brass AA's

Well, you need two guns. Why not go with one of each? I have done it with almost the exact pair you describe. I put the Colt... Er... an Uberti clone of a Colt in Cavalry configuration on my left hip, and a nickeled Uberti clone of the Remington on my right. Had a blast. Now, I should bring up how some folks will insist that both pistols need to have the same grips so you don't get mixed up by the difference. Since I shoot double duelist style, using even radically different pistols has never been an issue for me as they are in different hands anyway. Maybe if I shot them both with the same hand the difference would confuzzle me, but I tend to doubt it. For example, I once handled a Colt Bisley, and I didn't like it. It felt odd in my hand. A couple of years later, I found one in .32-20 that was too inexpensive to pass up, and I figured why not, it would be nice to have one in the collection. Then I shot it at a match. In the heat of the stage, I really didn't notice the difference in the grips at all. I just shot the stage. Maybe it'll be the same for your friend with the Coltish and Remingtonish pistols. Full disclosure, I'll never be in contention for a belt buckle.

These run great in 87's and 97's. They even feed properly from the magazine. And, you can use them with smokeless or black powder with no problems.