H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

Does anyone know why Smith and Wesson discontinued this gun so quickly after they introduced it? Did it just not sell well? I know that at the time I myself found myself thinking why spend all that money they wanted for one when you could get an Uberti that was a more accurate recreation for about half the price. On the other hand, I was gonna buy one anyway, but my personal circumstances screwed up the chance to get one...

I had a chance to buy one once, and circumstances screwed me up so I couldn't. I've always regretted not getting one. And I believe it was Roy Rogers who once said, "What's the sense of owning a gun if you can't shoot it?"

They still wont sell to Massachusetts.... I noticed on the CMP's website that the Service Grages are going for I050. Field Grades are going for 950. Considering that a saw of couple of Field Grades on Gunbroker last night for twelve to fifteen hundred, not bad. They come with some nice accessories, it seems.

According to the dealer I bought it from, it was part of an estate collection. It had been given a "bad chrome refinish," and was therefore sold for 500 bucks. I assume the grips just got old. I have shot it with black powder a couple of times, and in spite it being very ugly, it is in excellent mechanical condition and an honest shooter. I recently asked in another thread if people thought it was a good restoration candidate. [That pic in the link is someone else's gun. I don't know why it is pictured instead of mine, which is posted before this.] I know doing so would cost money I'd never get back, but that wasn't the point of asking. Anyway, regardless of whatever I do wind up doing, or not doing, with the pistol, it's not for sale. I will shoot it from time to time. As to if I leave it ugly, do a simple or a complete restoration remains to be seen. The cylinder question was really one of curiosity more than anything else. It does occur to me that while such a new cylinder may not make the gun smokeless safe, it might still be generically "more safe" than the vintage one. Time shall tell what happens next.

Not this one...

It would be only Cowboy loads. That being said, the assertion that the steel on the rest of the gun is not up to the rigors of smokeless makes perfect sense to me. Like I said, this was purely speculation. I've no plans to do it. And the gun in question that I own will only get black powder.

Let's say that you have an old Colt made in 1884. This is a black powder only gun. Let's also assume that a modern made cylinder can be fitted into the gun. Is it now safe to use smokeless in it? Purely a speculation. No real plans to do so.

I have a Winchester 92 with a 17.25" barrel in .44 Magnum. It is has a tang sight. This is the first rifle that I consistently never missed with at normal SASS distances. I have taken a few shots with it at pistol target long range, and I have always hit the target. The other sights that I have found to be the most accurate are the buckhorn sights on my Lightnings. This is the only rifle I've ever shot a clean match with, and it also worked well in pistol target long range. There is just something about the way these sights line up that works very well for me. Doesn't matter of they are AWA's or Colts. The rear sight looks like a fairly generic semi-buckhorn, but the front sight drops into it darn near perfectly. I think it has more to do with the front sight than the rear. I'll carry that over to my 92 with the tang. I find it very easy to find the front sight with the tang sight and then line it up. So... What works for you?

You know, that many people have wondered about Trailboss for use in the shotgun is intriguing. I think we can at this point understand that it is not well suited to shotgun loads. But the fact that it is so otherwise broadly usable naturally leads to the speculation that started this thread. The idea of a one size fits all powder is a powerful one. But when all is said and done, I think it would be very hard to find such a powder. I am sure that someone will now chime in and say how they use black powder for everything, but that's not my point. I know my Dad used Red Dot for .45 Colt, as well as his shotgun reloading, and I have read that it can do well in other pistol, and even rifle calibers. But if I recall correctly the Red Dot loadings for many of those are more for hunting or "performance" loads as opposed to the more lower power target shooting type things we do in our game. When all is said and done, as much as many of us would like for there to be one, I think it is unlikely that there exists a single powder that can be used in a CAS type loading for pistols, rifles and shotguns. Throw in a few other calibers that many of us may reload for, and the prospect of a one size fits all powder becomes more and more remote, even if one powder does the lions share of the work. All of that being said, I'd venture to guess that it is possible to cover all of our reloading needs with 2 powders, three at the most. And yet, even as I type that, I realize that I am using 4 different powders. Trailboss. Red Dot Win 231 HS6 These are my most used powders. Although, I have learned that Red Dot or HS6 can be used in most everything I use 231 for, so once I run out of that, I''ll probably not get any more. By the same token, I've learned that 231 works well in .45 ACP when I had to load up some stuff and ran out of Trailboss. In other words, don't forget that many powders can be used in the same calibers. Sure, we all seem to have our preference, but it's good to remember what the alternatives are if you are suddenly running low on something. Oh, tired 4895. Didn't like it. Too much recoil.

Okay. What's PRO STEEL? Never heard of it.

Good points, all. One idea I have toyed with is figuring out if the markings can be accurately recreated while otherwise leaving it as is.

Thanks. I actually have two. One with 18" barrels that I inherited from my father. It's absolutely incredible looking. Kicks like a mule though! The other is a 30" one with full chokes in each barrel. Recoil is quite pleasant. Not all that pretty to look at, but mechanically sound. I actually found this one at a store in Maine for 800 bucks. Too good to pass up! Well, recoil was MOSTLY pleasant. When you have that one stubborn knock down that just refuses to fall, getting frustrated and giving it both barrels when shooting black powder may be satisfying, create a lot of boom and smoke, but it kinda hurts. But the target fell...

For the record, I am not looking to make the gun "worth more." And I have no plans to fix it up and then resell it. I am just considering making it look new again. Or close to new. I know Turnbull is expensive, but I figure if I am gonna do this, I may as well do it right. I do like a gun with honest wear. It gives it character. Here's my Second Gen I mentioned earlier... This is another one that I got for surprisingly good price, only $700 at a time when others looking like this were usually selling for well over a thousand. It is not pretty to look at, but I'd not even think of changing this one. Ironically with the one I am considering, I did find myself thinking about fixing up the gun itself, but leaving the old grips as is to give it "character." Thanks for the link to Eddie Janis site. It gives me an alternative to Turnbull to consider. I have long found it baffling how fixing up an old gun "ruins" its value, but restoring an old car only enhances it. Granted, if you've got a gun still looks 90% or better then redoing it is foolish. But once it has become a beater, restoring to its original glory should not be detriment. Maybe it's because for years so many of the "gunsmith reblue" jobs were poorly done? Turnbull has raised the bar on restoration work and made it more acceptable. Perhaps it is inevitable that there will be competition in the restoration market. Others will do just as good a job, the prices for the work will come down, and the general gun buying market will grow more and more "tolerant" of having old guns returned to as new condition. One can only wonder.

I have read that some of those high velocity jacket rounds, while safe to fire in a 92, but not a 73, had a tendency to scrub away the rifling if used a lot. I think that it's best to keep that cartridge to replicating black powder type performance with your smokeless rounds. At least in a real Winchester. If you want to experiment with higher velocities, get a modern made replica. All of that being said, very interesting to see what they pushed the round to being able to do. It clearly is capable of quite a lot in the proper rifles.

Very true. I use Red Dot for my 12 Gauge. When I went to start loading 20 gauge, I discovered that it is considered to be a very bad idea to try and use Red Dot in the 20. So I wound up using HS6. I originally got this for something else, I don't remember what, and it didn't work out like I'd hoped. But, I noticed a recipe for 20 gauge on the canister, so I tried it. I like it.

First, look at this.... This is a first generation Colt, made in 1884. I got it for $500 because of it's "bad chrome refinish." Almost all the markings have been scrubbed away, and you can see the poor condition of the grips. I do like how the trigger, hammer, ejector housing and cylinder pin have been somehow coated with gold though. It is a .44-40 and it is in excellent mechanical condition. It is an honest shooter. Step 1 will be to get a letter from Colt to determine what kind of a finish it had when it left the factory. Step 2 will be consider going to Turnbull to have it restored. To be honest, I hope it left the factory as a nickle gun because I think it looks kinda cool. I would also keep the gold parts that way to give is some character, even if they are not original. In a generic way, I don't think doing the restoration is a bad idea. I got the gun dirt cheap, and as is really has very limited value. But I am not thinking restoration to make it work more. I am think just because it'll look better. The gun really is ugly as is, but it's not an "honest" ugly. For example I have a 2nd gen gun that has no finish left, but it's an honestly worn out one. I'll leave that one very much as is. But this, I feel is a good candidate for for restoring. Good idea or not? Opinions welcome. But much more than that, who else has an old gun that might make for a good restoration candidate and you are undecided about doing it or not? Doesn't matter if it is currently a wall hanger, or something like this that is fully functional but bad looking. Might be interesting to see what people are considering.

I guess both of these are custom guns... That's a Restoration of old Fort Des Moines Commeorative Colt, which I suppose by definition makes it custom to begin with. But I replaced the factory mother of pearl grips with wooley mammoth ivory ones. Then there's this... When I saw those percussion pepperboxes on a 51 Colt frame a few years ago, I said in the hearing of a great gunsmith that a cartridge version of one would be cool. Next time I saw him, he had this. I bought it.

PS=?? WB=Wild Bunch LR=Long Range? CAS=Cowboy Action Shooting Please confirm what initials mean the first time you use them in a thread. I can't figure out what PS stands for.

Oh, Nagnts are fun to shoot.

Well, I think the above makes sense. If a shooter tries a stock 92 and then switches to a tuned up 73, that shooter will probably do better. I have an Armi San Marco 92, and when it was stock, it was all but unusable. It was the first gun I ever had an action job done to, not because I wanted to, but because I had to. There was no way that gun was gonna run as well as even an untuned 73. But here's the kicker. It was THAT gun that had the problem. I also have a stock Winchester 92. It's as slick as any tuned reproduction, and works every time. When I compare it to my stock Winchester 73, my performance with both guns is about the same. Maybe the 73 has a slight edge, but not a huge one. On the other hand, I can personally out perform both of them with my, stock AWA Lightning. This is what works for me. And as far as the SxS goes, I'll take my Parkers over either of the above options. In other words, I do see some "betterness" depending on what I use. But, I still feel that if I had never tried and fallen in love the Lightning, that I'd have gotten better and better with the lever guns, and would do just as well with them. As long as the gun works the way it is supposed to, and that's a BIG proviso, I feel it's more up to the shooter to find what works best for him, and then for him to refine his technique with chosen guns to be as best as he can be.

I hardly ever see them mentioned here in the Wire. I can't be the only one who uses one, can I?

I don't always shoot a double barreled shotgun, but when I do, I shoot a Parker. Stay accurate my friends.

I do think that the guns you use can make a difference. But, is that because some guns are better than others, or is it because I am better with some guns than I am with others? I think it's a mixture of both, with slightly more weight going to the "what works for me" side. For example, I am noticeably slower with my Buntline, Walker, Dragoon, or what have you than I am with my SAAs. I am slightly quicker with a 4-3/4" barrel than I am with the 7.5" one. But if I use my Sheriff's models, I have to actually slow down and aim more carefully to avoid missing. 5.5" seems to work just as well for 4-3/4" for me, but I like the shorter barrels more for personal preference reason. So there is an example of specific guns doing better than other guns. For the rifle, there is no doubt about it. I have and use a Henry, 66, 72, 92, Spencer and Lightning rifles. I am slowest with the Spencer. I am slightly better with a 73/66 than I am with a 92. With the Henry, I'm about the same as a 92, if I have to do the hop. If I have a spacer, it's still a little slower than 73 due to it's greater weight. But hands down no doubt about it, I am faster with a Lightning than I am with any lever gun. I just am. Is that because the Lightning is a better gun than the 73? I don't think so. I just think that I am personally better with it than I am with anything else. For a shotgun, I am about the same with a 97 as I am with a SxS, and I prefer a 97 for personal reasons. However, while my use of it is still limited, I feel that I could actually be quicker with an 87 if I were to start using one on a regular basis. But again, I think that's just because they work better for ME than it being superior to other shotgun options. I really think it comes down to what works best for you, not what someone else uses.

I saw an Uberti Henry, and a 66, both in .45 Colt, several years ago. Passed on both of them for .44-40's for some reason I can't remember.

I use Trailboss for literally everything from .32 S&W to .45-70 and 56-50 Spencer. The only things I don't use it for are semi-autos other than .45ACP. I wondered if it was usable for shotshells, and everything I've read says it's just not viable. Based on that, I did not want to experiment with it. I just use Red Dot for shotshells, using my father's recipe for trap loads.