H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

Every month I write the following checks... Power. Gas. Phone/Internet/TV. Credit Card, which I try to not use too much as I hate getting the bill. Once a quarter, I'll do a check for water/sewer and house taxes. For most everything else, I am a firm believer in the old adage, "In God we Trust. All others pay cash." Yes, if I am buying something for, say, $2500, I'll go to the bank and get 25 $100 bills. I think they should bring back the $500! If I buy a gun online, I will usually pay with a Cashier's Check from the bank. I refuse to pay a 3%, or higher, Credit Card fee. Nor will I use a Post Office money order because they charge you for it. One thing I like about the bank check is that it gives me a tangible receipt. My bank stopped returning personal checks years ago, in favor of a printout with photocopies. That's fine for general records, but for a gun purchase, I prefer something more individual and specific. I am old, I guess...

Oh.... You are playing with fire, sir! I bought my first Lightning (AWA .45) just cuz I wanted to have one. Then to my shock, once I got used to it, it became my favorite Main Match rifle. Then I decided that if I ever found one in .44-40, I'd buy it. So I did. Next thing I knew, I have 5 Main Match Lightning, the two above mentioned AWA, two Colts, one each in .32-20 and .44-40, and a Taurus that Lassiter is working his magic on to turn it into a .44 Special. I also have a Large Frame .45-85, and a Small Frame .22 Long. I am finding myself thinking that this is one part of my collection that could continue to grow. If Pedersoli ever releases a .44 Magnum in a more traditional format instead of that weird modernized one, I'll probably obtain one. I have also recently wondered about getting another AWA in .38 Special for various reasons. The idea of more "customized" ones in other calibers also kicks in my head. In other words, that one I wanted to get, just to have one, caused me to be bitten by the Lightning Bug, and bitten hard! It happens! Once you learn to run a Lightning and run it well, you wanna run it more. Good luck.

About the only way I can see a .22 Lever gun giving "practical" practice that translates to your main match gun is if you are using the Uberti 66 .22 and a Uberti 66 main match gun. Or a real Winchester/reproduction Uberti 73 in both .22 and whatever your main match caliber is. Or a Marlin 39 .22 and a 92 .32. They are basically the same gun. Or more of a stretch, using any pump .22 if you run a Lightning. Maybe a Golden Boy and a Big Boy? But if you are running a Winchester 9422, or a Browning BL22 or, well, anything else, it's gonna be very different from you main match rifle. J-Bar's point about how they do help your practice transitions is valid.

Here's another thought on the subject of .22 rifles... Now, first, I see hardly any .22 side events at the big shoots I go to, and that's too bad. But back when I did, it was clear to me that .22 pumps were far more common than .22 lever guns. Not sure why, other than perhaps because in general, they have been more popular historically. The other thing I noticed is that most of the .22 events I saw were not some sort of 10-10-4 with .22s, or even "speed .22" events. They were almost all things like shooting at a eggs at 25 yards. A fun challenge, but something very frustratingly HARD for most folks I know. Could it be that this was why .22 events didn't catch on? In our attempts to be clever, we made them too difficult to attract a lot of shooters?

Well, last Saturday, the Danvers Desperados in Middleton Massachusetts put on a fun 6 stage match that I was able to attend. I had told the organizer I would be there with my Big Iron on my hip. But, that's not all I took with me. Just for giggles, I was wearing these as I walked from my car to where everyone was gathered... It was commented that I wasn't kidding when I said Big. Anyway, I freely admitted that I really only brought them to show off and maybe get a laugh or two, and maybe shoot one stage with them, as for the rest of it I was planning to use my regular Big and Small Irons. Once I explained that no, I would not be shooting .45-70's in it, nobody had a problem and had a good laugh at how impractical it all was. Anyway, shooting these guys was interesting. The Remington reproduction in .32 S&W shoots high, but once I started pointing at the very bottom of the target, I got some hits. The Phelps, well, it his where I was aiming. But, as often as not, when I pulled the trigger, the gun did not go bang. Eventually, I fired off all 5 rounds, but it took a couple of tries to get some of them to fire. Anyway, when I was cleaning my guns the next day, I decided to take the grip off the "Giant Iron" to see if it, like the Colt, has a hammer spring adjustment. I had realized that it takes a lot less effort to cock this behemoth than a typical SAA does, and you can see that that hammer is not falling as fast. I thought maybe something could be tweaked. Anyway, no adjustment screw, it has a coil spring. I found myself thinking that maybe if I replaced that spring with another one with maybe 1 or 2 more coils that it would add enough oomph to make the primers go off more reliably. Is this a reasonable guess? Maybe this weekend, I'll see if I can figure out how to remove the spring and take it to the hardware store to ask if they have one with the same tickness but with a couple of extra coils. I figure, maybe, get one with 3 more coils, and if it's more than is needed, I can aways cut off one or two. But enough of that. After just the one stage with these, I switched to my regular Big and Small Iron and shot fairly well for the rest of the match. Had a few hiccups along they way, but I had a hugely fun time. In fact, several pards commented on how much fun I was obviously having. As always, the Desperados put on a great match with simple but enjoyable stages, friendly banter, and we even had a few pizzas for lunch after it was all over. All in all, a great shoot, and I am looking forward to the next one. I'd love to say if you are ever in the Commonwealth on a Saturday when they are shooting, come on by. But given the current state of Massachusetts gun laws, I have to say stay away. Unless you've got a Mass State License to Carry Firearms, just being here with your pistols can earn you an extended stay in the House of Correction. (That's what we call prison here.) It is possible to get a non resident LTC, $100 for 1 year, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get it. That's why nobody from the rest of New England come to shoots in Massachusetts anymore. (And why the Massachusetts/Connecticut/Rhode Island Tr-state next weekend is being held in Maine.) But I've gone off on a tangent, so I'll close this post. Maybe if I make it to any shoots out west of the Hudson, I'll bring these along. If not to shoot in the match, at least to show off and maybe take some practice shots if there is a safe place to do so.

This is something I have wondered about. Given the large amount of variance that seems to exist in the caliber, I have wondered if switching to .427s instead of .428s might make a difference. Sometimes the smallest of adjustments are all that is needed. Once I run out of my current supply of .428s, I might try getting some .427s to see if that makes anything easier.

Ugh... And I thought the way they calculated how fast Warp Drive was in Star Trek TNG forward was complicated...

No, I think you did everything right. Was your chamber too tight?

Nope. They did make .22's. Mine is not all original, the rear sight, I think, has been changed, but the barrel is original to the gun. The 50's were in what was basically a shortened .50-70. I've considered trying to find one, but am leaning against doing so. On the other hand, for the last several years, there has been a Rolling Block pistol that has been converted to .38 Special at a local gunshow that does not sell. If it is still there at the next show, I just might make an offer, even though the caliber is "meh" to me. I know that Uberti also did replicas in various pistol calibers. Generically, I have come to be fascinated by single shot pistols from back in the day. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of, if not what the various manufactures made, what you can find on the used market today are .22's. I assume because they were seen as primarily target pistols.

Uh oh... Alpo has taken us down the rabbit hole! That's a good thing though. Here's my Rolling Block family, which is complete. From top to bottom, 12 Gauge, .45-70, .32 S&W, .22 LR and the pistol is also a .22 One of the few families that can have a shotgun, rifle caliber, pistol caliber, and .22 rifles and a pistol. All are original Remingtons.

I buy them. Bullets by Scarlett Slippery Bullets. Buffalo Arms I've gotten from all these sources over the years. In fact... https://www.grafs.com/retail/metallic-reloading-rifle-bullets-44-40-wcf-426-427?srsltid=AfmBOop7HNbkPsMKlE6Pd4lJLjvJxwcELYM4l2_miqlradBcybXiNi_D Has a wide selection to chose from.

The "Orient" is a specific part of Asia. It encompasses Mongolia, China, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Tibet and perhaps the border regions of the nations that border those. Asia on the other hand stretches from "the Orient" all the way west to Turkey. Most of the Middle East is in Asia as is the eastern 3/4 of Russia, India and the Arabian Peninsula. In other words, all Orientals are Asians, but not all Asians are Oriental. Of course, to a foreigner, a Yankee is someone from the USA. In the USA, a Yankee is someone from the North. In the North, a Yankee is someone from New England. To a New Englander, you gotta be born here to be a Yankee.

Heh heh. I also thought of Bertie Bott's. But, since it's British, it should be "bogey" not "booger." Is this Bertie Bott a real product? Interesting if it is, and if they really do have vomit flavored, er... flavoured, ones. As far as the Kentucky Fried Chicken flavors go... It sorta seems to me that sugaring them up would ruin what they are supposed to taste like. As Spock would say, "fascinating."

I use Lee dies for .44-40 and .32-20. My experiences are the same with both of them. With the .44-40, I load a 200 grain .428" RNFP in a mixture of brass from just about any maker you care to name. Starline, Winchester, Remington, and other random stuff. Lee dies are as follows... 1. Deprime/resize. 2. Case mouth expander with powder though the die. (A feature I love) 3. Seating/crimping die. This is where I had problems. If I didn't line up everything perfectly, the crimp could very easily get screwed up so that the rounds would not chamber. So I used this die to seat only and got the Lee Factory Crimp Die for crimping. The problem went away. The same scenario unfolded with .32-20. On bottleneck cartridges, the FCD is a cartridge saver like nothing else. I have found no need for it with straight cases like .45 Colt. I use a .312" bullet with this caliber. Another odd thing I have found with .44-40 is that as often as not, the chambers can be too tight, especially on a 3rd Generation Colt. First, and second Gens, Uberti Clones, vintage S&W's, Merwin & Hulberts don't have this problem. Only new Colts. So much so that I have to have the chambers reamed to the cartridges will chamber. And, not every chamber is the same. The exact same cartridge will fit in one chamber, go almost all the way in in another, and less than half way on another. It is most frustrating. I have also not had this problem with most rifles in the caliber. The only one that had a problem was my AWA Lightning. My Uberti Henry, 66, 73, antique Colt Lightning, and Marlin 1889 have no problem. I've had no chambering problems with the .32-20 chambers. So, when all is said and done, .44-40 can be tricky, but the problems can be overcome.

Nifty. I have not shot a round of trap with my shotgun, but I'd like to. I have shot a couple of Cowboy matches with it, and it is fun.

Well, SOME Uberties must warrant some purity. Like very vaguely maybe this one... As you can see, it's got some rough spots on it. And its absolutely a Uberti. So what warrant purity? Well... It's a very early USFA! Found it quite by accident. Was for sale at a local shop and just sold as a generic Uberti. Price was right, so I grabbed it. When I got it home and saw that on the top of the barrel, I felt like I hit the jackpot. Especially in Massachusetts. Don't know if I'll actually do anything to it to fix it up, but it is cool.

Very nice! What is it?

I've never seen one anything other than blued. I did try to find out if a longer barrel was available, and was told because of the the 93/97 were all made with metric threads and the longer barrels for the regular 97 had normal threads that the answer was no.

Well, here's more pics of the .22... The rifle itself. The right side of the receiver. You can see proof marks where the barrel meets the receiver. The proof marks indicate that it was proofed at the Birmingham Proof House between and 1954. The .22 LR does seem to have been there for a long time. But more on that later... The left side of the receiver. This is where the "mystery" begins. There are no identifying marks on the sides of the receiver. My others are clearly marked Enfield, Greener and BSA along with other model designators, but this one has nothing. Doesn't look like they've been scrubbed off to me. Clearly there's been some agressive cleaning here, but I can't see this having had obliterated everything with the serial number still so clear. The bottom of the barrel.... The serial number here does match the one on the receiver, so it is the original barrel. Taking the fore stock off, you find this underneath it... I do wonder what RW stands for. And here's the muzzle... The bore does not seem to be centered, and it clearly looks like it was in another caliber and has been lined to .22. I wonder who did it, and if this should be considered a bad job. Then again it is clearly stamped .22 LR and there is no other caliber marking. The mystery deepens. The seller said this was a Greener. Don't know why he said so. It just seems odd to me. Bore is clean, BTW. I'd rate it a 10. The receiver is the same shape as the Enfield, but I don't know if that means anything. All in all, it is a puzzlement. As far as my other complete families go, I can can share those again if anyone is interested.

Here's a crazy thought. Anyone ever seen a pistol of this type parkerized?

If I ever do one of those, I'll probably raise a few eyebrows by showing up with a 1911 and a Thompson.

Hmm... Well, I do have a semi-auto PPSh-41 and a Tokarev pistol. So I guess I could go down that road. For that matter, I do have a SMLE in .303 and .410, and some Webley revolvers... Or a Mauser and a Luger.... Or most of the historical US battle rifles and the appropriate sidearm and... Nah, this isn't really what I was thinking of.

With a Uberti, it can be argued that there is nothing to be "pure" about. It does look not so bad after the soaking. Do you have a good pic of what it looked like before? The one with the ruler measuring the barrel obscures a lot, but I does look like it was rather ugly. Clearly, you have some skill as a gunsmith, as you were able to so completely disassemble it. Are you considering refinishing it? It seems like that's a logical next step to take. I don't think you can do much about the pitting, but you could make a lot prettier if you wanted to.

Not too long ago, I was talking about how sometimes you can have a family of guns that are related by action or at least visually. By a family, I mean that you can get a shotgun, a rifle caliber rifle, a pistol caliber rifle, a .22 caliber rifle, and a maybe even a pistol. Not every family will have all 5 members. The shotgun and pistol being the most likely not to be there. Well, I have just completed another family in the collection, and here it is... As you can see, I have completed my Martini action family of guns. From top to bottom, a Greener 12 gauge shotgun, an Enfield ACII Artillery Carbine in .303 British, a BSA Cadet rifle in .310 Cadet and an unknown .22 LR. It has no identifying marks other than its serial number. Seller said it was a Greener, but I have no idea. Anyway, I am glad to have this family completed. Now all I need is a side match. If there are any experts here, or if there is just interest, I'll post some detail pics of the .22. Maybe somebody knows something. Happy shooting!

In Action Comics #1, (June 1938) the very first Superman story, his 1 page origin makes no mention of his parents. His home planet is not named, it's just referred to as a planet that died of old age, and his father is referred to simply as, "a scientist." No mention at all of who raised him on Earth. In Superman #1, from 1939, his origin story is retold, just in more detail. He is now from Krypton, but his father is still just a scientist. He is found and raised by Mary Kent and her husband, who is not named. At the end of page 2, it is said that his foster parents had passed away. So, yeah, from almost the very beginning, the Kents were dead. Eventually, Pa Kent was named John. Then, John and Mary became Jonathan and Martha. Clark got a Kryptonian name, Kal-L with parents named Jor-L and Lora. (These names actually originated in the daily newspaper strip version, but soon crossed into the comics.) In time, the names were changed to Jor-El, Lara and Kal-El. Much more detail is possible, but I'll leave it at that. In other words, with the "real" Superman, the one in the comic books from 1938 to 1986, the Kents were dead from the very beginning.