H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
Posts
8,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
-
Okay, trying to fire .32 ACP ammo in a gun chambered for .32 S&W or .32 S&W Long, even if it will fit, is a fools errand as the ACP is so much higher pressure that it can, and probably will, blow up your gun.
But does anyone know if .32 either, or both, of the S&W cartridges will fit in a gun chambered for .32 ACP? I have found a derringer in .32 ACP for short money, and and considering it. As is, I'd be perfectly happy to use ACP ammo in it, but if the S&W round(s) will fit, that would "seal the deal" for me and take me off the fence.
I do have one of those conversion cylinders for the Nagant that'll chamber all three rounds, but if I recall correctly, it required some modification to work. But this is part of the reason why I am wondering if it is possible. -
32 minutes ago, Waimea said:
It's been around the block a few times.
I'm guessing there's no short stroke kit in it.😂
You guess correct.
-
I have a Winchester made in Connecticut.
It seems to be superior to ones made in Italy or Japan.
*Ducks and hides* -
1 hour ago, Black Angus McPherson said:
p.s. HK, you ain't from Texas so why do you care?
Actually, I suppose I don't, really. I don't like beans, but that's a separate issue. If you must know the truth, I had just seen the episode of The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon, a Texan, explained that chili does not have beans in it, so it was on my mind.
I guess it's like how every time I see someone on TV say, "He's got Moxie," which I have oddly heard a lot lately, I find myself thinking "Does that person even know what Moxie IS?" I'm from New England, so I do, by the way. And yes, I actually LIKE the stuff.
And just to be pedantic, I really am a "Yankee." What is a Yankee? Well, to people not from the USA, a Yankee is an American. To an American, a Yankee is someone from the North. To a Northerner, a Yankee is someone from New England. To a New Englander, well, from there it get's a little silly. Some would say it's someone from Vermont. Others would say to qualify you have to have at least 2 generations of family in the ground. Others would say you have to be born here. Others would say that you just have to live here, or know that you put cheddar cheese on apple pie, not ice cream, or just like Moxie. I qualify on the last three criteria. Yeah, as much as I "Identify" as a New Englander, I have to admit that I was born in Detroit. But I can prove that as well. I can chug a Vernor's and not dissolve into a coughing fit!
And oh yeah, the ACP in .25 ACP .32 ACP, .38 ACP, 380 ACP and .45 ACP stands for Automatic Colt Pistol, and said cartridges are so named because they were first chambered in pistols made by Colt. The .XX Auto designation is a abbreviation.
With regard to .45 Colt being colloquially referred to as .45 Long Colt goes, I have decided that it ain't worth worrying about. People know what you mean, irregardless of whatever the official name is.-
1
-
-
Ah yes, just like a large frame Lightning. I remember the first time I cycled my large frame and saw the things swing out, I thought it was weird. Other than the swinging part, at least on Colt Originals, I've been told by Lassiter that the only difference between the large and medium frames is size. His exact words were that the large frames were a Lightning "on steroids." The small frames are completely different, having more in common with a Winchester 73 than the medium frame Lightnings. At least, that's what it looked like to me. Lassiter more or less knew why I made the comparison and agreed with me. (If I recall our conversation correctly.)
I do know that my AWA .45 Colt Lightning can run .45 Schofields with no problem. I wonder of they will cause problems with trying to run the shorter round in the Pedersoli. (I need to double check something on the large frame...)
$2000 is a bit steep, but perhaps worth it. I wonder what other calibers it will be available in. I'd be interested in .44 Magnum. I don't like the config of their "modernized" Lightning in that caliber, but one of these would be something I'd strongly consider acquiring.
You can never have too many Lightnings. Adding a .44 Magnum to my collection would be most welcome. -
So, what is different about these from a regular Lightning?
-
For some reason, I want to say...
One knife to rule them all
One knife to find them
One knife to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where they shadows lie... -
Everybody should have at least 1 Frankengun.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:
Yeah. I know.I know you know. (Why do I feel like Inspector Clouseau?) I was just having fun.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:
We had a trap gun bolt. Figured it would raise an eyebrow or two.
That's kinda nifty.
Here's what goes with the bolt.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:
As to some other comments, I just finished a fresh salad and am about to heat up some leftover chili I made a couple days ago.
Does it have beans in it? Cuz if it has beans in it, it ain't chilli.
Then again, "cuz" and "ain't" aren't words, to be pedantic about it.-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:
I ain't eatin' nuthin with "turd" in its name.
It's not turd uck in.
It's tur duck in. -
24 minutes ago, Alpo said:
A comment the chairman made at the end of that video.
X used to be Twitter, right? And when people would post anything on Twitter, they would "tweet".
Since it is no longer Twitter but is now X, what is it called when you post on it?
I always wondered if people who posted on Twitter were called "Twits."-
1
-
1
-
-
Not to be pedantic, but a "gun" can have rifling. For example, the 16" GUNS on a battleship are indeed rifled. And the are clearly guns, that's what the navy calls them.
A rifle, if course, a gun that has rifled bore, that is shoulder fired. A carbine is, most literally, a "short" rifle, and a "musket" has shifted from its original meaning of a shoulder fired weapon that is a smooth bore that fires a round lead ball about the same size as the bore to basically, an extra long barreled rifle, probably with a bayonet lug.
Of course, carbine is a very nebulous term. Compare a US Krag Carbine to an M1 Rifle, they are about the same length. An M-16 is about the same length as an M-1 Carbine, but is considered a rifle. So is the M-4 Rifle a rifle, which is even shorter. But the M-4 is pretty much the same size as the M-16 Shorty of the Vietnam era, that was indeed referred to as a carbine.
And if you are in the Army, never call your rifle or your sidearm a gun. A gun is a big old cannon. Or so I have been told.
And a .45 Automatic is a historical term specifically for the 1911. With "semi-automatic" handguns, the terms, "auto-loader" and "automatic" have been used historically to refer to such "pistols."
Now with regards to (used in the general sense) machine guns are even more complicated.
A machine gun, generically, is a weapon that starts shooting as soon as you pull the trigger and doesn't stop till you let go of the trigger.
More specifically...
Heavy Machine Gun: A big honkin' thing, chambered for .50 BMG or similar cartridge, and is belt fed.
Machine Gun: A medium sized thing, belt fed, and chambered for a typical rifle cartridge. Examples include the Browning .30, Maxim, M-60 and others.
Light Machine Gun: A shoulder fired rifle capable of "Full-Auto" fire. Such as a BAR, M-14, M-16, AK47 and similar rifles chambered for a typical rifle cartridge.
Sub-Machine gun. A shoulder fired "carbine" capable of full auto fire, that fires a pistol type cartridge, such as Tommy Gun, M-2 Carbine, PPSh-43, and other similar weapons.
Machine pistol: A handgun capable of full auto fire. Most historic example would be certain Broomhandles. Perhaps the Mac-10 and maybe the Uzi would fit in this category.
Now, there can be some blurring between these categories. Is the M-16 a Light Machine Gun or a Sub-Machine Gun, for example. What about that German WWII gun that the SS always carried in their black uniforms in the movies and TV shows?
It is a puzzlement.-
1
-
-
Fancy engraving! I like it. Finally found one of these after years of looking....
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:
Well H. K., from reading your Inquiry, it appears you are primarily interested in guns of the Era. If that's the case, not that I know of. Never seen one anyway.
In my sordid past however, I did do several cartridge conversions on Percussion 31s. I haven't looked to see if Conversion parts are still available for those little 31s. In all honesty, full size SAs in 32 would be just a mite heavy but wouldn't generate much in the way of recoil.
Yeah, era guns are of the most interest to me. For example, there is the Cimmaron Lighting that is a reduced size SAA with a .32-20/.32 H&R cylinder combination, and while an interesting little gun, I am wondering more about "original" examples.
The only reproduction C&B revolver in .31 that has a .32 S&W conversion cylinder is the Remington 1863, and while I do have one, it's a TINY little gun. Hardly what I'd call "Full size." I do have an original Colt 1849 that was converted to .32 Long Colt in the distant past, but the modern replicas don't seem to have conversion cylinders available. Nor does anything else in that class. I suppose it could be possible to find a gunsmith to convert it the old fashioned way, but I don't wanna go down that road.
As far as other pistols go, believe it or not, I have a real Colt 1860 that someone replaced the barrel and cylinder on to become a .32 S&W, which is one of the things that got me wondering about other possibilities. The Cylinder and barrel assembly look to be of modern day manufacture. No idea who did it. With this gun, recoil does not exist!
Technically, it's a .32 S&W Long. The guy who sold it on Gunbroker advertised it as a .32-20, which is why I grabbed it, and while I was disappointed that it's not I soon decided that it was just too cool and ineresting to be worried about. Curiously, from that pale coloring where a loading gate would go, I think this gun was at one time converted to a .44 cartridge, and then converted again to thsi configuration.
If only it could talk. -
I load .427" bullets in my .44-40's
-
We all know that there were plenty of pocket pistols chambered in .32 S&W. But were any "full size" single action revolvers ever chambered for this diminutive round? Looking around online, the only thing I have seen referenced is that Smith and Wesson chambered the "Model 3" for it, but this is always mentioned in passing and never specifies which Model 3 was so chambered. I am assuming the New Model 3, and the American, Russian and Schofield were all chambered only in their namesake calibers, as far as I know.
That being said, I have never actually SEEN a New model 3 in .32 S&W. I've seen some in .32-44, but that's about it. I know that some modern DA revolvers were chambered in the caliber, as well as in the .32 S&W Long, but I can not find anything definitive about them being used in anything bigger than a pocket pistol.
I do know that certain Colt .31 caliber C&B's were converted to the .32 Colt calibers, and you'd think the modern replicas would use the more easy to deal with S&W round, but, as near as I can tell, none of them has a conversion cylinder available.
Does anyone have additional information that I am unaware of? At this point, it's mostly for curiosity sake more than anything elese. -
1 hour ago, Rooster Ron Wayne said:
Biggest problem with SASS.
Rooster, I agree with you.
Our game is full of things that give an advantage over other things. Many of which are after market modifications that are perfectly legal. But if you wanna use something original that has a *perceived* advantage, it get's outlawed. Mostly this happens with shotguns. It makes absolutely no sense. But what makes even less sense is that the powers that be won't even consider revisiting some of these hard to fathom rules, or even offer a logical justification for then.
Heck, even stock, some things give you an advantage over other things. Of all the arguments against something, "competitive advantage" is the one that holds the least amount of credibility with me.-
1
-
-
Just now, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:
I think the whole reason the 93/97 was banned for CAS was due to the perceived advantage the large port would give to single loading.
I've heard that. I've also heard that they were afraid that someone might try to sneak in a real 93, claiming it was a 93/97.
I've heard a few other things as well. None of it makes any sense, and I don't know what to believe.
And as far as the large loading port being an "advantage," so what? There are a lot of guns in our game that have advantages over others.A few years ago, after I got my 93, I took some photos and compared them to a 97.
This was back in the photobucket days.-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:
Wow! Like I said before, I never had a problem with my .44-40 3rd gens.
I am willing to admit that my issues have been bad luck. But, I also have to admit that I have never had this issue with a .45 or a 38/.357 Magnum, or a .44 Special Colt. IIRC, my 3rd Gen .32-20 had the tight chamber issue as well, but not my firsts.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Savvy Jack said:
You missed the whole danged point...geeesh
Heh heh....
Okay, let me clarify.... For .44-40 revolvers, I have the following guns...
1 Merwin & Hulbert with top strap. Estimated date of manufacture between 1883 and 1887. No issues.
1 Colt Sheriff's model. Uncertain date of manufacture, but has an SA prefix, so it's 3rd Generation. .44 Special cylinder had no issues. .44-40 cylinder had chambers that were too tight. Also, there was not enough clearance for the rims to get through the gap.1 Colt Sheriff's mode. Exact same issues as above.
1 Uberti Clone. No issues.
1 3rd Generation Colt made in 1993. Tight chambers and not enough clearance.
1 1st Generation Colt made in 1884. No issues.1 Smith & Wesson New Model 3 made in 1897. No issues
1 Smith & Wesson Model 3 DA made in 1891. No Issues.
1 3rd Generation Bunline Special. Factory .44 Special cylinder had no issues. After market .44-40 cylinder, made by Colt, had tight chambers and had to be fitted to the gun.
1 Golt 1878 made in 1883. No Issues.
1 Colt 3rd Generation made in 1992. Tight chambers and not enough clearance.
Other pistols.1 Uberti Mares Leg. No issues.
Rifles...
Uberti 66, Henry and 73, Marlin 1889, Colt Lighting, No issues.
AWA Lighting had chambers that were too tight.
So, it seems to me that Colt 3rd Gen .44-40's have these very specific issues. Copies of the Colt, and older Colts and other pistols don't seem to have those problems.
-
My first 97 was a takedown Winchester with a barrel cut to 20" The stock is stamped WPD, so I believe it is an old police gun. It letters to 1930, has an E prefix, and was a gift from my brother. If I recall correctly, the asking price was $400 about 25 years ago. It is in mechanically great condition. It was my first SASS Main match shotgun. It's a takedown
My second 97 was a Norinco Trench gun. It was a gift from my father. Got it in 2003, and it's a nice shooter. Don't know what he paid for it.
My third 97 has a 30" full choke barrel. I wanted to have a long barreled 97, just to have one. But I liked it so much, it became my primary main match shotgun. Yes, I prefer long shotgun barrels to short ones for some reason. It has an E prefix and letters to 1909. It is mechanically sound, but not as tight as the 20" barrel one. It is a takedown, and I did have to replace the, I don't know what it's called, the adjustable screw in thingee that makes the barrel tight to the frame. I purchased this one in 2009, and I don't recall what I paid for it. Knowing how I felt at the time, it was probably $400 or less, but I can't be sure.
My fourth 97 is a Norinco 93/97 made in 2006 that I got in 2011. Don't recall what I paid for it.My 5th 97 is not a 97. It's a real Winchester 93 that I got for $280. Not sure of the exact date of purchase. Mechanically, it is in excellent condition. A Prefix, by the way. It letters to 1895. Like every 93 I've ever seen, regardless of what it looks like, the mechancis are great. I don't think this thing has been fired in over a century when I first got it. I have fired it twice with black power 2.5" shells. It works great. 30" barrel.
My most recent 97, is another E model, made in 1914 according to its letter. I got it in 2023 and it set me back $2200. Why did I spend so much? Well, it is mechanically perfect, still has a decent finish, and, it's a Black Diamond Trap model. It obviously has a 30" barrel. This is now my primary main match shotgun, and gets a lot of stares.
Other than the issue mentioned with my second one, none of these guns have ever given me a lick of trouble. The 97 is a great gun.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Chantry said:
The problem with the Marlin and 93 (and possibly with the Spencer & Burgess) is that it requires a knowledgeable shooter who understands that the guns are only safe using ammo within a certain "window", so from a liability perspective I understand why they were banned.
This is a good point, but everything said about the Marlin, the 93, Spencer and the Burgess could be said about original Winchester 87s, and they are legal. So that kinda undermines the argument, in my opinion.And of course, there is no safety issue with the 93/97.
-
1
-
On the subject of pedantic
in SASS Wire Saloon
Posted
My Grandmother was born in this country to a German immigrant family. She spoke fluent High German.
Her Second husband grew up in Austria and he therefore spoke fluent Low German.
Neither had any kind of an accent.
Nor could they converse with each other in German. While the written forms are the same, the spoken forms are so different that they are in many cases not mutually understandable. If I recall correctly, he could understand her, but she could not understand him.
Supposedly, when they were getting ready to dub his movies into German, Arnold Schwarzenegger called up his agent and asked him to contact the dubbing company to express his interest in dubbing his own parts, since naturally, his first language is German. They asked him send in a recording of some test dialog.
They REJECTED him, saying he sounded like the son of an Austrian pig farmer. (Or something like that.)
He replied, "I am the son of an Austrian pig farmer!" Then he said to audience, "I guess I'm not understandable in two languages."