H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
Posts
8,795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
-
I know it's probably been talked about before, but in general, I think that many of us would be well served by using our cowboy type guns, not just for general self defense use, but specifically for CCW use. While many will poo poo the idea, I think it has some merit. First of all, we are comfortable with, and know how to USE our old fashioned pistols quite effectively. We have live fired them far more than we have any kind of an auto loading pistol, for example.
But let's look at it from a more theoretical/practical point of view. If calibers like .32 ACP or .380 ACP are "acceptable" for CCW use in guns like a Walther PPK or a Colt Mustang or some other similarly sized pistol, many of which have only a 6 shot magazine, then surely a small revolver in anything from .32 S&W to .38 Long Colt would be just as acceptable. Or, if you want something more akin to a Colt Officer's model or some other "larger small" gun that can handle thing like 9mm to .45 ACP, then you could use a Colt Sheriff's Model in .45 Colt. Or even the Cimarron Lightning, basically a 3/4 scale SAA in calibers like .32-30, .32 H&R Magnum and .38 Special.
Personally, I think it would be very practical for many of us. If you are worried about being able to reload, perhaps some of the top break pocket pistols would work with a speed loader. But to be honest, when I do carry my Mustang, for example, I don't carry a spare magazine.
Maybe I'm thinking about something that doesn't really require all that much thought, but the idea was bugging me, so I thought I'd bring it up. -
I wanna see the Silver Spur in .44 Magnum.
-
1
-
-
People in the Carolinas are rooting for the Pats. That's where Drake Maye is from.
That, and they don't have a baseball team to root for either. Unless the Braves count for most of the South except Florida?And for what it's worth, I won't be bothering to watch the Halftime Show. I have watched the Superbowl 12 times over the course of my life, and I have never bothered to watch it. That's when I go to the bathroom, call my relatives who live west of the Hudson, fix up some more food, or otherwise don't bother with whatever the show happens to be. Until they get someone good enough to be on the Opry, I'm just not interested in the typical acts they have.
-
Good grief...
Those bullies should be charged with attempted murder.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Diego Kid #4631 said:
H. K. Uriah, SASS That is a Full size Third Model Pocket Army six shot, with the bottom of the grip ground off. That has the loading gate. Rough shape. .44-40.
Correct on all counts.
It doesn't look all that nice, the "skull crusher" has indeed been ground off, but it still shoots nice.
Got it real cheap. It'll never have any collector value in the investment sense, but I may consider having it done up nice someday.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Diego Kid #4631 said:
Yes. This is a First model. No loading gate. The second model has one. Slides downward.
Oh yeah, like this...
But it's not a spur.
-
3 hours ago, Diego Kid #4631 said:
Merwins were a medium size .38 s&w centerfire five shot.
Like this one?
They are great little guns. But not exactly what I am wondering about, as they are only 5 shot cylinders. -
Pretty simple question. Every single vintage revolver I've ever seen with a spur trigger is a "small" one. I was wondering if anyone ever made a full size spur trigger revolver.
I am going to define "full size" in a very broad way: six chambers in the cylinder, firing a centerfire round. No other qualifications.
I ask because I do own a couple of pistols by S&W that I'll call small to medium sized with the only major difference being one has a trigger guard and a trigger, and the other has a spur. So it is, at least, theoretically possible. I wonder if anyone actually did it. -
You mean one of these?
I find it to be a nice shooter, and it gets a lot of, "Wait, what is that? It's not a Colt" type comments.
They do feel a little different in the hand when just holding it, but when shooting, the differences quickly vanish. An odd thing about this is that the cylinder is a little shorter than a Colt, so you gotta make sure your cartridges are not too long. I have found that a .45 Colt with 200 grain bullets fits just fine, but 240s were just a BIT too long.
Is the "Outlaw" a specific variant, or just what Uberti is calling these days?-
2
-
-
I have a China Camp USFA in the white.
Here's a closeup.
It is indeed "in the white" with no finish. I am seriously considering sending it to Turnbull to be done up nice. Time and perhaps a refund check on my income tax will tell.
-
You are correct, Creeker. The Lightning Bolt and the 92 Mare's leg were made as pistols.
The 87 has ab 18+ inch barrel and and an overall length well over the minimum, so it's just an impractical shotgun.
the 73 has a 16" barrel, and all i did was cut the stock. It's also well over the minimum length, so its just a rifle with a very shot length of pull. IF the one big beautiful lawsuit throws out the nfa restrictions on sbrs, I'll consider cutting the barrel to 14" Maybe. Time will tell. -
13 minutes ago, Boggus Deal #64218 said:
For me right now, it’s pre-1911 .45 ACPs. Can’t afford them. But I can dream.
In 1987, I spent $400 for a 1911 made in 1913. First handgun I ever bought. Still have it. In 2013, I used it to shoot Wild Bunch at End of the Trail.
I recently learned how much a 1911 made in 1913 in condition comparable to mine is going for. It's a scary thought!
One gun of that era that intrigues me is the 1903 Pocket Hammer pistol in .38 ACP. -
Another thread got me wondering about this. When it comes to "collecting" Colts there are a LOT of variations to consider, even if you limit yourself to just the single action army.
Just for starters, there are the three Generations, the three standard barrel lengths, the Sheriff and Buntline variants, nickeled, blued, Bisley Model, New Frontier, the myriad of caliber options, (even if you limit it to widely produced calibers and don't take super rare ones into account) engraved examples, what the grips are made of, and those are just the "regular" variations. Adding in various custom barrel lengths, calibers finishes and who knows whatever other options existed would make collecting an example of every possible variation all but impossible, even if you HAD the money to do it.
That being said, I think it may be fair to say that for many of us, there might be a specific variation of the SAA that we don't own, but would like to have. It could be something super elaborate, or run of the mill ordinary. Something off the shelf standard, or something that would have to be custom configured.
Thinking about my own collection of both real Colts and clones, I do have a lot of interesting variations on the theme. And I included the clones for a reason; affordability. Sometimes an interesting variation might be impossibly expensive if it was a real Colt, but doable with a clone. And I use "collecting" in the widest possible definition; acquiring a bunch of things because you find them interesting. "Investment collecting" is not something that I concern myself with.
So with all of that said, what kind of a Colt would I like to have, but don't? To be honest, I'm at the point where I have all of the "standard" variations that interest me. For example, I do have a couple of Bisley revolvers, but don't see much of a reason to get more of them with different barrel lengths, calibers, etc.
On the other hand, some rather rare examples would be something I'd be willing to save up for. I have long wanted an otherwise "normal" SAA in .38 S&W. Very few were made, and when they do show up, they tend to be uber expensive.
So I have taken a lot of space to talk about something in general terms and coming to the surprising conclusion that there's nothing calling out to me saying, "Find one like this!"
I am strangely surprised by that realization. -
Handsome gun that I can't afford.
-
-
On 1/25/2026 at 10:33 PM, Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L said:
SASS Legal?
Essentially a Mare's Leg type pistol, so probably not. Still want one. Wish it was .38 S&W instead of .380, but I'll take as is.
Strike that. I just watched the video. Threaded for a silencer. How ridiculous! At least it's a pistol and the threads can be cut off with no NFA '34 violations. Still, it's probably not Mass Compliant anyway.
Lets get all of these legalized, then the above one fits in quite nicely.
Especially if the second from the top is okay.
-
5 hours ago, Griff said:
Although... the diatribe on that Marlin Cowboy bbl is mighty tempting to remove! I have softened it up a bit...
I am of two minds of removing those warnings.
1. They are stupid and ugly, and must be gone!
2. They are original to the gun. Perhaps someday when this nonsense stops they'll be a historical curiosity.
-
-
5 hours ago, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:
gonna do it just because I want to. This gun may be low value because of what has been done to it, but it is priceless to me because of where it came from. The restoration is not to improve resale value because this will never be sold.
That is more or less my attitude towards restoration in general.
Nice story, Crazy. It also illustrates the difference between a proper restoration and a generic "reblue" by a gunsmith that doesn't really understand the process. -
We all know all of the arguments for and against having a gun restored. That's not what this is about. I am going to assume for the sake of discussion that you have decided that a particular firearm you own is going to make "a trip to Turnbull" or some other place that can do comparable work. Now, in my estimation, there are multiple reasons why you may decide to have a gun given this treatment. And, it does not necessarily have to be a vintage firearm.
For example, take a look at these two guys...
Nothing vintage, historical or "significant" about these guns to the general population. But to me, these are wicked cool guns that I own. They are my Big Iron and my Small Iron. Both are already heavily customized beyond their "basic value," and I think it might be nifty to have them done up nice. That's as good a reason as any, I think.
But in a more general sense, I am of the mindset that if a vintage gun has aged well, that it has honest wear, but still looks mostly okay, I'd not consider it a candidate for this kind of work. I'd be more likely to leave it alone and enjoy its well acquired over time character.
In other words, the gun in question has to not look so great anymore, have mechanical issues, or both. But an "ugly" gun does not a candidate for a restoration automatically make. For example...
This a a Stevens .410 shotgun. It's hard to tell in the picture, perhaps, and it looks a LOT better since I rubbed the the thing down with a patch soaked in Hoppes Number 9. Prior to that, it had a thin film of rust all over it, and most of the barrel has "rust spots" on it at well. From the above stated criteria, this would make for an excellent restoration candidate. But the problem is, I don't want to go to that kind of effort for a gun that I got for the whopping price of $100. Sometimes, it's best to just leave things as is, I guess.
But then there is something like this.
A US Krag carbine that has been heavily sporterized. This is one that I would take, not to Turnbull, but to the CMP and have them do the work. I have sent them pictures, and they say they can restore it to proper configuration, but not the finish. Well that's okay. So it's a candidate.Here's an interesting one on specifics.
This particular Marlin 92, in .32, I would not normally consider with it looking like this. It's "honest wear" so to speak. BUT, that's not the original magazine tube, and it has some issues with properly cycling ammunition, so I figure that makes it a good candidate for further work.
Somewhat akin to that, is this.
An honest looking Winchester 86 in .45-70. But, the barrel has been cut to 19", and the original magazine tube had been hacksawed to a button, so I replaced it. While the barrel has good finish left, the receiver clearly doesn't. So this I think is a good candidate to have made look nice again.
This one here is, I think, the "best" candidate.
A Marlin 1889 in .44-40. It has NO original finish left, and you can see the steel wool marks left behind by a previous owner who obviously scrubbed off whatever was left of the original finish.The last rifle I want to look at is this one...
Now, generically, this is NOT one I'd consider having restored. It's not pristine by any measurement, and it has aged honesty. But, not only was this the first Winchester I ever bought with my own money, when I first got it, my father told me I should have it restored. I've never forgotten that, and part of me kinda wants to honor his memory by doing this one up nice.
Now on the one hand, I think this is a perfect candidate for restoration.
On the other, Turnbull does not do nickel. I'd have to find someone else, and I am sure there are people who can do a proper job. I fact, in another thread, I got a couple of good suggestions. The only thing holding me back on this one is that based on what it looks like the restoration would cost, I could get another one in already much better shape for about the same price. That'd allow me to have two of the things. Time will tell if I decide to do anything.
Here's an interesting candidate.
Let me add some detail...
As you can see the nickel finish is pitted and flaking off. Now, this gun is a USPFA revolver. I know it's a glorified Uberti, but it IS a part of the USFA story. Again, I'd have to find someone who can do nickel, or consider changing it blued. If I decide to go forward, that'll be the choice I have to make.
And speaking of USFA...
Now this one is pretty pristine. It's one of the China Camp models. A model that was deliberately left "in the white" so you could have it finished yourself any way you want. I think this is one I want to have done up nice. A perfect candidate for a trip to Turnbull.And here's one that's perfect for a trip to someone else.
Obviously customized, it functions well. So, why am I considering a restoration? Well, like many Broomhandles, the bore is shot out. There are places that specialize in fixing that, so I will likely contact one of them sooner or later.
Here's one that actually NEEDS restoration...
This 1849 conversion needs to be restored not because it's ugly, but because it does not work right. I need to find someone who specializes in these things to correct some mechanical issues. I was gonna have a local gunsmith I trust do it, but he basically begged off saying he COULD do it, but these were not really his area of expertise, and he was afraid he'd have to charge too much to do it. So, I gotta find someone else. Turnbull turned me down too, for what it's worth. Said it was too rare for them to have the proper knowledge to deal with it.
One other '49...
Now this one works perfectly. It's just ugly. But it's nickeled. Finding someone do deal with it not easy. And in truth, before I do anything with it, I want to wait for a factory letter to tell me if it left there as a nickeled gun or if this was an aftermarket modification, Time will tell,
This next pistol, I consider a prime example of a good restoration candidate.
As you can see, this .32-20 is a mess. What's left of the finish is horridly ugly. It shoots well, but that's about it. Making it look as nice as it shoots seems like a reasonable concept to me.
And finally, here's one that I am really on the fence about.
On the one hand, this gun has NO original finish left. But clearly faded away honestly; it was not scrubbed off. But one does wonder how does a 2nd Gen Colt .45 made in 1971 look so badly worn? Mechanically excellent, I am torn on having this one redone. One the one hand, it's "wornness" seems to have been acquired honestly. But on the other, it's pretty ugly. So, I have options to consider.
Now, obviously, I am not going to have ALL of these guns redone. That would be rather expensive. And while I have sorta reached the point in my life where I'd rather put care into the existing collection than adding much more to it, these are things to consider.
So to any of you out there who HAVE had a gun restored, how did you decide to have that particular one redone? How bad was it before? Are you pleased with the after?
I don't know where, if anyplace, I am gonna go with all of this, but I will have SOME fun, when I finally make up my mind.
-
18 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:
Does it have a bayonet lug?Seriously, whenever I see one of those "tachticool" lever actions, I always notice the lack of a lug, and I think it looks like it's missing.
-
Okay...
Saw this yesterday.
All I could think of was to wonder if there is an amateur version.
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:
I’d like to ask Smith & Wesson the same question. It’s inscrutable. 🤨
You know, I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone correctly use the word inscrutable in a sentence outside of something akin to "he was an inscrutable man" type usage.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Montague Kid said:
NYS compliant “Assault weapon”
Also labeled “The Abomination” by my more traditional pard’s…
Does it have a bayonet lug?-
1
-
Replace barrel on 1897 or sell for parts?
in SASS Wire
Posted
`Pictures would be nice.
You said it shoots and functions well. If that's the case, leave it alone and use it as is. UNLESS the barrel is at the point where it's gonna break or fall off or something.
In that case, I'd look into tying to find a replacement barrel.