H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

Okay I'll admit I had no idea what kind of a gun you were referring to, so I did a Google search for "200 Ruger BH" and it came back saying it's a Ruger Blackhawk, commemorating the American Bicentennial. Is that correct? Anyway... I love the .38 S&W for a variety of reasons. It's a great round, and there are plenty of interesting guns chambered for it. Maybe even more in Canada as in it's ".38-200" variant it was the main sidearm cartridge of the British Empire and Commonwealth for many years. Of course, I don't know if you can obtain any of the fine firearms chambered for it or not, so we'll let that go. In spite of my love for the cartridge, I would NOT ream your cylinder out to .38 S&W for a couple of reasons. First, the .38 S&W used a .360 or 361" bullet, and the .357 Magnum uses .357 or .358" ones. Now, you said you'd load it with .357" bullets. Okay, you can do that, but if you are gonna go that route, why not just load up some .38 Short Colt? That round is very comparable to the .38 S&W, and you can chamber it in the .357 Magnum cylinder with no problems. Seems like that would be much simpler, and less expensive. You can use the same bullets you already use in your .357 Magnum, and all you need is some brass. Now THAT might be harder to come by, especially up in Canada, but I think it's a more viable solution. And, I think having the 9mm cylinder, even if it's unused, is not a bad thing to have in reserve. At least, those are my thoughts on the matter.

I agree with all you said. And I think this particular gun is a good example of a restoration candidate. it's a Second Gen gun, .45 Colt caliber. Got it for $700 in 2010, which I though was for a song. As you can see, it has NO original finish left. Mechanically, it's perfect. For a gun made in 1971, I can't help but wonder why it looks so worn. Some have suggested that perhaps it was artificially aged. Either way, I think it's one I may consider restoring someday.

I have talked about all of this before, but I'm gonna bring it all up in one place, partly because the final piece of the puzzle is now complete. If there is any kind of a gun that is remarkably fun to own and shoot, and yet has no real practical purpose, it's got to be the Mare's Leg. Sadly, the Mare's Leg is not legal for SASS. I'll say right up front that I think it should be, but let that go. It's not, so that's the way it is. But that doesn't diminish how much fun they are to shoot. And, yes, some clubs will at a monthly let you shoot them if you ask nicely. But that is neither here nor there. Rather I just want to assert that no matter how you slice it, this type of a gun is FUN. Now, I suppose I have to admit that I first heard of the Mare's Leg well after I became a SASS member. I don't recall seeing Wanted: Dead or Alive on TV when I was a kid, so instead I learned of the gun when they started to show up on the replica market what is more now than a few years ago and decided that I wanted one. Well, I eventually got one. This is a Chiappa 92. Chiappa, in my opinion, makes the best 92 on the market today, they are good to go out of the box with a smooth action that is quite reliable. The only problem with it is that the so called "Rio Bravo" loop you see here is an aftermarket replacement. They ship these things with a lever that looks like an oversized D. Well, I wanted this, so I changed it. It's a .44 Magnum. Why a .44 Magnum? Well, I figured I would pair it with my Winchester 92 with the big John Wayne style lever and an Uberti made copy of the SAA in the same caliber. All I'd need is a holster. Well, I discovered that the Wm Brown Holster Company makes and excellent Mare's Leg holster. And so I was all set. It's left handed because, well, I wanted it to be. Of course, I also needed a shotgun, at first I just used my trusty 97, but then I discovered these... Again, made by Chiappa, and it works great right out of the box. And so, felt my Mare's Leg journey was complete. But then I got The Lightning Bug. As many of you know, I really like the Colt Lightning rifle. Well, when I discovered that AWA made what they called the Lightning Bolt pistol, essentially a Mare's Leg Lightning, I decided to track one down. And I did. It's a 45 Colt. And I was lucky to find it. If you saw the article on the Lightning Bolt in a recent issue of Guns of the Old West, you know how rare these are. And yes, I did get a holster for it. I got this one right handed because I pair the gun with my Big Iron pistol that I wear on my left hip. For a rifle, of course, it goes with the AWA Lightning in the same caliber. And I more or less figured that'd be it. But then I decided I really wanted a 73 based Mare's Leg. Problem: Nobody makes one. Solution: I found this Taylor's 73 with a 16" barrel and cut the stock to Mare's Leg configuration and put on the big Rio Bravo Loop. Very nice gun to shoot This one is a .44-40. Most typically it get's paired with a 12" Colt Buntline in the same caliber. I call this my "Mare's Leg Buntline." It goes on the right hip because my Buntline Colt holster was left handed. A real question has arisen in my mind. If, and I know it's a big if, the One Big Beautiful Lawsuit manages to get the restrictions on SBR's thrown out, I will consider cutting the barrel to 14 inches. But only if the lawsuit goes through, and even then I might not. I kinda like the oddity of the 16" barrel. Now, all of that being said, let me got back to the beginning. In Wanted: Dead or Alive, Steve McQueen carried his 92 based Mare's Leg with a gun belt holding .45-70 ammunition. Absurd! Right? Well... Behold! What the Mare's Leg SHOULD have been! A (Chiappa again) Model 1886 chambered for .45-70 with a 16.5" barrel. These are marketed by Taylors with a tachticool rail mount peep sight in the back. Well, as you can see, that has been replaced by a traditional lever action rear sight, and the stock has been cut into pistol grip shape. Overall length IS over the NFA minimum, so there are no concerns there. The foregrip from the factory was fatter than normal, so I replaced it with a standard sized one. Who knows, I may send a pic of it to Taylor's/Chiappa and ask them to market it in this configuration. The only thing I don't care for is the threaded muzzle. IF the Lawsuit goes through, those threads WILL get cut off, and maybe the barrel will be shorted to match the length of the take down lever. I've even considered doing it SBR, but I don't want to deal with the hassle of getting permission to take it over state lines. And just today I got the holster for it. It sticks out a little because the rear sight catches on the lip of the holster, but that's okay. And as you see I went lefty with this one. Now, you may be wondering, how the heck does this shoot with .45-70? The answer is, with a 300 or 405 grain bullet behind a charge or Trailboss, not bad at all. But there is more to it than that... On the right is a .45-70 cartridge. On the left is what I call the .45-45. A .45-70 cut back to .45 Colt length. Using 300 or 405 grain bullets it is 100% recoil free, and a joy to shoot. Those bullets put this cartridge in roughly the same category as the Spencer round, I guess. Now here's the fun part. I made up this round as a low power plinker for use in single shot rifles. But to my pleasant surprise, I found that they cycle through an 86 with almost no problem! Yeah, you can't race it, but they will work. Now this gun/cartridge is probably pushing it even further away from reality, but it sure was fun doing so! In case you are wondering, it'll hold 4 .45-70's, 6 .45-45's or 5 .45-45's behind a single .45-70 round. Love to run some smokeless .45-45's in it and finish off with a BP .45-70 to shock people at the practice range. But of course, this does beg the theoretical question, what do you group it with for a complete battery? Well, since it'll work with the .45-45, the rifle I'd use with it is my 1880's vintage Winchester 86. For a second pistol... For some reason, the allure of those Century LTD Model 100's made in the 1970's have suddenly become more real to me. I had considered a BFR in .45-70, but I don't like the look. Oh well. And while a major part of me now considers my Mare's Leg fever to be cured, there are indications that it might flair up again. Rossi has come out with a Mare's Leg type pistol in .44 Magnum called the R95 that looks suspiciously like a Marlin 336, which was briefly available in the same caliber. Chiappa has a Mare's Leg version of the Model 322, which looks very much like the Marlin 1892. It's only in .22 LR, but maybe the name suggests that like the original, they might market it in .32 caliber someday. Probably .32 S&W Long. I am not holding my breath, but will consider the .22. I know Henry Arms makes one too, but they don't interest me. In the end, I guess Mare's Leg Fever is related to the Lightning Bug. Once you get it, it stays with you. Signing off...

Wow! That looks like it's well on the way to being very beautiful. Good luck with it. I assume you meant a Winchester 86 and not a 95. But that reminds me of something... \\ This is actually the first Winchester I ever bought. When I brought it home from the store, my father told me I should have it restored. It's been an idea in my head ever since. It's mostly grey in color. This pic is pretty dark, I should take a new one.

DA/RA? "Value and collectability" are nebulous terms to me. I know what they mean in absolutist terms, but I don't really concern myself with them. I look at this way, restoring a gun to factory original condition (or technically as close as possible) is the same as taking a 58 Chevy and restoring it to showroom condition. Historically, gun collectors have rejected that analogy, but I think it's one that makes sense. With the car analogy, rebuilding the original 283 V8 is a legit part of the restoration, as is rebuilding the original two speed Powerglide transmission. Dropping in more modern Corvette even though it's the same block, and a four on the floor transmission, is the same as "sporterizing" a classic gun. Now, your 92, since you had to replace the barrel, I'd been more likely to go all the way with a full restoration. But if you could have kept the original barrel and just relined it, I probably would have left it alone. In the end, I don't think either of us are wrong.

I suppose I could have also included Cowboy .45 Special, which IS a .45 Colt cut back to .45 ACP length, so it'll work in all the longer ones. Interestingly enough, the S&W/Schofield round WILL work is some repeating rifles. Shot a clean match with it in my AWA Lightning, for example.

Never apologize for asking a question that you do not know the answer too. There is no such thing as a stupid question. That may be a cliche, but it's the truth. Yes, some questions will create a heated response, but it's worth asking; all knowledge is good. This is not something that I had ever even considered as possible. When I compared the specs for the cartridge cases and saw that the Russian very well might fit in the .44-40 chamber, I was surprised and intrigued. Now, I have not compared pressure specs and other things, but given the very different design of the cartridges, it just seems like not a good thing to try. Assuming the pressures are okay, maybe in an emergency situation, but I still think you'd have to custom load the Russians with .44-40 sized bullets. Just seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. And as far as asking goes, consider the following.... "I have a gun chambered for .357 Magnum. Can I safely shoot .38 Long Colt in it?" You will get many responses along the lines of how it is perfectly safe to do so, and perhaps the history of the cartridges. Now on the other hand, if you ask, "I have a Colt 1894 chambered for .38 Long Colt, and I noticed that .357 Magnums fit in it. Is it safe to shoot those in it?" you will get very loud and vocal answers about how this is good way to blow up your gun and potentially cause yourself great harm. Some of the responses will try to be informative and explanatory, and some will be very judgmental. But you know, I think it IS a question that should be asked from time to time, as there just might be people who simply don't know the answer. And in a way, it's not an unreasonable question to ask. There are many cartridges that can be fired in guns that are chambered for something else. From smaller to larger, the following progressions are perfectly safe. (But not the other way around.) .22 Short --- .22 Long --- .22 LR .32 Short Colt --- .32 Long Colt .32 S&W --- .32 S&W Long --- .32 H&R Magnum --- .327 Federal. .38 S&W --- .38-44 Target (Not the same as the 38-44 that was the forerunner to .357 Magnum) .38 Short Colt --- .38 Long Colt --- .38 Special --- (.38-44) --- .357 Magnum --- .357 Maximum .44 Russian --- .44 Special --- .44 Magnum .45 S&W* --- .45 Colt --- .454 Casull --- 460 S&W Magnum. *.45 S&W is not an exact match in that it is exactly same as a ,45 Colt made shorter. But it will usually work. Given these examples, it is perhaps logical to wonder if other cartridges can fit in other places. Nothing wrong with asking with an eye to learning the answer. I'll shoot with you any time.

Looking at the specs for the cartridges, it LOOKS like the .44 Russian might fit in the space before the bottleneck of the .44-40. I suppose if you load the .44 Special with the .428" bullets it might work, but... It just seems like NOT a good idea on several levels. Just because you CAN do something does not mean that you SHOULD. Next thing you know, we'll have dinosaurs running amuck in our cities.

Much discussion and argument has been offered over if a gun should be restored or not. For me, it very much depends on the gun, and what kind of condition it is in. If it's not shootable as is, but can be made to be shootable, all bets are off. Guns exist to be fired, and do whatever it takes to make them that way. But once that is done, how much farther do you go? What about guns that are shootable, but just don't look so great? This is where the arguments get started. Personally, I think that in some cases, maybe it's a good idea. In recent weeks, I have heavily pondered the idea of having one or more of my guns restored. I've done some research, more or less discovered how EXPENSIVE the most respected name in the restoration game is, seen the work of others that look just as good, but don't cost nearly as much, and considered various other factors. In the end, each individual owner must decide for himself, or herself, if the gun is to be restored beyond basic functionality. And by restored, I mean returned to its original appearance as closely as possible, not a simple reblue. All of that being said, I think that there are guns that some of us would look at and say, "I'd have that restored," and others for the exact same gun, would say, "I'd leave that alone." I have come to feel that none of us are right or wrong in that area. Perhaps there are even some guns that no one would ever consider any changes to whatsoever. For example, if I could afford to own it, I would not even think about restoring Colt SAA 1, or a Winchester owned by President Roosevelt. But beyond such historically significant things, well, there is room for consideration, even if the consideration leads to taking no action. Okay, enough talk. This a Marlin 1888 in .32-20. I have replaced the missing rear sight. But to me, this gun should now be left alone. It may not be pristine, but it still looks pretty nice, and it has acquired its aged look honestly. This in the other hand is a Costa Rican Army surplus Colt Lightning. It is NOT nickeled. That's just the reflection off the surface that has had all of its original finish rubbed away. I have also had some mechanical work done to it to make it work properly. It was not extracting fired shells, and I had Lassiter fix it. This I think is a good candidate for restoration. Some might balk at that due to its relative rarity, and I get that, but this is one that I will consider. Now this Marlin 1892, I think is also a good candidate. It looks similar to the above 1888, but it has had extensive repair work done to it. The magazine tube is not original, and it needed some action work to make it functional. Since it's already had to be worked on to make it work, it's a good one to take the rest of the way. Ironically, if I had found it in this condition and it was just honest aging, I'd leave it alone. This Marlin 1889 is similar to the above Colt No original finish left, and you can see the scrub marks from the steel wool that stripped it clean. Oddly, the butt looks like it's nickel plated and completely unmarred. I do have a Cody letter for it, but it does not say what its original finish was. Just to be different, if were to have this gun redone, I'd leave the butt as is. This one right now is at the top of the list for potential consideration. I am thinking that if I have it done, and if I am happy with the results, I'll consider other things. This Winchester 73 will remain untouched. I've seen much better, and far worse, looking guns, but this one I think is fine the way it is. On the other hand, this Winchester 86 may someday see some work. The magazine is not original. It came with a full length magazine originally, but someone chopped it to a button length, and the original 24" barrel has been cut to 20" While the barrel itself still has nice bluing, everything else is faded away, and of course, the magazine looks brand new. All of that adds up to it being an option to consider. And for now, I'm gonna leave it at that. I do have various pistols that I'd consider, and a couple of shotguns. (Interesting aside, for some time now, restoring vintage shotguns has been seen as much more acceptable in the collector field for some reason) But I am really not worried about what all of this does to the "collector value" of my guns. I am much more interested in how it would enhance my enjoyment of owning them.. What do other people have that they have had restored? Or that they are considering? You may have seen other threads from me in recent weeks where I have touched in this concept. Some of the more elaborate ideas I was considering are gone. After much thought and debate, this thread reflects my current thoughts on the subject, especially with regard to the types of guns I'd consider. That said, would anyone be interested in a similar thread on pistols or shotguns? Let me say also that, just for theoretical purposes, that there are 10 guns total that I would absolutely consider "worth" restoring. I doubt if more than 2 or 3 of them will have that done to them, for various reasons.

Technically, there still is a Winchester Company. They haven't made any guns since 1983, allowing other makers to put their name on them. But they DO still make ammuniition.

I suspect that the barrels have been cut for various reasons. First, the gun just has that "cut barrel look" to it. But more importantly, I found this on the LC Smith Collectors Association website... How can I determine if the barrels of my L.C. Smith have been cut? The best way to confirm the original configuration of a gun would be to request a Research Letter Unfortunately, Shipping Ledger information may be limited, or may not exist. Any length other than exactly 26, 28, 30, or 32 inches would be suspect, but 24, 25, and 27 inches barrels have been documented. At the muzzle, the barrels should be touching, or just slightly apart. About 1898 Hunter Arms began milling a notch in the top and bottom ribs for grades ABOVE No. 00 & 0 and post-1913 Field and Ideal. Okay, it's not a standard barrel length and there is no notch. But, that's not a deal breaker for me. My first Parker, well, my Dad's, had the barrels cut back to 19" long before he owned it, and it is a sweet gun. And, while I am not specifically tied to an LC Smith, so far this is the ONLY old time shotgun I have been able to find with external hammers that does NOT have Damascus barrels. Since everything else I have been able to find, including another Smith with 30" barrels that is in much nicer shape for less money, has Damascus tubes, I can't be too choosey. Yes, I know I could buy something new, or at least newer, but I really enjoy having and shooting old guns when I can. I am still on the fence, but I am leaning towards it. As I said, it's about the only type of a Cowboy gun that I don't have one of, and it's from a well known vintage maker. I'll probably make a decision tomorrow.

One of the few things I don't have in my collection is a SxS shotgun with external hammers. I have a line on a Hunter Arms 12 gauge with the hammers for $500. It's not the prettiest thing, but seems to be in sound, shootable condition. Other than knowing that Hunter Arms had a connection to LC Smith, I know very little about the company, or the guns they made. What I know about this one in specific is as follows: 24-1/2" barrels. That's shorter than I normally go for, but I can live with them being so short. Don't seem to be any indication as to what the chokes are. They barrels are labeled "ROYAL STEEL" and do not seem to be Damascus. Double triggers. It looks like a gun that has been used over the course of its life, and while it doesn't look great, it does function properly and is in good mechanical condition. Anyway, I am very ignorant of these guns. Does anyone know anything about them? I think this is a reasonable price, but that comes with the assumption on my part that it is a well made gun and not a piece of junk from a bygone era. Anyone have any thoughts? Additional Information: The receiver is stamped LC Smith on both sides. The ROYAL STEEL stamp is on one barrel. The other barrel is stamped, HUNTER ARMS Co. MAKERS, FULTON, N. J. That J. is a guess, as it's fainter than the N.

Sounds like Massachusetts. While anything made before 1898 is an antique and not a firearm according to US Federal Law, in Massachusetts, if it fires cartridge ammunition that is "readily available" commercially, then the Commonwealth considers it to be a "modern firearm" and it must be treated accordingly. So, if you have a Colt Lighting made made in 1897 in .32-20, it's not an antique, and must be registered, can not be owned without a permit, etc. Where it get's really confusing though is that Massachusetts has specifically exempted C&R guns from certain restrictions, as long as you have the C&R FFL. Most significantly, if it's a C&R gun, you can buy/import it into the state even if under normal circumstances it would not be allowed. So, an AR-15 made in 1973 is C&R and thus is a way to get around the state's "Assault Weapons" ban. Now, what is a C&R gun? Something either on the list, or anything over 50 years old. But what does this mean for cartridge arms that are antiques according to Federal Law? Is the above mentioned 1897 vintage Colt a C&R gun? Well, it's over 50 years old. So, yes. BUT, according the the Federal definition, it's an antique, so, no. For example, here's a line of the C&R List... Colt, Lightning rifles, mfd. in 1899 through 1904. So that would suggest that anything made in 1898 or earlier is not C&R. Of course, by FEDERAL law, it doesn't matter, as they are antiques and not regulated. So, where does that leave my above mentioned Lightning? I have no idea. Nor, does it seem, does anyone else. I could go on. Recent changes here about mandatory registration complicate things even further. Until the changes, it was not uncommon to be able to go into a local gun store and by a (Federal) antique gun and not fill out any paperwork. I have several guns in my collection that fall into that category, and they were not registered. Not wishing to spend much time in a local "House of Correction" as they are termed here, they are now. But I had to remember to not register them as antiques, but as handguns or rifles because they are considered modern firearms. The antique box on the registration form would be for a muzzle loader or a cap and ball revolver. Joy.

Ah, okay. Never heard that one before. I sometimes find myself almost using them, and then I remember the admonition of my teachers to spell it out the first time so people know what it is. The real kicker is the various "Internet Anacronyms" that have worked their way into the language to the point that they are almost words now. Things like LOL, FWIW, IIRC, XXX and many others. Even then, with this exception of LOL, I tend to either write them out, or use a different working altogether. But I am a strange person who overthinks things. And BTW; (er... By The Way) Laughing Out Loud, For What It's Worth, If I Recall Correctly, and of course, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

FIFY?

An interesting idea. I can see merit to it, and how there would also be howls of protest. Those who primarily shoot for a clean match would not care, as they would do it anyway. Those who are serious competitors for the belt buckle might lament how it would take longer than just accepting a miss. I can also see objections along the lines of it's not fair to those who have to make the attempt against those who don't. Somewhat akin to the traditional arguments against a bonus target. On the other hand, if the stage was written so that after the 10 rifle rounds you load one more to shoot at one more target probably wouldn't raise a single eyebrow because everyone HAS to do the reload. Not really sure how I would vote on this if I was given the ability to say yea or nay.

Because I have multiple pistols chambered for the .32S&W Long and the .32 S&W, but only one in .32 H&R Magnum. Plus, I am not set up to reload the H&R round. So, I run S&Ws in that pistol. Or .32-20s with its other cylinder.

Some rifles are easier to reload, and can be done multiple ways. 1. Colt Lightning: With the bolt open, stuff a round in through the loading gate and cycle the action to chamber it. OR stuff the round directly into the chamber. Directly into chamber is quicker. 2. Henry: With the action open, push down the carrier and stuff a round into the chamber. Reloading from the front is not really an option. 3. Winchester 66/73: As with they Henry, OR close the bolt and put one in through the gate. Cycle and fire. Personally, I find the second option eaiier. 4. Winchester 92: With bolt open stuff round into chamber, OR close the bolt and go through the gate. I find into the chamber easier. 5. Marlin 88. With the bolt open, stuff into chamber. OR close the bolt and go through the gate. As you saw in the video, I found the going into the chamber to be somewhat awkward. This may be due to the fact that it's a .32-20, and not much room to fiddle around with. 6. Marlin 92. Reloading from the front is not a good idea. But that .32 Colt round is small, and there's not a lot of room to stuff it into the chamber. Still, this really the only way to do it. I'd be more tempted to take the miss if using this rifle than any other of the clean match was gone. 7. Marling 89/94. (Essentially the same gun) I find going in from the side on these guns to be awkward. Not as bad as with the 92, but more of hassle than a top loader, so I'd say close the bolt and go through the gate. 8. Winchester 94 in .44 Magnum (Pre 83) Same as the 92, in my experience. And, this gun gets a bad rap. It actually works rather well, if you can find one. Maybe the far more common post 83s with angle eject are so inferior that this is where the bad reputation comes from? 9. Marlin 336 in .44 Magnum. I don't have one of these yet, but I have a feeling that going in through the side will be easier than the 94. Pure speculation. 10. Spencer. Loading through the top for a jacked out round, or just the last 3 is FAR superior to trying to reload through the butt. And that's my assessment.

Okay, so you are saying that the shorter rounds won't work? The S&W Long has an OAL of 1.280" according to Wiki, and the S&W is just .920"

Unless I have already lost the clean match, I will take as long as is needed to reload that jacked out shot. Using a marlin 88, but it didn't matter...

For the record .32 S&W < .32 S&W Long < .32 H&R Magnum < .327 Federal. Akin to .38 Short Colt < .38 Long Colt < .38 Special <.357 Magnum < .357 Maximum Akin to (but separate from) .32 Short Colt < .32 Long Colt Akin to (but separate from) .38 S&W < .38-44 Target Okay, that's what I was more or less hoping to hear. Glad to know at least the Long will work.

I have a very specific question for anyone out here who happens to own one of those very rare Marlin 94's chambered for .32 H&R Magnum. You know, the one that looks a heck of a lot more like a recreation of the Marlin 92 than the 94. There is something that I wonder about, that can only be answered by someone who owns one. Original 92s, when chambered for ".32 Centerfire" could cycle .32 Long Colt, or .32 Short Colt. Can the modern 94's chambered for .32 H&R Magnum, cycle .32 S&W Long and/or .32 S&W? Seems like an obvious question to ask, and I am wondering what the answer is for various reasons.

Heh heh. In New England, we grill outside all year round! No matter how cold and snowy it gets!

On Everybody Loves Raymond, Patricia Heaton (Deborah) was pregnant I think twice. Both times they hid it it with bulky clothes, blankets and camera angles. But you can still tell that she was with child. They even did at least one episode where the "flashed back" to when she was pregnant with her in show kids so they didn't have to hide it. On The Big Bang Theory, Melissa Rauch, who played Bernadette, was "pregnant" via the use of a pillow. After they finished that story line, the actress got pregnant in real life. If I recall correctly, it was a surprise. Anyway, they then wrote her real life pregnancy into the show as her characters second one. The writing in/hiding of pregnancies has been happening on TV shows since almost the beginning of television. And on a completely unrelated topic... Alpo! Are you pondering what I'm pondering? (If you know, you know)

I find the differences between similar sized Colts and S&W DA revolvers to be of the 6 of one, half a dozen of the other variety. That said, I'd go with the S&W in your case because you are familiar with it. That being said, rather than take a friend's gun, I would do the following... 1. Tell the police of the threat and that you fear for your life. 2. Assuming that you are not for some reason not now prohibited, go and buy another pistol.