H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

I have an interesting "conundrum." I have a very nice USFA China Camp model revolver, with an original box. But it's not THE original box. Among other things, the box says the pistol that came in it was a 7.5" in barreled one, and mine is a 5.5" thing. Long story short, if anybody out there owns a USFA revolver with a box that says 5.5" but your gun is a 7.5" one, I'd be interested in trading with you.

Stupid.

Or you can try .38 Short Colt.

Then how can they offer .45 ACP cylinders?

Just to clarify, I am talking about the Lightning rifle. Also, specifically replicas thereof since .38 Special was not a chambering in the original Colts. Interesting to hear that Cowboy .45 Special will run in a .45 Colt one.

This is something I have always "known," I guess, but somehow it just became more obvious to me this evening. When you look at Colt revolvers of the cartridge era from the 1870s to the 1890's, you are immediately aware that every model is different. Both single and double action guns of that era (not including anything with a swing out cylinder) are all unique. A couple of specific models have some similarities, but it is fair to say that the various Colt revolvers were very different from one another. On the other hand, Smith & Wesson top breaks, are all very similar. Almost to the point where the entire line from the 1-1/2 to the New Model 3 are all just variations on the same theme. The only real differences are size, and some superficial differences like spur or "regular" trigger. Even the single and double actions of the period are basically all variations on the same theme. Even the Scofield with its unique locking latch is action wise not all that different from everything else. Not sure what, if anything, this means, but it is an interesting observation. From a practical standpoint, it might have saved S&W a lot of costs on the development side since they already had a design they used for everything.

I got my Arizona CCW in the mail earlier this week. But just today I noticed the lower right hand corner of it... That, is a road runner! But there is no coyote?

To my fellow Lightning shooters, and specifically anyone who owns one chambered for .38 Special. Will they run a .38 Long Colt? I know a .45 Colt will run Schofields, so I guess it's possible. Wondering if anyone knows,

To all my fellow Yankees. Does anyone here happen to own a single action revolver in .475 Lingebaugh? It can be either the Freedom Arms or the BFR, it just needs to be in that caliber. I do NOT wish to purchase it, or fire it or anything like that. But I do need to physically see one. I will explain details in a PM to anyone who inquires. I am doing some research for a long term project. (If this belongs in the Saloon, I ask it be moved there.)

Big hole in them. Not wearable in my book.

I had a line on one of these Stingers in .32-20 a few years ago. But I JUST missed out on it. Haven't seen another one here since.

No, I'd not want to do any changes that can't be easily reversed. That said, it LOOKS like a magazine tube from a Marlin 92 in .32 might work, or maybe from a take down version of the 94. Clearly a question for a good gunsmith. I've often wondered why Marlin did not make them with a full length magazine. Or at least have that be an option.

I actually see 94s, and 89's in .32-20 on Gunbroker and Gunsinternational a lot. Specifically, pre-safety models are the ones I look for. Prices vary a lot. I am just waiting on the right combination of timing and available funds. That being said, I have have wondered about extending the magazine on the Marlin 27 pump...

You mean like on of these? https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1136147325 It's got a full length magazine...

My plan is that this will be a part of my collection. I will shoot it and enjoy it, and many years in the future, pass it on to my heirs. If I was gonna sell it, I'd sell it as is. In the end, I'll do one of two things, leave it alone or give it the Turnbull Treatment. Everyone should own at least one Turnbull finished gun. This is a good candidate. I don't think I'd ever be able to recoup the cost, but that's not the intent. Interestingly enough, the other gun in my collection I am considering Turnbullizing is this one... My infamous Big Iron. It's a heavily modified Armi San Marco. Has no collector value whatsoever. But it's kinda bland looking. If it had nicer bluing, nicer case colors and such, it'd be even more nifty. Maybe even get it engraved. I dunno. It's all speculation at this point.

One time year, I took 4 32-20s to a match to compare which one I was best with. In order of acquisition... Winchester 73 made in 1903 Winchester 92 made in 1909 Colt Lightning made in 1897 Marlin 1888 made in 1889 I was fastest with the Lightning. I have also obtained an Uberti 66 in the caliber. Somehow, this has led me to the idea of wanting to have as many different .32-20s as possible. With other calibers, it's been more random. This is the only one I want to have more examples of. For example, I'd really like to get one of those Martini Cadet rifles that has been converted to the caliber. And perhaps other single shots. A Marlin 94 is on the wish list. Not sure what other repeaters fit the caliber bill.

I am getting to the point where I, almost, feel like I have enough guns. (GASP!) But that being said, I have begun to ponder about how I can better enjoy the guns already in my collection. Now, although I have become a Lightning guy, my first love was lever actions, specifically Winchesters. Being a lefty, I was not really much interested in Marlins, even though I knew they were well made guns. Now, I guess my favorite Winchester, is this one... Obviously, it's a Winchester '73. I thought I was very lucky to find this one, it's in pretty decent shape, with honest wear for a gun of its age. It is also the specific gun that started my .appreciation for the .32-20 caliber. I really like this gun, and I very much like it "as is." Here's another interesting rifle... This is a Marlin 1888. Also a .32-20. Also showing honest wear for a gun of its age. I always wanted one of the top eject Marlins, and when I found this one, especially in this caliber, I grabbed it. Once again, I think this gun is great, "as is." And now for something completely different... Being a southpaw, I was never really all that interested in side eject Marlins, but the price was too good to pass up. Generically, I suppose I'd like to have one in .32-20, and even though this Model 1889 is a .44-40, I thought it was just too cool to ignore. But, while the two above guns exhibit honest aging, this one... Well... As you can see, a previous owner apparently scrubbed all the original finish off of it, with sandpaper or steel wool or something. In other words, it does not have honest wear. While it is mechanically fine, it sure is ugly. Those strange markings, I have no clue what they are. They are more intriguing than detracting, so they don't bother me. I may yet get a Marlin in .32-20. And since this one is a Model 1889, maybe a Model 1894 will be the way to go. Anyway, back to enjoying my guns. While I would not even consider doing anything to the 73 or the 88, I think that this 89 is a prime candidate for a trip to Turnbull. It only cost me $600 to begin with and the scrubbed off finish has already taken away any "collector" value. But that's not really something that I care about. As long as the gun is functional, that's the main thing to me. Honest wear and aging like on the first two guns gives it character and history. But this gun has had all of that scrubbed away, so I may as well make it pretty. Maybe. No decisions have been made. But if I do have it "restored," I may as well do it "right." Not asking for advice or opinions here, although they are always welcome, I just wanted to bring up a fun topic. There are other guns I may someday consider having done up nice, but who knows? I think this one makes for an intriguing possibility.

Hi all. Yesterday, I obtained an older Stevens single barrel shotgun in .410. The assumption was made that it is a pre-1968 gun as it has no serial number, but that may not be true. Take a look at the following pictures... As you can see, inside the receiver, inside the forestock and on whatever this part is, the number 328IN (Or IN328) is clearly visible. It would seem to me that this is the serial number. As you can see from the first pic, the gun is not in the best of shape cosmetically, but mechanically it is sound and as tight as can be. It'll make a good shooter. In addition to the serial number question, I am wondering what model it is, and perhaps even (roughly) when it was made. Here are some photos of all makings I could find. \\ The last one here is the inside of the buttplate. The right side of the receiver. The second pic includes a weird mark in the upper left. Second pic is after "cleaning." That is to say, rubbing the gun down with a parch soaked with Hoppes #9. It helps... And the gun itself after cleaning and reassembly. I am at a loss as to what this actually is. Could "THE FULLY GUARANTEED SINGLE GUN" be the actual model designation? Is that number on the innards the serial number? I will try to get a Cody letter, but their records for Stevens guns are, at best, limited, so I don't think they'll have anything. The lack of the word Savage and the reference to Chicopee, Mass instead of Westfield suggests a manufacture date of no later than 1960 when Savage moved Stevens out of the Chicopee location. It may also be indicative of a pre Savage purchase, which would mean pre-1920. It seems I have a mystery on my hands. No idea if it can be solved, but maybe someone here knows something, or at least knows where I can look. Thanks.

Addendum: The .45 that fit was one of my reloads. A factory .45 would not fit. I feel this confirms my feeling that .45 brass can not be used. I guess those 45/410 hybrid things are not something to go by. But after rereading the case dimensions of .444 and .410 I am still wondering if it’s possible. Ah, the joy of confusion! This is why you ask those more experienced than yourself before you try anything for real.

Well, I was able to do something today. I obtained a .410 shotgun. A Stevens single shot made before 1968. (It has no serial number.) Seems to be a very well made gun. Mechanics and bore are excellent. Has a lot of surface rust, but it does work, and for a hundred bucks, why not? Anyway... I don't yet have any .410 shotshells, so I decided to check some things. A .444 Marlin round dropped right into the chamber, but I could tell that it was a little "loose" in there. On the other hand, a .45 Colt also chambered, and it seemed to be a good fit. The cartridge seemed to fit pretty exactly. But, it was a little harder to close the gun. Nothing was binding or in the way, it was just tighter somehow. The lifter did lift the cartridge out with no problems. I also had some .454 Casull snap caps, and they fit the same way the .45 Colt did. They went it, did not have to be forced, but just seemed to be too tight somehow. So, here are my thoughts. In spite of everything I have read, I don't think using .444 Marlin brass to make all brass .410 shotshells is not a real idea. They are just too loose in the chamber. The only thing I can compare it too is putting a .38 Short Colt into a .38 S&W chamber. If "fits" but it is obviously not as big is it should be. Also, I don't think using .45 Colt, or by extension another case that is just a longer version of it, is a viable option either. Again, it fits, but my gut tells me it's not a "proper" fit. Well, I guess getting some Magtech brass and some proper dies in the near future. Now... All of that being said, I am wondering if anyone IS using any of this brass to reload .410 and if so, what has your experience been? Maybe I am overthinking it, and there are alternatives.

Normally, I shoot a 97, but I do enjoy using a SxS from time to time. My preferred one is a 12 gauge with 30" barrels with F/F chokes. I do have another 12 with 19" barrels with no choke, which was the first SxS I ever owned. In general, I like longer barrels because I don't miss with them. Also, they tend to not kick as badly as short barreled ones do. I also have a 20 gauge with 28" tubes with F/M chokes. It makes for a nice variation from time to time. All are fantastic guns that you absolutely can't go wrong with. All three of them can be summed up with one word. Once this word is spoken, there is nothing more to say, as they are without a doubt the finest doubles ever made anywhere in the whole wide world. And, yes, while you can spend a small fortune for one, without too much effort you can find one that is still a good shooter, even if it doesn't look so "great" anymore. I believe they are the first, last and almost the only name in SxS shotguns. That name... Parker. Nuff said.

Yeah, I've seen that. To me, that extra long cylinder just looks wrong. My "theory" is to use a Freedom Arms revolver, the one with he more or less traditional fixed sights, bore out the cylinder, install a properly bored barrel or bore out and line the existing one to .458". (A 10" barrel is preferred. Not sure if I want octagon or round.) As far as finish is concerned, if I modify an already existing gun, it doesn't matter. If they'll do it for me at the factory, I'll tell them to leave it in the white cuz it'll be going to Turnbull for a traditional finish. Maybe even engraving. Hey, if I am gonna do this, I may as well go all the way!

But, that's my point. You don't have to modify your rifle to use a shorter cartridge. The .45 Schofield will work with no modifications, and has the benefits of being shorter.

You know, if you wanna use a shorter cartridge in your .45 Colt rifles, and don't want to modify the gun, try .45 Schofield. I shot a clean match running it though my AWA Lightning. I've tested it in my Armi San Marco 92, and it works there too. It also works in my Uberti 66, so it'll probably work in a 73 or a Henry. It won't work in the Uberti Burgess though. Nothing against the C45S, it's a great round for use in pistols. But is it really worth the effort of modifying your rifle to get it to work, especially when you have to unmodify it use the original cartridge? And this comes from the guy who "invented" a new cartridge by trimming .45-70 back to .45 Colt length and calling it the .45-45. I created it for use as low power plinking round in single shot rifles. I was oddly surprised to find that it works in my Winchester 86, as long as you don't try to run it too fast. Won't run in a Colt Lighting or an Uberti 76, but that's not why I made it up. But I can't shake the desire to somehow have a custom revolver made for the cartridge...

From what I have been able to garner, the New Line and the New House were two very similar, but different models. Of course the data is limited online, so I might be making distinctions that did not exist at the time.