H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

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.

The Hawkeye looks interesting. The Colt looks like a single shot version of a DA revolver, so it's a bit "out of the era" but it is still cool. Reminds me of the single shot version of the S&W of their final top break design. Thinking about it, .22's aside, I am not surprised that there are not a lot of larger caliber single shot pistols. I guess that unless I can find another S&W 1891 in .38 S&W, the only other real option is a Rolling Block, either an original or a reproduction is fine by me. In fact, if I see that .38 Special Rolling Block that has been at the last 3 gunshows I went to again, it'll probably come home with me. There probably are other things out there, but I have a feeling that they are exceedingly rare. Although, the Bond Cyclops is intriguing to me. I just wish they had a more traditional finish! Maybe I'll customize one someday.

The more I research, the more it seems to me that centerfire single shot pistols, other than the Rolling Block and the S&W, did not seem to exist all that much back in the day. I find that curious.

Okay.... From Luke chapter 22. 35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Now, I'm semi-taking it out of context, but I don't think it is an error to do so. The larger passage is making more points than this, but I feel it is legitimate to say that this part of it is tell us that, even when we are out working as missionaries, we need to take proper precautions out in the wide an dangerous world. We have a general responsibility to make sure we provide for ourselves as we go, and we need to be prepared to defend ourselves if necessary. And lest I fall into the trap of writing an entire sermon at this point, I shall leave it at that.

This preacher packs a pistol.

Part of the reason I bring this up is because I think that a single shot pistol side match would be a lot of fun. Either by itself or as one gun in a battery of guns that you'd take a couple of shots with each. There are a plethora of single shot rifles in both rifle and pistol calibers, 22 rifles and shotguns out there, but the options for pistols, in any caliber from .22 Short to .50-70 (I've seen one!) seem to be much more limited. There is the Rolling Block, the S&W 1891, and a Trapdoor Springfield pistol. This one might not even count. As far as I know Springfield Armory may 1 prototype, fired it once, and said, "Bad idea," and that was the end of it. It's on display at the Armory, which is where i saw it. More numerous are some Trapdoor rifles that were "converted" to pistols in Hollywood for use in pirate movies, but I have no idea how many still exist. There would also be NFA 34 concerns, I think. Then there are plethora of small derringer type guns that were made back in the day, all of which seem to have only been .22's Bond Arms does make what amounts to a single barrel version of their derringer called the Cyclops, and that seems to be it. I am not including things like the Thompson Contender or bolt action .223s as they would not be something that fits in our game. So what it comes down to, for a single shot pistol to be used in a theoretical side match, there don't seem to be a lot of options to choose from, and most of them are .22s. As far as I can determine. I have seen single shot conversion of the Webley revolver, now that I think of it, but if memory serves, again, they are a .22. Curious. BTW, potential single shot side match battery.... From top to bottom; 12 gauge shotgun, .45-70 rifle, .32 S&W rifle, .22 rifle, 22 pistol.

.22 Hornet. For some reason, I've been seeing a lot about this cartridge ever since I got this pistol in that caliber... It's not a single shot, but it is a single action.