Time to crank back up the Caliber War!

[red-beard]

I love my Colt 1903 in .380 ACP. It has basically a 4" barrel, is thin, has some weigh to it. With the weight, .380ACP has almost no recoil. This was the "Gangster Gun" in the 1920s and 1930s. It easily fits in a pocket. The only downside is switching magazines quickly would be awkward.

I had it gone through by a gun smith and then it was done in Robar to protect it from the Houston humidity.

The biggest downside to .380 is the price/availability of ammo.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by red-beard

I love my Colt 1903 in .380 ACP. It has basically a 4" barrel, is thin, has some weigh to it. With the weight, .380ACP has almost no recoil. This was the "Gangster Gun" in the 1920s and 1930s. It easily fits in a pocket. The only downside is switching magazines quickly would be awkward.

I had it gone through by a gun smith and then it was done in Robar to protect it from the Houston humidity.

The biggest downside to .380 is the price/availability of ammo.

My favorite 380s to have held and shot are the two I've actually owned - a Llama scale model 1911 (right down to barrel bushing and such) and a Bersa.

Bersa wasn't bad - DA/SA, thin, light and it was 100% reliable with the ball ammo I was feeding it. Would've had no problems carrying it if it ate 100 rounds in a row w/o issue of good HP ammo (Hornady XTP or similar).

The Llama was just pure 1911 joy in a scaled down package. I think the closest to the Llama without hunting down one (and there are tons out there) is the Browning offering.

[Jeff Hail]

Originally Posted by MRM

For years the High Standard .22 target pistol was the CIA's handgun of choice. It used to be said that if you were confronted by an adversary waving a .22, you needed to be very wary. He was either an extraordinarily well trained killer, or an out of control amateur. Either one was too dangerous to tangle with.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-cia-still-probably-still-uses-some-of-the-high-standard-spy-pistols-it-bought-during-world-war-9a84e2ab37a5

I would believe the cia may still use them. Very accurate, reliable and well made. I have a Model A made in 1938. Cleans targets as well as my Browning. Doesnt look a day past 25.

[Jeff Hail]

Originally Posted by masraum

I was going to post, unless you're hunting flies and mosquitos, your caliber had better start with a 5. But I see you're on board!

Big bores are fun to play with. Cars, barrels, its all the same. 2,243 ft-lbs of kinetic energy is the same as getting hit with a 1974 RSR IROC

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Wetwork

10mm Glock seems to be the hands down winner in the Alaska/Montana "Oh crap a charging brown bear?" Not the 9's or 44'mags. Seems many hard, fast hits on critter is king. Google is your friend.-WW
ps. Humans aren't bears.

While my activities in this regard have slowed markedly in the last ten years, I spent a good 30+ years actively hunting big game at just about every opportunity. My wife complained I "wasted" far too much of my vacation and free time in this pursuit, but that's another discussion.

In that time, I managed to hunt quite a few western states (including Alaska and Montana on many occasions). I often hired guides for my out of state forays, splitting costs with my hunting partners. We never once met a guide, or anyone on his staff (cooks, horse wranglers, general camp chore personnel, etc.), who carried a semi auto pistol of any kind. Not once. Ever. Big bore revolvers, at least in my first hand observations over the years, absolutely rule this roost.

One of their seldom discussed, but key attributes that professional guides value is their reliability under the adverse conditions encountered on extended stays in the wilderness. The guides I've hunted with just don't trust semi autos under those conditions, regardless of how "good" modern pistols have become. Coastal Alaska with its constantly wet, salt air environment, bone chilling cold and snow in Montana - both can and will interfere with the function of a semi auto before they will affect a revolver.

Then, of course, there is always the "power" available in a big bore revolver. We are looking for a different kind of "power" in this application. Penetration is the only thing that matters - forget expansion, velocity, "shocking power", or any of that. Penetration. Period. If it won't get through their thick skulls, if it won't go deep enough to get to the vitals, it simply doesn't matter how "hard" or how "fast" you hit them. Superficial surface wounds won't stop them, no matter how many you can inflict. Penetration. Did I mention penetration?

The only way we achieve sufficient penetration in handguns is through tough bullets that are very heavy for caliber. The guides I hunted with all liked 300 to 320 grain bullets in their .44's, 300 to 350 grains in their .45's. No semi auto in this range of bore sizes will handle that kind of bullet weight. That in and of itself rules them out for these guys. Add in the other factors mentioned above and, well, like I said - I never met anyone in one of our hunting camps armed with any kind of semi auto.

[MRM]

Interesting. The real “Major” Boothroyd who convinced Ian Fleming to switch James Bond out of the .25 auto tried to get Fleming to give Bond a revolver. After considerable correspondence and Boothroyd becoming a friend of Fleming’s, they compromised on the PPK. To recognize his assistance, Fleming created the character of Q and named him Major Boothroyd in his honor. In real life Boothroyd was a civilian, but he was a weapons expert who wrote several books on small arms.

I don’t remember why Boothroyd wanted Bond to have a revolver, but it was probably for the reasons Jeff just posted.

[john70t]

A real CIA agent would have put 3rds of .22lr into each eyeball of that bear.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Jeff Hail

I would believe the cia may still use them. Very accurate, reliable and well made. I have a Model A made in 1938. Cleans targets as well as my Browning. Doesnt look a day past 25.

Very nice, Jeff. Gotta loved the old High Standards. Their Match King remains the only American made pistol to have ever won an Olympic Gold Medal.

Here is my late '50's Sport King. Not long after this High Standard reduced the angle of the grip to more closely match that of the 1911, in an effort to help three gun match competitors transition between pistols more easily.

[Jeff Higgins]

Dropping off the first page... time for a bump...

My personal favorite handgun cartridge remains the venerable old .45 Colt. I "use" it for just about every chore suited to a handgun.

Low velocity, low pressure plinking loads comprised of a 250 grain cast bullet over light charges of W-W 231 or Unique go about 800 fps with minimal recoil. The same bullet over a full 40 grain charge of FFFg black powder will sneak up on 1,000 fps from a 7 1/2" barrel, and give us the full experience of the original loads. These are shown on the left.

Next up is my "+P" load, a 270 grain cast bullet loaded over a stout charge of 2400. This load is suitable for both sizes of Ruger single actions, as well as limited use in modern made Colts. It will touch 1,000 fps from a 4 1/2" barrel, 1,100 from a 7 1/2". It's the one in the center.

Finally, on the right, is my "bear load". It's a 300 grain cast bullet, which I load over a pretty stiff charge of W-W 296 or H110 (they are the same powder) for over 1,200 fps. This is decidedly a large fram Ruger only load. It would completely disassemble a Colt. Notice, too, its overall length is longer than the other two. It's too long to fit a Colt or small frame Ruger cylinder, providing a definitive safety feature to prevent any accidents.



Here is a pretty good representation of why we don't want to mix these up. On the left is a cylinder from an Interarms Virginian Dragoon, which is another single action of the size and strength of the large frame Ruger. On the right is a Colt cylinder. The difference in cylinder wall thickness is quite apparent.



So, granted, hand loading will provide similar versatility to many other revolver rounds. The .44 mag has a similarly broad range, for instance. What I like about the .45 Colt, though, is it will meet or beat .44 mag ballistics at far lower pressures. These lower pressures translate to less "bark", less noise, which I find quite noticeable when hunting. It just doesn't sting the ears as much and, since I really don't like hunting with ear plugs in, that's important to me.

[Por_sha911]

I love my Ruger 45 Colt but it is in the upper end of and the average Joe doesn't carry it for EDC or use it for backyard plinking.
Underwood makes some nice loads for those who don't reload.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Dropping off the first page... time for a bump...

My personal favorite handgun cartridge remains the venerable old .45 Colt. I "use" it for just about every chore suited to a handgun.

Low velocity, low pressure plinking loads comprised of a 250 grain cast bullet over light charges of W-W 231 or Unique go about 800 fps with minimal recoil. The same bullet over a full 40 grain charge of FFFg black powder will sneak up on 1,000 fps from a 7 1/2" barrel, and give us the full experience of the original loads. These are shown on the left.

Next up is my "+P" load, a 270 grain cast bullet loaded over a stout charge of 2400. This load is suitable for both sizes of Ruger single actions, as well as limited use in modern made Colts. It will touch 1,000 fps from a 4 1/2" barrel, 1,100 from a 7 1/2". It's the one in the center.

Finally, on the right, is my "bear load". It's a 300 grain cast bullet, which I load over a pretty stiff charge of W-W 296 or H110 (they are the same powder) for over 1,200 fps. This is decidedly a large fram Ruger only load. It would completely disassemble a Colt. Notice, too, its overall length is longer than the other two. It's too long to fit a Colt or small frame Ruger cylinder, providing a definitive safety feature to prevent any accidents.



Here is a pretty good representation of why we don't want to mix these up. On the left is a cylinder from an Interarms Virginian Dragoon, which is another single action of the size and strength of the large frame Ruger. On the right is a Colt cylinder. The difference in cylinder wall thickness is quite apparent.



So, granted, hand loading will provide similar versatility to many other revolver rounds. The .44 mag has a similarly broad range, for instance. What I like about the .45 Colt, though, is it will meet or beat .44 mag ballistics at far lower pressures. These lower pressures translate to less "bark", less noise, which I find quite noticeable when hunting. It just doesn't sting the ears as much and, since I really don't like hunting with ear plugs in, that's important to me.

Do you cast your own or where do you get yours from? I've got a single hole mold for my C&B revolver (.451" round balls) and could certainly use a few different designs for my 54 but I'm not sure I want to get into yet another hobby

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by id10t

Do you cast your own or where do you get yours from? I've got a single hole mold for my C&B revolver (.451" round balls) and could certainly use a few different designs for my 54 but I'm not sure I want to get into yet another hobby

I cast my own. For handgun loads, I use old wheel weights obtained from the local tire stores. Those days are, however, coming to an end. Modern stick on wheel weights have some zinc in them, which makes for terrible bullets. The old crimp on weights were a lead and antimony alloy, about the perfect hardness for revolver bullets. I use a 20:1 lead/tin alloy purchased from a local smelter for rifle bullets. Once my remaining 1,000 pounds of old wheel weights gets used up, I'll just switch to the 20:1 for revolver bullets as well.

I've covered this before, but it bears repeating - the very best revolver bullets available are those we cast at home. Commercial manufacturers simply cannot provide us with the quality and performance we can provide for ourselves, for a number of reasons. Granted, it takes a level of commitment not everyone is prepared to make, but the results are worth it, especially for those of us who hunt with revolvers. Cast bullet performance on game is head and shoulders above anything available commercially.

Here is just one rainy Saturday morning's worth of production. I cast with 2-3 molds at a time, which really speeds things up. Sometimes three different bullets, sometimes identical. I have 2-3 molds for the designs I shoot the most. And it's worth pointing out that, other than my time, these bullets are "free".



Here are the three projectiles I use in my .54's. On the left is a commercially swaged round ball. So darn cheap, and so darn good, I have no reason to cast them. Next is from a Thompson Center mold, their 430 grain Maxi Ball. Next is from a Lyman mold, their 460 grain Great Plains bullet, which I have used to take a pretty fair number of game animals. I shoot it out of my T/C Hawken that I built back in about 1980, using a load of 120 grains of Swiss 1.5 FFg. All are pure lead, the only thing to use in muzzle loaders.



The old T/C "Hawken":

[id10t]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I cast my own. For handgun loads, I use old wheel weights obtained from the local tire stores. Those days are, however, coming to an end. Modern stick on wheel weights have some zinc in them, which makes for terrible bullets. The old crimp on weights were a lead and antimony alloy, about the perfect hardness for revolver bullets. I use a 20:1 lead/tin alloy purchased from a local smelter for rifle bullets. Once my remaining 1,000 pounds of old wheel weights gets used up, I'll just switch to the 20:1 for revolver bullets as well.

I've covered this before, but it bears repeating - the very best revolver bullets available are those we cast at home. Commercial manufacturers simply cannot provide us with the quality and performance we can provide for ourselves, for a number of reasons. Granted, it takes a level of commitment not everyone is prepared to make, but the results are worth it, especially for those of us who hunt with revolvers. Cast bullet performance on game is head and shoulders above anything available commercially.

Here is just one rainy Saturday morning's worth of production. I cast with 2-3 molds at a time, which really speeds things up. Sometimes three different bullets, sometimes identical. I have 2-3 molds for the designs I shoot the most. And it's worth pointing out that, other than my time, these bullets are "free".



Here are the three projectiles I use in my .54's. On the left is a commercially swaged round ball. So darn cheap, and so darn good, I have no reason to cast them. Next is from a Thompson Center mold, their 430 grain Maxi Ball. Next is from a Lyman mold, their 460 grain Great Plains bullet, which I have used to take a pretty fair number of game animals. I shoot it out of my T/C Hawken that I built back in about 1980, using a load of 120 grains of Swiss 1.5 FFg. All are pure lead, the only thing to use in muzzle loaders.



The old T/C "Hawken":

Yeah, I get the Maxis for my 54 from Dixie Gun Works, $45 for 100 of 'em delivered and they show up 3 days after clicking "submit order". Not sure between equipment, time, and obtaining materials I can get close to that price and convenience.

That curved butt plate on the Hawkins must be fun with a full load.... my stock is synthetic (ugh, but for $120...) and has no recoil pad but at least it is flat.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by id10t

Yeah, I get the Maxis for my 54 from Dixie Gun Works, $45 for 100 of 'em delivered and they show up 3 days after clicking "submit order". Not sure between equipment, time, and obtaining materials I can get close to that price and convenience.

That curved butt plate on the Hawkins must be fun with a full load.... my stock is synthetic (ugh, but for $120...) and has no recoil pad but at least it is flat.

Depends on how much you shoot and how long you want to amortize the cost of the equipment. I just added it up using current prices from Midway. For the furnace, dipper, mold, and mold handles, you're looking at about $250. That will get you casting one bullet for a muzzle loader. Cartridge guns will require a lubricator/sizer press and the appropriate dies, for an additional $275 for the two.

Once you have the furnace, dipper (not required if you use a bottom pour furnace), mold handles, and lubricator/sizer, all you need for additional calibers is the appropriate mold and lubricator/sizer die.

So, yeah, not cheap as far as the initial investment. It all depends on how much you shoot, how much you are going to use this stuff. I use mine a lot. The only handgun bullets I shoot, with rare exception, come out of my own molds. All of the bullets fired from my straight walled rifle cases come out of my own molds. The only bullets I purchase are jacketed bullets for my bottle necked rifle rounds, and very rarely jacketed bullets for the semi auto pistols that I use when assembling some defensive loads. I buy round balls for my .50 and .54 muzzle loaders, but have to cast for the .72. All of the maxi ball style bullets I cast myself.

I'm sure that over the last 40 years of doing this I've saved thousands of dollars. But, that said, one of the running jokes in these circles is that we "cast bullets and reload to save money". Nonsense, and we all know it. We just shoot more...

And, yes, that crescent butt plate is a real joy with those 120 grain loads behind that 460 grain Plains bullet. I just keep telling myself it hurts more on the other end.

[GH85Carrera]

No pistol rounds here!

Ironically the two main anti aircraft weapons of the US Navy in WW2 (the Bofors and the Oerlikon) were first produced by a foreign country, who intern sold the design to both sides of the war (Italy on the Axis side). Germany did not buy it and had to rely on captured pieces. The Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 (often referred to simply as the "Bofors 40 mm gun", the "Bofors gun" is an anti-aircraft autocannon, designed in the 1930s by the Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors. The gun was designed as an intermediate anti-aircraft gun, filling the gap between fast firing close-range small calibre anti-aircraft guns and slower firing long-range high calibre anti-aircraft guns, a role which previously was filled by older outdated guns. The Bofors 40 mm L/60 was for its time perfectly suited for this role and outperformed competing designs in the years leading up to World War II in both effectiveness and reliability. American examples were made by Chrysler.