I really like revolvers. Both double action (on the left) and single action (on the right). I've recently sold off a few to fund military handgun acquisitions but I did just add the S&W Model 14 Target Masterpiece with the 8 3/8" barrel. (The long barrel, single action, on the top of the group photo is a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with a Bisley grip frame.)
Chiappa Rhino. Chambered in .357-Mag. Very interesting revolver. The round at the BOTTOM of the cylinder is the one fired / lined up with the barrel. This results in far less felt recoil / muzzle flip.
Shooting .38-SPL through it is quite easy. But, even .357-mags aren't bad at all. My S&W 642 Airweight has a much harsher recoil.
Yeah... the trigger "clockwork" is notorious on the Rhino. The result is a trigger pull that is not the greatest (in double action). The "hammer" isn't really a hammer, but rather a cocking lever for single action firing. The cocking lever is notched and also doubles as the rear sight. When firing in either double or single action, the cocking lever does not move. The only time the cocking lever (faux hammer) moves is if the shooter uses it to cock for single-action. The single-action trigger is quite good.
So, to get the thread "back-on-track", here's another revolver. Made for carry in Grizzly Bear country and one of my favorite big bore .44's. And yes, I do shoot exclusively magnums through it. (OK, mild loads, not full house wild loads.) It weighs a whooping 45 ounces so it soaks up recoil quite well.
So, to get the thread "back-on-track", here's another revolver. Made for carry in Grizzly Bear country and one of my favorite big bore .44's. And yes, I do shoot exclusively magnums through it. (OK, mild loads, not full house wild loads.) It weighs a whooping 45 ounces so it soaks up recoil quite well.
I occasionally like to bring the revolvers out for IDPA matches. I re-purposed a leather wrist guard that I had made for one of Brownie's edged weapons classes into a mount for one of my GoPros and I dubbed it the Gauntlet Cam. :grin
I occasionally like to bring the revolvers out for IDPA matches. I re-purposed a leather wrist guard that I had made for one of Brownie's edged weapons classes into a mount for one of my GoPros and I dubbed it the Gauntlet Cam. :grin
S&W 1905 3rd variation in 32 WCF (32-20)
S&W Model 15-2 in 38 Special
Ruger GP-100 in 357 Mag
Ruger Redhawk in 44 Magnum
Not pictured: Tula Arsenal 1895 Nagant in 7.62x38R.
Wishlist:
S&W K-22 Masterpiece
Ruger Redhawk 5" Stainless in:
357 Magnum
41 Magnum
45 Colt
I only have the one right now, but if we get a full bonus in spring I’d like to add another (open to suggestions but leaning 44).
Right now have the 4 inch 686-6 Plus. Just so happened to shoot it this weekend but only 38 special, need to pick up some more .357 or dig it out of my cache. Love it! Love it! Love it!! Need to get some wood grips but can't make up my mind yet. Maybe for Christmas Ill find a set I like.
But here is a more interesting (though a lot less valuable) revolver. It's called a "Couger". Below the photos is some history for anyone who gives a damn. :grin
Collectible, though not particularly valuable. It's a Ruger Security Six married to a Colt Python barrel. Hence, the "Co" from Colt and "uger" from Ruger gives you "Couger".
The Couger was not produced as a novelty. They were purpose built and required a lot of time and effort to assemble since the threads on a Colt Python barrel and the threads in both Ruger and Smith frames are different. The Couger was built for high performance PPC shooting.
More popular than the Couger was the Smolt (Or Smython). A Smith & Wesson frame married to a Python barrel. ("Sm" from Smith & Wesson and "olt" from Colt (or "ytoon" from Python).
These "conversions" were popular in the 70's and 80's as PPC competition guns. And, as important as the barrel change was the action work performed by the well known gunsmiths that were noted for producing them.
The Colt Python barrel was reputed to be the most accurate production barrel of it’s day because of its higher quality rifling and tighter tolerances. It was also .001 smaller at the muzzle and the twist rate of 1:14 was more aggressive than both Ruger’s 1:18.75 and the Smith & Wesson. More spin was generated thus resulting in greater accuracy. Particularly with the slower wadcutters of that era that were generally used In competition.
The heaver barrel with full under lug was another advantage providing good forward balance. The Python barrel’s vent rib was claimed to provide a better sighting plane. And, the Python forcing cone was alleged to be stronger and more durable allowing more rounds before accuracy degraded.
So, why the Ruger and Smith & Wesson frames? Because it was, (and is) widely known that the Colt Python lock-work and timing did not stand up as well under the heavy use of and high volume of rounds common in PPC competition guns. Ruger’s and Smith’s were accepted as stronger, more durable thus the combination provided the best of both worlds. So, from this the Couger (“Co” from Colt and “uger” from Ruger) Smolt (or Smyton) were born.
But here is a more interesting (though a lot less valuable) revolver. It's called a "Couger". Below the photos is some history for anyone who gives a damn. <img src="http://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/images/smilies/grinning.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" class="inlineimg" />
Collectible, though not particularly valuable. It's a Ruger Security Six married to a Colt Python barrel. Hence, the "Co" from Colt and "uger" from Ruger gives you "Couger".
The Couger was not produced as a novelty. They were purpose built and required a lot of time and effort to assemble since the threads on a Colt Python barrel and the threads in both Ruger and Smith frames are different. The Couger was built for high performance PPC shooting.
More popular than the Couger was the Smolt (Or Smython). A Smith & Wesson frame married to a Python barrel. ("Sm" from Smith & Wesson and "olt" from Colt (or "ytoon" from Python).
These "conversions" were popular in the 70's and 80's as PPC competition guns. And, as important as the barrel change was the action work performed by the well known gunsmiths that were noted for producing them.
The Colt Python barrel was reputed to be the most accurate production barrel of it’s day because of its higher quality rifling and tighter tolerances. It was also .001 smaller at the muzzle and the twist rate of 1:14 was more aggressive than both Ruger’s 1:18.75 and the Smith & Wesson. More spin was generated thus resulting in greater accuracy. Particularly with the slower wadcutters of that era that were generally used In competition.
The heaver barrel with full under lug was another advantage providing good forward balance. The Python barrel’s vent rib was claimed to provide a better sighting plane. And, the Python forcing cone was alleged to be stronger and more durable allowing more rounds before accuracy degraded.
So, why the Ruger and Smith & Wesson frames? Because it was, (and is) widely known that the Colt Python lock-work and timing did not stand up as well under the heavy use of and high volume of rounds common in PPC competition guns. Ruger’s and Smith’s were accepted as stronger, more durable thus the combination provided the best of both worlds. So, from this the Couger (“Co” from Colt and “uger” from Ruger) Smolt (or Smyton) were born.
I have two Dan Wesson revolvers, a stainless 357 magnum and a blued 44 magnum. However, since I have an extra barrel for each, it's like I have four. I have a 4" and 6" for the 357 and a 6" and 8" for the 44.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Florida Concealed Carry
1.2M posts
15.7K members
Since 2008
A forum community dedicated to Florida’s concealed firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about every day carry, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!