Some New DA Revolver Articles from a Writer I've Come to Appreciate:

[Jeff H]

I posted these on a site dedicated to single-actions and thought they might also be appreciated here as well. Some of you probably know this fella's work, but I'm sure others don't. He usually focuses on obscure, old autos, but he has a few great pages on High Standard Sentinels and Charter Arms revolvers too. He does his homework - he researches, and he's a very good technical writer. I don't know him personally, but I've chatted with him via e-mail a few times and he's a really nice guy.

A nice 44 Special Article that pulls several together in one place. :
https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/44S/44s.html

These two popped up today on "practical shooting" and "cut-down revolvers" (like "Fitz Specials")
https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/NPS/nps.html

https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/Fitz/fitz.html

I haven't even had a chance to read these two myself yet.

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

I have read those articles on the Fitz specials years ago good stuff!

CW

 

[Jeff H]

I have read those articles on the Fitz specials years ago good stuff!

CW

This one's new, copyrighted 2021. More of the same stuff, but always interesting.

Note too, that there are usually some other good links at the bottom of his pages to other writers' work on the same topic.

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

This one's new, copyrighted 2021. More of the same stuff, but always interesting.

Note too, that there are usually some other good links at the bottom of his pages to other writers' work on the same topic.

Well someone might have read what I read before publishing that... down to those pics!!

 

[RicinYakima]

If you want to keep it yours, never publish on the internet. FWIW

 

[Jeff H]

If you want to keep it yours, never publish on the internet. FWIW

I only mention the copyright to indicate that this is a new article. Maybe not new information, as it's been around a while.

@CWLONGSHOT , I'm not following - don't understand your comment.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Thank You

I have a strong interest in DA revolvers and I think I qualify as being in the Devoted category when it comes to DA revolvers.

Those are good articles.

 

[Bret4207]

I posted these on a site dedicated to single-actions and thought they might also be appreciated here as well. Some of you probably know this fella's work, but I'm sure others don't. He usually focuses on obscure, old autos, but he has a few great pages on High Standard Sentinels and Charter Arms revolvers too. He does his homework - he researches, and he's a very good technical writer. I don't know him personally, but I've chatted with him via e-mail a few times and he's a really nice guy.

A nice 44 Special Article that pulls several together in one place. :
https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/44S/44s.html

These two popped up today on "practical shooting" and "cut-down revolvers" (like "Fitz Specials")
https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/NPS/nps.html

https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/Fitz/fitz.html

I haven't even had a chance to read these two myself yet.

Thanks for the link. He covers some stuff I have an interest in. Nice!

 

[Jeff H]

I'm sure a lot of us have read a lot of this before, and it's obvious he's read it too, as shown by his references at the bottom of his articles. Any good author researches, which includes reading other peoples' work. He even cites work of a well known and highly respected author we all appreciate here especially, and most of us have some of his books (re from the 44 Special article), but it's always a positive to see another person's take on what we may already know. Sometimes it's just the same stuff from a different keyboard, but sometimes it sheds a new light on old info. That's always like finding a little gold fleck in the mud.

Too, there really are people out there who just don't know a lot of this stuff. For them to find a recent presentation of some of this old stuff leads to finding the original stuff - it teaches people to research, which, again, astounds me that so few people think to do that. "Research" doesn't have to be complicated or difficult either - it just has to be DONE.

It is literally bewildering to slog through some of the absolute garbage being thrown on the 'net. Not to demean someone's skills or to discourage them, but it seems very few bother to do any research at all, which is so ironic, because they're using the very tool to spew blather that they could use to easily research the history of something. Sure, lots of garbage to wade through, but at least try to find the company's page and do a little review.

Not to sound conceited, as I am far from the best writer myself, one flaw being that I tend to "go long."

If I had to back up and do it all over again, I'd surely learn my own language better too, but one thing anyone could do to bump their written communications skills by 50%, right off the top is to simply look stuff up before and as they go. It gets frustrating slogging through blogs and articles full of outright conjectural nonsense. I personally feel a writer at least owes some amount of respect to his or her intended audience, which is easily accounted for by not just making stuff up. Mistakes are one thing. Laziness is quite another.

 

[L Ross]

Personally I try not to pontificate on things I have not personally experienced. One draw back to attempting experiential learning is the tendency to gain a broad but thin knowledge base. Perhaps better put as, "A mile wide and an inch deep." That degree of knowledge also runs the risk of drawing conclusions from too few examples. Just because I delve into something and attain X results does not mean I actually have meaningful data to share, and it certainly leaves me being far from an expert.

I imagine there are many dabblers out there just like me. Thus keeping a grain of salt close to hand is a good practice.

 

[Bret4207]

Agree Jeff. I just read an article in a mag I get where the gun editor waxes poetic about the 7x57. I'm all for the 7x57 mind you, but he pushes the idea the 7x57 was drastically superior to the 30-40 Krag round and that was why the US went to the '03 Springfield. I may write a letter to the editor pointing out that the 30-40 and 7x57 at that time weren't all that different ballistics-wise, but that the problem with the Krag was one of firepower. The Mauser 7x57 could be loaded by stripper clip which was just a lot faster than loading a Krag out of a bandolier. He also complains about the "heavy" Krag vs the Mauser, but there isn't much difference there either! The biggest difference was in the school of thought between the Spanish and the US. The US was stuck on the idea that "fire discipline" was a great idea whereas the Spanish followed the more modern European/German lines of suppresive fire and not worrying so much about how many rounds each soldier "wasted". This mindset continued for at least another 30-40 years as evidenced by the magazine cutoffs on the '03 and 03-A3. It held on until the late 30's when the Garand came along and the US saw what the Germans could do when they really tried. I don't think the author did a whole heck of a lot of research beyond the internet!

 

[Bret4207]

Personally I try not to pontificate on things I have not personally experienced. One draw back to attempting experiential learning is the tendency to gain a broad but thin knowledge base. Perhaps better put as, "A mile wide and an inch deep." That degree of knowledge also runs the risk of drawing conclusions from too few examples. Just because I delve into something and attain X results does not mean I actually have meaningful data to share, and it certainly leaves me being far from an expert.

I imagine there are many dabblers out there just like me. Thus keeping a grain of salt close to hand is a good practice.

Har! Yupper, there are a great many experts out there in internet land whose sum knowledge is based on what they read. I have a neighbor "farmer" who fits that definition to a tee. He read that hogs could winter outside. He failed to note that that was not where winter lasts 7-8 months, the temps fall into the -30F area and that the hogs had some sort of shelter. He read that sheep were hardy and would paw through snow to get to feed. He failed to note that he was reading about sheep in Great Britian where the snow never got over 3-4" deep, winter was a 1 month affair and that this was on pasture that hadn't been eaten down to the root 2 weeks before the snow fell. He read that fruit trees should be planted in holes. He didn't catch the part that said if your hole wasn't deep enough you need to make a deeper hole and not to cut the root off so it would fit! The result was dead hogs, dead sheep and, if he is to be believed, $17K in dead fruit trees. You simply cannot talk to this guy because he won't listen. Whatever he reads on the comupter is gospel. He is not the only person like this, there are lots of them.

I won't even touch on the barstool experts, (another species which seems breed at an alarming rate!), other than to say I have a brother who pontificates on all manner of things from his perch. He's a fount of knowledge learned at the feet of other barstool experts. There seems to be no end to these learned men and women, and that's frightening!

 

[Jeff H]

Historical facts, for which we were not present, rely on having been learned about from reading, which is legitimate. It's just so easy to do, but some can't be bothered with it. One must be very careful to keep an open mind that the first version of any story is not necessarily the "truest" version. Things we've read about, which we can test ourselves or repeat are a bit different.

@Bret4207 , I have long been a 7x57 fan myself, and I place it way up upon a pedestal. I've read so many "facts" about it over the years, that I've had to reconcile all the variations within my own head, and eventually satisfy myself that some of the history of it (and many things) shall remain murky to me. The assertions in the article you mentioned regarding the 7x57 being so superior to the 30-40 sounds exactly like some many other my-dog's-bigger'n-your-dog ballistic claims. The most obvious and well established facts may be refutable, but when someone does that, they should not do it blindly, without acknowledging established facts, they are obliged to note the discrepancy and explain.

@L Ross , I think you've defined a fair number of the membership on this forum in that credo. Makes this forum a very pleasant experience. Writing, or otherwise expressing belief or hypotheses to one's level of knowledge and experience is a good thing, and allows a lot of folks here to share, rather than hiding their light under a bushel out of utter humility. I try to do the same, but can be wrong, so being open to other sources augmenting or tuning the thought is handy. I've never read a word you've said that I didn't feel I could take to the bank. It's an admirable standard, but why is it so hard for some to grasp? Rhetorical question.

 

[Jeff H]

Just musing here,...

From: https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-case-for-the-44-special-cartridge/

I could not find the author's name.

In his opening sentence he writes:
"The .44 Special was introduced more than 100 years ago, and is a modernization of 19th century .44-cal. revolver cartridges made for blackpowder."

I won't touch the rest of the article, but his first sentence made me smile. The guy is writing to his ability, or he is very deftly, and preemptively side-stepping TWO arguments. I've read that the 44 Special came out in 1906 and I've read it came out in 1907. I've never cared that much about that discrepancy, because I wasn't there, don't know and there could possibly be ways to justify either claim. If I really wanted to know, I'd dig out Mr. Taffin's books and look. This author made no claim either way, but still had something not untrue, as well as relevant to say.

The author also avoided the debate over whether the 44 Special started out as a smokeless or black powder cartridge. I've personally come to believe it started as a smokeless cartridge, but have seen at least one photo of a box of black powder 44 Special cartridges. Doesn't prove it started as black powder, but I think I can now believe for certain that there were black powder cartridges commercially loaded for it. I could dig up that old article and look, and include that in an article, but word-counts and deadlines could possibly dampen that idea quickly.

Regardless of which version of either of these two facts is true, this fella rather artfully avoided hanging himself by picking one and running with it. I have to respect that, regardless of which version I'd pick or what else he wrote. I just found that first sentence to have been funny, but I have to respect it.

Granted "truth" could be argued about forever, so I use the word not necessarily "loosely," but with some very minimal elasticity.

 

[RicinYakima]

I imagine there are many dabblers out there just like me. Thus keeping a grain of salt close to hand is a good practice.

Described me! I know quite a bit about 1903 Springfield rifles, but barely know where the bullet comes out of a Mauser!

Pretty good on US auto-loaders made before 1925, but never shot a Glock.

Don't load any powders new on the market after 1975.

My reloading records say that I have loaded over 12,500 cast bullet rounds in the last 25 years, but less than 500 jacketed.

Yep, knowledge and experience is deep but narrow!

 

[Bret4207]

Jeff, the 44 S is a good place to trip up, true, but so is the good old 30-30. There's a range of opinion and old wives tales that still get argued today. You really want to see some grasping at straws, look into the 303 Savage, 22 Hi Power or 22 Hornet. Just trying to keep track of votes for the proper bullet diameter will require at least a couple pencils and a ream of paper!

 

[Jeff H]

Agreed, which is why it's dangerous to make solid assertions without some form of reference to other versions.

I wast told by my dad, who was the wisest man in the world when I was a kid, that the 30-30 started out with .307" bullets. When we first started loading for my new Savage 24V, he dug out boxes of .307" bullets! I never looked into it much, but I did run across one of those boxes a few weeks ago while inventorying his stuff. Turned out they shot fine, but the .308" bullets did too and were more common.

"Hornet started out with .223" barrels, because so many of the first ones were re-chambered rim-fire barrels screwed onto center-fire actions..."

I have one of his moulds which casts .228", which he said was for the Savage Hi-Power.

Funny thing on the 303 Savage - I found an old box of 30-30s in a junk box in a gun store when I was a kid and took it to show my dad. He looked and mumbled some unkind words about the "303 Savage" and went back to what he was doing. Huh?? I looked, and sure enough, it was a box of 303 Savage ammo, not 30-30 Winchester or 30 WCF. After that, I never paid the 303 Savage any mind and couldn't say today what diameter bullets it uses without looking it up.

I won't argue any of those points too stubbornly. I'd have to research further and then still, there's usually more than one story. You can't just pick one version and assume that's all there is to it.

 

[CZ93X62]

I love the 44 Special, or 44 Magnum loaded to "44 Special +P" ratings. 250 grains of lead running 900-1000 FPS is a very useful tool to have on hand.

 

[Brad]

I like articles about loading for a handgun but have little interest in the historical context of the firearm or cartridge.
Oddly I don’t look into the history or most of my other tools either.

I’m a tool user, not a collector

 

[USSR]

Don't load any powders new on the market after 1975.

Pretty similar to my take of not using any powder that hasn't been around for at least 50 years. Gotta give 'em time to sort things out.

Don