TR Forums

StuG wrote:

I guess that isn't too bad. How many is in a box, 50? Also I have 2 Jericho 942's (one in 9mm, one in 40S&W) which are both heavily based off the CZ75, though not exact clones after a day at the range with my first one. Boy, do I love those pistols. I originally only intended on getting one, but got rid of my other pistol to pick up a second one. Would love to get one in 45ACP when I have the money.

Yeah, that would be for a box of 50 5.7 rounds unless someone's trying to pull a fast one.

Any reason why you like the Jericho clone? Because it's obviously an imitation. Unless of course you're Israeli in which case I applaud your resounding nationalism. lol

As for me, I'm a big fan of SIG, H&K and FN.

Sam125 wrote:

StuG wrote:

I guess that isn't too bad. How many is in a box, 50? Also I have 2 Jericho 942's (one in 9mm, one in 40S&W) which are both heavily based off the CZ75, though not exact clones after a day at the range with my first one. Boy, do I love those pistols. I originally only intended on getting one, but got rid of my other pistol to pick up a second one. Would love to get one in 45ACP when I have the money.

Yeah, that would be for a box of 50 5.7 rounds unless someone's trying to pull a fast one.

Any reason why you like the Jericho clone? Because it's obviously an imitation. Unless of course you're Israeli in which case I applaud your resounding nationalism. lol

As for me, I'm a big fan of SIG, H&K and FN.

They do differ in the rifling. Both of the Jericho's I have are polygonal rifling versus the traditional rifling of a CZ75. However, your right they are very similar. I like the Jericho's better because I feel that they have a better fit and finish. Things seem to fit together better, more snug. I also like the way the handle feels on the Jerichos over the CZ75, but much of it comes down to personal preference. If we are being shallow as well, the Jericho looks better as well....though that is at the bottom of the list.

Sam125 wrote:

That stat is probably mainly for hunters who would want to shoot small game with it. The 5-7 is somewhat special in that after 1000ft it loses most of it's kinetic energy so it's not a dangerous round except in close quarters situations. Plus I've been told that big rounds like the .45 have a noticeable drop in trajectory from a thousand feet out due to being a lower velocity round and air friction.

Oh, I don't doubt it. But it seems to me that considerations of bullet drop at 300+ yards for a pistol is a bit unfounded. It's like worrying about the downforce of your Prius at 105 mph. If you're taking shots at critters at 300 yards with a pistol, you may wish to rethink your choice of hunting weapon.

Honestly, I have nothing against the 5.7mm round. The chief advantage of this round, IMHO, is that you can feed your 5-7 pistol and your P90 the same ammunition. Of course, you could do the same with a Glock 17 and an MP5.

The 5-7 is a glorified 22 Magnum. Yeah, the 5-7 is faster, but the main difference is that 22 magnum ammo is cheaper and more available. As are the firearms chambered for it. A PMR 30 can be had for half the price of a FN 5-7. I don't see the appeal of either cartridge personally.

I don't get the appeal of a lot of cartridges; including the new .22 TCM. Many of the newer cartridges just seem to be a solution in search of a problem. I can't tell if I'm being old fogey-ish or not though since I'm not a ballistics expert...but it just seems strange to me that out of all the cartridges still commercially produced we don't have pretty much all usage cases covered pretty well.

You'd be surprised. Reading through my reloading manual, there are a lot of very popular calibers now that started out as weird wildcat loads. Solutions looking for problems, as it were. Now they're popular for reasons that usually aren't related to performance.

Perhaps these newfangled calibers will gain in popularity. Time will tell.

Darkmage wrote:

Now they're popular for reasons that usually aren't related to performance.

Such as?

I could kind of see a use for that caliber Paul mentioned if you want something cheap and low-recoil that's accurate and reasonably powerful (varminting, for instance), but there are probably other cartridges just as well-suited.

bthylafh wrote:

Darkmage wrote:

Now they're popular for reasons that usually aren't related to performance.

Such as?

I could kind of see a use for that caliber Paul mentioned if you want something cheap and low-recoil that's accurate and reasonably powerful (varminting, for instance), but there are probably other cartridges just as well-suited.

Most of the new stuff I see today is an attempt to get X-level performance out of a round much smaller than X.

bthylafh wrote:

Darkmage wrote:

Now they're popular for reasons that usually aren't related to performance.

Such as?

Marketing and timely release of new rifles in one caliber vs another. Sometimes it's a large gov't contract for a particular caliber sucks all the air out of the room for a competing caliber. That sort of thing.

My Jericho 941 FS/RS - Baby Eagle II 9mm:

Those who enjoy such things may want to check out my latest blog entries on the Vz.52 and the Walther PPK:

http://armedbutnotdangerous.blogspot.co ... istol.html

http://armedbutnotdangerous.blogspot.co ... thers.html

Nice write-ups, always a joy to read your blog post from my perspective as interested but impossible to collect anything myself.

A piece for those across the pond. Pip pip, cheerio, chin up, chest out, and all that rot!

http://armedbutnotdangerous.blogspot.co ... -mk-i.html

A Rugger 22 that has never been fired, I hope to change that this weekend

[/img]

P.S. picture taken at my house with an iPhone on the back of a place-mat, somehow it came out like a postcard.

I did not know that Ruger made a .22 double action. Nice piece!

Enjoy cleaning that cylinder.

Vrock wrote:

I did not know that Ruger made a .22 double action. Nice piece!

Enjoy cleaning that cylinder.

Cylinder looks awfully long for .22 LR. Mayhaps a .22 Mag?

EDIT: Never mind. It's a Ruger SP101. The cylinder is the size it is because most models are .357 Mag. MSRP of $699.

http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/models.html

And yeah, deleading the cylinder and forcing cone will be a chore.

Get a load of Ruger's Super Redhawk Alaskan:
http://www.ruger.com/products/superRedh ... odels.html

.454 Casull out of a 2.5" barrel. I think that'd be just a bit wristy, not to mention loud enough to scare a bear away even if you miss.

I gotta wonder about the muzzle velocity sacrifice on that...and the recoil. Owie.

paulWTAMU wrote:

I gotta wonder about the muzzle velocity sacrifice on that...and the recoil. Owie.

Not to mention that you can only fire one shot in the dark. Muzzle blast on that must be a bitch. I'll let someone else try it.

I recently acquired a 460XVR with an 8 3/8" compensated barrel and it's on the edge of insanity even with the comp and the sheer weight of the gun. I know that 460 > 454 Casull but I still wouldn't want to shoot 454 Casull out of such a (relatively) light gun.

On top of that I really question how effective a gun like that can be at its intended purpose (which is bear defense AFAIK). Magnum rounds use slow-burning powders that require a long barrel to reach their potential; as mentioned previously I'm sure the muzzle blast is ridiculous, but it's also a symptom of the fact that a lot of the round's muzzle energy is just going up in flames. Personally I'd carry the heavy long-barreled version, weight be damned. If that wasn't an option I'd go with a 460 Rowland or even a 10mm. Both of those also offer the advantage of more shots at the charging bear.

Dr. Evil wrote:

I recently acquired a 460XVR with an 8 3/8" compensated barrel and it's on the edge of insanity even with the comp and the sheer weight of the gun.

2300 fps out of a revolver? I'd say that one is well past the edge of insanity.

Captain Ned wrote:

2300 fps out of a revolver? I'd say that one is well past the edge of insanity.

It's actually not as bad as I expected. The compensator helps a lot and the gun weighs 4.5 pounds which obviously helps as well. Worse than the recoil is the sound level: The first time I shot it was outdoors and I fired one shot, set it down on the bench and put earplugs in under my muffs. First time in my life I've double-plugged and I wasn't even inside.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Worse than the recoil is the sound level: The first time I shot it was outdoors and I fired one shot, set it down on the bench and put earplugs in under my muffs. First time in my life I've double-plugged and I wasn't even inside.

As the compensator is reflecting the sonic shockwave straight back at you, not to mention the leakage at the cylinder/barrel junction.

Dr. Evil wrote:

If that wasn't an option I'd go with a 460 Rowland or even a 10mm. Both of those also offer the advantage of more shots at the charging bear.

Assuming the semi-auto doesn't jam, of course. One assumes that a revolver's greater reliability would make it a better anti-bear gun.

bthylafh wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

If that wasn't an option I'd go with a 460 Rowland or even a 10mm. Both of those also offer the advantage of more shots at the charging bear.

Assuming the semi-auto doesn't jam, of course. One assumes that a revolver's greater reliability would make it a better anti-bear gun.

That might have been true once, but the difference in reliability between a quality revolver and a quality semi-auto pistol approaches zero these days. I still prefer a revolver vs. a semi-auto as a trail/hunting/survival gun for simplicity's sake, but it really is just down to a matter of taste and cartridge preference at this point.

Vrock wrote:

That might have been true once, but the difference in reliability between a quality revolver and a quality semi-auto pistol approaches zero these days. I still prefer a revolver vs. a semi-auto as a trail/hunting/survival gun for simplicity's sake, but it really is just down to a matter of taste and cartridge preference at this point.

Agreed, I've shot thousands of rounds through a variety of semi-autos and the only malfunctions I've experienced were due to experimentation with low-power reloads (i.e. not enough powder to reliably cycle the slide, which can hardly be blamed on the gun). I suspect that the main reason the hand-cannon calibers are exclusive to revolvers is that there are practical muzzle energy limits to the delayed blowback design used by nearly all semi-auto centerfire handguns. And rather than wait for someone to say "But what about the Desert Eagle in 44 mag or 50AE?" I'll go ahead and point out that those guns are gas-operated.

So I just got back last night from taking Precision Rifle I at Practical Firearms Training. It was a hell of a cool vacation.

Now you see why I married her.


That is 600 yards and my wife's lovely butt.


So, this is how I spent my summer vacation.

Gung ho. I remember the on-range engagement pics.

Southpaw makes most modern battle rifle copies a bit difficult.

Captain Ned wrote:

Southpaw makes most modern battle rifle copies a bit difficult.

Interestingly, she's medium-weight ambidextrous. But she shoots left handed rifle because of medical implants in her chest. A bolt-action rifle set up for righties actually works quite well for her. She doesn't have to take her trigger hand off the rifle and can work the bolt with the support hand. For some weird reason, the guy who built it (and then sold it to a gun shop) put in a single-shot follower, so we can't load more than one round at a time.

She did exceptionally well in the class. 0.5 MOA group at 600 yards, in fact.

Darkmage wrote:

She did exceptionally well in the class. 0.5 MOA group at 600 yards, in fact.

Damn. I see I need about a 1 mile head start then to have a 50/50 chance. That's some quality shooting.

EDIT: And my father is a southpaw, so there's a beauty of a .22LR target rifle with a lefty thumbhole stock and a lovely top-grade Remington 700 in .7mm Rem Mag with a lefty bolt that one day will simply adorn a wall.