Update "Seriously, Paco? Another revolver in the Ruger six series? You already had two."
Yes, I know, but I didn't own a Police Service Six in .357 Magnum. Besides, I got a deal. AIM Surplus had some of these as law enforcement turn-ins (although they must have been carried a very long time ago; these revolvers haven't been manufactured since the late 1980s, and police departments were already switching to semi-automatic pistols in a big way).
In any event, the cop who turned this one in must have been a slob because the bore and cylinder chambers were coated with grit and general schmutz. It cleaned up real nice, though, and the mechanical functions are perfect. These things are usually items that have been exported to foreign law enforcement or corrections agencies and have been retired from service, where they sit in an armory collecting dust for years before being reimported to the U.S. I'm not sure about this one; it might never have left the states. There are some small letters stamped on the left side of the frame - Wel. P.D. 52. Just don't know.
Anyhow, this is the first .357 I've ever bought with my own money (I do have a Colt Python, but Old Paco gave that one to me years ago, and it's got some gold engraving on it commemorating the "revenooers" in their battles with the whiskey bootleggers, so I don't want to shoot it). I'll probably just shoot .38 Spl in this Ruger - and not a whole lot of that, since the cartridge has gotten scarce and is presently very pricey (.357 is practically unobtainable at any price). Besides. .38 Spl is a lot easier on the hand and wrist.
12 comments:
Nice piece. I like wheel guns. I prefer S&W, but I do like my GP-100.
A few years ago Walmart had .357magnum ammo made by Sellier and Bellot but packaged differently, Perfecta, it was like $10 or $15 per 50.
I bought a bunch of boxes, it works fine in a revolver and lever action.
I'm thinking of putting some on armslist to trade for some .40 S&W or.45 acp hollowpoint.
Last revolvers I bought was a pair of Ruger Wranglers. One in the silver/gray ceracote, the other in black. One thing I didn't like are the stock grips, so bought a set in cocobolo and one in faux ivory. The wood ones went on the silver one, the ivory on the black.
The latter is far and away my current favorite revolver. Sure, it's a single action .22 and thus has nothing to recommend it aside from the fun factor, but the black and ivory combination is just beautiful. It really looks like something Evil Roy Slade would have carried. I even bought a leather holster and belt.
All they're good for is plinking... maybe if I were a reenactor, or used them to practice for cowboy shooting events. But if we're talking practicality, neither .22 nor single action revolvers have any place in the discussion. Some guns you like just because they're fun.
By the way, every time I qualified on pistol in the Navy (until 2003 when they finally made us switch to the Beretta) we shot the 1911. Twice though we used other guns in addition, because the security officers wanted to cycle them through the training.
Once, in addition to JMH's masterpiece we fired S&W Model 10s, which were a nearly ubiquitous arm in security and law enforcement. The other time, we used Ruger Security Sixes.
Steve: How'd you like the Beretta?
I saw a replica of an 1858 Remington conversion revolver which had a deep blue, almost black, finish, and faux ivory grips and you're right, that combination is beautiful.
Veeshir: Say, that's a good idea about selling ammo on Armslist. I've got way more 7.62 x 39 than I will ever use.
I'd trade it for something you could use. Even places that have ammo have jacked up their prices.
I'd feel bad selling $15 ammo for $40, but trading wouldn't seem like war profiteering.
The Beretta (M9) was okay. Nice having 15 rounds in the mag instead of 7. But I had my doubts about the 9mm. Sure, people will say that modern defensive loads in 9mm are as good as .45 ACP, and they are right - if you're a cop or a civilian (unless you live in NJ or some other fascist state where self defense will put you in prison).
But the military doesn't use modern defensive ammo. Ball, aka full metal jacket. And if that's what you're shooting, then .45 ACP beats 9mm for sheer damage every time. That's why special warfare guys stuck with it.
The other thing was I had to change my technique for racking the slide. I used to put my support hand over the top, thumb and forefinger at the rear of the slide, and pull back. The open top slide on the Beretta made that risky, it's easy to catch the web of your hand. So I changed to hand in the back, pulling straight back. Not a big deal, but the first time you catch flesh in the action you want to figure out how to never do it again.
Funny, in Navy OCS we paraded with M1 Garands. Part of the manual of arms is "Inspection arms" where you pull the charging handle all the way back and lock the action open. For "Ready... two" you put your thumb down in the action and press the follower all the way down with your fingers alongside the action. Then you whip the hand right up alongside your head before dropping back to the grip. That's where you get Garand Thumb if you're slow. I never got bit by the M1, but every time the regiment passed in review, I am told there were always a few white gloves dangling from the receivers where OCs got their thumbs caught in the action and left the glove in there. I was always in the front rank so never saw such. Everyone in front was former enlisted and we were a few steps ahead of the typical Joe College types there.
Steve, a major problem with the Beretta (aside from it being 9mm) was that the spring in the magazine was weak, and might not feed properly under heavy use. More recent productions probably fixed it, but it was a real problem in 2005 in Iraq. I went through most of my service with the 1911, and I was not happy with the M9, no sir!
I've handled Garands (and its successor, the M14), and yep, the M1 Thumb is a genuine hazard.
Why does the military insist on using ball ammo for 9mm pistols? Is it because it's cheaper? Or is it to ensure penetration? Or is there some benefit to punching neat holes in enemy soldiers and hoping they bleed to death?
The Hague Convention of 1899 requires signatories to "abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.”
Now, the US did not sign that provision so legally it does not actually apply to us. And anyway, expanding bullets are preferred in civilian and law enforcement use for two reasons: one, they are more reliable in stopping the threat (i.e., causing immobilizing damage) and two, they are much less liable to overpenetrate and endanger bystanders (IOW Rule 4). Anyway, the US in general avoids violation of international agreements even if we have not signed them (for example, the 1856 Treaty of Paris banning privateers) on the grounds that we do not want our adversaries to abandon all rules of war with us.
Because of course the Nazis and Imperial Japanese and North Koreans and PRC and VC and North Vietnam and the Taliban and ISIS were scrupulous about following international law. Another argument for only waging war against say, Luxembourg or Monaco or Belgium.
JeffS, one thing I do not like about the Beretta is the double action trigger pull. When we shot for quals, if I could get away with it I'd always thumb the hammer back after flicking off the safety/decocker and shoot single action, the way God and John Moses Browning intended.
Steve, like you, I dislike double action automatics. I have a couple, but I prefer to thumb back the hammer first.
But the reason that the military went to 9mm because it's a NATO standard ammo. Nothing more. The Euroweenies lurves their 9mm, they do. And a bunch of suck ups in DoD thought it was cool idea because, y'know, the M1911 was so OLD!
Seriously. Logistics was the excuse for the change, but in point of fact, the 1911 wasn't cool enough for a bunch of staff pukes and civilian employees. Oy vey! Fortunately, the Browning M2 is not the preferred weapon of REMFs, so it's remained the oldest weapon in the inventory to date.
Some historical notes:
The standard .45 ACP round used by the military was a 230 grain ball bullet. No hollow points or other deforming features, ever, for the reasons that you state. At close range, that bullet could blow through a human body. It was originally bought to kill drug crazed Moro warriors charging in a killing frenzy, and that it did.
The Army stopped buying 1911s in the early 1980s; the M9 Beretta wasn't fielded until the mid 1990s (the procurement was extended several times, as Beretta kept on winning, and Congress wanted the contract to go to an American firm). The Guard still had 1911s until almost 2000. Thank God there was a huge stockpile of spare parts for the 1911s.
Now, you might wonder what happened to all those 1911s. Well, the military, in their infinite wisdom, stored all of them in some warehouse (think "Raiders of the Lost Ark") at a cost of several million dollars a year. They flat out refused to sell them through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. That literally took an act of Congress and presidential strong arming to implement; the CMP is actually selling some in a "test program".
I haven't bought one. Not only is there a stunning amount of paperwork (basically a repetition of all of the verifications that one went through to join the CMP in the first place), the CMP offered only the low end pistols for open sale. The better ones, or those with historical relevance, were held back for auctions. And the price was steep; $500 for a pistol that you would likely need to rebuild anyway. No, thank you.
And there are certainly interesting pistols in that collection; once, while in the Illinois Army National Guard, I inventoried an M1911 (not an A1 or A2) with a 6 digit serial number. That one was made well before WWII, possibly during WWI.
Thanks, Steve, for the info.
Jeff: Stupid government!
All I want for Christmas is my backordered barrel.
Post a Comment