On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:07:05 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:04*pm, JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:15:56 -0800, (UglyDan®©™) wrote:
LOL, Yeah that would work, Then again I suppose you could get the
reverse effect with some individuals.
FWIW I very rarely shoot .357's its hard on my K-frame revolvers. When I
shoot wheelgun matches I use 151 gr RN Super .38's I load into .38
special cases. *UD *

Mine is an S&W Mod 28-2. I don't often fire .357 rounds through it. Usually
it's just .38 wadcutters. I've got hundreds of those damn things from when
I had two brothers who were cops.

This isn't mine, but it's the same pistol.

http://www.bayourovers.com/SmithWessonModel28-2.jpg
--
John H.

I am not a firearm guy, but it doesn't look like a very efficient
piece of equipment. Not trying to be an ass, just sayin'...

Well, how do you define 'efficient'? It does what I've wanted it to do, and
it was a gift from a cop.

It's not as efficient at some things as at others. All depends...
--
John H.

"JohnH" wrote in message

Well, how do you define 'efficient'? It does what I've wanted it to do,
and
it was a gift from a cop.

It's not as efficient at some things as at others. All depends...
--
John H.

The ass is probably just trying to pick a fight. Your 28-2 is one of the
most utilitarian firearms ever made.
I bought one myself a few years back after warping the frame of my model
66-2 from one too many hot loads.

You could also consider it "efficient" as it actually have features removed
to simplify its operation and reduce its cost.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:30:39 GMT, "CRM" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message

Well, how do you define 'efficient'? It does what I've wanted it to do,
and
it was a gift from a cop.

It's not as efficient at some things as at others. All depends...
--
John H.

The ass is probably just trying to pick a fight. Your 28-2 is one of the
most utilitarian firearms ever made.
I bought one myself a few years back after warping the frame of my model
66-2 from one too many hot loads.

You could also consider it "efficient" as it actually have features removed
to simplify its operation and reduce its cost.


That's my understanding also. I've been quite pleased with it. All this
talking reminded me to clean the bugger.
--
John H.

On Dec 6, 3:16*pm, JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:07:05 -0800 (PST),
wrote:





On Dec 6, 3:04*pm, JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:15:56 -0800, (UglyDan®©™) wrote:
LOL, Yeah that would work, Then again I suppose you could get the
reverse effect with some individuals.
FWIW I very rarely shoot .357's its hard on my K-frame revolvers. When I
shoot wheelgun matches I use 151 gr RN Super .38's I load into .38
special cases. *UD *

Mine is an S&W Mod 28-2. I don't often fire .357 rounds through it. Usually
it's just .38 wadcutters. I've got hundreds of those damn things from when
I had two brothers who were cops.

This isn't mine, but it's the same pistol.

http://www.bayourovers.com/SmithWessonModel28-2.jpg
--
John H.

I am not a firearm guy, but it doesn't look like a very efficient
piece of equipment. *Not trying to be an ass, just sayin'...

Well, how do you define 'efficient'? It does what I've wanted it to do, and
it was a gift from a cop.

It's not as efficient at some things as at others. All depends...
--
John H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I dunno, it looks like it has a pretty short barrel so unless someone
is a pretty good shot, my understanding is that a weapon like this is
not good for anything beyond a few feet. Hard to handle too I would
imagine, must have a hell of a muzzle lift, but again, I don't know
from firearms... And unlike my new troll CRM, I was not trying to pick
a fight, but you already knew that... I am just a tool guy and as a
killing machine which I assume this is, I just thought other weapons
would be better.

wrote in message
...


I dunno, it looks like it has a pretty short barrel so unless someone
is a pretty good shot, my understanding is that a weapon like this is
not good for anything beyond a few feet.
-----------------------------------------------

Here's a grouping free hand at 25 yards (75 feet for you backwoodsers)
http://www.dezendorf.us/photos/M2801.jpg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to handle too I would imagine, must have a hell of a muzzle lift
--------------------------------------------------------------------

For a little guy, maybe.

------------------------------------------------------------------
but again, I don't know from firearms...
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Then why not STFU?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
And unlike my new troll CRM, I was not trying to pick
a fight, but you already knew that...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Why should he "know" that?


---------------------------------------------------------------
I am just a tool ........
---------------------------------------------------------------




----------------------------------------------------------------
I just thought other weapons would be better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why? You already said you know nothing about firearms.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:21:49 GMT, "CRM" wrote:


wrote in message
...


I dunno, it looks like it has a pretty short barrel so unless someone
is a pretty good shot, my understanding is that a weapon like this is
not good for anything beyond a few feet.
-----------------------------------------------

Here's a grouping free hand at 25 yards (75 feet for you backwoodsers)
http://www.dezendorf.us/photos/M2801.jpg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to handle too I would imagine, must have a hell of a muzzle lift
--------------------------------------------------------------------

For a little guy, maybe.

------------------------------------------------------------------
but again, I don't know from firearms...
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Then why not STFU?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
And unlike my new troll CRM, I was not trying to pick
a fight, but you already knew that...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Why should he "know" that?


---------------------------------------------------------------
I am just a tool ........
---------------------------------------------------------------




----------------------------------------------------------------
I just thought other weapons would be better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why? You already said you know nothing about firearms.

Scotty asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. He wasn't making
any comments to or about you, so why the assinine response?
--
John H.

On Dec 7, 7:23*am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:21:49 GMT, "CRM" wrote:

wrote in message
...

I dunno, it looks like it has a pretty short barrel so unless someone
is a pretty good shot, my understanding is that a weapon like this is
not good for anything beyond a few feet.
-----------------------------------------------

Here's a grouping free hand at 25 yards (75 feet for you backwoodsers)
http://www.dezendorf.us/photos/M2801.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to handle too I would imagine, must have a hell of a muzzle lift
--------------------------------------------------------------------

For a little guy, maybe.

------------------------------------------------------------------
but again, I don't know from firearms...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Then why not STFU?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
And unlike my new troll CRM, I was not trying to pick
a fight, but you already knew that...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Why should he "know" that?

---------------------------------------------------------------
I am just a tool ........
---------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------
I just thought other weapons would be better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why? You already said you know nothing about firearms.

Scotty asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. He wasn't making
any comments to or about you, so why the assinine response?
--
John H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Didn't you know, he is the latest loser to troll for internet
victories! These guys must be complete failures at home. Let him have
his fun, maybe it will keep him from beating his wife or kids...

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:30:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:23*am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:21:49 GMT, "CRM" wrote:

wrote in message
...

I dunno, it looks like it has a pretty short barrel so unless someone
is a pretty good shot, my understanding is that a weapon like this is
not good for anything beyond a few feet.
-----------------------------------------------

Here's a grouping free hand at 25 yards (75 feet for you backwoodsers)
http://www.dezendorf.us/photos/M2801.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to handle too I would imagine, must have a hell of a muzzle lift
--------------------------------------------------------------------

For a little guy, maybe.

------------------------------------------------------------------
but again, I don't know from firearms...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Then why not STFU?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
And unlike my new troll CRM, I was not trying to pick
a fight, but you already knew that...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Why should he "know" that?

---------------------------------------------------------------
I am just a tool ........
---------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------
I just thought other weapons would be better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why? You already said you know nothing about firearms.

Scotty asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. He wasn't making
any comments to or about you, so why the assinine response?
--
John H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Didn't you know, he is the latest loser to troll for internet
victories! These guys must be complete failures at home. Let him have
his fun, maybe it will keep him from beating his wife or kids...

You know, I was astonished at the attacks by both crm and Harry. No reason.
Just need attention, I suppose. I've had it with Harry for a while. I'll
let other folks give him the attention he craves.

If I had had a choice, I would have taken a 6" barrel over the 4" barrel
because they are more accurate (contrary to what Krause says). But, they
are also more cumbersome. But like I said, this gun was a gift.
--
John H.

JohnH wrote:

I've had it with Harry for a while.


Doubtful. You lie about this all the time.

(JohnH)wrote
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:30:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:23*am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:21:49 GMT, "CRM" wrote:
wrote in message
...
I dunno, it looks like it has a pretty short barrel so unless someone is
a pretty good shot, my understanding is that a weapon like this is not
good for anything beyond a few feet.
----------------------------------------------
Here's a grouping free hand at 25 yards (75 feet for you backwoodsers)
http://www.dezendorf.us/photos/M2801.jpg
----------------------------------------------
Hard to handle too I would imagine, must have a hell of a muzzle lift
----------------------------------------------
For a little guy, maybe.
----------------------------------------------
but again, I don't know from firearms...
----------------------------------------------
Then why not STFU?
----------------------------------------------
And unlike my new troll CRM, I was not trying to pick a fight, but you
already knew that...
----------------------------------------------
Why should he "know" that?
----------------------------------------------
I am just a tool ........
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
I just thought other weapons would be better.
----------------------------------------------
Why? You already said you know nothing about firearms.
Scotty asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. He wasn't
making any comments to or about you, so why the assinine response?
--
John H.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Didn't you know, he is the latest loser to troll for internet victories!
These guys must be complete failures at home. Let him have his fun,
maybe it will keep him from beating his wife or kids...
You know, I was astonished at the attacks by both crm and Harry. No
reason. Just need attention, I suppose. I've had it with Harry for a
while. I'll let other folks give him the attention he craves.
If I had had a choice, I would have taken a 6" barrel over the 4" barrel
because they are more accurate (contrary to what Krause says). But, they
are also more cumbersome. But like I said, this gun was a gift.
--
John H.

To a degree, Yes a 6" barrel is more accurate than the 4", What Harry
failed to mention is it all has to do with "Sight Radius"
Basically the distance between the front and rear sights, and there's
alot of variables that come into play, When I shoot a day long
competition I usually start off with my 6" barrel and end up switching
to my 4" barrel later in the day, and the reason is I'm just plain
tired.
What happens is the front sight gets wobbly in my eye due to the longer
sight radius in the 6" barrel. I'm no firearms expert, and would never
claim to be, but I do shoot a few matches a week, do all my own
reloading, and all the work on my own firearms. Among other things.
UD