.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8

Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and
handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"
barrel.


--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8

Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and
handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6" barrel.



Notice he says lead hand loads? And a full power 357 would have huge flash
from a 3" barrel! I bet with your expertise, you could spend shoot a .454
Casul off hand, and hit the stump from 50 yards every time.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 10:02:07 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8



Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and

handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"

barrel.


Blow your brains out, asshole. Oh, I forgot...you DON'T HAVE ANY.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 7:02:07 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8



Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and

handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"

barrel.





--

Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,

anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government

last year for no reason.

The rapport sounded like .38's to me. Krause you really should get your **** together.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 1:09 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:02:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8

Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and
handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"
barrel.


He is shooting cast bullets which pretty much limits him to .38
velocities and he calls them "very modest loads, nothing hot at all".
It looks like the kind of loading I did with wad cutters, except he
has a round nose bullet. (the good old 158gr?)


Except, of course, you don't have the specifications of what he is
shooting. My guess is that he is a far more highly skilled shooter than
you are, and knows how to handle .357 MAGS in a short barrel revolver,
and you, well, there it is...you don't. Looks to me as if he is shooting
what is considered the standard weight .357 MAG bullet in a standard
..357 MAG casing with a standard .357 MAG powder charge, the kind you can
buy off the shelf from dozens of vendors.

The stuff I shoot has the bullet weight and velocity of Buffalo Bore,
except I shoot FMJ's. Gosh, I wonder if I am actually shooting .357
MAGs. snerk

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/13/2014 10:02 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8

Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and
handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"
barrel.



First, a disclaimer. I don't know what I am talking about. I am not
an expert in shooting or handguns and don't shoot that often.

That said, I could make an argument that "muzzle flip" is naturally
greater with a six inch barrel than a 3 inch barrel, purely from a
mechanical advantage point of view. This assumes the rounds are of the
same caliber and load, of course.

Picture the handgun as a lever with your hand or wrist as the fulcrum.
The force of the bullet exiting the end of a longer barrel is going to
impart more off center force on your wrist than from a shorter barrel.

I am sure the weight of the handgun plays a role but I suspect the
difference of 2 or 3 inches on the barrel length is minor. Energy (or
in this case force) is mass times velocity squared.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On Monday, July 14, 2014 3:09:58 AM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 1:09 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:02:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8



Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and

handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"

barrel.





He is shooting cast bullets which pretty much limits him to .38

velocities and he calls them "very modest loads, nothing hot at all".

It looks like the kind of loading I did with wad cutters, except he

has a round nose bullet. (the good old 158gr?)





Except, of course, you don't have the specifications of what he is

shooting. My guess is that he is a far more highly skilled shooter than

you are, and knows how to handle .357 MAGS in a short barrel revolver,

and you, well, there it is...you don't. Looks to me as if he is shooting

what is considered the standard weight .357 MAG bullet in a standard

.357 MAG casing with a standard .357 MAG powder charge, the kind you can

buy off the shelf from dozens of vendors.



The stuff I shoot has the bullet weight and velocity of Buffalo Bore,

except I shoot FMJ's. Gosh, I wonder if I am actually shooting .357

MAGs. snerk



--

Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,

anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government

last year for no reason.

I'n not getting into it with exception of I don't think that the shooters 'skill' has much to do with a hand guns kickback properties.

But if you look at this demo of the comparable Colt Diamond Back, which is chambered in .38 you see about the same kick back and sound characteristics. IMO the guy with the .357 is shooting lighter loads than factory, causing less kick.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/13/2014 10:02 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8

Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and
handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"
barrel.



First, a disclaimer. I don't know what I am talking about. I am not
an expert in shooting or handguns and don't shoot that often.

That said, I could make an argument that "muzzle flip" is naturally
greater with a six inch barrel than a 3 inch barrel, purely from a
mechanical advantage point of view. This assumes the rounds are of the
same caliber and load, of course.

Picture the handgun as a lever with your hand or wrist as the fulcrum.
The force of the bullet exiting the end of a longer barrel is going to
impart more off center force on your wrist than from a shorter barrel.

I am sure the weight of the handgun plays a role but I suspect the
difference of 2 or 3 inches on the barrel length is minor. Energy (or
in this case force) is mass times velocity squared.




Oooh…is this at least partially a discussion about elements to plug into
the equation for Conservation of Motion! Wow…in rec. boats, of all
places. :)

Barrel weight is what sells bull barrels, tungsten guide rods, and
revolvers with full underlugs, because the weight “out there” tends to
reduce muzzle flip, but the best way to control it is with a strong grip
and proper stance and recoil control. A longer barrel has more mass, and
should be more resistant to the leverage involved in muzzle flip. An
expansion chamber compensator will also make a difference.

If you want to experience the differences barrel length and weight makes
on muzzle flip, try a Ruger LCR in .357 MAG and then shoot the same
rounds out of a 6” barrel Ruger GP 100.



--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 7:19 AM, Tim wrote:

I'n not getting into it with exception of I don't think that the shooters 'skill' has much to do with a hand guns kickback properties.

But if you look at this demo of the comparable Colt Diamond Back, which is chambered in .38 you see about the same kick back and sound characteristics. IMO the guy with the .357 is shooting lighter loads than factory, causing less kick.



Sure it does. A skilled shooter will have a proper grip, a proper
stance, and the ability to control the impact of recoil and muzzle rise.
Therefore, the "kickback" is controlled.

Since we don't know what loads the guy is shooting, we can all
speculate, eh?

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357 for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357 for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...


I wasn't commenting about the bullet, per se. I was commenting about the
powder charge.

Here's a question for you...

Of what components is a "true" .357 MAG round composed, and in what amounts?



--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 5:19 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, July 14, 2014 3:09:58 AM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 1:09 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:02:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8



Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and

handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"

barrel.





He is shooting cast bullets which pretty much limits him to .38

velocities and he calls them "very modest loads, nothing hot at all".

It looks like the kind of loading I did with wad cutters, except he

has a round nose bullet. (the good old 158gr?)





Except, of course, you don't have the specifications of what he is

shooting. My guess is that he is a far more highly skilled shooter than

you are, and knows how to handle .357 MAGS in a short barrel revolver,

and you, well, there it is...you don't. Looks to me as if he is shooting

what is considered the standard weight .357 MAG bullet in a standard

.357 MAG casing with a standard .357 MAG powder charge, the kind you can

buy off the shelf from dozens of vendors.



The stuff I shoot has the bullet weight and velocity of Buffalo Bore,

except I shoot FMJ's. Gosh, I wonder if I am actually shooting .357

MAGs. snerk



--

Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,

anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government

last year for no reason.

I'n not getting into it with exception of I don't think that the shooters 'skill' has much to do with a hand guns kickback properties.

But if you look at this demo of the comparable Colt Diamond Back, which is chambered in .38 you see about the same kick back and sound characteristics. IMO the guy with the .357 is shooting lighter loads than factory, causing less kick.

You're not the first shooter here to say that. Could the great Harry
Krause be hypothesizing and blowing smoke up our arses,,,,,,,,,,,,again?

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 6:00 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/13/2014 10:02 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8

Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and
handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"
barrel.



First, a disclaimer. I don't know what I am talking about. I am not
an expert in shooting or handguns and don't shoot that often.

That said, I could make an argument that "muzzle flip" is naturally
greater with a six inch barrel than a 3 inch barrel, purely from a
mechanical advantage point of view. This assumes the rounds are of the
same caliber and load, of course.

Picture the handgun as a lever with your hand or wrist as the fulcrum.
The force of the bullet exiting the end of a longer barrel is going to
impart more off center force on your wrist than from a shorter barrel.

I am sure the weight of the handgun plays a role but I suspect the
difference of 2 or 3 inches on the barrel length is minor. Energy (or
in this case force) is mass times velocity squared.




Oooh…is this at least partially a discussion about elements to plug into
the equation for Conservation of Motion! Wow…in rec. boats, of all
places. :)

Barrel weight is what sells bull barrels, tungsten guide rods, and
revolvers with full underlugs, because the weight “out there” tends to
reduce muzzle flip, but the best way to control it is with a strong grip
and proper stance and recoil control. A longer barrel has more mass, and
should be more resistant to the leverage involved in muzzle flip. An
expansion chamber compensator will also make a difference.

If you want to experience the differences barrel length and weight makes
on muzzle flip, try a Ruger LCR in .357 MAG and then shoot the same
rounds out of a 6” barrel Ruger GP 100.



So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:40:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357 for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...


I wasn't commenting about the bullet, per se. I was commenting about the
powder charge.

Here's a question for you...

Of what components is a "true" .357 MAG round composed, and in what amounts?

A"true" .357 round is supersonic with chamber pressures well over
20,000 PSI
It will be a jacketed bullet.
You can get SS velocities out of a small cast bullet like a 40gr.22
but when they start getting heavier, they will strip right through the
rifling if you try to push them too hard. They still copper plate
better brands of .22rf to keep the bore cleaner.
Perhaps if you had done some reloading you would have a better idea of
the effect of powders and bullets. Your knowledge seems to be what you
google up at the moment and not much actual experience.
I had a ****load of cast .357 (dia) bullets, that I was getting pretty
cheap and I tried them with all sorts of different combinations of
powders and primers. Even at typical .38 +p velocities, accuracy
starts falling off pretty fast and lead fouling becomes a big problem.

They are perfect for what this guy was doing tho, shooting targets at
fairly short ranges and using "modest loads", how he describes them
himself.



I'll be glad to take you more seriously when you post the actual
specifications of what he was shooting. Absent that, you're just guessing.

For the 20th time, I am not interested in reloading. I shoot jacketed
ammo only.



--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:23:50 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

===

Actually the predominant factor is muzzle velocity assuming bullets of
equal weight. Energy increases as the square of velocity so an
increase from 900 fps (typical light target load) to 1600 fps would
result in an energy increase of 3.16 .

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

Greg, I totally agree with you, when I was loading .44 mag wad cutters (block type), I'd back the powder off a bit to make them a little bit hotter than a standard .44 Smith. Close accuracy was much better and less leas fouling. Not counting less 'flip'. Knock down power was improved as well.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

Greg, I totally agree with you, when I was loading .44 mag wad cutters (block type), I'd back the powder off a bit to make them a little bit hotter than a standard .44 Smith. Close accuracy was much better and less leas fouling. Not counting less 'flip'. Knock down power was improved as well.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 11:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:23:50 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

===

Actually the predominant factor is muzzle velocity assuming bullets of
equal weight. Energy increases as the square of velocity so an
increase from 900 fps (typical light target load) to 1600 fps would
result in an energy increase of 3.16 .


I agree with that.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 9:02 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:40:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led
bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you
can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357
for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...


I wasn't commenting about the bullet, per se. I was commenting about the
powder charge.

Here's a question for you...

Of what components is a "true" .357 MAG round composed, and in what
amounts?

A"true" .357 round is supersonic with chamber pressures well over
20,000 PSI
It will be a jacketed bullet.
You can get SS velocities out of a small cast bullet like a 40gr.22
but when they start getting heavier, they will strip right through the
rifling if you try to push them too hard. They still copper plate
better brands of .22rf to keep the bore cleaner.
Perhaps if you had done some reloading you would have a better idea of
the effect of powders and bullets. Your knowledge seems to be what you
google up at the moment and not much actual experience.
I had a ****load of cast .357 (dia) bullets, that I was getting pretty
cheap and I tried them with all sorts of different combinations of
powders and primers. Even at typical .38 +p velocities, accuracy
starts falling off pretty fast and lead fouling becomes a big problem.

They are perfect for what this guy was doing tho, shooting targets at
fairly short ranges and using "modest loads", how he describes them
himself.



I'll be glad to take you more seriously when you post the actual
specifications of what he was shooting. Absent that, you're just guessing.

For the 20th time, I am not interested in reloading. I shoot jacketed
ammo only.



Modest my man, modest. Look it up in the dictionary. My guess is that
good, professional, competitive shooters are interested in reloading.
Maybe that's why you are, at best, a mediocre shooter.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 9:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:23:50 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

===

Actually the predominant factor is muzzle velocity assuming bullets of
equal weight. Energy increases as the square of velocity so an
increase from 900 fps (typical light target load) to 1600 fps would
result in an energy increase of 3.16 .


Actually, in the scenario Harry painted, the comparison was made with
similar loads. The snub nose vs the 6 in barrel was the comparison he
wanted to make. I don't think he knows why the snubby is less
controllable. Hence my question.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 9:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 11:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:23:50 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

===

Actually the predominant factor is muzzle velocity assuming bullets of
equal weight. Energy increases as the square of velocity so an
increase from 900 fps (typical light target load) to 1600 fps would
result in an energy increase of 3.16 .


I agree with that.


All things considered, yes, but Krause qualified his comparison by
saying the same/similar bullet was used.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:02:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:40:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357 for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...


I wasn't commenting about the bullet, per se. I was commenting about the
powder charge.

Here's a question for you...

Of what components is a "true" .357 MAG round composed, and in what amounts?

A"true" .357 round is supersonic with chamber pressures well over
20,000 PSI
It will be a jacketed bullet.
You can get SS velocities out of a small cast bullet like a 40gr.22
but when they start getting heavier, they will strip right through the
rifling if you try to push them too hard. They still copper plate
better brands of .22rf to keep the bore cleaner.
Perhaps if you had done some reloading you would have a better idea of
the effect of powders and bullets. Your knowledge seems to be what you
google up at the moment and not much actual experience.
I had a ****load of cast .357 (dia) bullets, that I was getting pretty
cheap and I tried them with all sorts of different combinations of
powders and primers. Even at typical .38 +p velocities, accuracy
starts falling off pretty fast and lead fouling becomes a big problem.

They are perfect for what this guy was doing tho, shooting targets at
fairly short ranges and using "modest loads", how he describes them
himself.



I'll be glad to take you more seriously when you post the actual
specifications of what he was shooting. Absent that, you're just guessing.

For the 20th time, I am not interested in reloading. I shoot jacketed
ammo only.

So you are saying you don't have a clue either and you don't even have
a point of reference.


I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:19:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:

I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

Modest compared to .357 velocities. Did you actually look at the video
and listen to what he was saying?
He made a big deal about how versatile this type of gun was and that
you can shoot .38 class loads in it. It was after that when he called
these modest.
Then you have the cast bullets. That insures he is shooting a fairly
light load.
I agree with the others, the muzzle blast was very light and there was
virtually zero muzzle flash. Maybe your eyes are closed when you shoot
your .357 but there is quite a flash with a full load, particularly in
a short barrel pistol.

I have tube enhancer on this machine and I can clip off some stills
from that video if you like. We can compare then to the other video
you posted to get an idea about what he is shooting.


The only way we would know what he was shooting is if he told us.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:12:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:19:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:

I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

Modest compared to .357 velocities. Did you actually look at the video
and listen to what he was saying?
He made a big deal about how versatile this type of gun was and that
you can shoot .38 class loads in it. It was after that when he called
these modest.
Then you have the cast bullets. That insures he is shooting a fairly
light load.
I agree with the others, the muzzle blast was very light and there was
virtually zero muzzle flash. Maybe your eyes are closed when you shoot
your .357 but there is quite a flash with a full load, particularly in
a short barrel pistol.

I have tube enhancer on this machine and I can clip off some stills
from that video if you like. We can compare then to the other video
you posted to get an idea about what he is shooting.


The only way we would know what he was shooting is if he told us.

He did tell us, you just refuse to accept it.
I say again. shoot is a video of your rock steady hold and a picture
of the ammo, we can judge for ourselves.
Otherwise it is just a waste of the bandwidth to continue.


I didn't hear or see any numbers in that vid.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:12:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:19:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:

I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

Modest compared to .357 velocities. Did you actually look at the video
and listen to what he was saying?
He made a big deal about how versatile this type of gun was and that
you can shoot .38 class loads in it. It was after that when he called
these modest.
Then you have the cast bullets. That insures he is shooting a fairly
light load.
I agree with the others, the muzzle blast was very light and there was
virtually zero muzzle flash. Maybe your eyes are closed when you shoot
your .357 but there is quite a flash with a full load, particularly in
a short barrel pistol.

I have tube enhancer on this machine and I can clip off some stills
from that video if you like. We can compare then to the other video
you posted to get an idea about what he is shooting.


The only way we would know what he was shooting is if he told us.

He did tell us, you just refuse to accept it.
I say again. shoot is a video of your rock steady hold and a picture
of the ammo, we can judge for ourselves.
Otherwise it is just a waste of the bandwidth to continue.


I didn't hear or see any numbers in that vid.


Why don't you just acknowledge that the video link you posted presumably
to show little muzzle flip of a .357 Magnum (with a 3-inch barrel) when
using a "proper grip" .... doesn't.

Several experienced (and some less experienced) have questioned what
type of rounds he was shooting ... the guy in the video calls them
"modest" rounds and, most importantly, *you* don't know what he was
shooting either.

It's ok to be wrong sometimes.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 5:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:12:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:19:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:

I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

Modest compared to .357 velocities. Did you actually look at the video
and listen to what he was saying?
He made a big deal about how versatile this type of gun was and that
you can shoot .38 class loads in it. It was after that when he called
these modest.
Then you have the cast bullets. That insures he is shooting a fairly
light load.
I agree with the others, the muzzle blast was very light and there was
virtually zero muzzle flash. Maybe your eyes are closed when you shoot
your .357 but there is quite a flash with a full load, particularly in
a short barrel pistol.

I have tube enhancer on this machine and I can clip off some stills
from that video if you like. We can compare then to the other video
you posted to get an idea about what he is shooting.


The only way we would know what he was shooting is if he told us.

He did tell us, you just refuse to accept it.
I say again. shoot is a video of your rock steady hold and a picture
of the ammo, we can judge for ourselves.
Otherwise it is just a waste of the bandwidth to continue.


I didn't hear or see any numbers in that vid.


Why don't you just acknowledge that the video link you posted presumably
to show little muzzle flip of a .357 Magnum (with a 3-inch barrel) when
using a "proper grip" .... doesn't.

Several experienced (and some less experienced) have questioned what
type of rounds he was shooting ... the guy in the video calls them
"modest" rounds and, most importantly, *you* don't know what he was
shooting either.

It's ok to be wrong sometimes.



All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 5:56 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 5:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:12:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:19:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:

I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is
shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

Modest compared to .357 velocities. Did you actually look at the
video
and listen to what he was saying?
He made a big deal about how versatile this type of gun was and that
you can shoot .38 class loads in it. It was after that when he called
these modest.
Then you have the cast bullets. That insures he is shooting a fairly
light load.
I agree with the others, the muzzle blast was very light and there
was
virtually zero muzzle flash. Maybe your eyes are closed when you
shoot
your .357 but there is quite a flash with a full load,
particularly in
a short barrel pistol.

I have tube enhancer on this machine and I can clip off some stills
from that video if you like. We can compare then to the other video
you posted to get an idea about what he is shooting.


The only way we would know what he was shooting is if he told us.

He did tell us, you just refuse to accept it.
I say again. shoot is a video of your rock steady hold and a picture
of the ammo, we can judge for ourselves.
Otherwise it is just a waste of the bandwidth to continue.


I didn't hear or see any numbers in that vid.


Why don't you just acknowledge that the video link you posted presumably
to show little muzzle flip of a .357 Magnum (with a 3-inch barrel) when
using a "proper grip" .... doesn't.

Several experienced (and some less experienced) have questioned what
type of rounds he was shooting ... the guy in the video calls them
"modest" rounds and, most importantly, *you* don't know what he was
shooting either.

It's ok to be wrong sometimes.



All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.



No hard data.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 5:56 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 5:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:12:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:19:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:

I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is
shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

Modest compared to .357 velocities. Did you actually look at the
video
and listen to what he was saying?
He made a big deal about how versatile this type of gun was and that
you can shoot .38 class loads in it. It was after that when he called
these modest.
Then you have the cast bullets. That insures he is shooting a fairly
light load.
I agree with the others, the muzzle blast was very light and there
was
virtually zero muzzle flash. Maybe your eyes are closed when you
shoot
your .357 but there is quite a flash with a full load,
particularly in
a short barrel pistol.

I have tube enhancer on this machine and I can clip off some stills
from that video if you like. We can compare then to the other video
you posted to get an idea about what he is shooting.


The only way we would know what he was shooting is if he told us.

He did tell us, you just refuse to accept it.
I say again. shoot is a video of your rock steady hold and a picture
of the ammo, we can judge for ourselves.
Otherwise it is just a waste of the bandwidth to continue.


I didn't hear or see any numbers in that vid.


Why don't you just acknowledge that the video link you posted presumably
to show little muzzle flip of a .357 Magnum (with a 3-inch barrel) when
using a "proper grip" .... doesn't.

Several experienced (and some less experienced) have questioned what
type of rounds he was shooting ... the guy in the video calls them
"modest" rounds and, most importantly, *you* don't know what he was
shooting either.

It's ok to be wrong sometimes.



All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.



Then why did you offer it as an example of little muzzle flip when
shooting a .357 Magnum? You said the minimal flip was due to "proper
grip, stance, etc.". Now you admit no one (including you) knows what
the hell he was shooting in it.

We know one thing. They weren't full powered, factory .357 Magnum
rounds. If they were there would be no need for his comment about them
being "modest" rounds.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 6:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 5:56 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 5:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:12:35 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:19:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:00 PM, wrote:

I will simply take the video at face value. He says he is
shooting a
modest load. We all believe him.


Modest is not a quantifier. Modest compared to, say, Buffalo Bore?

Modest compared to .357 velocities. Did you actually look at the
video
and listen to what he was saying?
He made a big deal about how versatile this type of gun was and that
you can shoot .38 class loads in it. It was after that when he
called
these modest.
Then you have the cast bullets. That insures he is shooting a fairly
light load.
I agree with the others, the muzzle blast was very light and there
was
virtually zero muzzle flash. Maybe your eyes are closed when you
shoot
your .357 but there is quite a flash with a full load,
particularly in
a short barrel pistol.

I have tube enhancer on this machine and I can clip off some stills
from that video if you like. We can compare then to the other video
you posted to get an idea about what he is shooting.


The only way we would know what he was shooting is if he told us.

He did tell us, you just refuse to accept it.
I say again. shoot is a video of your rock steady hold and a picture
of the ammo, we can judge for ourselves.
Otherwise it is just a waste of the bandwidth to continue.


I didn't hear or see any numbers in that vid.


Why don't you just acknowledge that the video link you posted presumably
to show little muzzle flip of a .357 Magnum (with a 3-inch barrel) when
using a "proper grip" .... doesn't.

Several experienced (and some less experienced) have questioned what
type of rounds he was shooting ... the guy in the video calls them
"modest" rounds and, most importantly, *you* don't know what he was
shooting either.

It's ok to be wrong sometimes.



All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.



Then why did you offer it as an example of little muzzle flip when
shooting a .357 Magnum? You said the minimal flip was due to "proper
grip, stance, etc.". Now you admit no one (including you) knows what
the hell he was shooting in it.

We know one thing. They weren't full powered, factory .357 Magnum
rounds. If they were there would be no need for his comment about them
being "modest" rounds.





This is getting funnier and funnier. Get back to us when you have some
data. My comment stands:

A heavy pistol with a long barrel helps you control a revolver's muzzle
flip, as do a proper grip and stance. Check out some of Jerry Miculek's
vids with .357s and .44s. His grip, which I "stole," helps him control
muzzle flip. No one is saying there is NO muzzle flip...but it is
controllable.






--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On Monday, July 14, 2014 4:26:49 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:56:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



On 7/14/14, 5:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 7/14/2014 4:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:







I didn't hear or see any numbers in that vid.





Why don't you just acknowledge that the video link you posted presumably

to show little muzzle flip of a .357 Magnum (with a 3-inch barrel) when

using a "proper grip" .... doesn't.



Several experienced (and some less experienced) have questioned what

type of rounds he was shooting ... the guy in the video calls them

"modest" rounds and, most importantly, *you* don't know what he was

shooting either.



It's ok to be wrong sometimes.







All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's

certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but

there are no answers.



I will base it on the cast bullets alone. You can NOT push a cast

bullet to ".357" velocities and maintain any sibilance of accuracy

PERIOD.

And he's probably (yeah I'm speculating!) using something like an HP/38 powder, which is mild compared to 110. That is if he's using the full recommended grain.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 7:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:10:12 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.



No hard data.

Why is your totally uninformed guess any better than the informed
opinion of people who have done a lot of reloading?

For that matter why did you even post that video if you did not have a
clue what he was shooting.

Where is YOUR video. We are all waiting to see the wrist of steel in
action. We do want to see the type of ammo you are using loaded in a
single continuous shot tho ... not that we don't trust you ;-)
A round with a .357 base stamp will do, extra credit for a "Buffalo".



He can't and he won't. Right now Harry is busy playing word games to
back step away from posting something he now regrets. It cracks me up.
He posted the video link to demonstrate "proper grip" when shooting .357
Magnum rounds that minimize muzzle flip but now he accuses everyone,
including himself, of not having definitive data on what kind of ammo
the guy was using in the video. Talk about obfuscation.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

In article , says...



All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.

At 9:15 in he tries PMC 158 JSP's, and says so.
Calls them "warmer," then "hot."
Plenty of "muzzle flip."
You guys don't even know what you're arguing about.
Gun nut nonsense.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 7:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:10:12 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.



No hard data.

Why is your totally uninformed guess any better than the informed
opinion of people who have done a lot of reloading?

For that matter why did you even post that video if you did not have a
clue what he was shooting.

Where is YOUR video. We are all waiting to see the wrist of steel in
action. We do want to see the type of ammo you are using loaded in a
single continuous shot tho ... not that we don't trust you ;-)
A round with a .357 base stamp will do, extra credit for a "Buffalo".


Post a personal video in this cesspool of right-wing assholes? That's a
laugh.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 8:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 7:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:10:12 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.



No hard data.

Why is your totally uninformed guess any better than the informed
opinion of people who have done a lot of reloading?

For that matter why did you even post that video if you did not have a
clue what he was shooting.

Where is YOUR video. We are all waiting to see the wrist of steel in
action. We do want to see the type of ammo you are using loaded in a
single continuous shot tho ... not that we don't trust you ;-)
A round with a .357 base stamp will do, extra credit for a "Buffalo".



He can't and he won't. Right now Harry is busy playing word games to
back step away from posting something he now regrets. It cracks me up.
He posted the video link to demonstrate "proper grip" when shooting .357
Magnum rounds that minimize muzzle flip but now he accuses everyone,
including himself, of not having definitive data on what kind of ammo
the guy was using in the video. Talk about obfuscation.



I'm not stepping away from anything. You boys can't quantify the vid as
to the specs of the loads, and all you can do is guess. Guess away.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/14, 8:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...



All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.

At 9:15 in he tries PMC 158 JSP's, and says so.
Calls them "warmer," then "hot."
Plenty of "muzzle flip."
You guys don't even know what you're arguing about.
Gun nut nonsense.



Warmer and hot are unquantified, but if he is shooting PMC factory loads
of 158 grains, then the ammo probably is "regular" .357 MAG.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

Actually I did and noticed the factory metal jacket rounds. But it seemed that Harry was concentrating on the minimum barrel rise and said his revolver had even less due to having a heavier barrel. But nothing was mentioned about the lesser recoil due to using half-doped lead loads

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:20:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/14/2014 7:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:10:12 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.



No hard data.

Why is your totally uninformed guess any better than the informed
opinion of people who have done a lot of reloading?

For that matter why did you even post that video if you did not have a
clue what he was shooting.

Where is YOUR video. We are all waiting to see the wrist of steel in
action. We do want to see the type of ammo you are using loaded in a
single continuous shot tho ... not that we don't trust you ;-)
A round with a .357 base stamp will do, extra credit for a "Buffalo".



He can't and he won't. Right now Harry is busy playing word games to
back step away from posting something he now regrets. It cracks me up.
He posted the video link to demonstrate "proper grip" when shooting .357
Magnum rounds that minimize muzzle flip but now he accuses everyone,
including himself, of not having definitive data on what kind of ammo
the guy was using in the video. Talk about obfuscation.

===

Haven't we seen this movie before?

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On Monday, July 14, 2014 5:33:13 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 7:33 PM, wrote:

Where is YOUR video. We are all waiting to see the wrist of steel in

action. We do want to see the type of ammo you are using loaded in a

single continuous shot tho ... not that we don't trust you ;-)

A round with a .357 base stamp will do, extra credit for a "Buffalo".





Post a personal video in this cesspool of right-wing assholes? That's a

laugh.

Why not, Harry? You must really love hanging around with "right-wing assholes" because you post here the most....

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/15/14, 8:30 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, July 14, 2014 5:33:13 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 7:33 PM, wrote:

Where is YOUR video. We are all waiting to see the wrist of steel in

action. We do want to see the type of ammo you are using loaded in a

single continuous shot tho ... not that we don't trust you ;-)

A round with a .357 base stamp will do, extra credit for a "Buffalo".





Post a personal video in this cesspool of right-wing assholes? That's a

laugh.

Why not, Harry? You must really love hanging around with "right-wing assholes" because you post here the most....


It's the aftermath of my college minor, deviant sociology, that keeps me
here and giggling at the righties. "Nuts and Sluts," we used to call it.
Only right-wing nuts here, though, although I think Ingersoll could
qualify as a slut.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

.357 Magnum, handled properly
 

On 7/14/2014 6:37 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 8:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...



All we have is unquantified guesses, no hard date. Zip, zilch. It's
certainly okay to question what sorts of rounds he was shooting, but
there are no answers.

At 9:15 in he tries PMC 158 JSP's, and says so.
Calls them "warmer," then "hot."
Plenty of "muzzle flip."
You guys don't even know what you're arguing about.
Gun nut nonsense.



Warmer and hot are unquantified, but if he is shooting PMC factory loads
of 158 grains, then the ammo probably is "regular" .357 MAG.

Regular? Quantify regular, dummy.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson