My 3" M13 is probably the last gun I would sell. Big enough to shoot well and small enough to conceal well. Come on S&W, you can do it.....
A scandium frame K in .38 special would be awesome.
My 3" M13 is probably the last gun I would sell. Big enough to shoot well and small enough to conceal well. Come on S&W, you can do it.....
A scandium frame K in .38 special would be awesome.
I hear you.Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
If I recall correctly, the Taurus offerings were unique at that time in the market (production, not custom). The 41 offered magnum power in a lightweight & compact gun. The 454 was the only d.a. gun in that chambering at the time. Today there are better options with higher quality and reliability.
A long time ago we used to sell some Taurus in the store I owned. One gun I particular I always liked and we sold a ton of for nightstand guns. It was essentially a 3" K frame in .44 special. They were very much a go to the range once in awhile and load with .44 Silvertip or the CCI Speer load and leave them alone. It was a good choice for many, particularly in California during the advent of all the initial bans on magazines.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
I wish someone other than Charter Arms made a gun like the bull dog. A
Ruger, you listening? Light weight, dao, lcr cam trigger in .44 special? Yes, pls.
I have a couple of old era Bulldogs and they are quite good guns for their intended purpose.
As for the newly manufactured ones - - I'm not too impressed.
Wrong about what? ScotchGuard being flammable, or you actually can shoot out of a coat pocket?
And how does one simulate shooting from a pocket? Did ya'll pull the trigger and say "Pew, pew!", or what? Not trying to be a smart-ass; I'm genuinely curious. Because it is not as simple as one would imagine. Particularly the second time, when your colleagues are standing around with fire extinguishers, making bets on what part of you will go up first.
Please don't consider my example of two to be empirical evidence. I believe the the stuff is flammable after application, but I don't KNOW it. Understandably, its a limited test to run unless you have a good supply of coats, because the garment is ruined afterward.
Who is M. de Bethencourt?
.
The early 'Nineties .44 Bulldog Pug I had was an unmitigated disaster; a wretched pulsating ball of suck and fail.
Wouldn't be the same. Oh, they would work well enough, but the different frame dimensions, two-piece barrels, "streamlined" thumb pieces, MIM parts… ugh, just give me a Glock.
.
I guarantee that there was a Morse code telegraph conversation in 1860 that included the following: "Have you seen the new 'Second Issue' Smith & Wessons? Flat-sided frames because they're too lazy to machine them round, and they have that gaping huge amoeba-shaped sideplate instead of the old round one, sacrificing frame strength for ease of assembly... Ugh. Just give me a percussion-lock Deringer."
Yeah my guns are earlier than that. I don't recall the (relatively) good years versus all the other years off the top of my head right now. But there were a lot more bad years than good. They went through all sorts of financial turmoil & reorganizations.
P.S. - I just found this article on the various Bulldog 'generations' for those interested. Get one from a 'good year' and they're o.k. if you recognize their limitations. ('Good' is a relative term - meaning functional. It does not mean 'good' as in S&W wheel-gun quality & durability.) Get one from the many bad years, and you'll likely have a piece of garbage. The current made guns don't match the quality of the 1970s stainless Bulldogs I own -
https://thedesertsedge.wordpress.com...og-44-special/
Last edited by SamAdams; 09-26-2015 at 08:28 PM. Reason: P.S. on Bulldog generations added
Reply With Quote