I am currently waiting on a hammer for my S&W 60-14. I bobbed the hammer and have found that 1/50 reloads will not ignite in my 60 but fire in my other guns. I have changed springs and didnt find a difference. I have a few boxes of S&B primers left and would like my 60 to be able to ignite 100% of them.
Originally Posted by 03RN
I'd like that to be the case, but I get hung up on the fact that Dr Gary Roberts has repeatedly claimed that commercial clear gel is NOT an appropriate ballistics test gelatin. Which seems to make sense to me, as many loads considered marginal or unacceptable by the IWBA, FBI and Dr Roberts have instead performed pretty well in Lucky Gunner's clear gel tests, sometimes even outstandingly well even compared to the consistent, long standing "top dogs" as tested by robust programs of known value and corroborated by OIS results.
Last edited by TGS; 02-04-2019 at 11:04 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Finding the “perfect” ccw gun is a trail of compromises that everyone takes on their journey. I wouldn’t trade ammo limitations or reliability for a 2lb reduction on the DA. That type of DA would be best for a range or competition revolver. A smoothed and tuned 8.5lb DA would work for me.
I would say the clear ballitic gel is only good as a relative measure of performance. If 9 out of 10 rounds were tested in one medium, and the 10th in another, the results aren’t very helpful. Paul Harrell’s meat target might have some relative merit, but not all pork ribs, oranges, and jackets are creat equal.
I'm not sure how to respond to that, given I never advocated or the use of meat targets, Paul Harrell (whoever that is), or using different test mediums for comparative testing.
Last edited by TGS; 02-04-2019 at 11:53 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
It's a conflict in the real world and to reasonably well informed gun owners. It's no conflict at all in court room survival where your opponent is trying to create a narrative that paints you in a certain light and the audience has zero knowledge about guns. A factory gun gives no narrative hooks, so to speak, so a gun with a 6-lb trigger from the factory isn't the same, in this context, as one with a 10-lb trigger modified to a 6-lb trigger.
You can, of course, argue that the modification is within the realm of reasonable common practice and doesn't represent a "hair trigger" but arguing costs money when a lawyer is doing it for you and maybe the jury buys it, maybe they don't. If you want a modified pull weight and wish to argue it, then other factory iterations of that gun (that aren't labeled "competition only") from the factory are probably your best bet. I'd be much more comfortable saying S&W's own smiths will modify to "X lbs" and have documentation proving it vs "well a completely different gun has X lb trigger pull".
Again, it'll *probably* never be an issue. It'll be an expensive issue if it ever is an issue, though.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
This is an Airlite S&W revolver, and N-frame bore axis is quite high. I would not fire Magnums through my 327 PC snub-gun, unless perhaps “-P” loads, and only with my healthier left hand. I wrecked my right thumb, hand, and wrist by firing .44 and .41 Mags in the mid/late Eighties.
Respectfully sumbitted; not meaning to be argumentative.
Crash test dummies are used to determine the relative effects of a car crash on humans. Would an actual human suffer the same fate as a dummie? It doesn’t matter, in as much as we are able to compare the relative “safety” of each car used in the same testing procedure. Dummies don’t tense up and straighten their arms against a steering wheel, so it’s not a real life test in that regard. Crash investigators are able to offer some real life insights, and they have plenty of crashes to sample. We have enough shootings to make certain determinations, but people aren’t shot in the same manner, nor under a controlled test.
Not all testing is equally predictive and/or has a proven correlation. Crash test dummies are measuring forces applied, and there are well documented bench marks on when injury occurs at a given force level, just as we can calculate safe stand-off distances from the over-pressure wave of a given explosive. We could throw duffel bags of clay behind the seat and measure indentations. That could be made consistent and give an example to example difference. It would not, however, have any proven correlation to injury.
The full FBI battery has a proven correlation and allows consistent testing and thus consistent evaluation.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Well, here’s a side by side comparison of ordnance gel and clear ballistic gel. It’s pretty close.
https://youtu.be/1kjcoFaobeo
Reply With Quote