Jump to content
Practically Shooting

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. BarryinIN

    Kel-Tec KS7

    Followed me home. This is the single mag tube version of the KSG. Simpler, lighter, and trimmer. It’s also quite a bit less money- the local shop had $409 on it. What the heck. I’m no Kel-Tec fan, but for $409, I’ll give this one a chance. It feels a lot handier than the KSG.
  3. Last week
  4. According to emails some have had with Weaver in recent weeks, they are now only making scope rings and bases. I have seen a few discounted models listed at a couple of sites, but it looks like there weren’t many out there to sell off at a bargain.
  5. I’ve handled maybe five or six of them, and all had nice triggers. I just hope the one I’m getting sight unseen will also. The one I borrowed for a few shots recently was probably the best of the bunch, but he had shot several hundred rounds through it that I know of. The others I’ve tried were brand new. I can’t think of a direct comparison offhand. Maybe I’d compare them to a S&W K-frame with a conservative spring kit? Not one slicked up by a true revolver smith by any means, but better than the average stock one. Still not a very accurate comparison because the Kimbers have a shorter pull that changes the feel.
  6. Kimber claims a "match-grade" trigger. I would like very much to know what you think when yours arrives. I "need" a .357, too...so...
  7. Earlier
  8. I now have one coming. I’ve liked the K6s since handling them at the 2016 NRA Convention. Very nice trigger. I already had a S&W 640, so didn’t see the point of getting a Kimber too. At least, not for almost twice what the 640 cost. The 3” Kimber though, that got me thinking. That’s a different beast. I like 3” revolvers and have had a few in various frame sizes. They carry like a 2” and shoot like a 4”. The 3” S&W 36 I had was probably the best example of this I’ve wanted to replace a 3” S&W 65 I used to have, but those are bringing a lot of money now. I was recently in a revolver class and one of the other students had a Kimber K6s 2”. After shooting it, I “needed” one more than I previously thought. These facts combined to give me the push to try out a Kimber. The only complaint I have so far about the 3” Kimber is they didn’t put a full length ejector rod on them. It uses the same stubby rod as the 2”. Why Kimber? Why has thou forsaken me?
  9. Thanks for the update! would love to go someday... Cheers, Astro
  10. Done. I’m tired. Summary: Attendance figures won’t be out for a day or two, but this may be the most crowded of the four I’ve attended. The others had a day with lighter traffic, but this one stayed pretty busy throughout until the last few hours. With all the political infighting going on inside the NRA this weekend, you couldn’t tell this on the show floor. Most attendees seemed oblivious. It was like being at a sporting event where it’s nice to be close to the action but you don’t know what really happened until you see the TV broadcast later. The seminars were good. My favorite was one by Steve Tarani on current and emerging threats. If you get a chance to attend an NRA Annual Meeting, don’t skip the seminars. There is a lot of good information to be had in 60-90 minutes. It’s hard to tear myself away from the acres and acres of cool things to look at, but I’m always glad I did. My biggest surprise was the Colt King Cobra. I had seen Colt’s new King Cobra in shops but had not looked one over because I wasn’t interested. I had low expectations. When you are standing in front of a wall of them at a show like this, you might as well look. Its not bad. It could be finished better externally, but I can say that about a lot of guns. Overall, the basic operation of it was pretty smooth. I’ve never liked the DA trigger of Colt revolvers but I liked these. Let’s put it this way. Put on a blindfold or just be honest with yourself and handle a King Cobra and a GP100, and I think you’ll say the Colt feels better. I still think the Colts are overpriced. The Cobra is bad enough, and the King Cobra is worse. I don’t see ME getting one as long as I can get a used S&W K-frame for half the cost, but that won’t last forever. The best innovation I saw, if you can call it an innovation, was from Taurus. I’m not a fan of their products but they have some good ideas. I forget the model number, but they have a DA revolver that comes with a .38/.357 cylinder AND a 9mm cylinder. Press a button on the right side of the frame above the trigger, then the yoke and cylinder can be pulled out the front of the frame for the swap. Essentially, they’ve exchanged the front side plate screw for a push button. Slick. Since I'm talking DA revolvers, Charter had a Bulldog in .41 Magnum. With all the .454 and .480 giant revolvers out there, I’d be willing to shoot any of them before I’d shoot one of those little .41 Mag Charters. There is always a small company there with a prototype that may or may not get off the ground. I forget the name since I saw it on my way out yesterday when I was beat, but they had a semiautomatic Bren gun. That’s different. If I had a Land Rover, I’d need one. CZ had the new bullpup version of the Scorpion 9mm carbine. Neat if you like bullpups. Ruger’s new Wrangler was there. It was about what I expected. No more and no less. I keep reading comments online by people who’ve never seen one about the “pot metal” frame. If it’s pot metal, it’s the heaviest pot metal I’ve ever seen. ETS, or Elite Tactical Solutions, who makes clear and tinted magazines for Glocks, is adding mags for the S&W M&P (Standard and extended) and AR-15s. Magpul usually has a flamboyant display with a minigun-equipped vehicles and cigarette girls carrying trays of swag, but they kept it pretty tame this time. They are now making furniture for CZ Scorpions and MP5-types. Since the Ruger PC-9 takedown carbine came out, people have been asking if Magpul will make a stock like they have for the 10/22 takedown. It’s kind of slick since the two halves connect together when apart, and it has storage space. I was maybe the 10,000th person to ask about it this weekend, and got a “cannot confirm or deny” answer, which I’ll take as a “someday”. I didn't see Chuck Norris, but I did see Ted Nugent. Better yet, I met a crewman from the WWII B-29 atomic test group and Medal of Honor recipient Sammy Davis.
  11. This coming weekend. I’ll be there. Anything anyone want looked at or asked about?
  12. I buy a lot of SD ammo from this company. They only charge me a $5 flat rate of shipping. https://www.lawmens.com/
  13. I use Ranger-T 127 grain in 9mm. Ranger can be a pain to find sometimes, but worth it I think.
  14. Thanks for the reply Barry. Back in the day I was using Winchester Silvertip exclusively. As the new JHP's came out, I was leap frogging from one brand to another. As time moves on, you seem to get wiser and learn things as you go. So, today, in SD ammo I like to use Winchester Ranger LE JHP's exclusively. In .357 SIG I use Ranger T-Series/SXT (sometimes PDX1), 9mm I use Ranger Bonded, and in .40 caliber, either Ranger T-Series/SXT or Ranger Bonded. I do have several boxes in each caliber in HST though.
  15. They change all the time. In .45, I use CCI 230 grain Gold Dot, and have boxes bought not all that far apart with three slightly different cavities in the bullets. I asked about it, and that’s basically the answer I got: They change all the time. OK then.
  16. I prefer to EDC an M&P 2.0 FS .40 caliber, or an M&P 1.0 FS .40 caliber, with Winchester JHP's. I have known this for awhile and decided to make a post here about it. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this? In the pic below, the bullet on the left is a Winchester Ranger T-Series 40 S&W 180 gr. JHP, made in 2009 (Brown Box). The bullet on the right is the same titled bullet, but made in 2017 (Black Box). Do you notice the difference in the cavities? The bullet on the right looks more like an HST bullet. The bullet on the left looks like the more traditional Black Talon/SXT bullet. Things that make you go."Hmmmmm........"
  17. I’ve been messing with this thing some. It takes some tinkering, but it also seems to respond to the tinkering. I can’t say the same for all the .22s I’ve been fooling with lately. In our club’s youth program, we are starting to shoot outside with .22s after a winter of air rifle. This is the first year we’ve ventured outside with them. Since the two .22 matches held at our club are silhouette and BR-50, that’s what we are working them up to. Coming up with suitable BR rifles wasn’t much trouble. Between us instructors we have rifles for that after pooling our resources. We thought getting them into silhouette rifles would be the easy part. It hasn’t been. Our problem is since the kids have to shoot silhouette from standing, we have to have something light enough they can handle but accurate enough for the game. The size and weight part eliminates most of the rifles we instructors have. Accuracy is always helpful, but naturally requirements for silhouette aren’t all that tight compared to BR so we could loosen up the standards quite a bit. We weren’t too worried about having suitable silhouette rifles. The club has some Savages of various types, and they happen to be what I call medium-sized. Not small rifles really, but on the small side for most adults. None of our kids are big, so they were almost perfect. We assumed once we moved the scopes from the airguns to these, we’d be set. We were stuck leaving the scopes on the air rifles until we finished there. Monday, we moved the scopes to the .22s to see what we had to work with. We needed them ready to go Thursday evening. The results? Panic ensued. We had already decided that having the kids adjust scopes for each target and distance was asking for trouble, so we’d designate a rifle for each target distance, zero it accordingly, and leave it alone The kids can rotate from rifle to rifle. That would require at least four rifles- one for each target/distance- and four is exactly what we had. Spares would be nice, but we didn’t have them. This would also allow us to use the most accurate rifle on the farthest targets. If we had a particularly crummy rifle, we could designate it the chicken rifle. The next one better could be a pig rifle, etc. We thought this would give us even more wiggle room in the accuracy standards, but three of the four weren’t capable of even the chicken. At least the one we ended up with was good for the ram at 100. So the scrambling began. All had wood stocks and they must’ve shrunk over time because all their stock screws were loose. They have thin bottom metal, so you can’t give them much torque, which means you can’t play around with that much to see if it helps. Nobody has shot these rifles in years, yet the barrels were filthy. Lead deposits crusted the muzzles. Adding insult to injury, our scopes blocked off the ejection ports so single loading was almost impossible and we’d have to shoot from the magazines...which distorted the ammo in feeding. The frustrating part was none of the tricks the two of us knew helped. The rifles just wouldn’t respond. After running around this week tuning, adjusting, and testing these rifles, we got another one usable, but only for chickens. Now we had two. My buddy in this fiasco did some stock swapping to lighten up an accurate Savage he has to give us three rifles. Now we get to where this ramble applies to the Ruger American Rimfire. There was also a Ruger American rifle in the club safe. We broke it out and scoped it before finding out it belongs to a board member (why it was there, we don’t know) but he said we could use it. Unlike the Savages, I don’t think this one had seen any use at all. I think there is a curse on that safe since it couldn’t shoot very well either and we had to give up on it. I know it’s only been a small sampling, but the stories I read and hear that you have a 50-50 chance at getting a good shooting one with these Rugers is looking true. Our situation caused me to get to work on my Ruger American Rimfire. If we could get it shooting well enough, it might have to be the fourth rifle. This one actually responded to tuning. The big helps were action screw torquing and adding shims between the barrel and stock. Two in-lbs of action screw torque change was enough to change things. FWIW, it likes them light: 18 in-lbs front and 16 rear. The lighter trigger spring I ordered helped a lot. Shooting the other Ruger at the same time really drove that home. I doubt the seller has more than three cents in each spring, so while it hurt to pay $10 for it, I sure got more than that in improvement from it. We are going to use it, along with two of my rifles that may or may not prove to be too heavy for the kids. After all our trouble, we delayed silhouette a week and shot only BR last night. So... my impulse-purchase, unimpressively-built, cheap-as-dirt Ruger may not have rescued us, but it is giving us a cushion. There is one big thing that kept sticking out. I had three different scopes on this Ruger this week as we shuffled things around. Not three examples of the same scope, but three different brands. Each one needed a LOT of up elevation to zero. Once, I tried it at 100 yards and ran out of elevation about three inches below point of aim. It has standard 3/8” grooves and is drilled and tapped. I was using the grooves each time. On this one at least, either the scope groove machining or the barrel install is a little off. I might buy some bases and use the tapped holes just to see if that eliminates it.
  18. Fixed it. Got a 457 American.
  19. I guess I’m an owner now. I was out searching for a CZ Saturday when I saw one of these in the used rack at my regular shop. He shot me a price of $200, and I said why not. I still have him looking for a CZ Our county 4-H club has one of these and I like it pretty well. It gave us a full-size rifle for the HS-age kids, has decent sights, and I don’t think it cost any more than the single shots we have. It can take the tough life of going in and out of a crowded safe, being hauled to and from the range, and getting slobbered on by kids, and doing this all summer long. It’s a great rifle for us. I’d never taken that one out of the stock and examined it. I almost wish I hadn’t done that with mine now. This is one cheap rifle. Wow. Well, it doesn't have to be mechanically beautiful inside to shoot well. I never have put the 4-H Ruger to paper to see how it really does. Being basically a safe gun handling program rather than a marksmanship one, accuracy requirements aren’t too high there. In practical accuracy terms, I think it shoots great. Aim at that plate, press the trigger, pop-ting. We've got one on loan to the Youth Program at the gun club to see what we think. Two of us have shot it for groups a little bit. We like it generally, but accuracy-wise, its one of those frustrating rifles that shows you a little promise then yanks it away. We’ve both shot some nice 4-shot groups. Always one flyer. Occasionally it will give us three in a group, and two out. Those two will be touching, in their own little group. Usually it’s four and one. We change ammo, technique, and we’ll swap places at the bench, but it does the same. There are some things we’d try if it were ours, but we’ve avoided the tools so far. From what what I read online, you get a roughly 50-50 chance of getting a good shooter. Maybe after using this frustrating one, I’ve helped my odds. Until skimming through the earlier posts here, I forgot about that one that fed so hard from the magazine. Now that I’ve had one out of the stock, I have a theory about that. I said it was a cheap rifle. One reason I say that is from how it’s bedded in the stock. The stock has two blocks of mystery metal (aluminum...maybe?) that I guess you’d call bedding blocks. They drop into their own recess in the stock, action screws run up through them and into the action. The action is seated in these blocks. I guess it works. The potential problem I see is these blocks aren’t fastened into the stock in any way. They just drop in. Neither of mine fit tight in their recess, but the rear one is particularly loose. Since the rear one contains the magazine catch, I think that guy’s rifle may have been assembled with the block a little out of line, which caused the magazine to be misaligned. Needless to say, I wonder what it does to accuracy too. If it doesn’t shoot well, I’ll just loosen the action screws, shake the bedding blocks around, and try again.
  20. I'm just a plain old RUGER 10/22 guy.
  21. Well, never mind. I went to pick it up and it wasn’t the right model. It wasn’t really close, either. I ordered a CZ 455 American with a standard weight barrel. A CZ 455 Standard is what came. I am not a CZ wizard, but I’m not completely ignorant of them either, and I had no clue what a Standard was. It seems to be a cheaper version (birch stock) of the Lux, with the “European” or “Bavarian” style humped stock Different from the American in stock shape, stock material, and with iron sights. Other than that, it was exactly the same. It was in .22LR, and it was a CZ! They checked, and no Americans were available. Not surprising since they replaced the 455 with the 457 at the end of the year I was hoping I caught one Debit card reloaded.
  22. These CZs are like erector sets. You can swap barrels, stocks, and calibers in seconds so it’s kind of silly to have more than one or maybe two. But you gotta do what you gotta do. The project ideas are limitless Whistlepig makes lightweight barrels for these (and 10/22s, and 77/22s, and...) with a steel rifled sleeve in an aluminum outer heavy “barrel”. I have one in a 10/22 bullpup and it’s very accurate. It is tempting to get a barrel and plastic stock to see how light and accurate I can make one. A few companies make chassis stock systems so you can get as crazy as you want as a .22 precision trainer. Lilja’s 3-groove drop-in barrel tempts me. CZ has their own Precision Trainer with a Manners stock, but hey, why stop there!
  23. Then you have make-up purchases to do. Post pictures!
  24. Every year will be easier to remember. My problem is I was unaware of this situation in 2017 and 2018. I’m already behind.
  25. So every year, or three years, you'll be buying a CZ on March 1st? :-)
  26. Well, that’s odd. I ordered my second CZ 455 on Friday (March 1)- an American .22 with the standard (not varmint) barrel. I came on here to find this post and see when I got my other one, and there it is: Three years ago to the day. I didn't plan that. I will be make a note of it, though. Maybe March 1 will be CZ Day from now on.
  27. The Ruger revolver I’m most interested in now is the GP100 in 10mm. The 3” Wiley Clapp model to be specific. Any revolver larger than L-frame/GP-size is getting a bit too unwieldy for me. I’d rather stop at K-frame size, but I know it just isn’t possible for some things. Redhawks and N-frames are nice, but big. The GP 10mm’s holes are about as big as I expect to see in that size gun without going to a five-shot cylinder*. A 3” six-shot medium (large medium) revolver that still throws a bullet diameter starting with a “4”? Yeah, there’s some appeal there to me. *I already have a S&W 69 .44 Mag and a 696 .44 Spl for the five shot category.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...