Hickok 45 are you listening ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nutnfancy, despite being constantly ridiculed, is the one who offers the most honest and thorough gun reviews on the net.

But, Hickok45 is widely considered to be more likeable and he connects with people in a Grandpa or Father like aspect, he is mellow, humble and approachable, not afraid to say when he doesn't know and doesn't have a big ego, but has reviewed a ton of guns and has thousands of videos. He is great and people love him, even if his reviews aren't always the most thorough or best.
 
He's a member of THR but sadly only 3 posts. Wish he was here posting. Probably too busy elsewhere.
hickok45 was last seen: Nov 30, 2011
 
I have three Ruger revolvers that I handload for and shoot lead bullets in all of them without any leading problems. What's the deal with Ruger and leading of barrels? It may have more to do with the types of bullets used and the velocities that they are being driven rather than with Ruger barrels.
I don't know but I'd like to, what Ruger revolvers are you referencing?
 
I enjoy watching Hickok now & then.
He's very personable & relaxing.

He does not, however, give you very much detail at all on a given gun.
You get no technical specs, you get no detailed discussion of strong & weak points, you get no accuracy results, you get no detailed backstory or discussion of peripheral issues.

Essentially, he describes most of the gun, chats a bit, shoots iron & soda pop with one or two rounds, chats a bit more.

Doesn't compare different loads, doesn't deal with handloading, doesn't talk about sights (good or bad), doesn't talk about triggers, doesn't get into optics, doesn't get into much real info on operation, just doesn't cover a gun all that well.

I am NOT knocking the man.
I do find him entertaining.
He does have a following.
Passed him in a hall at the SHOT Show once, he's 9 feet tall.

You get far more solid info from Jeff in his reviews than you'll get from Hickok. :)
And neither man is dependent on money from the gunmakers.
That's not how it works.
Denis
 
Ruger Blackhawk in .357 Mag, Ruger Blackhawk in .44 Special and Ruger LCR in .38 Special +P and with a little luck I'll add a Blackhawk in .45 Colt in 2017.
 
Quote:"I am concerned about the cylinder mouth,bore an groove diameter of this gun. I am not so concerned with outside appearance but more with the inside".

Y'all know he doesn't address technical issues mostly.........entertaining vids with some basic info.....that's it.
 
Leading is usually the result of undersized flame cut bullets. Sizeing correctly to the cylinder throats corrects the problem.
 
I'm not a "Ruger guy" but does Ruger have a reputation for turning out guns that won't shoot lead bullets and not lead up? Are these really major problems from Ruger? I always thought they turned out pretty good stuff. Somewhat clunky and homely to my eye, but I was always under the impression they were well made.

No they do not. I have several Ruger revolvers that shoot lead very well straight out of the box from .32 cal thru .45 cal. I have had one of 23 revolvers show signs of leading that I could not correct with proper bullet fit. After reaming the throats it shoots lead well.

Just like Colt, S&W, ect, Ruger puts out one that is little out of spec occasionally. The bad ones are the only ones you here about.
 
I agree with Milt1. More a function of cast bullet construction/material and powder load than a particular gun. Soft lead wadcutters driven too fast will make your barrel look like a smooth bore...then need a Lewis Lead Remover in the appropriate caliber. Learned that mistake 45 years ago, when I was young, dumb and stupid. I do not have any leading problems now with hand loads using hard cast SWC or RNFP bullets, nor with commercially loaded Buffalo Bore or Grizzly hard cast Bullet ammo in any of my Rugers or Smith & Wessons. My preference is for cast bullets in my big bore revolvers.
 
1) Over sized cylinder mouth. Ruger has had a bad habit of sizing at .432"
2) To steep of angle cut on the forcing cone, not a big deal as it can be easily remedied.
3) Roughly machined cylinder throats and rough bore, where lead can get a foothold it will increase.
4) And this "I think its fair to say that Ruger has been known to produce a few revolvers with thread constrictions in the barrel and cylinder throats that are not ideal for shooting lead bullets."
It is something you can notice when running a patch down the barrel. I wonder if this is more common with revolvers that have thin forcing cones?
I don't think that Hickock 45 will address these issues, but I wish he could.

1) .432 is near perfect to shoot lead ( I like .4325) as most lead bullets are .431 or .432. All the throat does is get the bullet lined up with the forcing cone and it (throat) needs to be bigger than groove diameter by at least .001, .0015 is better

2) Forcing cones are cut to 5 degrees to accommodate jacketed bullets. Most folks shoot jacketed. 5 degrees will work with lead but 11 degrees is better. Its easier to go from 5 to 11 than from 11 to 5.

3) I'm sure they are out there, but I have never had one with too rough a throat or bore to shoot lead. If bullet fit to throat and bore is right it will probably shoot lead fine, as fast as a special will safely shoot lead.

4) All revolvers that have threaded barrels have a thread choke unless it's been lapped out. Some are just worse than others. Some are much worse than others.

People asked for a GP100 in 44 Special, Ruger produced one. Let's see how it goes before we bash it too much. ;)
 
I doubt that one gun, reviewed by one individual would tell you anything (but what you wanted to hear) .While individual guns may vary in quality, I can say that any of the 3, GP 100's I've owned were prone to leading. In fact, I'd say leading in most modern revolvers has more to do with the specifics of the load and less to do with the gun itself.
 
And you expect the guy, that constantly says: "Great gun, just great, brought to you by Bud's gun shop. Did I tell you how great this gun is?" to tell you this?!? Before, or after he misses half of his targets? And why do you expect that this revolver will be build different (read "not suitable for") than other Ruger revolvers?
It's funny, when you think about it, but I think he was a beter shot 5 years ago than now, and how many guns does the man own, a thousand? 2, 3? It seems that most guns he reviews, are his or he had one of them. That in itself isn't that strange when you are talking abiut a few hundred, but he reviews well over the thousand gun amount, possibly thousands more, anyone know?
If he did one a day for 5 years, it would be a lot of guns. Now with Buds sending him guns and Federal sending ammo, it's like a kid in a candy store. But he and Quinn never met a gun they didn't like. And Jeff is a heck of a nice guy, but you can't love every gun you test, it's impossible. There just has to be a gun that just sucked, or had an FTF or FTE, but not according to them, although Hickock does show malfunctions, but usually says it may not be broken in yet. I would just like to hear one of these guys say, this gun is a piece of junk, but then they would loose their way of making a living.
 
May not be possible to love every gun tested, but it certainly is possible to not waste the time writing up or filming a clunker.

As far as Hickok possibly shooting better 5 years ago goes- you may not get any older, but the rest of us do.

Can we avoid turning this thread into the quarterly gun reviewer bashing thread, please?
Denis
 
I would just like to hear one of these guys say, this gun is a piece of junk, but then they would loose their way of making a living...

More than likely it's because they pass on junk beforehand; before they even bust out the camera. Too, with CNC machine tools, there is less junk being produced today than just 10 years ago. And both those ol' fellers will always be a better shot than you'll ever be.

:neener:
 
I think that any manufacturer can have issues with throat dimensions, forcing cone angle/alignment of the cutter, or "thread choke" on revolvers. Some are fine, some have problems.
 
I would just like to hear one of these guys say, this gun is a piece of junk, but then they would loose their way of making a living

Not necessarily true. Days gone by reporters were paid with advertising/subscription revenue from their magazine, etc. So it helped to be less truthful. These days, advertisements you see on youtube are selected based on cookies, browsing history and location. they generally dont have a single thing to do with guns. so I dont see that effecting the "bottom dollar".

That said, even if they did proclaim it a piece of junk, how many people on this very web page would say its the most awesome, reliable thing, ever built?

Thats the thing about people; they will cry the loudest or defend something when they are vested by their wallet.
 
I'm not a great fan of gun reviews on youtube. The majority are boring. When I do watch one it's usually H-45 or Nutinfancy. I have developed an interest in the Ruger Mk IIII and decided to see what info was available on youtube and found a review by H-45. He went into detail about how easy the Mk IIII is to break down and clean and also discussed the sights. As to him shooting better five years ago than he does now I can sympathize. At a certain age you start to lose your physical skills. It happens to all of us.
 
Why would someone want a 44 Special revolver, just get a 44 Magnum version and you can shoot all the 44 Special you want.
 
Why is it necessary to repeatedly explain that many of us don't want a .44 Mag in this package?
Why are some so unable to grasp that concept?

Why can you not understand that we don't want to be switching sights back & forth, that we don't want to be dealing with the crud ring left from shooting shorter Specials in longer Magnum chambers, that we don't want to be shooting Magnums in a relatively light gun like this, and that ALL we want in THIS PACKAGE is a .44 Special?

How many times does this need explaining?
Why does it need explaining at all?
Denis
 
Why is it necessary to repeatedly explain that many of us don't want a .44 Mag in this package?
Why are some so unable to grasp that concept?

Why can you not understand that we don't want to be switching sights back & forth, that we don't want to be dealing with the crud ring left from shooting shorter Specials in longer Magnum chambers, that we don't want to be shooting Magnums in a relatively light gun like this, and that ALL we want in THIS PACKAGE is a .44 Special?

How many times does this need explaining?
Why does it need explaining at all?
Denis
I think folks on a more limited budget don't understand why you would choose to not have the option of magnums. They see a money savings by being able to shoot both cartridges out of one gun. They are also projecting their desires for high pressure cartridges and magnum velocities on to everyone else. I'd also be willing to bet that many of them don't reload either, so they see the lack of 44 special ammo variety in some stores as a detriment.

However some folks do understand the benefits of shooting the cartridge that a gun was intended to shoot. It's called "right sizing" in my book, and it makes a lot of sense.

I used to shoot a lot of 38 specials out of my 357's, and a lot of 45 Colt and 454 Casulls from my 460 magnum. I realized a few years ago it is a lot more fun and makes more sense to shoot 357's and 460's from those guns, as that's what they are meant to shoot. If I want to shoot lower power cartridges, I can do it from a smaller, lighter, and more appropriately sized firearm.

Some folks also don't understand that you can often produce the same or better results with a moderate velocity cartridge, as you can with a high velocity cartridge that's going to go sailing straight through your intended target, based on the intended use that is.

Honestly man, I think you are just exhausted and frustrated based on the annoying posts from the original 44 Special GP100 thread. Take heart that there are a lot of folks who do understand and take the nay sayers' comments for what they are, internet noise.
 
Personally I've never seen what H45 does as "reviewing guns". He makes shooting videos for entertainment, and then he gives his impressions and opinions. He interjects humor. He talks about how a gun functioned. He shows you the field disassembly.

Doesn't he refer to himself as an "internet shooting companion", or am I thinking of someone else? He gives tips on cleaning, reloading, he makes silly videos for fun.

Jeff Quinn on the other hand does review firearms, and does share relevant numbers. It's two different things, so the criticism of H45's "reviews" makes little sense to me. They aren't reviews.........

Even if they were, what real relevance do they have to a potential firearm design's quality. He bases his video on the example he receives. Why would we expect all examples of a particular firearm to exhibit the same level of quality that the one he shoots? Why would we expect any one example of a gun to be indicative of what you can expect? It's one example.

Not to mention he is like 6'8" and has enormous hands. Unless you share his stature, why would you expect a gun to be just as good or as bad a fit for you as it is for him? He is also admittedly biased by his own likes. So what? We all are.

I really enjoy his videos as entertainment and accept them for what they are. So, he is sponsored by Bud's. He gets to shoot all sorts of guns he would otherwise have to buy or rent himself otherwise. Good for him. Federal sends him ammo. How many manufactures try to get celebrities to use their equipment? It doesn't make him a crook, or on the take, or biased. It just means enough people enjoy watching his videos, that an ammo maker wants him to be seen shooting their ammo. So what?

People criticizing his videos are projecting their expectations on him, when he provides a different product than the criticizers are looking for. That isn't his fault, and if you don't like it, go watch a different shooter.

I say again to the OP, in an attempt to remain on topic; given H45's love of revolvers, I'm sure he will shoot one as soon as possible. I doubt he will discuss many of the technical aspects that you brought up though. Try messaging Jeff Quinn maybe.
 
460,
I don't recall anything like the extreme negativity people are showing this new Ruger & the new Colt Cobra in past years on various gun forums.
Two guns that have been requested & hoped for for years are now here, and look at what we get.

99% of it seems to center around "It's not what I want", or "I can't understand why anybody'd want one (because it's not what I want)."

Few of us go to these extremes in knocking other peoples' preferences in a new gun, why the incessant "But- it ain't a MAGNUM!" here?

Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Don't understand it? Don't care.
Prefer the Smith .44 Mag L-Frame? Go buy one.
Don't think the new Ruger .44 Special can take down a coastal grizzly? Didn't expect it to.
Ain't legal to hunt with? Don't plan to.
Don't think we should be allowed to enjoy it? Go away.
Have to constantly belittle it? Short walk off a long pier comes to mind.

Yeah, more than a bit frustrated & annoyed. :)
We KNOW it's not a Magnum.
We don't WANT it to be a Magnum.
Denis
 
"He's a member of THR but sadly only 3 posts. Wish he was here posting. Probably too busy elsewhere.
hickok45 was last seen: Nov 30, 2011"
That's a loss for the THR:(
I said in the OP I enjoy Hickok 45 more than Quinn's reviews, This in no way means that I don't enjoy Jeff Quinn's reviews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top