Jim March
Member
I sometimes hang out on the www.sixgunner.com message board, and came across a post that made me stop and think:
http://forums.sixgunner.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2605
Read it? Good.
John Taffin is the author of several books and numerous gun magazine reviews, specializing in big-bore revolvers. On his website is a series of his history and reloading notes for various calibers:
----------------
The 9mm Magnum
The .475 Maximum
The 475 Linebaugh
The .460 Rowland
The .45 Colt
The .445 SuperMag
The .44 Magnum
The .44 Special
The .44 Russian
The .41 Action Express
The .40 S&W
The 10mm
The .44 WCF (.44-40)
The 10mm Magnum
The .41 Special
The .30-30 Marlin 336 Cowboy
The .30-30 Single Shot Thompson Contender
The .38 Special
The Freedom Arms 353
The .30 Carbine
The .32-20
The .38-40
The .500 Maximum
The .500 Linebaugh
source: http://www.sixguns.com/tests/index.html
----------------
Why isn't this happening more often? Probably because most competitive shooters are running as close to "squib loads" as the rules allow. Silluette and bowling pin shooters are some of the only exceptions and I hope those guys are being careful.
But is the issue limited to the big-bore guys?
An interesting quote:
Source: http://yarchive.net/gun/revolver/s+w_probs.html
Now, in addition to a lot of full-house 357 in L-Frames, we don't know what else the guy was shooting. But it's still rather sobering, no?
Here's a doctor's view of the same subject:
http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/jul96injuries.html (plus the two links at the bottom of that article)
Jim's personal opinions follow:
First, I think we have a whole 'nuther reason to look twice at super-lightweight guns, no?
Second, even in steel L-frame and similar heft pieces (GP-100, Blackhawk, etc), the people who say "it's a magnum, shoot nothing but magnums in it!" are just maybe missing something: there's nothing "ubertactical" about being restricted to 22LR at age 55 because you're fresh out of wrist.
Given the extreme difference in your body's performance under combat stress, I've always had a sense that the "shoot nothing but full-power combat loads in practice" school of thought may be wrong. The reality is, if you have something like a steel J or K-class piece and practice mostly with 38s, the basics of trigger pull and sight alignment are identical regardless of kick. Hell, that's why we talk about dry-fire practice.
Somebody please explain to me why daily/weekly practice sessions of 50 - 100 38s followed by a cylinder or two of "full crack 'o doom Magnums" isn't workable, in light of the obvious medical evidence and cases turning up?
http://forums.sixgunner.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2605
Read it? Good.
John Taffin is the author of several books and numerous gun magazine reviews, specializing in big-bore revolvers. On his website is a series of his history and reloading notes for various calibers:
----------------
The 9mm Magnum
The .475 Maximum
The 475 Linebaugh
The .460 Rowland
The .45 Colt
The .445 SuperMag
The .44 Magnum
The .44 Special
The .44 Russian
The .41 Action Express
The .40 S&W
The 10mm
The .44 WCF (.44-40)
The 10mm Magnum
The .41 Special
The .30-30 Marlin 336 Cowboy
The .30-30 Single Shot Thompson Contender
The .38 Special
The Freedom Arms 353
The .30 Carbine
The .32-20
The .38-40
The .500 Maximum
The .500 Linebaugh
source: http://www.sixguns.com/tests/index.html
----------------
Why isn't this happening more often? Probably because most competitive shooters are running as close to "squib loads" as the rules allow. Silluette and bowling pin shooters are some of the only exceptions and I hope those guys are being careful.
But is the issue limited to the big-bore guys?
An interesting quote:
Sadly, Cherry Corners [gunsmith shop] has closed its doors as of the end of February. Bud suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists. One has been "repaired" and he has only 30% of his strength with it. When I asked if he had any idea of the cause he told me "shooting". Lots of it. Those of you who have one of the 625,000 L-frame 357's that Smith recalled, probably had it repaired and test fired by Bud. Something like half of them were shipped to him by S&W for repair. I did not realize just how important he was to Smith & Wesson until I called them about a warranty repair station and they told me that they opened two new ones here in Ohio to replace him, but thay don't do the magnum work. They still funnel that work to Bud. Only he has to use a Ransom rest for test firing now.
geoff kotzar
Source: http://yarchive.net/gun/revolver/s+w_probs.html
Now, in addition to a lot of full-house 357 in L-Frames, we don't know what else the guy was shooting. But it's still rather sobering, no?
Here's a doctor's view of the same subject:
http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/jul96injuries.html (plus the two links at the bottom of that article)
Jim's personal opinions follow:
First, I think we have a whole 'nuther reason to look twice at super-lightweight guns, no?
Second, even in steel L-frame and similar heft pieces (GP-100, Blackhawk, etc), the people who say "it's a magnum, shoot nothing but magnums in it!" are just maybe missing something: there's nothing "ubertactical" about being restricted to 22LR at age 55 because you're fresh out of wrist.
Given the extreme difference in your body's performance under combat stress, I've always had a sense that the "shoot nothing but full-power combat loads in practice" school of thought may be wrong. The reality is, if you have something like a steel J or K-class piece and practice mostly with 38s, the basics of trigger pull and sight alignment are identical regardless of kick. Hell, that's why we talk about dry-fire practice.
Somebody please explain to me why daily/weekly practice sessions of 50 - 100 38s followed by a cylinder or two of "full crack 'o doom Magnums" isn't workable, in light of the obvious medical evidence and cases turning up?