Mal's Gun

POSTED BY: DRE
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 01:42
VIEWED: 32171
PAGE 3 of 5

Oh yeah, the Mateba! I love that gun, I'd love to shoot one, to see if it makes any difference to have the barrel aligned to the bottom of the cylinder, rather than the top.

I wasn't referring to the popularity among us common folk, I was more thinking of the Fed-types and other uniformed folk. Marksmanship is almost unknown among those folks, that why they went to high capacity semi-autos. They can't shoot straight, so they blaze away in the general direction of the suspected target. Of course, marksmanship isn't a big priority with most people, anyway, but I figure folks who carry guns on the job should have cooler heads and better fire control than someone like me. Just one of my peeves.

The "Old West" gun craze, along with the revival of black powder arms, began back in the 70s. Uberti cashed in and started making some really nice copies of old Colt and Remington style revolvers, as well as single-shot rifles and pistols, caplock and flintlock, both.

Having shot a fair variety of handguns, I've always favored SA revolvers over DA revolvers or semi-autos. Part of it is aesthetics, part is the feel of the thing in my hand.

Hmmmmm, now I'm just waiting so see Kaylee on the big screen. yummmm

Joe

Muscle.
Humor.
Thuggery.
Jayne.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Actually, Beretta now owns Uberti. I'm not sure if Beretta actually makes thier SSA's or has them built by Uberti, but their Stampede line is different from guns in the Uberti line. For one thing, the Stampede's all have transfer bar safeties, very similar to Ruger's design. Their overall fit and finish seem to be better too.

---

Transfer bars...

I hate those blasted transfer bars. Which is why I'll never buy a new Ruger.

Quote:

---

You are correct about Navy Arms. They are just the importer.

Nothing wrong with Italian copies though.

---

Nothing a little quality control couldn't cure. The first two Uberti SAA's I bought had swamped barrels -- swamped on the inside! The Armi San Marco SAA I bought had between three and twelve thousandths mis-alignment between the chambers and the barrel. The Uberti's weren't much better in that department either. My Uberti replica of the Remington 1875 not only felt like it had gravel in the action, it had oversize chambers, mis-aligned chambers, and the bore in the breech end of the barrel was about three thousandths smaller than the rest of the bore. Also, the front sight was too short. Which made the gun shoot a foot high at 15 yards -- elevation was right on at 125 yards however.

The Uberti model 1866 Winchester replica had too much head-space, a gritty action, and the timing of the breech-bolt and rising block were off so severely that it would bind the case up on ejection.

But that's okay, Colt quality isn't much better, and Colt's cost three times as much.

Quote:

---

The unique Mateba Auto-revolver is made by Italian gun maker Sergio Mateba. It's a true semi-auto revolver, similar to the Webley Fosbery. When fired, the upper slide and cylinder slide back and forth on the lower frame (the barrel is stationary), cocking the hammer and turning the cylinder. Unlike conventional revolvers that fire the round in the top of the cylinder, the Mateba fires the round from the bottom. Loading and unloading, though, is done like a conventional revolver.
http://www.randgfirearms.com/mateba.html
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1100/1143.htm


The Mateba isn't Mal's gun, but it's the closest thing I've seen to a working version of what he carries. The only major difference is that rounds are loaded in a cylinder, not a magazine.

---

Take a look at the Dardick automatic revolver:

http://www.wapahani.com/pistols2.html

Another kind of automatic revolver -- or revolving automatic if you wish.

It had a magazine in the grip which fed a cylinder with open chambers. The rounds, or "TROUNDS" were triangular in shape, and the cylinder formed two sides of the triangle. The top strap formed the third side. The magazine fed the cylinder which rotated the tround to the top where it was fired like a conventional revolver, and as the cylinder rotated to fire the next tround, the empty case fell out on the exposed side.

The things some people think of...

loadandmakeready

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Transfer bars...

I hate those blasted transfer bars. Which is why I'll never buy a new Ruger.

Take a look at the Dardick automatic revolver:

http://www.wapahani.com/pistols2.html

Another kind of automatic revolver -- or revolving automatic if you wish.

It had a magazine in the grip which fed a cylinder with open chambers. The rounds, or "TROUNDS" were triangular in shape, and the cylinder formed two sides of the triangle. The top strap formed the third side. The magazine fed the cylinder which rotated the tround to the top where it was fired like a conventional revolver, and as the cylinder rotated to fire the next tround, the empty case fell out on the exposed side.

The things some people think of...

loadandmakeready

---

What's the problem with transfer bar safeties? Not arguing with you, just wondering what your beef with them is. Seems like a good solution to a serious problem with classic SSA's.

What was that page that you linked? A page of bad handgun designs? The Dardick is an ugly mess of a design, that never caught on (thankfully). The Bren Ten was a great idea, but was full of problems, the biggest being a shortage of magazines that would work properly in the gun. Miami Vice made it famous, but the original CZ-75 was superior in almost every way. The original DA Browning was also problematic, and it went through a serious re-design before it became a decent, reliable firearm. The original Hi-Power is still better IMO.

I tend to agree that SA revolvers are much nicer handling guns than DA models. I never liked any of the DA revolvers I ever owned (which is why I don't own any now). I do prefer semi-auto pistols though. Not high-cap wonder nines, but good designs in 40S&W and 45ACP. I own a Beretta 96 and a new Springfield XD-40, both in 40cal. and a Kimber 1911 clone in 45, that is better than any Colt version I've ever shot or owned. There's a reason old designs like Sam Colt's SSA, and John Browning's 1911 model are still around, and copied so much! They are great firearms, with a history of getting the job done.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

Quote:

---

Nothing wrong with Italian copies though.

---

Nothing a little quality control couldn't cure. The first two Uberti SAA's I bought had swamped barrels -- swamped on the inside! The Armi San Marco SAA I bought had between three and twelve thousandths mis-alignment between the chambers and the barrel. The Uberti's weren't much better in that department either. My Uberti replica of the Remington 1875 not only felt like it had gravel in the action, it had oversize chambers, mis-aligned chambers, and the bore in the breech end of the barrel was about three thousandths smaller than the rest of the bore. Also, the front sight was too short. Which made the gun shoot a foot high at 15 yards -- elevation was right on at 125 yards however.

The Uberti model 1866 Winchester replica had too much head-space, a gritty action, and the timing of the breech-bolt and rising block were off so severely that it would bind the case up on ejection.

But that's okay, Colt quality isn't much better, and Colt's cost three times as much. loadandmakeready

---

I guess I should have qualified that. I understand that earlier Colt clones had spotty quality contol issues, but recient reviews I've read, are that they are much improved, and better than Colt's recient offerings. No surprise there. Colt isn't what they used to be. For example, I love the 1911 design, and Colt is the last company I would buy one from. I'd much rather purchase a 1911 from Kimber, Springfield Armory, or Wilson. Kimber won a large contract to build guns for the LAPD SWAT teams, Springfield won a major contract with the FBI, and Bill Wilson's shop has been building 1911's for US Special Forces for years. When was the last time Colt won a pistol contract? Even Smith & Wesson, and SIGarms are now producing 1911 designs that I would consider before ever buying another Colt pistol.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:What's the problem with transfer bar safeties? Not arguing with you, just wondering what your beef with them is. Seems like a good solution to a serious problem with classic SSA's.

---

Well, firstly, I've never had a problem with the classic SAA's. The only serious problem I see is the carelessness with which some people handle them, which is not a gun problem, but a Bozo problem. The transfer bar system makes the gun needlessly complex, and was created solely to overcome the dumbidity... ness... osity... of the operator. To me, it's almost an insult. The transfer bar system on a SAA says to me, "You're too dumb to handle a gun properly."

Secondly, on the Rugers, once you open the gate to load or unload the gun, the chambers don't line up with the loading gate as they do with the three-screw models, or the SAA's. For me, this makes them slower to unload/reload. It's just awkward.

And lastly, this is not a matter of right versus wrong, it's merely a matter of taste. My taste embraces the K.I.S.S. principle, and the old-style revolvers can be tuned to be smooth as glass. Something which is difficult to do with the newer transfer bar models.

Quote:

---

What was that page that you linked? A page of bad handgun designs? The Dardick is an ugly mess of a design, that never caught on (thankfully).

---

As I said, "The things some people think of." I wasn't praising the Dardick, I was just pointing out an interesting (although bizarre) little known design. Ugly kluge isn't it.

Quote:

---

The Bren Ten was a great idea, but was full of problems, the biggest being a shortage of magazines that would work properly in the gun. Miami Vice made it famous, but the original CZ-75 was superior in almost every way. The original DA Browning was also problematic, and it went through a serious re-design before it became a decent, reliable firearm. The original Hi-Power is still better IMO.

---

No argument there -- except that there wasn't so much a magazine "shortage," as there was a magazine "non-existance."

Interestingly, the original P-35 Hi-Power was designed for select fire.

Quote:

---

I tend to agree that SA revolvers are much nicer handling guns than DA models. I never liked any of the DA revolvers I ever owned (which is why I don't own any now).

---

I like them both, actually. Although my single actions out number my double actions by about four to one. I've done a lot of tuning on double actions over the years, and a well tuned DA revolver is really sweet. (Looking for more DA revolvers.)

Quote:

---

I do prefer semi-auto pistols though. Not high-cap wonder nines, but good designs in 40S&W and 45ACP. I own a Beretta 96 and a new Springfield XD-40, both in 40cal. and a Kimber 1911 clone in 45, that is better than any Colt version I've ever shot or owned.

---

I don't particularly care for the 40-S&W myself, but then again it's a matter of taste. Do you reload? Do you live in Suthren Califnordia? If so, I can give you 5,000+ .40 cases, tumbled and ready to reload.

And you're certainly right about the Kimber. It's one of the finest Colt-types made. Better than Les Baer's by a wide margin and considerably less costly to boot.

Quote:

---

There's a reason old designs like Sam Colt's SSA, and John Browning's 1911 model are still around, and copied so much! They are great firearms, with a history of getting the job done.

---

Simple, sturdy, and effective. Which is what I like about them.

loadandmakeready

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:I guess I should have qualified that. I understand that earlier Colt clones had spotty quality contol issues, but recient reviews I've read, are that they are much improved, and better than Colt's recient offerings. No surprise there. Colt isn't what they used to be. For example, I love the 1911 design, and Colt is the last company I would buy one from. I'd much rather purchase a 1911 from Kimber, Springfield Armory, or Wilson. Kimber won a large contract to build guns for the LAPD SWAT teams, Springfield won a major contract with the FBI, and Bill Wilson's shop has been building 1911's for US Special Forces for years. When was the last time Colt won a pistol contract? Even Smith & Wesson, and SIGarms are now producing 1911 designs that I would consider before ever buying another Colt pistol.

---

Colt quality took a dive somewhere back in the '70's, and hasn't yet -- if it ever will -- made a comeback. I don't care for the Springfields much. I'm currently doing some fine tuning on a trio of Springfields, and don't see them as anything special. The Kimbers however, are very well made. And Bill Wilson uses Kimber (previously Jerico) slides and frames.

Now, if they could just teach the LAPD SWAT Teams to shoot, that would be a REAL achievement!

loadandmakeready

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
I don't particularly care for the 40-S&W myself, but then again it's a matter of taste. Do you reload? Do you live in Southern California? If so, I can give you 5,000+ .40 cases, tumbled and ready to reload.

---

The 40S&W is very simlar to the 45ACP in stopping power, and it works well in guns originally designed for the under powered 9mm. Reciently Glock came out with the 45GAP round, which is basically a 45ACP in a shorter case (with a small pistol primer), that will also work in pistols designed around the 9mm. Glock and Springfield Armory's XD line, already offer pistols chambered in 45GAP, and I'm sure more manufacturers will follow. I like the 40, because so many law enforcement agencies have adopted it, and cheap practice ammo is easy to find.

I work in L.A. often (almost half the year), but choose to keep my firearms back home in the midwest, where the laws are less draconian, and the ranges are plentiful. Thanks for the offer though. I reload, but never seem to have time to load as many as I shoot. Always playing catch up! LOL

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MacBaker:
The 40S&W is very simlar to the 45ACP in stopping power, and it works well in guns originally designed for the under powered 9mm.

---

I suppose that depends on who's doing the loading.

The heaviest bullet I've seen for the 40 S&W is 190 grains. With a muzzle velocity of 1,000 fps. This load would have a muzzle energy of 422 ft./lbs. and an "efficacy" number (muzzle energy X area) of 53.

A 185 grain bullet in 45 ACP will have a muzzle velocity of 1,300 fps. Which gives it a muzzle energy of 642 ft./lbs., and an efficacy number of 103. Which is a 50% increase over the .40. Not exactly what I would call "similar."

Although factory 9-mm's are rather wimpy, I load a 125 grain bullet with an average muzzle velocity of 1325 fps. Which gives it a muzzle energy of 487 ft./lbs. (Compared to the .40's 422 ft./lbs.) and an efficacy number of 49. (Compared to the 53 of the 40-S&W.) This is approaching 367 Magnum ranges.

In the 44 Magnum, I have a load that uses a 255 grain bullet with a M.V. of 1600 fps. Which gives it a muzzle energy of 1449 foot pounds, and an efficacy number of 210. If I shoot that same load in my rifle, I get a muzzle velocity of 1900 fps, muzzle energy of 2044 ft./lbs., and an efficacy number of 295.

Quote:

---

Reciently Glock came out with the 45GAP round, which is basically a 45ACP in a shorter case (with a small pistol primer), that will also work in pistols designed around the 9mm. Glock and Springfield Armory's XD line, already offer pistols chambered in 45GAP, and I'm sure more manufacturers will follow.

---

I've heard about it. And frankly, I'm not impressed. They continue to try to find something "new" in order to boost sales.

Quote:

---

I like the 40, because so many law enforcement agencies have adopted it, and cheap practice ammo is easy to find.

---

I don't have much respect for law enforcement agencies, so I tend to look down on what they do.

http://www.john-ross.net/police_skills.htm

His experience mirrors mine.

And as far as reloading is concerned, I can load 1,000 rounds of 45 ACP in six hours. And that includes casting and lube/resizing the bullets. So, 1,000 rounds of 45 ACP costs me about $38 dollars. About the same price as good .22's. My hot 9-mm's are even cheaper.

Quote:

---

I work in L.A. often (almost half the year), but choose to keep my firearms back home in the midwest, where the laws are less draconian, and the ranges are plentiful.

---

"Alliance don't bother me." And neither do their laws. I just ignore them. And where I live, I can drive to the gun club in 20 minutes.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the offer though. I reload, but never seem to have time to load as many as I shoot. Always playing catch up! LOL

---

What kind of press do you have? I use a single stage for high power rifle, but have Dillon progressives for pistol and shotgun.

loadandmakeready

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
I suppose that depends on who's doing the loading.

The heaviest bullet I've seen for the 40 S&W is 190 grains. With a muzzle velocity of 1,000 fps. This load would have a muzzle energy of 422 ft./lbs. and an "efficacy" number (muzzle energy X area) of 53.

A 185 grain bullet in 45 ACP will have a muzzle velocity of 1,300 fps. Which gives it a muzzle energy of 642 ft./lbs., and an efficacy number of 103. Which is a 50% increase over the .40. Not exactly what I would call "similar."

Although factory 9-mm's are rather wimpy, I load a 125 grain bullet with an average muzzle velocity of 1325 fps. Which gives it a muzzle energy of 487 ft./lbs. (Compared to the .40's 422 ft./lbs.) and an efficacy number of 49. (Compared to the 53 of the 40-S&W.) This is approaching 367 Magnum ranges.

In the 44 Magnum, I have a load that uses a 255 grain bullet with a M.V. of 1600 fps. Which gives it a muzzle energy of 1449 foot pounds, and an efficacy number of 210. If I shoot that same load in my rifle, I get a muzzle velocity of 1900 fps, muzzle energy of 2044 ft./lbs., and an efficacy number of 295.

---

Let me rephrase. The 40 has similar stopping power. The 40 is basically a downloaded 10mm, and it has an excellent reputaion for one stop shots. Few 9mm loads come even close. In real world studies of actual shooting results, the 40 is equal to the 45 in certain loads. The only round with a better reputation for one shot stops, is the vaunted 125gr 357 magnum. Since I don't use DA relovers, that leaves me with 40 or 45 caliber pistols. I agree there are 9mm rounds with good results, but I have very little faith in the round. It's a personal preference/phobia. My opinion of the 9mm (in factory loads), is it sucks. I never use reloads for carry, just practice, so I go with factory loads that have reliable reputations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
I've heard about the 45GAP. And frankly, I'm not impressed. They continue to try to find something "new" in order to boost sales.

---

There seems to be a market for firearms that fit the wondernine size, but can shoot something more substantial. Glock's 45 meets that demand. Not for me, but it seems to be selling well already. Sig saw a similar need, autos in 357, and came up with the 357sig, which has similar ballistics to the classic 357magnum, in a round that works well in auto-loaders. Again, not my cup of tea, but many shooters swear by it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
I don't have much respect for law enforcement agencies, so I tend to look down on what they do.

http://www.john-ross.net/police_skills.htm

His experience mirrors mine.

---

I think it depends on which agency you are talking about. Many local police agencies seem to be lacking, but state troopers are on average are very well trained. You dismissed the LAPD SWAT team in a previous post, and yet they consistently train with elite units like the Navy SEALS and FBI's HRT, and their firearms training program is considered one of the best in the nation. Massad Ayoob reciently wrote an article about firearms training in police departments around the country, and from his own research there has been a marked improvement since the 80s (considered a lowpoint, when high cap nines and a "spray and pray" method seemed to prevail). I've known several police officers. Some who got into the profession for the wrong reasons and have no business carrying a firearm, and a select few I would be happy to have at my back in a time of crisis. The cops I can't stand, tend to be the ones that spend more time creating revenue writing tickets, than serving and protecting, or the dumb ex-jock types, with something to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
And as far as reloading is concerned, I can load 1,000 rounds of 45 ACP in six hours. And that includes casting and lube/resizing the bullets. So, 1,000 rounds of 45 ACP costs me about $38 dollars. About the same price as good .2

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME