[geeks] Things that go BANG

Kurt Huhn kurt at k-huhn.com
Thu Jan 9 12:48:29 CST 2003


"Michael A. Turner" <mturner at whro.org> wrote:

> 	Since we are currently in loud noise mode on the list time to bring
> up a handful of things I wouldn't mind exploring.
> 	
> 	Firstly, anyone do black powder weapons? I have been real tempted to
> buy one of the 6 shot models of the 1800's pistols that are out their,
> something like the Navy pistol or some such, but have been worried that
> they are disappointing to fire. Anyone got a black powder pistol that
> would care to weigh in on the subject?

I have a replica of an 1858 Remington New Model Army in .44.  Karin bought
it for me from Navyarms.com for my birthday a few months ago.  Cabelas also
has some good replicas of this revolver, one even has target sights.

It feels good, it's heavy, and you know you have a serious hunk of steel in
your hands.  It's pretty accurate, depending on ammo, and always puts on a
good smoke show.  I have a few extra cylinders, so I can load up a bunch all
at once and plink away without having to stop and load the cylinder.  I also
have a small external press, so I don't have to use the gun as the reloading
platform.

> 	Secondly I am thinking about getting a revolver, that and a shotgun,
> are the only things missing from my collection. I was wondering what I
> should look for in a revolver. I used to have a .38 revolver and liked
> firing it, very satisfying, but want to look at other cartridges also.

I'd like to have a .45acp revolver.  Taurus make a tracker in that caliber,
as well as a host of others including the .17HMR.  I don't currently own a
cartridge revolver, so I don't consider myself a good source of info on
them...

> 	Anyone familiar with the 7.62X25 pistol round? All I have been able
> to find in this caliber is steel core ammo which the range frowns on
> using. Also I am interested in the ballistic characteristics of this
> round. From what I have seen, and I have not found much, this round packs
> the punch of a.357 round. I have a 1942 Russian tokarev that fires this
> round but I want to get another Chinese tokarev knockoff as it was a great
> gun in that caliber, I paid $150 for it and sold it for $500 but I still
> regret getting rid of it. 

Over 1600fps, 7.62mm, 510 pound-feet at the muzzle.  What's more to know :)

I own two pistols in this caliber, both CZ52s.  Both are fire breathing
dragons.  Recoil is mild compared to a 1911 in .45ACP (using commercial ammo
anyway), but the muzzle blast and noise is spectacular, to say the least. 
It certainly turns heads at the range on Sunday morning.

If you own a TT or a CZ52 there is some ammo out there in this caliber that
is *not* suitable for use in a pistol.  All of it is military surplus.  Not
all mil-surp ammo is bad, but some is loaded *way* too hot for a pistol -
designed instead for SMGs and rifles.

I primarily shoot Sellier and Bellot (http://www.sb-usa.com), as it's less
expensive than the milsurp stuff, is reloadable, and won't damage my gun. 
Word of caution, the CZ52 flings the cases about 50-70 feet away, and anyone
standing to your right-rear flank will get pelted.  The case is ejected with
such force that most cases suffer folded necks as they slam into the slide -
they also leave brass scuffs right behind the ejection port.  All 7.62x25
ammo does this in a CZ52...

> 	Of note on the Russian tokarev I have it shows the signs of being
> hastily made, and I don't overly trust it for it, as the grips in the
> slide were hand filed into the weapon. It defiantly saw use, I like to
> tell people that it was made, handed to a guy on the line, and he ran
> outside to do battle with the Germans who were storming the factory. Guess
> they won the battle as the gun was Russian surplus, not German :-) .  
> 	
> 

Some of those Russian TTs have some interesting qualities :)  There are some
Polish TTs out there that are far superior to most - but none of them can
stand up to the abuse that the CZ52 can.  IMO anyway.  I really would like
to have one, though.  They're exactly ugly enough to be cool looking...

-- 
Kurt
kurt at k-huhn.com


More information about the geeks mailing list