can I get an Amen from the choir?Cold_Zero wrote:
I don't know, my 454 gives me the tingles and I get a big smile on my face when I shoot it. Large frame revolvers are fun to shoot I guess.
<---needs to send the Model 29 in for an action job.
can I get an Amen from the choir?Cold_Zero wrote:
I don't know, my 454 gives me the tingles and I get a big smile on my face when I shoot it. Large frame revolvers are fun to shoot I guess.
Nope, even those rounds pale in comparison to a real rifle round. I do not consider the .223/5.56 to be a real rifle round. I've always felt the M16/M4 was a pop gun. It was nothing like the satisfying thump from the M24 Sniper Weapons System which chambered the 7.62 NATO. The interesting thing about those rifles is that they had the long action, instead of the typical short action, so that they could be easily rebarreled for SF to use the .300 Win Mag. This is the round I really wanted to use, but was stuck with the 7.62, which is still far and away better than the 5.56.Nismo_Freak wrote:The revolvers I would argue can contain more than capable rounds. The energy of a .454 Casull, .44 Magnum, and some of the others are up around the same energy as .223 and other rifle calibers. That's going to send a message at 5 yards, hell the noise alone is enough to make most people flinch.
Fixed.bobotech wrote:
An RPK with a Chinese drum and a Cimarron Thunderer in 45LC with the birdshead grip and 3 1/2 barrel and food for Jesda.
bobotech wrote:An RPK with a Chinese drum and a Cimarron Thunderer in 45LC with the birdshead grip and 3 1/2 barrel and food for Jesda.
LOL!!!JimmyMethod wrote:Fixed.
I disagree, look at the energy contained in a 7.62 NATO at 200+ yards. It's roughly the same energy, or less at 250+ yards, as a .44 Mag at typical pistol range. So it has the same power as a 7.62 NATO at normal effective rifle engagement range.Repo Man wrote:Nope, even those rounds pale in comparison to a real rifle round. I do not consider the .223/5.56 to be a real rifle round. I've always felt the M16/M4 was a pop gun. It was nothing like the satisfying thump from the M24 Sniper Weapons System which chambered the 7.62 NATO. The interesting thing about those rifles is that they had the long action, instead of the typical short action, so that they could be easily rebarreled for SF to use the .300 Win Mag. This is the round I really wanted to use, but was stuck with the 7.62, which is still far and away better than the 5.56.
There is no handgun round that even comes close to touching something as mundane as a 7.62 NATO, much less a .300 Win Mag.
Please keep in mind guys I am talking handgun rounds, not handguns built around rifle calibers.
I would be plenty happy with just a 460 S&W. Then I could shoot 454 Casull and if I wanted to shoot economy rounds, plain ole 45LC out of the same gun.Nismo_Freak wrote:This thread makes me want .500 S&W
This is just stupid Alan. I'm not even going to justify this with a response. Now, get up here and help me with my damned SR...Nismo_Freak wrote:
I disagree, look at the energy contained in a 7.62 NATO at 200+ yards. It's roughly the same energy, or less at 250+ yards, as a .44 Mag at typical pistol range. So it has the same power as a 7.62 NATO at normal effective rifle engagement range.
If you were shooting people at 50 - 100 yards with the M24 then it'd be different, but the entire principle is that you engage targets well beyond those ranges. And people, including you, hold it to be effective, because it is.
I suppose it's a bit moot as 98% of the handguns out there are lucky to have 1/4th the power of either round. I'm just arguing for the hell of it.
Repo Man wrote:
This is just stupid Alan. I'm not even going to justify this with a response. Now, get up here and help me with my damned SR...