bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
22, 22 Mag, 38/357.
I commiserate with your shame. The .357 has always been a bit of a compromise. A .38 wadcutter in the small game hunting fields might substitute for a .22 long rifle, and if you face something ugly you could do worse than various heavy .357 loads. It was never my favorite. Five or six .357 revolvers ought to cover that niche, or maybe not? Whenever I convince myself that a particular rendition of the .357 makes no sense--barrel too short, frame too light--I only have to hold it, test the action a bit, and I find my resolve weakening.Only one revolver, a .357. Oh, the shame.......
Own? One, a .44 magnum. Shoot? None, since the 90s.
My Redhawk was my second handgun, bought back in the mid-80s, because I thought it the most beautiful .44 ever made, the Colt Anaconda, which came far later, notwithstanding. In the days that followed, though the Redhawk got a workout, I found I was far more an auto guy than anything, and with the exception of a T/C Contender, have stuck to that all these years. The Redhawk has stayed in the safe.And why would that be if you don’t mind me asking?
I looked at a 480 Ruger today
Does the Lipsey's Ruger Flattop shoot well with both the 45 colt and the 45acp rounds?
I feel inadequate. I only have 4 revolvers currently.
.38 Spl, .357 Mag, .44 Mag, .45 Colt
I have always made a serious effort to keep calibers down. I have a friend who did just the opposite and went for every caliber known to man. Which works for him because he collects rather than shoots.
I shoot a few thousand 22 LR (and a few 22 mag in the rugers) and a few thousand 44 mag rounds a year in revolvers. The rest I shoot a very small amount if at all during the year. Some years I'll shoot my bigger hunting revolvers but I've just used 10mm or 44 mag the last few years.