Nah. Think of Sgt. Rock, from the old 1960s comic book series, but smarter. And sensible enough to carry lighter hardware than a BAR, unless he figures there's a fair chance he might need it.
Posted on 03/07/2005 6:58:29 AM PST by Gefreiter
An Alaskan friend with whom I shoot .44 Mags had owned a .41, and couldn't hit anything he was aiming at with it, and also said it sounded nasty.
Not fish or fowl.
Foul, probably. Lots of folks like them though, but it seems to me that aside from the hobby value, resupply would be difficult in the dreaded "pinch." A good .357 with HEAVY bullets is an amazing thing, and can be loaded with standard fare as well. Even a 170gr. should make a major difference downrange. Originally, even .38s used 200gr. bullets....but the round noses were just wrong, and ineffective, to say the least. A good SWC or the harder to get going JSP hammers almost everything, but of course the beginning diameter is not as effective against tough and dangerous critters as those which begin with .4.........
I am still looking forward to using the 10mm. I even see ammo from time to time, which is encouraging. These days, I am using pretty standard things, but with mostly heavier bullets, as an all-around solution to various, unpredictable threats. Seems to work for me.....so far.
Nah. Think of Sgt. Rock, from the old 1960s comic book series, but smarter. And sensible enough to carry lighter hardware than a BAR, unless he figures there's a fair chance he might need it.
Too funny !..........I'm declaring spring officially here !
(get yer snow shovels ready)
Stay safe Slim !
I don't own either the Smith 457 nor a Ruger P97, but I've shot both and have some experience of both. If I was after a concealed carry handgun, I'd go with the alloy-framed single-stach magazine S&W. I'm not a great fan of the double-row magazines, partly for reasons of reliability and partly because my hands are smallish [G.I. size 4 gloves] A girlfriend smarter than I am tried a 457 as a possible replacement for her daily carry 9mm S&W 3913 Ladysmith but found it a bit too large for her hands. I tried it, found it to be at least 96% reliable [my minimum for serious carry] but not what I was after; I'm used to the M1911A1 trigger/safety setup, or that of the PM Makarov for a DA. If you can get one for under $500, and can live with or prefer an alloy frame, go for it. Since the Ruger is also a trigger-cocking DA, I assume you're familiar with the arrangement and want to go that route; so be it.
I've always looked on the Ruger P97 as more of a holstered belt gun than a concealable carry piece, but that may be die to the fact that in 2000 when the armed courier service I was working for okayed .45 handguns in addition to the 9mm and .40 shooters previously approved for use, the P97 was the one most of those who stepped up went with.
Accordingly, I've seen their polymer frames handle five years worth of service okay, and the Ruger P-pistols are very close to M1911A1/Kalishnikov reliable. My own choices at that time were a Glock 30 and a Taurus PT145B...but I'm not really happy with hammerless designs. I might well have ended up with one of the polymer-framed Rugers, but I'd had two strikes and wasn't inclined to try for a third and none of the folks who owned and used one seemed to be inclined to get rid of theirs. THere's a tacit endorsement there....
I think a couple of other factors for your choice are going to be the availability of suitable holsters, and, if you're so inclined, a set of night sights, which can be had for either handgun. But generally, for a concealed piece, I think I'd go with the Smith, and for a duty or belt gun, the Ruger. Either fits my hand well, so pricing and the cost of desired accessories might further influence the final pick, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.