|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2016 19:17:34 GMT -5
Actually, I think it is a Luger. (and the Lugers I googled look just like it).
So, is it a collectible? Worth 10 or 15 grand? Twenty (bucks)?
Or is it a Ruger (I now am back to Ruger) that looks just like a black Lugar?
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2016 19:21:40 GMT -5
It's a Rugar Standard. (pending trip up to the farm)
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 8, 2016 19:27:46 GMT -5
Mine is all black, grip, stock and barrel. I have a hard time believing Dad would have spent more than $75 or $100 for it. He probably shot it twice. I have probably shot it five times. Gus seven or eight. The original Strum Ruger .22 was the Mark 1 but it wasn't called that then. It sold for years for $49. In '63 I bought my mother a Ruger .22 Single Six convertible for $74 new from JC Penny for Christmas. I have it now. |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 8, 2016 19:31:03 GMT -5
It's a Rugar Standard. (pending trip up to the farm) The hawk on the grip was changed from red to black when Strum died. That was 1951 so it would have to be a very early one to to be worth big bucks. '49, '50 or '51. |
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 8, 2016 19:50:26 GMT -5
... I agree and disagree with Kris. Load .38 specials in the .357 but use the 158 lead bullets, standard cop load up through the 50s and into the early 60s. It will do the job and not shoot through the bag guy to hit someone else and won't go through most exterior walls or car bodies. ... The choice of best bullet, or the best guitar strings, or the best oil for your car or motorcycle is a never-ending discussion, but there are several reasons I don't like the 158's, jacketed or lead round nose, in .38 Special for defense against 2-legged predators. First, at around 850-950fps the JHP's are waaaaay too slow for any expansion to occur, and as such they DO overpenetrate more than a light and fast 110gn JHP. And the LRN poke a little hole and unless you hit spine, brain or heart the bad guy will have plenty of time to finish killing you before he bleeds out. Second, even at the slow speeds, a 158 at 900fps kicks more than a 110 @ 1200fps (+P+ rated), making follow-up shots slower and less likely to be on target. The 110-125gn JHP's are more likely to expand in tissue, more likely to break apart and slow down if they hit drywall or studs and are easier to shoot repeatedly with accuracy. Honestly, one of the best (in my opinion) loads for the .38 are the Glaser and Magsafe frangibles, which are ultra light at about 90 grains and due to the design they create massive damage in the first six inches of tissue, and if you miss they disintegrate going through drywall and pose very little risk to those on the other side. Also, at 90-100gn they are light on recoil. Practice with the 110-125gn traditional ammo, and load up for defense with the frangibles. |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 8, 2016 20:02:50 GMT -5
Practice with what you carry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jan 8, 2016 20:16:18 GMT -5
I carry a murse. How do I practice with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 8, 2016 20:19:51 GMT -5
A very good round for a .357 is a triplex loaded with 3 000 buck balls. Accuracy is fine at normal combat range 7yds. And 2 000 buck will work in a .38 for a duplex round.
I like Glasers fine but too costly to practice with and you should always practice with what you carry.
BTW I can show you how to make your 38/357 shoot like a .22 for a camp gun. And how to hand load them with no tools.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 8, 2016 20:21:57 GMT -5
I carry a murse. How do I practice with that? Buy the same 5lbs of 000 buck for loading the .357. Put it in your murse and learn to swing it head high.  |
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Jan 8, 2016 20:31:10 GMT -5
I can't believe this discussion that just because it's legal, we all should be walking around with firearms, no matter how risky our environments might or might not be. And then let's discuss which ammo will kill people better. Are you kidding me???
How about we reserve guns for hunting and target shooting???
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 8, 2016 20:37:05 GMT -5
I can't believe this discussion that just because it's legal, we all should be walking around with firearms, no matter how risky our environments might or might not be. And then let's discuss which ammo will kill people better. Are you kidding me??? How about we reserve guns for hunting and target shooting??? That's seeing the world as you wish it to be, Bill. Good luck with it. |
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jan 8, 2016 20:59:42 GMT -5
How about we reserve guns for hunting and target shooting??? Easy now. All I talked about shooting were milk jugs. And Zombies. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 8, 2016 21:05:07 GMT -5
That's seeing the world as you wish it to be, Steve. Good luck with it. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 8, 2016 21:16:40 GMT -5
Self defense is a basic human right. Nothing wrong with discussing how to do so efficiently.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Jan 8, 2016 21:31:11 GMT -5
I can't complain too much. The towns I work in are pretty much fed by their jobs at Sturm Ruger and Pine Tree Castings.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 8, 2016 21:39:42 GMT -5
Did somebody say "Lager"?
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 8, 2016 21:46:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 8, 2016 21:59:54 GMT -5
I can't believe this discussion that just because it's legal, we all should be walking around with firearms, no matter how risky our environments might or might not be. And then let's discuss which ammo will kill people better. Are you kidding me??? How about we reserve guns for hunting and target shooting??? If one has made the decision to carry or own a gun for self-defense, it behooves one to pick a gun and ammo combination that one can shoot accurately AND that has the power to stop a threat quickly AND also has limited over-penetration. You can continue to go about unarmed and then if/when you are attacked and IF you survive you can call the people that will bring their guns (cops) and since the bad guy will likely be gone they can take photos and write a report and cart your bleeding butt to the hospital or morgue. Some of us choose to be much more proactive with our survival instincts. No, I don't think everyone should carry or own a gun, like you for example. If you are not prepared to assess the situation rapidly and deploy your firearm with confidence then you have no business possessing one, you'll just be a bigger risk to yourself and others. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 8, 2016 22:14:15 GMT -5
I can't believe this discussion that just because it's legal, we all should be walking around with firearms, no matter how risky our environments might or might not be. And then let's discuss which ammo will kill people better. Are you kidding me??? How about we reserve guns for hunting and target shooting??? I don’t have stats on this first part, but I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of guns are used for nothing more than target practice and hunting and are never fired at another human being unless you’re a Republican Vice President, in which case you might be able to do all three at the same time. For the minority that are fired at humans, we know the stats. Two thirds will shoot themselves, whether by accident or intentional suicide. Most of the remaining third will shoot someone else by accident or as an intentional murder. Less than one percent of guns used to shoot someone will be used in self defense. As long as Obama’s stepping up his efforts to curb gun violence through executive action, he ought to enforce a little truth in advertising. I’m thinking something along the lines of the recent anti-tobacco ads that drive home the realities of smoking. Maybe a TV commercial where five year old Timmy finds daddy’s gun and shoots his younger sister. Gun owners ignore the stats. You don’t have to look any further than this thread to see that gun owners like specs and features and numbers and stuff. But they skip right past the facts of what happens when guns are used outside of target practice and hunting. They don’t want to think about it. They have fantasies about defending themselves against home intruders and others that would do them harm. They have fantasies about defending themselves against a tyrannical government. Some of them even have fantasies about bird sanctuaries. Gun owners aren’t special snowflakes, though. The odds are stacked against each one of them, just as they are stacked against all other gun owners. No matter what they think, no matter what kind of fantasies, fears or paranoias they may have, they would be safer if they did not own a gun. |
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Jan 8, 2016 22:30:03 GMT -5
Car owners ignore the stats.
They like their cars, the sunroof, heated seats, Bluetooth connectivity and all the other specs and features, while often ignoring that people driving cars kill a vastly larger number of other people than do guns and their owners.
Cars are a relatively recent convenience that our culture has decided are a necessity. Therefore, the dangers are minimized, the safeguards are laughable and nobody blind an eye or sheds crocodile tears when someone kills a family while speeding or drinking or texting.
There are no Constitutional protections for car ownership; they could mandate tomorrow that all cars have governors preventing speeds over 35mph, breathalyzer ignition interlocks in all cars and jamming technology in all cars to preclude the use of mobile communications. Boom, traffic deaths drop to a couple hundred (you'll still have the suicides that are often the cause in single-vehicle fatalities).
But they won't, because people think driving to Starbucks beats walking and nobody really cares that 40,000+ people die on US roads annually.
Like it or not, every car owner would be safer if they didn't own one.
|
|
