Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  

Home | Load data | Articles | Ballistic Calc | Energy Calc
Handguns
 Handloads.Com Forum : Handguns
Subject Topic: Favorite .44spl. Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 26 2018 at 8:29am | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

Shooting any big game with a handgun is pretty much like bow hunting, death is caused by hemorrhage, unless you hit major bones and disrupt the nervous system.

I have had bears go down at the shot when hit with a good hard bullet in the .357. No matter what you use you have to hit the right spot, or else you wait until they bleed out. I have killed deer with the .45ACP, that have only gone a few yards after being hit.

A friend of mine shot a nice black bear with his issue mod 19 with jacketed soft point ammunition, he shot the bear in the neck, just behind the skull, the bear never moved out of it's tracks, a couple of weeks later I shot a bear with with my series 70 Colt, a 240 grn hard cast bullet right behind the ear, the bullet completely penetrated the skull, that bear never moved.

A lot of the preconceived notions about handguns, what works and what does not, fall into what I refer to as the "Black powder mentality".

Back in the days of black powder cartridges, the only way to get more power was to go to bigger cases and bigger bullets. That was a pretty reasonable conclusion along until 1935 when the .357 Magnum was introduced.

I posted an article about that. In reality the .357 is more efficient than the .44 M/S, it shoots flatter, retains energy better over long range and is easier for the average person to shoot.

In large predator attacks, whatever scenario you have imagined, will be the wrong one, bears and cats strike from ambush, bears kill as many deer as the big cats, if they can get close enough to kill a deer, humans are easy prey. Having a wrist breaker magnum, may work if that one only shot you can get off is a good one. Your odds are better, with something you can easily control for multiple follow up shots.

I have spoken with folks that have had less than favorable experiences shooting bears with the .357, when questioned about ammunition, a number of those folks were using .38 ammunition or light weight jacketed hollow point .357 ammunition.

A good hard cast bullet in the .44 spl at 900-1000 fps will do the job, and is easier to control for follow up shots. Unless you are carrying .44 spl loads in your .44 magnum.


Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 633
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 26 2018 at 9:13am | IP Logged Quote RT58

John Van Gelder wrote:
A lot of the preconceived notions about handguns, what works and what does not, fall into what I refer to as the "Black powder mentality".

Back in the days of black powder cartridges, the only way to get more power was to go to bigger cases and bigger bullets. That was a pretty reasonable conclusion along until 1935 when the .357 Magnum was introduced.

I posted an article about that. In reality the .357 is more efficient than the .44 M/S, it shoots flatter, retains energy better over long range and is easier for the average person to shoot.


I've never shot a bear. In fact, I've only ever seen one in this area, as they are not that common around here. I did carry some magnum loads when I was working because you never can tell what you might run into, but my main concern was with the two legged predators that are quite plentiful.

I am aware of a lot of preconceived notions about handguns too, and what I call the "if it looks good on paper it's got to be better" mentality. While the .357 may be more "efficient" that doesn't mean it's a good choice in a gunfight. Flatter shooting and more retained energy at long range aren't really a concern, and regardless of what you are using it for there is a big difference between "exterior" and "terminal" ballistics, which is where many shooters are confused.

I do agree the .357 is easier for most shooters though. In fact the first time I ever shot one I was surprised at just how easy it was to shoot, after reading Jeff Cooper say it was too powerful to use in a self defense handgun. Most gun writers now push "velocity", that's what they learned from Elmer Keith. Keith liked to shoot big animals at long range and flat shooting was a benefit, but even he tried to push higher velocities when talking about self defense guns. Some of them work just fine at lower velocities as there is more to it than just the velocity.

Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
Paul B.
Senior Member




Joined: March 12 2002
Posts: 2503
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 26 2018 at 12:23pm | IP Logged Quote Paul B.

I like the .357 Mag., .44 Spl. and .44 Mag. I shoot them when I can get
a chance but with a sick wife that requires lots of care and attention,
those times sadly are few and far between these days.

Commment was made about the .357 and .44 mags being
downloaded. I'm not surprised. The hot 125 gr. loads in the .357 were
damaging the throats on the S&W M19, actually cracking them IIRC.
Probably was a problem with the M66 as well. On the .44 Mag., the
S&W M29 and 629 apparently did not hold up all that well with Elmer
Keith level loads. My 620 crapped out at 250 yards of Elmer's loads,
went back to S&W and was repaired, crapped out again after another
200 rounds of Elmer's loads and now sits in quiet same in the back of
the safe. Truth be told, even Elmer didn't use those hot load, at last not
for practice. In one of my older Lyman manuals he did a short one
page semi-article where he stated most of his shooting was with his
bullet (#429241 by Lyman) and (GASP!) 5.0 gr. of Bullseye. He said it hit
to the same point of impact at 25 yards as his full power load. These
days, if I want to shoot full power stompers from a .44 Magnum, I'll use
either Super Blackhawk regular version or Bisley, I have both or a 5.5"
or 7.5" Redhawk. Why? Because the M29/629 use a firearm design
from 1905 that really was never planned for a round as powerful as the
.44 Mag. My load for the .44 mag. is 20.0 gr. of 2400, two gr. less than
Elmer's load. Still gets one's attention but easier on the gun.

The only load I use in the .44 Spl. is Skeeter Skelton's pet load of 7.5
gr. Unique and Elmer's bullet. Recoil is mild enough and the load is
powerful enough for most purposes. Accuracy is quite good. I have
two .44 Spl.s, an S&W 624 and a Colt single action that's still NIB. For
some reason I've just never shot it.

I still have one box of .357 Mag. ammo that came out before they
downloaded them. Very load, somewhat snappy recoil even in a model
28 and they lead like hell. My pet load uses the Lyman #358156, a 160
gr. bullet in my alloy with gas check. Never have bothered to run them
over the chronograph but I estimate probably 1200-1250 FPS.
Accurate and they'll do anything I need a .357 mag. to do.

One off the wall .38 Spl. is my 38/44 Outdoorsman. Properly loaded it
will run a 158 gr. bullet to 1100-1150 FPS and is the forerunner of the
.357 Mag. I killed a Black Bear back on the 4th of July weekend, 1959
with the one I had then. Wish I still had that one but was able to find a
replacement. I sure as God made little green apples never sell that one.

I noticed that there are a few fans of the .41 Mag, here. I shot one once
a long time ago and it was a nice gun. What I do have is two speed
loaders that I picked up at a gun show cheap. Guy selling thought they
were for the .44 mag. but was not sure. Well the holes are way too big
for the .357 and too small for the .44 so methinks they're for the .41.
Anyone here that might want them, PM me and address and you have
them. No charge.
Paul B.
Back to Top View Paul B.'s Profile Search for other posts by Paul B.
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 27 2018 at 8:05am | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

The .44 spl., for me was kind of an impulse buy, something for my birthday. I have a 1950s vintage mod 29, that has had a lot of the old Keith loads through it, back when my father carried it.

The flat top Ruger is just a neat gun, it is smaller and lighter than my Blackhawk .45, since it is built on the .357 frame. What I really wanted was a flat top .357, but that ship had sailed before I got around to anteing up the cash.

If I just wanted something with a smaller more efficient cartridge than the .45 Colt, all I had to do was to drop the .45ACP cylinder in.

In the articles section there is an article by Jerrick Linde about using .460 Roland load data for loads in the Blackhawk .45 convertable.
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
STCM(SW)
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: February 17 2007
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 9081
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 27 2018 at 6:10pm | IP Logged Quote STCM(SW)

Like I posted before I have had many M29 44 Magnum's.
Just got this itch that a 44 Spl was more to my liking.
I can shoot my 44 Specials better that my 38 specials I think and have no qualms it would do well with 2 or 4 legged rats......


__________________
NRA Life Benefactor Member
USN MCPO Ret. 1960-1992
Si vis pacem, Para Bellum!
Back to Top View STCM(SW)'s Profile Search for other posts by STCM(SW)
 
joed
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: February 18 2003
Location: Grafton, OH
Posts: 11904
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 28 2018 at 9:52am | IP Logged Quote joed

I have 3 each of S&W N frame revolvers in .44 Mag and .44 Spl.   I
like them both equally but there is just something about the
revolvers in .44 Spl that appeals to me.

To be honest the .44 Mags I shoot aren't loaded much higher than
the Spl.   I just don't see a need for full house mag loads.

One N frame I wish I had is a model 25 in .45 acp.   I sold off the
ones I had in .45 Colt, just don't like that cartridge.

__________________
The 6 gun was once as common as the cellphone is today, and just as annoying when it went off in the theater.
Back to Top View joed's Profile Search for other posts by joed
 
RB in GA
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: December 29 2002
Location: Middle GA
Posts: 765
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 28 2018 at 4:41pm | IP Logged Quote RB in GA

joed wrote:


To be honest the .44 Mags I shoot aren't loaded much
higher than the Spl. I just don't see a need for full
house mag loads.




Me too! There was a time 35+ years ago I enjoyed those
Ear-Splitten-Louda-Booms. At 60 year old 6.5g W231 and a
cast 240 are just fine for me in a 44mag.
Back to Top View RB in GA's Profile Search for other posts by RB in GA
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 29 2018 at 7:23am | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

The race for bigger and better has left a lot of really useful cartridges in the dust. The original loading for the 1873 .45 Colt was 40 gr. of black powder and a 255 gr, bullet, those old loads produced right around 1000 fps., and were a real hand full for soldiers used to shooting the 1860 Army, that use 30-35 gr. of BP and a 140 gr. round ball.

It wasn't long until the original loads were reduced, that lead to the development of the .45 Schofield, and the S&W revolver it went in.

The Schofield was an easier round to shoot, and more efficient.

Not long after that the Mod 3, S&W as produced in .44 cal., on order from the Russians. The .44 Russian was the predecessor of the .44 American and .44spl.

The .44 Spl., was offered in both the new, at the time, smokeless powder and black powder loadings.

I think it makes more sense to have a few heavy .44 spl loads, for "just in case", than down loading the .44 magnum, for the majority of ones shooting.

A great old cartridge, and I am glad it is getting another go..      
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 633
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 29 2018 at 12:09pm | IP Logged Quote RT58

I thought the desire for a revolver that could be easily and quickly reloaded while on horseback was what led to the development of the Schofield revolver. And while S&W claimed the Schofield ammo was the longest that could be used on the platform, I have a feeling the desire to be the sole supplier of ammo for the U.S. Army might have had more to do with it.
Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
John P.
Senior Member




Joined: October 02 2002
Posts: 375
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 29 2018 at 6:02pm | IP Logged Quote John P.

All .44 Magnums here, but I have hundreds of .44 Special cases. In my
1989 .44 Magnum Mountain Revolver I shoot .44 Special nearly
exclusively. Favorite load is 7.5 grains of Unique and a 240 gr. cast
SWC.
Back to Top View John P.'s Profile Search for other posts by John P.
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 30 2018 at 6:55am | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

RT58

The fact that the Mod 3 S&W could be easily reloaded by a man on horse back was also a desirable factor. By the time the Schofield cartridge came around, the .45 Colt had been "down loaded" for some time, and no doubt S&W was in mind to capitalize on there "proprietary" ammunition.

There is nothing new in marketing, only the packaging has changed.

I think that an analogy here is the comparison between the 10 mm and the .40 S&W..you see any similarities..?

In the case of the .44s it is a lot easier to keep track of your loads if you shoot light loads in your .44 magnum, using special cases.    
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 633
Online Status: Offline
Posted: November 30 2018 at 10:41am | IP Logged Quote RT58

John, I'm not an expert on blackpowder or old military firearms and ammunition so I have to rely on references I have on hand, which apparently don't match up to your information so I'll leave that to someone else.

I do remember the FBI shootout in Miami which eventually led to the .40 S&W, which really was an opportunity for S&W to capitalize over a cartridge which already existed. But it had nothing in common with the .45 Schofield vs. .45 Colt argument, in either of our versions.

I've been loading and shooting ammunition in a wide variety of calibers and load levels for a long time. I don't rely on what is stamped on the case to tell me what is inside of it, just the same as with factory ammo, since they can be quite different. And with my favorite caliber being .41 magnum, all my cases are marked the same, there are no specials (I'm not wasting money on them) nor +P's to worry about. I keep the loads separated and marked as to what they are, just like the factories do, and sometimes I even mark the cases.

I'm not saying everyone should do the same, if anyone wants to use special cases for light loads and magnum cases for heavy ones, go ahead and do it. But I've shot enough short cases in long chambers to know it's not a "benefit" like they want you to believe.

Edited by RT58 on November 30 2018 at 10:43am
Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 01 2018 at 7:31am | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

The 10m was based on an idea of Jeff Coopers, but it proved to be a bit much for most shooters, so the 10mm rounds were down loaded so they were more manageable. The FBI wanted a cartridge that had this performance, so S&W produced the .40. A benefit to the .40 was that it could be produced in the smaller 9mm frame guns, which worked out well for people with smaller hands.

The model 3 S&W originally adopted by the US Army was chambered in .44 American. The Schofield was a later improvement, the Army agreed to purchase the Schofield if it could be produced in .45 Colt, instead S&W came up with their own cartridge, the shorter .45 Schofield.

The shorter cartridge worked in both the Colt and S&W, at some point there were changes to the rim dimensions and that was no longer an option.

Even though the Schofield was the "standard" cartridge the Army had so many of the .45 Colt cartridges in the supply system, they dropped the S&W in favor of the Colt.

The records from that period about military purchases/acquisitions are some what nebulous and even contradictory.
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 633
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 01 2018 at 2:15pm | IP Logged Quote RT58

The way I remember it, the original loading for the 10mm, made by Norma, was very hot and after other gun makers chambered the cartridge the max. pressure was reduced due to weaker designs, such as the 1911.

After the FBI shootout in Miami, the gun experts at the FBI tested every cartridge to find the ideal duty cartridge. Their testing showed the 10mm had too much penetration and the ideal was a cartridge of .40ish caliber at a reduced velocity. (Apparently the experts at the FBI never heard of the .41AE because that was exactly what they described.) Anyway, they bought 10mm S&W handguns and used a reduced load that gave the ballistics they wanted. They then said the combination wasn't reliable as the light loads had difficulty in cycling the slide made for the long 10mm case. That was when S&W, working with Olin, came up with the .40S&W.

I don't have many books with info on the .45S&W/.45Colt issue. I was wondering about the reduction of powder in the .45Colt since I'd always heard blackpowder had to be loaded with very little empty space. I have a copy of Julian Hatchers "Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers". He states that the Schofield was adopted shortly before the Colt and while the Army wanted them to both shoot the .45 Colt, the Schofield didn't have a long enough cylinder to take it. According to him, the armies solution was to use ammunition, made by their armories, that were known as the ".45 Colt Government". This cartridge was the Schofield round in dimension and loading, although some other sources do state the rim was made the same dimensions as the .45 Colt. Mr. Hatcher also mentions that the sights for both the Schofield and the Colt were supplied for the .45 Colt Government round at a range of 50 yards.

Like I said, I'm no expert on the subject and have no opinions.
Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 02 2018 at 6:56am | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

The way you reduce loads in BP cartridges is to add a filler, BP has to be compressed or you can have an explosion.

The .45 Colt rim is very abbreviated, that round in the BP loadings was only meant to be fired in a revolver, The rim was small enough that it would not eject from a lever rifle once the chamber was fouled. It works fine loaded with somkeless in lever guns. The Schofield rim was significantly larger, and there is load data advising that the Schofield cases may not work in some .45 Colt guns.

The Delta Elite is a 1911 pattern gun, and was designed to handle the full power 10mm rounds. A retired trooper friend of mine was active in the bowling pin game, and really liked the Delta Elite.   My youngest son and I visited him on one of our cross country forays. My son was 14 at the time, and wanted to try the pin shooting, my friend handed him the 10mm, he cleared the table the first try, and then he cleared it with my 3" GP100..

The issue the FBI had with the 10mm, was that the recoil was just too much for some of the agents, when down loaded, that problem was solved but the size of the grip was still to large for people with small hands. Function was not an issue, all needed was to reduce the recoil spring weight/rate. Just look at the range of bullet weights that function through the 1911 platform. There is a certain point, where shear slide mass comes into play.

The real draw for the .40S&W was the smaller platform it would work in. Now the FBI has gone back to the 9mm.

Lots of internet talk about the 10mm being as powerful as the .44 mag, it is if you carry .44spls., in the magnum. In reality the 10mm doesn't generate as much energy as heavy loads in the .357.

Underwood produces some pretty hot ammunition, chronographed out of a Glock 10mm, they were generating 700 ft/#, I have loads for my 4" GP100 loaded with a 158 gr. GC bullet, over 18 gr. of Hodgdon Lil'Gun powder, they chronograph 1450 average in my Ruger, at 25,800 cup. Those calculate out to 740 ft/#
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
Desert Eagle41
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: January 06 2010
Location: Buuckeye Lake, Ohio
Posts: 1766
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 02 2018 at 7:26am | IP Logged Quote Desert Eagle41

Hey John good read. I always felt in my heart of hearts that the 10 couldn't be loaded as hot as either the 44 or even 357, the case in the 10 is to small for a heavy bullet and powder. I have always liked the fact the FBI couldn't handle it and I went right out and bought one when I heard it . Ha Ha!! It still is the most powerful auto handgun caliber that you can carry easily I feel. Craig

__________________
Wall Street reports today on brisk trading 380 brass finished higher for the last 14 straight months against the euro, dollar and yen.
Back to Top View Desert Eagle41's Profile Search for other posts by Desert Eagle41
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 02 2018 at 2:13pm | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

I feel that the 10mm is kind of like the .41 magnum, an answer to a question no one asked.

There are so many cartridges, that are so close to their predecessors, what was the point ? Other than sales for the manufacturers.

Did we really need a .44 Magnum, or just heavier frames and cylinders for the .45 Colt. A lot of folks jumped off the .44 Magnum bus when Ruger started offering their Blackhawk in .45 Colt. A bigger heavier bullet at nearly the same velocity with less pressure.

Most of the current 10mm loads wont do anything that a .45ACP +P won't. If you really want a semi auto with more "power" and that is a bit of a nebulous term, then a new barrel, recoil spring and .45 Super cases fill the bill again at lower pressure than the 10mm.

Fingers crossed, tongue in cheek, on a good day the 10mm will give you 1200 fps with a 200 gr. bullet, something that is easily done with a 200 gr. bullet in the .44 spl.

The special will give you the 1200 fps figure with a 250 gr. bullet and do it at around 25K in pressure.

On the same size platform, the only thing that comes close to .44 magnum performance is the .460 Rowland. A few more "hoops" to jump through for that one than the super.
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 02 2018 at 2:43pm | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

As far as the 10mm, .40 S&W, I will have to agree that the .41 AE would have been a much better choice than either of the other two. I suspect that converting from 9mm to .41 would have required only a new barrel, recoil spring and maybe magazines..some 9mm mages will accommodate .40 S&W, not sure if the .41 would have fit..but still a lot cheaper for the tax payers, than going to the 10mm, and then the .40.

However the gun makers and ammunition folks would not have had as big of a "payday"..
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 633
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 02 2018 at 6:02pm | IP Logged Quote RT58

John, everything I could find has the Schofield and the Colt being adopted in the same year and dropped at the same time. I couldn't find anything about the .45 Colt being reduced to the same load as the .45 S&W's. I do wonder if there is some confusion with the use of the .45 Colt Government cartridge, especially with some boxes being only marked as "....45 Colt".

I'd never heard of the FBI issuing full power 10mm loads to all their agents. Not saying it didn't happen, I just never heard of it. As a fan of the .41AE, and probably the only one, I would have liked to have seen it adopted by the FBI. I'm sure the fact that S&W didn't chamber it had a lot to do with it's not even being tested. The big problem with handguns are that most people look at paper ballistics only or don't consider that not everyone will be able to handle the same recoil. That, added to the fact that every gun/ammo maker wants their name identified to a popular cartridge as it helps them make money.

edited to add. I forgot to mention that the 9mm to .41AE might have worked fine in the UZI, which it was designed for, but most 9mm handguns weren't really that well suited to the larger case/bullet size.

Edited by RT58 on December 02 2018 at 6:06pm
Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
John Van Gelder
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 09 2004
Location: NE Oregon
Posts: 2125
Online Status: Offline
Posted: December 03 2018 at 6:58am | IP Logged Quote John Van Gelder

From Wikipedia

The .45 Colt originally was a black-powder cartridge, but modern loadings use smokeless powder. The original black-powder loads called for 28 to 40 grains (1.8 to 2.6 g) of black powder behind a 230-to-255-grain (14.9 to 16.5 g) lead bullet. These loads developed muzzle velocities of up to 1,050 ft/s (320 m/s).[7] Because of this power and its excellent accuracy, the .45 Colt was the most-used cartridge at the time of its introduction, succeeding the .44 WCF (or the .44-40 Winchester).

The .41 Action Express was designed by Evan Whildin, vice president of Action Arms, in 1986.[3] It was based on the .41 Magnum case, cut down to fit in a 9mmP frame, and using a rebated rim. Performance was compared to the ballistics of the 41 Magnum police load.[2] The .41 AE was thought to be a very attractive concept, as the rebated rim allows a simple change of barrel, mainspring, and magazine to convert many 9mm guns to 41 AE.[2]

Edited by John Van Gelder on December 03 2018 at 7:11am
Back to Top View John Van Gelder's Profile Search for other posts by John Van Gelder
 

Home | Load data | Articles | Ballistic Calc | Energy Calc

<< Prev Page of 3 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

Powered by Web Wiz Forums version
Copyright ©2001-2008 Web Wiz Guide

This page was generated in 0.1250 seconds.