NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 19/07/12 01:12 AM |
|
For survivalists ...
|
Ruger 77/357 bolt-action rifle and the .357 mag SP101 double-action revolver.
Choose a handgun and rifle using the same ammo.
| mauserand9mm |
| (.400 member) |
| 19/07/12 09:02 PM |
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
And also available in 44 mag...
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 19/07/12 10:23 PM |
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Mauser
That's what I was thinking.
Have been told a 44 Mag is needed as protection from a croc / to stop a croc as a 357 won't penetrate and that's from someone who carried one for that purpose.
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 19/07/12 11:55 PM |
|
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Quote:
Mauser
That's what I was thinking.
Have been told a 44 Mag is needed as protection from a croc / to stop a croc as a 357 won't penetrate and that's from someone who carried one for that purpose.
Interesting, Don Heath found the .357 penetrated better on elephant skulls than the .44.
| tinker |
| (.416 member) |
| 20/07/12 12:38 AM |
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Bullet selection will affect this, both with the .38 and the .44
Cheers
Tinker
|
NitroX
|
| (.700 member) |
| 20/07/12 02:49 AM |
|
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Oops, forget to type, however I too would go for a .44, much better general use rifle round, and also a good round in a revolver.
| EricD |
| (.416 member) |
| 20/07/12 07:27 AM |
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Quote:Quote:
Mauser
That's what I was thinking.
Have been told a 44 Mag is needed as protection from a croc / to stop a croc as a 357 won't penetrate and that's from someone who carried one for that purpose.
Interesting, Don Heath found the .357 penetrated better on elephant skulls than the .44.
Fwiw, Don carries a S&W 629 in .44mag when hunting in Africa.
| DarylS |
| (.700 member) |
| 20/07/12 10:04 AM |
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
I'd not try to make a Cadilac with Volkswagon parts. I'm positive a .44 would be preferred, and a .45 would be better yet.
Homer's .45 M92 Winchester is MUCH superior to the Ruger bolt gun for fast and fancy shooting.
A companion same calibre handgun would be a Ruger DA in .45 Colt. Even with a silly 38" twist, the .45 Colt will accurately handle 340gr. bullets better than the .44 mag. does with 300's. At least my WW in .45 Colt was much more accurate than my Marlin in .44 mag. with all bullet weights. The reverse is usually the norm- with Marlin being a much more accurate rifle, no matter the chambering.
I wonder if that action is big enough for a .500 S&W chambering? That would make a really useful rifle, but I'd not even consider it in a handgun.
| FATBOY404 |
| (.400 member) |
| 20/07/12 10:47 AM |
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
I had a 44 mag in the bolt gun and what a heap of s-/t.
The caliber is about being light and fast,two things the Ruger ain't .
I also hate being limited to 100 yards.
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 20/07/12 11:04 AM |
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Re the "S&W 629 in .44mag"
Isn't this the stainless one ?
That is one of the other reasons certain people went for the 44 Mag, it came in a stainless that didn't rust in the tropics.
NitroX
Re penetration, very interesting. Maybe bullet shape has something to do with it.
| DarylS |
| (.700 member) |
| 20/07/12 02:40 PM |
|
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Yes - the 429 is stainless, as-are the Ruger Super Redhawks that's I've seen. The problems with the Smiths and I've worn out 3 now, is that they cannot handle a steady diet of 'good' loads, whereas the Rugers seem fully capable and of handling even hotter load as well as .45 cal. with hot loads.
I do not see a single action as being a serious dangeous game, tag-along gun. Some guys really like them. For me, for play, they're fine. I merely prefer the DA, probably due to my training.
| gatsby |
| (.375 member) |
| 20/07/12 02:57 PM |
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
S&W's do seem to have forcing cone and timing problems sooner than other makes. I like a good single action for heavy loads in the 44 and 45. If the rifle was chambered in 454 Casull then you would really have something.
| Drew_Jaeger |
| (.275 member) |
| 20/07/12 04:20 PM |
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Not really my forté, but I thought a 180gr .357" projectile at 1200-1300ft/s would have better penetration than a 240gr .429" projectile at 1400-1500ft/s.
| Phillip |
| (.300 member) |
| 20/07/12 08:14 PM |
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
I once thought the same,however 15 years ago,I bounced one of those off the shell of a big snapping turtle.I re-armed myself minutes later with a Smith 29 and 240 hard cast Keith bullets and killed it dead.Put a large hole in the armored plating the damn thing had...
| gryphon |
| (.450 member) |
| 20/07/12 08:26 PM |
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
Why would you bother when you can have a proper rifle calibre instead..I agree Neale a pos!
| DarylS |
| (.700 member) |
| 21/07/12 12:02 AM |
|
|
|
Re: For survivalists ...
|
For survivalists as this thread started, in the true sense of the word, a .357 mag would be better than the .44 due to the ammo being lighter so you could carry more. It would also be sufficiently powerful. I've seen survivalists make a good case for a Ruger 10/22 being best for that useage.
I'd think it's all about being compact and having sufficient ammunumition to 'survive'.
I suspect a .32 H&H Mag. in both would be better than the larger handgun rounds. You could easily kill what you need and would still give you decent range. The .22 would have many more restrictions, but around here, would work on game and if needed, on 2 leggers as well.
Sound of discharge must also be a consideration. A suppressed .22 bolt gun would make a lot of sense for those reasons.