Or Were They Always Lame?

Arduous day today. Mike and I went to the range, and we had to sit through a safety class so he could get his range ID. Then we shot a whole bunch of .357 and .45 rounds.

I thought shot well under the circumstances. It was gusty all day, and then in the middle of the session, a steady wind kicked up, so strong it blew targets out of their frames. It was one of those winds that are so forceful that if you aren’t ready, you may have to take a step to keep your balance.

I’ve about had it with wind at the range. I don’t know what the explanation is; Miami isn’t naturally windy. Winter and spring are always worse than summer and fall, but I didn’t realize May could be this bad.

In years past, when I heard people talking about the effects of wind on ballistics, I thought they were only talking about the wind’s power to make bullets drift. But the wind also shakes you while you’re aiming, and if you’re shooting a pistol from an unsupported standing position, it’s exasperating.

I did okay anyway, but I am too lazy to post photos. Mike hasn’t shot in a long time, and he was frustrated, but I would say he was still the third-best shot on the pistol side. He had problems with flyers, but the central shot-out area on his targets was maybe the size of a fist. If he ever gets himself situated so he can shoot once in a while, he’ll be a great shooting partner.

Someone sent me info about the IDPA, which has competitive matches. I signed up. Why spend all my time slow-firing at motionless targets, if I can get an opportunity to do something with more variety?

I would love to get some work, writing for gun publications. I suppose the more experience I have, the more likely that is to happen.

I have read a little bit about IDPA competitions. They expect you to use real-world skills, drawing a gun you might carry on an ordinary day and shooting it at targets that pop up unexpectedly. They say a number of people have had bad surprises while doing this. Guns that they loved at the range turned out to be high-maintenance in competition, and that would have affected their use on the street.

Kind of makes me wonder if a semi-auto is the way to go for something like this. I have seen experts claim that semi-autos are so great these days, they’re just as reliable as revolvers. But I’ve never had a revolver refuse to fire, except when the ammunition failed. Never. I think every one of my automatics has failed. Not positive about the .38 Super and the Glock 26.

Wouldn’t you know it; this issue comes up just as I develop an interest in a large-frame .357 Magnum revolver. My .357 is 6″ long and holds 7 shots and has a medium frame. The Smith & Wesson Model 627 has a 5″ barrel, holds 8 shots, and has a large frame, which should last forever. This sounds wonderful to me. I think 4″ is a little short, and 6″ is a little long. And I have read that medium-frame .357 revolvers aren’t quite as sturdy as they should be for the .357 round. And 8 shots…sweet, if you’re using it in combat competion with 7+1 and 8+1 automatics.

Speaking of the .357, which is just about my favorite caliber, it’s really hard to find free brass. It turns out almost all of the people I see shooting beautiful .357 revolvers at the range are using puny .38 shells. I just don’t get it. Why spend the extra money on a heavy .357, if you’re going to shoot girly ammunition? The obvious answer: you want a gun that looks cool, but you aren’t willing to take the time to learn how to shoot the round it was designed for. Geez. Why not buy a .30-06 and rig it up to shoot BBs?

You can get a perfectly nice .38 from Smith & Wesson for over a hundred bucks less than a .357.

I know people say they like shooting .38 Special rounds because it’s easier on their hands. But that doesn’t explain why they buy the Magnum pistols in the first place. I’m sure the .38 pistols shoot just as well. Are they trying to hide the already-wimpy recoil of the .38 round in the mass of the bigger gun? I suppose that makes some sense, but you can buy a pretty big .38.

You can’t tell me people train with .38 and then load with .357 for defense. Well, maybe you can. But that would be a bad idea. The difference in recoil is tremendous. And the .357 is much louder. If you’re used to shooting weak ammunition, you’re going to have to learn to shoot all over again when the burglar breaks down your door. And you’ll have about two seconds to do it.

Speaking of burglars, I’m thinking I should get some electronic hearing protectors that only muffle very loud sounds. Why? Because if a burglar comes into your house, you’ll want to hear everything he does. But you won’t want to ruin your hearing when you shoot him.

I think most people I see shooting .38 rounds in .357 pistols are doing it for two reasons. First, it’s cheaper. Second, they don’t really know what they’re doing or care to learn. They’re casual shooters who have shown up just to have a good time.

I have guns that are hard to shoot (.50 AE, .357), and I have guns that are easy to shoot (9mm, .45, .38 Super), and my experience so far tells me you can shoot an easy gun well after training with a difficult gun, but the reverse is not true. For example, today I shot the .357 first, and it was challenging, because it’s heavy and the trigger is hard to pull. Then I shot the .45, and I felt like I was using a squirt gun. When I used to start out with the .50, the .357 felt like a squirt gun. Using the difficult guns made the easy ones less of a problem. I think if I had endless ammunition and range time, I’d start every session with a box of .50 AE and then go to .357 before shooting my more practical guns.

The other day my dad asked me about the recoil of the .45, and I didn’t know what to tell him. I don’t notice it any more. I couldn’t tell him whether the .45 or the .38 Super kicked harder. I had no idea. I still don’t. The .357 and the .50? Those, I notice. Especially when the huge cans they call .50 Action Express brass nail me in the forehead.

The gun show was fun, but ultimately disappointing. The 1911 selection was bad, and the prices weren’t good. It was like these guys had never heard of the Internet. Example: Colt Special Combat Government model: $1670. The first place I find in a Google search sells it for $1600. No tax. I just found another place: $1480. And I should spend $1670? Are you kidding me? The tag said $1690, and I asked the kid the real price, and he acted like he was thinking, and then he had the gall to say $1670. Bad price. Bad salesmanship. If you’re going to put a bogus price on something and then drop it to impress rubes, you don’t drop it by one percent.

I saw virtually no reloading stuff. That was a bummer.

Mike was considering buying at the show, but it just wasn’t worth it. I didn’t get the impression that the vendors were trying to move merchandise by offering special gun show prices. I got the impression that the vendors were trying to take advantage of impulse buyers, to sell things at their usual prices. Or worse.

I can’t say that about every vendor. Only a couple where I looked at pistols. I saw what looked like a very good deal on an aluminum-receiver Tommy gun. I asked the guy if it was aluminum. He said, “It’s alloy.” Clearly irritated. Hey, I apologize for knowing your gun isn’t steel. It’s not my fault I can read. And the Auto-Ordnance website says “aluminum.”

The show was small, too. Maybe that killed the competitive urge among the vendors.

Fair place to buy trinkets like Boresnakes. Guns? Not so much.

Great day anyway.