GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-12-2013, 19:36   #181
happie2shoot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDGlock23 View Post
Well I have some AA9 but to be honest, I've never warmed up to it. Well, not yet at least.

It may do a great job in the .45 Super, but I think my issue with it (so far) is that it takes a lot of powder and so far in the 10mm and .40 I've not got very good numbers at all using it, even with over book max charges. I know it's a slow burning powder, but it takes a lot of it, and the performance I've seen so far has disappointed me a little.

However, I will have to look into at least giving it a try in the Super, it may change my mind about the powder.
I would use CCI 350 with AA#9
happie2shoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 19:47   #182
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Yeap you snuck your post in before I finished typing mine, but it looks like we agree on the use of lighter weight bullets. There would be bullet integrity issues for sure, since the 165gr .451" has about the same sectional density as a 100gr .355" (used in 380's). Putting a 100gr 380 ACP bullet in a 357 Sig would be about like putting a 165gr .45 in a Super/Rowland. Fun if you're trying to explode a melon or a rabid coon, but little value on anything much larger. Quite often less (velocity) is more (penetration), and I think the 165gr, while too light for my tastes, is better off in use in the slower .45 ACP.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 19:51   #183
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by happie2shoot View Post
I would use CCI 350 with AA#9
That would make sense Happie, since with all that powder a little more oomph in the ignition might not hurt. I may give it a try before long.

As you had mentioned a few posts back, I would likely run out of room for powder before I ran into pressure problems with AA9. I know I tried it in .40 and it's just too slow really, and even with the 10mm it was getting hard to seat the bullet due to the compression of the powder.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 20:25   #184
vaquero aleman
"ah-lay-mahn"
 
vaquero aleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On the other side of the tracks
Posts: 825
Well, hopefully the 185 grain XTP that Underwood loads to 1300 fps will hold up, since I carry those on occasion. I shot a few mags of them to check out my YHM comp but I was at a range so picking up the frags was out of the question. I reckin I would rather go with a 250 grain XTP myself, but I was just curious, considering people here make such a big noise about the lighter .40 rounds. But I do appreciate the response.
__________________
G2930SF, G38 w/lasermax The 21 Club #7663, The 10 Ring #7663, The Bull Dawgs Club #7663, US Army Veteran

___________________________________________
Amateur Glock Modification Expert...
vaquero aleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 08:06   #185
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the 185gr .45 @ 1,300 would act similar to a 135gr .40 at the same speed, with the advantage that it's an XTP, so while it might shed a little lead, it shouldn't be a whole lot. That's one of the things I like about the XTP, it may shed a little lead from the mushrooming part of the bullet, but the whole of the bullet stays intact from my experiences.

Oh yeah, you had asked if a 250gr XTP was good for 1200 fps in another thread, I never saw your question until the other day, but yes it's good for up to 1500 fps. I can attest that at 1250 fps the penetration is nice and deep and expansion is nice as well.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

Last edited by SDGlock23; 08-13-2013 at 08:11..
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 11:10   #186
Cycletroll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern New Mexico
Posts: 290
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/183...free-box-of-40
??? maybe???

SD, good thoughts on bullet weight. I've driven 135's in .401 guns and its pointless. Heavier bullets just work better. 240 XTP in 44 mag at 1250-1350 just hammers elk so the 250 XTP in Super/Rowland at ~1250 will do the same. Also heavier bullets shed velocity much slower than the hyper rounds.

BTW, your findings on IMR 800x mirror mine. I've loaded it in Super/Rowland and heavy .357 Sig and had the most accurate loads I've ever shot out of pistols. It has high load density, long pressure curve, and burns clean.
I have 800x XTP loads in both the Super and Sig that put three rounds under an inch at 30 yards often two are touching.
Cycletroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 12:07   #187
vaquero aleman
"ah-lay-mahn"
 
vaquero aleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On the other side of the tracks
Posts: 825
Yeh, I'm really Jones'n for a re-loading kit now. And my first load that I am planning is for some Rowland brass, 250gr XTP's/Hunter's supply cast and 1200fps out of my 4 3/8" KKM barrel.
__________________
G2930SF, G38 w/lasermax The 21 Club #7663, The 10 Ring #7663, The Bull Dawgs Club #7663, US Army Veteran

___________________________________________
Amateur Glock Modification Expert...
vaquero aleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 20:04   #188
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cycletroll View Post
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/183...free-box-of-40
??? maybe???

SD, good thoughts on bullet weight. I've driven 135's in .401 guns and its pointless. Heavier bullets just work better. 240 XTP in 44 mag at 1250-1350 just hammers elk so the 250 XTP in Super/Rowland at ~1250 will do the same. Also heavier bullets shed velocity much slower than the hyper rounds.

BTW, your findings on IMR 800x mirror mine. I've loaded it in Super/Rowland and heavy .357 Sig and had the most accurate loads I've ever shot out of pistols. It has high load density, long pressure curve, and burns clean.
I have 800x XTP loads in both the Super and Sig that put three rounds under an inch at 30 yards often two are touching.
Good points on the heavier bullets, there's a lot of advantage to using them. I did notice using 800x how clean it burns which is something I hadn't really noticed until now. I believe what you say about accuracy, and while I wasn't so much shooting for accuracy the other day, it's consistency leads me to think you're right on the money.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2013, 07:48   #189
picketpin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDGlock23 View Post
Good points on the heavier bullets, there's a lot of advantage to using them. I did notice using 800x how clean it burns which is something I hadn't really noticed until now. I believe what you say about accuracy, and while I wasn't so much shooting for accuracy the other day, it's consistency leads me to think you're right on the money.
I have been following your load development and I'm very impressed. You have surpassed most published .460 Rowland velocities with the .45 Super. I have been trying to find some load data and or pressure information on 800X for the .460 but have not been able to find any but yours. Are you just working up from Hodgdons .45 ACP info? Just curious because I have been working with Longshot and AA#7 and 255 cast bullets and Quickload has me maxed out at about 1200 fps with AA#7. My loads look fine and fired cases show no obvious pressure signs, my ES's are running 2-3X what yours are with 800X. May be me but the accuracy doesn't seem to be at the level you are reporting either... Any way I am interested in trying 800x if it ever shows up around here again..
James
picketpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2013, 09:15   #190
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by picketpin View Post
I have been following your load development and I'm very impressed. You have surpassed most published .460 Rowland velocities with the .45 Super. I have been trying to find some load data and or pressure information on 800X for the .460 but have not been able to find any but yours. Are you just working up from Hodgdons .45 ACP info? Just curious because I have been working with Longshot and AA#7 and 255 cast bullets and Quickload has me maxed out at about 1200 fps with AA#7. My loads look fine and fired cases show no obvious pressure signs, my ES's are running 2-3X what yours are with 800X. May be me but the accuracy doesn't seem to be at the level you are reporting either... Any way I am interested in trying 800x if it ever shows up around here again..
James

Thank you James. One thing is for sure and it's that there isn't much data for the Rowland that I've seen out there, even for the .45 Super for that matter. I have seen a few spots of data, but I cannot recall ever seeing any using 800x with the Rowland and I think only on one occasion did I find some 800x data for the Super. It was on one of the 1911 sites and there was a big list of data someone had compiled, so that's where I got my 9.5gr 800x from.

As you know Hodgdon only shows Longshot for the Rowland, which is odd but I suspect they just haven't put too much time or effort into it. Their .45 Super data can be classified as a joke, since what data they do show makes the .45 Super out to be no different than a .45 ACP +P, and they don't even load it that warm.

Starline touts their Super brass to be pretty tough, and I can say from what I've loaded for the Super that it is tough brass. The first time I used 800x in the Super was with a 230gr FMJ, using 9.5gr of it which was giving me a little shy of 1,100 fps. It was consistent but I wasn't too impressed with the velocity at the time, which was odd because 800x usually is right near the top in terms of performance, but in this case Power Pistol and Longshot were faster so I'm sure that's why I decided to work up on past 9.5gr.

It's possible 1200 fps with a 255gr hardcast could be max for AA7, but I can't really say either because AA7 is the one AA powder (well besides AA2) that I don't have any of. There is some AA7 and other 460 Rowland data over on http://www.realguns.com/loads/460Rowland.htm but no 800x data. What kind of 255gr hardcast are you using? I've got a couple of different styles, one is just a lot longer than the other.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2013, 09:23   #191
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaquero aleman View Post
Yeh, I'm really Jones'n for a re-loading kit now. And my first load that I am planning is for some Rowland brass, 250gr XTP's/Hunter's supply cast and 1200fps out of my 4 3/8" KKM barrel.
To feed your 460R I think that would be a good idea. If you didn't want to invest too heavily in it, you could buy a decent single stage and a few odds and ends and you'll be up and running in no time!
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2013, 09:51   #192
picketpin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDGlock23 View Post
It's possible 1200 fps with a 255gr hardcast could be max for AA7, but I can't really say either because AA7 is the one AA powder (well besides AA2) that I don't have any of. There is some AA7 and other 460 Rowland data over on http://www.realguns.com/loads/460Rowland.htm but no 800x data. What kind of 255gr hardcast are you using? I've got a couple of different styles, one is just a lot longer than the other.
Thanks for the reply, I may try to push the AA#7 a little harder to see if it settles in. I have the Realguns Load data, it is a good guide, I have found his info to be accurate and useful for sure.

I have been using several hard cast bullets in the 255 gr range. Two from RimRock bullets, their 255 CSWC at .452 (supposed to be .451 but they don't measure out at that), their 255 RNFP cowboy, and Missouri Bullets 255CSWC as well as Dardsas Casts' 255 SWC. The Missouri bullets are probably on the soft side for Rowland velocities. I shoot a lot of .45 Colt so most of these I had on hand. I will eventually go to one of Bear Tooth bullets WFN's for my final backcountry bear load, but I will probably stick with the 255's for every thing else.
Thanks for the info.
James
picketpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2013, 10:27   #193
happie2shoot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by picketpin View Post
Thanks for the reply, I may try to push the AA#7 a little harder to see if it settles in. I have the Realguns Load data, it is a good guide, I have found his info to be accurate and useful for sure.

I have been using several hard cast bullets in the 255 gr range. Two from RimRock bullets, their 255 CSWC at .452 (supposed to be .451 but they don't measure out at that), their 255 RNFP cowboy, and Missouri Bullets 255CSWC as well as Dardsas Casts' 255 SWC. The Missouri bullets are probably on the soft side for Rowland velocities. I shoot a lot of .45 Colt so most of these I had on hand. I will eventually go to one of Bear Tooth bullets WFN's for my final backcountry bear load, but I will probably stick with the 255's for every thing else.
Thanks for the info.
James
Get one of these the size you need and you can size down
bullets that are too big,,
http://leeprecision.com/bullet-casti...nd-sizing-kit/

Some times I have had to buy the smaller size and open it
up to the size I needed, have sized .458 jacked and cast bullets down to .451.
happie2shoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2013, 18:35   #194
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by picketpin View Post
Thanks for the reply, I may try to push the AA#7 a little harder to see if it settles in. I have the Realguns Load data, it is a good guide, I have found his info to be accurate and useful for sure.

I have been using several hard cast bullets in the 255 gr range. Two from RimRock bullets, their 255 CSWC at .452 (supposed to be .451 but they don't measure out at that), their 255 RNFP cowboy, and Missouri Bullets 255CSWC as well as Dardsas Casts' 255 SWC. The Missouri bullets are probably on the soft side for Rowland velocities. I shoot a lot of .45 Colt so most of these I had on hand. I will eventually go to one of Bear Tooth bullets WFN's for my final backcountry bear load, but I will probably stick with the 255's for every thing else.
Thanks for the info.
James
The .45 Colt is one of my favorites so I guess that's why I have an infatuation with the heavy hardcasts, but I guess there are worse things in life I would agree with you about the Missouri bullets, I have their 250gr RNFP and I've used it some in the Super, but even in the Ruger Bisley I don't like to drive those very fast because of their bhn.

I have quite a few Lasercast 255gr SWC hardcasts from years back when I bought a bunch. They're a nice bullet, but the profile doesn't work as well as the Beartooth 255gr in the Super since it digs a little deep into the case. The Beartooth 255 WFNPB is very short, the bullet is ~.610" long, much shorter than any other 250/255gr bullet I've seen. Plus the meplat is very large, and that's always a good thing.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2013, 19:16   #195
Cycletroll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern New Mexico
Posts: 290
I've mentioned this before but just so people are clear:
The reason Rowland brass is a bit longer is so that high pressure cartridges don't end up in a gun chambered for .45 ACP that doesn't have good chamber support/weak barrel and/or not enough recoil spring or a comp to control the substantial slide velocity imparted by these levels of loads.

Although there is some variation in the strength of various .45 brass it is not the brass that is the limiting factor in load development. I have loaded standard Winchester .45 ACP brass to Rowland levels and there was no differences in perceived stress to the brass as compared to Starline .45 Super brass.

No doubt one would not like a Rowland level load in standard brass to get into a gun with an unsupported chamber or weak recoil system. One can load Rowland level loads in good brass (Starline, Winchester, Remington etc) to be shot in a pistol chambered in .45 ACP which has a strong fully supported chamber and appropriate recoil management system including a compensator. Obviously this should only be done by experienced loaders and loads should be worked up progressively and cautiously.

One other note: There is quite a bit of difference in case volume of various ACP brass. For example Remington +p brass has a much thicker web (to provide case head strength for firing the slightly higher pressure +p loads in unsupported chambers a la Glock 21). Loads developed in one brand/type of brass should not be casually substituted in other brass.

Also if you do have a Rowland chamber, firing standard length ACP cases in the longer Rowland chamber is really not such a good idea as you are then expecting the extractor to maintain correct headspace. I personally prefer to have a standard length chamber and deal with making sure my hyper loads don't find their way into the wrong gun.
Cycletroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 18:18   #196
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Good points Cycletroll. I did read about a guy who was using ACP brass loaded to with 460R data in a Ruger Blackhawk. Given the extra thickness of the chamber in an aftermarket Glock barrel compared to the cylinder walls in a Blackhawk .45, I would say one probably could load ACP brass to Rowland levels if the case support was good enough. With that said however, having stronger .45 Super brass is never a bad thing.

I also agree that it's not a great idea to fire a .45 ACP/Super in a 460 Rowland barrel, since as you mentioned the headspacing is totally different. It's just like those who swear up and down it's safe to shoot .40's in a 10mm. I've tried it to see if it works, and it does, but I don't like the idea at all which is why I have a conversion barrel.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 09:47   #197
Cycletroll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern New Mexico
Posts: 290
So, I'm trying to figure out my hunting projectile for the Godzilla Glock. Any thoughts experiences would be appreciated.
I'm looking for a load for finishing and emergency shots on elk, deer, antelope, cougar, and possibly black bear. I've had great success with .44 240gr XTP@1350. Last year my hunting partner dropped an injured elk@ 80yds with this load from a 6.5" 629 equipped with red dot.

The problem is the 230 .451 XTP doesn't seem tough enough. Yesterday I shot one at 1300fps into milk jugs. Dramatic explosion but only dented the back of jug number three and total jacket core separation. The jacket and remaining core weighed 156gr.
I need more penetration than this. I realize that water is tough on cup/core bullets. Anybody ever shot the 230gr XTP into a critter and had better penetration and weight retention?
How about the Speer Gold Dot? I think lead is softer and jacket thinner in the GD but it is bonded.
I've been trying to find Siera and Nosler 230/240 JHP's but can't find any. Experiences?
I think the 250XTP should work better but can't find any of those either.
Next week will be working up 185gr Barnes XPB @ ~1500. This should give me the range/trajectory etc I need. Will definitely penetrate enough but may not impart the hydrostatic energy dump in 1st 6-20" that I would like.
I can always fall back on the 275gr Hunters Supply WFN. It will sail thru any critter I hunt but doesn't put quite the "hit" on critters to anchor them like a .44 cal 240gr@1350 does.

Finally please don't turn this into a "use a .44 mag/.454 Casull, .460 etc" thread. I shoot my comped Glock Super/Rowland well, it is far lighter than any of my large bore magnum revolvers, has higher capacity and with red dot I can reliably hit steel chickens at 180yds. I want to dial a tough expanding bullet that will hold together in the 1250-1500fps range that the Rowland is capable of. Please offer helpful thoughts/experiences if you can
Cycletroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 14:50   #198
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,784
Good thoughts for sure. Concerning the Gold Dots, depending on how fast you drive them is what's going to make the difference. The 230gr Gold Dot and even the 250gr Gold Dot don't seem to hold together very well beyond 1200 fps, but up to that point they do rather well. I do think the 250gr version is a little tougher than the 230gr version, but not much. I've not messed much with the 200gr Gold Dot, which might be little tougher, but with heavier bullet options available I don't see a pressing need to experiment with it. Even though it's bonded, a Gold Dot will shed it's pedals in a hurry if you push them too fast.

You did mention it, but I've recently been on the hunt for some 240gr Sierra JHP bullets. Their OAL is a little shorter than a 250gr XTP, and along with being slightly lighter weight I think it's possible to achieve 1300 fps with it. I feel that velocity, or somewhere around that would be very good for that JHP profile.

Hopefully you can find some 250gr XTP's because that's about the best JHP design going out there that will also hold up .45 Super/460 Rowland velocities. Hornady rates it for up to 1500 fps I believe, so it's got what it takes to stay intact at higher speeds. I put one from the .45 Super into some jugs, the ones doing 1250+ fps and it penetrated to the fifth jug and expanded to around .65-.70". Good penetration on water jugs is usually a sign that it will punch deep into game as well.

Two others that I haven't tried is the Nosler 250gr JHP and the Speer 260gr JHP, both should work fairly well and be tough enough to handle 800+ ft-lbs of energy. But with that said, still try and grab some 250gr XTP's when if you get the chance. Good luck on that 185gr Barnes, I'd be interested in seeing how those turn out.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

Last edited by SDGlock23; 08-25-2013 at 14:55..
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 17:57   #199
Cycletroll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern New Mexico
Posts: 290
SD,

Thanks for the input. I did manage to find some 250 XTP's. Should have them before the end of the week. Your result of 5 jugs and .65-.70 in water correlates exactly to what I'm looking for.
I've driven the 200 Gold Dots a bit. Are ideal at 1100 (.85), start looking like the infamous octopus meteorite at about 1200.

I'm going to do wetpack tests with all of these once I get a good cross section but I suspect that the 250 XTP will do perfectly.

BTW, the 260 Speer has a long bearing surface, seats deep in the case (bulging it a bit) and doesn't expand at all at 950-1000. It really seems like a bullet best suited to .454 Casull velocities.

I'll let you know how the 185 Barnes work out.
Cycletroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 20:23   #200
Roger G23
Glock Guy
 
Roger G23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Gunshine State
Posts: 2,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDGlock23 View Post
Good thoughts for sure. Concerning the Gold Dots, depending on how fast you drive them is what's going to make the difference. The 230gr Gold Dot and even the 250gr Gold Dot don't seem to hold together very well beyond 1200 fps, but up to that point they do rather well. I do think the 250gr version is a little tougher than the 230gr version, but not much. I've not messed much with the 200gr Gold Dot, which might be little tougher, but with heavier bullet options available I don't see a pressing need to experiment with it. Even though it's bonded, a Gold Dot will shed it's pedals in a hurry if you push them too fast.

You did mention it, but I've recently been on the hunt for some 240gr Sierra JHP bullets. Their OAL is a little shorter than a 250gr XTP, and along with being slightly lighter weight I think it's possible to achieve 1300 fps with it. I feel that velocity, or somewhere around that would be very good for that JHP profile.

Hopefully you can find some 250gr XTP's because that's about the best JHP design going out there that will also hold up .45 Super/460 Rowland velocities. Hornady rates it for up to 1500 fps I believe, so it's got what it takes to stay intact at higher speeds. I put one from the .45 Super into some jugs, the ones doing 1250+ fps and it penetrated to the fifth jug and expanded to around .65-.70". Good penetration on water jugs is usually a sign that it will punch deep into game as well.

Two others that I haven't tried is the Nosler 250gr JHP and the Speer 260gr JHP, both should work fairly well and be tough enough to handle 800+ ft-lbs of energy. But with that said, still try and grab some 250gr XTP's when if you get the chance. Good luck on that 185gr Barnes, I'd be interested in seeing how those turn out.
I've been reading and pretty impressed with you guys and your knowledge in this interesting subject. Let me just ask a simple question because I'm new to all this and still learning. Is the 45 Super out of the G21 pretty accurate at 25 yards? 50 yards? (all other things considered, shooter skill, etc)
I'm debating whether to modify for 45 Super or 40 Super. I just somehow have a feeling the 40S is more accurate because of the smaller projectile but I could be completely wrong.
__________________
G17 * G23 * G26 * G19 OD Green * M&P40c * M&P40 * M&P9 Shield (x2) * M&P40 Shield * M&P9 Pro Series * Kahr CM9 * CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow * CZ 75 P-07 Duty * FN FNS-40 * Canik 55 Stingray-C * SAR B6PC
Roger G23 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:59.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 971
307 Members
664 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31