Glock Talk banner
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Slight Spoilers***




This is a great book and I have read it twice and keep referring back to it several times each year. Especially the last 7 years on the job when I worked the Surveillance Unit.

Jim Cirillo liked, very much, the S&W 4546, (p92). This a a 4500 series of Smith's that is double action only. This is one of the things that got my unit using the S&W 4500 series of pistols!

Cirilo also liked the 41 Magnum on a S&W frame a Dan Wesson barrel and with his own designed and patented wadcutter bullets for it and the 44. He also liked the 44 Magnum with a 4 or 5 inch barrel double action.

It says in this book that if he were still on the stakeout squad he would use a Glock 21 as his primary gun!! (p116).

He also has a very good section on shooting handguns.

Cirillo says several times in this book that the main considerations with a handgun shooting are 1) Construction and configuration of the bullet. 2) Diameter. 3) Velocity. and 4) Weight!!! (p47).

I think I might read this book again! :supergrin:
 
Jim Cirillo and I believe Mas Ayoob both avocate(d) the Glock 30 as a carry / fighting pistol.
Actually, in some gun mag articles hyping the RCBD ammo that G26S239 mentioned, he was using the G20 and G29 and shooting their 10mm product. In another gun-rag piece, he was shown CCW-ing a G29 ... :whistling:

Just FYI ...

:cool:
 
I met Jim at FLETC in 1986 when he was a firearms instructor for Customs after retiring from NYPD. He autorgraphed my target for me that I still have to this day. We met again in Puerto Rico when I was on special assignment with USMS. He was hired to come down and teach a tactical pistol course. We had dinner/drinks and the stories he told were priceless. Cherished memories from a true hero in my mind... At that time he talked about hand loading a hollow based wadcutter upside down so that the hollow cavity would expand when it struck the bad guy. He was a one of a kind guy...... BTW a wadcutter is a very accurate round... I have seen 3" groups fired a 50 yards with this round. It does not lose accuracy past 25 yds.....ask any old PPC shooter...
 
Well, yes and no. The wadcutter round, properly loaded, does not destabilize at 25 yards. PPC shooters can use it to 50. However, my experience (and that of many others) is that past 50, they start to go everywhere due to destabilization.

And a swaged lead hollow-based wadcutter, when loaded backwards and slightly hotter than the normal bullseye load, will pretty much turn a raccoon inside out at 8 yards. :whistling:
 
Well, yes and no. The wadcutter round, properly loaded, does not destabilize at 25 yards. PPC shooters can use it to 50. However, my experience (and that of many others) is that past 50, they start to go everywhere due to destabilization...

I had always heard the same, but there are some who say that WFN bullets CAN be accurate to 100 yds. IF driven fast. I don't know nor will I know as I limit myself to 50 yds. & under with a Ruger SA in the bush using Keith SWC's. If anyone wants to read themselves into a coma on this topic about WFN at long distance then knock yourself out:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/archive/index.php/t-141624.html
 
Well, yes and no. The wadcutter round, properly loaded, does not destabilize at 25 yards. PPC shooters can use it to 50. However, my experience (and that of many others) is that past 50, they start to go everywhere due to destabilization.
It's a velocity issue. The typical full WC load seems to be right on the edge of stabilization. Some guns are faster than others. So, a fast 4" gun and they shoot fine at 50 yards. I've seen them shoot shotgun patterns at 10 yards out of a snub. The same snub shot a fist sized group at 25 yards with a standard LRN load running 100 fps faster. If you handload the WC's to a higher velocity, they will likely stabilize at longer ranges.

FWIW, in official PPC competition, the NRA rules prohibit full WC's. They do allow them in Bullseye and they shoot to 50 yards in Bullseye.
 
Jim liked the full-wadcutter configuration because it is the most effective configuration for handgun level rounds when non-frangible projectiles are used.

Keep in mind that until fairly recently "expanding projectiles" didn't always expand reliably!

Jim sent me (through the gentleman that made them for him) a bunch of his wadcutter rounds in both .38 Special and .44 Special. Very nicely done but I don't think they are currently available.

For the record, I carry Buffalo Bore full-wadcutters in my .38 Special J-frame S&Ws. They are hard cast 150 grain rounds that do an honest +900 fps out of the little 2" barrel.
 
Jim liked the full-wadcutter configuration because it is the most effective configuration for handgun level rounds when non-frangible projectiles are used.

Keep in mind that until fairly recently "expanding projectiles" didn't always expand reliably!

Jim sent me (through the gentleman that made them for him) a bunch of his wadcutter rounds in both .38 Special and .44 Special. Very nicely done but I don't think they are currently available.

For the record, I carry Buffalo Bore full-wadcutters in my .38 Special J-frame S&Ws. They are hard cast 150 grain rounds that do an honest +900 fps out of the little 2" barrel.
Was it JC who experimented with HBWCs loaded backwards?
 
Was it JC who experimented with HBWCs loaded backwards?
Everybody with a reloading press has tried that. They did it when JC might have tried it, but before anyone other than his co-workers knew who he was.

JC marketed two loads with wadcutter type bullets that I know of. It was about ten years ago. One was a standard 148 WC at standard pressure, the other was a +P load that had a slot cut in the face of the WC, like a flathead screwdriver slot. They were called "Safestop" and a google search should turn up better info on them. The operation never really got off the ground.
 
Was he the one that developed (forgive my memory here...) "Pin Grabbers"? They looked like a JHP with a jagged, sawtooth edge around the outside top edge. IIRC, they were originally developed to "bite" in bowling pins during the pin shooting games, but Cirillo opined that they would make good SD rounds because they would not (in theory?) bounce off of a skull.

Then again, my memory might be decieving me and I could be wrong. There was one time I was wrong, but I was mistaken . . .:supergrin:
 
In regard reversing a hollow-base wadcutter, this was done for many years. Problem is twofold; first issue is, they tumbled badly (yeah, I tried them too…), and the second issue is, you’re probably better off with the square end of the round going the way it was designed.

Keep in mind that the British tried this same experiment a hundred years ago with their “Man stopper” series of rounds for the .455 and .476 service rounds. They first put out a double hollowed out (base and nose) round. They then switched to just a hollow base full-wadcutter, finding that round to be no less effective.
 
Was he the one that developed (forgive my memory here...) "Pin Grabbers"? They looked like a JHP with a jagged, sawtooth edge around the outside top edge. IIRC, they were originally developed to "bite" in bowling pins during the pin shooting games, but Cirillo opined that they would make good SD rounds because they would not (in theory?) bounce off of a skull.

Then again, my memory might be decieving me and I could be wrong. There was one time I was wrong, but I was mistaken . . .:supergrin:
I don't think so :upeyes:
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top