I like Savage as a company, and I like their guns too. Inexpensive and accurate. You don’t have to be a skinflint yankee to know that there’s a difference between “inexpensive” and “cheap”. One quality is admirable, the other is to be shunned.
Savage used to make a handy .22LR/.410 over-under called the Model 24.
Handy and versatile, and easy to feed. A lot of prepper/survivalist types sang their praises.
I was disappointed to learn that Savage discontinued the Model 24 a few years back.
The only other gun which combined these useful calibers was the also-discontinued Springfield Armory M6, which was more portable but less ergonomic.
Baikal also makes a .22/20ga or .223/12ga over under. (I might have to consider one.)
But now I see that Savage has replaced the Model 24 with a new gun, the Model 42:
Available in .22LR or .22WMR over a .410 shotgun barrel, the Model 42 boasts a more-modern design of synthetic stock than the Model 24, thus increasing its street cred among preppers. I looked forward to seeing one, and perhaps adding it to my arsenal.
After examining a Model 42, I realized that Savage cheaped out on this new gun in one significant way, with 3 specific effects.
The ejector is manually-activated, unlike an original Model 24 which partially extracts the shells when you break the gun open. Not a dealbreaker; and I can see some scenarios where it would be an advantage to leave the shells in the chamber until you decide you want them out. But for fast firing this change is a step in the wrong direction
The ejector mechanism is made of plastic:
The extractors are made of straight pieces of razor-thin metal, and look extremely fragile:
While I like the looks of the Model 42, I am disappointed with this lowering of quality. I think I will look for a used Model 24. Or maybe look at a Baikal.
Most shooters understand that the attempts to demonize magazines for the number of bullets they hold are a false-flag attack on our rights. The rabid gun-haters are throwing everything they can think of at the wall in the hope that some of it will stick. And their willing co-conspirators in the media are eagerly assisting them by deliberately confusing the public on the subject of guns to convince them to support more gun control.
How can the magazine originally designed to be standard equipment in 1935 to fit the Browning Hi-Power (13 round capacity) be legitimately described as “high capacity”? That’s the standard capacity.
Sorry for the interruption in posting. Life happens, and we had a bad storm in Connecticut as well.
I was looking for a .22 handgun that I could use for cheap realistic practice. Since I already have a target pistol, this one was supposed to be a stand-in for a carry gun, with light weight and decent sights.
I considered a Walther P22 (which is actually made by Umarex). The rear sight of the P22 is adjustable for windage, but the only way to change elevation is to change the front sight. While they apparently modified the magazines to improve feed reliability, I still do not trust a gun with its slide made of Zamak. So the P22 is out.
OK, let’s try this again. If you saw my review of the Charter Arms Pitbull in .40S&W, you will understand the background to this review.
The sun actually came out for a while, so I headed to the range to put the 9mm version of Charter Arms Pitbull through its paces.
I had a variety of ammunition to try in it: Remington UMC 115gr FMJ, Remington 115gr JHP, Black Hills 115gr JHP, Federal Nyclad 124gr, Hornady 115gr and 147gr XTP hollowpoints.
The parts seemed to fit fine, and the trigger pull seemed slightly lighter than the .40S&W version. So far, so good.
(Scroll down for updates) I have been looking at bigger-bore revolvers for a while now. Wheelgun reliability + bigger bullets sounded like a winner to me.
The lack of .44SPL ammo availability (and the anemia of the ammo I have seen tested) pushed me away from a Bulldog and towards the Pitbull. 5-shots, stainless steel frame, DA with exposed hammer. And since it’s a revolver, the chamber is “fully supported”. LOL.
I saw one in the case at the newest gun store in the area, Woodbridge Firearms, and I pulled the trigger so to speak. A more complete review will be forthcoming, but here are my initial impressions after a box and a half of ammo:
After looking back at my ballistics testing, I find myself very troubled by the results of the .38 Spl ammo tests.
In addition to testing more 9mm in the short-barrel Kahr, and more .40S&W in the Glock and the carbine, I procured a batch of different .38 ammo to test. Oddly, not a single retailer stocked the old standby “FBI Load” (.38SPL +P with a 158gr lead semi-wadcutter hollowpoint)
I will be re-testing the Speer Gold Dot short-barrel .38 ammo. I will be using two .38 snubnose revolvers to verify my findings, and a 4″ gun to give some perspective from a “typical” .38 revolver.