WHAT, WHERE, WHY?

READER MAIL (it helps if you read this in the Strong Bad voice)

Dear Revolver Science,
I like reading your blog and FB page. However, your page is called, “Revolver Science.” But you write about pistols, too. What’s the deal with that?

Signed,
Herb

HELLO HERB,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR MESSAGE. You are absolutely right…I DO write about semiautomatic pistols. I do this because I feel that they, just like revolvers, are a useful self defense tool. I could’ve called this blog, “PRACTICAL SELF-DEFENSE FOR PRAGMATISTS,” or, “TACTICAL WHIZBANG DYNAMICISM,” but, I chose, “Revolver Science,” because it is catchy sounding. AND I am a classically trained scientist (philosophy, cellular biology, toxicology research, medicine/dentistry). So I write about revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns, battle axes, defensive driving, situational awareness, how to load/unload groceries without ending up in your trunk, and any other myriad of things that I find useful that others might get a kick out of, too. I originally came up with this blog to keep the tradition of defensive revolver use alive and well. There are a very few numbers of trainers out there that teach revolver technique anymore, and I have trained with several of those instructors. I hope that by writing about experiences and techniques that they have kept alive, the material with always be out there, if for nothing else than historical reference (which IS, the backbone of classic science). Thank you for reading!

Dear Revolver Science,
You don’t write articles consistently. It seems like you only make two or three at a time, and then there is…a long pause. Many of the other popular firearms blogs produce multiple articles a day. What gives?

Peace,
Melvin

THANK YOU FOR YOUR MESSAGE, MELVIN. Sometimes I have ideas for articles, all at once, and I’ll write a few posts. Other times, I go to the range and try out a new drill or technique, and it either goes all to well, or I encounter deficiencies that require more work to come to an adequate conclusion about. Instead of making you suffer through my ramblings about trying to knick .04 seconds off of my split times, I figure I’ll just wait until I have something particularly worthwhile to say. I’m not so vain to think that you care about every trip I make to the range, or the contents of every mail call I get.

So, sorry Melvin. I would love to give you a thoughtful piece of genius wisdom, three times a day, but between being a Dad, a good boyfriend and a professional exodontist, I don’t always have the thoughts or the time to be able to compose cogent essays. But I’ll do my best to keep what I DO write, interesting.

IMG_5332

IMG_4384

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

I’ve been doing more range work with the Smith 69.  It’s a .44 Magnum built on the L frame (heavy medium frame).  I’m vacillating back and forth between the grips on the top (Pachmayr Compac) and the lower (Hogue Monogrip without finger grooves).  The Pachmayr’s feel better in recoil, especially with the full bore .44 Magnum loads (although I carry and would primarily use .44 Specials).  However, the lower grips draw easier, and feel better in the hand.  Unfortunately, Pachmayr grips don’t fit as well as they once did…I have some older models that DO fit great on some of my guns.  But I with that they still had the same QC that they once did.  I’ve also discovered that HKS speed loaders for the Charter Arms Bulldog work in the Model 69.

I’ve also been working with the ERGO grip for the J frame, and I’ll have a big write up on it soon.  Lots of interesting things in the works.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s