JAB

I just got started reloading and so far have only loaded some fairly mild .38 Special with some factory lead bullets. The bullets I have are marked 'low velocity' on the box so I figure those would be 'out' for .357 Magnum loads. Like the thread title says, I am wondering about types of lead bullets that could be used in .357 loads or, more specifically, the best way to tell the difference. I know that some lead bullets, if pushed to 'magnum' velocities or even fairly high 'sub-magnum' velocities are said to be pretty bad about leading the barrel. I think the bullet style I'd most like to load (and maybe even cast, eventually - if possible) would be a 148 to 158 grain lead semi wadcutter hollow point. I'd like to have a bullet in that style that could be loaded across a spectrum ranging from 'lower end' .38 Special to .38 +P all the way up to full-house .357 Magnum, if possible. As I am a long way from casting my own, yet, I am wondering if anyone can recommend a factory bullet in this style with which they have had good results. By 'good results', I mean decent plinking/'combat' accuracy across a range of velocities and barrel lengths without a lot of leading in the barrel. I would prefer pre-lubed bullets but it isn't necessarily a deal breaker if they aren't. Failing recommendations for a good LSWCHP, perhaps someone could recommend a good non-hp LSWC or something in a Keith style or truncated cone type bullet weighing around 158 grains that would do well at up to .357 Magnum velocities.

Sounds cool. I have a Mosin but I haven't done any bulk ammo purchases for it, yet - just a box or two of Russian 'current production' ammo or a twenty round bundle of surplus ammo here and there. As for the oldest ammo I have bought - 8X56mm for my Mannlicher carbine. Nazi production with Nazi markings and dated 1938. Some was 'loose' but bought a couple of boxes of ammo in en bloc clips that were still in (sealed with the label), Nazi-marked boxes (have to have the clips for the gun to function properly - Mannlicher pretty much invented the en bloc loading system.) I actually haven't fired my rifle, yet, but my nephew has one just like it and his rifle and ammo came from the same place - they fire just fine and make just about as big a 'boom' as a Mosin-Nagant.

I was offering a counterpoint to a post by pcrc11, not yours. Sorry for any confusion. No doubt things have changed rapidly.

I bought, prepared and canned five dozen ears of corn (canned as 'niblets' cut off the cob) a couple of weekends ago. I had big plans of growing plenty of tomatoes for canning this year for use in soups/stews/sauces this winter. What I did this week is pretty much accept that the dry weather + the crappy soil where I now live has conspired to = a bunch of nearly dead tomato plants that aren't going to yield enough to keep me in sandwiches the rest of the summer much less canning fodder. I'll have to buy tomatoes to can, after all. I'll be doing raised beds with topsoil next year - and probably one or two this fall (plan to at least grow greens.) Oh, well, at least my ghost peppers, habaneros, Jamaican scotch bonnets and pequins are beginning to produce. For those of you freezing/canning tomatoes, the last couple of years I have tried a different method for skinning the tomatoes that I prefer to boiling. I fire up the grill and put the tomatoes on there sitting on some of those disposable, metal grid grate covers. Let them go until you start to see blistering all over the skins, pull them off and put them in a large bowl to cool. Once cool, the skin will come off pretty easily. The tomatoes end up being pretty much like you dunked them in hot water and skinned them except they have a delicious char/smoky flavor - and that flavor very much survives the canning process. The juice that they shed while sitting in the bowl can be divided between the freezer bags/canning jars of tomatoes. Alternately, you could just strain that juice into a glass and drink it (also has that delicious, smoky/grill flavor.) I bet it would make one heck of a Bloody Mary.

I have to agree with starion 73, here. I have just barely gotten started reloading but I think of it in the terms that time spent reloading 9mm would be time (and primers, for that matter) taken away from loading .38 (which costs more than 9mm and which I shoot much more than 9mm.) I haven't started loading .44, yet, but it presents an even greater potential cost savings over 9mm - and as long as I'm reloading for revolvers I don't have to police my brass! For those reasons, with the current prices, I still prefer to buy any 9mm I shoot - which isn't all that much at present. I eventually hope to cast for the couple of calibers I'm going to be reloading, though.

I think for me popcorn would serve a valuable function beyond basic nutrition. I am talking about morale. Popcorn is one of my favorite crunchy snacks - maybe my favorite. You could also make a pretty simple treat by heating some molasses to a soft 'candy' state then stirring in some popcorn and letting it cool. One episode of Alton Brown's "Good Eats" focused on popcorn and he said he likes to save some without butter or salt and eat it with a little sugar and milk as a breakfast cereal. Such things would, as others have said, be a nice change in the diet. Once again, at least for me, that would have an impact on my morale which would, in turn, impact my chances of survival. That is part of the reason I like the idea of cooking various soups/stews and so on and then home canning them - variety. Unlike some folks, I don't store huge quantities of beans and rice and doubt I ever will (by huge quantities, I mean several buckets - I'll probably do a bucket or two, eventually.) If there were a long term 'event', after about a week or two of living mainly on beans and rice I'd be ready to join the zombies as 'live brains' would start sounding like a pretty good alternative.

Interesting. Seeing the kids (baby goats) was worth clicking on the video. I've never owned goats but for reasons I can't quite explain, seeing baby goats always improves my mood. There is something funny, in an almost-not-quite-real manner, about the way they look.

I graduated in 1989 and had no cell phone. In fact, I didn't even have a phone in my room. You'd probably only have to go back a few generations before there were no phones private residences. You know, come to think of it, I say no one needs 911 for emergencies because there was a time when there was no 911 and people got by. In fact, people survived during a time when there were no telephones, at all. So if there is an emergency then someone should just jump on a horse and ride on over to fetch the Doc. Better yet, just run and grab the witch doctor because there was a time before domesticated horses and scientifically trained medical practitioners, too. My point is, while the human race as a whole may have survived without certain technological advances - like cell phones - automobiles - fire - that is no reason to shun those advances once they exist. In fact, for certain applications, those advances might even make things 'better'.

Try sighting along the slide, sort of point shooting. I have found that with my P3AT (I also have the pinky extension on my carry mag and a Hogue Handall, Jr. on mine) I can shoot just as accurately in 'rapid fire' mode out to about seven - maybe even ten - yards as I can do trying to use the sights. For that matter, sometimes I am actually more accurate with it using that method than with the sights when trying to shoot quickly. I'm talking about keeping my shots in the chest or at least COM area on a B27 or other human silhouette target while practicing presenting the pistol then repeatedly pulling the trigger as quickly as I can. Shooting a smaller, ring ('bullseye') target at a slower rate of fire I do better using the sights.

Honestly, all this is why I will never sell a handgun in a private sale. I simply do not want to deal with people in that capacity. Generally, as I'm not exactly rolling in cash, I don't buy a gun unless I am pretty sure I want it in the first place. In fact, I often agonize over the purchase for weeks, months or - at least in one case - more than a year so that cuts down on the desire to sell them later. I also don't own any firearms that are all that valuable to be worth selling. On the rare occasions (three, so far) that I do decide to get rid of a gun it has been with another gun specifically in mind and I have simply taken it to my LGS and traded it for the gun I wanted. I know folks say that the LGS won't give a good trade price as they have to make a profit but I feel that I have always been treated fairly when trading at the LGS where I do most of my buying (and all of my limited trading, to this point) and it keeps me from having to deal with trying to privately sell the darned things. On the flip side, as has kind of been alluded to by other posters (sort of the mirror image of what the OP was discussing), it annoys me when a seller has a pie in the sky idea of an asking price. I mean people who not only think their used, non-collector single shot shotgun should fetch a 'like new' price but who also seem to believe that the barrel has been lined with gold at some point during the gun's existence. I'm talking about asking prices of $190 or so for used, nothing special, probably functionally operational but cosmetically worn, single shot shotguns that I thought might be interesting as light 'project' guns. This has mostly been at flea markets and was even before the Obama gun craze. For that matter, all of the pawnshops at which I have priced firearms seem to be afflicted with the same delusions. Like the $280 price tag I saw on a very used Rohm .38 at one pawn shop or the $170 price tag on a 10/22 that looked like it had been dragged down a gravel road behind a pickup truck, scratching up the really bad attempt at a DIY camo paintjob, at another. If a person or a pawn shop has a 'starting price' that far out in the stratosphere, I don't even bother haggling because they would literally have to come down to 1/2 price before it would even be in the neighborhood of a price I would consider.

I can promise you such people exist because I am one of them. I see where you are coming from on that and, for the record, I do think that Ron Paul would have been the 'best' choice from the limited field that were running for a major party nomination. Heck, it probably wouldn't even have been that hard to convince me that he was the best choice, period, even including all the 'non-big two' candidates. If Paul had gotten the Republican nomination, I would - without hesitation - be voting 'R' in November. However, that is because of my desire to vote for a candidate who I perceive as being clearly and unquestionably 'better', not simply because I want to specifically vote for Ron Paul. Gingrich always turned my stomach when he was in the government, before, so I don't think I could have voted for him. Santorum was just a bit too 'religious' for my tastes (yeah, I said it) but he just might have gotten my vote - I'd certainly go for him over Obama. You already know my opinion that there isn't much difference in voting for Romney and voting for Obama so which one of them wins is pretty much a coin toss (using a plug nickel), to me. As an example of how strongly I feel regarding Obama/Romney (if one can be strongly apathetic) I offer the following: I did not like Bush II either as a president nor, from what of his 'personality' came through via interviews, etc., on a personal level. This was partially because of his support and pushing of the (un)Patriot(ic) Act and his getting the U.S. involved in a war where our nation had no business (Iraq - Afghanistan was 100% justified.) It was partially because he and not Obama started the bailouts. Also, he and not Obama was at the helm when the economy slipped into the crapper (of course, Obama hasn't exactly made things better.) He was at the helm when the government so ineptly mishandled the post-Katrina fiasco. He made the statement, in no uncertain terms, that if Congress would put a new assault weapons ban on his desk then he would sign it. I think he is a posturing, blowhard, pompous neocon who should have stuck to playing cowboy on his pretend ranch. I also think he was the second worst president of my lifetime, at least since I have been old enough to be 'aware' of such things (with Barry O being the worst.) Unlike some, I do not 'miss' the Shrub. All that said, if somehow Bush II could run for a third term and replace Romney in the current race, I'd probably even vote for him. That is how much I dislike Obama - which should help further solidify my opinion of Romney who I honestly don't think is any better.

That's GREAT!

That political compass thing is interesting. I'm not sure how accurate it is (at least in my case) but it is interesting. I took the test and wasn't surprised to find that my responses put me nowhere near any of the crop of presidential candidates for this year (not even Ron Paul.) In fact, it put me in almost exactly the same place as it put the Dalai Lama. Interesting but I don't quite buy it - I'm might be considered fairly 'liberal' on some social issues (although not on others) but I ain't anywhere near that far to the left.

Thanks for the responses, guys. I've read that railroad spikes can make 'okay' knives but, as you say, that the carbon content is low enough that they have to be sharpened often. Mostly, I have always had a bit of an interest in trying my hand at making a blade. My 17 year old nephew recently expressed an interest in making blades, as well, so I thought that using these (free) railroad spikes might be a good way to get started/try our hand and see if we wanted to maybe move on to the 'next level'.

Naw, but I do occasionally like and have made Scotch eggs (boiled eggs wrapped in sausage and then deep fried.) I only have them about once a year, though. Actually, less than that since Durty Nelly's down in Chattanooga closed. When it comes to 'extreme' bacon, I've long thought this had to be on the list: [media=] [/media]For the record, I've never actually tried chicken fried bacon. Sounds like the kind of thing I'd talk someone else into ordering and then try a bite.

Be careful not to overestimate the intelligence of the general public. My guess is that if you pointed out that Holmes only fired X number of rounds then the response would be, "You're right. Limiting to 1,000 rounds won't do any good. We need to set the limit at 10 rounds, instead."

And there is nothing I can or should try to dispute about that because it is your opinion, based on what you have come to believe. All I am saying is that, where you see an easy choice (as is certainly your perogative), I seen no meaningful difference that I think will positively impact me or the nation. Therefore rather than an easy choice, I see no choice, at all when sticking with the 'big two'. It's either vote for a left-leaning, anti-gun, big government politician, vote instead for the other left-leaning, anti-gun, big government politician or vote for someone else - someone who likely has zero chance of winning but in whom I can at least have some modicum of faith. You can say, "Well, that's really just a vote for Obama," all you want but it isn't. Funny thing is, the other side will be just as quick to say that voting for 'someone else' is really just a vote for Romney but it isn't that, either. It is me voting my conscience and my beliefs and casting a vote in support of the person I believe would be the 'best' choice, not simply trying to make sure that one of two candidates I find repugnant wins. In the last TN gubernatorial election, I knew I wasn't going to vote for McWherter. In the end, I decided to listen to all the, "Well, the other Republicans will keep him in line," BS and voted for Haslam. I decided to let it slide that he had been a member of Bloomberg's anti-gun Mayors group. After all, that was when he was mayor and he quit that group and started saying he supported gun rights (not that I really believed him.) Yeah, we all see how that worked out for us - a Republican controlled state Congress and a Republican governor and they still wouldn't pass a law to strengthen citizens' ability to defend themselves on the way to and from work. In the end, one last time I bought into the idea that I should vote for the 'lesser of the evils' and that really was the last time. In every election since I've been old enough to vote (the first one being the Clinton/Bush 1 race), I have voted for the candidate I believed to be the 'lesser evil'. For the record, that has meant voting for the Democratic candidate in some elections and voting for the Republican candidate in others. Meanwhile, the degree by which the 'lesser evil' is truly a 'lesser' evil has decreased with every, single election cycle. I saw little difference between Obama and McCain but I certainly wasn't voting for Obama. Now, I see even less difference between Obama and Romney than I saw between Obama and McCain. Well, I'm sick of voting for the piss-poor candidate that I find the least distasteful and I'm done doing it. I'd rather 'waste' my vote than cast it in favor or either of these two clowns.

I think the problem here is that some folks, including you, are assuming that because some of us have zero faith in Romney's ability to be a good president and zero faith in his claims that he will behave differently as president than he behaved as governor we are somehow saying that Obama is better. See, this isn't a 'one must be better' thing with some of us. It is more along the lines that we believe them to be equally bad. Being anti-Romney doesn't automatically make someone pro-Obama. Some folks seem to think that it does and that one must 'believe in' one or the other but that simply is not the case. I don't think that strickj is saying that Obama's lies and pandering are any better than Romney's. Instead, he is saying that Romney is just as guilty as Obama of lying and pandering. In other words, I think that he is saying that (in his opinion) Obama sucks as a presidential candidate and, when taken on his own merits (or lack thereof), and judged by his own actions. independent of anything else, rather than a viewpoint of "I hate Obama so Romney must be good," Romney also sucks as a presidential candidate. As for myself, I have no faith in either of them when it comes to choosing the next leader of our nation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. So why the heck should I vote for a candidate in whom I have no faith, whatsoever - be it Obama or Romney - regardless of who the 'other guy' is?

The point isn't so much about whether or not Obama has been given the opportunity. The point is that Romney was given the opportunity and he took it. What Obama might do is not certain - although I suspect you are correct in assuming he would sign such a law. What Romney actually did do is clear fact and, therefore, is certain. It happened and no amount of, "Well, I was governor then but I want to be president, now," attempts at spinning what he did is going to change the fact that he signed sweeping gun control legislation. I, for one, refuse to simply take his word that he wouldn't do it, again.

I like the pic. That dog looks like it isn't going to allow any harm to come to that bird. I had a cockatiel that was a pied yellow color. She was a good, well-behaved bird who was content to just sit on my shoulder for long periods of time. She died when she became egg bound. While I generally prefer female dogs (less problems with them wanting to mark their territory by peeing all over everything), I've decided to never have another female bird due to the risk of them getting egg bound. Anyhow, she was a fun bird. That pic makes me think of her.

How hot a fire is needed for heating a railroad spike before beating it into something else? I have a few railroad spikes that I want to make into knives/hawks/etc. but, having never done anything of the like, I am not sure what kind of fire I need. Can it be done with just a plain wood fire or does there need to be something more elaborate with some sort of bellows involved? I even wondered if a cheapo, hand-held torch would provide enough heat for long enough a duration to be able to do what I want. Also, how do you guys temper/harden the finished product?

Hah! One of the oddest cooking related experiences I have had was when a then co-worker, who was Jewish, in a former job asked me the best way to cook a ham for Christmas. Seems her husband was Christian and her kids got to observe the holidays for both religions so she wanted to cook a Christmas ham for them.

Well, they were pretty good. If there is a 'next time' for preparing them this way (rather than using the less 'extreme' simmer in orange juice/spices/lime then strain and bake until crispy method) I think I will cut the roast into larger chunks and not simmer in the lard as long before turning up the heat to fry. That is because, while the ones I sampled right after taking them up were really good - with them cut into such small pieces, refrigerating and reheating them made them a little dry. I'll get around that with the leftovers, though - I'm going to simmer them in salsa verde to make homemade chili verde (which I honestly like even better than plain carnitas, anyhow.) That will be later in the week, though. Mostly, I did this just to have the experience of doing it. It likely won't be a 'regular' thing because I now have four pounds of lard and nothing to really do with it - and, believe it or not buying such a quantity of lard ain't exactly what I would call 'cheap'. The only, other thing I ever do with actual lard (instead of vegetable shortening, butter, etc.) is that I sometimes make biscuits with it. Honestly, lard makes the best biscuits ever. I guess I could save it in case I decide to do this style of carnitas, again, but it will probably have to go in the freezer. Otherwise, it will most likely get old and start tasting 'rancid' before I get around to using it again. Anyhow, whether I use this method again or not I can at least check it off my list of 'things I want to try'. Now I just need to get my butt in gear, get ahold of another pork roast or two and try my hand at making andouille (my next thing I want to try doing.) I've made sausage, before - using the same kind of hand cranked grinder that I recently purchased - but I've never made andouille.

By that token, I'd say that there are quite a few - perhaps not 'Romneybots', per se, but more like 'Republibots' running around. Those folks are likely more or less equalled in number by 'Demobots', too. In other words, they act as if they've been programmed to support a candidate - any candidate - who is 'the guy' for their, particular party and argue that their candidate is 'much better' than 'the other guy' no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them. As you say, they act robotic. In my opinion, furiously insisting that there are really great differences between two anti-gun politicians who have both strongly supported goverment-run healthcare sounds pretty danged robotic. Insisting that an anti-gun politician only acted like an anti-gun politician because he held one executive office (governor) and not another (president) sounds like programming, to me, as does insisting that a politician only supported government-run healthcare because he was governor and not president - especially when the only support one has for that belief is simply because the anti-gun, government run healthcare supporting politician said so, himself, when there is no other evidence to support the idea that he isn't simply lying to get elected (no politician ever did that, huh?) I'm not pointing to anyone, in particular, but that is honestly how I feel. Maybe there are minor differences but, in the end, I think that getting so worked up over insisting that Romney is a clearly superior choice for president over Obama (or vice versa) has more to do with party affiliation than fact. That is what folks who get angry at those of us who really don't see any marked difference cannot and will not understand. We have heard and seen all the arguments as to why Romney is 'better' but we have nothing but his word (again, the word of a politician - which generally equates to 'professional liar) and the opinions of many who so desperately want - perhaps even need - to believe him. Thing is, if you don't simply accept the word of a politician/professional liar and the opinions of folks who would probably support him even if he had horns, a pointy tail and carried a pitchfork as long as he swore that he wasn't going to behave like he has in the past then there is really no other evidence to support the idea that Romney isn't simply another anti-gun politician who supports government run healthcare, just like the guy who is currently in office. See, it isn't that we 'like' Obama - I, for one, place him just about on the level of pond scum. It is simply that Romney hasn't given us any reason to believe that there are enough differences between him and Obama to warrant getting all excited about.

Meh, it isn't like I eat this stuff every day. In fact, this is the first time I've made them using this method. Besides, I could live 'healthy' and still go out that way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx