.41 magnum, .44 magnum, or .44 special?

[Ebow1]

In a snubnose for a pocket pistol. I'm leaning towards .44 magnum for ammo availability but I still haven't really made any decisions yet.

[Alpha13]

If I could find a cost effective and conistent source for .44 spl, i would have most likely bought a pistol for it. let me know if you find a good source for it...

[Ebow1]

sportsmansguide.com seemed to have a decent amount of .44 magnum available but not much in .44 special.

[leroy]

Ebow:______________

Find ya a 3 (...or 4 ....) inch smith (...either 44 or 41 mag...) and start reloading. They are both great. We've burnt a lot of powder thru the 44 special, 44 mag, and 41 mag.

They are all equally effective. They all pack a heavy punch and are very accurate.

Leroy

[Ebow1]

I've seen some 2.5s in .41 and .44 that I'm interested in. I'm just a little concerned about the recoil with that size round and that short of a barrel. I don't have any experience with anything that short. (that's what she said)

[Guest 10mm4me]

If you want mag power in a pocket piece, get a Glock 29 in 10mm or the S&W Nightguard in 10mm/.40s&w. 10mm is about equal to the .41mag and cheaper than the .44.

[I_Like_Pie]

If you want mag power in a pocket piece, get a Glock 29 in 10mm or the S&W Nightguard in 10mm/.40s&w. 10mm is about equal to the .41mag and cheaper than the .44.

I am a hard core revolver fan and have been reloading all of the OP cartridges for decades.

But I have to agree with 10mm4me on this one. If you are looking for a pocket gun the magnum revolvers are terrible choices and the .44 special is not a cartridge to shoot unless you reload.

A property loaded .44 magnum is ridiculous out of a sub 4" gun. It and the .41 are hunting cartridges...poor for everyday self defense

[Guest genegoesfast]

A property loaded .44 magnum is ridiculous out of a sub 4" gun. It and the .41 are hunting cartridges...poor for everyday self defense

I couldn't agree more with this. I shoot a s&w 629 4in 44mag, its a beast and still kind of a heavy gun. 44spl would be a lot more manageable.

[Westwindmike]

I have a Taurus Tracker in .44 Mag. With Specials, it is a great shooter. With Magnums, it makes my arm ache to the elbow after only a cylinder full. It has a 4 inch ported barrel.

[hipower]

I have a Taurus Tracker in .44 Mag. With Specials, it is a great shooter. With Magnums, it makes my arm ache to the elbow after only a cylinder full. It has a 4 inch ported barrel.

Ditto. I have the 44 ported Tracker also. Good, accurate shooter. Not real uncomfortable with magnum loads, but much more fun (and downright pleasant) with the special loads. And unlike my last ported cannon, it doesn't part my hair with the muzzle backblast. And for the record...that pistol was a Taurus also, a 2in in 45LC.

It was a real bear.

[leroy]

I'll concede that the big smiths (...steel...) are heavy (...about 40 to 46 oz...). That's the basic problem with them. If you carry them in a OWB holster or shoulder rig, they are heavy; and you need a coat to cover them them, so as not to alarm the population in todays "ninnified" society. The "magic material" smiths (...and tauruses...) are about 21 to 24 ounces (...the smith 325 pd weighs 21.5 oz unloaded...). That is awful light for a "real caliber" gun in any caliber. All that being said; it is laughable to pronounce a 41, 44, or 45 for that matter an "ineffective caliber'. They simply are not. If the short barrel 41 thru 45's are "ineffective". That means the great 45 acp is "ineffective" too. That simply isnt so.

A revolver is a dead reliable peice of machinery and those that choose to carry them are well armed if they take the time to learn how to shoot them double action (...the only real way to shoot a combat type revolver in my opinion...). Shot double action, the revolver is just as fast as any semiauto.

My advice in this little matter; if you intend to shoot heavy loads; use a steel frame smith or taurus with the "light' magnum loads at about 1100 fps. They will probably come out at about 950 fps or so. No one will want to catch one.

For the "lightweights" i would recommend the old time handloads at about 900 fps. They will want to come out at about 800 or so fps. Nobody will want to catch them either. The plains indains were killed off with revolvers shooting the old 45 colt at about the same velocity. Big bullets work very well. Revolvers have just fell out of favor because of alleged low round capacity. A revolver is the equal of anything out there for the first six shots; but they are slow to reload. This "shortcomming" is much over pronounced in todays rarified "tacticool" atmosphere.

By the way, i carried a 4 inch 629 in a maxpedition man purse for several years. We've burned thousands of rounds thru the 41 thru 44 calibers (...both special and mag...) thru n farme smiths; along with it's brother the 45 colt thru ruger sa's over the years. They work real good with hard cast semiwadcutter bullets, and are deadly accurate.

Food for thought.

Leroy

Edited November 15, 2010 by leroy
spelling!!

[SmokyBaer]

FWIW... Back when i was all into big bore revolvers, the older S&W ruled. My 4" and 6" 29s were unrivalled for accuracy and fun factor when hot loaded with 180 grain sierras. Of course that was when I had great eyesight too. Played with the snub a couple of times. Mag loads in snubs are mainly best for night shooting fun. What a fire show.

Still have big bore fun but with a 500 4" now. It's a flame thrower that I'm not so accurate with either, but it's fun! Anyways, it's all in what you want... A flame toy like what the Rock is using in his new movie or a hot loaded target hunter like my ol' 29s.

For carry, my backup is a Smith bodygaurd 38. Hard to beat that one.

[1gewehr]

For a pocket pistol, the ONLY logical choice is the .44Spl. First, I do not know of ANY .41mag or .44mag 'pocket pistols'. Taurus used to make a nice .44 5-shot revolver, but I do not see it in their catalog anymore. It looks like the only large-bore pocket revolver still being made is the Charter Arms bulldog .44Spl.

For belt carry revolvers, both Ruger and S&W make 4" barreled six-shot revolvers. You can always load these with .44Spl for lower flash and muzzle blast.

[Guest Archminister01]

A good defensive compact revolver caliber is and will always be the .38spl. Lots of ammo, easy to carry, not to heavy and will allow you to stay on target much easier than firing a larger caliber in a defensive position. It also provides enough uuummph to get the job done at snub nose distances. If you were looking for something to hunt with or carry while hunting to protect against large critters then carry a .44mag. It all depends on what the purpose is.

[I_Like_Pie]

You guys are talking way too much about the guns....not the calibers. Most bullets that are for these calibers are now, have been, and will always be primarly hunting cartridges. They expand poorly at snubnose velocities, overpenetrate, and throw too much fire, smoke, and recoil for relistic self defense. The .44 special is really the only one that qualifies as a self defense caliber, and in most snubnose lengths the expansion is nil at the 700-800 fps that they produce.

Will they work...I am sure that they probably would.

Are they the best choice for the question placed by the OP? .... Absolutely not. Any of the big three modern self defense calibers have developed loads that completely overshadow any factory .44 special loading. It isn't even a close argument anymore.

If we are talking woods guns....the OP did not specify. That would change things entirely

[gregintenn]

How friggin big are your pockets??!!???

[leroy]

I probably ought not to do this; but I just can’t help myself. This issue of large bore “pocket pistols†is near and dear to me. I have read all the posts with a mixture of horror and amusement regarding certain pronouncements as to the suitability of a “large bore†pocket pistol. Namely, the 44 special, 44 mag, or 41 mag. For the sake of discussion; I’m going to throw in a couple of these guy’s big bore brothers; the 45 colt and the 45acp.

It has been said more than one time that these calibers are not good defensive choices. I believe that we need to explore that pronouncement a bit. The first cartridge that was adopted by the US Army was the 45 colt in 1873. The 45 colt fired a 255 grain round nose bullet at about 900 fps in its original loading. It was, in fact, the first widely used big bore defensive cartridge manufactured in the United States. It reigned supreme in the mayhem and killing department until it was displaced by its autoloading son; the 45 ACP. Note if you will the similarity both in caliber and velocity between these two. Along about 1907, the 44 s & w special was invented by (…guess who…); Smith and Wesson. The “special†was based on the underpowered 44 Russian built for (…guess who…) the Russians. The 44 special was an artful copy of that old time killer, the 45 colt. The “special†was chambered in a more advanced gun; the old time large frame smith double action hand ejector. It is important to note that during this whole process; these cartridges were designed and used for killing and mayhem against humans; not animals. They did, however, work on the occasional animal up to a very large size; but that was not the main reason for their development.

Along in the late twenties folks started “souping up†the old 44 special in order to get more performance from it (…I would presume for hunting purposes; both human and animal….). The foremost of these “hot rodders†was a little man by the name of Elmer Keith. Elmer’s work in “hot rodding†the 44 culminated in the design and production of the 44 mag. In 1958 (…I think…). The 41 mag came out about 1964 as the results of Elmer’s work in the development of the ultimate “police cartridgeâ€, and the 41 mag was originally marketed that way. That’s why there is a smith model 58. What then, you say, was the purpose of the 41 mag? Police work; not hunting.

Sadly, by this time, two interesting phenemenon had landed in the “killing departmentâ€. The first was the realization that some (…not all…) police operatives could not effectively use the old time “big bore†calibers. They kicked too hard, cost too much, were too heavy, and (….according to some….) didn’t have enough firepower (…read that “round countâ€â€¦). The other was the Air Force military establishment who purported to know more than others (…read that the army…) about the role of the handgun in killing armed attackers. After all, the US Air force had an “elite†unit that guarded ballistic missiles and hydrogen bombs. All this “studying†lead to the ultimate adoption of the 9 mm in the military. The military, in effect, dragged the police along to abandon the big bore double action pistol in favor of smaller autoloaders with a higher round count. That’s why you have the 9 mm and 40 s & w of today.

All these things came together to develop the “conventional wisdom†that abounds today that says that the old revolver with its limited round count, great weight, and antiquated cartridges are simply not effective as self defense tools. To all that, I say a hearty “baloney†for all the reasons stated above.

There are those among our little band who will say that big bore revolvers are heavy and hard to conceal. I say that the new smith scandium frame revolvers weigh 21 to 25 ounces. My glock 33 weighs 20 ounces and a full size 45 auto weighs from 38 to 40 ounces. Looks pretty good to me; but I will grant that concealment is somewhat of a problem. My personal preference for concealment is the old time Milt Sparks 200 aw holster (….link here: http://www.miltsparks.com/200AW.htm. …) . You just cover it up with a coat.

There are those who will say that “there is a danger of over penetrationâ€. There sure is. And there always has and will be. It is no trouble to find instances of ‘over penetration†with every caliber there is.

There are those who will say that the big frame smiths and tauruses are not “pocket gunsâ€. I say you are somewhat right. Smith makes a 2.4 inch 45 ACP revolver (…read this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2783396/review_smith_wesson_325pd_revolver.html ...); the 325 PD. We can quibble about whose pocket it will fit into; but these “snubby†big frame revolvers have been around a long time.

There are those who will say “there aint enough round countâ€. I say the likelihood of needing more than six rounds is so remote as to be miniscule.

There are those who say “….time (…and technology…) has passed these dinosaursâ€â€¦.. ; get a semi auto pistol with a “large†round count. Some folks (…including me…) simply do not like that idea and would rather do it the “old time†way. That’s ok. Both the new and old can stand peaceably together.

There are those who will say that there is a problem with full power ammunition. I agree. There are solutions, however. The first is handloading. The second is to use “store-bought†ammo. I would look for hard cast semiwadcutter ammo in the 1000 fps or less velocity range. There is some out there.

I would close this little essay with another bit of backward looking to lay to rest the idea that the auto loading pistol is the ultimate fighting pistol. There was a guy by the name of Jeff Cooper who did more than anyone to popularize the auto loading pistol and the 45 ACP than anyone before him. He is the father of the vaunted ‘Thunder Ranchâ€. In his younger days he did some exhibition shooting with a couple of his buddies who used the big frame double action revolver and the old ‘antiquated†single action army colt. If you care to do a bit of digging, you can find his old books and pictures of these demonstrations. The net results (…if I remember right were these…). Sometimes cooper won, sometimes the double action smith guy won; sometimes the SSA guy won. All with big bore calibers. There are those who would opine that the double action revolver is, in fact, faster than the vaunted 45acp for the first six shots. Watch Jerry Miculek sometime.

The moral of this little story is this; all the big calibers are killers and are fast and deadly accurate in the hands of those who spend the time to learn how to shoot them. By the way, Cooper is the father of the much vaunted 10 mm and its son the 40 s & w. Don’t ever succumb to the belief that somehow the old time plus 40 calibers are not mankillers; in the right hands they are. To say otherwise is laughable.

I hope this helps you to decide about the suitability of the big bore “pocket pistolsâ€. After all, that is what ya asked about to begin with.

Regards,

Leroy (…the oldtimer…)

[Guest 10mm4me]

I'll just pull out my magnifying glass for the above post

[Garufa]

Excellent work Leroy.

[bigwakes]

I probably ought not to do this; but I just can’t help myself. This issue of large bore “pocket pistols” is near and dear to me. I have read all the posts with a mixture of horror and amusement regarding certain pronouncements as to the suitability of a “large bore” pocket pistol. Namely, the 44 special, 44 mag, or 41 mag. For the sake of discussion; I’m going to throw in a couple of these guy’s big bore brothers; the 45 colt and the 45acp.

It has been said more than one time that these calibers are not good defensive choices. I believe that we need to explore that pronouncement a bit. The first cartridge that was adopted by the US Army was the 45 colt in 1873. The 45 colt fired a 255 grain round nose bullet at about 900 fps in its original loading. It was, in fact, the first widely used big bore defensive cartridge manufactured in the United States. It reigned supreme in the mayhem and killing department until it was displaced by its autoloading son; the 45 ACP. Note if you will the similarity both in caliber and velocity between these two. Along about 1907, the 44 s & w special was invented by (…guess who…); Smith and Wesson. The “special” was based on the underpowered 44 Russian built for (…guess who…) the Russians. The 44 special was an artful copy of that old time killer, the 45 colt. The “special” was chambered in a more advanced gun; the old time large frame smith double action hand ejector. It is important to note that during this whole process; these cartridges were designed and used for killing and mayhem against humans; not animals. They did, however, work on the occasional animal up to a very large size; but that was not the main reason for their development.

Along in the late twenties folks started “souping up” the old 44 special in order to get more performance from it (…I would presume for hunting purposes; both human and animal….). The foremost of these “hot rodders” was a little man by the name of Elmer Keith. Elmer’s work in “hot rodding” the 44 culminated in the design and production of the 44 mag. In 1958 (…I think…). The 41 mag came out about 1964 as the results of Elmer’s work in the development of the ultimate “police cartridge”, and the 41 mag was originally marketed that way. That’s why there is a smith model 58. What then, you say, was the purpose of the 41 mag? Police work; not hunting.

Sadly, by this time, two interesting phenemenon had landed in the “killing department”. The first was the realization that some (…not all…) police operatives could not effectively use the old time “big bore” calibers. They kicked too hard, cost too much, were too heavy, and (….according to some….) didn’t have enough firepower (…read that “round count”…). The other was the Air Force military establishment who purported to know more than others (…read that the army…) about the role of the handgun in killing armed attackers. After all, the US Air force had an “elite” unit that guarded ballistic missiles and hydrogen bombs. All this “studying” lead to the ultimate adoption of the 9 mm in the military. The military, in effect, dragged the police along to abandon the big bore double action pistol in favor of smaller autoloaders with a higher round count. That’s why you have the 9 mm and 40 s & w of today.

All these things came together to develop the “conventional wisdom” that abounds today that says that the old revolver with its limited round count, great weight, and antiquated cartridges are simply not effective as self defense tools. To all that, I say a hearty “baloney” for all the reasons stated above.

There are those among our little band who will say that big bore revolvers are heavy and hard to conceal. I say that the new smith scandium frame revolvers weigh 21 to 25 ounces. My glock 33 weighs 20 ounces and a full size 45 auto weighs from 38 to 40 ounces. Looks pretty good to me; but I will grant that concealment is somewhat of a problem. My personal preference for concealment is the old time Milt Sparks 200 aw holster (….link here: http://www.miltsparks.com/200AW.htm. …) . You just cover it up with a coat.

There are those who will say that “there is a danger of over penetration”. There sure is. And there always has and will be. It is no trouble to find instances of ‘over penetration” with every caliber there is.

There are those who will say that the big frame smiths and tauruses are not “pocket guns”. I say you are somewhat right. Smith makes a 2.4 inch 45 ACP revolver (…read this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2783396/review_smith_wesson_325pd_revolver.html ...); the 325 PD. We can quibble about whose pocket it will fit into; but these “snubby” big frame revolvers have been around a long time.

There are those who will say “there aint enough round count”. I say the likelihood of needing more than six rounds is so remote as to be miniscule.

There are those who say “….time (…and technology…) has passed these dinosaurs”….. ; get a semi auto pistol with a “large” round count. Some folks (…including me…) simply do not like that idea and would rather do it the “old time” way. That’s ok. Both the new and old can stand peaceably together.

There are those who will say that there is a problem with full power ammunition. I agree. There are solutions, however. The first is handloading. The second is to use “store-bought” ammo. I would look for hard cast semiwadcutter ammo in the 1000 fps or less velocity range. There is some out there.

I would close this little essay with another bit of backward looking to lay to rest the idea that the auto loading pistol is the ultimate fighting pistol. There was a guy by the name of Jeff Cooper who did more than anyone to popularize the auto loading pistol and the 45 ACP than anyone before him. He is the father of the vaunted ‘Thunder Ranch”. In his younger days he did some exhibition shooting with a couple of his buddies who used the big frame double action revolver and the old ‘antiquated” single action army colt. If you care to do a bit of digging, you can find his old books and pictures of these demonstrations. The net results (…if I remember right were these…). Sometimes cooper won, sometimes the double action smith guy won; sometimes the SSA guy won. All with big bore calibers. There are those who would opine that the double action revolver is, in fact, faster than the vaunted 45acp for the first six shots. Watch Jerry Miculek sometime.

The moral of this little story is this; all the big calibers are killers and are fast and deadly accurate in the hands of those who spend the time to learn how to shoot them. By the way, Cooper is the father of the much vaunted 10 mm and its son the 40 s & w. Don’t ever succumb to the belief that somehow the old time plus 40 calibers are not mankillers; in the right hands they are. To say otherwise is laughable.

I hope this helps you to decide about the suitability of the big bore “pocket pistols”. After all, that is what ya asked about to begin with.

Regards,

Leroy (…the oldtimer…)

You should write a book.

[Ebow1]

Lemme specify a few things. Pocket pistol would be primarily for personal protection from other people. I prefer larger calibers in general, but like the idea of having a caliber large enough that can help me out against some of the bigger wild animals just in case. I already have a .45 acp that I'm working on getting an IWB holster for. This pocket pistol would just be a backup.

[gregintenn]

Nothing wrong with a large caliber. I just wonder if you've ever put an N frame revolver in your pocket. Short of a derringer, the guns chambered fot the rounds you named are not pocket pistols.

[dralarms]

I'll just pull out my magnifying glass for the above post

Don't you mean microscope? Dang that's some small print. I ain't even gonna try to read that.

[leroy]

...Don't you mean microscope? Dang that's some small print. I ain't even gonna try to read that. ...

Somethin must have happened with the resolution on this one: Try this:

I probably ought not to do this; but I just can’t help myself. This issue of large bore “pocket pistols” is near and dear to me. I have read all the posts with a mixture of horror and amusement regarding certain pronouncements as to the suitability of a “large bore” pocket pistol. Namely, the 44 special, 44 mag, or 41 mag. For the sake of discussion; I’m going to throw in a couple of these guy’s big bore brothers; the 45 colt and the 45acp.

It has been said more than one time that these calibers are not good defensive choices. I believe that we need to explore that pronouncement a bit. The first cartridge that was adopted by the US Army was the 45 colt in 1873. The 45 colt fired a 255 grain round nose bullet at about 900 fps in its original loading. It was, in fact, the first widely used big bore defensive cartridge manufactured in the United States. It reigned supreme in the mayhem and killing department until it was displaced by its autoloading son; the 45 ACP. Note if you will the similarity both in caliber and velocity between these two. Along about 1907, the 44 s & w special was invented by (…guess who…); Smith and Wesson. The “special” was based on the underpowered 44 Russian built for (…guess who…) the Russians. The 44 special was an artful copy of that old time killer, the 45 colt. The “special” was chambered in a more advanced gun; the old time large frame smith double action hand ejector. It is important to note that during this whole process; these cartridges were designed and used for killing and mayhem against humans; not animals. They did, however, work on the occasional animal up to a very large size; but that was not the main reason for their development.

Along in the late twenties folks started “souping up” the old 44 special in order to get more performance from it (…I would presume for hunting purposes; both human and animal….). The foremost of these “hot rodders” was a little man by the name of Elmer Keith. Elmer’s work in “hot rodding” the 44 culminated in the design and production of the 44 mag. In 1958 (…I think…). The 41 mag came out about 1964 as the results of Elmer’s work in the development of the ultimate “police cartridge”, and the 41 mag was originally marketed that way. That’s why there is a smith model 58. What then, you say, was the purpose of the 41 mag? Police work; not hunting.

Sadly, by this time, two interesting phenemenon had landed in the “killing department”. The first was the realization that some (…not all…) police operatives could not effectively use the old time “big bore” calibers. They kicked too hard, cost too much, were too heavy, and (….according to some….) didn’t have enough firepower (…read that “round count”…). The other was the Air Force military establishment who purported to know more than others (…read that the army…) about the role of the handgun in killing armed attackers. After all, the US Air force had an “elite” unit that guarded ballistic missiles and hydrogen bombs. All this “studying” lead to the ultimate adoption of the 9 mm in the military. The military, in effect, dragged the police along to abandon the big bore double action pistol in favor of smaller autoloaders with a higher round count. That’s why you have the 9 mm and 40 s & w of today.

All these things came together to develop the “conventional wisdom” that abounds today that says that the old revolver with its limited round count, great weight, and antiquated cartridges are simply not effective as self defense tools. To all that, I say a hearty “baloney” for all the reasons stated above.

There are those among our little band who will say that big bore revolvers are heavy and hard to conceal. I say that the new smith scandium frame revolvers weigh 21 to 25 ounces. My glock 33 weighs 20 ounces and a full size 45 auto weighs from 38 to 40 ounces. Looks pretty good to me; but I will grant that concealment is somewhat of a problem. My personal preference for concealment is the old time Milt Sparks 200 aw holster (….link here: http://www.miltsparks.com/200AW.htm. …) . You just cover it up with a coat.

There are those who will say that “there is a danger of over penetration”. There sure is. And there always has and will be. It is no trouble to find instances of ‘over penetration” with every caliber there is.

There are those who will say that the big frame smiths and tauruses are not “pocket guns”. I say you are somewhat right. Smith makes a 2.4 inch 45 ACP revolver (…read this: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2783396/review_smith_wesson_325pd_revolver.html ...); the 325 PD. We can quibble about whose pocket it will fit into; but these “snubby” big frame revolvers have been around a long time.

There are those who will say “there aint enough round count”. I say the likelihood of needing more than six rounds is so remote as to be miniscule.

There are those who say “….time (…and technology…) has passed these dinosaurs”….. ; get a semi auto pistol with a “large” round count. Some folks (…including me…) simply do not like that idea and would rather do it the “old time” way. That’s ok. Both the new and old can stand peaceably together.

There are those who will say that there is a problem with full power ammunition. I agree. There are solutions, however. The first is handloading. The second is to use “store-bought” ammo. I would look for hard cast semiwadcutter ammo in the 1000 fps or less velocity range. There is some out there.

I would close this little essay with another bit of backward looking to lay to rest the idea that the auto loading pistol is the ultimate fighting pistol. There was a guy by the name of Jeff Cooper who did more than anyone to popularize the auto loading pistol and the 45 ACP than anyone before him. He is the father of the vaunted ‘Thunder Ranch”. In his younger days he did some exhibition shooting with a couple of his buddies who used the big frame double action revolver and the old ‘antiquated” single action army colt. If you care to do a bit of digging, you can find his old books and pictures of these demonstrations. The net results (…if I remember right were these…). Sometimes cooper won, sometimes the double action smith guy won; sometimes the SSA guy won. All with big bore calibers. There are those who would opine that the double action revolver is, in fact, faster than the vaunted 45acp for the first six shots. Watch Jerry Miculek sometime.

The moral of this little story is this; all the big calibers are killers and are fast and deadly accurate in the hands of those who spend the time to learn how to shoot them. By the way, Cooper is the father of the much vaunted 10 mm and its son the 40 s & w. Don’t ever succumb to the belief that somehow the old time plus 40 calibers are not mankillers; in the right hands they are. To say otherwise is laughable.

I hope this helps you to decide about the suitability of the big bore “pocket pistols”. After all, that is what ya asked about to begin with.

Regards,

Leroy (…the oldtimer…)

By the way; thanks for the kind words Garfua and Bigwakes.

Leroy

I must have fooled with the resoution on my laptop. I can't see anything either!!

Leroy

Edited November 17, 2010 by leroy

[dralarms]

Wow, interesting read. My eyes thank you for enlarging it.