Reeder Custom Guns - No significant thickness loss, I take it?

Jerry Kiln
No significant thickness loss, I take it?
Thursday, October 01, 2026, 11:12

- No text -

Cleaning Day(s) - Jim Taylor, 2026-09-30, 06:15
- No significant thickness loss, I take it? (nm) - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-01, 11:12
  - No. Not really. I am not gonna shoot these. - Jim Taylor, 2026-10-01, 11:36
    - I once had a gunbelt and a handful of the - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-01, 12:10
      - I did the same thing back in the 70's and 80's. - Jim Taylor, 2026-10-01, 13:20
        At this distance from the past days, - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-01, 15:07
        Yes, that is true. What I figured is: - Jim Taylor, 2026-10-02, 07:29
        In regards to the ".45 Colt" vs ".45 Long Colt" - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-02, 09:53
        Good points. Growing up it was always 45 Colt. - Jim Taylor, 2026-10-02, 10:21
        I look at the modern push to "Long Colt" as - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-02, 12:03
        I have used "long colt" as far back as I cvan - Gary Reeder, 2026-10-02, 16:30
        In Cartridges of the World they give all the info - Gary Reeder, 2026-10-02, 16:42
        Well, out of curiosity, I randomly grabbed my 1971 - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-02, 17:02
        You didn't look far enough. There is a - Gary Reeder, 2026-10-02, 19:13
        Am not arguing that it is a totally new name, - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-03, 06:46
        Always good for a discussion. - ORG, 2026-10-03, 10:43
        Yep. Folk call it what they want. I like ".45 Old West". (nm) - Jerry Kiln, 2026-10-03, 11:40

powered by my little forum