i was making a special "not enough gun edition snubby contender" you won the drawing my brotha.

I would love the opportunity to hunt Cape buffalo some day, but I'll have to pass on that one....

I had a feeling you looked just like George C. Scott!

You're right! I do.......don't I?

1st deer 85 yards (quartering away)

As mentioned earlier, since I was intentionally trying to stay away from the shoulder, and both were quartering shots, each shot was further back from what I would've done normally.
Doe #2 @ 99 yards - Quartering toward me.
Entrance wound pictured. Exit wound was further back obviously.







I would not consider either of the shots Ideal or what I would want to do it since I was trying to stay away from the shoulder.
I would now be very content taking a double lung shot or a double shoulder shot or a quarterling shot while hitting lungs and one shoulder

Good stuff.

Just a thought, imho, at that distance it appears that you have a large entrance wound and that bullet is expanding well, i would just give a thought to what that bullet would do on bone. It may do much much worse. This nearly mirrors alot of what i found on elk with xtps and a 454. Had 5 or six great kills then a few failure that made for some heavy tracking. Sometime give that 180 grain aframe a shot. Itll perform thru anything on a whitetail at any angle with a 357 at that distance. I think u would be really happy with that bullet and honestly 50 yards and in i would hesitate to use it on and elk if i were able to get velocity up over 1500 fps.

Also good on that liver. Thats what killed it. The liver has a good blood supply and with some good damage. They dont live long and in many cases youre better off hitting it solidy that a rear lung shot. As usual, great shooting

Thanks
Just got home a short time ago.
I was able to post pics because Dan was driving
Really felt weird intentionally holding back on the body.
At the same time, the first doe saw me, so I had a limited time to shoot.
Second one was oblivious.
Appreciate the insight.
Another thing we noticed today is one doe was brown and the other was more grey. Side by side made an interesting contrast.
Before this week, all of my revolver hunting has been with two FA 454's. One with 300 XTP's and the other hardcast.
It has been a fun 2.5 days of hunting.
E

From my 357 mag experience. ( mainly a 6" 28 smith and a 8 3/8" 27) and the past years customer experience with the FR with 8-12" barrels and now Ernie's joker length gun I am thinking the bullet choice is between a 158 xtp and a 158 xtp flat point.

Many customers are running the flat point.

The 158 seems to give the best ballance between speed and weight.

I disagree the 180 grain can be ran to 1400 fps (according to Hogdon) and is a better choice at that speed especially at distance

Maybe YOU had new data. There is absolutely NOTHING new here. It may be new to those doing the experimenting, because they are new to hunting with revolvers (which is my impression based on past discussions) and are trying to apply rifle/specialty pistol concepts to revolvers but it is not new. Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith were hunting with the .357 long before any of us were born. This path is well traveled, the fact that 'some' don't have a map is irrelevant. How much data do you need to know that a 158gr .357 bullet at .38Spl velocities is inadequate for big game? How many pictures of wounded critters do you need to know that shooting them at ranges so long you have to account for 50" of drop is irresponsible?



Failures are not subjective at all and your post here is way to simplistic. What is and isn't considered failure is entirely dependent on what the bullet/load 'should' have done. A 35gr .223 would be expected to blow up on impact. A 400gr .450/.400 Woodleigh solid would not. A varmint load that does not expand is a failure. A big game load that explodes is a failure. A cast bullet that shatters is a failure. A jacketed hollowpoint that is shot into a ballistic testing medium (that is tougher than live flesh) and does not expand at all is a failure.

"Consideration as to isolated incidents or continuous occurrences must be taken into account."
How many failures are acceptable when the outcome of a $10,000-$20,000 hunt hangs in the balance?

Steve B with his 357 FR 10" on a guided Texas hunt.

150ish yards. 158 Hornady XTP Flat Point. 2015

Local customer's...cant remember the distance for sure...he actually shot multiple and this was the only pic I had. I know it was over 100 but under 150

Where all these FR lessons learned were intended to go........alot of the lessons learned went into the barrel profiles. There was a lot of RandD to get where we are. But the pic below was what I was going for as an end result of the testing....but sometimes new things come out of those tests

The shroud in the RandD phase was just to remove any other possible factors from resting the barrel....as you see here the shroud is gone

You could've just asked. Of course, some of us tried to tell you. Barrel harmonics have never been an issue in revolvers. Revolver accuracy is all about correct dimensions, lockup, alignment and proper tolerances. Dick Casull figured all this out decades ago.

stumbled on this one while doing some other stuff....same thing just stainless...

These shoot almost as well as the FR system....very little down range accuracy difference.

The major lesson learned was removing anything that would add stress to the barrel. ejector rods and their methods of attachment to the barrel, under lugs, sights, and so on.

then with a gradual taper from rear to front with a stouter section at the rear of a caliber specific length.

A gun is a gun is a gun.....the bullet leaves the barrel the same way....its all just physics

I have not seen this data and even if formerly compiled somewhere. That does not prevent others from gathering additional information and presenting it for all to see. If you don't want to see it, that is your option.



I have pushed and used many bullets passed and for things they were not designed for and to do. The process is fun, informative, and the results not always a failure. Even outside their window of operation and designed result, I have had acceptable performance that would not constitute failure for what I used them for. It's subjective. You would likely say they failed because they did not do what they were supposed to do. I do not. Subjective.

I'm currently not seeing any failures on game from the .357 Mag bullets being used from these Ruger Revolvers. If you have results from use on game, by all means......share them.

I have never paid 10-20K for a hunt. If I was to do so, you can bet I'd be testing whatever bullet I intended to use regardless of what I'd previously heard or read.
Heck.......I do that for free hunts as well. It's all part of the experience.

HLM.....................................Harmonics Lives Matter

I have never been able to get close to the groups with the FA's or S&W's that I can get with the FR's out to 200 yards.
I really liked the FA's, and think Bob turns out a great product.
I have never tried to group other revolvers past 200 yards.

The groups don't lie...or...The bullets don't lie.
If anyone feels that the FR is not capable, you are sure welcome to come on up to Gillette, and shoot it yourself or bring your favorite revolver and see how it stacks up.
When I can take a shooter who has never hunted big game with a revolver (He has never been competitor in any handgun disciplines).
Set him up with my FR off Bog Gear, not the bench, and he shoots a 1.5 inch group at 100 yards. The boy was ecstatic.
I am not a machinist, but I know it works.
It's so easy, even beginners shoot them well.

I just got caught up on this thread. Been hunting for a week and came back to 79 new replies on this thread alone! Very interesting reading. I don't have the ability to make the kind of long range shots that are being talked about, but to me, it's amazing to see what a revolver can do in the hands of people more gifted than me. And the results are being repeated, regularly. It is changing my mind, and my "idea", of what "limits" really are.

Phil Shoemaker, killed a charging 900 pound brown bear with a 9mm all body shots with 147 grain hard cast Bullets.

hit some big arteries i'm sure for it to die that fast, i'm positive he's glad it worked. the bear didn't. i had a guide on a waterbuff that used an ar15. just gotta get the bullets in there and phil did!

So you increase accuracy by removing one of the locking features of the cylinder? You really think that "adds stress" to the barrel?



Yeah, they're all the same and all that stuff every other REPUTABLE revolver builder is doing is just for grins and giggles? Lineboring, oversized bolts and blocked actions are just so passe.

He had to have, I was surprised at how fast the bear died. Every grizzly that I shot or seen shot reacted to the hit just as Phil's bear did.

How did the Dan Wesson barrel system stack up in the accuracy tests? In my experience the Dan Wesson barreel system gives very consistent accuracy and relieves barrel stress as well. The barrel is tensioned in the shroud.

The dan wesson shoot good. messing with the amount of torque put on the front end nut can greatly change things. with their sleeve/shroud there wasn't enough room to achieve the contour that has worked out the best. Their just a strait barrel inside there as I am sure you have seen before.

From the testing that I have done in a nut shell the barrel needs to be stiffer at the rear and taper forward. of course on the smiths we have to add lockup to the crane. each and every gun requires something a little different in the action dept to bring them to where they need to be.

I dont post about each and every guns group anymore...I let the customers do that in their various social media posts. But across the board...the general accuracy or common practice accuracy work...plus the barrel throat and barrel contour have proven to be consistent in providing exceptional accuracy.

this section below was posted in 2015....this was the test that showed me we were going in the right direction and has been repeated many times since...I normally don't carry calipers to the range so I had to run the entire target to the shop to measure

Shot the Franken ruger at 350 yds off bog gear. Same 125xtp load.

First three were 1.128" then I blew the last two. 3.9" overall



similar results have been obtained with 125-180 bullets. Ernie used a 170 at 500 yards.

After that longer range steel shooting we had WYSHOT 2015 and I had to try and run the gun as far as possible on dogs....the results we pretty amazing...the 44 in the video was hot off the machines and we didn't have confirmed drops yet or a lot of trigger time with it so we only went to 200ish yards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0KHi80vCus

NIIIIICE, well done and i like that kinda accuracy but, curious if you have tried silhouette models with iron sights like was shot in the eighties.

do you mean putting the sights on these? Or guns that had them?

I hunt with and shoot a few smiths with those....and used some other peoples DW guns. I have a 357 DW with all the barrels through 10" but it has regular sights

I have done exactly 1 FR with irons

i was referring to a precison silhouette sights like the millett sights i have on my FA83 10" instead of a scope system?

yes I have shot some of the big hooded sights with the nice bomar style rear. And i have shot a lot and built a lot of the PPC style guns with the sight ribs.

Most of my hunting I do with iron sights. An N frame is my most used hunting/shooting gun.

The bear wasn't "charging", he was standing still in front of one of his clients when the shooting started.

That's not how I heard it. They woke it up and it came.

Phil was very clear that the bear was charging!

Quoted from his own article!

I think we should argue about it.

My Redhawk with Dan Wesson barrel system


]

Tensioned barrels in my experience are very accurate.

You need to read all of his posts about it when asked Phil stated that the bear circled and then came for them coming between him and his clients heading for the clients.

'Nuff said....