rbertalotto wrote:How about this...........My Puma is serial number is MA5802 and Kittery Trading Post, Maine, in the used gun department has the same gun with serial number MA5803!
Well, you could always buy it as a
'parts gun', or progressively hot-load one until it blows up, then you could assume that was the 'absolute max. load' for the other one...
Personally, unless I
needed to shoot maximum loads, if I had an 'early' .454 Casull, I'd likely just treat it as a VERY solid .45 Colt that could handle "+P+" Colt loads consistently (and better yet, loaded in .454 Casull brass to minimize chamber crud). I'm sure others would differ on that - some would say get rid of it and get a newer/stronger one -
but why, since you already stated your desire isn't to shoot hot loads anyway...?
rbertalotto wrote:Due to a bad motorcycle accident a couple years ago . . . this Puma will most likely never see a full house 454 Casull load.
If someday you come across one you like better, you can always 'trade up', I guess.
Ideally, a gun should always be able to handle a steady diet of the 'hottest'
factory loads it is chambered for, but there are some really GOOD guns that don't; the
S&W Model 29 ![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
comes to mind. They are great guns, but folks who've shot them alot generally say they will 'shoot loose' sooner, versus, say a Ruger Redhawk. Which is prettier, which is easier to tote, which is stronger, which do you prefer...? Maybe different answers to each of those, and different for different shooters. Lots of folks just prefer the way the S&W Model 29 'carries
and handles' vs. the Redhawk; same with .45/.454 leverguns:
rbertalotto wrote:Plus, I like the way the 92 carries and handles for hunting purposes.
There ARE some small/custom makers turning out .454's now (but I've yet to actually see/handle one), so hopefully soon there will be more choices other than just a 'new' Rossi and an 'early' Rossi...
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)