Maggie’s Motivational Pic Thread v2.0 - - New Rules - See Post #1


Honorable Mention, 02/01

ETA: No offense to 143lrsd, but I added this at the last minute as an "experiment." I had seen some rather positive response in re: the "likes," so in an effort to respond to the "validation of others," I added this pic.

Henceforth, I'll be sticking with my own validations.
 
Last edited:
1675250683556.png
 
A S&W model 41. Very accurate but very sensitive to what you feed it.

View attachment 8064083
I have one that is probably not near as pretty as yours and it shoots very well. Like you said though, it is a bit picky about what brands feed and eject well in it. Surprisingly, the cheap brands of TAC 22 do well in it and some of the more expensive pistol match offerings do not.

I suspect that spring changes could affect that, but I haven’t tried nor do I care.
 
I have one that is probably not near as pretty as yours and it shoots very well. Like you said though, it is a bit picky about what brands feed and eject well in it. Surprisingly, the cheap brands of TAC 22 do well in it and some of the more expensive pistol match offerings do not.

I suspect that spring changes could affect that, but I haven’t tried nor do I care.
Reference model 41, I have tried several different springs and with that I finally settled on federal target grade performance which is reasonably priced. Some of the cheap Remington rimfire works but is not reliable.
B8180800-CA8C-4884-B972-81930A17C1DB.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
This is a S&W model 52 (9 mm). I have never shot tight groups with it, maybe because of the short distance between the two sites.

View attachment 8064080
I have a S&W 52-2 in .38spl that is one of my favorite handguns to shoot. I also have 2 S&W model 41's, a 5" and a 7 3/8". I don't like how the S&W shoot so I will shoot a Ruger MKII target or High Standard Victor for .22 stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keepmvng and lash