text:
|Original Article
Pages: 139 - 145
Vestibular Findings in Relapsing, Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Study of Thirty Patients
Keywords: multiple sclerosis; vertigo; vestibular diseases; vestibular function tests
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory autoimmune disorder of the central nervous system and a common cause of neurological disability in young adults. As with all complex traits, the disorder results from gene susceptibility and environmental factor interplay [1,2]. The symptoms and signs of relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) typically evolve over a period of several days, stabilize, and then often diminish either spontaneously or in response to corticosteroid administration. RRMS onset is typically observed in the second or third decade of life, predominantly in females (2:1). First signs are usually related to sensory disturbances, unilateral optic neuritis, diplopia (e.g., internuclear ophthalmoplegia), Lhermitte's sign (trunk and limb paresthesia evoked by neck flexion), limb weakness, clumsiness, gait ataxia, and neurogenic symptoms affecting the bladder and bowels. Many patients describe fatigue, worse in the afternoon, and fever. The diagnosis is based on clinical and laboratory criteria described by Poser and McDonald et al.[3-5].
Vertigo, balance disorders, and the presence of nystagmus are often mentioned as early manifestations of RRMS [6,7]. Positional nystagmus of different types- rotatory, vertical, semispontaneous, and caloric hyperreflexia- may also be observed [8]. Guillain [9] reported the presence of the classic Charcot triad (nystagmus, dysarthria, and intention tremor), and Velter [10] also observed the vertigo, plus presence of tingling sensation in legs and arms, muscular weakness, and tiredness. As regards to hearing function, many studies reported hearing loss as an unusual symptom [9,11-16].
Unfortunately, investigations on ocular alterations and epidemiological studies concerning the prevalence of MS are still rare in Brazil. The most recent data on this subject were published by Callegaro et al. [17], who reported the prevalence of 5/100,000 inhabitants of São Paulo, having investigated a population of 9,380,000 in 1997. The patients were classified according to the criteria of Poser et al. [3], and only those with defined MS were registered.
As electronystagmography (ENG) may be useful to the early diagnosis of MS [6] and considering the scarcity of studies using regional standard values, this study intends to describe the vestibular abnormalities observed in 30 patients with RRMS in comparison with those in a control group.
We evaluated 30 patients (6 men and 24 women) with a final diagnosis of RRMS, according to Poser's and Mc- Donald's criteria [3,5]. We registered the patients randomly selected for the study at a reference center for diagnosis and treatment of MS (Institute of Neurology of Curitiba). Their ages ranged between 27 and 64 years (mean, 42.23; standard deviation [SD], 9.68).
We performed the evaluation regardless of the type, period of treatment, or diagnosis date, after receiving a patient's formal agreement (signing of an informed consent form) approved by the local ethics committee.
All patients underwent a visual evoked potential exam and brain and cervical cord magnetic resonance imaging scans [5] and were classified according to the Kurtzke scale [18,19]. After a complete neurological exam, patients with psychological or oculomotor paresis (or both), internuclear ophthalmoparesis, or other severe visual disturbances were excluded. Laboratory exams were composed of specific analyses to detect infectious and autoimmune diseases; analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid; immunoelectrophoresis for detection of oligoclonal bands; and serological tests (VDRL and HTLV-1). Patients presenting results that did not match the Poser and McDonald criteria for RRMS were excluded.
A questionnaire to obtain otoneurological symptoms and personal and family information was applied (protocol developed by the Department of Otoneurology, University of Tuiuti of Parana). Otorhinolaryngological evaluation was performed to exclude any alteration that could interfere with the exams.
Patients undertook a special diet, starting 72 hours before the otoneurological exams (abstaining from the intake of coffee, any kind of soda or caffeinated tea, chocolate, smoke, or alcohol). Analgesics, tranquilizers, and antihistaminic and antivertigo medications were suppressed during this period to minimize possible interferences with the test results. Three hours of fasting was recommended prior to the exam.
Vestibular function evaluation is composed of many labyrinthine function and ocular tests. The first part of our patients' evaluation was simply clinical and consisted of a systematic search for spontaneous, gaze, and positional nystagmus. The second part consisted of interpretation of the ENG test results, which is the objective register of the variations in the corneoretinal potentials, captured by sensitive electrodes. The ENG test is composed of: calibration of the ocular movements, search for spontaneous and gaze nystagmus, the oscillatory tracking test, optokinetic nystagmus search, and rotatory and caloric tests.
Clinical Evaluation
The search for positional nystagmus and vertigo was verified through Brandt and Daroff's maneuver [20]. Patients were requested to remain seated with the head and neck bent and the body tilted to the side, which evokes the vertigo; the head was then positioned 45 degrees in the opposite direction, and the neck rested on a horizontal plane at the final position. Patients returned to the first position and repeated the procedure toward the opposite side. The clinician searched for nystagmus for 30 seconds in each position.
The search for spontaneous nystagmus occurred without specific stimulation, with open and closed eyes. We searched for horizontal and vertical gaze nystagmus with 30-degree deviations (right, left, up, and down).
ENG Registers
We performed ENG with three-channel equipment (Berger Eletromedicina, model VN316, São Paulo, Brazil). We cleaned the periorbital region with alcohol and placed the electrodes with electrolytic paste at the lateral angle of each eye and in the midpoint of the frontal line, forming a triangle and enabling the register of horizontal, vertical, and oblique ocular movements.
We performed tests with a rotating chair (Ferrante, model COD 14200, São Paulo, Brazil), a visual stimulator (Neurograff Eletromedicina, model EV VEC, São Paulo, Brazil), and an air caloric stimulator (Neurograff Eletromedicina, model NGR 05, São Paulo, Brazil).
Calibration of the ocular and saccadic movements is based on the capture of the variations of electric potential between the cornea and the retina. We requested patients to keep the head still while visually tracking a light target moving in horizontal direction and then in vertical direction. The equipment is adjusted so that the eyes' movement performs an angle of 10 degrees (standard calibration). As these movements are registered, we adjust the gain of the graphic needle to 10-mm amplitude (first channel) and to 5-mm amplitude (second and third channels). A variation of 1 degree corresponds to a displacement of 1 mm in the graphic, registered on paper, set under a speed of 5 mm/sec. To ensure the constancy of the distance between both targets and between the patient and the targets, we used the following formula: x = 2 y.tg5 degrees, where x is the distance between the targets and y is the distance between the patient and the target and tg (tangent of 5). To evaluate the regularity of the saccadic movements, we used the normal ranges of the following parameters: latency, accuracy, and velocity of movement.
The normal velocity range for spontaneous nystagmus search is less than 7 degrees per second with closed eyes. Gaze nystagmus is expected to be absent with open eyes. Occurrence, direction, inhibiting effect of ocular fixation (IEOF), and maximum slow-component velocity of nystagmus were registered.
For the oscillatory tracking test, we requested patients to visually track oscillatory targets in the visual stimulator, and we registered the ocular movements. The type and gain of the ocular movements were observed in the following frequencies: 0.20, 0.40, and 0.80 Hz. The test is used to evaluate the integrity of the oculomotor system in controlling the slow movements of the eyes. The normal standards are nystagmus types I and II.
In the optokinetic nystagmus search, we requested that patients track multiple targets (three horizontal streams of lighted dots) moving forward and backward. The symmetry and gain of the nystagmus were observed. Occurrence, directional preponderance, and measurements of the maximum slow-component angular velocity (MSCAV) of nystagmus were evaluated. To calculate the directional preponderance, we used the Jongkees formula [21] detailed below.
Values of less than 20 degrees per second are considered normal for this test.
In the rotation test, patients' heads were laterally tilted 30 degrees to stimulate lateral semicircular ducts (right anterior and left posterior), in which the variations of angular acceleration are sensed. After that, patients' heads were positioned 60 degrees backward and 45 degrees to the right and left sides so that the vertical semicircular canals were stimulated. The oscillatory stimulation started at 180 degrees and progressively decreased to 0. We observed the presence, directional preponderance, and frequency of the ocular movements, using the same formula for optokinetic nystagmus search. The normal range for this test is under 33%.
The caloric test requires patients to be positioned with head and body tilted 60 degrees backward (Brunning's position I) for proper stimulation of the lateral semicircular canals [22]. The air stimuli were set at the temperatures of 42ºC, 18ºC, and 10ºC, lasting 80 seconds each. Records were registered with open and closed eyes to note IEOF , direction, MSC absolute values, and correlation between directional preponderance and postcaloric nystagmus direction. Normal absolute values are within 2 degrees and 19 degrees per second, whereas normal relative values are lower than 33% for labyrinth preponderance and less than 22% for nystagmus directional preponderance.
We compared results with normal standards, obtained from epidemiological studies for the Brazilian population [23-25]. Table 1 shows the criteria used to analyze each test as well as to distinguish central from peripheral vestibulopathy.
The diagnosis of peripheral vestibulopathy is achieved by comparison with normal standards and the absence of pathognomonic signs of central vestibular alterations and is rather a negative diagnosis. The difference-ofproportion test searched for a statistically significant difference in ENG results, comparing the affected patients with those in the control group (p < .05).
Table 2 shows the patients' complaints at the time of examination. We found no significant alteration regarding position nystagmus, gaze nystagmus, calibration of the ocular movements, oscillatory tracking test, optokinetic nystagmus, or rotation test.
The spontaneous nystagmus was altered in one patient (3.3%). The nystagmus was horizontal, to the right, with an angular velocity of 14 degrees per second, indicating central vestibulopathy.
Alterations of vestibular function were found in 26 patients (86.7%; Table 3), all in the peripheral vestibular apparatus and with a higher prevalence in female patients (80%). In this study, vestibular exam results were altered in 26 patients (86.7%); most alterations were found in the peripheral vestibular system (83.4%). This finding may be related to the initial stage of the disease.
From an otoneurological point of view, two distinct situations may be observed regarding RRMS: (1) in the initial stage of the disease, vertigo is an early symptom, and central impairments may be rare at ENG; whereas (2) in the advanced stage of the disease, vertigo is reported in 50% of the cases and central alterations at ENG are more frequent [13].
The difference-of-proportion test revealed a significant difference between altered and normal ratio related to gender (p < .05). Figure 1 shows the incidence of abnormal findings at ENG, and Figure 2 shows the vestibular test conclusions.
Figure 1. Frequency of caloric test results: absolute and relative analysis. (ANDP = asymmetrical nystagmus directional preponderance; BLHper = bilateral labyrinth hyperreflexia; BLHpor = bilateral labyrinth hyporeflexia; Nref = normoreflexia; ULHper = unilateral labyrinth hyperreflexia; ULHpor = unilateral labyrinth hyporeflexia.)
Figure 2. Distribution and frequency of the different types of vestibulopathy. (BDPVS = bilateral deficient peripheral vestibular syndrome; BIPVS = bilateral irritative peripheral vestibular syndrome; IPVS = irritative peripheral vestibular syndrome; LDPVS = left deficient peripheral vestibular syndrome; LIPVS = left irritative peripheral vestibular syndrome; NVE = normal vestibular exam; RDCVS = right deficient central vestibular syndrome; RDPVS = right deficient peripheral vestibular syndrome; RIPVS = right irritative peripheral vestibular syndrome.)
We could not identify any pathognomonic set of vestibular findings in patients with MS. MS may present quite variable clinical manifestations during its clinical course and may involve several peripheral or central structures of the vestibular apparatus. Equilibrium disorder is the most frequent symptom when the vestibulo-oculomotor system is affected [13,26].
Anamnesis findings included motor, sensory, vestibular, and psychological symptoms, imbalance, dizziness, tingling sensation of hands and feet, and headache [14, 27,28]. Other authors also report several degrees of sensory and motor disorders [9,13,29,30]. Symptoms vary individually and may evolve along with the disease. Our study found a major prevalence in women (80%) in accordance with other authors [6,13,14,16,30-32]. Conversely, several authors reported an equal incidence for both genders [29,33-35]. Findings from this study revealed alterations in the spontaneous nystagmus search and in the caloric test.
Presence of horizontal spontaneous nystagmus (with open eyes and slow-component velocity of 14 degrees) and absence of inhibiting effect are also reported in the literature [6,36,37].In 1983, Mangabeira-Albernaz et al. [13] posited that spontaneous nystagmus is one of the most frequent signs of MS. The most frequent types of nystagmus are vertical, diagonal, horizontal, rotatory, and dissociated. These findings are supported by Cipparrone et al. [35].
No alteration was observed in this study regarding gaze nystagmus search, oscillatory tracking, and optokinetic and rotatory tests. The literature corroborates that patients may present alterations of the saccadic movements, gaze nystagmus, oscillatory track type III or IV that is pathognomonic for central alteration, asymmetrical optokinetic nystagmus, and rotatory test with absence of diagonal nystagmus under stimulation of the vertical semicircular ducts and decruitment [6,13,16,36,38-40].
Results from this study revealed alterations in the caloric test results, with unilateral and bilateral labyrinth hyporeflexia and bilateral labyrinth hyperreflexia. Cipparrone et al. [35] reported a bilateral hyperreflexia in 36% of cases. Mangabeira-Albernaz et al. [13] found 25% of disorders in this exam, evincing bilateral hyperreflexia and absence of inhibiting effect.
Our results showed a high incidence of bilateral peripheral irritative vestibulopathy followed by left peripheral hypofunctional vestibulopathy and bilateral deficit peripheral vestibulopathy. These findings were also observed in other reports [7,13,28,35,41]. More recently, in a Brazilian survey, Tomaz et al. [28] found 60% of MS patients with irritative vestibulopathy and 13.4% with central vestibular disorders. Prosser et al. [42] observed the presence of both hyperreflexia and hyporeflexia in MS patients submitted to caloric stimulation. Central vestibular structures were spared in our patients. Follow-up studies of the vestibular function in MS patients may provide more details that can explain these findings. Studies on the vestibular function of patients with RRMS usually involve biases, such as the developmental stage of the disease, the duration and type of treatment, frequency of the crises, and severity of global impairment.
According to Herdman [43], vestibular rehabilitation acts on the vestibular system through the repetition of specific physical exercises that activate central neuroplastic mechanisms to achieve adaptive compensation of the impaired functions. The success of otoneurological therapy depends on the accurate diagnosis and detection of the lesion, including its location and etiology. The most common treatment choices for vestibular dysfunctions are drug administration, surgical procedures, and vestibular rehabilitation.
Of the 30 patients evaluated in our study, 15 are enrolled in vestibular rehabilitation as an adjuvant treatment, following the vestibular rehabilitation protocols described by Cawthorne [44] and Cooksey [45], with positive results.
This study is an innovative work in Brazil, developed by a multidisciplinary team involving professionals of different areas (otorhinolaryngologist, neurologists, and speech-language pathologists). Positive results were observed during the practice of the exercises in group sessions, indicating that this therapeutic method may be extremely valuable for increasing motivation, socialization, and interaction among these patients. We reinforce the scarcity of articles related to this topic, which brings up the importance of this study and of the otoneurological regular follow-ups, based on the positive results obtained for this population.
The authors gladly acknowledge the financial support from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico.
1. Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, Weinshenker BG. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 343:938-952, 2000.
2. Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 359: 1221-1231, 2002.
3. Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 13:227-231, 1983.
4. Arruda WO, Scola RH, Teive HA, Werneck LC. Multiple sclerosis: Report on 200 cases from Curitiba, Southern Brazil, and comparison with other Brazilian series. Arq Neuropsiquiatria 59(2-A):165-170, 2001.
5. McDonald WI, Compston A, Goodkin D, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol 50:121-127, 2001.
6. Aantaa E, Riekkinen PJ, Frey HJ. Electronystagmographic findings in multiple sclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 75:1-5, 1973.
7. Barré JA, Reys L. Vestibular problems in sclerosis in plaques [in French]. Rev Neurol (Paris) 31:697-698, 1924.
8. Ganança FC, Ganança FF, Ganança MM, et al. Benign Paroxistic Positional Vertigo in Multiple Sclerosis. In MSL Munhoz, MM Ganança, HH Caovila, ML Garcia da Silva (eds), Typical and Atypical Otoneurological Clinical Cases [in Portuguese]. São Paulo: Atheneu, 2001: 207-208.
9. Guillain G. The sclerosis in plaques: Clinical, anatomic, pathologic and pathogenic study [in French]. Rev Neurol (Paris) 31:648-683, 1924.
10. Velter M. Clinical observations on ocular symptoms of sclerosis in plaques [in French]. Rev Neurol (Paris) 31: 717-720, 1924.
11. Hood JD. A study of cochlear function carried out during the course of an episode with full remission of disseminated sclerosis affecting the cochlear nerve. Audiology 2: 202, 1963.
12. Kurtzke JF. Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 46:484-492, 1970.
13. Mangabeira-Albernaz PL, Ganança MM, Mangabeira- Albernaz PM, et al. Otoneurological aspects in multiple sclerosis [in Portuguese]. Acta AWHO 2(2):35-42, 1983.
14. César CPHAA. On Vectoelectronystagmography in Multiple Sclerosis [in Portuguese]. Unpublished master's thesis, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1992.
15. Jerger S, Jerger JF. Diagnostic value of crossed versus uncrossed acoustic reflexes. Arch Otolaryngol 103:445-453, 1977.
16. Grènman R. Involvement of the audiovestibular system in multiple sclerosis: Otoneurologic and audiologic study. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 420:1-95, 1985.
17. Callegaro D, Goldbaum M, Morais L, et al. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Acta Neurol Scand 104:208-213, 2001.
18. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33:1444-1452, 1983.
19. Kappos L, Lechner-Scott J, Lienert C. Neurostatus [CDROM]. Basel: Point de Vue, 2003.
20. Brandt T, Daroff RB. Physical therapy for benign paroxysmal positioning vertigo. Arch Otolaryngol 106:484-485, 1980.
21. Jongkees LBW, Philipszoon AJ. Electronystagmography: The caloric test. Acta Otolaryngol 189:45-54, 1964.
22. Fitzgerald G, Hallpike CS. Studies in human vestibular function. Observations on the directional preponderance of caloric nystagmus resulting from cerebral lesions. Brain 65:115-137, 1942.
23. Padovan I, Pansini M. New possibilities of analysis in electronystagmography. Acta Otolaryngol 73:121-125, 1972.
24. Mangabeira-Albernaz PL, Ganança MM, Pontes PAL. Operational Model of the Vestibular Apparatus. In PL Mangabeira-Albernaz, MM Ganança (eds), Vertigo [in Portuguese]. São Paulo: Moderna, 1976:29-36.
25. Ganança CC, Souza JAC, Segatin LA, et al. Normal limits of parameters for evaluation with digital vectoelectronystagmography neurograff [in Portuguese]. Acta AWHO 19:105, 2000.
26. Ganança FF, César CPHAA, Caovilla HH, Ganança MM. Optokinetic nystagmus in multiple sclerosis. Search with computerized nystagmography [in Portuguese]. RBM-ORL 4(4):125-131, 1997.
27. Austregésilo A, Pernambucano J. Incidence of multiple sclerosis plaques in Brazil [in Portuguese]. Neurobiologia 2:121-136, 1939.
28. Tomaz A, Borges FN, Ganança CF, et al. Signs and symptoms associated to otoneurologic alterations diagnosed through computerized vestibular exam in patients with multiple sclerosis [in Portuguese]. Arq Neuro-Psiquiatr 63(3-B):837-842, 2005.
29. Crafts LM. Early recognition of multiple sclerosis with report of 13 cases. JAMA 69:1130, 1917.
30. Poser S, Raun NE, Poser W. Age at onset, initial symptomatology and the course of multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 66(3):355-362, 1982.
31. Sola P, Scarpa M, Faglioni P, et al. Diagnostic investigations in multiple sclerosis: Which in the most sensitive? Acta Neurol Scand 80:394-399, 1989.
32. Sibinelli MAMF, Cohen R, Ramalho AM, et al. Ocular manifestations in patients with multiple sclerosis in São Paulo [in Portuguese]. Arq Bras Oftal 63(4):287-291, 2000.
33. Ward PH, Cannon D, Lindsay JR. The vestibular system in multiple sclerosis. A clinical-histopathological study. Laryngoscope 75(7):1031-1047, 1965.
34. Scarpalezos S, Tsakanikas C, Stamboulis E. Electronystagmographic study of sclerosis in plaques [in French]. Rev Neurol (Paris) 137(2):137-146, 1981.
35. Cipparrone L, Fratiglioni P, Siracusa G, et al. Electronystagmography in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 80:193-200, 1989.
36. Friesner L. The symptoms of the auditory and vestibular apparatus in multiple sclerosis. Multipli Scleros Séc 3:95, 1922.
37. Dayal VS, Tarantino L, Swisher LP. Neuro-otologic studies in multiple sclerosis. Laryngoscope 76:1798-1809, 1966.
38. Claussen CF, Estelrrich PR. Result of the neuro-otological systematic tests in patients with multiple sclerosis [in Spanish]. Ann Otolaryngol Iber Am 2(2):105-117, 1975.
39. Dam M, Johnsen NJ, Thomses J, Zilstorff K. Vestibular aberrations in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 52:407-416, 1975.
40. Tu CE, Young YH. Audiovestibular evolution in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 113:726-729, 2004.
41. Bentzen O, Jelnes K, Thygesen P. Acoustic and vestibular function in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 26:265-295, 1951.
42. Prosser S, Turrini M, Arslan E, Rosignoli M. Quantitative abnormalities in nystagmus induced by caloric stimulation in multiple sclerosis. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 9(1):67-77, 1989.
43. Herdman SJ. Vestibular rehabilitation [in Portuguese]. São Paulo, Brazil: Manole, 2002.
44. Cawthorne T. The physiological basis of head exercises. J Chart Soc Physiother 30:106-107, 1944.
45. Cooksey FS. Rehabilitation in vestibular injuries. Proc R Soc Med 39:273-278, 1946.
1. Department of Otoneurology, Universidade Tuiuti do Paraná, Curitiba
2. Department of Audiology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo
3. Instituto de Neurologia de Curitiba, Curitiba
4. Hospital Ecoville, Curitiba
5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Reprint requests:
Bianca Simone Zeigelboim, PhD
Universidade Tuiuti do Paraná
Rua Sydnei Antônio Rangel Santos, 238
Cep: 82.010-330 Brazil
Phone: 5541-3331-7850; Fax: 5541-3331-7807
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
This study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico-CNPq)


text: Try pricing a "real" point-of-sale system with a resistive touchscreen and an Atom processor. The ones we use for timeclocks at $work cost at least twice what an iPad costs. Also, I've seen iPod touches used as kiosks at a museum. Keeping you inside the kiosk app is as easy as putting the iThing in a case that covers up the "home" button. On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Ed King <chevyiinova at bellsouth.net> wrote: > I've heard a rumor that the Ruth's Chris Steak restaurant near Hamilton > Place area used iPads to take orders... but I can't vouch for that cause > I am not the kinda guy to pay $100 for a meal for two... well I might > have to do that soon as my 9 year marriage anniversary is coming up this > week > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Aldrich <mrmaxx at spamcop.net> > > *To:* Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group < > chugalug at chugalug.org> > *Sent:* Monday, September 16, 2013 7:17 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Chugalug] [Bulk] Re: iPads for Everyone > > On Sun September 15 2013 7:10:57 PM DaWorm wrote: > Forgot which airport, but several restaurants had an iPad on every table. > Had some sort of cable locked onto the data/charge port so it couldn't > leave the table. Card swipe bar on box on table to pay with. Can't > imagine what it cost, but there were hundreds of them. May have been > Minneapolis-St. Paul. > There's a restaurant in Dalton where the wait staff uses an iPad to enter > orders. Not sure how that works, maybe they have WiFi and the order prints > out automatically or something in the kitchen??? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Chugalug mailing list > Chugalug at chugalug.org > http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug > > > > _______________________________________________ > Chugalug mailing list > Chugalug at chugalug.org > http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug > > -- Benjamin Stewart <o(((>< ><)))o> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://chugalug.org/pipermail/chugalug/attachments/20130916/76836224/attachment.html>

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Wednesday, May 7
HEARTSAVER BLS-CPR: For daycare workers and people interested in learning CPR, not intended for healthcare professionals.
Located at the Education Center at the Georgetown Memorial Hospital from 6 to 10 p.m.
$30 fee and pre-registration is required by calling 520-8490 or by self-registration via the hospitals website.
KGB: Keep Georgetown Beautiful will meet at noon at City Hall. The public is invited to attend. Call 545-4100.
Coast Guard Aux: Flotilla 12-10 of Georgetown meets the first Wednesday of every month.
Are you looking for a volunteer position that puts you in touch with the boating community?
Members participate in safety patrols, vessel examinations and safe boating courses.
They also attend community events such as the Wooden Boat Show to keep people aware of safe boating practice.
Boat ownership is not a requirement. For information, please contact Ed Wozniak, Human Resources Officer, at tel. 843-545-9750 or email email@example.com.
Thursday, May 8
BLS - CPR: For healthcare professionals in the community interested in getting certified for CPR.
Located in the Education Center on the Georgetown Memorial Hospital campus from 8 a.m. to noon.
$50 fee and pre-registration is required by calling 520-8490 or by self-registration via the hospitals website.
BREASTFEEDING CLASS: Taught by a Certified Lactation Consultant, will be held at Wachesaw Conference Center from 6 to 8 p.m.
Class is free; pre-registration required, call 520-8490 or self-register via the hospitals website.
PARKINSONS SUPPORT: 7 p.m. NHC Nursing Home in Garden City.
STRAND SHELL CLUB: The Grand Strand Shell Club meets at 7 p.m. at The Meeting Place in Inlet Square Mall.
Call Joe at 232-1722. Except Jul, Aug. and Dec.
© 2016 South Strand News an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.


text:
Reporting Investing Activities
An analysis of the income statement and the balance sheet accounts of Hayes Export Co. at December 31, 2011 provides the following information:
Gain on Sale of Plant Assets
Loss on Sales of Marketable Securities
Marketable Securities account:
Debit entries
$ 78,000
Credit entries
Debit entries
Credit entries
Debit entries to plant asset accounts
Credit entries to plant asset accounts
Debit entries to accumulated depreciation accounts
Additional Information
1. Except as noted in 4 below, payments and proceeds relating to investing transactions were made in cash.
2. The marketable securities are not cash equivalents.
3. All notes receivable relate to cash loans made to borrowers, not to receivables from customers.
4. Purchases of new equipment during the year ($150,000) were financed by paying $50,000 in cash and issuing a long-term note payable for $100,000.
5. Debits to the accumulated depreciation accounts are made whenever depreciable plant assets are sold or retired. Thus, the book value of plant assets sold or retired during the year was $40,000 ($140,000 – $100,000).
a. Prepare the investing activities section of a statement of cash flows. Show supporting computations for the amounts of (1) proceeds from sales of marketable securities and (2) proceeds from sales of plant assets. Place brackets around amounts representing cash outflows.
b. Prepare the supplementary schedule that should accompany the statement of cash flows in order to disclose the noncash aspects of the company's investing and financing activities.
c. Does management have more control or less control over the timing and amount of cash outlays for investing activities than for operating activities? Explain.


text:
Top Definition
A rager that starts off with just you and a couple of your friends hanging out, then it gets out of hand after one person call a bunch of random people; someone gets shanked; and expensive picture is stolen; the cops come.
That schepel last night was awefly crazy I wish we taped it.
dari The Schepel Selasa, 26 Oktober 2010
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?


text:
The pilot in the fatal plane crash Aug. 14 at Mount Pleasant Regional Airport did not hold a flight instructor certificate, according to a preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Want to give?
A scholarship fund for aspiring flight students has been set up in memory of Matthew Gaither. To contribute, send donations to: Matthew Gaither Aviation Scholarship Fund, 2205 Shoreline Dr., Johns Island, S.C. 29455. Contributors can also make donations at Wells Fargo branches.
The NTSB said Federal Aviation Administration records showed pilot Graham Borland held a commercial pilot certificate, but he did not hold an instructor certificate.
Borland, 33, of North Charleston, and flight student Matt Gaither, 20, of Johns Island, died in the crash just short of the runway after takeoff for the training flight.
The NTSB report did not speculate on a cause of the crash. A report that includes a probable cause of the accident usually takes a year and sometimes longer.
But the preliminary report noted accounts of the takeoff and the crash.
Witnesses said the Cessna 150M began its takeoff with the flaps at 40 degrees, made it off the ground and "immediately looked unstable," according to the NTSB.
The report said the wings were banking to the right and left.
"When the airplane reached an altitude about 100 feet above ground level, it entered a continuous left turn and subsequently rolled wings level on a westerly heading," the report said. "The airplane then entered a nose down attitude followed by a right wing low attitude and was in a 'straight downward dive' when it impacted the ground."
The plane crashed in a vertical, nose-down position in sparse vegetation about 1,100 feet northwest of the runway.
"All major components of the aircraft were accounted for at the accident site," the report said. "The initial impact point was about 3 feet forward of the main wreckage. The wings remained attached to the fuselage and exhibited leading edge crush damage that spanned the entire length of each wing."
The report also noted that Borland held a first-class medical certificate issued in May 2012, when he reported 275 total flight hours.
Cole Gaither, Matt's father and a partner in Hanger Aviation which owned the plane, said Wednesday he thought Borland already had his flight instructor certification.
"We just found out today that he didn't," Gaither, a pilot said.
He said Borland was scheduled to take his "check ride" at the end of August, which would have given him his credentials.
"He was an ambitious young man who got a little ahead of himself," Gaither said. "He made a bad decision. It's a sad, sad situation."
He said witnesses' reports that the flaps were at 40 degrees at takeoff meant it was set up for landing.
"They got off the ground, and that's amazing in itself," Gaither said. "That's probably why the plane didn't want to fly."
He said when the pilot probably noticed the error and turned back toward the runway, it increased the airspeed.
"It's devastating to do it at 100 feet," Gaither said.
Instead of flying ahead and slowly raising the flaps, Gaither said Borland probably raised them straight up and the stall increased dramatically.
"That's why it went straight down so much," he said.
Matt Gaither graduated from James Island Charter High School in 2012. He was a linebacker on the football team and also was on the wrestling team. He was taking flight lessons to improve his chances of getting into special forces, according to his father.
Clark Hanger, who is a partner of Cole Gaither's at Hanger Aviation, said the Cessna had been on loan to Matt Gaither and the flight instructor.
Reach Warren L. Wise at 937-5524 or twitter.com/warrenlancewise.
- Keywords


text:
print it
Sexy design, the grey and cream have to be mine!
love the coloring….v+
green looks sick,
I want this
awesome!+1(check out some of mine sometime)
wow! great idea..
voted _, really nice color and design, fresh and strong…..
an art colab huh wow very sweet idea…..
i dig it….i prefer the cream coloured shirt just cause it looks like old worn paper
The fingers would have been placed in a way that it would look like a devil's salute… like ones you often see during rock concert… minus those flowers, i thnk this can even get rockin so funky..:) +
Really awesome artwork, man :D
Did you design this shirt just for me? ; ) Love the contrast of theme and colours…
I would buy ten of these! Gorgeous work!!!
voted +1
+1 i like the concept
above awesome! voted!
great design, love the colors. +1
Gratz dude, its like you already one.
But I'll vote for it again, just to be sure.
Check out my Owls in Flight design? Or any others for that matter.
vote +1


text: Are you ready for IACP 2012? From September 29 through October 3, the IACP will take over San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, California. The show comprises the largest law enforcement exposition, the best industry training available, and the largest group of law enforcement executives to share ideas and lessons learned.


text:
Snubby .357
Tools and Technologies
Handguns: Revolvers
> Snubby .357
April 2, 2010, 08:22 PM
What's the best compromise between the best and cheapest for a snubby .357/38 revolver? Feel free to name a couple. :)
If you enjoyed reading about "Snubby .357" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
April 2, 2010, 08:46 PM
Ruger SP101
S&W J frames
Pick your poison. Both are comparable in cost and are arguably the best choices in small self defense .357's. And honestly, why skimp on a gun that's only designed purpose is going to be the defense of one's life?
April 2, 2010, 08:57 PM
In addition to the Ruger SP101 and the S&W J Frames, used Ruger Six Series revolvers are another option. 2.75" Ruger Security and Police Service Sixes fetch high $300s to low $400s these days. Yes, 2.75" is borderline as far as being a snubby is concerned, but they are easy to carry with good gear.
Another option are S&W K Frames. If you are very patient, 2.5" 19s and 66s can still be found for under $450, but they are getting scarce at those prices. At least where I live. I found my Model 66 a couple of months ago for $430; great carry gun.
April 2, 2010, 09:10 PM
A good used S&W J frame .357. I have bought a couple of them, in like new condition, for a little over $300.00. Not an everyday find, you have to look for them.
April 2, 2010, 09:32 PM
+1 to the Ruger SP101.
April 2, 2010, 09:42 PM
No doubt, the SP101,
I own a 642 as well and while it is lighter and easy to carry, anything more than 50 rds through it are just plain painful .The Sp can be used as a range gun, it handels .357's better then the 642 handels .38's.
April 3, 2010, 03:33 PM
Another one for SP101
April 3, 2010, 04:07 PM
Here are two pics of my new SP101 3" with badger grips.
April 3, 2010, 04:49 PM
Price being no object for me, within reason, my favorite is the SP101. I would still own them at twice the price. My first two, both 2.25" .357s, came with spurless hammers. When I decided I wanted to use a horizontal shoulder rig part of the time, I acquired a third snubby, also .357, with a spur hammer. I later acquired a 4" version in .32 H&R, and most recently, anticipating retirement from policin' in the next few years, bought another .357, this time with the 3.06" barrel, as a "geezer gun." Life is good! :)
April 3, 2010, 06:58 PM
I'm very happy with my SP101, light enough to carry, heavy enough that even hot .357 is reasonably comfortable.
April 3, 2010, 07:18 PM
Yeah, an SP 101 isn't a pocket pistol (my 642 serves that role) but for being a solid and compact platform for .357 it rellay covers all the bases. Easy for CCW duty, comfortable for range time.
April 3, 2010, 08:34 PM
someone earlier said a 101 was light enough to carry, but I don't know about that one. Mine was pretty damn heavy.
I'd look into a used J-Frame or one of the newer varieties like the LCR. Love my LCR.
Oh yeah, it may not be a .357 but IMNSHO I don't think at the ranges you'll be using these the difference between a hot .38 and a 357 is anything but academic.
April 3, 2010, 08:41 PM
I just picked up a older Dan Wesson 51-2 for 160, and if i switch out the barrel to a 2 inch, that would be perfect!
April 3, 2010, 09:14 PM
Oh yeah, SP101 all the way. You'll never look back.
April 3, 2010, 09:25 PM
I finally bought one... my new production S&W 'Bloodwork' 2 5/8" PC 627 is here - same SKU (170133) as the previous run nearly ten years earlier. Same gun, save one addition - the IL - which I couldn't care less about. Check out my thread specific to this snubby. At ~$1,185 MSRP, it's a bit pricey - and as a 37.6 oz N-frame, it's likely a bit much for a CCW... but it holds eight! I'm happy... until my sale goes through on what has to go to restock the missing sheckles in my piggy bank. Heck, it's only money...
April 3, 2010, 09:41 PM
I vote in smaller sizes the SP101 or S&W 640. I prefer to stick with +P or +P+ loads in J frame guns chambered for 357. Light guns are bears with magnums. They can be shot well but don't encourage a lot of practice with full loads. Next up you have the M19/66 S&W or Ruger Speed Six. Bigger, heavier but a better idea if you want to shoot a lot of magnums.
The best comprimise between size, weight, and shootability is the SP101.
Keep in mind that you don't gain a lot going from a 38 +P to a 357 in a 2".
April 3, 2010, 10:03 PM
At hand-gun velocitys, 100-300fps more for the same weight bullet is alot in my mind.
April 3, 2010, 10:16 PM
Another vote for the SP101. I have three, a DA/SA 2 1/4" and DAO 2 1/4" and 3" guns, all in .357 Magnum. I carry the snubbie DAO in my pocket all the time, I don't find it either too bulky or too heavy for that duty. I guess if one wears emo jeans one is out of luck, but in my experience the SP with the right grip and pocket holster (I use Pachmayr Compacs & a DeSantis Nemesis) fits nicely in most pants pockets. Its heavier than an Airweight, no question, but its also a lot more shootable, especially with real magnum loads.
I've also done a lot of testing with .38 Special +P and .357 Magnum loads out of the snubbie SP101. In my experience the real magnums averaged about 400 fps more velocity and twice the muzzle energy of equal bullet weight .38 Special +P ammunition. I'd say that makes the magnum worth it, at least it does to me, I carry and practice with magnum ammunition in my SPs.
April 3, 2010, 10:23 PM
Just to clarify a bit on weight: a Ruger SP101 weighs 25 ounces. That's only 3 ounces more than a S&W J-frame Model 60, so I would expect the recoil to be comparable. By the way, my 8-shot S&W 327 PC 2" snubbie made of a combiantion of Scandium, Titanium, Aluminum, and steel weighs 21 ounces, and weighs only 3 ounces more than my Model 60 when both are fully loaded, and the 327 holds EIGHT rounds versus FIVE.
I'd encourage anyone looking at snubbies to alook at ALL dimensions of the comaprative specifications, including weight, number of rounds, size (particularly thickness of the cylinder and of the grips), and stopping power. That comparison can lead you to interesting places and solutions.
Jim G
April 3, 2010, 11:08 PM
Now we are getting somewhere. My new 2.6" SS 627PC 'snubby' will be an easy shooter for anyone with my choice of Remington R38S12 +P 158gr LHPSWC. Of course, so stoked, the big old N-frame will weigh in at 2.5 lb plus. Not a likely carry, unless you like substantial shoulder or belt holsters. My 642 similarly fed is less than 20 oz - and a dimunitive J-frame - an easily hidden CCW. It will be carried a lot more - by me. My 'little' wife, at only 5'10", thinks the 642 is 'too much' for her pockets - she chose a Seecamp .32 (Bottom-feeder - yuck!) - in a pocket holster, it doesn't 'make her fanny look larger'. She likes my 2" 10 - with those +Ps - as her house/car gun. The mass helps, while not being necessarily a negative factor.
So, some won't need the extra energy 'capacity' of a .357M - a .38 +P is sufficient for most. Money saved. Effective and easily toted spell 'carry'. My 642 will continue to get a lot of carry - the new 627 snubby, not so much. Use common sense here. Also - let your spouse/significant other in on the decision-making process. If they don't like it, it's worse than being 'too big/heavy' to you. Don't cut too many corners - after all, what is your - and your loved ones - lives worth?
April 3, 2010, 11:54 PM
"Cheap" and "guns" should not go in the same sentence. If you want a "cheap" gun, get a used 22 caliber semi-auto.
I'm sorta in the middle here.
J-Frame: Pocket or a very small belt holster.
K-Frame: Handy belt gun
S&W 327: Appendix carry revolver when you have the ability in wardrobe
I just don't like the SP101. It's difficult to load due to the proximity of the cylinder to frame and the rubber grips. I'd love to see a six shot version of the gun in 357 Magnum and just a bit more length to the crane.
April 4, 2010, 12:07 AM
More length to the crane means a bigger frame; can't have one without the other.
April 4, 2010, 08:06 AM
If I was buying new, it would be a 3" SP101. The extra weight and 1" of barrel are both positives when it comes to shooting "real" .357 ammo.
If you want used, look for a bigger framed snubbie. Two great options are the 2.75" Ruger Six line-up (security and speed) or a 3" S&W Models 13/65 (the only difference is blue or SS).
April 4, 2010, 08:42 AM
I just don't like the SP101. It's difficult to load due to the proximity of the cylinder to frame and the rubber grips. I'd love to see a six shot version of the gun in 357 Magnum and just a bit more length to the crane.
Sounds like a 2.75" or 3" Ruger Six Series revolver is right up your alley.
The Lone Haranguer
April 4, 2010, 08:44 AM
I assume this refers to small-frame revolvers. (There are numerous medium- and even large-frame revolvers with three-inch or less barrels as well.) In that case the Ruger SP101. It is the only one I've seen that is actually tolerable to shoot with magnum loads. I shudder to think of touching one off in a revolver weighing half as much.
April 4, 2010, 09:03 AM
I'm hard pressed to undertsand how an SP101 at 25 ounces unloaded weight is going to recoil much less than a S&W 327 scandium 8-shot that weighs 21 ounces unloaded, or a Model 60 Ladysmith that weighs 22 ounces . . . :)
Jim G
April 4, 2010, 09:05 AM
Price being no object for me
Wow, can I be your son?
April 4, 2010, 09:12 AM
I just don't like the SP101. It's difficult to load due to the proximity of the cylinder to frame and the rubber grips. I'd love to see a six shot version of the gun in 357 Magnum and just a bit more length to the crane.
I don't know if you've ever noticed, but there is a big industry out there in aftermarket grips. :rolleyes: Hogues feel great on the SP101 and allow easy use of a speed loader. SP101s are much tougher, stronger guns than J frames ever pretended to be. And, BTW, they're 27 ounces in 2.3" according to literature, never weighted one. They are not pocket guns, but carry well on the belt and the 5 shot cylinder is a major reason why.
I got a 3" Taurus 66 used at a gun show for 180 bucks a few years back. That thing is awesome, 1.5" 25 yard groups, shoots easy, carries only a little less comfortably on the belt than a SP101. I like the Hogue's round butt profile on the SP101, though, easier for concealment and that grip does feel good on that gun and attenuates recoil well.
You don't have to spend a fortune to defend yourself. If you can't find it used, a new SP101 is about $450 and it's one of the highest quality .357 carries on the market.
April 4, 2010, 10:04 AM
People who have the SP101 seem to love it. I can't get past how horribly ugly it looks.
Charter Arms makes a decent revolver for the money.
The best remains the S&W J frame.
Brian Williams
April 4, 2010, 10:19 AM
Price no object, find a S&W 13 with a 3" barrel.
April 4, 2010, 10:29 AM
It is not often that I disagree with SaxonPig but I find the SP101 by far the most attractive Ruger. It does not have as much as of the faux cowboy-esqueness
As a huge fan of old Smiths I have to agree with them as being the best but admittedly I do not have a lot of SP101 experience
April 4, 2010, 10:45 AM
MCgunner: The 25 ounces I quoted was what a gun tester in a magazine actually found it weighed. He compared it to another firearm as I recall, and the other firearm's weight was what I expected, so I don't think he had an inaccurate scale. Just reporting what I read.
Mind you, the LOADED weight of all 357 or 38 special revolvers is going to be a couple ounces more than the unloaded weight. Perhaps some companies and writers quote loaded weights?
Jim G
April 4, 2010, 12:01 PM
G- Aesthetics is purely subjective. I only know what I like and don't like and to me all Ruger DA revolvers are hideous.
These are my small "carry" revolvers. Well, the 64 is a house gun and really isn't carried much, and the 19 is pushing it in regards to being small.
April 4, 2010, 12:01 PM
I have a S&W 60-9 that has given me many years of excellent service and never a reason to regret it's purchase:
April 4, 2010, 12:02 PM
Yet another vote for the SP101.
April 4, 2010, 12:58 PM
for several reasons. It is a stronger design than any J frame. I have never seen any of my Ruger revolvers go out of timing , even with the hottest loads , and that includes the SP101 as well my speed six. One can not make that claim easily with a S&W J frame or even K frame in a .357 magnum.The Sp101 is light enough to carry IWB with ease or a sde holster as well.
April 4, 2010, 02:02 PM
Um... I have never seen a J frame or K frame 357 Magnum go out of time so apparently that claim can be easily made.
April 4, 2010, 04:17 PM
Let's really compare a S&W 3" 60, SKU #162434, with a Ruger 3" SP-101, Catalog #KSP-331X. From their catalogs, the S&W weighs 24.1 oz, and has an adjustable rear sight and Hi-Viz front sight and a full length lug under the barrel. The fixed sight SP-101, with it's bulky looking barrel shroud and fixed sights weighs 27 oz. Now couple the materials and manufacturing - the S&W is hammer-forged and heat-treated; the Ruger, as is their usual contruction, is cast SS - which takes more metal for the same strength. Price?" The S&W MSRP was $830 vs Ruger's $607. I'll do without more - and take S&W. Both will yield a long life with .38 Specials and 'regular', ie, not super-SAAMI spec'd, .357 Magnums. Both use helical (coil) springs to power the hammer.
A bit of info on their history. Both models started life as .38 Specials! Bill Ruger wanted his SP-101s to be .357 Magnum-capable - and they were - with shorter, like 125gr JHPs, .357 Magnum loads. They had to thin the front and rear frames, making room for a longer cylinder to accomodate the longer .357 Magnum loads. It also permitted a 3" & 4" .32 H&RM and .22 LR, both 6-shooters. My unshot LNIB 4" .32 H&RM was by far the worst QC revolver I've ever bought - simply terrible - but remediable, save the oversized cylinder chambers. The S&W 60 got a deeper reaming - and different heat-treat - voila, .357 Magnum!
I enjoyed Ruger SAs - always something 'crude' to take care of - but, my Redhawk and SP-101 were just really bad - I said goodbye to Rugers over them. My early 7.5" .454 SRH was the best Ruger I ever owned. Yeah, I like S&Ws - I'll always have fewer revolvers now, but they'll be S&W's! YMMV!
PS Lengthened Ruger SP-101 frame hole/cylinders have carried the so signifying 'X' suffix in their catalog number for years.
April 4, 2010, 06:18 PM
To give some scale to the S&Ws, here are, bottom LH CW:
1 7/8" J-frame 642-2 .38 Spcl +P x5 15.5 oz
2" K-frame 10-11 .38 Spcl +P x6 30.5 oz
2.5" L-frame 296 .44 Spcl x5 19.7 oz
2 5/8" N-frame 627-5 .357M x8 37.6 oz
For a CCW with some probability of carrying frequently, I'll continue to go with the 642. A hefty .357M does you little good in the nightstand - at home - when you are attacked in a parking lot, etc. I don't need .357Ms for protection - I keep Remington R38S12 +P 158gr LHPSWC for HD, etc, in my .38s and .357Ms - even moonclips full for the 627. YMMV.
April 4, 2010, 06:39 PM
The reason Smith & Wesson came out with the L frame guns and quit making many K frame guns is because of timing issues in those revolvers. Call S & W and they will fill you in. I have been shooting hot loads in my K frame model 19 for about 45 years and it has been back to the factory at least 3 times . So has my model 65. I have shot the hottest loads while hunting wild boar on my farm for at least 40 years with a Ruger blackhawk and never had a problem with timing. The Rugers that I have are all well built guns.
April 4, 2010, 06:54 PM
As a huge fan of old Smiths I have to agree with them as being the best but admittedly I do not have a lot of SP101 experience
Well, JMHO, but I'm not a big fan of new Smiths especially considering what they cost and the SP101 is a far stronger, more capable revolver. IMHO, it's the best snub .357 magnum ever made, period, case closed, regardless of price. And, I happen to think it looks better than a J frame, tougher, in a body builder masculine kind of way. The Smiths need lip stick. They're girl's guns. :neener:
J/K except about the SP101 being a far stronger gun. I really don't care about looks. I don't buy a defensive sidearm as art work. It'll get leather worn if it's a carry, anyway, and I ain't going to carry it exposed, that being illegal in Texas.
April 4, 2010, 07:07 PM
Stainz, if I was getting a trail gun, adjustable sights would be valuable to me. My SP101 shot square to POA, though, with my carry loads. 3 ounces difference is going to break the bank? That Smith is forged steel, but it only has one side of a frame from strength and lock up is via a detent ball on either end of the ejector rod. The design of the SP101, no side plate, crane lock up, gives it the strength of an L frame for a lousy 3 ounces more weight. You're telling me you ain't strong enough to carry 3 more ounces? :rolleyes:
I've shot rounds through that SP101 that I'd never shoot in a K frame, not any volume, anyway, let alone a J. Full bore 180 grain XTP in front of 13.8 grains AA#9. That SP101 can take it. I'm not sure how long it'd take that J frame to loosen up, but it'd be way before that SP101 ever did. That load produced 1302 fps out of that 2.3" barrel and with the Hogue grip, wasn't hard to control. The gun shot easier than my Security Six ever did with equivalent loads. Sweet shootin' gun and there is no stronger five shot .357 Snub. Perhaps a 2" barrel M27, maybe, but no J frame. Besides, I'd be afraid the lock would turn itself on with a load like that. :rolleyes:
April 4, 2010, 07:38 PM
The reason Smith & Wesson came out with the L frame guns and quit making many K frame guns is because of timing issues in those revolvers. Call S & W and they will fill you in. I have been shooting hot loads in my K frame model 19 for about 45 years and it has been back to the factory at least 3 times . So has my model 65.
The S&W k frame magnums were made for 50 years. 25 before the introduction of the L frame, then 25 years after the introduction of the L frame.
Regardless of internet BS and even that of the company, you don't make a series of guns that long if there is a problem with it.
The K frame magnums were dumped to simplify the S&W line (no need for two medium frame magnum lines) plus S&W was expanding the L frame line with the 620 and 619.
April 4, 2010, 07:43 PM
I'm not a big fan of new Smiths
as far as I am concerned Smith went out of business in March of 2000
April 4, 2010, 09:18 PM
I'd say, based on limited experience, choice of snubby depends upon how you intend to carry it, and your tolerance for pain. I am, personally, set on pocket carry, but do not claim it superior than inside or outside the belt, shoulder holster, &c.
About 9 yrs ago bought a S&W 342, titanium cylinder, scandium aluminum alloy frame & barrel, stainless liner in barrel 13 ounces. Great for pocket carry. When I first got it, practice was painful after about 40 rounds (one handed). The date on my driver's license has caught up with me, and shooting one handed is painful after one round. So much for practice.
My dual approach was first, do the obvious & shoot 2-handed like everyone else, and use target wadcutters. I like nice clean holes.
Second, got a Model 640 stainless, about 24 ounces. Practice is now comfortable with wadcutters & can get off 5 rounds of .357 mag without tears. I will stay with standard .38 Spl ammunition for all practice & perhaps for carry. The reputation of .357 as a one-shot stopper can not be ignored, but one must still actually be able to hit the target under stress. I'll get in a hell of a lot more practice w 38Spl loads.
If you choose to carry in a holster, then by all means get a stainless steel revolver, and not aluminum (the weight makes shooting more pleasant = more practice).
Blued steel guns may run smoother if you don't mind looking at the holster wear & effects of sweat. Specifically, carbon steel (well, chrome-moly steel really) against steel runs smooth, stainless against stainless tends to gall. You may check this yourself by working the slides of a stainless 1911 vs a carbon steel 1911 of comparable quality. Stainless guns are popular because of appearance and not at all because of superior function or mechanical toughness (metallurgist speaking here, can y'tell?).
Personally I'd check a lot of internet reviews, along with past issues of Gun Test magazine, to aid in decision amongst various models of Ruger and S&W. So far as I know there are no other current makes of double-action revolvers upon which I'd care to depend. As in, forget Charter Arms.
April 4, 2010, 09:42 PM
Smith and Wesson wanted to simplify the line of medium size guns but the K frame problems brought that on. The K frame has been around more than 50 years and those older guns , especially around the forcing cone were too weak to take a steady diet of magnum loads. Hence, the beefed up L frame around the frame where the barrel is attached. Use a micromiter and you will see the difference between these two frames at that point. I will concede that better steel in the later made K frames helped but S&W had a better design in the 586-686 etc and went with that for good reason.
April 4, 2010, 10:15 PM
As I recall, mostly, it was in the 60s and 70s, the Super Vel era, when LE agencies were using K frames and shooting lots of hot rounds, that issues with the K frames turned up. Unless you compete and burn LOTS of hot ammo in a K frame, I doubt th average shooter would have a problem. Though, keep the bore and forcing cone clean of lead build up. I think that's what caused the forcing cone to crack on my M10 once. Had to rebarrel it.
A J frame will last a long time if you don't cycle much magnum ammo in it, just shoot .38 in it and be easy on it, carry what you want in magnum fodder and fire a few occasionally in the gun. But, you can fire Buffalo Bore in a SP101 till the cows come home and won't bother it any worse than an L frame. And, the OP did say "inexpensive" or less expensive or somthing like that, IIRC. I haven't priced a new M60 in a while, but I'm thinkin' the SP101 is quite a bit more affordable all the while being a far stronger design.
April 4, 2010, 10:31 PM
BTW, Bill Ruger brought out the stronger, beefier GP100 to replace the Six series. That probably had something to do with the L frame intro, too. Now, The Six didn't really need beefing up, but I guess in ol' Bill's mind, he could improve strength. He didn't have to lug that thing around on HIS belt, after all. He could have just redesign the lock system, didn't have to make the thing 40 ounces IMHO, but oh, well. Equal barrel lengths, I guess it ain't all THAT much heavier, about 6 ounces.
I think the best DA Ruger ever built is the SP101, for self defense, anyway. The Redhawk has other uses.
Cocked & Locked
April 5, 2010, 12:11 AM
What's the best compromise between the best and cheapest for a snubby .357/38 revolver?
Back to the original topic of Snubby .357 ...I think the answer for me falls between a Rossi/Taurus and a S&W/Colt. You are asking about .357's only like the topic states, correct?
That would put it right in the middle for me with the Ruger SP101 .357 as the best compromise.
Other .357 snubs I own that I would put in the best grouping would be the S&W's...19, 66, and 627-PC. I don't have a Rossi or Taurus.
April 5, 2010, 08:35 AM
Heres my choice...It's a vintage Taurus model 606 w/ a factory ported barrel...
April 5, 2010, 09:04 AM
My Taurus has a 3" barrel, so I guess it's not a snub. It's a very fine shooting weapon, though. I think the SP101 is a stronger gun and no more expensive new than the various Tauri. Taurus is an option in lighter guns, but I kinda prefer a little more weight in a magnum handgun, anyway. Like the Smith J frames, the Taurus is only a few ounces lighter, too. For the strength, I'll pick Ruger. I do have an ultralite Taurus .38, but we're talkin' .357s here.
Rossi has a very reasonable price, but until they do something about the firing pins on those things, (they've been snapping for over 20 years, long running problem) I'll take a pass as far as self defense revolvers go. I had the firing pin snap on a 971 20 years ago and I STILL hear about this with frequency. Otherwise, the guns are REALLY decent expecially considering the price.
April 5, 2010, 09:36 AM
as many reloaders like myself are primarily the ones having issues with them. I like the N-frame model 27 much better for that reason. Bill Jordan convinced S&W to make the K frame 357 magnum in 1955 . The ruger guns are a great buy and will take the most punishment for sure. I have several and I am glad to see Ruger produce the new guns since old Bill has passed on. The Sp101 is a dandy little 357 magnum for the money and is one of their best sellers.
April 5, 2010, 12:50 PM
Another vote for 3 inch Sp-101. My favorite gun of all time. I shot 180 and 200 grain corbons in mine. Not fun but what you need for a small carry gun here in the wilds of Alaska. I have had for years a S&W model 65 in 3 inch that I really like.
April 5, 2010, 12:55 PM
The ruger sp101 is a great gun and built like a tank but can get up there in price. I just ordered a Rossi stainless 2" 357 brand new for $305.
April 5, 2010, 07:42 PM
Your answer is partially correct...
Smith and Wesson wanted to simplify the line of medium size guns but the K frame problems brought that on. The K frame has been around more than 50 years and those older guns , especially around the forcing cone were too weak to take a steady diet of magnum loads. Hence, the beefed up L frame around the frame where the barrel is attached. Use a micromiter and you will see the difference between these two frames at that point. I will concede that better steel in the later made K frames helped but S&W had a better design in the 586-686 etc and went with that for good reason.
I will partially agree with you. However, your explanation, nor anyone elses for that matter, explains why S&W continued to offer the K frame magnums for 25 years after the introduction of the L frames.
The 686 is a great gun, but I'm not getting rid of my 3 inch 65 for one.
April 5, 2010, 08:15 PM
I'd go with the SP101, they carry just fine in the right holster. Definately NOT a pocket revolver - at least not for me but they fit all other needs for a .357 carry gun. We're debating the merits of revolvers that weigh within a few ounces of each other here. Look at what a full size auto weighs empty. Cocked and Locked - could you please tell me where you got the front sight in the photo of the SP101. I've been looking for some aftermarket front sights for mine.
Cocked & Locked
April 5, 2010, 09:26 PM
Cocked and Locked - could you please tell me where you got the front sight in the photo of the SP101. I've been looking for some aftermarket front sights for mine.
The front sight is a Mepro Light Tru Dot Tritium Night Sight. I got this one from Gun Broker. Top Gun Supply, Midway, and Optics Planet usually have them listed. Brownells also shows them but they have the highest price.
Tap the roll pin out, clamp the new sight firmly in place, drill a new pin hole in the new sight (use barrel pin hole as a guide), do the Loctite thing and put the pin back in.
April 5, 2010, 10:26 PM
However, your explanation, nor anyone elses for that matter, explains why S&W continued to offer the K frame magnums for 25 years after the introduction of the L frames.
Because they were selling. Civilian sales were near 100 percent of the revolver market by the 80s when the L frame came along. The police agencies weren't buying revolvers anymore. Most civilians don't shoot enough high pressure stuff to wear out a revolver, even a J or K frame. As long as the gun was selling, why not market it?
I have no source for this, it's just logic.
Ala Dan
April 5, 2010, 10:49 PM
Not cheap [or inexpensive], but I prefer the Smith & Wesson 2.5" model 66;
and they are gett'in scarce as hens teeth~! :uhoh: :eek:
April 6, 2010, 07:41 AM
were more popular than the new , full lug 586-686. Many people , still today like the looks of the K frame 357 and its heft far more than the 686. I would bet that S&W sold far more K frames in 357 in the early years after the introduction of the L frame , than they did the newer L frame guns. The K frames are a nice looking gun and they balance well too.
April 6, 2010, 07:43 AM
Here is a pic of my S&W 65-3...Not a snubby but a nice Vintage Piece.
April 6, 2010, 07:53 AM
model 13, and 65, even though I know their weaknesses, I just do not load them up as hot anymore. They are good guns and I like the feel of them better than the newer L frame guns. I do have a model 27 N frame that will take very hot loads, but that is a different story.Like MCGUNNER said , the vast majority of shooters will not wear out a K frame gun.
April 6, 2010, 08:16 AM
You are right, Ala Dan - that 2.5" 66 is a keeper! I guess, with my Saturday purchase of a new 2 5/8" PC 627, my snubby .357M hunt is over - for a while! The 2.5" K-frame is one natural pointer, however.
For the K-frame detractors, the front strap did not allow a large enough OD barrel end/forcing cone. The L-frame's front strap is .040" thicker, permitting a forcing cone .025" larger in OD. This fixed the imagined Achille's heel of the K-frame. It was hypothesized that with the move towards lighter bullets, ie, <125 gr, the attendant higher velocity and hotter gases would eventually cause thermal stress cracks on the thin edge of the forcing cone, Of course 'eventually' was not specified - 20k rounds or 50k rounds, no one knew. The replacement forcing cone was on the end of a new barrel, certainly not an unheard of replacement item for an older revolver. I have a 66 - and I know of folks who have owned 19 & 66 models for lots longer than I have had mine - I have never met someone who 'shot one out of timing' or had a cracked forcing cone. Of course, my friends - like me - use 140+ gr .357Magnums. My usage is minimal - I load mild Magnums - really glorified .38s.
Oh - the L-frame's cylinder opening is taller, permitting a 7-shot cylinder. Then, in the later nineties, they had to fit a five shot .44 Special cylinder & barrel - with an even thinner edged forcing cone. Not a problem - that .44 Special round is mild - low pressure - low gas velocities. Normal SAAMI spec'd ammo is fine. The K & L frames take the same sized grip, too.
Fear not a K-frame snubby - just stoke it with 140+ gr .357 Magnums. I'm happy with the FBI loads - the +P 158 gr LHPSWCs - they'll meet my great grandkids one day if I stick with such a diet. See my earlier picture of a J, K, L, & N frame snubby for size comparison.
April 6, 2010, 08:31 AM
This fixed the imagined Achille's heel of the K-frame.
As one who has had a K frame forcing cone crack, I can tell you, I didn't imagine it....:rolleyes:
April 6, 2010, 08:44 AM
I've always used factory 158 grain JSP in my 65 and maybe thats why I've never had a problem with any K frame I've ever owned. Although my wife's cousin has a M19 that has seen a lot of handloads over the years that would make any gun cringe (I wouldn't use them in my gun even if I did use reloads, which I don't) and its still working fine.
I'm a big fan of the old Metro load (38+P, 158gr LSWCHP) in my 642 which is a great little snubby.
April 6, 2010, 08:56 AM
Thanks C&L! I'm on my 2nd replacement sight now, looks like another is in store. The originals get shined up quite easily. Do they offer different heights or just the standard? Thinking of my wife's 2" SP101, she uses .38s and needs a higher sight.
April 6, 2010, 01:25 PM
Can't go wrong with the SP101
I particularily like the Sack Peterson stag grip inserts.
If you enjoyed reading about "Snubby .357" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.