The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 16, 2013, 07:31 PM   #26
elDiabloLoco
Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
Tnx fer comments Dark.

Lots of trees here, and low rolling terrain. Even a 100 yd shot would be unusual/uncommon. The longer I think about it the more the .38/.357 appeals to me. Brother-in-law has a nice selection of revolvers to pair it up with. The larger pistol calibers don't match up to anything we have locked in the closets, or that either of us would really like.

The 9mm carbine hunt may be -temporarily- suspended.
elDiabloLoco is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 08:11 PM   #27
The Great Mahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 3, 2008
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 1,268
I'm a huge fan of lever-guns. I like mine in .45 long colt, but they tend to be very expensive to feed. Not so much a problem if you reload.

I'll add my vote to one in either .357 (cheapest ammo), .44 (best factory ammo performance), or .45 LC (for the cowboy in all of us.)
__________________
“There are three reasons to own a gun. To protect yourself and your family, to hunt dangerous and delicious animals, and to keep the King of England out of your face.” - Krusty the Clown
The Great Mahoo is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 02:17 AM   #28
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,349
only two

There's really only two choices if you want a combo plinker and hunter; .357 or .44 mag. The .357 will be cheaper to shoot, but the .44M will have more punch. The .45 l. Colt is a good round but not commonly enough available to qualify as a plinker. The newer .454 and .480 are not common or plinker candidates at all.

I like the old pre-safety Marlins.
bamaranger is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 02:24 AM   #29
therealdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
I would go with the 44 mag(which can shoot 44 special) for this scenario. it fits every scenario/situtaion no matter how you look at it(including but not limited to legalities, an example being some hunting/state regs make 44 lowest caliber allowed).
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member

"Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)
therealdeal is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 10:16 AM   #30
rodfac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,517
I'd go with one of the .44 Magnum Marlins...one produced before that wonderful company was taken over by Remington...they're available on one of the gun auction sites...I've had good luck with gunbroker...Rod
__________________
Our Flag does not fly because the wind blows against it, it is moved instead, by the dying breath of our patriots in uniform. Our Freedom is not free, it's been paid for many times over.
USAF Forward Air Controller, 5th Spl Forces,
An Loc, lll Corps, RVN, 69-70, Vietnam Vet '69-'73
rodfac is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:05 PM   #31
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,296
7.62x25, just to be different.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 02:28 PM   #32
Rainbow Demon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2012
Posts: 397
Quote:
I am not 100% sure why the semi-auto Pistol caliber carbines dont gain near as much velocity as the revolver caliber carbines. Though a 10mm Carbine would work pretty well in my book.
Its a matter of the type of powder and size of powder charge normally used.
A revolver cartridge fired in a revolver loses some velocity due to gas escape at the cylinder gap. When that gap is eliminated theres an immediate benefit. Then add that the otherwise wasted gas will continue to expand in the increased length of bullet travel.

Autopistol cartridges are loaded with efficiency in short barrels in mind, and generally smaller case capacity which means more powder is burned in the first few inches of bullet travel, with coresponding increased chamber pressure compared to similar sized revolver cartridges. A loose comparasion with be the .38 S&W compared to the 9mm Luger.
Generally the auto pistol will use lighter bullets, which means faster acceleration in the shorter bullet travel.

In short the autoloader cartridges are more efficient in the shorter barrels.
The revolver cartridge is not used to full efficiency in a short barrel with cylinder gap.
Add to that heavier bullets making better use of increased length of bullet travel.

Early 9mm SMG specific loads sometimes used slower burning powders to take advantage of the increased bullet travel of the longer SMG barrels of the day, this allowed significant increases in velocity.
A modern 9mm load , or handload, using slower powders would produce a significant increase in velocity from the carbine length barrels.
Such a load would not be efficient in a normal length pistol barrel. Increased muzzle flash and reduced velocity would be the result.
Rainbow Demon is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 12:39 AM   #33
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
If it isn't as a companion carbine I am not sure why you would even do it unless to work around some odd hunting law(I do that a lot in Ohio).
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 07:00 PM   #34
Deja vu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Location: Border of Idaho & Montana
Posts: 2,132
its because of laws...
__________________
Shot placement is everything! I would rather take a round of 50BMG to the foot than a 22short to the base of the skull.

all 25 of my guns are 45/70 govt, 357 mag, 22 or 12 ga... I believe in keeping it simple
Deja vu is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 12:36 AM   #35
Pathfinder45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Posts: 919
44 vs 45

My comments on this:
Quote:
I would be concerned about 45 Colt performance on large game. I would not think of it as 100% reliable at range. 44 Magnum would be worry free for the most part with proper ammo selection.
__________________
While I can agree that the 44 magnum is the better choice for most people than the 45 Colt; it's for other reasons..... Like saying the 270 Winchester is better than the 280 Remington. Actually, What the one will do, the other will do just as well. The modern 45 Colt is the ballistic twin to the 44 magnum. As with all twins, one twin is almost always just a little bigger than the other. All hunters should be concerned about about their weapons performance on game and choose their ammo appropriately regardless of caliber. All of the different possible calibers can be substantially improved if you load your own ammo. I don't see a huge difference between the 44 and the 45; it boils down to personal preference. They both beat the 357 magnum hands down for power. Yet the 357 has some real plusses going for it over it's big brothers: First of all, lower cost of ammo. Secondly, better availability and selection of ammo. Thirdly, the ammo weighs about half as much as 44 or 45 ammo. If you've done much backpacking with a firearm you know how important that can be. You can either lighten your load where every ounce counts or pack twice as many rounds at the same weight. My personal choice is the Ruger Vaquero and the Marlin Cowboy in 45 Colt. My buddy has duplicates except in 44 magnum. Having run into bears at close quarters several times here in Oregon, I'm willing to pack the weight of a 45 vs the 357. Fortunately I haven't been forced to shoot any of those bears; but I felt confident if it should come to that. I would have felt less confident with a 357.
Pathfinder45 is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 11:41 AM   #36
coldbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Woodhaven MI
Posts: 477
30 carbine
coldbeer is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 01:01 PM   #37
anothernewb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: West Central MN
Posts: 114
X2 on either a 44 special/44mag or .38/.357

Personally, .38/.357 is tops for me. but then I'm biased towards .38 so take that FWIW.
.357 with 158 grainers will take a deer at short to medium range out of either a pistol or a lever action.
anothernewb is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 02:36 PM   #38
Magnum Wheel Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2006
Location: Southern Minnesota
Posts: 8,249
I have a Marlin 44 mag lever gun converted to 50 A.E. ... yes, it can be done, & turns a sweet lil carbine to a BEAST...

if you're thinking a lever gun, finding someone who who could set up one for 357 Remington Maximum would be really cool ( hm... might have to do that ) otherwise with an off the shelf gun, a 44 mag lever would be more "practical" that a 45 Colt because most will feed the 44 specials as well... if you wanted a semi, one in 10mm would be my 1st choice for hunting, 9mm for normal cheapest ammo, but a 40 S&W might have the best factory ammo availability through thick & thin...
__________________
In life you either make dust or eat dust...
Magnum Wheel Man is online now  
Old January 29, 2013, 04:45 PM   #39
kahrguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2012
Posts: 561
How about a 460 in a single shot. Offers 250 yard range and still shorter than a 16" lever gun
kahrguy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09569 seconds with 9 queries