Revolver and Lever action in .357 wise choice?

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by usr1987

Is a Red Hawk and a lever action in .357 a wise choice?

"Wise" depends on your intended usage, but for any serious purpose, I've come to think the combo is overrated, since you may very well find yourself loading each with different ammo, in which case you might as well be carrying 2 weapons in different chamberings. As a funzie range combo, though, it's a pretty fun combination. I have a Marlin lever .357 for that very reason.

[Real Gun]

I've been looking at lever action rifles for a long time and if I get one, I'm definitely going with .357/.38 to match my Ruger .357 revolver, caliber wise. Just seems to make a lot of sense.

But if actually shooting 38 Special, make sure the rifle will cycle reliably.

[Real Gun]

I like the Red Hawk for the capacity

That is a lot of gun to carry, so wanting more than six shots should not be a priority. It suggests a semi-auto and self defense mindset in thinking of six as not enough. To further comment that a GP100 6" seems too light suggests that there is simply not enough experience firing that cartridge. One gets acclimated to a certain level of recoil and triggering requirement and develops a level of skill with it.

[BusGunner007]

I would favor the Marlin .357 with a Ruger single-action .357 companion.
Definitely get a real gun belt and holster.
Sounds like fun to me!

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by 1911Tuner

Because it allows the shooter to quickly and safely top off the magazine without taking the rifle out of battery.

If 'safety' is a concern, tube fed LG's are FAR safer then having a gate.

If 'speed' is a concern, go buy a semi-auto and a bunch of magazines.

As Ive stated already they both have advantages and disadvantages, but are basically equal in terms of actual use. People have these 'Soldier of Fortune' fantasies about reloading under fire....pffft. The odds of such happening are infinitesimal at best and I would never even remotely consider that as a determining factor in choosing an LG, its frankly absurd.

For a typical shooter, tube fed mags are always easier to load, and often just as fast then a gate. Ive never seen anyone fumble loading a tube, but Ive seen highly experienced shooters with highly tuned guns fumble with a gate. Ive seen rounds get damaged and jammed in a gate as well as fair number of bloody fingers.

My favorite lever guns are the Marlin 1894's which do have a gate, but if Henry made true stainless LG's I would be just as happy with their tube fed models. In fact possibly happier as Rem-lins quality went down the crapper some time ago, although I am waiting for more reviews on their recent re-release of the 1894's.

Bottom line, pick which ever you like best overall, loading style should be the least concern.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by MrBorland

"Wise" depends on your intended usage, but for any serious purpose, I've come to think the combo is overrated, since you may very well find yourself loading each with different ammo, in which case you might as well be carrying 2 weapons in different chamberings. As a funzie range combo, though, it's a pretty fun combination. I have a Marlin lever .357 for that very reason.

Why "different kinds of ammo"?
Pick which ever load you shoot the best out of the revolver, and use it in the carbine as well.
Quite simple really.

Further, considering where our nation is headed (due to lack of push-back from lazy gun owners) such a combo will likely be one of the only choices in the coming years.

[DPris]

It may take some experimenting to find a load that works equally well in both guns.
Just an FYI.
Denis

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by TBM900

Why "different kinds of ammo"?
Pick which ever load you shoot the best out of the revolver, and use it in the carbine as well.
Quite simple really.

The rounds I shoot "best" out of my revolver would be target wadcutters or plated RN, both in .38spl. I don't see either of them working well in my Marlin, and/or having much utility outside the range.

Outside of the range, my use for my Marlin would generally be for deer & hog, in which case I'd use Buffalo Bore 180gr hard cast or Hornady LeverEvolution, neither of which would be my choice for my revolver, which I'd carry as a defensive sidearm. Conversely, .357mag ammo I put in my revolver would be for range use and/or SD, and neither wouldn't be my choice for deer & hog.

This isn't meant as a treatise on how everyone ought to load their revolver & lever rifle, but simply why I think the combo is overrated for serious purpose. YMMV.

[DPris]

If I recall correctly, Bob Milek wrote a piece years ago about looking for one load that worked in both his revolver and a levergun he had.

Took him several tries with various candidates before he found one.

More recently, when I was doing a reloading piece on the .44-40, I was working up loads that'd work in both a Ruger Blackhawk & a Uberti '66 I had.
It took quite a bit of experimentation.
One load would be tight in the Ruger & loose in the Uberti, another load just the opposite.

Eventually found a couple that produced acceptable compromise performance levels through both guns, but it took a while.
Don't expect the first couple loads you try to shoot tight in both guns.
If you luck out, you lucked out.
Denis

[Brian Williams]

If you are looking to pair a revolver with a lever gun, why are you looking at the Redhawk? It is a small handrifle in its own right. My suggestion is to look at a smaller more easy to carry handgun in 357 to augment the rifle. The rifle is the full power gun in this situation, the revolver is to fight or move your way to your rifle.

[SIGSHR]

IIRC the older Marlins with Microgroove rifling were not that good with lead bullets.

[223 shooter]

I found it no great feat to load ammo that shoots reasonbly well out of both - a Hornady 158XTP with H110 or AA#9 shoots accurately out of my 357s revolvers and my Henry/Marlin rifles.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by 223 shooter

I found it no great feat to load ammo that shoots reasonbly well out of both - a Hornady 158XTP with H110 or AA#9 shoots accurately out of my 357s revolvers and my Henry/Marlin rifles.

I would agree.
And if one doesn't hand load...I've yet to find a common commercial 357 load that didn't feed reliably in an LG, and most will feed most 38 on their own or with just a minor tweak.

Worst case scenario is you you have two loads, which I still don't see what all the fuss is about. It wouldn't be any different if your chosen sidearm is a 9mm and your rifle is a 556, yet I've never heard anyone complain about such. At least with a 38/357 combo your rifle rounds will always work in your pistol.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Cheapshooter

First time I have heard the GP100 referred to as "light"!
It's a tank, and the Redhawk is a bigger tank.

It's light compared to the Redhawk or an 1858 replica. The times I've handled a GP100, I'm always surprised by how well balanced they are.

[usr1987]

OK OK! It was not light. It was the recoil being non intrusive. I am 6ft and 185 lbs and it was a pleasure to use. My compact xd was snappy like a mule! Never liked shooting it and was never accurate with it. Maybe 5 inch group at 10 meters vs 3 inch with the GP

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by 223 shooter

I found it no great feat to load ammo that shoots reasonbly well out of both

For me, they'd have to perform well on the intended target, too. Therein can lie the rub.

Originally Posted by TBM900

Worst case scenario is you you have two loads, which I still don't see what all the fuss is about. It wouldn't be any different if your chosen sidearm is a 9mm and your rifle is a 556, yet I've never heard anyone complain about such.

I would say this is the most likely case for most. Yet, unless I'm missing something, the whole point of the .357 revolver/rifle combo was to simplify with one load.

No, there's no big fuss about 2 loads, but if you're going to use two loads, why not use a rifle in a different chambering altogether? I like my Marlin 1894c just fine, but the truth is, whatever purpose I might have for it, I've got something else that'll do it better.

[Drm50]

Wise choice, for what? The 357 is marginal for hunting larger game like deer and to much for small game. A 357 carbine just allows for more accurate shooting of the cartridge. If
used as range guns I guess you would only have to mess with one ammo. Like someone said if you are buying to hunt there are much better choices, a 30/30 has it all over a 357.

[44 AMP]

A point being missed with "if two loads might as well be two different calibers" is that the intended advantage is that even though two loads, one for the pistol and one for the carbine as best performing in each, they are still the same cartridge and CAN be shot through either pistol or rifle.

if you carry a 5.56mm and a 9mm, when you're out of ammo, for either, its done. When your rifle and pistol are the same caliber, if you use up all the ammo for one, you still have ammo for the other, which could be transferred to the other gun at need.

Now I'm not going to go into various possible, (and possibly ridiculous) scenarios where one would do this under fire. The point isn't, to keep your gun running under fire, but just to extend the ability to keep a gun running, with something to shoot.

While very important, the entire world is not made of combat & police use of firearms. And because a particular design has been eclipsed for service and duty use, doesn't mean they are no longer effective, just that they are not as efficient as other designs.


many have remarked on the "downside" of the loading gate system, and I do admit I'd had my share of pinched and bloody fingers, until I finally figured out the way to do it right. And that it to use another cartridge to push the preceding one through the gate, not to use your finger to do it.

If its tactical you want to consider, consider that the Henry tube system shares some of the muzzle loader's need for the muzzle to be elevated during loading. The gate system can be loaded entirely prone,, or even with the muzzle pointed down... if the scenario you are considering is loading the mag while someone is shooting at you, then being able to be as low prone as possible might be a useful thing.

Personally, I think pairing a lever gun with a DA revolver or a semi auto just isn't "right" in the style sense. A lever gun belongs with an SA revolver, it the classic combination.

I have a Ruger Blackhawk .357, and a Marlin 1894, they go together well. My S&W Highway Patrolman just isn't the same kind of style "fit" with the lever gun. Neither is my Desert Eagle.

[Terminatorret]

Very well put, 44 AMP.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

if you carry a 5.56mm and a 9mm, when you're out of ammo, for either, its done. When your rifle and pistol are the same caliber, if you use up all the ammo for one, you still have ammo for the other, which could be transferred to the other gun at need.

Technically a valid point, but realistically, when's the last time any of us were in danger of running out of ammo with no recourse (except to end our range session )? Seems like a survival/zombie apocalypse/SHTF scenario.

[44 AMP]

Seems like a survival/zombie apocalypse/SHTF scenario.

It may seem like that, today, because we're all modern folks with planes, trains, and automobiles, and worse, cell phones... but the idea of one ammo supply for your long gun and handgun dates waaay back.

Back to when travelling meant on foot, or horseback, carriage or wagon, and it took days or weeks to get between places where you could resupply, and everything you needed (other than food you could forage) had to be carried on your back, or your horse/mule's back.

In the flintlock days, long gun and hand gun ammo was the same, other than the size ball fired. Same "primers" same powder, and same lead. The only "specialty" tool needed for each was the bullet mold (if they were different sizes). Move up to the percussion era, and it is still all the same, if your long gun and handgun used the same size caps.

SO it was, for centuries, until we get to cartridges, and the different size cases used by the different rifle and handgun mechanisms. Now, one needed two different and non-interchangeable ammo supplies. The idea of only needing to pack one ammo supply for both guns had a long history, and made good sense. So, when rifles and pistols using the same ammo became available, it made good sense to a lot of people, people who spent days, weeks, and sometimes months living in the wilderness, with all their supplies carried by pack animals, which placed limits on the size and weight of what was carried.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

It may seem like that...

So, when rifles and pistols using the same ammo became available, it made good sense to a lot of people, people who spent days, weeks, and sometimes months living in the wilderness, with all their supplies carried by pack animals, which placed limits on the size and weight of what was carried.

Sure sounds like a survival scenario

At any rate, you make a good point about the historic need and significance, but back to my point: When's the last time any of us were in this situation?

I'm not arguing it shouldn't be done, mind you, but just that, beyond it's romantic appeal, it's overrated most serious purposes, given the options modern shooters now have and the conditions they're likely to want/need firepower.

[Real Gun]

If all my guns had to have such solid justifications, I wouldn't have near as many. I am not a hunter or woods walker but still own a couple rifle/revolver combinations. In semis I wouldn't mind having a PCC to go with my 9mm XDE. I also have more bicycles and musical instruments than I need or actually use. I will be the judge whether I should have them.

[rodfac]

If all my guns had to have such solid justifications, I wouldn't have near as many. <<<Real gun makes a good point, here.

Personally, I like the challenge of loading a suitable round that fits both carbine and revolver. It's an exceptional challenge, with fixed sights, but is much easier with the adj. type. For casual plinking on a sunny day, or for back-up while deer hunting, or even more serious purposes, the concept of a single load fitting both short and long guns is not dated, in my opinion.

I found dual gun success almost accidentally in the .357 Magnum, when trying Skeeter Skelton's much admired load for the 5" S&W M27 that he carried. Depending on bbl. length, that 13.5 gr load of 2400 backing a GC 158 gr LSWC, produces 1150-1200 fps in 4" or greater revolver bbls. It's truly a keeper for me, producing superb accuracy, moderate recoil and costs less than 6 cents a shot with wheel weight alloy and long paid for molds and dies.

With a home-cast Lyman 358156 GC bullet using Wheel Weight alloy and a pinch of tin, sized to 0.359" or greater, I get < 1.5" 3-shot groups at 100 yds with my Marlin 1894S carbine (2.5x scoped), and the same at 25 yds with two S&W M19's, a Ruger NM Flat Top, and a 5" S&W M27. With a S&W M60 with 3" bbl. the group is more like 2.5" for that same load.

Truly a versatile combination. It chrono's over 1600 fps from the Marlin, making it suitable for KY deer out to say 75 yds. And as Skelton implied in his many writings, it was entirely suitable for defense use at the usual distances. I like it a lot...it's my go-to load for most all .357 guns that I carry or tote here on our farm. It's finished off a cpl of deer, and one horse that we had to put down. Plenty of penetration and superb accuracy.

Are there other combinations that would do as well? Perhaps, but this one works very well for this transplanted KY guy.

As always, if interested, work up to this load after consulting a GOOD manual and considering the pressure implications for your guns.

Best regards, Rod

[Drm50]

I just happen to have a Marlin 1894SR in 44mg and a RSB. I wouldn't have the Marlin except it's a legal deer rifle in Ohio. I have had other 44mg carbines in the past, the Ruger
semi auto and #3s. I never went to the trouble to work up a load for them. I sighted them
in with 240gr JHPs / 22.5gr of 2400, the load I shot in the SBH since the 60s. The 44mg is
a little better than a 357, range is about the same, just a bigger slug. I went Elk hunting one time, 1st trip to western mountains. Had a 300mg/ scope and pistol belt with SBH, 25
rds in the loops, 10 300mgs in pouch and knife. That lasted one day. I was in early 20s and
decided I didn't need the extra gear, Took the knife and 5 extra 300mags.