cowboy so called assult rifles

[oldbear1950]

I know that some folks think of lever guns as the cowboy assult rifles.
Not saying I do, but I do believe a lot of lever guns can be used for self defense in a lot of cases.
Especially in the 38 spec/357 mag, 41 mag, 44 spec/44 mag, and 45 colt/454 casull.
They are easy to manipulate, fast handling, easier to use than a pistol, and fairly accurate.

[SoCa_Escapee]

While I've always said that if I could only have one rifle for survival, it would either be a Ruger 10-22 or my Marlin 336 in 30/30. If that scenario were self defense as opposed to true survival; it sure would not be a lever action - especially one with a tube magazine.

[bamaranger]

At some point or another, in some article or piece of text, I read a period piece from around the American Civil War, perhaps just after, maligning the Henry rifle due to it's high mag capacity and rate of fire. Just goes to show that there were anti-gunners even then.

I am of the belief that the reason lever rifles from back in the day were offered with rifle length barrels (as opposed to just carbine/saddle guns) was to add mag capacity. Yes, a longer barrel added sight radius and some velocity, but the up front obvious plus was more ammo on board and ready.

[oldbear1950]

It also has the advantage in some states that a) do not like black rifles, with high capacity magazines, and b) states that now mandate straight wall cases for deer hunting. I do not understand any of that, as it is always the finger on the trigger, that does anything, and not the object. Next thing you know they will outlaw cars and trucks cause about 60 thousand a year die on the highways

[44 AMP]

At some point or another, in some article or piece of text, I read a period piece from around the American Civil War, perhaps just after, maligning the Henry rifle due to it's high mag capacity and rate of fire. Just goes to show that there were anti-gunners even then.

I have run across similar things, but it is important to look at those things without using 20th or 21st century "eyes".

IF you can, go back and re-read those texts and see if you can find why they are maligning the Henry (and other repeaters) for their firepower. IT has nothing to do with the reasons today's anti-gunners want to ban high capacity firearms.

Today's gun-banners want to do away with high capacity arms because of the carnage they can wreak on innocent people. The post Civil War opposition to repeaters (Henry's, Spencers, and others) was due to the carnage they could wreak on ammunition budgets!!

Those officers, including some Generals were opposed to repeaters because they felt that the high capacity arms would encourage soldiers to waste ammunition, and ammunition cost money!! Money that the post Civil War army didn't have. Their other main objections to the Henry etc, were their cost, and their "flimsy" construction. Remember the tactics of the times, the rifle was not just a rifle, it was also a melee weapon.

They weren't "anti gun" they were "anti repeater" because the repeaters of the era were expensive, fragile, and wasteful of ammunition, in their eyes.

I am of the belief that the reason lever rifles from back in the day were offered with rifle length barrels (as opposed to just carbine/saddle guns) was to add mag capacity. Yes, a longer barrel added sight radius and some velocity, but the up front obvious plus was more ammo on board and ready.

While this is obviously true again we're looking at it with modern eyes and not 19th century attitudes. Firepower (longer, magazines holding more rounds) wasn't the primary concern. Nice to have if you wanted it, but a lot of people didn't feel the need. Look at the lever gun "rifles" offered and you'll see some with longer tube mags than the carbines, and many with the same length mags, or perhaps one round more. Not saying the additional firepower of the rifle length magazines wasn't a factor for some people, I just think it wasn't the driving concern of the civilian market, Important? sure. Most important thing?? I don't think so.

Next thing you know they will outlaw cars and trucks cause about 60 thousand a year die on the highways

No, they won't. The "ban guns" people don't use guns, so banning them is no hardship to them. Cars and trucks are useful to the gun banners, (along with the rest of us) so they won't ban them. What they are working on banning is the internal combustion engine running of those "evil" fossil fuels.

[gwpercle]

I have always believed a model 92 Winchester in 41 Magnum would be an excellent rifle to protect the homestead and fight off attacking wild hogs !
I handlod and cast bullets , so ammo and loadings would be no problem .
It could also drop a deer at moderate range with a well placed shot .
A good lever gun has a lot to offer ... even in the day of the AR-15 !
Gary

[44 AMP]

I've never had a model 92, but have had a few Marlin 1894s one in .44 Mag and a couple in .357 Mag. I think they're good guns, and an excellent execution of the concept.

I give the Marlin a slight edge, because its easily scoped, but that's a matter of personal preference.

[oldbear1950]

I have two Rossi R 92's both stainless and both new. One is a 16 inch barrel 38/357, I changed the buckhorn rear sight to a peep sight on both , I got them from STEVES GUNZ, I also changed the plastic magazine follower to metal I got from him, removed the safeties and replaced them with the pins I got from him.
That 16 inch barel is a jot to tote and shoot. The other is a 20 inch barrel, 45 colt/454 casull. They both shoot just fine, so far no problems with factory or my reloads to factory length.

[oldbear1950]

my two granddads were old time town marshalls in Oklahoma of the 1920s and 1930s durting the oil boom. They both carried old lever guns, as their long guns, and taught us to use them. They always said do not be week wristed when working the lever.
If you did you could have problems. Friends of mine have a few problems chambering rounds, but I do not, and never have. I wonder if those two old timers knew something a lot of people now days have never had the chance to learn.

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by oldbear1950

my two granddads were old time town marshalls in Oklahoma of the 1920s and 1930s durting the oil boom. They both carried old lever guns, as their long guns, and taught us to use them. They always said do not be week wristed when working the lever.
If you did you could have problems. Friends of mine have a few problems chambering rounds, but I do not, and never have. I wonder if those two old timers knew something a lot of people now days have never had the chance to learn.

I bet they were a couple of tough guys, that was a pretty rough tough time and area to be a Sheriff or deputy.

[oldbear1950]

Oklahoma was a wild and wooly place during the oil boom. A lot of the lawmen were in cahoots with the criminals. Just prior to that time was prohibition. The ozarks of Arkansas and Oklahoma, had a lot of bootleggers, and still do.

[DaleA]

In the past I've been of the opinion that if you carried a rifle it would be silly have it in a handgun caliber. That is, you've got all the inconveniences of a long gun with none of the advantages of a high powered rifle cartridge. So for me a rifle in 9mm, .357/.38, .44 Mag, .45 Colt didn't make sense. (Now a rifle that could fire .45 Colt, .454 Casull and .460 S&W mag...)

So, what happens? I get to shoot a Henry .45 Colt lever action. I'm really put off by the price (about $1,000) but was impressed with what a clean, functional rifle it was and really impressed with the accuracy of the gun. So am I a hypocrite or someone willing to see the light...eh you can choose either one and I'd admit you had a point.

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by DaleA

In the past I've been of the opinion that if you carried a rifle it would be silly have it in a handgun caliber. That is, you've got all the inconveniences of a long gun with none of the advantages of a high powered rifle cartridge. So for me a rifle in 9mm, .357/.38, .44 Mag, .45 Colt didn't make sense. (Now a rifle that could fire .45 Colt, .454 Casull and .460 S&W mag...)

So, what happens? I get to shoot a Henry .45 Colt lever action. I'm really put off by the price (about $1,000) but was impressed with what a clean, functional rifle it was and really impressed with the accuracy of the gun. So am I a hypocrite or someone willing to see the light...eh you can choose either one and I'd admit you had a point.

For no particular reason I’ve always liked the idea of a rifle and pistol that share the same ammunition. So I have both in .41 magnum, .357 magnum, and 9mm. I have worked up loads for them that are reasonably accurate for any practical use, my criteria is under 3” at 50yds in rifle and under 5” rapid fire at 10yd for pistols. I consider this as having me covered for any hunting I’d do and for self defense.

[44 AMP]

In the past I've been of the opinion that if you carried a rifle it would be silly have it in a handgun caliber. That is, you've got all the inconveniences of a long gun with none of the advantages of a high powered rifle cartridge.

While you're not wrong, you are only looking at part of the matter, and with what I call "modern" eyes.

20th century technology changed the world, and altered priorities hugely, but didn't completely eliminate all the advantages of the 19th century firearms even today.

First thing to consider is the time period and its tech when certain ideas became popular, and why.

What are the "inconvenience" of a long gun, to you?? What were they back then?? What was a "high powered rifle cartridge" in the 1870s? 1880s? 1890s?? and so on? It changed a lot over time.

One of the most frequently brought up points is that commonality between rifle and pistol ammo, was a benefit to people who traveled on horseback, which was the primary way people got around before the internal combustion engine became common. On foot, on horseback, by wagon. carriage or stagecoach were the only ways, where railroads or ships didn't go.

For people working in the outdoors, or even just traveling, everything you needed to survive had to be packed and travel with you. And there were space and weight limits. Not having to carry two different boxes of ammo meant that you could carry that much more food, coffee, or other important supplies.

The pistol caliber repeating carbine or rifle, offered a firepower advantage over the revolver, along with an increase in the easy usable range of the pistol rounds. And, in some designs offered the advantage of being able to reload the rifle while it was still "in action". This could be a useful thing when needing to defend oneself from bad men, or dangerous animals.

Another point to consider is that until the late 1890s, black powder was the only gunpowder, and everything was limited to its maximum speeds. The big powerful rifle rounds of the era used more of it and fired larger heavier slugs than revolver rounds, but not really much faster, other than the difference in barrel lengths allowed. Not at all the difference we have today.

There's a lot more to it, of course, but the commonality of ammo between long guns and handguns was a fairly desirable thing for many people for several decades, and to a lesser extent, still is.

back then, it might take days or weeks of traveling cross country between towns and points of resupply. Carrying only one type of ammo, even if it didn't do every job as well as possible was a more than acceptable trade off for lots of folks.

for about a century now, we've generally had the luxury of motor vehicles to carry what we needed, and wanted. That alone is a huge difference.

[bamaranger]

No way I could find that period commentary, it was a side bar in an article on the Henry in who knows what periodical. What I do recall is that if you deleted Henry and inserted AR, one could likely not tell the difference from an article written today concerning capacity and rates of fire..........I believe the period phrase was "murderous lethality". Which sounds pretty familiar.

Despite the performance of the repeaters in the ACW, the '73 Springfield went west. Cheaper to produce and greater range and striking power they said, which sounds pretty familiar again. The 7th took them to Little Big Horn, a whole 'nother story.

Back to levers, the American Hunter has run an article this month consisting of vintage hunting camp meat pole photos and the number of what appear to be 24" barreled lever rifles with full length tube magazines is interesting. So too, I looked on Gunbroker and the true vintage lever guns listed under 1873 Winchester are also 24" rifles with full length mags. All of which is open to interpretation, but still interesting.