can someone tell me why pistol caliber rifles are inherently inaccurate?


PDA






hipoint
January 6, 2013, 08:32 PM
All this started because I really love, yep, really really love my blackhawk in .41 magnum. I can count on it out to 100 yards and thought, well heck I should get a rifle to match it, should be good for 200 yards at least.

Found some range reports of the marlin 1894 in .41 magnum which to my knowledge is the only repeating rifle in this caliber. I found a very good range report where the author was using the 175 grain winchester silvertip (which my pistol seems to really like) and was grouping 10 inches or more at 60 yards... my pistol with a 4 5/8 barrel does better than that! anyhow, now I'm thinking I may get an H/R handi rifle and have a custom barrel made, or a thompson center with a buttstock and custom length barrel... but before I go through the expense of all that I was just wanting to get a little schooling...

It seems that these magnum pistol rounds just don't do so hot out of a rifle, yet out of a short pistol, they are more accurate... any reasoning?

I of course understand that a rifle bullet is a better shape than a pistol bullet and is inherently better, but that's beside the point :D

If you enjoyed reading about "can someone tell me why pistol caliber rifles are inherently inaccurate?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MutinousDoug
January 6, 2013, 09:35 PM
I don't know but maybe Marlin and the H&R Handi rifle are sub-standard platforms?
I've seen some pretty fine 200 yd performance from Contenders in .44 mag and .357mag/max. The one Ruger .44 mag carbine I've handled shot a lot better than 10" at 60 yds.

Sam1911
January 6, 2013, 09:39 PM
That's a sample size of ONE, and a surprisingly bad one at that.

I don't know of any really "tack-driving" PCCs (though the TC Contender/Encore carbines can sometimes be pretty accurate), but they aren't usually inaccurate out to the limits of their effective range.

hq
January 6, 2013, 09:39 PM
That may have something to do with muzzle velocity, twist rate, how a particular bullet shape reacts to that and so on, but all seems to depend much more on the particular combination than any generalization. 10"@60yd sounds like there's something terribly wrong, either with the gun itself or the combination of gun and ammo. I've got the same rifle in .357 and even with the worst, most unsuitable ammo I've fed it it has still managed 4-5" groups at 100yd.

I haven't come across a pistol caliber long gun (and I have a few) that hasn't been able to stay within 1-2MOA with handloads and many of them can do it with factory ammo. I wouldn't say that the concept is INHERENTLY inaccurate, but with wrong kind of ammo some of them certainly can be.

Onmilo
January 6, 2013, 09:43 PM
I have an 1860 steel frame Henry replica as well as an 1873 Winchester Carbine, both in .45 Colt and both do way better than 10" at 60 yards.
I can keep both hitting a Paper dinner plate at 100 meters, most of the time no larger than 7" but to be honest, I don't even consider shooting these guns past 100 meters.

lefteyedom
January 6, 2013, 09:47 PM
It was a bad rifle and or bad run of bullets...

Remember, if someone has a bad day at the shooting range with a weapon the details in the reports have away of being massaged to fit the writer point of view.

The other factor is you can "tune" hand loads to get the most out a weapon...

hipoint
January 6, 2013, 09:56 PM
I have happened upon quite a few of the 'bad' reports from these. I would consider 6 inches at a 100 yards acceptable. My pistol is capable of minute of deer at 100 yards, it just kinda shocks me that I have run across alot of bad press about the carbines... although you guys seem to be sending me the opposite way...

I'd really like to get a rifle in .41 mag, even if I have to shell out for a thompson or h/r to be rebarreld... although the marlin would be optimum if it would handle the same loads as my pistol, that's kinda why I want one ;-)

anyone had any experience with getting their corresponding handgun to be accurate with the same rounds their carbine is?

R.W.Dale
January 6, 2013, 10:16 PM
First let me give you my pcc experience. So some perspective can be had.

Marlin camp9
Hi-point 995
Win94 44mag
Rossi 357
Marlin 357
Ruger 77/44
Encore 9mm
Encore 357max
Handi rifle 357m x2
Stevens 200 45 win mag
Encore 460s&w
Handi rifle 500
Olympic ar15 9mm
Uberti rolling block 357

Dang I've never put it on paper that's quite a list.

Some of the above rifles were pretty fair shooters some were mediocre. NONE approached MOA @100 and I would consider any example to be an excellent shooter amongst PCC's if groups were in the 2.5" range at 100

I slowly came to this realization after building the bolt action custom McGowan barrelled stevens200 that was a 2.5moa rifle like the rest. In fact thus far the best shooters of the bunch above was the roller and the Olympic. I consider myself an accomplished handloader and have dabbled in benchrest with many a sub .2" group in my folder.

I cannot really explain the phenomena other than my theory is that pistol bullets aren't manufactured to the same accuracy standard as rifle bullets.

But the silver lining is even at 4moa that's more than enough accuracy to deer hunt or plunked with out beyond a range where the cartridge can no longer be considered effective.








posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

Steel Horse Rider
January 6, 2013, 10:25 PM
I think it has more to do with ballistics, aerodynamics, and velocity because pistol rounds were never designed to be accurate at 50 or even 100 yds. In my business unrealistic expectations from the refrigeration equipment my customers bought without having much understanding of the actual physics governing the operation of said equipment is the largest problem........

ball3006
January 6, 2013, 10:47 PM
Says who? I have no problem with mine hitting anything I want to.....chris3

CraigC
January 6, 2013, 11:01 PM
I wouldn't own a pistol cartridge rifle that wouldn't do at least 3"@100yds. Luckily, I haven't had one shoot that bad and one particular Marlin does 1".

IMHO, people 'think' they're inaccurate and that seems to be enough for most. :rolleyes:

hipoint
January 6, 2013, 11:15 PM
I'm not sure that yall are quite getting what I'm saying... my Pistol is more accurate than any pistol caliber carbine that I have had...

meaning my 4 5/8 inch barrel produces better accuracy than the rifle length carbines... now it is true that this .41 mag pistol seems to be some sort of "magic" :rolleyes: in my hands, and I have never had a .41 carbine, but with my previous carbine expereinces .45 colt, .44 mag, .357 mag they were pretty abysmal compared to this pistol...


If I could get 4 moa at 100 yards I wouldn't be complaining, but not hitting the paper at all past 75 yards with my other carbines is just odd... I'm no pro shooter, but I can hit the dang paper ;-)

I'm asking because if I can find an answer to this, then maybe I can buy/build a rifle to get around the issue...

One thing that I have noticed is with pistol rounds it seems slower equals more accuracy, does anyone agree with that? If this is the case, would the extra barrel length be making the bullet unstable by increasing velocity? Or is it more likely that these carbines I've had were just poorly made? I have only slugged one of the barrels (the .45 colt) and it was waaaaay over bore, I could imagine the bullet literally rattling down the barrel on that critter (rossi).

hovercat
January 6, 2013, 11:16 PM
The marlin has 'micro groove' rifling. Try jacketed bullets, heavy as you can get, lower velocities. The light bullet magnums for hyper velocity are not the best choices for Marlin rifles.

hipoint
January 6, 2013, 11:17 PM
for those who say a pistol cartridge can't be accurate at 100 yards, I will respectfully disagree. I do not care to youtube myself shooting to prove it to you though, so we'll just have to leave it at that.

R.W.Dale
January 6, 2013, 11:18 PM
What platforms did you have and how were they sighted?

I know you mentioned Rossi and IME all bets are off with that particular platform.






posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

hipoint
January 6, 2013, 11:19 PM
@ hovercat... I've seen that on a few of my marlins, what does that mean?

hipoint
January 6, 2013, 11:22 PM
RW dale, I'll leave the rossi out of this discussion, that's a whole other can of worms and yeah, all bets off with a rossi in my opinion.

it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure the others were 1894 marlins in .357 and .44


edited to add:

sighting, the .44 was scoped, the .357 was iron sighted. that said, I'm "pretty sure" both were 1894's it has been quite a few years and quite a few guns ago...

R.W.Dale
January 6, 2013, 11:31 PM
@ hovercat... I've seen that on a few of my marlins, what does that mean?

Its a particular kind of really shallow rifling. It CAN shoot cast fairly well but it takes some pretty percice bullet sizing to match the bore.

Making a micro-groove barrel for cartridges that will likely see cast bullets is one of the more retarded decisions made by firearms manufacturers



posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

blkbrd666
January 6, 2013, 11:32 PM
I only have one, but my Marlin .357 lever is awesome. Haven't tried it at 100yds, but at 50yds it's just one hole.

hipoint
January 6, 2013, 11:41 PM
seeing all of the mixed reports has me thinking that it's worth looking for another one... however on the used market and making sure it's a shooter first.

I have had quite a few of the same models of guns, particularly rugers, that one would be a "shooter" and another one would be a boat anchor...

I don't know whether to thank you guys or curse you :neener: now, I'm back on the hunt for an 1894...

not knowing alot about these guns, would it be even remotely feasible to get one in .357 and re-bore it to .41? would the action have to be substantially modified as well as the barrel? I really wouldn't mind saving up and dropping some cash on one that would do what I wanted it to do...

RPRNY
January 6, 2013, 11:44 PM
My experience with H&R Handi Rifles in 45lc / 454 Casull and .357 Mag have been that using H110 and spitzer bullets or ballistic tips, jacketed flat or hollow points, or cast, they will be more accurate at 100 yds than I can shoot a pistol in same caliber / bullet combi. Given the often capacious 45 lc chambers, this can be a little catch as catch can. There is no ballistic "reason " or basis to suggest that bullets suited to the higher velocities arising from a 16" - 20" barrel should be less accurate than from a shorter barrel, all other things being equal. My .454 achieves 1.5" groups at 100 yds with the Hornady 250 gr FTX. In. 357 Mag I have had better groups - sub 2" - with jacketed than cast, but get consistent sub 6" groups with 150 gr cast over Trail Boss plunking loads! I have no experience with the. 41 Mag.

hipoint
January 6, 2013, 11:46 PM
what I think I understand about this now is that the pistol caliber carbines are either A. made a little more sloppy than rifles are and/or B. that rifle rounds are a little less sensitive to loose tolerances...

thoughts?

hipoint
January 7, 2013, 12:03 AM
I'm leaning more towards that rifle rounds are less suceptible to flaws in the barrel (such as overbore) than pistol cartridges are... I have an 8mm mauser that the bore is pretty awful in, you can VERY easily slide a bullet through it, but it's still minute of deer at 100 yards...

seeing as my pistol is capable of taking deer at 100 yards I would want this to be minute of deer at 200 yards... seems as if I may still need to have one built to suit me (and hope it turns out right)...

I'm thinking that possibly this is something that'll require a bit more research, and even finding someone with a 200 yard accurate carbine in this caliber that I can check/measure extensively...

CraigC
January 7, 2013, 12:39 AM
I'm not sure that yall are quite getting what I'm saying... my Pistol is more accurate than any pistol caliber carbine that I have had...
If you're getting 10" groups at 50yds something is terribly, terribly wrong. A smoothbore musket should do much better than that. It is certainly nothing to do with the particular cartridge in question. Could be the rifle, could be your bench technique. We can talk about accuracy with regards to the hardware all day long but it won't do any good if we don't know how well you shoot other rifles.


I'm leaning more towards that rifle rounds are less suceptible to flaws in the barrel (such as overbore) than pistol cartridges are... I have an 8mm mauser that the bore is pretty awful in, you can VERY easily slide a bullet through it, but it's still minute of deer at 100 yards...
At this point, I wouldn't make any generalizations whatsoever.


seeing as my pistol is capable of taking deer at 100 yards I would want this to be minute of deer at 200 yards...
200yds is pushing it but if the rifle shoots MOA, it is certainly within the realm of possibility with loads in the 2000fps range.

hipoint
January 7, 2013, 01:32 AM
i'm no pro shooter, but trust me it's not me...

anyhow, the 10" at 60 yards thing was referring to a review of someone shooting an 1894 in .41 magnum using winchester 175gr. silvertip.

3 pistol caliber carbines that I have owned however, were awful, just awful so I got rid of them asap...

there has to be something going on here that can be generalized though, 3 out of 3 is saying something while I've never had a "rifle" shoot that poorly.

It is possible that all 3 of those were somehow lemons, but I think I/we may have stumbled onto something here in that the pistol caliber rounds are a little more suceptible to a bad bore, whereas a rifle bullet is a little more forgiving... just based on the evidence, there has to be something going on here. We all know a rifle round is just flat out more accurate due to it's shape and whatnot, but pistol rounds can be acceptably accurate given proper circumstance...

The rossi I had you could literally DROP a hornady round from breech to crown and it would fall right out the end :-( the cast rounds would hang about half way through, but a good shake would push them the rest of the way.

oh well, thank you guys for the input, I'll keep on researching and testing the best way I am capable of with my limited resources, I do think I have gained some more knowledge, or at least a feasible theory to go on until it's proven wrong... I'll start checking more pistol caliber carbines when I see them for possible overbore and asking the owners about their accuracy (not witholding of course fish tales)...

Float Pilot
January 7, 2013, 01:54 AM
Here is one group fired from a 38 WCF (pistol caliber) Winchester 1892 rifle. And this one was really made in 1892 and has a very bad bore.
Well this darn thing will not let me re-post the photo... It is about half way down the page on this thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=666257

CraigC
January 7, 2013, 11:55 AM
there has to be something going on here that can be generalized though, 3 out of 3 is saying something while I've never had a "rifle" shoot that poorly.
I don't think so. Your experience is not typical, at all.

R.W.Dale
January 7, 2013, 12:07 PM
I actually agree with Craig for once.

While my experience is that pcc's aren't especially accurate compared to rifles even the bad examples would still hold a paper plate sized group @100




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

Ratshooter
January 7, 2013, 12:54 PM
I had a Rossi that would shoot groups that could be covered with a coffee cup at 100 yards. As long as the bullets wore jackets. Lead bullets went all over the place.

My Marlins in 32, 357 and 44 mag will all stay in the 3" area with open sights at 100 yards. I sold a micro-groove 44 mag to my buddies son and he put a 4X Pro-Staff 22 scope on it and with winchester white box ammo it will stay under 2" per my buddy. He laughed and told me I sold the wrong rifle.

I have a Marlin camp carbine 9mm and we shoot it off hand at a 3.5" steel post on the far side of my buddies pond at about 90 yards away and its common to hit it 6-7 times out of 10 shots with open sights.

PCC may not be as accurate as bottle necked rifle rounds but if you are getting 5" 50 yard groups or 10" hundred yard groups you have a rifle or ammo problem. Or a shooter that needs a lot more practice.:neener:

hipoint
January 7, 2013, 03:40 PM
well now dangit ;-) I guess i'll just have to get another one and give it a whirl ;-) I tell ya though, I'm taking an uncased bullet with me to put through the barrel before I buy one.

makes me wonder what was wrong with the guns that I had then, I tried multiple kinds of ammo, out of all of them the hornady leverevolution was the worst and the cast bullets were the best, seems to be the opposite of how the other folks experiences were...

I'll give it another whirl then, I usually give up easily when something isn't what I expected so I'll tuck my tail and see what happens this time.

I swap guns pretty often, but when I find one that I really like I keep it, however I am pretty finicky about them. I'll keep my eyes out for a good .41 1894 and give it a whirl, just hope I don't have to pay a thousand dollars for one!

kludge
January 7, 2013, 03:49 PM
Call David White.

http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/images/category121/1%20rem.jpghttp://www.bellmtcs.com/store/images/category121/357%201.jpg

Not mine.

RPRNY
January 7, 2013, 09:47 PM
http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,271918.0.html

That thread may be of some interest to you. A chap over on GBO is building a .41 Mag stubbed H&R. David White will indeed do you a very good one, but you may find him somewhat prickly...

hipoint
January 8, 2013, 03:38 AM
interesting link, never thought of an insert in a shotgun before either... If I could find an 1894 on the semi-local market that I could shoot first, I'd of course rather have a repeater, but single shot should really be plenty, only times I've shot a deer the second time has been point blank after it fell anyhow.

thanks for the input, alot to process now...

BCRider
January 8, 2013, 01:08 PM
If you are after accuracy then you may as well forget about the shotgun insert.

First off the shotgun lacks the sort of sights you want to get a rifle style accuracy. Secondly most folks that tried shotgun inserts that I've read of found that they did not fit the barrel chamber well enough to get a good level of consistency for accuracy. After all if it can slide into place without needing a hammer then it has enough slop that it can point a little this way or that.

I just want to add that I'm also a little shocked that you found PCC's to be less than decently accurate. I sometimes take my Rossi lever in .357Mag out to the range to play at the longer distances and I've found that my eyes and arms are still the limit for MY accuracy. With plain sights I'm pretty much at best a 4 inch @100 yard sort of shooter even off a bag rest. And the .357's hit home within that size just as well as I manage to get with anything else using plain irons.

The other thought is that a lot of us tend to assume that shooting off a bag rest is going to result in perfect consistency. But while I've done enough of it to get better I've also done enough to realize that shooting well off a bag rest or other rest is just as much a skill as shooting a handgun well. Inconsistency in the pressure used for holding the rifle or in how the rest is used is just as damaging to the results as bad technique using any other stance.

Which might well explain why some of my best "rested" shooting has been done with my bigger heavy black powder guns and my .22's where I can simply lay them in place without the need to try to stop them from flipping back over my shoulder from the recoil.

So one factor to look at would be how you support and hold these light PCC's during your testing.

R.W.Dale
January 8, 2013, 01:18 PM
BC rider I don't think you're getting what was posted about the single shot.

Its not a bbl insert for a shotgun barrel. Its taking a H&R shotgun barrel and cutting it off in front of the lug, threading the inside and then making a rifle barrel that then threads into the resulting "stub"




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

CraigC
January 8, 2013, 01:34 PM
You don't want to do that with an H&R shotgun anyway. The shotgun and rifle receivers, while dimensionally the same, are not made of the same materials nor do they receive the same heat treatment. Which is why H&R will fit shotgun barrels to rifle receivers but not vice versa.

BCRider
January 8, 2013, 01:42 PM
RW, I got that part. And doing the stub barrel conversion on a suitable receiver is a GREAT option.

But in that thread referenced in RPRNY's post there's a little side track discussion about using the cut off extra part to make a shot gun insert. So when hipoint mentioned it in his last post I was thinking that he sort of locked onto that as an option. My apoligies to hipoint if this isn't the case.

exiledtoIA
January 8, 2013, 01:48 PM
Pistol bullets are short and stubby. Rifle bullets are longer and thinner.
Longer and thinner is more efficent ballistically.

hipoint
January 8, 2013, 02:36 PM
BC rider, at this point I'm just throwing darts and looking at what options I have... I dont' think I'm going to find an 1894 for a decent price unless I get really lucky, if I do I'll not hesitate and snatch it up as it seems those in .41 mag are going for ridiculously high prices like $1500 unfired and hovering around $900 used... ridiculous. I would like a repeater, but not if it's going to be a "crap shoot" as to whether or not it's accurate (since my previous experinces are that some of them are paperweights).

If I'm going to have to save my money up in a piggy bank and drop that kind of dough, I might as well get something custom built that I know will have a proper bore diameter...


Exile - I was not comparing pcc's to rifles, I was comparing them to my handgun, hence the confusion...

If anyone has a .41 in a marlin, wants to sell it and lives in the southeast close enough that I could conceivably come give it a whirl before buying, please send me a message ;-) barring that, I'm thinking either having a barrel built for an H&R handi rifle or a Thompson... to be honest though, if I'm having a custom barrel built, I can't see the point of paying the extra money for the thompson, at least for me I don't think it would be worth the extra cash but maybe I'm mistaken... I've never owned a thompson, and while I have owned some H&R shotguns, I wasn't impressed or disappointed in them, they worked well and that's all I ask from a gun :)

hipoint
January 8, 2013, 02:41 PM
something I came across late last night while surfing the web was the ruger 77 series of bolt guns... they use a rotary mag similar to a 10/22 and seem to be fine guns. Of course none are made in a .41 but....

can someone with experience tell me if a .44 and a .41 rim are similar in size? that would be one NEAT rifle and with the ruger .41 blackhawk cult following, if I ever did decide to sell it I'm sure I could get whatever I wished out of it (provided the right person saw the ad). what I was pondering is using the 77/44 rifle, fitted with a .357 barrel bored over to .41 mag specs... Not sure if that's conceivable, but considering I could be paying $1500 bucks for a 1894.....

I just dont' know if the .44 bolt face would work with the .41 cartridge... would be nice to find one in a local gun shop that I could play with a bit :)

**add**

and yes, i know this is ridiculous :) doesn't stop me from wanting to do it though!

CraigC
January 8, 2013, 02:50 PM
The boltface would have to be modified and a new barrel installed. No guarantee the magazine would work. You're looking at a lot more than a decent Marlin, probably more than buying a pair of .44's. The Marlin .41's are expensive because they made very few of them.

hipoint
January 8, 2013, 03:03 PM
I was curious about the bolt face working, the barrel would of course have to be modified, but with that kind of work, yeah it's out of the question for what i would have... Looks like if I can pick up a H&R on the used market cheap, I MAY be able to get a barrel done by the fellow mentioned a few posts earlier... i sent him an email asking if he can do it and if so what I needed to get together for him.

I don't mind saving up and paying for something that I want, but given my luck with the 1894's I'm skittish, especially if I'm paying that kind of money for one... It would seem due to the overwhelming response that my experiences were uncommon but I'm an odd dude and odd things happen to me hehe

hence a guy with a screen name of hipoint talking of dropping well over a thousand bucks for a .41 mag rifle just because I want one :)

dragon813gt
January 8, 2013, 03:27 PM
Good luck finding that Marlin. Ever since Remington took over the JM ones are bringing a premium. Add that you're looking for a less common cartridge and you now know why you're seeing the prices you are. Try finding a 44mag cowboy if you want to see some great prices :)

People expect to much with accuracy. My 1894C is more than accurate enough for hunting. I'm sure with practice I could get it to 2moa. It's the rifle I bring to range every time because it's just fun to shoot.


Brought to you by TapaTalk

helotaxi
January 8, 2013, 04:08 PM
Pistol bullets are short and stubby. Rifle bullets are longer and thinner.
Longer and thinner is more efficent ballistically.
Ballistic efficiency has nothing to do with accuracy, only trajectory.

My Marlin 1894 in .45 Colt is a great shooter with all the lead I've put through it. I haven't tried it with jacketed bullets.

hipoint
January 8, 2013, 04:26 PM
I may be mistaken (and usually am) but I think I read that the .41 was only produced from 2003-2007 so those would all be the "new" ones anyhow (marlin 1894's).

we'll see what happens with the email to the barrel guy, Looks like I might be able to get away with this for around a thousand bucks and have a pretty good shooter IF he will/can do my barrel.

that would also be assuming I can find an H&R on the used market for a reasonable price. it really doesn't sound all that difficult with the proper equipment, I guess the headspacing thing would be the biggest obstacle, at least in my mind.

hq
January 8, 2013, 04:41 PM
I may be mistaken (and usually am) but I think I read that the .41 was only produced from 2003-2007 so those would all be the "new" ones anyhow (marlin 1894's).

I think not. I have a 2008 1895XLR and a 2009 1894C, neither of which is a "Remlin".

hipoint
January 8, 2013, 04:47 PM
HQ - so when were the 'remlins' produced? I thought that was pretty new for a firearm... (see I told ya I was usually wrong hehe)

R.W.Dale
January 8, 2013, 04:53 PM
You don't want to do that with an H&R shotgun anyway. The shotgun and rifle receivers, while dimensionally the same, are not made of the same materials nor do they receive the same heat treatment. Which is why H&R will fit shotgun barrels to rifle receivers but not vice versa.

They will or would used to fit pistol caliber barrels to sb1 recievers. One of the examples I had came that way as a two barrel combo from the factory.

The shotgun frames would be fine for 41 mag.






posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

RPRNY
January 8, 2013, 05:05 PM
I think not. I have a 2008 1895XLR and a 2009 1894C, neither of which is a "Remlin".

Correct(ish). Those rifles were from the last days of North Haven production so are indeed Marlins, even though Remington purchased Marlin in early 2007. The Marlin plant was not closed until 2010, after which Marlin ceased to be anything but a Remington owned brand and began manufacturing Remlins at Ilion.

hq
January 8, 2013, 05:06 PM
HQ - so when were the 'remlins' produced? I thought that was pretty new for a firearm... (see I told ya I was usually wrong hehe)

TBH, I don't know for sure but it's not long after 2007 when Remington bought Marlin. Probably early or mid 2009 when the old Marlin plant was finally closed. When I first heard about the quality going down the drain I was really worried that my 1894 was one of the "new" ones, but after some research it turned out not to be. IIRC Remlins are stamped with a serial number starting with MR while Marlins had JM.

Add an "if my memory serves" clause here. Someone more knowledgeable might want to chime in if something went wrong.

WaywardSon
January 9, 2013, 07:05 AM
I have a fair amount of experience with the Marlins in pistol calibers & in my opinion it boils down to this...with cast bullets the controlling factor is bullet diameter. The fatter the better.

They will shoot and shoot well with a bullet they like, but it can be a long and involved process finding that bullet. I came close to giving up on my 1894 in .44 Magnum...did not think it was possible for a rifle to shoot that poorly. Once I found a bullet it liked, all was well.

Bull Nutria
January 9, 2013, 08:08 AM
I have 44mag handi rifle, it would not group with anything (factory or my reloads)several different weights from 200g to 315g, I tried .429cast,.430 jacketed265g,240g ftx, fp and finally 258g.434 gas checked, it grouped about 1.5 to 2inch with them at 50yds. wasn't satisfied sent the gun back to Rem factory. they installed new barrel. shoots 1/2 to 2in at 50yds still with jacketed bullets. However the .434 cast shoot 1.5 to 2inch at 100yds!

I spent a small fortune trying different loads and bullets with this 44mag handi . I did enjoy the quest and learned a lot. I used 2400 powder, I tried blue dot , unique but no luck with them.

from what I have researched the 44mag handi rifle is a hit and miss platform some shoot very accurately some don't, Mine is just adequate. I hope to upgrade to a 35 Whelen Thompson center pro hunter soon(at nearly triple the $ investment!!)

I have heard that these "handi rifles are like lightning they never strike in the same place twice"!! I know some of them are supposedly very accurate at 100yds in 44mag with WW whitebox 240g jsp bullets but mine was not with either barrel.

Bull

Carl N. Brown
January 9, 2013, 08:19 AM
Now I have good excuse to take my Rossi Puma .357 out to the range with a variety of .38/.357 ammos to see if there are any it will shoot badly.

I did find with a semi-auto Thompson T1 carbine that 100yd accuracy varies between 5" and 8" groups depending on ammo. Some .45ACP appears to be loaded for "acceptable" at 10 to 15 yds from a pistol. (The "tommy gun" is a curio tho' not a serious use gun.)

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 07:47 AM
To address the OP;
consider the increased velocity when firing the cartridge in a rifle. You do not have gases escaping, and you have much more barrel for the bullet to accelerate. The bullets used for 41 magnum may not be stable flyers at that velocity, thus for giving better accuracy from your pistol. If your a hand loader, I might suggest toning down your charge weight to get an acceptable velocity for the projectile out of your rifle. Your biggest problem , easily remedied, will be keeping the rifle rounds separate from your pistol rounds.

CraigC
January 20, 2013, 11:02 AM
That's not an issue at all. If it were true, then ZERO revolver cartridge rifles would shoot well and I would not have a Marlin 1894S that shoots MOA with 270gr Speer Gold Dots.

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 12:13 PM
You don't have to take my word for it. Most bullet manufacturers will list the acceptable velocities and inform you at what point they become unstable. Some are rated for faster velocity than others. I don't know what your shooting or the velocity acceptable for that bullet and I don't doubt your claim. That in itself doesn't mean that all rifles should shoot a moa of 1 or 2 inches once corrected,but it is a factor.

CraigC
January 20, 2013, 12:33 PM
It is not a factor, at all. Manufacturers give velocity ranges at which the bullets expand, it has nothing to do with stability in flight.

RPRNY
January 20, 2013, 03:34 PM
It is a valid point. Bullet manufacturers' velocity ranges are given with regard to terminal ballistic performance - expansion etc., not external ballistics, stability etc.

Having said that, while barrel inches with a pistol powder are unlikely to deliver more than 300 or so fps vs pistol barrel length, there are several issues related to your velocity and performance point. If the OP were shooting non-GC lead in both, that extra barrel length velocity @ anything over 1600MV might cause melting, gas leaks, and instability. Similarly, a short jacket RN that was fine in the pistol might get accelerated in the rifle barrel to the point where it was separating from or shedding jacket. But the likes of say a Hornady XTP should be in no way effected by the additional velocity arising from a rifle vs pistol barrel.For example, I get excellent results with the Hornady 45 cal XTP Magnum in 454 Casull out of a 20" bbl at 2285 MV, a good 950 fps faster than I would expect from a 5.5" barrel 45LC.

hq
January 20, 2013, 03:56 PM
V0, ie. muzzle velocity is a very valid point.

All reloaders know very well how powder charge and velocity can affect the accuracy of a load, while all other factors remain identical. Same gun, same brass, same bullet, same primer, same powder, the only variable being the powder charge, and accuracy can vary considerably. Personally I reload for accuracy for a particular gun + ammo combo, and I rarely aim to maximize V0 unless the fastest, most powerful load actually is the most accurate, too.

There are too many variables to speculate this online, but the sheer existence of accurate, pistol caliber rifles effectively debunks the myth of 'inherent' inaccuracy.

45crittergitter
January 25, 2013, 05:47 PM
Who said that pistol caliber rifles are inherently inaccurate? There's no reason for it, with the exception of unsuitable rifling twist rates which may be somewhat common. Also, don't confuse "pistol caliber rifles" with rifle action types commonly used for pistol calibers, such as leverguns.

VVelox
January 26, 2013, 04:00 AM
The marlin has 'micro groove' rifling. Try jacketed bullets, heavy as you can get, lower velocities. The light bullet magnums for hyper velocity are not the best choices for Marlin rifles.
Actually I believe this is only some version of the 336. My 1894 has has the standard ballard type and not the microgrooves type.

GLOOB
January 26, 2013, 04:14 AM
If you're talking long range, probably cuz the bullets. Ever wonder why a tiny 35 gr rifle bullet costs the same as a 150 gr pistol bullet? They're probably made to a higher standard. And pistol bullets have terrible BC's.

ironhead7544
January 27, 2013, 05:16 PM
If you can drop a .430 Hornady bullet through the bore then I think you have a 45 Colt barrel that is miss marked. It would be difficult to hammer a jacketed .430 bullet through a true 44 bore. I did one with a cast lead bullet and wont do it again. Took to much pounding. I have found that lever carbines will have oversized bores but not much more than .434.

I would slug that bore.

I put a 6x24 power scope on my Marlin Cowboy 1894 in 44 Magnum. It would shoot into almost the same hole at 50 yards with the right load. I would expect the average PCC to shoot into 4 inches at 100 yards and a good one 2 inches or so. You will generally have to do a bit of experimenting to find the right load.

If you enjoyed reading about "can someone tell me why pistol caliber rifles are inherently inaccurate?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!