Why a lever action rifle in pistol caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do I have a pistol-caliber carbine lever-gun? Because it's fun!

My little Marlin 1894PG .44 Magnum handles like a dream, shoots fast, hits hard enough for anything up to moose (IMO, yours may vary ;) ) and is reasonably accurate. It's also reliable and holds many rounds in something I can easily sneak by the "PC Police."

Honestly, I think getting into the magnum revolver cartridges stacks the deck differently. I have a hard time understanding why people who feel a .357 is fine for deer out of a 6" handgun think a rifle of that caliber is inadequate. Or why somebody would gladly go after black bear with a .44 pistol wouldn't do the same with a Marlin. :confused:

My AR-15 only does a few of the above and definitely lacks horsepower in comparison. Compare: 250gr .43" slug @ 1800 fps or a 55gr .224" slug @ 3200 fps. Which do you want when it comes time to really smack something big and ugly? :scrutiny:

And I can't forget it is easy and cheap to reload. It costs me about $11 per 100 to reload and shoot the .44. Loaded to Cowboy Action specs it makes a nice practice round. I can also load 300 rounds an hour on a progressive; I've yet to find a way to load that much "rifle" ammo that cheap or fast! :cool:
 
Miroku has a long history of making Winchester replicas

I've got a Dodge truck assembled in Mexico. I certainly don't consider it a replica of a Dodge. Miroku has been manufacturing guns for many generations and the guns that come out of that family owned business will equal or exceed the quality of guns from New Haven. Personally I feel it was Hollywood that really won the west with Winchesters. I suspect there were just as many Henry rifles and later on Marlins as Winchesters being used in the old west. BTW, it was the Henry that was used by union troops, not the Winchester.
 
They are fun, practical, and effective out to 100 yards. They are easier on the ears than a centerfire rifle (sadly, not everyone use hearing protection). They are easier to shoot effectively than a pistol of the same caliber by most people especially as the range increases. Recoil isn't much of an issue and certainly less than most rifle caliber rifles. Although not optimum given their size and weight, they fill a useful niche especially for less experienced shooters. Did I mention they are fun?
 
just got my 1894c a couple months ago and its a ot of fun to shoot..and i love having the same loads for pistol and rifle so much i just ordered the thompson encore 460 rifle...cant wait to see the increased power( as if it isnt powerful enough coming out of my handgun):evil:
 
Gohon said:
I've got a Dodge truck assembled in Mexico. I certainly don't consider it a replica of a Dodge. Miroku has been manufacturing guns for many generations and the guns that come out of that family owned business will equal or exceed the quality of guns from New Haven.
Yes, but that plant in Mexico is owned by the Chrysler Corporation (now DaimlerChrysler, I guess), and staffed by employees of Chrysler. Miroku's only relationship to Winchester is that it makes guns based on Winchester designs, and sometimes is allowed to stamp the Winchester name on them if it pays for that right. For example, the Browning 92 rifles, while excellent quality, are considered copies of the Winchester 1892 -- they aren't "Winchesters."
Gohon said:
Personally I feel it was Hollywood that really won the west with Winchesters. I suspect there were just as many Henry rifles and later on Marlins as Winchesters being used in the old west. BTW, it was the Henry that was used by union troops, not the Winchester.

You are wrong. First of all, there were indeed lots of Henrys in the old west. The Henry, however, is a Winchester. It was produced by the New Haven Repeating Arms Company, whose owner was one Oliver Winchester. It was called the Henry rifle because B. Tyler Henry, the shop foreman for Winchester, made some improvements to the original design and patents were issued in his name. Oliver Winchester didn't know yet whether the rifle would be a success, and didn't want his name on a failure, so he didn't name the company "Winchester." They were still Winchester rifles, however.

On a side note, the inventor of the Henry's repeating mechanism was none other than Smith & Wesson. They held the patents, and formed the company "Volcanic Arms" to market them. The company failed, principally because of the ammo design. Winchester bought the patent rights, and with B. Tyler Henry designed a rifle with the Volcanic action but designed for modern metallic cartridge ammunition.

In 1866, New Haven Repeating Arms introduced an improved version of the Henry rifle, called the -- "Improved Henry" (apparently, they didn't have much of a marketing department). The main difference was the introduction of a loading gate in the receiver, so you no longer had to load from the muzzle end. It also separated the barrel and mag tube into two parts for easier manufacture and eliminated the mag slot and exposed follower, so a wood forearm could be installed. It was the first of the modern pattern lever action rifles. It became commonly known as the "Yellowboy" rifle for its brass frame. As with the Henry, tens of thousands were sold, and many found their way to the western frontier. Again, while they did not bear the Winchester name on them, they were made by Oliver Winchester's company, in his factory, and bore his company's name -- New Haven Repeating Arms. They are Winchesters.

Seven years later, Winchester came out with the first rifle to actually bear his name -- the model 1873. It was just another minor improvement to the 1866, with a steel frame, removable sideplates for easier cleaning, and a new, more powerful centerfire cartridge. By this time, New Haven Repeating Arms and its products were wildly successful, and Winchester chose to put his name on his products for the first time. From 1873 forward, all of his products would bear the "Winchester" brand.

The Winchester model 1873 IS the "gun that won the west." Hundreds of thousands were sold.

In addition, the period in which the west was "won" is the time from the end of the Civil War (1865) until the Indian Wars were over (and the Indians confined to reservations) and the railroads had connected the coasts and opened up the interior. That period ended in the early to mid 1890s.

In that time frame of 1865 to 1895, the only successful and commonly available repeating rifles were indeed Winchesters. Besides the Henry, Yellowboy and 1873, there were the Winchester models of 1876 and 1886, which were large frame rifles for more powerful cartridges, and the John Browning-designed model 1892, which was intended was a replacement for the model 1873 (the 1892 was lighter, stronger and cheaper to build). All of those guns came along before Marlin entered the market in any significant way. By the time Marlin's model 1894 became common, the West had long been won.

Thus, when it came to repeating rifles in the old west, Winchester was indeed the only game in town.

Hollywood's big error was not in using Winchesters, it was in using the wrong Winchesters. John Wayne always carried a model 1892, despite the fact that most of his movies were set in the 1860s, 70s and 80s. He should have had a Henry, Yellowboy or '73 in those films, but Hollywood didn't care.
 
Fun, Smooooth. Good-lookin'. Accurate. Easy to carry. What more does one desire? I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with watching all those Saturday morning Westerns in the 50's and early 60's.

Browning 92 in .357:

standard.jpg
standard.jpg
 
cause there purty......

attachment.php
 
FBK, with all due respect your attempting to rewrite history.

"The ancestor of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company was the Volcanic Repeating Arms Company, which manufactured the Volcanic lever action rifle of Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson. It was later reorganized into the New Haven Arms Company, its largest stockholder being Oliver Winchester.

The Volcanic rifle used a form of "caseless" ammunition and had only limited success. Wesson had also designed an early form of rimfire cartridge which was subsequently perfected by Benjamin Tyler Henry. Henry also supervised the redesign of the rifle to use the new ammunition, retaining only the general form of the breech mechanism and the tubular magazine. This became the Henry rifle of 1860, which was manufactured by the New Haven Arms Company and was used in considerable numbers by certain Union army units in the civil war.


After the war Oliver Winchester continued to exercise control of the company, renaming it the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, and had the basic design of the Henry rifle completely modified and improved to become the first Winchester rifle, the Model 1866, which fired rimfire cartridges like the Henry but had an improved magazine and, for the first time, a wooden forearm. Another popular model was rolled out in 1873. The 1873 model introduced the first Winchester center fire cartridge. These rifle families are both commonly known as the "Gun That Won the West".

Take note of the operative word here...."families". The Henry came first and then the Winchester. Doesn't matter who the designer was. Truth is, the Winchester is actually a Henry, not the other way around. Winchester under control of Winchester hasn't produced a gun by the Winchester family since 1931 so by your definition all Winchester guns produced at New Haven since 1931 are mere copies. If it has Winchester stamped on it then it is a Winchester, other wise it would have another name on the gun. As painful as it is for most to admit, if you take a pre 1981 Winchester and put it side by side to a present Winchester manufactured in Japan you will immediately see the difference. The fit, finish, and quality of the work of the guns produced in Japan are far superior to the ones manufactured in New haven. Sorry but reality is reality and a Winchester is a Winchester regardless of location of assembly.

Oh BTW, Oliver Winchester to my knowledge did not outright own the New Haven plant. He simply had controlling interest along with many smaller partners. Big difference.
 
Gohon, I'm not rewriting history, but you are certainly attempting to obscure it. As I stated, the so-called "Henry" rifle was based on the patents of Messrs. Smith and Wesson, who initially tried to commercialize the design via the Volcanic company. The Volcanic company failed, largely because of the poor "rocket ball" ammunition. Oliver Winchester came along and bought the rights to the design. Whether he was the sole investor or merely the dominant one is irrelevant. There is no question that Oliver Winchester was the driving force behind organizing the New Haven Repeating Arms Company, and he controlled the company. B. Tyler Henry worked for New Haven Repeating Arms. New Haven Repeating Arms became what is now known as the Winchester company. No serious historian or collector disagrees with the idea that the Henry rifle is indeed a Winchester, due to that provenance.

It is certainly true that Oliver Winchester did not design the Henry rifle, but his company built it, and the improvements on the Smith & Wesson patent that led to the Henry rifle were made by Winchester's employees and on Winchester's nickel.

The same is true of the model 1866, aka the Yellowboy. Do you dispute that the Yellowboy is a Winchester? If so, you're the only person I know who would make the claim.

Following the 1866 came the model 1873, which again was merely a slight revision to the model 1866. The 1873, however, bore Winchester's name. Winchester himself cannot claim to have had any part in the design, however. He wasn't an arms designer. The design was largely the result of Smith & Wesson's patents, and later patented improvements by the likes of B. Tyler Henry and other Winchester employees. Does that make the model 1873 not a "Winchester", despite the fact that it was made by his company and bears his name?

Later came the Winchester models of 1886 and 1892, which were designs by John M. Browning. I suppose that makes them not Winchesters, either, and we should call them "Brownings."

Finally, note that the total production run of the "Henry" rifle (aka the Winchester model of 1860) was about 14,000 pieces. The Yellowboy (model 1866) saw total production of 170,000 pieces. By contrast, Winchester produced 720,000 copies of the model 1873 before production ended in 1919. Even if you don't believe that the "Henry" is properly considered a Winchester, it's hard to believe that there were more Henry rifles in the old west than 1866 or 1873 Winchesters, when production records show that more than 60 1866 and 1873 rifles were produced for every Henry.

The bottom line is that there were indeed Henry rifles in the old west. Historical records confirm that. Those rifles are properly considered Winchesters, though, and every firearms historian and Winchester collector agrees that the Henry rifle is the first Winchester. The rifles that "won the west", was principally the incredibly popular Winchester model 1873, which bore Winchester's name, and to a lesser extent the earlier model 1866. Neither is considered a "Henry", though both derive from the Henry and use the same toggle link action. No serious competitor to Winchester's dominance in repeating arms came along until the 1890s, and by that time the west was already won.
 
The fit, finish, and quality of the work of the guns produced in Japan are far superior to the ones manufactured in New haven. Sorry but reality is reality and a Winchester is a Winchester regardless of location of assembly.

I don't disagree. I find the Miroku guns to be far superior to the guns produced by USRAC. What makes something a legitimate "Winchester", however, is not easily answered. There are many people who believe that there have been no real Winchesters since Olin Corp., which owns the rights to the Winchester brand, ceased making firearms around 1980. Olin licensed the Winchester firearms brand to U.S. Repeating Arms Co., however, which continued manufacturing certain models in the old New Haven plant. Thus, lots of people consider USRAC products bearing the Winchester brand to be legitimate "Winchesters." At the same time, Olin licensed Miroku and perhaps others to make some limited runs of things like the models of 1885 (single shots), model 1886, 1892 and 1895. These are Winchesters in the sense that they bear the Winchester name, and are the same basic guns that Winchester's company built a century earlier. There are some who don't consider them to be "real Winchesters", however, because they were made overseas under license. Frankly, I don't care. Like you, I think the Miroku-built guns are far superior in quality to the USRAC-built guns, and I would be proud to own them. I have a Browning 92 that is excellent.

But I don't think anyone would call the Italian versions of the 1860, 1866, 1873 and 1876 anything other than "replicas." The same goes for the Brazilian and Italian 1892's, and the Brazilian 62's and 63's. They have nothing to do with Winchester other than being very exact copies of the originals. The companies that build them (Uberti, Rossi, Armi Sport, etc.) have no relationship with Olin or other Winchester successors, and have no right to the Winchester brand name. They aren't built in former Winchester factories, or on former Winchester tooling. They aren't Winchesters.
 
One last note

If any rifle has a superior claim to the Winchester model 1873 as being the "gun that won the west", it wouldn't be either the Henry or a Marlin. It would be the 1873 "trapdoor" single shot. That rifle was the standard arm of the U.S. Army during the Indian Wars, and probably played a bigger role in winning the west than any other personal weapon.
 
No, I'm not trying or attempting to obscure history but I think your nostalgic sentiments are blurring your vision. Winchester was not the founder of the New Haven Plant. Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson deserve that credit as the New Haven plant was originally Volcanic Repeating Arms Company and only later after reorganizing to become the New Haven Arms Company did Winchester become the major stock holder with controlling interest. As to historians saying the Henry is a Winchester, I think not. To do that would be to put the cart before the horse. I'm not knocking or down playing the Winchester even though I consider the Marlin to be a superior design and better gun but you can't change the course of history just for nostalgia and the Winchester was spawned from the design of the Henry lever action rifle. Should we call all automobiles Fords because they emerged from the designs of Henry Ford.

Why you now want to throw in Italian replicas of the Winchester I don't know. Of course those are replicas and they carry a different name on them other than Winchester. Your originally comment was Miroku was a replica and that is just not factual.

Also your comment that DC owned the plants in Mexico......... not so. By Mexican law and their own constitution a non native born Mexican is not allowed to own land in Mexico. In effect you are actually leasing the property you call your own if you are not a native of that country and the Mexican government has the right to take the property at any time. So that doesn't hold water either. Just thought I'd correct you on that also.
 
We're arguing semantics. You say is it a "fact" that a Miroku is not a replica. I don't think "replica" is precisely defined, so you can't say definitely one way or another whether a Miroku is a replica. My point in discussing USRAC, Rossi, Uberti, etc., is that there are many shades of gray. A product of the New Haven plant while Oliver Winchester controlled it is clearly a "Winchester", in my view. Many others view later products produced in that plant and bearing the Winchester brand name as also being legitimate "Winchesters." That would include the products made by USRAC under license from Olin between 1981 and 2006. I think we also agree that if it was made overseas and doesn't say "Winchester" on it, then it is a replica and not a "real" Winchester. Here's a question for you, though -- suppose Olin was to license the right to use the Winchester firearms brand to Uberti, which has been making 1860, 1866 and 1873 rifles for decades. And suppose Uberti changes nothing other than to start stamping "Winchester Repeating Arms Co." onto its model 1873 rifles. Does that now make them Winchesters, or are they still replicas?

Miroku's products fall somewhere in the middle, and I think are similar to the hypothetical about Uberti licensing the Winchester name. Miroku Winchesters are made by a foreign company in a foreign plant. They follow the original Winchester design, though, and look like Winchesters. Some but not all bear the Winchester brand name. For example, there are Browning-brand 92's, and Winchester-brand 92's, both made by Miroku. The only difference is the brand name that Miroku stamped on the finished product. Are the Winchester-branded guns then considered "real" Winchesters while the Browning-branded guns are not? All I'll say is that it's open for debate, but there are certainly a lot of people out there who take the position that if it wasn't made in New Haven, and doesn't say Winchester on it, then it isn't a real Winchester. By that standard, the Miroku-built guns are not Winchesters, regardless of their quality.

And I think I have repeatedly acknowledged the importance of Smith & Wesson in designing the action that later became the Henry rifle. The question is whether the Henry is fairly considered a "Winchester", and to me the answer is that it clearly is a Winchester. The fact that others had a role in designing and manufacturing it is irrelevant. The Henry rifle was the first product of the company that ultimately became known as the Winchester company, and the Henry rifle came into existence because of the foresight, financial savvy and business sense of Oliver Winchester. If you look at any reference book on Winchester firearms, you will find the Henry prominently discussed as being the first Winchester. The model 1873 was the first rifle to bear Oliver Winchester's name, but that doesn't make the Henry rifle any less of a Winchester.

And the fact remains that the 1873 rifle, bearing Oliver Winchester's name and chambered for a cartridge bearing his name, is the rifle that clearly dominated the market for repeating rifles during the old west period. Thus, Winchester's legacy as producing the rifle that "won the west" is well-founded, regardless of whether or not you agree that the Henry is properly considered a Winchester.
 
cause there purty......
__________________
attachment.php

Yeah...I know did he fire 5 shots or six......BAMM!!!

Oh sorry it's a 686+ !



+1 115grfmj
you have good taste::D

the 686+ was my first gun and the 1894 is my last gun that i have in my possession...waiting another 6 days for my next buy...darn 10 day waiting period
 
Newbie question here, and forgive me if it's been answered before.

Can I use .38SPL in a .357MAG lever gun, like I can in a revolver?
 
Technically yes, you can run .38 spl in a .357, but I've read a lot of comments that say lever-actions are especially sensitive to cartridge OAL.

That's why I purchased this 1866 in .38 spl.

Mike
 
The Marlin 1894c will run .38 specials without difficulty (and you can fit 10 of them in the tube, as opposed to 9 .357's), though some bullet shapes may give a particular gun fits regardless of length (mine doesn't like SWC's).
 
Robbers....

Check Gunsamerica/GunBroker, and here on this website (rifles/shotguns for sale). Don't discount Legacy Sports Puma 92...it's a NICE lever. Since Winchester bit the dust, Puma is my next choice since I never had much of a love affair with Marlin's products. The Puma 1892 is built 99.999% to the winchester 92. The screws are metric, but original parts are interchangable to the PUMA with minor polishing/fitting just to smooth thing out (personal experience). I'm waiting fo Puma to introduce the 1894 since winchester no longer markets them. I have a Win94, but I want to see what they do with them. Go get 'em tiger!:D
 
Yeah not only are they a lot of fun, and historical, but I think right now they are great investments also. With Winchester going out of business a few years ago antique and/or commemoratives are going up in value. I used to collect coins and still have most of them but they just sit in a box. I also collect marbles and some of them are pretty valuable too (but I haven't played marbles for decades they're in another box, but my old rifles, now that's another story. You've got defense, cowboy action (I'm not one of those but it's an option), Hunting (I like a Savage 1899 250-3000 for deer, coyotes, and antalope--who said they lost thier elegance--very pretty and very collectable, although this isn't a pistol round), Plinking, teaching shooting and history, and a good investment. This collection doesn't sit in a box.
I think plastic guns are a mistake. I guess it makes sense for a pickup gun that could get scratched up or abused, like a work gun for a ranchers truck. But to me it seems like for about the same money I could go out and buy a new plastic say .243 or 300m or something like that, that never will appreiciate or I could look all over at gun shows and estate auctions and find something thats already got 60 or 80 years or more on it and is in great condition and does as good of a job like a Savage 99 or A 94 Winchester, or even an old pre 63 Winchester model 70 bolt action and get more of my moneys worth.
 
What kind of groups does the .357 marlin do out of the box? What are the triggers like? Aftermarket mods?

Also, someone mentioned needing to clean from the front. I've become more careful than when I started out, and I know you can mess up a bore cleaning from the breech as well, but I'm still less fond of putting that cleaning rod down the muzzle.

Also, what do the new ones go for, nowadays?

My Marlin 1894C is a bit of a pain to take down for cleaning, but that's why some inventive person came up with bore snakes.

As for what they cost? I got mine 2 years ago for $500 OTD, including tax, which is 7.5% here.

It's just plain fun to shoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top