Trapper Time...are they "worth" The Loss in Velocity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DSC07630.JPG
Got around to comparing the half magazine trapper 94 to the 20" 94 carbine, and I have to admit the difference in size and weight is much more than 4" off the barrel would suggest. With the peep sight, the Trapper has a slightly longer sight radius, which is a good thing. That's my pre-64 M94, which has like thirty deer to it's credit, don't know how many elk. It belonged to my wife's uncle who lived in some game rich country in Idaho, and used it in the 1950's and early 1960's.

Anyhow, I think it all comes down to personal taste, and for most purposes the velocity loss is not a biggie. For close range defense, like ten feet, placing the shot becomes more important, and of course bullet choice. For hunting, whole other story and in that case I would choose the Carbine over the Trapper. But I totally understand "visa-versa". Some great thought on the subject, thanks everyone.
 
Varminterror said:
“Trappers” rarely need a centerfire rifle at all, so having an EXTRA rifle on hand for opportunity shots on larger game was only convenient if the rifle were short, light, and easily packed.
Click to expand...

Right, and that would explain why they were also made with 14" barrels.
 
Ugly Sauce said:
Well, that's a whole other issue. And, I have a .45-70 rifle, (three) a .350 Remington Magnum, heck a .75 caliber musket and .62 Caliber rifle, real bear whackers.!!! Those are "best" for me, for sure, but sometimes I like to travel light. I play the odds, and I think that even a .30-30, at ten yards, (or closer) will put a bullet (a good heavy stout one) into Mr. Grizz's brain, or do pretty good damage into the vitals. If I miss, well then...serves me right!! :) However, when you have a frontal shot at close range, as when a bear or cougar is coming at you, the bullet has the potential to reach more vitals, or it's brain, I think, than if you zinged one through the rib-cage or just the lungs shooting from the side. I may be absolutely wrong there, but again, I'll take my chances. I feel as comfortable with the .30-30 as I do with my .44 mag pistol, and most think a .44mag is bear repellent, but I believe the thutty thutty from a rifle produces a bit more smack down than the .44 pistol. (sometimes I take a .22 rifle and just the .44mag pistol)(or my bow and arrow)

Or..!!!...in other words, when I go deep into the mountains and into Grizz's back yard, I'm willing to travel light and leave the big heavy guns at home, and take my chances. After riding motorcycles all my life, I know about taking chances!

Dang, that was sure a lot of hot air!
Click to expand...

Big bears ... Really big bears

So I went online-searching for 10 gauge double barrels. :D:D:D

The following is tongue-in-cheek. But then ... maybe not. We're talking giant, hairy, fanged, grizzly death. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/shotguns/shotguns-10-gauge.c1301_p1_o6.cfm

Some of these prices would force one to take out a second mortgage on one's home, so you'd not want to saw-off the barrels on these.

A sawed-off 10 ga. double loaded with monster slugs for monster bears, would be a light carry. Recoil would be an unhappy adventure, true; however, would be better that being Mr Bear's main course for supper.

upload_2022-11-2_17-42-10.png

1.75 oz = 765 grains That's a chunk of lead alright.

A century+ ago, the African safari hunters carried their double-barrel cannons (.375 H&H, .416 Rigby, .470 Nitro Express, ...) figuring that were a mean critter like water buffalo to come at them, they'd not be able to get off more than two rounds before the thing was on top of them. Thus the big heavy bullets at substantial velocity.

 
Old Hobo said:
A sawed-off 10 ga. double loaded with monster slugs for monster bears, would be a light carry. Recoil would be an unhappy adventure, true; however, would be better that being Mr Bear's main course for supper.
Click to expand...

I have a double barrel hammer gun, 12 gauge with short 20 inch barrels, that I load with a wheelbarrow full of black powder and .690" round balls. I take that trekking sometimes as it's also a small-game gun with shot loads. The disadvantage being that 12 gauge shot-shells are bulky and heavy. Only need a couple or three of the ball loads. However, I usually pair that with a .22 pistol, so a minimum of shot shells, and 50 rounds of .22 can be carried. Also have another one with 30" barrels which is still a light gun, and really I prefer to take the 30" over the short one.
 
Old Hobo said:
A century+ ago, the African safari hunters carried their double-barrel cannons (.375 H&H, .416 Rigby, .470 Nitro Express, ...) figuring that were a mean critter like water buffalo to come at them, they'd not be able to get off more than two rounds before the thing was on top of them. Thus the big heavy bullets at substantial velocity.
Click to expand...

Well, we must be careful lest this turn into a "best cartridge for bears" thread, and I know that one of those has been locked down since before I got here. However, one thing, or point I always try to stress is that in any encounter where an animal is coming at you to scratch, bite, or eat you, one is only going to get one or two shots at it, so magazine capacity is not an advantage. That is why I don't feel bad about taking a single shot into Grizz-land, as long as it's a powerful one. One only gets one or two shots, so coolness under pressure trumps large cartridge capacity. The Great White Hunters knew that, from experience.
 
Old Hobo said:
Big bears ... Really big bears

So I went online-searching for 10 gauge double barrels. :D:D:D

The following is tongue-in-cheek. But then ... maybe not. We're talking giant, hairy, fanged, grizzly death. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/shotguns/shotguns-10-gauge.c1301_p1_o6.cfm

Some of these prices would force one to take out a second mortgage on one's home, so you'd not want to saw-off the barrels on these.

A sawed-off 10 ga. double loaded with monster slugs for monster bears, would be a light carry. Recoil would be an unhappy adventure, true; however, would be better that being Mr Bear's main course for supper.

View attachment 1112424

1.75 oz = 765 grains That's a chunk of lead alright.

A century+ ago, the African safari hunters carried their double-barrel cannons (.375 H&H, .416 Rigby, .470 Nitro Express, ...) figuring that were a mean critter like water buffalo to come at them, they'd not be able to get off more than two rounds before the thing was on top of them. Thus the big heavy bullets at substantial velocity.

Click to expand...

I have a double 10 even with 32 inch barrels. An 18 pellet load is the most recoil I've felt. I have kicked around cutting it down and installing choke tubes. But the recoil would be terrible.

I think the trapper from the OP is a much better option.
 
I absolutely love my lever guns, (I have 2) and they are both 16.5 inchers.
However, they are also both pistol caliber guns, (.357 & .44 mag) so it's a win-win for me.
I'm gaining both FPS in muzzle velocity (over the pistols) AND the handiness of the short carbine over say a 20 inch or longer barreled rifle.
 
Space Ghost said:
I absolutely love my lever guns, (I have 2) and they are both 16.5 inchers.
However, they are also both pistol caliber guns, (.357 & .44 mag) so it's a win-win for me.
I'm gaining both FPS in muzzle velocity (over the pistols) AND the handiness of the short carbine over say a 20 inch or longer barreled rifle.
Click to expand...

Truth, as mentioned, with a rifle in a pistola caliber, you gain a tremendous amount of velocity over the pistol barrel, whereas there is a small loss with a rifle cartridge, going from a 20-22-24-+inch barrel to a 16". But, as "we" have "decided", the velocity loss isn't substantial enough to write off a Trapper as not good, useful, or effective. And for many, the handling aspects or perceived "handiness" is "worth" the velocity loss.
 
Pistol calibers are the real place for Trappers; my '94 Marlin .44 was whacked to 16", and produces 1600'sec with 240 JHP bullets. I used it hunting deer (where it took a deer like the hand of God), but l would load it with hardcast lead for bear.
Need to clock my 850'sec Trailboss load in the new 20" Winchester, tho' I doubt it will pick up much in an extra 4".
BTW, Trappers of any stripe aren't always easy to find.
Moon
 
halfmoonclip said:
Pistol calibers are the real place for Trappers; my '94 Marlin .44 was whacked to 16", and produces 1600'sec with 240 JHP bullets. I used it hunting deer (where it took a deer like the hand of God), but l would load it with hardcast lead for bear.
Need to clock my 850'sec Trailboss load in the new 20" Winchester, tho' I doubt it will pick up much in an extra 4".
BTW, Trappers of any stripe aren't always easy to find.
Moon
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, the .44, I used a Ruger .44Mag Carbine for many years (those have an 18" barrel) and yes it dropped deer like the hammer of Thor! My loads produced 1600fps with the 265 grain Hornady .444 bullet. It was an extremely effective 100 yard rifle.

I imagine the Trappers are in demand, but they are easy to make, cutting the mag tube and a equal amount off the spring is simple. Just don't forget to leave that extra 1/4" on the barrel!
 
halfmoonclip said:
Need to clock my 850'sec Trailboss load in the new 20" Winchester, tho' I doubt it will pick up much in an extra 4".
Click to expand...

I think much of the velocity loss and gain with Trappers vs. Carbines would come down to the individual guns, powder, etc. I chronographed a .357 pistol with a 3" barrel, and then another pistol with a 6" on the same day with the same load and the 3" was only like 30fps slower. !!!!
 
Ugly Sauce said:
But, as "we" have "decided", the velocity loss isn't substantial enough to write off a Trapper as not good, useful, or effective. And for many, the handling aspects or perceived "handiness" is "worth" the velocity loss.
Click to expand...

It really comes down to the 'right tool for the job at hand.' In some cases, where portability might count... a Trapper-style would be a benefit. If you are looking for absolute velocity, a longer sight radius, or a situation where portability isn't necessarily a concern... then not so much.

I often compare my AR's... my 20" H-bar, with A2 stock... against one of my 16" carbines with a collapsible stock. Carrying a carbine around for a bit, then switching to the H-bar makes the longer rifle feel like a boat oar.

EDIT to add: (I forgot where I was going with the AR part...) Having said how handy a 16" AR carbine is, when it gets down to it, I can shoot an A2 far better, so there is always a trade-off.

Shooting off sticks with my 20" Marlin 1894 or 20" Browning 71 is child's play... compared to hoisting around my 32" Pedersoli 1885, and that's just setting in a afternoon bouncing lead off steel.
 
Last edited:
I've had lever guns with 16", 18", 20", and 22" barrels. To me 18" is as short as I liked and 20" is my preference, but it isn't about velocity. It's about balance and looks. For whatever reason I didn't shoot the 16" rifle well. Maybe it was just that rifle. But I find 20" to be short enough. Although the 18" Marlin Texan I had is one I wish I'd kept. They only made that barrel length for one year I believe.[/QUOTE]



The short Marlin was called a Marauder and are rare.
https://www.guns.com/firearms/rifle...on-5-rounds-16-barrel-used?p=399501&soldout=1
 
Last edited:
I have one Winchester 1894 Trapper, a .44 Mag model. Also two of the 1892 Rossi 16” models, a.357 and .45Colt. For pistol rounds, I prefer the 16” barrel. It makes these guns light, handy and fun. I had a 20” Rossi 1892 in .357 that was a nice looking gun, and a 24” barrelled 1894 Legacy in .45 Colt. But the Legacy just seemed too long and unwieldy for the power of that round.

The 1894’s in .30-30’s and 336 .35 Rem wear 20” barrels. For these rounds I like that size barrel as they just seem right. :)

The .45/70’s have an 18” barrel on the Guide Gun and a 26” on the 1895CB. The CB is a hefty gun, especially when fully loaded, but the Guide Gun is much handier.

All in all, I generally prefer the shorter trapper-length guns in pistol calibers, but if I find a trapper or 336Y .30/30 I would love to have one of those. :thumbup:

Stay safe.
 
Riomouse911 said:
The .45/70’s have an 18” barrel on the Guide Gun and a 26” on the 1895CB. The CB is a hefty gun, especially when fully loaded, but the Guide Gun is much handier.
Click to expand...

My Marlin 1895 .45-70 has a 22" barrel and half-magazine. I believe it is kind of a copy of, (in Marlin form) or meant to emulate the 1886 Winchester "Lightweight" which also had, you guessed it, 22" round barrel and half magazine. The half-magazine really takes a lot of weight off a rifle, especially when fully loaded...which is usually how they would be. !!!! :)
 
They are noticeably handier than a 20", but not so much so that it would make much of a difference in the field.
Here is a Marlin 336 that I believe was shortened post-factory to 16". It was done well and could pass for factory, but I do not believe it came from the factory as a 16" gun.

maurauderrightside.jpg
 
IMO most levergun use today is going to be under 100 yards. I think most folks are going to opt for something scoped (and with better long range potential) if they think 100+ yard shots are in the realm of possibility. So the velocity loss itself isn’t a serious concern, but sight plane may be. I think the 16” barrels are ugly and they have too much muzzle blast for my liking in .30-30.
 
I always thought the 1895 Cowboy handled beautifully and was much lighter than it looked. Never cared for the Guide Gun and bought an 1895SS instead, the regular 22" barreled half magazine model.
 
CraigC said:
I always thought the 1895 Cowboy handled beautifully and was much lighter than it looked. Never cared for the Guide Gun and bought an 1895SS instead, the regular 22" barreled half magazine model.
Click to expand...

You’ll probably chastise me here, as more of a purist than myself, but I’ve lusted after the idea of a stainless Cowboy for a long, long time.
 
Varminterror said:
You’ll probably chastise me here, as more of a purist than myself, but I’ve lusted after the idea of a stainless Cowboy for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

As Greta would say: "how...dare...you!" I'm not a big fan of stainless rifles (I'm a sucker for stainless pistols) but if such a rifle is going on deep wilderness treks stainless steel is a very good thing and a very good choice.
 
Mosin77 said:
So the velocity loss itself isn’t a serious concern, but sight plane may be.
Click to expand...

A receiver mounted peep fixes that...the sight radius on my half-magazine Trapper is about an inch longer than the/my Winchester Carbine. !!! Of course, put the peep on the Winchester, and Winchester wins again. ?
 
It’s those damned corners on the octagonal barrels… beautiful style, but any use or carry yields contact on those corners, and contact on corners yields finish damage, and then my brain itches every time I look at it… I also carry my leverguns as God intended, with my hand wrapped around the receiver, which puts a lot of natural body oils and salts on the metal work, right there on the big, flat billboard side walls of the receiver…

I’m a stainless guy, top to bottom. White gold and stainless steel wrist watches, stainless rifles, pistols, revolvers whenever I can. I use my stuff, and I can correct errors or hide damages far better in stainless, so a stainless Cowboy has been on my hit list a long time.

I’ve ran the numbers on having a barrel milled and refit to an 1895SS even, restocking to align with the Cowboy design - if I live long enough, it WILL happen. I have a big gun in the works for 2023, and a new rifle for my wife, then a 1894SS in 357/44, probably a new 2011, and then maybe 2024-25, a stainless Cowboy is on the roadmap…
 
Varminterror said:
You’ll probably chastise me here, as more of a purist than myself, but I’ve lusted after the idea of a stainless Cowboy for a long, long time.
Click to expand...
Oh no, I have to make certain concessions for stainless coupled with walnut. For some reason, I like it! There was a stainless Marlin 336 in a local shop years ago that had fantastic wood on it. I still kick myself for not getting it.

IMG_2722b.jpg
 
spring2008118_zps8c3762b8.jpg spring2008117_zps39dd8900.jpg
Old Hobo said:
Big bears ... Really big bears

So I went online-searching for 10 gauge double barrels. :D:D:D

The following is tongue-in-cheek. But then ... maybe not. We're talking giant, hairy, fanged, grizzly death. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/shotguns/shotguns-10-gauge.c1301_p1_o6.cfm

Some of these prices would force one to take out a second mortgage on one's home, so you'd not want to saw-off the barrels on these.

A sawed-off 10 ga. double loaded with monster slugs for monster bears, would be a light carry. Recoil would be an unhappy adventure, true; however, would be better that being Mr Bear's main course for supper.

View attachment 1112424

1.75 oz = 765 grains That's a chunk of lead alright.



Center is a 20" AYA 3 1/2" 10ga. Mag with the space between barrels filled with hot lead after it was sawed off from 32" Those are the Federal Mag Slogs which are awesome , It has a big white bead sight and is a ranch defense weapon for last 30 years.
spring2008118_zps8c3762b8.jpg spring2008117_zps39dd8900.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Actual 7.62 NATO velocity loss - 21" bbl to 16" bbl
Replies
21
Views
2K
iamkris
I
Ugly Sauce
Trapper TC range-report. PA Conical to the rescue...maybe.
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
WestKentucky
WestKentucky
JesusCow
  • Locked
Winchester 94 from a Pawn Shop
Replies
17
Views
2K
BusMaster007
BusMaster007
F
  • Locked
Question for G43 owners.
Replies
7
Views
725
Sarge
Sarge
T
  • Locked
solving for velocity and BC with balistic calcs
Replies
13
Views
852
sscoyote
S
Back
Top