357 Carbines

[CoalTrain49]

My friend has a Henry Big Boy in .44 mag. I love that gun! It is a hoot to shoot and I love the receiver loading gate plus the removable tube magazine. It is on my list for "some day". I would imagine a .357 version would be as nice if not a nicer shooter than the .44 mag version. The Henry lever action should be a great match for .357 as far as accuracy. If you need more accuracy than a lever gun will give you then you need to also choose a more accurate cartridge than a .357 for serious bench rest work.

I can understand the concept of a pistol cartridge in a rifle. I had a 77/357 for awhile. I wanted rifle accuracy at 100 yards and was never able to get to 2 MOA. I tried a new trigger, a new stock, spacers in the bolt and various loads. Ruger even rebarreled it but nothing really worked. I then realized I was trying to make it something it wasn't, a rifle. Because it wasn't a bottleneck cartridge it never was going to be comparable. I really liked that carbine but every time I shot it I was sad. I also own and shoot an M1 carbine which is considerably more accurate than the 77/357 I had.

 

[Remington1911]

I can understand the concept of a pistol cartridge in a rifle. I had a 77/357 for awhile. I wanted rifle accuracy at 100 yards and was never able to get to 2 MOA. I tried a new trigger, a new stock, spacers in the bolt and various loads. Ruger even rebarreled it but nothing really worked. I then realized I was trying to make it something it wasn't, a rifle. Because it wasn't a bottleneck cartridge it never was going to be comparable. I really liked that carbine but every time I shot it I was sad. I also own and shoot an M1 carbine which is considerably more accurate than the 77/357 I had.

Carbine is on par with the 357, the old myth of the carbine being a wussy round seems to be on the decline for one reason or another.

I am shopping for a 77/357, I am going in with hopes of something that can ding an 4" steel plate at will from 100, if I can catch the smaller ones I will be happy. Personally I look at them as inside 100 type guns.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Carbine is on par with the 357, the old myth of the carbine being a wussy round seems to be on the decline for one reason or another.

I am shopping for a 77/357, I am going in with hopes of something that can ding an 4" steel plate at will from 100, if I can catch the smaller ones I will be happy. Personally I look at them as inside 100 type guns.

It might be good for that. Maybe you will have better luck than I did.

Something I found out that might help you. The take down bolt requires an abnormal amount of torque and getting it just right is critical for accuracy. The problem is it's a slotted bolt and it should be an internal hex head bolt. If you ever take it down you will never get that back to the 50 lbs or whatever it requires. Do yourself a favor and replace that first thing. Get a torque wrench. Ask Ruger what the bolt specs are and what that should be set at. Then experiment with FP's to achieve the best accuracy.

The Ruger Mini is also subject to this malaise with the gas block but at least they use the proper bolts.

Ruger says 60 in lbs on the front screw, the hand tight on the rear screw then back it off 1/8 turn. And to make sure action is fully seated to the rear of the stock before tightening. About the most a normal man can tighten a slotted head screwdriver is 45 in pounds. Have followed there direction to a tee...

https://www.go2gbo.com/threads/model-77-357.358025/

This is going to be your biggest challenge. Been down that road.

 

[Remington1911]

It might be good for that. Maybe you will have better luck than I did.

Something I found out that might help you. The take down bolt requires an abnormal amount of torque and getting it just right is critical for accuracy. The problem is it's a slotted bolt and it should be an internal hex head bolt. If you ever take it down you will never get that back to the 50 lbs or whatever it requires. Do yourself a favor and replace that first thing. Get a torque wrench. Ask Ruger what the bolt specs are and what that should be set at. Then experiment with FP's to achieve the best accuracy.

The Ruger Mini is also subject to this malaise with the gas block but at least they use the proper bolts.



https://www.go2gbo.com/threads/model-77-357.358025/

This is going to be your biggest challenge. Been down that road.

Thank you very much for the tips. I plan on putting in the order on Monday, taking the day off. Who knows how long it will take for me to get it in my grubby little hands.

I want it to shoot as well as it can, but being a ruger I am not setting my sights very high, I have played the ruger lotto before and lost badly....however they are the only game in town for a bolt gun.

I really like the single shots and likely one of those will be in my future.....if I can find one.

Thank you again.

 

[dannyd]

The Ruger 77/357 was just to small for me; had a regular 77 in 300 magnum and that fit okay.

 

[Remington1911]

The Ruger 77/357 was just to small for me; had a regular 77 in 300 magnum and that fit okay.

I am a pretty small guy, currently 5'7" I just keep shrinking as I get older, and shed quite a bit of weight, currently ~ 160lbs. The smaller rifles...or carbines just fit me well.

Wife is even smaller, in her shotgun she shoots a youth model.

 

[dannyd]

I am a pretty small guy, currently 5'7" I just keep shrinking as I get older, and shed quite a bit of weight, currently ~ 160lbs. The smaller rifles...or carbines just fit me well.

Wife is even smaller, in her shotgun she shoots a youth model.

It's a nice rile I just need a length of pull between 16 and 17 inches, so most rifles are short. I am a revolver and single shot pistol guy for most part.

 

[CraigC]

If accuracy is a concern, the Ruger 77/357 is no more accurate than a levergun. In fact, I've never seen one shoot as well as my Marlin 1894S, which shoots sub-MOA with preferred loads. The Ruger also has a threaded barrel attachment, so there are no drop-in replacements.

The Marlins are good, if not a bit overrated. Folks talk like the JM guns were the cream of the crop but they were not. They could be quite rough. The new Henry Big Boy is a decent rifle, I like mine. The new Rossi guns are excellent. They have obviously done something recently to greatly improve their leverguns. The cream of the crop is the late model Winchester or the Browning B92 guns, made in Japan by Miroku. There are also some very good 1892 replicas coming out of Italy and offered by companies like Taylor's.

 

[tubeshooter]

I know this thread has pretty much had it's moment in the sun, but I wanted to report back on a Henry Big Boy Steel I bought about 3 months ago and just now finally got to fire. It is a 16" tube-load model.

Just a few shots at short range, but I was rather pleased with the accuracy. I added a Skinner Big Boy Express peep sight, with no change to the factory front sight.

Feeding and extraction was acceptable, if not stellar. I was shooting Winchester White Box .38 Special, so I was not particularly surprised or disappointed. Lever clearly likes to be worked smartly, and prefers to be held vertically. If you cycle it slow while peeking into the ejection port, you will have problems.

I suspect the gun would do better with true .357 mag - most .357 leverguns do, to my understanding.


I have a recent manufacture Rossi that I have fired a time or two that did just fine as well, but it's in .45 Colt so not completely on topic but I feel it is worth mentioning here for the record.

 

[CraigC]

I can understand the concept of a pistol cartridge in a rifle. I had a 77/357 for awhile. I wanted rifle accuracy at 100 yards and was never able to get to 2 MOA. I tried a new trigger, a new stock, spacers in the bolt and various loads. Ruger even rebarreled it but nothing really worked. I then realized I was trying to make it something it wasn't, a rifle. Because it wasn't a bottleneck cartridge it never was going to be comparable. I really liked that carbine but every time I shot it I was sad. I also own and shoot an M1 carbine which is considerably more accurate than the 77/357 I had.

That's about how they seem to shoot. Accuracy at 100yds has nothing to do with the cartridge though. If a Freedom Arms revolver can shoot sub-MOA, then a rifle that can't has something wrong with it. I really don't know what the limiting factor is but there has to be a reason why they don't shoot any better than they do. Ruger usually makes a good barrel but cuts a loose chamber in some of their guns. The only versions of these I've seen accurized are the rimfire and Hornet versions. Clark Custom builds them with new barrels and guarantees the .22LR version will shoot MOA at 100yds, so it will assuredly do better than that on average. The .357 will approach 2000fps out of a rifle so surely the accuracy issues the .22LR has beyond 75yds do not affect the .357. I've just never seen one rebarreled to find out.

 

[CoalTrain49]

That's about how they seem to shoot. Accuracy at 100yds has nothing to do with the cartridge though. If a Freedom Arms revolver can shoot sub-MOA, then a rifle that can't has something wrong with it. I really don't know what the limiting factor is but there has to be a reason why they don't shoot any better than they do. Ruger usually makes a good barrel but cuts a loose chamber in some of their guns. The only versions of these I've seen accurized are the rimfire and Hornet versions. Clark Custom builds them with new barrels and guarantees the .22LR version will shoot MOA at 100yds, so it will assuredly do better than that on average. The .357 will approach 2000fps out of a rifle so surely the accuracy issues the .22LR has beyond 75yds do not affect the .357. I've just never seen one rebarreled to find out.

Might be because there are no mfr's that want to put that much machining into a 357 rifle, bolt or lever. Doesn't make a lot of sense to build a rifle that would cost 3K and chamber it for a revolver cartridge. I know FA revolvers are the best that can be produced and I have no doubt that one will shoot 1 MOA. That might be hard to prove at 100 yds but could easily be proved at 50 yds with a 1/2" group. It's still 1 MOA. Range doesn't matter when discussing MOA.

I'm not a pistol/revolver shooter per say, although I have many. My first love is accurate rifles and it seems that carbines chambered for a pistol/revolver cartridge just aren't a worthy candidate for my time and money any longer.

As an aside, a good friend of mine has some revolvers from an estate that he hasn't sold yet. Actually it's his wife who inherited the estate but I think her husband is trying to liquidate it. He's had those for 6 months and is procrastinating about selling the lot. In there is a FA 454 Casull that looks new. I was tempted to make him an offer but I'm at an age where I need to be selling and not buying. The 454 is a 44 mag on steroids and I'm shooting 45 APC revolvers and 1911's. If that were a 44 special I would have had it weeks ago.

I'm thinking the local FFL who is a friend of mine is going to end up with the the entire lot.

 

[cfullgraf]

I have a Marlin 1894C in 357 Mag from the early 1980’s and it shoot accurately with jacketed bullets. It has a micro-groove barrel and I’ve never been able to get cast bullets to match the grouping of jacketed bullets. It’s not bad with cast bullets but jacketed bullets do better.

I bought an early 1890’s vintage Winchester 73 in 32-20 and liked the way it shot. It got me thinking about a Winchester/Miroku 73 n 357 Magnum.

I own a Miroku Win 73 in 357. I have 5 different loads from epoxy bullets to Hornady XTPs and Speer hollow points. it shoots a ragged hole at 50 yards. Its not a carbine, however. Its pricey but its amazing.

I bought one and like BRatigan, mine shoots at least as well as my Marlin.

 

[CraigC]

Might be because there are no mfr's that want to put that much machining into a 357 rifle, bolt or lever. Doesn't make a lot of sense to build a rifle that would cost 3K and chamber it for a revolver cartridge.

That does not compute. It's still a thousand dollar rifle. It 'should' shoot a lot better than it does.

Range doesn't matter when discussing MOA.

It does when you're talking about the .22LR. Because in order to get MOA at 100yds, you need sub-MOA at 50yds. There's a point I was making in there. The point being, that Clark basically guarantees MOA at 100yds in the .22LR, which translates to at least 3/4MOA at 50yds. We all know a rifle is going to shoot better than its guarantee. The bottom line being, if Clark can guarantee the same rifle to shoot sub-MOA with a good barrel and light tuning, then the same should hold true for the .357 version. Not to mention the difference in barrel attachment, V-block versus threads.

 

[film495]

That does not compute. It's still a thousand dollar rifle. It 'should' shoot a lot better than it does.



It does when you're talking about the .22LR. Because in order to get MOA at 100yds, you need sub-MOA at 50yds. There's a point I was making in there. The point being, that Clark basically guarantees MOA at 100yds in the .22LR, which translates to at least 3/4MOA at 50yds. We all know a rifle is going to shoot better than its guarantee. The bottom line being, if Clark can guarantee the same rifle to shoot sub-MOA with a good barrel and light tuning, then the same should hold true for the .357 version. Not to mention the difference in barrel attachment, V-block versus threads.

I agree with you that it should shoot better. Maybe it does and the standard deviation to MOA is operator error, or ammunition, and there are just variables that need to be worked out to shoot tighter groups. I've never really done it at 100 yards, so - I assume shooting a nice tight group at 100 yards is not super easy.

I think you are not getting the geometry of MOA. It is referenced as 1" at 100 yards, but it is minute of angle, so - the reference MOA as I understand it is the standard deviation of angle from a perfect line that equates to 1" at 100 yards. I don't know what it is, but there is some actually measurable known angle that creates a 1" group at 100. The same group from the same bullets at 50 would be exactly a 1/2" group, and at 25 yards 1/4" group exactly. If you stacked up targets all in front of one another at the specific ranges, and the paper did not deflect the trajectory etc. It is a theoretical example of MOA, not a practicable excercise.

From what I've read there is no real accuracy inherent to bottleneck cartridges, and a straight wall can shoot just as well. So, if the chambers are machined loose, that could be a variable. I'd expect this in a lever gun, but not really in a bolt or single action. Maybe Ruger just uses the same machining across the board to cut the chambers, so - you are getting a bolt gun machined as loose as a lever. Seems economical to me. I wonder if Henry and all the manufacturers do this these days to save cost. Is what it is, would seem to make sense.

 

[CraigC]

I think you are not getting the geometry of MOA. It is referenced as 1" at 100 yards, but it is minute of angle, so - the reference MOA as I understand it is the standard deviation of angle from a perfect line that equates to 1" at 100 yards. I don't know what it is, but there is some actually measurable known angle that creates a 1" group at 100. The same group from the same bullets at 50 would be exactly a 1/2" group, and at 25 yards 1/4" group exactly. If you stacked up targets all in front of one another at the specific ranges, and the paper did not deflect the trajectory etc. It is a theoretical example of MOA, not a practicable exercise.

I understand perfectly. The catch here is that .22LR accuracy begins to unravel at around 70-75yds. So half MOA at 50yds does not translate to half MOA at 100yds. Just as MOA at 100yds does not translate to MOA at 200yds and beyond. This is well known among the long range rimfire crowd. It's part of what makes it so challenging and why companies like Cutting Edge developed long copper spitzers to load into .22LR cases (yes, people handload rimfires) to mitigate the .22LR's inherent shortcomings as a long range (relatively speaking) cartridge.

The point being that a rifle is in all likelihood going to shoot better than what the manufacturer or custom shop guarantees. The guarantee is going to be something they know they can count on 100% of the time. On top of that, a 1MOA at 100yds .22LR rifle is going to shoot better than a half inch at 50yds. It could even halve that. Clark's guarantee is 1"@100yds, using a cartridge that begins to unravel at 75yds. So if the 77/22 is capable of that level of accuracy in a .22LR, it would be capable of that or probably better in the .357 version. Because the .357 would not hit the wall a 75yds. The problem is that I've never seen a 77/357 with an aftermarket/custom barrel. Hornets yes, .357's and .44's, no.

 

[film495]

I pinged Henry to see if they had any published specs for what a customer could expect, and they said that both single shot and lever action should be very accurate and one was not inherently superior to the other. They did not however, mention any numbers.

I think I don't get how the bullet can travel and not have a corresponding MOA at 50 and 100 yards unless you are throwing out knuckle balls, but - I admit, I have never done it and have no experience with it. I'll defer 100% to CraigC who appears to have some real world experience with it. Maybe some day I'll get time to mess with it and see it for myself.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Folks talk like the JM guns were the cream of the crop but they were not.

This one pretty much creams my crop. 80 grains 3fg/400 grain Speer JSP, 100 yards.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

You also see it on a lot of traditional black powder rifles (Hawken replicas and so forth).

Been around since before forever.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Pretty easy to adjust if you need to pass things like a drop test for where you are shooting.

My Jeager would never pass a drop-test. It goes off about the time you FEEL your finger on the trigger.

 

[film495]

Just comparing a few levers. The Winchester 1892 has a Twist Rate of 18 3/4" compared to the Henry 16" Twist Rate, both available in a 20 inch barrel, just to compare apples to apples. Anyone have any idea why the same barrel length shooting the same cartridge, .357 Magnum, would have different twist rates, and what that would do to how they would shoot?

I pinged Henry about the twist rate to see how they landed on 1:16, and if there is a difference/benefit. It just make some difference, I just have no idea what difference.

 

[film495]

Henry's response was the 1:16 twist is to help stabilize 180 grain loads that are designed for hog and deer size game.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Right, a faster twist will stabilize a heavier/longer bullet. I think that would be a great plus for a carbine/rifle. I shoot a 200 grain cast gas-check bullet in my Rossi, and have no idea what twist they use. ? But it stabilizes well, is quite accurate. I'm also not familiar with what twist rates in general are used for the .357 cartridge.

For 180 grain bullets, I'd be surprised if a 1:16" would be a big difference compared to a 1:18" twist.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Wow, okay. Did a quick google. The Rossi has a 1:30" twist rate. !!! (could that be right?) If that will stabilize a 200 grain bullet, I find it odd that Henry would choose a 1:16 over a 1:18" twist to better stabilize 180 grain bullets. I think it's good they chose the faster twist, but I don't see the logic, according to their answer to the question.

Thoughts???

 

[CoalTrain49]

That does not compute. It's still a thousand dollar rifle. It 'should' shoot a lot better than it does.



It does when you're talking about the .22LR. Because in order to get MOA at 100yds, you need sub-MOA at 50yds. There's a point I was making in there. The point being, that Clark basically guarantees MOA at 100yds in the .22LR, which translates to at least 3/4MOA at 50yds. We all know a rifle is going to shoot better than its guarantee. The bottom line being, if Clark can guarantee the same rifle to shoot sub-MOA with a good barrel and light tuning, then the same should hold true for the .357 version. Not to mention the difference in barrel attachment, V-block versus threads.

No you don't. MOA at 50 yds is 0.52". MOA is an angular measurement equal to 1/60th of one degree with 360 degrees in a circle. It varies with distance. It's 1.047" at 100 yds. At 1000 yds. it's 10.47''. At 25 yds. its about a 1/4 of an inch. If a rifle shoots 1 MOA at 100 yds it should shoot 1 MOA at 300 yds. Other conditions may affect that but the rifle mechanics don't change.

I see a lot of people talk about MOA but very few people know what that is. They think it's something that has to be measured at 100 yds. MOA is just math and high school geometry.

I understand it isn't a term that handgun shooters prescribe to but that doesn't change the definition.

 

[CraigC]

No you don't. MOA at 50 yds is 0.52". MOA is an angular measurement equal to 1/60th of one degree with 360 degrees in a circle. It varies with distance. It's 1.047" at 100 yds. At 1000 yds. it's 10.47''. At 25 yds. its about a 1/4 of an inch. If a rifle shoots 1 MOA at 100 yds it should shoot 1 MOA at 300 yds. Other conditions may affect that but the rifle mechanics don't change.

I see a lot of people talk about MOA but very few people know what that is. They think it's something that has to be measured at 100 yds. MOA is just math and high school geometry.

I understand it isn't a term that handgun shooters prescribe to but that doesn't change the definition.

Uh, yeah, I do and don't condescend me. You're not reading everything I'm writing. I clearly understand MOA, you don't understand what I'm saying and I'm tired of repeating myself. Read the following sentence three times and let it sink in before continuing.

Accuracy of the .22LR cartridge begins to unravel at 70-75yds.

I said that already. THAT is the difference. A .22LR rifle that shoots MOA at 50yds WILL NOT shoot MOA at 100yds. A .22LR rifle that shoots MOA at 100yds WILL NOT shoot MOA at 200yds. MOA doesn't change, it's the cartridge that loses accuracy as range increases. By your logic, the .22LR rifle that shoots 1" at 100yds, which is easily attained, will also shoot 10" at 1000yds. Which we know with absolute certainty is impossible. Why? Because people shoot the .22LR at that distance.

Again, this only applies to the .22LR. You essentially need a 3/4MOA rifle at 50yds to shoot MOA at 100yds. Yes, you need to shoot 3/8"@50yds to shoot 1"@100yds. You need a half MOA rifle at 50yds to shoot MOA at 200yds. Yes, you need 1/4"@50yds to shoot 2"@200yds. Why? Because the cartridge loses accuracy as range increases.