Lever-action .357 carbine: a good defensive arm?

[P. Plainsman]

Hello, all. I'm a new gun owner looking for a first long gun. I have no experience with rifles. My needs are (1) defense/SHTF; and (2) general plinking at the indoor and outdoor range.

I really like the Marlin 1894C carbine in .357 Magnum. It would go great with my defensive handgun, a Ruger .357 revolver. Besides, it has that old-school look. Metal and wood. I'm discovering that I'm something of a gun reactionary ...

But the Marlin is a lever-action gun. Is that a major liability in defensive situations?

The other long gun I'm considering is the rather new-school Ruger PC4GR semi-auto carbine in .40 S&W. My understanding is that the .357 will perform better and hit harder from a long barrel than the .40, which really doesn't gain much extra acceleration over a pistol. But the Ruger would deliver faster follow-up shots, I would think.

Given my needs, is that a sufficient basis for going with the Ruger?

Many thanks.

 

[treeprof]

A topic search on "lever" in this forum will turn up a lot of info on this subject. Basically, you'll have broad (though not universal) support for the idea of the 1894C as a defensive long gun. The .40S&W doesn't hold a candle to the .357 mag-chambered carbine for flexlibility and utility.

 

[Domino]

yep

I'll get one of those for sure after I get my GP100. A .357 lever is a great idea for a personal defense/plinker. They are..... 1.) fun to shoot 2.) accurate as hell 3.) not "evil looking" 4.) hit hard and will kill very well. Plus ammo is cheap and abundant and versatile, you can suit your own needs with one. I have a Rossi in .45 colt and it is mucho fun, I am much better with it than with something like the Hi-point or other semi-auto pistol carbines. Plus I've found myself to be quite deadly with it at out to 80-100 yards. At 40 yards those gongs don't have a chance in hell, you'd be amazed at how fast you can get with one. The fact is that a gun is a gun and in most defense situations a lever is probably a better choice than a semi. You are more likely to take you shots and protect yourself rather than spittin out bullets at bystanders. If you ever do have to protect yourself and you go to court, a jury is going to go easier on you if you used a lever gun rather than a semi. Imagine the state prosecuter up there waving around an "assualt weapon" and ranting about what a killer you are. Now imagine them waving around "grandpa's huntin' gun" and trying to pull that crap, it probably would not work as well.

 

[treeprof]

I'm still waiting for actual documentation, rather than legal theorizing on gun boards and in gun magazines, that a lever gun has made the difference in a SD criminal or civil case. It could be out there, but I've not seen it produced.

 

[Domino]

SD case

I think it would apply if the case had some questionable evidence. Example: shooting someone you know or if the criminal didn't have a firearm

I just know i've seen cases on TV where the prosecuter pulls out the ol' "assault weapon" techinque . I think that it doesn't matter either way but if you add a couple of soccer moms and liberals in the jury and you might have a problem.

 

[treeprof]

It's certainly possible, but my experience on various civil liability cases does not lead me to put much faith in the hypothesis that a lever gun is necessarily easier to defend than any other, despite the fact that this idea is frequently put forth as one of the reasons it makes a good SD weapon. Not trying to flame; I just have never seen a shred of supporting data.

 

[Das Pferd]

How do you document what a jury feels and thinks?

People are impressionable.

 

[treeprof]

Although jurors often freely share the nature of their deliberations with the press after a trial, just show me where a plaintiff used a lever gun for SD, their attorney used the "it's just grandpa's deer gun" argument, and the defendant was subsequently exonerated. I don't even need a juror's post-trial statement that the gun made the difference. I just want to see an example of how using a lever gun contributed in any way to a finding of innocence, or was even used as a defense of innocence.

I call BS on the "it won't scare the ppl" argument until there is evidence, instead of feelings, to the contrary.

 

[sumpnz]

Regardless of risk at a civil liability trial, I do think lever guns have some advantages over EBRs, or semi-auto pistol caliber carbines. They do force you to be a bit more careful with each shot and that does reduce the risk of (and at) litigation becuase it reduces the chances of hitting an innocent bystander. Also, a lever gun usually won't get you nailed with illegal possesion of weapons charges in areas like NYC, SF, Chicago, etc. becuase it's not a handgun, and they are not classified as an assault weapons in almost every area I know of.

The other advantages of a lever gun of course, are that 9mm, 40S&W, and .45ACP don't gain nearly as much from a carbine barrel as .357 and .44 magnums will. Of course, all of those pistol calibers have advantages in accuracy when fired from a carbine compared to a pistol.

I would have to say that I'd rather have a PC4 than a GP100 in an SHTF situation, or personal defense beyond 15 yards. But, I'd rather have a Marlin 1894 than a PC4 for either of those scenarios. The only real advantage I'd see to a PC4 would be quicker reloads, but statistically almost any gunfight you're every likely to get into will be over long before you empty the mag on any gun.

 

[roscoe]

For a long time my defense/hunting/plinking/SHTF gun was a Winchester 30-30 and I think can serve all those roles effectively. A 16" .357 might be better for many of those applications since it is shorter and handier and has a higher magazine capacity. I believe that .357 out of a rifle has much better performance than .40 ever will. Jim March argues that .357 out of a rifle can be almost as effective as 30-30 out to 100 yards, and I'm not inclined to argue with him.

My only recommendation is to add a ghost ring by Wild West Guns or XO systems - it improved my accuracy considerably and makes target acquiisition quicker.


do a search under "tactical lever action" and you will see this topic has been well-chewed

 

[fix]

Lever-action .357 carbine: a good defensive arm?

That depends entirely on what you are defending and who/what you're defending it from.

 

[P. Plainsman]

A topic search on "lever" in this forum will turn up a lot of info on this subject. Basically, you'll have broad (though not universal) support for the idea of the 1894C as a defensive long gun.

Indeed, right now there's a thread on the 1894C just two threads away from this one!

Duly noted.

 

[Rexrider]

I have recently purchased a Marlin 1894 in .357. I think it makes a great self-defense firearm. It is also a fun range firearm, a suitable truck gun, a camping rifle, and with the right ammo, a hunting rifle (medium sized game within 75 to 100 yds).

The only advantage something like the PC4 has is a higher rate of fire. I can tell you that with some practice you can cycle rounds at a pretty quick pace while keeping the sites on target (for the most part). Not as fast as a semi auto but respectable nonetheless. Topping off rounds can be done on the fly (so to speak).

Roscoe made the suggestion of adding some type of ghost ring sight. Another one to consider is the Williams 5D. That is what is installed on my rifle. It is more of a peep sight but I think it works very well. Which one you choose is a matter of preference. All seem to come highly recommended.

Having a .357 lever and revolver is a combo hard to beat....except by maybe a combo in .44 mag. Ahh heck.... get a set of .357 and .44 mag

Cheers
Rexrider

edited for spelling

 

[MeekandMild]

I really like the Marlin 1894C carbine in .357 Magnum.

I like all Marlins too, but I've never had a .357. (IMHO not the best choice for dual purpose home defence-deer rifle.) Moving up to a .44 or .30-30 would give a bit more power should one ever feel the need to go deer hunting. OTOH for armadillo or two legged snakes the .357 would be perfectly adequate.

Rexrider likes the ghost ring site but I've never cared for it. Both my Marlins have scopes mounted on see-through rings which make the factory iron sights pretty fast on the line up.

 

[twoblink]

Gun Grain Velocity Energy
.40 Smith & Wesson 155 1205 500
357 Magnum (out of a revolver) 125 1450 584
.357 Mag (out of a 18.5" Rifle) 125 2298 1084

As you can see, the 357Mag out of a rifle is whole different beast! Shoot Buffalo Bore loads and you exceed 30-30 specs! and it goes well with a revolver logistically.

 

[hillbilly]

The only liability you'd have with a .357 lever is reload time.

If you ever found yourself in the unlikely, one-in-a-million situaiton of confronting multiple bad guys, you'd better be able to solve the problem before you ran out of rounds.

That's one of the advantages of box magazines, or even rounds on an enbloc clip ala the Garand......reload time is much faster.

hillbilly

 

[jimbo]

Your choice is an excellent one when you consider that you WILL be plinking, you MAY need to defend yourself and TEOTWAWKI will probably never, ever occur. Using .38 SPL rounds makes it a very affordable choice as well.

Go for it.

 

[fallingblock]

Get that .357 Marlin!

It's possibly the best investment you'll make in a fun, all-around plinkin' and shootin' carbine.

I was a skeptic until I actually got one.
(yes, they are still "allowed" in Australia...at least for now )

So many different projectiles are available that you can make up loads for just about every conceivable use of the caliber....

 

[OEF_VET]

You must buy one.

My current truck guns are a Rossi .357 Carbine and 4" S&W 686. I can't think of a much better carbine/handgun combo than that.

 

[Tamara]

treeprof,

I call BS on the "it won't scare the ppl" argument until there is evidence, instead of feelings, to the contrary.

You are, in effect, asking someone to prove a negative. To wit, how many .30-30 SD shootings might have been a little more touch-and-go if the prosecutor had a MAK-90 to wave in front of the jury instead of that plebeian Marlin? We don't know, because the prosecutor didn't have that MAK to wave.

Maybe it's just 'elephant repellant', maybe not, but it's awful hard to prove a negative.

Personally, I'm using a scary-looking 870 until my scary-looking AR project is finished, but I live somewhere where it'd be awful hard to find twelve antis to put in a jury box at once. If I lived in one of those itty-bitty socialist states in the top right-hand corner of the map, or out in earthquake country, I might put more emphasis on the friendly, happy PR value of my house gun's looks.

 

[mhdishere]

I have to correct Sumpnz's statement that you wouldn't go down on a weapons charge, at least in NYC, for using a Marlin lever-gun. In NYC you have to have a license for long arms too. If you don't, you're still going down on a weapons charge even if it's a long arm.

Don't know about other places, but don't do it in NYC.

 

[Brian Williams]

Yup!

 

[Z_Infidel]

IMO: no, the fact that the 1894C is a lever action is not a major liability in a defensive situation. Lever actions can be very fast to operate and this carbine is very handy indeed. While the .357 Mag is not my choice for large game, the 1894C simply has a lot going for it in terms of both practical use and fun.

As for the sights, I don't have any problems using the stock semi-buckhorns, as I can align the sights pretty quickly. I did, however, install a Marbles tang sight that provides similar advantages to a ghost-ring aperture sight with a more traditional look.

The only down side (or up side depending on viewpoint) is that buying the 1894C just might lead to the purchase of a .30-30... and a .45-70, and...

 

[treeprof]

Tamara - Ok, but nor can anyone prove that a lever gun would have made the difference for the defendant if a defense attorney had it to wave around, instead of the prosecutor with the MAK-90. Yet, the idea that is does or would make a difference persists in the complete absence of any direct, corollary or anecdotal evidence. Has anyone seen even as much as an Ayoobian analysis of seemingly legitimate SD shootings where those who use EBR's to defend themselves tended to fare worse in criminal or civil cases than those who used lever guns? Instead, this whole justification of lever guns as cosmetically benign instruments of self defense is merely the collective opinion of gun mag and gunboard writers, most of whom have no first hand courtroom experience dealing with trial evidence, and who merely parrot what they read from others. Once one does have courtroom experience, you realize just how different your opinion on the (in)validity or persuasiveness of items of evidence can be from the jury's; it can be sobering.

It's true that lever guns are/were among the last remaining options for folks in some countries where firearms are heavily restricted. But, there were no exemptions made for lever actions when the Ga Assembly passed Roy Barne's gun-grabbing, anti-terrah emergency powers bill post 9/11. Nor am I aware of any exemption in the 30 or 40 other states with similar laws containing the self-proclaimed right of gov't to regulate firearms under emergency powers. And, as was pointed out above, there's no free ride for grandads's '94 in places like NYC, either. More alarmingly, wasn't the .30-30 specifically mentioned by Ted Kennedy on the floor of the Senate as one of the ballistic vest-puncturing rounds that we need to ban? Somehow, I don't think only T/C single shots are going to be affected if such an odious law ever comes to pass.

Look, I think lever guns have a lot to offer in the way of defensive arms; they're part of my own defensive battery. And, if I lived in a semi-free and/or hoplophobic jurisdication, then I might just try and stack the odds in my favor thru my choice of SD guns if I thought it might help even in the teensiest way. But, in the absence of corroborative evidence, that'd be only a guess on my part. Just as it is on the part of those who speak of lever guns as having the added benefit of not being scary to juries (and even cops in some of these threads) as though it were Gospel truth.

 

[Sistema1927]

Rexrider,

Did you have to put a taller front sight on your 1894C with the 5D installed?

I just put a 5D on my 336, and find that it shoots about 6" too high at 50 yds. with the factory front sight. I am presently debating whether to go that route, or go back to using the buckhorns on the 336 and putting the 5D on my 1894C. I am also thinking about getting some AO express sights for one or both.