Limitations of .357 Magnum

[CraigC]

Actually, if we're gonna get technical and start splitting hairs, the Marlin is a rifle. With leverguns, the distinction between carbines and rifles lies in the configuration, not the barrel length. The Marlin 1894C or Cowboy has a capped forend and a shotgun buttlpate, which makes it a rifle.

In this context it makes no difference whatsoever if the barrel is 16" or 24".

 

[357 Terms]

The Marlin 1894C or Cowboy has a capped forend and a shotgun buttlpate, which makes it a rifle.

Yeah....but still, the 1894CSS is 18.5 inches including the chamber.
Chambered in a straight wall pistol cartridge, thats a long way from a "rifle".

 

[whm1974]

Actually, if we're gonna get technical and start splitting hairs, the Marlin is a rifle. With leverguns, the distinction between carbines and rifles lies in the configuration, not the barrel length. The Marlin 1894C or Cowboy has a capped forend and a shotgun buttlpate, which makes it a rifle.

In this context it makes no difference whatsoever if the barrel is 16" or 24".

I(and other as well) will respectfully disagree. A carbine has not only a shorter barrel, but shorter over all length as well.

 

[hossfly]

It appears we have a number of "Sheldon Coopers" on this board.

 

[Tallball]

I even have a Green Lantern shirt.

 

[CraigC]

I(and other as well) will respectfully disagree. A carbine has not only a shorter barrel, but shorter over all length as well.

Disagree if you want, it's all well documented. A rifle with a shorter barrel is a short-rifle, which is what the Marlin is. Rifles have shotgun or crescent buttplates, forend caps, dovetailed hangers, round or octagon barrels. Carbines have barrel bands, saddle rings, carbine-specific buttplates and strictly round barrels.

There's little difference in overall length of a carbine or rifle with the same length barrel.

This'll blow your mind. You can easily have a rifle with a barrel shorter than a carbine. This picture illustrates the difference between carbines and rifles.

 

[CraigC]

Here's an 18" short rifle.



Compared to a 19" carbine.

 

[whm1974]

Here's an 18" short rifle.

View attachment 918022

Compared to a 19" carbine.

View attachment 918023

They look the same to me...

 

[earlthegoat2]

I am both awed and bemused by this exhibition of semantics. Nonetheless, I am enlightened by it.

 

[gotboostvr]

I am both awed and bemused by this exhibition of semantics. Nonetheless, I am enlightened by it.

This whole thread is just semantics honestly.

Yes, the 357 has been used to successfully harvest just about every animal on the planet. Yes, there's better cartridges and platforms suited for that.

Yes, it's successfully been carried and deployed by our boys in blue out of service sized weapons against crooks and banditos. Yes, there's better cartridges and platforms suited for that.

Yes, it's successfully been tucked into waistbands and pockets to protect you and yours against whatever harms may befall you during your daily comings and goings. Yes, there's better cartridges and platforms suited for that.

We can all agree, I think, that the 357 Magnum works adequately well at a very wide variety of roles. If you could only have one gun for hunting, CCW, plinking, nightstand duty et al. it would not be a bad choice.

 

[el Godfather]

Limitations of .357 Magnum?
For SD/HD; capacity, recoil, muzzle blast, size - shootable vs concealable.
For hunting; bullet weight

Very succinctly put. Basically all of us have been arguing somewhat around these points.

We can all agree, I think, that the 357 Magnum works adequately well at a very wide variety of roles. If you could only have one gun for hunting, CCW, plinking, nightstand duty et al. it would not be a bad choice.

Very well said.

We can all agree, I think, that the 357 Magnum works adequately well at a very wide variety of roles. If you could only have one gun for hunting, CCW, plinking, nightstand duty et al. it would not be a bad choice.

Very well said.

 

[fxvr5]

I stipulate a "good" revolver to specifically exclude those with issues. Because there are obviously revolvers that don't shoot worth a crap due to those issues.

Got it. You exclude poor shooting revolvers from being in the accuracy comparison. Makes sense.

 

[CraigC]

Got it. You exclude poor shooting revolvers from being in the accuracy comparison. Makes sense.

I figured that's all you'd take from my post. No, I exclude revolvers with manufacturing defects. Just as I would a semi-auto that doesn't function properly or one with a bad barrel.

They look the same to me...

I imagine they would to folks who don't know a lot about leverguns. To those that do, the half octagon barrel, long forend with steel cap, crescent buttplate, dovetailed magazine hanger and pistol grip distinguish the top gun as a short rifle. The rounded carbine buttplate, saddle ring, short banded forend and magazine tube distinguish the bottom gun as a carbine. Carbines are also exclusively round barrels and straight grips. Rifles can be either.

 

[whm1974]

I figured that's all you'd take from my post. No, I exclude revolvers with manufacturing defects. Just as I would a semi-auto that doesn't function properly or one with a bad barrel.



I imagine they would to folks who don't know a lot about leverguns. To those that do, the half octagon barrel, long forend with steel cap, crescent buttplate, dovetailed magazine hanger and pistol grip distinguish the top gun as a short rifle. The rounded carbine buttplate, saddle ring, short banded forend and magazine tube distinguish the bottom gun as a carbine. Carbines are also exclusively round barrels and straight grips. Rifles can be either.

And just who made these definitions anyway? And dude, I was referring to Carbines vs Rifles, what actions they are doesn't matter at all.

 

[CraigC]

And just who made these definitions anyway? And dude, I was referring to Carbines vs Rifles, what actions they are doesn't matter at all.

Winchester, Marlin and a whole slew of others. The action absolutely matters. These are important distinctions that apply to leverguns. Pick up a book and find out that a carbine isn't 'just' a shorter rifle. You're focusing in on barrel length when in this context, it's the least important aspect. It's information, not opinion, don't be so resistant to it.

Point being, if you're gonna split hairs, split `em right.

 

[el Godfather]

We can all agree, I think, that the 357 Magnum works adequately well at a very wide variety of roles. If you could only have one gun for hunting, CCW, plinking, nightstand duty et al. it would not be a bad choice.

Very well said. It is an awesome other way of seeing the limitation but looking at how much confidence you can have in it in given circumstances.

 

[JohnKSa]

To those that do, the half octagon barrel, long forend with steel cap, crescent buttplate, dovetailed magazine hanger and pistol grip distinguish the top gun as a short rifle. The rounded carbine buttplate, saddle ring, short banded forend and magazine tube distinguish the bottom gun as a carbine. Carbines are also exclusively round barrels and straight grips. Rifles can be either.

Is there really a formal, or at least commonly accepted, definition that excludes certain short lever action rifles with (or without) certain features from being carbines?

A manufacturer is free to call their guns anything they want, regardless of existing conventions, so I'm not sure that what a manufacturer calls a particular model of firearm is conclusive evidence unless all (or at least most) of the manufacturers of a particular category of firearm agree on a convention.

After reading through this thread, I've been trying to find some source that has an official definition, or even talks about a common convention involving the presence/absence of features like half-octagon barrels, crescent buttplates, saddle rings, banded forearms, etc., and have, so far, been unsuccessful.

I also can't find anything that mentions a special definition or convention regarding carbines applying specifically to lever-action firearms as opposed to the more general definition of 'carbine' which includes virtually any short or shortened rifle.

 

[el Godfather]

Is there really a formal, or at least commonly accepted, definition that excludes shortened lever action rifles with (or without) certain features from being carbines?

A manufacturer is free to call their guns anything they want, regardless of existing conventions, so I'm not sure that what a manufacturer calls a particular model of firearm is conclusive evidence.

That said, I suppose if all the major levergun manufacturers all agree on a definition/convention, that would be pretty telling. Is that the case?

After reading through this thread, I've been trying to find some source that has an official definition, or even talks about a common convention involving the presence/absence of features like half-octagon barrels, crescent buttplates, saddle rings, banded forearms, etc., and have, so far, been unsuccessful.

I also can't find anything that mentions a special definition or convention regarding carbines applying specifically to lever-action firearms as opposed to the more general definition of 'carbine' which includes virtually any short or shortened rifle.

Colt M16 and Colt M4 Carbine

 

[JohnKSa]

Right. What I'm trying to find is evidence to support the assertion that, when talking about lever actions, there's a specific convention/definition for definitively differentiating a 'short rifle' from a 'carbine' even though both are essentially the same length.

It does seem that Winchester differentiates between carbines and short rifles using the definitions mentioned above. I couldn't find an explicit statement of formal definitions, but it can be inferred from their product descriptions. It makes sense that companies making Winchester reproductions/clones would name their products similarly--I don't think that adds extra weight to Winchester's product naming scheme or elevates it to the level of an industry-wide convention.

Henry and Marlin seem to call something a carbine if it's a short version of another rifle they sell, or if it is chambered in a pistol caliber, regardless of other features.

 

[xphunter]

Interesting rabbit trail...

 

[mcb]

Right. What I'm trying to find is evidence to support the assertion that, when talking about lever actions, there's a specific convention/definition for definitively differentiating a 'short rifle' from a 'carbine' even though both are essentially the same length.

It does seem that Winchester differentiates between carbines and short rifles using the definitions mentioned above. I couldn't find an explicit statement of formal definitions, but it can be inferred from their product descriptions. It makes sense that companies making Winchester reproductions/clones would name their products similarly--I don't think that adds extra weight to Winchester's product naming scheme or elevates it to the level of an industry-wide convention.

Henry and Marlin seem to call something a carbine if it's a short version of another rifle they sell, or if it is chambered in a pistol caliber, regardless of other features.

From what I have read is seem that carbine was originally use for rifles or muskets that where shortened. But like most words the definition has wander and evolved from its original. Now when most people say carbine we are referring to relatively short rifles (as the ATF would define them) or SBR in intermediate power rifle cartridges or pistol cartridges. The fact that there is no legal definition as far as the ATF is concern does not help nail down the definition at least here in the US. Historically is seemed more well defined but with modern firearms the definition seem to have become softer.

 

[danez71]

IMO, arguing that a semi-auto is as accurate as a revolver is like arguing that a scope that's just placed in the slots of the rail is just as accurate as one thats actually fastened to the rail or frame.

In semiauto, the barrel and frame is designed to move independently from the sights. None of those 3 components are fastened together.

The opposite is true for a revolver.


I'm a semi-auto guy.

 

[CraigC]

Is there really a formal, or at least commonly accepted, definition that excludes certain short lever action rifles with (or without) certain features from being carbines?

A manufacturer is free to call their guns anything they want, regardless of existing conventions, so I'm not sure that what a manufacturer calls a particular model of firearm is conclusive evidence unless all (or at least most) of the manufacturers of a particular category of firearm agree on a convention.

After reading through this thread, I've been trying to find some source that has an official definition, or even talks about a common convention involving the presence/absence of features like half-octagon barrels, crescent buttplates, saddle rings, banded forearms, etc., and have, so far, been unsuccessful.

I also can't find anything that mentions a special definition or convention regarding carbines applying specifically to lever-action firearms as opposed to the more general definition of 'carbine' which includes virtually any short or shortened rifle.

These definitions are common and as old as the levergun itself. Unfortunately manufacturers like Marlin and Henry cater to the modern shooter who really doesn't care too much about history or such minor details.

The crescent buttplate was commonly referred to as the "rifle" buttplate. The carbine and shotgun buttplates, the same way. These were specific "rifle" and "carbine" features. Kind of an important distinction when you have an overlap of barrel lengths. Of course, back then you could special order a rifle with whatever features you wanted and there are some in existence that mixed rifle, carbine and shotgun features.

People seem to have blinders on and only focus on the barrel length to distinguish rifles from carbines. With leverguns, the barrel profile is and was a more important aspect of these guns than the length. Originally, all rifles had heavy octagon or half-octagon barrels. Carbines had lighter, round barrel profiles. Same for the forends. The carbines had the lighter, shorter forends with the more robust barrel bands. None of this stuff was random or arbitrary, it all had purpose. The rifle butt takes more time to get settled. The carbine but was faster into action. These were the assault rifles or sub-machine guns of their day. Meant for fast handling, short to intermediate range (all relative) and hard use, usually on horseback. They were also more utilitarian in nature. You don't see many fancy upgraded or engraved carbines. That was reserved for rifles. These same distinctions were made with other makers that produced both rifles and carbines. Look at the same features on Sharps' guns.

I don't know why this is such a foreign concept to some folks, they did the same thing with the M16. Is the barrel length the only thing that distinguishes the M16 from the M4? Nope. We still refer to the buttstock and buffer system, as well as the gas system and handguard configurations as distinctly "rifle" and "carbine". The shorter, adjustable butt has at least as much to do with fast handling as the shorter barrel.

 

[CraigC]

The Ruger 10/22 is another example. The stock and its features being the only distinction between the standard carbine and the deluxe sporter. Barrel length is the same. The buttplate, which has only ever been described as the "carbine butt", low comb and barrel band being features that distinguish it from the sporter. Which has rifle features.

 

[WrongHanded]

Thanks for that explanation, @CraigC

I didn't know any of that.