Pistol Caliber Carbines? (.357 and 9mm)

[1911 guy]

Chronograph VS. Manufacturers data

All ammo manufacturers pad the data a bit, it's a sort of tradition to garner more sales. Even off the data is 100% on the level, it would be unsafe to use the ammo in a revolver, so the point of having a carbine in your chosen pistol caliber is moot once again, you're back to two seperate batches of ammo. So why not get the 30-30?

I'm not against them entirely, I had a Winchester 94 in .44Mag I took a few deer with and liked it. But it didn't do much a .44 revolver couldn't do. I just don't see the ammo interchangeability to be a selling point, which was one of the points raised by the initial post.

 

[MCgunner]

I may order a box of these things and test 'em for myself. They may be exaggerating, but that's a heck of a tall tale there. If it's true, maybe they've found some sort of magic powder or something that no one else knows about. It would be kinda cool if my little .357 carbine could shoot like a .30-30, worth a box of their ammo to find out. Heck, they might shoot at least shoot better than anything I've tried, but I ain't holding my breath for 2100+ fps. There's but one way to find out, though. Just wish I had a strain gauge to test the pressures, but surely they wouldn't be selling these loads if they were unsafe.

 

[roscoe]

Even off the data is 100% on the level, it would be unsafe to use the ammo in a revolver

I don't have a chronometer, although no one I know has ever said that Buffalo Bore's numbers are off.

As for using them in a revolver, I shoot the 180 grain hardcast from my Ruger Service Six occasionally (less than I might otherwise because of the expense) and have no problem. They explicitly say that the loads are save for steel revolvers. It definitely snaps, I will say that much, and the Service Six is pretty heavy.

My understanding is that they load up heavily with slow-burning powders; hence the better performance out of a rifle.

You can see a chrono of their 180 grain load here:
http://www.gunblast.com/MilesFortis-AKChurch_BuffaloBore.htm

They averaged 1847 fps from the 180 grain load, out of a 16" barrel, which is almost exactly what Buffalo Bore site lists for a 18.5" barrel. Again, I don't know about the other loads thay make, and I have never chronoed one myself.

 

[PI Rob]

I'm still waiting for a levergun in .45acp to come out to go with my .45 revo. There has to be a way to make it work.

 

[GigaBuist]

I'm still waiting for a levergun in .45acp to come out to go with my .45 revo. There has to be a way to make it work.

I'm sure there is, but not easily. Lever guns have traditionally been designed to work with rimmed rounds, at least when they're done up with a tubular magazine. You can do 30-06 in a box magazine lever gun which I think was an 1895 model by Winchester. Putting .45ACP a box magazine on a lever gun would be rather odd looking and awkward I think.

If it was up to me I'd say the original poster should just go head and get both a Marlin 1894C and the KT in 9mm that takes Glock magazines -- but that's because I've done the exact same thing.

Presuming the Buffalo Bore claim to getting 30-30 energies is true here's why you'd still buy a .357 instead of a 30-30: Cheap plinking ammo with .38 specials. That's fun, and not too costly. Besdies, going to 30-30 levels is only going to be useful for hunting. If you're looking for two legged critter control I'd be very interested in hearing why .357 out of an 18" or 20" barrel isn't enough gun, assuming we're talking about 50 yards or less.

I have had my Marlin bind up on me a couple of times. Once not in my hands and once in my hands. I'm not too happy about that, and I should probably look into the issue more.

With the Kel-Tec I've had a few problems. One is that the original front sight on them is pathetic. I tried zeroing the thing in after I was irked that it shot low and discovered that there's no way to adjust the front sight in a controlled manner. You just unscrew it, float it around, and tighten it back down. Not cool unless you an hold objects in place with your mind.

Plus, being plastic, I managed to break the thing in half while trying to zero it. Really not cool!

I finally got around to ordering up a new front-sight post from BlueForceGear.com and put that on, but it seems they've discontinued the product. I'm not sure if there's a replacement. With a Tritum AR-15 post in the new front sight housing and 30+ round magazines this might turn out to be a serious weapon.

However, a recent range trip in fairly close (30 degree) weather brought me some jamming problems, but I reckon this was because I was using the cheap Scherer <sp?> mags instead of Glock factory. The Glock factory 10 round mag gave me no problems. The round wasn't stripping off the Scherer mag right and would get SMASHED in the chamber, deforming it. They worked fine in warm weather though.

The area on the KT where you get your cheek weld was not comfortable after a while, and I'd sometimes get slightly bruised/sore on the face after shooting it, what with it being metal on muscle and bone. I put some buffer on there from BlueForceGear.com and that seems to help a lot.

The 1" stock extension to the KT is pretty much necessary, IMHO. If you were a 10 year old Chinese boy it might fit fine without the extension, but at 5'9" and 140 pounds even I found it a bit cramped.

I've also found that you can shove the KT, folded up, into an old laptop bag with magazines in the side pockets. That's a handy way to carrying a "long gun" with you while traveling without it being remotely obvious that you've got one with you.

All that aside... they're both very fun guns to shoot, and the ammo isn't very expensive either, which is really the ultimate reason I bought them. Well, that and I got my KT for $250 from a gunshop that was having a going out of business sale.

 

[spaceCADETzoom]

Outside of .30-30 what calibers does the model 94 winchester come in? I've always wanted to get one, never did. My dad had one, I never fired it.

Whats the cheapest caliber it comes in? I mean the ammunition..? how much does 30-30 cost? I bought a beretta carbine in part because of cheap 9mm...I'm a .45 guy, but somehow bought me one of these beretta storms on a whim...thought it'd be neat to get with a matching 92fs...again, odd, since i've upto this point stayed with my 1911s.

ANyway, about a lever action..?

 

[perpster]

Which Single Factory Load for both Handgun and Carbine?

I'm not against them entirely, I had a Winchester 94 in .44Mag I took a few deer with and liked it. But it didn't do much a .44 revolver couldn't do. I just don't see the ammo interchangeability to be a selling point, which was one of the points raised by the initial post.

Presuming the Buffalo Bore claim to getting 30-30 energies is true here's why you'd still buy a .357 instead of a 30-30: Cheap plinking ammo with .38 specials. That's fun, and not too costly. Besdies, going to 30-30 levels is only going to be useful for hunting. If you're looking for two legged critter control I'd be very interested in hearing why .357 out of an 18" or 20" barrel isn't enough gun, assuming we're talking about 50 yards or less.

I think GigaBuist put the finger on it: with both the .357 and the 9mm, you've got a single cartridge that can be loaded in a handgun for close-in defense or loaded in a carbine for mid-range defense. In a pinch either (ok, not so much with the 9mm but still possible) can be used to put some food on the table. Both should be relatively easier to find than other cartridges if/when SHTF. Both are relatively inexpensive to practice with (especially if using .38, though I believe in practicing with your street round as often as possible in your .357).

Are they the be all and end all? Definately not. But if looking for ammo that can be used CQB out to 100 yards with reliable accuracy and effect, the .357 and 9mm with a handgun and carbine fit the bill. The ability to use .38 just sweetens the deal. And, both the wheelgunners and bottom-feeders can have a horse in this race.

All that being said, WHAT SINGLE FACTORY LOAD would anyone recommend to use interchangeably in a handgun and/or carbine? After all, as 1911Guy said, "ammo interchangeability to be a selling point, which was one of the points raised by the initial post."

I am envisioning primary use of either the handgun or carbine to be personal defense in the normal world, and in a SHTF world personal defense and some hunting-for-food assignments. What would be the one .357 cartridge to carry and stock up on? I have read that .357 125 grain JHP is the hands-down best stopper round there is, but I have also read that they aren't advisable for use in a carbine:

"Preferred carbine ammunition differs from handgun rounds in the
same caliber normally selected for self protection. The longer carbine
barrel boosts muzzle velocities by at least several hundred feet per
second. The lighter bullets: 110 and 125 grains, can be too fragile to
endure extreme velocities and may disintegrate. Equally undesirable,
the heavier bullets: 158 and 180 grains, will likely pass through an
assailant, thereby endangering innocent bystanders. Consider the 140
grain JHP to represent the optimum round for conflict resolution when
a carbine chambered for .357 Magnum is used for personal
protection." [from http ://www.internetarmory.com/rifle ammo.htm]

In 9mm's I've read that only 110-125 grain +P JHP's fit the bill.

I should add that I fire .357's from a 5" S&W 686P, though I am tempted to obtain an easier to conceal 2" or 3" S&W .357 revolver. I realize that the shorter barrels deprive the .357 magnum of its potential, but that would be the trade-off for concealed carry. I fire the 9mm from 4" barrel with the G19.

Of course I'm thinking of a round in each caliber that is in the normal price range for each caliber--no exotic or specialty rounds need apply.

What are your learned opinions folks?

Perp

PS: The least expensive new factory .357 ammo I've found is at Aim Surplus. $8.95 for Sellier & Bellot 158 grain FMJ, and $9.95 for Aguila 158 grain semi-jacketed HP. Both prices are for boxes of 50 rounds. Of course neither of these seems to "fit the bill" although maybe the Aguila might?

 

[wanderinwalker]

I have to say that sounds rather optimistic. I get 1827 fps out of a 20 Inch barrel using a 158 Grain SWC gas checked in front of 14.5 grains of 2400, which is a pretty hot load, hot as I wanna go anyway. That load gives 1171 ft lbs at the muzzle. That's pretty respectable, though. Out of my Blackhawk that load is moving 1472 fps (6.5" barrel) for 760 ft lbs.

The load you're showing rivals .30-30 ballistics and there's just no way.

Most of the reloading books I have on hand show around a 100-fps increase in pistol velocities just using H110 or WW296 over 2400, at the same pressures. Honestly, 296 is the only powder I've ever burned in full-house .44 Magnum loads. Haven't chrono'ed them with the rifle yet, but I suspect energy levels close to a 20" .30-30 with max loads, which are still safe in handguns.

As for useful ammo for the .357, I suspect some Speer Gold Dots in 158gr variety would make a good all-around selection. Something in a JSP might be better for taking 4-legged critters, but I'm not sure what is out there for that in that caliber. Also a possibility, though getting up in expense, are the Winchester Partition Handgun loads with 180gr bullets.

 

[MCgunner]

Presuming the Buffalo Bore claim to getting 30-30 energies is true here's why you'd still buy a .357 instead of a 30-30: Cheap plinking ammo with .38 specials. That's fun, and not too costly. Besdies, going to 30-30 levels is only going to be useful for hunting. If you're looking for two legged critter control I'd be very interested in hearing why .357 out of an 18" or 20" barrel isn't enough gun, assuming we're talking about 50 yards or less.

Well, light .38 loads turn my carbine effectively into a .22. I load a 105 grain SWC at low velocities and it's just a hoot to pop tin cans with, could be used for small game. Then, with full power SWC loads, I've killed deer to 80 yards. I zeroed the gun at 100 yards and it's fully capable of killing deer to that range, no problem. If it'll kill a deer to 100 yards, it'll take a human easily.

Most of the reloading books I have on hand show around a 100-fps increase in pistol velocities just using H110 or WW296 over 2400, at the same pressures. Honestly, 296 is the only powder I've ever burned in full-house .44 Magnum loads. Haven't chrono'ed them with the rifle yet, but I suspect energy levels close to a 20" .30-30 with max loads, which are still safe in handguns.

I've chronoed a friend's max loads he uses 296 with and while they had a little more zing, wasn't enough to get me to switch powders since I use 2400 in other loads, too. Both powders are good for the .357, but I think his load got around 1900 fps with a 158 grain jacketed soft point bullet, not 2100 like that buffalo bore load. The main thing I liked about the 296 was it burned a little cleaner.

What I'm thinking they're doing is something similar to what Hornady does with the "light magnum" loads, an even slower powder than 2400/296 trickled into the case to make it fit and a compressed charge. I'm going to try some. I may post results when I do, but it might be a while before I get around to it.

 

[P. Plainsman]

Last week I realized I had been neglecting my Marlin 1894C .357 carbine, so I hauled it out of the car trunk and ran some Federal AE 158 gr JSPs through it, aiming at a 5" 25 yard bullseye over ghost ring sights. No problems making the hits.

These are simply great little guns. Others have pointed out that the .357 Mag, being one of the more "rifle-like" handgun cartridges, gains a lot of velocity in a carbine barrel. A 400 fps boost over handgun velocities is commonly reported.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those humdrum Federal JSPs I was shooting clocked 1600-1650 fps from the Marlin. Ten rounds of 158 @ 1600, with soft recoil, that could be easily delivered in a defensive or hunting situation out to 50 yards with open sights, in a light, handy, attractive firearm -- not bad.

A few closing observations about the little Marlins.

(1) The factory iron sights are hard to see. The best aftermarket option is the XS Sight Systems ghost ring setup for about $80. Nice clear front post.

(2) A compact red-dot sight would also be a great alternative.

(3) Get the Wild West Guns aftermarket trigger kit! Runs about $90. A superb product. Eliminates the "flop" of the factory trigger and yields a clean, crisp pull of reduced (but not dangerously light) weight. Perfect for a handy carbine.

(4) The Marlins feature nice amenities. Good wood, good checkering, sling swivels, and a comfy rubber butt pad. It's a lot of gun for around $400. Factor in the aftermarket sights and trigger I've mentioned and you end up with a thoroughly sweet carbine for a bit under $600 -- the same price as a stock Beretta Storm.

(5) My 1894C doesn't feed .38 Special cases well. A gunsmith has tried to fix this glitch, but with only partial success. It runs fine with .357 cases, so that's what I stick with. While most 1894C owners don't seem to encounter this problem, I wanted to disclose it.

 

[perpster]

High Plainsman, and thanks for Drifting by! ;-)

I appreciate the straight talk and the suggestions for post-purchase.

Was it difficult to install and sight-in the XS sight system? Did you go with the "big dot" or small dot front sight?

Thanks,

Perp

 

[P. Plainsman]

I had my gunsmith install the XS sights while he was doing some other work on the Marlin. However, my understanding is that it's not too hard. Folks often do it themselves.

The XS front sight is a blued front sight post inlaid with a white vertical notch or stripe. Very clear and easy to pick up.

If you're not used to ghost ring sights it might take a couple of range outings before you "settle in" with that setup. It did for me. At first, indifferent accuracy that was frustrating. Then all of a sudden the shots started hitting POI right to the top edge of the front sight. I didn't do anything differently. I think that practice just teaches you to adjust subconsciously to the sights, so you start to put the front post right in the middle of the "ring" without thinking about it.

 

[106rr]

A good compromise load for pistol and carbine might be the Winchester Silvertip 145gr. This would be suitable for any pistol larger than an sp101 and eminently suitable for the carbine. The Hornady 140 gr XTP would also work well.
Buffalo Bore ballistics have been challenged many times. They always come very close to advertised velocities.

 

[P. Plainsman]

There's a Shooting Times article on the web that tested the 145 gr Silvertip JHP from a Marlin 1894 -- they got around 1600 fps. It's a good round.

Now, some caution that JSPs are preferable to JHPs in a .357 carbine. They reason that most hollowpoint handgun bullets are engineered to expand optimally within a particular velocity range, and the souped-up velocity from a long gun's barrel can cause them to overexpand (or even fragment) creating underpenetration problems.

 

[shane justice]

Guys,

Good discussion....

I wonder....why Ruger...or some after market company does not make an extended mag for the Model 99/44?

Shane

 

[P. Plainsman]

I wonder....why Ruger...or some after market company does not make an extended mag for the Model 99/44?

That's the semi-auto Deerfield Carbine, right? It uses a "rotary" type magazine that differs from the usual stick mags found on semi-auto firearms. You can't easily make an aftermarket "hi-cap" magazine for it. Which means the real question is: why did Ruger use a rotary magazine for the Deerfield, when they could have used a standard design that would permit the creation and use of high-capacity magazines, thereby producing a very desirable self-defense gun?

(Col. Jeff Cooper had a pet concept called "Thumper" that was a handy infantry carbine in .44 Magnum. A Ruger Deerfield that took 20-round mags would basically incarnate Thumper. But no.)

Ruger would tell you it's because the rotary design is very reliable for a hunting weapon. Bill Ruger admired the old Savage lever guns that used a similar principle. Many shooters suspect, however, that the real answer is that Ruger is squeamish about providing militarily effective long guns to American citizens.

Anyway. Here's a good John Taffin article on loading for the .357 lever gun. ("To me, the 10-shot 1894C .357 Magnum is the handiest and most desirable of all centerfire rifles of any caliber or action type.")

http://www.looksmarthunting.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_12_50/ai_n6275756

Mr. Taffin's handloads top out at 158 @ 1850 and 140 @ 2000 in the little Marlin.

 

[perpster]

FWIW, since this discussion includes using .38 special in both handguns and rifles, here's a link to readable tech info on a .38 special cartridge developed specifically for snubby revolvers (1 7/8 to 3 inch barrels):

http://le.atk.com/pdf/SpeerTech38_135HP.pdf

They now offer it in other calibers, including .357 magnum. Here's a link to the catalog: http://glarp.atk.com/2005Catalogs/pdfs/CCI-Speer-centerfire_2005_catalog.pdf

I wonder how these rounds engineered to expand from 2-3" barrels would hold up being shot from a Marlin 1894C or Winchester 94.

Perp

 

[MCgunner]

That's the semi-auto Deerfield Carbine, right? It uses a "rotary" type magazine that differs from the usual stick mags found on semi-auto firearms. You can't easily make an aftermarket "hi-cap" magazine for it.

Why not? Ramline made tons of high cap mags for the 10/22, a rotary mag. I like the rotary mags, though, in the 10/22. They work great and are easy to load. I don't really care about high capacity, anyway. I don't see a need for a long gun at extended ranges, not a legitimate use of a firearm for self defense as I see it. If I'm that far away, I can call 911 or run. If I'm not cornered, I don't need to fight. Now, for law enforcement I can see it.

If I wanted such a high cap gun, though, they've built one for 70 years, the M1 Carbine. It's no .44, but I remember seeing one company's ad where they were building the carbine on a magnum caliber, .44 or something. I don't really remember the caliber, but it sounded kind of neat and I remember thinking it was a deer hunting capable caliber. Maybe it was one of the hot cartridges based on the .45 ACP? I can't remember. I've always sorta liked the looks and lines of the M1 carbine, but never bought one because I had no need for the puny caliber and they're a little expensive for a range queen considering the price of SKSs and 7.62x39 surplus ammo.

 

[Father Knows Best]

That's the semi-auto Deerfield Carbine, right? It uses a "rotary" type magazine that differs from the usual stick mags found on semi-auto firearms. You can't easily make an aftermarket "hi-cap" magazine for it. Which means the real question is: why did Ruger use a rotary magazine for the Deerfield, when they could have used a standard design that would permit the creation and use of high-capacity magazines, thereby producing a very desirable self-defense gun?

Ruger would tell you it's because the rotary design is very reliable for a hunting weapon. Bill Ruger admired the old Savage lever guns that used a similar principle. Many shooters suspect, however, that the real answer is that Ruger is squeamish about providing militarily effective long guns to American citizens.

I thought the reason for the rotary magazine was that it worked very well with rimmed cartridges. Standard stick-type single or double stack mags work well with rimless rounds, but can suffer from "rim lock" if they are improperly loaded with a rimmed cartridge. The rotary magazine solves that problem completely.

Rimmed cartridges can also feed from a tubular mag, of course, but then you run into the problem of restricted bullet shapes (to keep a bullet from setting off the primer of the round in front of it in the tube).

 

[middy]

I hate to rain on the parade, but if I'm going to carry a long gun it's going to be a heck of a lot more powerful than any handgun round...

But that's just me.

 

[perpster]

I hate to rain on the parade, but if I'm going to carry a long gun it's going to be a heck of a lot more powerful than any handgun round...

Understood, but for argument's sake let's suppose supplies have dried up and all you have left is your rifle, your handgun and handgun ammo...

 

[Hobie]

I have an 1894C, .357 Mag, 18½" barrel. 18 gr. of Lil'Gun under the 158 gr. jacketed bullets from Hornady or Speer get 2000 fps. Factory 125s from Federal get 2100 fps. Proper load development produces squirrel capable guns. I carry mine in the truck when out and about.

 

[1911 guy]

Rotary magazine

They do work well with rimmed rounds, but the enfields have gotten by with box mags for a long time, most bolt .22's have box mags, also. If you load them correctly (depress round, slide to rear of mag, repeat with subsequent rounds), they're not a problem. I, too, think the problem lies more with Ruger.

If all I have is a rifle, handgun and handgun ammo, I'll carry a handgun. I'm not saying they're useless, but for the purposes that brought about the discussion in the original post, they're a distant second.

 

[perpster]

If all I have is a rifle, handgun and handgun ammo, I'll carry a handgun. I'm not saying they're useless, but for the purposes that brought about the discussion in the original post, they're a distant second.

1911 guy, I respectfully disagree. If all I have is a rifle (carbine), handgun and handgun ammo, I'll carry BOTH the carbine and the handgun, because if they are of the same caliber my ability to accurately "reach out and touch" someone just got markedly improved by having the carbine in a common caliber. If all "they" have is a handgun (and even a shotgun) I now have a 50 to 100 yard standoff capability that they lack. If they have a carbine, too, we're relatively even. If they have a RIFLE I'm outgunned but at least I've got a chance at them before they close in to handgun range. Yes, I'd have a better chance with a full length rifle (if I also have rifle ammo), but for less than 10 extra pounds and 36" and not having to remember which ammo is where--anything I can put my fingers on can be loaded into either weapon in the heat of battle, I wouldn't want to forego the carbine. It could be the difference between surviving or dying.

Respectfully Submitted,

Perp

 

[Reap23]

other opinions

I love the lever action rifle, Winchesters' in particular... I have a 9422, 9422M, .44 mag Trapper and a .30-.30, but what about the opinions on the other type carbines?
The reason of my question is I am getting a Beretta 92 Inox tomorrow, and kicked around the Beretta carbine... "the Storm" and would like some opinions on the rifle. I mean, if I can use the excuse of "but babe, I don't have to buy different magazines for this" could possibly work... why not try it?

Besides, from what I read, you can get a .45, .40 or the 9mm.