Pistol caliber (lever gun ) barrel length

[bannockburn]

3Crows

I bought my Rossi M92 used so I didn't have a choice in barrel lengths but I still would go with the 16" barrel if I had my druthers. I like the way the shorter barrel handles and for it's more compact size compared to the 20" and 24" models.

 

[NorthBorder]

That's the exact one I have. Only complaint is the length of pull is short and someday I'm gonna add a decelerator pad.

 

[chicharrones]

When I bought my 16" R92 I went to an LGS that had the 16" and 20". After handing both I chose the 16" because the shorter barrel felt better to me. After a few months I bought a 24" hexagonal barrel 44mag R92.
View attachment 1197019

A great photo comparison!

 

[chicharrones]

The 1892 action and the 16” barrel go well together, making a handy yet potent little rifle that fits into vehicles nicely.

As a perpetual driver of small vehicles, it does make some sense to me.

The funny thing is that the wide full size cars on the road from decades past all got replaced with wide full size SUVs and full size 4-door pickup trucks here in Texas. Seems like all those folks ought to be able to transport 32" barreled rifles with ease.

 

[Riomouse911]

As a perpetual driver of small vehicles, it does make some sense to me.

The funny thing is that the wide full size cars on the road from decades past all got replaced with wide full size SUVs and full size 4-door pickup trucks here in Texas. Seems like all those folks ought to be able to transport 32" barreled rifles with ease.

Quigley does Dallas!

Ya, I live in a little slice of Texas here in The Peoples Republik. Lots of 2500-3500 pickups and full sized SUV’s in the grocery store parking lots here every day, too.

Stay safe.

 

[Charlie98]

It's interesting... some of the replies. If you were asking about an AR-15, you would find very few people who would vote for a 20" or longer barrel (for a standard .223/5.56mm rifle.) The 16" barrel has taken hold of that market, and now a 20" rifle, and particularly one with a fixed stock, is looked at like some relic dug up. "OMG! Would you look at that... it has iron sights! Not only is the rifle an antique, but I'll be the shooter was, too... "

In a pistol cartridge lever-gun, as I stated before, I don't really think you gain much from an extra 4" barrel... unless you are trying to extract maximum performance from standard cartridges. Weight and balance is something different to everyone, mostly because everyone is built different, and handles their weapons differently as well. My 20" Marlin 1894 isn't my ideal lever-gun, but it works well enough, and checks all the boxes except one, so it's not going anywhere.

In rifle cartridge lever-guns, I would say the opposite, generally. I have a 20" Browning 71 in .348WCF... I wish it had the 24" rifle barrel some days. Not that the 20"er doesn't get the job done, it most certainly does, but the rifle barrel would make it a little easier to get it there. Am I trying to dump my 20" 71 for a 24" rifle? Not on your life.

 

[Hugger-4641]

It's interesting... some of the replies. If you were asking about an AR-15, you would find very few people who would vote for a 20" or longer barrel (for a standard .223/5.56mm rifle.) The 16" barrel has taken hold of that market, and now a 20" rifle, and particularly one with a fixed stock, is looked at like some relic dug up. "OMG! Would you look at that... it has iron sights! Not only is the rifle an antique, but I'll be the shooter was, too... "

In a pistol cartridge lever-gun, as I stated before, I don't really think you gain much from an extra 4" barrel... unless you are trying to extract maximum performance from standard cartridges. Weight and balance is something different to everyone, mostly because everyone is built different, and handles their weapons differently as well. My 20" Marlin 1894 isn't my ideal lever-gun, but it works well enough, and checks all the boxes except one, so it's not going anywhere.

In rifle cartridge lever-guns, I would say the opposite, generally. I have a 20" Browning 71 in .348WCF... I wish it had the 24" rifle barrel some days. Not that the 20"er doesn't get the job done, it most certainly does, but the rifle barrel would make it a little easier to get it there. Am I trying to dump my 20" 71 for a 24" rifle? Not on your life.

My thoughts as well.
In long range rifle cartridges, I generally want at least a 22" barrel. My X-bolt Pro LR in 300wm has a 26" barrel and I'm very happy with it. I'm also very happy with my Ruger Predator .308 with 18" barrel. I have different purposes for them. I'm not trying to shoot 600yds plus with the.308, or any my carbines. I do with the X-bolt.
My Henry 45colt has 20" barrel and I like it fine, but for what I do with it, loosing 4 inches wouldn't change anything.

 

[CraigC]

I've owned probably every barrel length imaginable in old lever guns from a short 16" to an old 1893 Marlin with special order 32" barrel. I personally have never gotten the idea of a very short barrel to be "handier" or a better brush gun. Can't imagine crawling through brush so thick that a 16" barrel is somehow better than a 20"? And I just don't care for the way a short barrel hangs when shouldering them.
Actually prefer a 26"-28" barrel on lever guns, and that's the length I've used mostly for deer hunting with my old lever guns. They hold better, and with iron sights give me more accuracy, so that's what I use. Actually use longer 30"-32" barrels when I hunt with single shot rifles, and love those even more!

For me, hunting with muzzleloaders with barrels over 40" long taught me that the difference in handiness between a 16" and 20" levergun is irrelevant. Akin to angels dancing on the head of a pin.

 

[.45Coltguy]

My two Henry's, .357/38 spl and .45 Colt are both 20" barrels. Take 'em to the desert and shoot. I don't hunt with them, just shoot empty cans, dirt clods and such.
But, a 16" or a 18.5" barrel in either one, well........

 

[Rodfac]

I have essentialy purchased a R92 in .44 Magnum with the 16 inches barrel. I will not have it in my hands until next trip through my home town where I bought it. My thought on this vs the 20 inches model, aside from a longer sight radius and perhas a little more velocity, why the 20 vs the 16?

I've found that the 20" bbl's on my Marlin 1894's are just about right for my use; offering good velocity gains over my handguns, while getting the muzzle blast just that much farther from my ancient ears. Here in KY, where I've hunted primarily for the past 35 years, the timber patches and extensive thickets are just as easily negotiated with a 20" bbl. as with a 16".

Sixteen inch bbls. are LOUD: one of my sons has a 16+" Border Patrol .30-30 that's unbelievably loud yet handles no better than any of our 20" carbines. My own experience with Marlin's 1894CS .357 with its 18.5" bbl. is similar. Wish it had the add'l inch and a quarter just for the quieter report.

As far as accuracy is concerned, with open sights (notch rear and bead post front) pretty we limit ourselves to 100 yd shots, as we believe in the quickest kill possible. Sighting using a 'just behind the shoulder' aim point, open sights are OK out to 100 yds, and 16 or 20" just doesn't matter. A peep is better, but again, you'll only gain an add'l 25 yds from hunting field positions. You can probably do better off sand bags, but that's not the way we hunt deer, hereabouts.

Too, the actual killing ability of pistol cartridges used in a carbine/rifle is similarly limited...100 yds is about it....I own and hunt with Marlins in .357, .41 & .44 Magnum and would not hazard a shot beyond that distance. We owe the game we hunt that much....a quick kill. A scope on a carbine helps with placement, but again, the limiter is the cartridge potency, and in my view, destroys the carbine's trim carrying attributes...All that notwithstanding, hope the new carbines works out for you...

YMMv, Rod Here's some of my levers...posted before.

​

 

[3Crows]

Sixteen inch bbls. are LOUD: one of my sons has a 16+" Border Patrol .30-30 that's unbelievably loud yet handles no better than any of our 20" carbines. My own experience with Marlin's 1894CS .357 with its 18.5" bbl. is similar. Wish it had the add'l inch and a quarter just for the quieter report.
.

I would agree that the .30-30 would be loud in a 16 inches barrel. The .45-70 with heavy loads is louder in the 16 inches than the 18.5 inches barrel. But the .44 Magnum is a pistol caliber and a rifle at 16 inches that is four times longer than the four inches revolvers so commonly used in .44 Magnum cannot be so hugely different from a 20 inches? But, yes, a 16 inches barrel in .44 Magnum would be somewhat louder than with a 20 inches barrel though I suspect not nearly so much as chopping a .30-30 rifle down from 20 to 16.

 

[Rodfac]

3Crows...yep, we've all got our preferences, but 16" or 20"...I'll bet dollars to donuts, you're gunna love that carbine! Let us know how it shoots...if interested, I've got a cpl loads that work very well through our Marlins as well as a bevy of Smith and Ruger short guns....Best Regards, Rod....

 

[Charlie98]

I would agree that the .30-30 would be loud in a 16 inches barrel. The .45-70 with heavy loads is louder in the 16 inches than the 18.5 inches barrel. But the .44 Magnum is a pistol caliber and a rifle at 16 inches that is four times longer than the four inches revolvers so commonly used in .44 Magnum cannot be so hugely different from a 20 inches? But, yes, a 16 inches barrel in .44 Magnum would be somewhat louder than with a 20 inches barrel though I suspect not nearly so much as chopping a .30-30 rifle down from 20 to 16.

I've got an M1a with a 16" barrel, and my Savage 10TAC, with a 24" barrel. Yes, that M1a is LOUD... and the muzzle brake doesn't help with the noise, either. The 24" Savage certainly makes better use of all that powder in the .308 case... as the chronograph shows... but they each have their purposes. I would not want to run n gun with the Savage, and the M1a makes a terrible bench gun.

 

[CraigC]

I would agree that the .30-30 would be loud in a 16 inches barrel. The .45-70 with heavy loads is louder in the 16 inches than the 18.5 inches barrel. But the .44 Magnum is a pistol caliber and a rifle at 16 inches that is four times longer than the four inches revolvers so commonly used in .44 Magnum cannot be so hugely different from a 20 inches? But, yes, a 16 inches barrel in .44 Magnum would be somewhat louder than with a 20 inches barrel though I suspect not nearly so much as chopping a .30-30 rifle down from 20 to 16.

Well, it's noticeable in the .22LR, especially comparing 16" to 24" and that is a tiny cartridge.

 

[Beck]

There isn't much difference in velocity between 16" and 20" unless you handload your pistol cartridge to behave more like a rifle cartridge for the longer barrel. There may be a difference in accuracy between the shorter and longer barrel, or there may not be. It depends on a lot of variables.

 

[cfullgraf]

For me a 16" barrel is a but short but I can understand the quick handling of such a firearm.

My 1980's vintage Marlin 1894C (357 Mag) hasn a 18.5" barrel.

I have an 1890 vintage Winchester 1873 with a 24 barrel (32-20 Win).

A recent production Winchester/Miroku 1873 (357 Mag) with a 20" barrel.

And a recent production Henry 327 Fed Mag with a 20" barrel.

Finally, a Marlin Golden 39A from the 1960's with a 24" barrel.

It is what works for me.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Those Winchester 94 AE are indeed a very nice rifle. Have one in 30-30, would really like to find one in .45 Colt.

In pistol calibers, the '94s are just a little 'clonky' in function; the action was made for longer, rifle cartridges. While the angle ejects don't get the same love from the Winchester cognoscenti, the .45s aren't common in any case.
If you really want a .45, get a '92. Have a look at Rossis, or some of the Italian clones. Or bite the bullet, and get one of the Mirochesters.
Sometimes, '92s are just hard to find.
Moon

 

[halfmoonclip]

Kittery Trading Post has one in stock.

Winchester 1873 Deluxe Sporting 45 Colt 24" 14-Round Rifle | Kittery Trading Post

The lever-action Model 1873 rifle has a classic color case-hardened finish, grade V/VI walnut stock and forearm, 24" blued half octagon / half round barrel…

www.kitterytradingpost.com

That is indeed a nice rifle, but it is a '73. A somewhat different creature; I have a 20", and like it very much.
Have a buddy who is a real Winchester geek, and he can rattle the all fine points. But the '73 ("The Gun That Won the West") is a toggle action, descended from the Henry and the '66. The '92 and '94 are Browning designs, with a stronger, falling block that locks the bolt.
BTW, the Mirochesters (like in the link) do come drilled and tapped for a tang sight.
Moon

 

[Riomouse911]

In pistol calibers, the '94s are just a little 'clonky' in function; the action was made for longer, rifle cartridges. While the angle ejects don't get the same love from the Winchester cognoscenti, the .45s aren't common in any case.
If you really want a .45, get a '92. Have a look at Rossis, or some of the Italian clones. Or bite the bullet, and get one of the Mirochesters.
Sometimes, '92s are just hard to find.
Moon

Yes, I agree. My angle-eject 1894 Trapper .44 Mag is herky-jerky when cycling the action compared to the 1892-style actions. But I also find my 1894 .30-30’s are pretty clonky, too.

For those who may not know some of the differences between the action cycling of the 1892 and 1894:

I have noticed that when the 1894 lever is cycled, it’s the locking lug design that makes the action rougher feeling than the 1892. The single 1894 lug sits all the way across the action behind the bolt. So there is about a 1/2” gap between the bolt and hammer when the lever is pulled down and the lug drops. Right after the lug drops from lock up the bolt easily moves back and contacts the hammer. It then meets resistance as the bolt pushes against the hammer spring to start cocking it. That sequence makes the 1894 a ‘one-two-three-four’ type lever feel to me.



(I just realized the peep sight is in the way on my .44 so I grabbed a pre-angle eject .30-30 to show the lug.)




In the 1892 action, which was designed to handle the lower pressures of the black powder pistol-length rounds of that era, the two lugs are on the sides of the bolt and the hammer is already touching the bolt when closed. The lugs drop and the bolt immediately starts cocking the hammer. Without that 1/2” of resistance-free lever movement, to me this is a smoother ‘one-two-three’ feel.



I don’t have an 1873, but friends who have them have told me the toggle-link 1873 action is even smoother than the 1892, like almost a ‘one-two’ cycle.

Between the Winchester 1892 and 1894 pistol caliber rifles, the 1892 action is my first preference. But they both work well no matter which you may choose.

Stay safe.

 

[.45Coltguy]

Rio and halfmoonclip bring up some good points regarding the '94/'92 actions. I 'll check on the Rossi soon enough.

 

[Beck]

For me a 16" barrel is a bit short but I can understand the quick handling of such a firearm.

My 1980's vintage Marlin 1894C (357 Mag) has a 18.5" barrel.

I have an 1890 vintage Winchester 1873 with a 24 barrel (32-20 Win).

A recent production Winchester/Miroku 1873 (357 Mag) with a 20" barrel.

And a recent production Henry 327 Fed Mag with a 20" barrel.

Finally, a Marlin Golden 39A from the 1960's with a 24" barrel.

It is what works for me.

Many years ago when I was in high school I had a Marlin 1894C in 357 Mag with 18.5" barrel. It was very light and handy. Wish I still had it, but I stupidly sold it when my teenage brain got distracted by other things.

For the last 30 years I've owned a Rossi 92 in 357 Mag with 20" barrel. Even at that barrel length it's pretty light and handy. 20 inches is on the bleeding edge of being a carbine. Some people will call it, "Short rifle." Depends on who you ask.

The design of the 92 feels plenty fast and light to me, even with the longer barrel.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Some people will call it, "Short rifle." Depends on who you ask.

Yep. It seems to me that my 20" '73 was actually classed a short rifle.

Rio, superb, illustrated explanation of the difference in the two actions. Thank you.
You have also showed why the '92/'94 actions are so strong; they are sort of descendants of the falling block '85 single shot.
BTW, see you eliminated the flippy-do safety on the Rossi '92; it has a perfectly good halfcock. Oddly, the Mirochester '92 has a tang safety and a rebounding hammer. I simply ignore the safety; it's not nearly as obnoxious as the crossbolt safety on the later Winchesters.
Moon

 

[OS/N]

I do like my 16" R92 but prefer my 18.5 marlin when walking in the woods. The scope for my old eyes and the factory sling attachments are requirements. They are in 357 and the additional 50fps is needed when hunting with the boarder line powered cartridge. And yes the 16" is louder with magnums but if plinking with 38spl its about the same - I plink with +P 38s in the Rossi and hunt with the marlin.

 

[CraigC]

Some people will call it, "Short rifle." Depends on who you ask.

In a levergun, it depends solely on the features present. A short forend with band, banded magazine, carbine style buttplate and round barrel make it a carbine. A butt cap, crescent buttplate and round, octagon or half round with a dovetail magazine hanger make it a rifle. Barrel length is way down on the list. You can have a short rifle with a shorter barrel than a carbine.

 

[Beck]

Yep. It seems to me that my 20" '73 was actually classed a short rifle.

Rio, superb, illustrated explanation of the difference in the two actions. Thank you.
You have also showed why the '92/'94 actions are so strong; they are sort of descendants of the falling block '85 single shot.
BTW, see you eliminated the flippy-do safety on the Rossi '92; it has a perfectly good halfcock. Oddly, the Mirochester '92 has a tang safety and a rebounding hammer. I simply ignore the safety; it's not nearly as obnoxious as the crossbolt safety on the later Winchesters.
Moon

I'm lucky to have a pre-safety Pre-Braztec Rossi 92. It has a traditional half-cock hammer safety position that has always worked just fine. There's a peep sight available for the newer ones with the button safety. People remove the safety and drop in the peep. Nice way to extend sight radius if you don't mind losing some of the cowboy vibe.