Trapper Time...are they "worth" The Loss in Velocity?

They way I look at it, it comes down to use and cartridge characteristics.

The straightwall cartridges do gain velocity with longer barrels but it’s rarely 100s of FPS. So shorter barrels don’t hurt performance as bad.

So in my *opinion* 20” and shorter lever guns firing straight wall cartridges make sense. You get workable velocities and its handy. A 16” Rossi in .357 is so convenient. It goes in and out of truck cabs so nicely. It could fit in a backpack. It weighs nothing and recoils mildly.

The Marlin Guide Guns 18” barrel, a happy medium between the 20” and 16”, I think they balance at the action decently as well. 45-70 out of an 18” is still happily over 2000fps with 300gr bullets and heavier.

*Personally* a 16” .308 doesn’t make much sense to me. You lose what I *personally* think is too much velocity to get a “handy” rifle. The tanker M1s were necessary because of confinements and a need to stick to the standard military cartridge of the time for obvious supply issues. As a private citizen with the world at your fingertips I believe a different cartridge could do the same thing better.

Now in the other direction. A long barreled lever gun or straight wall cartridge gun makes sense if you say hunt deer in Iowa and are restricted to cartridge and want maximum range. Others might say “ I like the longer lever guns because they’re historical” and sure. But why do you think they were so long? They were restricted to a cartridge of the time and wanted maximum range. .

But the beauty of it is. Most of us on this forum live in America and can buy and shoot whatever the hell we want!

 

Look at this photo from a John Wayne classic you should all know well.
Love this shot by the way.



As you can see that barrel isn't really all that long. I'm gonna guess 20".
Though it's a movie prop gun, it's probably a good representation of what a cowboy would have carried back in the day.
Now keep in mind that these guys were working in open country most of the time, so the longer barrel made a lot of sense.
A trapper also makes a lot of sense... IF you are gonna be working in the woods... like a "trapper".

As I mentioned, both of mine are trappers, and pistol calibers, so it works out well for me.
I also live in Indiana, so unless I'm shooting way across a big cornfield... I'm almost always in the woods.
The trapper is my friend.
Also, I like the handiness because I have set mine up as defensive guns I can travel with to places that don't like me to bring an AR.
Even if I had a 30-30, I'd want a short one.
If I'm shooting far, I'm using a bolt gun.

 

I love a good “I found this neglected xxx and since it was already to far gone to restore for resale I turned it into this unconventional but fun xxx.” Story.

There is a few sporterized surplus rifles on my pawn shop racks I’m been scheming up similar ideas for.

 

I hear Greta again! HOW DARE YOU! A bolt action on a lever gun thread!!! But dang, that's one nice rifle...kind of a bolt action "trapper". !! However, just kidding, doesn't hurt my delicate feelings. !

 

At least it's not plastic!

 

Back in the days of the Westerns, the movie people must have had thousands of those .44-40 1892's. I think most were functioning rifles, shooting blanks. As those blanks were black powder, there must have been a lot of them that hit the used markets with rusty bores. I lived in L.A. when I was a kid-teen, and we used to see all sorts of "movie guns" in the gun shops for sale. Some beaten beyond belief. Welding a fake-frizzen on the Trapdoors was common practice.

From what I understand, the '92 was not as popular as the '73, back in the day, and that's why they kept producing the '73 along with the '92. Of course in the movies, EVERYONE had a '92, even in movies that were supposed to be set way way before 1892. !!! Dang! Time travel does exist!

 

No, it's real wood and a very nice rifle.

 

Oooh were doing pictures.

 

I have a Trapper in 45 Colt. Most of the time I shoot cowboy loads out of it but I did shoot a rabbit once, with a 230 grain HP over a stout load of Unique, and it was dead right there. Not much of a test but people shoot deer with 44 magnum handguns. I am certain that load coming out of a 16" barrel had way more energy than what they get.

 

Usually around 300+ more FPS with the .44 mag. I have taken a deer with my Super Blackhawk when it still had a 7.5" barrel, at 110 paces. 240 grain cast bullet. The deer dropped when hit and was dead when I got to it. Shot quite a few deer with my Ruger .44 Carbine, they all went down. The .44mag is not a bad cartridge. !!!! But yes, a stout load out of a .45Colt Trapper would out run a .44 mag from a pistol. I think. I'm sure a 250 grain bullet over WW296 certainly would. One would have to consult the ballistic data! They might be close. That 7.5 inch Black Hawk would throw 250 grain bullets at 1524fps (no kidding,chrono'd many of them).

 

I'm not gonna get into the 44 Mag vs 45 Colt debate cause it's picking nits either one will do.
I don't load my 45 Colts hot because two of them are SAAs and I have 44 Mags for that.
Besides my 45 Colt is a 24".
My 16" 44 Mag will push a 300gr XTP 1400 fps easily, I'd be happy with that for bear deterrent.

 

The comparison I was trying to make was 44 mag in a pistol vs. 45 Colt in a carbine. The carbine will have the edge if it was chambered in either caliber, and either would be enough to kill a deer, and I wouldn't feel undergunned against a bear.

 

I do a little trapping from time to time.


1980 SRC Trapper in 30-30.
Flecked with rust. ...but yet unfired when I got it.

 

Looks to be in nice condition.

 

This ain't no Trapper, with it's 19.5" barrel, but there's a reason for that.

I had me a friend, who had a really nice 99 which I think had a 18" barrel on it, and the curved butt-plate that I lusted after. I could never get him to sell it to me, or trade, and if this guy even smelled the smell of someone wanting something, he would tease and drag his feet and never come to a price...loved to see people squirm and beg.

So, I came across this rifle, took it in trade for installing cylinder heads on a guy's truck. This was made in 1914, and had an odd length 24.5" barrel on it, and a poor job of being cut down and front sight install. I'm pretty sure it was originally a 26". That would have been cool to have.

Lusting still for that carbine I figured I'd make my own, but I didn't think anything much shorter than 19" would look right on this gun. I think it turned out okay. Also put a nice old "Stevens" butt-plate on it, it had a red-line rubber pad on it. Somewhere in this rifle's life it had been re-blued and I'm pretty sure re-stocked. The wood is gorgeous, which you can't see in the pic. The odd thing about the carbine is the action feels brand new. Not kidding, tight and crisp.

Anyhow, beautiful little carbine, although not-a-trapper. Had a low power scope on it at one time, and took it hunting a few times, but nothing ever jumped in front of me and said: "shoot me please!" When I did the remake I went back to the iron sights, which I prefer. That was kind of the end of my scope days anyhow.

 

Actually, the Manlicher stocked bolt gun had my attention, much as I love levers.
For yinz fellers putting Scout Rifle glass on levers, can understand the notion, but it is against the lever lovers creed...
Yeah, levers are best for woods hunting; we can't see more than 100yds here, unless it is a powerline or a railroad.
Moon

 

Thanks for that whole long story... WITHOUT one little tidbit. What caliber?

It's beautiful by the way.

 

I've got 2 99's... including a 1927 (or thereabouts...) takedown in .30-30. I don't know how I'd feel about one with a 16" or 18" barrel... purely for aesthetics. My .30-30 has a 24", my 99F in .308 a 22".

 

I agree 1000%. I just don't want to get into the mental gymnastics that it takes to try to argue that one is better than the other.
The biggest limiting factor of either is the ground strap.

 

.30-30...of course!

 

Possibly where a Trapper might really shine. Taken apart, it would really be a small package.

 

I type way over 70 wpm, which sometimes matches or exceeds my tpm (thoughts per minute) so I hope everyone understands why my posts get "long". Don't mean to do that, I try to keep them shorter, but yeah the words just start flowing out the fingers a little too fast. !!

 

I've considered hackin 1/2 foot off my 22" barreled Marlin 1895 45/70, just cause I like sorties.

 

Because of how handy my brother's Winchester Trapper is, when I got my 1894 in .41MAG, I seriously debated having the barrel whacked to 16"... but I just couldn't do it, and, in hindsight, I'm glad I didn't. I would, however, like to find one of the (very) limited edition stainless 16" Marlins... the 1894SSL (I think that's the correct alphabet soup.) I would have to win the lottery, first, to be able to afford one, however... because of the very limited release, they are quite pricey. My hopes that Ruger, who seems to love stainless, and short barrels, will... someday... kick out those shorty .41's again. Not holding my breath, however.

 

Indeed! And, because of the Savage rotary magazine... no mag tube to worry about. Something to ponder...