51
The Longbranch / Re: Lever rifles back in the day, rifle vs. carbine
« Last post by greyhawk on May 15, 2022, 05:55:33 AM »Boys I dont know how the old timers did it but many of them would have been familiar with longer heavier barrelled guns from the muzzleloader era - a 20 inch carbine woulda looked like a kids gun I bet.
Standing unsupported I do much better with a rifle length, with a bit of heft to it, if eyes are a bit dodgy that extra six or eight inches sight radius helps a lot also. If I had to make one offhand shot that really counted - I reckon it would be a tossup between my 40 inch barrel flintlock or my 1876 (28" tube).
Different story alltogether if we thrownin lead at twenty feet in the scrub or such.
I have a 92 with a 26 inch barrel - weighs just a tad over 7pound empty, its beautifully balanced for carrying, comes to the shoulder nice, long sight radius, magazine holds a couple extra, how much handier would a carbine be? nothing much in it I reckon unless a feller is stuck in the middle of a briar patch someplace and got the muzzle snagged, a rifle dont have to be heavy nor cumbersome.
just food for thought anyways
Standing unsupported I do much better with a rifle length, with a bit of heft to it, if eyes are a bit dodgy that extra six or eight inches sight radius helps a lot also. If I had to make one offhand shot that really counted - I reckon it would be a tossup between my 40 inch barrel flintlock or my 1876 (28" tube).
Different story alltogether if we thrownin lead at twenty feet in the scrub or such.
I have a 92 with a 26 inch barrel - weighs just a tad over 7pound empty, its beautifully balanced for carrying, comes to the shoulder nice, long sight radius, magazine holds a couple extra, how much handier would a carbine be? nothing much in it I reckon unless a feller is stuck in the middle of a briar patch someplace and got the muzzle snagged, a rifle dont have to be heavy nor cumbersome.
just food for thought anyways