I'm always interested in the "why's" of history where guns are concerned. 100+ years ago, we didn't have the gun press we have today, so researching such stuff isn't easy...so I have a question?
I'm wondering why 2 our of every 3 lever action rifles from back in the day were rifle configuration rather than the carbine that everyone seems to prefer today (and since WW2)
I seem to recall from my youth the old timers felt a longer barrel gave you enough of a velocity increase to actually make a difference, making for a perceived longer range gun.. In the black powder era barrel length had a lot more effect on velocity than today's guns, so that makes sense...at least perception wise.
The advantages of a 24" rifle over a 20" or shorter carbine are:
- Longer barrel would give higher velocities with black powder, probably more than 100fps from a .44 or .38 WCF
- Greater magazine capacity
- Longer sight radius which is nice for longer range shots.
So this all adds up to a rifle that could have a perceived advantage in range, and firepower.
Was this the reason rifles like the 92 sold 3x as many 24" rifles than 20" carbines? IIRC the numbers are about the same for the '66 & '73's. Seems to me non-cowboys just felt the longer barrel and higher magazine capacity actually brought something to the table...or at least that was the perception.
I always recall my grandfather told me that was the reason he bought a Winchester 94 rifle vs. the carbine in 1927. So I wonder if his thinking was typical. He was a gun owner, but not a gun nut like us, so I don't know how much he researched the issue, if at all.