marksman wrote:I like the blr brownings for a hunting lever gun, owned one in 30-06 was a real good gun but I sold it, money talks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGrXb18vF-o
but if I were to want a classic for fun it would be a winny commemorative
probably in dirty 30
the commemorative's are just made better and usually not flogged out
in2anity wrote: Winchesters are the bomb. They are solid, reliable, accurate and well suited to iron sights. The reason for this is the 1892 is more designed to take a tang. A 24" Winchester with a rear tang/vernier can be shot VERY accurately. This is probably the most popular combo in silly-wet. Just remember though, a heavily recoiling gun makes using a tang a little trickier.
No1_49er wrote:That might be a bit of a stretch. If you have a peruse of this years NRA National Championships, you will find that marlins were 74, to 47 Winchester, excluding other "lesser" rifles. Calibre 30-30Win 80, to 38-55 20. As to sights on those rifles, 77 receiver mount against 49 tang.
Whilst the numbers in the pistol cartridge matches were a bit closer to being equal, the favourite was still Marlin/Receiver.
The rimfire results are hugely in favour of Marlin, being 84 to 15 Winchester, and 77 receiver sights to 51 tang.
I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.
in2anity wrote:No1_49er wrote:That might be a bit of a stretch. If you have a peruse of this years NRA National Championships, you will find that marlins were 74, to 47 Winchester, excluding other "lesser" rifles. Calibre 30-30Win 80, to 38-55 20. As to sights on those rifles, 77 receiver mount against 49 tang.
Whilst the numbers in the pistol cartridge matches were a bit closer to being equal, the favourite was still Marlin/Receiver.
The rimfire results are hugely in favour of Marlin, being 84 to 15 Winchester, and 77 receiver sights to 51 tang.
I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.
I might be a tad bias also I'm coming from a pistol cartridge perspective - as your numbers show the marlins are obviously bloody popular in rifle class.
No1_49er wrote:BTW, the use of lead in microgroove barrels being a problem is a bit of a furphy. As with a lot of info' on loading with lead, it's a learning curve. Projectile sizing, hardness, gas check?, crimp or no crimp, type of powder - where to stop. And was it ever a problem in the microgroove M39 rimfire? Nope.
Go Marlin.
bladeracer wrote:No1_49er wrote:BTW, the use of lead in microgroove barrels being a problem is a bit of a furphy. As with a lot of info' on loading with lead, it's a learning curve. Projectile sizing, hardness, gas check?, crimp or no crimp, type of powder - where to stop. And was it ever a problem in the microgroove M39 rimfire? Nope.
Go Marlin.
I agree that it's a learning curve, but it's a learning curve that is not required with cut rifling.
Can you shoot soft lead bullets out of a Microgroove barrel?
in2anity wrote:My latest theory about this is microgroove and tighter twist barrels go hand-in-hand. The modern 336 is a 1:10 which is a little tight for lead. In contrast the cut-rifle XLR (and a winnie 94 for the matter) is only a 1:12.
Gamerancher wrote:Try this.
https://www.usedguns.com.au/Product.aspx?p=132435
If you reload you can load down with 10gr of trailboss behind a cast bullet for cheap, low recoil, accurate plinking or load her up to full house loads for pigs ,goats etc.
Stix wrote:I notice no one has mentioned the Henry's or Rossi...im keen on the Wini's but thought id ask how the Henry's & Rossi fair...?
Stix wrote:Thanks guys.
Another silly question...but is there anything in particular (such as age/model number) that governs things like side eject & milled receiver for scope...?
Im just wondering how one knows if any given lever rifle has these features or not...? Or is it just a case of 'you know from experience' type thing...?
Stix wrote:Thanks guys.
Another silly question...but is there anything in particular (such as age/model number) that governs things like side eject & milled receiver for scope...?
Im just wondering how one knows if any given lever rifle has these features or not...? Or is it just a case of 'you know from experience' type thing...?
Gamerancher wrote:Personally I've never seen the need to mount a scope on a traditional lever gun. I can get my levers to group at acceptable levels for competition shooting out to 200m with iron sights, both barrel and receiver, more than adequate for hunting also.