Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns One-Caliber Rifle-Pistol Combo?

If it is a Smith&Wesson day, I'll run the 15-22 and 63.....

I'll take a Glock in whatever and an AR in .223.



Travis

For me personally, it would be hard to beat my 4" 586 and Marlin 1894C with either 158s or 180s. Close second would be my 6" 629 and Marlin 1894 with 270s going 1300+ and 1700+ respectively.

The 44s are in my truck now. 1 box of ammo, 2 guns, makes it simpler. The Marlin wears an xs peep and I'm good with it to at least 150. The 357 Marlin wears a red dot and is the house gun for the wife, but it's been known to do truck duty too.

But if I wanted to keep it classy, I do have a Hi-point compact 9mm and the matching carbine.

I have played with this issue of combinations, mainly because my dad had a lever in 38.40, which was stolen, and i still have the colt SAA in 38.40. Common in the west, because of the one ammo for both when it was hard to get ammo.
There are issues with this tho.
I bought a marlin in .44magnum because it was a lightweight companion to the model 29 i have. Here is a critical issue. The marlin comes with a .431 diameter barrel, the model 29 a .429 barrel. Using a lead montana bullet sized to .432 in the marlin, 240grain, BN rated to 22, i got around 1900 fps out of the rifle. I tried it in the pistol and i don't want to state the velocities cause it was way to much. I attribute this to the .432 lead bullet, hard cast, in the .429 barrel. In the future i will stick to jacketed bullets, or acccept lesser accuracy in the rifle by using a lead bullet sized to .430.
I am not sure what winchester cuts their barrels to. I have a friend that has a rossi, and it had to have work done to it to make it work right. My understanding, no personal experience, is that some of the .45colt rifles also are subject to some feeding issues. But the argument is still true, that if you are careful on what you are feeding the combination, a .44magnum pistol and rifle at close to moderate ranges would do just about anything. If I were to reduce the bullet weight in the .44, in the rifle i would have something like a 30.30, but ten cartridges in the magazine. I have pretty much decided next time i load for this combination, i have going to reduce velocity to about 1000fps in the revolver, and that should be around 1400fps in the rifle. Perfectly aedequate.
I have taken the same tact in the .45/70 by the way, and am not throwing those 405grain pills at max velocity, prefering to keep them at about 1600fps which is above factory stats, but nowhere near max. I need to keep my teeth in.
I might add that when i was shooting those oversize lead bullets in the pistol, the velocities were way high through the chrony, but no signs of sticking or primer issues. Still, I ain't gonna do it again.

.44 Magnum of course.

Although as I age .357 becomes more attractive.

i might add nobody mention the 44.40 combination. What is also fascinating to me is if one were to use the .45colt in the rifle you are getting at or more than the old 38.55, which is a fine old cartridge but not chambered in the revolver. I still think the combination is a good idea.

As I posted in that thread:

New Model Vaquero & a '92 Trapper carbine in .357 Magnum. Both stainless for weather durability. Screw pistols and semi-auto carbines with detachable (losable) magazines.

The "old technology" will get ya through MANY situations if properly used and ain't near as easy to break or become disabled. And the Trapper Carbine is right handy even in a home or building but will still reach out to reasonable distance with the 16" barrel.

This discussion only reminds me why the only "1 caliber handgun/rifle combination" I have is in .22lr.

Doc - I thought you were right on track there for a minute - but then you diverged. As JOG stated, the only reason I see for such a set is for the purpose of using one load. With all the centerfire rounds, you either have to load up for the rifle or down for the handgun to make it truly optimum for most people.

If it were me - I might prefer to go with a .44mag. I don't see any reason to subject myself to full-power .44mag loads in an easily-carried revolver if I also have with me a rifle, so I would load down for that. Now I have two loads that must be kept separate. If I were to go with .357, it would be the opposite. I have no problem at all with full-power .357 loads, but I might want a little more oomph to justify carrying the rifle. Separate loads again...I think that's cheating the concept.

If I have to load differently for the different guns, I'm gonna go with my best handgun fit for the mission, and a preferred rifle. In 99% of the backwoods excursions I've ever done or am likely to do (unless maybe I get lucky enough to hunt Brown Bear in Alaska) I could be happy as a clam with any of the major-caliber handguns (.45acp, .357mag, .41mag, .44mag, .45 Colt) and a .308win or 30.06, or whatever fits the occasion (lately for me - a .243).

Small-game hunting is another story. There, I really prefer to take game with a .22lr handgun when I can get close enough - but I often bring the .22 rifle along, in case conditions force longer distance shots.

OTOH - and thinking out loud here....

If you look at it that way - I mean not as a matter of power gained, but more of a range and ability to aim issue - then a "normal" max-loaded .357 starts to look pretty good. Carried in a medium-frame 4" revolver, it is a very useful tool. Put that same load in a rifle, and my reliable range increases two or threefold - with still enough power to do terminally what I could have done with the handgun close-up.

If we're talking about urban life pistol/rifle combos (and I think we're not), it's a whole 'nuther story.

Comparing a gun that weighs 4 1/2lbs to one that weighs just under 3lbs is hardly apples to apples....

+1 and if your gun weighs 4.5lbs or more - it might as well be a rifle.

Rossi carbine

I thought the same thing - the rifile I chose (77/357) is only a pound heavier than the BFR.

I used to do some big-game hunting with a "handgun". The one I was using weighed right around 4.5lbs empty. After a few years I figured that for the weight I was packing around, I could have been a more successful hunter with a light rifle. And if I didn't care whether I was all that successful (or had the time to ensure that I was), I might as well have a lighter handgun.

I can't figure why anyone would want to pack around such a heavy handgun for any reason other than hunting. I know that hunting with one has it's own reasons (which don't necessarily apply to me) and I'm down with that - but for anything else????

In fairness my .45-70 handgun weighs a lot closer to the 2.9lbs even with its 11" barrel, and to be sure it kicks a hell of a lot more than a .44 magnum of like weight.




For my choice if I were rocking the pistol/rifle one chambering I would likely stick with my existing 5 1/2" Blackhawk and my H&R Buffalo Carbine.

I'd be curious to know what a 10mm would do out of a 16" barrel. Ditto a 460 Rowland. The OP in the Campfire thread makes the point that with a Mech-Tech carbine, you can not only run the same ammo, but use the same magazines.

Those questions aside, yes if you look at revolver cartridges, you have more case capacity to work with.

Ruger made a run of #1's in .475 Linebaugh, which would go nicely with a Freedom Arms .475. They also made a #1 run in .460 S&W, which would go with one of the S&W X frames. A single shot dodges the feeding issue with popular revolver bullets, in a lever or semi-auto.

AS someone else posted, coming up with loads that run well in both guns could be a challenge.

This is really dependent upon where you live and what activities you are engaged in.

I live in Montana, am more of a recreational shooter, out in the woods every day, unlikely to need to engage multiple threats, and I carry every day.

I guess if I actually had to choose, it would be the .45 Colt in a FA M97 with a 4 �� barrel and a Mundenized Marlin 1894 CB with 24� Oct Bbl. The M97 is light (but not too light), compact, accurate, packable and can be loaded mild or with �Ruger� only loads. The 1894 is smooth, well balanced, accurate, easy to change sighting systems (big + for us older guys and aging eyes) and will handle any load the M97 will.

Paul

While I agree with Doc that hand loading the modern semi-auto calibers won't gain anything, there is still the gain in velocity by virtue of a rifle's longer barrel. A couple hundred feet per second is typical.

The revolver cartridges gain more. My guess is because there is so much waste in the current loads - flash and blast gone to nothing due barrels that are too short. That flash and blast turns to velocity in a carbine.

I have the Marlin Traper Carbine in 44 magnum and a Superblackhawk in same. Love 'em. I ALSO have the Marlin 41 magnum carbine and a 41 mag Redhawk AND a Smith 58. Either combination floats my boat just fine. The sixguns REALLY shine when I literally crawl through "deer tunnels" in heavy pines at the edge of a slough. No way anyone could maneuver even a short long gun in one of those places.

If I have to do it, then the .357 is the most for the least where I roam. I don't need a .44 for anything I run into here. The .357 works well in a carry size revolver (SP101, 4 inch) and the would work well in a carbine (Ruger's 77/357 for me).

...but I'd rather carry a handgun round in a handgun and a rifle round in a rifle.

If 4.4 lbs is to much for you,then stay with your .22...Weight always lowers recoil and the 45-70 BFR is capable of shooting 300 grain bullets over 2,000 fps/350 grains at over 1800 fps....It's not for whimps...

The point I was making is the 45-70 BFR has less recoil than the 44 Mag both with factory ammunition by quite a bit....If 4.4 lbs is to heavy,then shoot something lighter with more recoil but If you can't handle the weight,I doubt you could handle the recoil.

How would you compare recoil in a 7lb/378 Weatherby to a 9.5 lb/.378?We know which one will recoil more,don't we.

In all fairness,I would like to see the recoil numbers on the 44 Mag in the big Super Redhawk.

I truly do not see the weight issue in a hunting handgun.


Jayco

Years ago, one of the gun mags did an article where they took a long barrel - I don't remember the caliber (think it was .357) - and cut it down inch by inch while measuring the velocities at each step. IIRC - using the same load, they lost about 35fps per inch. That sticks with me, because I see roughly the same difference in comparisons I've made. Of course, it assumes the use of a caliber with more case-capacity than needed at handgun lengths.

So - a .357 load that clocks about 1200fps in a 4" barrel should do about 1620 from a 16" barrel.

Oh - a more recent source...

Ballistics by the inch.