1892 carbine vs short rifle

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
Gary4242
Levergunner
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:37 am
Location: Southern Ontario

1892 carbine vs short rifle

Post by Gary4242 »

Hi All,
Looking for opinion,
I am looking to purchase a current production Winchester 1892 in 44 Mag. 20"

Carbine or Short Rifle?

Other than the obvious visual differences in forearm and butt stock..........is there other considerations in handling or performance,

Thanks,

Gary
User avatar
crs
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: 1892 carbine vs short rifle

Post by crs »

I like the 20" barrel on my 1892 .357 mag. It is handy and still gets plenty of velocity from the cartridge.

Image

Oh, that is Bishop custom wood, so it may not look like what is selling these days.
CRS, NRA Benefactor Member, TSRA, DRSS, DWWC, Whittington Center
Android Ballistics App at http://www.xplat.net/
User avatar
gundownunder
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: Perth. Western Australia

Re: 1892 carbine vs short rifle

Post by gundownunder »

The barrel band on the carbine might put pressure on the barrel and could effect accuracy.
Take a look at the butt plates, the one on the rifle will leave a more impressive mark if you pull the trigger with the stock in the wrong position on your shoulder.
If I wanted MOA at the range I'd go with the rifle, but for hunting I'd go with the carbine.
Bob
***********************************
You have got to love democracy-
It lets you choose who your dictator is going to be.
***********************************
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: 1892 carbine vs short rifle

Post by J Miller »

Gary,

I'm a fan of the .45 Colt in lever guns and I've had both carbines and a short rifle. I like the short rifle the best.
Due to the big hole in the barrel the carbines seem to change their balance point with every round fired. The octagon barreled short rifles don't seem to do this as much.
I suspect the .44s will be the same as the bores are so close.

Besides, the short rifles are classy looking.

Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
User avatar
Paladin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:55 am
Location: Not Working (much)

Re: 1892 carbine vs short rifle

Post by Paladin »

I like the short barreled carbines for lever guns but have both in .45 LC, a Henry carbine and a 20 inch 1892 Rossi. The Rossi is lighter so gets carried more both have red dots on them for evening and night problems.

45 LC.jpg
Lever 45 (2).JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is not the critic who counts
Post Reply