.44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

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
Bill in Oregon
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9045
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Sweetwater, TX

.44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Bill in Oregon »

Image

Got the new rig to the range for some initial familiarization. I had three loads, a plinker with 200-grain flat nose case bullet over a case full of Trail Boss, a 240-grain XTP over 25 grains of Power Pro 300 MP, and 10 rounds of 300-grain XTPs over a near-maximum charge of 296.
I took Denis' warning about the recoil characteristics of the Ranch Hand to heart and started with the plinker load. With a two hand hold off a rest, the gun was a bit uncomfortable at it does not have a handgun grip, and the lever wants to rap the fingers a bit as the gun moves backward.
So I got smarter and put on my Uncle Mikes padded shooting gloves. Issue solved.
Next issue: the gun shoots high -- I mean REALLY high. My target was stapled to an IPSC-style cardboard silhouette just above center of mass. I was finally able to get on paper by holding about two feet low, at the bottom edge of the cardboard. Hmmm.
Next up were the full-house bear loads. Because of the increase in velocity over the plinkers, I expected these to impact lower and I was right. By stapling a second target below the first and using a six o-clock hold I was just an inch or two high on the top target with promising grouping. I lost concentration and held on the top target for the last shot, and therefore have only a 4-shot group to show for the bear loads, not a five.
The bench technique I used with the 300s was to cradle the Ranch Hand in a Caldwell Rock front rest with the lever nested in a bag of oats for rear support. I fired the gun with the right hand in the usual position, but I wrapped my left hand thumb-down around the butt. This position worked perfectly. The gun rose off the bag a few inches in recoil, but at 64 ounces, it soaked up a lot of the punch through mass alone.
I used the same technique with the 240-grain XTPs, made the same mistake aiming once at the wrong target and had another four-shot group. Recoil was noticeably milder than with the 300s.
In conclusion, this was only a brief trial, but in the days ahead, I look forward to exploring the possibilities of this interesting firearm, tweaking the sights (I'll probably add one of Nate Kiowa Jones's apertures) and working up loads.
Like many of you, when I first read about it I was skeptical that the Ranch Hand would have any practical use whatsoever, other than the very real fun factor. This outing has convinced me that with evolving technique, practice, additional experience under field conditions and fitted with proper sights, this tool is going to be put to effective use in the deer, bear and elk woods.
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14885
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by J Miller »

OK, since we know that ...... um ... weapon is capable of accurate grouping, would it be possible, or legal, to create a pistol grip on it like the original Volcanic pistol had?
Image

That Ranchhand is already an awkward thing so I can't see how a pistol grip on it would hurt it any.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
Bill in Oregon
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9045
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Sweetwater, TX

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Bill in Oregon »

Joe: I'm sure it would be totally lawful, as it is by United States Code definition already a handgun. It would require bending and reshaping the tangs, as well as reshaping the lever, though. Definitely not cheap!
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14885
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by J Miller »

Ah what's the cost matter? It's only money ...... :P

Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 32211
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by AJMD429 »

Bill in Oregon wrote:Joe: I'm sure it would be totally lawful, as it is by United States Code definition already a handgun. It would require bending and reshaping the tangs, as well as reshaping the lever, though. Definitely not cheap!
Kind of ironic that of all the leverguns that we have with 'straight' grips and 'pistol' grips, the one they come up with that actually is a 'pistol', doesn't have pistol grips...! :?
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
O.S.O.K.
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5533
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Deep in the Piney Woods of Mississippi

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by O.S.O.K. »

I would only want one of these if I were going to SBR it... and install a standard buttstock. As a "pistol" I see it as being strictly a toy. Not dissing them - just that they aren't really a practical piece in terms of use beyond playing around - in as-issed configuration IMHO.

I would switch the lever too.

As an SBR, it would become a very handy defensive piece. It would also be a packable survival gun or excellent bear defense carbine.
NRA Endowment Life
Phi Kappa Sigma, Alpha Phi 83 "Skulls"
OCS, 120th MP Battalion, MSSG
MOLON LABE!
Bill in Oregon
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9045
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Sweetwater, TX

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Bill in Oregon »

OSOK:

"As a "pistol" I see it as being strictly a toy. Not dissing them - just that they aren't really a practical piece in terms of use beyond playing around - in as-issed configuration IMHO."

That was my initial impression. The gun in actual use is proving far more interesting, and I've owned a bunch of Contenders and Encores.
Next range session, I'll have a chronograph with me too.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Blaine »

As you noticed, the light ones shoot lower.....a 200gr plinker load would be perfect, and still be a round to be reckoned with as a defense load.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
O.S.O.K.
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5533
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Deep in the Piney Woods of Mississippi

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by O.S.O.K. »

Bill in Oregon wrote:OSOK:

"As a "pistol" I see it as being strictly a toy. Not dissing them - just that they aren't really a practical piece in terms of use beyond playing around - in as-issed configuration IMHO."

That was my initial impression. The gun in actual use is proving far more interesting, and I've owned a bunch of Contenders and Encores.
Next range session, I'll have a chronograph with me too.
Well, it may be easier to aim and shoot accurately in an agitated state than a revolver.... which would make it a better bear defense piece. But I think I'd still prefer being able to shoulder it.
NRA Endowment Life
Phi Kappa Sigma, Alpha Phi 83 "Skulls"
OCS, 120th MP Battalion, MSSG
MOLON LABE!
DPris
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:56 am

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by DPris »

Glad you're having fun with it.
For bear I'll keep my Redhawks. Quicker to fire accurately, handle recoil much more efficiently, quicker to reload, can be fired rapidly multiple times one-handed if necessary. :)
If there's an angry bear moving in my direction, I sure don't want to be dealing with working that lever, regaining a firing grip, and regaining a sight picture for each shot after the first one.

Any type of hunting where I want to actually hit something, I won't handicap myself with that platform. :)
I'm not a "I like it, so I'll MAKE it work whether or not it really does work" kinda guy.
I usually go for the most efficient, not the least.
But, that's just me. :)

My Rossi in .45 Colt was pretty much on, sight-wise.
I did not like the brass bead, found it hard to get a precise sight picture in the rear notch.
Denis
Bill in Oregon
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9045
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Sweetwater, TX

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Bill in Oregon »

Denis: With my 58-year-old eyes that brass bead is a tough one, I'll agree. I think the smaller ivory or one of the fiber optics would be a better bet.
User avatar
Warhawk
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Hot Springs, Arkansas

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Warhawk »

O.S.O.K. wrote:I would only want one of these if I were going to SBR it... and install a standard buttstock. As a "pistol" I see it as being strictly a toy. Not dissing them - just that they aren't really a practical piece in terms of use beyond playing around - in as-issed configuration IMHO.

I would switch the lever too.

As an SBR, it would become a very handy defensive piece. It would also be a packable survival gun or excellent bear defense carbine.
My thoughts exactly, I just made a deal on the 357 version of this. Plan to do an action job and replace the safety with one of Steve's sights. Down the road I'm going to look into adding a real buttstock, maybe a set of walnut stocks.
User avatar
Buck Elliott
Member Emeritus
Posts: 2830
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Halfway up Sheep Mountain -- Cody, Wyoming

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Buck Elliott »

If barrel length is less than 16", installation of a "reguler" butt-stock creates a short-barreled Rifle, which is illegal...
Regards

Buck

Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
User avatar
Warhawk
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Hot Springs, Arkansas

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Warhawk »

Buck Elliott wrote:If barrel length is less than 16", installation of a "reguler" butt-stock creates a short-barreled Rifle, which is illegal...
Not illegal, just requires more paperwork and payment of a "shall not infringe" tax.
User avatar
Buck Elliott
Member Emeritus
Posts: 2830
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Halfway up Sheep Mountain -- Cody, Wyoming

Re: .44 Magnum Ranch Hand at the Range

Post by Buck Elliott »

Just be sure you do the paperwork and pay the tax Before you make the conversion. The conversion, prior to or without the paperwork and tax IS illegal...
Regards

Buck

Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
Post Reply