Yea they never caught on, I love mine, 5 1/2 LB of handiness. If I didn't have it I would have a lever gun in .44Originally Posted by BobM
Yea they never caught on, I love mine, 5 1/2 LB of handiness. If I didn't have it I would have a lever gun in .44
With GJM on this for a camping gun, a pistol caliber is probably fine where you are going,but the .45-70 is enough of a "camp gun" for anywhere in the lower 48. I got a part from Beartooth Mercantile to replace the silly crossbolt safety. I prefer 405gr hardcast loaded at "cowboy" velocities, mine run about 1250 fps from this little beast and I find those quite tolerable, several manufacturers like HSM make loads in that range. Hill People stock saddle and XS rear sight.
My second choice would be some form of '92 in .44 Magnum or my Benelli M1S90 with slugs.
I really want one of those Chiappa takedown '92's at some point. Something I could fly with that does not have to go in a separate "this is a rifle" case through the luggage systems.
I had one of those on loan for T&E about 5 years ago. It was difficult to give back.
https://calibremag.ca/chiappa-lever-guns-reviewed/
For some reason this was credited to a different writer but anyway, I got the trigger time and it was a really handy little carbine.
I've looked online at the Chiappa takedowns on and off. What did you think of the Skinner sights? Since I've never seen one of the Chiappas in real life my only point of comparison is the original Springfield 1903 peeps. At least with those, a peep that far from the eye is just marginal at best...
You called the Alaskan stainless and stated the stocks are synthetic. My understanding is that it's chromed carbon steel and the stocks are polymer coated (maybe something a little like Plasti-Dip) wood. Have they changed? Am I out in left field?
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Don’t forget the old browning model 92s. I have been looking for one for a long time
On the sights...not my favourite, but I found them easy to shoot accurately.
HOWEVER: I'm annoyingly sight- and trigger- insensitive and find my performance is only marginally affected by anything other than absolute extremes. I had an AR with a 14 pound trigger and never noticed until someone else shot it and complained (Canadians will likely know what gun I'm talking about) and my 92 has pretty primitive leaf sights and I shoot them about as fast as anything. So the Skinners work ok for me but I would bet a lot of people would find them a little slow.
As far as the stock goes, well, I think I correctly assessed it as polymer but it was about five years ago. It's possible it was wood with a weird coating and I didn't realize it because that's fucking weird. It seemed at the time like a quality polymer but that's all I remember, to be honest.
Regarding Marlin.
I had a stainless steel .44 Magnum Marlin (no longer made with these specs) I recently sold. The ammo cost and my lack of using it was just too much for me to keep. While I owned it, this specific gun had to go back to the Marlin/Remington company twice as the lever somehow was not adequately hardened and bent while shooting & using; and the other problem I learned actually had a name of "Marlin Jam", which meant the lever & bolt would lock-up due to a notch forming on the bolt (I think I'm explaining it right). Once these two major problems were fixed, the rifle (an 1894SS) was actually pretty darn good.
This was a few years ago and the shipping method, using UPS, was very inconvenient for me. The rifle had to be picked up at my residence with no provision for drop-off at a UPS location. It generally meant I had to be at home all day as UPS doesn't specify a pickup time other than 0800-1900 hours. This experience really soured me on the Marlin brand.
Others in .357.
I've considered a .357 lever for the same reasons as the OP, which is legal transportation and possession in other states, particularly California, but could be other states of which I'm not yet familiar. Marlin would have considered again except for my previous bad experiences. Note, I understand most Marlins will likely be OK, but I'm one of those unlucky persons who seem to be unlucky with guns. I currently have a Springfield-Armory Saint (blowing primers/over pressure it seems) back to the factory right now for over 3 weeks and it'll be even longer as time goes by.
Although somewhat costly, the Taylor's "Alaskan" take-down .357 lever action guns attract me.
https://www.taylorsfirearms.com/long...2-alaskan.html
I haven't found them in-stock in my local stores and they're ~$1400-$1500 depending on finish.
For that money, I'm thinking about another AR15 to replace that Saint which may never come back as reliable for all I know.
What I'm Doing for Now.
I generally travel with a 12 gauge shotgun (with slugs and 00 buck), of which I've got four; three of which seem to be 50 state legal with 18.5" barrels. I'm not concerned with my handgun ammo not matching my long-gun ammo, but can see it'd be nice to have both hand & long guns using the same ammo when traveling, just not a necessity for me. I realize not everyone is as comfortable with shotguns. I am just saying what I do.
In closing, whatever is bought, just allow enough time to thoroughly vet both gun and the shooter with the gun. I've had so many guns fail to work 100%, but I admit I do shoot a lot.
My travel long-gun is a beat-up old JM Marlin 1894 in .357. My daughter loves shooting it, and she doesn’t spend much time shooting many long-guns that are more powerful than a .22. It works, it’s fun, my kid will shoot it, and it’s legal all over.
I have a blue 1892 Chiappa and a stainless 1894 Marlin CSBL, both in 38/357. The Chiappa has a fiber optic front sight, which I prefer over the XS vertical white line front sight. I removed the XS rail on the Marlin as I don't want an optic on the gun and it makes carry at the natural balance point less comfortable. I also have a Marlin 1895 45-70 for wandering about in bear country. An 1892 or 1894 in 38/357 with a proper S&W revolver will suit your needs very well.
Reply With Quote