The Other Guys
Every story has some of the Other Guys – the folks who came up with a concept that, while novel and useful, just didn’t quite hang in there. And there are other Other Guys as well, the ones who keep plugging and manage to carve themselves out a share of the market. In this part of our history of lever guns, we’ll see some of each.
Spencer
The same year Benjamin Tyler Henry came up with the Henry rifle, a Connecticut man named Christopher Spencer came up with another practical repeater, but the Spencer rifle, while operating with a lever under the action, was quite different than the Henry. Spencer completed the design of his signature rifle in 1859, technically beating Henry by a year, but the first commercial release was called the 1860 Spencer.
The Spencer rifle, while technically a lever-action, was very different from the Volcanic, Henry, and Winchester designs. Instead of a tubular magazine under the barrel, the Spencer protected its 7-round tubular magazine by placing it inside the stock, loading through the butt. The action was unusual, being in effect a modification to the falling-block breechloaders that were coming into the market at that time. While the offerings of Christian Sharps were single-shots, the Spencer’s magazine fed fresh cartridges into the action while the block was lowered; the process when a shot was fired was to lower the lever, ejecting the empty cartridge; raise the lever, elevating a new cartridge and placing it in the chamber; cocking the big external side-hammer and letting fly.
That was one more action than the Henry required of a shooter, as its bolt cocked the piece’s hammer on its rearward travel. But with various parts of the country fixing to square off at one another, Spencer wasted no time presenting his rifle to the War Department.
There was a problem. The one constant in government is the shortsightedness of bureaucrats, and the War Department in the 1860s was no exception. The Ordnance Department was at that time overseen by Brigadier James Ripley, an old wreck from the War of 1812 with an imagination rather shorter than his nose. He rejected not only the Spencer but any repeater out of hand, insisting that the soldiery would simply waste ammo. At President Lincoln’s insistence, he unbent enough to buy some Sharps breechloaders for the cavalry, but that was as far as he seemed willing to go.
Spencer had other plans. (Imagine the consequences if the following events took place today.) On a summer day in 1863, not long after the Federal victory at Gettysburg, Spencer picked up one of his rifles, a hefty supply of ammo, took them to Washington and proceeded to march with them into the White House, past the inattentive sentries and into the President’s office to face a startled Abraham Lincoln.
No details remain of the conversation that ensued, but if must have been something along these lines:
Christopher Spencer: “Mr. President, I have a repeating rifle I’d like to show you.”
President Lincoln: “I’d like to see it.”
The following day President Lincoln, Spencer and Secretary of War Stanton took Spencer’s rifle shooting on the Great Mall(!), following which Lincoln ordered the fossil Ripley to approve the purchase of Spencer repeaters. Ripley largely ignored the order, but a fair number of Spencer rifles found their way into the hands of General Grant’s Army of the West. No less a figure than George Custer became a quick convert to the Spencer rifle, and after the war, many surplus Spencer repeaters were in use all over the country.
The Spencer fared poorly in commercial competition after the war. While the Winchester rifles’ magazines could be topped up with single rounds while the gun was in use, the Spencer required withdrawing the tubular magazine. Also, the Spencer was limited to that company’s own rimfire ammo, while Winchester, only eight years after the war, was hitting home runs in its partnership with Colt on the .44 WCF cartridge.
By this time Spencer’s rifle works were already gone, having closed their doors in 1869 and sold the remainder of their patents and machinery to their competitor, Winchester. In 1882 Spencer tried his hand at gun making again when he started a new company to build what would be the first commercially produced pump-action shotgun. He continued building that gun until 1889, when the new Spencer Arms Company was sold to Francis Bannerman and Sons of New York, who continued manufacturing Spencer’s shotgun until 1907. But in 1869, his involvement with lever-action repeaters was over.
A year after Spencer struck his tents and bowed out of the lever gun business, a new kid on the block was about to make a big splash. A tool and die man from Connecticut who had worked in the Colt plant through the war opened his own company, manufacturing a few single-shot brass derringers, the Ballard-pattern single shot rifles and, eventually, some lever guns. That fellow’s name was John Mahlon Marlin.
Enter John Marlin
While he opened his Marlin Firearms Company in New Haven, Connecticut in 1870, Marlin didn’t jump into the lever-gun or, indeed, even the rifle business right away. Instead, he began by manufacturing inexpensive brass-frame single shot derringers, initially in .22 caliber and later in .32 and .38 caliber versions. In 1875 he began manufacture of the Ballard single-shot falling-block rifle, eventually building more of that rifle than any of its several other manufacturers.
1881 saw the first Marlin lever gun. The Model 1881 Marlin was intended to compete directly with Winchester’s 1876 Centennial, and in fact the Marlin offering did Winchester one better in offering the 1881 in the popular .45-70 and .38-55 chamberings.
Marlin’s first lever gun had that advantage over the Winchester, but this happy situation wouldn’t last; in 1886 Winchester would offer the first in a new generation of lever guns that would also be chambered in popular, easy to obtain calibers. Also, the 1881 Marlin was not appreciably different than the Winchester designs; like them, it loaded through a gate in the receiver, had a sealed tubular magazine, an external hammer and ejected spent cartridges straight out of the top of the action. But the Marlin sold for a few dollars less than comparable Winchester offerings, and this was enough to keep the New Haven plant open until the next innovation.
That next innovation was the Marlin Model 1889, a pistol-caliber lever carbine offered in .44-40, .38-40, .32-20 and .25-20. The carbine in and of itself wasn’t remarkably different than the Winchester 1866 and 1873 guns in its function or capabilities, but it did have one key difference: Its receiver top was solid, and empties were ejected instead out of the right side of the action.
In 1889 not many shooters were mounting telescopic sights at all, let alone in pistol-caliber lever action carbines. But the side ejection, dubbed by the New Haven gunmakers as the “Marlin Safety” action, would become widely known as a Marlin feature, favored by many shooters who disliked the feeling of hot brass landing inside an open shirt collar. In 1894 the pistol-caliber Marlin was reworked somewhat and re-introduced as the Model 1894, which is still in production today.
Two more historic offerings from Marlin saw their origins in the last years of the 19th century. First, in 1891, Marlin brought out the Model 1891, which adopted the side-ejecting lever action to the .22 rimfires, handling the Short, Long and Long Rifle cartridges. A few reworks of this original rifle resulted in the “Golden” Model 39, a light, handy small-game rifle beloved by shooters and, like the 1894, is still in production.
A nice New-Haven manufactured 39 Marlin has been on my “want” list for quite a while, although the right juxtaposition of “rifle for sale” and “available cash” hasn’t yet materialized. The 39 and the 39A as made by the New Haven works is a great piece; light, handy and quick. Because of Marlin’s signature side-ejection, it is easily scoped, a nice advantage when you’re after small game that present small targets. To be fair, the .22 offerings from Winchester and Browning in lever guns are also side-ejecting, but the Marlin did it first. Back in the Allamakee County woods of my youth, I used to occasionally bump into an older member of the big Duffy clan who hunted gray squirrels in the tall timber with an ancient Marlin 39 stuffed with .22 Shorts; he was a deadly shot, quick and precise, going only for headshots. The Shorts in the long-barreled 39 made little more noise than a dry walnut falling on a rock. He killed a lot of squirrels with that old gun.
But I digress.
In 1893 Marlin came out with their final lever gun of the 19th century. The Model 1893, like the 1889, featured the “Marlin Safety” side-eject action. Offered in cartridges including the .25-36, .30-30, .32 Special, .32-40, and .38-55, the 1893, like the 1889, was a handy, solid rifle that sold for a tad less than Winchester’s offerings but worked just as well. This rifle would, like the 1894, go through several iterations in coming years, becoming in time the famous Model 336 that is still in production, as well as being the basis for the Marlin 444 and 1895 rifles.
In Marlin, Winchester was finally seeing some steady and determined competition in the lever gun market. Marlin, however, wasn’t the only other player.
The Colt-Burgess Rifle
In 1882, the folks at Colt cast some envious gazes on Winchester’s success in rifles and sought to get a piece of that action. To that end they went to gun designer Anthony Burgess, who had a patent for a lever-action rifle with a toggle-joint action; Colt bought that patent and, in 1883, began production of the Colt-Burgess lever gun in .44-40. Two versions were offered; a carbine with a 20” barrel, and a rifle with a 25” barrel.
The Colt-Burgess rifle didn’t really catch on. About 6400 examples were made, mostly in the rifle version. About this time, as we noted in the recent series on sixguns, Winchester had an engineer building a few prototype revolvers; long-standing gun industry rumor has it that the two companies entered into a gentlemen’s agreement wherein Winchester would drop revolver development in return for Colt eschewing the continued manufacture of lever guns. Whether this is true or not, Colt dropped manufacture of the Colt-Burgess rifle after only two years.
Someone else, though, was a more serious contender.
A Savage Competitor
In 1893, a couple of New Yorkers patented something new: A lever-action rifle with no external hammer, that used a unique rotary-style magazine allowing it to fire spitzer-type bullets. Further, their patented rifle was specifically designed to handle high-pressure, smokeless powder cartridges.
The two designers were Arthur William Savage and his son, Arthur John Savage, and their design would eventually enter production in Utica, New York, as the Savage Model 1895 and later altered slightly into the Model 1899.
The hammerless Savage was offered in a plethora of high-performance calibers in its time, including the proprietary .303 Savage, .32-40 Winchester, .300 Savage, .30-30 Winchester, .25-35 Winchester, .250 Savage, .22 Savage Hi-Power, .22-250 Remington, .243 Winchester, .308 Winchester, .358 Winchester, 7mm-08 Remington, .284 Winchester, .38-55 Winchester, .375 Winchester and .410 shotgun shell.
The 99 was and is a versatile rifle. In its original rotary magazine version, it had a handy cartridge counter that appeared through a small aperture on the left side of the receiver, allowing the shooter to instantly check how many remaining cartridges he had on hand.
Savage wasn’t done yet, though. In 1897 Arthur Savage filed another patent for a variation on the original Model 1895 rifle, which replaced the rotary magazine with a detachable box magazine, the first time a detachable box magazine was offered in a repeating rifle.
It was the Savage 95/99 that finally brought lever guns fully into the smokeless powder era.
Winchester, however, wasn’t exactly sitting idle while all these other gun makers were innovating and inventing all over.
And Then This Happened
Remember in the previous chapter, when we mentioned a certain Ogden, Utah-based gun designer?
In 1883, negotiations concluded that brought John Moses Browning on board as a primary gun designer for the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. That association was to prove long and fruitful for both parties, not only in the area of lever guns but in shotguns as well. While Browning wasn’t a Winchester employee and, indeed, designed guns for several different companies, his association with Winchester was to produce some of the most iconic American firearms ever made. More on that in Part 4.
As the world moved into the Twentieth century, some significant changes were coming to the shooting world: the advent of smokeless powder, the gradual adoption of telescopic sights, and the increasing performance of rifle cartridges. While it’s common even now to consider the lever gun as a short-range brush gun, the manufacturers of lever guns had other ideas; in the mid-late Twentieth century, the lever gun would be modernized in a big way. But that’s a story for Part 5.
That Colt-Burgess is a nice looking rifle.
I don’t know much ’bout no guns, but where does the Sharps fit in?
Not really lever action, a single shot breech loader. The lever opens the breech. Not a repeater.
Animal – Since it’s just you and me today, I have a question.
I’m looking at buy a bolt action rifle once I’m sure taxes won’t wipe me out. I’ve been shooting my entire adult like but have never owned a weapon with a scope. Should I pay a gunsmith to mount the scope and do the initial zero or should I attempt to do so myself (once I have the rings)? Any advice?
Find a friend who knows how to mount a scope or have a shop do it. There’s a process involved and it matters.
I would say that it depends on the gun and scope you’re buying, though.
If it is already set up for mounting a scope, then mounting it and getting it on paper should be easy and low emotion.
If you’re getting an older classic and mounting a high-end optic then I’d definitely have a professional who knows do it.
^ This. There are a few tricks to getting a scope properly mounted.
For magnified optics, I’ll go the gunsmith route. It’s very inexpensive for him to mount & boresight it.
I thought everyone has their own boresight kit.
Always a good read, thanks Animal!
^^ What he said.
Yup.
Every story has some of the Other Guys – the folks who came up with a concept that, while novel and useful, just didn’t quite hang in there. And there are other Other Guys as well, the ones who keep plugging and manage to carve themselves out a share of the market. In this part of our history of lever guns, we’ll see some of each.
This sort of dovetails with my pet hobbyhorse about how, in the olden times, technology advanced rapidly through the sort of dissemination and adaptation of ideas which has been pretty effectively squelched by modern intellectual property philosophy.
The word “patent” appears six times in this story. People either got patents or bought patent rights to go into production.
So I don’t understand squelched by modern intellectual property philosophy
The modern patent system allows the patenting of processes and concepts that are absolutely ridiculous.
Valid 1794 patent: Cotton Gin
“Valid” 2019 patent: Processes and methods for the accelerated production of cotton.
Give me a number, then I can tell you whether the patent for a method to accelerate the production of cotton is ridiculous or not.
Not related to cotton, but how do you feel about US Patent number 6,289,319?
Method for more effective use of a sybian?
I’m a fan.
Of the prostate?
I’m guessing this is the system and method for exercising a cat.
Nope, something else entirely.
Looks like someone patented the Internet. Good thing it is expired.
Look man, it’s nothing personal. I know you’ve mentioned that you have quite a few patents, and I’m sure it’s on the up and up. I’m not suggesting that you have abused the system in any way.
Other people have abused the system, and sometimes in ways that are so ridiculous that you’d have to see it to believe it.
https://reason.com/archives/2013/12/13/kill-off-software-patents
There is no such thing as a software patent. They are the “assault rifles” of the IP world.
You can claim systems, devices, other physical entities I can’t remember off hand, and methods. Methods can involve manual steps and automation. Automation can include the execution of software.
All of my patents include at least one independent claim for a method which involves executing software.
The problem isn’t the law. The problem was the extension of patents to cover “business methods” that should never have passed the test of novel and not obvious. This was the doing of the courts and the patent examiners.
/soapbox
I’ve seen patents granted when the prior art was obvious and well known, including one for a process where the machines had been commercially in use for 60 or 70 years.
I’ve seen patents granted that were essentially identical to other pending patents, didn’t reference the prior art, and no examiner bothered to call an interference.
I’ve seen patent applications having claims modified after the “inventor” spotted a commercially available item in order to allow an infringement suit against the manufacturer of that item. And the new claims allowed!
I’ve seen… well let’s just say I’ve seen a lot. Our patent system is desperately in need of some simple reforms which will never happen because they benefit inventors rather than lawyers.
Patent examiners are not without weaknesses.
Let’s leave it at that.
And defendants in infringement cases are the ones who pay for those weaknesses.
No, it’s not just the examiners, there’s severe structural flaws in the system itself.
No, it’s not just the examiners,
Just the first flaw in a series of flaws — some directly related to patents — some generally related to the current tort system.
-and some related to the examination process itself. That badly needs changes.
Didn’t Amazon or somebody patent the “1-click” button?
Amazon got sued because someone else patented it.
If it was that bad, John Browning’s and Eugene Stoner’s heirs would be rich beyond belief.
Patents require publishing results, which…somehow…reduces dissemination.
I dunno, I got nothing.
Trade secrets are totes cool, I guess.
The patents that existed back then were very different from the patents that exist today as they actually expired in a meaningful period of time.
You can make an argument for 10 year patents the 20 – 90 + years granted under modern IP laws is ridiculous
Uh, patents expire at 20 years. The fees to keep them in force throughout that 20 years are substantial.
Copyright is where the real abuse is at.
What? Ha Ha! Now, you’re just being a dick! Ha Ha!
Oh, that figures: https://static4.funidelia.com/12237-f4_large/lot-de-mini-figurines-mickey-mouse.jpg
Also, if I could find image software that actually worked, I’d have made Mickey flipping the bird to kinnath.
Because that’s the warm-hearted person I am. : )
I did say 20 – 90+ years did I not?
Yes I conflated copyright with patents as IP law and yes I understand that they are not the same thing and that the case for the validity of patents is stronger than the case for the validity of copyright none the less my statement is a perfectly valid case for supporting Brooks original comment that you responded to
I disagree. I sit here arguing with people using technology that didn’t exist when I graduated from college. The fucking iPhone is only 12 years old and it is driving touchscreen interfaces into cars and fucking refrigerators.
I do not see how the pace of technical development is being “squelched by modern intellectual property philosophy”.
Why is creative work the only arena where there is an expectation that people perform labor with no expectation of reward, or where property rights cease to exist? Why do incentives work everywhere else but in the realm of intellectual labor? I in no way condone the abuse of IP laws, but the fact that such laws or systems are sometimes abused is not a good argument to say that the concept is wholly invalid.
Not saying that you’re saying that, necessarily, just that around libertarian/classical liberal/an cap circles the anti-IP argument seems to run directly opposite commonly accepted beliefs about every other kind of property rights.
But to your argument I would offer the counterpoint of the existence of Moore’s Law as just one example of the tidal wave of technological development that has occurred at the same time as modern IP laws. I’m not necessarily arguing a causal relationship, but if there is then it seems to have been beneficial.
Thank you.
Because you get degenerates writing linguistic filth like romance novels for women with overheated libidos, causing unnecessary marital strain and the imperilment of womanly virtues.
Flattery will get you everywhere.
Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
And putting our family friendly site status in jeopardy.
I agree that “intellectual property” deserves protection, but there are some…interesting questions about that. Clearly (to me) a well-defined piece of work (song, book, movie, etc.) is the property of the creator(s). Enjoying that work (or worse, selling it to others) without compensating the creator(s) is wrong. Stealing substantive portions of such a work is also (to me) clearly wrong. Mimicking such work (using the same characters or world setting, “sampling” a riff) starts to get into fuzzier territory, since the creator of the derivative work is putting in his/her (shitlord confirmed!) own labor and creativity in creating that work, and not just profiting off the labor of the original creator. As the violation gets farther away from obvious theft, I have more and more issues with the original creator claiming harm.
patents, trademarks, copyright. All IP. Copyright is where the horrendous abuse is occurring now.
Oh, I absolutely agree. But your comment at 1:21 regarding “business method” patents is spot on. Also, the existence of “patent troll” companies that accumulate patents and only use them to generate lawsuits rather than to license them proactively, is slimy and I’d love to find a good way to prevent that sort of behavior.
It’s easy- loser pays, and if loser can’t pay, loser’s lawyer pays. I was an expert witness in a case against (fill in name of giant OS and business software company based in Redmond) by a classic troll. It was totally bullshit, but after Big Company had already spent many millions preparing for trial, they gave the troll go-away money because it was the cheaper course of action.
That’s interesting. Seems like “loser pays” could end a lot of frivolous lawsuits in many domains.
I disagree
I think it would make such cases far more likely to get settled in the interests of whoever has the deepest pockets rather than whoever has the best claim.
The problem with loser pays is that it essentially says that all losing suits are frivolous, that there is zero room for a case to have a valid question in it and yet still have that question be rejected on it’s merits.
Under loser pays only the most airtight suits will ever be filed because the potential cost of filing a suit would be disastrous.
In fact a common defense tactic for large corporations under loser pays is going to be to ensure that their legal expenses in the case are many times the value of any potential payout.
“You’re suing Google for $1 million? Sorry even though I think you have about a 90% chance of winning the case they are going to spend $10 million defending the case and I can’t afford the 10% chance that we loses since I know you don’t have anywhere near enough assets to cover their legal fees so I won’t be taking your case. But hey good luck finding a lawyer man they really screwed you over”
You cannot just make it as simple as the loser paying, you need to have 4 possible verdicts not just 2, the normal 2 of judgement for the defendant and judgement for the plaintiff, and then 2 more where the loser is judged to have had such a poor case that it never should have been filed and yeah in that case both the loser and the lawyer are on the hook for the winners legal costs.
Well, that’s what we have now and surprise, surprise, the bar is set so unbelievably high that successful defenses of clearly bullshit cases STILL don’t get awards of fees. The system is totally rigged for IP plaintiffs who can get lawyers on contingency arrangements.
Rasilio – on loser pays. Do you have any idea how many shies….lawyers that will put out of work?
Never. Gonna. Happen.
We actually have a decent rule on the books that requires the plaintiff’s counsel to pay the defendant’s legal fees for filing a frivolous case. It is completely unenforced, of course. There is a pervasive, IMO, pro-plaintiff bias in our courts.
If a defendant wins, it is natural for him to ask “I won, why am I out of pocket all this money?” In many (sophisticated) contract cases, the contract requires the loser to pay the winner’s legal fees. Which does act as a deterrent to cases being filed. But, there used to be a number of systemic barriers to cases being filed, including the rules against lawyers advertising, lawyers being paid on contingent fees, etc. It should come as no surprise that the push against these rules came from lawyers, as they stand to profit whether they are bringing or defending cases.
I tell my clients all the time “The only thing worse than a lawsuit won is a lawsuit lost.” Litigation is a terrible experience even if you win, and while the old rules may have gone too far in disincentivizing laswsuits, the new ones go too far the other way.
Its a balance, and balances are always unsatisfying at some level.
Disney is a HUGE culprit in copyright abuse – both for their own material, and stuff they’ve bought. (Hence my crappy, SF’d joke above). They continue to pay off Congress to keep extending the life of copyrights.
There should be statues of John Browning all over the place.
Yes! And Animal teases him into the next part. Well done! Way to keep your readers hooked.
It works. I can’t wait for the next one.
Thanks, Animal!
I’m surprised we’re not putting up a statue of John Browning right now.
Because racist. Also, he is responsible for the slaughter in New Zealand, Sandy Hook…etc.
Slavers are never gonna let that happen.
Speak for yourself, I put up statues of John Browning all the time.
>>Savage
what a great last name, especially if you are a big-game hunter, a Green Beret, or a private detective.
Or even an all-around Macho Man.
You know who else wanted to be a Macho Man?
Aaron Hernandez?
These guys?
So I don’t understand squelched by modern intellectual property philosophy
Perhaps I confused you by referring to the 19th century as the olden days.
And yes, those patent holders were compensated (at rates which allowed both parties to profit).
*It is my impression, based on a random sampling of “intellectual property rights” stories, that current, as in 21st century, practice, is for the rights holder to expect all profits to accrue to them.
Carbine?! *perks up*
Interesting shibboleth: How US-ians pronounce carbine depends on if you primarily encounter them in real life or in video games.
Huh. I’ve always pronounced it “car bean” but I always figured it was an “awnt” vs. “ant” or “vace” vs. “vahhhs” type of thing.
Let’s call the whole thing off.
The rules of English pronunciation are useless for answering the question. I’ve heard it both ways. ”Car-BEAN” actually sounds more exotic to my ears for some reason. ???
I’ve got a recently manufactured Marlin 1894 in .38. Fun gun to shoot.
I’ve got a recently manufactured Marlin 1894 in .38. Fun gun to shoot.
Cowboy up!
Two guns, one ammo.
Why is creative work the only arena where there is an expectation that people perform labor with no expectation of reward, or where property rights cease to exist? Why do incentives work everywhere else but in the realm of intellectual labor? I in no way condone the abuse of IP laws, but the fact that such laws or systems are sometimes abused is not a good argument to say that the concept is wholly invalid.
There’s a difference between Robert Louis Stevenson establishing a legal claim to Treasure Island as his exclusive work in order to defend it from those who wish to make and sell unauthorized copies, and patenting the “concept” of writing books about pirates.
Also, if I could find image software that actually worked, I’d have made Mickey flipping the bird to kinnath.
Have you tried Photoshop? I hear it’s the bee’s knees.
I like you, P Brooks. I kill you last.
My only lever-gun is a Winchester 94 in .30-30. I also have a Marlin .22Lr, but that is a tube-fed semiauto.
If you’re only going to have one lever gun, that’s a good one to have.
This article has the longest unbroken on-topic posting of any article at Glibs. Ever. Since the beginning of time. Even if it’s about mostly about IP instead of guns. Someone’s going to come along and ruin it, but it’s not going to be me… oops…
OT: https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/18/boeing-737-max-faa-certification-flaws/
Feel better?
“Ahem”
didn’t Marlin lose all their blue prints and then after their quality took a precipitous drop a decade ago had to nearly start from scratch? thought i’d read something along those lines a few years ago.
Bit of info….
The 38-55 was one of those cartridges that got it allllllllmost right. The brass was too thin to hold high pressures so you had the nearly perfect caliber that was just a bit underpowered. The reason for this was that when the 38-55 came into existence it was black powder only. Later when smokeless came along the 38-55 had to be loaded down.
In 1978 Winchester updated the 38-55 to the 375 Winchester by simply thickening the brass. The part that puzzles me is that Winchester made the 375 brass slightly shorter. The reason that is a problem is that 375 cartridges will fit and feed into older 38-55 rifles. Usually a higher power cartridge like that will be made slightly longer than the older version so that they wont chamber in older, weaker guns. This is why factory loadings for older guns are pitifully weak. If you want decent power in a 45 Long Colt you have to reload. They can be loaded up to near 44 magnum power but the stuff you buy off of the shelf barely shoots harder than a sling shot.
I have three modern Winchester 375 Big Bores. Brass for these is hard to come by so after it dried up I bought some 38-55 brass. When I measured it I discovered that it is made to 375 thickness. Also the current production of the ’94s are all in 38-55, not 375. Draw your own conclusion there. In any case I discovered also that it fed just fine in my 375 rifles but just to be on the safe side I loaded the brass using 38-55 data and cast bullets which came within 100fps of the 375 data. A hog cant tell the difference so what the hell.
One of these days you and I have to have a chat about hog hunting.
Today is a day.
You are kinda far north aren’t you? How many of the critters do you have up there? They are eating us alive.
I was in the pharmacy the other day and overheard a woman ask the pharmacist if he wanted one. Her husband kills one every night she said. He said no, he was still eating the last one she gave him. So, she turns around and loudly asks “Does anyone want a hog? Anybody?”
We all turned her down because no one had room in their freezer.
Last year I went to the woods and discovered someone had shot a boar right outside our gate. The goddamned thing had to be 6 feet long from nose to tail and well over 400 lbs. It had long shaggy hair and 4 in tusks thicker than your thumb. A damned ice age nightmare on the hoof. I go in those woods all of the time by myself. I would sure hate to run into him or one like him on a bad day.
One time after a long morning of cutting sweet gum I laid on the ground and went to sleep. After a bit a sound woke me up. “Clop clop clop”. I looked up and there was a half a dozen piney woods rooters staring at me from about 50 feet away. They clop their teeth together like that to see if they can get a rise out of you…are you dead or not? I guess the fuckers were gonna eat me if I didn’t move.
I have more stories like that. Damned pigs.
Colorado doesn’t have any; my temporary digs in Joisey seems to be hogless, although I gather there are some down in southern PA.
I was more thinking of eventually coming to where you are to shoot some hogs.
All of the gulf coast states are crawling with them. It is common to see them dead on the road from cars. There may not be any in CO now but there will be. They are coming, count on it.
Sad note: given my health my wife forbid me to hunt aside from still hunting. I came home one morning after a night on horseback hunting hogs and spent the next two days nearly bed-bound. That was probably ten years ago.
“That is the last time you are doing that shit. Build a stand or a trap.”
There are lots of places in TX where you can just ride in the back of a 4 wheeler and shoot them at night for free. You bring the gun, the ammo etc and the farmer will be happy to drive you around. We use dogs here. There are lots of options and methods.
Good deal, I’ll check that out.
Not really off topic because it’s about firearms: Behold the hilarity of Joe Scarborough, rifle expert:
It’s from yesterday, so maybe you guys discussed it earlier, but it still made me laugh.
You know what else was designed to kill people in war?
Sharp sticks?
Shillelagh?
I have one of those direct from Old Shillelagh in Shillelagh, Ireland.
If you have to walk around in a leg brace, it’s nice to have a club in hand.
Greek fire?
Most firearms technology, I suspect, was developed with warfighting in mind. The DOD is always one of the biggest potential customers, after all. The answer to the Scarboroughs of the world who run out this argument should be “Sure. So what do you think should follow from that? Should we outlaw any weapon that has been used in war? Any weapon used by a military? Any weapon designed for use by a military? Enough with the insinuation and innuendo. State your goals clearly.”
His goals are the same as the rest of the left, nanny staters, and would be royalty. To rid of you your right to self defense so you can’t make any trouble when they usher in utopia for your own good.
This is true, but the reason I posted it is that he’s acting as if the AR-15 and M-16 are complete different rifles.
His referencing Eugene Stoner tells me he’s confusing the AR-10 (the M16 predecessor, in 7.62). Lighter than the M-14 and more lethal than the M16.
There is a certain reason that “arms” (i.e. instruments intended for fighting) is used in a certain document.
Gun grabbers lie. Every word out of their mouth is calculated to deceive.
Good lord that is a load of ignorance. The AR was marketed to citizens before ever getting a military contract for the m16, which came after the AR. And the AR is the same caliber* as the AR, which is a smaller, less powerful caliber than the m14. Christ, what an asshole.
*I recognize and distinguish .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO.
i thought “weapon of war” was just an anachronistic euphemism for a full-auto trench broom.
How can you differentiate a semi-auto from a full blown auto when the scary black semi-autos can spray like a zillion bullets a second?
I like to point out that every weapon is a “weapon of war”. I have to wonder if and or why they don’t consider a musket a weapon of war when those were the predominant projectile weapons technology for hundreds of years and were used in warfare all over the planet.
“Those bartee boys rough him up?”
“A little I guess. Was carryin’ a SPENCER RIFLE.”
“Ned Just died.”
You wouldn’t be the Duck of Death, would you?
Duke, I says.
Exactly what Tulpa would say.
Fine article, Animal, and appreciated the info on the Savage 99. Incidentally, I looked up a site that had 99’s for sale and ohmigawd, the prices! Bloody awful. Maybe if I win the lottery…
/goes down the road feelin’ bad/
I am gonna drop this: I bought several Uberti replica Colts. The workmanship and quality on them is quite good. In fact, better than on the actual Colt SAA that I have. The fit and finish is excellent.
When you want a firearm that is out of production dont turn your nose up at the reproductions. The Italian gun makers aint fooling around.
I dont see any Savage 99s, but just sayin’.
Looking at Gunbroker.com I see a number of Savage 99s at decent prices. The problem is that they are mostly chambered in .300 Savage. Good luck finding that ammo. There is at least one in .308 for $308 bucks starting bid and one in 30-30 for $850.
Thanks, Suthen. I’ll have to take a look over there.
SPENCER STEVE SMITH FAVORITE RIFLE
Thank you for the article about patent law, Animal!
As always I’m late to the party. Sure do love the lever articles but anything from an Iver Johnson “Champion” to a CZ 577 stirs old tired blood. I rotate different rifles through the deer hunting seasons, last year was a 336, this year will be an SKS modified with a Midway plastic stock and a 4X Norinco scope. Next year will be something different. They all are fun and all do the job if I do my part. Thanks, Animal, waiting, waiting.