Got to thinking today that the old-timers in the pre-1900 days had some pretty good firearms, and that some of them could serve their intended purposes quite well today, even in competition with more modern designs.

I thought that of the guns I own that were designed in that era, which longarm would serve me best for self-defense and game?

Well, I think that if I had just one, and only one pre-1900 rifle that would fit that role well, I'd settle on a Model 1892 carbine, and probably in .357 magnum chambering. Now original Winchesters weren't made in that caliber, but a number of modern reproductions are, and are considerably less expensive to own.

The Model 1892 was basically a downsized Model 1886 Winchester, long regarded as having a very smooth action. The design was sufficiently strong to handle (in modern times) even the .44 Magnum cartridge. John Browning did it again here - a rifle with light weight, easy handling, plenty of magazine capacity, and quite compact. As has been proved many times, it's easy to get quick repeat shots off with this one; up to 10 in the magazine. Mine is a Rossi Model 92, made in Brazil in 1980, and it's a pretty close clone of the original Winchesters. I like it better than the more recent ones, as it lacks the stupid "safety thingy" on top of the rear of the breechblock. I'd hate to trigger a round only to have the rifle go "click" instead of "bang" because the safety thingy might have been twisted the wrong way. The original design is much cleaner and more esthetic, as well. Ol' John Moses designed it with just a half-cock notch, and that's fine with me.

I chose the .357 magnum because it's easily available, sufficiently powerful for most men or beasts, and .38 specials can be used for cheap practice. The recoil is easy on the shoulder with either cartridge.

So I nominate the old '92 as the best modern "closet assault rifle" for a design pre-dating 1900. The old-timers weren't all that bad off for effective firearms.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Agreed! A fine choice, and, you can top up the magazine from a pocketfull of cartridges. I had one of the Browning 92s in 44 Mag but let it get away....

The 94 Marlin would be close on the 92s heels as a fine arm.

Agreed! Throw in a Colt SAA, a Mauser C96 and a Winchester 1897 and you'd have a well rounded battery.

I have to agree too. Right now I own two copys. The rossi with the safety in .357 and a early browning 92 in .44 mag. Years ago I owned several more. I had a 1892 octogon barreled rifle in 25-20 that had a shot out barrel and I had it bored to .357 and had it refinished to .357. This was in the 1970s. Also once had a shot out winchester 73 in 32 wcf and had that one converted to .38 special. I am showing another I had that is .44 wcf and made in 1902 and came off a indian reservation in the dakotas. This one I had hanging in the house for a decoration and was stolen with some others. One project I still would like to do is have another 92 converted to .256 win mag. I handeled another. I once had a martini built in .256 and loved that cartridge! I still have a T/C with a barrel in it. Also had a ruger hawkeye in it. I know people would say pointed bullet in a tube magazine, but in the real world it isnt a big deal. They dont kick or recoil. Another possible fine old rifle if it was built today would be a old colt lighting pump and chamber it in .357 or .256 mag. Just dreaming. I have to agree too. Right now I own two copys. The rossi with the safety in .357 and a early browning 92 in .44 mag. Years ago I owned several more. I had a 1892 octogon barreled rifle in 25-20 that had a shot out barrel and I had it bored to .357 and had it refinished to .357. This was in the 1970s. Also once had a shot out winchester 73 in 32 wcf and had that one converted to .38 special. I am showing another I had that is .44 wcf and made in 1902 and came off a indian reservation in the dakotas. This one I had hanging in the house for a decoration and was stolen with some others. One project I still would like to do is have another 92 converted to .256 win mag. I handeled another. I once had a martini built in .256 and loved that cartridge! I still have a T/C with a barrel in it. Also had a ruger hawkeye in it. I know people would say pointed bullet in a tube magazine, but in the real world it isnt a big deal. They dont kick or recoil. Another possible fine old rifle if it was built today would be a old colt lighting pump and chamber it in .357 or .256 mag. Just dreaming. Uberti makes a replica of it now. Uberti 1875 Lightning Rifle Colt Lightning Carbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [IMG]

I bought a Rossi M92 .44 mag in stainless steel...I think you could kill anything on the planet with it...works great on feral hogs anyhow.

Don't need any magazines or extra stuff...just a rifle and a box of cartridges...something to be said for the simplicity of operation of a lever-gun.

There is something to be said for a clip. I ride quad a lot. I have started to pack a rifle along besides my always handgun. A clip is nice to get the rifle in action fast when legalitys are important. Also unloads fast. I have started carrying a winchester 88 or remington pump because of that factor.

A Colt SAA (or Remington M1875) in 44-40, a Winchester to match-i wouldn't feel handicapped.

I've got a 32/20 (Winchester), 32/20 (Browning), 357 (Rossi), 38/40 (Winchester), and 44/40, 44 Magnum and 45 Colt (Rossi) 92s. It's a fine gun. I like the hell out of it. If I could be assured of an adequate ammo supply, I'd chose my stainless 44/40 over any other long gun I've got for just "having a gun". If the world was going to hell, though, I'd take that blue 357. Ammo availability, you know. All my 92s went to Steve Young, and they work slicker'n snot on a doorknob.

__________________
I always take precautions

I have both .44 mag in lever and a couple of side by sides. I don't feel undergunned with either models.

I have owned alot of lever rifles over the years, about a dozen Model 94's in .30-30, an 1894 in .38-55 and a carbine in .25-35 as well as an original 1873 in .38-40 and a Model 1892 in the same caliber. Of all of them I remember being able to put out a lot of rounds in a hurry with that old 1873 and the Model 1892 like nothing. I have had a Marlin 94 in .44 Magnum and one in .41 Magnum but I have only shot a .357 version never having actually owned one but I loved it and when I can afford one I really really want to own one. With .38 Specials it is like shooting a .22 and you could not ask for a better gun for personal defense. Another choice although not as capable on larger game would be a Marlin 1894CL in .32-20, that gun was alot of fun to shoot.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

Winchester Model 1897
I heard from Wilhelm that they work well in the trenches.
Shown here with a Remington 31

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Don't dream about the Colt Lightning; Uberti and Taurus both offer pretty good looking repros today. Not in a 256, but in 357 and 44mag.

The 99 Savage just barely squeezes into the catergory of a "pre 1900" design, but makes a fine arm as well.

I think that I would prefer a Krag. The Winchester 1895 in that caliber would also work. Ammo is still loaded and was considered potent at the time.

Did anyone see, "American Guns" last night, where the 13-year-old boy who's a Cowboy Action champ used that 1873 Winchester clone on those glass balls?!

He beat the shop guy who used a SMG in killing off the targets first. Ran that rifle like Lucas McCain did on, The Rifleman, but he was actually hitting what he shot at, with live ammo!

Partly because I knew it was likely to be available in the setting, I had a heroine in a fan fiction series use, among other guns, a M-92 in .44/40. I think it'd have been very effective as she employed it. It was her rifle for close up stuff, with a Mannlicher-Schonauer for longer range or bigger game. The time frame was 1922-1925, in a Brazilian jungle. Sasha Siemel told us that the M-92 was indeed popular then and there. In fact, he had a short example that he used in addition to his famous jaguar spear.

I've thought of getting one of these Winchster repros or a Marlin, but something more needed always intrudes, and I basically feel uncomfortable with tubular magazines.

As for handguns, I can work a Colt SAA okay, although I normally prefer DA revolvers or autos. And the Webley DESIGN predates 1900, although I like best the Wilkinson-Webley of 1911, which was a premium gun for private purchase by affluent officers who bought their own sidearms. It looks like a MK VI but had a bright blue finish, hand-finished lockwork, and checkered walnut grips with gold intial shield in one grip. But the "issued" MK IV .455 or the commercial version with better finish (1899) would certainly work at average pistol distances. There was also a W & S Army Revolver that resembled a better made MK VI by 1900, although the official MK VI wasn't made until 1915.

If we accept the S&W M&P DESIGN (less the front lock under the barrel) as being of the right vintage, it opens the door to any S&W Hand Ejector model made later. I guess my favorite is my M-66-3, which has been my work gun from 1990-until Feb. of this year, when I retired. It sits beside me as I type this. The basic Colt DA revolver design dates from 1889, although it was considerably refined by 1905.

I once tried point shooting with a SA .44 and was amazed at how easy it was to place lethal-zone shots on a 15 yard silhouette target. The old Colt is still a contender, if slow to reload.

Finally, the Lee-Metford appeared in 1888, and was the Lee-Enfield (by virtue of better rifling) by 1895, so we can include that. The first Short ('03 Springfield length) was in use by 1902, and would still be a very effective battle or hunting rifle. There was indeed a good trade in sporting rifles built on that action.

A pre-1900 firearm for hunting and home defense?

Simple - Winchester Model 1897

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

Good choice - since I don't have a Winchester 92, I'd be forced to rely on this:

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I would have no problem using a 97 Winchester. I use my late fathers to hunt pheasants and it's works very well. John Browning had a masterpiece with that shotgun.
I don't have a 92 Winchester, but I have a really nice 94 30-30 carbine, so I'd choose that for a rifle. A Krag would be good too, I have Dad's in the safe right now.
I don't have any handguns that old, but if I had to choose, I'd take a Colt SAA in .44 WCF, or maybe .45 Colt. Heck, the S&W M&P came out in 1899, so I'll take one of those too.
All in all, I think I'd feel pretty well armed with that group.
Jim

I just got a new Winchester 1892 Deluxe takedown, .44-40, with a 24 inch barrel. I'm not impressed with the tang safety or the rear sight, but other than that, it is a real sweet rifle. I'm changing the rear sight to a Marbles Semi-buckhorn. After the first 150 rounds, the action is as smooth as silk.

For a pre 1900 rifle I would pick a M94 Winchester but there is nothing wrong with a 7X57 Mauser. Both are very reliable and simple to maintain. Larry

I own 6 various levers, the .357 and 44 mag shown above, a 94 30-30 I bought new in 1957, a 1952 made model 64 30-30, a original model 95 carbine in 30-40 and a early model 88 in .308. All are dependable and accurate enough. Haveing owned the 94 since I was a kid and haveing killed deer with it, its my favorite.
The .357 is easier to shoot than the .44 mag and I really think more practable. I have the 88 scoped and in .308 its the best for hunting here in the west but I guess it`s OT here. The truth is ANY gun that was good and worked well prior to 1900 if found in good working order will kill as well as they did in 1890! I doubt if any animal is harder to kill today than they were back then. The early mountain men needed larger calibers than we do today as they were likely to run into grizzleys in areas that doesnt have them today. Also they shot buffalo a lot as part of their diet and we dont have them today. What they didnt have was repeating rifles until after the civil war and I suppose they would have given everything they owned for one in hostile country. (So would have the hostiles too!) Probley the most priceless thing back then would have been a dirt bike with gas and spare parts stashed wherever you needed them.

As larry said above me, the 7X57 caliber is also a favorite of mine. It started it all in high powered flat shooting rifles a 115 years ago. Although I havent killed anything with mine yet, I have a old ruger 77 in it. Oddly it seems to shoot different bullet weights to the same poi, doesnt kick, is flat shooting and accurate and a well proven killer! I am not sure magnums ever needed inventing!

Aloha,

I like the lever guns too.

I have a new 1895 Winchester in 30-06 and a few others 94 in 357,

45 Colt and 375 Win.

I made a mistake one day when I let the Wife shoot the 357.

She said one word, MINE. It now resides in Her gun safe.

Yep, we have His n Her gun safe. Easier to get her one of her own than

to constantly have her getting "stuff" out of "our" single safe.

While I found the bore a bit 'loose' from wear, I once owned and shot a clean ~1892 Chatellerault Mosin-Nagant Model 1891. Fine rifle. Also, M1896 Swedish Mauser, anyone? Superb fit, finish, accuracy.

Regards,

Dyson

The Spanish-American War and the Second Boer War taught the advantage of clip-loading 7mm Mausers, and the 6.5mm Swedish version would have been as effective.

I owned a M-95 in 7X57mm that was in wonderful condition, probably never issued by the Chilean forces who stored it. Apart from the markings, it was identical to the Boer Mausers. These rifles had terrific workmanship!

It was sighted very high, but was accurate with Remington commercial 7mm ammo with 175 grain bullets.

But the M-98 Mauser was a stronger design and was available by 1900, our date cutoff for this topic. Either a military 8mm or a sporting rifle on that action would be very desirable.

The reason the Boers used the M-95 is that the rifles were ordered in 1896, after the Jameson Raid by Rhodes's colleague of that name, Dr. Leander Starr Jameson. I wrote to a museum in South Africa to get that info. The Boer Mausers were a mix of straight bolts, turned-down bolts, and carbines. The men using them had a reputation for marksmanship on par with that of American frontiersmen, and they taught the British Army a terrible lesson about modern rifles in the hands of a trained foe.

But even a .30-30 Winchester or the M-92 in .38-40 or .44-40 would be a devastating social interaction item at average ranges, and would take most game. One American hunter from Okla. even used a .32 Special M-94 in Africa. (Presumably on average antelope and maybe leopard, not on the big stuff.)

I have a interesting book on luther kelley, "Yellowstone Kelly" pretty much wrote by himself. He joined the army just a few months before the end of the civil war and they sent him to the north west where he was mustered out and stayed. I found it interesting that he bought a rim fire .44 henrey or winchester 66 and shot buffalo with it! It might work on hostiles but I would want something bigger for buffler and griz!
A great book though!

It was the still widespread reliance on Springfield .45-70 trap doors that left American units feeling outgunned - more so than for those who had Krags. Though I may be biased since the only truly antique rifle I currently have is a pre1899 Krag sporter. Looked like it had spent 30 years in a barn when I got it. There was paint splatter... cobwebs... and dead bugs. Cleaned up fine though and I had it fixed up.

Pre WW1 I don't know how available various Mauser calibers were commercially in the States. I know 30 Government -as it was then called - was sold. For what most people would use one for I am not sure the charger loading designs offer a major advantage over the Krag. I even have a period style ammo belt for mine... but having to reload a bolt action in a defensive setting...eh.... and if I did have to the magazine cut off might be handy.