Carbine length...

In looking through the posts I did not see, so if already covered - my apologies. "Carbine" length is all relative to the platform discussed. Traditionally, it's simply meant a shorter variation of an already established longer rifle--for the purposes already mentioned--handiness achieved with length and weight reduction. This practical "definition" pretty much continues today, of course with some exceptions.

The M1 Carbine wasn't a "shorter anything." Then there's the modern "pistol caiiber" carbines such as the discontinued Ruger PCs (and rotary and lever .44s) and Beretta CXs aren't "shorter anythings either. In the late 1800s through 1900s, most Winchester lever carbines were 19-20" variants of 24-26" rifles. Like the M1 Carbine (at 18.5"), these are still considered short and handy because of modest OALs--despite their long-ish barrels(relative to overall length). I suppose the Winchester 73, 92 and 94 "trappers" (aka "baby carbines") at 14-16" would be considered "carbine-carbines"!

Like the AR/M4 carbines, at 16.5", the new (ish) Ruger "Tacticals" on the Mini platform would fall into the carbine category as well I'd think.

The Win 1886 carbine was 22" because it was built on a larger (than 66, 73, and later 92, 94 etc) platform to begin with. Again, it's all relative.

Advancing forward to modern bolt actions, certain cartridges lend themselves "inherently" to fine accuracy out of shorter barrels. 7mm-08 is one of them, for instance out of a Model 7 Remington with its 18" barrel length, which is a shorter OAL platform (limited to that barrel length as its longest IIRC) one could still call a "carbine," though its "normal looking" proportions wouldn't automatically have you thinking that.
 
Last edited:
Carbines are sometimes MORE accurate than their full-length rifle counterparts. Has to do with barrel rigidity/whip and harmonics.
 
There's a correlation to bulet dwell time in the barrel and how it vibrates when shot. Getting the optimum length to keep the muzzle at a low node, while pushing the bullet out before it has any whip seems to be where the sweet spot is. And it doesn't have to be a heavy profile. That only helps the shooter get back onto target sooner by absorbing recoil, and prevents it distorting from high temps in fast strings of fire.

A 6.8SPC in 16" midlength is actually longer than the original design application - the 14.5" M4. But they still get lumped in with carbines. A 12" would be more appropriate for that. A pistol caliber carbine, the same. Barrels ten inches longer that the handgun it was intended.

Since popular acceptance ignores most of that, we're left with 14-18" guns with rifle like stocks held up when placed against the shoulder to fire. Pretty vague concept.
 
You are correct, gak, that the M1 carbine isn't a shortened anything. As far as military applications go, it was and remains unique, although at least one other similiar rifle was chambered for the round. However, there had previously been rifles (or carbines) chambered in a very similiar cartridge, so the idea was already there. As a matter of fact, it's very difficult to come up with something really new and different any more. I don't think Barnes cared for the round very much, as he gauged all cartridges as for their suitability for hunting. My father didn't like it either.

There have been other pistol caliber (which the .30 carbine is not) rifles from time to time and some submachine guns approach a rifle configuration, too, if it makes any difference.

Sorry, but I don't follow your conclusion, tirod, with what you mean by vague concept, other than perhaps a vague definition of what a carbine is. The British used to call a submachine gun a machine carbine, while the Germans called them (and still do) machine pistols. But a rose by any other name still has thorns.
 
Yeah, I love my carbines!! I never pay attention to ballistic charts because numbers do not topple game animals. It takes patience and skill to get close enough for a kill shot. Placment and bullet performance do the rest.

Jack

660muley-1.jpg


Glenfieldroughcountrymuley.jpg


Kforkybuck-1.jpg


forky4fin.jpg


DSC01167.jpg
 
To me it all depends on the specific use of the rifle...Everything with guns is a compromise. It just depends on what you want to do with a particular weapon.
Click to expand...

ronl pretty much summed it up for me. Carbines, in the traditional sense in terms of size (shorter length and lighter weight), are best suited for horse riding, vehicle ingress and egress, closed quarters defensive tactics, hunting in heavy brush where faster repeat shots might be required and shorter shooting distances are more common and other applications when having a shorter rifle makes handling and shooting easier and possibly quicker. Longer barrels are generally more appropriate when longer (i.e., sniping scenarios, typical varmint hunting situations, target shooting, plains hunting, etc.) shooting distances are anticipated and when having a longer and likely heavier rifle does not compromise handling nor impose time constraints on readying for a more controlled shot.

Too, some cartridges simply benefit more than others from a longer barrel in terms of "optimum" ballistics with respect to the intended purpose. For instance, I have a rifle chambered in .257 Weatherby Magnum that came with a 24" barrel. Because this round is expensive to shoot, loud on the ears and hard on the barrel, I would like to wring every trajectory enhancing fps possible out of it without making the rifle unnecessarily unwieldy. I think a 26" barrel makes more sense for this cartridge. I also think that chambering a typical carbine (say, having an 18" barrel) in .257 Weatherby Magnum would be the height of folly.

Repeating ronl's sage advice: "...Everything with guns is a compromise..."
 
I like carbines and prefer them 10 fold. In some cases the shorter the better. My homebrew 10/22 wears a 16.5" Green Mountain barrel, my homebrew Savage wears a 18.5 McGowan". I've had both 20" and 16" versions of the Winchester 94 and much prefer the 16" trapper.

Kudos on all the BS about the term carbine having anything to with platform. The cut off for carbine vs. rifle is 20". It's been that way for more than a century. Anything longer is considered a rifle, 20" or shorter a carbine.

LK
 
carbines for me

Yeah, I'm a fan. Only drawback for me these days is a short barrel and iron sights, especially bead and blade, give me trouble in the wrong light. A peep is some better.

If you hunt steep or thick places, short and light is a positive thing too. Even in my best years, I was prone to take my M94 instead of my M88 (Winchester that is) up the side of an Appalachian ridge to hunt the laurel hell's and the benches.

And don't forget the handy factor. Up trees, off the ATV, in and out of the truck, shorter is better.

My latest affliction has been a Mauser Mark X Mannlicher, in '06. An interesting Williams peep in back and brass faced post up front. I always wanted a Rem 760 pump, carbine, but never got one.
 
Rem. 760's - perfect example! The carbine is more accurate than the rifle. And what do I have!? The .308 rifle, of course...
 
Last edited:
My shooting is pretty much all SD oriented and I definately prefer carbines.

I have a Winchester Trapper .30-30 16"bbl

a Remington 870 12ga 18 1/4"bbl

and right now a Winchester big bore 94 .375 win.( that I've already talked to the gunsmith about shortening to 16") on lay-a-way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top