On several threads some folks mention carrying a pistol and rifle chambered for the same round. When it comes to ammo logistics it does make sense. But it doesn't seem to make any other sense to me.
Lets say some guys takes to the woods with a lever action rifle and a single action revolver both chmabered for the .357 magnum cartridge. Don't the two guns pretty much cover the same spectrum of shooting. I realize that a rifle will increase the bullets velocity. This in turn does increase the rounds capabilities a bit. But, if you take a 158 JSP round out of the revolver and put in the carbiine, you haven't created a long range elk gun.
Lets say Joe Hunter decided to hunt some thick woods for deer. A shot beyond 100 yards is highly unlikely. He grabs his lever action .44 magnum carbine. Not a bad choice in this situation. Instead of grabbing a .44 mag. handgun to go with this rilfe, wouldn't a .22 pistol make more sense? If instead of deer he see a bunch of limb rats, he has a great gun for them. Sure, the long gun could be used, but a .22 revolver would make more sense.
Reverse the above scenario. Old Joe decided to hunt for tree squirrels in the same woods. He grabs his trusty bolt action .22 rimfire rifle. He is concerned that he may encounter a threat that his rifle isn't ideal to handle. Wouldn't having a Blackhawk in .357 magnum on his hip make more sense then another .22?
If I am going to carry two firearms with me, I want them compliment each other. Carrying a rilfe and a handgun chambered for the same round seems redundant to me. I know that carrying one type of ammo might make things easier, but I am able to tell the difference beween a .30-30 cartridge and a .22 long rifle cartridge blindfolded.
Your thoughts!
Lets say some guys takes to the woods with a lever action rifle and a single action revolver both chmabered for the .357 magnum cartridge. Don't the two guns pretty much cover the same spectrum of shooting. I realize that a rifle will increase the bullets velocity. This in turn does increase the rounds capabilities a bit. But, if you take a 158 JSP round out of the revolver and put in the carbiine, you haven't created a long range elk gun.
Lets say Joe Hunter decided to hunt some thick woods for deer. A shot beyond 100 yards is highly unlikely. He grabs his lever action .44 magnum carbine. Not a bad choice in this situation. Instead of grabbing a .44 mag. handgun to go with this rilfe, wouldn't a .22 pistol make more sense? If instead of deer he see a bunch of limb rats, he has a great gun for them. Sure, the long gun could be used, but a .22 revolver would make more sense.
Reverse the above scenario. Old Joe decided to hunt for tree squirrels in the same woods. He grabs his trusty bolt action .22 rimfire rifle. He is concerned that he may encounter a threat that his rifle isn't ideal to handle. Wouldn't having a Blackhawk in .357 magnum on his hip make more sense then another .22?
If I am going to carry two firearms with me, I want them compliment each other. Carrying a rilfe and a handgun chambered for the same round seems redundant to me. I know that carrying one type of ammo might make things easier, but I am able to tell the difference beween a .30-30 cartridge and a .22 long rifle cartridge blindfolded.
Your thoughts!
However with the performance of modern centerfire rifle ammunition ie. increased effective range and power, the convenience of having everything in the same caliber...makes no sense. In the 19th century, the 32-20 <think .327mag today>was a very popular rifle and pistol cartridge - and was then even advocated for use on deer sized game. There's nothing wrong with having a 44mag rifle and revolver, or a .32-20 rifle and revolver, or a 45colt rifle and revolver - but it's no longer a real convenience.