what's the deal with carcano rifles?

well I don't know much bout the reliability of the gun but I will say that depictions of a stock made from drift wood pretty closely describes the quality of the stocks I was seeing at cabelas.

the action didn't look half bad but the magazine/trigger assemblies all looked like they were made of cheap tin with a number of the rifles sporting serious dents and dings that other battle rifles of the time were not prone to.

they are all short barreled carbine types which when pared to a round that would be comparable to a heavy grained 308 would have probably kicked like a mule and sported a muzzle flash that would have given away your position if you were shooting with the sun at your back.

these are just a few design characteristics that would lead me to believe that they aren't the greatest rifle ever invented at the time. just try comparing to a mosin nagant 1891 which is believed by many to be one of the worst guns you can get right now.

the mosin nagant fired a more potent round and was a heavier design, meaning it was easier to stabilize, had longer sight radius and absorbed recoil all of these features would have made the shooter more prone to higher accuracy and greater chance of a kill shot(not that the Russians were the best trained conscripts in the world) but in the hands of a well trained and experienced shooter the carcano when compared to other weapons of it's day was probably not the greatest.
 
Gyvel, I can't remember at this time where my information came from, cause it was many years ago and frankly that's one of the last guns I'd even think about. But in my case since I actually had it in my hands and had a little experience with a few guns I was able to determine it belonged in Sanford and Son's junkyard. That show was on TV at that time.

I and I just mean I wouldn't want anyone to know if I owned one. My taste in guns is far better than that, which is just my humble opinion. Does one have to be an Elmer Keith, or a Skeeter Skelton to give one's opinion on this forum? If your so knowledgeable regarding this rifle then fill us in with your pearls of wisdom. I'd be willing to listen, cause I don't take personally what others like, or don't like.

I will continue to criticize that gun, but never personally put down anyone else for wanting one, or having one.
 
I consider a Carcano to be one of the best fighting bolt actions made.
Certainly a better fighting carbine than the Mosin.
I have owned just about all the great military bolt actions...Mauser, Mosin, Enfield, Springfield...
My Carcano cavalry carbine is short, and it's action is very slick. It has a 100yd battle sight setting. The enbloc clip someone complained about makes it very fast to load, and contribute to the quick feeding action.
The 6.5 Carcano cartridge offers excellent power and penetration at normal battle ranges. The steel used in the receiver was a special formulation which is high quality and strong, as is the design. The safety, which many describe as slow and awkward is actually positive and quick to disengage.
I too had my doubts about Oswald using the Carcano in November 1963... Until I shot my own Carcano. I now have no doubt at all that the weapon was capable of making the shot.
P1000671.jpg
 
GunsmokeTPF, I question your unfounded statement as to Carcanos being not dependable, etc. Carcanos, as I stated earlier, utilized some of the best innovations available in 1890.

Carcanos were certainly dependable as they kicked some Austrian butt during WWI, and were used to good advantage in Ethiopia in 1935,

Maybe you don't like the odd design or the color of the wood, but Carcanos were made from very good steel, and exhibited no significant problems other than the undersized calibre as evidenced by field reports from the Italian Army.

Much like the Nagant, they are judged by hearsay and their appearance, most of which is simply not true.

I am no great fan of the Carcano, but unfounded negative comments based solely on subjectivity do little to solidify your position.

Its use by Oswald is certainly of no concern to me. He just happened to elect (or was told) to purchase one of the cheapest guns available on the market from Klein's Sporting Goods. While I don't condone assassination of a president, Kennedy was no favorite of mine anyway.
 
well I don't know much bout the reliability of the gun but I will say that depictions of a stock made from drift wood pretty closely describes the quality of the stocks I was seeing at cabelas.
Click to expand...

Tahunua, what you are seeing at Cabela's is well-used junk. These are the dregs of some some third world country's arsenal, put away and finally sold off after years of hard use and abuse. I would like to know the origin of those guns you looked at as they sound like the came out of some North African country where Italy had a large presence

I have collected military rifles for many years, and some (naturally) of these are Carcanos, but in near new condition. They are well made, well finished and very reliable guns, and fun to shoot, but definitely not my favorite.

Badmouthing of the Carcano is based mainly on hearsay or that someone "once read somewhere" that they are junk. They're not junk, they work well, and they are made from good materials.

Having said that, I will state that they are definitely not up to later standards, technologically speaking, but, much like the Russians with their Moisin Nagants, the Italians found that they worked, and adopted the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Too often, guns are clasified as "junk" simply because they are sold here as surplus long after their useful (and abused) life has ended.
 
I love many of the old surplus guns. I loved my grandpa's 1912 Austrian 9mm Steyr and that I wish I had today. I have a love affair with a Colt 1911 black army. I think a 1937 s/42 Luger is real nice and I regret ever selling my 1953 dated mint Springfield M1 Garand.

As far as the advantage of the carcano by the italians in 1935 at the battle at Wal-Wal Oasis is concerned, they didn't win and a couple hundred got killed. There were probably many spears chucked by the other side, which served them equally as well.

I don't think the italian experience in Ethiopia serves as a good example of the carcano's dependability. I'm not familiar with what went on during any battle between the italians and austrians during WW1, but maybe grandpa's gun was used back then. Other than having to use stripper clips it was a very high quality and dependable gun, though for many years the 9mm steyr cartridge was considered obsolete, but did make a comeback around the 1970's. The germans during WW2 felt they were good enough to be converted to 9mm luger. Sorry for digressing.

I'll conclude by saying that I'm no carcano expert and have absolutely no interest in ever owning one again. I don't feel it's my calling to convince people whether, or not they're great rifles, or garbage. I'm happy for anyone who gets enjoyment out of whatever gun they own.
 
Last edited:
I cleaned up, refinished, and reblued one for a friend about a year ago. We bought a few boxes of privi and the rifle did well on the range. I got him a set of dies (lee) and the hand held press, along with some bullets and mag clips for his birthday. He picked up some powder and primers in short order and we went through the reloading process. This past deer season produced a buck and a doe for him. Not bad for a rifle that he found in the old house he had bought and was fixing up.
 
I read through it and it was interesting. I did not see anything about "Gain twist" rifling that the Italians were playing around with. Some rifles had it but I can not say if all did. As I said before, I own and use one, but am not a fan of them. It takes a little getting used to a side mount scope when you have a quick hunting shot. They definitely got a bad rap over the years and I blame a lot of that on the big gun companies in the U.S.
 
There are many interesting surplus guns out there and they are getting older every day, just like all of us, and it shows.

My bit of Carcano lore is only this. I am from West Virginia and spend some time living in the "coal fields" of the southwestern part of the state. In a general store way back in the hills of the sort that had a post office in the back, I happened to notice a case of 7.35 ammunition. I have no idea whatever happened to it but I would have been surprised if anyone around there had a Carcano. I doubt I my father had even heard of one and his infantry combat experiences in WWII was in Italy.

Garands need clips to work too, don't they?
 
Garands need clips to work too, don't they?

yes they do, and luckly if I ever get one I have about 50 garand clips on hand that I got simply because they were loaded with tracers and black tip :D
 
I dont care what anyone says negative about the Carcano, I will add one to my collection one day. It looks like a very well made firearm to me.
 
Understand a couple of things. First off, nobody equipped their armies with junk. Except for the "volksturm" guns and "last ditch" Arisakas (some of which actually are junk, as far as a good gun goes), all main issue military rifles were well made, to the extent of the origin nations arsenals.

What they aren't all equal in is design.

After WWII, and until the later 1960s was they heyday of cheap surplus rifles. And, in those days, we didn't look at them they way we do today. Instead of being desirable collectibles they were both common and cheap as dirt.

The main use of the surplus rifle was a cheap starter gun, for many, and what they could be made into by those so inclined.

Springfields, Mausers, Enfields, and even Arisakas (which are mostly mauser design), lent themselves into being made/remade as nice, even beautiful sporters. SMLE's are rugged durable, fine guns, but not as easily sporterized.

French, and Italian rifles were of less desirable "quality", not because they were junk (poorly made) but because they did not have the mauser type features, and were poor candidates for sporterizing.

Remember, this was decades before the former Soviet guns became available, creating a new market for surplus rifles, and the cheap prices made them widely available to new shooters, who typically don't have a lot of available cash.

People being what they are, there had to be some reason, beyond pure snobbery why Carcano's weren't desirable. The non-standard bore diameter, and the poor performance with "proper" 6.5mm size bullets was magnified, and became legend, kind of like the early AR problems still seem to show up in discussions today.

The whole "Oswald" thing is more an individual issue, I think. Though not everyone believes everything the Warren commission reported, even today.
 
Well, actually some armies did equip themselves with junk and they knew it, only they couldn't get their hands on anything better. The junk guns kept circulating around until, it seems, they made it to this country.

I sometimes wonder when the best surplus years were. There was a new surplus market after WWI that in this country, even included Krags and Single Action Army revolvers. Catalogs listed surplus Mausers, Lebels, and Enfields before WWII. I don't know when surplus bolt actions started showing up after WWII, other than as war trophies. In the immediate post-war period, the bulk of surplus guns were being bought up by new countries like Israel, which ironically standardized on the German Mauser. Most contries continued to use the same bolt actions they had used since when the soldier's fathers had been in the army. The US was still making new M1 rifles and the British were still making new Lee-Enfields. Those 7.62 NATO SMLE rifles from India were made after I got out of the army in 1968. So I wonder if there were many surplus rifles for sale before the mid-1950s.
 
every time a country changes to a new design that is proven to be better than what they already have, they normally sell the surplus to a poor but up and coming country that can't afford the latest an greatest. many times it's not even junk, it's just outdated. many south american countries are using FN FALS, they aren't junk guns, many countries just switched to 5.56 rifles such as the SA80, AUG or the FAMAS, leaving a whole lot of 7.62 chambered rifles laying around, collecting dust.

one notable incidence was the Falklands incident, a single british submarine sunk about a dozen Falklandic(whatever the term is) ships in a matter of hours, where did they get these "pieces of junk" from? the good ole USA, they were using decommissioned ships that served during WWII that we sold in order to help out the postwar national budget (an act that thanks to good ole bill clinton, we are no longer legally able to perform). the falklands didn't knowingly provide their navy with junk ships, they bought the best they could afford.
 
You mean Argentinian, of course. One ship sunk by the British, probably the first ship torpedoed since 1945, had been sunk at Pearl Harbor.
 
ARA General Belgrano. Actually the second ship sunk by torpedo since WWII. A Brooklyn Class light cruiser; obsolescent but not obsolete.

This is a good analogy to the discussion. The up weaponed Belgrano posed a serious threat to the Royal Navy in that it had upgraded from WWII era anti aircraft defenses in the form of radar, and missiles. It's compliment of 15 6" guns in 5 turrets made it more than a match for any 2 of the frigates or destroyers that the Royal Navy had in the area and it had a top rated speed that was comparable to the oposition (not that it could necessarily make that speed) . If it got into range of the carrier, it posed a serious threat.

A 5 shot bolt action is not as capable of putting rounds into the area as a high cap. semi, but if it connects it drops a whole world of hurt into the equation. When you have 5 slowly you make them count; when you have 30 quickly you spray and pray. At least that is what tends to happen at the lower discipline levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top