[Ihavequestions]

Hello everyone,

I'm new here. A curious amateur, with questions. I would be grateful for some help.

I am interested in purchasing either an 1866 or 1873 lever action rifle, by Uberti or Winchester. I like that they are copies of two historical rifles, hence also the interest.

I do not intend to hunt with it, but the purpose is primarily shooting for fun, plinking with the family and secondarily as a home defense gun.

I would like to ask you, for your opinions and help, to choose which rifle and in which caliber.

There are pros and cons I guess.

First the rifle I am most keen on is without a doubt the 1866 Yellowboy, because it is probably the most beautiful rifle I have ever seen! So plus for the beautiful looks over the 1873, which is also a a beautiful rifle, but nowhere near as beautiful as the 1866 is, in my opinion.

Plus with the 1873, it can shoot both 357 magnum and 38 special, the 1866 can't. And when it comes to choosing which caliber and ammo, when I'm looking at what's cheapest, but also what's effective for home defense.

38 special is cheapest, 357 also quite cheap. 38 special may not be the best option for defense, but the cheapest. The advantage of the 1873, is that I can shoot cheap with 38 special, and use 357 magnum in case of of home defense. On the other hand, surely the risk of over-penetration is high with 1873? So 357 magnum might not be optimal after all? Is maybe 45 Colt or 40-40 better?

If I buy 1866 in 38 special, then it is not possible to shoot 357 magnum.

There are also colt 45 and 40-40 etc, but they are unfortunately so very expensive, even though they might be best for home defense? But if I shoot 38 special, then I can afford more shooting with the family, but then maybe the 1873 is the best compromise?

But then I don't get the most beautiful rifle!

Another thought, what do you think of the 38 special when it comes to shooting from 1866 or 1873, purely for fun? Is it a nice feeling? Is the low recoil an advantage? Or does the low recoil, contribute to it feeling like a ”wimpy”caliber, i.e. does it feel better with a little more physical contact and a little more recoil? I guess this is subjective, but I'm interested in your opinions.

Also, it seems like a lot of fun to shoot black powder as well, but I guess it's more expensive, more risky, more work with reloading etc, but when I chase your footage on youtube,
I love the sound of black powder, it sounds nicer and looks more fun to shoot a regular shot.

What would you advise me to do? How would you go about it?

Grateful for advice and tips.

Thank you.

 

[nsb]

With the limited info provided, I’d suggest you consider a rimfire caliber rifle. If you don’t reload it’s not going to be cheap for the family to shoot very much. However, I don’t know your finances either. I do know that rimfire ammo is much more abundant, has way less recoil and noise, and you and your family can develop shooting skills just as well, if not better, using a rimfire. It’s not noted as being a top self defense cartridge but most people coming into your home uninvited won’t want any part of being shot with any caliber gun. If you’re more interested in just owning a nice piece of “eye candy”, get the Winchester 1873. Just my two cents worth of advice. Good luck.

 

[Pudfark]

Howdy and Welcome, you sure do have some questions.

Do you reload or intend to?
The .38/.357 is likely your best bet as in "Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few", that's a terrible quote.
Perhaps, get the one that gives the most use and enjoyment and get the other rifle later?
I've owned two Rossi lever action rifles in .357 and it turns that cartridge into a super manstopper.
Sometimes difficult choices turn into a coin flip. Best of Luck in your choice.

 

[Kosh75287]

Both the 1866 and 1873 rifles were among the first repeating rifles that were successful. They were chambered for cartridges loaded with black powder, which developed very modest pressures. These pressures were easily handled by the toggle-link locking system. While, to my knowledge, the Winchester 1866 and 1873 were not originally chambered for .38 Special, this caliber also develops pressures easily handled by the action of either rifle.
If I owned either rifle chambered for .357 Magnum, I would probably confine most of my shooting to .38 Special ammo, and use the .357 Magnum only for defense or (should it be necessary) hunting. I do not believe the toggle-link locking system will withstand the continual stress from the .357 Magnum, a round developing 75 to 100% more pressure than most of the .38 Special rounds you will find.
While I enjoyed shooting the 1866 and 1873 rifles that I have shot, I found their operation to be "clunky", when operating the lever, especially if I did so with any speed. This is an inherent trait of the locking action, and I am in no place to criticize the designers. While I find the "clunkiness" tolerable, it is still a thing to be overcome, rather than enjoyed, when shooting
I know of the "mystique" associated with the early Winchester lever-action rifles, and I agree that they are difficult to resist, when they can be found for sale. I would not be giving you the full truth, however, if I did not suggest that you also look at the Winchester 1892 replicas, made by Rossi. This is a much stronger, inherently smoother action, which is capable of tolerating pressures well in excess of what the .357 Magnum cartridge develops. One of these will shoot well, after a lifetime of shooting nothing but .357 Magnum ammunition. You may also find it more pleasing to the eye, than the two rifles you contemplate.

The .38 Special, by modern standards, IS often considered a bit "wimpy" as defensive calibers go. I think this reputation grew largely from the round's poor performance when fired from 2" and 4" barrels. As barrel lengths increase, so does performance, generally. Thus, a properly loaded .38 Special round fired from a carbine-length barrel is not the "wimpy" round associated with what gets launched from 2" or 4" revolver barrels.

I try to avoid the use of black-powder in my firearms, because it is dirty, corrosive, and very difficult to completely remove from the internal workings of my firearms. I DO clean my firearms conscientiously and completely. I nonetheless always assume that I've missed SOME spot somewhere, which I will find and get clean the next time. With black power, a spot missed means immediate corrosion, right there, and will continue until I find and clean it. By that time, the damage is done.
i advise shooting black powder in the firearms of someone else, who is willing to tolerate the extra trouble of using it, and fully knows how to clean it away. Use modern stuff in yours.

I think I am correct in assuming that your country (Sweden?) allows its citizens to load/reload their own ammunition. If this is so, I suggest that you investigate this activity, as it will allow you to shoot for less expense, and will enable you to make ammunition which works particularly well in your firearm.

If questions remain that I have not answered, please feel free to remind me. I will make every effort to answer them.
Also, your command of English is excellent. You are to be commended!

 

[Ihavequestions]

With the limited info provided, I’d suggest you consider a rimfire caliber rifle. If you don’t reload it’s not going to be cheap for the family to shoot very much. However, I don’t know your finances either. I do know that rimfire ammo is much more abundant, has way less recoil and noise, and you and your family can develop shooting skills just as well, if not better, using a rimfire. It’s not noted as being a top self defense cartridge but most people coming into your home uninvited won’t want any part of being shot with any caliber gun. If you’re more interested in just owning a nice piece of “eye candy”, get the Winchester 1873. Just my two cents worth of advice. Good luck.

Thank you nsb.

But to my understanding, shooting 38 special through an 1866 or 1873 is comparable to shooting a 22 lr rifle, when it comes to recoil. I have heard many people say that the recoil of the 357 magnum is very small, and the recoil of the 38 special is like "nothing" ( here and here for example). So if it is "nothing" to shoot 38 special, and if it is like shooting 22 lr rifle, then why not choose a 1866 or 1873, for 38 special? Because 38 special is also better for defense purposes than 22lr, right?

 

[Ihavequestions]

Howdy and Welcome, you sure do have some questions.

Do you reload or intend to?
The .38/.357 is likely your best bet as in "Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few", that's a terrible quote.
Perhaps, get the one that gives the most use and enjoyment and get the other rifle later?
I've owned two Rossi lever action rifles in .357 and it turns that cartridge into a super manstopper.
Sometimes difficult choices turn into a coin flip. Best of Luck in your choice.

Howdy Pudfark, and thank you for your answer.

I do not reload, but maybe I should? Would you recommend it?

 

[Ihavequestions]

Both the 1866 and 1873 rifles were among the first repeating rifles that were successful. They were chambered for cartridges loaded with black powder, which developed very modest pressures. These pressures were easily handled by the toggle-link locking system. While, to my knowledge, the Winchester 1866 and 1873 were not originally chambered for .38 Special, this caliber also develops pressures easily handled by the action of either rifle.
If I owned either rifle chambered for .357 Magnum, I would probably confine most of my shooting to .38 Special ammo, and use the .357 Magnum only for defense or (should it be necessary) hunting. I do not believe the toggle-link locking system will withstand the continual stress from the .357 Magnum, a round developing 75 to 100% more pressure than most of the .38 Special rounds you will find.
While I enjoyed shooting the 1866 and 1873 rifles that I have shot, I found their operation to be "clunky", when operating the lever, especially if I did so with any speed. This is an inherent trait of the locking action, and I am in no place to criticize the designers. While I find the "clunkiness" tolerable, it is still a thing to be overcome, rather than enjoyed, when shooting
I know of the "mystique" associated with the early Winchester lever-action rifles, and I agree that they are difficult to resist, when they can be found for sale. I would not be giving you the full truth, however, if I did not suggest that you also look at the Winchester 1892 replicas, made by Rossi. This is a much stronger, inherently smoother action, which is capable of tolerating pressures well in excess of what the .357 Magnum cartridge develops. One of these will shoot well, after a lifetime of shooting nothing but .357 Magnum ammunition. You may also find it more pleasing to the eye, than the two rifles you contemplate.

The .38 Special, by modern standards, IS often considered a bit "wimpy" as defensive calibers go. I think this reputation grew largely from the round's poor performance when fired from 2" and 4" barrels. As barrel lengths increase, so does performance, generally. Thus, a properly loaded .38 Special round fired from a carbine-length barrel is not the "wimpy" round associated with what gets launched from 2" or 4" revolver barrels.

I try to avoid the use of black-powder in my firearms, because it is dirty, corrosive, and very difficult to completely remove from the internal workings of my firearms. I DO clean my firearms conscientiously and completely. I nonetheless always assume that I've missed SOME spot somewhere, which I will find and get clean the next time. With black power, a spot missed means immediate corrosion, right there, and will continue until I find and clean it. By that time, the damage is done.
i advise shooting black powder in the firearms of someone else, who is willing to tolerate the extra trouble of using it, and fully knows how to clean it away. Use modern stuff in yours.

I think I am correct in assuming that your country (Sweden?) allows its citizens to load/reload their own ammunition. If this is so, I suggest that you investigate this activity, as it will allow you to shoot for less expense, and will enable you to make ammunition which works particularly well in your firearm.

If questions remain that I have not answered, please feel free to remind me. I will make every effort to answer them.
Also, your command of English is excellent. You are to be commended!

Hello Kosh75287,

Thanks for you answer and information.

Yes 1892 also seems very nice. But it's not originally made for the 357 magnum either, is it?

"You may also find it more pleasing to the eye, than the two rifles you contemplate."

Interesting, how is the 1892 more pleasing to the eye?

"The .38 Special, by modern standards, IS often considered a bit "wimpy" as defensive calibers go. I think this reputation grew largely from the round's poor performance when fired from 2" and 4" barrels. As barrel lengths increase, so does performance, generally. Thus, a properly loaded .38 Special round fired from a carbine-length barrel is not the "wimpy" round associated with what gets launched from 2" or 4" revolver barrels."

I have read quite a few arguments that 38 special was and still is good for revolvers in defense. The police had them for 80 years or so, and shot dead thousands of criminals. I read something that it was the weak so called wadcutter 38 special ammo that gave it a bad name, but other types of 38 special ammo should have worked very well, and especially with +p ammuition some say. I've read some who argue like you that 38 special through a longer barrel, makes the ammo better, while others say it's probably worse, hmm a bit confusing for me

 

[recoil junky]

Either cartridge can be reloaded very cheaply and in a rifle either cartridge will be a "stopper" of bad'uns.

A Lee Loader (if they are available in Sweden) is a very inexpensive way to get started reloading. Plus reloading is a great way to spend a cold winter's day or evening. 357 brass can be reloaded to 38 Special velocities which is why I only use 357 brass, this saves the readjustment of the dies from one cartridge to another. To save from having to adjust your dies between 38's and 357's I'd stay with 357 brass as it can be loaded to 38 Special velocities and loaded as such the brass can literally last forever. 👍

Modern steel is much improved over that of 150 years ago so while the toggle action may be less robust than other lever actions I'd be less concerned with wear in a reproduction rifle than an original.

RJ

 

[Ihavequestions]

Either cartridge can be reloaded very cheaply and in a rifle either cartridge will be a "stopper" of bad'uns.

A Lee Loader (if they are available in Sweden) is a very inexpensive way to get started reloading. Plus reloading is a great way to spend a cold winter's day or evening. 357 brass can be reloaded to 38 Special velocities which is why I only use 357 brass, this saves the readjustment of the dies from one cartridge to another. To save from having to adjust your dies between 38's and 357's I'd stay with 357 brass as it can be loaded to 38 Special velocities and loaded as such the brass can literally last forever. 👍

Modern steel is much improved over that of 150 years ago so while the toggle action may be less robust than other lever actions I'd be less concerned with wear in a reproduction rifle than an original.

RJ

Thanks for you answer recoil junky, good points.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

Hello and welcome aboard!

It should be noted that modern reproduction 1873s are widely held as considerably stronger than their antique originals counterparts. An example to cite is the fact that Uberti offers the 1873 in 44 magnum, seen here. https://www.uberti-firearms.com/pro...-steel-rifle-u341260-44-mag-19-a-grade-stock/

I don't know of anyone offering any 1866 modern replicas in 44mag.

As to the question about 45 Colt and 44-40... Neither rifle will be rated for anything beyond standard low pressure 45 Colt. Steer clear of any ammunition labeled as "Heavy" or "+P".

44-40 ammunition is pretty scarce compared to others in my part of the world and definitely a reloaders proposition.

Either standard 45 Colt or 44-40 will be quite pleasurable to fire from a rifle and even at lower pressure and velocities compared to modern times will still be very capable of home defense duty.

But on the side note of home defense. Any rifle or handgun will come with the risk of over penetration in the home. My kids still live with me and a 12ga pump shotgun loaded with #6 is my choice. It will still be quite capable of neutralizing a threat at typical in-home defense range which is close, and offers lower risk of over penetration.
.
All of that said, I think you may be overthinking things just a tad. Even 357 mag will be a light recoiling carbine to shoot. And in a modern 1873 replica I don't believe a steady diet of 357 will do it any appreciable harm. Chamber pressure is one part of the equation that leads up to wear and tear on the rifle. The 357 operates at pressures comparable to 44mag, but it's sending a significantly lighter projectile. This is where the other part of the equation comes in which is how energetic a cartridge is overall. When the same pressure sends a much heavier bullets, it makes for a much more energetic overall firing cycle. The other end of that higher energy is seen in its effect on the target. An example of this is comparing say a 55k psi 223 sending a 62gr bullet to a 40k psi 45-70 sending a 300gr bullet. The overall energy of the 45-70 cartridge is orders of magnitude higher than that of the 223 even though it operates at lower pressure. This is why you see modern '73s offered in 357mag and not 44mag. Well, until Uberti decided their '73 was capable of handling 44mag. Myself, if I owned a Uberti '73 in 44mag, I might keep the full house 44mag round count low. I'm sure the toggles are made of better steel than the originals, and obviously the vast majority of originals have seen a lot of use over the course of up to 150 years which plays it's role. But, I would err on the side of caution for the most part.

So all of that said to say this...were I looking at modern reproductions between the 1866 and 1873, I would likely go with the '73 in 357mag. In fact, when I get around to adding a '73 to my modest little collection, I will be looking specifically for one in 357. I already currently have three modern carbines in 45 Colt that run stout handloads. A Win 94 Trapper, Henry Big Boy, and a Miroku built Winchester 1892 Short rifle.

But at the end of the day, it really is your choice. The '66 is definitely a beauty of a rifle and you could likely expect to see the 38spl ballistics from the carbine closely mimicking 357mag ballistics from a revolver.

And yes, handgun rounds do get quite a boost in velocity when fired from a carbine.

 

[Kosh75287]

My assessment of the 1892 as being "pleasant to the eye" is purely my opinion, with no real basis on which to defend the point. It's entirely up to you. It is true that the 1892 was not originally chambered for .357, but many were converted to .44 Magnum from .44-40, as the strength of steels in later models improved after ~WWI. The 1892 is a better choice for .357, not only because of modern steels, but by virtue of the design of the lock-up on it, vs. those on the 1866 or 1873.
Even if the locking components on the 1866 and 1873 were made of the highest-strength tool steel, I believe that a steady diet of Magnum-level loads would eventually pound and loosen the toggle to the point that accuracy would suffer, and safety of continued shooting would be questionable. The locking system is not inadequate due of the quality of manufacture, it is insufficient to handle magnum-level pressures due to the sheer geometry through which the higher pressures and opposite forces must travel. The 1892 design solves this in a number of ways.
If you are well and truly resolved that your rifle MUST be a Winchester 1866 or 1873, just make sure that more .38 Special ammunition than .357 Magnum ammunition goes through it.

The "weak, so-called wadcutter" ammunition MAY have contributed to the "wimpy" reputation of the .38 Special, but it is more likely due to the lead, round-nosed projectiles, which had poor terminal effect (passed through with minimal damage to target) on impact. Had the original service load been made with wadcutter or semi-wadcutter projectiles, the reputation of the .38 Special might have fared far better.
An important note: When you get your rifle, in whatever caliber, DO NOT use round-nosed bullets in it. The nose of one round rests against the primer of the round before it. With sufficient recoil, the pointy round nose can ignite the primer of the round in front, setting off a "chain ignition". VERY BAD for the gun and owner.

The Lee Loader (classic Loader) may be an acceptable answer to lowering ammunition costs. It involves the use of a rubber hammer while seating primers which can be a bit daunting, but it is a readily learnable skill. Depending on the load you choose to use, a single pound of propellant can fuel roughly 1000 rounds of ammunition, possibly more.

 

[DarkLord]

Not sure I'd use a 19th century lever action for home defense, but if its what you have then yeah. I personally would get the '66 in .38 special. .38 special is the cheapest cartridge to shoot out of the Uberti lever rifles, and its a lot of fun to shoot. +P JHP's will give 9mm NATO performance out of a longer barrel (little boost in velocity, but not huge), so it will be reasonably effective with good JHP's.

If you like the magnum, then the 1873 in .357 would be the next best choice...not quite as pretty as the '66, but they're very cool.

 

[leverite]

Both rifles are beautiful in their own way.
More important is the issue raised earlier about over penetration. Unless you live in a very rural area with lots of trees, you will endanger your neighbors by shooting either 357mag or 38 special inside your home from a carbine. And you will be liable for any injuries or property damage your errant rounds produce. Even shot from a handgun these rounds would likely pass through all walls and siding and depart your property. (maybe not thru a brick/block wall.)
As mentioned, a shotgun is a far superior home defense tool. And a debate ender with #4 or #5 shot which will not penetrate walls. But, as with carbines, the muzzle blast will deafening.
A 20 guage pump shotgun is cheap...leaving funds for a good 22lr carbine.

 

[DarkLord]

I disagree on the over-penetration issue. If you're using 125 grain bullets, how is it different from a 9mm pistol with 124gr bullets? Are you saying ONLY a shotgun is appropriate for home defense because of the over-penetration issue? When talking inner walls, pretty much ANY firearm cartridge will penetrate those. If exterior walls, most cartridges will penetrate. The reality is, you really need to go to great lengths to not miss; even with a shotgun. I agree shotguns are great in that role, have one close by myself. But if a guy were to have no long guns and was going to buy just one, I will take the rifle every time. And the ballistic performance of a .38 Special out of a rifle barrel would struggle to reach 9/124 levels, so its no more or less a "danger" than the most common handgun.

Also regarding shot for shotguns, I'm not a fan of birdshot for defense. I have treated patients shot with birdshot and it was extremely unimpressive.

The OP is interested in an 1866. So its clear that defense is a very secondary thing or he would be asking about much more modern firearms...nothing wrong with that. I have a ton of firearms that are not ideal for defense, but if its what I have when I need it, it gets the job. I also think the overall shooting community is just WAY too defensive oriented. Not everyone perceives threats the same way, nor does everyone have the same threat levels. So the person who is interested in shooting primarily for recreation/sport, with defense as a distant second is a reasonable thing.

I say buy the '66 because its a damn cool rifle.

 

[Tnhunter]

Pretty, handsome or good looking is through the eyes of the beholder, and the beholder's opinion is the only one that matters. As for the decision between .38 or .357, I think the versatility of the .357 likely pushes it to the lead. You get to use .38, .38+P or .357 as you please. A .38+P likely matches a .357 handgun's performance out of a Carbine.

I think any carbine that can chamber and fire .44 mag is up to a steady diet of .357. As far as a .45C, I'd further expect any carbine up to .44mag could easily also digest .45+P. Looking at the "normal" pressures of the .44mag and .45C, there's a heck of a lot of pressure between the two, allowing for safe .45 +P in a carbine also rated for .44mag. The added velocity in a carbine for standard .45C loads makes for a very capable man stopper, well over the original 149yr old classic cartridge.

See, clear as mud. Just keep in mind the "beholder's" opinion is the only one that matters.

 

[Cheezywan]

I think all the listed cartridges are up to all the tasks you ask about. Pick the firearm you like/want.

 

[Ihavequestions]

Thanks for your answers guys.

Something I think about, and want to ask you about. Some argue that the 357 is preferable to the 38 special when it comes to home defense, even through a longer barrel like a lever action rifle or other carbine.

But if the 38 special, depending on the type of ammo, through an 1866 for example, can equal the power and effect of a 9 millimeter through a pistol or 357 magnum through a revolver, and it's still too bad for home defense, then it should also mean that a pistol in 9mm or a revolver in 357 magnum is too bad and not enough power for home defense and should also be avoided, for something more powerful?

But if a pistol in 9 mm or a revolver in 357 magnum, is good or at least sufficient for home defense with enough power, then an 1866 in 38 special should also be sufficient, if it is true that through the barrel it can reach the same or similar strength and power to 9mm in a pistol or 357 magnum in a revolver?

Shouldn't that be really good? If an 1866 is as powerful as 9mm or 357 magnum through the longer barrel, it is equal in power But plus less recoil, more accuracy through a rifle than a pistol or revolver, quick follow up shots, less noise than the 357 magnum and less blinding muzzle flash than I guess?

I'm sure there are better options for home defence, but to me it doesn't sound like a bad firearm for home defense, but rather actually a good one, or did I get that wrong?

While also at the same time good for plinking and cheap ammo, and a beautifully rifle, it seems like a good option for me I guess. 357 magnum through an 1873 can also be good, but if 38 special has about the same effect as shooting 357 magnum through a revolver, then it should do just fine, and more power is probably not needed, maybe rather excessive overkill?

 

[Cheezywan]

I can't think of any cartridge that is NOT capable of being used for plinking, target practice, or defending ones self with. Even a BB gun will work. I suggest here a direct hit to the testicle (either one or both) with a BB stops the fight very decisively and instantly.

The other end of your question revolved around the firearm. Handguns are sorta handy. Long guns are less so. But more accurate and powerful.
Becomes a matter of degree I think.

 

[Kosh75287]

Not sure I'd use a 19th century lever action for home defense, but if its what you have then yeah.

It may not be the best available choice for American shooters, but our range of options is likely far more broad than it is in Sweden. Unlike the Swiss, I doubt that the citizenry of Sweden gets to take home the Ak4/Ak5 with which they drilled when military service was mandatory (it is, again, now, if I've read things correctly). I doubt that Madsen or M/45 SMGs are readily available, either (darn the bad luck!)
I don't know enough about Swedish gun laws to tell anyone what I DON'T know. I would, nonetheless, suspect that private ownership of a firearm is something of a major process, for any Swedish citizen, except possibly for police and active military personnel.
I COULD envision, however, that the procurement of an adequately powerful, fast-handling carbine with a (relatively) high capacity and firing rate, the design of which pre-dates the Boer War, MIGHT be easier and less "controversial" than other "better" defense platforms.
Those concerned about over-penetration had better HOPE that no AK4 (7,62 NATO) nor Ak5 (5.56 Nato) gets used in an urban home defense situation. I've not shot enough birdshot/buckshot into sheetrock to know with confidence what size shot will guard against over-penetration with a fowling piece. I suspect, however, at "trans-living room" ranges, almost any shot load would act very much like a solid projectile, possibly rendering the point academic.
As SWEDISH personal defensive arms go, an 1866 or 1873 Winchester just MIGHT be "state of the art" for its private citizenry. While it lacks the capacity of a modern battle rifle, it CAN be continuously reloaded at almost any time that the defender is behind cover. One HOPES that an extended exchange of fire is not necessary to stop the invasion of a home, but all is not lost, should it come to that.

 

[DarkLord]

But if a pistol in 9 mm or a revolver in 357 magnum, is good or at least sufficient for home defense with enough power, then an 1866 in 38 special should also be sufficient, if it is true that through the barrel it can reach the same or similar strength and power to 9mm in a pistol or 357 magnum in a revolver?

Shouldn't that be really good? If an 1866 is as powerful as 9mm or 357 magnum through the longer barrel, it is equal in power But plus less recoil, more accuracy through a rifle than a pistol or revolver, quick follow up shots, less noise than the 357 magnum and less blinding muzzle flash than I guess?

Okay, lets talk about the .38 Special out of a rifle.

Factory .38 Special out of a rifle will barely make it to 9mm NATO performance, but it will be close. .38 Special is a low pressure cartridge and will be loaded with very fast burning powders. With such powders you’ll see a little bump in velocity, but it’s not going to be anywhere near .357 revolver velocities. A handloader can do something about that with slower powders, but I’m going to go on the assumption you’re not a handloader at this point.

Over-penetration. Again, this is an issue with ANY cartridge with modern house construction. Most ANY projectile you use is going to punch through several walls if you miss. Keep in mind, anything that will no longer penetrate wall board, will also have vastly insufficient penetration on a human target in a self defense situation. A 125gr JHP out of a .38 Special would net somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000-1,150fps, which is solid 9mm performance.