[Ihavequestions]

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.

Thanks for the information.

38 special close to 9mm Nato that sounds good to me, I think it will get the job done, in case of the "usual" home defence situation, right? I do not think I will need extra power of 357 magnum etc.

I see your point about overpenetration, I will have to practice shooting to aim correctly and not miss.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

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.

I have to tip my hat to your Sir for giving me pause to re-think my previous post. Although I've done a good share of work with my 45 Colt carbines loaded stout and realized pretty astonishing velocities, I failed to consider the faster burning powders used in typical 38Spls in comparison to what I'm using in my 45 Colt ammo. I've not worked with a 357 Carbine but have seen test results from those who have and the gains there equally impressive to what I've found with 45 Colt. But as mentioned, the faster burning powders pushing 38Spls won't see nearly as much of a gain.

My apologies for posting incorrect information

Thank you for the correction and I agree 👍🏻

 

[BRatigan]

I like the 357 in the Model 73. Its accurate and versatile based on my findings. I have several loadings for it from 125 to 158 grain projectiles. You can go up to at least 180 grains for more oomph. Just my 8 cents. It used to be 2 cents but with inflation it has gone up.

 

[Im2Tall2Play2!]

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.

About over penetration. Long ago in a far away land (Louisiana) I worked w/a citizen of France. He totally could not understand our USA home building methods. He said he lived in a 300+ year old house that had been in his family that long. Stone & brick. I that house, penetration of the walls would not be an issue unless you managed to hit a window.

Moral of the story: do not equate construction practices in Europe to modern practices in the USA (paper thin walls). Our original poster doesn't tell us his particular situation. Perhaps he can elucidate?

 

[Kosh75287]

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.

And then, there's THIS....

https://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html

 

[shawnbo]

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 don't live in the USA, a lever action may be the best choice. In Canada, lever actions don't have barrel length minimums or magazine capacity limits, whereas semiautomatics have both. I'd rather have my 12" barreled 1892 44 Magnum with six shots in the tube than a modern self loader with a 18.5+ inch barrel with a magazine pinned to five rounds.

Agree about overpenetration - it's an issue with any sufficiently powerful firearm...if you miss. Practice enough not to miss.

 

[Ihavequestions]

About over penetration. Long ago in a far away land (Louisiana) I worked w/a citizen of France. He totally could not understand our USA home building methods. He said he lived in a 300+ year old house that had been in his family that long. Stone & brick. I that house, penetration of the walls would not be an issue unless you managed to hit a window.

Moral of the story: do not equate construction practices in Europe to modern practices in the USA (paper thin walls). Our original poster doesn't tell us his particular situation. Perhaps he can elucidate?

Thank you, good point.

I live in Europe, thicker walls here generally and very isolated, compared to the US as I understand it.

 

[94win32spec]

There are ergonomic issues to consider in your rifle choice besides the weak toggle link systems in these 2 firearms. The 1873 has a wood forearm for your hand to grasp while holding the rifle. With the 1866, you are holding onto the cartridge tube and barrel while firing. If you shoot more than a few rounds at a time, the barrel will get very warm, maybe even hot enough so that you can't hold onto it for awhile until the barrel cools down. So the 1873 would be my first choice of the two. But I agree with other posters that a 1892 would be the absolute best choice in a handgun caliber lever action carbine. It will last your lifetime and that of your grandchildren with minimal good care.

As to cartridge choice, there will be no to minimal ballistic advantage to a 38 special in a rifle length barrel compared to a handgun with a 6 inch barrel. You might even lose velocity in a carbine or rifle length barrel with the 38 special because the powder used in 38 special cartridges is very fast burning, and is not sufficient to overcome the friction of a rifle length barrel to gain velocity. In short,you will not gain any velocity with 38 special cartridge in a 1866 or 1873 carbine, compared to a handgun. A 9mm cartridge is about halfway in power between 38 special and 357 magnum with a 124gr. Bullet ( NATO or +P ). So a 38 special is not quite equal in power to a 9mm cartridge.

Based on the above information I would recommend the 1873 ( or better yet an 1892) replica carbine in .357 magnum. For fun and practice shooting I would use 38 special wadcutters. For home defense loads I would recommend premium 38 special +p or +p+ self defense loads, or .357 magnum loads. If they are available in your country I would recommend Hornady critical duty ammo ( 1st choice ), or Critical Defense ammo ( 2nd choice ) for your home protection ammo. Federal makes good general purpose ammo for practice shooting, and good .357 ammo for fun or self defense.

Good luck.

 

[DarkLord]

There are ergonomic issues to consider in your rifle choice besides the weak toggle link systems in these 2 firearms. The 1873 has a wood forearm for your hand to grasp while holding the rifle. With the 1866, you are holding onto the cartridge tube and barrel while firing. If you shoot more than a few rounds at a time, the barrel will get very warm, maybe even hot enough so that you can't hold onto it for awhile until the barrel cools down. So the 1873 would be my first choice of the two. But I agree with other posters that a 1892 would be the absolute best choice in a handgun caliber lever action carbine. It will last your lifetime and that of your grandchildren with minimal good care.

I think you're confusing the '66 with the 1860 Henry as the '66 has the same forend as the '73.

 

[shawnbo]

There are ergonomic issues to consider in your rifle choice besides the weak toggle link systems in these 2 firearms. The 1873 has a wood forearm for your hand to grasp while holding the rifle. With the 1866, you are holding onto the cartridge tube and barrel while firing.

The 1866 has a wood forearm and side loading gate, just like the 1873. They were two improvements over the older Henry design that not only had no forearm, the magazine follower was exposed and would collide with your hand if enough shots were fired without topping up.

 

[94win32spec]

Yes, you are both right. Brain fart there. Still, I would prefer the '73 over the '66, and the 1892 over either of the earlier Winchesters. And the versatility of a 357 magnum vs. a .38 special only firearm. Why limit yourself to one cartridge only when you can also fire 38 special in a firearm chambered for 357 magnum?

 

[Ihavequestions]

Yes, you are both right. Brain fart there. Still, I would prefer the '73 over the '66, and the 1892 over either of the earlier Winchesters. And the versatility of a 357 magnum vs. a .38 special only firearm. Why limit yourself to one cartridge only when you can also fire 38 special in a firearm chambered for 357 magnum?

Thanks for the reply 94win32spec.

Good point.

Here are some arguments that I have read some people use. First, the 1866 is much more beautiful, which I agree with, and it can be aesthetically significant, contributing to heightened shooting experiences. Then if for various reasons it is considered best to shoot the 38 special over the 357, say for home defense in an apartment area. Less risk of overpenetration, less noise, less muzzle flash, faster follow-up shots, slightly less recoil, etc. Now you can shoot 38 special through 1873, 357 magnum, but I've read that some say it's not certain that it feeds 38 special well and safely, and that it risks causing problems, and that it is then safer to shoot 38 special through a rifle that is only for 38 special and not 357 magnum.

What do you think of these arguments? The only thing I can confirm myself is the aesthetic argument.

 

[Darkker]

First, the 1866 is much more beautiful, which I agree with, and it can be aesthetically significant, contributing to heightened shooting experiences.

What do you think of these arguments? The only thing I can confirm myself is the aesthetic argument.

Aesthetics isn't an argument, it's a personal opinion. In context, aesthetics refers to the perceived beauty or finish of the wood; perhaps the metal coloration, stock drop, etc.
Whether or not a rifle and shooter are capable of a given level of accuracy, is independent of the finish. 😉🙂

Cheers

 

[Ihavequestions]

Aesthetics isn't an argument, it's a personal opinion. In context, aesthetics refers to the perceived beauty or finish of the wood; perhaps the metal coloration, stock drop, etc.
Whether or not a rifle and shooter are capable of a given level of accuracy, is independent of the finish. 😉🙂

Cheers

I believe that there is objective beauty regardless of personal opinion, and that aesthetics matters, which is why I believe that beauty even in a rifle is an argument for why one would want to own such a rifle But I agree with your last sentence.

Cheers

 

[DarkLord]

Of course the 1873 is the "better" rifle, that's the whole reason why they invented the thing. But reproductions of 19th century rifles aren't about being practical. Buy the rifle that YOU want, because either will accomplish your stated purpose just fine.

 

[94win32spec]

Thanks for the reply 94win32spec.

Good point.

Here are some arguments that I have read some people use. First, the 1866 is much more beautiful, which I agree with, and it can be aesthetically significant, contributing to heightened shooting experiences. Then if for various reasons it is considered best to shoot the 38 special over the 357, say for home defense in an apartment area. Less risk of overpenetration, less noise, less muzzle flash, faster follow-up shots, slightly less recoil, etc. Now you can shoot 38 special through 1873, 357 magnum, but I've read that some say it's not certain that it feeds 38 special well and safely, and that it risks causing problems, and that it is then safer to shoot 38 special through a rifle that is only for 38 special and not 357 magnum.

What do you think of these arguments? The only thing I can confirm myself is the aesthetic argument.

That is a good point. I had a Rossi M1892 in 357 mag that would choke ( not feed well ) with .38 special wadcutter load's. I have a Marlin 1894cs in .357 Mag, but haven't tried 38 specials in it yet.

Your best option, if possible would be to inspect both rifles under consideration, in person at the Gun store. I'm thinking where you live, that's not possible. If you get a carbine chambered in .38 special only, ask if it is rated for +P ammo. If it's not, I would not buy it.

 

[Ihavequestions]

That is a good point. I had a Rossi M1892 in 357 mag that would choke ( not feed well ) with .38 special wadcutter load's. I have a Marlin 1894cs in .357 Mag, but haven't tried 38 specials in it yet.

Your best option, if possible would be to inspect both rifles under consideration, in person at the Gun store. I'm thinking where you live, that's not possible. If you get a carbine chambered in .38 special only, ask if it is rated for +P ammo. If it's not, I would not buy it.

Thanks, good to know. You are right, that is not possible.

I will try to find out if it is rated for +p. But many say +p is not necessary for home defense, regular 38 special ammo, the kind previously used for nearly 100 years by police and military, still works well, so guess it still works well today for that purpose.

 

[garey]

I'm happy with my stainless .357/.38 Rossi 92, 20" round barrel. Couple additions to compensate for my old eyes.

 

[3L120]

I carried a .38 revolver in L.A. for 18 years, without feeling undergunned, and only reluctantly switched to a 9mm. Go for the .38 if you like it. Unless what is coming thru the door is a bear, you will do fine.

 

[WinMike]

I've owned a Marlin 1894C, a Rossi 1892 and a converted Winchester 1892, all in .357 Mag/38 Sp. That said, I like my Uberti 1873 the most. It just looks best IMHO, especially with its case-hardened receiver.

However, it should be noted that the 1892 (and Marlin...Hey, they're supposed to be reintroducing it later this year!) feed many bullets better. My 1873 (and the 1866, I presume) will not easily feed cartridges that do not have RNFP bullets. No big woof, but be aware.

FWIW, my chronograph notes show that 158 gr. lead gc bullets (magnum primer, H110) were 1190 fps in my 6" barreled S&W 686, 1856 fps in my Marlin1894C.