Rifle/handgun pairs?

[Manny]

I have a couple combo's in .357, as thats the most versital all around for my needs & uses. The .38/.357 works great in my favorite CCW piece, a KLCR, does a dandy job in a trim 4.2" SP, is just as good as ever in a medium frame revolver and really comes to life in a lightweight rifle like my 77/357 or Contender Carbine.

I'm also thinking of getting a .45LC barrel for the Contender Carbine to have a companion piece for my .45LC Redhawk.

 

[Old Dog]

Count me with the other gents of supremely good taste in thinking that the Marlin 1894 goes with a S&W 19-4 like fine bourbon and a good cigar ...

 

[bannockburn]

Wanted a lever gun to go with my .45 single action revolvers. Finally found a Rossi Model 92 to go with my Beretta Stampede and Ruger Vaquero. Guess it appeals to the cowboy in me!

 

[aarondhgraham]

I do it because it makes me happy to do it,,,

I do it because it makes me happy to do it,,,
Perhaps it's just a manifestation of my OCD tendencies,,,
But in any case I find it personally satisfying to make matching sets.

With me though it started out the opposite,,,
I started collecting identical handguns in centerfire and rimfire cartridges.

For example I have a pair of S&W revolvers,,,
Model 18 in .22 LR and a Model 15 in .38 Special.

But then one day I noticed that my stainless Henry Acu Bolt rifle,,,
looked very nice when paired with my stainless Charter Arms Target Pathfinder.

So I put them together in one rifle case with the pertinent accessories,,,
It makes for a nice case to grab and head for the range.

If I had the disposable money I would buy a stainless Ruger 77/357 rifle,,,
And pair it up in a case with my 6" stainless S&W 686,,,
I think they would make a beautiful set of guns.

I have an H&R Handi-Rifle in .357,,,
And I have an H&R Sportster in .22 LR,,,
They look very nice in their case along with two revolvers,,,
The revolvers are a Colt Trooper Mk-III in .357 and another in .22 LR.

I have several different pairings similar to this,,,
Most of them are chambered for .22 LR.

Is there any real practical value in doing this?

Maybe not in our day and age,,,
But if it gives you satisfaction to pair 'em up,,,
I say go for it and don't seek justification beyond what makes you smile.

Aarond

.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I own a .357 Ruger Security 6 revolver and a .357 Rossi Puma lever action rifle.
I own a .22 Ruger Mark II pistol and a .22 Marlin M60 rifle.
One reason is simplifying my ammo supply chain.
Funny thing is, more often than not, when I go to the mountain, I take the .357 revolver as a sidearm to the .22 rifle, or the .22 pistol as a sidearm to the .357 rifle.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Count me with the other gents of supremely good taste in thinking that the Marlin 1894 goes with a S&W 19-4 like fine bourbon and a good cigar ...

In my case, it's a Winchester Trapper AE and a Dan Wesson Model 15-2. Like a Venn diagram of heaven, there is such a sweet spot of overlapping goodness with a lever gun, revolver, and the .357 cartridge.

Of course, when I'm in the mood for supremely bad taste, I can Rambo up with a PAP AK pistol and an RPK. Also very good, in a devil's food sort of way.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Made sense in the 19th Century when one could be away from a supplier for months, but doesn't now.

I agree with bannockburn. I like it for the nostalgia factor.

Is there a situation where you actually NEED to carry a pistol and carbine in the same caliber these days? You'd probably be hard pressed to find that situation.

But NEED doesn't drive most of my wants and gun purchases. I think it's cool and that's enough for me.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I have always set out to have pistol/revolver with carbine/rifle combinations. While there is no apparent need to do so, I cannot predict the future. Just in case, I am thusly prepared should such a need arise. That said, I do have one pistol caliber for which I don't have a long gun match and that is 380ACP. I have two rifle calibers that I don't have a handgun to match (45-70 and 308 Win) but given their power, who could blame me!

The fun factor is there as well, of course!

Woody

 

[Sam1911]

It really seems a triviality to me. I can't think of realistic reasons why I'd need to be able to share ammo between rifle and handgun, and my only reason for carrying both (if I did) would be because they did dramatically different things. Not marginally different things with a lot of overlap.

Like so very, very, VERY much else in the shooting world, there isn't any clear need but some folks just find it entertaining or "neat-o" and so they do seek out combos like that. Cool. If it puts a grin on your face, why not?

The biggest exception to this would be the case of .22s. That almost doesn't count as you don't really so much seek out a .22 rifle BECAUSE you have a .22 handgun, as you end up with .22s of lots of styles, because that's the plinking/teaching/youth cartridge of choice for all types.

 

[Malamute]

I dont find them to be as useful as I once thought theyd be, but can be handy at times. If ones shooting is mainly closer distances, a pistol caliber carbine doesnt give up as much also.

It may not "make sense", but many of us will carry a handgun at all times, even when hunting with a rifle. For most uses, a rifle caliber rifle makes more sense to me. Once in a while, or in some uses, the range/power isnt an issue. Just plain fun shooting is one of those. Walking around my yard about dusk when the skunks are active is another one.

 

[C0untZer0]

I'm not sure why no one has mentioned the Five-seveN and the FN P90.

Is it because the caliber has to be a viable hunting cartridge?

If I could only get 1 pair in a caliber I'd wish for .327 Federal Magnum

 

[Leanwolf]

My longtime "combo" with which I've had lots of fun out in the boonies, is a S&W 57 .41 Mag., and a Marlin 1894S .41 Mag.

Never felt "undergunned" when bustin' around out in the mountains and forests.

L.W.

 

[4v50 Gary]

It does make sense

Ruger Super Blackhawk in 44 Mag and matching Marlin 1894.
Ruger Security Six and matching Marlin 1894 (the latter is tough to find).

Somebody's 45-70 revolver and the Marlin 1895. I'll pass on that combo. The revolver would cause too much wrist problems.

 

[Magnuumpwr]

COuntzerO, I forgot about that combo. S&W 500 & a 500 NEF Handi-rifle.

 

[Dr.Rob]

.44 Mags

Ruger Vaquero came first, my Marlin 1894 Cowboy came later. I really enjoy my cowboy guns.

I have a .32-20 Colt that could use a companion long arm. Can't decide which one yet. Marlin made a nice one.

 

[2ifbyC]

I agree that this combo made more sense in the early days as opposed to now. However, I did purposely buy a Marlin .44 mag to match my Virginia Dragoon. It was done to quench my cowboy desire to have a holstered side arm and scabbarded rifle while horseback riding.

 

[BigBL87]

I don't match them personally, but I can see the logic in doing so. If I owned a .357 revolver, I definitely would like to own a .357 rifle just for ammo compatibility. As it is, I only own semi auto handguns and none that have a rifle companion available. Now that being said, I do like ammo compatibility between firearms. I thought about getting a 40 or 45 for my next handgun, but ended up going 9mm because I already have a significant amount of it.

 

[JTHunter]

I combine as well.
Ruger SA Convertible .22LR & Mag, Keltec PMR-30 (.22 Mag), Ruger 10/22, Marlin 881 bolt (LR), and 983 bolt (Mag).
I just acquired a Marlin 1894 in .38 Sp./.357 to go with my GP-100 and my mother's SP-101 in .38 Special. She also has a Marlin Glenfield (aka Mod. 60).

That's 9 guns (10 if you count the extra cylinder for the Ruger) and only 4 ammoa that I have to stock.

Works for me!

 

[rugerman]

I have pistols and rifles in like calibers in 22, 38/357, 9mm, and 44 mag. Makes since to me!

 

[WestKentucky]

I'm torn on this one....but like my guns I am a whole lot away from normal. My thoughts are that for a person who does not reload, it doesn't make enough difference to worry about. Volumes shot are likely low enough to not be overridden by savings by buying in bulk etc, if that were not the case you would either A go broke feeding your guns, or B run out of ammo in a market still not completely saturated with product. In both cases the answer is to reload. Since that's not the case, a 20 dollar box of ammo is still a 20 dollar box of ammo, no matter the number on the side.

Now on the other hand, as a reloader it is a noticeable expense and somewhat arduous task to start a new caliber. Even cheap dies are typically around 40 bucks, usually decent dies are in the 70 range. Add a box of 10 different bullets (30 bucks is a fair average, so 300 bucks there, 200 or more pieces of new brass to start with (another 50 bucks), case gauges, etc, the expense climbs quickly. To avoid that, A reloader might decide to buy commonly chambered weaponry. To really do a new caliber the way i would want to would easily cost me 500 bucks total, but would also produce me about 1000 rounds of ammo. For pistol, that's high. For rifle, that's cheap.

With all that said I seek out new calibers, and am on a tight budget. I have dies I haven't been able to use yet because I can't afford to get going with a barrage of bullet trials. I SHOULD consolidate calibers.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Aside from the economy of stocking minimal calibers, the reloading aspects count for something as well. There is loading data for many rounds to tailor them for handgun use or rifle/carbine use.

Woody

 

[Valkman]

My Marlin 1894 in 44 Mag has a longer range than I do - and I had quit shooting rifles because I couldn't do all the walking out to the targets and back numerous times. But the point is it's FUN to shoot 44 Mag and Special out of a rifle, and it's not like you can't hunt with it. I use mine for range only but 44 Mag has plenty of range for me.

 

[HK Dave]

Winchester 73 .44-40 in the family a long time. held out for a Vaquero in .44-40 to go with it.

 

[hatt]

I just don't see the point in limiting my effective range by chambering my rifle to fire a handgun round. The utility of that died with the advent of the 30-30, which was a heck of a long time ago.

Another way to look at it is: if all your shooting is under 100 yards at fairly small critters or paper why the absolute need for a rifle round. At WM prices my .30-30 costs $16+/20 to shoot vs $25/50 for .357. Both make a nice hole in paper at the 50 and 100 yard range. .38 is even cheaper and comes with little noise.

 

[Coyote3855]

I have a pair of Vaqueros in .45 Colt and a couple of rifles in that caliber: a Marlin 94 and a Winchester 66 Uberti replica. Never used them for anything other than Cowboy Action Shooting which requires rifles in a pistol caliber.