| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Henry 1860: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
How effective is the .44 Rimfire? From what I've read it seems it is almost useless beyond 100 yards. | How effective is the .44 Rimfire? From what I've read it seems it is almost useless beyond 100 yards. | ||
:Well, not overly. It's really just a handgun round, ballistically it's similar to a 200 grain .45ACP - and the flat-nosed bullets give it a lower ballistic coefficient, which means velocity will drop faster and the trajectory will be more curved. The contemporary 56-56 Spencer round was actually alot better, as it approached the effectiveness of a muzzle-loading .58 cal Springfield. It's worth noting that alot of the Western-era rifles, for which the Henry really set the pattern, were at the time called carbines, regardless of barrel length, because they fired what were really handgun rounds. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | :Well, not overly. It's really just a handgun round, ballistically it's similar to a 200 grain .45ACP - and the flat-nosed bullets give it a lower ballistic coefficient, which means velocity will drop faster and the trajectory will be more curved. The contemporary 56-56 Spencer round was actually alot better, as it approached the effectiveness of a muzzle-loading .58 cal Springfield. It's worth noting that alot of the Western-era rifles, for which the Henry really set the pattern, were at the time called carbines, regardless of barrel length, because they fired what were really handgun rounds. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | ||
::So why were these and the Winchester 1866 popular? Was it just about capacity and rate of fire? | |||
Revision as of 17:01, 19 August 2010
How effective is the .44 Rimfire? From what I've read it seems it is almost useless beyond 100 yards.
- Well, not overly. It's really just a handgun round, ballistically it's similar to a 200 grain .45ACP - and the flat-nosed bullets give it a lower ballistic coefficient, which means velocity will drop faster and the trajectory will be more curved. The contemporary 56-56 Spencer round was actually alot better, as it approached the effectiveness of a muzzle-loading .58 cal Springfield. It's worth noting that alot of the Western-era rifles, for which the Henry really set the pattern, were at the time called carbines, regardless of barrel length, because they fired what were really handgun rounds. - Nyles
- So why were these and the Winchester 1866 popular? Was it just about capacity and rate of fire?