First up, the "Mare's Leg" pistol. I cannot think of a reason they exist. First off, they are chambered in pistol cartridges. They hold six rounds (as do most "six-shooters" and they require two hands to use them. The Colt Peacemaker is widely regarded as one of the best-pointing guns ever made (and nobody's ever said that about a Mare's Leg).
The Mare's Leg is a Hollywood artifact. As far as I can tell, it never existed prior to the TV show "Wanted Dead Or Alive" in 1958.
The gun is a bastard. It looks like a rifle and has to be fired like a handgun. What's not to hate?
Second up: The revolving rifle/shotgun. They were popular, to some extent, in the late 1850s and early 1860s, before the development of larger-caliber cased ammunition. Once weapons such as the Spencer carbine and the Winchester/Henry rifles came along, the revolving rifle faded into history.
This was due to one glaring point: All revolvers (except the Nagant) have a gap between the cylinder and the barrel. When you fire a revolver, flame (and sometimes bits of lead) spit out from that gap. Old revolving rifles didn't have forearm stocks; a shooter would use his or her support hand to grasp the rifle in a hold very similar to a two-handed pistol hold. Otherwise, the shooter's offhand arm would be tattooed and burned by the crap spitting from the barrel-cylinder gap.
Spencer/Henry/Winchester rifles loaded their chambers from internal magazines; the barrel is solid from the rear of the chamber to the muzzle. They could be reloaded a lot faster, as well.
Why am I bringing this up? Because Rossi has brought both of those types of guns back to the market.* Which proves once again that H.L. Mencken was right.
________________________________________
* Yes, I know that Uberti makes replicas of the old revolving carbines. What Rossi is making is a new rifle/shotgun that tries to glom onto marketing success of the Taurus Judge revolvers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
The only reason that even comes to mind is the the knot heads who buy something this looney think that it makes them cool and will impress somebody.
The one reason I can think of is to obtain an easily concealed weapon in an area where pistol sales are restricted/outlawed. Similar to the sawed-off shotgun idea. That being said, I can't find any mention of it prior to '58 either.
bmq215, thing is, the Mare's Leg is a pistol. It's not capable of being fired from the shoulder.
Reminds me of the .454 Casull and its even bigger brethren. Given that you can't really hit the side of the barn with it (because the recoil will knock you on your can *before* the bullet comes out the barrel), why?
- Badtux the Baffled Penguin
Rossi made the carbines as a prelim to making the 28 ga. "Raging Judge". Which sounds like a really good way to break a wrist. They weren't sure if ATF would approve a 28 ga shot pistol,so they made the carbine. I know of no reason for the .410/45s.
Don't get me started on the wisdumb of putting shot down a rifled barrel...
Right, but it probably wasn't when it left the gun shop. Which is most of what matters if pistols are restricted.
Did it ever actually exist? My guess is there were probably a few cases. Damn stupid it may be, but I've seen enough AR-15 pistols to believe that some people can't resist the lure of a good hacksaw.
Ummmm... "frak"? Wrong 'verse. Zoe on Firefly carried a Mare's Leg.
:)
Impr' Joe, I don't speak or write in Mandarin. so "freak" or "frell" is what you're going to get from me.
William, in reading the stuff from the Box o' Truth, where he did two separate tests of the the Judge revolvers, I can's see where having one of those huge puppies would be any better than a .44 Special.
BadTux, the .454 Casull, .475 Linebaugh and the others are for hunting large critters. (And also for dick-swinging "my gun is bigger'n yours" crowd, which felt less-than-manly with a .45 Colt or a .44 magnum).
If I want to kill large beasts, I'll use a large rifle, which at least has a chance of actually hitting the beast. A .475 Linebaugh? Uhm, talk about a one shot and you're done gun, better make sure you hit that charging rhino with your first shot, 'cause you're not getting a second :).
This is a serious question from one ignorant about guns.
Is the "Judge" a reasonable gun if one wants something small to carry when walking fields and woods? We have quite a few copperheads and timber rattlers and while I would never go "hunting" them (too afraid of them), I would like something smaller than a long gun to carry when I'm out and about. Is the Judge (in 410 mode) a piece of junk or a reasonable choice?
Any info/knowledge will be appreciated.
Joan, the Box o' Truth did a test with a Judge. It seems to work for hat. But the BOT also tested revolver snake shot loads and they seem to be equally as effective.
Commercial snake shot loads are available in most handgun calibers. I don't know how well they cycle in an automatic, so I'd personally want to stick to revolvers.
Something about the Judge doesn't sit right with me. I tend to feel the Judge is a triumph of marketing. YMMV. You ought to find a firing range that rents guns and see if they have a Judge to try out.
Taurus makes decent guns overall. But they have a track record of shitty customer service.
Thanks for the advice, Comrade. That sort of confirms my "intuition" that something is either a shotgun or not a shotgun and that perhaps the Judge is neither good pistol nor good
410. ?
I don't handle guns often so I'm a barely a "not completely dangerous" shot on my best day and probably seriously poor if nervous. (Not Dick Cheney bad - just not reliable at hitting exactly where I want to.) Maybe I'll just keep hauling that old 16 gauge around - much as I hate to.
Thanks again.
In re: snakeshot loads in an autoloader. They don't eject. You have to rack the slide each time, not enough mass to recoil properly.
Never had a problem shooting a Casull, myself, but I've also had a lot of years shooting 44 mags. The Casull recoils with a definite authority, but can be managed with practice.
Post a Comment