Carbine or Rifle

[C.M.Roy]

Hello all. Every since reading a certain book on the civil war when I was a kid I have always had this craving for a Spencer. I have read a lot of the posts here and was wondering which version of the Spencer to get, the rifle or the carbine? I will be ordering from either Cimarron or Taylor's. Since it seems that those two companies get there's from Armi I guess it wouldn't matter unless one really does have a better Spencer then the other. Yes it will be in 56/50. Wouldn't be right to get anything else, just can't decide on the configuration. Anything will help. Goods and bads of one over the other. I don't make a lot of money so this is a true investment and I want to be happy. Thanks for the help.


P.S. How do I go about getting a SSS patch???

[Harve Curry]

KW,
Depends on what your going to be doing with it. The infantry is certainly seen less. If you ever intend to be horse back or do a cavalry impression then go with the carbine. As for ballistics/ shooting the 56-50, the 20" carbine barrel is efficient for the size cartridge.
What was the "certain book" ?

[Caleb Hobbs]

Which one would depend upon how serious you are about a persona, as certain units during the Civil War had one or another. Regarding the Armi Sport, I have both. I like the rifle because I've shot Kentucky rifles for thirty-plus years and couldn't get used to the the stubby feel of the carbine. I also feel that, for me, the rifle has a better balance, especially when levering a fresh round. The carbine is too light, and, when done naturally, the butt wants to come down until the firearm is nearly vertical. Practice may change that. Two down sides of the rifle: it's harder to find used, and more expensive as a rule. The second downside of the rifle is the carbine bar and ring on the left side. Period incorrect, although I understand there may have been some modifications after the War. Personally, I prefer the rifle hands down.

Hope this helps. No matter which one you get, it will be a blast to shoot.

[Deadeye Don]

Since you are being wise in your choice of 56-50, get which ever one you think you would like the best.  I think you will see alot more carbines than rifles on the shooting line and elsewhere.  You cant go wrong with either one in 56-50.

[kurt250]

have both and i just seem to shot the rifle more  then the carbine.can't really say why just do. there both great. the 56/50 cal is the only way to go.kurt250

[Arizona Trooper]

It does depend on what persona you will portray. Rifles first appeared in early 1863 and were wide spread by that summer. Carbines didn't appear until early fall of "63, which means that there are a lot of battles where a rifle would be appropriate, but a carbine wouldn't.

As for carrying on horseback, I actually prefer the rifles carried on a standard rifle sling. The carbine barrel has to go under your right leg, and will beat on you if it comes loose while cantering or posting. NEVER use a carbine socket! The barrel can hang up when (not if) you fall off. The only times I have dismounted other than on purpose I was carrying a Sharps or Spencer rifle and all went well.

Virtually all rifles were at some point carried on horseback (except many of the 2000 Mass. rifles), so it would be 100% correct to do so, even in a late war impression (depending on your unit of course).

Enjoy your new Spencer, whichever you choose.

[DJ]

If you have a chance, try holding/aiming both of them (one at a time, of course) and working the action.  I have found the balance of the rifle much better than the carbine, especially when loaded.  The balance point of the rifle is right at the point where I grip it with the supporting hand, so it tends to stay level when I work the lever.  The carbine is butt-heavy and when I work the lever it tends to pull down off of my shoulder.  So if you plan on shooting for speed, you might want to consider that aspect.

[C.M.Roy]

Hello all. Thanks for the advice. I do sort of consider long rifles to fit me more, but I have never held a Spencer. Unfortunately I don't have the chance to hold one before I buy one (Unless there are some cowpokes around Missoula, Mt. that wouldn't mind letting a green horn hold their Spencers  ). Does the rifle give any ballistic advantage over the carbine? Oh BTY that certain book I was talking about Harve Curry was Harold Keith's "Rifles for Watie" I read that book when I was in the single digit years and was hooked on the Spencer ever since.

[Harve Curry]

KW,
Isn't Mike Venturino close to you? I'll bet a dollar he'd have one stuffed away somewhere and let you handle it.
I'll have to lok up that book.
BIll W

[Fox Creek Kid]

The only thing that is a deal killer for me on the rifle is that it didn't exist as Armisport makes it. The rifles had no carbine sling then. There were some experimental TWO BAND rifles made from carbine receivers but they were not issued I believe. The only reason Armisport did not make a correct rifle, according to Tammy at Taylor's, was that supposedly their wood supplier had a stockpile of carbine buttstocks.

[Drydock]

Remember too that carbines outnumbered the rifle something on the order of 10 to one.  And there are few if any documented rifles west of the Mississippi.  If you want to do a civilian impression, or a postwar impression, its the carbine you need.  Rifles went to specific military units, including the Navy. 

Though, to be truthful, what you want is what you really want.  Really.  Get the one that floats yer boat best, regardless of history or unit, else you will always find yourself wondering about it.

[C.M.Roy]

I'm not sure if Mr. Venturino lives close to Missoula? How would one go by contacting him? I think for what I was thinking about doing the carbine might be my ticket. Have some friends that do the Civil War reenactment scene so it would kill two birds with one stone.  I already have a Marlin 1895 Cowboy, having a carbine might be nice. Although I was curious if one loses much velocity in the shorter barrel? I have scene velocities of 1100-1200, are those out of the carbine or rifle? Not that the 56-50 is a fps breaker, was just curious. Thanks again everyone for helping out this pilgrim .

[Two Flints]

KW,

There are a great bunch of Spencer owners on this forum.  Just see how many responded to your original post as a "guest". 

Sure would be nice to have you join us...no obligation on your part...just have an interest in Spencers, shooting them and their history, which you already seem to have.

Two Flints

[Drydock]

The .56-50 gains nothing of significance in ballistics in the rifle vs. the carbine.  The rifle gets you better sight radius, and the ability to mount a bayonet.  Significant for an infantryman, not so much for us.  The numbers you have been seeing are indeed carbine numbers.  The rifle has been essentialy identical, sometimes even losing a few FPS to the carbine as the burn pressure drops off before the bullet clears the barrel in many loadings.

[major]

KW
Since you have stated that you want to use you Spencer for reenacting also.  I suggest that you look at the Armisport in 44-40.  I know that 44-40 was not the original caliber but neither was the 56-50 (.50 Caliber).  Originally the Spencer came out in 56-56 (.52 Caliber).  If you get one in 44-40 it would be a little cheaper to use for live firing and would also give you a economical way to go Civil War reenacting.  I suggest you read my article on Reenacting with a Spencer.  Just click on the link provided.
http://www.9thnycavalry.webeditor.com/spencer_article.html
Terry

[Deadeye Don]

KW
Since you have stated that you want to use you Spencer for reenacting also.  I suggest that you look at the Armisport in 44-40.  I know that 44-40 was not the original caliber but neither was the 56-50 (.50 Caliber).  Originally the Spencer came out in 56-56 (.52 Caliber).  If you get one in 44-40 it would be a little cheaper to use for live firing and would also give you a economical way to go Civil War reenacting.  I suggest you read my article on Reenacting with a Spencer.  Just click on the link provided.
http://www.9thnycavalry.webeditor.com/spencer_article.html
Terry

Well, I dont wish to start an arguement here, but the Spencer was made in  56-50.  I agree the 56-56 was the first caliber made.  However, the 44-40 was NEVER a Spencer caliber until now as made by Armi Sport. 

[major]

Don
I never meant to say that 44-40 was an original caliber.  Sorry for the confusion.  I was only commenting on the fact that as far as I can recall all the war time Spencers were 56-56 (.52 Caliber).  I could be wrong but I don't think that the .50 caliber Spencers were made until after the war or at least very very late in the war.
Terry

[Drydock]

The .56-50 was developed at Frankford arsenal in 1864, and was adopted as an improved chambering for the M1865 Spencer.  These were in production at wars end, though few made it into the conflict.   However, it was adopted as the Milspec carbine round postwar, and was the principle round used against the Plains indians 1865-1875. 

[Harve Curry]

And the 56-50 is a .520" caliber bullet and groove diameter.

[C.M.Roy]

Major,  I read and bookmarked your article before I found this forum ! Didn't know a member of SSS wrote it. I was thinking of the 44-40 because of that very problem of finding blanks for the 56-50, but I am settled on that caliber. Sort of "Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" attitude. Figured always wanted one might as well go all the way. If you have any information on blanks for the 56-50 that would work in the reenactments I would love to hear about them. Also on a side note not related to the Spencer, would an 1851 colt in .36 be an appropriate side arm for a CW soldier issued a Spencer carbine? Thanks for the help.