Why was the carbine unpopular?

[Galloway]

Sounds like winchester didnt sell many original 86 carbines which is odd considering they sold so many 73's in that configuration. Im hoping to hear some reasons as to why that might have been? Thanks

[Roosterman]

Recoil is an issue for me. I want a full sized rifle for the big cartridges.

[Trailrider]

I suspect that prospective buyers were concerned that the shorter barrel, with the more powerful cartridges would "not shoot as hard" (losing velocity due to the burning characteristics of black powder). Recoil might also be a factor with the lower weight, but I doubt that was the main reason, unless a shooter had an opportunity to try both rifle and carbine. The fact that some prospective buyers might have served in the cavalry, giving them experience with the M1873 Carbine in .45-70, especially if their company commander had requested they be issued .45-70-405 ammo rather than the .45-55-405 carbine cartridge.

[Buckaroo Lou]

I once owned an original carbine in what I would consider 85%. It was in 45-70 caliber. It was back when I wasn't able to tie up money in a relatively expensive firearm so I had to sell it. I have wished a thousand times I still had that rifle. I personally never found the carbine unplesant to shoot, but I shot 300 and 325 gr. GC bullets over about 28 gr. of IMR4198. Never had any need for the hot loads.

Acording to the Blue Book the carbines are worth a little more than twice what a standard rifle would be in the same condition.

[Galloway]

It looks like the carbine to rifle ratio was around one to twenty six for the 1886. It was one to one for the 73 and one to six for the 76. For whatever reason the carbine was strangely unpopular in that model. I didnt even bother to look at the 92 or 94 ratios 

[1961MJS]

Hi, I've shot a full sized 86, and it's a JOY to shoot.  8 in the tube and one in the chamber, its a bit heavy on the front end, which helps a LOT.
Later

[Coffinmaker]

  HERE IT IS - DEFINITIVE


BECAUSE!!

[Niederlander]

I'd guess a lot of it had to do with the '86 carbine still being a big, heavy piece.  You don't see a lot of '76 carbines, either, and I suspect for the same reason.

Of course, my opinion is worth exactly how much you paid for it..............

[Trailrider]

Hi, I've shot a full sized 86, and it's a JOY to shoot.  8 in the tube and one in the chamber, its a bit heavy on the front end, which helps a LOT.
Later

I suspect the smaller magazine capacity might also have been a factor with the '86 carbine. Folks used to having the "firepower" of the '73, when that might have been a concern before the effective end of the Indian Wars, might have been put off by having "only" 8 rounds in the magazine. It would also depend on what a prospective buyer figured to be going after, like moose, elk or griz, especially if the shooter wasn't confident of putting game down with "only" a few shots. I've owned several '86's where the barrels and magazines had been shortened so the mag only held four or five rounds, and never felt undergunned, especially with one chambered for .33 WCF, with a 3/4 magazine. BTW, the .33 WCF was smokeless only, with jacketed flat softpoint bullets. That cartridge was introduced in the '86 in 1903, lasting until the M71, a modified '86 was introduced in .348 WCF. The 33 was a great cartridge and I took down several wild boar down to Tennessee back in '63. IMHO, when Miroko started making '86's, they should have taken the .33 and "blown" the shoulder to improved, and kept the .338" bullet (if Hornady had kept the FSP in production) for better sectional density.