Thompson/Center SS rifles?

[RoperAB]

I've been thinking about buying a single-shot rifle for years. I like the look and feel of Browning's 1885 models, but I am somewhat intrigued by Thompson's SS rifle system......buy any barrel you want, etc. Don't know if I like the break action compared to the falling block, though.
Does anyone have one or know anything about them??? I'm thinking it would be really cool to switch from a 22-250 or 243 barrel for coyotes , to a 7mm or 300 mag or 30-06 or whatever for bigger critters, or even a shotgun barrel.

Over the years I have owned, extensively handloaded for and shot quite a few single shot cartridge rifles. Example Trapdoor Springdields, Martini Henrys, .577 Sniders, Rolling Blocks, High Walls, Shaps 74 and 75s, Ruger #1s, etc.
I love single shot rifles but I dont use them that much anymore.
#1 No single shot rifle unless its a single shot bolt action can shot as accurately as a bolt action. Single shots can be made to shoot extremely well. However your never going to get the accuaracy out of them that you could get with a bolt action. Even with a 15 pound bull barrel <which eliminates bedding, vibration concerns for the most part>they wont shoot as accurate because of the way the action pushes the cartridge into the chamber. They tend to push the cartridge into the chamber off center so with single shots you need to keep your chamber tolerences really close by custom barrel and chamber jobs and be handloading. Also indexing the round while handloading it and when chambering it is important for accuracy in a single shot rifle. Even with all that bolt actions are better.
#2 I cant walk very far anymore so when im carrying a rifle now a days its on horseback for the most part. I dont like carrying a gun horseback with one in the chamber. With a repeater it only takes a second to chamber a round.
As far as the Thompson Contender goes I have only used the pistol version in 7-30 waters. I wasnt crazy about the gun because under recoil that lever to break the chamber open would come back and nail your hand if you tried to shoot the gun properly with two hands<think Jeff Cooper>.
I have been out of the gun scene for a few years now but I never liked the Brownings that were made in Japan. I dont like idiot warnings stamped all over my gun. If I was going to get a High Wall<1885 Winchester> which is what the browning is patterned off of I would buy one from Montana Armory in Big Timber MT. There nice guns, way better than any Browning.
One thing I dont like about the 1885 models is that after you fire it you have to bring the hammer back to half cork before you open your action. If you dont do this, over time you will break your fireing pin.
The best single shot rifle that I know of by far is the Ruger #1. I have one of the first ones that were ever made. The wood is beautiful! Trigger is adjustible but with stoneing and crockus cloth I got it down to a 1/2 pound pull.
BTW A falling block design is better than a break open design. Try loading a break open design when you are shooting prone and its self explanitory.

 

[RoperAB]

I've never noticed a kick out of anything when hair is in the sites. Shooting at cans, they all kick too much. My worst kicking gun is a H&R 31/2 12ga in a single shot . If I remember it weighs 5.75lbs and will put a thump on you when you're shooting at a target but at turkeys it shoots as easy as a .22.

My old Buddy who was the Captain of Detectives had a double barrel 12 gauge that he cut down to about a 6" barrel and cut the stocks off at the pistol grips to make a pistol out of it-- Now that thing KICKED... Actually could say it was violent-- Either had to shoot it with one hand over the top of the barrel- or if you shot it one handed you had to put your other arm over your forehead to keep it from hitting you in the head and knocking you out...

But was that ever an alley cleaner :shock: :wink: :lol:

Haha Try shooting an 1895 Winchester in .405 some time :lol:
Or those new lightweight .444 Marlins maxed out with 265s.
Stock design is critical. Weight is a good thing as well :lol:

 

[RoperAB]

I have both in an A-Bolt. I have shot both on a bench more than I care to. I can't tell the diff in recoil between the two. As you can tell (well... maybe you can't :???: ) ...the recoil energy is not that far apart.

I have never shot either caliber in the Thompson.

I know what I know, and you "perceivably" know what you know.

I'll just leave it at that.

Update:
I just looked up the ballistics published on the Hornady websight. The 270 pushing a 140 gr had a muzzle velocity of 3100 and the 7MM Mag had a muzzle velocity of 3150 with a 139 grain. Every law of physics say the recoil will be virtually the same if shot in the same gun.

2 different guns is a different deal.

This information has me wondering, because there is a noticeable differnce in the size of the belted case of the 7 mag compared to the 270,also there is a differnce in muzzle blast,I tell them fools around here to let me know when they are going to light that thing off so I can have my ear plugs in,also you are going to pay more for cartridges for that 7 mag,and useing Mikes numbers,gettin darn little in return...............good luck

Haymaker, There is a such thing called powder efficiency in handloading rifle bullets. If it were as simple as just loading more powder in a rifle case and getting more velocity, everyone would be shooting a 50 Cal necked down to say 6mm or 22 cal.

Many times gun manufacturers make new calibers just to sell guns, whether they are efficient or not.

Take the 270 Win and the 7MM mag for instance. The case capacity of a 270 is 68 grains of water and the 7MM mag is 84 grains of water. The added dimensions of the 7mm case capacity does not make it push the bullet much faster than the 270 because a slower burning powder is needed in the 7mm for the powder to ignite properly and burn completely before the bullet exits the barrel.

Another good example is the .243 and the 6MM PPC. Although the PPC has nearly half the case/powder capacity of the .243, and shoots the same size bullet, it it almost as fast as the .243.

Yes, the 7MM Mag has a lot more powder than the 270 but mostly it is all bark and not much more bite.

P.O. Ackley wrote several books on just this subject.

Look at all the people who traded in their good old 30/06s when that 7mm Rem. mag came out. There really is dick all difference between them.
People get to wrapped up in balistic charts anyway.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I have both in an A-Bolt. I have shot both on a bench more than I care to. I can't tell the diff in recoil between the two. As you can tell (well... maybe you can't :???: ) ...the recoil energy is not that far apart.

I have never shot either caliber in the Thompson.

I know what I know, and you "perceivably" know what you know.

I'll just leave it at that.

Update:
I just looked up the ballistics published on the Hornady websight. The 270 pushing a 140 gr had a muzzle velocity of 3100 and the 7MM Mag had a muzzle velocity of 3150 with a 139 grain. Every law of physics say the recoil will be virtually the same if shot in the same gun.

2 different guns is a different deal.

This information has me wondering, because there is a noticeable differnce in the size of the belted case of the 7 mag compared to the 270,also there is a differnce in muzzle blast,I tell them fools around here to let me know when they are going to light that thing off so I can have my ear plugs in,also you are going to pay more for cartridges for that 7 mag,and useing Mikes numbers,gettin darn little in return...............good luck

Haymaker, There is a such thing called powder efficiency in handloading rifle bullets. If it were as simple as just loading more powder in a rifle case and getting more velocity, everyone would be shooting a 50 Cal necked down to say 6mm or 22 cal.

Many times gun manufacturers make new calibers just to sell guns, whether they are efficient or not.

Take the 270 Win and the 7MM mag for instance. The case capacity of a 270 is 68 grains of water and the 7MM mag is 84 grains of water. The added dimensions of the 7mm case capacity does not make it push the bullet much faster than the 270 because a slower burning powder is needed in the 7mm for the powder to ignite properly and burn completely before the bullet exits the barrel.

Another good example is the .243 and the 6MM PPC. Although the PPC has nearly half the case/powder capacity of the .243, and shoots the same size bullet, it it almost as fast as the .243.

Yes, the 7MM Mag has a lot more powder than the 270 but mostly it is all bark and not much more bite.

P.O. Ackley wrote several books on just this subject.

Mike yeah I know..........what's that ten dollar term you gun folks use "ballistic coeffiency "and I am glad the gun manufacturers make new models every year,regardless whever they shoot better or not..........tradin rifles is kinda like tradin women,kinda expensive,but lots of fun :wink: ....................good luck
PS Roper ab,I did'nt think you knew anything bout rifles,I always thought cattle rustlin was your game
well I gotta head ta town get some lunch,got cabin fever..........later.

 

[Mike]

Look at all the people who traded in their good old 30/06s when that 7mm Rem. mag came out. There really is dick all difference between them.
People get to wrapped up in balistic charts anyway.

Don't you think that the new "Short Magnums" are just a way to sell new guns also?

Though they are slightly more efficient and have slightly flatter trajectories, but the terminal ballistics are what is of utmost importance.



The new "Electronic Ignition" cartridges just didn't go over either.

 

[RoperAB]

Look at all the people who traded in their good old 30/06s when that 7mm Rem. mag came out. There really is dick all difference between them.
People get to wrapped up in balistic charts anyway.

Don't you think that the new "Short Magnums" are just a way to sell new guns also?

Though they are slightly more efficient and have slightly flatter trajectories, but the terminal ballistics are what is of utmost importance.



The new "Electronic Ignition" cartridges just didn't go over either.

Well here is the deal. Yes I think its just a marketing gimic and I think its silly to get one in a .308 length action.
However I think they have a porpose. Example in my old model Ruger #77 in .300 magnum I dont have enough room due to the 30/06 length action to seat heavy bullets properly. Right now im feeding it 130 grain Barnes X bullets because I dont have room for anything any bigger.
So as soon as I get the throat shot out of this rifle im going to rebarrel/chamber to probable a .300 short mag. Then I should them have room to seat 200 grain Barnes bullets properly. Yes I will have to throat it for the Barnes bullet.
But thats the problem with so many 30/06 length action guns that are out there and chambered for magnums. They just simple dont have enough room to seat big bullets unless you seat them to deep into the powder resvior and then accuracy goes to pieces. So to me the short magnums should just be the thing for rebarreling/ rechambering old 30/06 length actions.

 

[Mike]

My problem is usually just the opposite with custom chambered barrels.

Since I like to seat my bullets in the lands, I have to go to a larger bullet to get them to reach.

I don't like jumping bullets. I also like for the compression ring at the bullet base to be at least halfway down the neck.

 

[RoperAB]

My problem is usually just the opposite with custom chambered barrels.

Since I like to seat my bullets in the lands, I have to go to a larger bullet to get them to reach.

I don't like jumping bullets. I also like for the compression ring at the bullet base to be at least halfway down the neck.

When I get a new barrel chambered I always load a dummy round with the bullet that I plan to use seated to the depth I plan on useing and give it to the smith to throat the barrel perfectly to the bullet.
by the sounds of it your either useing magnum length receivers<think Weatherby> or your useing light for caliber bullets. In every gun I have ever used, heavy for the caliber example 200 g to 250 grain for 30 cal. or 300 grain for 338 cal. or say 500 grain for 45 cal. always works best for long range shooting. no exceptions unless your rifling twist is to much for long bullets. Example 1 in 8 is to fast for 30 cal. 1 in 10 will work okay but one in 12 is the best for really long bullets in 30 cal magnums.
I like Barnes x bullets. Dont forget that these are a solid bullet with no lead core so a 200 grain is physically the same size as the old 250 grain lead core bullets that Frank Barnes used to crank out on a hand press. A 200 grain Barnes is actually bigger that a regular 220 grain round nose. Dont ask me exactly how much because I have been out of serious shooting for several years now but if I remember right my 135 grain Barnes x bullet is actually bigger than the Speer 180 grain FN.
Those Barnes bullets are excellent target and big game bullets. Sierras 200 grain BT Game King isnt so great on game but its an excellent 30 cal target bullet.

 

[TimH]

Thanks Mike, Roper and everyone else (except you Haymaker :wink: ) for your comments and input.
The reason I am interested in the Thompson is mainly because I don't have a lot of extra cash to be spending on rifles. I need a good varmint rifle but I also like to hunt larger game, with my boys,from time to time. I just thought I could save a few bucks with the Thompson system.
I don't shoot competitively, never have, so pretty accurate is good enough for me... I don't need "super-accurate".
I'd be interested in hand loading, if I had the time and money. I don't. I don't shoot enough to make it worthwhile. I like to stick with common factory loads that I can buy off the shelf at any local store.(That doesn't mean that I am not interested in what you guys have to say about handloading....I am!)
I like the idea of a single shot for this reason..... if you miss that 1st "standing" shot, your chances of making the 2nd,3rd etc. "running" shot, are not good.......or maybe I should change that to "my chances".
At one time I was thinking about putting a scope on my 30-30(it's an angle eject) and using Remington "accelerator" rounds for coyotes. It just seems wrong somehow to scope a '94.
Maybe I'll save up my "allowance" and go for a Ruger #1 in 30-06. That might be a pretty good "all-around" rig.

 

[RoperAB]

Thanks Mike, Roper and everyone else (except you Haymaker :wink: ) for your comments and input.
The reason I am interested in the Thompson is mainly because I don't have a lot of extra cash to be spending on rifles. I need a good varmint rifle but I also like to hunt larger game, with my boys,from time to time. I just thought I could save a few bucks with the Thompson system.
I don't shoot competitively, never have, so pretty accurate is good enough for me... I don't need "super-accurate".
I'd be interested in hand loading, if I had the time and money. I don't. I don't shoot enough to make it worthwhile. I like to stick with common factory loads that I can buy off the shelf at any local store.(That doesn't mean that I am not interested in what you guys have to say about handloading....I am!)
I like the idea of a single shot for this reason..... if you miss that 1st "standing" shot, your chances of making the 2nd,3rd etc. "running" shot, are not good.......or maybe I should change that to "my chances".
At one time I was thinking about putting a scope on my 30-30(it's an angle eject) and using Remington "accelerator" rounds for coyotes. It just seems wrong somehow to scope a '94.
Maybe I'll save up my "allowance" and go for a Ruger #1 in 30-06. That might be a pretty good "all-around" rig.

The 30/30 1894 is what it is. I love the gun. I own some pre WW1 26" rifles and 20" carbines. I also have a WW2 flat band.
I have also had several in 32/40, 38/55 and 32 special.
Really for me they are just a fun gun to play with. Nothing more except maybe nostalgia. Example when I was a kid my first gun was a m94 30cal.
Really they are a 150 yard gun depending on chamber and throat. Some are better than others. Now grant you I have never used the 55g accelerater load.
If it was me I would not scope a 94. Just use it and enjoy it the way it is or mount either a tang or reciever peep sight.
About the dual porpose gun. Varmits are not worth skinning and stretching so pelt damage is not an issue.
There is an old saying "Beware of the man that shoots just ONE gun".
Man there is so much truth to that! The less you shoot the more important this is!
For the average guy that doesnt do a whole lot of shooting there is much to be said for just having one main rifle and maybe a 22 for plinking gophers.
I dont know what you hunt but im guessing you would be well off with a light wieght bolt action rifle chambered with the 308 Winchester. Ruger used to be a great gun for the buck. I would also mount a low profile,low power Leapold scope on it. DONT try to save a few bucks by buying anything less than a Leapold. If you cant afford a Leapold scope then mount a peep sight until you can afford a Leapold. BTW I used to shoot 1000 yard matches with black powder and peep sights so there is no reason why people cant hit a deer at 300 yards with peep sights.
Also a Harris bi pod is a wonderful thing and no gun should be without a sling.
Its to bad your not planning on handloading. Handloading does not have to be expensive to get into or complicated. Especially for something like a 308 winchester.
A Ruger #1 in 30/06 is a wonderful combination. I have one. However im pretty sure a #1 is going to cost you more than a lightwieght ruger bolt gun. Also the #1 is going to weigh over 9lbs if I remember right. I doubt your going to be shooting enough to benifit from the weight of the rifle or need the extra power of the 30/06. Plus chances are the lightweight bolt gun is going to shoot better out of the box than what the #1 will. Especially if your not handloading.
But on the other hand if you like a ruger #1 then by all means get one. Really you cant go wrong buying a gun that you like. I have hunted for years with old antique guns that really were not the best rig to be useing. I used them because I thought they were fun to use and I liked them.
BTW I routinely use my 300mag as a varmit gun <gophers included>because pelts are not worth anything and my 300 mag has way more range than any 22/250 has. Plus the varmit shooting makes me a better shot when it comes time for big game because i really know my gun.
Another thing to think about is that quality guns are never a bad investment. They hold their value but cheap junk is always going to be cheap junk that you will probable just end up replaceing.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hey Tim,those Ruger # 1's are sweet but heavy,I dont think I would wanna tote one all day in the mountains,they are custom made for us ole lazy Texas hunters that put it the pickup rack,drive to our deer blind,set it in the corner till we get the blind heater on and warming our feet,maybe pour a cup of coffe waiting for the sun to come up ..............good luck

 

[Northern Rancher]

Tim I might have to get you to do me a favour-a guy in your neck of the woods has a Model 600 Remington in .308 I'm going to try and talk him out of.I might get you to check it out. That little Model 788 -.243 carbine-I got Sara shoots great I think we shot 8 or 9 deer with it this fall-all one shot drops too. Sweet little rifle to pack in the bush-nice little 'yote roller too.

 

[Mike]

Tim I might have to get you to do me a favour-a guy in your neck of the woods has a Model 600 Remington in .308 I'm going to try and talk him out of.I might get you to check it out. That little Model 788 -.243 carbine-I got Sara shoots great I think we shot 8 or 9 deer with it this fall-all one shot drops too. Sweet little rifle to pack in the bush-nice little 'yote roller too.

Would be cruel to let a little girl shoot a .308 Model 600. :lol:

 

[Northern Rancher]

Mike,Mike ,Mike your getting ahead of yourself where did I ever mentio n a little girl in my post about the .308. She shoots that 788 .243 that you had all the good things to say about lol.

 

[Mike]

Mike,Mike ,Mike your getting ahead of yourself where did I ever mentio n a little girl in my post about the .308. She shoots that 788 .243 that you had all the good things to say about lol.

I didn't mean it that way. I was just thinking about the time I zeroed a scope for a fellow with this getup. I hated every shot. He wanted to shoot 180 grain bullets too.

Relax, I know you have more respect for your daughter. :lol:

 

[TimH]

Tim I might have to get you to do me a favour-a guy in your neck of the woods has a Model 600 Remington in .308 I'm going to try and talk him out of.I might get you to check it out. That little Model 788 -.243 carbine-I got Sara shoots great I think we shot 8 or 9 deer with it this fall-all one shot drops too. Sweet little rifle to pack in the bush-nice little 'yote roller too.

Be glad to, NR, as long as it's not too far away. Keep in mind I am no expert on guns, though.
One of my sons borrowed a .243 Browning BLR from my uncle to use this fall. NICE!!!!! Now I want one!!

 

[Northern Rancher]

Ty has that exact same rifle and it is a sweet little gun-alot of guys carry them in .308 for moose hunting too.

 

[RoperAB]

Ty has that exact same rifle and it is a sweet little gun-alot of guys carry them in .308 for moose hunting too.

Years ago the bullets in the magazine on those BLRs used to rattle. The triggers were terrible on them as well. Really you cant do much of a trigger job on a BLR because of the way the trigger detaches from the gun when you operate the lever.
That was years ago and I dont know what the new BLRs are like. Example the Belgium Bownings were better than the later Japan manufacture BLRs. Where are BLRs made now? Utah? I dont know what the quality is like on the new ones.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Ohh there's nothing like the fit and finish on a bolt gun but those BLR's are perfectly good hunting rifles-it is more accurate than I thought it would be-he can bust yotes with it at 300 yards. It all boils down to the man behind the gun-I've seen guys with a $30 .303 that could outshoot guys with a $1600 Weatherby. If you know your rifle well it will serve you well.

 

[RoperAB]

A poor shot is a poor shot regardless of equipement. A good shot is a good shot with poor equipement and a better shot with better equipement.
Lee Harvey Oswald used an Italian Carcano piece of crap better than what most could use a target rifle.
Shooting under pressure is 90% mental, 10% technique. I dont play gulf but I have heard both sports are similar.