Has anyone actually shot a deer with a Ranchhand?
- Thread starter tokguy
- Start date
In my opinion if you fit a "proper rear stock" to a ranchhand you have made yourself a short barrelled carbine that is no longer a "mare's leg". In effect it is not really a "ranchhand" anymore.
I have been practicing and learning to shoot myn the way it was designed and built and I hope to shoot a deer with, a true mare's leg, soon. It has to be treated and used differently than a rifle, carbine or traditional handgun.
I have been practicing and learning to shoot myn the way it was designed and built and I hope to shoot a deer with, a true mare's leg, soon. It has to be treated and used differently than a rifle, carbine or traditional handgun.
If fitting with a "proper" rear stock, would it not have been better to just purchase a shorter barrel carbine (16" or 20")? Seems to me that that there would be better accuracy for longer shots with a longer barrel and lower overall cost in the first place if having to retro fit with a stock. I tried one out and for the reason of the absence of the rear stock, could not shoot the thing with any real degree of accuracy.
Best of luck with tagging your deer though, regardless of what you decide to use.
Best of luck with tagging your deer though, regardless of what you decide to use.
Then why buy a mares leg in the first place?
It handles really nice with the short bbl and a rear stock.
But as far as the deer, that'd be a 'no' on this forum correct?
I can chew up a 10' X 12' plate at 70 yds ( just my actual range distance, not planned...just worked out that way) but the sights need tweaking to lower the POI.
But as far as the deer, that'd be a 'no' on this forum correct?
I can chew up a 10' X 12' plate at 70 yds ( just my actual range distance, not planned...just worked out that way) but the sights need tweaking to lower the POI.
Ditch that abomination of a rear butt-stock and either re-work or replace that goofy lever and you have yourself a non-restricted ramblin' rifle less than 30" long at well under five pounds.
I am currently re-shaping my factory lever and will be sending it for Cerakote in the new year. Stock ranch hands are a sideshow,but thank goodness we have them to build off of.
Sure... But the "spirit" of the thread is to ask if anyone has shot a deer with a mares leg... Not modified rifle to suit closed quarter purposes etc....
I have altered brush rifles as well. But would like to hear if a deer harvest has actually happened with this rifle straight out of the box...
I have altered brush rifles as well. But would like to hear if a deer harvest has actually happened with this rifle straight out of the box...
dennisdendiuk
Member
- Location
- Southern Ontario
I have a ranch hand but it I am one of the ones that have #### sights. I will get them replaced. Until then I won't even try and take a animal. But from what I've read the bigger slower moving bullet would not destroy to much meat.
The OP specified no such thing. In fact he has every intention of adding a full stock to his Ranch hand.
You could always start your own thread titled something like this... would like to hear if a deer harvest has actually happened with a Rossi Ranch Hand straight out of the box...
Actually I never differentiated as to either back stock; merely had anyone put an animal on the ground.
The ergonomics of the original back stock suck for accurate shooting.
I'm thinking of carefully grinding out a silver coin to fit over (and silver solder onto) the front sight; I've seen old revolvers done this way for competition in days gone by. Should lower the POI and be less likely to snag on things.
The ergonomics of the original back stock suck for accurate shooting.
I'm thinking of carefully grinding out a silver coin to fit over (and silver solder onto) the front sight; I've seen old revolvers done this way for competition in days gone by. Should lower the POI and be less likely to snag on things.
[youtube]pWdd6_ZxX8c[/youtube]
My rifle is a designated a Ranch Hand by the manufacturer,not a "Mares Leg". I think Henry or Chiappa got that angle covered.
Last edited:
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
I've not taken any deer yet with my .357 or .45 Colt Ranch Hands, but have
whacked some raccoons & grey squirrels with both. I'll give the .357 first go
on deer when it's cold enough around here...December sometime.
These little rifles are fine on small targets to around 100 yds. and are a ton of fun to shoot.
I'll keep my shots on deer inside 75yds.
whacked some raccoons & grey squirrels with both. I'll give the .357 first go
on deer when it's cold enough around here...December sometime.
These little rifles are fine on small targets to around 100 yds. and are a ton of fun to shoot.
I'll keep my shots on deer inside 75yds.
Shot a mule deer with a Win 92 in .357 with a 16" barrel. It was about a 40 yard shot. Dropped like a stone. Your shorter Ranch Hand won't necessarily have the same muzzle velocity but if you are close enough to hit it with a large caliber round the deer won't stand a chance. Even moving slow that big bullet will do its stuff.
I've no doubt the rifle has the potential to do the job if the sights can be improved and a full size butt stock installed.
Read Elmer Keith's book 'Sixguns' about what can be done with hot loaded 44 Spl rounds out of revolvers. 44 magnum has the oomph and the accuracy as a round. The Ranchhands shortfalls just need attending to first.
Read Elmer Keith's book 'Sixguns' about what can be done with hot loaded 44 Spl rounds out of revolvers. 44 magnum has the oomph and the accuracy as a round. The Ranchhands shortfalls just need attending to first.
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
The biggest shortfall with the Ranch Hand is that it is not readily adaptable for a receiver mounted scope.
If Mossberg made a short action 464 with a 12-14" tube on 'er, I'd be all over it like a fat broad in a chocolate
shop.
If Mossberg made a short action 464 with a 12-14" tube on 'er, I'd be all over it like a fat broad in a chocolate
shop.
