Brocock/BRK An actual..."carbine", NOT, a shoulder stocked pistol

Jump to latest Follow Reply
MikeVV

MikeVV

Member
Jan 10, 2019
4,000
3,169
SoCal, United States
From the "Truth about Guns" definition of "Carbine" -

"In modern usage it seems “carbine” is an acceptable way to refer to any rifle that we consider to be compact, whether or not it has a larger brother. Manufacturers have created and continue to create rifles that are new from the ground up — rifles based really on nothing that previously existed — and brand them as “carbines” right off the bat. It just means they think of it as compact and probably relatively light weight as well."

My version of a..."Carbine".

A shortened Brocock Sniper XR Sahara Performance, .22, with the 300cc air cylinder. A modified, two chamber Huma Mod30 mounted to the shortened shroud.
Yeah, I know that the color is a little off. That may get fixed with possible future modifications.

Overall length -
Original - 32.25"
Mine - 27.68"

Barrel length -
Original - 17"
Mine - 8"

The current shroud length shown in the picture includes a two chamber Huma Mod30, in the total shroud length.

1737051006239.jpeg


Yes, there was a small change in the pellet point of impact after the barrel shortening, but that was also after removing and replacing the barrel four or five times.
The current configuration, with the sight readjusted, is as consistent as it was before the changes.

Mike

Note - Underlines added, no wording changes to the definition paragraph.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Dairyboy, Chasdog, hitech and 7 others
That's cool to see, thanks for posting that up. I have an un-shortened XR sahara in .22 with a red dot that I love to shoot steel with. Very fast follow up shots, but it's just a little too heavy for off hand. I bet your set up is perfect though.

How many shots are you getting with the 300cc bottle. How did you shorten the barrel? FPE before and after?

It looks great BTW. Nice work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasdog and L.Leon
Upvote 0
"Historically, a firearm was called a “carbine” when it was a shorter version of an existing rifle. E.G. the Mosin Nagant examples pictured above.

In modern usage it seems “carbine” is an acceptable way to refer to any rifle that we consider to be compact, whether or not it has a larger brother. Manufacturers have created and continue to create rifles that are new from the ground up — rifles based really on nothing that previously existed — and brand them as “carbines” right off the bat. It just means they think of it as compact and probably relatively light weight as well."

He's wrong though. 4 out of 6 Civil War carbines aren't shortened rifles and were designed as carbines from the get-go
here:
only the first 2 have rifle variants.

The archetypal 20th century carbine, which is the M1 carbine, is also it's own novel carbine design that has nothing to do with the Garand.

A pistol is something that has a realistic range of 25m and an optimistic range of 50m; this is what the average shooter can do/hit and what a good shooter can do/hit, offhand. Likewise, a rifle has a realistic range of 200m and an optimistic range of 500m.
A carbine is something that sits in the middle, with a realistic range of 100m and and optimistic range of 200m. The MP5 is a carbine, in that respect.

The actual technical provenance and history and specs are irrelevant; functional use is the only thing that matters, at least to PB definitions. For air guns, anything goes, really, because obviously ranges are low even for rifles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSJ, MAUMAU, Vana2 and 2 others
Upvote 0
Phil.Probe said:
That's cool to see, thanks for posting that up. I have an un-shortened XR sahara in .22 with a red dot that I love to shoot steel with. Very fast follow up shots, but it's just a little too heavy for off hand. I bet your set up is perfect though.

How many shots are you getting with the 300cc bottle. How did you shorten the barrel? FPE before and after?

It looks great BTW. Nice work.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It turned out about the way I hoped it would.

Don't know, haven't done much testing before I started the change.
I'm not one who really cares about shot count. When the gauge gets low, time to fill. As long as there's no odd, hissing, or other noises, I'm going with...no leaks. Since I shoot at home, I don't need a bunch of gear for filling the cylinder.
Like I said, I just watch the gauge.



JDGriz said:
"Historically, a firearm was called a “carbine” when it was a shorter version of an existing rifle. E.G. the Mosin Nagant examples pictured above.

In modern usage it seems “carbine” is an acceptable way to refer to any rifle that we consider to be compact, whether or not it has a larger brother. Manufacturers have created and continue to create rifles that are new from the ground up — rifles based really on nothing that previously existed — and brand them as “carbines” right off the bat. It just means they think of it as compact and probably relatively light weight as well."

He's wrong though. 4 out of 6 Civil War carbines aren't shortened rifles and were designed as carbines from the get-go
here:
only the first 2 have rifle variants.

The archetypal 20th century carbine, which is the M1 carbine, is also it's own novel carbine design that has nothing to do with the Garand.

A pistol is something that has a realistic range of 25m and an optimistic range of 50m; this is what the average shooter can do/hit and what a good shooter can do/hit, offhand. Likewise, a rifle has a realistic range of 200m and an optimistic range of 500m.
A carbine is something that sits in the middle, with a realistic range of 100m and and optimistic range of 200m. The MP5 is a carbine, in that respect.

The actual technical provenance and history and specs are irrelevant; functional use is the only thing that matters, at least to PB definitions. For air guns, anything goes, really, because obviously ranges are low even for rifles.
Click to expand...

Change the words all you like. The sky is still blue, and a pistol with a shoulder stock is still a pistol...with a shoulder stock.
Doesn't matter if it's a fire arm or a pellet gun, it's still...pushing a projectile out the end of a piece of tubing.

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: ba49, Vana2, Phil.Probe and 1 other person
Upvote 0
Sooo…
If I were to take that thing and cut the stock off right behind the action, can I call it a stockless carbine? Or is it a pistol? Hmm, if a pistol, and then I glue the stock back on there…

I’m just messing with you MikeVV, it is a VERY cool little carbine and you are surely correct in your assertions as far as the related terminology goes. I was going to ask why it bothered you so much when people misuse that particular wording, but then I remembered that weird tick I get on the side of my face when I see “their”, “there”, or “they’re” used incorrectly.

Full disclosure: That tick I mentioned threatens to turn into full on convulsions if I begin to contemplate just how many times I’ve likely made similar mistakes. So there’s that.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: JungleShooter and L.Leon
Upvote 0
Interesting to look at the carbines but I don't understand the reasoning/advantage of them. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

I can see that a shorter rifle might be better when carrying it in a scabard (is that the right term?) on horse or quad and the reduced performance and stability is justified.

I've tried carbines, compacts, stocked pistols and pistols. I find that I shoot much better with full length rifles.

Just wondering what the attraction is.

Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasdog
Upvote 0
Vana2 said:
Interesting to look at the carbines but I don't understand the reasoning/advantage of them. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

I can see that a shorter rifle might be better when carrying it in a scabard (is that the right term?) on horse or quad and the reduced performance and stability is justified.

I've tried carbines, compacts, stocked pistols and pistols. I find that I shoot much better with full length rifles.

Just wondering what the attraction is.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
I think almost everyone will shoot better with an ergonomically correct proper fitting gun. Whether guys care to admit it or not. But not everyone needs a full sizer to fit their needs. So why lug around the added length. We can make ourselves adapt to things and do just fine. I hunt some of my stands with a 23” long compound bow. Meanwhile the masses in the archery world think a 30” axle to axle bow is still too short. But they are not wrong. Things that fit right, balance or lay in the bags better will shoot better. But not everyone needs it. I guess we are minimalist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coastal drifter, Vana2, Frozenspyder and 1 other person
Upvote 0
Vetmx said:
I think almost everyone will shoot better with an ergonomically correct proper fitting gun. Whether guys care to admit it or not. But not everyone needs a full sizer to fit their needs. So why lug around the added length. We can make ourselves adapt to things and do just fine. I hunt some of my stands with a 23” long compound bow. Meanwhile the masses in the archery world think a 30” axle to axle bow is still too short. But they are not wrong. Things that fit right, balance or lay in the bags better will shoot better. But not everyone needs it. I guess we are minimalist.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation!

Guess that I used to bow hunt with a 6 foot long wood selfbow I made speaks volumes as to why I don't see a problem with a 40 to 48 inch airgun. 😁

Each to their own preferences eh!

Cheers!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu