Sorta on topic - Cowboy assault rifle?

On 2/20/2013 5:05 AM, Gunner wrote:


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marlin-FIRE-SIGHT-Fiber-Optic-Peep-Sight-SET-/111013972052
Hey there, that has possibilities!
Looks like the front blade is high enough to sight in the the faster rounds.
And I do love a good peep show!

Pistol rounds?
Gunner, wake up and slap yourself! Yer babbling!

Good tip, thanks. But like I said, I don't intend to reload myself. Or even shoot reloads, unless they are from someone I trust. The Marlin Micro-Groove (tm) rifling is reportedly not too happy with soft lead bullets. Increasing the diameter is supposed to help with that, but to my mind, I'd rather not take the chance.
Originally I had thought of maybe a 45-70. But they cost way too much for just plinking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are aware that the 73 was in 44-40...the same caliber as the pistols that the cowboy carried...right? Know why they would carry a single cartridge for two different firearms?
Because they were smart. Chuckle.

The 1894 Marlins (most) are rifled with Ballard rifling..not Microgroove since 2007 or a little before.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/fryxell/microgrove-barrels.htm
As of fall of 2007, Marlin still makes a number of guns that have Microgroove barrels on them (according to the 2007 Marlin catalog posted on their website; http://www.marlinfirearms.com /). All of their .22 LR and .22 Magnum rifles still have Microgroove barrels. The 336s in .30-30 and .35 Remington are still made with Microgroove barrels, however the stainless 336XLR in .30-30 and .35 Remington have Ballard rifled barrels. All of the big-bore Marlin leverguns (e.g. 444, 1895, etc.) are now fitted with Ballard rifled barrels (both blued and stainless guns), as are the 1894 and 1895 Cowboy models. Interestingly, in the 1894 series, the.44 Magnum and .357 Magnum guns are Ballard rifled, but the .32-20 1894CL and .41 Magnum 1894 FG are both fitted with Microgroove barrels. "
IE..all the guns that would normally be fired with lead bullets bigger than 22lr...are now Ballard rifled. A Marlin Microgroove barrel starts leading at about 1600 fps. Some a litle more..some a little less...shrug..with normal cast bullets prepared "normally". Yet with jacketed bullets...well..I have a 3006 carbine I made out of a 98 action with a Marlin Microgroove .30 barrel that can shoot at 3000 fps all day long and very accurately. Normally grooved barrels.... I start worrying about leading at about 2200 fps with wheelweight bullets.
Hence Marlin going to Ballard rifling in the arms chambered for big lead bullet cartridges...IE...444 Marlin, 45-70, 44 Mag, 357 Mag, 45 Long Colt, etc etc
All of my Marlins are pre 2007..all have Microgroove barrels and I do have to take additional steps to shoot cast bullets in them, so they dont lead the bores.
Just trying to edumacate you a bit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I've got a Marlin 1895 in .450 Marlin, same action. Shoots well, although I named it "Thumper" due to the light weight and hefty recoil. But I helped a cousin with a 336 with possibly the worst trigger pull I've ever seen. I could watch the hammer camming back as I slowly squeezed the trigger due to the pronounced hook and depth of engagement in the sear notch. I fixed it by drilling below the notch for a steel pin, then epoxying it in place. Filed it back until he liked the pull and it tested safe (couldn't knock it out of engagement).
So check the trigger pull, might be fine, maybe not.
Pete Keillor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:46:52 -0600, Pete Keillor

When was it made? Remington took over making the Marlins in 2010..and its been an utter clusterfuck of bad manufacturing and piss poor repair since then. Id not..not..not buy a Marlin made after 2009.
Ive heard that they have finally cleaned up their manufacturing..but it damned near put the Marlin line out of business for several years.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/chris-dumm/marlintfg-lever-action-quality-circling-the-drain/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/06/chris-dumm/are-marlinremington-the-new-1970s-harley-davidson/
http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-93543.html
http://www.glockpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t 564
"A good rule of thumb is to look for the JM stamp on the left side of the barrel close to the receiver, a barrel address of North Haven, Conn, and a serial number that starts with 91, 92, 93, etc. Marlin would serial number their guns where the first two digits can be subtracted from 2100 to give you the year of production. There have been some reported issues with the "91" guns, 2009 production, although it seems few and far between from what I've read. The North Haven plant was still running in 2009, but Remington was in control at this point. This was the last year for genuine North Haven Marlins built by the old crew.
A Remlin will have REP stamped on the right side of the barrel, will feature an Ilion, New York address on the barrel, and will have a serial number beginning with MR. The Marlin board was getting so many complaints about poor quality guns after the plant was shut down and moved they had to open up a new rant forum.
There are pre-Remlin SBLs to be had, but you have to do some searching and have a little patience. A good bet would be to post a WTB ad on the Marlin Owners board or check out the classified very regularly. Sellers on the big auction boards are usually pretty good to mention if their gun is a "real JM" gun. It seems like the prices are going up on them. While you have excellent tastes in lever guns, there ain't no way I'd pay my hard earned money for a Remlin. Period. I know folks have gotten good Remlins, but I wouldn't gamble with the possibility of getting a typical piece of junk. "
http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/marlin-rant-forum/
There are tons of pre Remlin Marlins out there as used guns. Check the pawn shops, local news boards, consignment sales and gun shows.
Id forgotten about the "new" Marlins having such bad quality. All of mine are pre 2000 guns. Shrug
They are..are getting better as you can see in the date range of the rants on the above link.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2013 7:03 AM, Gunner wrote:

Thanks, bud. Will check.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2013 5:46 AM, Pete Keillor wrote:

Thanks Pete. That's exactly on target.
And I had noted that both of these rifles have unsat triggers. Not like a lawn mower full of bailing wire, but not all that smooth either.
I'm fairly well spoiled by my little Bersa .380 squirt gun. It has the sweetest trigger of anything you've ever shot. Try one if you get a chance.
I don't feel up to doing smith work like that on my own. But I recently met a gunsmith who I thrust.
Thumper, huh? I'll bet it does!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard wrote:

I like my Marlin in 30/30, and the XLR in .35 Rem isn't bad either. I use mine for deer and similar sized game.
--
Steve W.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The XLR should have Ballard rifling in it. Shoot any lead bullets? The cartridge does shoot 357 Mag bullets nicely btw if you handload
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote:

Yep it's had some lead through it. Both "factory" made cast and a bunch of home cast ones. Usually 200 or 220 grain depending on which mold I use. I've shot lead through the 30-30 as well. No problem with the microgroove IF you cast slightly over sized and use a gas check.
--
Steve W.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And keep rifling in Microgroove down to about 1600 fps. No gas checks needed at those velocities btw. I shoot so few gas checks Ive got probably 15,000 on the shelves. Only use em in the .30 caliber stuff or anything over 1900 fps, but I tend to cast hard.
The XLR has Ballard rifling, which is far mo better for lead rounds than Microgroove is , when going over 1600 fps.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There was a documentary on Winchester that mentioned that 94s before a certain year are more desirable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2013 2:02 PM, Bob La Londe wrote:

1964 was the first big change. Some of the internals that were forged before were changed to stamped sheet metal (so we are on topic). Some solid pins were changed to roll pins. All in order to reduce manufacturing costs.
All this went over like a lead balloon. Customers were offended - even though it really made no difference in operation or accuracy.
The next big change was in the early '90s when Winchester redesigned the action to allow the brass to be ejected to the side rather than straight up. This was to allow the installation of a scope.
(Marlins have always ejected to the side (oh, and Marlin predates the Winchester 94 by one year))
At the same time, a cross-bolt safety was added - which again upset a lot of customers. While it adds a safety feature, the hammer still releases when the trigger is pulled, but the gun doesn't fire. Wasted shots were the big complaint. BTW, this is often referred to as the "Lawyer's Safety".
In 2003 they moved the safety to a tang on the aft end of the receiver. (Dunno if that locked the trigger, or just blocked the hammer)
Production at Winchester ended in 2006 and moved to Japan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One correction, Angle eject was done in the early '80s. The crossbolt safety was in the '90s.
Paul K. Dickman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2013 8:19 PM, Paul K. Dickman wrote:

(nod) thank you, Paul.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Age on either is the thing. Post-'64, the Win 94 was made with a cast receiver that can't be repolished and reblued like regular gun steels can. Some of the USRA ones, at least, were made with regular gun steels. Post-2009, the Marlin factory was shut down and cleaned out, bought out by Remington and quality since has been iffy. So there are no real Marlins anymore, just like there's no real Winchesters. They're both just brand names put on replicas made by someone else. Anything with the flying W on it has a premium, particularly pre-'64 models. The hunting-grade .30-30 Marlins have tended to have much lower asking prices, mostly because the general public doesn't know that they're gone(and not returning). There are also house-branded Marlins and the Glenfield line that are real Marlins, just have cheaper wood and no bullseye in the butt. Can usually be had really cheap. Current Win 94s are made by Miroku and really aren't intended for the likes of us. Nice guns, but you really don't stick a $2000 lever gun in a pickup gun rack and rattle it all over the place. They're for sale to the carriage trade that might want an Old West gun to fondle.
The Marlin action is far simpler than a 94, I've stripped one in about 5 minutes with a set of screwdrivers. It's easy to slick up, if needed. Have never had a yen for a Winchester 94. Peeps can be put on either.
If you want a smaller and handier long gun, Marlin's 1894 is out there, originally in the "dash" pistol calibers prior to WWI, now made in .357 and .44 with some.45 Colts and some other short runs. Those have been increasing in price since the shutdown, too. The .44 has gotten deer every year I've used it. Good to maybe 125 yards if you know how the bullet drops.
Stan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2013 4:34 PM, Stanley Schaefer wrote:

Thank yo much for that, Stan.
That makes the "new in the box" choice a lot less appetizing, doesn't it.
Problem is, the big box stores don't know squat about what they sell.
Glad I asked!
Richard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a couple of each.
The Winchester is lighter and handier, and seems to balance just right at the receiver. I don't care for the way half the guts comes out of the bottom when you work the lever, but it's been that way for a century or so.
The Marlin is no doubt sturdier. the receiver fills like a solid hunk of steel. Of course it's also heavier and thicker.
I think if I were going to carry it all day I'd want the Winny. If it were rough country I'd probably take the Marlin. Both of mine seem to group about the same at normal hunting distances.
I'd also point out that .32 Win was a very popular chambering for the 94 for a lot of years. A little more power and reach for the same money, but it's a bit of an orphan these days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.