|
|
Post by Burnston on Feb 12, 2018 9:20:32 GMT -5
I have a few pistols set aside waiting for the right trade on either a Ruger M77 .44 or a Marlin 1894 JM of the same caliber. In the interim, I'd like a little information on the rifle I do not know enough about. It's been suggested that I seek out the JM stamp on the 1894 due to some of Remington's manufacturing problems. To that end I've browsed multiple online sources and find that there are at least two rifle types that catch my interest. One has a more streamline foregrip which seems to align more elegantly with the receiver as exhibited in picture A (courtesy of Armslist- used by permission) while the one exhibited in picture B (also used by permission) sports a more husky foregrip. As I have more interest in the former over the latter, I wonder if there is a more specific search I should be conducting, as the thicker foregrips seem to pop up as often as the slimmer, more streamline foregrips. Any explanation as to the difference in these two models would be helpful, along with any other helpful tips for a novice Marlin prospective owner.  Picture A  Picture B |
|
Otony
.327 Meteor
Posts: 722
|
Post by Otony on Feb 12, 2018 9:24:56 GMT -5
Not too difficult to slim down those thicker forends to the slimmer lines you prefer. I did so on my 1895 Marlin .45-70 and it came out just fine.
Alternatively, there are aftermarkets stocks available that have slim forends.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullseye on Feb 12, 2018 10:19:21 GMT -5
I've slimmed down the forend on a few of my Marlins as well, but this was 20-25 years ago & long before the current situation with the JM Marlins. They were plentiful and MUCH more reasonably priced in those days and the ones in my possession aren't going anywhere in my lifetime...If I were you I'd simply seek out one of the pre-safety guns with the slimmer forend & be happy with it. That being said, be prepared to pay a premium as prices have more than doubled since the Remington debauchery of Marlin has occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Burnston on Feb 12, 2018 10:28:00 GMT -5
If I were you I'd simply seek out one of the pre-safety guns with the slimmer forend & be happy with it. Is that the difference between the two? Pre-safety v. safety? |
|
|
|
Post by warhawk on Feb 12, 2018 11:50:06 GMT -5
All the Marlins I’ve ever seen have a bulky fore end when compared to a Winchester. The only exception to this I’ve seen is my 1969 Western Field (Marlin) 30-30.
In your pics above, Pic B looks like one of the hardwood stocked guns sold by retailers, Big 5 Sports was one that sold a hardwood stocked 1894.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullseye on Feb 12, 2018 11:55:07 GMT -5
Not necessarily, I've seen plenty of the older pre-safety guns with the pot belly forend...But in this case the one pictured on top appears to predate the lawyered up cross bolt safety model in the bottom picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Feb 12, 2018 21:09:44 GMT -5
dont overlook the 336 in 44mag, it’s a bit bigger receiver wise but can be found for fair prices. Unless you of course have your mind set on the little 1894, it is a great little gun, I really like mine, it is a very easy carrying and accurate gun.
But I have a fondness for leverguns.
Trapr
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiesouthgate on Feb 14, 2018 10:40:51 GMT -5
I got pictures of the stock on my 1894CB I would like to post but they are too big at 1.25 , 1.38 , and 1.36 MB . Anybody know how to get them sized smaller so they can be posted ?
Eddie
|
|
|
|
Post by warhawk on Feb 14, 2018 13:48:13 GMT -5
Open in Windows Paint, you can resize to a certain pixel size (I usually use 800x600 for forums) or you can resize by percentage, say 50% of original size.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiesouthgate on Feb 14, 2018 22:32:27 GMT -5
Open in Windows Paint, you can resize to a certain pixel size (I usually use 800x600 for forums) or you can resize by percentage, say 50% of original size. Thanks , I'll try that . Eddie Didn't work . Now it says " This forum has exceeded it's attachment space limit " . I give up ! |
|
|
|
Post by ohnomrbillk on Feb 19, 2018 8:43:08 GMT -5
In the original post, you mentioned the option of a Ruger 77 in 44. I’ve had a few. I’ve had Marlins as well.
The Ruger will limit your overall round length. Depending on manufacturing time, the rifling may be optimized for 240gr jacketed with stout loads. Others handle a wider range a bit better.
I commissioned a custom Ruger in this way with integral suppression. It awaits its tax stamp.
For most of what people enjoy about a pistol caliber carbine, I think the JM series Marlin offers more. Loyal following, aftermarket parts, gunsmiths willing to work, magazine capacity, and more flexibility with a long loaded round.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxtrapper on Feb 19, 2018 10:04:36 GMT -5
Just remember that the 1894 marlins sport a 1 in 38” barrel which stabilize bullets up to 275gr. If your planning to go go with heavy 44 look for a 1 in 20” . Henry is building them in all steel with the 1 in 20.
|
|
cmh
.401 Bobcat
Posts: 3,745
|
Post by cmh on Feb 19, 2018 10:14:31 GMT -5
Henry is not building a steel with 1:20.... Myself and another forum member have both been in contact with them and that is a typographical error.... still 1:38.
|
|
|
|
Post by Burnston on Feb 19, 2018 11:44:07 GMT -5
The Ruger will limit your overall round length. Depending on manufacturing time, the rifling may be optimized for 240gr jacketed with stout loads. Others handle a wider range a bit better. Thanks for the input. Might you specify on "overall round length?" |
|
|
|
Post by foxtrapper on Feb 19, 2018 11:55:47 GMT -5
Henry is not building a steel with 1:20.... Myself and another forum member have both been in contact with them and that is a typographical error.... still 1:38. Dang I stand corrected. |
|
