Marlin 1894 357

[kevshell]

Based on how well the new Ruger/Marlins have appeared I will likely buy one of these sight unseen. I've been wanting a 357 lever for a while. It'll be a versatile redneck rook rifle.


www.marlinfirearms.com/s/model_70410/

[hounddogman]

Been waiting for this. I love my older one, everyone that shots it enjoys it.

[Stump Buster]

I had a JM 1894 357 that I sent back to NH for a pistol grip conversion (when Marlin would do cool stuff like that). It turned out awesome, but in a crazy fit of "I'll be able to replace this someday", I let a friend talk me out of it. I really like the looks of this one! Maybe there's hope after all.

[Encore64]

Should be a great one...

[bisleyfan41]

This is just my opinion, so don't be offended. I'd much prefer:

- no push button safety
- trimmer wood
- no checkering
- 16" barrel instead of 18.5"
- closer to 1k

But I'm a realist and realize none of this will happen. I love the practicality and usefulness a 357 lever gun and wish Ruger the best with these. They'll sell every one they can make (even at prices over $1200 msrp), just not to me. I'll take a 92-pattern gun.

[kevshell]

Already contacted Turnbull about the safety delete. So we're on the same page for that one.

[jeffh]

Nov 24, 2023 11:25:41 GMT -5 bisleyfan41 said:

This is just my opinion, so don't be offended. I'd much prefer:

- no push button safety
- trimmer wood
- no checkering
- 16" barrel instead of 18.5"
- closer to 1k

But I'm a realist and realize none of this will happen. I love the practicality and usefulness a 357 lever gun and wish Ruger the best with these. They'll sell every one they can make (even at prices over $1200 msrp), just not to me. I'll take a 92-pattern gun.

The Marlin design is an awesome gun, no doubt, but I really like the lighter weight of the 92, even if it's a bit more complex inside.  I"m seeing Rossi's version for $700, otherwise, it meets your criteria.

[LeverGunner]

I like both the Marlin 1894 and the Winchester 92/clones. I don't really have a preference. I like the history of both, and the aesthetics of both. I'd love to find an older 1894 one day to compliment my Winchester 92 in 44 Magnum.

[45MAN]

EXCEPT FOR OLDER LEVER ACTIONS, DARN NEAR EVERY RIFLE AND SHOTGUN I HAVE EVER OWNED HAS/HAD A SAFETY, SO WHY DO SOME WANT TO REMOVE THE PUSH BUTTON SAFETY ON NEWER LEVER ACTIONS? DOES NOT MAKE THEM SAFER, MAKES THEM UNSAFER, SO IS THERE A PERFORMANCE ISSUE OR IS IT NOSTALGIA, OR WHAT?

[tj3006]

Cabella's sells the 94 44 mags for 1050.00. I would thik the .357 are about the same.
I might spring for either one. But I have Rossi 92,s in Those calibers now. So, I am thinking 45 Col.t can be far off.
...tj

[kevshell]

Nov 28, 2023 6:56:44 GMT -5 45MAN said:

EXCEPT FOR OLDER LEVER ACTIONS, DARN NEAR EVERY RIFLE AND SHOTGUN I HAVE EVER OWNED HAS/HAD A SAFETY, SO WHY DO SOME WANT TO REMOVE THE PUSH BUTTON SAFETY ON NEWER LEVER ACTIONS? DOES NOT MAKE THEM SAFER, MAKES THEM UNSAFER, SO IS THERE A PERFORMANCE ISSUE OR IS IT NOSTALGIA, OR WHAT?

On a personal level I think of lever guns as being old school, nostalgic, etc. I don't disagree with the idea of putting a safety on them as much as I do the Hillary hole in a Smith revolver. But that said, if I am going to carry one I want one that is as it was 100 years ago. Just personal preference.

[45MAN]

LIKE tj I AM HOPING A 45 COLT CAN'T BE TOO FAR BEHIND, AND MAYBE WITH A 1-16" TWIST LIKE THE NEW 357.

[bigbrowndog]

Nov 28, 2023 6:56:44 GMT -5 45MAN said:

EXCEPT FOR OLDER LEVER ACTIONS, DARN NEAR EVERY RIFLE AND SHOTGUN I HAVE EVER OWNED HAS/HAD A SAFETY, SO WHY DO SOME WANT TO REMOVE THE PUSH BUTTON SAFETY ON NEWER LEVER ACTIONS? DOES NOT MAKE THEM SAFER, MAKES THEM UNSAFER, SO IS THERE A PERFORMANCE ISSUE OR IS IT NOSTALGIA, OR WHAT?

Some manufacturers just do not take aesthetics into mind when placing a safety. The Huge divot in Winchester 94’s is simply something I do not care for, the later tang safety is at least less glaring. To me safetying up a gun or gun instructions when for decades it was unneeded is a sad state of our current society. 
But that is a thread drift, I do not care to go down.

Trapr

[LeverGunner]

I do not care for the safety. The guns were used safely for over 100 years without them.

The tang safety on new Winchesters isn't as much of a problem to me as the rebounding hammer.

A Marlin with the cross bolt safety isn't nearly much of an eyesore or an annoyance though because the gun retains the half cock notch and traditional operation of the hammer.

I prefer guns of traditional operation.

[bisleyfan41]

Nov 28, 2023 6:56:44 GMT -5 45MAN said:

EXCEPT FOR OLDER LEVER ACTIONS, DARN NEAR EVERY RIFLE AND SHOTGUN I HAVE EVER OWNED HAS/HAD A SAFETY, SO WHY DO SOME WANT TO REMOVE THE PUSH BUTTON SAFETY ON NEWER LEVER ACTIONS? DOES NOT MAKE THEM SAFER, MAKES THEM UNSAFER, SO IS THERE A PERFORMANCE ISSUE OR IS IT NOSTALGIA, OR WHAT?

All those you're thinking of had a safety as part of their original design. The lever action, with its exposed, user-accessible hammer, relied on the user to manipulate it to make the rifle safe or unsafe.

You can't do that with firearms whose firing pin or hammer is enclosed in its bolt or action. I carry my 94 with a loaded chamber, hammer down. See game or target, cock hammer and go. Game offers no shot, lower the hammer. Why add another step to the lever gun? Who walks around with their Marlin 94 cocked with the safety on? Redundant extra step.

Obviously you can't do that with a bolt action rifle, pump shotgun, autoloader, double barrel shotgun. So they have a safety. Makes sense.

Part of it is also the type and location of the safety. Tang safety on a Winchester is semi-tolerable as it's kinda out of the way, except for mounting a tang sight. A big countersunk hole in the side of the frame with a huge button is 100% idiotic and proof the mfgs don't know their target consumer.

Maybe a silly question, but what if Ruger put a crossbolt safety on the Blackhawk? Still buying one?