Marlin's "Balllard deep groove rifling"?

[GOPHER SLAYER]

I have three Marlin lever guns. One is a carbine in 44MAG. It has the MG rifling and for years I shoot 'J' word bullets. The first time I tried cast it took me several hours to get the lead out. When I told Jon K about it he said I was shooting cast bullets that were too small and he gave me some that were a couple thousands larger. I loaded them with the same powder charge and after shooting all of them without cleaning there was not a sign of lead in the barrel.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

That's right, bsut in the early days I don't believe the machinery or lubricants were as good, and shallow rifling was easier to do.

[longbow]

I had a 1970's vintage 1895 Marlin with microgroove rifling and it shot cast boolits just fine. So does my 1894 Marlin as long as the boolits are "fat" at 0.433" or larger. Skinny boolits of 0.429"/0.430" need not apply!

Oh, and I shot lots of BP out of that 1895 as well with no problems and good accuracy.

Yeah, Marlin started using buttons to produce their microgroove rifling quite some time ago. Dragging a button through a tube to make shallow rifling is quick and easy and results in a pretty nice surface finish.

I also had an H&R Topper muzzleloader at one time I am embarrassed to say. It had what appeared to be microgroove rifling with 12 shallow grooves. However, it shot Minies quite accurately and was not a problem for fouling with real BP. In fact it shot way better than my first "real" muzzleloader which was an Spanish or Italian Remington Zouave replica ~ horrible gun and fouled badly probably due to rough rifling (tool marks).

My opinion ~ nothing wrong with microgroove rifling and cast boolits at all, just feed the gun what it wants for boolit diameter and it will perform. In fact, given the choice between microgroove rifling and what I have seen and been told about Marlin's "deep cut Ballard rifling", I'll take microgroove rifling.

Longbow

[MBTcustom]

Deep cut rifling is a myth, and the idea that it shoots lead better than "shallow" cut rifling is a bigger myth, and the idea that microgroove rifling doesn't shoot cast well is an even bigger myth.
Seems people will believe anything if it's written by a manufacturer or a gun rag, and if it isnt written there, they will voluntarily fill in the blanks with bad information just to fill out the rest of the picture.

Rifling is a very set thing, and has been held to standards since the turn of the last century and before. 30 caliber rifles have a .300 bore and a .308 groove. I could write pages about how jacked up the barrels I have seen are, but one thing I will say is that the bore and groove is always very closely held.
There is no such thing as "deep" rifling or "shallow" rifling unless you are talking about custom muzzle loader barrels. The rest of the time, its a very closely held spec.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to say that I dearly love the big bore Marlins, even the new ones. The rifles made just after Remington moved Marlin to New York were a disaster. They have been getting much better of late, but they still benefit from a little TLC which I do very well (several forum members can attest to that fact).
The accuracy of these rifles, I find to be a little inflated. I've heard all kinds of stories about Marlin 1895s that will print subMOA at 100 yards. This is always based on three shot groups and is misleading in my opinion. What you can pretty much hang your hat on is approximately 2 1/2" groups for ten shots once you find the load it likes. You can make the thing run like greased lightning if you install a Wolff spring kit and know where to push your stones. The rifles are very safe to shoot, and in the event of a catastrophic failure, I'd rather be holding a Marlin than any other lever gun. The only real problem is that they can't take a bullet that sticks out very far. Use cast bullets designed for the gun, and seat them to the correct OAL. The most common malfunction with these rifles is the age old Marlin jam, but thanks to modern materials, this is a very rare occurrence (still, if you ever get a jam, send me a PM and I'll take care of it for you).

The 1895 is a rifle for the ages. In my opinion, any little thing you have to do to dress it up and get it running young in the beginning is well worth it in the long run. You just can't hardly wear these guns out (believe me, I've tried) and they love cast bullets. These rifles just don't quit. When the gun has all the bluing worn off and has killed everything you've ever aimed it at for the past 30 years, but your eyes are getting dim and you can't see the sights any more, you can drop a nice red dot sight or a scope on it via the provided screws in the top of the action, and just keep on going with it for the duration.
I had two of them myself, but I gave one to my hunting partner because he dearly wanted one. I've still got my 2001 1895 SS though, and I put an old Weaver K-3 on it with low Leupold mounts. I love that rifle dearly.

[Brithunter]

Ahhh actually European use deeper grooves and 0.008" deep for each groove is fairly common in fact on checking both Steyr 6.5mm rifles had 0.008" deep grooves the bores measuered 0.256" but groove diameter was 0.268" one barrel was an original 6.5x53R on an Mdl 1892 the other was brand new Steyr barrel in 6.5x54MS for my Mdl 1903 Schoenauer. My Swedish Mauser also has the same measurements of .256" bore and .268" grooves. Years ago I made a graduated brass plug gauge to check 6.5mm barrel muzzles with. Enfield rifling is also deeper than 0.004" per groove If I recall correctly the Enfield form of rifling was gifted to the British Government by Charles Metford to replace the Metford rifling that was not suitable for the new cordite propellant.

[vzerone]

There was also Ballard rifling made specifically for the use of paper patched bullets and it was shallow. One method of loading the rifle was it had a false muzzle and you loaded the bullet with a Chase patch and pushed it down to a marked position on your ram rod. Then you loaded a charged cartridge in the breach.

[JoeH]

Deep cut rifling is a myth, and the idea that it shoots lead better than "shallow" cut rifling is a bigger myth, and the idea that microgroove rifling doesn't shoot cast well is an even bigger myth.
Seems people will believe anything if it's written by a manufacturer or a gun rag, and if it isnt written there, they will voluntarily fill in the blanks with bad information just to fill out the rest of the picture.

Rifling is a very set thing, and has been held to standards since the turn of the last century and before. 30 caliber rifles have a .300 bore and a .308 groove. I could write pages about how jacked up the barrels I have seen are, but one thing I will say is that the bore and groove is always very closely held.
There is no such thing as "deep" rifling or "shallow" rifling unless you are talking about custom muzzle loader barrels. The rest of the time, its a very closely held spec.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to say that I dearly love the big bore Marlins, even the new ones. The rifles made just after Remington moved Marlin to New York were a disaster. They have been getting much better of late, but they still benefit from a little TLC which I do very well (several forum members can attest to that fact).
The accuracy of these rifles, I find to be a little inflated. I've heard all kinds of stories about Marlin 1895s that will print subMOA at 100 yards. This is always based on three shot groups and is misleading in my opinion. What you can pretty much hang your hat on is approximately 2 1/2" groups for ten shots once you find the load it likes. You can make the thing run like greased lightning if you install a Wolff spring kit and know where to push your stones. The rifles are very safe to shoot, and in the event of a catastrophic failure, I'd rather be holding a Marlin than any other lever gun. The only real problem is that they can't take a bullet that sticks out very far. Use cast bullets designed for the gun, and seat them to the correct OAL. The most common malfunction with these rifles is the age old Marlin jam, but thanks to modern materials, this is a very rare occurrence (still, if you ever get a jam, send me a PM and I'll take care of it for you).

The 1895 is a rifle for the ages. In my opinion, any little thing you have to do to dress it up and get it running young in the beginning is well worth it in the long run. You just can't hardly wear these guns out (believe me, I've tried) and they love cast bullets. These rifles just don't quit. When the gun has all the bluing worn off and has killed everything you've ever aimed it at for the past 30 years, but your eyes are getting dim and you can't see the sights any more, you can drop a nice red dot sight or a scope on it via the provided screws in the top of the action, and just keep on going with it for the duration.
I had two of them myself, but I gave one to my hunting partner because he dearly wanted one. I've still got my 2001 1895 SS though, and I put an old Weaver K-3 on it with low Leupold mounts. I love that rifle dearly.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. The microgrooves are in fact much more shallow, generally .0015-.002" deep. The groove diameter is maintained at standard, say .308" for example, but the bore diameter, land to land, will run .304-.305". That is for .30 calibers but other calibers will be affected similarly, having oversize bore diameters as measured land to land. That is why they generally shoot better with oversize cast bullets. Then too you will also find that sometimes even the groove diameter is oversize but that is another problem apart from the microgroove issue.

[vzerone]

Goodsteel I hear quite the apposite of the Marlin 1895. You said you'd rather have an accident with that action then any other lever action. Winchesters fair far better then the Marlin. I believe Marlin switched from Acme threads in the 45-70 to V thread because the Acme thread left very little meat between the barrel hole and magazine hole in the receiver. Don't take that wrong as they aren't unsafe, far from it with the proper pressure range loads.

[Griff]

Goodsteel I hear quite the apposite of the Marlin 1895. You said you'd rather have an accident with that action then any other lever action. Winchesters fair far better then the Marlin. I believe Marlin switched from Acme threads in the 45-70 to V thread because the Acme thread left very little meat between the barrel hole and magazine hole in the receiver. Don't take that wrong as they aren't (un)safe, far from it with the proper pressure range loads.

Fixed that for you. But, otherwise, +1. Similarily, the Winchester 1892 action is far stronger then the Marlin 1894.

[vzerone]

Fixed that for you. But, otherwise, +1. Similarily, the Winchester 1892 action is far stronger then the Marlin 1894.

The side bolts on the 92's and 86's block gas coming back alongside the bolt as does the 94's rear bolt. Really all you have is one bolt locking into a corresponding groove in the bottom of bolt on the Marlins. Contrary to belief the open top receivers don't give away enough to be catastrophic.

[MBTcustom]

There are rifles with shallow grooves, and weird rifling styles (microgroove being one example) but by and large, the vast majority of the barrels out there are cut to a very repeatable spec. That is the rule rather than the exception for modern rifles. Go down to your LGS and buy a new 308Winchester that has deep grooves. While you're at it, buy a 358 WInchester, a 375H&H, and a 45-70, and a 458Lott. Be sure to get the ones with good, deep rifling because that's better for cast bullets.
The point is, you can FIND weird gee wiz rifles out there that have strange rifling in them, but you have to hunt real hard for it IMHO. Most of the time, it is very very consistent, otherwise I would have 10 pilots for each of my chambering reamers because you could never be sure what size the bore is on a production barrel, and this is not the case. 99.9% of the time, the bore's very by mere ten-thousandths of an inch, and the groove diameters are within .001. IF something is strange or different, it is ALWAYS that size. The European rifles are neither deep nor shallow. They were cut to a spec, and that spec was for the most part, very closely controlled. Comparing a European made 7X64 Brenneke to an American 7mm-08 is kind of an apples to apples thing.

vzerone:
Look at this New York Marlin. Not JM. Modern production. What threads do you see? Also, observe which way it opened when it was cut in two by a double charge of 2400. It opened AWAY from the shooter.
Also, the Marlin has a single block that stops the bolt in a very similar fashion as the Winchester. You just can't see it. I would say the locking lugs are the least of your worries in the event of a double charge with either rifle. The barrel threads and the front of the action are far weaker than those locking lugs, and as we see here, they are the first to go. The big question is, when they are torn apart, which way is the receiver going to direct the gases/shrapnel? The left wall of the marlin receiver and the top strap remain stalwart, protecting the shooters head and upper body, while the bottom and right wall of the receiver are weak giving the gas and debris a path of least resistance DOWN and AWAY from the person holding the rifle. This is not the only firearm that was designed this way. I was just remarking that among lever action rifles, I really like the way Marlin did this.
Attachment 157169

Winchester on the other hand, cantains the pressure and makes sure it exists under high pressure from a smaller fracture:
Attachment 157173

Now, I have a 1895SS that has V threads. I had a 1895 guide gun with square threads. Both rifles were made in 2000-2001 judging by the serial numbers. Both also had normal rifling that was .450X.458.
I didn't read these things on the internet, I measured them and drew conclusions from physical objects here in my shop.
Not arguing, just telling it like I see it.

[vzerone]

That blew at that point because it's a very weak point. Kind of like a safety valve on a boiler. In other words if that weak link wasn't there I don't believe it would blown apart. BTW Winchester don't do that.

What do you think would have happen if the same double charge was put in a Siamese action? A Ruger #1? We know the answer for the Ruger.

Just saying Goodsteel. Not arguing at all. Good discuss. I know one thing thought, I wouldn't want to have been holding that blown action you showed.

[MBTcustom]

Just saying Goodsteel. Not arguing at all. Good discuss. I know one thing thought, I wouldn't want to have been holding that blown action you showed.

That's a big 10-4 Joe, and I hope never to see another one come through like it.

[vzerone]

Huh?The "v" stands for Vincent.

[JoeH]

Goodsteel, I guess you missed that the topic of discussion was microgroove rifling, one of those "weird gee whiz rifling styles".

[bnelson06]

Will we be swing a goodsteel rebuild thread of that Winchester soon

[MBTcustom]

Goodsteel, I guess you missed that the topic of discussion was microgroove rifling, one of those "weird gee whiz rifling styles".

I apologize. I mistakenly thought the op was regarding Ballard rifling and weather the Marlin rifle is really worth the money given its rough manufacture by the current owner. And my opinion is that it very much is worth the few minutes of stoning or polishing to put one of these rifles into service.
I totally missed the fact that the discussion was pertaining to microgroove rifling (tongue in cheek).

The fact is that Marlins "deep cut" Ballard rifling is not deep at all. It is merely cut to industry standard spec with a bore of .450 and a groove of .458 which is the only iteration you can buy from the major barrel manufacturers unless you specifically request something "different" or "special" or "custom".
I would further submit that microgroove rifling is not shallow cut either. It is cut exactly to manufacturer spec, and as long as you size your bullets correctly, it works just as well as the normal style and is very consistent throughout Marlins production, in both groove and bore diameter. No big deal. in fact, I have specifically built cast bullet rifles with custom/special/different/deeper rifling, and I saw no improvement in accuracy whatsoever other than the normal differences between barrels that is seen with any other style of rifling. It may make a difference for paper patchers or those shooting a patched round ball, but for centerfire rifles shooting normal naked bullets either cast or jacketed, it makes practically no difference and is far outweighed by the quality of the barrel in question.

I'm sorry if my opinion is not received well, but it is what it is, and it's not based on what I read online which is often fallible information written by people who have never cracked a barrel loose in their lives, much less built rifles from the ground up and done side by side, piece by piece comparisons of quality.


Bnelson:
I think that one's a little too far gone. LOL!

[vzerone]

I apologize. I mistakenly thought the op was regarding Ballard rifling and weather the Marlin rifle is really worth the money given its rough manufacture by the current owner. And my opinion is that it very much is worth the few minutes of stoning or polishing to put one of these rifles into service.
I totally missed the fact that the discussion was pertaining to microgroove rifling (tongue in cheek).

The fact is that Marlins "deep cut" Ballard rifling is not deep at all. It is merely cut to industry standard spec with a bore of .450 and a groove of .458 which is the only iteration you can buy from the major barrel manufacturers unless you specifically request something "different" or "special" or "custom".
I would further submit that microgroove rifling is not shallow cut either. It is cut exactly to manufacturer spec, and as long as you size your bullets correctly, it works just as well as the normal style and is very consistent throughout Marlins production, in both groove and bore diameter. No big deal. in fact, I have specifically built cast bullet rifles with custom/special/different/deeper rifling, and I saw no improvement in accuracy whatsoever other than the normal differences between barrels that is seen with any other style of rifling. It may make a differance for paper patchers or those shooting a patched round ball, but for centerfire rifles shooting normal naked bullets either cast or jacketed, it makes practically no differance and is far outweighed by the quality of the barrel in question.

Im sorry if my opinion is not reciever well, but it is what it is, and it's not based on what I read online which is often fallible information written by people who have never cracked a barrel loose in their lives, much less built rifles from the ground up and done side by side, piece by piece comparisons of quality.


Bnelson:
I think that one's a little too far gone. LOL!

I had posted that I said Marlin's weren't unsafe and I never said anything about their quality. I will now even though it's off subject. First I'm deeply sorrowed that Marlin ended up like they have in Remington's hands and we know who owns them. I would have like to see them stay Marlin, Marlin owned forever, but was not to be.

Honestly I haven't examined any of the new Marlins so I can't comment on them. Far as the old ones go I feel they were a quality rifle. They had nice walnut on them too. Let's speak about that just a little. I always thought, like many others, that the forearms were to fat. Can't say I have any criticism of them working wise, the machine work is pretty decent. Sure they are rough, but that's just a minor thing and you gave suggestion to a cure which is simple enough and free. Marlin 336 made a big hit with the ease of scoping. That took a lot of sales away from Winchester. Winchester countered with Angle-Eject, but the damage was done. Marlin was well entrenched by then. The first groundhog I shot with a centerfire rifle was with a Marlin 336 30-30 with the old four groove rifling.

[MBTcustom]

Vincent, don't be too hard on Remington. They dropped the ball on the fit and finish of the wood, and the first run of barrels was a total joke, but they were "under the gun" (pun intended).
I'm also upset about their idiotic continuance of 1-38 twist on the 44magnum 1894s.
other than those few gripes that have little to do with the actual function of the rifles, I have to say the internal parts have benefited from Remington's influence. The old 50s rifles were lovely to behold on the outside, but the parts inside looked like they were hacked out with a bench grinder. Their one redeeming quality was that they sported good barrels so they shot very well, but the classic "Marlin jam" we all know and hate was caused completely by shoddy internal workmanship.
The new rifles are completely opposite. They have decent barrels, the fit and finish is lacking, but the quality of the parts inside is better than it's ever been in my opinion.
I guess what I'm saying is that ANYBODY can stone off the rough edges and rasp the wood into a better fit, but getting a rifle with solid innards is something that even I cannot wave a magic wand and fix. They could have totally kicked all of us in the butt if they erred on the side of removing too much metal, or going back to 50s quality, but instead, they did us a favor and put good quality CNC machined parts in there.
As it is, I can build a better quality custom lead slinger from a Remington made gun than I ever could with an original JM (with the possible exception of the brilliant pieces they were making in the late 90s - early 2000s).

You can't judge a book by its cover, and I think the OP could do worse than buying a new Marlin and cleaning it up a bit. Just my humble opinion.

Several forum members have new Marlins that I have put across my knee, and I dare say, they do not think these rifles give anything up to a Marlin of any vintage.

[vzerone]

Goodsteel,

I will say in the past Remington make some really good barrels. I've seen many of their sporters shoot that should not have shot the super small groups that they did. This not only included barrels on Model 700's, but also on many 742's, and 760's. At that time Remington claimed they made the best barrel they could no matter what rifle model they went on.

I guess we all read the stories how the disgrunted Marlin worked sabotaged the machinery. Who knows the real truth. I would have probably been plenty upset too, but I've never stoop that low to do something like that. You were hurting more then Remington, you were hurting good honest people that are hunters and shooters just like us.

I've seen some of the first barrels Remington put out on the first Marlins. Unbelievable considering what I just said about Remington in the old days. I hope they got their marbles all lined up now.