Marlin Prototype?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Does anyone have a contact for a marlin historian?
My friend just bought a Marlin 1894 in 357 with get this......
...... a round bolt!
This is not an 1895/336 receiver. It is an actual 1894 sized receiver from Marlin.
Round bolt!
He’s taking delivery of it in a little bit. I’ll post some pictures at that point.
I believe it’s 1989 manufacture. Wondering if Marlin was looking to up their product line and modernize the 1894 the way they did the 36 square bolt to the 336 round bolt action

Thanks in advance and stay tuned for the pics!

[JimB..]

Before I’d jump to prototype I’d look at if an 1894 barrel could be fit to a 336 action. Not meaning to pee in your wheaties!

[Michael J. Spangler]

I agree.
Though I did measure the action and it’s definitely not an 1895 action.

[Texas by God]

Post in on marlinowners. There was a member there who worked for Marlin in those days. He helped me fix a Remlin but I don't remember his site name.

[MyFlatline]

The Brophy's book would tell you I'm pretty sure. And yes , Tomray on MO would know, not sure if he hangs out there much anymore tho.

[Michael J. Spangler]

Here she is back to back with an 1895. I oriented then this way so you could see the back to back difference in length.

Pretty amazing.

[Jeff Michel]

I wouldn't think it would be all that old with a safety, interesting.

[comprschrg]

What does the other side look like.

[msp2640]

That looks pretty unique, definitely the smaller 94 action, even their classic series with the 218, 25-20, etc all had the square bolt that their 357/41/44/45 series had. I'd love to know the story behind it, hopefully a former employee would know. The crossbolt safety puts it after '83 I believe. Thanks - Bill in MA

[Michael J. Spangler]

What does the other side look like.

Just a flat like any other 94. Nothing of note.

[Shawlerbrook]

Tomray over on Marlinowners was an engineer for Marlin and should be able to help you out. I do lean toward a aftermarket custom job.

[MyFlatline]

I wouldn't think it would be all that old with a safety, interesting.

The cross bolt safety didn't come out til '83. That is old to some..

[Michael J. Spangler]

No way this could be an aftermarket job. No one would spend the money or time to engineer a one off lever gun like this.
So far everyone on marlin owners is agreeing on a prototype or sample. Some whispers of prototypes over the years.

Let’s see what tomray says.

Yes 83 is old to me. That was 2 years before I was born.

[Shawlerbrook]

Guess I should have looked at the pictures a little closer. The serial number starts with 17 ?

[Michael J. Spangler]

Sorry the serial starts with 12. Typo in the first post. It’s a 1988

[Jedman]

All of the Marlin CF actions have the same barrel shank size and thread. 1894 barrels will fit 336, 375, 1895 receivers. It does appear to be a shortened action ?

Jedman

[MyFlatline]

Yes 83 is old to me. That was 2 years before I was born.

Man, you just made me feel old, my daughter was born in '82 :biggrin:

[Michael J. Spangler]

All of the Marlin CF actions have the same barrel shank size and thread. 1894 barrels will fit 336, 375, 1895 receivers. It does appear to be a shortened action ?

Jedman

We have inspected it side by side.
Not a shortened receiver.

If you look at a marlin receiver the receiver has bolsters on the front where it mates to the hand guard and the rear at the stock mating surface also.
If you cut the receiver down 1.5” off either end it would be either cut into the ejection port or the pivot pins for the internals.
Can’t really be done

[Michael J. Spangler]

Man, you just made me feel old, my daughter was born in '82 :biggrin:

Hahaha

Sorry!

[Moleman-]

We have inspected it side by side.
Not a shortened receiver.

If you look at a marlin receiver the receiver has bolsters on the front where it mates to the hand guard and the rear at the stock mating surface also.
If you cut the receiver down 1.5” off either end it would be either cut into the ejection port or the pivot pins for the internals.
Can’t really be done

Take a really good look at both sides of the interior of the ejection port area especially on the ejection port side. If I was going to cut one down that is where I would remove metal. The ejection port side would be harder to weld as the opposite side is closed off and also less likely to be looked at so if it were cut and welded they might not of spent as much time dressing the weld in that spot. Tig welded with the same base metal it would blue the same.