Rifle Mag, issue 290 new Marlin story??

[HeavyMetal]

Don't post in this section much, I do have a few lever guns, but thought you might get a laugh out of the latest review of "Remlin" product.

They tested several new Marlins out of the Ilion, New York plant.

Nice looking guns, particularly the the "limited" versions of the 1895 and 1894 CB, but tell me when did 75 yards become the new test range??

While your at it explain as well four shot groups rather than Five? Hell they may as well have gone to three shots for better press, LOL!

Seems a little off to me, and the price range of these is a bit shocking as well, but then what isn't these days?

Page 26 if your interested in the "facts" presented by the writer, interesting in it looks like the Micro groove barrel has gone the way of the dinosaur!

I may be wrong but I see Marlins future as a bunch of limited run specials at special pricing.

How sad.


HM

[salvadore]

I didn't quite get the 75yd. 4 shot group thingy either and you may be right about the special runs, alas.

[shoot-n-lead]

I don't care...I ain't looking to buy one.

But, they are probably as good as some of the old ones that I had...they weren't perfect, either.

[Shawlerbrook]

Thank God there are still many used " real" Marlins still available.

[robg]

If only they would slim down the forend and speed up the twist.

[Buckshot]

............I'm not an apologist for Remington/Cerberous/ATK/Whomever and I was very disappointed when both Marlin and Savage conglomerated. So far I've not heard of issues with Savage quality, but I'm aware that Marlin products has some real issues after the acquisition. Most I believe came about as their equipment was either dated or worn out, requiring all new stuff plus they left their experienced workforce behind, so the newbies required training.

All that aside a lever action, regardless who made it has always been a hunting rifle for large game and not a varmint rifle. I really believe that 100 yards is a very realistic range for a maximum in testing such a firearm. Especially with issue iron sights. I'll agree that 75 yards seems a bit odd, but odd only in that it's so seldom used. Kind of a 'Forgotten' distance ya know? Seems we so commonly use 25 for pistols, then 50 and 100 yards for centerfire rifles depending upon several things including sights and the cartridge it's chambered for. So 75 yards even sounds odd :-)

I don't know when Marlin began using that bulbous forend wood, but I for sure do not understand it's utility unless it's supposed to offer a better grip? I have now have 2 old Marlins:

http://www.fototime.com/47DD87E404FADAE/standard.jpg

This one a 38-55 factory job in 1906, 26" bbl.............

http://www.fototime.com/72A8FA97FC3CDA9/standard.jpg

And this one in 30-30 I made up from parts to mimic an old 'Light Weight' version, with a 20" bbl. Never found myself needing more forend wood to hang on to either one. Last week I was in a local pawn shop. They had a 1974 vintage Marlin 336 in 30-30 with a pistol grip stock (and the fat forend) and the buttplate and pistol grip cap came complete with the required white line spacers :-) But hey, it was the 70's eh? Price was $399 and I'd have bought it except it had the Micro-Gruv bore, which is admittedly just fine for jacketed. Ah, well.

................Buckshot

[FergusonTO35]

The bulbous forends seem to be a Remlin manifestation, although Marlin did use them on some rifles back in the day. Gotta love the huge Monte Carlo on the early 444's. It would be quite stylish in the passenger seat of your Grand Torino or Mustang II!!

[Scharfschuetze]

I haven't seen the article, although I'll probably buy the magazine next time I'm at a magazine rack.

I looked at two of the special edition Marlin 1895s at the LGS several months ago. Both had over polished and rounded edges on the octagon barrels and the bluing on the barrels did not match the metal on the rest of the rifles.

I own Marlins that date from 1903 to 2000 in four different calibres. To say that I was put off by the special edition rifles is probably an understatement.

[Mk42gunner]

I had a 336A from 1950 that had a pretty bulky fore arm. I can see the necessity for the .45-70 versions, since they have that huge bulge in the mag tube; but not for anything that utilizes a straight mag tube.

Robert

[FergusonTO35]

I see that on the Marlin website they are no longer pretending that the 1894C is in production. Surprised the 336XLR is still catalogued.