Marlin 1894C C/.44 Mag

[GregLaROCHE]

I’m looking at a new Marlin listed as 1894C C/.44 Mag for sale. Anyway of telling if was made when Marlin was first bought by Remington and had all the problems? I think they got the problems straightened out eventually, didn’t they? I don’t want to buy a lemon. Any advice on what to look for? It’s on the internet so I can’t look at it very well myself, just ask questions. Maybe I can ask for the serial number and that could help.
Thanks

[dangitgriff]

Double-check that weird model number...
1894 = .44 magnum.
1894C = .357 magnum.

[ATCDoktor]

Serial number will tell the date of manufacture, whether or not it’ll end up being a lemon will be any body’s guess.

Problems with late model Marlins have been well documented but I haven’t had any problems with the ones I’ve purchased.

If possible handle the rifle before purchase to determine if there are any obvious issues.

That said, I have two late model Marlins/Remlins and they have been superb out of the box.

First one is a late model Marlin 336 Youth model with 16” barrel I picked up brand new from a my local gunshop for 300 bucks OTD.
https://i.postimg.cc/HL8YvXkv/338-E3908-ABF6-4234-8728-BE610-EC5-F15-F.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Second late model Marlin I’ve purchased a was an 1894 CST I. 357 magnum that (at the time I bought it) I thought a paid waaay too much for ($900 plus shipping and FFL
Fees).

https://i.postimg.cc/gjBgLhBq/954E93F7-E00C-4E6B-8244-E7CAD832CA19.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

No issues with either one.

Edited to add:

I also have a 20 inch blued model 1894C in 357 magnum that has been excellent as well. I bought it right at the cutover from Marlin to Remington.

Barrel is JM marked so it could be Marlin built or Remington assembled from Marlin parts but as previously stated it’s been an awesome shooter for a few thousand of rounds.

[Nobade]

I wouldn't worry too much about manufacture date. They have been able to mess them up for a long time. My own 44 was made in 1973 and was unusable as delivered, with a big gouge in the chamber preventing firing full pressure loads. I polished it out as well as possible and just shoot it with black powder any more, but eventually I'm going to turn it into a 38-40. Or just sell it seeing how much they bring now.

[Prairie Cowboy]

I think that this might actually be a Marlin 1894CB .44 Magnum Cowboy model, with a tapered 20" octagon barrel, Marbles open sights, and slimmer uncheckered walnut stocks, with a checkered plastic butt plate.
The 1894C is in .357 Magnum, has an 18 1/2" round barrel, barrel bands, impressed checkering, and a thin rubber recoil pad.
You will need to figure out what variant you are actually considering.

As to quality issues, the Marlin 1894s made in the last 3 years or so have been very good in my opinion. I ended up buying a standard Marlin 1894 .44 Magnum, 1894C in .357 magnum, and a Marlin 1894CB in .45 Colt.

In some respects they are actually better than the 1894s made by Marlin a couple of years before the Remington takeover. Mostly with respect to internal CNC machining of the internal parts, and some subtle redesign of the bolt face and carrier for reliability.

I found that the screwheads were carefully installed and the wood fitting was nearly as good as the JM 1894s of their last few years. The sights were on there straight. Each rifle fed and extracted well, although the extractor on the larger calibers did require a touch-up stoning where they contacted the rim, in order to feed smoothly. but so did the JM guns. (I owned three JM 1894s)

The walnut and finish on these Remingtons is plainer and less glossy than the JM guns, but is still very good. So, yes they did get the problems straightened out.

The earlier Remlins were crap, unfortunately.

The JM serial numbers can be looked up as to year of manufacture easily enough.
The Remington ones, not so much, because they aren't really sequential in a consistent manner.
Some have a two letter barrel code that may tell you the month and year of production.

This site makes it pretty easy to look up the age of JM guns up to around 2010:

https://www.gunvaluesboard.com/marlin-serial-numbers-dates-of-manufacture-1664.html

This posting explains the Remington marlin barrel code for month and date of manufacture.

http://www.marlin-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26447

If it is a JM rifle made up to 2007 or earlier, it stands a very good chance of being trouble free IMHO.
If it is an earlier (before 2017 Remington), then it stands a good chance of having real problems IMHO.

In any case you would be better served if you could examine the rifle carefully in person before buying it to confirm that it is not a problem rifle.

[375supermag]

Hi...
FWIW, I bought a new Marlin lever action rifle in .44Magnum earlier this year from a local gun shop.
It functioned just fine out if the box... unfortunately, it keyholed bullets as close as 15yds no matter the bullet style or profile. The shop I bought it at told me they wouldn't get involved and told me to contact Marlin on my own.
I took it to another shop that has gunsmiths on site and they said the rifling was screwed up. They sent it back to Marlin for repair.
It came back in about 2 weeks with a new barrel installed. It now shoots accurately without keyholeing bullets.

[Prairie Cowboy]

The new Marlin that I owned in .44 Magnum was well made in all respects.
However the groove diameter was .432", while .44 Magnum bullets are .429" or .430".
Unfortunately SAAMI specs allow for manufacturers to produce oversize bores in .44 Magnum rifles up to .432". Supposedly it has to do with an old fear that hand loaders would load rounds that were too high in pressure for these rifles, and that by having generous bores, pressures would be reduced

However, mine shot rather poorly, even with JSP ammo, and it was soon gone.
I would never buy another .44 Magnum carbine, although many do shoot well.