Marlin - 1894 vs. 1895 vs. 336 & the Ruger Reboot

Leverguns are more my Pop's thing, but I dabble in his toys occasionally. With the impending Ruger relaunch of the Marlin franchise, I got curious about the differences between the three Marlin platforms.

The 1894 is obviously a flat bolt, split receiver, and probably shorter action for the pistol calibers.

I gather that the 336 is probably a slimmed down version of the 1895, and the only real difference is the '95 is dimensioned for the bigger case heads of the .444 and .45-70. Both have solid receiver walls and round bolts.

So I got to thinking. . .from a production and strength standpoint, might it not make more sense to discard the 1894 design in favor of a "short 336" for handling the pistol rounds? It just seems like a better way to build the gun - unless there's some little facet I'm missing.

A couple of years back, one of our CB group had a thread (with pics!) about the prototype 336 short action that would have replaced the 1894, just like the 336 replaced the 36- which was square bolt, too.
The 444 and 1895 are built on modified 336 actions.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

wow... i had no idea they dreamt up a 336 short action. i don't remember that thread but am gunna look for it...

great conversation ...........I looked at and almost bought a Henry in 357.....and I honestly believe that the Henry in 357 is the same action that they use for the 30-30.............and.....have looked closely at the 1889 marlin pre 1900 manufactured ones and 1980s made marlin 1894 and all the internals from the 1980s made 1894 marlin fit the 1889 ......my theory is that metalurgy had improved in the steels used and the guys at marlin just dusted off the tooling from storage from the late 1800s and made the 1894s in pistol calibers in the 1980s or when ever they came out.....the calibers made back then matched the steels used in the receivers for black powder pressures ................just a few theories of mine...regards

The square bolt Marlin is better looking imo. Have 2 .45colt 1894s, a Model 1897 .22 and had an 1895 in .45-70. Great rifles. A lot fewer parts than a winchester.

I like the flat bolt better also. But time and tastes change and I can live with my 33 as is but I have always lusted after a flat bolt.

Marlin did make the 336 in .44 Magnum for a bit. As I understand, the 336 action requires alot of work to do well with short cartridges so it must have made more sense to Marlin to bring back the 1894.

The 336 and 1895 actions are much stronger IMHO as the are not split for 1/2 or more of their lengths and use a round shape bolt for no Square corners stressing the action.

The 94 can never be stronger than them.

Keep the 1894 and bring back the 1893. I prefer the square bolt, just looks more better. And fit them all with rifle parts and octagon barrels.

The 1894 does not let dirt and whatnot get into the receiver, as easily as the other bolts would.

drop the 1894 and use 336 action for all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robg

drop the 1894 and use 336 action for all

---

The 94 is a much better handling platform for pistol rounds for me, although in 44 mag bites some.

The 1894 is much lighter, sleeker and faster handling than the 336. Bolt throw is much less for the shorter pistol cartridges and the 1894 actions are designed for this. The 1894 357 mag can empty a magazine tube of aimed shots very quickly.

1894s are still in demand ( check gun broker for big prices) for cowboy action and pistol caliber deer states. It would not seem wise to change something that sells and sells well just the way it is.

i was just thinking of the speed and economy of using one platform into production .

Hello Guys,

The round bolt is easier & cheaper for the manufacture.
The old style square bolt is classic, I have an 1893 in 32-40 & my son has a JM 1894 in 357, we love them.
Look at Mossberg, after Winchester went south they re-manufactured the 94 with a round bolt & side eject for their 464.

AntiqueSledMan.

Whatever Ruger does I doubt it will approach the quality of days gone by,strive for mediocrity and compete against Mossberg,not impressed.

I read years ago that Marlin went to the round bolt with the 336 most because it involved fewer machining operations and was more economical. The modern 1894 was created in the early 1970s and while bearing a resemblance to the pre WWI 1894, is a very different rifle with no interchangeablity with the older gun. While the round bolt 336 is incredibly strong (remember the .356 Winchester) the square bolt 1894 is plenty strong for for the pistol caliber rounds it's chambered for. I should add that the Model 1894 is also on of the the nicist lookimg rifles made in recent years and I pray that Ruger continues to produce it.

The lever action reminds me of the bicycle. Hard to improve on the basic design. Incorporating the falling block with a shuttling bolt. Were there a better way to get the job done someone would have thought of it. If Ruger could find a way to make the 94 lighter they would have accomplished much.

My $.04 , inflation ya know .
I have had 92' clones and 94' Win and 1894 and 1895 Marlins .
Without any doubt the 94' Marlin is the slickest out of the box . The 1895 is very close .

I don't know from strength in the 38/357 1894 but Moms shoots loads I will never shoot in the SS Sec 6 again and I'm positive they won't be in the OM BlackHawk .

If Ruger drops one it will be to consolidate models for one set of parts most likely the 336 and the 1895 will be merged and the icon kept but only if it can be made safe for 454 and pushed as a companion for the Blackhawk line but it might stay on as a Colts , 44 mag Vaquero companion I doubt it though .

Ruger is about tanks and one set of parts . I'd expect an SS run in 460 S&W to go with 450 , 444 , 375 , and 30-30 .
I hope they fit the wood better than RP , the 1895 I had fit fine and felt good it was just too proud all over .