New Marlin 1894 - .45 Colt

[LarryM]

Marlin 1894, .45 Colt
Happened to see this one a week or so ago at my local gun shop. They had 4 Marlin lever guns on the rack. Three new ones, a 336 in 35 Remington, a 336 in .30-30, this 1894 in .45 Colt and a 1978 vintage 336 in .30-30. The '78 vintage 336 was the only one I was really interested in. The wood was a little dinged up but the metal was in 95%+ condition and had very, very little wear on the hammer where the bolt contacts it and the loading gate showed no signs of wear at all. I thought about it over the weekend and decided the '78 vintage 336 needed to come live at my house and went back yesterday but it had sold on Saturday. They had it listed for $500 or so. Counter guy told me a youngster had convinced his dad he needed it. Had we been there at the same time I'm pretty sure I would have let the young man buy it even if I had it in my hands first.

Anyway, the 1894 was still on the rack. It kept calling to me. It was priced at $650. I thought about it over night and went back this morning and brought it home.
Fit and finish is better than some early Remington made Marlins I had looked at several years ago and only a little less than my older JM Marlins.
I picked up a couple of boxes of Aguila Cowboy loads to go with it since .45 Colt is a new caliber for me. Of course that means I now need to get dies, bullet moulds, and brass for it, what a bummer that is. And, since it is a "pistol caliber" I of course will need a like caliber companion pistol for it, A Ruger Blackhawk will likely be my choice.

I'll admit I was a little concerned about the quality of these new Marlins. I've seen an awful lot of horror stories about "Remlins" and this is the first Marlin I've owned that was made after the cross bolt safety, none of my 3 other Marlin lever guns have that feature. I was a little surprised to see the date code on the barrel was Feb/17 (LL). I don't know if the gun shop has had it that long or if it sat at a distributor for 3+ years.
I stripped it down and gave it a good cleaning then walked down to my range.
I only ran 50 rounds of the Aguila through it but I had no problems with the rifle. Sights needed a little tweaking but it was pretty close at 50 yards. I will definitely need to upgrade the sights, I'm pushing 60 and I just can't see the factory sights. Probably end up scoping it.

I have no complaints about the rifle. It functioned perfectly with the Aguila ammo and accuracy was pretty good considering I can't see the danged sights.
I will say that the Aguila ammo is some of the dirtiest stuff I've ever shot and I'm including my BPCR ammo.




Moulds are a little scarce online right now but I've found a couple in stock. I'm planning to keep this one "lead only".
My 1894C is a little finicky about SWCs, have the newer .45 Colt models been the same?

[Dvdmacdaddy]

Nice find. I had a New Marlin in 45-70. Good gun I couldn't see the factory sights worth a dern either and I'm 40. Ended up trading it for a Walther PPQ Q5 for IDPA.

[Dirtdgger]

Nice rifle. I picked up a Henry in 45 colt great gun. I put skinners sights on it helped a lot. Looks like your close to my part of the world.

[sghart3578]

I have a new 1894CB in 45 Colt that I really love. It was built in 2018. Smooth and accurate.

It took some experimenting to get the accuracy though.

I was getting frustrated with my normal 45 Colt loads that perform well in my Vaquero and Blackhawk. Namely the Lee 255 gr RF over 8.5 gr of Unique.

While accurate in my handguns they were crappy in the Marlin. And jacketed factory loads were only slightly better.

I did a pound cast of the chamber and it is huge, as are most 45 Colt rifles. It will easily chamber a .458" bullet. So I did what I usually do. I turned to Tom at Accurate molds.

He recommended his 45-250P mold.



It has enough mass in front of the case mouth to fill the chamber. I seat them just a tad longer to contact.

My groups shrank dramatically. I have only had one range session with the new mold but my groups went from 8" at 50 yards to 2-3" at 50 yards. Very happy.

I also loaded some jacketed bullets and seated them .030" over the recommended OAL. They too are now very accurate.

I am very happy with my new Marlin.

I have 4 new Marlins, all made after 2018 and every one is a keeper.

Best of luck,


Steve in N CA

[LarryM]

Nice rifle. I picked up a Henry in 45 colt great gun. I put skinners sights on it helped a lot. Looks like your close to my part of the world.

About 25 miles or so, NE Rogers County.

[prs]

My 66 year-old eyes love Skinner sights.

prs

[Static line]

Mine was made in Feb. 2017 also and it is flawless with nice fit and finish and functions nicely. I never even felt the need to lighten or improve the trigger. Mine shoots the 255 gr. Keith style SWC from my Accurate mold just fine and cycles fine in the action. The bullet I like the best is from another one of Tom's molds at Accurate and it's his 45-255-F. It's a 255 gr. WFN. Both bullets are plain base. My best accuracy so far is up to 75 yards. At 100 yards the 5 shots open a bit to like 3 to 4 inches. I haven't shot any " J" bullets out of it but then I don't intend to anyhow. My normal velocity is around 1150 fps on the average. Just have a 1.5-4.5x Nikon Monarch scope on it so I'd probably do better at a hundred yards with a higher magnification scope but that would take away from the looks and the handling characteristics.

[farmbif]

well its good to hear that there are some new marlins with no fatal flaws in them.
I have nothing but praise for the mp 454640 in my 45 lever gun

[Mk42gunner]

My 1894CB in .45 Colt is from the early days of this century, 2000 IIRC.

It cycles my Lyman 452424 and Commercial cast 255 RF just fine. Accuracy was good until I could really see the sights anymore.

If I was starting over with the .45 Colt now, I would try the Lee 255RF; but Steve's post (plus the fact that I don't have that mold) prevents me from giving it a blanket endorsement.

One of these days I will get around to putting either a small scope or a red dot sight on it.

Robert

[cwlongshot]

I bought mine in the late 1980's. Still have it. Never will sell. Its filled the freezer many many times

Its like a ol friend.

Good score!

CW

[Norske]

My variable bifocals have a problem with peep sights. The rear ring becomes 1 1/2 rings. Leaf sights work, but I hate buckhorn sights because they cover too much of the animal I'm shooting. I had the rear semi buckhorn sight on my 1895 milled down to an express sight. It works well with my Trijicon tritium glowing front sight bead.

[Static line]

My variable bifocals have a problem with peep sights. The rear ring becomes 1 1/2 rings. Leaf sights work, but I hate buckhorn sights because they cover too much of the animal I'm shooting. I had the rear semi buckhorn sight on my 1895 milled down to an express sight. It works well with my Trijicon tritium glowing front sight bead.

Oh boy, forget me seeing peep sights or any iron sight for that matter but here in October I hope to solve that little problem. I am getting a cataract removed on my right( shooting) eye and having a new lens put in my eye. It's the newest one they have that will allow me to see far, intermediate and near without any glasses. I am so happy, I can kiss a Gorilla on the lips....on second thought......

[Gray Fox]

I traded for an unfired mate to your rifle last year. In my scope stash I had a 15 year-old Leupold copy of the Lyman Alaskan 2.5X 3/4" tube which came with rings. I got a two base set set for the 1894 and it mounted up just right and looks good. Unfortunately, I've had some health issues and have yet to take it to the range. Cool weather is coming to the Hotlanta area next week and I'm hoping for some range time. I'll post the results if I make the trip (90 miles each way to the DNR range). GF

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I have heard some good reports of the 1894 Remlins that were manufactured in the last year or two...Glad to hear another good report.