FrankenMauser
New member
If you want actions that are too long for your own good, there are also, of course, the Savage 99, Ruger 96, and Marlin Levermatic.
Marlin Levers
- Thread starter DPris
- Start date
I have a couple of Savage 99s- 1954 in .300sav, and 1957 in .308Win.
No experience with the others.
For hunting [shooting less than 30 times a year], I love the Savage.
Love the ability to use the pointed bullets in a lever action!
What is the 'too long for your own good' aspect?
I'm just curious- and constantly learning.
I have a Marlin 39A that I love, and I like the feel of the Savage 99's also.
I'm thinking of a .44mag lever [Rossi M92 nearby is calling me], as I will inherit my dad's 1894 Winchester .32WinSpecial [slightly better than a 30-30, but not enough for bragging].
I like the pistol caliber idea as a less 'socially threatening' defensive firearm [I life in California].
So, why is are these three too long for our own good?
FrankenMauser
New member
The designs require pretty much the entire operating mechanism to be behind the magazine, which, in turn, requires an excessively long receiver to, among other things, guide and protect the bolt during cycling.
Extra length = excess weight in the action.
Overall weight is increased, and the balance point is shifted rearward.
Ok, I 'get' that in theory.
My ONLY experience with these was the Savage 99.
I kind of liked that it had a natural balance point at the bottom/front of the receiver- under the magazine.
It just cupped in my hand naturally for carry, and I didn't notice any balance issues when firing.
The longer-barreled 99eg was countered by a butt stock with one hole drilled through for the stock to receiver screw.
The shorter barreled 99F [featherweight] was countered by a butt stock with three long holes drilled in the stock to reduce weight, and keep the balance point under the magazine in the front/bottom of the receiver.
I am not trying to troll or bait- I genuinely don't know much about ideal in rifles.
Yet, this balance point felt pretty ideal to me.
Where 'should' the balance point be?
Odd then that they're still making them.
moosemike said:
The .44 Mag was reintroduced in about 18 months, and slowly trickled to distributors with a lot of issues along the way...
The .45 Colt was reintroduced after that...
It is only now after more than 5 years that the .357/.38SPCL models are being reintroduced...
"new" Marlins
I took a chance and got a remlin 45-70 guide gun for myself this past Christmas, subsequently I picked up a 1964 336 couple of months later. Honestly, the only difference is the furniture on the remlin could have used a tad more work BUT, the quality of the 2 is near identical. Butter smooth actions, no marks, no canted sights or razor edges. My guide gun can proudly sit next to his older brother and feel just as much pride in looks and function. I'd say somebody IS trying there in Ilion and succeeding. btw, both are tack drivers. Long live the Republic.
I took a chance and got a remlin 45-70 guide gun for myself this past Christmas, subsequently I picked up a 1964 336 couple of months later. Honestly, the only difference is the furniture on the remlin could have used a tad more work BUT, the quality of the 2 is near identical. Butter smooth actions, no marks, no canted sights or razor edges. My guide gun can proudly sit next to his older brother and feel just as much pride in looks and function. I'd say somebody IS trying there in Ilion and succeeding. btw, both are tack drivers. Long live the Republic.
Last edited:
Model12Win
Moderator
Hows your new '95 .357 running, Denis?
Denis... I always appreciate your input. The time you take to explain things really helps me understand how truly difficult things can be regarding the rise of Marlin from the ashes.
I have two Remlin levers, an 1894 44Mag, and an 1895 45/70 G. Both are excellent, and are very reminiscent of what Marlin used to build IMHO. I also have several Marlins from the 1960s and if the new rifles were dinged, and had the finish wear that my older ones have, I would have a hard time telling the two different vintages apart. I'm not a Marlin expert, and I'm sure those of you who are, will scoff at that last comment, but I am pleased with my two Remlins.
I am interested in the new 357 1894. I have been for several years, and whenever I see a post about whats developing in that area, I hope the day comes soon when I can own, and enjoy that fine little 1894 in 357
I have two Remlin levers, an 1894 44Mag, and an 1895 45/70 G. Both are excellent, and are very reminiscent of what Marlin used to build IMHO. I also have several Marlins from the 1960s and if the new rifles were dinged, and had the finish wear that my older ones have, I would have a hard time telling the two different vintages apart. I'm not a Marlin expert, and I'm sure those of you who are, will scoff at that last comment, but I am pleased with my two Remlins.
I am interested in the new 357 1894. I have been for several years, and whenever I see a post about whats developing in that area, I hope the day comes soon when I can own, and enjoy that fine little 1894 in 357
ice monkey
New member
I wasn’t following the whole Marlin saga two years ago when I decided to get my little 16” 336 Marlin. I just wanted a short rifle for the trunk that wasn’t a semi.
At ~$500, I wasn’t expecting the butter smoothness of my granddads Winchester, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was stunned at how clunky the thing was when I got it. It was awful.
Before I even shot it, I stripped the thing down and cleaned it. There was wood chips from the stock in the trigger assembly for the love of Pete! After cleaning, I put some lapping compound on those areas I thouhgt could use it, reassembled the gun, and just worked the gun through a sitting of “A Dual at Diablo,” then cleaned and oiled her up.
The gun was shipped a mess. No question, but that initial work paid dividends! The gun had “good bones” as they say. Considering it was a ~$500 gun, the extra bit of work was nothing really. I’ve since put literally hundreds of rounds through her (>500 I think), and she’s my favorate.
The trigger still sucks, but who cares? The gun points itself! It’s a joy to walk with, and a joy to shoot! If I could have the exact same weapon in a cartridge that’d work out to 6 to 8 hundred yards... I’d never buy another rifle. I love my little 336.
At ~$500, I wasn’t expecting the butter smoothness of my granddads Winchester, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was stunned at how clunky the thing was when I got it. It was awful.
Before I even shot it, I stripped the thing down and cleaned it. There was wood chips from the stock in the trigger assembly for the love of Pete! After cleaning, I put some lapping compound on those areas I thouhgt could use it, reassembled the gun, and just worked the gun through a sitting of “A Dual at Diablo,” then cleaned and oiled her up.
The gun was shipped a mess. No question, but that initial work paid dividends! The gun had “good bones” as they say. Considering it was a ~$500 gun, the extra bit of work was nothing really. I’ve since put literally hundreds of rounds through her (>500 I think), and she’s my favorate.
The trigger still sucks, but who cares? The gun points itself! It’s a joy to walk with, and a joy to shoot! If I could have the exact same weapon in a cartridge that’d work out to 6 to 8 hundred yards... I’d never buy another rifle. I love my little 336.
I had a 90’s JM stamped 336 in .35 that was garbage. Rough action, misaligned sights, etc.
Quality was in decline way before Remington came along.
I WANT Marlin and Remington to come back strong. We shouldn’t be essentially rooting for their failure. The past QC issues can’t be undone, but I’ve seen obvious improvements recently. I bought my daughter an 870 Compact a few months ago and it’s absolutely a gem.
I am planning on picking up another 336 in the next year or two and I have faith that they’ll be of good quality. It sounds like things are at least getting on the right track.
Quality was in decline way before Remington came along.
I WANT Marlin and Remington to come back strong. We shouldn’t be essentially rooting for their failure. The past QC issues can’t be undone, but I’ve seen obvious improvements recently. I bought my daughter an 870 Compact a few months ago and it’s absolutely a gem.
I am planning on picking up another 336 in the next year or two and I have faith that they’ll be of good quality. It sounds like things are at least getting on the right track.
Yeah, same here. These magic JM Marlins, having owned numerous Marlins down through the years going back to the late 60s, some were nice, some were not. In particular one problem child 30-30 I bought about 1973. It had barrel droop, a twisted barrel and it would Marlin Jam at the slightest provocation. I finally got it sorted and it became a beater rifle that my brother and I severely abused. Have a 917 with a crooked stock but it shoots straight, very straight. At gun shows I look the rifles over close. Sometimes I see one I want and sometimes I see some that are clearly there due to some of the aforementioned issues, JM stamp does not mean you should not carefully inspect a potential purchase. Twisted barrels/crooked front sights are common. My current two Remington Marlins are the best I have owned as far as function and shooting accuracy and the metal work is clean. The wood, meh.
3C
3C
No, but we shouldn't knowingly spend our money on substandard product either.
Remington/Marlin/Cerberus/Freedom/Group/Whatever They Call Themselves This Week have been all to happy to ride the coattails of their history for too long.
Ultimately, the product needs to stand for itself to earn my dollars.