The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

The new Winchester I'm shortly getting is also a pistol caliber dedicated action - the oft copied 1892

The wait has been painful

Find a real Marlin, before Remington bought them some years back.

Yes, can't beat a 'proper' Marlin.

That's if you can find one.

channel12 wrote:Marlin 1894 and then get the Wild West one piece trigger, the reduced power hammer spring and a one piece firing pin. All the internals fettled and polished, slicker than a greased weasel, it's the way to go. Then replace the iron sights with Wilson firesights what's not to like?

I fitted the Wild West trigger to both of my Marlins (.357 & .45/70) and it made a huge difference... far better than the stock version.

Sim G wrote:address you want is "North Haven, CT." If you have that, then look on the barrel, towards the reciever for a "JM" in a circle. That's a "good" one. "REM" indicates Remington manufacture. Some of the early transition rifles have a North Haven address with an REM mark as these were parts taken to the new factory by Remington.

"JM" made Marlins also command a premium now, which is one of the reasons that S/H values have gone through the roof......

I have just checked my two Marlins... The 1894 .357 which I have had since 2004 is obviously a coveted "JM" model.
My 1895 SBL .45-70 is stamped REM with the North Haven address, making it a transition rifle. I have had it about 3 ½ years and I'm more than happy with it. I previously had a 2005 JM stamped 1895 stainless "Guide Gun" that I now with that I had kept.

I bought my Winchester trapper after the hand gun ban with some of my compensation money. In that time I have replaced one broken lifter. It works flawlessly. I would not part with it for all the money in China.

I have the Winchester 94AE in .357 and love it, it's reliable (so far - and I've had it 7 years) and accurate enough for me - however, I have used our clubs Marlin and the action does feel rather polished and slick compared to my Winchester. It could be down to the amount of use it's had but it still feels tight and precise rather than worn out. I also think it takes less effort to thumb the rounds into the Marlin that the Winchester.

The Winchester 94 was designed for rifle length cartridges. The bottom of the receiver actually separates from the body of the gun to accommodate the longer cartridges. This makes the lever sweep long and clunky. There's a lot more "stuff" moving than on a Marlin.

It was then adapted to accomodate pistol length cartridges instead of dropping back to the smaller receiver of the 1892. Post '64 but pre '92 guns also suffer from sintered receivers, hollow pins and stamped parts in the cartridge lifter, loading gate etc.

These cheap parts are prone to breakage and considering that production stopped in 2006, spares are becoming scarce. The parts from the 2010 manufactured by Miroku 1894s supposedly are not interchangeable.

I completely stripped my Winchester 94AE down to all its component parts to day the only sintered part is the cartridge lifter. I replaced the lifter with a stainless steel version. Every thing else is fairly substantial and well made. I intend to slick the trigger and then I would put this rifle up against any Marlin for reliability and ease of use. I have owned it since the pistol ban and it works flawlessly.