Lever Guns

[gato naranja]

I went over the details of the 357 in the 73 before buying one. At this point it bothers me absolutely zero. Steve of Steves Gunsz said they do wear quicker when used with magnum loads, but its a relative thing. They start to get looser, they dont blow up. If you consider that its a $1400 gun, and it would take maybe $4000-$8000 worth of factory magnums to cause enough wear to be a significant issue, and the fix is probably in the $400-$500 range, I just stopped worrying. Its highly unlikely I'll ever shoot enough full power magnums to wear it out, if I do, I'll get it tightened up.

A gunsmith friend has a Miroku 73 in 45 Colt cal, he said hes shot about 50K round through it with zero functional issues. Bullet shape helps to a degree, but the case shape is less of an issue than the 92s and 94s in pistol calibers as they feed straight in and are captive in the carrier in the 73.

Trying to run one at blistering speed is probably harder on them than the chambering (probable comparable to running and reloading a DA revolver at fastest humanly possible speed). Run one at a brisk pace and they seem fine. Dont dry fire them. Pretty basic. Live within their basic limitations and good things can be done with them. Im pretty sure I recall DB mentioning many times that running anything at fastest possible speed wasnt really realistic for most uses and could be problematic in some regards such as assessing whats happening and not outrunning ones headlights. I can live with that. Doesnt seem like a real limitation to me.

I may be overly pessimistic about wear and tear on the '73s; I have seen a bunch of loose ones over time, though their histories were (mostly) mysteries. Many may very well have been the victim of being cycled too fast, too many times rather than digesting too many hot loads.

The irony is that the original 1873 Winchester chamberings were bottleneck/tapered rounds, but as you point out, the 1873 "elevator" lets them feed straight in and doesn't really need the taper that seems to help with the 1892 Winchesters and 1894 Marlins. I agree that bullet shape helps to a degree, though I have had pretty good luck with anything that wasn't simply way too long to work. I had a "pet" 1894C that I probably should not have gifted - it was pawned by the recipient during a case of the shorts - that I fussed over until it would pretty reliably feed everything from empty cases to LSWCs cast from some (now collectible) old molds. I still consider getting a .357 Magnum levergun to run trouble-free with a lot of loads to be a bit more of a victory than I do a .44 Magmum.

[MountainRaven]

Maybe this has been covered before, but what do folks think of safety deletes on Marlins?

[Bigghoss]

Rossi now has a triple black R95 .30-30

[whomever]

Maybe this has been covered before, but what do folks think of safety deletes on Marlins?

I see good arguments for and against the cross bolt safety. If my use case was hunting, I think I'd keep it. But my use case is bear defense, and to me going from half to full cock is really natural, while finding the cross-bolt safety in a hurry seems possible to flub. But one could put in the time to train for it.

I think some people like the cross-bolt as a safety item when unloading the magazine by cycling the action. I unload through the ejection port, though, so don't care about that.

In the end, I 'deleted' mine by putting an appropriately sized O-ring on the cross bolt safety. With that on, there is no way you are going to accidentally engage the safety - you need a tool of some kind to pry off the O-ring. But at the same time, prying off the O-ring is easier than disassembling the gun, and O-rings are cheap (as in, years ago I got a 437 piece O-ring kit from Harbor Freight or somewhere for $5.99, and one of those fit).

[gato naranja]

I see good arguments for and against the cross bolt safety. If my use case was hunting, I think I'd keep it. But my use case is bear defense, and to me going from half to full cock is really natural, while finding the cross-bolt safety in a hurry seems possible to flub. But one could put in the time to train for it.

I think some people like the cross-bolt as a safety item when unloading the magazine by cycling the action. I unload through the ejection port, though, so don't care about that.

In the end, I 'deleted' mine by putting an appropriately sized O-ring on the cross bolt safety. With that on, there is no way you are going to accidentally engage the safety - you need a tool of some kind to pry off the O-ring. But at the same time, prying off the O-ring is easier than disassembling the gun, and O-rings are cheap (as in, years ago I got a 437 piece O-ring kit from Harbor Freight or somewhere for $5.99, and one of those fit).

This is about what I would say. If the gun was being used for self defense, I'd be hesitant to leave the crossbolt safety intact. I, personally, have had two instances of the crossbolt safety being on when it wasn't meant to be. Two is not many unless they are at the wrong time.

[entropy]

Did a quick 4 miles with the dog yesterday before the big snow hits us starting today. The 94 came along with no issues. No sling either. Just carried it. Only loads in current inventory are the 170s which is just fine. Lots of various sized paw prints that weren’t ours. Current politics aside, IMHO it carries far nicer than either a bolt gun or certainly an AR. I have a receiver red dot mount from Turnbull’s sitting waiting to be mounted. Anxious to see how that works. I have high hopes.

Still doesn’t look right to me, but it’s about function over form. I have 125’s and 170’s loaded up for testing. I’ll report back early this week.

[awp_101]

Still doesn’t look right to me, but it’s about function over form. I have 125’s and 170’s loaded up for testing. I’ll report back early this week.

I spent the past half hour mounting a 1.5-6x32 Bushnell on my 1894 .357 and then removing it to install a low mount "Aimpoint style" Primary Arms dot instead. The scope mounts I have require a tip-of-the-chin weld and the whole thing just felt and looked clunky. The dot looks and feels more natural.

Since this is one of my urban carbine options, I'd like some magnification for ID purposes. Has anyone tried a magnifier on their dot-equipped levergun?

[Malamute]

I spent the past half hour mounting a 1.5-6x32 Bushnell on my 1894 .357 and then removing it to install a low mount "Aimpoint style" Primary Arms dot instead. The scope mounts I have require a tip-of-the-chin weld and the whole thing just felt and looked clunky. The dot looks and feels more natural.

Since this is one of my urban carbine options, I'd like some magnification for ID purposes. Has anyone tried a magnifier on their dot-equipped levergun?

Scope line of sight height was an issue to me in scoping a lever gun, The old simple Weaver base on Marlins with low Weaver rings was as low as I found back when i was messing with them. Not as sexy as many mounts available today, but were simple and worked well and werent jacked up in the air.

For the 73 I was thinking Id either do a front receiver mount like the front base on an angle eject 94 or do a barrel mount for a dot if/when I try one as it sets a bit lower. The Rossi guns had a mount that used the barrel dovetail and a screw right behind it to make a simple mount. Id like to see on in person, or perhaps just get the barrel drilled and tapped for a single low base just ahead of the receiver.

When I decided I wanted an angle eject Winchester 94 the lowest base/ring combo I found was the two piece Leupold and low rings. No problem getting on the scope at all. I dont know if their offerings for marlins are as low compared to the Weaver.

Some of the base/rings available for levers really give me a case of the "WTF were they thinking?" in how high they are. Some give the instant sight picture through the scope with normal handling, anything taller is pretty much a no go to me.

[Malamute]

Maybe this has been covered before, but what do folks think of safety deletes on Marlins?

I recall hearing of guys grinding down the button flush on the side that activates it so its nearly impossible to accidentally activate, but technically is still there. It would have to be pushed in with something to put the safety on.

[gato naranja]

The Rossi guns had a mount that used the barrel dovetail and a screw right behind it to make a simple mount. Id like to see on in person, or perhaps just get the barrel drilled and tapped for a single low base just ahead of the receiver.

I had one of those mounts, but the one I had was pretty sloppy and ultimately not really something I wanted to depend on. About the middle of my 92 clone period, I was toying with getting a stainless, octagon-barreled 92 Rossi short rifle, getting it cut down to 16" and having a long section of Picatinny/Weaver rail from Brownell's with some of the bottom metal milled off and then attached to the top flat with five screws. I actually thought of this after looking at F.W. Mann's old patent for the full-length barrel dovetail for the scope mounts he developed at the time. Old books often lead me onto some odd tangents.

I figured with any compact optic and low rings, it would withstand whatever I was likely to bump it with. It was not a complex idea, but I was no longer willing to invest the effort and lost interest... but I still think the idea had merit on a top-ejector. On a Marlin, maybe not so much. It probably would have looked like hell, but no worse than some of the tacticooled stuff out there now.