Ruger CEO & Marlin Production on IG

[Kerplow]

That may be, I don't doubt it. I was mostly speaking of the fit and finish. The woodwork and bluing went to crap in the late '90s

I personally am not a fan of any of the bulbous furniture that marlin has produced, and that goes back several decades. It may have been nicer before, but still ugly, IMO.

[rromeo]

The '60s guns had the lovely slim forends. I wish they were all like that.

[Kerplow]

The '60s guns had the lovely slim forends. I wish they were all like that.

[Horsewright]

I personally am not a fan of any of the bulbous furniture that marlin has produced, and that goes back several decades. It may have been nicer before, but still ugly, IMO.

I can tell ya from a practical standpoint it don't pack under your leg in a saddle scabbard a horseback as good. I have an 1895 Guide Gun in .45-70. I've carried it many, many, many, miles horseback in big bear country. The only thing I can fault it from a practical standpoint is the bulbous forearm. It would carry so much better if it was slim like a Mod 94.

[bergmen]

I can tell ya from a practical standpoint it don't pack under your leg in a saddle scabbard a horseback as good. I have an 1895 Guide Gun in .45-70. I've carried it many, many, many, miles horseback in big bear country. The only thing I can fault it from a practical standpoint is the bulbous forearm. It would carry so much better if it was slim like a Mod 94.

According to my "Marlin Firearms" book it appears as though the bulgy forearm (called a "Sure-Grip Semi-Beaver Tail Forearm" by Marlin) was first introduced in the second variation of the model 1936. According to the book, small changes like this (and a few others) were made to attempt to more successfully compete with the Winchester Model 94. It looks as though the pistol grip stock was standardized at about the same time (although I'm not completely certain about that).

Dan

[Horsewright]

According to my "Marlin Firearms" book it appears as though the bulgy forearm (called a "Sure-Grip Semi-Beaver Tail Forearm" by Marlin) was first introduced in the second variation of the model 1936. According to the book, small changes like this (and a few others) were made to attempt to more successfully compete with the Winchester Model 94. It looks as though the pistol grip stock was standardized at about the same time (although I'm not completely certain about that).

Dan

[splithoof]

[bergmen]

That is exactly how I was going to respond. The original can be used as a guide to re-checker the slimmed down replacement. One can shop around for artisans that can do hand checkering for reasonable prices. I have had it done but the person who did it for me thought he was worth a lot more than I wanted to pay (got the bill after it was done so I was stuck). Being that this is a "working gun", it doesn't necessarily have to be "museum" quality I wouldn't think.

Dan

[LindenBruce]

Any idea on when these will start hitting shelves? B.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Guys, stop with the Special Requests. They are way down the road if they come at all, adn most of the ones you say you want you would never buy anyway for whatever reason you could come up with. Ruger can't make a living off your wish list..

The Marlin Action is proofed to @50,000 psi. So any other higher pressure cartridge is not going to happen. Period! So no they aren't going to make a .500 S&W or .460 or .454 Casull, all those cartridges run up into the 65,K psi range.

None of the oddball calibers will show up for a very long time. You will probably see .45-70 in the 1895 series guns. .30-30,and maybe .35 Remington in the 336 guns, and .357, .44, and.45 LC in the 1894's.

What you have to understand is that different models are driven by two things. either someone like Lipsey's comes in and gets Ruger to make a run of guns specifically for them (in runs of 500 ea.) or the company gets enough requests for something that is not that different from what is already being made. Like an 1894 in .41 Mag which fits between the .357 adn .44 cal guns.

I doubt you'll ever see an 1894 in .41 Mag because there aren't any revolvers being made in that caliber, and the caliber was never really that popular in the first place. There is nothing a.41 will do that a .44 won't do better. It had a following but not enough to warrant a run for Ruger unless someone like Lipsey's bought them. They were sold before they were made, and Lipsey's paid Ruger to make them. Ruger didn't just make them and say "Here they are! Please buy them?"

If you remember Ruger did a run of Blackhawk Flattops in .44 Special for Lipsey's. The first run of 500 sold in 3 days! So they bought another, and another. the operative point being "Lipsey's bought them from Ruger, so Ruger got paid to sell the guns to Lipsey's." there was no speculation on Ruger's part.

As far as the slim fore end. My 1958 336 has one, because I took a wood rasp to it, and slimmed it down myself. In fact it tapers from the front to the back so it still has some belly at the back end. It wasn't that hard!

I could go on.

Randy

[200Apples]

I'm not trying to brag, but I cain't hepp meself... I have a .41 1894, and I have two of those .44 Special flat tops from the Lipsey's run. All three firearms were my first foray into GunBroker at the time (about five years ago).



20" 1894FG, 18.5" 1894CS357, 16.5" 1894SBL





5-1/2", sequential serial # .44 Special flat tops. Took Ruger 54 years to make these, and thanks in large part to Lipsey's Jason Cloessner.

[golfish]

We all do like to shoot that 41mag....

[200Apples]

And shoot it again, ye will! sirs.

[Kerplow]

Guys, stop with the Special Requests.

I could go on.

Randy

Well thanks for the heads up, party pooper!

[splithoof]

I'm not trying to brag, but I cain't hepp meself... I have a .41 1894, and I have two of those .44 Special flat tops from the Lipsey's run.

I guess I really need to learn to post my own pictures….
There a number of lever guns (and other single actions) in the SplitHoof Ranch reference collection that haven’t been out in some time…..