New Marlins from Ruger

[200Apples]

And so... seeing that .44mag 1894 gun with the barrel band had me thinking that maybe Ruger is changing things around.

Marlin's pistol- (revolver-) caliber lever action Model 1894 have mostly been barrel-band carbines with few exceptions:

The 1894FG (.41 Magnum) is a blued, round-barrel short rifle, and at 20".
The short run (at the end of Remington's reign over what was left of the Marlin tooling) of Models 1894 CST, CSBL and SBL were all stainless and in short rifle config, but at 16.5" "Trapper" barrel lengths.

The CST (.357) wore black coated furniture and a threaded muzzle. The CSBL and SBL both wore grey laminated birch and had XS Sights Systems' Picatinny "scout" rail. The CSBL was chambered in .357 Magnum and the SBL chambered in .44 Magnum.

The other Marlin 1894s made as short rifles were the Cowboy Limiteds (ocatgonal barrels, no barrel band but with a forend end cap instead) beyond what I've listed, so... but in my experience the typical .357 and .44 and .45 Colt 1894 lever carbines were all barrel band long guns.

A check of listings on Gunbroker may bear this out.

[plumbum]

My 1894 wears a barrel band, but it lacks any checkering because it was one of those $249 Big 5 specials.

[pennstater]

My 1894 wears a barrel band, but it lacks any checkering because it was one of those $249 Big 5 specials.

K-Mart and Gemco had 'em also, if I remember correctly. Somewhat less expensive wood and no checkering. Same rifle tho.

MLC

[Ki6vsm]

Remember folks, these are Rugers. Built to Rugers new specs. These are "Marlins" in name only. Just like Winchester and Remington. Marlin died a few years ago with Remington; and now, Ruger has all the patents, machinery etc.
It's ALL Ruger.

That just goes back to the original point I was making. How much might they modify from the original Marlin "blueprints", etc. And more to my point, how many of the upcoming Ruger-made components might be backwards compatible to our older rifles, should we need/want to buy spare parts made by them?

At the moment I'm thinking specifically about the furniture. I think Ruger may have redesigned the foregrip on their "big bore" 1894, which would make it incompatible with our older rifles. Just sayin'. I'm not trying to create FUD. Speculating based on what little I've seen so far. Time will tell.

My 1894 wears a barrel band, but it lacks any checkering because it was one of those $249 Big 5 specials.

You didn't mention the caliber, which is important. My 1894 is also a Big 5 version with the plain wood, and it has an end cap; no barrel band. But it's a .44 cal version. I'll bet yours is a .38 cal.

[200Apples]

My 1894 is also a Big 5 version with the plain wood, and it has an end cap; no barrel band. But it's a .44 cal version

Interesting. Perhaps I'd better take my advice and look through some GB listings.

[200Apples]

Huh. All of these Marlin/Remlin .44 caliber 1894s are short rifles except for one barrel band carbine made in 1979 and another in 1970.

https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=Marlin%201894%20.44&Sort=13

Sometimes I only open my mouth to take another bite of my hat.

[Ki6vsm]

Interesting. Perhaps I'd better take my advice and look through some GB listings.

Here's the rifles I remember from "my day", about 20 years ago.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010401065029/http://www.marlinfirearms.com/firearms/1894_centerfireRifles/index.htm

I was actually surprised to see that their CP "trapper" model back then, which was a .38 cal rifle, had an end cap just like the big boys. Blew apart my assumption that the .38s in those days all had barrel bands.

[bergmen]

You didn't mention the caliber, which is important. My 1894 is also a Big 5 version with the plain wood, and it has an end cap; no barrel band. But it's a .44 cal version. I'll bet yours is a .38 cal.

My 1894 is also a Big 5 version (sat on the rack for a few months until I decided to buy it and take it home). Plain Jane stock (no checkering, not walnut). But mine is in .45 Colt (which is the reason I bought it in 2009).

It has an issue where the bolt wants to open when fired (kicks the lever down a bit). Started out only with stout loads but does it every time now. Haven't taken it apart to check it out, just put it in the safe. One of the projects on my list...

Dan

[Imageview]

The furniture is compatible*. I?m looking to convert my ruglin 1895 to a straight stock, just because I like straight stocks (this will be my 4th or 5th straight stocked rifle depending on when the stock finally gets here from the UK), and the furniture is not the part I?m concerned with fitting. That will be the new trigger plate and lever. But those have always been finicky, nothing to do with who made them.

*Stock furniture only. some aftermarket furniture did have a few minor issues. They may create models in the future that aren?t, but it wouldn?t make much sense. Some pieces as always may require individual fitting.

[Ki6vsm]

Huh. All of these Marlin/Remlin .44 caliber 1894s are short rifles except for one barrel band carbine made in 1979 and another in 1970.

https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=Marlin%201894%20.44&Sort=13

Sometimes I only open my mouth to take another bite of my hat.

Interesting, yes. I saw that c.1970 .44cal rifle with the barrel band. Hmm, so it's not a universal law.

As said, I'm not really a Marlin aficionado. I've only owned three, and currently only own two (my c.2003 1894 44cal and my c.1967 39A Mountie). I'm mostly acquainted with the final generation of the Marlin-made Marlin rifles.

FWIW, I see that they updated their website and replaced the old stock image of the 1894 with this pic of the new production (probably .44 cal) model. Not a bad looking rifle at all, now that I'm getting used to it. I would not mind owning one. Just curious is all about whether this foregrip will fit and look proper on an older version, should someone decide to try one of these. Is it long enough to cover a 'legacy' barrel's tenon dovetail cut? I assume that Ruger deleted the dovetail on their new barrels.



BTW, I know that there are a number of specialty companies out there making new furniture for the older rifles. Boyd being just one.

[ACfixer]

My take, the Ruglins look like Rugers, and I can't quite put my finger on it, except they look like a Ruger.

The Remlins for all their faults, some of them were downright gorgeous rifles.

[splithoof]

My take, the Ruglins look like Rugers, and I can't quite put my finger on it, except they look like a Ruger.

The Remlins for all their faults, some of them were downright gorgeous rifles.

As someone who has a bunch of Rugers (50+~) that span nearly all their production years, yes, they do have a certain ?look?. IMO, many are ?thick?, ?fat?, etc., and nearly all are lacking in the fitment of stocks/grips to actions and frames, have generally mediocre triggers, and rough actions until they have a fair amount of use. There are some exceptions though, and my latest is a RuMar 1895 Trapper, of which I?d say is better than most Ruger production guns. After careful examination of the new RuMar SBL, so far it looks to be worth the expense. Hopefully, these new RuMar offerings will be as robust as other Ruger firearms, one of their stronger suits.

[ACfixer]

Yeah I guess that sums it up pretty well splithoof, I've owned several (like most of us) and still have a few... Definitely serviceable and reliable firearms, just nothing that ever grabbed me as a functioning work of art I guess.

The 1895 SBL I fondled was acceptable fit and finish, but yeah somehow it lacked the elegance in some way. I think the pic rail on top and the shorter kinda fat barrel not to mention the laminated stocks and the hideous front sight just left me not wanting it. I get function over form, but I suppose I am one of those guys looking for a more nostalgic look with my lever action guns.

[splithoof]

For nostalgic looks, I prefer Winchesters. My RuMar Trapper is set up for hunting, with the XS rail, forward mounted optic, QR rings, good iron sights, and of course sling studs. Apples posted a pic of it somewhere around here. It is a tool for a purpose, but is also fun to shoot with reduced loads. I’m working on some hard-cast loads for it now, to see what it will do. So far with plated bullets it has been surprisingly accurate out to 100 yards, so making 200 yard hits to the vital zone on game should be easy enough. I wish the loading port was on the left side of the receiver, but it is what it is.
Overall, compared to all the various Marlin-built examples, the RuMars IMO are much better.

[Ki6vsm]

Yeah I guess that sums it up pretty well splithoof, I've owned several (like most of us) and still have a few... Definitely serviceable and reliable firearms, just nothing that ever grabbed me as a functioning work of art I guess.

Agree.

Maybe since these new Rugers weren't designed inhouse, from scratch, they won't fall into that typical category.

Only thing I can think of that's similar here are the Ruger Vaqueros. Ruger's interpretation of a 19th century handgun. I've never handled one. Anyone know how the Vaqueros compare to the Colt versions, new or old?