Marlin vs. Win. in .30/30's - why you chose one over the other

[gnoahhh]

Another vote for the Savage lever gun over all the rest. "Once you've tried Savage you never go back!" I haven't messed with a Winchester or Marlin for thirty years, ever since I discovered the joys of the Savage rifle.

[TXGunNut]

Life's too short to choose one levergun. Get several of each, try them all. Send me the ones you don't like.

[.45colt]

Buy all of them you can afford. get out and shoot them. what works in your 20's may not when We get older. I have had several eye surgery's this year and am thrilled to be able to see again. don't ever take your vision for granted. Marlin or Winchester don't matter. just shoot them.

[smkummer]

I could not pass up a 1962 94 in 30-30 a few years ago that wasn't listed as a pre-64 and I got it for under $300. Good, I finally have a pre-64 Winchester in 30-30. I sure wished I didn't pass on a early 50's Marlin 30-30 with ballard rifling (since I mainly shoot cast bullets) for $275 about the same time but I didn't think I needed 2 guns that did the same thing. Sure that marlin had a fat forearm but the pistol grip feels good and a broke in marlin is smooth. When you lower the lever on a 94 Winchester, it feels like the guts come out of it. The Winchester feels smaller though.

[pull the trigger]

I can recall nine Marlin levers in my safe. I dont even look at Winchester anything. I met an old man years ago that tested firearms for the federal government. He told me the Marlins were always of the highest quality no matter the year manufactured. Other manufacturers were always hit and miss. Thats what got me started

[braddonovan67]

I own a Mossberg 464. Bought it 6 years ago for 365$. Sold it to my brother. He sold it to my father-in-law. I traded a 30-06 for a Savage 99 in .308 and traded it for the Mossberg back. Should never have sold it in the first place. Love that gun. Low I am casting for it. As soon as the tap comes in its getting a Williams peep too.


Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[jmort]

+1 on the Mossberg 464
Best deal out there. I need another. Have Henry, Mossberg, Marlin, Remlin and Winchester. The Mossberg is the one I would keep over the others.

[northmn]

Just bought a 464 and am glad to read some good things about it. If you are left handed do not even look at a Savage unless it a newer one with a tang sight. That lever safety is about a unhandy as I have ever seen. Traded my Savage off for a bolt action and will never look at one again. The 464 is basically like a Winchester angle eject and so far looks promising.
I have an old Marlin 336 waffle top and should have D&T it for a scope but collectors really scream about that. Have another old waffle top 35 that came D&T and it works very well. I could make a good argument that the Marlin XTL or something like that with its longer barrel would be about as good a deer rifle as you can get if scoped. The 308 Marlin is about the same as a 300 Savage and even the 30-30 with the newer gummy tips from Horandy is not all bad.

DP

[Prairie Cowboy]

My preference is for JM Marlins. I've owned several JM Marlins and Winnies both over the years, including a pre-64 94 carbine in .32 Special. The Winnie action I like for it's Browning engineered design. The Marlin I like for it's styling, smoothness and the single-pivot lever.
My only Marlin now is a time capsule JM 336C from the Marlin vault, when JM sold everything off prior to the Remington move. It's a 1969 rifle and virtually new.
It's the only rifle that I never had to adjust the sights on, and it shoots tight groups at 100 yards.

[Lead pot]

I always favored the Marlins. I have had several during my time and most I sold to get something else. I only regret selling a couple like the .25-20 and the Mod. 62 with the short action .256 Win Mag. I also have the 99 Savages, kept the .300 savage. I never cared for the 94 Win because it was hard to take apart after shooting black powder in it and I had to squeeze the lever hard to let the hammer drop. The 99 savages, .22HP .300 and the .358 where fine rifles and you didn't have to stick with the flat nosed bullets, but cleaning from the muzzle or snake.
I just picked up this fine 93 in the .30-30. It looks like it spent most of it's life in a closet. Very little wear on the moving parts like it has not been shot much or the lever worked. Some of the case color is still on and the barrel is pristine like new. The four digit Sn. takes it back to 1883 but the .30-30 caliber did not come out till just before the turn of the century. Also the butplate is unusual for this rifle. I only have looked at three with one like it.
But marlin used a lot of parts off the shelves.
I load it with a full case of black and it shoots quite well with a 170 gr cast bullet.



It pulled a little right but that is fixed.

[Lead pot]

PB. Thank you. 93 is good enough for me.

Hey I remember Phineas T Bluster, but I liked Linda Marsh as Princess Summerfall Winterspring better

[Blackwater]

FWIW, if anything, some of the comments about some models don't apply across the board to all modifications of some of the leverguns. On the M-99 Sav's for example, later models have a top safety something like that on double barrel shotguns, that are equally handy and quick for both right and left handers. Also, for those who "don't like Winchesters," if you ever get your hands on a pre-WWII model 94, and actually shoot it, I think you'd be VERY surprised. I've only owned one M-99 and one pre-WWII M-94, but in both cases, I was very positively impressed with both of these guns. I'd love to have another of each model again!

And when it comes to Marlin vs. Win., I'll take the pre-64 M-94's if and when I can just FIND one for sale around here, but day in and day out, the Marlins tend to be more consistent as to accuracy and function. They're just a tad heavier, and thicker through the forearms, which is good for shooting but bad for carrying, so it's really a tossup, though I like the lighter, more slender and slightly thinner M-94's made prior to '64 as a general rule. But that's simply because when I carry a levergun, carrying and stowability and handling becomes my chief priorities. Those who hunt the north woods seem to have long preferred the Marlins because the extra wt and different balance make them swing better for shooting at running deer, which will always be rather tricky at its best. It's easy for this southern flatlander to understand why the .35 Rem. M-336's have dominated the north woods. Here in the south, where "jump shots" are close and cover is never far away, the lighter, slightly quicker M-94's tend to dominate. "Form follows function" always seem to be something the majority find appealing simply through experience and over time.

But in the end, it's all about personal preference, I think, and I'm comfortable with either one in my hands. And both are great guns, IMO. The Savage 99 is really in a class all by itself. Different, and very highly useful in most any situation, even for longer range shooting, usually. The strange thing about leverguns is there really aren't any "bad" ones that come to mind, other than maybe individual specimens that have been abused or neglected. Each one has its own set of peculiarities that suit some and not others, but quality of manufacture and fitting have varied through the years. The first 336's for instance, after Rem. started putting them out, wouldn't even function, and the gun writers they sent them to quietly returned them with notes that many couldn't even be made to fire a single round! But that was a management mistake of gigantic proportions, and NOT a design problem! Bean-counter types do NOT do well when dictating technical matters! They seem to have learned a lesson, at least for now, and hopefully the newer Marlins mfg'd by Rem will prove up to their historical reputation. It sure cost them a LOT of money to make the kind of mistakes they made in the initial effort! And NONE of the gun companies can afford to do that these days!!!

[Lloyd Smale]

I like a Winchester if I'm using open sights and a marlin with a scope. Who could be without at least one of each?

[W.R.Buchanan]

I like the Marlins for several reasons. First they are less expensive than comparable Winchesters. Second they respond well to Refinishing and Internal Deburring and are easier to work on. They end up making really nice looking guns when done. The work is not beyond anyone who can operate Sand Paper and a File.

Examples of the first reason: I paid $225 for my 1958 336 .30-30. $300 for my M39AS, $525 new for both my 1894 and 1895 CB's. both of which looked like Plain Jane generic guns. The 1895 had to be completely reworked before I shot it, as it had so many sharp edges on it that it would cut you. Both of these guns are a shear pleasure to shoot,,,, now!

I have a Marlin 39AS, "S" meaning safety. These are arguably some of the best generic .22's ever made and are really nice guns. However mine has had the complete interior redo and runs super smooth now. Took me 6 hours of fiddling with it to get there. It has a rebounding hammer which drives me nuts as it goes "Boing" everytime you fire it. Need to go back into it and file a Half Cock Notch into the hammer so I can get rid of the rebound and eliminate the safety button. and then refinish the wood and the gun will be great. The wood on that has a lot of character which is mostly hidden by the paint Marlin uses.

All of my Marlins appeared to have absolutely bland wood. However after scraping the "Marshield " finish off them and refinishing with oil finishes they show a lot of character not previously visible. I highly recommend that others follow my lead on that and refinish the wood on their guns, as it will amaze you what you find under the paint that Marlin used to seal the wood.

Those are the reasons why I like the Marlins better. The Winchesters are great guns, but they just don't lend themselves to home gunsmithing as much as the Marlins do and the cost to even get into a bad one is more than a new Marlin costs. Also there are plenty of used Marlins out there to pick up cheap and play with.

Randy

[smithywess]

I always favored the Marlins. I have had several during my time and most I sold to get something else. I only regret selling a couple like the .25-20 and the Mod. 62 with the short action .256 Win Mag. I also have the 99 Savages, kept the .300 savage. I never cared for the 94 Win because it was hard to take apart after shooting black powder in it and I had to squeeze the lever hard to let the hammer drop. The 99 savages, .22HP .300 and the .358 where fine rifles and you didn't have to stick with the flat nosed bullets, but cleaning from the muzzle or snake.
I just picked up this fine 93 in the .30-30. It looks like it spent most of it's life in a closet. Very little wear on the moving parts like it has not been shot much or the lever worked. Some of the case color is still on and the barrel is pristine like new. The four digit Sn. takes it back to 1883 but the .30-30 caliber did not come out till just before the turn of the century. Also the butplate is unusual for this rifle. I only have looked at three with one like it.
But marlin used a lot of parts off the shelves.
I load it with a full case of black and it shoots quite well with a 170 gr cast bullet.



It pulled a little right but that is fixed.

That's a very nice rifle indeed with the retention of some nice case colour on the receiver. The bluing on the barrel and tube are wonderful too. The stock doesn't look like it has many dings and all the screws are in good shape. Looks like an original Rocky Mountain front sight. So many front sights have been replaced. The rear sight elevator is a bit funny ? It looks as if it may have started life as a Marlin 'fish hook' type elevator which is correct but the point of the 'hook' has bust off or filed. Then again the whole elevator may have been replaced. These Marlin elevators are sure tough to find. Used to be a few folk were reproducing them but they seem to have disappeared. Glad to know the bore is in good shape. You don't need to use black powder unless you want to. The barrel is nickel steel and quite strong enough for smokeless powder. I think your date of manufacture may be a bit awry ? The 4 digit serial number under the lever appeared on rifles built after World War 1. I note the absence of factory drilling and tapping on top of the receiver. This was done on rifles made after Lewis Hepburn patented his combination receiver peep sight in August 1903. At some time in the late twenties or early thirties these drilled and tapped holes disappeared. I'm not sure exactly when but I would put your rifle in the late twenties. Does it have a star stamped on the upper tang just behind the hammer ? That appeared in 1925 and was put on rifles for a few years. Also there should be a bullseye ahead of the toe on the buttstock. In the very late twenties and early thirties a few rifles were made with a rounded form to the back of the lever. It's rather nice that your rifle has a round barrel. Most orders were for octagonal barrels although the round ones were cheaper.Marlin quit drilling and tapping their receivers for the Hepburn sight after the company was bought by the Rockwell company which manufactured machine guns for WW 1 use. A few receivers were left over after the war but from 1921 these drilled and tapped receivers were stopped. Your crescent shaped buttstock without the extension over the heel was a feature of later Models of '93 and is period correct for about the mid to late 1920's.