I have a 39AS built in 1994.I keep seeing references that suggest that these models are somehow inferior to earlier rifles.I have never had any issues with it so I am not sure what folks are referring to.Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks
The only thing that I am aware of is most Marlin 39 fans prefer the non- cross bolt safety (early models). I have one of each. Both are fantastic rifles. My 1966 39A has a narrower forearm, compared to the “fatter” forearm on my 1988 39AS. Truth is, I just don’t use the cross bolt safety ( most of the time ). They are great rifles.
No doubt the older rifles are built with better craftsmanship and arguably better materials. That doesn't mean they still function or shoot as well as a newer rifle without the miles or round count. Some folks like to make comparisons and have not owned both models. It's not an inferior rifle it's just cheaper. Some people get hung up on the subject. If you like the way it handles, shoots and feels then do your best to try to wear it out.
There are 3 old model 39a mounties at my house. They are fun to shoot, they are not the most accurate and they don't always eject.
I have a 1952 39a, a 1957 Mountie, and a late 90's early 2000's 1897 Cowboy, with the rebounding hammer. I honestly cannot tell any difference in accuracy, The two old ones have Lyman 67 receiver sights, the Cowboy has a Marbles tang sight.
Don't believe 1/2 of what you read. [except this] the 39AS is a fine fine rifle made from probably better steels than earlier rifles [modern heat treating methods and such] by some dedicated craftsmen. It's a fine rifle. Enjoy it!
You have no worries about your 39AS, it is made of finely machined steel and walnut and will last several lifetimes. If it is accurate and functions well, don't be concerned about it.
I always take an opportunity at gun shows and gun stores to inspect interesting used guns. There were changes over the years in finish, stock shape etc. that are mostly personal opinion on if the changes were for the better or not. I like the 39A's from the fifties but it's mostly due to the shape and wood finish plus the lack of the safety. The later 39a's were not bad guns at all.
Now I seem to be the only one who can tell the difference in accuracy. The older models are better than those with the rebounding hammers. Just think... that hammer is on its way back as the bullet is traveling down the bore. I remember seeing Bob Munden on TV going his famous trick shots, and one time he was using a newer Marlin 39AS, but he had the rebounding hammer disabled as I have done to mine. My first rebounding model I could not keep a group at 50 yards with a scope, under a nickle. I modified the hammer strut, and shrunk those groups in less than half the size.
I'm with Gizzy,
I have five 39s from apx. 1927(39), '60s-'70's & one 2001 39AS.
The older ones all shoot about a 1/4" (about 30%) tighter @25-30Y.
Actually I think that the 1927ish M 39 with the Ballard rifling is has the edge in accuracy. All have peeps.
I do like the styling & finish of the older ones better also, but I suppose that is
just a subjective view.
There is nothing wrong with your gun. The quality of the metal is just fine. The only issue I would have is the rebounding hammer, but that in itself is subjective.
I have a 1968 39A and have had several others over the years. I am not fan of micro groove rifling in 22's. I do believe the ballard rifling is better for 22's.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Rimfire Central Firearm Forum
6.4M posts
194K members
Since 2002
A family friendly forum community dedicated to rimfire firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion of all manner of rimfire pistols, rifles, optics, ammo, gunsmithing, customization, reviews, hunting, accessories, classifieds, and more!