Isn't that interesting. A one round decrease in magazine length. Hardly seems worth the trouble to change. I don't know how to measure a barrel I guess, but mine both measure 21 1/4 inches from where the barrel enters the receiver.to try and answer this. One disclaimer...I find my GD issues extremely useful but would not guarantee that they are up-to-date in each issue on things that might be more obscure information such as this nomenclature on the M60. Anyway, take this for what it is worth....worth certainly something I would say. Also, remember an annual publication like this will always be about a year behind. So, in the 1986 GD the 60 is listed with a 22" barrel and mag capacity of 18. Assuming earlier issues listed it this way also. In the 1987 issue and later, until further changes, it was listed as a 22" barrel and capacity of 17. This did not change until the 1993 issue which then stated a 22" barrel and capacity of 14. As I had read someplace recently, the company had shortened the mag tube but not the barrel when they made that change. The photo of the rifle does now show a mag tube much shorter than the barrel. So, these measurements were given in GD until the 2004 issue which then gave the barrel as 19" and the capacity of 14. I think, but will not swear, that those measurements have been the ones on the rifle until the present.
Of course I could not check Brophy on this because it was published in 1989. But 1985 is when Brophy said the last-shot-hold-open was installed.
And, to JNClem....maybe my information gives you an explanation for what you stated.
You measure to the bolt face. Technically I suppose it's to entrance of the chamber, but the bolt face should be hard up against it.Isn't that interesting. A one round decrease in magazine length. Hardly seems worth the trouble to change. I don't know how to measure a barrel I guess, but mine both measure 21 1/4 inches from where the barrel enters the receiver.
What kind of problems would 18 in the mag cause do you think? I just find these little changes over time to be interesting, especially when it was not changed to accomadate a law like the change to 15. Thing that make you say hmmm...Jnclem you say that the it seemed hardly worth changing the length of the magazine and that seems logical. But maybe there are engineering and cost analysis issues that we do not know about. For example, I could speculate that maybe the tube was not shortened for cost, or even shortened much at all. Furthermore, I could speculate that some shooters were having problems with the full 18 in the tube on some occasions so the company just said....capacity is 17..period and perhaps took a quarter-inch off to confirm that change. Who knows???
I'm surprised that there isn't someplace where all this is documented on Marlin's website. I can often go back on mountain bike manufacturers website and find the specs, timeline, company history etc. for each of thei models. I guess they have bigger things to worry about right now.I was led to believe that the LSHO feature was added in 1985, along with the updated feed throat and bolt designs, and that the magazine capacity was reduced in 1991 or 1992 to cater to New Jersey's assault weapons law which limits magazine capacities of handguns and semiautomatic rifles to 15 rounds. The barrel was shortened from 22" to 19" sometime in the early 2000's.
There was not a one round decrease in mag length. It was the same magazine. The LSHO causes the capacity to be one round less if you load the gun with the bolt open (which I would imagine is the way that the owner's manual would tell you to do it).Isn't that interesting. A one round decrease in magazine length. Hardly seems worth the trouble to change. I don't know how to measure a barrel I guess, but mine both measure 21 1/4 inches from where the barrel enters the receiver.