[OldCZFan]

I saw either here or in the Marlin Owners forum that Ruger recently started to ship Model 1895 rifles in 45-70

I wonder if this will lead to production of 1895 rifles in .444 Marlin caliber. Is there a significant difference between 1895's chambered in 45-70 and those rifles chambered in .444 Marlin other than bore diameter? Are the receiver internals different?

A blue steel/walnut stock .444 should produce quick sales, I would think.

And the .450 Marlin... ?

 

[jkingrph]

Who knows. At least we know they are bringing back the Marlin. Personally I would go with the 45-70 over the .444 due to ammo availability. I would like to see a 336 in 35Rem. and then some of the 1894 models .357 and .44 Mag, although I do like my little cl model in 32-20, and finally, bring back the 39a.

 

[JohnnyS]

I vote for the 39A as well .....

 

[284wahoo]

A 39a in 22WMR would get my attention!

 

[Gizzy]

Did they do away with the cross bolt safety? If not, I need to contact them before they start ruining more 39A’s.

 

[284wahoo]

Did they do away with the cross bolt safety? If not, I need to contact them before they start ruining more 39A's.

If only you had that kind of influence…..

 

[284wahoo]

Speaking of the big-bore Marlins, imagine if Ruger put some of the 336 models out chambered in 375 Ruger? Now that’s an Alaskan guide gun!

 

[comfisherman]

Speaking of the big-bore Marlins, imagine if Ruger put some of the 336 models out chambered in 375 Ruger? Now that's an Alaskan guide gun!

Cartridge is long and way over 336 pressure, don't get me wrong I love both the 375 ruger and the 336 but they won't ever marry.

 

[Gizzy]

If only you had that kind of influence…..

Well, when someone notifies me and tells me how the center fires are, I will make the call and try my best to convince them. It cannot be done by wishing but I am willing to make that call and explain why it has to stop in a way their head gunsmith better understand or he does not have the brains to be their head gunsmith.

 

[OldCZFan]

Gizzy -

I think the cross-bolt safety is driven by lawyers, not gunsmiths. I doubt common-sense enters into this.

If a second safety, beyond the half-cock notch, is here forevermore, I would prefer it be a tang safety rather than the atrocious cross-bolt safety,

 

[Skeeve]

... Is there a significant difference between 1895's chambered in 45-70 and those rifles chambered in .444 Marlin other than bore diameter? Are the receiver internals different?

Not particularly. Good to remember that Marlin was looking to make something easy for themselves to manufacture when they were coming up w/ the 444, so about the only real distinction btw .45-70 and .444 Marlin is the bore diameter you mention and of course, the higher pressure that the .444 runs at. All the particulars differ [OAL, rim diameter, etc] but none of them are so different that Marlin would have had to change their production of the 1895 to any significant degree; they wanted something that would be quick to change in/out of when the need arose. The advantage [at that time] of the .444 was the higher pressure making for higher velocity [off the shelf .45-70 is still lower velocity, altho' there are now "Marlin only" loads & such available that negate some of the .444's advantage in that regard] and of course, the slightly smaller frontal area leading to less drag and hence less drop at a distance, while not sacrificing much of the smackdown value of a big-bore bobo[1] trundling along at a good clip.

Given that Ruger now owns the Marlin trademark and the long-standing affection for the .444 Marlin among those who choose to hunt with a lever-gun, I cannot imagine that Ruger will choose not to produce more .444s once they get the 1895 production up & running smoothly w/ all the kinks worked out.

[1] - Technical term for "projectile" or "bullet."

 

[David Valdina]

Market demand matters a lot, let them know...

Market demand matters a lot. Take the time to let them know you do not want cross bolt safeties in the rifles. I would not buy one and will pay the premium price for an older one without the safety. Ditto with the S&W revolvers. They might satisfy the regulation crowd by offering a lockable case with each ?

 

[284wahoo]

Market demand matters a lot. Take the time to let them know you do not want cross bolt safeties in the rifles. I would not buy one and will pay the premium price for an older one without the safety. Ditto with the S&W revolvers. They might satisfy the regulation crowd by offering a lockable case with each ?

This Gizzy's call for example

 

[schiada96]

I saw either here or in the Marlin Owners forum that Ruger recently started to ship Model 1895 rifles in 45-70

I wonder if this will lead to production of 1895 rifles in .444 Marlin caliber. Is there a significant difference between 1895's chambered in 45-70 and those rifles chambered in .444 Marlin other than bore diameter? Are the receiver internals different?

A blue steel/walnut stock .444 should produce quick sales, I would think.

And the .450 Marlin... ?

They are pretty proud on the price!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OldCZFan]

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a gun show in western North Carolina and one of the vendors had a new 1895 45-70 big loop on the table. No price tag, he explained he was taking bids on it or it was some kind of an auction. Not certain. Smart I guess, he might possibly get top dollar since they are still scarce.

I didn't get involved because any bid I would have made would not have been a winner.

 

[fewfeathers]

I can work around a cross bolt safety. I do not like a rebounding hammer, especially on a .22.