porting on a Marlin 1895


PDA






lordgroom
August 7, 2008, 08:10 AM
I have a Marlin 1895 chambered in 45-70, purchased new in the past 2 years. I have been reading about the Marlin Guide gun and how the porting helps increase control and reduce recoil. If this porting is added to the 22" 1895, would the same benefits apply? What are the negatives. I remember briefly mentioning this to a local gunsmith and he believed it was a waste of $100 as no substantial benefit would be obtained. he suggested I buy a slip on recoil pad.

I am a handloader and can easily adjust a load up or down for my needs, but I am curious about the impact and benefits/ negatives of having the same porting applied to the 1895 as is on the guide gun.

Thanks in advance

If you enjoyed reading about "porting on a Marlin 1895" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
achildofthesky
August 7, 2008, 08:29 AM
Go with a good fitted pad. Porting DOES help but I would rather take the recoil to the outrageous blast. I have a 16.25 barreled 1895 and while heavy loads give a healthy shove the Pachmeyer (sp?) pad damps out alot of the sharpness...

Be safe

Patty

Gator
August 7, 2008, 09:22 AM
+1

I have a ported Guide Gun and wish I had got an unported version instead.

Mannlicher
August 7, 2008, 09:38 AM
I never saw the slightest reason for porting a .45-70 in the first place. A half way decent recoil pad takes care of the 'heavy' recoil.

Hawk
August 7, 2008, 10:22 AM
I've got the Wild West version of the guide gun. It's ported but if I had it to do over I'd leave 'em off.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
August 7, 2008, 10:26 AM
I am a handloader and can easily adjust a load up or down for my needs, but I am curious about the impact and benefits/ negatives of having the same porting applied

Benefit - you get a tiny one of slightly less muzzle rise.

Negative - you get a tremendous one of going deaf if you ever want to hunt with it.

Worse than a mere waste of money - you're paying to make the gun less useful. I cut about 9/16" off my wooden stock on my 1895, then added a nice recoil pad.

Richard.Howe
August 7, 2008, 10:30 AM
having had both -- recommend non-ported. Porting severely limits your flexibility to safely get off a "reflex shot" in the dark timber without muffs/plugs. Believe me....it hurts.

JustsayMo
August 7, 2008, 10:38 AM
I have both versions of the Guide Gun. To be honest, I can't tell the difference in recoil or report using ammo loaded to levergun levels between the ported and unported variation.

I wouldn't pay extra or pay to have a rifle ported as any reduction in muzzle rise is too minute to detect.

cortez kid
August 7, 2008, 11:42 AM
Mega dittos(sorry Rush) on the non porting. My guide gun has very managable recoil. It's my wife's favorite gun. I woldn't port it. Of course, your money.
kid

lordgroom
August 7, 2008, 01:54 PM
Thanks for the great info. I expect to mount a FP receiver sight next week and plan to shoot this a lot more. What recoil pads do any of you have experience with. Slip on or installed?

mainmech48
August 7, 2008, 02:28 PM
My Guide gun came with a decent ventilated pad installed. I swapped it out for a drop-on Pachmayr and it did seem to tone things down a bit.

In a 'slip-on' for an 1895 with a plastic buttplate or thin 'rifle' style pad, I'd recommend the Limbsaver brand. I put one of their replacement pads on my Remington 870 slug gun and it is heaps better than the factory one.

Back when I got mine, all of the Guide models were ported. I've never fired one without it side-by-side, so how much, if any, the porting might contribute to reducing perceived recoil I can't say.

As for noise, I wear electronic muffs even when I hunt so it's never really seemed like much of an issue to me. Nobody who's been on the next seat over at the bench has complained to me about it either, at least so far.

All I can say for sure from my own observation is that with the pad and porting my '95G with warmish 300 gr. JHP loads seems to hit me "softer" and has less muzzle rise than my old 336 does with factory 200 gr. .35 Remington loads.

Enough so that it's replaced it as my woods rifle for deer when I'm able to hunt them in Missouri or Kentucky.

32winspl
August 8, 2008, 01:10 PM
I have a first year 1895M (straight stocked, 18.5" ported bbl, .450 Marlin) and an 1895MR (pistol-gripped stock, 22" unported, .450 Marlin).
Shooting them both, one after the other, same box of ammo, iron-sighted, goes like this. The recoil of the M smacks me in the cheek pretty hard, and even wearing good foam ear-plugs well inserted, the report is seriously LOUD. I've had several people ask "What the hell is that"? The MR feels like it shoots "softer", has never popped me in the cheek, and doesn't draw WTH questions or looks.
One guy asked to try the M. I said sure, but had him shoot the MR first. I didn't say anything to him about any differences between the 2 rifles. After shooting both, he drew the same conclusions as I.

JNewell
August 8, 2008, 09:22 PM
You can't really compare the effect of the ports unless the barrels are the same length. The shorter tube will have greater blast. I have shot both versions of the Guide Gun, indoors and outdoors. My opinion is that muzzle rise is slightly less with the ports but not significantly. Noise/blast is significantly worse indoors (and also under a covered line outdoors) with ports. Outdoors in the open, no noticeable difference to the shooter. Personnel to either side notice greater noise/blast, however.

If you enjoyed reading about "porting on a Marlin 1895" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!