Puma 92 vs marlin 1894 in 45 Colt


PDA






Kentucky-roughrider
December 23, 2008, 07:46 PM
I would to knowthe diffence between these to riflles in price, reliablty, strenght, costomer support, balnce and about anything else.

If you enjoyed reading about "Puma 92 vs marlin 1894 in 45 Colt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jimfern
December 24, 2008, 12:22 PM
I'm curious too. I am putting together my want list for 2009-10 and am considering a lever .45 or Freedom Arms 454 near the top of what will probably be a very short list.

Seafarer12
December 24, 2008, 01:22 PM
You will get about 10 to 1 in favor of Marlins around here. I own a Navy Arms (Rossi) in 357 and it is a great gun. I like the 92 action over the 94. I think it feels and looks better and have read it is stronger. As far as reliability mine doesn't care too much for fast shooting 38's but will handle 357's as fast as I can rack it. Mine has been flawless. The only time I had any issues it was because I had a primer come apart and a small chunk of it got stuck under the extractor and kept it from extracting properly. As far as accuracy it is fine for me. I have never put it on paper. It shoots what I aim at and thats good enough for me. As far as price goes the Rossi's are cheaper and have a lower resale usually. I picked mine up for a little over 300 used. It was a pretty good deal though. As far as balance, mine is barrel heavy because it has an octagon barrel with a 357 bore. I imagine a 45 round barrel would be more balanced. If I were in the market for another one. I would try to find another Navy Arms. They are the highest grade Rossi's. Nicer wood, no safety. If you shoot it much you will want to replace the rear sight and probably change the springs out. You can get both for about 50 bucks and are well worth it.

mgkdrgn
December 24, 2008, 01:47 PM
Ya, I've been pondering the same thing, as I already have a handgun that fires 45 Colt, and don't really have a mid-range brush gun. Tossing that big 45 Colt slug 100-150 yards ought to fit that bill quite nicely. (also, as the hands get to be a bit more arthritic, it's easier to handle big bullets!)

Now, Puma makes a lever in 454 Casull, but Marlin does not. If I'm concerned about strength, I've considered going for the 454, and then shoot mainly 45 Colt from it.

My research (but no first hand looks) indicated that the Puma's can be a little "rough around the edges", but there are a couple of folks that make it their business to "slick them up" if you get a rough one.

I would to knowthe diffence between these to riflles in price, reliablty, strenght, costomer support, balnce and about anything else.

ArmedBear
December 24, 2008, 02:54 PM
1892 Winchester has great handling -- and I'm a clay and bird shooter, so I'm pickier about that than a lot of rifle buyers seem to be.

I've shot some old originals -- love 'em.

I personally own a Marlin 1894, though. I like the handling of the Marlin as well.:)

The Marlin is a lot quicker to field strip and clean. One screw, and the mechanism comes out of the receiver. The bolt comes straight out the back and cleaning from the breech is easy.

Now when I bought that Marlin, I got it for $379 NIB. The Pumas next to it cost more.

Now, the Marlins are more expensive and the Pumas offer a lot more options in .45LC (stainless, CCH, short barrel, etc.).

The fact remains that the Winchester mechanism is neat-o, and can be slicked up, but the Marlin's is simpler and IMO a more practical design. The Marlin also protects the innards from crud and rain better -- though if I planned on rain, I'd get the Puma in stainless.

Puma's can be a little "rough around the edges",

Compared to a genuine 100-year-old Winchester, they feel like dragging a hammer through a box of gravel. However, they really aren't bad.

Both the Puma and the Marlin are considered by Buffalo Bore to be sufficient to shoot their really hot ammo.

Marlin customer support is good. Can't say anything about Legacy Sports.

Which one do you like?

I can't remember seeing a post here about either rifle where the owner said, "Damn, that thing is a POS!"

My lever gun arsenal, such as it is, is 100% Marlin, but I can't say there's a reason not to get the Puma if you like it. Cycle the action and look around inside it; that's the primary difference.

Also, the Marlin is still Made in the USA, if that matters to you.

Loggerlee
December 24, 2008, 03:23 PM
Armed Bear seems to have the gist of it,I've never seen anyone bitching about the either of the rifles,so they must be good ones.
considering that every other kind of rifle seems to get slammed every time it's brought up.
Noticeably mini-14vs AR-15 battles :)

Kentucky-roughrider
December 30, 2008, 02:27 AM
Thank you gentlemen for your thoughts, I have writing my 2009-2010 to buy list. And This is for my pistol caliber carbine class and I have a 45 Colt revolver. I may use it for a saddle gun so the longest barrel length I will think about will be 22" with a rifle at 16" to 20" prefer.

Pokyman
December 30, 2008, 11:43 AM
I own a Puma in 45 colt. I had the good fortune to win it at a state rifle championship. I was thrilled to win it.
When I got it home as was able to take a close look at it, I was sorely disappointed. When the barrel was screwed in, the sights indexed past top dead center. While I thought this pour workmenship, I figured that drifting the rear sight, if needed, would solve the problem. I was very wrong. When I took the rifle to the range, I could not drift the rear sight far enough to get the sights and the point of impact to agree. Then I tried experimenting with the loads. When I finally reached a load that was 2 gr. over max. the rifle started shooting point of aim. Accuracy even for a lever gun was nothing to get overly excited about. 2" at 50 yds is about the best my rifle will do.
I have no experience with the Marlin, however my experience with the Puma I would choose the Marlin.

Kentucky-roughrider
December 31, 2008, 02:53 PM
There is the first Puma POS reply.

1858
December 31, 2008, 03:19 PM
Puma 92 vs marlin 1894 in 45 Colt
I would to knowthe diffence between these to riflles in price, reliablty, strenght, costomer support, balnce and about anything else.

I can't say anything about the Puma 92 since I've never handled, shot or owned one. However, I do own a Marlin 1894 Cowboy Ltd in .45 Colt. In the spirit of full disclosure, you can do a search for "cracked Marlin stock" and "scored Marlin barrel" which were problems that I encountered with the new Marlin that I bought. A friend just bought a new 1894 in .45 Colt (on my recommendation I think) and discovered that a small piece of the stock had broken off where the stock connects to the action. As for Marlin's customer service .... EXCELLENT just about sums it up. They sent me a new stock no questions asked in under a week and they replaced the barrel in about two weeks. As for the rifle now ... well it's just PERFECT and I LOVE shooting it. I have XS ghost ring sights on it and a few other "upgrades" and it is a joy to shoot. I've found that Trail Boss powder and 200gr or 250gr bullets are an accurate combination but I'm keen to try some jacketed bullets at or around 1200 fps to see what this little carbine is capable of. At the end of the day, would I buy the 1894 again ... YEP!!

:)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
December 31, 2008, 04:20 PM
If you're gonna scope it or peep-sight it, then Marlin. If you're not, the Puma 92. That's the long and the short of it. The 92 is smaller/lighter/faster/handier, but can't be scoped without a drill & tap. The 92 is perfect for the .45 colt if you're going to use iron sights. The Marlin 94 is a very good rifle too, just not quite as nimble. Price and quality is about the same, new. The Puma is a tad cheaper used. The safety on the Marlin is far preferable to the safety on the Puma 92, however.

zgate
December 31, 2008, 05:25 PM
I have one of each, a Marlin in .44 mag and a Puma in .454, and like them both.

I have had a two feeding problems with the Marlin that took the gun out of action but I think I have that fixed. Zero problems with the Puma. After a little work both actions are equally slick. The Puma does a great job firing .45 Colts, the Marlin doesnít like .44 specials and jams more times then not. Iíll keep them both but if I had to get rid of one the Marlin would go.

Tamlin
January 1, 2009, 02:25 PM
I recently picked up the sister of the Puma 92 - a Hartford 92 (both are made by Rossi) in .357/.38 and took it out for the first time this week. I have the 16" bbl in SS model - I think it's beautiful. I've never shot any other lever gun, so I don't have anything to compare it to, but it did fine and I'm happy with it. I'm not a fan of the rear sight - I'd prefer to put a peep on it - but I'm OK with leaving it as-is. I had handled a used Marlin 1894 in .45 LC and really liked it. It, too, had a 16" bbl and was the SS version. Unfortunately, I didn't buy it that day. When I went back to get it the next day, it was gone. :cuss: I'm happier with my caliber choice, though. If I could have found the .357 with a 16" bbl in SS in a Marlin, I would have bought it instead of the Hartford. But again, I'm happy with what I got.

gga357
February 15, 2009, 08:47 PM
Choices. I have an 1873 and Win 94. I too am looking at the 92. If Win was still making them there would be no hesitation. All these are in 45lc, but the future is to get my favorite in .357. Next a double action 45lc. Wife can run the 357 and I will have the 45lc piar loaded hot.

MCgunner
February 15, 2009, 08:53 PM
You will get about 10 to 1 in favor of Marlins around here. I own a Navy Arms (Rossi) in 357 and it is a great gun. I like the 92 action over the 94.

Me too. I have the .357 and son-in-law has the .45. The Marlin is a nice gun and is better if you wanna mount optics on it (blasphemy), but I just love the wood and lines and slick action of the 92. I can sit around and just stare at it and enjoy it, let alone shooting it. It's a very accurate gun for what it is. It will not win any bench rest competitions or challenge my sub-moa .308, but hey, it ain't that kinda rifle. It makes a good woods gun and under 100 yards, deer rifle.

BTW. for a short while, Browning marketed a 92.

If you enjoyed reading about "Puma 92 vs marlin 1894 in 45 Colt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!