Top Eject vs. Side Eject for Lever Actions


PDA






bergmen
October 17, 2012, 03:22 PM
I have mostly Marlins (1936, 336, 1894, 39A) but recently acquired a top eject Model 92 clone.

I'm just curious since all of John Browning's designs (1886, 1892, 1894, 1895, etc.) were top eject I wonder what advantage he saw in that. I see potential issues such as ejected cases falling back into the open action or being thrown into the face of the shooter, dirt falling in and fouling things, etc.

Marlin took a different route with side ejection (which I prefer). My Dad always preferred Marlins because of pistol grip stocks and side ejection.

In today's world where optical sights are often fitted, side ejection lends itself to more scope choices than top ejectors.

Any thoughts?

Dan

If you enjoyed reading about "Top Eject vs. Side Eject for Lever Actions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
horsemen61
October 17, 2012, 03:55 PM
I have a marlin 336 in 30-30 and I am a believer in side eject.

hang fire
October 17, 2012, 03:58 PM
Over seven million Model 94 Winchesters manufactured, methinks the buyers never saw a problem with top eject.

RPRNY
October 17, 2012, 04:12 PM
They sold 145,000 Yugos in the US.

I'm just saying...;)

K1500
October 17, 2012, 05:02 PM
Top eject is 'way cooler' than side eject....

Abel
October 17, 2012, 05:34 PM
Side eject 336 is way cooler than the 94. Especially with a nice 3-9x40mm and see through rings.

Roadking Rider
October 17, 2012, 05:41 PM
I prefer the side eject, but that does not mean I think the top eject is not a good system. I think the side eject works better when there is a scope on the rifle. I'm pretty happy with my 1981 my Marlin 336 30/30.

CraigC
October 17, 2012, 05:54 PM
I see potential issues such as ejected cases falling back into the open action or being thrown into the face of the shooter, dirt falling in and fouling things, etc.
All non-issues.

Contrary to Marlin true-believerism and rhetoric about "field stripping", top eject guns are easier to clean without gunk falling into the action. Scope mounting was obviously not an issue when these guns were designed. However, they work just fine with a good peep sight.

It might also be worthy of note that the strongest traditional levergun designs are John Browning's top ejects. The 1892, 1886 and 1895 are all stronger than their Marlin counterparts. The 1892 and 1894 are also lighter, more refined and more svelte than their Marlin counterparts.

I have multiples of both makers and love them all for what they are. I find that those who grew up with Marlins tend to have a weird aversion to Winchesters. I do not find the reverse to be true. It's almost as if Marlin owners resent Winchester's popularity or some other similar, odd notion.


Especially with a nice 3-9x40mm and see through rings.
Uh, yeah. :barf:

bergmen
October 17, 2012, 06:09 PM
CraigC good post, thanks. I'm new to top eject but I have an open mind. I can certainly see how they are stronger, the bolt lock-up on my 92 is like a bank vault. I am finding myself shaking off my Dad's Marlin bias, he was hardly objective especially where guns and ammo were concerned.

When he was a kid he got some Peters .22 ammo that had a bunch of duds in the box. This was back in the 30s and he never touched another Remington or Peters product after that. Talk about holding a grudge.

Scopes are not a concern for me, I never scoped a lever (and won't).

Dan

JSNAPS
October 17, 2012, 06:16 PM
ehh I use both. I like both. Browning's designs were at a time where scopes were not the norm.

allaroundhunter
October 17, 2012, 06:23 PM
I love top eject Model 94s....much more than any side-eject lever gun. Lever guns were made to be used with iron sights ;)

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g335/ddirks22/2012-10-05233238.jpg?t=1350512516

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g335/ddirks22/2012-10-05233441.jpg?t=1350512566

kyletx1911
October 17, 2012, 06:50 PM
Side eject 336 is way cooler than the 94. Especially with a nice 3-9x40mm and see through rings.
this

CraigC
October 17, 2012, 07:05 PM
^^^ "See thru" mounts are an abomination. Leverguns are designed with the proper comb height for iron sights, peep or open. Any scope mount will be a little too high for proper cheek weld. Jack it up on see-thru mounts and it will be way too high for a proper cheek weld. Not only are they ugly and make the rifle ugly but they don't work very well either. Scope or iron sights, pick one or the other. If you must have backup iron sights, use a standard scope mount with quick detach rings or a forward mounted scout scope or red dot sight. Not see-thru's. They're an answer to a question that should've never been asked.

Malamute
October 17, 2012, 07:07 PM
I've used both, I prefer the Winchester. I've had several weird action lock ups in Marlins. Never found anything wrong, they just locked up. I've never had anything of the sort in a Winchester. I've used the 1886's, (original and modern Brownings), 92's (Browning), 94's and 95's (Browning).

I prefer the way Winchester actions function also. I like to keep the magazine loaded and single load a small game round. Its just simpler to do with the Winchester. Open the lever, and either don't raise the lifter (carrier), insert the round in the chamber (easy with the top eject action), and close the action, or push the lifter back down if it comes up, and procede as above. With the Marlin, the next round can't be pushed back down, it has to be shaken out in a juggling act to leave the chamber empty or load another small game load.

The angle eject Winchesters are simple to scope, and it's still easier to single load the chamber.

It's interesting that "top eject" isnt mentioned as a negative in regards to most bolt actions, autoloaders based on the M-1 action, SKS, Savage 99, and others

jmorris
October 17, 2012, 07:14 PM
I have both but when asking questions of why things are built the way they are it comes down to the easy/less costly method in most all cases.

SlamFire1
October 17, 2012, 07:21 PM
Call me a Marlin fan boy. Over 30 years ago I could not get a Winchester in 44 Mag, the Browning version was very expensive, and that is how I got my first Marlin.

I have looked how to disassemble a Winchester, in firearms Assembly/Disassembly books, and I decided it was not for me.

As for strength, Winchester and Marlins are all rear locking actions, it would have to take a finite element model to really determine if there is a difference in strength between the two, I really doubt it is significant. Neither is as rigid or strong as a good single shot or a bolt rifle.

All of these actions have proven themselves through more than a century of use.

I wish I had gotten a Savage M99 when they were affordable. One of those in 308 would have been an interesting rifle.

jim243
October 17, 2012, 08:08 PM
How I spend my money, speaks for my choice.

Jim


http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt284/bigjim_02/SAM_0319.jpg

Nathanael_Greene
October 17, 2012, 09:24 PM
As a left-handed shooter, I thought I'd prefer top-eject. But the brass from a Marlin goes past my nose, not on my head, and I've grown to love Marlins.

And the 1894C--what a lovely rifle!

76shuvlinoff
October 17, 2012, 09:35 PM
As a left-handed shooter, I thought I'd prefer top-eject. But the brass from a Marlin goes past my nose, not on my head, and I've grown to love Marlins.

And the 1894C--what a lovely rifle!

This ^, lefty here as well. I have 2 39As, an 1894c .357,(Marlins) and a top eject Ted Willams 30-30.

As a lefty the only real problem I have with the top eject Ted Williams was I got it with a scope mounted offset to the left for a right handed shooter. I took off the scope, all is well. I don't hunt. the 30-30 is just a plinker for me.

BCRider
October 17, 2012, 10:01 PM
Of the two center fire lever guns I've got I like both. I've got a Marlin in .30-30 and a Rossi Win '92 clone in .357 which I use for cowboy action.

The '92 is not a good option for CAS as it tends to want to toss the ammo up and salute the sky when cycled with verve. But I'm so taken with the gun for a plinker that even if I finally cave in and get a '73 clone of some form for CAS I would most certainly keep my Rossi '92.

There is also no doubt that Marlin is a better gun if the shooter wants/needs a scope. While options exist for Winchester/Browning guns to toss the brass somewhat to the side to allow for a scope they are kludge setups at best from what I've seen. So on the scope front Marlin wins hands down.

For my part I think a lever gun with a scope is like an elephant in a tutu. But my opinion changes when I read about folks that hunt with a scope on a Marlin since in that case it's less about tradition and more about getting a clean and merciful kill. At that point it's all about being an effective tool for that particular job. And if that's what it takes then I applaud those that choose to go with a lever over a "normal option" of a bolt action.

heeler
October 17, 2012, 10:05 PM
The year was 1975 sitting on top of a high rocky hill in the pre dawn cold darkness of Uvalde county Texas with a guy who was new to our hunting lease that had no truck to get him 3.5 miles back into this part of our 3840 acre ranch where I had spotted a good buck the weekend before.
He had a Winchester 94 in 30-30 caliber with major blueing wear that his Dad's late brother had left to him in his passing from this earth equipped with an old Weaver 3 power scope in an old Weaver side mount configuration.
We could hear in the distance two bucks seriously fighting near shooting light.
Ten minutes or so later as legal light was gathering we could make them out with binoculars about 150 yards away.
I was against him taking the shot with that 30-30.
He was quite confident he could do it.
And he dropped for that area a damn nice 18" inside the spread buck with 11 points before my very eyes.
Not only was I impressed but got a new found admiration for a 30-30 caliber that at that time had been pretty much been written off as obsolete by the hunting /gun magazines.
Dont ever write off any 30 caliber projectile for hunting guys.
They work.
Fast forward years later I prefer Marlin's 336 over the top eject 94 because of the way the scope has to ride side saddle on the older 94's.

Just wanted to relive this old hunting story from years ago.......

Alan_Hicks
October 17, 2012, 10:06 PM
Both have their place. I've personally never had an issue with the top-eject being a problem. I personally like the Winchester 94 better than the Marlin 336, but I don't feel like I'm disadvantaged in any way when I use one or the other.

Winchester Top Ejects
Pros

Naturally ambidextrous
Thinner and Lighter
Prettier (subject to interpretation of course)


Cons

Few scope mounting options
Modern angle ejects not naturally ambidextrous


Marlin Side Ejects
Pros

Many scope mounting options
Brass never falls on your hat brim


Cons

Heavier, not as comfortable to carry


With all that said, there are clear reasons to use one over the other in a given situation. In my case, when I'm hunting from a stand or a blind and suspect there will be long range shots, I take my scoped Marlin 336. All other times, especially when I'm still hunting and expect to be moving through swamp bottoms, I carry the Marlin for its lighter weight.

Abel
October 17, 2012, 10:10 PM
With all that said, there are clear reasons to use one over the other in a given situation. In my case, when I'm hunting from a stand or a blind and suspect there will be long range shots, I take my scoped Marlin 336. All other times, especially when I'm still hunting and expect to be moving through swamp bottoms, I carry the Marlin for its lighter weight.

I use the 336 in all situations as well. Way to be bro.

Malamute
October 17, 2012, 11:02 PM
...the '92 is not a good option for CAS as it tends to want to toss the ammo up and salute the sky when cycled with verve...


Do you mean loaded ammo? If so, theres something seriously wrong with it. Should be fixable.


I'm surprised at how many hadnt seem to have heard that Winchester started making 94's specifically intended for scoping since some time back in the 80's I believe. They call them angle ejects, and they work quite well scoped. I have one in 307 and like it very much. I wish I had a couple more, even though I tend to like pre-64's and pre-war guns in general.

788Ham
October 17, 2012, 11:44 PM
SlamFire1,

Those '99's are a dandy, I am fortunate my Pop gave me his .300 before he passed on, Mom had given it to him in '47. Still a very good shooter!

ECVMatt
October 18, 2012, 01:16 AM
I have both and enjoy them all.

I am not too sure the 94 Winchester is stronger than a 336 Marlin. Marlin is able to chamber these in .356, 375 win, and .45-70 with no major modifications. Winchester had to go to the, "Big Bore" abomination to safely handle the .307, .356, and the 375 Winchester. They had to move up to the 1886 to safely handle the .45-70. I have to agree that nothing fits my hand better than a Winchester 1894 when carrying through the brush.

I am generally more fond of Marlins for their better accuracy, simpler action, and closed top. I have had lots of Red River dust get into my Winchester. It did not stop it from functioning, but was a major pain to clean out.

I recently picked up a Marlin 336 LTS and it has become my favorite. It carries almost as well as the 94, is super accurate, and perfect sized for my forest hunting endeavours.

CaliCoastie
October 18, 2012, 01:29 AM
Had both, ended up with more Marlins and sold the Winchester 94. Big deal breaker was completely cleaning the thing, after the second time I was done. Plus the Winchester was just looser then the Marlin, as far as strength the Winchester has two locking lugs that go all the way through on both sides of the bolt, vs Marlin that just goes partially into the bolt.
My suggestion? Shoulder, fondle, hold them both. Buy the one that fits you.

T.R.
October 18, 2012, 08:12 AM
People tend to forget that Winchester came out with angle eject about 30 years ago. This leveled the playing field with Marlin.

Both of our 30-30's eject 'em out the side. Winchester 94 Legasy is my favorite.

TR

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c146/rushmoreman/two30-30s.jpg

tahoe2
October 18, 2012, 09:52 AM
I was trudging thru the "jungles" of western Washington for the last 3 days deer hunting in the wind and rain, carrying a Marlin 375 (336) with a peep sight at the ready, no leaves, water, or pine needles entered the action with the closed top reciever, don't know that a Model 94 would have fared any different with proper care. But I do like the feel of the pistol grip and the thicker fore-grip. I like the look of the "Legacy". Caliber selection is not what it used to be, kinda wish they would bring back the "7-30 Waters", "307 Winchester", and/or the "356 Winchester"

dak0ta
October 18, 2012, 11:55 AM
What are your opinions of a mini red dot sight on the receiver? Fast for 150 yard shots and closer?

CraigC
October 18, 2012, 12:07 PM
I have looked how to disassemble a Winchester, in firearms Assembly/Disassembly books, and I decided it was not for me.
What are you guys doing that you think you need to take a levergun apart all the time??? I own but one centerfire bolt gun. 99% of my centerfire rifle shooting is done with one of a dozen leverguns. I can't remember the last time I had the need to take one apart so this "field stripping" rhetoric that is brought up by Marlin fanboys every time this discussion happens is a silly non-issue.


As for strength, Winchester and Marlins are all rear locking actions, it would have to take a finite element model to really determine if there is a difference in strength between the two, I really doubt it is significant. Neither is as rigid or strong as a good single shot or a bolt rifle.
They are stronger, it is well proven and more than insignificant. All three mentioned are a good 10,000psi stronger than their Marlin counterparts.


I am not too sure the 94 Winchester is stronger than a 336 Marlin.
Never said it was, read it again.

Malamute
October 18, 2012, 12:08 PM
...I am not too sure the 94 Winchester is stronger than a 336 Marlin. Marlin is able to chamber these in .356, 375 win, and .45-70 with no major modifications. Winchester had to go to the, "Big Bore" abomination to safely handle the .307, .356, and the 375 Winchester. They had to move up to the 1886 to safely handle the .45-70....


I dont think the "big bore" swells on the rear of the receiver were exactly needed, I think it was more of a marketing thing. The later 94's were chambered in 444 and 450 Marlin, and had standard type receivers. (there have been old type 94's rechambered to 444 Marlin since back in the 60's, they seem to have held up fine) One of the other changes in the big bore line was a larger barrel shank, the regular shanks are narrower than the Marlin shanks, or big bores. Marlin also went to a different thread type in the high pressure rounds, as Winchester did.

It's been a matter of discussion as to whether the Marlins are up to a steady diet of 356, as they stopped making them shortly after they were introduced (with all the attendant rumours), and never did chamber the 307. Regarding the 45-70, it isnt a matter of "safely" handling it in a 94, they simply dont fit, as the 94 action is thinner. The rim doesn't even fit between the insides of the receiver. They didnt exactly "go to" the 86 action for 45-70, it was the original home for that cartridge in the Winchester line. They are a
great action in their own right, and generally considered one of the strongest of the tradtional type actions, with perhaps the 95 Winchester action being the only thing above it for strength (which was chambered in 30-06, 405 Win etc). They aren't more popular because of the cost, about double what a Marin 336/95 costs, and they are a bit heavier. After getting my first original Winchester 86, I lost interest in the Marlin 95's. I have a couple Browning 86's now and couldnt be happier for the chambering.


I find the "strength" questions interesting. Both are quite adequet for all the regular chamberings they were made in. The Winchester has much more of the bolt supported by the locking bolt (surface area of the locking bolts used to be an advertising speil in bolt guns years ago). Neither come apart when drastically over loaded or experience a bad load, they tend to split the barrels, the actions generally hold. I haven't seen or heard of any that haven't held either. Marlins tend to bulge the rear receiver walls when overloaded (assuming the barrel holds), making the receiver pretty much useless. Winchesters stretch the side walls, with the same results. They both just quit functioning when overloaded.
End result, when overloaded, they split barrels, or become scrap iron.

Abel
October 18, 2012, 12:31 PM
What are you guys doing that you think you need to take a levergun apart all the time??? I own but one centerfire bolt gun. 99% of my centerfire rifle shooting is done with one of a dozen leverguns. I can't remember the last time I had the need to take one apart so this "field stripping" rhetoric that is brought up by Marlin fanboys every time this discussion happens is a silly non-issue.


With a 336, you can pull the bolt to bore sight it like you would a bolt action, by sighting down the bore. Trigger work and fine tuning is also a cinch. I have removed the lever & bolt many times on a 336 for my end of deer season cleaning. Its just a better mousetrap, not rhetoric, and not in the least bit silly.

Malamute
October 18, 2012, 12:39 PM
I guess I'm in the "why take it apart" camp also. I just don't see any need to, though I dont find it at all difficult to do if I choose to, its just a bit more complicated to do. If I need to bore sight, taking the bolt of a 94 isn't impossible, but I've just not had the need.

"better mouse trap" is in the eyes of the beholder.

CraigC
October 18, 2012, 02:47 PM
With a 336, you can pull the bolt to bore sight it like you would a bolt action, by sighting down the bore. Trigger work and fine tuning is also a cinch. I have removed the lever & bolt many times on a 336 for my end of deer season cleaning. Its just a better mousetrap, not rhetoric, and not in the least bit silly.
It is rhetoric and a silly imagined advantage. I love Marlins, own three and would like to have several more. I also love Winchesters (own seven plus Browning and Uberti replicas of Winchesters) both but the stuff that Marlin fanboys spew gets to be a little too much. Easier bore sighting, really??? Some folks can't espouse their choice without deriding another's. :rolleyes:


I find the "strength" questions interesting.
I think it does not need to be mentioned that the .45-70 commonly gets loaded well beyond standard pressures. Not to mention the available wildcats suitable to these guns. In pistol cartridge levers, strength runs the gamut and also affects the loads used. The Marlins are good for standard pressure loads but the modern 92's can be loaded much hotter, up to 50,000psi and that is a significant difference. Also worthy of note, back in the 1990's, when Winchester was still in business, every maker in the business tried to get their rifles to stand up to the .454. None did. Not even the rifle-length Marlins or fatbody Winchesters. They all shook themselves loose within just 100rds. The 1886 is certainly strong enough but too large for the cartridge. The fact that the only available .454 carbine is an unmodified 1892 replica is not a coincidence. It's the only applicable action that can handle the pressures involved. Not because Marlin didn't try but because none of their existing designs could handle it.

Abel
October 18, 2012, 03:17 PM
There is clearly an advantage to ease of disassembly and reassembly versus the alternative....which is non-ease, or as some people like to call it, difficulty. The 94 is difficult to disassemble and reassemble for most human beings. With any machine that an owner hopes to maintain over a lifetime, ease of taking it apart and putting it back together is a tangible and real advantage. The ease of scope mounting on a Marlin is a moot point too. Almost 90% of winchester 94's are not drilled and tapped for bases. For the 336, perhaps 5% of the rifles out there are non-drilled for bases. All 336's since 1955 or 56 were drilled.

CraigC
October 18, 2012, 03:38 PM
As has been said, there is very little reason to have to take a levergun apart for any reason. As has been said, I've been shooting leverguns almost exclusively for years and can't remember the last time I took one apart or had a need to. But when I did, it was Winchester 94's and was no big deal. Like I also said, an imagined advantage. Winchesters have been drilled & tapped for receiver sights since the 1950's. Which is all one ever needs.

Abel
October 18, 2012, 03:46 PM
As has been said, there is very little reason to have to take a levergun apart for any reason. As has been said, I've been shooting leverguns almost exclusively for years and can't remember the last time I took one apart or had a need to. But when I did, it was Winchester 94's and was no big deal. Like I also said, an imagined advantage. Winchesters have been drilled & tapped for receiver sights since the 1950's. Which is all one ever needs.

Just because it has "been said" that I don't need to take my rifle apart doesn't mean that I am not going to take it apart from time to time, especially when we're just talking about pulling the bolt and the lever. Taking any gun apart for cleaning and tinkering is standard operating procedure for me, and has been since I was a boy. As for peeps being "all you need", speak for yourself. A peep is about as useless as teats on a boar when it gets a little dark and the deer start moving. But if we lived way back in 1894, and it was all I had, I guess it would do.
__________________

CraigC
October 18, 2012, 04:10 PM
Yeah, I guess I've never hunted until dark. :rolleyes:

I've done it every way. I have a lot of scoped rifles, some scoped pistols, red dots, holographic sights, receiver sights, tang sights, posts, beads, fiber optics, blades, globes, sourdough's, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Most of my real using rifles wear peep sights and I've never been in the woods and thought, "man, I wish I had a scope". Let alone one standing three inches over the receiver in those goofy see-thru mounts.

How much time have you actually spent shooting with receiver sights??? How many leverguns do you own? Have you ever even owned a Winchester or do you just dog them to justify your own choices?

SlamFire1
October 18, 2012, 04:19 PM
With a 336, you can pull the bolt to bore sight it like you would a bolt action, by sighting down the bore. Trigger work and fine tuning is also a cinch. I have removed the lever & bolt many times on a 336 for my end of deer season cleaning. Its just a better mousetrap, not rhetoric, and not in the least bit silly. It is rhetoric and a silly imagined advantage. I love Marlins, own three and would like to have several more. I also love Winchesters (own seven plus Browning and Uberti replicas of Winchesters) both but the stuff that Marlin fanboys spew gets to be a little too much. Easier bore sighting, really??? Some folks can't espouse their choice without deriding another's.
Every time I come back from the range with a Marlin I remove the one bolt screw, pull the bolt, and clean the chamber with a chamber brush and the barrel is cleaned from the breech.

I can get absorbent towels in the action and wipe out a lot of residue, though I donít get everything.

I seldom take the bottom out of the action and pull everything out.

I am happy with my Marlins.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Rifles%20various/ReducedMarlin336fulllength.jpg

I have looked at the Rossiís in 454 Casull, but my M1894 in 44 Magnum kicked hard enough that I had to install a rubber recoil pad, and the thing still kicks hard, so I donít think I want a 454 Casull in a lightweight leveraction. But if anyone wants one, have at it, and if the 92 action is the only action strong enough for a 454 Casull, then that is the action it you will be carrying.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Rifles%20various/M1894FullLength.jpg

I remember handling the Japanese reproduction M1886's and M1895's and decided they were too heavy and too clumsy for me. Someday I may own a leveraction 45/70 but I doubt it.

CraigC
October 18, 2012, 04:50 PM
Every time I come back from the range with a Marlin I remove the one bolt screw, pull the bolt, and clean the chamber with a chamber brush and the barrel is cleaned from the breech.
I wouldn't do that any more than I would change the oil in my truck every time I went to town.


I remember handling the Japanese reproduction M1886's and M1895's and decided they were too heavy and too clumsy for me.
They're not light but I would never call them heavy and clumsy. If there is any clumsiness, it is on the part of the shooter. They typically weigh much less than an M1 Garand. My Winchester 1895 .405 is no more than 8lbs and handles wonderfully.

Abel
October 18, 2012, 05:38 PM
How much time have you actually spent shooting with receiver sights??? How many leverguns do you own? Have you ever even owned a Winchester or do you just dog them to justify your own choices?

I have qualified expert on three rifles as an infantryman in the US Army, all with peeps. I have three Winchester 94's and they are safe queens. One of my several 336's is a 1951 with a Williams peep. Its a range toy mostly, but I do plan to use it on some morning hunts. I prefer a scoped 336 for my style of hunting. When the light is low, and a deer is out at 125 yards, I just have to have a scope to put the bullet where I want. And I am not "dogging" the winchester by any means. I simply think that the 336 is better designed. That is far removed from "dogging" the 94's design. I think that the 94 is great, just not the greatest.

SlamFire1
October 19, 2012, 10:57 AM
Every time I come back from the range with a Marlin I remove the one bolt screw, pull the bolt, and clean the chamber with a chamber brush and the barrel is cleaned from the breech.

I wouldn't do that any more than I would change the oil in my truck every time I went to town.

Just how often do you change the oil in your truck?

CraigC
October 19, 2012, 11:51 AM
Just how often do you change the oil in your truck?
When it needs it, just like my guns. I clean them when they need it. Unless it's blackpowder, cleaning every range session is a waste of time and serves only the needs of compulsive shooters.

PapaG
October 19, 2012, 11:52 AM
Since I shoot the cartridges the guns were made for, either in factory loads or "equivalent" reloads, the strength issue has not been a problem for me. I have an original 92 (mostly, my brother and I foolishly had it converted to .357 with a rifleman lever), a couple 94s, Marlin 39, 94, 336, and 444. Toss in a 99 savage. I find the 92/94 the most esthetically pleasing, as well as the nicest "in the carry". I like the Marlins scoped (68 now and need trifocals), and the savage as the long range powerhouse (308 win).
All that said, I love them all and would be hard pressed to give one up. I think I have calibers for about anything I'd want to hunt.....22, 30-30, 357, 44, 308, 444 and the ability to cast bullets or choose good jacketed ones for all the centerfites. I don't think one is better than another but would like an 86.

Carl N. Brown
October 19, 2012, 12:14 PM
I have a Legacy Sports Rossi Puma 1892 .357 as a carbine, and a Marlin 336 .30-30 as a rifle. Given that I might load the Puma with .38 wadcutter for small game, the open top makes for easy single shot loading (wadcutters don't feed from the magazine). The rifle has a scope with peep backup which makes true side eject more natural. I would feel adequately armed with a good .30-30 '94 with Williams peep for that matter but all the recent '94s since about 1968 have all been rough with idiot add-on safeties.

This is almost like arguing over what's the best paint color for your car. I like green or brown.

SlamFire1
October 19, 2012, 06:52 PM
serves only the needs of compulsive shooters.

I am guilty as charged!

VancMike
October 19, 2012, 07:46 PM
Tahoe 2 "was trudging thru the "jungles" of western Washington for the last 3 days deer hunting in the wind and rain, carrying a Marlin 375 (336) with a peep sight at the ready, no leaves, water, or pine needles entered the action with the closed top receiver, don't know that a Model 94 would have fared any different with proper care..."

There's a coincidence: I was trudging thru similar jungles down in the left hand corner of the same state on the same days. Really wanted to be carry one of my 1895 Marlins, but practicality smacked me in the face, and I ended up carrying my beater Win '94, which is about a pound or more lighter.

My experience has been if one carries the firearm....bolt, lever, semi-auto, whatever....with the action closed, neither leaves, water nor fir needles will enter said action. Shoots better, too.....:)

I find it interesting that many correspondents on this thread eschew peep sights. Apparently neither Tahoe 2 nor I feel the need for scopes, and if you look at our latitude, we're hunting in much darker conditions (and shorter days) than most.

My feeling is that scopes on lever actions are uglier than green lipstick on a homely pig.

And truth in hunting stories.....at the end of the hunt, took home as many cartridges as at the beginning....

Abel
October 19, 2012, 10:55 PM
A fine setup:

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/w/m/wm-malcolm-3-4-inch-telescopic-rifle-scope-glamour600_5.jpg&sa=X&ei=3BKCUPLkG8a00AGv9oGYCA&ved=0CAsQ8wc4JQ&usg=AFQjCNHY_V_7c5okiFi5J5LBVN1gIXfnkg

CraigC
October 20, 2012, 12:08 AM
An interesting setup, don't know how fine it is.

dak0ta
October 20, 2012, 06:17 AM
What about red dot sights, a compromise between scope and peep?

tahoe2
October 22, 2012, 12:50 AM
the only guy I know with a red dot, has two of them. One on a bull barreled Ruger Mark 1 auto pistol, and the other on a AR15. He swears by em . I have never tried them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Top Eject vs. Side Eject for Lever Actions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!