Old Stumpy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,451
I am planning to buy a Marlin 1895 CBA in .45-70 which has an 18 1/2" tapered octagon barrel.
From handling my Marlin 1894 .45 Colt Cowboy, I know that a tapered 20" octagon barrel is pleasantly light and balances better than the equivalent 20" round barrelled 1894 carbine that I also own. It's actually difficult to really tell the difference otherwise.
The thing is that for a traditional .45-70 the 18 1/2" CBA barrel just seems too short, even if it looks good, and is handy on this rifle. I'm sure that it never existed on the original 1895 in this length as either a saddle ring carbine with a round barrel or as a tapered octagon short rifle.
Except possibly as a rare factory special order or as a rare gunsmith-shortened version.
The 26" CB barrel, on the other hand is very traditional and correct and was the most popular standard length of barrel for the original larger-frame 1895 Marlin and Winchester 1886 rifles throughout itheir production.
The thing is that IMHO 26" just seems too bloody long and awkward, especially with the smaller Marlin 336-derived receiver, rather than the larger original 1895 receiver.
My preference would be for an in-between version made with the standard 20" barrel length common to the standard Marlin 336C and 336T .30-30 and .35 Remington rifles. It just seems like the best balance between being a handy length and being suitable for a big bore carbine.
Perhaps called an 1895CBB ?
When Marlin and Winchester did produce saddle ring carbines with their Models 1895 and 1886, they both chose to fit a standard 22" round barrel. Probably because it just suited the proportions and appearance of the bigger receivers.
I'm interested in what you think.
Do you think that Marlin should have gone with a 20" tapered octagon barrel on the CBA?
Do you think that they should have just split the difference and gone with a tapered octagon 22" barrel on the CB instead of the 26" version and not bothered with the CBA at all?
And, wouldn't a color case hardened receiver like the original be great?
From handling my Marlin 1894 .45 Colt Cowboy, I know that a tapered 20" octagon barrel is pleasantly light and balances better than the equivalent 20" round barrelled 1894 carbine that I also own. It's actually difficult to really tell the difference otherwise.
The thing is that for a traditional .45-70 the 18 1/2" CBA barrel just seems too short, even if it looks good, and is handy on this rifle. I'm sure that it never existed on the original 1895 in this length as either a saddle ring carbine with a round barrel or as a tapered octagon short rifle.
Except possibly as a rare factory special order or as a rare gunsmith-shortened version.
The 26" CB barrel, on the other hand is very traditional and correct and was the most popular standard length of barrel for the original larger-frame 1895 Marlin and Winchester 1886 rifles throughout itheir production.
The thing is that IMHO 26" just seems too bloody long and awkward, especially with the smaller Marlin 336-derived receiver, rather than the larger original 1895 receiver.
My preference would be for an in-between version made with the standard 20" barrel length common to the standard Marlin 336C and 336T .30-30 and .35 Remington rifles. It just seems like the best balance between being a handy length and being suitable for a big bore carbine.
Perhaps called an 1895CBB ?
When Marlin and Winchester did produce saddle ring carbines with their Models 1895 and 1886, they both chose to fit a standard 22" round barrel. Probably because it just suited the proportions and appearance of the bigger receivers.
I'm interested in what you think.
Do you think that Marlin should have gone with a 20" tapered octagon barrel on the CBA?
Do you think that they should have just split the difference and gone with a tapered octagon 22" barrel on the CB instead of the 26" version and not bothered with the CBA at all?
And, wouldn't a color case hardened receiver like the original be great?