No, I just look at this stuff objectively because I own several examples of each. I appreciate them for what they are and see the value in both. Yes, the Winchesters cost more but you also get more. Is it the best choice for YOU? That's something you have to decide for yourself.
The Winchester in question is current production and unrelated to the shutdown of the domestic plants producing model 94's. Production of USRAC special runs by Miroku of Japan never skipped a beat.
Did you not imply that the Winchester is just a bloated price for a famous name??? You said there was no reason to pay $900 for a Winchester when Marlins are available for less. I was simply pointing out WHY someone would pay $900 for the Winchester.
CraigC said:
I don't know, tell my why you do the same thing you are chastising other people for, and maybe that will answer your own question.
Ugh!!! There is a strength difference between the Colt SAA and the large frame Ruger Blackhawk. In .45Colt this difference is quite meaningful to some folks. For the Colt is only safe to around 21,000psi but the Ruger is safe to 32,000psi. Following me so far? Likewise, there is a strength difference between the Marlin 1894 and the Winchester 1892. In .45Colt this difference is quite meaningful to some folks because the Marlin is only safe to around 40,000psi but the 1892 is strong enough to endure 50,000psi loads, which are in the custom five-shot Ruger class. Morever, several years ago every manufacturer was trying to adapt their levergun to the .454Casull cartridge. I know this because it was reported on the old Sixgunner.com site by Bob Baker. Every available action was tried, the Marlin 1894 and 336 (1895), the Winchester 94 (standard and Big Bore) as well as the 1886 and 1892. The 1892 proved to be the only action smaller than the 1886 with any promise. The Marlins and Winchester 94's all shook themselves loose in short order. The 1886 is plenty of meat but obviously way too large for the cartridge. So the result is that the only commercial rifle available in .454Casull is the 1892. While no proprietary information has been released, experts on the matter have found no significant design changes. So, after all that, what the hell is the problem with making the simple statement of fact that the Winchester 1892 is stronger than the Marlin 1894???
FN is not producing levers with the Winchester name. Every single cotton-picking 1892 that has been produced under the Winchester banner since domestic production was halted years ago has been manufactured by Miroku. Myself and anybody who is anybody who has any experience with these guns understands that Miroku builds a better quality levergun than Winchester or Marlin have produced domestically in the last century.
I own an example of every rifle I've mentioned in this thread. How exactly am I doing what I "chastise" others for??? For the record, I'm not chastising anybody. I'm simply trying to make some general statements about the guns in question from personal experience. Objectively speaking, the late model 1892 is simply a better made gun than a Marlin. Period. Like I also said before, I'm not crapping on Marlin, even though you guys act as if I did. Like I also said before they're fine rifles and I OWN THREE OF THEM!!!!!!! They're good guns and a good value. My Browning 53 and Winchester 1892 are just better. Which is godo because they cost more. Just like a Cadillac costs more than a Chevy. Repeat, Marlin is not junk, Japchesters are just better. Stop trying so hard to be offended.
You're right, those engineers that tested these guns to their limits just imagined the results. :banghead:
How is a thread about the 1894 relevant to a discussion on the 1892?
CraigC said:
Your Rodeo is safe to 21,000psi, the Marlin is safe for those.
PM sent.
All custom five-shot load data is 50-55,000psi. John Taffin and Brian Pearce have published load data in the 45-50,000psi range for the Redhawk.
r
r
What exactly is the "more" that the Win offers for the price?
The fit and finish on the Winchester will be much, much better than on any late model Marlin. Marlin's are great rifles but the exterior, and this is something you can ascertain in any gunshop, is usually a little rough. You'll see machine marks and much of the exterior surface will be bead blasted. The Winchester will have a fine polish on every surface, like the olde days. Much more attention is paid to these guns and the prices reflect that. Wood to metal fit is always better as well. The checkering is typically better and the actions are smoother. Again, and I can't stress this enough, it's not that the Marlins are bad, the Winchesters are just better. The other thing I'd like to reiterate for the frothy among us, is that this does not extend to any domestically produced Winchester since 1963 (except the 94/22). But it does extend to every other Winchester and Browning produced by Miroku.
This is the crux of the issue. While I have made every attempt to be perfectly clear that I AM NOT dumping on Marlin, you guys read it that way anyway. Like I've said a hundred times, I OWN AND ENJOY BOTH!!!! They each have a lot going for them. They each have their strong points. I have a Marlin at the front door and a Winchester at the back door. With half a dozen in between.
More like Uberti or USFA.
