Advice needed on a Marlin 39A...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
5
Guys/Gals,
I have wanted a Marlin 39A for quite a while now. I don't care if it is used or new or if I have to pay more for a used one if it is a better gun. I would like to know which 39A is the most desirable gun. I guess I care more about the "best gun" produced that is a 39A than it being more valuable because it is rare. I know that they have been made for a number of years. Can someone help me with my search for the ideal 39A?

Also, I plan to SHOOT the gun that I purchase and not give it a resting place.

Thanks,

Roger
 
You've come to the right place. Here's where to start:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=261635

I have a 39A made within the last year, and a 39M from 1973.

There are two major changes:
1. The new one has a rebounding hammer.
2. The new one has a hammer block safety.

The quality, fit and finish are identical. The walnut on the newer one is even nicer than the old one, and has excellent cut checkering which the old one does not. Other gun companies might sell the walnut on my 39A as "semi-fancy".

Unlike too many others, Marlin didn't get the memo that new guns are supposed to be slipshod, poorly-finished, with crap wood (unless you pay "custom shop" prices). There are many guns out there that are so-so if new, but great guns if older production. The 39A is NOT one of them. The new ones are top-notch.

So, that leaves the rebounding hammer and the safety, which are on the new ones, but not old ones.

I like the rebounding hammer. It's an automatic safety that holds the hammer at half-cock and locks it away from the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled; it's useful for hunting where you might want to go through the brush with the hammer down and thumb it cocked if you see a rabbit. However, the old-style down/half-cock/full-cock shoots bullets, too, some say a bit more accurately, but I can't confirm or deny that.

The crossbolt hammer block manual safety is another matter. Some people hate it. Others see it as a good tool, since it lets you decock the gun without any danger of it going off.

The reason people hate it is that it doesn't block the trigger, just the hammer from hitting the firing pin. That means that, if you don't remember the safety is on, you can see a rabbit, cock the gun, pull the trigger and you get a frustrating "BING!" as the hammer hits the crossbolt instead of the firing pin.

As for me, I see it both ways. I think it's good that I can drop the hammer 100% safely, but I have gotten the frustrating "BING!", too.

My opinion, though, is just don't use the safety while actively hunting. Just use the rebounding hammer, and use the safety only when decocking in a situation that requires absolute safety, or topping off the tube. For target shooting or plinking, it doesn't matter anyway. Paper and cans don't run away.:)

I love my new 39A, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a new one. Like I said, the wood is better than ever, and the fit and finish are top-notch.

Beware the 39 Club, though.:) Their influence led me to get my old 39M Octagon when I saw it in the store (a very rare model, about 2000 ever made, so I had to decide quickly if I ever wanted it).

If you get a 39A, it may well be your first one, not the only one you ever get.:)
 
My dad bought me a 39-a when I was in the second grade in 1952. I still have it and it would be the last gun I would give up. A few years ago I purchased one of the new cowboy models, octagen barrel, straight grip, 24"barrel and added a tang sight, for my wife. I still like my old one. The safety does not bother me, but I do prefer the old half cock hammer, just personnel feelings.

They are both fine arms fit and finish excellent. If you can find an older one in the condition you want, you may gain a bit of firearms history at some point.

You would enjoy one no matter what the vintage.
 
^ yeah. Just get one, you'll probably like it regardless.

I have one made in 2006, love it. Older ones are better I understand... if you can find them. People tend to hold on to these guns. :cool:


Enjoy!
 
When I read this thread's title, I thought about the lengths of the assorted 39s.

There's the full length (24"?) the shorter "Mountie" and the stubbie "TDS".

I have a full length, and love it. I want a TDS for the kids.

I don't think there's any practical accuracy difference in the different length rifles, but there's surely going to be a difference in the way they handle, point, and feel.

Really, the gun nut's golden rule is probably best applied to this one- BUY 'EM ALL!
 
I have a '77 full length I recently bought in superb condition. I paid nearly what a new one would have cost but I liked it being a little bit vintage and I like the thought that a rifle I would have liked to have owned in 1977 finally caught up with me after 30 years. I agree that whatever 39 you get you will like it.
 
Older ones are better I understand... if you can find them.

Not in my experience. 1973 and 2007 sitting next to each other. Some different features, but same quality.

WRT the gun on GunBroker, I'd say it depends on the price, unless you really want the old one. The new one has a nicer stock, and it's easier to check if the magazine's empty. Depends if you REALLY hate the safety, or if you really want a 1966 model for some other reason. My brand new one cost me $475, and I didn't have to pay for shipping or a transfer fee.
 
I have to agree with all the above. There is no "stay away" variation out there, just personal preferences. I have a new '06 model and I like everything about it. I have had the frustrating "Bing" problem with the cross bolt safety but since I only hunt paper (3x5 index cards specifically :evil:) it is no big deal.

The wood on my stock is beautiful, the fit and finish is perfect, and the only thing I would want changed is a heavy trigger, but that's an easy fix. I put Skinner Sights on mine, and can walk cans out to 100 yards easy.

I bought it as something for the kids to play with, but they can't have it until I'm gone. Maybe I'll buy another so they don't have to fight over just one. Two kids, two Marlin 39a's right. Can't wait to have grandkids, LOL ;)
 
Thanks for the information guys...I have decided that a new 39A is probably the best way to go. The stock is very nice and from what I have read the new guns fit and finish are every bit as nice as the old ones. I can order one from the local Wal-Mart for $400, I hate giving the money to them but it's convenient and I can pay 50% down and the rest when the gun arrives.

Thanks for the help,

Roger
 
My first gun was a 39A in 1963. At that time, I had to decide on whether to get the straight stock 39M or the pistol grip stock 39A. I got the 39A but always lusted after a 39M. I finally got a 39M, made in 1969, a couple of years ago. Beautiful!

My 39A and M are both without the hammer block safety, but my 1894’s all have the hammer block. I can live with it either way, but I prefer to not have it. It is just a little cleaner.
 
I've bought and sold a lot of guns over the years, but my 39A from the early 80's is the gun I've held on to the longest and is my most prized rifle.
 
long vs. short

Consider peep sights.

I'm more accurate with a full length barrel when shooting cans at 65 yds offhand. Slow, deliberate fire - the weight up front helps me stabilize the sights. Also more shells in the magazine, fewer reloads. Feels more like a "wild west" rifle.

The carbine version? It just feels good. Calls out to be held.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top