Marlin 1894 .44 mag carbine, to port or not?

[bikemutt]

I am going to buy a Marlin 1894 lever gun chambered in .44 mag any day now, don't really know why that gun but it just has to be done

The .44 mag is typically a 20" barrel. Marlin produced for a brief period a 16" barrel rifle that is factory ported. The ports are on the top of the muzzle and from the picture appears as if they my take up an inch and half or so of barrel length.

Since I'm unable to learn more about the characteristics of the shorter, ported barrel by shooting the rifles, I'm wondering if anyone here may have direct knowledge of them and could share an opinion, or perhaps just speculate as to what differences might be expected? I'm mostly concerned about relative accuracy and felt recoil.

I imagine using the gun on paper targets, and perhaps a wild pig at some point , out to 100 yards or so.

Thanks

 

[harvester]

It will be really loud.

 

[CZguy]

I own one of the 16 inch ported barrel models and really like it.

It is very loud because of the short, ported barrel, but dosn't seem to affect accuracy one way or the other.

I use mine for deer hunting in the woods and find it's light weight, and short length to be really handy.

 

[dbb1776]

Ported barrels add noise and muzzle blast. Had a ported 357 magnum once. Only gun I don't regret selling. The shorter barrel is nice especially for hunting stands and getting in and out of trucks.
I have only handled many and shot one 44 carbine.
I hunted this year w 16in Ar. Loved the portability.
IMHO can't go wrong w 20 in or 16 inch. Good luck post pics

 

[hardluk1]

No porting, Take advantage of the longer barrel for both sight radius and velocity from hotter loaded ammo

 

[browningguy]

I think they are fine carbines for your stated purpose, and no, I personally would not get it ported. The .44 Mag in a carbine is mild enough in recoil not to need porting, and why put up with the extra noise and muzzle blast when ti doesn't really accomplish anything else.

 

[CZguy]

I think they are fine carbines for your stated purpose, and no, I personally would not get it ported. The .44 Mag in a carbine is mild enough in recoil not to need porting, and why put up with the extra noise and muzzle blast when ti doesn't really accomplish anything else.

You're definitely in the majority here, and that's why they quit making them.

I'm one of the few that like them though. A .44 mag in a 5 and 1/4 pound rifle can be kind of snappy and the porting really does help tame it.

 

[788Ham]

I really can't imagine a .44 mag. rifle being a shoulder buster to be needing porting, man you've got to be kidding!

 

[Jackal]

My Ruger 44 carbine weighs about 5.5 lbs and recoil is about on par with a .243. Basically, zero. I do not see porting being of any real use (and heaven forbid you shoot it at night, goodbye night vision).

 

[Dr.Rob]

Noisy waste of time and money. 44mag from a rifle doesn't kick much.

I feel the same way about ported 45/70 short barrels.

 

[Maj Dad]

+1 on Dr. Rob. My 20" 44 doesn't kick enough to bother with. Buy an AimPoint or a spiffy scope, or a purse for your wife...

 

[Fred in Wisc]

My little 13 yr old niece can shoot a LOT of ammo through the 1894 in 44 mag without any recoil problems. It's real mild.

Only quirk of the rifle is it doesn't like ammo over 1480-1500 fps. Hard to eject.

I would not port it, it will be WAY loud and the recoil is minimal to start with.

 

[CZguy]

I really can't imagine a .44 mag. rifle being a shoulder buster to be needing porting, man you've got to be kidding!

Fellers, I know the recoil of a .44 mag is a rifle is mild, my point was, porting makes it even milder.

I know that I'm the only one who likes ported rifles. I'm just saying that while you're the majority.........it's not unanimous.

 

[BCRider]

I've had folks that shot my .357 lever rifle in both .357 and .38Spl and preferred the .38Spl for the milder recoil. So like most things in life there are those that prefer one over the other.

Adding the porting will most certainly reduce both the recoil as well as the muzzle rise if the porting is only on the top. At the same time depending on the powder used and how hot the gases and particles are by the time the gases shoot up through the holes you may well be treated to a fireworks show of flame suddenly covering up your sight picture.

Now on a semi auto reducing the muzzle rise has the benefit of allowing the sights to get back on target sooner for follow up shots or double taps. On a lever rifle this isn't a factor as cycling the lever is going to disturb the sight picture anyway.

One way to reduce that is fit the butt plate with a bad side out leather cover similar to what the cowboy action shooters do. This will increase the friction at the shoulder and reduce or eliminate the rifle moving due to cycling the lever. At that point, and with some practice, you can actually achieve a pretty respectable speed of follow up shots or continuous fire that is fairly accurate.

 

[Reloadron]

Can't speak for the lever guns in .44 Magnum but I do have an old Ruger Model 44 Carbine. Being a medium frame type person I don't even begin to see recoil as a factor, there isn't enough to worry about. I used the gun mostly for heavy brush hunting in West Virginia and when follow up shots were needed I never noticed a problem from muzzle rise and getting back on target. The rifle weighs in at just a little over 5 Lbs as I recall. Possibly there was less felt recoil because it was a semi-auto gas gun?

I replaced it with a Marlin 444 that was ported and with that there was a very noticeable difference.

However, in my opinion, I see no need to port a .44 Magnum rifle. I agree it will reduce the recoil but I don't see recoil as a deal maker or breaker.

Just My Take....
Ron