Marlin .45-70 Trapper

[jeepnik]

Considering what they've sent me in the past, I'd say the odds are very good that this is not a hand-built specially-selected gun.

You should've seen a .357 sample just after The Move.
Clunker from Junkerville, I rejected it & canceled the review.

The guy I deal with on these is a Marlin product manager, not the usual press rep.
We've talked at great length about the company & he freely admits there are major problems.

I get the sense that it's a very difficult process to get Marlin moving in the right direction, but he's genuinely doing his best as far as he can.
I don't think he'd toss a ringer at me.

And I'm still beating him up on those sharp lever edges, so the gun ain't perfect.
Denis

What you should have done is what American Handgunner did when it first started. Reviewed it and written the truth of your findings. rejecting the rifle and not writing about it does a disservice to the public and even to the manufacturer.

It's too bad AHG slipped into the same mold as every other gun rag and wrote only what the advertisers wanted. It was so refreshing when they public stated and followed a policy of telling advertisers to go ahead and pull their business rather than write fluff reviews.

But the original staff of AHG is long gone and so is their integrity.

 

[DPris]

As I've repeatedly explained over the years when this suggestion has come up:
There is no room for a clunker, print space is too valuable, I don't waste my time on one, and there's really no practical appeal in a 2500-word piece explaining why a POS is a POS.

If a gun's not worth owning, it's not worth wasting time on in shooting & explaining why the gun's not worth owning.

There are other peripheral issues involved.
A longtime editor once said that a couple attempts to take space for describing a POS were met with letters to the editor complaining about it. "Why don't you tell us about GOOD guns? Why waste all that space on a piece of junk?"

I'll work with something that has a couple warts on it, and editors will run with it.
But something that's a total waste of everybody's time, effort, and money, just doesn't make the cut.

And I don't write fluff reviews.
Denis

 

[BigBore44]

As I've repeatedly explained over the years when this suggestion has come up:
There is no room for a clunker, print space is too valuable, I don't waste my time on one, and there's really no practical appeal in a 2500-word piece explaining why a POS is a POS.

If a gun's not worth owning, it's not worth wasting time on in shooting & explaining why the gun's not worth owning.

There are other peripheral issues involved.
A longtime editor once said that a couple attempts to take space for describing a POS were met with letters to the editor complaining about it. "Why don't you tell us about GOOD guns? Why waste all that space on a piece of junk?"

I'll work with something that has a couple warts on it, and editors will run with it.
But something that's a total waste of everybody's time, effort, and money, just doesn't make the cut.

And I don't write fluff reviews.
Denis

I can’t believe the trigger actually cut you. I would have gone to the ER, had them put a $1500 band-aid on my finger and sent Marlin the bill. Maybe that would open their eyes.

I have to agree with jeepnik on one thing. It would be nice if every gun reviewer and editor was less PC and more truthful. I think one of two things would happen
1. Quality and craftsmanship would go up on many firearms.
2. Firearms companies would give more grease to the squeaky wheel.

I’m not implying you do this. I don’t know. This is the first review of a gun I’ve ever read from you. But I’d say you’re a pretty straight shooter (as long as you don’t use skinners). Lol

 

[ThomasT]

IIRC my 1894 357 was made in 2004. It was NOT smooth from the factory. I actually spent quite a bit of time polishing and smoothing and even made a special tool to radius the sharp edge on the back of the barrel. Now its so slick its hard to tell if you are cycling an empty or loaded gun. And thats with the sharp shouldered Keith style SWC bullets. So the old Marlin slipped out some less than perfect guns too. If Marlin (notice I didn't hyphen that) is trying I am willing to give them a chance.

I am waiting on a walnut stocked 1894 in 357 so I have two of them. One for each son after I head off into the sunset.

 

[someguy2800]

My 2017 manufactured guide gun is very smooth. I expected to spend a few hours slicking it up inside but as soon as I took it out of the box I knew that wasn't needed. The trigger was terrible so I did spend an hour working on it and it's really superb after just a bit of work. 3 lbs or so and crisp. The edges of my lever are a corner but are not sharp. The wood fit was about 90% right. If they could have just put the sights on straight it would have been great.

 

[DPris]

5-pound trigger here, clean, no creep, no overtravel.
Action smooth.
Just needs those triple-blasted-frickin-frackin sharpe edges gone.
Denis

 

[SwampWolf]

I'm doubtless in the minority here, but I've never been enthusiastic about barrels much shorter than 20" on a lever-action carbine. A "standard" Model 94 Winchester carbine having a barrel length of 20" measures about an inch or so longer than a yardstick. The Model 94, imo, handles and points about as well as any carbine ever made and I've never found its overall length to ever have been a disadvantage in terms of catching brush or twigs, even in very thick cover. I just don't see the need for shorter barrels having less velocity/energy and more recoil and muzzle blast.

 

[DPris]

I don't think you should buy one.

That said, muzzle blast was not an issue, and I didn't even see the flash I expected from that shorter barrel under the canopy overhead.

Lighter (fractionally) to carry on foot, easier in & out of a truck, etc.
And, after all that, it does look cool.
Denis

 

[SwampWolf]

Lighter (fractionally) to carry on foot, easier in & out of a truck, etc.

A handgun comes to mind.

 

[DPris]

Ice cream, pizza, puppies, and long walks on the beach also come to mind.

But that's not what we're discussing here.
Denis

 

[SwampWolf]

You're right, Dpris. Sorry I don't share your "dyed in the wool" fetish for having shorter than already short barrels attached to "cool-looking" carbines with over-sized loops but I'm not apologizing for expressing an opposing viewpoint.
I've also learned that strolls on the beach while eating pizza and ice cream with a puppy in tow makes for a short walk.

 

[DPris]

Wasn't asking for an apology.
Tastes vary.
I like 'em, for which I don't need to apologize.
You don't like 'em, for which you don't need to apologize.

The thread's about the Marlin, not a handgun.
I carry both, where & when the Marlin Guide goes out.
If I were keeping this one, it'd be the same deal.

I did say I think you should not buy the Trapper.
Denis

 

[DPris]

Talking to Andy Skinner, says he ended up cutting his Guide Gun back to 16.5 inches in developing his sight heights for this new Trapper & loves it.

I think I'll leave my Guide at 18, but I wouldn't mind swapping the mag tube out to get five rounds in, like the Trapper does.
Denis