Octagon Chiappa 1892 or Marlin 1894

[sisyphus]

Last summer I picked up a recent production Marlin 1894 in 44 mag with a 20" barrel. This is a companion for my Ruger Redhawk with a 7.5" barrel. I got lucky and the wood to metal fit was good on mine, and under close scrutiny the only beef I had with the gun was that the stocks needed two applications of tung oil, they came to me so dry.

Recently I acquired a Chiappa 1892 in 357 mag with a 16" barrel to keep my S&W 686+ with a 6" barrel company. While I haven't taken it out to shoot yet, under close scrutiny I found nothing that made my eyes narrow. The gun looks like it received the human attention it deserved before leaving the factory, and I felt vindicated for not choosing the Miroku Winchester.

I want one more lever gun in 45LC. It'll give me an excuse to buy one more SA in that chambering. I've been thinking whether I wanted another Marlin or another Chiappa made 1892. A store an hour away has a 20" octagon 1894 in 45LC, and Cimarron 24" octagon 1892s are everywhere right now, they must have just shipped some.

I like the handiness of the 20" barrel, and feel that ballistically it would probably be the best thing for the caliber. However these guns are already so compact comparatively that looking at my 20", a 24" would not bother me at all.

I had mine laying out for a while today so I could look them over and handle them while I tried to decide. I like the fit and finish of the Chiappa made gun much better. I really like the faux case hardened parts, and the bluing is better on the Chiappa too. If I had to pick between the two actions I'd lean to the 1892. I like the sights a little better on the Chiappa. But I also love my 1894, so I just haven't been able to eliminate it, even though I am leaning more and more toward the Cimarron.

This is a decision I need to make so I'm not asking you to tell me which way to go. Just wanted to see your poll choices and get your $.02 if you had anything to say on it. Thanks!

 

[sisyphus]

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I don't have a Chiappa 1892 but I do have a Marlin 1894 in .357 Mag and I love it. Given I bought it in the mid 1990's and it is not the same as the new Marlin's, although I have high hopes for their quality since Ruger purchased them.

 

[Charlie98]

If it's a Remington Marlin, you better go over it with a fine toothed comb... looking for rough spots, action smoothness, and metal to wood fit, if that's important to you. The more recent ones have been better, but they have had issues. Also, depending on the rifling... my Marlin 1894 in .45 Colt had lazy 1:38" rifling... meaning I couldn't stabilize heavy bullets at low velocity, my standard load of a 255grn cast over 8grn Unique printed a shotgun pattern. Something to consider.

The Chiappas can have QC problems, too... thinks like light firing pin strikes and such. I really like the 92 action... it would be a hard choice between the two.

 

[sisyphus]

well I got lucky with my internet bought Remlin. Fit is pretty good everywhere, nothing that kept me up at night. The Chiappa I bought is pretty flawless. Looking at both of them again yesterday it really has me leaning to the Cimarron side. These are very nicely fit and finished rifles, and in the case of the one I already have, the action is smoother than my Remlin. Also, on the Chiappa 92 the lower tang has a screw you can adjust the spring tension, in the event you have light strikes you may be able to remedy it yourself.

I'm pretty far to the Cimarron side of this dilemma right now. I love my Marlin, but compared directly to my Chiappa it's plain and a little rough. My thinking as I type is I'm going to get the Cimarron, and then when Ruger starts producing Marlin there is room in my gun safe for an 1894 chambered in 41 magnum.

 

[Charlie98]

and then when Ruger starts producing Marlin there is room in my gun safe for an 1894 chambered in 41 magnum.

Hope springs eternal. If anyone would do it, Ruger would. Assuming that day comes, I'll be second in line (behind you...) to score one... but I'll whack the barrel to 16" and make a Trapper out of it. My wife won't let me mortgage the house to buy a LTD...

 

[MachIVshooter]

I prefer US made and don't care for top ejection, so the choice would be easy for me. But I really can't knock the quality of the Puma rifles, either.

Go with whichever appeals to you more.

As for barrel length, aside from tube magazine capacity and sight radius, there is absolutely nothing gained by going longer than 16" with pistol cartridges. I prefer shorter. But I also suppress all the things, so I have to figure on adding 5-9" on any rifle.

 

[CraigC]

Good news is that it's a really hard decision to screw up. IMHO, the Browning-designed 1892 is a better mousetrap with a couple caveats. The action is stronger, smoother and more compact but they have to be drilled & tapped for a receiver sight and an optic mount is not an option. The Marlin has no flies on it either and they definitely chose the right profile for their octagon barrels.

For me, barrel length in this context is purely personal preference. You do gain 'some' velocity out to 18-20" but not enough to make a meaningful difference. I firmly bought into the whole short & handy until I started hunting with traditional muzzleloaders that may have barrels over 40" long. A 16" .45Colt 1892 Trapper was a light and handy carbine in the hands but in the field, I didn't find them to hold any advantage. For me, a 20" is plenty handy and they tend to balance well but there's nothing wrong with a 24" either.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

If the Chiappa 92 is the same as the Puma 92 (I don't keep up with all the importer trade names), it's a well-made gun. I have a 16" Puma 92 from back in the Interarms days and it's one of the last guns I'd sell. A friend bought a modern Rossi 92 in 45 LC a year or so ago when they reintroduced them, and the Puma smokes the Rossi in terms of workmanship.

I have a Marlin 94 in 357 as well, and it's a quality gun as well, but the Puma comes out of the safe more because I love the light weight.

 

[bihj]

I like the looks of the Chiappa but went with the Marlin because I believe it will have better support years down the road.

 

[1KPerDay]

If the Chiappa 92 is the same as the Puma 92 (I don't keep up with all the importer trade names),

IIRC Pumas were Brazilian; Chiappas are Italian.

 

[Ru4real]

I’d go with the Cimarron because it will be closer to your Chiappa, which you clearly like. My Chiappa in 45 Colt, takedown 1892 with 20” barrel has been a joy to own and shoot. One load I shoot, and comparative muzzle velocities from each gun -

45 Colt load from here
https://web.archive.org/web/20180525063939/http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=12

255 grain Keith coated cast from MBC 18 Brinnel hardness loaded to 1.60” OAL
13.0 grains Hodgdon HS-6 powder
CCI-350 primer and each loaded round cost $0.24 cents

4” SW Mountain Gun....1080 fps
6” SW Classic M25.......1155 fps
7.5” Ruger SBH............1220 fps
20” Chiappa 1892.........1430 fps

 

[DocRock]

Is your interest primarily aesthetic, historical, functionality, or is it just between these two?

For aesthetics, a JM Marlin Cowboy Ltd, octagonal 24” barrel is hard to beat, as is a Miroku made Win 92.

Both the Marlin and the 92 are historically significant rifles, though neither were originally chambered in 45 LC.

Functionally, these are both strong actions. While the Marlin allows for a scope, I can’t imagine doing so.

A final consideration beyond these two is the 16” Rossi R92. Fit and finish are ok: the loading gate invariably wants stoning to take the sharp edges and Steve’s Gunz offers a how-to vid to slick up the action and delete the vile safety. But, the handiness of the little 16” barrel carbine is quite remarkable, and the 45LC is delivering any more velocity beyond 16”.

If it’s down to only the Marlin or Chiappa, I would say examine both carefully and choose the one that looks and feels the best. Both are good choices.

 

[CraigC]

While the Marlin allows for a scope, I can’t imagine doing so.

I said the same thing, until my eyesight starting going to crap.

 

[dh1633pm]

You ask the best questions. Marlins at Remington after they started using new machines are good. Most were pretty nice. I have one in 45 Colt. I got the Rossi 1892 also in 45 Colt. I like the Ciappa just because it looks older. To be honest you got me interested too. Shame on you.

 

[sisyphus]

my son and I sat at the table with my Remlin and my Chiappa tonight and scrutinized them together. At the end of it we agreed that the action on the Marlin is like butter, but in every other regard we liked the Chiappa better. It helped confirm the direction my head's been going the last couple days while I've been thinking this over. That Chiappa has never been shot, and maybe after a couple of range trips the action will be just as smooth as my Marlin.

I am going to get the Cimarron. Maybe not this week, but I will be getting one before the current stock disappears. I'll post some pics here when I do. Thanks for all the input!

 

[sisyphus]

I'm definitely getting one or the other because I just bought a Redding titanium carbide die set in 45LC and I don't own anything in that caliber lol

 

[CraigC]

I was very positive on the late Marlins until recently. I had bought a newer 1895SS and it is a great rifle with better fit & finish than the vaunted (overrated) JM rifles. Then I saw a brand new 1895CB a couple weeks ago and it was awful. With that in mind, I would not commit to a late model Marlin sight-unseen.

 

[PapaG]

Have an earlier 94 44mag Marlin and a Win 92 in 357, a 60s conversion. Marlin for strength and parts, Winchester for smooth operation. Win is a 24" rifle, Marlin, a carbine. I'd go for a pre-safety Marlin.

 

[Tommygunn]

I was very positive on the late Marlins until recently. I had bought a newer 1895SS and it is a great rifle with better fit & finish than the vaunted (overrated) JM rifles. Then I saw a brand new 1895CB a couple weeks ago and it was awful. With that in mind, I would not commit to a late model Marlin sight-unseen.

Probably a good idea ...... although about a year ago I bought a Marlin 1894 COWBOY in .357 and it is a nice rifle. I did have the opportunity to see it as it was on a rack. Although Marlin did improve their quality in later years I guess they can still turn out a lemon occasionally.

 

[HowieG]

I will take a pre-Remington Marlin over a Winchester or Win clone any day of the week. I currently have three Marlin levers, and only one Winchester, an original 1873 rifle with a full octagon barrel. I used to have an 1894 Trapper in 357, but I sold it. I won't sell any of my Marlins. What I like is the Marlin solid top and side eject as well as being able to take out one screw, pull the bolt, and clean the barrel from the chamber side. I also like the way my centerfire Marlins shoot. My 1894CL 32-20 is certainly better than my buddy's Win 1892. Not saying that there aren't Win levers that can shoot. I just might be a better shot than him, lol. He isn't on this forum, so he'll never know.

 

[sisyphus]

ordered the Cimarron