1892 Winchester has
great handling -- and I'm a clay and bird shooter, so I'm pickier about that than a lot of rifle buyers seem to be.
I've shot some old originals -- love 'em.
I personally own a Marlin 1894, though. I like the handling of the Marlin as well.
The Marlin is a lot quicker to field strip and clean. One screw, and the mechanism comes out of the receiver. The bolt comes straight out the back and cleaning from the breech is easy.
Now when I bought that Marlin, I got it for $379 NIB. The Pumas next to it cost more.
Now, the Marlins are more expensive and the Pumas offer a lot more options in .45LC (stainless, CCH, short barrel, etc.).
The fact remains that the Winchester mechanism is neat-o, and can be slicked up, but the Marlin's is simpler and IMO a more practical design. The Marlin also protects the innards from crud and rain better -- though if I planned on rain, I'd get the Puma in stainless.
Puma's can be a little "rough around the edges",
Compared to a genuine 100-year-old Winchester, they feel like dragging a hammer through a box of gravel. However, they really aren't bad.
Both the Puma and the Marlin are considered by Buffalo Bore to be sufficient to shoot their really hot ammo.
Marlin customer support is good. Can't say anything about Legacy Sports.
Which one do you like?
I can't remember seeing a post here about
either rifle where the owner said, "Damn, that thing is a POS!"
My lever gun arsenal, such as it is, is 100% Marlin, but I can't say there's a reason not to get the Puma if you like it. Cycle the action and look around inside it; that's the primary difference.
Also, the Marlin is still Made in the USA, if that matters to you.