Remington period 1894s

[Jimfern]

I have a chance to pick up a octagonal barreled 45 Colt with an MR serial number. I will get to handle it this week before I buy it. I saw the reviews that say the finish is rougher than the JM Marlin models but that if it functions well (and is put together properly), they are good shooters.

I'm planning to cycle it with dummy rounds to test it. Anything else I should try, short of shooting it? I can probably do that before purchasing it since I know the seller pretty well.

 

[dh1633pm]

I have an 1894 Remington made with a Round Barrel. I hate the Bar Code on the receiver. Yes the finish on the receiver for Ilion made one is not as good as my 1895. They is a brush pattern I will try to capture with pictures. I waited until after the line had been retooled before I purchased one. After I got it I took it to my friend who did QC for Marlin and he said it looked good.

 

[dh1633pm]

1894 MR Serial, not is is more Matt. My dad has one in .357. His finish is the same. The wood to metal fit is better on the Remington made ones. Ignore the marks on the hammer. Came out looking like a flaw on the 1894 hammer. Its just oil.



1895 Guide Gun. It has the same brush marks, but the blueing is deeper.

 

[Jimfern]

1894 MR Serial, not is is more Matt. My dad has one in .357. His finish is the same. The wood to metal fit is better on the Remington made ones. Ignore the marks on the hammer. Came out looking like a flaw on the 1894 hammer.

View attachment 1141100

1895 Guide Gun. It has the same brush marks, but the blueing is deeper.

View attachment 1141101

Thank you very much for giving me some reference pictures for comparison. I'll post pictures if I end up buying it.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Make sure the barrel is clocked properly and the wood to metal fit is to your liking.

other than that, buy it if you like it.

 

[3Crows]

Look for a rifle serial number that is 2015 and inward for the Remington production rifles.

The brush marks, you know, there have been discussions regarding brush marks on some models with a minor consensus that they are supposed to be there. I have a blued JM 1895 with brush marks and two Rugers and a Remington with no brush marks:



Now, you have to look close in this picture but this for real, pre-safety 336 definitely has generous brush marks and I find them aesthetically pleasing with the deep blued finish:



I have been told brush marks were only on Remingtons by the unknowing internet, okay, then what are those brush marks on this, my favorite JM rifle above.

 

[halfmoonclip]

How long a cartridge were the Marlin 94s planned for? Unlike the Winchester 94, was the Marlin designed for pistol cartridges?
Have a long suffering Marlin version that served as my deer rifle for 40 years, in .44 Magnum. The thing is a hammer at woods range.
For the OP, .45 Colt in a carbine is a lot of fun. Hope it all works out.
Moon

 

[Jim Watson]

Yes.
Marlin made the M 1893 for .32-40, .38-55, .30-30 and
M 1894 for .25-20, .32-20, .38-40, .44-40.

The 1893 became the Model 36, then 336.

The 1894 was out of production for many years before being reintroduced in revolver calibers. There were a few 336s adapted to .44 Magnum like the Winchester but were just place holders until they brought back the real short action 94.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Thanks, Jim. Mine has a short enough bolt travel that it certainly seemed it was pistol based.
It always seemed Winchester dropped the ball not bringing back their own '92, since Rossi, Uberti, Chiappa, and even Mirochester, sell every one they make. Not to mention the now returning Marlin 94.
Moon

 

[3Crows]

There was a 336M which was .44 Magnum. I have seen them but never held or shot one so I do not know if they shortened the lever stroke or what they did to accommodate a large pistol caliber like the .44 Magnum.

 

[chicharrones]

On my stainless Remlin 1894CSBL built in 2019, the receiver and lever have the marks mostly polished out. On the other hand, the barrel and mag tube have visible, but not objectionable brush marks throughout.

The wood to metal fit of my 1894 is as good as my Marlin 39AS that I bought new in 1994. The checkering on my 1894 is not sharp at all, but the checkering on my 39AS is outstanding.

 

[chicharrones]

1894 MR Serial, not is is more Matt. My dad has one in .357. His finish is the same. The wood to metal fit is better on the Remington made ones. Ignore the marks on the hammer. Came out looking like a flaw on the 1894 hammer. Its just oil.

View attachment 1141100

That's interesting. My stainless Remlin 1894's receiver and lever are as polished as that barrel, but the barrel and mag tube are brushed like that receiver.

 

[Jimfern]

I bought it it didn’t even have a whole box of 50 rounds through it and the box with ammo and brass was included

 

[PapaG]

How long a cartridge were the Marlin 94s planned for? Unlike the Winchester 94, was the Marlin designed for pistol cartridges?
Have a long suffering Marlin version that served as my deer rifle for 40 years, in .44 Magnum. The thing is a hammer at woods range.
For the OP, .45 Colt in a carbine is a lot of fun. Hope it all works out.
Moon

Cartridge oal is what the manuals state or a little less. My Win 94 44 mag will not feed/cycle Keith bullets crimped in the crimp groove. Same with my Marlin (Real Marlin) 1894 44. I have to crimp on the front of the first driving band and not put more than two or three in the magazine or they'll get driven back.

 

[chicharrones]

I bought it it didn’t even have a whole box of 50 rounds through it and the box with ammo and brass was included
View attachment 1141677 View attachment 1141678 View attachment 1141679

Congrats!

 

[Jimfern]

The rifle was made in 2017. I'm glad I'm a reloader. Looks like 45 Colt is more than a buck a round if you buy factory stuff.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Cartridge oal is what the manuals state or a little less. My Win 94 44 mag will not feed/cycle Keith bullets crimped in the crimp groove. Same with my Marlin (Real Marlin) 1894 44. I have to crimp on the front of the first driving band and not put more than two or three in the magazine or they'll get driven back.

Sorry, PapaG, OAL wasn't really my question, but rather was the Marlin 94 originally designed for revolver-length cartridges. I normally fed mine 240 JHPs, and simply used the bullet's crimping groove.
Never had issues with pushed bullets as well; simply used a coal scoop of H110, firm crimp, 1600+'sec in the 16" carbine.
Thanks
JimFern, nice wood on the 94, even with the bead blast finish, good looking gun.
Moon

 

[PapaG]

Sorry, PapaG, OAL wasn't really my question, but rather was the Marlin 94 originally designed for revolver-length cartridges. I normally fed mine 240 JHPs, and simply used the bullet's crimping groove.
Never had issues with pushed bullets as well; simply used a coal scoop of H110, firm crimp, 1600+'sec in the 16" carbine.
Thanks
JimFern, nice wood on the 94, even with the bead blast finish, good looking gun.
Moon

Revolver length cartridges are often different from what will feed in lever actions. At least, reloaded ones. That is what I was referencing. Factory loaded revolver cartridges should function in any firearm chambered for that particular chambering. I find my 29, Super, and NEF as well as Contender and others will chamber my Keith reloads. Neither of my 44 levers will. (Nor will my 92 357.
Not argueing. Just clarifying what and why I said what I said.