Replica 1881 Marlin Rifle

[Old Stumpy]

It would be a great addition to the western replicas out there and I would love to see one made. It was the first lever action .45-70.
The Jesse James gang used them, as did many outdoorsmen before the 1886 Winchester finally made an appearance.
It isn't a strong action, but the modern incarnation would certainly handle Springfield Trapdoor class smokeless factory loads easily.
So, a great historical way to hunt moose, elk, black bear, and deer.
Since I don't see the need to magnumize the .45-70, I would prefer one of these to any other lever action in .45-70.

 

[Tommygunn]

You made me dig out my ol' book on Marlin Rifles, Old Stumpy! Looking at your photo, two things struck me; 1.) It's a nice photo of a attractive rifle of the 19th century, and, 2.) The sliding loading gate and overall shape of the receiver made it look, to me, like a Colt Burgess 1883 rifle, save for minor details, and caliber (the Burgess was made in .44-40 and intended for competition against the Winchester 1873).
It's a nice rifle. You hit on a point; Winchester may be credited with "the rifle that won the west," but Marlin had repeaters out that could handle those .45-70 class rounds earlier. Winchester was BIG into marketing and that's why we remember that old cliche.
There were others out there to compete. The Burgess I mentioned was nice, but only a very few thousand were made (I have a Uberti repro of the carbine Burgess and it IS a nice, handy, eminently pointable gun) and why it failed is a long, possibly apocryphal story not really relevant.

I'm not sure a manufacturer would be interested in making a copy of a .45-70 that is not quite up to (theoretically) .45-70 pressures from store-bought ammo. I can see liability issues. I'm not sure they'd see a market for it.
In that light, I am surprised Uberti makes the Burgess since originals were so limited in success ..... but I guess there is a market for 'em amongst the cowboy action shooters and us nerdy guys who just really like old rifles.
Maybe there is hope ......

Despite my penchant for Winchesters, I have to admit that Marlin has a equally iconic and Noble history and has made some great firearms, and did actually beat Winchester in getting out leveractions in big bore caliber versions, despite Winchester, uh...er, "winning the west."
And as I said, that photo you posted shows one heckuva nice rifle!!!!!!

 

[StrawHat]

The Springfield Single Shot Rifle or Carbine made it safe for Winchester to “win” the West!

Kevin

 

[Old Stumpy]

he Burgess I mentioned was nice, but only a very few thousand were made (I have a Uberti repro of the carbine Burgess and it IS a nice, handy, eminently pointable gun) and why it failed is a long, possibly apocryphal story not really relevant.

I'm not sure a manufacturer would be interested in making a copy of a .45-70 that is not quite up to (theoretically) .45-70 pressures from store-bought ammo. I can see liability issues. I'm not sure they'd see a market for it.

I also very much like the Burgess carbine. In many ways it was better than the 1873 Winchester, and it deserved a better fate than it received.
It had a stronger action, was more modern, and more attractive. The main criticisms were that it had an opening in the top of the receiver that dirt could fall into, and that the fore end was thin in front of the loading gate and could crack. I think that the ejection port criticism was overblown, and the fore end problem was easy to fix.

The 1881 Marlin was designed using Burgess patents, which accounts for the similarities in the lever pivot acting as part of the locking system, and the sliding loading gate. I'm quite sure that a replica 1881 would be well up to the same pressures that any 1873 Trapdoor replica would be up to. It's certainly a stronger action than the 1876 Winchester, which is what made it possible to use .45-70 in the first place.
Any regular ammunition now produced by Winchester, Federal, or Remington would be safe to use.
It's only the Buffalo Bore and Cor Bon type stuff that would not be safe.
And, since the 1873 Trapdoor is produced despite its pressure limitations, I don't see any reason why the 1881 could not be produced.

 

[BigBore44]

Any regular ammunition now produced by Winchester, Federal, or Remington would be safe to use.
It's only the Buffalo Bore and Cor Bon type stuff that would not be safe.

That’s a point I don’t think many people are aware of. They are all manufactured to Trapdoor pressure levels. Include Hornady to that list as well.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I ran across these two drawings that show the operation and parts layout of the Marlin 1881.
As you can see, the extra heavy lever extension locks the bolt in place at the upper (A) by bearing against the forward bolt extension and transfers the chamber pressure back thrust to the receiver through the extra large lever pivot pin.
When the lever is thrown to the rear, the same locking part of the lever bears against a rear bolt extension to carry it to the rear.

 

[Tommygunn]

I also very much like the Burgess carbine. In many ways it was better than the 1873 Winchester, and it deserved a better fate than it received.
It had a stronger action, was more modern, and more attractive. The main criticisms were that it had an opening in the top of the receiver that dirt could fall into, and that the fore end was thin in front of the loading gate and could crack. I think that the ejection port criticism was overblown, and the fore end problem was easy to fix.

The 1881 Marlin was designed using Burgess patents, which accounts for the similarities in the lever pivot acting as part of the locking system, and the sliding loading gate. I'm quite sure that a replica 1881 would be well up to the same pressures that any 1873 Trapdoor replica would be up to. It's certainly a stronger action than the 1876 Winchester, which is what made it possible to use .45-70 in the first place.
Any regular ammunition now produced by Winchester, Federal, or Remington would be safe to use.
It's only the Buffalo Bore and Cor Bon type stuff that would not be safe.
And, since the 1873 Trapdoor is produced despite its pressure limitations, I don't see any reason why the 1881 could not be produced.

I admit I was only guessing about the strength limits, based on your statement about it not being a particularly strong action. I didn't realize that it used the Burgess patents ..... but it looks so similar I guess it is logical that there would be a connection.

If the 1881 is up to handling the cartridge, the main unknown for Uberti (or Pedersoli or any other repro maker) would be; is there a market for the 1881 Marlin repro?
I don't know the answer to that.
I'd love to get my hands on a repro 1886 Winchester in .45-70. If someone comes out with a repro Marlin 1881, I fear another drain on my wallet would become a real danger!!!! The Winchester would be in need of a "brother gun" ----they sorta need company, you know!

 

[Old Stumpy]

If the 1881 is up to handling the cartridge, the main unknown for Uberti (or Pedersoli or any other repro maker) would be; is there a market for the 1881 Marlin repro?

I think that the 1881 is stronger than the locking system might imply.
While the locking action efficiency is reduced by by acting through about 45 degrees, it is compensated for the lever extension being actually as thick as the breech bolt and by the large diameter of the lever pin.
Also any upward thrust component acting on the breech bolt because of the angular locking surfaces is contained by the heavy receiver rails that enclose the bolt.
Remington Rolling Blocks ultimately rely on large diameter action pins to carry the breech forces exerted, and they worked even with higher pressure smokeless cartridges.
Still, it must be a springy action, but modern steels would make it stronger than the original. And, I would not complain if they increased the diameter of the lever pin a bit.

Is there a market for a replica though?
The answer to that is yes, but probably a small one.
Also, considering the cost of a replica, and the fact that it isn't a well known gun, maybe not enough to make it worthwhile for make.

 

[Tommygunn]

That's the real question. Is there a market?
The answer to that is yes, but probably a small one.
Also, considering the cost of a replica, and the fact that it isn't a well known gun, maybe not enough to make it worthwhile for them.

Don't abandon hope. I'm surprised Uberti made the Burgess repro - - - - but they did.
So, maybe it could happen.

 

[someguy2800]

I've always though the classic Marlin lever actions don't receive the due acclaim they deserve compared to Winchesters.

 

[Tommygunn]

I've always though the classic Marlin lever actions don't receive the due acclaim they deserve compared to Winchesters.

Well, atleast Marlin is around .... who makes Kennedy Repeaters? Anyone even know about them (present company excluded)?

It was marketing. Oliver Winchester knew bupkiss about guns (he hired Benjamin T. Henry and Nelson King for that) but he KNEW MARKETING!!
He was a grand master at it, and if he left a legacy, it was MARKETING!!!!!
Other companies, even John Marlin, feared Winchester for this fact. It might have been behind the reason Colt's entry into long arms with the Lightning and the Burgess 1883 lever action may have gone sideways ....... if you believe that old story.....

 

[CraigC]

The one I like is the 1893.

 

[Old Stumpy]

It was marketing. Oliver Winchester knew bupkiss about guns (he hired Benjamin T. Henry and Nelson King for that) but he KNEW MARKETING!!
He was a grand master at it, and if he left a legacy, it was MARKETING!!!!!
Other companies, even John Marlin, feared Winchester for this fact. It might have been behind the reason Colt's entry into long arms with the Lightning and the Burgess 1883 lever action may have gone sideways ....... if you believe that old story.....

When you look at the 1883 Burgess carbine it is so clearly superior to the 1873 Winchester that it seems bizarre that it did not take over the market. The Winchester 1873 technology had not advanced significantly since 1860 when the Henry rifle adapted the ineffective S&W Volcanic to use rim fire cartridges. The Burgess had a shorter and stronger one-piece receiver, a stronger action, a more modern and appealing appearance, and worked great. But Colt wasn't able to sell them because the public was convinced that the Winchester was better.
But the 1881 Marlin and 1883 Burgess and Whitney Kennedys scared Winchester enough to finally have Browning design the 1886 for him.
It's odd that it took until 1892 for Winchester to make a carbine that had the same modern compact size and appearance as the 1883 Burgess.

 

[someguy2800]

I fully agree

 

[CraigC]

Looking at them is one thing but they're also significantly lighter. I've never shot one so maybe they have their own foibles but on paper, it's a much better design. Been wanting one since they were introduced and have handled them a few times.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Looking at them is one thing but they're also significantly lighter. I've never shot one so maybe they have their own foibles but on paper, it's a much better design. Been wanting one since they were introduced and have handled them a few times.

Never handled one so good to know.

 

[Tommygunn]

When you look at the 1883 Burgess carbine it is so clearly superior to the 1873 Winchester that it seems bizarre that it did not take over the market. The Winchester 1873 technology had not advanced significantly since 1860 when the Henry rifle adapted the ineffective S&W Volcanic to use rim fire cartridges. The Burgess had a shorter and stronger one-piece receiver, a stronger action, a more modern and appealing appearance, and worked great. But Colt wasn't able to sell them because the public was convinced that the Winchester was better.
But the 1881 Marlin and 1883 Burgess and Whitney Kennedys scared Winchester enough to finally have Browning design the 1886 for him.
It's odd that it took until 1892 for Winchester to make a carbine that had the same modern compact size and appearance as the 1883 Burgess.

Winchester sent out sales reps with "skeletonized" Winchesters, which had portions of the receivers removed to show how the innards worked without removing sideplates. This, along with the gladhanding/hardsell marketing the reps engaged in was very effective. People supposedly really loved those skeleton rifles.
O. Winchester had been a shirt salesman and Lt. Governor of Connecticut and he knew how to sell.

The 1873 is said to be a weak design. The toggle link system does appear weak (more especially so in comparison to the later Browning designed 1886, 92 & 94 designs) but it is actually pretty strong. The toggle pivot points actually don't line up in a straight line, the central pivot, the "knee," is slightly higher, and the toggle is shouldered against the receiver and bolt.
It is actually a fairly robust design, but it is true that that fact doesn't make it better than the Marlin 1881 (.44-40 versus .45-70?) or some others, and as pointed out, while Winchester did go on to the 1876, he also went further on to the great J. M. Browning designs of the 1886, 92, and 94. The 1892 was a great design, Browning got a bonus for, downsizing the mighty 1886. The 1892 was actually a stronger design than it really needed to be, but thanks to that, many still exist, the design lives on in the Rossi version chambered in modern magnum calibers, and the older Browning 1892 and the newer Miroku made Winchester labeled 1892s.

Slightly tangential, I received today a nice hardcover book one the "Colt Burgess Magazine Rifle, 1 of 1000." I look forward to going through it thoroughly and reading it. It has many nice photos, histories, patent drawings (the Burgess shares design similarities/heritage features with era rifles other than the 1881 Marlin!). Also of note are certain differences between original Burgess 1883s and the modern Uberti carbine.
Of note:
1.) Original Burgesses, both rifle and carbine, had butt traps for collapsing cleaning rods like the 1873 Winchester saddlering carbine, while newly made Uberti copies lack this feature.
2.) Most, if not all, Burgess original carbines had a saddlering, like the Winchester. The Uberti does not.
3.) Front sights on original Burgess carbines were attached to the barrel, behind the barrel band. Uberti copies have the sight integral to the barrel band, a feature found on the 1866 Winchester, and I believe, early 1873s, later 1873 Winchesters apparently had separate sight & barrel band.

People considering purchasing a Uberti Burgess might consider the above differences, but keep in mind, it is not necessarily an exhaustive list. That does not mean I consider the Uberti copy in any way inferior or disappointing. It's a fine copy.

 

[Tommygunn]

Looking at them is one thing but they're also significantly lighter. I've never shot one so maybe they have their own foibles but on paper, it's a much better design. Been wanting one since they were introduced and have handled them a few times.

One thing I noted from that new book I referenced above is, Colt apparently marketed both a carbine and a light carbine, slightly downsized from the regular one, back at the time. Of course a regular rifle was available, making three versions.
I'm hardly a expert on the originals and have never seen or handled any of those three versions. But I will say the Uberti is truly a nice, light, magnificently pointable carbine, beautiful in its simplicity. Hey, heck, it's just NICE!
Wierd case ejector mechanism, though.

 

[JWF III]

That’s a point I don’t think many people are aware of. They are all manufactured to Trapdoor pressure levels. Include Hornady to that list as well.

Yes. These loads may be safe and at Trapdoor levels. But have you tried them in a Trapdoor? Many years ago, my dad tried some 325gr Remingtons in his. First shot at target, no impact seen. Second shot, at the base of a 12’ tall berm, no impact. Third shot, at a can on the ground near 50 yards, bullet impact half way up the berm. Our best guess was 12 to 15 feet high at 100 yards.

Other guns could be different. A taller front sight would help, but this is an original Trapdoor and it isn’t worth it. It only gets a box fired through it every couple years, so I just stick to lead 405s.

Wyman

 

[BigBore44]

Yes. These loads may be safe and at Trapdoor levels. But have you tried them in a Trapdoor? Many years ago, my dad tried some 325gr Remingtons in his. First shot at target, no impact seen. Second shot, at the base of a 12’ tall berm, no impact. Third shot, at a can on the ground near 50 yards, bullet impact half way up the berm. Our best guess was 12 to 15 feet high at 100 yards.

Other guns could be different. A taller front sight would help, but this is an original Trapdoor and it isn’t worth it. It only gets a box fired through it every couple years, so I just stick to lead 405s.

Wyman

I have actually. The musket and a saddle ring carbine. Results were somewhat similar. Remember that the trapdoor sights were set at a minimum distance of 200 yards.

 

[CraigC]

Yes. These loads may be safe and at Trapdoor levels. But have you tried them in a Trapdoor? Many years ago, my dad tried some 325gr Remingtons in his. First shot at target, no impact seen. Second shot, at the base of a 12’ tall berm, no impact. Third shot, at a can on the ground near 50 yards, bullet impact half way up the berm. Our best guess was 12 to 15 feet high at 100 yards.

Other guns could be different. A taller front sight would help, but this is an original Trapdoor and it isn’t worth it. It only gets a box fired through it every couple years, so I just stick to lead 405s.

Wyman

Lighter or faster loads should impact lower, not higher.

 

[Old Stumpy]

It is actually a fairly robust design, but it is true that that fact doesn't make it better than the Marlin 1881

I think that overall there were two factors preventing the 1876 from being chambered in .45-70.
1) The bolt floats in space over the elevator well and a cartridge can only be so long.
2) Even with shorter bottle-necked cartridges Winchester still could not get a 405 grain bullet / 70 grain charge cartridge to work.
That must have been due to the open-sided receiver being not strong enough, or just too springy.

 

[Tommygunn]

The 1876 was the upper limit of the toggle-link Winchester design. This design was certainly not "strong," per se, but it is stronger than many (mostly detractors) believe or claim.
While the sideplates possibly weakened the design, it was not detrimental to the design of the Henry, 1860, the 1873, or, really, the 1876. The sideplates made it very easy to disassemble and access the interior.
In one incident, one person involved in a gunfight accidently loaded a .45 Colt into his 1873 Winchester. He was only able to rapidly clear the resulting jam because he could remove a sideplates easily.
But Winchester was absolutly aware the toggle design's useful life in a market where more powerful rounds were becoming much more common in repeaters was over with the 1876.
The rolling block and dropping block single shot rifles had been "king of the hill" for big bore power rifles, the lever actions considered more of a tyro's gun, or good for defense use, not against large prey.
In the mid to late 1870s, this was changing. The lever action "grew up" with the Marlins and then the Winchester 1886.

 

[Jim Watson]

Remember that the trapdoor sights were set at a minimum distance of 200 yards.

Tim Mullin wrote that there are untold thousands of people alive today because their ancestors were shot at at 100 yards with rifles that could not be zeroed closer than 400 yards. He was talking about Mausers, but the idea applies.

In one incident, one person involved in a gunfight accidently loaded a .45 Colt into his 1873 Winchester. He was only able to rapidly clear the resulting jam because he could remove a sideplates easily.

And the rest of the story is that he bought a .44-40 Frontier Sixshooter the next time he was in town.

I saw the Uberti Burgess at the SHOT Show when it was introduced. I thought it was a good looking, smooth working rifle but I did not expect it to find a niche among Winchesters and Marlins.

The 1881 action with the breechbolt propped up by the lever is carried over into my 39A .22.

 

[Old Stumpy]

In one incident, one person involved in a gunfight accidently loaded a .45 Colt into his 1873 Winchester. He was only able to rapidly clear the resulting jam because he could remove a sideplates easily.

The removable side plates of the 1873 were a great feature for cleaning and lubricating the toggle links area.
And, it did give access to the loading area for the magazine and cartridge elevator so a .45 Colt cartridge could indeed be cleared from the cartridge elevator or the magazine.
However, I think that the Winchester design itself was largely responsible for it being so difficult to clear the .45 Colt in the first place.
Overall, both cartridges are almost exactly the same length, and the rim diameter of the .44-40 is larger, so there would be no problem for the .45 Colt to feed into the magazine easily and also into the cartridge elevator. It should also not jam the elevator and stop it from rising.
It just would not feed into the chamber.
Further complicating matters is that the cartridge elevator is designed so that there is no way to remove a cartridge from it other than by first chambering it and then extracting it. That could not happen.

In most other designs a rear pivoting lifter is used to convey the cartridge into position for chambering. Since these lifters are usually open on top they don't prevent a cartridge from being simply dumped out of the ejection port if you wish.

So, in effect, removing the sideplates on the 1873 Winchester is necessary to clear a type of cartridge jam from the elevator that would be easy to clear from the other rifles with no disassembly at all.