The Marlin 39 Club

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the only thing I proved today is that I wasn't having a very good day at the range.

I shot a bunch of loose, meaningless groups.

It was a pretty day, and I had fun doing it, so it wasn't a total loss!
 
The November 2007 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine has a very nice article about the Marlin 39. The one pictured is exactly the one that I own!
 
Thanks for that hint, Mal. I get it now.

Found this page on Burns.

And I confess that this quote from that page applies to me:
How many times have people glibly trotted out,
“The best laid schemes” without realising that they were quoting from Burns?
Click to expand...

I did not. I've used that quote since ... well, for a long time,
but always thought it was Shakespeare.
(Hey, I'm just a culturally illiterate biologist. :rolleyes: )

Very interesting read.

Thanks for the education. :)
 
So tonight, when I'm supposed to be working on an important writing project
that I've been working on non-stop for days (it's a redesign of my business),
to the point that when I look at that document now,
I've seen it so much in the last few days that I just want to gag,
and need a break from it before I cut it up into 3x5 cards and go the range ... :uhoh:

... tonight, I've been thinking of (and missing) my 39, still at the smith shop
waiting for the repair on that FTF issue. (Getting more impatient, but still too poor to pay the bill;
must finish aforementioned project before funds become available ... such is life ...)

Anyway, in my momentary break from the project, while daydreaming in an attempt to escape from it,
I began thinking about - once again - cutting down my 39 to carbine length.

We've discussed this before in this and other threads:
I don't want a .22 with a 24" barrel, but a 16" to 20" barrel.

We've established the hypothesis here and elsewhere that anything more than a 16" barrel on a .22 rifle is "wasted" in terms of velocity. It could be meaningful in terms of sight radius and balance, but not necessarily in terms of velocity where it counts for squirrel, rabbit and wily 3x5.

And in my case, with scoped 39 (Leupold rimfire scope), I'm not concerned with sight radius,
and I'm OK with shorter because it'll be lighter and faster pointing even if not balanced quite as much.

So, I guess what I'm saying is this: sooner or later, I'm going to have to decide whether to cut this 39 by
4" to 20" barrel (total length 36") or by 6" to an 18" barrel (total length 34").

I'm comparing it to my 1894C with 20" barrel at 36" total length.

Interesting problem ...
 
One other advantage to a longer barrel is less report, especially with subsonic ammo. CB longs are virtually silent. Aquila and Remington's subsonic offerings are quiet enough that I have forgotten to wear hearing protection. That is rather nice in a target rich hunting situation. Less noise to scare nearby game and much easier on the hearing can equate to more meat in the pot.

Subsonics generally shoot very accurately too in my manually operated rimfire firearms and have plenty of power to humanely dispatch anything I'd shoot with a 22.

That being said, my favorite barrel length for the 39 is 20". Short enough I'm not hanging up on things in the field, long enough for good iron sight accuracy with my aging eyes. Good all around compromise in my opinion. Still, I never felt burdened with the 39A 24" in the field and the advantages listed above were appreciated.
 
Interesting TDS Nelg. First one I've seen with checkering and a rubber butt plate.

That variation seems to command a ransom. I parted with mine when made an offer I couldn't refuse. Good little carbines. I didn't get $700 but dang near...
 
Why didn't Burns just take his 39A out of its scabbard and dispatch with that mouse?...... It's still a nice read, especially if ye try ta rid ta loud in ye best Scot's accent. I always have pdoblems flippin' them "r's", an a talkin' thdough me teeth.
 
We've established the hypothesis here and elsewhere that anything more than a 16" barrel on a .22 rifle is "wasted" in terms of velocity.
Click to expand...
We have? The hypothesis might have been established, but the empirical data doesn't support it. I have proven to myself that I get more velocity out my 24" barrel than out of a 20" barrel. How much more depends on the ammo used, obviously, but it isn't insignificant.

Now a squirrel will be just as dead when hit with a bullet that reaches it at 1100 FPS as opposed to 1170 FPS. So cutting down a barrel to make it more "woods worthy" for hunting is understandable. I also don't think it will affect accuracy to any degree.

I just don't like the notion that a .22 round is so underpowered that the bullet will be slowing down in the barrel if it is over a certain length. A notion that seems to pervade internet boards. I'm positive it will slow down if the barrel is too long, but 24" isn't anywhere near that critical length.

As we discussed before, if you do decide to cut down the barrel, be sure to chrono the before and after results.
 
With a user name like "Marlin 39a freak", how could we say no? :D

Welcome in. :)

Frank's right: pics are nice when you get a chance.
__________

Also, I stand corrected by Mal re hypothesis v results on barrel length.
It's still an open question ...
 
Model '97 I inherited from my great-grandfather. He bought it new in 1906.

IMG_6910.jpg
IMG_6911.jpg


Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
  • Locked
Which model marlin 39 ?
Replies
19
Views
870
Assassin
A
K
  • Locked
Marlin 39A mounty, how much would you expect to pay?
Replies
11
Views
1K
JohnBT
J
D
  • Locked
Marlin "Golden 39A" Question
Replies
2
Views
1K
georgeky
G
A
  • Locked
Marlin Lever action pics
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
AStone
A
A
  • Locked
The 336 Club
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145
Replies
4K
Views
850K
If1HitU
If1HitU
Back
Top