Top Eject vs. Side Eject for Lever Actions

[ECVMatt]

I have both and enjoy them all.

I am not too sure the 94 Winchester is stronger than a 336 Marlin. Marlin is able to chamber these in .356, 375 win, and .45-70 with no major modifications. Winchester had to go to the, "Big Bore" abomination to safely handle the .307, .356, and the 375 Winchester. They had to move up to the 1886 to safely handle the .45-70. I have to agree that nothing fits my hand better than a Winchester 1894 when carrying through the brush.

I am generally more fond of Marlins for their better accuracy, simpler action, and closed top. I have had lots of Red River dust get into my Winchester. It did not stop it from functioning, but was a major pain to clean out.

I recently picked up a Marlin 336 LTS and it has become my favorite. It carries almost as well as the 94, is super accurate, and perfect sized for my forest hunting endeavours.

 

[CaliCoastie]

Had both, ended up with more Marlins and sold the Winchester 94. Big deal breaker was completely cleaning the thing, after the second time I was done. Plus the Winchester was just looser then the Marlin, as far as strength the Winchester has two locking lugs that go all the way through on both sides of the bolt, vs Marlin that just goes partially into the bolt.
My suggestion? Shoulder, fondle, hold them both. Buy the one that fits you.

 

[T.R.]

People tend to forget that Winchester came out with angle eject about 30 years ago. This leveled the playing field with Marlin.

Both of our 30-30's eject 'em out the side. Winchester 94 Legasy is my favorite.

TR

 

[tahoe2]

I was trudging thru the "jungles" of western Washington for the last 3 days deer hunting in the wind and rain, carrying a Marlin 375 (336) with a peep sight at the ready, no leaves, water, or pine needles entered the action with the closed top reciever, don't know that a Model 94 would have fared any different with proper care. But I do like the feel of the pistol grip and the thicker fore-grip. I like the look of the "Legacy". Caliber selection is not what it used to be, kinda wish they would bring back the "7-30 Waters", "307 Winchester", and/or the "356 Winchester"

 

[dak0ta]

What are your opinions of a mini red dot sight on the receiver? Fast for 150 yard shots and closer?

 

[CraigC]

I have looked how to disassemble a Winchester, in firearms Assembly/Disassembly books, and I decided it was not for me.

What are you guys doing that you think you need to take a levergun apart all the time??? I own but one centerfire bolt gun. 99% of my centerfire rifle shooting is done with one of a dozen leverguns. I can't remember the last time I had the need to take one apart so this "field stripping" rhetoric that is brought up by Marlin fanboys every time this discussion happens is a silly non-issue.

As for strength, Winchester and Marlins are all rear locking actions, it would have to take a finite element model to really determine if there is a difference in strength between the two, I really doubt it is significant. Neither is as rigid or strong as a good single shot or a bolt rifle.

They are stronger, it is well proven and more than insignificant. All three mentioned are a good 10,000psi stronger than their Marlin counterparts.

I am not too sure the 94 Winchester is stronger than a 336 Marlin.

Never said it was, read it again.

 

[Malamute]

...I am not too sure the 94 Winchester is stronger than a 336 Marlin. Marlin is able to chamber these in .356, 375 win, and .45-70 with no major modifications. Winchester had to go to the, "Big Bore" abomination to safely handle the .307, .356, and the 375 Winchester. They had to move up to the 1886 to safely handle the .45-70....

I dont think the "big bore" swells on the rear of the receiver were exactly needed, I think it was more of a marketing thing. The later 94's were chambered in 444 and 450 Marlin, and had standard type receivers. (there have been old type 94's rechambered to 444 Marlin since back in the 60's, they seem to have held up fine) One of the other changes in the big bore line was a larger barrel shank, the regular shanks are narrower than the Marlin shanks, or big bores. Marlin also went to a different thread type in the high pressure rounds, as Winchester did.

It's been a matter of discussion as to whether the Marlins are up to a steady diet of 356, as they stopped making them shortly after they were introduced (with all the attendant rumours), and never did chamber the 307. Regarding the 45-70, it isnt a matter of "safely" handling it in a 94, they simply dont fit, as the 94 action is thinner. The rim doesn't even fit between the insides of the receiver. They didnt exactly "go to" the 86 action for 45-70, it was the original home for that cartridge in the Winchester line. They are a
great action in their own right, and generally considered one of the strongest of the tradtional type actions, with perhaps the 95 Winchester action being the only thing above it for strength (which was chambered in 30-06, 405 Win etc). They aren't more popular because of the cost, about double what a Marin 336/95 costs, and they are a bit heavier. After getting my first original Winchester 86, I lost interest in the Marlin 95's. I have a couple Browning 86's now and couldnt be happier for the chambering.


I find the "strength" questions interesting. Both are quite adequet for all the regular chamberings they were made in. The Winchester has much more of the bolt supported by the locking bolt (surface area of the locking bolts used to be an advertising speil in bolt guns years ago). Neither come apart when drastically over loaded or experience a bad load, they tend to split the barrels, the actions generally hold. I haven't seen or heard of any that haven't held either. Marlins tend to bulge the rear receiver walls when overloaded (assuming the barrel holds), making the receiver pretty much useless. Winchesters stretch the side walls, with the same results. They both just quit functioning when overloaded.
End result, when overloaded, they split barrels, or become scrap iron.

 

[Abel]

What are you guys doing that you think you need to take a levergun apart all the time??? I own but one centerfire bolt gun. 99% of my centerfire rifle shooting is done with one of a dozen leverguns. I can't remember the last time I had the need to take one apart so this "field stripping" rhetoric that is brought up by Marlin fanboys every time this discussion happens is a silly non-issue.

With a 336, you can pull the bolt to bore sight it like you would a bolt action, by sighting down the bore. Trigger work and fine tuning is also a cinch. I have removed the lever & bolt many times on a 336 for my end of deer season cleaning. Its just a better mousetrap, not rhetoric, and not in the least bit silly.

 

[Malamute]

I guess I'm in the "why take it apart" camp also. I just don't see any need to, though I dont find it at all difficult to do if I choose to, its just a bit more complicated to do. If I need to bore sight, taking the bolt of a 94 isn't impossible, but I've just not had the need.

"better mouse trap" is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[CraigC]

With a 336, you can pull the bolt to bore sight it like you would a bolt action, by sighting down the bore. Trigger work and fine tuning is also a cinch. I have removed the lever & bolt many times on a 336 for my end of deer season cleaning. Its just a better mousetrap, not rhetoric, and not in the least bit silly.

It is rhetoric and a silly imagined advantage. I love Marlins, own three and would like to have several more. I also love Winchesters (own seven plus Browning and Uberti replicas of Winchesters) both but the stuff that Marlin fanboys spew gets to be a little too much. Easier bore sighting, really??? Some folks can't espouse their choice without deriding another's.

I find the "strength" questions interesting.

I think it does not need to be mentioned that the .45-70 commonly gets loaded well beyond standard pressures. Not to mention the available wildcats suitable to these guns. In pistol cartridge levers, strength runs the gamut and also affects the loads used. The Marlins are good for standard pressure loads but the modern 92's can be loaded much hotter, up to 50,000psi and that is a significant difference. Also worthy of note, back in the 1990's, when Winchester was still in business, every maker in the business tried to get their rifles to stand up to the .454. None did. Not even the rifle-length Marlins or fatbody Winchesters. They all shook themselves loose within just 100rds. The 1886 is certainly strong enough but too large for the cartridge. The fact that the only available .454 carbine is an unmodified 1892 replica is not a coincidence. It's the only applicable action that can handle the pressures involved. Not because Marlin didn't try but because none of their existing designs could handle it.

 

[Abel]

There is clearly an advantage to ease of disassembly and reassembly versus the alternative....which is non-ease, or as some people like to call it, difficulty. The 94 is difficult to disassemble and reassemble for most human beings. With any machine that an owner hopes to maintain over a lifetime, ease of taking it apart and putting it back together is a tangible and real advantage. The ease of scope mounting on a Marlin is a moot point too. Almost 90% of winchester 94's are not drilled and tapped for bases. For the 336, perhaps 5% of the rifles out there are non-drilled for bases. All 336's since 1955 or 56 were drilled.

 

[CraigC]

As has been said, there is very little reason to have to take a levergun apart for any reason. As has been said, I've been shooting leverguns almost exclusively for years and can't remember the last time I took one apart or had a need to. But when I did, it was Winchester 94's and was no big deal. Like I also said, an imagined advantage. Winchesters have been drilled & tapped for receiver sights since the 1950's. Which is all one ever needs.

 

[Abel]

As has been said, there is very little reason to have to take a levergun apart for any reason. As has been said, I've been shooting leverguns almost exclusively for years and can't remember the last time I took one apart or had a need to. But when I did, it was Winchester 94's and was no big deal. Like I also said, an imagined advantage. Winchesters have been drilled & tapped for receiver sights since the 1950's. Which is all one ever needs.

Just because it has "been said" that I don't need to take my rifle apart doesn't mean that I am not going to take it apart from time to time, especially when we're just talking about pulling the bolt and the lever. Taking any gun apart for cleaning and tinkering is standard operating procedure for me, and has been since I was a boy. As for peeps being "all you need", speak for yourself. A peep is about as useless as teats on a boar when it gets a little dark and the deer start moving. But if we lived way back in 1894, and it was all I had, I guess it would do.
__________________

 

[CraigC]

Yeah, I guess I've never hunted until dark.

I've done it every way. I have a lot of scoped rifles, some scoped pistols, red dots, holographic sights, receiver sights, tang sights, posts, beads, fiber optics, blades, globes, sourdough's, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Most of my real using rifles wear peep sights and I've never been in the woods and thought, "man, I wish I had a scope". Let alone one standing three inches over the receiver in those goofy see-thru mounts.

How much time have you actually spent shooting with receiver sights??? How many leverguns do you own? Have you ever even owned a Winchester or do you just dog them to justify your own choices?

 

[Slamfire]

With a 336, you can pull the bolt to bore sight it like you would a bolt action, by sighting down the bore. Trigger work and fine tuning is also a cinch. I have removed the lever & bolt many times on a 336 for my end of deer season cleaning. Its just a better mousetrap, not rhetoric, and not in the least bit silly.

It is rhetoric and a silly imagined advantage. I love Marlins, own three and would like to have several more. I also love Winchesters (own seven plus Browning and Uberti replicas of Winchesters) both but the stuff that Marlin fanboys spew gets to be a little too much. Easier bore sighting, really??? Some folks can't espouse their choice without deriding another's.

Every time I come back from the range with a Marlin I remove the one bolt screw, pull the bolt, and clean the chamber with a chamber brush and the barrel is cleaned from the breech.

I can get absorbent towels in the action and wipe out a lot of residue, though I don’t get everything.

I seldom take the bottom out of the action and pull everything out.

I am happy with my Marlins.



I have looked at the Rossi’s in 454 Casull, but my M1894 in 44 Magnum kicked hard enough that I had to install a rubber recoil pad, and the thing still kicks hard, so I don’t think I want a 454 Casull in a lightweight leveraction. But if anyone wants one, have at it, and if the 92 action is the only action strong enough for a 454 Casull, then that is the action it you will be carrying.


I remember handling the Japanese reproduction M1886's and M1895's and decided they were too heavy and too clumsy for me. Someday I may own a leveraction 45/70 but I doubt it.

 

[CraigC]

Every time I come back from the range with a Marlin I remove the one bolt screw, pull the bolt, and clean the chamber with a chamber brush and the barrel is cleaned from the breech.

I wouldn't do that any more than I would change the oil in my truck every time I went to town.

I remember handling the Japanese reproduction M1886's and M1895's and decided they were too heavy and too clumsy for me.

They're not light but I would never call them heavy and clumsy. If there is any clumsiness, it is on the part of the shooter. They typically weigh much less than an M1 Garand. My Winchester 1895 .405 is no more than 8lbs and handles wonderfully.

 

[Abel]

How much time have you actually spent shooting with receiver sights??? How many leverguns do you own? Have you ever even owned a Winchester or do you just dog them to justify your own choices?

I have qualified expert on three rifles as an infantryman in the US Army, all with peeps. I have three Winchester 94's and they are safe queens. One of my several 336's is a 1951 with a Williams peep. Its a range toy mostly, but I do plan to use it on some morning hunts. I prefer a scoped 336 for my style of hunting. When the light is low, and a deer is out at 125 yards, I just have to have a scope to put the bullet where I want. And I am not "dogging" the winchester by any means. I simply think that the 336 is better designed. That is far removed from "dogging" the 94's design. I think that the 94 is great, just not the greatest.

 

[Slamfire]

Every time I come back from the range with a Marlin I remove the one bolt screw, pull the bolt, and clean the chamber with a chamber brush and the barrel is cleaned from the breech.

I wouldn't do that any more than I would change the oil in my truck every time I went to town.

Just how often do you change the oil in your truck?

 

[CraigC]

Just how often do you change the oil in your truck?

When it needs it, just like my guns. I clean them when they need it. Unless it's blackpowder, cleaning every range session is a waste of time and serves only the needs of compulsive shooters.

 

[PapaG]

Since I shoot the cartridges the guns were made for, either in factory loads or "equivalent" reloads, the strength issue has not been a problem for me. I have an original 92 (mostly, my brother and I foolishly had it converted to .357 with a rifleman lever), a couple 94s, Marlin 39, 94, 336, and 444. Toss in a 99 savage. I find the 92/94 the most esthetically pleasing, as well as the nicest "in the carry". I like the Marlins scoped (68 now and need trifocals), and the savage as the long range powerhouse (308 win).
All that said, I love them all and would be hard pressed to give one up. I think I have calibers for about anything I'd want to hunt.....22, 30-30, 357, 44, 308, 444 and the ability to cast bullets or choose good jacketed ones for all the centerfites. I don't think one is better than another but would like an 86.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have a Legacy Sports Rossi Puma 1892 .357 as a carbine, and a Marlin 336 .30-30 as a rifle. Given that I might load the Puma with .38 wadcutter for small game, the open top makes for easy single shot loading (wadcutters don't feed from the magazine). The rifle has a scope with peep backup which makes true side eject more natural. I would feel adequately armed with a good .30-30 '94 with Williams peep for that matter but all the recent '94s since about 1968 have all been rough with idiot add-on safeties.

This is almost like arguing over what's the best paint color for your car. I like green or brown.

 

[Slamfire]

serves only the needs of compulsive shooters.

I am guilty as charged!

 

[VancMike]

Tahoe 2 "was trudging thru the "jungles" of western Washington for the last 3 days deer hunting in the wind and rain, carrying a Marlin 375 (336) with a peep sight at the ready, no leaves, water, or pine needles entered the action with the closed top receiver, don't know that a Model 94 would have fared any different with proper care..."

There's a coincidence: I was trudging thru similar jungles down in the left hand corner of the same state on the same days. Really wanted to be carry one of my 1895 Marlins, but practicality smacked me in the face, and I ended up carrying my beater Win '94, which is about a pound or more lighter.

My experience has been if one carries the firearm....bolt, lever, semi-auto, whatever....with the action closed, neither leaves, water nor fir needles will enter said action. Shoots better, too.....

I find it interesting that many correspondents on this thread eschew peep sights. Apparently neither Tahoe 2 nor I feel the need for scopes, and if you look at our latitude, we're hunting in much darker conditions (and shorter days) than most.

My feeling is that scopes on lever actions are uglier than green lipstick on a homely pig.

And truth in hunting stories.....at the end of the hunt, took home as many cartridges as at the beginning....

 

[Abel]

A fine setup:

 

[CraigC]

An interesting setup, don't know how fine it is.