Winchester '94 vs. Marlin 336

[Clint C]

This was sparked off of another thread and I didn't want to take over that thread so here are some of my thoughts.

Marlin 336, I can't really stand Marlin these days. Maybe not a bad hunting rifle (Marlin 336), but in my opinion the Winchester is on another level. When they were designed they were for the great west, and in my opinion the Winchester could stand the outdoors and abuse a lot better than a Marlin 336. The Winchester has a all sealed up action when it is ready to shoot. You could bury the Winchester in any terrain pick it up, dump the barrel and shoot it. Cross rivers, deserts, jungles, wastelands, I just don't see the Marlin doing that. The Winchester is just a better more reliable and for a lack of better word survival rifle over Marlin. If you droped your Marlin in the sand, river, mud, could you guarantee it would cycle, I know the Winchester would. Forget about scopes, they are for people with bad eye sight. If you were fighting indians in the old days which would you have rather had? Maybe I am just judging this one on what the rifles were designed for. I know people are alway talking about SHTF Rifles ( which I don't think I will see in my life time) so which one would you want in a SHTF scenario? The Winchester '94 has also seen more combat than the Marlin 336 why do you all think that is? Was the Marlin 336 issued in WWII? Nope, but the Winchester '94 was. Hmmmm.

 

[AStone]

I suspect that this has the potential to be an, um ... interesting discussion.

I've invited a few friends to the party, too.

I won't state my opinion just now,
but if one clicks "levers" in my sig line,
you'll learn about it.

 

[Clint C]

Nematocyst, nice entry to the conversation, lol. I think your 336 is the first one I have ever seen without a scope.

 

[gga357]

I just think Winchesters are better looking.

 

[Big_E]

Hmm, well I do like my inherited '94. Given that its a 1980's Win, it still seems pretty decent. Haven't shot a 336 but at first I didn't like the 94's "looseness" (at least some of my parts are) but now I realize, like an AK, it helps with its reliability.

As far as scopes go... I personally do not care for them on levers, or any "old west" gun for that matter.

 

[ECVMatt]

Here is just a few random thoughts...

I have hunted with both and like both. I prefer the Marlin for many reasons. First is cleaning and dissassembly.

Please see this thread right here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=461286

A Marlin can be taken apart by removing about 3 or 4 screws. Don't try this with the Winchesters.

I have been on some hunts through the cane breaks of the Red River were we came out covered in pieces of cane, dirt, mud, dust, pig blood, etc... Because the top of the Marlin is solid, it got much less debris in the action than the Winchester. The Winchester held up well until is started to rain. Then all of the stuff on top leaked into the action. In all fairness to the Winchester, it still functioned, but was very gritty. We sprayed the action with, "Panther Piss", an engine starting spray and some of the grittiness was gone. The Marlins on the hunt did not have this problem. The Marlins did pick up more material in the loading gate area. They seem to be more open than the Winchester. However they all worked at the end of the day as well.

In terms of accuracy I just seem to get better results with the Marlins. I am using iron sites. Being able to easily mount a receiver site is a big bonus for me. Drilling a nice pre-64 Winchester seems like a sin. I really don't care too much for the post-64 guns that are drilled. After you have used the pre-64's, they just don't cut it.

As far as Marlin Making crap rifles, I don't think you will every find one with an aluminum receiver or "graphitic" receiver like Winchester did. Those are horrible and had to be covered with iron and then blued. Once the iron coating wore off you had to paint it as blueing will not attach whatever that stuff is. In Texas we called them Beer Can Winchesters and a fellow who showed up with one was look up with a high degree of suspicion. Winchester went to stamped parts as well. They also moved the ejector and came up with the AE models. Some folks don't like the cut out on the receiver and feel it lets even more grim in the action.

I use the Marlins more on hunting trips because they are so simple to clean and use. I also like to take my Winchester at times. I just it really just come down to personal preference. I don't hate either one and in fact I am happy that I can own and use both. That is why America is so great, we have choices.

I think it is more important to look at each rifle objectively, especially here at THR.

Have a good one.

 

[Sam1911]

in my opinion the Winchester could stand the outdoors and abuse a lot better than a Marlin 336. The Winchester has a all sealed up action when it is ready to shoot. You could bury the Winchester in any terrain pick it up, dump the barrel and shoot it. Cross rivers, deserts, jungles, wastelands, I just don't see the Marlin doing that. The Winchester is just a better more reliable and for a lack of better word survival rifle over Marlin. If you droped your Marlin in the sand, river, mud, could you guarantee it would cycle, I know the Winchester would.

The ironic thing about this line of thought is that a great many people in this thread, the original thread, and many others, have made exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion. Marlin action is sealed better, 336 would keep working when the '94 was too clogged, 336 could also be disassembled easily and really cleaned out which is a HUGE bonus over JMB's great model '94 design. Funny how people can look at the same two items, examine the same features of those items, and come to the exact opposite conclusions about their merits.

Forget about scopes, they are for people with bad eye sight.

And for 90% of the hunting public... remember, those folks who are most likely to USE a lever action rifle?

This is silly. You are seriously arguing the value of an optical sighting system? Scopes have been far proven to give great advantages to almost all shooters under almost all conditions. Low-power scopes have been adopted by many close-range hunters as well as the go-fast tactical/competition crowd because they're faster on target than iron sights. Higher power scopes greatly increase your effective range and the precision of your shot placement. Even the military now issues telescopic sights to many combat troops. It's just a null argument.

You might not choose to use one, but that doesn't really change the validity of the concept or the value of the capability of a rifle to use them.

If you were fighting indians in the old days which would you have rather had? Maybe I am just judging this one on what the rifles were designed for. I know people are alway talking about SHTF Rifles ( which I don't think I will see in my life time) so which one would you want in a SHTF scenario?

Again, many folks would look at the same (crazy hypothetical) scenarios and say the Marlin. (Tougher, more sealed from crap getting in, far easier to field strip and clean, etc.)

The Winchester '94 has also seen more combat than the Marlin 336 why do you all think that is? Was the Marlin 336 issued in WWII? Nope, but the Winchester '94 was. Hmmmm.

Issued in WWII? Uh, no. You mean issued to logging camp guards in the Pacific Northwestern United States during WWI? (http://www.winchestercollector.org/guns/w-mil.shtml) O.k. Point to the '94, I guess. But that's not the same thing as saying "seen more combat." You're talking about a VERY few (1,800) of the 7.5 million '94s made. Less than three HUNDREDTHS of one percent of the '94s even saw guard duty, let alone "COMBAT."

You like them, that's cool. I like them, too. I just prefer the Marlins for a real shooter.

-Sam

 

[JustsayMo]

I'm another who has had both but prefers the Marlin for many of the same reasons ECVMatt stated. The Winchesters I've had were good rifles, accurate and reliable. When it came time to choose, I went with the Marlins.

 

[frenchy1957]

As with the rest of the gang I have had both and own both (just 1 Winchester at present and thats an 1895 .405 caliber inherited from my grandfather) but perfer the Marlin. I concur with the looseness and the inheraint ability of winchester to "collect" junk while in the field, My biggest complaint (if you can call it that) is with the ejection system on the Winchester. Once the ejector wears the ejected HOT cartridge hits you in the forehead(if your lucky) or in the face. Marlin started in 1876 and as far as I'm concerned equal too if not better then any Winchester out there.

 

[hwp]

The OP must never have spent much time with a 336. The same reasons he states in favor of the winnie are the same reasons most people prefer the marlin.

IMO the marlin is a much better rifle and much higher quality if made since the 60's.

 

[Clint C]

Issued in WWII? Uh, no.

Uh, yes.

http://www.rarewinchesters.com/gunroom/1894/M94-1331722/1894 PCMR Article 1.pdf

First is cleaning and dissassembly.

Its very easy to clean a Winchester. drop the lever, run a cleaning rod through the barrel, spray out action with "panther piss", and you are done. Thats why it is designed the way it is.

Marlin action is sealed better

How can that be? the bolt is right there with a lot of space for mud and sand to get packed in around it. If that thing was droped in mud (and I don't mean on the grass at your firing range) sloppy wet mud then tried to cycle the Marlin you would fill the barrel full of mud, not being able to get your next round in the chamber. If you did the same with the Winchester wipe off with your hand shoot, cycle shoot again and so on.

It's just a null argument.

Scopes are for stationary or slow moving targets only. I guarentee you have never shot a rabbit running through the brush with a scope mounted on your rifle.

they're faster on target than iron sights.

Now that is "null". You are really trying to say that you can get on target faster with a scope over iron sights? Two words brother Dream World. Everyone on this web sight tries to say that a 30-30's effective range is around 200 yards. If you really need a scope for 200 yards on a full size animal you must have bad eye sight. I am a purist and prefer iron sights over scopes. Yes there is a place for scopes in this world, its just not on a 30-30 lever action. If scopes are so great, why do I win the Rimfire competition here at THR every month using iron sights getting a better score than guys with scopes? Sorry guys not trying to sound arrogant.

You like them, that's cool. I like them, too.

Yes that is cool, just expressing how I feel about it.

They seem to be more open than the Winchester. However they all worked at the end of the day as well.

Well that is the most important thing, I guess, I still believe the Winchseter to be more reliable in a "packed with mud situation".

The Marlin may cycle smoother, but I think the reason people go for it is because they can mount a scope on it. You should alway learn how to shoot with iron sights before thinking of using a scope. Shooting with iron sights is a dying trade, most likely because it is cool looking to have a scope. I don't hate scopes, some of my rifles have scopes on them, but never my 30-30 lever action.

Thanks for the debating guys, keep it coming.

 

[Garndawg]

A Marlin can be taken apart by removing about 3 or 4 screws. Don't try this with the Winchesters.

Is this also true for the 1894 Marlin repro?

 

[Clint C]

Marlin started in 1876 and as far as I'm concerned equal too if not better then any Winchester out there.

Maybe in todays society, but no where near as good when they were first designed. Take away the easiness of mounting a scope and The Winchester will win everytime. I didn't post this in the original post, but no I don't have a Marlin, I have a Winchester '94 made in 1942. That is what I am basing my argument on.

 

[Clint C]

ECVMatt, That man's Winchester shot for twenty years and was never cleaned, I bet a Marlin wouldn't do it.

 

[Sam1911]

Issued in WWII? Uh, no.

Uh, yes.

http://www.rarewinchesters.com/gunro...rticle 1.pdf

Oh. In Canada. That report doesn't seem to mention how the gun actually fared in the combat up there. Was the fighting very heavy?

Its very easy to clean a Winchester. drop the lever, run a cleaning rod through the barrel, spray out action with "panther piss", and you are done. Thats why it is designed the way it is.

Sure. But that's no where near as thorough a job as you could do on a 336 in about the same amount of time. And you have to clean from the muzzle, which invites muzzle crown wear. Remember the old GI maxim that more bores were ruined with a cleaning rod than were ever "shot out."

Marlin action is sealed better

How can that be? the bolt is right there with a lot of space for mud and sand to get packed in around it. If that thing was droped in mud (and I don't mean on the grass at your firing range) sloppy wet mud then tried to cycle the Marlin you would fill the barrel full of mud, not being able to get your next round in the chamber. If you did the same with the Winchester wipe off with your hand shoot, cycle shoot again and so on.

And in the same conditions, as soon as you opened the '94 you've got gaping holes top and bottom. Any rifle is reliable on the first shot. The Marlin design seems less likely to swallow muck and debris while it's repeatedly cycled.

Scopes are for stationary or slow moving targets only. I guarentee you have never shot a rabbit running through the brush with a scope mounted on your rifle.

Wow. Step out of the 1950s, please. Low power scopes are awesome for moving targets. Yes, MUCH faster than irons. This is proven in competition every day, these days. Handguns, carbines, even on shotguns in some instances.

Now that is "null". You are really trying to say that you can get on target faster with a scope over iron sights?

I have a 1.25-4x forward-mounted scope on my .35 336. Yes, it is much faster to aquire a target with that scope than with irons. Part of this has to do with the target and sights being on the same visual "plane," part is due to not having to align a front and rear sight, and part is due to a more upright, naural shooting stance through the scope. But, yes, it is faster.

Now, a 9x scope may cause you to take some extra time even finding the deer, but that's not a good choice for the game and rifle we're discussing.

Everyone on this web sight tries to say that a 30-30's effective range is around 200 yards. If you really need a scope for 200 yards on a full size animal you must have bad eye sight.

Or maybe you have an obstructed view of the animal and really want to put the crosshairs dead-on. Maybe it's getting dark and you want the light gathering properties of the scope. Lots of good reasons.

I am a purist and prefer iron sights over scopes. Yes there is a place for scopes in this world, its just not on a 30-30 lever action.

But 90% (probably more) of hunters choose to step into the woods with a scoped rifle -- .30-30, '06, .243, whatever.

So you don't prefer a scope. This is not a win for the '94 over the 336, seeing as either one works great without a scope. The Marlin is flexible in that it can work very well with one. Flexibility is good.

If scopes are so great, why do I win the Rimfire competition here at THR every month using iron sights getting a better score than guys with scopes? Sorry guys not trying to sound arrogant.

No idea. I've never looked into that match, but there could be many reasons -- from the quality of your rifle to the quality of your competition. There are folks who could beat you with a scope and without. And plenty who couldn't. Your results in an informal on-line shooting match can't really be held as an indictment of an entire shooting platform or sighting system.

You like them, that's cool. I like them, too.

Yes that is cool, just expressing how I feel about it.

Yup.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

I have a 1.25-4x forward-mounted scope on my .35 336. Yes, it is much faster to aquire a target with that scope than with irons. Part of this has to do with the target and sights being on the same visual "plane," part is due to not having to align a front and rear sight, and part is due to a more upright, naural shooting stance through the scope. But, yes, it is faster.

Remember that the late, great Col. Cooper's "Scout Rifle" concept was designed to be the fastest snap-shooting rifle he could imagine. One of the key concepts (though not mandatory) was that it would wear a forward-mounted low-power scope.

-Sam

 

[Clint C]

Oh. In Canada. That report doesn't seem to mention how the gun actually fared in the combat up there. Was the fighting very heavy?

LMAO, I can't stop laughing on that one. Your to funny! lol

Flexibility is good.

You do have me there. But my argument in the OP was going off of what they were originally designed for. I dought if they were mounted with scopes back then.

As far of the rest of our argument we could keep going back and forth.

I haven't looked it up yet, but I am sure the Winchester '94 has seen actual combat. lol

 

[Al Thompson]

I have a Winchester '94 made in 1942. That is what I am basing my argument on

Ah ha. OK, that's where your problem lies. You have a very good rifle and when you get some trigger time on other rifles, you'll understand better. As SwampWolf correctly took me to task over, not all post '64 M94s were junk, but quality dependent on when the rifle was made. Yours is one of the better ones.

If we were closer, I'd enjoy showing you how to use a scope correctly. I do so fairly often with other new shooters and it's a lot easier to show than explain. You are somewhat correct about shooting paper targets, but for game and moving targets it's hard to beat a scope. Most new shooters are badly "over-scoped" and use too much power.

When you get a hunting license (do you Iowa folks have a rifle season?) and start hunting, you'll find that critters aren't paper targets. As Jeff Cooper correctly points out, scopes help you see better. With critters, seeing is important.

As you get some experience, you'll find that hands on is always better than reading on the net. What works for you may be different than what works for me. I'd suggest that when you reach legal age you join a club and get to know some of the members. Around here, we have a pretty good club and the older guys are willing to let new folks like you get some trigger time on different firearms. Actually shooting guns is always a better evaluation.

 

[Clint C]

but for game and moving targets it's hard to beat a scope.

For critters? I disagree I can be on a cotton tail way faster than you can with a scope. Here in Iowa we have wild rose bushes and there is no way you could find a rabbit running in that crap with a scope. Hell its hard to shoot em sometimes with a shotgun.

Most new shooters are badly "over-scoped" and use too much power.

You are so very correct there sir.

I don't start hunting squirrels until all the leaves are down and I don't have a hard time seeing them at all. I am never farther than fifty yards from a squirrel in a tree. I have taken some long shots with my .17HMR scoped with a 3x9x42 though.

As you get some experience, you'll find that hands on is always better than reading on the net. What works for you may be different than what works for me. I'd suggest that when you reach legal age you join a club and get to know some of the members. Around here, we have a pretty good club and the older guys are willing to let new folks like you get some trigger time on different firearms. Actually shooting guns is always a better evaluation.

I am 29 with two kids a wife (that is still fighting cancer) house payment, multi vehicle payments, and plenty of bills, and responsibilities, and run multi-million dollar jobs at work, so please don't talk down to me as a child with no experience in life. I have hunted critters with rifles scoped, irons, and hand guns scoped and irons. I have plenty of trigger time, and have shot the Marlin 336 plenty, its just not my cup of tea. I have been in the woods hunting animals since I was Five years old (which is the age of my son and he will start hunting with me this year) grew up on a farm, and in the woods everyday. This year 2009 is the first year I have ever shot paper targets so about all my experience is hands on. I have a dozen or more guns at this time, and have sold twice that, ranging from bb guns to "assualt" weapons. I have pictures to prove it, here are a few. All of these have killed multiple animals. I have sold the hand guns, it was fun hunting with them, but I get bored with them fast.

















If you want me to show you more of my hands on guns I can post pictures all day long. All payed for from my hard work, nobody ever gave me anything. Just because I am younger than lots of you dosn't mean I don't have experiance, or earned anything I have.

 

[OldWolf]

That article says that Marlins were issued too.

 

[Clint C]

That article says that Marlins were issued too.

Yes it does, lol, but they threw them in the trash after the first day.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh. In Canada. That report doesn't seem to mention how the gun actually fared in the combat up there. Was the fighting very heavy?

LMAO, I can't stop laughing on that one. Your to funny! lol

Yes. Yes I am. But, funny as I may be, I can't top this:

That article says that Marlins were issued too.

So, in reality, the Pacific Coast Militia Rangers were issued 3,000 Win '94s, and an assortment of Enfields and "Marlin lever rifles!" How very interesting.

Well, we're up to 4,800 "issued" M94s. That bumps us up to WELL OVER 6 hundredths of a percent of the '94s made that might have seen "combat." Er...guard duty.

Nor this:

but they threw them in the trash after the first day.

Probably because so many were destroyed in the heavy shelling preceeding the Japanese human wave attacks ... in Canada.

Why, if it wasn't for the toughness of those 3,000 Winchester '94s issued to the PCMR, there'd be a bunch of lumberjacking hosers ordering their Molsons in Japanese right now, for sure...eh?

-Sam

P.S. -- Wonder what the occupation forces would have done with the Bloc Quebecois? How do you say "Je ne parle pas anglais" in Japanese? ;-)

 

[schlockinz]

Whats wrong with being set up for scope mounting? It makes it easier to mount my peep sights w/o having to drill and tap the rifle, seems like a good deal to me.

As for a pre 64 winnie, never shot one, never held one, but I looked for quite some time to try and find a good deal locally on one, to no avail, so I get a big bore Marlin 1895 instead, and this thing is deadly precise at 100yds (once I get those peeps, it'll be deadly precise and accurate).

As for the scope itself, and already mentioned, its all about light gathering. My lever won't have a scope on it since its a brush gun (mobility issue with scope), but that will put me at a sligt disadvantage in low light since a scope will help me to see better, thank goodness I have good night sight

 

[ThomasT]

I read that article twice. I didn't see anywhere in it where they threw the Marlins in the trash on the first day. Or any other day for that matter.

I did see where the Winchesters where picked up after 1962 and destroyed for reliabilly issues and some only had a couple of hundred rounds fired through them.

I have a winchester 94 and a marlin 336 and like them both. Both are open sighted right now. I do put a scope on the marlin sometimes. I have proven long ago I can shoot better with a scope. I can shoot open sights reasonably well. I will come closer to hitting a 6oz tomato paste can at 150 yards with a scope sighted rifle than open sights.

I am thinking about selling my winchester since I rarely ever shoot it. I will never sell my marlin.

 

[Clint C]

I didn't see anywhere in it where they threw the Marlins in the trash on the first day.

I was making a joke, lol! Did you really read it twice? Read it a third time I'm telling you its in there!

I will come closer to hitting a 6oz tomato paste can at 150 yards with a scope sighted rifle than open sights.

I am going to try this and see if I can do it with iron sights. sounds fun. I can hit a milk jug with iron sight at 150 yards, but it sure isn't a soup can.