Marlin 454 Casull ?

Bones McCrackin · Post by **Bones McCrackin** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:03 am

I would like a lever gun in 454 Casull. I'm not a fan of the Puma/Legacy 454.
Does anyone know if I can have my Marlin 1894 Cowboy in 45 Colt modified to accept the 454?
Does anyone know if the Marlin 45 can handle the pressure? (it is the hexagon barrel).
I once read about a guy in Alaska making custom take-down lever guns, I think they were in 454 Casul.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
Bones.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:42 am

No, the 1894 can't handle that amount of pressure a 454 would generate......

1886 · Post by **1886** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:09 am

Check Mic McPherson's web page. It can be found on the main page of this forum under lever action gunsmiths. See Articles and Features. A particularly good article is titled "What is possible with a Marlin". If it can be done with/to a Marlin, Mic will know the possibilities. Regards, 1886.

WCF3030 · Post by **WCF3030** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:54 am

Yep! But it would be good for only one shot.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:46 am

Years ago, Wild West guns had a prototype called the WWG '02 or something like that. It was supposed to be chambered in 454 or 500 S&W but it was never put into production. It was going to be horrendously expensive and I suspect they decided that their existing modified Marlin 1895's in 50 AK were just as good and less expensive. I don't even see the thing on their web page anymore.

http://www.wildwestguns.com/index.html

-Tutt

Doc Hudson · Post by **Doc Hudson** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:56 am

You might be able to have a Model 1886 Browning/Winchester converted to .454, but none of the Model 94 actions, whether Marlin or Winchester will take the abuse of a .454.

Does anyone know if a Marlin Model 336 has been tired as a .454?

When I comes to .454 Casull lever guns, your choices are Model 92 Pumas, or nothing at all.

slimster · Post by **slimster** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:10 pm

Doc Hudson wrote:You might be able to have a Model 1886 Browning/Winchester converted to .454, but none of the Model 94 actions, whether Marlin or Winchester will take the abuse of a .454.

Does anyone know if a Marlin Model 336 has been tired as a .454?

When I comes to .454 Casull lever guns, your choices are Model 92 Pumas, or nothing at all.

Doc, iirc, several years back there was a project where various guns were rechambered to 454 and tested. Some of the people from the old "sixgun" forum were involved, (possibly Terry Murbach?). I've never seen the full results, just picked up bits and pieces, but it seems to me that all of them failed in relatively short order. They didn't blow up, rather they were battered to an inoperable condition. Once again,iirc, the big bore and std. Winchester 94's seemed to hold up the longest, and the Marlin 336 was slightly behind, with none lasting much over a couple of dozen rounds. Perhaps someone will have the full story or links to same as I'd love to see details.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:30 pm

1886, with respect, the best gunsmith in the world can't overcome design features that would prevent him from making a Marlin 336 action live under that kind of stress. He's gonna have to get used to the '92-type action for the .454. Just my 2 cents. jd45

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:39 pm

As Slimster says, I remember that article.
The marlin's lock up got slack very soon and the Winny did last longer but soon had head space issues.

Nath.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:54 pm

slimster wrote:
Doc Hudson wrote:You might be able to have a Model 1886 Browning/Winchester converted to .454, but none of the Model 94 actions, whether Marlin or Winchester will take the abuse of a .454.

Does anyone know if a Marlin Model 336 has been tired as a .454?

When I comes to .454 Casull lever guns, your choices are Model 92 Pumas, or nothing at all.
Doc, iirc, several years back there was a project where various guns were rechambered to 454 and tested. Some of the people from the old "sixgun" forum were involved, (possibly Terry Murbach?). I've never seen the full results, just picked up bits and pieces, but it seems to me that all of them failed in relatively short order. They didn't blow up, rather they were battered to an inoperable condition. Once again,iirc, the big bore and std. Winchester 94's seemed to hold up the longest, and the Marlin 336 was slightly behind, with none lasting much over a couple of dozen rounds. Perhaps someone will have the full story or links to same as I'd love to see details.

It was Buck Elliot who did the tests and posted some on his findings here, or I should say on one of the old Leverguns boards. As I remember, all the guns...Win. 94's and Marlin 336's were unusable after a few-20 rounds when firing the 454 Casull. He did it to show unbelievers that these actions were not meant for65K CUP. The Winchesters lasted only slightly longer and the winner overall was a1920's 1894 Win. .Buck's idea for a levergun in this cartridge was a cross between and 1892 and 1886....slightly shorter than the latter in the action, made of very strong steel. This is all from memory, but perhaps someone saved those posts.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:10 pm

The problem with converting a Marlin or 94 win to 454 is the pressure limits of those actions, the 1894 marlin being the weakest of them. IIRC Marlin actually toyed with the idea based on the 336. There was no catastrophic failure but it did shoot loose. The primary reason the 92 and the 86 will handle the higher pressure is two fold. First is the angle of the locking bolt in relation to the breech bolt. The single locking bolt designs like the marlins and Win 94 have to have enough angle so the action doesn't freeze up with higher pressure levels above about 50,000 PSI/CUP ( I can never remember which is which) The problem with that more sever angle is it also limits the top end of the pressure and shows up as the lever trying to fly open or the breech bolt trying to push over the top of the locking bolt.
Because the 92 and 86 both have twin locking bolts that spreads the pressure over a larger area( more contact area) they can be more perpendicular to the bore without binding up under high pressure. With less angle they will take higher pressures. Plus, because they are parallel to the breech bolt the bolt thrust is better disbursed as well.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:17 pm

C. Cash wrote:
slimster wrote:
Doc Hudson wrote:You might be able to have a Model 1886 Browning/Winchester converted to .454, but none of the Model 94 actions, whether Marlin or Winchester will take the abuse of a .454.

Does anyone know if a Marlin Model 336 has been tired as a .454?

snip.....................................................................Buck's idea for a levergun in this cartridge was a cross between and 1892 and 1886....slightly shorter than the latter in the action, made of very strong steel. This is all from memory, but perhaps someone saved those posts.

That was my impression of the WWG project gun. It looked smaller than the 86 but bigger than the 92. They had pictures of that gun on their site for awhile. It looked simular to a marlin from the side but it had twin locking bolts visible from the top and IIRC the frame had a swell in it around the locking bolt area simular to the big bore 94's.

Bones McCrackin · Post by **Bones McCrackin** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Howdy all,
thanks so much for all the good info. I know the Puma got good reviews when it first came out... then people started having problems and changing their song.
Anyone have a current opinion, based on actual long-term ownership/use?
And thanks in advance!
Bones.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:07 pm

Well, here we go again...

The Marlin '94 doesn't have enough room inside it to handle the longer .454 Casull cartridge, nor can you "make" more room. On top of that, the lockup (materials, geometry, &c) will not stand up to the 65,000 psi max chamber pressure of the cartridge, even when translated into the 336 format.

Of all the guns we tested at the beginning of our project (mid-1980s) the Marlin 336 failed quicker than any of the other guns we proved, becoming too loose to function safely & correctly after about 20 rounds. (Don't have all my notes handy right now....)

A Winchester '94 Big Bore was pounded & peened loose after only a few more rounds, and NONE of the other leverguns we shot lasted through a complete box (50 rounds) of ammo, before becoming dangerously loose and difficult - or impossible - to cycle.

Winchester set out to prove our tests invalid, and came to the same conclusion we reached.

My rifle was already off the drawing board and on its way to being carved out of 17-4pH, when these tests took place.

More again some day when I have LOT more time...

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:26 pm

Bones McCrackin wrote:Howdy all,
thanks so much for all the good info. I know the Puma got good reviews when it first came out... then people started having problems and changing their song.
Anyone have a current opinion, based on actual long-term ownership/use?
And thanks in advance!
Bones.

When I first heard they were bring it out I was skeptical. I didn't think the Rossi would take the pressure. Well, I was partly right and wrong. The Action/lockbox is doing well, but the recoil was causing some of the earlier gun jerk the pinned in mag tubes out and split the butstocks at the wrist. The current gun though are much better. They all have screwed in mag tubes that cured that problem. Rossi added a nylon pillar in the stock that helped some but the best solution to the stock probles is to glass bed them front and rear.
I wasn't too crazy about working on these early on. I felt the same as you about warranty-ing my work. Then the 92 action is at it's max OAL so they can be ammo sensitive so was a concern.
But 5 or 6 years later now I've done several and haven't had one come back with any problems.

Matched 454 and 480

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:36 pm

As Always, YMMV...

EVERY one of the Puma .454 carbines I have seen -- and it might only be a couple dozen, to be sure -- has had problems. Some have had the difficulties that NKJ mentioned, some are beginning to stretch and even show signs of widening -- i.e. seperating -- at the rear of the receiver. The angled geometry of the locking lugs in relation to the receiver seems to be the culprit. A couple that have been shot a LOT, and with top-end loads, are loosening up fore-&-aft, even showing incipient head space problems.

In short, the Puma '92 in .454 is at the very upper threshhold of its capabilties. I wanted something with a greater safety margin, not just marginal safety...

slimster · Post by **slimster** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:41 pm

Bones, I purchased a blue Puma 92 when they first came out in 454, wishing they had them in stainless. When they came out with the stainless version, I immediately ordered one and sold the blue one. I never had any problems with either one of mine, and haven't heard of anyone having issues with the strength of the guns. On some of the earlier guns there were those who experienced problems with cracked stocks, predominately in the area of the tang screws. L.S. I. soon began installing nylon pillars around the screws and the problem was greatly reduced. I have been well satisfied with mine, as they provide lots of power in a handy, compact package. Browning also ( at least they used to) offer their 1885 high wall in 454, a nice little rifle. C.Cash, thanks for jogging my memory, and thank you Mr. Elliott for your research. I do remember seeing a picture of your prototype rifle and if memory serves, it was a beautiful little scaled down 1886 replica. I will be looking forward to when you have time to supply "more"!

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:52 pm

Buck Elliott wrote:As Always, YMMV...

EVERY one of the Puma .454 carbines I have seen -- and it might only be a couple dozen, to be sure -- has had problems. Some have had the difficulties that NKJ mentioned, some are beginning to stretch and even show signs of widening -- i.e. seperating -- at the rear of the receiver. The angled geometry of the locking lugs in relation to the receiver seems to be the culprit. A couple that have been shot a LOT, and with top-end loads, are loosing up fore-&-aft, even showing incipient head space problems.

In short, the Puma '92 in .454 is at the very upper threshhold of its capabilties. I wanted something with a greater safety margin, not just marginal safety...

I agree, the 92 is at it's max in 454. I think the locking bolts are actual trying to turn slightly. sort of like trying to use a 2x6 as a pry bar. It's much strongest on edge as opposed to flat but if your aren't careful it will try to fold/twist over. I wish Rossie would beef up the frame web inside there just behind the locking bolts. I think that would help prevent that spreading widening issue.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:56 pm

Buck, will your gun handle 500 S&W OAL's? I've had several folks ask for a 92 in it.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:01 pm

My receiver is long enough to handle the Linebaugh Maximum series, as well as the .500 S&W Mag. Wont take the .460 S&W though without some reengineering.

Cartidges built on necked-down .460 cases have been of major interest to me lately... ???

Paul105 · Post by **Paul105** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:02 pm

Again, this all relates to ME, YMMV. To me, the Marlin 1894 is heavy and bulky compared to the '92. I have and use/enjoy Marlin and Winny leverguns too. I've had two of the Puma '92 .454s. I bought the first one from my local guy thru Davidson's. On the first one, the forend cracked, and the reciever tang mortise chipped. It had that ugly brown finish. I emailed Davidson's customer service and described the problem(s). Within a day, my local dealer had an email from them, contacted me to bring in the gun and Davidson's had a new one in transit. The new one was much more attractive than its predecessor.

I haven't shot this gun extensively, so can't comment on the long term durability -- no problems so far (the original exhibited the above mentioned problems almost immediately). PACO did an article on gunblast http://www.gunblast.com/Paco_Legacy_454.htm

If I were going to do it again, I'd order one thru Steve Young (Nate Kiowa Jones) http://www.stevesgunz.com/ , have him look it over, slick it up and add whatever extras I wanted.

FWIW

Paul

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:09 pm

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote: I think the locking bolts are actual trying to turn slightly. sort of like trying to use a 2x6 as a pry bar. It's much strongest on edge as opposed to flat but if your aren't careful it will try to fold/twist over. I wish Rossie would beef up the frame web inside there just behind the locking bolts. I think that would help prevent that spreading widening issue.

I think that is exactly the problem, with the added action of the bolt trying to ride up the angle of the locking lugs, impinging with even greater force on the receiver sidewalls. I can't find any room INSIDE the action to put extra material, but I'm not convinced it would do any good. The "stretch & flex" takes place between the breech and the lugs, and that is what caused the '94 BB (Angle Eject) to fail as quickly as it did. There is almost NO sidewall in the right side of the reveiver an the AEs.

1886 · Post by **1886** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:45 pm

jd45 wrote:1886, with respect, the best gunsmith in the world can't overcome design features that would prevent him from making a Marlin 336 action live under that kind of stress. He's gonna have to get used to the '92-type action for the .454. Just my 2 cents. jd45

Never said he could or couldn't. Just trying to give the gent what options may be out there. Regards, 1886.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:03 pm

Buck Elliott wrote:
Nate Kiowa Jones wrote: I think the locking bolts are actual trying to turn slightly. sort of like trying to use a 2x6 as a pry bar. It's much strongest on edge as opposed to flat but if your aren't careful it will try to fold/twist over. I wish Rossie would beef up the frame web inside there just behind the locking bolts. I think that would help prevent that spreading widening issue.
I think that is exactly the problem, with the added action of the bolt trying to ride up the angle of the locking lugs, impinging with even greater force on the receiver sidewalls. I can't find any room INSIDE the action to put extra material, but I'm not convinced it would do any good. The "stretch & flex" takes place between the breech and the lugs, and that is what caused the '94 BB (Angle Eject) to fail as quickly as it did. There is almost NO sidewall in the right side of the reveiver an the AEs.

Next time you have a 92 apart look at that web just behind the lugways. It would be best is it could have some metal added to the top but there isn't room. But there is some room on the bottom.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:12 pm

Material not in line with the forces on the bolt & lugs -- behind the lugs -- adds nothing of consequence to the equation. Hence the premature failure of the '94 Big Bore. LOTS of material around and behind the locking lug, but the receiver stretched and the bolt tried to climb the lug, and material directly behind the lug was displaced as a result.

It's a very simple physics problem.

I have 2 '92 on my bench right now, for repairs: an older Win., in .25-20, an a Rossi in .44 Mag. I've dissected more '92s than I care to think about, and my opinion hasn't changed.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:41 pm

Sure wouldn't hurt.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:52 pm

1886....point well taken. BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to you, yours & everyone here on the forum. jd45

1886 · Post by **1886** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:06 pm

jd45 wrote:1886....point well taken. BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to you, yours & everyone here on the forum. jd45

You too Sir! Thank You and stay in touch. 1886.

1886 · Post by **1886** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:40 pm

Forgive me but I am not quite ready to let this subject rest. I enjoy these exercises. For one to state categorically that the modern Marlin 94 could not handle the .454 is incorrect. I know for a fact that Mic has built a .454 on the Marlin 94 platform. The owner of that rifle is quite satisfied. The key to success and safety with this conversion is pressure. It is almost certainly true that one would not want to run the rifle full throttle so it would be mostly a hand loaders proposition but much factory ammo is not loaded to the gills. The rifle/cartridge combo would have to be a compromise, pick and choose carefully. A judicious and conscientious reloader could take on this project with complete confidence. Options and possibilities certainly exist. How about a Browning 86 .45-70 cut to 16"? I have one and it will easily launch a 550gr WFNGC at 1550fps. Or maybe a Marlin 94 chambered in .475 Linebaugh? It has been done. It offers a larger diameter, heavier bullet at less pressure ( according to SAAMI spec.). Possibilities, possibilities. Have fun, 1886.

Bones McCrackin · Post by **Bones McCrackin** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:50 pm

WOW, again a big THANK YOU for all the great info. I'm a huge fan of my Ruger 454, and would very much like a companion levergun for it...
What are my options ?
Is there a custom out there available?
I'd rather not get a Puma and not be able to use it as often as I please for fear of "wearing it out".

again, thank's all for your input.
Bones.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:04 pm

OK then 1886, how about a rifle built around that new cartridge S&W designed for their X-frame revolver.....the .500 Magnum. You could use the '86 action & handloads with something like 5744 to keep pressure at reasonable levels. How about that? jd45
P.S.......didn't mean to hijack the thread!

1886 · Post by **1886** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:26 pm

Not sure where you are going jd45. All I am saying is a .454 Marlin 94 can be done and has been done. To state emphatically that it can not be done is absolutely incorrect. If it were me, I would probably avoid factory ammo. I avoid factory ammo anyway. I would use my chrony and be perfectly happy and safe. Reviews Mic's writings and his work. His work will shed much light. Take Care, 1886.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:48 pm

I have experienced the very "receiver widening" that Buck and Steve describe. My friend's seems to be developing the same problem and he has never used anything other than factory ammo. The receiver needs to be beefed-up either by better heat treating or welding. The gun was delivered with a head-space problem as well. I sure wish someone would build a better levergun than Puma in 454!

-Tutt

Buffboy · Post by **Buffboy** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:31 pm

Maybe it's because I don't load cartridge all the way up very often but the one Nate did for me hasn't shown any signs of problems in the receiver or lug peening. I've got a couple thousand through it with only about a quarter of them at full power.

I had a problem last weekend with it double feeding but a bit of cleaning seems to have fixed that. Must have had some grunge or little piece of lead under the cartridge stop. I've been shooting a lot of cast in it. It's probably ready for a full detail strip to get it really clean.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:56 pm

Egads, I want to stay out of this, but my 454 Puma rifle was gunsmithed up the wazoo by Mic himself, 1886, and I will tell you the action of the Puma 454 just isn't that strong! Nor is the Marlin 1894! 1886, to "avoid" factory ammo only emphasizes the point! Factory ammo is WELL under the SAMMI M.A.P. of 65K!!!! It tends to run about 55K at best. If you want to pay good money for a levergun that can't handle "true" M.A.P. 454 Casull loads, then by all means pay Mic or anyone else to make them? By the way, Mic won't even WORK on Legacy Arms Puma's anymore because of quality control issues.

Don't waste your time on hot-rodding 454 Puma's, they can't handle it. I have one, I know. Nor can "hot rodded" Marlin's or any other action except for Buck's.

-Tutt

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:11 am

Looks like alot of us want a 'bigger' short-case levergun (dare I say a 'short magnum' like the bolt-gun guys

).

Two options for more fun bang-bangs I can think of in the 'carbine' guns like the 1892 Win/Puma or 1894 Marlin:

1) A larger diameter, still-low-pressure round like the .480 Ruger, .475 Linebaugh, or maybe a .50 of some sort.

2) The .454 Casull.

If the current guns can't, or can 'barely' handle, the pressure of the Casull, then some engineer could surely make a gun which would, but what about the heavy hitters of lower pressure. It sounds like the action DESIGN could handle the pressures, but just the diameter of the receiver, and the magazine tube to barrel spacing is a problem. If that is the case, taking the blueprints of the Marlin or Win/Puma actions, and scaling everything up by 10-15% would STILL leave us with a shorter-than-336 action, wide/tall enough for the really large diameter cases without special customizing, and without pushing limits too far. It would make a nice .475 or .500 caliber action, would it not?

Having said that, a 'wimply' little 1894 Marlin shooting factory 240gr Winchesters doesn't get any sneers from the deer I've shot, and if I really need to shoot something 'harder' I can always carry that ungainly .444 Marlin. If I really didn't want 'ungainly' but wanted the power, I think one could 'guide-gun' the .444 and it be nearly as handy as the little 1894, albeit with a longer lever throw.

Heck, if a .444 Marlin won't impress whatever I'm shooting at, I probably should have stayed home that day...

(Now, a long action levergun in .460 S&W would be kind of nice, too.....

)

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:34 am

AJ, if you knew how hard I have tried to encourage Freemdom Arms or some other company to make a 454 Casull Levergun, you would understand how I felt. I approached Bob Baker and his father Wayne Baker at the last SHOT SHOW in 2008 about this, and Bob indicated to me "I get so many requests for that" , but Mr. Baker Sr. indicated that he didn't see it happening in the forseable future. I had also posted many thread's on the subject before our meeting but still to no avail.

It seems that there is not a company on the planet that wants to make a 454 levergun, even Freedom Arms. -Tutt

1886 · Post by **1886** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:53 am

CowboyTutt wrote:Egads, I want to stay out of this, but my 454 Puma rifle was gunsmithed up the wazoo by Mic himself, 1886, and I will tell you the action of the Puma 454 just isn't that strong! Nor is the Marlin 1894! 1886, to "avoid" factory ammo only emphasizes the point! Factory ammo is WELL under the SAMMI M.A.P. of 65K!!!! It tends to run about 55K at best. If you want to pay good money for a levergun that can't handle "true" M.A.P. 454 Casull loads, then by all means pay Mic or anyone else to make them? By the way, Mic won't even WORK on Legacy Arms Puma's anymore because of quality control issues.

Don't waste your time on hot-rodding 454 Puma's, they can't handle it. I have one, I know. Nor can "hot rodded" Marlin's or any other action except for Buck's.

-Tutt

Morning Fellas, Not talking about the Puma 92 Tutt, Only discussing the modern Marlin 94. Look at the project as nothing more than a lengthened .45 Colt. Stay under 40,000 cup and all will be well. The rifle would probably be a life time companion as one would not want to sell to one less initiated. Just suggesting that we think out side the box a little. I have enjoyed the discussion and will move on now. Regards Brothers, 1886.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:49 pm

I allways thought a case sticks to the chamber walls at peak pressure if no lube on it!

Nath.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:56 pm

"Morning Fellas, Not talking about the Puma 92 Tutt, Only discussing the modern Marlin 94. Look at the project as nothing more than a lengthened .45 Colt. Stay under 40,000 cup and all will be well. The rifle would probably be a life time companion as one would not want to sell to one less initiated. Just suggesting that we think out side the box a little. I have enjoyed the discussion and will move on now. Regards Brothers, 1886"

What's the point of having a rifle that will not reliably handle SAAMI-max loads for its caliber? Any of the '92 Variants, or the '94 Marlin will handle .45 Colt loads at .44 Mag pressures all day, every day, and more on Saturday, for as long as you want. If you run the .454 at 40,000 cup, will will get the same results you would get from the .45 Colt at the same pressure.

And then what happens when the gun changes hands a few times, down the road, and the new owner has no idea of its limitations...?

Time for you hear-say, arm-chair engineers to hunt a tall cool one and sit in the shade for a while, before you completely overheat.

1886 · Post by **1886** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:32 pm

Buck Elliott wrote:"Morning Fellas, Not talking about the Puma 92 Tutt, Only discussing the modern Marlin 94. Look at the project as nothing more than a lengthened .45 Colt. Stay under 40,000 cup and all will be well. The rifle would probably be a life time companion as one would not want to sell to one less initiated. Just suggesting that we think out side the box a little. I have enjoyed the discussion and will move on now. Regards Brothers, 1886"

What's the point of having a rifle that will not reliably handle SAAMI-max loads for its caliber? Any of the '92 Variants, or the '94 Marlin will handle .45 Colt loads at .44 Mag pressures all day, every day, and more on Saturday, for as long as you want. If you run the .454 at 40,000 cup, will will get the same results you would get from the .45 Colt at the same pressure.

And then what happens when the gun changes hands a few times, down the road, and the new owner has no idea of its limitations...?

Time for you hear-say, arm-chair engineers to hunt a tall cool one and sit in the shade for a while, before you completely overheat.

I said I was going to move on but I will not let this one pass. You are obviously educated in such matters, you do understand that greater case capacity allows for the potential for greater velocity at comparable pressures? I addressed the selling of the gun. Read my post again. I did not nor have I ever claimed to be what you refer to as an armchair engineer. The conversion will offer a level of performance beyond what the .45 Colt can offer at equal pressure. You do understand that it is possible to alter the modern Marlin 94 so it will handle .454 length cartridges? I think I have addressed the feasibility of the project as long as one stays within certain boundaries. I am done with this one brothers. If I can not get my point across to some, well so be it. It has been a pleasure. Regards, 1886.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:03 pm

I can tell you from a lot of testing and empirical evidence that the difference between a .45 Colt and the .454 AT THE SAME PRESSURE LEVEL (40,000 +/- CUP) is statistically/practically negligible...

As for the future owner question: it is one that cannot be reliably foreseen, into the 2nd, 3rd, or fourth occurrance.

Didn't mean to appear abrasive, boys, but some of us have been there and done this already, "Mic" notwithstanding. He may be fast becoming a legend in his own mind...

Have we beat this close enough to death yet?

cas · Post by **cas** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:36 pm

Buck Elliott wrote:
Have we beat this close enough to death yet?

Before we do... let me side track with a question for those who may know;

How are the .480 Puma's holding up? That's the model that's always intrigued me.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:39 pm

cas wrote: How are the .480 Puma's holding up? That's the model that's always intrigued me.

Yep - what about those...?

As far as my own .454, I've thought of it as a .45 Colt "Ruger +P" when it comes to reloading - the longer case will help keep me from putting the really hot '45 Colt' loads in my old Colt.

raven5 · Post by **raven5** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:31 am

Actually guys, I think you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to hoping for another company to make a .454 rifle. I believe Ruger might offer the most success of asking a company to market one of those. If you all remember, Ruger did wonders with the Super Redhawk in .454 by just using the Custom Carpenter stainless. Didn't turn out so well for the .480 after all was said and done, but oh well I guess.

Ruger probably has more capital to play around with as well and I'm sure the most advanced casting facilities in the world.

Another hope might be that Taurus now manufactures the Rossi rifles. The Taurus of today is nothing like that of several years ago. They produce a fine gun now, do it at a reasonable price, having been all over using advanced materials in their designs (titanium, etc.....not that you want a .454 in Titanium), and they bring products to the market very quickly.

I don't see Freedom bringing one out for more than a few reasons. I'd personally rather see them bring out a blued revolver.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:55 am

raven5 wrote:Actually guys, I think you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to hoping for another company to make a .454 rifle. I believe Ruger might offer the most success of asking a company to market one of those.

...maybe they'll scale up their 9mm carbine to .45 ACP and scale up their .44 Deerfield to .454...!

Yeee-Hah...!

raven5 · Post by **raven5** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:06 pm

You know, I've always wondered if those Ruger .44 Mag rifles could be converted to .45 Colt??????

The .45 ACP is doable easily enough, if they'd only do it.

They aren't exactly new to levers, although they are kinda ugly honestly. Something midway between the '92 action and '86 action would be best. Converting an '86 would probably work (at least for a while) but it is a large frame, and much more potent calibers are possible anyways, such as 50 Alaskan, 50-110, and especially the old venerable 45-70.

After I hit the lottery, I promise I'll manufacture one for all of us.....

1886 · Post by **1886** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:37 am

Buck Elliott wrote:I can tell you from a lot of testing and empirical evidence that the difference between a .45 Colt and the .454 AT THE SAME PRESSURE LEVEL (40,000 +/- CUP) is statistically/practically negligible...

As for the future owner question: it is one that cannot be reliably foreseen, into the 2nd, 3rd, or fourth occurrance.

Didn't mean to appear abrasive, boys, but some of us have been there and done this already, "Mic" notwithstanding. He may be fast becoming a legend in his own mind...

Have we beat this close enough to death yet?

I said I am off this topic and so I am but please sir do not insult Mic. I doubt you know him for if you did your words would not be so unkind. Many around here and indeed the entire shooting industry hold him in high regard. Myself included. It is unbecoming a man of your great intellect and experience. Thanks for your kind consideration. Best Wishes, 1886.

I do apologize for causing this post to digress. I have been a key contributor.

DHart · Post by **DHart** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:35 am

AJMD429 wrote:As far as my own .454, I've thought of it as a .45 Colt "Ruger +P" when it comes to reloading - the longer case will help keep me from putting the really hot '45 Colt' loads in my old Colt.

I've thought of my Legacy Puma '92 16" Trapper in .454 the same way.... great for hot .45 Colt loads, but not bothering with full house .454 Casull. Hopefully this conservative approach will "conserve" the utility of the rifle a lot longer than shooting .454 Casull in it. For me, hot .45 Colt is plenty enough to satisfy my needs.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:27 pm

1886 wrote:[I said I am off this topic and so I am but please sir do not insult Mic. I doubt you know him for if you did your words would not be so unkind. Many around here and indeed the entire shooting industry hold him in high regard. Myself included. It is unbecoming a man of your great intellect and experience. Thanks for your kind consideration. Best Wishes, 1886.

I do apologize for causing this post to digress. I have been a key contributor.

FWIW, I have met Mic, and had the "pleasure" of working with/around him for a week or so, several years back. My statement reflects my observations of him then and since. He IS a man of vast knowledge (much of it even true) and experience, but also one of many and varied opinions -- some of which may or may not be... IOW, a lot like the rest of us...

Above all, I am entitled to hold and express my opinions, as much as anyone here.