Marlin CSS Delivered - Stock Swapped - Range Report Added

[AJMD429]

Well, I got the stainless Marlin 1894 .357 Mag CSS I've been lusting for for about ten years. Overall pleased, but surely an example of 'recent production' from most of the gun companies.

First - a pretty good barrel ding. Oh well, cosmetic, and not functional, and I don't plan on re-selling this gun, so I don't really care.



Second - two small wood dings. Kind of the same as above. If it is going to be my 'utility' .357 carbine, who cares - my OWN 'dings' will soon outnumber those from the factory. Still - kind of tacky.



Third - wood-to-metal fit is pretty marginal. Something that if I were doing it myself I guess I'd be 'happy' with, but more because it was the first effort at stock-fitting, and not because it fits WELL. Of course this is a problem on leverguns more than most, because you just can't conceal the fit the way you can on most bolt or semiauto guns. Again - cosmetic, but tacky.



Fourth - Bolt has the 'setback' that some Marlin 1894's seem to have, and I know it doesn't affect function, but it IS annoying - perhaps moreso than the other stuff, because it LOOKS like it might indicate a problem, or the action not fully closed. I have to say this is not as bad as some examples I've seen, and I know it is tricky on the stainless guns since the gap shows so clearly (I DO have other 1894's with gaps like this). The bolt's REAR end protrudes a bit too, though, and again - not a 'functional' issue, but tacky.




Fifth - the action is REALLY rough. Even dry-cycling, it stumbles and sticks. Thankfully, I know how to fix that , so will set about with the files, grit paper, and so on in a few days. Still tacky.

Now for the good news...

There were no metal shavings inside, as some have reported, and all the screws were intact, threaded properly, and so on.

Since the wood to metal fit is marginal, and it will be my 'utility' gun anyway, I decided to swap stocks with my old 1894c BLUED model, and see how they look...

Well, the old blued gun suddenly looks SUPERB with the new and low-gloss, darker wood on it, and everything fits just fine. Even the hole in the forend is drilled precisely right to exchange with this 1980's vintage gun. Cool.





Of course with the chipped-varnish, lighter color wood with MEGA-dings (it was my 'working gun' for a couple decades), the CSS doesn't look 'new' any longer, but the wood-to-metal fit is about the same, and since I plan on slimming and sanding and refinishing the stock, it won't matter. Besides, it already makes the CSS look like an actual 'working' gun that makes me forgive the other 'tacky' features. Here's a photo of the CSS with the wood from my OLD blued 1894c (soon to be a refinish project...).



Although I personally don't care about the things I'm reporting on above, because most are either only cosmetic and it isn't a gun I bought as a 'safe queen', or are things I can easily fix, I AM concerned that the fine gun company of Marlin needs to keep their reputation as a QUALITY gunmaker, and for the purchasers who are more critical than I am, I hope they bump up quality control a bit.

At least my Ruger Blackhawk seems to like its new companion...



Range report soon I hope...

[pokey]

hope she shoots better than she looks.


i don't know whether to be happy for you, or sad.

good luck, pokey

[AJMD429]

i don't know whether to be happy for you, or sad.

Happy for ME - I got a gun I can definitely use, and the 'fixin-up' it needs is the kind of tinkering I like to do anyway.

Sad for Marlin - if they don't improve their quality control, some groups will not be buying their products - the "can't fix anything myself" crowd, and the "want cosmetic perfection" crowd.

The "just want a gun that shoots" crowd may not be enough to sustain business.

If it is any indication, should the opportunity arise to get another 1894 CSS for the same price ($650), I would do so again. Hard to beat a handy little stainless .357-shooter...

[kimwcook]

The little cosmetic things you showed aren't going to matter to pure function, but a new gun to me is just that. Unmarked and fitted well. I'd be a little upset. Maybe it's just me, but a new gun should look absolutely new.

[Wrangler John]

Gosh, back 50 years ago I had an old 1894 saddle ring carbine in .44-40 (or was it marked .44 WCF?) that was perfectly fitted and functioned smooth as glass. Maybe it was slick from use, I'll never know, but it was about 90% condition. Then there was the early .444 Marlin that was just a bit stiff from close tolerances and smoothed up within a couple of boxes of ammo. It was very accurate and well fitted also. Seems to me that Marlin has slipped. I'd be on the phone to Marlin asking what's up. There is no excuse to ship a dinged up rifle with poorly fitted wood and metal. Getting a dinged up Garand from the CMP I can understand, but not from Marlin. Good thing I put off buying a new one.

[Buck Elliott]

Gosh, back 50 years ago I had an old 1894 saddle ring carbine in .44-40 (or was it marked .44 WCF?) that was perfectly fitted and functioned smooth as glass. Maybe it was slick from use, I'll never know, but it was about 90% condition. Then there was the early .444 Marlin that was just a bit stiff from close tolerances and smoothed up within a couple of boxes of ammo. It was very accurate and well fitted also. Seems to me that Marlin has slipped. I'd be on the phone to Marlin asking what's up. There is no excuse to ship a dinged up rifle with poorly fitted wood and metal. Getting a dinged up Garand from the CMP I can understand, but not from Marlin. Good thing I put off buying a new one.

Most of you know I'm not much of a Marlin fan, but I will say that their 'older' guns (pre-1960s) were much smoother than their more recent offerings. Even the guns that had seen little-to-no previous use were smoother cycling. Many of those older Marlins were among the slickest-running guns of the type ever available. (gag...)

That still doesn't fix the problems of premature wear on critical parts; the dreaded "Marlin Jam;" clubiness, and general, overall butt-ugliness that seems to have become almost a Marlin trademark.

Checkering or new/improved stock finishes are not the answer to Marlin's problems. "put lipstick on a pig..." &c...

[.45colt]

As I related here this spring I took delivery of a new Marlin 1895 45-70,I won it on Gunbroker.upon getting it home from My FFL I found a small chip in the stock where the upper right stock meets the receiver....My blood pressure started to go up and then I remembered several posts on Leverguns over the years.
I called the customer service# and a very polite Women took My Call,She listened to My tale of woe and then asked Me the serial# on the rifle. She said NO problem We will get another one right out is that o.k.? I said Yes. My unfilled Warranty Card was on the counter before Me.
Less than a week later a very nice replacement butt stock was delivered at no cost to Me. A win-win situation for Me. I keep the old one to use as a beater No hassle from them.
My next rifle will be either a Marlin .308 or .338 MX.

[AJMD429]

Less than a week later a very nice replacement butt stock was delivered at no cost to Me. A win-win situation for Me. I keep the old one to use as a beater No hassle from them.
My next rifle will be either a Marlin .308 or .338 MX.

I think sometimes all you have to do is speak up, and that is sometimes is where as customers we fail. I just hate messing around with 'warranty' stuff, and would rather complain...

[J Miller]

My 2005 vintage Marlin 1894 Cowboy has some problems with the fit of the stock also.

Tang to wood misfit_web.JPG

The wood at the rear of the tang is proud of the tang by quite a bit. It should be flush to the back of the tang.
I've seen others that have really poor fit jobs as well.

I have a bunch of old Marlin catalogs from the 70s and 80s where they brag that the stocks are fitted to the receivers while they are red hot and literally burned to fit. It looks as if they have discontinued that and just make them separately to be stuck together as they roll down the line.
To me it's a shame. Marlin is slowly turning in to what Winchester became after 1964.

Joe

[mescalero1]

But Joe,
Don't you understand, Some self-proclaimed " brilliant " MBA worked hard to come up with that plan, and then presented it with x bar r charts flow diagrams and the projected savings in PPM.
Everyone please ignore the fact that if in the unlikly event if EVER a million parts are produced it will be the year 2525 at the current rate of production.

[AJMD429]

But Joe,
Don't you understand, Some self-proclaimed " brilliant " MBA worked hard to come up with that plan, and then presented it with x bar r charts flow diagrams and the projected savings in PPM.
Everyone please ignore the fact that if in the unlikly event if EVER a million parts are produced it will be the year 2525 at the current rate of production.

You just summed up most of the problems we have with business and government these days, in one short paragraph!

[AJMD429]

Well, at least it shoots accurately (with 158 gr. Federal JSP factorys). Here's six shots at 100 yds. - but off a weighted rest (homemade version of 'lead-sled'), and the 36x scope. Without that magnification I'd not even be able to SEE a dot that size at 100 yards (I don't know how some of you guys do it).



The scope is not a very good one; very little adjustment latitude, so I had to actually aim at the exact upper left corner of the cardboard to get that 'group' (easier to see anyway than the dot in shade/cloudy day with BSA 36x). Still I keep the scope to just get a feel for new guns with everything else 'maximized' but me and the gun (who are stuck with each other).

The gun will NOT wear a scope until my eyes are so old it just has to, but I wanted to see its potential. However, today it likely 'earned' a good adjustable Williams FP instead of just the WGRS I had in the parts drawer...same sight picture, but easier to adjust precisely and fine tune if I change ammunition.

vs.

I'm sort of a recoil-wimp, so my .45-70 Guide Gun gets the WGRS - I doubt I'll ever shoot THAT gun so accurately as to make the sight adjustment difficulty with the WGRS an issue. It is just something I would grab if I wanted to make a really BIG hole in something really quickly - as in a charging wild boar. The .357 will be for a bit more precise shooting, somewhere between a 6mm Remington varmint gun and the Guide Gun.

So far, unless the 'new toy' factor wears off really quickly, I think this little CSS will be second only to the .22 LR's as far as 'most often shot' gun around our place. Just the right size for all ages, and just enough power to let you know you're shooting a 'real' gun. Now to get the peep sight on and plan what to do about the stock finish.

[2ndovc]

Looks pretty darned good!

I think I wan one too


jb

[.45colt]

Man,, just think how the thing would shoot with a really "BIG" scope that is a bunch of iron.maybe when I was A Kid.

[TNBigBore]

I think the finished product looks good, and it obviously shoots.

With that said, I think Marlin's quality control has slipped a good bit in the last 20-25 years. I don't own any Marlins made more recently than 1980 as a result. You do find new guns that have nice wood and good fit and finish, but they seem to be the exception. Almost any Marlin made in the 40s, 50s or 60s has very good fit and finish and are just plain smoother than the newer guns. The triggers on the old guns a generally much better as well. I think it all comes down to the cost of hand fitting. You just can't afford to do the hand fitting that took place in years past without pricing the guns out of their target consumers. How many people would be willing to pay $1000 for a new Marlin 30-30. I am betting that is what it would cost to produce one with the same quality as those made 50 years ago.

[AJMD429]

With that said, I think Marlin's quality control has slipped a good bit in the last 20-25 years. I don't own any Marlins made more recently than 1980 as a result. You do find new guns that have nice wood and good fit and finish, but they seem to be the exception.

True. Usually the stereotype is the reverse for the 'Puma' guns - yet I've had several which were not any worse than the recent Marlins. I had one Puma which is probably the most beautiful gun I own - a brass-frame, Octagonal .45 Colt. Beautiful finish, fit, and wood. Go figure... I gave it to my daughter because I knew she'd take better care of it than I would, and got a 'shooter' to replace it.

[AJMD429]

While waiting to get the Williams FP I decided I'd just try the Marbles "Bullseye" Sight I had fiddled with on the 77/44 (the only problem using this sight on that gun was the barrel dovetail was too far back and not enough room between it and the receiver behind it to clear the sight's adjustment ramp - I even thought about mounting it backwards... ).

I figured the calculating of just how much higher (I'd guessed a bunch) than the factory sight a new replacement front sight would have to be would be a good "math lesson" for my daughter (plus an excuse to do some shooting for "educational" purposes ).

So off I go with 5 rounds of S&B 158 JFP's, hoping to get on paper at 50 yards, which I figured would be the likely range I'd use this gun most times. I even thought I should have put the orange dot lower on the cardboard, bit figured I'd see what happened.

Three shots off the rest (no lead weight this time) using the "Bullseye" sight, this time at 50 yards:



I guess I won't need that new higher front sight, after all.*

I was going to shoot a five shot group, figuring the spread would be so wide with the open sight that it would make calculating adjustments easier to have more shots to form some semblance of a 'group' - but after these three, I figured I'd quit - the gun was actually "on" and I just knew I'd screw it up with a couple flyers .

The sight is about 9/16" diameter and sticks up about 5/8" from the barrel surface; not too bad. AND I like the fact that it doesn't obstruct the view nearly as much as the other 'peep' sights or buckhorn's I've used. The paper I shot with left eye squinted like usual, but the gong I shot with both open, and it seemed easy. I like the way the inner ring 'fuzzies out' just like in the photo, but the outer one remains sharp as a reference. As far as 'sturdiness' I think it will do; the metal is thick, and the inherent 'springiness' to it should prevent total destruction unless I just dropped the gun on concrete or something .

-
Notice the more unobstructed view, vs. a standard 'open' rear sight...

I did not change the front sight out, so the normal factory rear sight would block fully as 'high' as shown, and was the same width as the outer aperture of the Marbles.


Hmmm.... now I don't think I want to change anything about this setup; way better than I'd hoped for...!

* since the rear was at its lowest position, and since if anything, I'd want my 50-yard point of impact a bit 'high', I should be able to go up maybe one elevation click. However, I did hold 'dead-on' at the sideways (looks like a tall oval) 8" gong at 100 yards, and hit it both times with the 'spare' two rounds I had taken to shoot. I suppose I'll mix things up a bit and shoot some other ammo, but if my thinking is right (don't say it... ) the only reason I'd need a taller front (since I can't lower the rear) would be if I wanted to lower my point of impact, and if it is just a tad low at 50 yards with this ammo, I'd have to have something shooting WAY higher to want to do that, and I doubt even 125 grainers will shoot more than a couple inchehs higher. We'll see.

Marbles Bullseye Sights come in three flavors - mine is the smaller of the 'adjustable' ones; they make a fixed one too.
"Marble's Bullseye Rear Sight 1-7/8" with Double Step Elevator .338 to .535 Height Blue - http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?p ... ber=317428".

[2ndovc]

Interesting.

I'd be afraid of knocking into something and breaking it off. Looks kinda fragile.

Makes a nice sight picture though.

Really liking that rifle!

jb

[AJMD429]

I'd be afraid of knocking into something and breaking it off. Looks kinda fragile. jb

Actually I don't think it will be, despite the looks. First off, compare it to an ordinary 'buckhorn' type sight - it only sticks up a tiny bit more than a 'full buckhorn' and is otherwise of the same design. Secondly, there is quite a bit of 'spring' to the steel. I think it would bend rather than snap off, and don't think it would even bend very easily.

I hope never to find out...