Tell me about the Marlin 1881

[Gary7]

For my first post here I was inspired by the "Tell me about the 71" thread. I know everyone goes ga-ga over the big Winchester 1886, but of the traditional, classic lever guns, I've always thought the Marlin 1881 (especially the Deluxe models) was the ne plus ultra. I've looked at some of the exploded diagrams of the 1881 action and I'm wondering how much of the 1881 design survives in the modern 336 and 94. I see some similarities. Any thoughts?

[Rimfire McNutjob]

That long sweeping pistol grip and the lines of the receiver and forearm are fantastic. I love the sliding door on the loading port. Do you know what the original chamberings were for the 1881?

Welcome to the board by the way. Bonus points for a picture in a first post.

[Sixgun]

Funny thing about those 1881's. Most of the ones I have put my paws on were worn out and sloppy. The other ones were 98% ers that were too nice to shoot. I have had this same luck with 1876 Winchesters.

Thats probably the only old levergun I don't have any shooting experience with, along with a '66 and a Colt Burgess. From what I've read, they are not the strongest action around--but those '86's will eat up most everything within normal limits, even the blackpowder jobs ----------Sixgun

[jdad]

The similarities to the Colt Burgess are not by accident. Andrew Burgess teamed up, with John Marlin, on several of the patents. The early 1881's were a heavy "beast", of a rifle, and eventually a lighter weight version was introduced. Like Sixgun mentioned, the majority of the ones you find today are either a "fence post & sewer pipe" or a "safe queen". They were originally chambered in 45-70 or 40-60. Later they were offered in 38-55 or 32-40.

Marlinman93 has several outstanding examples.

[AJMD429]

Bonus points for a picture in a first post.

I like that rule. . .

[model55]

Check the bore on those old fence posts they may surprise you!Found one with a broken hammer spring, the PO had taken a wire wheel to it on the outside but the bore was good.If I ever get off my rear I'll give it another try as I had to replace the front sight.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Howdy and welcome.

The 81 action isn't much like the 336/95 action at all. The 336/95 has an actual locking bolt that comes up to engage the breech bolt.
The 81 bolt is held in battery by the front end of the actual lever, much like marlins 92 the later the 97/39 22RF.
If you do end up with one stick with low pessure loads with slow pressure curves. Fast spiking smokeless loads should be avoided.

BTW, the Burgess has a simular lockup. The difference is the end of the lever is linked to the breech bolt by a single folding toggle.

[Gary7]

Howdy and welcome.

The 81 action isn't much like the 336/95 action at all. The 336/95 has an actual locking bolt that comes up to engage the breech bolt.
The 81 bolt is held in battery by the front end of the actual lever, much like marlins 92 the later the 97/39 22RF.
If you do end up with one stick with low pessure loads with slow pressure curves. Fast spiking smokeless loads should be avoided.

BTW, the Burgess has a simular lockup. The difference is the end of the lever is linked to the breech bolt by a single folding toggle.

Yes, I could see from the exploded diagrams that the lockup was different on the 1881. But the overall design (the "genetics," if you will) of the current Marlin lever action can still be seen in the 1881 action. There are "family traits" that are common to the 1881 and later models which, to me, shows that Marlin was evolving their lever action design rather than trying to mimic a Browning/Winchester design. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Thanks to everyone for the warm welcome.

[KWK]

As NKJ said, the Marlin 39 is the only descendant of the 1881. The 1881 was in part designed by Burgess. The 336 is based on Hepburn's design. The only thing in common is the lever being pinned low in the receiver, with a long finger off its front to throw the bolt back. The lock up and the actuation of the carrier are unrelated.

[Gary7]

As NKJ said, the Marlin 39 is the only descendant of the 1881. The 1881 was in part designed by Burgess. The 336 is based on Hepburn's design. The only thing in common is the lever being pinned low in the receiver, with a long finger off its front to throw the bolt back. The lock up and the actuation of the carrier are unrelated.

According to Brophy's book the 39 is a direct descendant of the 1891 and 1897, which were both Hepburn designs.

[jdad]

As NKJ said, the Marlin 39 is the only descendant of the 1881. The 1881 was in part designed by Burgess. The 336 is based on Hepburn's design. The only thing in common is the lever being pinned low in the receiver, with a long finger off its front to throw the bolt back. The lock up and the actuation of the carrier are unrelated.

According to Brophy's book the 39 is a direct descendant of the 1891 and 1897, which were both Hepburn designs.

There is nothing similar between the 39 and 1881 other than they are both Marlin's.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

As NKJ said, the Marlin 39 is the only descendant of the 1881. The 1881 was in part designed by Burgess. The 336 is based on Hepburn's design. The only thing in common is the lever being pinned low in the receiver, with a long finger off its front to throw the bolt back. The lock up and the actuation of the carrier are unrelated.

According to Brophy's book the 39 is a direct descendant of the 1891 and 1897, which were both Hepburn designs.

There is nothing similar between the 39 and 1881 other than they are both Marlin's.

I don't know anything about the history of the designs. What I do know is the 1881, the 1892, the 1897 and the 39 have the same style of lock box/ lock works. The lever is what holds the bolt in battery. It works the same as a chair under a door knob to hold a door shut. That's all, no other locking bolt, nothing.

[Leverdude]

Howdy and welcome.

The 81 action isn't much like the 336/95 action at all. The 336/95 has an actual locking bolt that comes up to engage the breech bolt.
The 81 bolt is held in battery by the front end of the actual lever, much like marlins 92 the later the 97/39 22RF.
If you do end up with one stick with low pessure loads with slow pressure curves. Fast spiking smokeless loads should be avoided.

BTW, the Burgess has a simular lockup. The difference is the end of the lever is linked to the breech bolt by a single folding toggle.

Yes, I could see from the exploded diagrams that the lockup was different on the 1881. But the overall design (the "genetics," if you will) of the current Marlin lever action can still be seen in the 1881 action. There are "family traits" that are common to the 1881 and later models which, to me, shows that Marlin was evolving their lever action design rather than trying to mimic a Browning/Winchester design. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Thanks to everyone for the warm welcome.

Marlin was certainly not mimicking Browning or Winchester. Only thing they really have in common are being lever actions. The action evolved in many ways but as Nate said, the only gun that locks up like the 1881 is the 39. I'm quite certain that Hepburn & Marlin built upon the 1881 design as they created the 1888 and later guns. In Brophy's book you can see some of the evolutionary prototypes. At any rate the way the lever interacts with the bolt is almost unchanged so I figure its fair to say that the later guns evolved from the 81. One of the things that attracted me to Marlins from the git go was the similarities in design. From 1889 to todays fancy new MX models theres no mistaking its the same design and from the 1893 to today its pretty much the same action. Where Browning tended towards complexity Hepburn tended towards simplicity. While Winchester/Browning got the spotlight, theres alot to be said for a single design capable of handling cartriges from 22 RF to 45/90. Of course Brownings incentive was different. Marlin manufactured the guns they built, so for him a commonality of parts & function was a huge plus. Browning sold his designs to Winchester and was better off creating something new instead of creating a gun that was easy to make action length changes with, Winchester wouldn't need him for that & probably woulda dropped him even earlier if his guns were easy to adapt like the Marlin is. Took Winchester decades to try & use one action for everything and it didn't work out real good, I'm sure JMB would have thought them silly putting pistol cartriges in a 94 when he had designed the 92 which is better in every way for that, same goes for the 94 big bores & the 1886.
In many ways Marlin was way ahead of the game, I think thats why theyre still here & Win is gone. Only thing left now is to see what Remington does with them.

[OldWin]

Hey guy's, haven't been here in forever. I actually have one of these in 45-70. It's nice and tight but I've never fired it.

[Old Shatterhand]

Hey guy's, haven't been here in forever. I actually have one of these in 45-70. It's nice and tight but I've never fired it.

What load level does that fine gun take?

O.Sh.

[OldWin]

Keep the pressure low at around trapdoor levels. These rifles aren't as beefy as they appear. That's some of the reason I haven't fired it even though I've had it for 15 years.

[OldWin]

O.Sh.

I have a couple more pics if you're interested.

[Old Shatterhand]

A beautiful rifle! Thanks for the pictures.

O.Sh.

[OldWin]

Anytime! Sorry for the poor quality, photography is not my forte.

[hfcable]

i have one in 45/70 and have had another one in same caliber. as long as you stick with low pressure loads they are quite safe. i have shot them a lot, and with mild loads, or Hodgson 777 loads, it is very accurate, would easily equal or exceed my modern marlin 1895 in accuracy! [ a rifle magazine article years ago, maybe by ken waters?, found the same results] it is the successor to the 1878 burgess, which i have one of also. i have only fired it a little, but is neat too. will have to go drag them out and post pictures. i really like the 1881.....it is so big that recoil is minimal and has a heavy barrel that lets it hang on target quite well.

[OldWin]

I'd love to see the pics Cable. I like these guns cause they're
different. I got mine in a trade about 15 years ago. I only
have a few Marlins but I always liked the 1881. Used to have
an 1882 Spencer shotgun too but stupidly let it go

[hfcable]

I'd love to see the pics Cable. I like these guns cause they're
different. I got mine in a trade about 15 years ago. I only
have a few Marlins but I always liked the 1881. Used to have
an 1882 Spencer shotgun too but stupidly let it go

nice! the 1881 will handle the standard factory 300 grain ammo all day long. it is really a tank and quite a bit stronger than the trapdoor.....but, why stress the gun and wear it out. you can look in the load manuals and find low pressure loads for trapdoors that push the 400 gr over 1600 fps and the 300 gr to 1800 [ my manuals are in storage but i remember the data to a degree ] these will do quite well for hunting most things!

[OldWin]

Haha, I'm sure I'm being over cautious cause I'm not real familiar with these rifles. I have mostly Winchesters and I have a second issue 95 Marlin. I had a trapdoor for a time but was always a little shy about its strength too.
I too have scrounged up a few old manuals over the years and have found them useful but sometimes quite optimistic with these old cartridges.

[hfcable]

Haha, I'm sure I'm being over cautious cause I'm not real familiar with these rifles. I have mostly Winchesters and I have a second issue 95 Marlin. I had a trapdoor for a time but was always a little shy about its strength too.
I too have scrounged up a few old manuals over the years and have found them useful but sometimes quite optimistic with these old cartridges.

well being cautious doesnt hurt them and being foolish can. the 1881 receiver is pretty massive as is the barrel. i just followed a slow and careful path.......cant remember, but probably something from ken waters, who was quite careful too. i really like shooting the 1881 with the hodgson 777 loads, plenty of power for reasonable use, safe, and lots of impressive smoke, but a lot less clean up that with regular black powder. i pretty much stick with those loadand have quite a few loaded and stock piled for when i want to shoot or hunt. lot more in the spirit of the gun that using modern ammo anyway.

[OldWin]

Yeah, I don't really push any of my old guns. I cast also and shoot a lot of light cast loads. I especially like the pistol calibers. I hunt with these guns also. Shot placement is much more important than speed.

[KWK]

According to Brophy's book the 39 is a direct descendant of the 1891 and 1897, which were both Hepburn designs.

With all respect to Mr. Brophy, I can't agree with him. In the 1891, the bolt mortise was moved to the side of the receiver as in Hepburn's 1889 and a side plate was used, but the lock up is still Burgess' 1881. If Hepburn made the change, he can only claim a refinement of Burgess' work. Hepburn's claim to fame is the rear locking bolt and the carrier rocker. Burgess lives on in the 39 and Hepburn in the 336.

[OldWin]

I don't know a lot of Marlin history but have a lot of respect for their designs and ingenuity.

[Leverdude]

According to Brophy's book the 39 is a direct descendant of the 1891 and 1897, which were both Hepburn designs.

With all respect to Mr. Brophy, I can't agree with him. In the 1891, the bolt mortise was moved to the side of the receiver as in Hepburn's 1889 and a side plate was used, but the lock up is still Burgess' 1881. If Hepburn made the change, he can only claim a refinement of Burgess' work. Hepburn's claim to fame is the rear locking bolt and the carrier rocker. Burgess lives on in the 39 and Hepburn in the 336.

Yup pretty much. The 39 is a combination of both designs really. The lifter function is Hep but the lock up is Burgess.

On another note I wouldn't use the high velocity 300 grain loads, especially because of the jacketed bullets. Nor would I go pushing a 400 grain bullet 1600 fps just because its in a manual as having safe pressure. Theres much more to pressure than simply PSI or CUP. Its how that pressure is reached that matters.

[Gary7]

According to Brophy's book the 39 is a direct descendant of the 1891 and 1897, which were both Hepburn designs.

With all respect to Mr. Brophy, I can't agree with him. In the 1891, the bolt mortise was moved to the side of the receiver as in Hepburn's 1889 and a side plate was used, but the lock up is still Burgess' 1881. If Hepburn made the change, he can only claim a refinement of Burgess' work. Hepburn's claim to fame is the rear locking bolt and the carrier rocker. Burgess lives on in the 39 and Hepburn in the 336.

May be, but the 91, 97, and 39 were all Hepburn patents.

[KWK]

No, he only patented the refinements to the basic Burgess action. The lock up had been patented about a dozen years earlier. Hepburn worked for Marlin and so could employ those ideas still under patent. Like Burgess, Hepburn fiddled with the carrier for years, and this action was part of that progression. (Besides, Hepburn had been dead some time when the 39 came out, so he certainly didn't "patent" that gun.)

Look, how do you define a lever gun? If defined by it's lock up and its feeding mechanism, then Hepburn had little to do with the 39. In the 39, the basic feeding mechanism -- a hinged carrier -- is an idea which preceded Burgess. The lock up of the 39 is Burgess'. Hepburn did tinker with the carrier, and he did move the breech mortise; as much as I admire his work, I can't give Hepburn any more credit than that. If you want to call the gun his design, well, so be it.