What happened to that great "old-time look"?

[getitdone1]

I think gun manufacturers should go back in time and take a look at some of the great, slim-trim guns of yesteryear.

For some reason the manufacturers, in many cases, lost their former slim-trim beautiful lines their guns had many years ago. They started making them with more wood in the stocks and this, perhaps along with other things, caused their more modern guns to lose that great look of the old-time guns.

Many of the older Marlins and Savages look much better than most of their modern-day versions. I'm sure many of you in this group know what I'm talking about. Too, expect the metal work was also superior with the older guns.

My Browning 1886 SRC is a lovely gun but it has more bulk to the wood than the original Winchester 1886 SRC. I'd say my Browning 71 Carbine is closer to the original Winchester 71--both having "fat wood." A half a pound less wood would be meaningful both in appearance and when carrying.

There are exceptions. One is the Marlin model 1897 Cowboy. Slim, elegant lines.

I know there's plenty of people who prefer the large forestocks, the beavertail forestock on the double barrel shotgun, etc. That's fine but for me I like the stocks thin and elegant. Some exceptions to this.

Don

[kimwcook]

Don, I'm with you. And, I think most are. I for one don't care for the fat Marlin forends, but I love the looks of their older rifles. Like the 1897 compared to the newer 39's. That fat forend just turns me off. Yeah, I could slim it down, but that's like buying a new vehicle and overhauling the engine. Should be what I want when I buy it. That's why I don't have one.

[J Miller]

The pregnant Marlin fore ends are one reason I stuck with Winchester 94s like I did. I don't like them and I'm not a wood worker, so slimming them down isn't an option for me.
Manufacturers have lost a lot of their class and style along with the quality of workmanship.

Joe

[Old Ironsights]

Just a guess, but "fat" wood comes from "cheap" wood vs the quality hardwoods of yesteryear which could be thinner & still be strong...

[william iorg]

Townsend Whelen, E. C. Crossman and a few others, perhaps Paul Curtis, fought hard to put those fat forends on the lever guns - and to change the bolt rifle stocks too.
Whelen and Crossman are certainly the instigators of the Model 64, 65 and 71 Winchester stock designs.
I too feel Marlin has overdone a good thing with the fat forend but we need a hand filling forend to shoot well offhand.

[Sixgun]

I could not be in more agreement with 'ya. I do believe Old Ironsight's proclamation has a lot to do with it as its a no brainer for me to be blindfolded and have someone stick a pre-war 94 in one hand and a post war 94 in the other hand and for me to tell which is which. Must be a mental thing as even the metal seems more dense.

Along with these physical density changes came cosmetic and dimensional changes. I dunno, maybe I have too much time on my hands---gonna take a nap.------------------Sixgun

[Pisgah]

I also love the old style, but I recognize that the newer fat-forend, more-wood-all-around was a matter of responding to consumer demand. Styles change, and the style went to fatter wood, cheekpieces, white spacers, etc., etc.

Fortunately, those of us with even minimal skills and just the smallest amount of gumption can quit whining about it and have what we want...

[JReed]

The only guns that should have fat forends are benchrest and f-class rifles IMHO. Daily shooters and hunting rifles should be slim and trim.

[kimwcook]

That looks nice Pisgah. But, as I said, I'm not buying a new car and overhauling the engine. I'll go for the older guns.

[Old Ironsights]

Don, I'm with you. And, I think most are. I for one don't care for the fat Marlin forends, but I love the looks of their older rifles. Like the 1897 compared to the newer 39's. That fat forend just turns me off. Yeah, I could slim it down, but that's like buying a new vehicle and overhauling the engine. Should be what I want when I buy it. That's why I don't have one.

That was the biggest fault to the '88 IMO. I was really looking for one until I got my hands on it... it carried & swung like a log.

[Pitchy]

The 95 Marlin cowboys are nice and thin yet.

[Pisgah]

That looks nice Pisgah. But, as I said, I'm not buying a new car and overhauling the engine. I'll go for the older guns.

That's why I bought a much-abused 1971 vintage rifle and turned it in to the one pictured. I couldn't see spending nearly $400 on a rifle I didn't care for, so spent $225 total to create what I wanted.

[J Miller]

Pitchy,

That is I believe one of the reasons the Cowboy series has done so well. They are slim and trim. That's the one big reason I own the one I do.

Unlike Pisgah and some others on the forum I am not skilled in wood working. Were I to try to make a slim fore end out of a fat one I'd ruin it for sure.

Joe

[Pitchy]

Pitchy,

That is I believe one of the reasons the Cowboy series has done so well. They are slim and trim. That's the one big reason I own the one I do.

Unlike Pisgah and some others on the forum I am not skilled in wood working. Were I to try to make a slim fore end out of a fat one I'd ruin it for sure.

Joe

Me too Joe, i`m more into iron working.

[444Hal]

It might be beneficial in the heavier calibers like 45-70 or maybe looks stylish in a “hunting gun”, but I think the thicker stock does take away from the spirit of the Lever being a handy, “everyday carry” gun.
I also wondered why Marlin doesn’t offer the 30-30 in their lighter 94 version. I mean, is the heavier 336 build really needed for the old 30WCF ?

[Driftwood Johnson]

Just a guess, but "fat" wood comes from "cheap" wood vs the quality hardwoods of yesteryear which could be thinner & still be strong...

Howdy

I doubt that. As far as I know, nobody is growing American Black Walnut in plantations like they are with pine. At least not yet. You can definitely tell the growth rings on modern pine are farther apart than with 'old growth' trees, resulting in softer wood.

But as long as the wood is American Black Walnut, and that is still the most preferred hardwood for firearms here in the USA, it is going to be from trees that grew naturally either in the forest or on somebody's property. Nobody is mass producing Black Walnut yet. One tree may be a bit different than another tree, but generally speaking, there is no difference in the quality of a Black Walnut tree growing in the forest today as there was 100 years ago.

Yes, there are less of them today, so the price of the lumber has gone through the ceiling, but in general, the quality of the wood is just as good.

Yes, I agree, market forces are most likely the reason for 'fat' for ends these days. The firearm industry is simply trying to supply a product that will sell well.

[J Miller]

It might be beneficial in the heavier calibers like 45-70 or maybe looks stylish in a “hunting gun”, but I think the thicker stock does take away from the spirit of the Lever being a handy, “everyday carry” gun.
I also wondered why Marlin doesn’t offer the 30-30 in their lighter 94 version. I mean, is the heavier 336 build really needed for the old 30WCF ?

Yes, the heavier and longer 336 is needed for the 30-30 and other rifle length cartridges. The 1894 receiver is much shorter than the 336 and the 30-30 and other rifle length cartridges will not function in it.
The 1894 was originally chambered for the short rifle cartridge of the day; the 44-40, 38-40, and 32-20, but are now chambered many of today's revolver cartridges which are the same basic size.

Joe

[Mike D.]

Me too, I detest FUGLY forend wood. The 64 and 71 Winchesters aren't so bad, but the Marlin 336? Good grief, where did they come up with that lousy design?

[earlmck]

Dang, guys. Those "guns of yesteryear" had those little toothpick stocks because 'most everybody packed 'em around in a saddle scabbard and thinner is definitely better when the thing is riding underneath your leg on the saddle. About the turn of the century the scabbard use began dropping greatly and it became more important for the rifle to feel good in the hand when shooting than to feel ok while you were riding the horse.

I remember the first time I picked up a Marlin (1950 vintage 336A) and thought "wow, this feels really nice!" because of the greater beef in the forend than my old Win '94.

I didn't realize we had all these skinny-stock lovers until I got hooked up with this forum. Different strokes, and all that.

I haven't been hunting horseback for over 40 years, but if I do I have a fine old '94 that I'll pack along. Until then I'm mostly using the Marlins, and the old '94 will get just enough shooting to keep the rust outa' the barrel.

[pdentrem]

The Marlin 1894 is like the Win 1892, setup for cartridge with OAL of approx 1.6".

I have owned both Marlin 93 and 94. The 93 is much heavier and longer in the receiver. Add TD and 28" oct barrel and it gets heavier still. It does not carry at the receiver like the 94 does.

[pdentrem]

Oh and another thing, most of us grew up on the Rifleman and other TV/movie westerns of the 50s and 60s. That is why we look at the slimmer wood as being natural vs the fat stuff.

[olyinaz]

Just a guess, but "fat" wood comes from "cheap" wood vs the quality hardwoods of yesteryear which could be thinner & still be strong...

Yes, and also from "cheaper" processes such as not dried properly (doesn't matter if the wood is "fat" and ill fitting to begin with) and far less man-hours spent in fitting stocks.

The wood on modern guns mostly makes me puke and has since the 1960s. Some exceptions of course, but they're few and far between and also you often have to pay through the nose for properly fit gun stocks today.

One reason I bought my Chiappa '92 replica is because the wood was slim and trim and fit very well. If only the metal work was up to pre-war Winchester standards!!





For the most part the Italians are the only ones even in the game these days (my opinion) but their pricing is also now mostly out of Joe Baggadonut's reach. My Uberti '73 has nice wood and the buttstock is fit well (not great, but well).





Cheers,
Oly

[Old Time Hunter]

Dang, guys. Those "guns of yesteryear" had those little toothpick stocks because 'most everybody packed 'em around in a saddle scabbard and thinner is definitely better when the thing is riding underneath your leg on the saddle.

Kinda says it in a "nut" shell...but I do like the skinny stocks for their easier to tote feel.

[KCSO]

n the 30's and 40's all the gun writers stressed fatter fore ends and improved cheek welds on the stocks. In fact Remington hired Crossman to critique the Model 8 and recommend a stock design and that was the start of the 81. Marlin changed to the fat fore end and heavier stock in the model 36 and it was hearlded as a great improvment by the gun writers of the day. If you read the magazines from that era they all deplored the stocks on the rifles at that time and loved the M64 and M36 Marlin stocks. De Gustibus

[J Miller]

I don't mind beefier (but not gargantuan) stocks on bolt guns and shot guns. But on lever guns they just do not feel right in my hands. I do not "lay" the forearm in the palm of my off hand, I grip it between my thumb and fingers.

Me and the Marlin.JPG

I also think there is something in the design of the pistol gripped Marlin stocks that is wrong for my face. I cannot shoot them without getting my cheek bashed.

So, make my lever guns slim and trim no matter what brand they are or when they were made.

Joe

[futura]

I couldn't agree more.

I bought a Marlin Guide Gun but did not like the checkered thick wood, or the finish. So I stripped it, sanded off the checkering, slimmed down the stock quite a bit and refinished it with tung oil.

Now I've got a marlin guide gun i like to shoot and look at.

[getitdone1]

Few more words about thickness of stocks.

First of all, as I've said, some people prefer the fatter stocks and especially the forestock like on many Marlins, double barreled shotguns and slide-action/pump shotguns. The model 71 Winchester and Browning are another example. I can appreciate how some people prefer this more "hand-filling" feel.

One gun I have has a rather large forend but I'd have it no other way. It's my pre-64 model 70 Winchester. To my eyes it's the perfect example of what a bolt-action rifle should look like. When I look at it I'm seeing not only the appearance but also the excellent reliability of this gun. Reliability. That really adds to the beauty of any gun.

I have an older model 64 Winchester and the older ones have a thinner forestock. I love the looks and feel of this forestock. It's about the same as the forestock on my Winchester model 92 rifle and the model 63 22 auto Winchester, etc. Narrow with a very nice metal cap or tip on the end. Lots of the older Marlins also have a similar forestock.

To me a lot of the beauty or lines of a nice double barreled shotgun are ruined with the beavertail forestock. Much prefer the splinter forestock on side/side doubles. Of course with fast shooting of trap or skeet a thick glove would be needed and that is probably why some have the beavertail forestock.

Remington made a copy of the Browning 22 auto with a narrow forestock called the 24A. May buy one of these and thus avoid the beavertail forestock of the Browning and also the gloss finish of the Browning. The 241A followed the 24A but has longer barrel, larger stocks and forend but was supposed to be more strongly built. If buttstock is longer than 24A may buy it and live with the fatter forestock. A couple of great 22 autos most people today aren't aware of.

Don

[kimwcook]

Looks like you did a good job, Futura.

[damienph]

Looks like you did a good job, Futura.

That looks alot better than with the checkering.

I am surprised that the wrist of the butt stock in thick enough that the checkering can be sanded off. I would like to do that to my 444P Outfitter.

I have thought a few times about slimming the HUGE fore end of my Dad's 1953 336SC, but I don't know if I should alter my Dad's rifle that much. It would look better though.

[tman]

I couldn't agree more.

I bought a Marlin Guide Gun but did not like the checkered thick wood, or the finish. So I stripped it, sanded off the checkering, slimmed down the stock quite a bit and refinished it with tung oil.

Now I've got a marlin guide gun i like to shoot and look at.

Sweet!

[Griff]

I don't seem to mind the slightly beefier forend on my Winchester mdl 64A, but can't stand the one that's on the Marlin 1894 I just got... But... Precision Gunstocks has just the cure for the ugly buttstock and forend... And since the addition of a 18" (approximate, no decision yet) octagon barrel would probably make the forend look even fatter than it already is, besides altering the balance... as will the crescent steel buttplate & stock, so... I'm not sure where it'll ultimately balance. Kinda wish there was curved lever and lower tang for the 1894 Marlin.

While I don't care for the look of the fat forend on my Marlin 375, in actual use, it's very neutral, that is, I don't notice it. With its half mag, it still balances well in the hand.

futura, nice job on the wood.

olyinaz, nice looking rifles.