Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
While Marlin's Model-336 is the direct descendent of their Model of 1893, they have has made several significant changes through the years. First was replacement of the square bolt with a round bolt (1937). This strengthened the receiver while dramatically smoothing action-manipulation.
This is from Mic McPherson's article on the .30-30 on his web site; the underlining is mine, of course.
I'm curious if other Marlin shooter's have found the same. It's not obvious to me why this should be so, other than perhaps drilling and turning for the breech bolt is more reliable than milling, with regards to having everything come out straight and smooth.
I've never cycled an 1893. The 336's are certainly smooth, but so are the modern 1894's with their square bolts.
The only way to know is to find a never-fired NIB 1893, and compare it to a modern 336, or better yet, a moderately-used version of each.
What is usually the case is we're comparing a NIB or not-fired-much-yet modern gun to an older piece with tens of thousands of rounds fired through it. Combine that with the softer older steels that would wear-in faster, and the reduced attention to detail and workmanship today, and of course the comparison will be lopsided.
I think none of it likely has much to do with the square vs. round bolt.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws "first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.
well, my unscientific survey of my two 1893s, an original 1894 marlin, a modern marlin 1894 [square bolt], a model 36 [ square bolt ] ,and two modern 336s , as well as an original 1895 marlin [ square bolt] , and a modern marlin 1895 [round bolt] says........... heck , they all seem really smooth...really really smooth.
i much prefer the look of the square bolt
i suppose the strength is more related to more modern steels, but i really wouldnt know.
I prefer the square bolt. I don't imagine the round bolt smoothed the action much, especially since rifles don't see as much hand fitting an polishing today, but there was one thing the round bolt did do - it made it less expensive to manufacture. A byproduct has to be a stiffer receiver, since the receiver has more meat and part of it is now closed, but I don't know that the previous design was really much weaker.
The round bolt is the thing I like least about modern Marlins. Also, the 1893s seem nicer, better balanced, less chunky, I don't know. Just something I feel when I hold one.
7.62 Precision wrote:I prefer the square bolt. I don't imagine the round bolt smoothed the action much, especially since rifles don't see as much hand fitting an polishing today, but there was one thing the round bolt did do - it made it less expensive to manufacture. A byproduct has to be a stiffer receiver, since the receiver has more meat and part of it is now closed, but I don't know that the previous design was really much weaker.
The round bolt is the thing I like least about modern Marlins. Also, the 1893s seem nicer, better balanced, less chunky, I don't know. Just something I feel when I hold one.
(My original post didn't post) I was saying +1 - the 93s are "nicer" IMO. the last 93 I handled at a LGS--a SRC ca 1900--was a dead ringer for an early pre war Win 94 SRC, right down to the nice oil finished walnut stock, carbine butt, ladder and post sights, barrel bands and nicely trim and rounded forend--topped off with the saddle ring It took me a second glance to correct my first assumptuon that it was a Winchester--to me high praise indeed! Why they got away from the original formula, at least moreso than Win did after awhile, is beyond me.
I have no doubt it is easier to produce a round bolt rifle to the same level of smoothness, with substantially less hand fitting time, than it is to produce the square bolt style.
Thats an interesting question to which I needed to find out myself. I never really noticed and I should have as I have shot and owned many examples of each in varying degrees of condition.
I got out a like new and a well used examples of 1893's and the same with 336's. 'Ya know, the 336's are smoother, but not by much. I'm thinking it could be the springs as the older guns tend to have stronger mainsprings, ejectors, etc. The one 336 in 219 Zipper is so smooth, it felt like I was running my hand over one of Old Savage's play toys.----Sixgun
1st. Gen. Colt SAA’s, 1878 D.A.45 and a 38-55 Marlin TD
Sixgun wrote:Thats an interesting question to which I needed to find out myself. I never really noticed and I should have as I have shot and owned many examples of each in varying degrees of condition.
I got out a like new and a well used examples of 1893's and the same with 336's. 'Ya know, the 336's are smoother, but not by much. I'm thinking it could be the springs as the older guns tend to have stronger mainsprings, ejectors, etc. The one 336 in 219 Zipper is so smooth, it felt like I was running my hand over one of Old Savage's play toys.----Sixgun
I dunno I had 1893's in all 5 chamberings and they were quite slick . Two of them had been used very little I might add !
I also had five of the 336SC's of which one was a 219 Zipper and I never thought them to be as slick although they were nice as well in their own right !
I had 4 of the old square bolt Marlin 1895's that were quite nice as well . As a matter of fact they might have been a hair slicker then the 1893's I had .
Now with all that being said those 17 or 18 of the Marlin 444 with the monte carlo and straight grip stock i have or have had are right darned slick in their own right . But then they are nothing less then a 336 action with a few extra relief cuts .
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
Sixgun wrote:6 Point,
You could be right. My brain is bit fried as I'm a little worn out from the week. I'll try again over the weekend.------me
Slickness is subjective , but I'd be willing to bet 90% of the folks who have handled both would say the Pre 1920 Marlin's be it the 1893 , 1894 or 1895 were of better quality then the guns from the time period of 336's on .
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
I've owned a model 336, and still own a model 36 (93 with coil hammer spring?), and a model 1894. I don't recall the model 336 being any slicker to operate and I much prefer the profile of my 36 to my 336. 336 may be stronger but the 93/36 were more than strong enough a design for there intended cartridges. I believe the main reason for the design change was manufacturing ease.
Illegitimus Non Carborundum Akā, ʻo ka poʻe hilinaʻi aku iā Iēhova, e ulu hou nō ko lākou ikaika;
E piʻi ʻēheu aku nō lākou i luna, e like me nā ʻaito;
E holo nō lākou, ʻaʻole hoʻi e māloʻeloʻe,
E hele mua nō lākou, ʻaʻole hoʻi e maʻule.
`Isaia 40:31
Friends Call Me Ji wrote:I've owned a model 336, and still own a model 36 (93 with coil hammer spring?), and a model 1894. I don't recall the model 336 being any slicker to operate and I much prefer the profile of my 36 to my 336. 336 may be stronger but the 93/36 were more than strong enough a design for there intended cartridges. I believe the main reason for the design change was manufacturing ease.
I had a Model 36A in 30-30 as well as the earlier Model 1936 in 32 Special . The 36A was rather slick but the Model 1936 I had was not but that may very well have been an isolated instance .
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
