FA It's back,

[Buffboy]

http://www.forthehunt.com/Auction/ViewI ... m=80465543

Get in folks, you know how rare these are, he even says so.

NOT

[Chuck 100 yd]

Looks like a parts gun to me. What is with the gold paint and why is there none on the bolt? Tempting but think I will pass!!!

[cowboykell]

Not the real deal...real smart to pass on this one.

[Hagler]

Gentlemen,

One of the photographs in that listing gives me the oportunity to ask a question that I have been wanting to ask for a long time. Why do so many Marlins have "pry marks" on their breechbolts, like these:



I have seen a bunch of those.

Shawn

[Lastmohecken]

Gentlemen,

One of the photographs in that listing gives me the oportunity to ask a question that I have been wanting to ask for a long time. Why do so many Marlins have "pry marks" on their breechbolts, like these:



I have seen a bunch of those.

Shawn

I would tend to guess it is because the gun has jammed, usually a double feed, and someone has used a screwdriver to try and work the second shell back into the magazzene.

I have seem lots of used Marlin 1894's in 44mag that showed the same marks. They used to have a bad reputation for jamming. In the 70's there was a gun dealer I used to frequent who would not hardly trade for a used Marlin 44mag because too many customers ended up bringing them back to him, because of jamming problems.

A few year later, around 1990, I decided to purchase an almost new, Marlin 44mag at a gunshow. I figured well surly after a few more years Marlin must have fixed this problem, and this gun did not have the so called screwdriver marks so commonaly seen on these guns in the past. So, I bought it, and it was an accurate gun, but after a while, I started having problems, and eventually, my gun had those same screwdriver marks on it too. I ended up trading it off, along with a bundle of cash for a Four wheeler.

I have heard that if you will send them back to marln, they will fix them for you and you won't have anymore problems. They know the problem exists, but I guess would rather fix one, ever once in a while, then do it right the first time on the production line.

Back in the the 90's when cowboy action shooting was getting going around here, where I live, guys were quick to find out that the Marlns were prone to jam, and most looked for a Rossi 92 or of course an oringinal 92 or a Browning 92, or a 73 replica in the pistol calibers. But even some of those rifles will be sensitive to bullet configuration, and over all length.

[Mark Wilson]

That is not an original Marlin Model 410. It is more likely a parts gun 1893 Rifle that someone has cobbled together. I have an original that I bought about 20 years ago and it looks absolutely nothing like that abortion.

Stock is wrong- original has a flat shotgun butt plate, no medallions or inlays.

Forearm also wrong- while the Model 410 is based on the 1893 rifle the wood is quite different. Forearm is much wider and has finger grooves running the length of the forearm on each side.

Sights, front rifle sight and rear tang- Jeez give me a break. I suppose some one could have changed the wood, but the sights, no way. Factory sights for the Model 410 were brass bead front and no rear.

There were very few Model 410's made and even fewer sold. They were originally made to be give as premiums to shareholders. They are made to cycle and chamber 2 inch and 2 1/2 inch 410 shotgun shells.

I will try and get a picture of mine tomorrow and post

[marlinman93]

I see that this time around h added that it might not be original. With the caveat, "but I'm no expert". That way he can refuse to take it back, since he warned everyone.
This guy's been emailed by numerous folks telling him it's totally wrong, but he wants to try and find a sucker anyway.