Quality of 2016-20017 Marlin model 94's?

[Sarge]

I may have the opportunity to swap into a new 20 inch round barrel Marlin 1894 in 45 Colt. I know QC for 94's has been in the dumpster different times so if any of you have experience with a Marlin 1894 made in the last couple years I'd sure like to hear about it. Caliber is irrelevant and thanks in advance for any replies.

[J Miller]

Sarge,

I can't answer your question, but let me tell you a story about four pre-Remington Marlin 1894s.

First, in the mid 80s I had an 1894S in .357 Mag. Nice little carbine. Accurate, functioned well with anything but SWCS. and was a hoot to shoot. Dummy me, I traded it for something else.

Second, back about 1990 I picked up a standard 1894 carbine in .45Colt. Nothing unusual about it. But when I took it out to shoot I had nothing but miss fire after miss fire. When I examined the primers I could see how light the firing pin impact on them was.
I took it apart and cleaned it, then tried shooting it again. No go, same problem.
After much closer examination I found that the chamber was so oversized that when the firing pin hit the primer it would drive the entire cartridge, rim included, into the chamber. I took it back to the dealer and got my trade in back.

Third, about 1996 or so I bought a brand new in the box 1894 Cowboy .45 Colt with the 24" barrel. Gorgeous rifle, well balanced, nice wood too. Made me drool I liked it so much. But, this was the most inaccurate rifle I've ever owned. At 25 yards the bullets were key holing. At 50 yards they were going through the target sideways ... when they hit it. And it was a rare occasion that the bullets made the 100 yard backstop.
My theory is that the bore and grove diameter was grossly oversized, perhaps Marlin stuck a miss marked 45-70 barrel on it. Due to financial problems I had to sell a bunch of guns so I never confirmed my diagnosis.

Fourth, around 2010 I bought a lightly used 1894 Cowboy Limited .45 Colt with the 20" octagon barrel. This one is a success. Looks good, shoots good, works good and has the correct grove diameter. I'm gonna keep it.

So in my experience two out of four bad examples equals a 50% failure ratio. I also don't think Marlin took the .45 Colt rifles seriously: "They are for cowboy action shooters, they don't care about accuracy as long as it goes bang", kind of attitude.
QC was also questionable all across the Marlin line in the last couple decades. So they were not as perfect as the JM Marlin fans would have you believe.

So my suggestion is to go over the rifle with a fine tooth comb and make sure there is nothing obviously wrong. Then if it is a clinker make sure Remington makes it right.

Joe

[Chuck 100 yd]

All of mine are pre Rem. Guns. All are great shooters. That said, I have looked over several of the recent offerings at my
Local dealers and they look just fine. I have no experience with the earlier guns from Remington but these few I checked over seem to be up to snuff. Buy from a reputable dealer that takes care of his customer.

[Sarge]

Thanks guys I appreciate the input. I had a bad go with an 1894 Marlin around 1982. It was a year-old, used 44 Mag and it simply refused to group with any 240 grain factory load. My 336T would beat that at 100 on the same day and both rifles sported factory irons. I did finally get the 94 under 3" at 50 yards with 180 grain Federals, but by then I was sick of fooling with it and just resold it.

I'm batting .500 on Rossi 92's but at least all of them were accurate. I like the 94 Marlin for it's man-sized stock and hopefully, better customer service.

[AJMD429]

Personally, I'd snag it. Most of the problems that people report could be fixed, other than the perennial 'oversized chamber and bore' issues, which seem to be endemic among 45 Colt rifles of all makes. Oversized bores just mean you'll need cast bullets of a bit larger-than-standard size, or jacketed bullets.

If it isn't up to snuff, sell it on the used market and you'll not likely lose much; there are lots of folks who just want a 'shooter' and don't care all that much about accuracy.

[Chuck 100 yd]

I have a Stainless Marlin 1894 in .44 mag. That had an oversized bore. I returned it to Marlin and they replaced the barrel with a proper bore sized barrel. It is a great shooter. That was about a year before Rem. took over.

[Sarge]

Fellas I appreciate all the replies. Y'all have certainly helped me resolve my original question. I like the Henrys but can't abide a centerfire rifle that doesn't load from the gate on the side. From what I'm reading here and everywhere else, it seems to me recent Marlins 94s are just as big a QC crapshoot as the Rossi 92.

Lord knows I have plenty of experience working on the latter so I guess another go-round won't hurt me .

[mikld]

FWIW and an aside; I thought my Puma barrel groove diameter was .004" over spec, but I researched and found .44 Magnum barrels on rifles are spec'ed at .431" as per SAAMI, not the handgun spec. of .429". So, mebbe some of those "oversize" barrels aren't...

[Sarge]

When they are keyholing bullets at 25 and 50 yards there's a problem that goes beyond normal bore specs.

[Sixgun]

Being in the game I've had the opportunity to examine, own, and shoot Marlins from 1881 on. Nothing beats the reliability of Marlins from the beginning to around the early nineties, especially 336's. 94's have been problematic from the nineties.

They seriously took a dump when Remington bought them out but have since rebounded. Not all were bad, but you had to pay attention when purchasing....I just came back from an upstate match when guys brought 4-12 leverguns each for a three day play and I got to examine a newly manaufactured 94 and several 1895's and all exhibited quality that was common in the eighties.---6