Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

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.
Post Reply
Naphtali
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:21 pm
Location: Montana

Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Naphtali »

I have used only one bolt action rifle for hunting and target shooting, and that was for a single hunt when I was barely old enough to drive my parents' Oldsmobile Toronado over 100 mph on my way back to St. Louis University. FYI: We both made it on time and without a moving violation.

Except for one season with a Remington 141 35 Remington, all other hunting with cartridge guns has occurred with a lever action rifle - actually, with Marlin 336 35 Remington or 1895 45-70 rifles. I recently was given the opportunity to shoot a Winchester Model 1892 44-40. While not a new rifle, it had been exceptionally well maintained. The Winchester is significantly smoother and quicker to operate than the JM 1895s I own.

- How much of the smoothness and quickness can be attributed to the shorter cartridge and action?

- How much of it can be attributed to the Winchester's simplified 1886 design? While I anticipate I could answer the questions by comparing Winchester's 1886 in 35-70 with my Marlins, I have no access to an 1886 rifle.

- If the difference in smoothness and quickness occurs because of design differences rather than the 1892's having more action wear, how can I improve my 1895s to match - or come close to matching - the Winchester's design?
It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it. Sam Levinson
Nath
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8660
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: England

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Nath »

Why worry but if you must then study the action. Any throw of a lever in a machine must operate on a pivot point or act on a pivot pointwithout loading up the pivot point or without a caming effect to any pivot point.
The W94 gets around this with an articulated pivot of the lever ( still suffers loading on poor fitted examples). Other designs will use clearance in key areas and some use a third link.

N.
Psalm ch8.

Because I wish I could!
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31933
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by AJMD429 »

A huge factor is how may thousand of times the action has been operated and if it is lubricated just a bit.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
crs
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by crs »

Well broken in?
My Win 1892 action was made more than 100 years ago and is VERY slick and smooth.
However, when my Miroku made Winchester 1886 .45-90 was new, the action was easy to operate, but not slick and smooth.
The trigger pull was also 11 pounds on my Lyman gauge.

A friend with much experience slicking up actions for Cowboy action shooting took my rifle and did an action job and trigger job and all was well; a 4 pound trigger pull and slick action.
CRS, NRA Benefactor Member, TSRA, DRSS, DWWC, Whittington Center
Android Ballistics App at http://www.xplat.net/
Pete44ru
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 11242
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Pete44ru »

.

John Browning's designs have always resulted in a smoother operating firearm than John Marlin's - no contest, there.

FWIW, EVERY Marlin levergun I've bought new (about a dozen, +/-) over the past 45-odd years suffered from rough cycling due to multiple parts having edges that were simply too sharp or ragged, from the manufacturing process.

I suppose that the Marlins would have cost twice as much if the factory had done the handwork to smooth them out before shipping.

I just disassembled them & knocked off the inside/outside action rough edges with a stone, lube the action, then manually cycled the actions (empty, of course) rapidly/repeatedly, during about a week's worth of watching TV during the evening (which drove my Green-Eyed Monster nuts).

Every rifle I've ever owned became smoother to operate, with long use.

Unless a 100-year old rifle has spent it's service life in storage, it should operate smoother than a grass snake.


.
User avatar
Deaf Smith
Levergunner 1.0
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Deaf Smith »

On the contrary.. I have found Marlin 336s, at least those made in the 1960s (I have owned several), to be far smoother than the post-64 Winchester 94s. Far smoother.

Deaf
User avatar
crs
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by crs »

"smoother than a grass snake"

Good one! And new to me.

May I use it?
CRS, NRA Benefactor Member, TSRA, DRSS, DWWC, Whittington Center
Android Ballistics App at http://www.xplat.net/
User avatar
Old Savage
Posting leader...
Posts: 16688
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Old Savage »

I have had two new Rossi's and two B92s all butter smooth as was an older Rossi in stainless.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...

Image
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Blaine »

Butter-smooth out of the box describes my Henry Big Boy,and two 9422s. The rest needed some smoothing up and lots of working the action. Polishing the top of the hammer where it hits the bolt is a good thing.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
Sixgun
Posting leader...
Posts: 18565
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Sixgun »

AJMD429 wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:15 am A huge factor is how may thousand of times the action has been operated and if it is lubricated just a bit.

This and what Pete wrote.

I've owned and shot them all from beaters to like new specimens and after thinking (that's not easy for me) about the 73, 92, 94, 95 and even the Marlins and Colt Lightnings there is not a lot of difference. It all comes down to how much the gun was used and the condition of the mainspring. If I really had to pick the most smooth, my vote would be the 1895.

While the 86 and the 92 are very similar the 92's parts are smaller and almost always have been shot a lot more ......therefore, more polished...than it's bigger brother.....so the perception is the 92 is smoother.----6
Model A Uzi’s
Image
M. M. Wright
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Vinita, I.T.

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by M. M. Wright »

The 92 can be made very smooth by proper prep, (NKJ) and I have one done by him but it is no smoother than the Marlin Cowboy I shot once during a SASS team match which required us to use each other's guns. This rifle belonged to a top competitor who shot it a lot and I can't imagine a faster or smoother action, even compared to a full race 73. I shoot 44-40 and have an Uberti 73 sporting rifle with only some smoothing and spring replacement. No short stroke and it is just like flicking a fly off your finger. Find the right guy and he'll be able to make your Marlin into a sweet shooter.
M. M. Wright, Sheriff, Green county Arkansas (1860)
Currently living my eternal life.
NRA Life
SASS
ITSASS
User avatar
crs
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by crs »

Six,. you beat me to itwhen you said
" If I really had to pick the most smooth, my vote would be the 1895."

My new in the box Miroku/Winchester 1895 .405 was slick as a grass snake ( :roll: ) right out of the box.
CRS, NRA Benefactor Member, TSRA, DRSS, DWWC, Whittington Center
Android Ballistics App at http://www.xplat.net/
HawkCreek
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by HawkCreek »

I second what CRS said above. I have three Miroku 1895's, nothing else comes close.
765x53
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by 765x53 »

My scoped Marlin smoothed up considerably after I flattened the top of the Michael's hammer extension.
After cocking the hammer the bolt still had to override the cylindrical extension.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Blaine »

HawkCreek wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:23 pm I second what CRS said above. I have three Miroku 1895's, nothing else comes close.
Is there a difference between the Miroku and the USRAC 1895s? My USRAC JapChester 1895 in 405 is pretty stiff, but then again I haven't shot it much...50 rounds? It's a beast.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
HawkCreek
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by HawkCreek »

BlaineG wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:55 pm
HawkCreek wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:23 pm I second what CRS said above. I have three Miroku 1895's, nothing else comes close.
Is there a difference between the Miroku and the USRAC 1895s? My USRAC JapChester 1895 in 405 is pretty stiff, but then again I haven't shot it much...50 rounds? It's a beast.
As far as I know Miroku has made all the Winchester and Browning 1895's since the real Winchester stopped making the originals in 1932. So I would imagine there isn't much difference (other than the newer "Winchesters" having the safety and rebound hammer while the Brownings from the 80's did not). I havent gotten to play with a .405 either though there is one at a local Cabelas that keeps calling my name.
Pete44ru
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 11242
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am

Re: Inherent or designed-in action smoothness?

Post by Pete44ru »

.

My .405 Miroku/Winchester Model 1895 was pretty smooth-operating out-of-the-box, Blaine.

Maybe you got a "Monday morning" or "Friday afternoon" gun...….. ;)

Work the snot out of it - it'll most likely gat a bit smoother.

.
Post Reply