Original Marlin 1894s vs current Marlin 1894s

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:41 am

A question for you Marlin oriented lever crankers.

Just how close are the original Marlin 1894s to the current Marlin 1894s?
Do any or some of the parts interchange?

I know they are twins externally, but it's the insides I'm curious about.

Joe

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:51 pm

Hi Joe,
Lots of parts interchange between the two, but the new ones having a coil spring, vs. flat mainspring make the mainsprings and hammer not interchangeable. The screws will interchange, plus the bolt assembly, and carrier. Lower trigger plates will need to be d7t for the mainspring to go old, or notched for coil spring retainer to go new.
I've salvaged some old beater 1894's using new 1894 parts, and even converted one to coil spring for a guy who wanted it done. The coil spring actions actually work smoother when cycling the levers.

Grizzly Adams · Post by **Grizzly Adams** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:04 pm

Good information, marlinman93. I had one of each once and took them apart just to make that comparison. Other than the coil spring mentioned, they were the same. I did feel, however, that the parts in the new model seemed more heavy duty? , and dare I say better? Just my impression.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:34 pm

marlinman93,

Thanks for the information. Since buying the 1894CBC last year I've had this silly thought of trying to buy an original one. Kind of like in 44-40 maybe.

Since I shoot every gun I own, I was hoping that I could use modern parts if I needed to replace any. Looks like I can for the most part.

Joe

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:28 pm

Yes I think th newer carriers seem a bit more meaty, but the rest of the parts seem about right. I've installed newer breechbolts into old guns that were missing them, and they work great. Of course the caliber is specific, so a .38-40 or .44-40 will need to use a newer .44 breechbolt, and the smaller .25-20 and .32-20 use the new ones in same caliber. Same thing for carriers.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:31 pm

marlinman93,

Another Marlin question if you don't mind.

Winchester had the 1873 first, then the 1892 came out in the same calibers.
Did Marlin have a predecessor to the 1894 in the same calibers?

Joe

Buffboy · Post by **Buffboy** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:29 am

The marlin 1889 was the predecessor of the 1894.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:17 am

Like Buffboy said Joe, they had the mosel 1889 in 44/40, 38/40, 32/20 & a few 25/20.
They had an 1888 as well in the same calibres but I dont have one.........yet. They were top eject but otherwise work about the same as the 89, 94 & the rest as far as locking up.

Heres mine part way done.Cal 32/20, its at the smith getting the metal finished at the moment. If things work right I'm picking up another in 44/40 cal today!

The 89 is basiclly a 94 with a one piece pin & different where the lever & locking bolt engage one another. The bolts fit one another as do most other things suck as lifters loading gates ejectors, bout everything.
Marlin changed very little thru the years & like Vall said most modern parts & screws fit right in. Only screw I recall being different was the tang screw threads.
Makes bringing them back to life alot easier when you can just order most parts.

Theyre all about the same except the 1881 that dont even have a locking bolt.

Get one, you'll like it.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:46 am

Buffboy, Leverdude,

Thanks for the information. I'll keep my eyes open for one. Arround here you just don't see many older Marlins. And very few new ones too.

But you never know, I might trip over one just like I did that Mdl 94 I bought several years ago.

Joe

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:45 pm

The 1888 Marlin looks very much like the later 1892 Winchester. I've often had someone ask me why I have a 1892 Win. on my table when I display my 1888. Of course it's always someone who's not a bigtime Win. or Marlin fan that asks that question.
The 1888 was not offered in .25-20, and the 1889 only had about 25 made in .25-20, so that is the only difference in caliber offerings for these predecessors to the 94.
Here's a couple poor quality pictures of my 1888, (it's the bottom one of the two rifles, top is my '94 in .44-40)

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:36 pm

marlinman93,

I think I just realized two things.
First, I won't live long enough for any of my lever guns to develop the character that the old ones like you posted have.

Second, I so much like the slim forearms like those old one have. I just gotta get the one on my 1894 CBC slimmed down. I won't do it myself though, that would be the quickest way to ruin it.

Thanks for the pics.

OBTW, the old '88s and '94s like you have, are they safe to use with smokeless powders?

Joe

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:35 am

Joe,
I did get that 89 I mentioned the other day. Kinda beat up but it works as is & gives me something else to tinker with.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:47 am

Leverdude,

Thanks for the pics. I like that old rifle. It has character.

Joe

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:13 am

Thank you Joe,

You asked MM93 if these were safe with smokeless. I use smokeless in all my old guns but dont use jacketed bullets unless its a smokeless barrel. I think its safe as long as you do it with a measure of common sense. Most of the data for the old BP calibres seems to take this into consideration anyway.
These things arent for folks that wanna launch a bullet 3000 fps.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:50 pm

I can only second what Ken said. I use nothing but smokeless in my old Marlins and Ballards, but with loads in low velocity-low pressure ranges and cast bullets. There was no metallurgy, other than seat of the pants experience back then, but that was very good. These old guns probably haven't seen black powder since the early 1920's and they're still around and shooting well!
Wood should always be made no larger than the metal it meets. That's what makes the old Marlins, Winchesters, and Savages such finely crafted guns!

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:12 pm

Wood should always be made no larger than the metal it meets. That's what makes the old Marlins, Winchesters, and Savages such finely crafted guns!

I totally agree. I've never liked the pregnant forearms found on the newer Marlins. I think they are ugly and a waste of wood. Even the one on my 2005 1894 CBC is too fat for my tastes and it's downright skinny compared to what the 336s have.

Is there a source of already made thin forearms like your and leverdudes rifles have that will fit mine?
Or if not who can slim it down and refinish it?

Joe

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:07 pm

Joe,

I dont know of anyone who makes thin ones unless your talking 90% inletted stuff.
I forget if the CBC's are checkered. If theyre not you could do it yourself easy enough or if you dont want to any gunsmith or woodworker can.
I think you'll likely need to strip the butstock & refinish it with the foreend to get them looking the same though. I'm not sure what Marlin uses but it never matched for me.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:59 pm

Joe,
I don't know of a source for fitted small style forearms and buttstocks, except semi-inletted, which would be more work than thinning your's down.
You could find some older non checkered stock sets on Ebay, then take them down to fit flush with the metal on your gun and refinish them.
I've done a few, and it's pretty easy. I mask off the metal with blue painter's tape, then go around the edge with a fine tip Sharpie. Then remove the stocks and rasp them down close to the line. After than simply finish sand to remove the line, and then stain and seal them.
Remove the tape from the metal and install the new stocks. Only takes a couple evening's work.-Vall

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:24 am

Mine is not checkered. I like it that way too.

Winchester used that redish stain on their early rifles, did Marlin use such a stain? You are correct in the buttstock would have to be done at the same time so it would match, and if I get it done I'd like to it look good.

Joe

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:03 am

Reason I asked about the checkering is you cant just sand & refinish, checkerings not something I'd try myself. Not yet anyway & removeing the checkering from the buttstock to match might not work so good. I'v seen pictures where it looked good but judging by my own guns its hard to fathom.

None of that matters anyway since yours aint checked.

About the stain I really dont know, but I'd think they used something under the finish. I'v never seen a light one & most seem to have a redish cast to them. MM93 will know.

I tend to like smooth wood myself but dont mind checkering if its done nicely. It sure makes holding onto a gun in cold ,wet, icy conditions easier.
Asthetically it bugs me because I just like wood & it tends to hide grain charecteristics most times.

If I were you I'd follow Valls instructions & thin it myself. If you want that redish cast maybe experiment with a few redish stains on a piece of scrap until you find one that appeals to you.

Whatever you decide I wish you luck makeing a good gun better!

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:55 pm

Like Winchester, Marlin used a tint, but I think it was in the varnish, not in the stain. I use chromium trioxide to tint my wood when refinishing, because I can control how dark it gets at the same time. CT is not for the faint at heart, as it's pretty hot stuff, and if not used correctly it can turn your stocks black when left too long. But that's another reason I like it, as I can age new wood to match old, so repairs, or stripping of stocks and forearms is not needed to match them.
Here's an easy way to go:
http://www.ashoutdoors.com/ASH_Outdoors ... inish.html
Tom's Antique finish will give you the color you're looking for, and it's pretty reasonably priced too.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:23 pm

mm93,

Thanks for the link. I put it in my favorites. Now to find some one to do the wood work.

Joe

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:36 pm

Thanks for the link. I put it in my favorites. Now to find some one to do the wood work.

I forget where you are Joe but if you contact this fellow he may be able to help you out. He goes by "Shum8" on the Marlin Owners site. http://marlinowners.com/board/privmsg.p ... ost&u=1029
Great guy, he made the stock for my Rossi. You could probably mark your wood like MM93 described & mail the stock set to him. He has an FFL he deals with if that dont work.

Just a suggestion.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:31 am

Leverdude,

Thanks for the info.

Joe