Marlin 1894CB in .327 Fed?

[VAnimrod]

Can a Marlin 1894 in .32 H&R be relatively easily adapted to .327 Federal?

Anyone know a good 'smith to chat with about this?

Or, should I just hold my breath until Marlin does this on it's own?

[FWiedner]

Hey, now that's an idea...

[canonsix]

Wayne York,oregunsmithing@earthlink.net I approached him about the same mod.He is very good and a real pleasure to work with. hth Doug

[6pt-sika]

I'm not worried about rechambering my 32 MAG !

Just let them have a run of 327 Federals !

Also maybe Ruger will make me a cylinder for my Blackhawk Buckeye Special ! Then I'd have a cylinder for 32-20 another for 32 MAG and a third for 327 Federal

[CraigC]

I think it's a great idea! I would imagine it would be rather simple. As far as levergun caliber conversions go. I'm aching to get my little .32 Bisley converted.

[shawn_c992001]

Welcome, pull up a chair you'll like it here. This is just the place to ask that question.

[blackhawk44]

The .327 in a 94 might be goosey. .327 pressures are well more than twice the H&R's. May not be a good idea for a conversion. Best let Marlin build it and stand behind it.

[CraigC]

The pressures more than double but there's a lot of meat there. Remember it's the same platform as used right up to .45Colt and we know they're at least as strong as a Ruger Blackhawk .45Colt. Virtually any firearm that's able to chamber the .357 will be a good candidate. Bowen even reports that the Single Six only needs a longer cylinder. It not being necessary to enlarge the frame window to increase diameter or change to a five-shot.

[TedH]

If Marlin builds it, I will buy one. That would be a dandy little rifle.

[6pt-sika]

The pressures more than double but there's a lot of meat there. Remember it's the same platform as used right up to .45Colt and we know they're at least as strong as a Ruger Blackhawk .45Colt. Virtually any firearm that's able to chamber the .357 will be a good candidate. Bowen even reports that the Single Six only needs a longer cylinder. It not being necessary to enlarge the frame window to increase diameter or change to a five-shot.

You overlook the obviouse

The Marlin 1894 DOES handle the 44 Remington Magnum

So the 327 Federal should be a piece of cake

The only thing I could come up with that may hinder them from chambering an 1894 for the 327 was COL . But after standing a loaded 44 MAG and 327 Federal up side by side the COL of the 44 MAG was a bit longer . So that should be a non issue as well

[TedH]

Well what are we waiting for? Let's start bugging Marlin to build it.

[CraigC]

You overlook the obvious

Didn't I pretty much say that without saying it? I didn't overlook anything, I own two of them.

[6pt-sika]

Well what are we waiting for? Let's start bugging Marlin to build it.

Dude , I've been after them for almost 2 years now for a 336XLR in 32 Special to go with the new Leverevolution ammo !

And near as I can see it ain't gonna happen .

I seriousely doubt that they do much more in state of the art lever action !

[Tycer]

The pressures more than double but there's a lot of meat there. Remember it's the same platform as used right up to .45Colt and we know they're at least as strong as a Ruger Blackhawk .45Colt. Virtually any firearm that's able to chamber the .357 will be a good candidate. Bowen even reports that the Single Six only needs a longer cylinder. It not being necessary to enlarge the frame window to increase diameter or change to a five-shot.

357 mag 35,000
327 fed 45,000

Not sure how much diff 10k psi matters?

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Converting a 357m Marlin would be a real task. The better choice would be to start with one of the Marlins chambered in 32 H&R mag. This will get you much closer to what is needed to control the feeding. The smaller dia. 32 requires more metal inside the receiver. This is why the 32 cal marlin doesn't have a traditional loading gate. It tube loads like a tube fed 22.
Personally, I think you can get pretty close if not better with hand loaded 32-20 and the rifles are more readily available.
Whatcha think?

[6pt-sika]

Personally, I think you can get pretty close if not better with hand loaded 32-20 and the rifles are more readily available.
Whatcha think?

You are most likely correct

And I already have a few 32-20's and one of te 32 MAG rifles .

But I sure would like another one to shoot the 327 Federal

Never accuse me of being practical when it comes to GUNS

[gak]

Converting a 357m Marlin would be a real task. The better choice would be to start with one of the Marlins chambered in 32 H&R mag. This will get you much closer to what is needed to control the feeding. The smaller dia. 32 requires more metal inside the receiver. This is why the 32 cal marlin doesn't have a traditional loading gate. It tube loads like a tube fed 22.
Personally, I think you can get pretty close if not better with hand loaded 32-20 and the rifles are more readily available.
Whatcha think?

I'm sure salivating at the prospects of a Rossichestersport 92, Nate, and their somehow figuring their way around that loading gate issue !

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Converting a 357m Marlin would be a real task. The better choice would be to start with one of the Marlins chambered in 32 H&R mag. This will get you much closer to what is needed to control the feeding. The smaller dia. 32 requires more metal inside the receiver. This is why the 32 cal marlin doesn't have a traditional loading gate. It tube loads like a tube fed 22.
Personally, I think you can get pretty close if not better with hand loaded 32-20 and the rifles are more readily available.
Whatcha think?

I'm sure salivating at the prospects of a Rossichestersport 92, Nate, and their somehow figuring their way around that loading gate issue !

With a 92 it's more than just the loading gate issue. The 92 in 32-20 or 25-20 is about as small as you can go in cartridge rim dia. This is because the left and right guides have to be close enough together to control the cart. If you move them in for the smaller 327/32 H&H the bottom of the bolt (for lack of a better word, lets call it the ejector housing) won't pass between them. Even the 32-20 and 25-20 requires metal to be removed from the ejector housing in order for it to pass.

[CraigC]

The pressures more than double but there's a lot of meat there. Remember it's the same platform as used right up to .45Colt and we know they're at least as strong as a Ruger Blackhawk .45Colt. Virtually any firearm that's able to chamber the .357 will be a good candidate. Bowen even reports that the Single Six only needs a longer cylinder. It not being necessary to enlarge the frame window to increase diameter or change to a five-shot.

357 mag 35,000
327 fed 45,000

Not sure how much diff 10k psi matters?

I think it's safe to assume that if the same platform can handle the .357 and .44 magnums, the .327 should be easy. Not to mention a six shot Single Six.

[Tumbleweeds]

Sika, just send that Buckeye to Ruger without the .32 mag cylinder and have them put in a new one. Have the new one rechambered, and you're there.

[KWK]

357 mag 35,000
327 fed 45,000
Not sure how much diff 10k psi matters?

The European spec for the .357 is 44,000 psi, and Marlin very likely designs their gun for sale in that market. Further, the area over which the pressure is applied is much smaller in the .327, as compared to the .357. I'm not keen on re-chambering guns to higher pressure cartridges, but I'd feel safe in converting a .32 H&R 1894 Marlin to a .327 Fed.