After having used comparable "Trappers" in .44 mag, here's what I've concluded in the age-old "Marlin vs. Winchester" debate....Winchester

Objective observations:

In the event of a feed failure, you need only to reach into the open receiver with your thumb or finger to correct it.

The wider, longer, more softly sprung trapdoor makes for easier loading with less finger pinch.

Safeties are a fact we must deal with, like it or not. The new tang safety beats the cross-bolt style in both ease of use and aesthetics.

The larger finger lever and trigger guard allows more room for your hand, particulary with winter gloves.

The dovetailed front sight blade beats the screwed-on type which may loosen under recoil.(Some Marlins are dovetailed, also.)


It's a lighter weight, more compact, overall svelte package.


Subjective opinion:

Shorter LOP on the buttstock makes it easier for many to use.

The flat bottom receiver and lack of a lever hinge makes it more comfortable for in-the-hand carry.

The longer, wider trigger allows for easier purchase and helps ease the "lawyer weight".

The butt to bore angle allows for lighter recoil in even in a lighter weight package.

There's less 'pinch' inside the lever to wear on my fingers.


That reoil issue was noted by Taylor, and at least one other member here. I must say, I doubted it until I shot my 94. It's true, at least for me. What's more, is that it is softer even without the rubber recoil-pad that my Marlin had.

Now, I've also had recent opportunity to use a '92, with that godawful curved butt-plate that's traditional on that gun. Let me tell you...it was brutal from the bench! The top of that plate bruised me. Off-hand, it was tolerable, and it was fine with Specials, of course. It has the "tight" lever fell of the Marlins that is absent on the '94 design. Plus, the trigger is better. That much I'll grant. However, I just don't see what all of the fuss is about the action.

Yes, the receiver is about 5/8" shorter in OAL. Contrary to what you might think, however, the arc of the leverstroke is exactly the same between the two designs. I'd laid both one on top of the other, and in reverse, just to check this. Unfortunately, my digi-pics just wouldn't transfer onto my PC. Since the carrier on the '94 is specially fitted for the shorter pistol cartridge chamberings, I don't see what the big deal is. Mine seems to cycle just fine in both 90 degrees from horizontal in either direction, and was even able to do so upside down!

I also tend towards the Winchester design, and for some of the same reasons. I do prefer older versions of each, so the modern safety's are not an issue to me.

In use, the Winchesters are easier to load as you mentioned. The gate being easier to manipulate, especially when it's cold out. In the 86 vs. the 95 Marlin this more pronounced.

When loading a single round, the Winchester is much quicker and easier to use. When wanting to drop in a small game load with the gun's magazine already loaded for hunting big game, the Winchester action is MUCH easier to use. You simply work the lever slowly and don't raise the next round to feed, if you do raise the next round to feed, a little finger can push it back down, the light load dropped in, and close the bolt. For the Marlin, the lifter can hang up on the rim and keep the action from closing when dropping single rounds in an empty gun. When wanting to load a small game load into a gun with a full magazine, you have to cycle the action, eject the round that's trying to feed, (shake it out the side of the gun with it turned sideways) and hope you don't get the lifter hung up on the shell rim when putting in the small game round. To eject your empty (or live) shell and then leave the gun in a chamber empty condition, you have to eject the shell in the chamber, then do the shaking routine to try to get the round that's feeding out.

For use by the average occasional hunter, it likely doesn't make much difference, for someone that carries and uses the gun a fair amount, the Winchester system makes life much simpler. My experience is mainly with 4 Winchester and 2 Browning 1886's and about 10 1894 models, and 4 Marlin 1895 and 3 1894 models. I don't critisize anyones choice, but this is my experience and preference.

The turn of the century advertisements from Marlin and Winchester emphasized Marlins accuracy, and Winchesters reliability. I feel from my experience that the Winchester is more reliable. When a Marlin jams, it's a real job to clear. The ONLY time I had any Winchester not function was with an original 1886 that had a bent cartridge stop that let older Remington shells with the exagerated bevel on the rim double feed. I bent it and it never gave me any more trouble. I've had a couple of Marlins that jammed tight.

Yes, the Marlins are much simpler to scope, I have a nice early (1975) Marlin 1895 that has a Leupold scope on it. It's been in storage for several years. The 86 carbine goes everywhere with me. It does everything I need a lever to d

I love how my dad's Winchester 94 handles. The gun is just nice and light and balances perfectly, and you hand wraps right around the reciever. My marlin doenst handle that well, and i wouldnt mount a scope on it anyways, so that isnt useful to me.

By the way, that Winchester 94 tends to not extract the second round when it comes out of the mag and it raises up the 3rd round and then it jams up. Is there any way to fix that? i have been using 1950's Remington and Winchester ammo. Should i just try some new ammo in it or what?

NH_Hunter

Ford...Chevy...Dodge...we buy what we like.

Do agree on the trim nature of the 94, and Winchesters are my choice for iron sight use (or apature sights), the Marlins for scope use...but I realize it's personal preference.

Was looking at an ad for Winchester's new Trapper...a 6 pound .450Marlin. Except for the semi-pistol grip stock, has the lines I'd like for an iron sighted close range gun... suspect it will beat on a person unmercifully. Will have to see if I can get one without the harmonica holes in the barrel.

NH Hunter, it may be a lifter and/or link problem. It should be possible to fix without too much trouble.

malamute, you raised an interesting feature on the Winnie that I must add to my list.:D

ribbonstone, I've handled the Timber carbine in the shop. I'll be getting a set of XS sights for mine, after seeing how "right" they look/work on that gun. I agree on the ports. Since Marlin's feedback led them to drop the ports, you have to wonder what Winchester was thinking?

Just not a fan of porting...may be the deal breaker.

I respectfully disagree. Ruger 96 in 44 MAG is the winner! Most accurate with any given bullet weight including sub-sonic 44 Special. Mine shoots a consistant 2.75 inch group at 100 yards with FEDERAL 250 grain ammo. Plain but effective Remington core-lockt groups only slightly larger at 3.25 inches. This is at 100 yards; not the typical 50 yard magazine test.

44 Special by Black Hills Ammo shoots into a ragged hole aprox. 1.75 inches diameter at 50 yards! This is easily the most accurate 44 MAG carbine I've ever owned or tested.
TR

I've found it a pretty interesting gun. It's too bad Ruger won't make Clinton mags for it, as well as their Mini-series rifles. They'd sell more of them.

By the way, that Winchester 94 tends to not extract the second round when it comes out of the mag and it raises up the 3rd round and then it jams up. Is there any way to fix that? i have been using 1950's Remington and Winchester ammo. Should i just try some new ammo in it or what?

NH_Hunter

NH_Hunter, why dont you start another thread in the Winchester M-94 section. Describe the problem as est you can and maybe we can help you out some

As always - choice boils down to individual. Like many, I have one or so of each.

As has been said, the Win 94 is slim and trim, LOP is relatively short and the carbine is very quick into action. The factory sights are terrible. Safety is no issue - its a mid- 1960's model.

The 1895 has what some term, and I like to repeat, a big "like the front end of a Buick" forearm, a useless recoil(?) pad and not the greatest factory sights. The cross bolt safety does not get used, and at this time is not in the way, and the first time it becomes an inconvenience, it goes.

The 336RC seems to meet all the good qualities in the middle. Stock width is between the two, it does not need a recoil pad, and the non-checkered straight gripped stock is very comfortable in shooting position. It is a 1950's model, so a designated safety feature is not an issue. The carbine came to me with a Williams rear aperture, factory dovetail filled with a blank, and a front sight assembly that has the ramp attached with screws to the barrel, and the post assembly dovetailed into that. This one is my favorite shooter/carry longarm.

With respect to the loading gate - the 1895 is fairly stout, the 336 and the '94 are about equal, but, believe it or not, the '94 is not even broken in yet.

The '94 and the 336 are about equal in percieved agility, the 336 is a bit more accurate, but again, the '94 is not broken in yet, I can still feel two restrictions in the barrel when I clean it.

I have not had any feed problems with any of the three.

I personally don't have a problem with the lever loops, where I travel all I need is good, single layer buckskins, plenty of room for those.

These are just MY observations. I like all my firearms, for their attractions and de-tractions.

Because I am, by nature, rebellious and independant,
I AM a BIG fan of porting.

2.75" groups are decent, but not enough to get me excited about a lever thats thick in the middle. The traditional guns just feel so nice in the hand to carry. I think thats why I never bought a Winchester model 88.
I've had several Winchester 94's that would shoot under 2 " and would do the occasional under 1" group (3 shots) with peep sights. A couple of my Marlin 45/70's have shot under 1" groups, with 1 gun putting the first 3 shots inside of the 1" grid on the target, that is inside without any of the holes touching the grid, the 4th shot ruined the group by opening it to 1 1/2". This was with a 4X scope and the 300 grain Hornaday bullets at about 1750 fps. The Browning 1886's usually shoot about 2 1/2" groups with peep rear sights. All groups shot at 100 yards.

I think 2 1/2" to 3 1/2" groups @ 100 yds have been average for most levers I've owned or shot. Ones that shot better were usually keepers.

Interesting discussion. All of you have made some good points, some of which, I had not really ever considered. I have 2 pre '64 94s in 30-30, one 1971 vintage Marlin 336 in 30-30, a Marlin 375, and a Winchester 1886 Extra Light 45/70 of new manufacture. Frankly, I like them all! Please, don't make me chose only one. Nothing carries like a traditional lever gun. :D