With the exception of size, are the actions of the 1895, (G, GS, 444) the same as the 1895M with respect to engineering strength?

I guess the question behind the question is: Is there any reason why the 1895 (G,GS) cannot be loaded to pressures of the 1895M ?

:confused:

Is there any reason why the 1895 (G,GS) cannot be loaded to pressures of the 1895M ?
The lack of a clear answer to this question is why I own a 450 Marlin and not a 45/70. SAAMI lists the maximum average pressure for the 450 Marlin at 43,500 psi. The data I normally see for 45/70 lever action loads tries to stay under 28,000 PSI. I don't know how much science versus risk management goes into the latter pressure decision. However, knowing that there may be additional factors other than the strength of the action, I prefer to let the experts tell me what is a safe limit.

In 1964, Marlin adapted the 336 action to accept a new cartridge Marlin commissioned from Remington called the 444 Marlin and produced the rifle called the Marlin 444. The 444 Marlin was assigned a SAAMI pressure specification of 44,000 CUP or 42,000 PSI, based on the capability of the Marlin 444 lever action rifle. In 1972, Marlin chambered the 45-70 Gov't in an adapted 336 action in time for and in honor of the cartridge's centennial and named the rifle the new model 1895 in honor of the original Marlin 1895 lever action rifle. By this time SAAMI had already assigned the 45-70 Gov't a pressure specification of 28,000 PSI or 28,000 CUP due to the numerous older Springfield Trapdoor and other single shot rifles in circulation. However, the Marlin 444 and 1895 are essentially the same rifle. It didn't take long for gun experts to assign the de facto safe operating pressure of the new model Marlin 1895 of 40,000 CUP based on simple mathematics. There is about 10 percent more cross sectional area interfacing the bolt face with the 45-70 Gov't than with the 444 Marlin, suggesting a 10 percent reduction of pressure to achieve approximately the same bolt thrust. Hence, it has long been accepted that 40,000 CUP is the safe operating pressure of the Marlin 1895 45-70 Gov't. Marlin will not support any 45-70 Gov't ammunition that exceeds SAAMI pressure specification because they are a member of SAAMI. However, in the past they suggested that the 1895 could be reloaded to a higher pressure; subsequently got all lawyered up. The 450 Marlin on the otherhand in the Marlin 1895 action has a safe operating pressure of 43,500 PSI. The only documented difference between the Marlin 1895 chambered for the 45-70 Gov't and 450 Marlin is the barrel threads. It can be proven that when loaded to their potential in Marlin lever guns, the 45-70 Gov't and 450 Marlin are virtual ballistic equivalents. One must remember that PSI and CUP are not equivalent measures of pressure; in general PSI tends to be higher than the same pressure measured in CUP. In addition, the 450 Marlin has less case capacity and less cross sectional area interfacing the bolt than the 45-70 Gov't. Hence, to equal the ballistics of the 45-70 Gov't the 450 Marlin must be loaded to a slightly higher pressure. So to answer your question; the Marlin 1895, 1895G, 1895GS and 1895CB can all be loaded to performance equivalent to the 450 Marlin in the 1895M and 1895MR, but not to the same pressure.

That's the clearest explanation of this issue that I've ever read.
thanks,
spurgon

Thank you for taking the time to write that, Jackfish.
Indeed that answered my question, and any other that may have followed.

EMC2

Yes...thankyou Jackfish for typing all those words. Since we're talking about people getting hurt, possibly killed, and since you are openly advocating loading the 45-70 1895 to pressures way above what Marlin specifies, I'm assuming you can provide the following:

Mechanical Engineering analysis showing that the 1895, 45-70 is a sound design, with safety margin, at the pressures you indicated.
Manufacturing process information showing how the 1895 parts are spec'd, procurred and assembled to operate at the pressures you specified.


Please provide this, so that an 1895 45-70 owner, who is reloading to the pressures you specified, won't worry that his rifle might be a Friday build with a soft barrel or a reciever that fell off the heat treatment line.

Hello,
I very much agree with Sahibdla and his remarks regarding providing reloading data in conflict with known data provided by the mfg. of a given firearm. Over the years, many people have asked me to give them loads of a round but I always tell them to refer to the loading manuals of their choice. Do I always use the exact loads in the manuals, no, but that is me and my risk, not someone else and I would be solely responsible. Any variance I may make with loads is indeed small and certainly not varying from some 28,000 to 40,000plus in pressure. The data given may well be exactly correct, but who knows for sure just what will happen in a given Marlin or any other rifle?? Scary stuff and like my father used to say, "don't test the water with both feet, it might be real deep!!" It is not my intent to be harsh or super critical, but only to urge to use caution in any reloading operation and adhere to factual data.
dsiteman
Favor Center!!

It is unnecessary to provide the information dla requests. Marlin supports the SAAMI pressure specification of 28,000 PSI for the 45-70 because it is a member of SAAMI, not because their firearm is physically limited to that pressure. He obviously cannot read. The analysis has already been done within the shooting community and is well documented. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Marlin 444 is manufactured to one standard and that somehow the Marlin 1895 to a lesser standard. If he would read and understand my original post he would see that all the information to make an informed decision whether or not to load the Marlin 1895 45-70 to 40,000 CUP is there.

Hodgdon has been publishing pressure tested 40,000 CUP loads for the 45-70 in the Marlin 1895 since 1998. There has been no report or evidence that any Marlin 1895 45-70 rifle has been damaged by any load between 28,000 and 40,000 CUP. That is over 30 years of experience that shows the Marlin 1895 45-70 has a safe operating pressure of 40,000 CUP.

dla has proffered his argument before at Marlin Talk and MarlinOwners and it has not been sustained in either place. He is such a reputable source of opinion that he has been kicked off of MarlinOwners, indeed partly because of endlessly repeating the same old, tired arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

http://www.marlinowners.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=2867&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=40+000&start=0

It is unnecessary to provide the information dla requests.

Because it doesn't exist.

Oh and by the way, does Hodgdon Powder manufacture Marlin 1895s? I figured they must since you cite them as evidence that your loading suggestions are safe.

dla,

Can you produce a mechanical engineering analysis that the Marlin 444 is a sound design, with safety margin, at 44,000 CUP? Can you produce a mechanical engineering analysis that the Marlin 1895M or 1895MR is a sound design, with safety margin, at 43,500 PSI? Can you produce manufacturing process information showing how the Marlin 444 parts are spec'd, procurred and assembled to operate at 44,000 CUP? Can you produce manufacturing process information showing how the Marlin 1895M or 1895MR parts are spec'd, procurred and assembled to operate at 43,500 PSI?

Because you can't, does that mean they aren't sound at those pressures?

The Marlin 1895 was proofed tested at 56,000 MAP (CUP) when it was created and manufactured in 1972. This just happens to be within the ANSI/SAAMI Z299.4-1992 Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Rifle Sporting Ammunition for the use of Commercial Manufacturers for a service pressure of 40,000 MAP (CUP). It continues to be proofed at this level today, which exceeds the ANSI/SAAMI service pressure standards for the 45-70 by 43%. I wonder why?

Because you can't, does that mean they aren't sound at those pressures?


No, it means that the manufacturer, Marlin Firearms Co, certifies them safe at that pressure. And for some reason, Marlin refuses to do the same with the 45-70.

Therefore, Marlin can have terrible quality control (probably the reason why Jim West doesn't use Marlin parts for his co-pilot anymore) and still operate safely at 28K psi.

It continues to be proofed at this level today,

Proof please. If you have proof of this testing on today's rifles, like a statement from Marlin, it would be the first shred of evidence from Marlin that the 1895 is OK at 40Kpsi.

And for some reason, Marlin refuses to do the same with the 45-70.The only reason is the SAAMI limitation based on other older, weaker rifles, not the Marlin 1895. They are a member of SAAMI so they will not recommend any other 45-70 ammunition for the Marlin 1895 than that which is SAAMI compliant. That has nothing to do with the actual strength of the Marlin 1895 action. That is something that you continue to refuse to acknowledge. That is your choice, don't make it right though....it would be the first shred of evidence from Marlin that the 1895 is OK at 40Kpsi.You have ignored any other evidence; Marlin at one time said in their own literature that the Marlin 1895 45-70 could be loaded higher than loads intended for older rifles. Marlin's joint press release with Hornady on the introduction of the 450 Marlin says the 450 Marlin was introduced to provide a cartridge with the potential of the 45-70 in the Marlin 1895, yet cannot be chambered in older, weaker 45-70 rifles.


I don't have to prove anything to you. I will no longer waste my time with this foolishness. People can make up their own mind based on currently available information.

I edited this on April 27, 2005 to remove my uncalled for reference to dla as an idiot. I apologize to everyone.

They are a member of SAAMI so they will not recommend any other 45-70 ammunition for the Marlin 1895 than that which is SAAMI compliant.


Were they a member of SAAMI back in 1972?

That has nothing to do with the actual strength of the Marlin 1895 action. That is something that you continue to refuse to acknowledge.

Let me try it again: Marlin is under no obligation to ensure by design or process that the 45-70 1895 will safely handle loads above SAAMI spec of 28Kpsi. These are the people that can't cut a sear straight and ding up their barrels while stamping letters and broach cutting dovetails. You might get one that will give years of faithfull service digesting rhino-blaster loads, or you might get one that will hamer itself apart on the first box of Garret hammerheads.

OK, gents. Cool down or this thread will be locked.

Bye
Jack

Jack. Thank you.

Lee L.

sahibdla, cool it. There's a mountain of published data for the .45-70 for Marlins, et al. Even Ken Waters concluded the same thing, and he's still got all of his fingers over the years.

You seem to enjoy taking jackfish to task, but once is enough. This isn't the purpose of the forum. Anymore and you can find some place else to play.

I imagine, that to some degree it is my place to respond here, as the original author of this much tangentially tracked thread. This was not intended, and I do apologize to the members.

sahibdla, I appreciate your apparent commitment to safety, but perhaps your engagement could have been worded to the likes of dsiteman. I asked the question and am thankful for the response, but placed awkwardly when the question fuels hostility.

Thank you,
EMC2

Gentlemen -

We certainly don't need running battles imported from other boards to be continued on this one. These forums are established for freely exchanged information and ideas. You've taken enough bandwith on this board to air your differences.

Please refrain from further bickering on this subject.

A similar comparison would be the Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt. The SAAMI maximum average pressure of the .45 Colt is about 14,500 PSI but it is widely accepted and proven that a Blackhawk in this caliber will handle a steady diet of 20,000 to 25,000 PSI loads with no undue wear. A Marlin loaded to 40,000 PSI might show accelerated wear over an identical rifle loaded to SAAMI specs but you'd probably have to live a long time to see it. As far as safety I'll bet you guys using your Marlin .45-70s at 40,000 PSI are way better off than me riding my 310 horsepower turbobike.

EMC2..

Hope this gives you some background info about the 1895. If I owned one, one day I will, I would use Hodgdon's loading data. It states " For Marlin 1895 Rifles Only" and lists loads to 40K. Using Hodgdon's data and powder, the 45-70 will do anything the 450 Marlin will do.

Jackfish is correct with the facts. I have every Marlin catalog from 1965 to present. When the 1895 was reintroduced Marlin Knew it would not be impressive with factory loads. Marlin made a big effort to promote reloading on the pages that featured the 1895. In quickly scanning the pages, this seems to have stopped when the lawyers started to run the company and warning stamps on barrels, cross-bolt safties, and a number of other product liability proofing ideas started. The bottom line is that the 1895 would have never been the outstanding success it is today without Marlin and Joe Blow handloader. Whoa, that is tough for a 444-Nut to say but it is a fact just as it is a fact the sun came up today!

For what it is worth, Lyman 47th lists three levels of loads for the 45/70.
1. Trapdoor
2. Marlin
3. Ruger No 1

The Marlin level loads are ballistically the same as the 450M

EMC2..

Hope this gives you some background info about the 1895. If I owned one, one day I will, I would use Hodgdon's loading data. It states " For Marlin 1895 Rifles Only" and lists loads to 40K. Using Hodgdon's data and powder, the 45-70 will do anything the 450 Marlin will do.

Jackfish is correct with the facts. I have every Marlin catalog from 1965 to present. When the 1895 was reintroduced Marlin Knew it would not be impressive with factory loads. Marlin made a big effort to promote reloading on the pages that featured the 1895. In quickly scanning the pages, this seems to have stopped when the lawyers started to run the company and warning stamps on barrels, cross-bolt safties, and a number of other product liability proofing ideas started. The bottom line is that the 1895 would have never been the outstanding success it is today without Marlin and Joe Blow handloader. Whoa, that is tough for a 444-Nut to say but it is a fact just as it is a fact the sun came up today!

Ranchdog-That was good.I have never seen that one..Thanks.
Jayco

The above message thread is interesting and covers just about all there is to say on the topic except for cases. I've got an 1895GS in 45/70. I purposely bought this after a lot of research indicated to me, as this forum has, that the round in a Marlin 1895 would do very nicely thankyou at about the same as the 450M, and in a pinch, I'd be far more likely to find factory ammo out inthe backwoods of wherever, with one IMPORTANT caveat - the cases. the 450M has a MUCH thicker web and head than most 45/70 cases, therefore, in the absence of other factors it it stronger. That said, my qualifier in the previous sentence was the word "MOST". I personally use Starline cases - they are beefier than other brands. With these cases, I have never had head separation issues. Other lesser brands "might" not produce the same results. Remember, SAAMI specs only apply to the exterior dimensions of cases.

The above message thread is interesting and covers just about all there is to say on the topic except for cases. I've got an 1895GS in 45/70. I purposely bought this after a lot of research indicated to me, as this forum has, that the round in a Marlin 1895 would do very nicely thankyou at about the same as the 450M, and in a pinch, I'd be far more likely to find factory ammo out inthe backwoods of wherever, with one IMPORTANT caveat - the cases. the 450M has a MUCH thicker web and head than most 45/70 cases, therefore, in the absence of other factors it it stronger. That said, my qualifier in the previous sentence was the word "MOST". I personally use Starline cases - they are beefier than other brands. With these cases, I have never had head separation issues. Other lesser brands "might" not produce the same results. Remember, SAAMI specs only apply to the exterior dimensions of cases.The brass differences between the 45-70 and 450 Marlin is really an non-issue where Marlin lever guns are concerned. The thinnest 45-70 brass currently manufactured is Whichester. Winchester 45-70 brass has been tested to 70,000 PSI without failure. Indeed, the 45-70 is loaded to 50,000 CUP in the Ruger #1 and Siamese Mauser. So, it is the rifle action that is the limiting factor with these loads, not the brass. In addition, the area of the case that is most subject to failure after repeated acceptable use is about the same in both the 45-70 and the 450 Marlin and that is at the case neck and mouth, where the brass in both is worked the most. There is no evidence that 450 Marlin brass will last any longer than 45-70 brass using loads acceptable in the Marlin 1895. 450 Marlin brass is significantly more expensive than 45-70 brass. The construction/configuration of the 450 Marlin case will make a difference when the 450 Marlin is loaded in a modern bolt action rifle to 65,000 PSI.

The only reason Marlin produced the .450 is because selling .45-70 ammo loaded to .450 specs was too risky. If I owned a .450, I'd try to buy all the brass I thought I'd ever need before it falls off the map.

jackfish
I know how you feel in dealing with the likes of (sahibdla)! I wonder if he actually reloads or is just one of those Nanny staters that likes to complain! I had to put up with this same mentality when discussing the reloading of the 454 Casull in the Puma. Alot of folks don't understand that it's us reloaders that actually push the limits of rounds and equipment. Which can be done with careful testing and the proper tools. I can't count the numbers of rounds that have been improved by reloader over the years! If it wasn't for us there would be no Improved round(ACKLEY) no wild cat rounds etc.