Alright, I'm a bolt and single shot rifle guy, but my best friend wants a lever in .30-30. There's a decent looking Win. 94AE for $300 available, what are the pros and cons of this gun vs. say a Henry lever in .30-30? Is this a good price? I think it is, but you guys will know more than I on this one.

I saw a brand new plain Jane birch stocked Marlin 336 for $311 this afternoon? I like the Marlins better.

My bud doesn't like the Marlins for some reason, he is aesthetically picky. He wants a Henry or Winchester. He looked at the pics and he'll be buying this one. It's an AE with no crossbolt safety. I'm sure he'll enjoy it.

.

He will indeed, and that is a good price. The gun was made after 1983 and before 1990.

I have one, mine has checkered walnut wood, good shooter, easy to mount a scope on, light, handy and mine has pretty darn good accuracy out to the 100yds I have it sighted in for.
I'd say that's a very good price.

He has a really nice rifle and a good hunting tool, that is if you can believe about 7,500,000 other folks. I kind of prefer Marlins myself but have had three or four 94's and they are great rifles. Almost nothing else handles like a Winchester 94.

The Marlin 336 is an excellent gun, so good in fact, that it appears Rossi will soon be releasing their Marlin copy. About the only issues with the 336 are the consistent use of far too bloated forearms and the continued use of microgroove rifling, an issue only with those who shoot cast bullets, afflicting some, not all, MG barrels.
That said, the 336 feels to me like a heavier, slower gun than the 94.
The angle eject was the solution for those who think that every long gun needs to be equipped with a large, looming metal tube to peer through. For those who prefer to preserve the handling characteristics intrinsic to the 94's original design, the angle eject is a non essential feature.
If the rifling is strong all the way to the muzzle it will shoot very well. Folks forget that there is a big difference between field accuracy and shooting tiny groups off the bench. Properly zeroed with the load of choice, the 94AE will pick off deer will amazing ease.

That is a good price, and he does have the option of optic sights. I have an M94 that is pre-AE, but I have fitted it with a Williams FP receiver sight, which significantly reduced the size of the groups I fired with it at 100 yards, allows me to pick up moving targets easier, and has totally preserved the handling characteristics of the rifle.

I think it would be a good choice.

My biggest complaint with a Marlin.



Especially with a good receiver sight.

I love the Marlin 336 .35's and Winchester 94 .32's equally, but for different reasons. And both in .30-30, also. I don't own a Henry due to their bad press. I have replaced the rear sight blade with a $35 "One Ragged Hole" peep on several of each. (Some love them and some hate them). The William's 5D peep is another great option. Good luck.

If I were him I would be looking for a well worn pre 64 30-30 in the same price range. They are out there and in good enough shape.

Absolutely. They outshoot the 94 all day long. I did own both several times and tested them. I now own a Marlin 336 in a thutty-thutty.

Absolutely. They outshoot the 94 all day long. I did own both several times and tested them. I know own a Marlin 336 in a thutty-thutty. [/quote]

This has not been my experience. I have several Marlins and Winchesters. The Model 94AE is a very accurate rifle regardless of caliber.
In every case I have looked at the Winchester rifles have smoother barrels. Without exception every Marlin rifle I have looked at has tight spots under the barrel stamp, rear sight and front sight.
Both rifles have poor triggers.
There is nothing really wrong with either rifle but if you ever have your hands on Model 94AE in 25-35WCF don�t let it go, it is a very accurate rifle.
The new 308MX is the only Marlin lever action I have seen that will shoot with the 25-35. I have only shot three of them but if they are like these, the 308MX with Hornady factory ammunition sets a new standard for out of the box lever action accuracy.

In my experience, once you have properly zeroed your rifle for its load, the Winchester 94 is one of the most field accurate guns available to riflemen today.
This is not intended to disparage Marlin, its simply that personal experience has proven the 94 to be far more nimble, and to set onto the target in a way that for myself at least, allows me to "feel" the shot before it is touched off.
Further, I find that Marlin sights are often very hard to pick up quickly.
I like Marlin guns, they deserve our respect, because they are very, very good, strong, and durable arms. It is simply that the Winchester 94 provides that intangible edge that truly is the melding of man and rifle.

With my handloads featuring the 160 FTX and the 150 Hornady rn's my Marlin shoots right at MOA and sometimes below. Now in all honesty I have never gotten a 94 to shoot that well.

In the Win.v.Marlin debate, Ive always been a Winchester fan..

That being said..I gotta agree with Irakilon..

I have seen more than one Marlin shoot like that....

I have seen less than one Winchester shoot like that...

Ingwe

I am a big fan of the 307 Winchester. My Model 94 Big Bore rifle using a 3x scope will shoot 2 different bullets down close to the 1� mark at 100-yards � from the bench - using full power-hunting loads � 3 shot groups. The 2 bullets are the Speer 130-grain JFN Hot Core and the older smooth side 150-grain Barnes X. Both of these bullets have delivered a good number of 3 shot groups which have measured less than 1� using the RCBS Load Target Tool to measure the groups (I shoot fewer 1� groups when using Target Tool to measure them and I have complained about this to Greg Mushial, he wrote the software). This rifle has been worked on a little having a 3 pound trigger and a loose magazine tube. This Winchester 307 rifle shoots these two bullets well enough I have no qualms about saying: �Watch this�.� As I sit down to shoot. I have been embarrassed a few times too.
In general terms I like to believe all of the modern lever action rifles shooting full power hunting loads (not necessarily maximum loads) are capable of delivering sub 2� groups at 100-yards, shooting 3 shot groups. Many of these rifles must be lightly tuned before they will deliver this level of performance. It is also quite easy to shoot two shots at �� with a third shot opening the group to 2�. Consistency from the bench when shooting lever action rifles is difficult.

I have a 22� barrel Marlin 308MX which right out of the box has displayed remarkable accuracy using both factory ammunition and handloads. Marlin has taken care in fitting the locking bolt to the sliding bolt and used nylon strips to ensure the magazine tube remains free and does not bind the barrel. This rifle will get very close to the magic 1� mark but I do not believe it is a: �one inch rifle.�
Seattleloader posts on this board and he has two custom Marlins barreled for the 307 Winchester cartridges by Mr. Nonneman and these are indeed, 1� rifles.
Certainly any factory lever action rifle which regularly shoots groups close to 1� using full power hunting loads is a keeper.

Hornady has a great deal to be proud of with its new FTX bullet and its LeveRevolution ammunition. I have taken several deer with the FTX bullet and it creates some remarkable entrance and exit wounds. To my surprise I have not been able to get what I consider my best accuracy in rifles with Micro-groove rifling when using the FTX bullet. My Winchester rifles have delivered better accuracy using the Hornady factory ammunition and component bullets. In Micro-groove rifling I have received my best accuracy using jacketed bullets with good bearing surface and a short nose. With cast bullets my best accuracy comes from LBT bullets of the short nose variety, the LFN bullets giving good hunting accuracy.
I prefer the 170-grain bullets for hunting use in the .30 caliber rifles and unfortunately these bullets have not delivered quite as small groups as the lighter bullets in my Winchester and Marlin rifles.
I enjoy shooting both the Marlin and the Winchester lever action rifles and have no real preference for either brand. I am very interested in the lever action cartridges and derive a great deal of enjoyment from studying their history and loading for them.

In my opinion, there is shooting off the bench, and then there is real shooting. Shooting off the bench does not truly reflect accuracy, it is only a measure of consistency of gun, components, and shooter.
True accuracy happens in the real world. I do not find most 94's to be bench accurate to the point of bragging and pinning up targets on the garage wall. I do find that they are quick, nimble, and impressively accurate in the field. I have center hit a 2' x 3' square off hand at 70 yards with my 30+ year old 94 in 30 WCF. I'm not blowing my own horn, I'm saying that the rifle is capable of this kind of shooting. I have yet to have a Marlin that shoots this well.
Marlins are great guns, I'm glad that they, unlike so many Winchesters, are made right here in the USA, by American craftspeople. It sounds to me like you have an excellent example, I'd keep a hold of it, if I were you.

I agree with the thought these are hunting rifles designed to be shot off-hand.
The full forend of the Marlin rifles are a legacy of the NRA type stocks of which Townsend Whelen and E. C. Crossman had influence in the design of. An interesting read is from the 1996 Gun Digest, an article by: Gary M. Brown, �The Whelen Models; Winchesters Ultimate Lever Guns.� There is far more information which could have been included � but not in a magazine type article I�ll wager � about the influence of various gunwriters from 1900 through the 1920�s on rifle/stock design, sights and other accessories for hunting rifles. Still, Gary Brown�s article is a very good one.

Several years ago my father and I spent considerable time and no small amount of money experimenting with every type of iron sight we could lay our hands on. We tried many different types and sizes of front sights and different types of open and peep receiver sights. This was great fun and proved to us the value of the open rear sight for moving targets at close range. We did find the individual shooters eye sight had great affect on his preferred diameter/width and color of front bead or post sight.
For quite awhile I had good hunting luck with my 16� barrel Winchester Trapper in 30-30 using a Marbles flat top folding open rear sight with windage and the flat top post sight. I later switched to the Lyman No. 2 tang sight � a fine hunting sight miss-understood by most of today�s shooters � and a large white bead front sight. My father�s sharper eyes were better served by the same outfit on his rifle using a small white bead front sight. The gold bead sights did not provide the contrast we needed for snap shooting in our primarily brown country side.
When Marbles came out with their copy of the Redfield Sourdough I switched to this sight and have found to be the best for my eyes in all types of hunting situations. Others I have spoken with had to narrow the Sourdough blade in order to get the best results. Fortunalty, it is quite easy to narrow the blade.

Francis Sell in his three books: �The American Deer Hunter�, �Advanced Deer Hunting� and �Small Game Hunting� describes the various open sights and their selection and use quite well. Sell may have been one of the last of the post WWII gunwriters who used iron sights extensively and wrote about their serious use on hunting rifles up into the 1960�s. Sell designed the Cascade Snap Shooter which we see marketed today as the XS sight, and I believe Francis Sell�s sight was a modification of an earlier sight.
Sell wrote you needed a small front sight to shoot small groups. With good eyes and or good light this is certainly true. With the late day sun on my back I shoot the small beads very well.
Sell also wrote of the �understudy rifle.� I was heavily influenced by his thoughts on small game hunting and his understudy rifles. The trajectory of the 46-grain 218 Bee and the 200-grain 348 Winchester are very similar and make off season small game hunting valuable practice for hunting in the fall and winter.
Today the 218 Bee in the Marlin 1894 and the 356 Winchester in the Big Bore rifle make a fine pair of rifles for the year round lever gunner.

I found the differences in �ergonomics� easily adjusted to between the Winchester and Marlin rifles. My problems arose when switching to the Savage 99 and hunting moving game in the brush. You fingers grow accustomed to jabbing a hammer to full cock and the finger lever safety of the Savage 99 requires some learning by repetitive motion.
The lever action of the Marlin and Winchester are just different enough to interrupt the smooth flow of the lever until you become accustomed to the change. Switching from the tubular magazine lever action to the Savage 99 will befuddle you in the beginning. The lever of the Savage leaps open at the shot but has a different arc which throws off the timing of the arm used to the Marlin or Winchester lever. The resistance of the cock-on-closing Model 99 requires several hours of dry firing and practice at the range to become natural and smooth, all part of the fun.
Shooting at clay birds on a dirt bank or the new Bullet Blast exploding targets quickly develops the rhythm and provides hours of fun.

The Winchester/Marlin debates have been a hot button topic for a very long time. Writers such as Maurice H. Decker and Horace Kephart refereed the fight prior to 1920. Paul Curtis, Warren H. Miller and E. C. Crossman donned the striped shirts and carried on into the �20�s and �30�s. A review of Fur News, Outing, Recreation and Shields magazines will present you will all of the small bore vs. big bore, open vs. peep sight, Winchester vs. Marlin debates that you care to read.

William:

As you said the 94 Big Bires are indeed accurate guns. I believe that the thicker stouter barrels do make for accurate ones.

At least this has indeed been the case of all my 356 Winchesters.

William, I am not intending to revitalize the M vs W fight. I am fortunate enough to own both, and I didn't even realize there was a "fight". I am speaking only for myself, and only from my own experience.
Various types of stock design have come and gone from both manufacturers, however, it is generally true that M. prefers a large, in my opinion, overly large forearm, which negatively impacts handling.
Not all Winchesters are light and nimble, but the 94 certainly is.
Yes, aftermarket sights have long been available, and thankfully, marbles, williams, and other continue to produce them.
Thanks for writing about your experience, it was insightful.

Sorry, I didn�t mean to make it sound like that. This is actually a very civil discussion compared to some!
Between 1900 and about 1908 there was quite a fight in the magazine shooting columns between Marlin and Winchester fans. It seems to have started about the time of the �Game hog� fights and the coming of game bag limits and seasons. Then the big bore and small bore fans started a fight over killing power: The .45 and .50 caliber fans disparaging the .30 U.S. Army and the Newton and Ross cartridges - and then their rifles. Then the inevitable fights over whether the 32 Winchester special was a better killer than the 32-40 or the 30-30. The fight gradually became: �My Marlin is better than your Winchester.� It ended up with John Marlin releasing a book titled: �The Original Game Hog� which slandered Shields. At this time there was also a fight over whether the pump shotgun was a sportsman�s weapon and then there were accusations that Peter�s shells wouldn�t extract from a Winchester Model 12 and Peters pulled their advertising, which caused the subscribers to write in with tales of success and failure with Peters shells�
If you remember the old Marlin talk forum where passions sometimes became heated you know the pot is still simmering 100 years later!

I agree we should be thankful that Marbles, Lyman, Williams and others still make sights. I wish Marlin had not decided to stop drilling their rifles for a side mounted receiver sight. The new Williams sight for the Marlins interferes with your thumb. I also wish Lyman had built a sight for the Angle Eject Winchesters. There are a number of advantages to the Lyman receiver sight over the Williams but Lyman appears to have been very short sighted with their marketing plan.
I enjoy discussing iron sights and snap shooting. My eyes are very poor and I cannot affectively use the newer fiber optic sights and the floating dot sights don�t seem to appeal to me.

Good history lesson there...sorta puts things into perspective. I guess its best said that most people who love rifles have their favorites, and are often overbearing about their choices. I've made this mistake more than once. I actually think there is no one size fits all rifle. Experience brings a greater perspective to life-at least it can.
My problem with the Marlin sights largely lies with the combination of shallow v express type rear-with a front post/bead which is impossible for my eyes to pick up in low light conditions. Even their semi buckhorn barrel sights don't seem to allow enough light in on both sides of the front post to allow my eyes to easily pick it up.
When I find myself hunting for the front sight, I know I need to choose something different.
I actually thought about replacing the front sight with a Marble's green fiber optic for visibility, but it seems you are suggesting that fiber optic sights are less precise than irons.
I have not used fiber optic sights enough to actually know how they might impact my shooting.
Winchester iron sights have a much better arrangement for my eyes. I find it simple to pick up the front sight, even in full shadow.
I don't know that receiver sights actually aid in accurate shooting, but I do believe they make getting the rifle into battery a faster proposition.
Anyhow, if you could go into more detail regarding your experience with fiber-optics, I would appreciate it.

I've been using FO sight exclusively on all my rifles that carry iron sights, some F/R, others front only w/peep, steadily converting them since FO sights came on the market, years ago.

As posted above, each human is a little different, in both their eyesight and the way they look at sights.

Added to that, some have no idea that FO front sight beads are available in the exact same sizes as their cherished Ivory and Gold Bead front sights ( 1/16"/fine and 3/32"/not fine ) and in two different colors (red or green) from various manufacturers like Williams, TruGlo, and Hi-Viz.

There can be a quantum increase in accuracy from a rifle just by switching from an open rear barrel sight to a receiver or tang peep sight - why do you think International target shooters use them when they're allowed ?

IMO, the reasons behind those having "problems" with a peep sight are that:
usually too small an aperture is used for hunting (often a small target arp ILO a larger ghost ring),
and ( the biggie) attempting to center the front sight in the peep aperture ILO simply looking through the aperture w/o looking at it, and looking instead at only the front sight, placing it on the target (game).

.

I agree neither maker, Winchester or Marlin provides ideal open sights for their rifles.
In West Texas there are areas of chained brush which have been allowed to grow back with mesquite, cactus and cedar. These are exciting areas for hunting, turkey, deer and pigs. The ranges are short and the shooting fast, the game is in motion when you first sight it. The open sight has a place here and for my eyes, I have found little difference between the tang, receiver and open sight when the shot is taken at 30-yards or closer. For me the size and color of the front sight has been the most important aspect of �shooting close.� My eyesight is poor; there is no other way to describe it. The variables of frontal light and side shadows are tough for the fiber optic front sight to overcome. I shoot better with the large white bead or a flat top post � the Sourdough is my favorite. With the light on my back the gold insert shows up well but generally I see the black flat top post. The Sourdough combined with the Marbles flat top folding s for me, a very fast combination to acquire.

I have only met one person who could shoot the fiber optic sight well and I believe this young man could shoot any sight well. I am certain there are others for whom the FO sights works well but when facing into the morning or afternoon sun, I cannot acquire it.

When the shooting distance gets much beyond 50-yards the tang and receiver sight are for me, superior rear sights.

If you are interested in close shooting a good place to start is an article by Ken Warner in the 1964 issue of Gun Digest titled: �Practice for Pointblank Precision.�

I am no expert on sights but have owned probably (12) Model 94 variants and (6) Model 336 variants (counting the 1895's). The marlin Microgrooves are more accurate and probably the cut groove barrels as well, than Model 94 Winchesters. However, I like tha looks and feel of the Model 94 better and all of the ones that I have fired have shot 3-1/2 inch groups or better at 100 yards. The Model 1895 that I own, on the other hand, can shoot MOA with handloads.

The Model 94, .32 Win Spec. that I use now, is accurate within 2 inch groups at 100 yards and will push a 170 gr bullet at 2400 fps. This is faster and has more energy than any .30-30 load.

I like both rifles and hope that they retool and make Model 94's again and keep making Model 336's and it variants, including the 1894 Marlin. There is a place in the woods for both. They both have earned the respect that they receive.

Well, the reason I question whether a receiver sight actually aids accuracy is because I can't tell if I shoot any more accurately with one or without one.
Some of my best shooting has occurred with the semi buckhorn barrel sight. I like receiver sights more than I like barrel sights because they are much faster, and for my needs in the steep and brushy mountains, faster means greater chance of getting a good shot off.
I think target shooters of various types have used receiver sights for over 100 years, so it could be as much tradition as any reality of excellence.
In my limited experience with fiber optic sights, I have found them to be extremely bright. What I think William is getting at is that this brightness throws off standard viewing of the front sight.
It is interesting to consider that there are different size fiber optic beads/tubes. The question is, does the difference in size offer a measurable difference in brightness?
I have heard from at least one other who uses fiber optics regularly that he finds them to be less precise than standard irons.
I don't think that riflemen or riflemakers of the past were quite as caught up in the marketing hype and newer is better stuff thrown at us today. There was a reason to go with gold or ivory beads, and it has a lot to do with picking up light-but not too much light.
I never got a chance to put it to a field test, but a friend had gotten ahold of one of the few 94's chambered in .450 Marlin. This gun was set up with a tall post front sight and a large aperture rear. What was unique about the front post was the white line insert. I believe the manufacturer was A-O sight systems. Wish I could have tested it, I felt it had promise.