Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Another Ruger/Marlin just arrived

If deer hunters in the lower 48 were buying lever guns in such cartridges - Marlin would still be Marlin right now.

I know several deer hunters here who bought .30-30's in the last 5 years. Not a solitary soul who bought a .45-70. Even Wal-Mart sold lever action.30-30's and .30-30 ammo. They didn't sell .45-70's. Beyond that Marlin also made .45-70's when it was still JM Marlin.

I wonder why they aren't going with a synthetic stock. If it makes sense for other rifles, why not lever guns?

Not sure why Ruger chose to start with the 1895's, but they do show the 336 and model 1894 on their site, although not currently available. The 336 indicates it will be chambered for 30-30 and 35 Rem. The 1894 doesn't say, but surely 44 will be on the list.

I know they say they're going to make 336's and 1894's eventually. I just find it odd they chose to start with the 1895's. Hopefully they don't fuuck up the 336's and 1894's with big loop levers, threaded muzzles and laminated stocks. If they do they can keep the ugly damn things as far as I'm concerned.

The .45-70 is now legal for deer in several midwestern states so I'm wondering how much of that new demand is driving Ruger's choices? The QC on some of their product lines ain't nothing to write home about (SP101, I'm looking at you) but their marketing force has been scoring a lot of home runs.

If they can build a 1894 that’s as accurate as these 1895s, I’ll buy it regardless of the lever style. Sub MOA from a big bore lever action is extremely impressive.

There's a lot of us deer/black bear hunters that like to use a 45-70. It's a great deer cartridge

How ugly do you want it to be?

If a good quality synthetic stock could shave 6 or 8 Ounces vs the laminated stock I'd be interested. As popular as suppressors have become I'd think there would be a strong market for a Trapper version properly twisted for heavy bullets in .357 .44 Mag or even though some would really think would be blasphemy .45 Colt.

I can guarantee that I have/own the finest Marlin collection around The Campfire, bar none. It's not even close.

Not a single Remlin in the bunch ... all fine examples of New Haven JM stamped craftsmanship at its finest.

I'll eventually own one of these Ruger varients ... grudgingly. It'll be when they come up with something I don't already have because Ruger will make them great again. But they need to get down in the dirt with the 1894s and 336s if they're going to be taken seriously and not looked upon as a niche boutique maker of leverguns. Instead of more 45-70s they need to push out a few 444s, etc. Then step down and get serious with the 1894s to include one to go with their 327 Mag, et al.

Then they can step back into the necked-down stuff and do it like Henry did it with the Long Ranger series. Marlin actually had the right idea and built a helluva rifle for a helluva cartridge in their 308 MX and 338 MX offerings ... but Hornaday failed to support it which validated Henry's claim that you should never ever collaborate with Hornaday for a wildcat because they don't go both ways. Hornaday always wants rifle mfgs to support their new cartridges/calibers but they'll never do the same when the roles are reversed.

Henry already upped the anty on price but Marlin/Ruger has to be careful going there.

As ugly as all the bolt and semi-auto rifles where synthetic stocks are not only available, but also more prevalent than wood.

I've only ever known one deer hunter around here who used a .45-70 in contrast to dozens who used .30-30's, .35's and .44 mags.. Our group got together for a day of deer drives two seasons back. Of the six of us, three showed up with lever action .30-30's and one with a .308 MX. Not saying a .45-70 won't kill deer but not many choose it at least around here. As for myself, I hucked enough ponderous slugs at deer years back when I hunted the shotgun zone to last me a lifetime.

I hate a laminate stock.

Teal,

"If deer hunters in the lower 48 were buying lever guns in such cartridges - Marlin would still be Marlin right now".



If Marlin had not been bought up by the Freedom Group, both Marlin and H&R would still be in business making the guns they were famous for. Instead they went right down the toilet with Remington.

Agree, they look cheesy.

To be bought - you had to be for sale. Why did Marlin and H&R sell? I'm wondering why a company would sell if they were making wood/blue lever actions with good margin and that was unlikely to change?

For the love of God, Ruger please bring back the semi-auto .44 Ruger Carbine.

One article or interview mentioned that Ruger started with the 1895 because it was the model most in demand.

Bruce