Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I see Tomray posting on here so I am directing my question to him. I think he may know the streight scoop on this. Something that has always bugged me about the 1894 in 44 magnum is its 1:38 twist. I saw nothing wrong with microgroove barrel, but was glad to see the switch to ballard barrels because I figured they would correct the slow twist like they did in the 444's and 45-70's. Now the rub, why in heven's name would they go to all the trouble to switch to ballard rifling and stay with a 1:38 twist instead of going to a 1:16......1:18......1:20 ? It kept buyers like me from purchasing the new models and especially the cowboy models when they were produced and thus was another factor that added to their demise. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,448 Posts
jgt, I'm sure Tomray will pick up on this and answer. He has commented before that Marlin trials showed no marked difference in accuracy with tighter twist barrels. I am with you in the wish for tighter. With the limitations placed on the 1894 action due to cartridge overall length, 1:20 would have been just fine. I have had two .44s and have tried out those belonging to others. They will shoot minute of hog or deer with bullets up to about 300 grains, but tack drivers, they were not. I like accurate firearms so that the margin of error can rest with me. I don't really want the error compounded by a 2.5"-4" @ 100 ( 5-8 @ 200 ) added to my wiggle. I have considered a custom barrel several times, but something else seems to come along and get in the way of that project. Stick with HARD cast of 240 grains and you should be able to get under or near the 2.5" marker, with the right combination of hand load components. Realistically, they will penetrate a deer from stem to stern. Best wishes, Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks for your reply, I wondered if that was what happened. If that was their reason, at least it was based upon something I can understand. I think they missed the boat, but at least their reasons have validity.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top