Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Trying to decide between the Trapper and the SBL.
I have 2 1894 CSBL's and love the way they handle.
Looking to make a move to 45-70 for a bigger punch when needed.
The primary concern is the weight difference between the 2 guns and how it will effect the handling.
Advertised weight of the 1894 CSBL is 6.5 lbs, the Trapper is 7 lbs, the SBL is 8 lbs.
I also have a Henry Long Ranger in 223 and don't like the balance of it. Feels front heavy for me.
I really like the feel of the 1894 CSBL and the Trapper seems like it would be close to the same feel but wondering if the added weight of the 1895 SBL is a better option with the 45-70.
I am not recoil sensitive and actually enjoy shooting full load 12 guage 3 inch rounds from my various shotguns.
Not sure if I plan to put optics on it or not.
Love my Eotech 512 on one of my CSBL's. Helps the old eyes.
Anyway, looking for anyone that has shot both of them and can shed some opinion on the difference is the swing and balance of the two.
Or anyone that has some input that can help me decide between the two.

Thanks
David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I've held them both at the LGS, and to me, the SBL felt better balanced. It felt odd holding the trapper in front of the lever because it is so short.

Is the SBL a full pound heavier because of the laminated stocks?

Hopefully someone who owns both can chime in for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,920 Posts
I held them both and ended up getting the SBL. I just liked that way it balanced for me. But at my age and my tired old eyes I ended up scoping it and putting a recoil pad on it replacing the factor as my love for recoil is gone also. (sigh)It is short enough to be a brush gun for me and the handload I worked up for it is phenominal for accuracy. It's my go to gun out of all of mine unless I'm shooting varmints. Then it either my 22-250 or my 223. Good luck with your decision and let us know what youo ended up with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,300 Posts
I would go with the 1895 SBL. plus it will match your 1894CSBL.

But if you want something different get the trapper.

(I'm just not a fan of the black painted wood on the Trapper. )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
I have the 1894 CSBL and LOVE it!

I also have a JM 1894 in 44 magnum with a 20" barrel.
It's a great rifle and handles/balances well, but I have always liked the 16" Trapper rifles.

The 1895 SBL is not something you see here in NJ.
I wanted one, but was told the LGS wouldn't be able to get one.
I did find an 1895 Trapper, and it was still in the LGS a month or two later, so I bought it!
I like it - it IS very handy and I like it's balance.

If I ever find an 1895 SBL I will get it - I love the rail for optics, and it just looks COOL!
The longer barrel will also do more justice ballistically to the .45/70 cartridge.

I think you'll be happy with either, but if you're able to get your hands on one of each, good luck deciding!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
I’m waiting for the SBL with straight grip, walnut stock and forend, and no rail. So, an 1895GS with full mag tube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
Well I have the GBL and while different than what you asked about, that 18.5 inch barrel really shoots. I am sure the 16.5 would too but that GBL is so well balanced for me.

View attachment 772085 . View attachment 772087
This is an 8 shot group at 75 yards (if memory serves correctly). 47 Grain of RL 7 under a Hornady 300 Grain HP

The LGS I found my Trapper in also had the 18.5" GBL.
The GBL IS a great rifle. I liked it's lower price.
The one that I held had a slightly rougher action (some would call it a "Remlin"), while the Trapper's action was smoother.

I have a number of blued Marlins so the stainless was more appealing.
I also had seen hickok45's 'original Trapper' videos so I kinda wanted the Trapper, in case Marlin stopped making them.

BTW: That GBL was gone the next time I was at that LGS. Someone else took it home!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
I had a 16 inch 1895. I found it difficult to shoot off hand because there was so little nose weight. It was great to carry but I struggled to shoot it as well as my SBL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Thanks for the responses.
Great input.
I realized that my biggest issue with the Trapper is the black furniture.
I just like the way the SBL looks which shouldn't be the deciding factor but it does influence me.
Looking at the cost of replacement furniture and adding a rail on the top of the Trapper I am leaning towards the SBL right now.
Wish I could get but I am way over my firearms budget right now.
Maybe I will be able to find someone in central texas that has one of each that I can handle to see how i like them.

Thanks for the input everyone.
David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
dlw,

I would really consider the reason you are purchasing the weapon. If it is for hunting I would lean strongly toward the SBL. The trapper is made, at least in my opinion for exactly what it says. Long days following trap-lines in hard country where there are animals that can be very dangerous anywhere along the route. In that situation the extra short barrel makes it exceptionally quick to bring onto a target. Although I am sure the 16" shoots well for me to purchase that gun is as a "purpose" gun only and not a day to day hunter.

Disclaimer: The opinion above is worth only what the author received in compensation for writing it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
While I have always liked western and cowboys I never was really interested in lever actions. I was kind of keeping an eye out for a Ruger #1 in 45/70 but then saw a Marlin 1895 SBL. It was love at first sight. Took a couple of years but I ended up with one and every time I fire it I find myself grinning.

Padraig
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top