Yeah, it would blow up... That much pressure in a basically sheet metal tube would not be pretty...

 

so he gave 2 explanations for the same bulge???

 

You are correct, sir! Wonder if the copywriter/editor adlibed on the photo captions.

 

The 444 has the same bulge. Guess there's a lot of mag tube detonations happening out there! 😜

 

The 444 has the same bulge. Guess there's a lot of mag tube detonations happening out there! 

Haha! Every 1895 made in the modern era!

 

Lol.....its factory friend.

 

Notice the bulge fits into the forearm.

 

Musta' happened when they were test fired from the factory. They ALL have them. Marlin designed the that way.

bkg1956 has it right.

AC

 

Please tell my wife the part about how I got it right!

 

In one photo he lays out the parts that were apparently in a detonation, showing busted cartridge cases, bent mag spring, spent powder, broken follower, but the mag tube didn’t have any other damage. I’ve always respected Brian Pierce as a gun writer, but to a Marlin owner these things don’t add up. Felt I must be missing something...

 

Just checked all of mine. Not only did the detonation leave a bulge in all my magazine tubes, it also left a spiraling lands and grooves all the way down the barrel!

 

Same here!

 

Honestly, I’m not trying to be a negative nelly or a fault finder, but it’s simple things like this that they should explain better. The content of the article is otherwise good, but that little mistake grabbed my attention to the point that I had a hard time concentrating on the rest of the article. If Brian is a member here maybe he could chime in.

Believe me, Brian Pearce knows more about guns than I will ever know!

 

[FACEPALM]

If you don't know, ask someone that does, or do the research.
A simple google search would have given Mr Price the correct info
on the bulged mag tube and why it's there.
This lends credence to the old adage about those who "assume"...

 

I agree. In all fairness, in the body of the article he does refer to the fact that Marlin placed a bulge in the mag tube for larger calibers, but then in the photo captions he says it is there due to detonation. Hence the confusion.

 

BTW, the article is on pp. 14-16, Rifle Magazine issue no. 299, July-August 2018. First pic on p. 14, second on p. 16 where the parts are laid out.

 

Gee a gun writer that didn't know what he was talking about, say it isn't so.

 

Another writer taking a Boddington...

Tim

 

A very interesting thread with some good wisecracks !! I don't know about bellies in magazine tubes but I have two vintage Model 1895's each made in 1896 within 500 serial numbers between them. Both are in .40-65 calibre and I can't see any bellies in either of them. What do you guys mean ? I know the Model 1881 in .45-70 was tested by the U.S. Army and almost accepted until one magazine tube blew apart because of a cartridge detonation because the shells were lined up too straight and recoil produced it. The Army didn't like that.

 

A modern 1895 is a different rifle than an original one. The modern one is actually based on the 336 action while the original 1895 had a bigger action.

 

The bulge in the mag tube needs to be there for the big long 45-70 or similar shells so it can make the angle turn from the loading gate into the tube. In fact if you take out the tube and polish the bulge with a Dremel and polishing rubber it helps with smooth feeding from the loading gate. You also need to make sure that your loads are not too long on overall length or the nose will miss the bulge and cause difficulty loading.

 

Just reading my latest online issue of Rifle Magazine where author Brian Pearce shows a picture of a Marlin 1895 mag tube “bulge” and says it was caused by ”detonation” of a cartridge in the mag tube. Funny...my mag tubes have the exact same “bulge” he describes, but I’ve never had a mag tube detonation of any kind.

In the article he does describe the “belly” Marlin puts in the mag tube for ease of loading, but then in a photo he says the bulge was caused by a detonation caused by two cartridges being misaligned in the mag tube. I’m sure that could happen, but I don’t think his explanation of the Marlin bulge is correct. In fact, I would think a 45-70 mag tube detonation would destroy a mag tube.

I dunno...any input?

bkg1956...input...you are asking for input??? You found this information on the internet and therefor it is true as are all other things posted on this bastion of truth and wisdom. I am frankly saddened that the good folks of this forum would stoop to questioning something that was in writing on the internet, definitely a detonation or at least a deflagration in the magazine, not a design element...WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO!!!! "Sarcasm Emoji" They need to make that emojis just for me :hmmmm:

 

yup if the bulge was caused by a detonation it would blow the tube and forearm to smithereens and most likely the shooters hand and buddy next to him. would be a mess

 

When I made my last post I hadn't read Mr Pearce's article in Rifle Magazine 2018 but I now have. I can accept that the magazine tube shown on p 16 with the bulge near it's bottom end could well be the result of a ruptured cartridge brought about by detonation. The pressures generated to expel a bullet at normal velocity require a solid wall of steel outside of the case ,to contain it, as in the breech. The pressures generated in the magazine tube would be much less. Throw a live round into a fire; the bullet stays there when the case blows. I have no idea if a modern Model 1895, whether built on a Model 336 action or not, has a 'belly' in it's magazine tube ahead of the receiver but there isn't one shown in the illustration on p 16. That bulge, is ,as he says, the result of pressure from the cartridge blow out. Certainly my vintage Models of 1895 don't have a magazine 'belly' and you're quite right that they are a much larger and heavier frame than the 336. It's essentially a Model of 1893 on steroids. Interesting that Pearce managed to get Starline to make .45-70 cases to accept small rifle primers. Theoretically that should take care of the problem but one wonders if the concentrated pressure by a bullet meplat on a small rifle primer compared to a large rifle primer might not make the smaller one more unstable ? In any event whatever we do in life carries inherent risk and we can only try to mitigate it by being sensible. I would never load even round nose bullets in a tubular magazine, and certainly not spitzers. I cast my bullets with as large a flat meplat as I can arrange, and hope for the best. Interesting that the bullet Pearce shows in his example of his detonated case on p 16 actually has a very large meplat. Must have been that guys unlucky day.

 

When I made my last post I hadn't read Mr Pearce's article in Rifle Magazine 2018 but I now have. I can accept that the magazine tube shown on p 16 with the bulge near it's bottom end could well be the result of a ruptured cartridge brought about by detonation. The pressures generated to expel a bullet at normal velocity require a solid wall of steel outside of the case ,to contain it, as in the breech. The pressures generated in the magazine tube would be much less. Throw a live round into a fire; the bullet stays there when the case blows. I have no idea if a modern Model 1895, whether built on a Model 336 action or not, has a 'belly' in it's magazine tube ahead of the receiver but there isn't one shown in the illustration on p 16. That bulge, is ,as he says, the result of pressure from the cartridge blow out. Certainly my vintage Models of 1895 don't have a magazine 'belly' and you're quite right that they are a much larger and heavier frame than the 336. It's essentially a Model of 1893 on steroids. Interesting that Pearce managed to get Starline to make .45-70 cases to accept small rifle primers. Theoretically that should take care of the problem but one wonders if the concentrated pressure by a bullet meplat on a small rifle primer compared to a large rifle primer might not make the smaller one more unstable ? In any event whatever we do in life carries inherent risk and we can only try to mitigate it by being sensible. I would never load even round nose bullets in a tubular magazine, and certainly not spitzers. I cast my bullets with as large a flat meplat as I can arrange, and hope for the best. Interesting that the bullet Pearce shows in his example of his detonated case on p 16 actually has a very large meplat. Must have been that guys unlucky day.

The Buffalo Bore 430 grain hard cast ammo is made with Starline 45-70 cases with small rifle primer pockets.
We know they make them for Buffalo Bore so they should be available to others.
Our money is as good as BBs.

 

MY "detonation" did a heck of a job on the forearm grip......hollowed the thing right out as you see in post #11 here: http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/how-disassemble-clean/414121-disassembly-assembly-1895-pics.html

 

The new Editor Lee J Hoots,is a relatively inexperienced hunter/shooter. After Dave Scovill stepped down as Editor a couple years back,this Hoots got the job,over several long-time RIFLE/HANDLOADER staffers. I remember when Hoots hired on at G&A,and he was a newbie type shooter with limited background. He owned a couple bolt rifles,never mentioned childhood shooting. Maybe he's got a Business degree,or Journalism. Who knows? So he came over from another outdoor corporate conglomerate,and stepped right into the editor's job at Wolfe Publishing. Anyway,he wouldn't know an 1895 mag tube from shinola. I have never in all these years seen an article by him on any levergun by any manufacturer. He's not going to catch any inconsistencies in an article on Marlins. Pearce is really good on hunting, reloading info,handguns,and firearms history,but he is and always has been the head cheerleader for Freedom Group/Rem/Marlin.
Get what you can from anything you read,and check multiple sources. Filter,filter,filter.

 

Now Scovill knows his leverguns. I have enjoyed reading all of his articles. Glad he still contributes. One of the reasons I subscribe.

 

Without doubt, the writer had the facts right. He did write about the bulge, and it's purpose. It's just the comments and reference to the pics, in those little paragraphs (out of main text)pointing to the pic, that's in error.

 

Inadequate editing and a rushed QA/QC review process that misses even minor mistakes will sink any published bit of information faster than the Titanic. Its a sure way to lose credibility. One "aw, shucks" will flush one thousand "attaboys" down the toilet very quickly.

 

That’s the only reason I wanted to point this out. Our gun pubs need all the credibility they can get in this anti gun climate. The bulge issue may seem a small thing, but the captions could have been edited better for consistency. A Marlin owner would, and did, see that immediately and have their attention drawn in a totally different direction than the otherwise good info the article sets forth.

 

The only bulge I've seen happen from shooting my 1895 or my 444, is the bulge on my shoulder.

 

Amen to that! Haha!