Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Why do new Marlins have so much wood on them? It makes sense on my 450 where every ounce helps to reduce recoil but why put an extra half pound of wood on a youth/women's rifle like the Spikehorn? Stopped me from buying one for my wife.

My Brother in Law has a nice Marlin from a couple of decades ago and it has a light straight grip and as trim and neat as can be.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,841 Posts
It give you a good excuse to buy a good belt sander for your bench. :lol: :lol:

I hate it also. I love the feel of my .35 Rem and 444S as they are both slim. My two newer Marlins, a 2002 vintage and 2001 vintage have the fat forestocks.

Dave 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,911 Posts
The last 2 I have purchased have had "skinny" stocks. I much prefer the fat ones--- frankly, fatter than they are now. Like the ones on my 225A from the 50's are best for me.
 
G

·
I'm not exactly sure what you guys are talking about on the fat vs. slim forearm thing, so after admitting that I don't know what I'm talking about I will add this to the conversation...

I recently purchased a Winchester 94 as a companion gun to my 336.

Although they use the same ammunition, there is a distinct difference in the way the guns "feel".

The Winchester is a lighter gun, with a slimmer form. The Marlin is heavier, and somewhat bulkier.

I'd have to say that the Winchester looks and feels like what I'd call a "saddle gun". It just seems...compact.

When I handle the Marlin, it feels like a "hunting rifle". It's got "substance".

I'll have to politely ask that you fellows not call my Marlin "fat".

(At least not to her face...)

:wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,217 Posts
FWiedner,

You always have an entertaining answer, thanks for the chuckle.

I believe what is ment by "fat" is "bulk". My '64 RC is as you describe the Winchester. The forarm is slim and has the saddlegun apperence while the forearm on my CS manufactured in 1995 appears more substantial.

If you look at the older models, early 50's vintage, the bulky look was the "in thing" for that time period as well.

Don't know why the style changed but I suppose marketing a different look was the motive.

I prefer the bulk of the modern forearms and stocks. Don't really know why, I just like the way they look.

SS
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top