Marlin Firearms Forum banner
21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
I read something on an internet page about assembling the carrier and lever on the side of the receiver with a paper sheet on the receiver to prevent scratching and you can see how things work as the lever is moved. I have not tried that yet but I understand what you are saying - seeing it in my mind is another matter. All I know is there is a difference when I switch levers. I just have to see where that is.

I will experiment with this a little more. Maybe I can make a jig where I can mount the parts so I can see this. A couple Plexiglas sheets might do it.

GB45
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,094 Posts
Its been linked to before. Its neat but incorrect. It shows the lifter raising on the opening stroke but Marlins raise on the closing stroke. That little cam its showing lift the lifter only raises it enough to prevent the next round from following the first into the reciever. Other than that its a good representation of whats going on.
Heres a link to a write up Erik did on it that might help, http://www.marlinowners.com/forums/index.php/topic,61441.0.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
First of all I studied all of the information on the action from the lever to the carrier and the bolt and the lockout and the trigger and the sear and the hammer and the firing pin and the feed tube and and and and - - - -

Someone said this was "A SIMPLE MECHANISM"!!!!

Well I took it all apart tonight and using the information you all gave me and Erik's write up on the action above I simply polished those contact surfaces to a real nice shine using the 2400 Fiber Cloth. I concentrated on those surfaces that the carrier and lever ride/contact without filing or shaving off any metal. Based on the radius of motion in those areas it does not take but a weee bit to make a change. After I put everything back together the action is smooth as silk and the carrier position at the top when the cartridge is ready to slide into the chamber is right level with the chamber opening.

I rotated 30 rounds through the action and had no jams going in or out. I have only shot one box through this rifle so I am going to run a bunch more through it and break it in good before I make any further adjustments/changes. As has been said in many threads on various problems these are just the little things that happen with all rifles. I just got spoiled with my 1894SS .44 Magnum and 336SS .30-30 because they have never missed a beat any time out.

Thanks to all - now on to the next challenge - - shooting holes in holes at 100 yards!!!!

GB45
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Reading through Marlin history it is difficult to determine exactly when the current style action was developed but just considering that it is over 100 years old boggles my mind to think how many trials they had to perform to come up with those intricate "timings" from the 4 basic action pieces - lever, carrier, bolt, and lock. The trigger, hammer, firing pin, barrel, ammo tube, are just supporting cast IMO.

Ralph
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,094 Posts
Golfbuddy45 said:
Reading through Marlin history it is difficult to determine exactly when the current style action was developed but just considering that it is over 100 years old boggles my mind to think how many trials they had to perform to come up with those intricate "timings" from the 4 basic action pieces - lever, carrier, bolt, and lock. The trigger, hammer, firing pin, barrel, ammo tube, are just supporting cast IMO.

Ralph
The current design was pretty much in use with the model 1889. It has a one piece fireing pin & the locking lug/lever interface is different but as far as the lifter & feed mechanism goes its the same. The 1888 looks to share the locking mechanics with later guns but I dont have one to fiddle with. It is pretty amazing when you realize that Marlins do everything with what basically amounts to one ratchet & a couple cams. I dont know if you have Brophy's book but in it theres illustrations of design conceptions Hepburn came up with going from the top eject 1888 to the side eject 1889. Some look pretty complex compared to the finished product.

Anyway I'm glad you got her up & running! ;)
 

·
Contributing Member
Joined
·
11,599 Posts
Leverdude said:
The current design was pretty much in use with the model 1889. It has a one piece fireing pin & the locking lug/lever interface is different but as far as the lifter & feed mechanism goes its the same. The 1888 looks to share the locking mechanics with later guns but I dont have one to fiddle with. It is pretty amazing when you realize that Marlins do everything with what basically amounts to one ratchet & a couple cams. I dont know if you have Brophy's book but in it theres illustrations of design conceptions Hepburn came up with going from the top eject 1888 to the side eject 1889. Some look pretty complex compared to the finished product.

Anyway I'm glad you got her up & running! ;)
Ken,

Did Hepburn come up with the final design? Was it a mutual endeavor with John Marlin? I don't have Brophy's book but I've always been curious just what John Marlin's primary role was. As in, was he as much an engineer as businessman...?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
I might look for that book - my engineering trained mind WANTS TO KNOW . . . . after you guys mentioned the timings and radii I started looking at it as slow as possible to see the interactions as the lever movement goes out and back. I took all the pieces out and laid them on each other like Erik did in his picture and slowly moved them as best I could with everything being loose. For example, I never realized that little pin on the carrier is FLOATING and spring loaded! I wonder how many MO's have really noticed that before? One of the things I always disliked about the Winchester mechanism is how it swings down and the cartridge ejecting out the top. The Marlin design is simplicity and functionality in one.

Ralph
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,094 Posts
Eli Chaps said:
Ken,

Did Hepburn come up with the final design? Was it a mutual endeavor with John Marlin? I don't have Brophy's book but I've always been curious just what John Marlin's primary role was. As in, was he as much an engineer as businessman...?
John Marlin was certainly involved but as I understand it Hepburn did most of the R&D involved in turning Marlins top ejects into the guns we know. John Marlin himself I think had more to do with the designs of the earlier revolvers than the rifles. The 1881, Marlins first lever action, was a Burgess design that operated very similar to the current 39 rimfires. Without looking in the book, so I may be wrong, I believe that Hep first came on board turning the 1881 into the 1888, Marlins first lever action with a modern type breech block, the 1881 locked up on the lever like todays Marlin 39's. The Breech block was a major step, Winchester beat Marlin by 2 years in that regard with the 1886. Or John Browning did anyway. They kinda went back & forth, Win built the first really sucessful lever action, Marlin built the first chambered for the 45/70 govt, Winchester built the first with a true locking breech, Marlin built the first with side eject.

All that aside I think Marlins action is superior in most every way. Its very simple & that is what lent it to easilly be wrapped around all three classes of cartriges these guns have been traditionally chambered for. From the diminutive 25/20 to 45/70 & beyond. Sure he needed to alter size a bit but the basic mechanics are the same from one extreme to the other. Winchester needed three completely different actions, all much more complex, to do the same thing, 4 if you want to count the 1873's that were still in production into the 1920's if I remember right. Of course John Browning had an incentive to create new different actions rather than easily adaptable ones since he was never an actual employee of Winchester but a design contractor I guess he could have been called. It served him better to create 3 different designs to sell to Winchester. All three of Marlins actions, 1893, 1894 & 1895 shared the same patents to my understanding.

All that was off he top of my head so I hope people will be kind if I made a mistake or two. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,094 Posts
Golfbuddy45 said:
I might look for that book - my engineering trained mind WANTS TO KNOW . . . . after you guys mentioned the timings and radii I started looking at it as slow as possible to see the interactions as the lever movement goes out and back. I took all the pieces out and laid them on each other like Erik did in his picture and slowly moved them as best I could with everything being loose. For example, I never realized that little pin on the carrier is FLOATING and spring loaded! I wonder how many MO's have really noticed that before? One of the things I always disliked about the Winchester mechanism is how it swings down and the cartridge ejecting out the top. The Marlin design is simplicity and functionality in one.

Ralph
Its even more clear if you drive two finishing nails into a board, the same distance apart as the lever screw & lifter screw and drop the lever over one & lifter over the other. It really is a deceptively simple design. Winchester has the lever pined to the bolt so that the lever pivot point NEEDS to be floating to acomodate the arc of the lever & straight line movement of the bolt. That applies to the 86, 92 & 94 Winchesters. Marlin did away with all that & the complexity it necessitates by simply not attaching the lever to the bolt. The top eject was something Winchester was stuck with, especially after he got greedy & John Browning stopped working for him. I'm fairly certain that had they both kept working together Mr Browning woulda come up with a side eject. There doesn't seem to be much he couldn't do if he set his mind to it. He designed everything from auto pistols to machine guns, he didn't design MY favorite guns but he's still somebody I'll always admire. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
A true BUCKET OF KNOWLEDGE on top of those shoulders - - - - - - -


- - - - - although some may have said a Bucket Full Of Cxxx! LOL

Ralph
 

·
Contributing Member
Joined
·
11,599 Posts
Leverdude said:
John Marlin was certainly involved but as I understand it Hepburn did most of the R&D involved in turning Marlins top ejects into the guns we know. John Marlin himself I think had more to do with the designs of the earlier revolvers than the rifles. The 1881, Marlins first lever action, was a Burgess design that operated very similar to the current 39 rimfires. Without looking in the book, so I may be wrong, I believe that Hep first came on board turning the 1881 into the 1888, Marlins first lever action with a modern type breech block, the 1881 locked up on the lever like todays Marlin 39's. The Breech block was a major step, Winchester beat Marlin by 2 years in that regard with the 1886. Or John Browning did anyway. They kinda went back & forth, Win built the first really sucessful lever action, Marlin built the first chambered for the 45/70 govt, Winchester built the first with a true locking breech, Marlin built the first with side eject.

All that aside I think Marlins action is superior in most every way. Its very simple & that is what lent it to easilly be wrapped around all three classes of cartriges these guns have been traditionally chambered for. From the diminutive 25/20 to 45/70 & beyond. Sure he needed to alter size a bit but the basic mechanics are the same from one extreme to the other. Winchester needed three completely different actions, all much more complex, to do the same thing, 4 if you want to count the 1873's that were still in production into the 1920's if I remember right. Of course John Browning had an incentive to create new different actions rather than easily adaptable ones since he was never an actual employee of Winchester but a design contractor I guess he could have been called. It served him better to create 3 different designs to sell to Winchester. All three of Marlins actions, 1893, 1894 & 1895 shared the same patents to my understanding.

All that was off he top of my head so I hope people will be kind if I made a mistake or two. ;)
Good stuff Ken. Thank you. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,536 Posts
Yes, thanks Leverdude for that! I am really fascinated by the history of these guns.. I am going to get that book as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,671 Posts
Ken, that's been pretty much my understanding of it too.

One thing though is that the Lyman manual on the 44-40 pages has the 1888 in the list of weaker actions and the 1889 and 1894 in the strong action listing. Not sure why, but I always assumed that the 1888 probably locked up different than the newer actions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,094 Posts
44-40 Willy said:
Ken, that's been pretty much my understanding of it too.

One thing though is that the Lyman manual on the 44-40 pages has the 1888 in the list of weaker actions and the 1889 and 1894 in the strong action listing. Not sure why, but I always assumed that the 1888 probably locked up different than the newer actions.
I saw that too & dont understand why. If you see an 88 with the action open its got the familiar cut out on the bottom of the bolt & with it closed its got the same lever/lug setup as an 89. I think they are mistaken calling it a weaker action.
That said I trreat my 89's with kid gloves & would do the same with an 88 if I could get my hands on one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,671 Posts
Leverdude said:
I saw that too & dont understand why. If you see an 88 with the action open its got the familiar cut out on the bottom of the bolt & with it closed its got the same lever/lug setup as an 89. I think they are mistaken calling it a weaker action.
That said I trreat my 89's with kid gloves & would do the same with an 88 if I could get my hands on one.
I would treat 'em easy too. They're over 100 years old and the metalurgy back then isn't like it is now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,094 Posts
44-40 Willy said:
I would treat 'em easy too. They're over 100 years old and the metalurgy back then isn't like it is now.
Exactly. I have a 32/20 1889 & really like the caliber but am limited because of the age of the gun & even more importantly I cant scope it. So I'm turning my 1894C into a 32/20CL. Just dropped it off yesterday to get the barrel swapped!
Once it comes home I need to find a forend for it and then I figure I'll have the best woods varmint/small game gun I could ask for. :) The 1889 is alot of fun to shoot but is hard to be precise with. Clay pigeons at 50 yards are easy with 115 gr lazer cast at the range with good light, but the old carbine sights leave much to be desired in field conditions. Plus I'd barf on the spot if I dinged it up bouncing around in the woods with it. ;) Thats why when I put my 1889 44/40 together I just cold blued it & called it good. Making them pretty & shiny is great too but limits its usefulness.
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top