[Comparing Marlin .22 to Chiappa .22]

23 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this subject and I'd like to shoot that Mare's leg sometime. 

 

Thanks, Bison.

Did you see this recent thread on the Mare's Leg?  
 

 

[Comparing Marlin .22 to Chiappa .22]

The following is what I have been able to piece together from various online sources.   Any inaccuracies are my own based on my limited research.

 

In 1891, Marlin released the first member of a family of rifles with the model 1891.   This gun was available in .22 RF and .32 CF (Short and Long Colt)  This was the first model in a very interesting family of guns.   Very unusually for a RF gun, it was loaded via a loading gate.

In 1895, Marlin modified the gun a little and renamed it the Model 1892.  The most obvious change was to eliminate the loading gate and switch to a front loader system not all that different from what we see on .22s today.  In 1905, they renamed it the Model 92.  Calibers remained .22 and .32

 

Interestingly, the .32 caliber version started to come with 2 firing pins, one for .32 RF and the other for .32 CF.

This is a Model 92 in .32

 

In 1897, the .32 caliber version was discontinued, Marling renamed the gun the Model 1897, and in in 1905, it was renamed the Model 97.  With the dropping of the .32 caliber version, it became a .22 only gun.

In 1921, Marlin renamed the gun the Model 39.

In 1939, it became the Model 39-A

 

This is a 39-A

In 1983, it became the Model 39A and a cross bolt safety was added.

 

Overall, the changes between model designations are almost insignificant, and it is officially considered to have been one model in continuous production since 1891.   Although, current production is sporadic.   And as far as I know, Remington didn't make any, and Ruger has not brought it back.

But that's not the end of the story.

In recent memory, Marlin produced the Model 1894CB in .32 H&R Magnum.   But if you take one look at it, you realize it's much more a recreated Model 92 than it is a 94.  There was also a Model 1894M in .22 Magnum rimfire.   Again, it has more in common with the older model than the later one.

But that's STILL not the end of the story.

Recently Chiappa came out with a gun they call the model 322.  If you take a look at it, you realize that is is clearly inspired by the Marlin 1891-39A family, but not exactly.  It's only available in .22 RF, but there are two interesting variations.   A rifle, and this...



You can see the resemblance to the 39-A is pretty obvious, making it something I never thought I would see; a (kinda) Marlin Mare's Leg, even if it is a .22.

Of course when you compare the Chiappa to a Marlin side by side, the differences start to become obvious.



The similarities are there, but so are some differences.

The differences are even more apparent when you look at the inner workings of the guns...


As you can seem the insides of these guns are VERY different.

Anyway...   I just got the Chiappa today, and I have not fired it yet.  But I can say that while the action is pretty smooth, it's also a little stiff out of the box.  You really need some leverage to cock it when the hammer is down.   Maybe after I run box of ammo through it, that'll change.   I guess we shall see.

I am gonna assume that the rifle's action is identical to the pistol.   That said, this just looked like a fun pistol to obtain.    I will also say that while it is well made, it's not as good as a real Marlin.  It seems to be serviceable, but I have no idea how good (the rifle version) it would be for our game in the part where .22s are used.

But, it sure is interesting.   At least, I think it is.   

 

[English Shotguns]

5 hours ago, Oddnews SASS# 24779 said:

I have a Greener Facile Princeps double. It’s BP only (twist barrels) and I have used it in a match yet. My plan is to use it, my “Real made in Connecticut Colt” Colts and my 1905 vintage Winchester 1892 in a match. I think of it as my “Big Jake” set.

 

There is something fun about shooting old guns.   But that's whole other topic. 

[English Shotguns]

5 hours ago, watab kid said:

never been in my price range either but many trap shooters at our club are shooting that much value , at shot show the year i went i saw many in that price range - many combos far over that , there have been many in that 150k range over the decades we have been throwing trap - state shoots and others 

 

Good point.   Trap shooters are very willing to spend a lot of money on a single shotgun.

My Dad's most expensive guns were far and away his custom made Brownings.   No where NEAR the price some of those English guns are going for, but more than other guns on the market at the time were commanding.   I do remember some of the guys he shot with were shouldering guns that went for well over $5000, in the early 90's.

That reminds me...    There was this one fellow who came to a shoot with, I don't remember what it was, but it was a Very Expensive Gun.  We know it was a VEG because he told everyone very boastfully how much it set him back.    Anyway, he goes up to the line, pushed the lever to open the gun, and the barrel promptly fell off the frame and hit the ground with a clatter.  Nothing was damaged beyond some superficial scratches, but it was quite amusing to see happen.

[Guns that have a superficial resemblance to other guns.]

5 hours ago, watab kid said:

are you possibly talking about the 22s that resemble the M1carbine , M1garand , M14 and M16 ? i have some of those as well as some theat resemble the M1903 that are not the M1922 types [do have one of those as well] these have always fascinated me because of the lengths they go to to to get it close , 

 

or are you thinking something else ? 

 

I had not thought of those, but they are good examples of of the phenomenon, I suppose.  Caliber aside, they do go much farther to resembling the gun they are inspired by than a Ruger does a Colt or the S&W does a Marlin.   
 

1 hour ago, Dantankerous said:

Pretty much every plastic pistol made since Glock came out in '87ish and took the world by plastic storm is trying to be a Glock. 😜

 

 

I had not thought of these either, but another good point.   There are a lot of very "Glock like" guns on the market, that when you look at them, they are clearly not a Glock, but it's not hard to see that they took some design cues from it.

 

 

I'll freely admit that I was thinking mostly about stuff that would be of use in our game, or at least of interest to Cowboy Shooters in general.

 

[Guns that have a superficial resemblance to other guns.]

 

Have you ever noticed that some guns kinda sorta look like other guns, but really aren't the same thing?

I am not talking about how Italian copies of the Colt SAA look just like it, especially to the untrained eye.  I am talking about how there are some guns that in a way resemble something else, maybe were even inspired by it, but are actually very different.   Sometimes the resemblance is stronger for some things than it is for others.

This is really nothing new.    Historically, you can say that the Remington single action revolvers have a strong resemblance to the Colt, but a quick look tells you they are not the same thing.

A more modern example would be how the Ruger also resembles the SAA, but is clearly something different.   The visual differences are quickly apparent, and the internal differences are as well.

The new S&W 1854 really looks like a Marlin.   To an extent, so do the Henry Arms rifles, especially since they added a loading gate, even though they are very different.    

There are even some guns that I am not sure if they just look like something else, or if they are direct copies.  The Rossi 95 really looks like a Marlin 95, but I am not an expert on either of these guns, I don't own them.  From photographs there seem to be some very minor differences, as well as strong similarities.   So I am not sure if they fall in the resemble category, or if they are a direct copy with some cosmetic differences like the version of the Winchester 92.

 

There are other of course other guns that fall into this "category."

Now, the question is, why?  Thinking about it, I think it's pretty obvious; functionality dictates form.   Now, the Remington and the Ruger do manage to look more like the Colt than a plethora of other historical single actions, but how many of those other things do we see in our game?  Not many.   I speak specifically of other guns that load in a manner similar to the SAA, not something radically different like a S&W.   Within that general category, there's not much in the way of practicality to make something very different.

This is probably even more true in a lever action rifle.  If you wanna have a loading gate and a ejection port that come out of the side of the receiver, it's really not possible for it at least externally resemble the Marlin.   Heck, if you compare the Winchester 86, 92, 94, Marlin 1881 and 1888, they all have a generic resemblance to each other.

So how is this significant?  Well, it's just interesting.   And interesting is something that can be entertaining.

[Green Dot is a smelly powder]

8 hours ago, watab kid said:

loaded red and a little blue but never green , i like red dot a lot - still loading with what i have left 

 

16 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Have you tried Unique? 

 

I have been using Red Dot for as long as I have been reloading.   It was habit I "inherited" from my father, who used it for 12 Gauge.  He was a Trap Shooter.   He also used it for .45 Colt and .44 Magnum.   It works well with those cartridges.

But for a long time, Red Dot, like Trailboss, was basically unobtainium.   I am glad that they both seem easy to find again.

I've never tried Unique, but have heard good things about it.   I may yet give it a go if my preferred powders become scarce again.

[Back to the Future -nudity??]

How about the time when Felix Unger explained how when you assume something, you make an ASS out of U and ME!

I was shocked when I saw that as a kid when it aired for the first time.

Or on a more violent example, when Magnum asked Ivan "Did you see the sunrise this morning?" 
"Yes, why do you ask?"
Magnum turns around points his 1911 at him and the image freeze frames as he fires.

My Dad shouted, "HE SHOT HIM!"  You have to remember, this was not an act of self defense or a shootout.   It was a straight up execution.

[Shooting Spencers]

1 hour ago, Leroy Luck said:

I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s because they weren’t designed until the 1960s and 1970s. So not “original” in any sense of the imagination. 

 

I suppose that could be it.   In fact, logically, that would make sense.   I guess the "bad grammar" of putting them in the same clause as .44-40 and .32-20 is what threw me.      A better way to put it would be "Modern rifle cartridges such as .375 Winchester and .444 Marlin are also not allowed."

Ah, the curse of being a writer.   

Wow...   Talk about tangents on this thread!

Speaking of tangents, does anyone know how many rounds fit in those very rare .44 Russian Spencer reproductions?   Or perhaps how many .45 Schofields or even Cowboy .45 Specials will fit in one chambered for .45 Colt, and if they will work?

[Shooting Spencers]

20 minutes ago, Leroy Luck said:

The 56-50 is legal but the 56-56 is not. According to the shooters handbook on page 40. 

 

Well, let's see...

According to the Shooter Handbook...

Must be centerfire of at least .32 caliber and not larger than .45 caliber. - Must be in a caliber commonly available in revolvers. Examples include, but are not limited to, .32-20, .32 Magnum, .357 Magnum, .38 Special, .38-40, .44-40, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt. The only allowed exceptions are the .25-20 and .56-50. No rifle calibers such as .30-30 or .38-55 are allowed. - Buckaroo/Buckarette Category competitors choosing to utilize .


So, by a literal reading of the rules, and that's the only way you can read them, 56-50 is okay, but 56-56, 56-52 and the even smaller 56-42 would not be legal for main match use. 

For Long Range use...

- “Rifle Caliber” competition rifles must use traditional, period, rimmed cartridges. No cartridge chambered for use in any SASS approved main match revolver or rifle may be used in the “Rifle Caliber” competition, except the .56-50. Thus, .30- 30 (.30 WCF), .38-55 Marlin & Ballard, .43 Spanish, or .45-70 Government cartridges are legal, while a .375 Winchester, .444 Marlin, .32-20, or .44-40 are not legal. Shotguns using slugs are not allowed in the Buffalo Single Shot competition

But it does look like all of the Spencer cartridges are legal for long range.    Although I am not sure what the reason for not allowing .375 and .444 is.   

Interesting. 

[Shooting Spencers]

I just checked Wikipedia.   (So take this with a grain of salt.)

The actual bullet diameter of the .56-56 varied between .54 and .555 inches (13.7-14.1 mm), depending on ammunition manufacturer. The .56-52, made by Spencer, and the .56-50, made by Springfield, differed only in the degree of crimp, with the .56-50 having a greater crimp; both fired 350-grain .512-inch  bullets. 

I also checked Buffalo Arms.   They have brass, bullets and dies for 56-50, but only brass for 56-56.    

Once again, good luck. 

[Shooting Spencers]

2 hours ago, Three Foot Johnson said:

I know a .56-.56 Spencer isn't legal as a main match rifle, but there doesn't seem to be anything barring it for lever action rifle cal side matches.

It isn't?   I did not know that.

[Green Dot is a smelly powder]

Just now, Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 said:

but it works in most everything 

 

  CB 

It does seem to be versatile.   I first came across it whilst searching for a powder that would give me lo recoil loads in my 20 gauge SxS.   (You can't use Red Dot in a 20)  And it worked well for that.  I figured it would also work in 16, and it seems that I am correct.   I have not used it for anything else, but I have done a little checking and it has some utility for cartridges as well.

We'll see where it goes from here.

[Green Dot is a smelly powder]

Loaded up some 16 gauge today, two rounds for testing purposes.   All brass Magtech shells, 12 grains of powder.  Loaded 'em into my Darne SxS.   BOOM!  BOOM!   Very pleasant recoil, and very stinky odor to the burnt powder.   

But, very light recoil, and that's the important part.

But man, it sure had a funky smell after firing.

This announcement brought to you out of the reality that I had nothing better to say at this time. 

[Shooting Spencers]

2 hours ago, Dusty Morningwood said:

From description, it is a Model 1860 with 22" barrel. 

 

.56 or .50 caliber?

Unlike other early cartridge naming conventions, with the Spencer, 56-50 and 56-56 it is the SECOND number that denotes the caliber of the bullet, not the first.

I have read that the only difference is the amount of crimp it takes to hold the bullet, that they both actually use the same brass.  If it's an 1860, there's a good chance it's a 56-56, so plan to reload accordingly,   Best to have the barrel slugged to be sure.

BTW...


A fine old veteran. 

 

When I do shoot it, I pair it with a Rogers and Spencer revolver converted to .45 Colt, and 1860 converted to the the same caliber.

I'd love to also pair it with a Spencer shotgun, but they ain't SASS Legal, and I don't own one anyway.

[Shooting Spencers]

First you need to know that the modern replicas and originals use different sized brass. Original brass will not fit in a repro and repro brass will not reliably eject.  Something about rim size.   The only place I know to get brass for an original is Buffalo Arms and yes it is expensive.   That said owning and shooting a genuine Civil War surplus rifle is a huge amount of fun.  After shooting the 7 in the magazine, I load the last three directly into the chamber.  Which model is yours?  Some eject spent brass better than others.  Mine's a model 1865 Bannerman with the triangle blade ejector.  It often only pulls the spent round halfway out of the chamber and I have to flick it away by hand.  In other words, shooting a real Spencer is a slow, quirky process.  But once you get the hang of it, it is a lot of fun.  Good luck!

 

[English Shotguns]

5 hours ago, watab kid said:

*yes its in excellent condition , it started life as a martini enfeild , military issue , got converted to a 22cal trainer type rifle and sometime after that {i think the 60s] a gunsmith turned it into  a 12 ga trap shotgun , i shot it for trap for quite a few years till i broke the firing pin , my LGS made a new one and i retired it 

 

Fascinating!   The firing pin on my Greener was also busted.   Best way I can describe it is to say that the tip of the pin broke off, and the pin was at that perfectly strange length were sometimes it would go bang and sometimes it would just go click.   He made a new firing pin for it, and now it works just fine.

[English Shotguns]

7 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

 

Rich patrons who are either connected, and/or have so much money that they don't care about the cost. Across the pond, a bespoke sxs is considered quite necessary to those with means.

 

I figured that might be a major part of it.   But are there that many rich shooters over there?  I guess anything is possible.

[Question on 1897 chamber length - 1938 manufacture]

This comes up from time to time.  In general, the responses run along the following lines.  The 97 is indeed marked for use with 2-3/4" shells, but this refers to 2-3/4" paper roll crimped ones, not modern plastic star crimped ones.    When fired, the modern plastic hulls have an overall length of 2-3/4" but the older style ones were only 2-5/8"   Thus, repeatedly using the modern shells in the old 97s can create a bad pressure problem and potentially damage the gun and the shooter.   Therefore, you should have the chamber lengthened and the forcing cone extended for use with modern shells.

That's the most common answer to this question you will see, and I'll be honest and say that after hearing it many times, I have given this answer myself.

But the last time this came up, a regular here on the wire, who really knows a lot about these things and whom I respect, said that all of that is hogwash, an that the 2-3/4" marking on the 97s is accurate and you can use modern shells with no problem.   Seeing that made me start to question the above common answer.

Of course, my solution to this problem is pretty simple, I have some even older than the 97 shotguns in my collection that I know have 2-1/2" chambers.   For this reason I just run all brass 2-1/2" shells in all my cowboy shotguns.   No need to  worry about the chamber length.   I have also trimmed a good number of AAs back to 2-1/2" to make sure I always have enough short shells in case I get lazy and don't reload the all brass ones right away or I am taking 4 friends to a shoot and we are all using my guns.

And by the way, you can use smokeless in the all brass shells if you want to.   

That's how I addressed this issue.   I will no longer say with confidence what that "real" chamber length on a 97, or any other pre WWII shotgun actually is.   I just use shorter shells in all of them if they need them or not.   Problem solved.

 

[English Shotguns]

Very cool, Watab.   Yours looks to be in quite excellent condition.

It seems like EVERY major gun maker in England made things based on that Martini action at one time or another.   You could probably build quite a collection just by trying to get an example from manufacturers alone!    My above shotgun is a Greener, but my .303 is an Enfield, and my Cadet Rifle is BSA.   Don't have a .22 yet, or one of the "big bore" ones for the Boer War era, but the more I research the Martini, I just find more people who made them.

But, anyway, I assume yours is a 12 gauge?  How do you find it to be as a shooter?

 

 

On another note, I did some research and came across the names of Westley-Richards and Rigby as gun makers that are still in business over there.   The W-R guns seem to have prices all over the map, from very affordable to very expensive.   And, you can get a factory letter for them, for $270.00!  And I thought Colt letters were expensive.  Rigby guns on the other hand seem to all have a 5 figure price tag, and their factory letters go for 100 pounds a pop.   I doubt that I'll ever have a Rigby in my collection.   If I was gonna spend that kind of money, it'd be for a high grade Parker in pristine condition.  But I doubt I'll ever spend that kind of money on a single gun.   A W-R?   Well, if the price is right and there was something about it I found interesting, I'd not rule one out, even factoring in the cost of the letter.

It does seem that English guns tend to be rather expensive.   Given the heavy restrictions on ownership over there, I wonder how they can stay in business.

[IDing an H&R 38 S&W hammerless]

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a Model 3 top break.   They were made up until 1940-41.    I would also guess that yours is a late production one, and that it's safe for smokeless.    That's a ballpark estimate based on what we see in your pictures, and my admittedly limited knowledge of the things.   Hopefully someone with more knowledge and I can confirm this.

[IDing an H&R 38 S&W hammerless]

What is stamped on the top of the barrel?

Pics of any and all markings would help.   Also take off the grips and let us see what's in there.

[English Shotguns]

Let us talk about Made in England Shotguns, either SxS or Single Shot ones that can be used our game.  I know this would be something of a niche interest, but well, John Wayne used a Greener in Big Jake, so, the concept is a valid one.

Now, there are a lot of different companies that made shotguns like this, back in the day, and some of them still do.   Prices for these things range from a few hundred to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on make and model.   Now, I think that it's safe to say that none of us are gonna be using something with a $10,000 plus price tag in our game.   But you know, I have a Parker Trojan that I got for $700 in 2019.  It's in good shootable condition, it just doesn't look all that great.  I recently saw one just like it in every way that looks factory new, and was had an asking price of over $20,000.   So, I would venture to say that even among the premium English makes and models, they can be found for an affordable price, depending on condition.

So with all of that said, what are the English shotguns that could, at least theoretically, make their way into our game?

 

Well, the aforementioned Greener, of course.    Webley and Scott also comes to mind.   I am sure there are many others, but since I am not an expert, I can't rattle off a plethora of different makers off the top of my head.   Just staying with those two makers, I have seen prices all over the place from very affordable to super expensive depending on various factors.

For a Greener, have one of those police shotguns based on the Martini action, in standard 12 gauge.   It's not a bad gun.  Shoots well, and makes for a fun and unusual change of pace from time to time.   Not exactly what most people will think of when you say the name "Greener," but it is a nice gun.

 

On a somewhat more conventional note, I have a Webley model 100 single shot.   Got for $150 last year, and it's the kind of a gun that you would expect to go for that kind of money.   I don't mean "cheap," I mean simple and nothing special about it.   I have developed an affinity for single shot shotguns of this type, partly because many of them can be had for very short money, but you can tell that it is a well made gun.  Clearly meant for rugged use as a hunting gun, I really like it.



It's not exactly easy to cock that small hammer, but the gun is fun to use from time to time.

Now, I have to admit that even though that's all I have, I have begun to become interested in Webley shotguns.   I'd like to get a nice SxS, and I have noticed that while they can be stupid expensive, they can also be very affordable, so something is within reach should I come across the right candidate.  I guess time will tell if I go further down this road.

So does anyone else ever use an English shotgun, either a single or double barreled one?  If so, what do you have/use and what has been your experience with it?

On a final note, research reveals that the "Greener" in Big Jake isn't one.  It's an "American Gun Company" gun.   Gee...   It seems you can't trust Hollywood!

[Go to SASS Guns.]

10 minutes ago, Three Foot Johnson said:

I've never seen anyone shooting a 336 Marlin in a match either, which was briefly available in .44 mag - actually, I don't think I've ever seen one at all.

 

Dang it.  

I've been itching to acquire one of these for a while now for various reasons.   Hearing this statement just gives me another excuse to do so more quickly.

[How do you "outrun the gun?"]

The only way I know how to outrun a gun is to have the rifle fired by a genius coyote and then, just as the bullet is about to reach the Road Runner, he looks over his shoulder, sees it, and runs even faster, leaving the bullet far, far behind.