A pair of Marlin 1894's

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:07 pm

My latest addition: an 18" .357, seen below my 20" .41 mag.
Traded with a Marine friend for my mom's .380 Beretta (not to worry, I gave her a nice .38 revolver). Good trade, I think!
I'm very tempted to shave the grip and forearm of the .41 down to match the .357 - much more comfortable.

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:13 pm

I do like the wood grain on that 41 and I'm having trouble imagining it as a straight grip. It just looks too nice the way it is, especially through the wrist area. Good luck if you slim it down though. Looks like a good pair.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:16 pm

Nice guns!

You'll need to do some metal work or parts changing if you want two straight grips though.

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:29 pm

I wouldn't make the .41 straight - just thin the pistol grip and forearm down.
If I made it straight, I'd have to replace the curved lever for a straight one.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:15 pm

That .41's messed up - the stock and lever are all curved and bent up. I'll give you $50 for it and take it off your hands - maybe can use it for parts. Too bad the luck.

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:57 pm

Yup, but 1" at 50 yards with open sights ain't bad for a parts gun.
It's the partner to my .41 Blackhawk. Guess I'd better get a partner for the .357, huh?
There's a nice used full-sized stainless Blackhawk in .357 at my dealer right now - asking $330. Hmmmm.
I really did want that 1895 though, and there's only so much I can sneak into the house!

Haycock · Post by **Haycock** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:02 pm

Homefront - The gold trigger (and presumably the lack of a roll-stamped barrel warning) make that a 1st-year 1894C.

NICE!!!!!!!!

That was a very good trade, indeed.

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:56 pm

Was 1980 the first year?

Haycock · Post by **Haycock** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:22 am

Hey O.S.,

I double-checked my facts, and I was wrong. The first year of manufacturing was 1979 and Homefront's carbine could have been built anytime between 1979 and 1981.

1979 - 1981 - Gold Trigger, No Roll-Stamp Barrel Warning
1982 - Blued Steel Trigger, Roll-Stamp Barrel Warning
1984 - Crossbolt Safety Introduced

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:52 am

The serial shows it's an '81.
I was happy to see the straight grip and thinner forearm, which I'm going to start stripping today. I really like Formby's tung oil, and the way it lets grain show through.
I have a special order 175 grain mould that I haven't cast yet, that I'm eager to try. If the OAL works in this gun, and if the twist will stabilize a bullet that heavy, it should be a real smacker!
In any event, all I have to decide now is Williams FP or Marbles tang. I have one of each on my pair of '94's and like both.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:26 pm

Mine is an 80 - looks the same.

66GTO · Post by **66GTO** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:37 pm

Homefront,

I like how your pup is standing guard while you took the pictures. Or maybe he thought it was time to go hunting when you took out the guns. Good dog!

Gryphon Black · Post by **Gryphon Black** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:22 am

My wife's is a genuine first year '79. When I saw it on Gunbroker, I was actually looking for a decent used winnie. I saw that 1894c and said to myself,"That's the sweetest little rifle I ever saw in my life! I HAVE to get her that gun!"
So I did.

It made a great auxiliary piece to her main iron, a Ruger Blackhawk!
If I didn't have my own CBLtd to play with, she'd hardly get the little 357 away from me!

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:43 pm

As for the dog... she was my son's beagle/bassett. She's the biggest love monger ever, but doesn't tolerate any nonsense from my male Chesapeake. It's unbelievable the noise that can come from such a small package.