Marlin 1894 in 357

[JimTom]

G’day Gents

I have the opportunity to purchase a Marlin 1894CSS in 357. From the serial number I believe it was manufactured in 2009. From my understanding these rifles from this year had the parts manufactured by Marlin in Connecticut but were later assembled by Remington once they took over.
The barrel has Marlin North Haven CT USA on one side and on the other side of the barrel it has the REP proof mark of Remington so a Remlin and not a proper JM.
I have used this firearm and it shoots and cycles quite nicely. It has had less than a packet of ammo put through it and it appears to be almost new.
Anyone hazard a guess as to how much this would be worth roughly?

[bladeracer]

A quick look at usedguns.com.au seems to put them anywhere from $1500 to $3000, but that's only an indication of what people think they're worth, not what they actually sell for.

Rebels have a .44 CB for $2250.
https://www.rebelgunworks.com.au/collec ... gnum-25761

This private seller advertised a CSS early this year for $2200. Sold the same day, but no idea if they negotiated on the price.
https://www.ozgunsales.com/listing/8942 ... arked.html

Some shops advertise them new but PoA, so you'd have to contact them for price and availability.

I would guess $2000 or less would be a good buy, but I'd hunt around for new pricing first.

[Larry]

They seem to go for about $1795 new and I have seen them for $1500 quite often.

[JimTom]

Thanks Bladeracer, good info.

[JimTom]

They seem to go for about $1795 new and I have seen them for $1500 quite often.

Thank you mate. I can only seem to find the CSBL or similar models for sale and they’re above $2k. The CSS seems to be unavailable from anywhere at present, I think it’s the CB model that is $1795.

[Shootermick]

I’d be offering $1500 max. I’ve got a Remlin in 30/30 and it’s perfectly fine. Prices even for the Remlins have gone up, maybe when the Ruger Marlins hit the shelves here the Marlin used market will settle down a bit again.

[JimTom]

Yeah they seem to be at a premium at present mate. I believe the Ruger Marlins will still be a little while away. In particular the 1894. From whati have read the 336, and 1895 are the first ones to come off the assembly line.
For a normal blued Marlin I wouldn’t pay $1500, however the stainless models seem to be like hens teeth at present and from what I can see, they seem to go for a bit more.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

I got one of those new dark series Marlins in 45/70 and it is flawless.

[Tubs]

Why are the 357's selling for more than the 30-30's?

I bought My 1894 357 Remlin 3 years ago new for about $1500 but I think it is worth more now.

[Larry]

Just a reminder that obtaining pistol powder is near on impossible ATM so if reloading was a plan perhaps a rethink. The lack of powder will severely impact the shooting sports in the near future.

[bladeracer]

Why are the 357's selling for more than the 30-30's?

I bought My 1894 357 Remlin 3 years ago new for about $1500 but I think it is worth more now.

The .30-30's are the 336, the .357 is the 1894, two different models aimed at two different markets.

I paid $1350 for my 1894 .44 Mag in early 2017 I think, but I've seen secondhand ones listed for a lot more than that. Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe with the sale to Ruger people are paying a premium for the older ones?

There are some stupid prices listed on Usedguns.com.au, but the listings don't tell you what they actually sold for, so don't use that as a price guide. Even shop prices get reduced sometimes if the buyer grabs plenty of ammo and accessories at the same time. If you want one I would just grab it if the price is in the rough ballpark, it's not going to get cheaper while you hunt around for a bargain you might never find.

[Tubs]

Just a reminder that obtaining pistol powder is near on impossible ATM so if reloading was a plan perhaps a rethink. The lack of powder will severely impact the shooting sports in the near future.

Always a good idea to keep that tub of trailboss in reserve....

[JimTom]

Fortunately I have a bit of 2205 which I am hoping to get to shoot.

[Tubs]

Fortunately I have a bit of 2205 which I am hoping to get to shoot.

I have a bit of 2205 but not heaps. Blade was going to experiment with some 2206H, i do wonder if that would work?

[in2anity]

Fortunately I have a bit of 2205 which I am hoping to get to shoot.

I have a bit of 2205 but not heaps. Blade was going to experiment with some 2206H, i do wonder if that would work?

It'll spit them out. But you will get a tonne of extra pepper on your smoko.

[Tubs]

Fortunately I have a bit of 2205 which I am hoping to get to shoot.

I have a bit of 2205 but not heaps. Blade was going to experiment with some 2206H, i do wonder if that would work?

It'll spit them out. But you will get a tonne of extra pepper on your smoko.

I cant find any reload data, how much 2206H would you use for a 357 cartridge?

[in2anity]

It's notably slower that AR2205, so just 100% fill should be safe. But it's important to keep density up. Would you agree Blade? Is there risk of SEE (considering the case would be completely filled with "too-slow")?

My understanding is slower-than-optimal burning powders that can safely be used for the cartridge based on if they will fill at least 80% case capacity, preferably 86% or more - even some compression is probably ok. To me, a neat 100% makes sense - just be prepared for poor velocities, big muzzle flashes and un-burned granules scattered everywhere...

[bladeracer]

It's notably slower that AR2205, so just 100% fill should be safe. But it's important to keep density up. Would you agree Blade? Is there risk of SEE (considering the case would be completely filled with "too-slow")?

My understanding is slower-than-optimal burning powders that can safely be used for the cartridge based on if they will fill at least 80% case capacity, preferably 86% or more - even some compression is probably ok. To me, a neat 100% makes sense - just be prepared for poor velocities, big muzzle flashes and un-burned granules scattered everywhere...

No, SEE is not going to be a problem as you need as much powder as you can cram in there.

I'm experimenting with 9mm currently.

A full case of AR2206H is 12.5gn, or 9.5gn to the base of the bullet (I'm using Winchester 124gn Ball - I bought heaps of them).

I was doubting the chronograph due to lots of errors and cloud cover. But giving it some thought, I think they're in the ballpark. A 124gn bullet is roughly a third the weight of a 3/4oz shotgun load (328gn plus the wad, so around 365gn), and a low-recoil 3/4oz training load makes around 1100fps, but still has noticeable recoil. 9mm Para makes around 900-1000fps with 124gn bullets. So if I were making 900fps or so I would expect to feel some degree of recoil, which I'm not, at least nothing noticeable. My first test shots were fired with the gun one-handed at arms reach just to be safe.

8gn gives me around 300fps.
9.5gn gives me around 500fps.
No indication of pressures, and the soot around the case mouths would confirm they're quite low pressure loads. 8gn leaves some empty case volume, 9.5gn doesn't, it's not compressed yet but almost doubles the velocity. Next step is to compress it significantly, so I'll try 11gn next. I think I can get 12.5gn in and still be able to seat the bullet to 1.170", but it'll be heavily compressed. If we need more powder still I think I'll have to drill out the base of the bullet (also lightening the bullet and driving up the velocity requirement), and vibrate the powder charge to maybe fit a 14gn or 15gn charge in there.

To make Minor with 124gn bullets I need to make 1010fps out of my 175mm barrel. So, about double what I'm seeing from 9.5gn - it's not looking good. But it might be possible to get a practice load that will cycle a handgun at least. To make Major would need 1330fps which would probably require a liberal sprinkling of TNT in the powder

I know most of you guys are using cast bullets for IPSC, but I want to concentrate on whether this is achievable with a bullet that I know works already. If I can get the velocity we need from common rifle powder, then I can put some additional effort into casting a bullet that works with it. I don't want to waste time making a bullet that works only to discover that that we can't get it up to minimum velocity anyway.

[bladeracer]

I think we've hit the limit at 600fps
Getting 12.5gn in there is achievable, but is not easy
I vibrated it (electric beard trimmer against the case) to settle it level with the case mouth. It _might_ be possible to get another .5gn in perhaps, but the bullet would be even more difficult to seat. You can't flare the case mouth as you need to get a grip on the bullet as soon as it enters the case, otherwise the compression just pops it out. Then it's a matter of partially seating it, vibrate the case, seat further, until you get it down to 1.170". Then give it a good crimp right away before the powder can start expanding.

This makes around 600fps (the unburned powder makes about 3000fps) with the jacketed 124gn bullet, a cast bullet would make less pressure and less velocity. I would love to try this load in a carbine barrel where more of the powder has time to burn. In a shorter five-inch pistol barrel (mine is 7" including the chamber) 500fps is probably more realistic.

A standard 9mm pistol round would be making about .6 pounds-per-second recoil impulse, at about 10fps, generating around 3lbft of energy. Due to the larger powder mass (more than double a standard load), this 500fps load almost gets to similar numbers - .55/9/2.5. It might be possible with some tweaking of the recoil system to make this load function in a pistol purely as a practice round. But other than simply for compliance shoots I don't think it'd be particularly fun to shoot it.

Surprisingly, the bore has virtually no powder in it, burned or otherwise, it's cleaner than standard 12ga field loads.

[in2anity]

I would love to try this load in a carbine barrel where more of the powder has time to burn. In a shorter five-inch pistol barrel (mine is 7" including the

I may try this in my 32H&R lever one day, or perhaps even the blackout carbine. So little time... so many experiments to be had... it would actually make for a pretty interesting article, given current pistol powder shortages

[bladeracer]

I would love to try this load in a carbine barrel where more of the powder has time to burn. In a shorter five-inch pistol barrel (mine is 7" including the

I may try this in my 32H&R lever one day, or perhaps even the blackout carbine. So little time... so many experiments to be had... it would actually make for a pretty interesting article, given current pistol powder shortages

I wouldn't bother going over about 10gn, I don't think any more than that will burn anyway so it's wasted and just makes loading far more difficult. If you do try it I definitely want to hear your results though

I don't have the BLK but I would certainly be trying AR2206H in it if I did.

I definitely recommend the Chiappa 12ga adapters for this sort of experimenting, rather than risk damaging a nice handgun.

The next one I need to experiment with AR2206H in is .357 Magnum, but I expect identical results. I can get a lot more powder in the case, but it still isn't going to burn in a pistol-length barrel.

I guess maybe duplex loading might be worth trying, at least it'll let you get more loads out of the pistol powder you already have. Maybe 1gn of AP70N or AR2205 on the primer to start the burn and eight grains of AR2206H on top. That would get you 15400rds out of a 1000gm bottle of valuable pistol powder instead of the usual 3400-4000rds.

[in2anity]

I guess maybe duplex loading might be worth trying, at least it'll let you get more loads out of the pistol powder you already have. Maybe 1gn of AP70N or AR2205 on the primer to start the burn and eight grains of AR2206H on top. That would get you 15400rds out of a 1000gm bottle of valuable pistol powder instead of the usual 3400-4000rds.

Whoa now there's an idea is this completely your idea?

[bladeracer]

I guess maybe duplex loading might be worth trying, at least it'll let you get more loads out of the pistol powder you already have. Maybe 1gn of AP70N or AR2205 on the primer to start the burn and eight grains of AR2206H on top. That would get you 15400rds out of a 1000gm bottle of valuable pistol powder instead of the usual 3400-4000rds.

Whoa now there's an idea is this completely your idea?

Yes, it occurred to me as I was writing it
It occurred to me that since we already have the case stuffed solid anyway, it's easy to swap out the bottom of the charge column with something faster-burning to rev it up.

I was asked by a member here privately if I had any ideas to be able to shoot 9mm IPSC without pistol powders. I suggested trying AR2206H, but have since had others asking the same thing. I can experiment with a larger safety margin in the shotgun than most pistols offer, and I'd rather do the experiments myself than hear about somebody else blowing up a pistol or getting injured. And, because I'm testing in a gun rather than a pistol, I can do it at home rather than have to go to a pistol range.