45-70: Marlin or Henry?

I've owned and sold 3 Marlins (2 SBL and 1 GBL). All 3 were hobby/project guns for our boring winters. All required stoning and polishing the innards, tweaking the triggers, kerfing the levers etc etc.

For personal use I have a Henry H010 and its a keeper. Accuracy is on par with with Marlins but imho it trumps them in all other aspects of fit/finish, ease of use/cycling and ergonomics. It was good to go right out of the box. Henrys do not have the annoying cross bolt safety that Marlins do. A safety delete kit is a cheap quick fix though.

I'll admit it that is a bit disconcerting not to see a side loading gate on the Henry. However I feel the tube loading makes it much safer and faster for unloading vs pinching a loading gate or cycling all rounds to extract from a Marlin. The brass accent under the tube is a nice touch too.
 
Last edited:
SHELL SHUCKER said:
Henry would make 'em in 16.5" to get them out of the "handgun class" in the States. They are most likely looking into this option as seen by their Big Boy & .22LR carbines. It would be fun to have a shorty .45-70 as well.;)
Click to expand...

As you said coming soon as every other Henry center-fire rifle is available in that configuration. I was disappointed when they announced the new lineup for 2017 and that gun wasn't in.
 
I have a JM 1895 and 2 Remlins, built 2015...no difference in function and appearance here ( they had issues at take over and about 1 1/2 yrs after, the problems were solved) However, If it matters to you, the customer service at Henry is stellar and no other company comes even close! If you have a Henry with issues, they won't last long.

CG
 
Trimmer 905 said:
The only thing I'm not impressed with the Henry is the tube magazine. They seem to get full of dirt in nothing flat. Don't let anyone hand you the old "JMstamped" stuff on the Marlins. The new models built since 2014 are top notch. Good luck with your choice. I love my new Marlin 1895.
Click to expand...

Not what I've heard. Even the ones that work well are rougher internally and stock fit is still hit or miss.
Unless you can examine one before you buy, don't buy one.
And the JM ones are absolutely superior.
 
Lonesome Donkey said:
Not what I've heard. Even the ones that work well are rougher internally and stock fit is still hit or miss.
Unless you can examine one before you buy, don't buy one.
And the JM ones are absolutely superior.
Click to expand...

Guys use the JM stamp as some type of mythical lettering that signifies greatness.
I must have missed that memo, because the ones I've held functioned fine, but they were pretty plain, workman-like rifles.
 
heronfish said:
Guys use the JM stamp as some type of mythical lettering...
Click to expand...

Where do you think the whole "JM Stamp" thing came from?

It was sellers trying to give buyers some assurance that they were not buying a piece of shyte Remlin...

"JM stamp" does not equal greatness... it equals "properly made."

They have always been workman-like rifles... but Pre-Remlin, they were well made workman-like rifles...
 
hoytcanon said:
Where do you think the whole "JM Stamp" thing came from?

It was sellers trying to give buyers some assurance that they were not buying a piece of shyte Remlin...

"JM stamp" does not equal greatness... it equals "properly made."

They have always been workman-like rifles... but Pre-Remlin, they were well made workman-like rifles...
Click to expand...

True. Very true.

I've seen some awful JM rifles though, specifically some of the last ones.

Obviously I'm on the henry bandwagon for a reason, the jm thing just cracks me up at times. No matter the stamping, the henry is miles better.
 
hoytcanon said:
Where do you think the whole "JM Stamp" thing came from?

It was sellers trying to give buyers some assurance that they were not buying a piece of shyte Remlin...

"JM stamp" does not equal greatness... it equals "properly made."

They have always been workman-like rifles... but Pre-Remlin, they were well made workman-like rifles...
Click to expand...

And in 2017 they still are

Quit living in the past
 
LeducAb said:
And in 2017 they still are

Quit living in the past
Click to expand...

I'm not living in the past, I have owned many Marlin's... IMO even the 2016 guns don't live up to the Pre-Remlin guns. The only one left is an 80's .35 Rem... but I now have several Henry's.
 
15774879_10154902605042229_7963214232402387707_o.jpg


I got the Henry for Xmas... out of my 3 levers .. it's the nicest out of the box, both aesthetics and smoothness of action. My next big bore lever was going to be a Henry... but Marlin announced at SHOT the release of a new 444..... decisions.....
 
I finally went anf held them both. Haters can hate, but I like the Marlin 1895 better. It simply feels better to me, more comfortable.

Now, there is a 22" version of the 1895 as well. I do like the SBL and GBL, but am wondering if there is a whole bunch lost with the shorter barrel? The rifle will be scoped (2-7 or 3-9, somewhere in there), my eyes just aren't what they used to be.
 
Whatever you shoot at paper or flesh will not know the difference between the 18.5 or the 22 barrel . handle them both and see what feels right. I myself like the short models. I cut down a JM (GASP) 444xlr to 18.5" because I wanted a stainless 444 shorty
 
I have owned JM Marlins made since 1980, and currently own one made in 1969 that was unused.

I've looked at the Remlins and remain unimpressed.

The last of the run of JM Marlins were also pretty bad, but then they were assembled from parts by Remington cretins, not the Marlin guys.

The only Marlins than I will ever buy are older ones. Perhaps a Glenfield version of the 336. I've always liked the plain look of them.

The only new 20th century style lever guns that I will buy now are from Henry.

Also, I can live with the tube loading. While loading gates may be traditional, they are highly over-rated. In reality, they are slow and somewhat awkward to use, and they force the shooter to cycle rounds through the action to unload.

Tube fed guns can simply dump the magazine to unload, and loading speed (if that matters at all in a hunting gun), is comparable.

Purist authenticity only matters to me in a replica such as a 66 or 73 Winchester.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom