Marlin 60 vs 795. Differences beyond the obvious.

[mikeystew]

Besides the 60's longer fatter barrel and tube mag versus detachable box, there is a difference in how their actions cycle rounds through the feed lips, and I believe it gives the 60 the edge in performance at the cost of detachable magazines.

This is a quote i authored, taken from RFC in a thread about the differences between the 60 and the 795. It led me to quite a bit of contemplation as to how different they really were, and why the 795 in my experience can tend to leave two parallel gouges on the follow up bullets in the mag, while the 60 does not. Review of the original thread may be necessary for proper context.

This is the thread;

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=521762

This is my quote from it. Any thoughts? Experiences?

During initial phase of the ejection cycle on the 795 it happens as you described, however on the 60 the round under the bolt is sitting on the lifter which is being held down by the little roller under the bolt, so there is no upward pressure on the bullet pressing it into the pin guides. There really shouldn't be much if any upward pressure on the round at all until the bolt face (sharp corners on the front of the firing pin guides) has already passed over the lead bullet. Certainly once it does relieve the lifter and it's tiny spring pushes the round up into the feed lips, it is with much less pressure than a detachable box mag with 9 rounds, pressing into the bolt for the entire ejection cycle, and part of the into battery cycle.

Mind you most of my theory on the 60 is just that... theory. I cant even remember the last time i put bullets in my 60's tube without shooting them, so im going to have to test mine to see what it does to the bullets tomorrow. (which i did today... No gouges.)However i have owned a 795 that gouged the bullets similar to what i saw in another thread here, and a papoose that just mangled the bullets. It's mag had an unusually strong spring, but surprisingly it shot extremely well.

 

[mikeystew]

Also another thing I considered when i settled in my preference for the 60, is the mag sticking out of the 795. Beyond asthetics it leaves the feed guide open to external forces, whereas the feed guide on the 60 is sealed internally. As an example I once replaced a broken feed guide in a papoose I purchased from someone who had it accidentally slide and hit the floor when he leaned it against a wall. The shock force on the magazine caused it to break the retaining nubs on the feed guide that hold it in the action side plates. I don't like the idea of a miniature steel cheater bar (magazine) dangling fixed to a much weaker alloy part that is also attached to steel parts via small breakable alloy nubs. It's the recipe for a busted feed guide given a mishap, I have seen proof of this.


Im just a 60 lover over here. I'll admit I'm bias toward it but that is due to my personal experiences with them combined with my theories on its mechanical advantage over box type magazine fed rifles.

Obviously, for tommy tactical and people who frequently need to unload and reload their .22's without shooting it for whatever reason the detachable mag has a functional advantage over the 60.

If you find it easier to change mags seated at a bench than load a tube then it has an ergonomic advantage. But to me the ease of dropping rounds down a tube compared to pressing them under the feed lips of a box mag... cancels that advantage out.

 

[MET]

I am still enjoying my Marlin Model 65 "Golden 50" after 30 years