You did good, sir...

I'm a huge 92 fan, I own a Miroku 92 short rifle flavored in 45 LC. It's probably my favorite lever action. The Ruger/Marlin's have to be the best lever gun offered these days.  I'd love to see some pictures of itl

+1 on looking like great rifles.

I'm really curious if these things will chamber wadcutter reloads.

Also tag for some photos. Let's see some of these awesome rifles

ETA - Also looking for trustworthy retailers with great prices

I can’t stand the 20in barrels on the 44.   Velocity normally peaks 14-16in.  Sight radius advantage is minimal there is no reason except to annoy me lol

It's all about that capacity!! Seriously I don't really want anything longer than 16" on most of my guns.

I just saw a 44 mag locally and I don't think it can be threaded without cutting the mag tube and probably moving the sight. How much room between mag tube or sight and muzzle on the 357?

   A 16in .44 is a dream to carry through the thick SE woods.
Same goes for it being on the tractor or 4wheeler.

Most would probably be 12”-14” if not for NFA.

   
      I agree.

Perhaps, but I really like the 16" 1892 takedown.  Breaks down into 2 nearly equal halves.  
16" is about ideal for max velocity with most factory loads.
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html
Also, I like the 7 round mag capacity.  You lose 1 round per 2" barrel length reduction for an 1892 with a full length mag.

Comparing a 16" lever gun and an 18" revolver with cylinder gap is not apples-to-apples. Note that their chart above the "real world" keeps going up past 16".
I suspect that a 20" lever gun would gain a bit over the 16", plus 2 more rounds of capacity.

Who is talking about revolvers, let alone hypothetical ones with 18" barrels?  I know I did not specify "in lever action rifles" in my comment, but I assume it was understood in the context.

First of all, my comment was specifically replying to a comment about barrels SHORTER than 16"
Also, where in the linked chart (either in the actual firearms or test barrel data) does velocity keep going up past 16"?  I see only one number, in the test barrel data, that shows an increase in velocity for a barrel over 16", the Federal 125 gr. JHP..  In the test barrel data, there are some that show an increase from 17" to 18" that is still less than the velocity at 16".  You can't extrapolate that to assume an increase from 18" to 19" or 20".  

Here's what Buffalo bore has to say about their loads:  https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=541

I stand by my statement that in a lever action rifle most factory loads reach their max velocity around a 16" barrel.  IF you want the shortest possible rifle without sacrificing velocity, 16" is the way to go.  

For additional interesting reading, see also:  VELOCITY VERSUS BARREL LENGTH

I never recommended against a 20" barrel.  (I have both 16" and 20" .357 leverguns.) There's really not going to be any meaningful difference in velocity between a 16" and 20" barrel:  If you care more about minimum overall length and weight with max velocity, go 16".  If you care more about mag capacity and sight radius for about the same practical velocity, go 20".

16" is fine. Winchester actually made some guns that had short barrels but they are pre NFA and you can get a waiver of sorts from BATF if it's deemed genuine. There's no question some loads can gain to 20" but keep in mind it's still just a magnum pistol round so if you really need the horsepower you can step into rifle rounds that are usually starting at or above the maxed out pistol loads.

Me too. I'm a big Marlin fan and have been for a long time. However, I'm not interested at all at these prices.

Wouldn't you rather have a better gun?  Let's be honest, JM guns were never that great. The attraction was that they were a cheaper alternative to the Winchester.

The later Remington made guns and the Ruger made guns are much better than any JM gun.

I don’t know why anyone thinks Ruger is going to make better lever actions than Marlin or Remington.

Their revolvers are JUNK from a quality perspective.  Great design, terrible execution.  

Out of six Ruger revolvers I own, four went straight back to the factory to be fixed or replaced, I replaced the hammer on one and fixed it myself.  

I have a Ruger Marlin 1895 SBL that is fantastic in terms of fit, finish and function. Granted it doesn't have years of use and I only have about 150 rounds through it. But cosmetically and just general "feel" it's much nicer than many of my JM stamped rifles.  We all want to attach something special to the JM guns, but the reality is they were all over the map in terms of quality, especially the last 20 or so years of their run.

Side note, I have a couple Vaqueros and a GP100 that have been great for years. Not quite as nice as some of the S&W or Colt wheel guns, but they're not junk either. Only ever had one issue with a Ruger (10/22) and that was fixed and back in my hands in less than 2 weeks.

LOL no. Not just going off memory, but I had to dig out some old Guns & Ammo Annuals and other gun annuals from 1988-1994. You know , the kind that were a catalog of all the available firearms then with specs and prices. I found no Winchester 94s that were MSRP’d higher than the common 336CS Marlin in .30-30. Mostly Winchesters were 10-25% less than the Marlins.
And owning both, Winchesters are a Rube Goldberg kludge compared to a Marlin.

Ruger was better ten years ago.  

I’ve owned two Marlins, a JM 336 that was terribly inaccurate and a JM 1894 357 that never was reliable.  

Washed my hands of Marlins and stick with my Winchesters, 1873s and 1894s.

I went through the trouble of fixing all my Ruger revolvers because I do think they’re worth it.

Are you seriously comparing Ruger quality to Remington?  The Remington made guns were abysmal fit and finish wise compared to the Rugers - not even close.  The Rugers made Marlins are way, way, way nicer than anything Remington put out.

I’ve never seen any of the Ruger Marlins, but their revolvers QC  is trash.

I wouldn't be surprised if ruger wasn't throttling supply.

I'm not sure how it would drive down the price of 2 cheaper rifles.  Generally an increase in supply of cheaper/similar rifles will pull down more expensive price.  I mean honda didn't lower their civic price when chevy released the c8 vette.

The Ruger made rifles look to be made very well, but only time can tell.  Not all Remington made were bad. At the end the quality was good on the new CNC machines.  Some were down right dangerous though.    
The original Marlins had their share of duds.  I think what makes those special is when you find a great one.  I have a untouched JM 1894 that is probably slick enough to use as a SASS rifle

I saw the Ruger/Marlin 357 the other day at the LGS.  I inspected it and was very close on bring it home.....Just not sure its worth the $1300+ but it sure seemed nicer then I remember the JM guns.

Should I go back and get it?

Except that the site you cited disagreed with your "velocity peaks at 16 inches" business, except for a Buntline Special style revolver in their "real world results" section. That's why I specified that. Did you look at your own link?

Ouch, makes the ruger 357 I saw at local shop for 1075 or 1099 seem like a steal.

In what world can you compare 2006 to 2023/4 prices

Yes, I did look at my own link.  What exactly are you saying?  

Are you saying:
The max value for velocity in the data is not for 16"
or
The data shows that velocity does not max out around 16"
or
The data doesn't support the claim that velocity maxes out around 16"
or
something else?  

I'd like to make sure I am addressing your actual position.

On the page I linked to, in the top test barrel section, the highest velocity value is in the 16" barrel for every load except for the Federal 125 gr jhp

Please show any anywhere that in  
Yes, there are examples where there is an increase in velocity from 17" to 18" after a decrease from 16" to 17".  
Those are not instances where velocity "keeps going up past 16".  
Velocity maxed out at 16", dropped at 17", and then increased from 17" to 18" to a value below that at 16".  
(In every case but the Fed 125gr JHP, the increase in velocity from 17" to 18" was less than the increase in velocity from 15" to 16".)

You appear to be extrapolating a continuation of the increase in velocity from 17" to 18" in barrel lengths beyond 18" that would surpass the max listed value at 16".  This is not a completely unreasonable assumption, but neither is it supported.  It might increase, but there just isn't any support to show that it does.

The other link I posted from Buffalo Bore states their claim that at least their loads reach their maximum velocity in 16 inches of barrel.  Considering how hot their loads are, it's reasonable to conclude that other maker's loads would also.  The complexities of different loads doesn't rule out the possibility that other makers' may peak at longer barrel lengths,  but I haven't yet seen any data that would lead me to that conclusion.  

It is unfortunate that Ballistics by the Inch did not have a 20" test barrel to produce data on.

In all the searching I have done online, and I have searched extensively on many occasions, I have never found anything to support the conclusion that for .357 Magnum there is any general velocity advantage in a 20" barrel over a 16" barrel.

Additionally

I don't find a "real world results" section on the page I linked to or anywhere on that entire site, at least not any part I saw nor any part indexed by Google.

There are "real world guns" and "real* world weapons"  sections, but no "real world results" that I have found.

Also, I never stated "velocity peaks at 16 inches"

Quotation marks mean something specific. If you are paraphrasing, restating, or otherwise not repeating exact words, it is inappropriate to use quotation marks.

Funny thing, I stopped by another shop and they had one at $1099 but were closing for the night.  So its a good chance Ill be back tomorrow.

Well, did you get er done :)

$1099 is what I paid for my Ruger/Marlin 336 in April. Just a beautiful gun. A few years ago I would have said that the .357 lever gun has more value than just about any other caliber. I kind of still believe that, but these new Ruger's have changed things a bit.

Yep, got er done

Attached File

Oh my! It's a thing of beauty.

You can't buy a better lever gun for the $..

Congratulations, Sir

I acquired a Ruger/Marlin 1894 .357 about 3 weeks ago.  I have several hundred rounds it so far and it’s a great little rifle.

Prices seem to be all over the place on the new .357 in the DFW area and stores don't have them in stock to actually in stock to inspect.  

My local Scheels seems to have the best price at $1099.

Hking  

Local shop has their Rossis priced that high or nearly so.   As a reloader I am not going to suffer a chamber that ruins my brass. Nothing from MaRlin in stock.

Hopefully Ruger will make a taci-cool version of the .357 too.

Here's what I'd like to see:

.357 Mag
Stainless
Laminated stock
16" barrel
rail mount on receiver only - no need for a super long one like I've seen on other models
Ghost ring rear
Night sight front
Threaded barrel.

I have no need for the night sight but other than that the list looks good. I grabbed one of the Marlins before they went out of business and I wish it had the normal laminate instead of the bedliner or whatever they painted on them.

Remington Marlin made almost that without the threaded barrel, can't remember if it was the SBL or CSBL (one was .357, the other .44). I'm up for one in .44 so I can role-play Jurassic World on the cheap.

Bought a "Remlin" 1894 in 2019 and paid $615 on GB. The rifle is very high quality fit and finish. Excellent accuracy. Not all of these were poor quality from what I have personally seen. Ad is from 2021.

Remington got their shit together in 2018 and started producing some really nice guns. It was just too late for them. I have a 1894 from 2018. It's just as good as my new Ruger/ Marlin.

With all due respect:
Henry firearms was established in 1860.
https://www.henryusa.com/about-us/henry-history/

Marlin was established in 1870. It is younger than Henry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Firearms

I've never owned a Henry, but they are older than Marlin, and have been in business continuously.

Marlins are more famous. I'm glad Ruger bought them and is giving them the attention they deserve.
But Henry is the older company and has been more innovative and absolutely has the longevity.

Are you under the impression that the companies that exist today are the companies talked about in those links?

Not the same Henry.

From their website...

That link is to a brief history of the Henry Rifle
(which was produced by the New Haven Arms Company, which would later change its name to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company).  

It does not describe the history of Henry Repeating Arms company, despite that page being listed under the "About Us" section of their web page.  If you were confused into thinking that link was referring to the Henry Repeating Arms Company, that was the original intention of the marketing team that used to outright lie about the company's history.  They used to state on their website, in their promotional materials, and in their manuals, until an ARFCOMer contacted the head of the company, who promptly had the website edited to remove the false claims from the web site.

Should have waited a bit.

1894 at PSA $999.99

While Henry firearms of today makes a solid gun they are as akin to the original Henry Rifle maker as Springfield Armory Inc. is to Springfield Armory operated by the U.S. Government which is now just a museum site.

That is a nice deal.  I’d wait for a curved grip version for my tastes though.

I wonder what the out-the-door cost would be. What does your dealer charge for a transfer? I believe Palmetto charges sales tax, and there is a shipping charge. It might not be that good of a bargain. My experience with Ruger's lack of quality control, has caused me to only buy a gun I can look over before purchase. I would pay a little more for that. Also, I try to support the local gunshops. It is all a balancing act, good luck with however you go.

So right about the OTD cost. This seems like a good price but if PSA can do $999.00 hopefully your LGS can do $1099.00.

The quality of these guns are second to none...for now. They want to make a good impression and they have. I always support my LGS but I do ask for price matching plus their transfer fees ($65.00)

I kind of lol at the crossed out price of $1499.00 when the MSRP is only $1279.00

If I was getting it from PSA it would be $1086.00 + $30 for shipping protection (if desired) + $25 for FFL.