Just picked up a nice Marlin 336Y made in 2004. Installed an XS white post front sight (my old eyes can really pick this up) and a left over Ludwig cross bolt safety eliminator. Was thinking what a great combination with my old Model 15, S&W Combat Masterpiece if I was still working patrol in the 60's.



Cross bolt safety elinator (the safety is between your ears not here)



XS white post front sight (great combination with the stock folding style rear sight)



This combination was really all that was needed. Maybe the PC police would even approve the image of an old S&W revolver and a lever gun instead of "black" guns .



Trooper Joe

The Marlin 336Y is simply the best choice for a rifle that will serve well for defense, and that is not an AR or AK or similar.

I wanted a short barrel, but thought the short stock would be a problem, and I didn't want to put custom work, or even a stock change, into an inexpensive rifle. I took a chance, and found out that the stock is just right. No chance of "telescope eye" as there is no telescope!

Excellent choice.

Love that cross bolt safety eliminator!!!!

Great post!

I wish I still had my 336C and 15-3. Traded away the former and gave the latter to my son, but you're right--it would be a match made in heaven.

The 336 pre-dated the crossbolt safety. Had only a nice sturdy half-cock notch. Both the 39A's I've owned were also manufactured well before Marlin decided to add that wrinkle.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

A .38 & .30-30. What a combo!

Nothin wrong with that combo, for sure,

I like my 4" M13 and M92 lever gun in 357

BUT

I'd like 44 mag lever gun and a 4" M29 lever gun even better.

There's somethin' just too kewl about being able to use the same loads in your sidearm and your saddle gun...

I asked my wife (the prosecutor) what an attorney would do in court to a gun owner who removed or disabled a safety on a firearm that was subsequently used in a shooting. She just smiled...that shark like smile that lawyers get when they smell blood in the water.

I fully realize that I appear to be the only person in the whole world who feels this way, but I would never, ever, under any circumstance remove or disable a safety device on any firearm. You are leaving yourself wide open to prosecution in criminal or civil court should the gun ever be involved in a shooting. That totally righteous self defense situation can turn into a reckless endangerment charge and or a ruinous civil liability suit. You instantly go from being a law abiding citizen defending yourself to a reckless, bloodthirsty cowboy who wanted to make his gun as deadly as possible. All of us here know that's ridiculous, but that's how your actions will be portrayed in court by the other side's lawyer. And he will be talking to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty, people chosen for the jury specifically for their utter lack of knowledge about guns. They will believe whatever they are told by the attorney. All it takes is an ambitious, anti-gun prosecutor planning to seek higher office or a civil liability lawyer looking for a big cash award.

You do as you please, but I prefer to not leave myself vulnerable to legal or civil action. If I can't stand having a safety on a gun, I don't buy a gun with a safety. Any gunsmith who removes or disables a safety is asking for litigation. Same with any company making kits to remove or disable a safety. Are there any companies selling such things?

__________________
No life story has happy end.

I agree completely about leaving the safety alone, but having been one if those twelve people, I resent the hell out of that remark.

Jury duty is just that, a duty. It's part of the price we pay to live in a free society. Is it perfect? No, but better than most of the rest of the world.

Seen the "Lock hole plug"?

A gunsmith did the same to my Winchester Trapper in .357.

As I wanted the rifle as designed in 1892 and manufactured for its first 100 years. I only chamber a round moments prior to firing a shot.....one of the beauties of a lever action.... IMO.....loaded magazine tube but no round in the "firing" chamber.

But SP makes a good point; my concealed carry and home defense guns are not altered...........

SP a question if I may; if you carry a Smith Auto do you carry it safety on or just use it as a decocker....... seems like a Prosecutor/Shark could make the same argument...... if you carry and drew a weapon with the "safety" intentionally moved to the off position!!!

PS: I always refer to that little lever on the side as a "decocker" ...... wish Smith had made them all spring loaded to automatically flip up.......

Technically, elimination of a "safety device", assuming it is one, should only apply if the shooting is alleged to be (and be properly argued accordingly) a matter of negligence. If one of my colleagues in this state tried to make that argument, I'd have an off the books chat with them regarding pulling their head out of their sphincter. Any defense attorney who could not keep that argument out with a motion in limine is either a first rate dullard or in front of a judge who is.

My first rifle was a 30-30, and I had the sights addressed so I could work better with them - a peep rear with the insert out to form a ghost ring and a tritium insert up front. I would likely go with a more modern version of that now; a real ghost ring and an XS Big Dot front. Someone who is really good can perform well, but it is not easy or cheap to be that good. I have heard of ONE, an old country cop, who kept the pace through a 3 day carbine course with a level gun and a revolver. (It was big bore, I think 45ACP, not a .38).

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

1. No offense intended by the juror comment. That's an old joke and I was going for humor. Don't take everything personally.

2. I do in fact carry an older Model 659 as a daily carry piece and the safety is indeed engaged. My thinking is if somebody tries to turn my own gun on me I have a moment to act while the thug tries to make the gun work.

My attorney wife assures me that any firearm used in a shooting, whether accidental or intentional, will be thoroughly examined to establish its condition. Any irregularities will be noted to all attorneys involved in the case. Anyone who thinks a lawyer WON'T make an issue of a deactivated safety isn't living in 21st century America.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

It always bugs the heck out of me when I see a 1911 with tape wrapped around the grip safety. Don't see that nearly as much now days as you did in the 60's & 70's.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Any attorney who won't try, I'll believe. Anyone who tries it with me will get force fed the evidence rules on relevance with a front end loader, and then get a sanctions motion for frivolous pleading. It is simply not relevant, and thus not admissible, in an intentional shooting. Sadly, most judges will not pull up their Huggies and pound people who make such arguments, even though tolerating it is bad for the system.

There are safety devices that are not optional, such as on a 1911. Pinning or taping the grip safety is beyond clownshoes. A magazine disconnect on a BHP is not at all necessary.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

We can huff & puff all we want to:

A zealous prosecutor or greedy tort lawyer can still ruin you with legal costs. Worse, you could wind up looking like public enemy #1 with your name & face all over the news.

Remember the Duke LaCrosse team?

It's impossible to make a blanket statement as to legality or liability. Any legal action is going to be at the state level. Last I counted there's 50, so that's at least 50 different sets of laws and interpretations. But that doesn't begin to cover every possibility, since every county or municipality may be different.

Then there's whatever court it's filed in and what that judge thinks of your haircut. Maybe you remind them of their ex-spouse.

Politically-aspiring prosecutors are notorious for going after headline-grabbing cases.

Makes no difference how wrong they are or innocent you are, your life will be changed, probably in a bad way, and forever.

The IL is not a "safety".

What would you call it?

IIRC it's designed to deactivate the trigger/hammer and render the gun "safe"

Even if you win you lose. You MAY get the case tossed but after how many thousands of dollars in legal fees? Why set yourself up?

The internal lock is borderline. We all realize it's for storage, not a safety as such. But would a jury, picked for its ignorance on guns understand that? Again, I would not set myself up for trouble. Any lock or safety that comes on a gun I buy stays there and remains functioning.

I like the huff and puff comment. Whenever legal issues are discussed you get the "THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN ME...THEY WOULDN'T GET AWAY WITH THAT!" just like when weapon retention comes up. "NOBODY COULD EVER GET MY GUN!"

__________________
No life story has happy end.

I would call it a storage lock. A safety would be something you could switch off a moment before firing.

No one in their right mind would carry an IL revolver in the locked position, would they? That's because it is not a safety. The IL is for locking the gun while in storage.

I'm glad I have an older Interarms Rossi 92 with the proper hammer notch safety all lever rifles should have.

As for avoiding jury duty, please don't! One of us may need you someday to nullify an unconstitutional law. The person selected for jury duty has an incredible amount of power in our system (but likely does not realize it). His or her decisions cannot be overturned, even by the Supreme Court.

Please visit the Fully Informed Jury Association site and learn who holds the real power in a court proceeding (it ain't the judge).

Jury Nullification | Fully Informed Jury Association

I've just never really understood what the objection to the cross-bolt safety on a Marlin rifle is? Other than "That ain't the way they used to do it. (They used to hand crank start automobiles too.) I don't see where it really hurts anything. When I hunt with one I leave the safety off and thumb the hammer same as always. They have a rebounding hammer, same as the first shotgun I had as a kid.

The only difference is that I can block that hammer if I have to let it down on a live round. Not as much worry with cold fingers. (YES!, YES! I KNOW you still have to be careful, point it in a safe direction...all that...and you know I know it.)

To the OP. Nice combo you got. I've always like the idea of a lever 30/30. I always wanted a Winchester just because they were a Winchester, but always ended up with Marlins because they (1) felt a lot more solid, and (2) it is so much easier to mount a scope. Yes, I'm one of those heretics that puts a scope on a lever rifle.

And I am pretty fond of the Model 15 as we've established elsewhere.

__________________
John 3:16 .