|
|
02-12-2024, 08:38 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,545
Liked 5,684 Times in 802 Posts
|
|
An unusual Marlin 1893
|
The Following 22 Users Like Post:
|
aphelion, bgrafsr, Birdhunter6, Bruce C, CWH44300, desi2358, dwh, Goony, Jebus35745, jframejoey, JohnRippert, kev74, Lee Barner, Mike0251, Muley Gil, pmanton, Richard Simmons, s&wchad, Seaburry, TheTinMan, TJm15.38, tt66 |
02-12-2024, 08:38 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,545
Liked 5,684 Times in 802 Posts
|
|
Last edited by 444 Magnum; 02-12-2024 at 09:18 PM.
|
The Following 11 Users Like Post:
|
Bald1, bgrafsr, Birdhunter6, CWH44300, desi2358, dwh, fdover, Mike0251, Muley Gil, Richard Simmons, s&wchad |
02-12-2024, 11:17 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,545
Liked 5,684 Times in 802 Posts
|
|
Update: Two individuals on the marlinowners forum just told me that this is not uncommon on early Marlin 1893, 1894 and 1895's. This was the first that I had seen so it raised questions. Good to know.
Last edited by 444 Magnum; 02-12-2024 at 11:50 PM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 03:42 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Western Wyoming
Posts: 57
Likes: 186
Liked 75 Times in 24 Posts
|
|
I have a 93 that isn't stamped with the model number either. It's chambered in 38-55 also.
Last edited by Bruce C; 02-13-2024 at 03:44 PM.
Reason: Hit submit to quick
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-16-2024, 08:54 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 29
Likes: 1
Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Can’t help with the why but another beautiful rifle. You are right about the crisp lettering, that along with the case coloring really makemthe rifle standout. You have a fine collection sir.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-17-2024, 09:56 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Harlem, Ohio
Posts: 14,464
Likes: 23,548
Liked 26,396 Times in 9,153 Posts
|
|
The guy assembling the 32-40 rifles tied up the roll mark machinery that day?
Ivan
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-17-2024, 01:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SE Wyoming
Posts: 2,983
Likes: 4,748
Liked 4,791 Times in 1,679 Posts
|
|
My .38-55 1893 was made in 1904 and has the model on the tang.
|
02-17-2024, 06:53 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,545
Liked 5,684 Times in 802 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inusuit
My .38-55 1893 was made in 1904 and has the model on the tang.
|
As it should. I've found out from people more knowledgeable than myself in this area that the early 1893's (first year or so) were not roll marked, had a one piece firing pin and patent dates up to April 2, 1889. The two piece firing pin and the final patent date of August 1, 1893 came about later.
|
02-17-2024, 08:08 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 1,525
Liked 1,826 Times in 737 Posts
|
|
There is one coming up on a local auction next week.that lacks the model stamp on the top tang. It's chambered for the 32 HPS, Marlins name for the 32 Winchester Special. I may go bid on it.
John
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-24-2024, 03:43 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 1,525
Liked 1,826 Times in 737 Posts
|
|
FWIW, that model 93 sold for $1484, with tax. It was in very good condition and with nice case hard finish on the receiver. Not a bad price but just a little more than I was willing to pay.
I did buy the next one up, a nice Marlin 39A from 1951. It'll do.
John
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|