Just heard from one of our local gun dealers that Marlin is going to stop porting their 45-70's.
He said that they didn't really give a reason...he thought liability reasons regarding the muzzle blast and hearing.
What a crock...now are we required to take a set of earplugs in addition to trigger locks when we purchase a new rifle???
Next thing you know is that remington will program their fancy litttle electronic rifle so that you cant squeeze the trigger unless it detects ear gear.
Anyone else heard anything on this???

------------------
WyomingSwede

WyomingSwede,

I think it's just a commercial decision, in order to promote their .450 Marlin.

Because .450 Marlin is not a revolutionary cartridge nearly same as .45-70.

I can't be happy with this way of doing buniness.

If you want a big bore lever rifle, choose a Winchester in .45-70 or a Marlin in .444 Marlin but not a Marlin in .450 Marlin. Boycot the .450 Marlin, this is the only way to protest.

------------------
BER007
Keep the faith in any circumstances
------------------------
BBER007@HOTMAIL.COM

I don't have a clue whether or not that's true, about the ports.

But I do know that lot's of folks on the Marlin Talk forum, and lot's of other forums, have stated that they'd like to see an "unported" Guide Gun.

Include me in that list, of folks who would prefer the rifle without the ports.

What would be best, or course, is to make both styles, so everyone would be happy.

------------------
Brian
The 416 Taylor WebPage!

I would opt for an unported 450 or 45-70 there just isn't enough recoil to justify porting those short barrel guns IMHO....Just speaking for myself.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

I'm with Ray on this one. My Marlin 45-70 is not ported, and doesn't need it IMHO. I can't believe how many guys feel the need to port these short barreled rifles. It's just like the guys that port .375H&H's, if you can't handle the flame, then stay away from the fire.
BOWHUNR

Ditto to what Ray said.
As a matter of fact, if you take a look at the Marlin talk forum, you'll see that very few people really like the porting.
Good decision in my opinion.
Ken

Ditto on no porting...It's one of the reasons I don't have one! I think they'll sell like hot cakes w/o porting.

Sounds like good business to me, they can produce the rifles cheaper and probably won't pass the savings on to us...So more profit..

Mike

------------------
Victory through superior firepower!

You all have some valid points...however I think we can probably solve this by voting with the pocketbooks. A friend of mine just got back from the SHOT show and he said nothing was known about it in the Marlin booth. If Marlin makes more money selling ported guide guns, then economics will decide whether the porting stays or goes.
I feel that the porting on the guide gun does reduce recoil and allow you to get back on target quicker. I cant say for sure because I have never had anything but one shot kills from my guide gun. It could be perceived recoil I will grant you. Mossberg ports its 835 Ulti-mag shotgun and it seems to help keep the muzzle down, especially with the big 3.5's.
I am in favor of any device(be it porting, braking, or BOSS) that reduces felt or perceived recoil. I can put 40 rounds through my 300 winmag with the brake on pretty easily...off it is quite another matter. If if the device gives you the confidence or ability to shoot more or more accurately...it cant be all bad. One of the biggest problems in getting new people into the sport is recoil or perceived recoil.
We all have our likes & dislikes. Not everyone wants vanilla ice cream.

------------------
WyomingSwede

Many of us absolutely, positiveal abhore muzzle brakes. If I were to get a ported guide gun, I'd simply bob it down to where the ports were gone, and have an even handier gun.

I think it was a marketing decision, and a wise one at that. I think a ss non ported 45-70 will be finding its way into my safe one of these days.

Can you beleive that I own a 1894P .44mag marlin lever and it has a ported 16 1\4" barell!. I love the gun (very handy for chasing ferals in the ute) but the porting is rediculous, it is not as though the .44 mag is a hard kicker it is harder on the ears than my .416 Rigby.

------------------

I have an early model 1895 in 45-70, when you get the 400 grain bullets pushing 1700 and above that little lever gun will rock me more than my 375 Browning and near the same with my 458 WM, the latter two have breaks on them plus the 1895 is around 7 pounds compared to 9 1/2.

Swede,
I have to agree with Mr. Atkinson that the .45-70 or .450 Marlin loaded to the max just doesn't have that much recoil.
Also, those proted barrels are LOUD. I have a friend who has one and under the roof at the shooting range, other shooters sometimes have to move due to the sideward nature of the blast.
I have on of the new Win '86 Light weight rifles in .45-70 made by Miroku. I get 1875fps with the 400-405gr bullets. I get 1630fps with Hornadays 500gr RN. (I use LEEs factory crimp die to forge a cannelure/crimp in this combination). I also load a 565gr cast FN w/GC at 1525 fps. These velocities are all from a 22" barrel.
The recoil in these loads is fine and the rifle shoots well. Muzzle jump is normal and easy to recover from.
I simply don't see why Marlin ever ported their barrels to start with.
So much for my two cents worth.
The Bearman