I also asked this on the gunsmithing forum. Is it possible to successfully rechamber or rebarrel a Marlin M 95 to .348 Winchester? If it is, what (if any) are the major concerns in doing it? (I can do my own barreling.)

the maximum case length for the marlin is too short for a .348.

Thank you very much. I suspected it might be. Figured one of you guys would know, without me having to calculate out how long the round would be with different weights and shapes of bullets.

Befor a few years, I have had the same idea. Both rounds are too long, the .348WCF and the .33WCF.


Martin

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Fan:
Befor a few years, I have had the same idea. Both rounds are too long, the .348WCF and the .33WCF.


Martin

Thanks for your comment.

Actually, I don't see the .33 Winchester as being a problem for length OR diameter.

As one cannot buy any factory ammo anymore in .33 Winchester (that I know of), he has to make his brass from something such as .45-70 donor stock anyway. For that he needs to use a "form" die set. At least that is what I do.

When using the .33 Win case-forming dies, he can make the cartridge case any length he wants or needs. He can run the .33 Win reamer into the new barrel to a length which will allow the round to function through the action, cut the recess for the rim separately, then make his brass to fit.

Sure, it won't quite be a factory spec .33 Winchester; more of a ".33 Win-Short" for handloading hunters only.

But it will have the saving grace that in the future no one can inadvertantly chamber a full-length factory .33 Winchester round in it either. It will also still have the nice long .33 Win neck, which is very nice for use with cast bullets.

I think it might still be a very nice little woods cartridge for deer with a cachet all its own. It would still be easy to move those 200 grain RN pills at 2,150+ fps without trouble.

Not everybody's idea of practical, but fits my idea of a fun project to a "T".

Thanks again for your comments. If you have any thoughts about the ".33 Win-Short" concept, I'd enjoy reading them.

Yes, I know, it´s possible to convert a M95 to fit rounds up to 2,65". The .33WCF OAL is 2,69". Factory ammo isn´t realy available, so the "reloader" can load the round a little bit shorter.


Martin

I was sure you knew that...you know lots of stuff. What I was really wondering...does it sound like a fun project to you?

Does it also sound to you like it would be of any use anywhere besides in the coastal Oregon hills and very heavily treed forests where the main game seen are three kinds of deer, Roosevelt Elk, Cougars, and Black Bear?

I know it would work quite well on Moose...

Not only is the 348 too long for the Marlin action it's too fat too. It's .553 at the head. The 45-70 is .505 and the 33 Winchester is .508. Don't forget that there has been a rash of 45-70 blow ups with the Marlin and it's because of the square thread, thin metal around the chamber, thin metal web between the barrel thread hole and the magazine tube hole....and probably overloading. I'd look for a one of the more current 1886's made by either Browning or Winchester. Much stronger rifle.

I don't know exactly what is going on Smokin J, but I don't really think the Model '95 is inadequate for sane loads in the .45-70. I don't think Marlin believes it is either. (If a person insists on trying to get 150% of factory load velocity with ANY cartridge, I wouldn't be surprised if he blew something up>

I suspect there is more to those blowups than we may be aware of.

One time I did an experiment with mine which tested its strength as seriously as I'd care to try, with no apparent harm whatsoever to the rifle.

The book maximum load used to be 43 grains of 3031 under the Lyman 457125 500 grain bullet (in 1974, when I did the test). I loaded exactly 10 grains MORE 3031 than that maximum under that same bullet and touched off 20 rounds of it in about 12 minutes from my M1895. That was 53 grains of IMR3031 and the 500 grain bullet. Did no detectable harm whatsoever to the rifle and didn't ruin the brass either. (THAT IS A SEVERE OVERLOAD, AND I DO NOT RECOMMEND OR ENDORSE ANYONE USING IT FOR ANY REASON. NOT EVEN FOR JUST 1 SHOT!!)

I never load to book max for working loads in any lever gun anyway, then or now. My goal is always to have a good, workman's, gun for the field, not a cheap magnum. (I already have both a .458 Win Mag and a .338 Win Mag.) Pressures similar to the old 30-30 stuff are fine for me.

And, if I built a .33 Win-Short, I'd use an even slower powder than 3031, just to make sure the pressure was a more gradual load (stress).

For my own personal use, I would always get the velocity I wanted with the slowest burning powder which would carry the mail. I myself would never use a powder like some of the faster ones (5744?) that people these days seem to want to burn.

But, thanks very much for the warning. I'll cogitate some more on it before I do anything. But I may do it just to see for myself whether I think it proves safe in that gun.

When Marlin come out with the 450 Marlin, being that's even a fatter round then the 45-70, then changed the barrel thread from square to the more common V thread and a fine V thread at that. I think that shows they know there's not a lot of meat in that area of the barrel and receiver.

AC,

Here is some more on what I was saying:

MARLIN LIMITATIONS

These Marlin rifles have what I would deem a design flaw. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not the rear-locking lug. Rather, it is the relatively small diameter of the barrel threads. When chambering modern cartridges, that work at modern pressures, having a case body diameter larger than about 0.47-inch (Mauser and 30-06 related chamberings, an interesting historical accident!) the weakest portion of these barreled-actions is the chamber, under the barrel threads.
Unfortunately, due to close proximity of the magazine port under the barrel, it is not particularly feasible to enlarge these threads. This is too bad, had John Marlin simply moved the magazine tube and loading port 0.050-inch farther below the barrel he could have enlarged the barrel threads by 0.1-inch and eliminated this weakness. The subsequent design would have worked perfectly without any other significant changes! And this does matter; early Marlins, with softer barrel steel, are prone to chamber swelling. Modern guns avoid this fate only because the steel used in the barrels has significantly increased tensile strength.
My solution to this weakness is to modify the Marlin thread, so that the thinnest portion of the chamber wall under the threads is as thick as is feasible without significantly weakening the receiver. To do this, I use a custom tool set built to my specifications by custom reamer maker Dave Manson. My friend, Ben Forkin (Forkin Custom Classics) originally persuaded Manson to make such a tool set. These tools reduce height of the unnecessarily tall square thread and true the factory cuts so that one can install a barrel with precisely fitting threads.
The improvement is significant. With a properly fitted barrel, thinnest portion of the chamber wall is about 0.035 inch thicker. This may not sound like much until one considers that, for example, in the factory 45-70 Marlin the thinnest portion of the chamber is only 0.100-inch thick! Moreover, with precise threads in the receiver, the gunsmith can fit the barrel threads so closely that the receiver can share the load. While such a design is not ideal (most manufacturers would prefer not to rely on the hoop strength of the receiver to support he chamber), it is the best that we can do with the standard Marlin.
The next weakness is the two-piece stock. With only the conventional tang bolt attachment, any such stock is prone to failure. Considering the limited amount of wood reaching forward of the tangs and the stresses associated with side loading, we are not surprised to see longitudinal cracks reaching rearward of the tangs in older, well-used guns.
The other problem with the two-piece stock is that this system makes it impossible to isolate the barreled action from the bench and associated variations in shooter hold, etc. Firing good groups with any such gun is an exercise in patience and in paying attention to details that even many serious benchrest shooters may have not even considered.
After years of serious testing, I have concluded that how the shooter holds his tongue probably matters! For sure, how solidly the shooter holds the gun and presses his cheek against the stock will significantly alter zero. In a related characteristic indicative of just how significantly these guns interact with shooter and bench, on a good day, I can call high and low hits when testing a Marlin 45-70 and I can do so without looking at the target – all I have to do is look at the chronograph! If shot velocity is slower than mean velocity the bullet will hit low; if shot velocity is faster than mean velocity, the bullet will hit high.
I mitigate these problems by installing a throughbolt that runs from near the rear of the buttstock to a hanger that I install on a replacement, hardened-steel tang bolt. With proper glass bedding, this modification allows me to significantly compress the wood of the stock along the grain (with about 1000 pounds force). Such compression monumentally reduces potential for lateral loading to result in a crack in the stock. It also allows me to bring 100% of this force to bear on the front flats of the stock, where it should be, so that buttstock and receiver are bonded in both the vertical and the lateral plane, to the extent possible. Finally, because the tightened throughbolt bends and stretches the tang bolt it automatically clamps the rear of the tangs onto the corresponding flats in the stock, which further improves vertical rigidity.
I owe this idea to my friend Steve Meacham, who uses a more elegant version in his excellent reproduction 1885 Winchester rifles. In those rifles, with the right chambering and best loads, I have proven consistent varminting accuracy with the 225 Winchester consistently producing groups in the 2s. This would simply not be possible if buttstock and receiver were not so well bonded.
Another problem with any such rifle is the tubular magazine and foreend that must necessarily hang from the barrel in some manner. On two-piece stocked guns without a tubular magazine, it is feasible to hang the foreend independently, using a separate receiver protrusion. In an effort to improve accuracy, practically every manufacturer who has ever made such a gun has tried this approach. Almost invariably, such a design proves to be less accurate! The reason for this is the tuning fork effect. With such a design, inevitably, barrel and foreend will vibrate independently. These vibrations will just as inevitably reinforce each other.
The best solution I have found came to me from custom riflesmith Keith DeHart. It is high tech and involves one of those situations where we can say, if Browning had had it, he would have used it! This solution is to simply ensure that foreend and magazine tube do not touch the barrel anywhere other than where this is necessary and to then create a bed of RTV silicone between these pieces.
What the silicone does is to effectively kill vibrations while helping to isolate the barrel from variations in shooter hold and bag placement. Along with proper buttstock bedding and the throughbolt, the accuracy improvement for bench shooting is impressive. This difference is not so much a matter of what the gun may occasionally do, but what it will repeatedly do. For example, I expect a modified Marlin to shoot three-shot groups under one-inch using any decent modern ammunition. With several rifles, I have seen five-shot groups approaching the one-half MOA benchmark, which is rather impressive, considering the accuracy limitations of the hunting bullets involved in these tests.
An obvious limitation to each Marlin design (long and short action alike) is maximum potential cartridge length and maximum potential cartridge diameter.

That came from here:

http://www.levergun.com/Marlin/index.html

I wouldn't call it a design flaw. The design is more than adequate for industry standard .45-70 factory loads, i.e. SAAMI specification of 28,000psi. The rifle was not designed to fire 45-70 loads of 40,000+ psi even though some people get away with it from time to time.

quote:

Not only is the 348 too long for the Marlin action it's too fat too. It's .553 at the head.

Hmmm.... But what´s with the M1895 conversitions, chambered for the .50Alaskan. A case made from the .348WCF.

quote:

What I was really wondering...does it sound like a fun project to you?

Everything, like this, is a "fun" project for me.
I have no German hunting licence, I´m only target shooter, and every of my "hunting rifles" I build and own, are just for fun.
I like it, to plan rifles and especial in old chamberings. Sometimes, when my madness break out, I build some of this planed rifles with my dad. So was it in the end of 90´s with the 10,75x68, in 2001 with an 7x57 Mauser rifle and befor a few months with the .358Norma Mag.
I´m thinking since a few years, to convert a No.1 to a target rifle in 8,15x46R. And, I planded coverted M1895 Marlins for rounds like the .33WCF, .40-65 or .50Alaskan. But this ideas would be only plans in the future.
My next project, when I finish the Norma Magnum and I have enought money, is relative "normal". A BR-rifle for the 6PPC.


Martin

I go along with what Grenadier said. I don't know how those companies get away with such cartridges as that 50 Alaskan working in the Marlin 1895. The 50 Alaskan is .548 at the web/head. The 450 Marlin is .532 at the belt. I'd say they are treading dangerous waters or either the pressure of the 50 Alaskan isn't that high. From what I see it runs at the highest pressure of 35,500 PSI.

Keep the pressure way down or just be happy with a .33 Win.

One thing I forgot about the really large bores like the 50 Alaskan, pressure drops a lot fast as the bullet goes down the bore it presents much more volume then the smaller bores. With that 50 Alaskan I wouldn't think one would have to have such a high velocity with pressure to be very effective.

For the 50ak-- there is lots of work done inside the action to get it to feed, Also the ejection port has to be widened and lengthened a bit. But the most important thing is keeping loaded ammon at a 2.55 overall length or it will not feed smoothly. If your ammos is right-- it runs great.

Why not just buy a Marlin in .338 Marlin Express?

A couple of my friends and I have Marlin 45/70's, well I had one I sold it to a nephew.

We all loaded 53gr of IMR 3031 over a 350gr Hornady bullet. Shot very accurate, killed deer turkey, pigs and black bear great.
Never any pressure problems.

I do seem to remember back when Marlin brought out the 444 Marlin, the story was the Marlin action was not big enough in the right places for the 45/70, because of the possibility of HOT loads.

The diameter of the 444 Marlin case was enough thinner, to provide a safety margin of extra steel in the barrel thread/chamber area, with the pressures they needed to get the velocities they wanted...

quote:

Originally posted by ArcticGoose:
Why not just buy a Marlin in .338 Marlin Express?

Because I already have one. And I am thinking of doing this just for fun, not because I need one.

Same reason I once built a M95 Winchester in .303 Bitish......and still own a M 1903 Springfield in .405 Winchester.

The "This" I am considering, just to make it clear to all, is no longer the making of a .348 Winchester on the Marlin. Thanks to the specifics Smokin J gave me here, I am not considering doing that now.

What I AM thinking of doing is making a very slightly shortened version of the .33 Winchester on a Marlin, but not loaded any hotter than the original .33 Winchester factory ammo was. It moved a 200 grain RN or FP bullet about 2,200 actual fps out of a 22" barreled carbine I had. That is plenty for a fun deer cartridge in the woods, and would be adequate for elk where I sometimes go to shoot them.

The bolt face and cartridge head are the same exact size as the .45-70, and pressures need to be no higher than "mild" at most.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
A couple of my friends and I have Marlin 45/70's, well I had one I sold it to a nephew.

We all loaded 53gr of IMR 3031 over a 350gr Hornady bullet. Shot very accurate, killed deer turkey, pigs and black bear great.
Never any pressure problems.

I do seem to remember back when Marlin brought out the 444 Marlin, the story was the Marlin action was not big enough in the right places for the 45/70, because of the possibility of HOT loads.

The diameter of the 444 Marlin case was enough thinner, to provide a safety margin of extra steel in the barrel thread/chamber area, with the pressures they needed to get the velocities they wanted...

Yes, I've done that a lot too in the past...but it's a whole different ball game with the 500 gr. Ly 457125 bullet. Bullet seats a lot deeper and reduces powder (and gas) space a bunch. That, together with the increased inertia resisting the beginning of bullet movement, makes pressures go up to a level where I would NEVER shoot that charge of powder with the 500 gr. Lyman bullet again.

Anyway, IF I do make a .33 Win-Short, it will not be loaded to anything like that pressure level. It will be loaded to no hotter than original factory .33 Winchester rounds were. I've already got way more magnums than I need. It will simply be making something "not common" for my own pleasure.

I already have a .33 Win reamer (have had for many years), form & loading die sets, lots of spare .45-70 brass, plenty of .338 moulds, a couple of left-over new .338 barrels, and a bunch of other handy stuff, so the expense is not likely to be a big extra thing for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Fan:

quote:

Not only is the 348 too long for the Marlin action it's too fat too. It's .553 at the head.

Hmmm.... But what´s with the M1895 conversitions, chambered for the .50Alaskan. A case made from the .348WCF.

quote:

What I was really wondering...does it sound like a fun project to you?

Everything, like this, is a "fun" project for me.
I have no German hunting licence, I´m only target shooter, and every of my "hunting rifles" I build and own, are just for fun.
I like it, to plan rifles and especial in old chamberings. Sometimes, when my madness break out, I build some of this planed rifles with my dad. So was it in the end of 90´s with the 10,75x68, in 2001 with an 7x57 Mauser rifle and befor a few months with the .358Norma Mag.
I´m thinking since a few years, to convert a No.1 to a target rifle in 8,15x46R. And, I planded coverted M1895 Marlins for rounds like the .33WCF, .40-65 or .50Alaskan. But this ideas would be only plans in the future.
My next project, when I finish the Norma Magnum and I have enought money, is relative "normal". A BR-rifle for the 6PPC.


Martin

Thanks very much for your comments and attitude, Martin. You are exactly the kind of guy I like to discuss stuff with. Just like with hunter's who I also enjoy....it is the activity, its planning, doing, evaluating, and learning from, which is central...the trip, not the destination.