http://www.marlinowners.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1882&...light=barrel+removal

Appears excessive pressure was at work here, keep this in mind when you try to exceed specs this guy apparently was not injured severely

An interesting thread on that other board with the pictures.

What really interests me is that it appears almost exactly like what Frank de Haas once told me typically happens to Marlin lever actions based on the 336 when they are grossly overloaded...he said the classic failure is that the action will tear right in half at the locking lugs. Looks like that is pretty much exactly what happened to this one.

The area of the SINGLE locking lug located at the REAR of the bolt and REAR of the receiver looks pretty good to me in the picture. All of the dammage appears to be in the breech area (where there are no locking lugs) and makes sense since that area (chamber wall) is quite thin when the 336 action is used for a 45-70. Personally, considering the dammage, I'm reassured about the strength of 336/1895 action since the receiver frame/locking lug retained the bolt in spite of the extremely high pressure. Hope we get more details re. what caused this. Certainly no factory load could do it...only a gross overload, barrel obstruction, or both could do that kind of dammage.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:
The area of the SINGLE locking lug located at the REAR of the bolt and REAR of the receiver looks pretty good to me in the picture. All of the dammage appears to be in the breech area (where there are no locking lugs) and makes sense since that area (chamber wall) is quite thin when the 336 action is used for a 45-70. Personally, considering the dammage, I'm reassured about the strength of 336/1895 action since the receiver frame/locking lug retained the bolt in spite of the extremely high pressure. Hope we get more details re. what caused this. Certainly no factory load could do it...only a gross overload, barrel obstruction, or both could do that kind of dammage.

Apparently you and I see the pictures s bit differently, not that it is important either way. I almost mentioned that they show the bolt upside down and backward in the way they posed the photo, but didn't figure that mattered much either.

Without being able to handle and closely examine the gun, I wouldn't care to venture a guess whether the front of the receiver failed before or after the middle of the receiver began to give way and not support the bolt, back at the lug. The locking area could have failed first, or the receiver ring could have failed first. Ultimately, so far as the fate of this particular rifle, I doubt it matters.

I just found it interesting that BEHIND the locking area, the action is pretty much intact, just as Frank spoke of....

If your view is different, that's fine, if neither of us is likely to be called on to give professional testimony as to its cause.

(My reference to the "locking "lugs" was because I was referring to more than one rifle...as in the "classic" failure comment being applied to the rifleS generally., not a specific one.)

Canuck...
Agree it's all speculation without a close look at the "remains" and a good description of what happened. Hope we get the details someday.
Can't let this pass...You actually knew Frank deHaas? I have most of his single shot books and they are by far the best references available. I believe one of his Son's is still handeling the book sales. He must have been a very interesting fellow!
Ever make a decision on the chambering for the Martini Cadet?

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:
Canuck...
Agree it's all speculation without a close look at the "remains" and a good description of what happened. Hope we get the details someday.
Can't let this pass...You actually knew Frank deHaas? I have most of his single shot books and they are by far the best references available. I believe one of his Son's is still handeling the book sales. He must have been a very interesting fellow!
Ever make a decision on the chambering for the Martini Cadet?

Yes, I knew Frank. I was not a CLOSE friend, but we had a pretty decent relationship. When he brought out his "round block" experimental falling block action,with the SIDEWAYS swinging hammer, he sent it to me for several months so I could shoot it. It was chambered in .444 Marlin, and he got sub 1" groups with it at 100 yards . But Jess Miller (Cast Bullet Association national record holder, and former Treasurer) and I could neither get 5-shot groups better than maybe 1-1/2" or 2" with it using cast bullets. When I told Frank that, I think he got a little insulted, but I'm pretty sure it was our bullets, not his rifle.

His son Mark, who was a Marine Corps sniper, and a Camp Perry champion, is the one who became the "book man" in the family on Frank's passing. From what I understand, Mark is still a pretty straight shooter, in all ways, not just riflery. When I pass on, I plan to probably leave Mark the copyrights to one of Frank's books, which rights I currently co-hold.

BTW, I assume you know that for at least the last few years of his writing/firearms-examination/evaluation years, Frank was almost totally blind? He could tell more about a rifle by feeling it than most can by looking at it.