Ruglin Dark

[stagpanther]

This came in this morning's e-mail and caught my eye; a 6 pound short barreled 45-70 certainly would be interesting for confined space/heavy woods use.

[taylorce1]

I can't wait to hear what the gallery thinks of this one.
Especially since the loved the S&W I posted so well. They're definitely not going after the traditional lever owner with these rifles.

[stagpanther]

I can't wait to hear what the gallery thinks of this one.
Especially since the loved the S&W I posted so well. They're definitely not going after the traditional lever owner with these rifles.

LOL--I definitely would love to at least fire one--I'm exceedingly curious how it handles and shoots. I have a feeling not much different from a 12 gauge--but that's just a guess.

[JohnKSa]

Looks like pretty decent accuracy numbers.

I can see a segment of the gun-buying public who might want a gun like that.

[Pumpkin]

Not a fan of tactical lever guns but, given the short barrel maybe an 1894 in 44 Mag would make a better choice? Of course, such a variation might already be in the works. 45-70 version would definitely be useful in bear or Bigfoot country.

[stagpanther]

I have 2 short barrel 44 mag lever guns already--also one in 45-70 with a long barrel and it shoots great. 45-70 has a really good range of power options; I'm wondering just how manageable a short lightweight 45-70 like this might be. I'd love to try one, but can't think of a practical reason for having one (it could be argued that applies to about 95% of my collection on the other hand).

[zoomie]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I'm wondering just how manageable a short lightweight 45-70 like this might be.

It's only a few ounces lighter than the Trapper and most other differences are cosmetic. My Ruglin Trapper is a super handy, easy shooting 45-70. I don't see why this Dark wouldn't be almost exactly the same.

[44 AMP]

The reviewer seemed cheerful and enthusiastic about it. I do like the look of the lever, it appears to be big enough for easy operation, and lacks the "sow belly" big loop being sold these days.

The rest of the gun leaves me less than pleased. And, not just because I'm a "traditionalist" about some things.

First off, I wonder how well some of the claims and results the reviewer got will hold up under slightly different use.

They refer to it as a 6lb rifle, but the spec list says 6lb 13 oz, which means it is 7lb+ rifle when you load it, or add any optic or even a sling.

It has a 16" barrel, so it amazed me that they got 18-1900fps out of it, but then, they only shot two 300gr and one 325gr loads out of it, no 350gr or 405gr or heavier bullets were tested. It does make me wonder why none of the standard BP power level 405gr ammo was tested.

I assume the muzzle brake must be very effective, and I note it has what should be a good recoil pad as well. Those look like nice features.

I will admit a personal dislike for the fact that it seems half the gun is covered in slots or holes. I can imagine the amount of dirt, sand, mud, snow, twigs, leaves, grass, pine needles and such things that will get into the gun if it is taken into the weeds or the woods.

Shouldn't be too difficult to clean out, but it will need to be done, often, so I hope that forearm comes off (and goes back on) easily and simply.

I've been shooting .45-70 since the early 80s, had a variety of different ones, from the original trapdoor actions through lever, bolt, and falling block and break action single shots. I have a "6lb" .45-70 with a 22" barrel, a Ruger No.3. Without a muzzle brake, but with a good thick recoil pad, its not bad with BP level loads, but a 350gr at 2200fps walks me back a step and I'm not a small guy.

I know the market they are aiming at with their "Marlin Dark" but I'm not in it. With an MSRP that puts the gun over $1500 by the time it is in my hands, and ammo that runs $50 a box (or more) at retail, its outside my budget, as well.

I wish them well, they'll probably sell everyone they make, but I've already got my needs well covered and don't care for the looks or the price tag.

Yes, I'm an old curmudgeon, and while there are some features that do appeal to me, the overall package doesn't.

I see its not offered in .450 Marlin (or at least not yet) wonder what kind of recoil it will have if/when it is.

[BarryLee]

Well, on one hand I think it is supper cool. However, on the other hand, seems like it would be a better idea if chambered in .44mag or even .357mag. I suspect most self-defense situation will not involve t-rex or even moose.

[zoomie]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

better idea if chambered in .44mag

They will - they'll call it the 1894 Dark. They're really not going out on a limb here. They're doing from the factory what Ranger Point has been doing for years.

[stagpanther]

I'd still like to shoot one; but I kinda doubt the people I know will ever get one--nobody goes for levers of any kind anymore in the crowd I know. 45-70 or 444 marlin, either one are really nice cartridges to reload for, that's why I like them.

[Pumpkin]

Old curmudgeons need love too.

[Lurch37]

I'm 60 something and although I like and shoot the 45-70, this particular rifle doesn't interest me much. My 30 year old son on the other hand loves it. So it's good that Marlin makes something for both of us. Now I only wish they would make them a lot more available as I'm still waiting for the Marlin 1895 SBL, (at a not inflated price).

[FrankenMauser]

I'm wondering just how manageable a short lightweight 45-70 like this might be.

When Marlin introduced the P model (Outfitter, 18") 444s and 1895s in 1998, they only lasted about 6 months before the barrels were ported as standard.
Owners still report that recoil is stout and muzzle blast is quite notable, even with the porting.

[stagpanther]

When Marlin introduced the P model (Outfitter, 18") 444s and 1895s in 1998, they only lasted about 6 months before the barrels were ported as standard.
Owners still report that recoil is stout and muzzle blast is quite notable, even with the porting.

That's why I think it will hit about about like a 12 gauge. But ya never know til you try. I looked at a few utube reviews like this one which are fairly informative but of course a bit on the rah-rah side. Not much info on comparative recoil hits other than the "pad really helps, so does the ported muzzle" My Henry 45-70 has a brass plate for butt pad; so I figure the Dark can't be any worse than that (even so, I love the rifle). I'll wait a year or two and see what happens--and if I'm still alive might be tempted if the street price comes down around 1K or so.

[FrankenMauser]

My custom built 444 has a 19" barrel and flat brass buttplate.
Not bad to shoot, but not something you want to do all day.

I don't want a 'Dark' model, or anything .45-70 (I'm a .444 Marlin guy).
But I do want to get one of the Ruglins eventually.
A Trapper type, 16" .30-30 is already on my bench, being 100% custom built. But a factory version could be fun.

[44 AMP]

That's why I think it will hit about about like a 12 gauge.

Ok, but WHAT 12ga?

Slugs? Buckshot? 1oz #8 dove loads??

6, 7, 8lb gun?? One with a stock that fits you? or one with too much drop, or too short, or???

FELT recoil is different with different guns and loads.

You can calculate the actual recoil energy, but what people FEEL is as different as people are different.

One guy's "not too bad" is another's "kicks like a mule".

[stagpanther]

Ok, but WHAT 12ga?

Slugs? Buckshot? 1oz #8 dove loads??

That's the point--the 45-70 can also be loaded mild to wild; so everything from light birdshot to big magnum would be my guess.

[Pumpkin]

I think the angle of the comb has a lot to do with perceived recoil, at least for me.
I had a 444 that I believe because of the way the comb dropped towards the butt created a lot of discomfort to my right cheek bone area. As the gun accelerated backwards it got into my cheek increasingly. To be fair, the Good Lord outfitted me with a pretty large melon so this might be a more individual assessment on my part.
This new Dark 45-70’s stock appears to maybe be more dental friendly than some of the traditional lever gun stocks, maybe
As far as describing the 45-70 as “mild to wild” I totally have to agree with this. Same can be said for the 12ga.

[FrankenMauser]

Pumpkin, I also had a 2007-built factory Marlin 444, with the later standard comb stock.
I found it rather uncomfortable to shoot, and 'cheek slap' is mentioned by everyone that tries it. (It is still in the family, just not owned by me any more.)

It was a very surprising thing, since everyone in my family had first experienced .444 Marlin with my H&R Handi-Rifle. Though recoil was quite tolerable with the H&R, given the bad ergonomics and light weight of the Handi, we figured the Marlin's addition weight and better stock geometry would make recoil feel better.
That was not the case.

Oddly, I haven't seen or heard many complaints about such from 1895 owners.

[Pumpkin]

FrankenMauser,
I wonder how one of the original 444’s with the Monte Carlo (I guess that’s what it was?) stocks would compare to your 07 or my 90’s vintage? They did look a little strange to me though.

[Hellcat1]

To those questioning who this Marlin Dark rifle would appeal to, I'm guessing it's made to appeal to more of a younger crowd, and to those with "modern sporting rifles" who have never really been into lever action guns before. As an example, I would bet that my 22 year old son would probably love it. I bought him his first gun a couple of years ago, an M&P 15-22 AR style rifle, which he loves shooting. Then, for Christmas this past December, a Henry .22 lever gun appeared under the tree for him. We went out shooting with both the guns a couple of days later, and he said that he actually found the Henry to be more fun to shoot. His answer didn't surprise me all that much. I think the fact that lever guns are now featured in a number of video games, including one or two that he plays, may have had an influence as well.


Frank

[Ricklin]

When it comes to managing recoil. Gun fit is one of the biggest factors between kicks like a mule, and wow that's potent, but not bad at all.
The pitch of the stock is critical, as is the length of pull. They are related in that length will exacerbate incorrect pitch. A bruised cheekbone is an excellent indicator of incorrect pitch.
All the good fitting in the world goes out the window if your mount is inconsistent. Work at mount consistency from your typical shooting positions. If the length is right, pitch is the next place to look.

[44 AMP]

There are a number of terms about stocks and how they fit, length, drop, pitch, cast off or cast on, and others. All of them have some effect on the feel of the recoil.

All the good fitting in the world goes out the window if your mount is inconsistent.

And, this is also entirely true. Even a perfectly fitted stock will beat the snot out of you, if you don't mount the gun correctly.

knew a fella who had a .300 Weatherby MkV. It was his caribou rifle, had several successful seasons with it. Never a problem. Then, one year, he took it deer hunting. Deer popped out of some brush about 30-40 yards from him, he snapped the gun up and shot. Got his deer.

Also got "Weatherby eyebrow" and a huge bruise covering nearly the entire the right side of his face. The factory stock fit him well enough to not hurt him when used the way he usually used it. Snap shot, no time to mount the gun properly, it beat him up badly.

Now, a 7lb .45-70 with a stock that has the traditional lever gun kind of drop to it, (and a cheekpiece to put your head up a bit for using optics) firing 300gr slugs at 1800fps is going to kick. Pretty stoutly, for some folks, though the muzzle brake should take a lot of the edge off that.

[stagpanther]

knew a fella who had a .300 Weatherby MkV. It was his caribou rifle, had several successful seasons with it. Never a problem. Then, one year, he took it deer hunting. Deer popped out of some brush about 30-40 yards from him, he snapped the gun up and shot. Got his deer.

I shoot the weatherby 300 wm a lot; it's one of the "jumpiest" cartridges of all the weatherbys IMO; even more so than some of their more powerful ones. I think that might be in part because--at least in my case--I tend not to pull it in as hard as I might bigger Weatherbys. Also the 300's I've shot generally don't have brakes--whereas the bigger ones usually do.