Marlin MicroGroove
Fluid
For quite some time, the idea has been repeated on this newsgroup that
Marlin's Micro-Groove rifling is a bad idea which doesn't work. I've
even seen it written that this rifling flat does not work on centerfire
calibers. Now, even if we knew nothing about the effects of
Micro-Groove rifling firsthand, we could do a little research...
Below are the combined 1993,94,95 rifle production figures for the four
biggest US arms makers:
Marlin - 1,088,301
Sturm, Ruger - 1,073,843
Remington - 674,817
USRA - 374,579
As can be seen, Marlin is still the largest domestic maker of consumer
rifles. Now, if we think about it, virtually all of those Marlin rifles
have Micro-Groove pattern rifling. A large percentage of those rifles
are centerfire. If Micro-Groove rifling was SO BAD, would Marlin still
have the market share that it does? Personally, I don't think so!
My own experience with Micro-Groove barrels is good, at least in .30-30.
.45-70 and .35 Remington. These are not 'high intensity' cartridges,
but they are clearly centerfire and high powered ( compared to the .357
Mag, etc. ). Acuracy was very good, at least conparable to other
maker's guns in these calibers. Even cast bullets worked fine IF I
followed a few simple and well-known rules. And Marlin's M2000 is a
popular competition rifle WITH Micro-Grooves!
It has been asked why no other maker uses Micro-Groove rifling. I
assume that it was patented at one time, though any patent would have
run out long ago. I suppose one could also ask why USRA is the only big
four maker using two nuts to adjust its trigger. Or why Ruger is the
only one to have offered a .44 Mag semi-auto carbine. Just because
others have not adopted a practice doesn't make it a bad idea. Too,
Micro-Groove rifling has been so closely associated with Marlin that
adoption by another maker could be seen as a flagrant copying by
consumers.
I am not a great Marlin fan, and currently own just two of their
rifles. But to condemn Marlin for an imagined ( but oft-repeated )
shortcoming is hardly a reasonable practice. Firearms makers have enough
problem products for us to grip about...we don't need to disparage
characteristics which are non-issues! Other shooters are welcomed to
comment!
Jay T
Dvs973
Hi Jay;
I own several Marlins, I personally love the micro groove especially in
the 22 rimfire, and with jacketed bullets in my centerfire rifles . The
only time I didnt like it was for lead bullets at medium to a bit higher
velocitys. I just had my 44 levergun rebarreled with their Ballard rifled
barrel. Now I have the best of both worlds with that levergun.
Ralph K.
Fluid wrote in article <5v8opg$8...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...>As can be seen,
Marlin is still the largest domestic maker of consumer
#have Micro-Groove pattern rifling. A large percentage of those rifles
#are centerfire. If Micro-Groove rifling was SO BAD, would Marlin still
#have the market share that it does? Personally, I don't think so!
#
#My own experience with Micro-Groove barrels is good, at least in .30-30.
My opinions on Microgroove are the same........
I put a Marlin 336 up against a Winchester 94 and got these results a few
years ago. Using the same 170gr Remington ammo, the Marlin grouped one inch
at 100 yards, the best the Model 94 did was to group just under four inches.
Both were new rifles fitted with 3x9 scopes. If you had $250 to spend on a
30-30 lever action, definitely choose Marlin with it's Microgroove, better
trigger pull and sturdier bolt. You'll find it has the accuracy of a bolt
action rifle.
Just my conclusions on two popular 30-30's and the results I
got.........yours may differ.
Ralph
David R. Birch
Back when Mossberg still made .22s, they had rifling similar to the
Microgroove...Accrogroove?? Something like that. The idea wasn't new
when Marlin started doing it.
David
S GREASLY
All I know is that my Marlin .45-70 shoots fine (almost MOA@100yds). Any
questions?
Mike
SGre...@aol.com
Douglas Heard
<snip>
#
#My own experience with Micro-Groove barrels is good, at least in .30-30.
#but they are clearly centerfire and high powered ( compared to the .357
#Mag, etc. ). Acuracy was very good, at least conparable to other
#maker's guns in these calibers. Even cast bullets worked fine IF I
#followed a few simple and well-known rules. And Marlin's M2000 is a
#popular competition rifle WITH Micro-Grooves!
#
#
#Jay T
#
I have to agree w/ Jay. I have reloaded for a 336 30-30 that will
shoot 2.5 in (3shot) groups at 200 yds
===========================================================
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
====================================
RandyMagic
#For quite some time, the idea has been repeated on this newsgroup that
#Marlin's Micro-Groove rifling is a bad idea which doesn't work. I've
#even seen it written that this rifling flat does not work on centerfire
#calibers. Now, even if we knew nothing about the effects of
#Micro-Groove rifling firsthand, we could do a little research...
#
#Below are the combined 1993,94,95 rifle production figures for the four
#biggest US arms makers:
# Marlin - 1,088,301
# Sturm, Ruger - 1,073,843
# Remington - 674,817
# USRA - 374,579
It should come as no surprise that the majority of Marlin's production is
.22 rimfire. Marlin has always been a class company; with excellent
customer service and good "bang for the buck."
It has never been a question of whether the thin rifling "works," only
that the deep cut rifling tends to be more accurate with larger diameter,
cast lead bullets.
Marlin has added a bit to the confusion, though, through mis-prints in
their 1997 catalog . . .
Randy Wakeman
star
In article <5v8opg$8...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, fl...@alaska.net says...
Even cast bullets worked fine IF I
followed a few simple and well-known rules.
What are these simple well-known rules?
star
gale mcmillan
Fluid wrote:
#
# For quite some time, the idea has been repeated on this newsgroup that
# Marlin's Micro-Groove rifling is a bad idea which doesn't work. I've
# even seen it written that this rifling flat does not work on centerfire
# calibers. Now, even if we knew nothing about the effects of
# Micro-Groove rifling firsthand, we could do a little research...
#
# Below are the combined 1993,94,95 rifle production figures for the four
# biggest US arms makers:
# Marlin - 1,088,301
# Sturm, Ruger - 1,073,843
In the mid 1950s Marlin made a 222 on a Sako L46 action which with a
little bedding would shoot .3 moa. It was a toss up as whether they or
Sako were the first manufacturer to make sub 1/2 moa rifles. If you
would check the bore to groove ratio on a micro groove barrel and do the
same on large field artillery you would find that they are also micro
groove barrels so if they don't work someone should tell the Army and
Navy.
#
Robert Martin
Fluid (fl...@alaska.net) wrote:
: My own experience with Micro-Groove barrels is good, at least in .30-30.
: .45-70 and .35 Remington.
I've been following this thread with interest, waiting for someone to
mention the problems caused by inadequate rifling twist rates. I'm
convinced that Marlin must have someone throwing darts, probably
blindfolded, to determined what the twist rate of their Micro-Groove
barrel will be on their next centerfire cartridge introduction...
You say you've enjoyed good results with Marlin's 336 in .30 Winchester;
you should have. Winchester used a 1 in 12" twist; for some inexplicable
reason, Marlin used a 1 in 10" twist. As a result, the Marlin rifle will
outshoot most of the competition, especially if you're using a lighter
bullet weight.
Remington set the twist rate for the .35 Remington at 1 in 16", back at
the beginning of this century. They must have had a lot of excess barrels
laying around, because they used the same 1 in 16" twist on barrels for
their 350 Rem Mag and their 35 Whelen. Marlin followed Remington's
lead, and used the 1 in 16" twist rate for their 357 Mag carbines and
their 336 carbines in 35 Remington. The result is mediocre accuracy,
especially with lighter bullets.
On the other hand, Winchester, Schultz and Larsen and the various
producers of the 358 Norma Magnum used a twist rate of 1 in 12";
Mannlicher-Schoenauer even made some very accurate carbines up in 358
Winchester with a 1 in 10" rifling twist rate.
Marlin used a 1 in 18 1/2" twist on the barrels for their 41 Magnum
carbines; I've never fired one of these guns, but that's modern handgun
rifling, and I would suspect these guns are pretty accurate...
On the other hand, Marlin used a 1 in 38" twist on the barrels for their
44 Magnum and 444 Marlin rifles. That's rifling for a black powder
cartridge...
When Marlin reintroduced their 1895 rifle in 45-70, they were making a lot
of claims for their Micro-Groove rifling. The 45-70 was a former service
cartridge, and so was used for target shooting. Back in the 1890s, it was
conclusively proven that tighter barrel twist rates markedly improved the
accuracy of rifles chambered for the cartridge. In fact, back in 1973,
Frank Barnes wrote a comprehensive article on the 45-70 cartridge in that
year's 27th edition of the Gun Digest; Barnes said, in part, "... I
wouldn't have a 45-70 rifle with a twist slower than 1 in 16".
The original black powder 1873 Springfield trapdoor carbine had a twist
rate of 1 in 22". Marlin "improved" its 1895 model barrels to 1 in 20".
Were they unable to reduce the twist rate because the new Micro-Groove
rifling couldn't handle it, or because the dart thrower had thrown the
dart into the 20" circle (g)?
The 458 Win Magnum was being marketed by several companies with
conventional rifling twist rates under 1 in 16". And there was no
denying that these conventionally rifled barrels were much more accurate
than the Marlin 45 caliber Micro-Groove barrels.
And the allegations have never been disproved, no matter how many people
can hit a pie plate at 100 yards, with one eye closed (g)...
lefloch
If I recall correctly, from my military time, a shell is not built like
a bullet at all. 105 & 155mm have one (or two) copper belts to engage
the grooves.
Most of the body of the shell is not in contact with the rifling. The
technical argument of Marlin is the ability (or lack of) to handle lead
bullets. Military shells are not made of lead.
I will be trying 300, and 405gr lead bullets in my 1895SS for the 1st
time in a couple of weeks. So far I shot jacketed bullets only. This
particular Marlin has Ballard rifling; indeed I am interested to see
about loss of accuracy, if any.
Sincerely,
Alain
#
# In the mid 1950s Marlin made a 222 on a Sako L46 action which with a
# little bedding would shoot .3 moa. It was a toss up as whether they or
# Sako were the first manufacturer to make sub 1/2 moa rifles. If you
# would check the bore to groove ratio on a micro groove barrel and do the
# same on large field artillery you would find that they are also micro
# groove barrels so if they don't work someone should tell the Army and
# Navy.
# #
Rick Reade
rob...@unix2.sihope.com (Robert Martin) wrote:
#Fluid (fl...@alaska.net) wrote:
#--snip--
#You say you've enjoyed good results with Marlin's 336 in .30 Winchester;
#you should have. Winchester used a 1 in 12" twist; for some inexplicable
#reason, Marlin used a 1 in 10" twist. As a result, the Marlin rifle will
#outshoot most of the competition, especially if you're using a lighter
#bullet weight.
#
Since the Marlin rifling makes the bullet spin faster than the Winchester,
1 in 10" being "faster" than 1 in 12", shouldn't the Marlin do better
with heavier (longer) bullets than lighter (shorter) ones -- unless the
1 in 12" is too slow for even the lighter bullets? (I am assuming we
are talking about all lead or jacketed lead core bullet materials.)
Rick
Robert Martin
Rick Reade (ric...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Since the Marlin rifling makes the bullet spin faster than the
: Winchester, 1 in 10" being "faster" than 1 in 12", shouldn't the
: Marlin do better with heavier (longer) bullets than lighter (shorter)
: ones -- unless the 1 in 12" is too slow for even the lighter bullets?
: (I am assuming we are talking about all lead or jacketed lead core
: bullet materials.)
: Rick
You're absolutely right, Rick. I apologize. It happens every time I try
to dash off a quick reply ....
--
Ken Marsh
In article <5vr4a6$h...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, Fluid <fl...@alaska.net> wrote:
#Someone wrote:
## On the other hand, Marlin used a 1 in 38" twist on the barrels for their
## 44 Magnum and 444 Marlin rifles. That's rifling for a black powder
## cartridge...
#Yep, this is too slow. Why did Winchester also use this with their M94s
#in .44 and .45? Same slow 38" twist. Oh, BTW, Ruger's .44 Carbine had a
#38" twist too!
#But wait, my Speer Number 12 Manual lists the Marlin M1894 in .44 Mag
#rifle with an 18" twist rate!!
That's funny, my Speer Number 12 lists the Marlin 1894 .44 Mag rifle as
having a 1 in 38" rate.
## And the allegations have never been disproved, no matter how many people
## can hit a pie plate at 100 yards, with one eye closed (g)...
Deficincies in rifling twist really show up well past 100 yards,
which is also well past the usual range these guns are typically
used for hunting.
#Not sure what the allegations are, nor are they relevent. My original
#post NEVER SAID that Marlin Micro-Groove barrels were BETTER than any
#other design, nor did it say that Micro-Groove barrels were great target
#barrels. The point I made was that Micro-Groove barrels can be plenty
#accurate for any normal sporting use that such rifles are used. I DID
#NOT recommend Micro-Groove for benchrest, across-the-course rifles,
#Parma shooting, or any such use! Please READ the post before you get
#all worked up!! Some shooters have even stated that Micro-Groove rifling
#is unsuited for any centerfire cartridge...this is true, and I have the
#e-mail to prove it!
That's right, and I have the pie plates to prove it, too! :)
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Edit a binary .INI file, then tell
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | me that UNIX is too complicated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluid
Someone wrote:
# That's funny, my Speer Number 12 lists the Marlin 1894 .44 Mag rifle as
# having a 1 in 38" rate.
What's even funnier is, my Speer No 12 used to say 18" but mysteriously
changed overnight to 38"!! Go figure! %^)
# Some shooters have even stated that Micro-Groove rifling
# #is unsuited for any centerfire cartridge...this is true, and I have the
# #e-mail to prove it!
My intent may have been unclear here...I meant to say that it IS true
that I have e-mails claiming that Micro-Groove is innaccurate in
centerfire rifles, NOT that these allegations are actually based in
fact!
The response to this thread has been overwealmingly in favor of
Micro-Groove rifling as a good method for rifling the sporting arms
Marlin makes. It was never claimed to be the best for competition, for
long range varminting, etc., but simply a method which works well for
the application. I've enjoyed the discourse from ALL participants!
Jay T