Marlin 1894 from 1897 stronger than Win 1873 from 1892?

[silicosys4]

I bought a Marlin 1894 in 32 WCF that looks to be made in 1897. I also have an 32 WCF 1873 Winchester made in 1892. I know the Winchester shouldn't be fired with more than mild smokeless loads, but does the Marlin have the same strength issues with smokeless, having been designed 20 years later than the Winchester, perhaps with better steels and heat treatment?

 

[tark]

The Marlin is the stronger of the two actions. Having said that, and assuming both rifles are in good working order, I suppose both rifles are just fine with any reasonable load. The 32-20 isn't a round that most people consider a candidate for "Hot rodding.," but if you must... stick to using the hot loads in the Marlin.

 

[stringnut]

The toggle link , in the 73, is the weak point. Hotter loads will put undue stress on that.
Who knows on the metallurgy? Smokeless powder , and smokeless approved barrels, didn’t hit the market until the 30 30 was introduced . I believe that was 1895 a year after the 1894 Winchester introduced in 38 55 and 32 40. When other rifles caught up is unknown to me. The barrels may still be soft enough that a steady diet of jacketed bullets may cause excessive wear.

There were loads that were specifically for the 94 Marlin, and, the 92 Winchester. If you are going to try and duplicate these I would research very carefully. Even though that may be safe you don’t want to cause accelerated wear on any parts. Not like you can order new from Midway.

 

[WVGunman]

Agree with everything said so far. The Marlin was designed after smokeless powder was known and has a locking bolt action. I own one in .44 Magnum; if the action can handle that with any kind of steel, it is stronger than any gun designed in the black-powder era. (Ok, except maybe the Remington Rolling Block)
Having said that, they are both VERY old guns. I wouldn't fire anything but black-powder equivalent loads in both. Better yet, don't shoot that 1873 at all, as it is probably worth a lot of $$$.

 

[Pat Riot]

The SAAMI maximum pressure for the 32-20 is 16,000 CUP. Not a whole lot and that is the pressure for smokeless loads.
The Marlin should be able to handle hotter loads than the toggle linked ‘73 but I don’t know if either gun has the same mechanical parts used in the same model guns shooting stouter loads at the time.

 

[cfullgraf]

I have an 1890's vintage Winchester 1873 chambered in 32-20 and a 1920's vintage S&W 32-20 Hand Ejector. I treat both with respect and load mild loads for both. I enjoy plinking with them but don't want to stress either if them.

At least with the Winchester 1873 and the Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector, there are lots of comments and recommendations about when higher power smokeless ammunition is safe to use in the firearms. I'm sure some information on the Marlin is out there.

It is too bad that modern firearms are not chambered in 32-20. It is a good cartridge for small game.

 

[Charlie98]

The Marlin is the stronger of the two actions.

The Marlin is stronger than the Winchester 1873, but the Winchester 92 is stronger than the Marlin, and remains so to this day. There was a lot of progress being made in the late 1800's on firearms!

 

[CraigC]

The 32-20 isn't a round that most people consider a candidate for "Hot rodding.," but if you must... stick to using the hot loads in the Marlin.

That's not true at all. Folks have been hot rodding .32-20's almost since the beginning. Especially in the 1892.

It is too bad that modern firearms are not chambered in 32-20. It is a good cartridge for small game.

There are a good bit of modern guns chambered in .32-20. Not as many as there should be but it is a great small game cartridge. I've had this Uberti paired with a Browning 53 for years.