Hello,
I just bought my second Marlin 39. The first is a "T" from 1960 and it is in very, very good condition.
The one I just picked up was supposed to be a '65, like me! So I had particular interest in that one. When I show up, I find an "E" prefix, so it is a ’48. I see no indication of Micro Groove on the barrel.
The stock has minor flaws in the glossy finish. The barrel is .860" at the receiver and .605” at the muzzle.
Contrast that to the ’60 model which is .800” at the receiver and .675” at the muzzle.
The fore stock on the 48 is 1.740" and 1.410" on the 60. No white line spacer on the 48, and no sling swivels either. Also, I don’t know if this was a feature back then or if it was added later, but there are two pearl inlay dots, about ¼” in diameter on either side, just behind the receiver, and a pearl inlay rectangle about ¼” wide by 1” long under the fore stock. Kind of neat! Anyway, I paid just $470 it and I think that I got a deal.
I just bought my second Marlin 39. The first is a "T" from 1960 and it is in very, very good condition.
The one I just picked up was supposed to be a '65, like me! So I had particular interest in that one. When I show up, I find an "E" prefix, so it is a ’48. I see no indication of Micro Groove on the barrel.
The stock has minor flaws in the glossy finish. The barrel is .860" at the receiver and .605” at the muzzle.
Contrast that to the ’60 model which is .800” at the receiver and .675” at the muzzle.
The fore stock on the 48 is 1.740" and 1.410" on the 60. No white line spacer on the 48, and no sling swivels either. Also, I don’t know if this was a feature back then or if it was added later, but there are two pearl inlay dots, about ¼” in diameter on either side, just behind the receiver, and a pearl inlay rectangle about ¼” wide by 1” long under the fore stock. Kind of neat! Anyway, I paid just $470 it and I think that I got a deal.
