Author Topic: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895  (Read 1587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gunblade

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« on: September 01, 2010, 09:54:28 AM »
Anyone who has used both have any preference for the standard 22" bbl version over the Guide Gun's 18 1/2"? 

Offline Cecil

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2010, 05:26:48 AM »
I have shot both, But bought the guide gun and like it alot
Cecil

Offline teddy12b

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2010, 06:01:10 AM »
I bought and sold both in 45/70.  I never got what I wanted out of either for accuracy so I sold them.  You're not going to see much in velocity differences between the two.  If you want to use iron sights I'd go with the longer 1895, but if you're going to be in thick heavy woods the guide is hard to beat.  I have to admit, even though I've bought and sold two of them the new SBL model is really appealing to me.  That seems like it'd be the ticket for close woods hunting.

Offline rsl

  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2010, 07:43:49 AM »
I've got the 22" shoots great and looks more classy than the stumpy one.

Offline teddy12b

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2010, 07:47:36 AM »
Have you considered the 1895 cowboy or a the H&R Buffalo classis?  Those both have really long barrels and good looks.

Offline Swampman

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16518
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2010, 08:15:17 AM »
I've owned several of each.  The Cowboy (and the H&R Buffalo Classic) are too long and heavy to hunt with.  The 22" is ok but I prefer the Guide Gun.  If they won't shoot MOA or better it's not the gun's fault.  They are highly accurate.
"Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agreed, as you can all read the Book?" Sogoyewapha, "Red Jacket" - Senaca

1st Special Operations Wing 1975-1983
919th Special Operations Wing  1983-1985 1993-1994

"Manus haec inimica tyrannis / Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem" ~Algernon Sidney~

Offline teddy12b

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2010, 08:24:59 AM »
I'd like to know what I did wrong with them since neither of mine were getting 1 MOA.  I tried different ammo and handloads and nver got close to 1" with either.  Both hovered around 1 3/4" and that wasn't cutting it for me. 

Is there a trigger job, or some aftermarket part that I should have tried?  Mine never got close to 1MOA, and I always confirm how I'm shooting for the day with a scoped 223 to make sure I'm just not having off days.  By reputation the guns are accurate and the first go around I just thought I had a lemon so I ended up buying the guide gun.  I love the idea of a lever action 45/70 for hunting, but it just never worked out for me.

Offline BBF

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10042
  • Gender: Male
  • I feel much better now knowing it will get worse.
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2010, 09:18:20 AM »
MOA of 1 3/4 inch for a short range rifle isn't bad IMO. If it was used as a varminter it would be a very different story.

I don't like straight stocks, that would make the selection easy for me.
What is the point of Life if you can't have fun.

Offline robert4570

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2010, 04:19:30 PM »
I own three GG's and a standard 1895 ,all shoot well. Not looking for a match rifle with any of'em but they perform as expected.
However nothing carries as well as a GG with a compact scope ,short barrel and straight stock.
NRA BENEFACTOR
United Sportsmen of America

Offline Cecil

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2010, 05:34:34 AM »
Quote
I own three GG's and a standard 1895 ,all shoot well. Not looking for a match rifle with any of'em but they perform as expected.
However nothing carries as well as a GG with a compact scope ,short barrel and straight stock.

+ 1
Cecil

Offline BBF

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10042
  • Gender: Male
  • I feel much better now knowing it will get worse.
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2010, 05:47:46 AM »
It is not the carrying with a straight stock, it is the shooting. My hand keeps looking for a comfortable spot to hold and can't find it while a pistol grip anchors the hand to pretty much the same location. That is the deciding factor for me.
What is the point of Life if you can't have fun.

Offline teddy12b

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2010, 06:00:09 AM »
They've got a new guide gun wtih a brown laminated stock with the pistol grip now don't they?  It's sort of a more traditional looking version of the SBL.

Offline simplicity

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2010, 08:16:11 AM »
First off I haven't had a 22" 1895 in my collection but up until last january I didn't have a marlin in my collection except for my grand fathers half mag 32 special that I had to pass on to a younger cousin in the family.  I do have a stainless GG now and I run it with just XS sights. I'm only 5'8" and with the GG letting it hang straight down my side it's still a foot or better off the ground (really big plus). As for the straight stock vs grip style ( I grew up with a win. 94 in my hands) I do prefer the straight stock over the other. I have found through handleing different shotguns i.e. upland specials that they come up faster and with a straight stock (atleast me and my relatives) it seems more natural to pull the gun tighter to your shoulder.  I'm still looking for a remington 11-87 or 870 upland special they discontinued or a browing upland special o/u. That's just my 2 cents

Offline swordfish

  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2010, 08:56:24 AM »
I have 1895's in barrel lengths 18.5", 22" and 26", and prefer the 26" Cowboy over the rest, for hunting and at the range. I don't much like the 18.5" guide gun, but lots of folks do like them.
"If it bleeds we can kill it" Dutch

Offline Dill45

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2010, 06:47:51 PM »
I personally own a guide gun; haven't had a chance to shoot a standard one.

I really like the GG a lot, compact and easy to carry.  Weighs in at 8.5 lb's with a Leupold VX-II on it.  Shoots very well for the size.  I can get five shot groups touching at 100 yards.  Best group I've shot with it is .55" at 100 yards.  Balance is great I think personally.  Only thing I've noticed is that with a full tube of rounds in the magazine the gun feels a bit more muzzle heavy than I prefer but, that's a given with the gun design.

Offline eastbank

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
Re: Guide Gun vs Standard 1895
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2010, 07:21:31 AM »
here are my four 45-70,s, i like them all. ruger#3,marlin 95 SS, browning 1885, winchester 1885 carbine. eastbank.