This is not theoretical, must choose one or the other please Lock

[silverpelican]

Hello folks
A real world situation has arisen.  I wanted two 357 mags. one a rifle and the other a revolver.  Well only one can be had.  Both are in good shape and not abused.  The rifle is the less fired of the two.  The weapons are...a Marlin 1894c about 11 years old, the revolver is a Dan Wesson 8 inch barrel....late Monson Mass gun.  200xxx serial number and plum colored.  One is in hand and paid for the other is in layaway and might lose the deposit.  In my thinking both can handle much the same ranges and roughly the same power loads.  Am I wrong?  I have another pistol in 44 special so i can live with that for time being.  Pride urges me to honor the layaway.....dire medical and transportation issues say better to even walk a way from the Dan Wesson.....gee I wanted one of those since the late 1970's.  Which one to keep, for one I must have, and it will be my only 357. Question, which and reasoning for that choice please.....and thank you all.

[Lloyd Smale]

the marlins worth more and much easier to turn over if you decide down the line you dont want it anymore.

[FPH]

How much is the lawaway  amount you stand to loose?  I would take the Marlin if all things were equal.

[ironglow]

  Plus, if it is for hunting..using the same loads..the Marlin will likely reach farther, faster and more acurately

[Bigeasy]

Apples and Oranges.....
 
What are the intended uses for the new gun?  Hunting? - Assuming you don't own another centerfire rifle... you are better off with the Marlin, as it will give you increased range and accuracy over the revolver.  Assuming your 44 spl is not a snub nose Charter Arms, it should serve as a suitable hunting handgun for most uses.  Assuming it is not a long barrel S&W or Ruger, it should be a good self defense weapon for carry.
 
For range use?  Either gun will work, just a matter of what you prefer.  Right now Marlin 357 mag 1894's are in demand, and bring top dollar, if that is of issue to you...
 
Larry

[Lonegun1894]

I'd also vote for the rifle, due to range, accuracy, versatility, and just preferring long guns over handguns, especially when the handgun is a Dan Wesson.  I know this is a prejudiced view, but the DWs lock up mechanism has always seemed awkward for any situation where even a possibility of fast reloads may be a consideration.  So for range use if you just want one, it makes sense.  However, the rifle will get you more range for hunting use and speed for defensive use.  I see the rifle as a win-win, and I am not considering the monetary or resale value as if you have been wanting both for years, then the satisfaction either will give you (hopefully) exceeds the price you pay or would get by flipping these.

[mjh]

Sell the 44 and get both the 357's.  Pro's and Con's either way yea go, I like to have at least two arms that can fire the same caliber. Of course more than one is nice but not always possible. One 357 breaks yea got another one to shoot.....good luck....

[silverpelican]

Thanks to all who have commented so far!  The worst case is the loss of $125....on the layaway....sometimes it is better to just turn and walkaway.....oh and will kill all future layaways at the store.  On the otherhand might be able to get some product for the  $125. but future layaways will be stoped.  I see the wisdom of the Marlin over the DW overall in the broadest consideration of what a 357 can be used for.  With an 8 inch barrel the DW is certainly not a carry weapon.  With the right bullet, I think of the 357 as a sure thing within a 100 meter range.  I have talked personaly with one person who took hundreds of deer out to about 125 yards, with the great majority much closer to 60 yards.  All with heavy for cal. hard cast.  This was a orchard protection situation.  The marlin 1894c was the weapon of choice. 
I am going to risk the wrath of Gun store and give up the DW.  Used to be the customer was allways right but the gun store folks are getting very uppity these days.  I only have about two more gun purchases at most in me......so thanks to all!   Oh, and that 44 special is a Ruger 4 5/8 inch Lipsey flattop built in 2009....so anything short of Brown Bear in North America,  within 60 to 76 yards is mine for the taking......got some 290 grain hard cast with wide meplat that fit the cylinder length just great when crimped on the second lube groove........So my two gun combo will not be the same cal. but will cover my needs.....I am not a sniper or long ranger hunter.  Longest deer ever shot was 125 yards....Hogs....well the other side of a bush....

[BruceP]

I'm not sure from the post if your losing the deposit on the layaway is due to a problem on the stores part with the deal or from a short term financial problem on your part. If it happens to be the latter I will offer one more suggestion. Pick out someone (maybe younger)that you really like and offer it to them for the remainder of the amount owed on the layaway. An older gentleman that worked with my dad did that for him back in the 70's and I always thought that showed a lot of class. He was going to lose his deposit anyway and thought it better to "Give" the money to my dad instead of the store. Dad offered to loan him the money but he insisted on doing it his way.

Bruce

[tacklebury]

Just as a precaution, I'd state that he needs to be the one handing over the money and purchasing the gun in his name.  The ATF is really finicky on "Straw Purchases" where you are buying a firearm knowing it's going to someone else.  If it's a family member it can be considered a gift, but I just felt it necessary to caution. 

[BruceP]

Thanks for adding that Tacklebury. I certainly would not want to get them into a legal issue and a lot has changed in this area since the 70's. The store mayor may not even allow the him to go in with that person and have it purchased in the other persons name I guess that would be up to store policy. It was not meant to imply that he buy the gun as a "straw purchase" for someone.

Bruce

[SharonAnne]

Marlin

[bluecow]

D.W. and never look back