| Marlin 925R 22lr Review |
|
|
|
| Written by Archfile | |
| Tuesday, 10 July 2007 | |
|
Marlin 925R Review by - Archfile
Marlin 925R Review
Firstly, I have a CZ 452 17HMR, so the quality end of the spectrum was covered, and there was no real reason to go up market on this purchase, the whole idea was to buy a 22LR that would be cheap to run for practical reasons. So the 22LR was the chambering of choice, and the options came down to a few obvious choices, the Norinco, the Marlin or the Savage, now the savage was what I really wanted, but the Marlin was CHEAP, and the norinco was just a little too crappy sounding for me. So the choice for a rifle was made. Next was the step of deciding what stock and finish I wanted, again the practical ran high on the list, so plastic stock was decided on, then the barrel was to be a light profile, 2 other varmint rifles are heavy, so this one was to be a light carry around rifle. The package deal was from potter firearms, who shipped the rifle and a bushnell Banner cheapy 4x 32mm fixed zoom job. Supplied rings were poor and instantly replaced with a better set that I had in a box. The box arrived and was then inspected, scope was wrapped in bubble wrap and included in the box, the rifle was un-lubed and sans bolt in the box, so after the required paperwork was completed the rifle went in the car and came home for closer inspection. Rifle was test fired I assume, there was residue and gunk obvious The box contained instructions, which are simple and rather poorly presented, which is not really a big issue but could have been better. Instant impression was that the rifle really does look like a piece of shit, its really a simple device compared to the CZ and other upmarket actions, however it was rather smoother than the CZ was out of the box.  Image shows the action closer up, the action is primitive but seems to wor really well When lubed up and inspected, it was dry fired... lets just say, wow what a crap trigger, I'd guess about 8lbs and a bit. You are going to want to fix this, believe me. The t900 trigger was supposed to be an improved version, jesus the last one must have been simply appalling First thing that instantly needed some attention was that trigger, so the action was removed from the stock. At which point I noticed it was loose anyhow, the front blade sight was removed. The stock was then inspected, the design isn't really that bad, if it was stronger it would be quite a good item, so I made a little bush from plastic to shim the front action stud and float the barrel a bit higher (to account for any flex using the bipod)  Image shows the 925R, attached to the front is the bipod mount Trigger was removed, C clips removed and the springs removed, the trigger pull spring was replaced with one from a 'clickpen' and re-assembly was completed. Spring was obviously too light. Much searching around my little rental house rounded up exactly NO springs that could be used.... further searching found me one of the 4 lighters that I couldn't find earlier.. turns out that lighters have (bic lighters) a twin rate spring under the thumb trigger for the gas... this was used and worked well.  Image shows the 925 action from underneath, the plastic magazine follower is complete crap in my opinion and for the tiny cost they should have used metal. Off to the local shop for some ammo, several choices found, almost all Winchester branded. Now, don't be mad, I didn't take photos of groups, thats not in my opinion material because lets face it, your experience will vary, you could shoot better, worse, get a dud or a screamer. Testing started at 50m with the Long Z's, which with earplugs in was a bit of a giggle, its years since I fired a 22, and never used the long Z's which are VERY quiet. Sighting in was quick, about 5 shots into a piece of cardboard at 25m and then 6 into one at 50m, the long Z's hit the 50m target about dead on, which I guessed would be OK at 80-100m with the normal subsonics, which turned out pretty close. Next I went to the Winchester subsonics, and plugged 10 rounds into a tight little circle, about 1.2" at 50m, which was OK considering a slight breeze, the other ammo all went into 1" groups at the height appropriately expected given the speed of the bullet. Everything I shot went into nice little groups... EVERYTHING, at 100m the 4x scope was just too small to make a real showing of things, but at 50m this rifle will put just about anything into 1" or less. And I'm not a good shot, and was shooting with homemade bipod and no rear rest.  Now, the group measured is 3 different ammo types at 50m, powerpoints, superspeed and laser all from winchester (the other shots are sighting in shots from an earlier group) Testing only highlighted one problem with this rifle, the shorter rounds like the Long Z's, the last round in the magazine jumps out and smacks into the breech-face when worked quickly. Well, perhaps it helps to put the key criteria back in mind, this rifle was to be practical, cheap to buy and run and accurate enough to be practical. So how does it stack up? I'm happy with the accuracy, which would be fantastic if I used a better rest and more time to shoot as well as possible, cost was $395 including the optics, which is very cheap, the finish is durable and functional. Overall I'm rather pleased with this rifle, its cheap cheerful and rather nice to use. If I was to do it all again, the Savage would have been purchased, the trigger is supposed to be much better, and as such there is little noticeable difference in action design. PRO's Cheap Accurate Light Cheap to feed CON's Poor trigger - totally crap Stock could be stronger Magazine plastic insert is pathetic. |
|
| Last Updated ( Thursday, 12 July 2007 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|