Range Report - Marlin 1894C

This is a good week - shooting twice, and two range reports.

Let me tell you, it was quite a sight at the range, seeing not just the Winchester 1894, but two new Marlin 1894 carbines. One in .30-.30, and this one in .357/.38 Special.

Both my regular readers will remember me gushing about JD's 1894 in .45 Long Colt. I think that a lever gun in a decent pistol caliber is a simply an outstanding idea, for several reasons:

• Ammunition is cheap. JD said that he uses reloads, since .45 LC is a bit spendy, but .38 Special is, well, cheaper than dirt. Cheaper than Dirt currently has .30-.30 at 76¢/round, .45 LC at 68¢/round, but .38 Spec at 24¢/round. Cheaper ammo = you shoot more = you become a better shot.
• A pistol round has much, much less recoil. In my range report for the Winchester, I was developing a flinch by the time I had shot 20 rounds, and had a nice, fat bruise on my shoulder when I was done. This time, we shot 50 rounds each and ended with nothing more than ear-to-ear grins.
• If you have a hankering for yummy venison, it's hard to see that .357 in this rifle wouldn't be up to the job. I actually like my chances better this way, because I'd shoot many, many more practice rounds, and therefore become a better shot. The question is not so much about caliber, as about shot placement.
  

So you can imagine my anticipation as I stepped up to the lane. Here are some impressions:

1. The Marlin ejects the spent shell to the right, not straight up like the Winchester does. This means that you can keep the rifle mounted while you work the lever without worrying about a face full of hot brass. It also means that you could mount a scope, but only a communist would mount a scope on a lever gun, right?
2. It seemed like the lever action was possibly less robust (meaty) than the Winchester. This is very impressionistic, so take this with a big, big grain of salt. Maybe it was just my mood after a long week. Certainly the action works smoothly.
3. Esthetically, I think I prefer a darker wood stock. The Winchester just looks nicer to me, but it's years older than the brand new Marlin, and could very well have darkened over time. Your mileage is almost certain to vary here.
4. The iron sights aren't great. The front sight is a bead, which I guess is OK, but the rear sight is a v-notch. If I were to buy one, I'd replace the sights with something that I find quicker and easier to align.
5. The trigger is great. No take up at all, that I noticed; clean surprise break. Fun, fun, fun.
6. It has a safety, near the trigger. I'm not sure why I found that wierd, but somehow it just seems out of place on a lever gun. As my buddy the lawyer says, "If it weren't for lawyers, you wouldn't need them!"
   
7. It's fun to shoot stuff.
   

One thing that was a problem is that my eyes are getting old. No surprise there, as pretty much all of me is getting old. Between the blurry, out of focus target pattern and the fact that my left eye is dominant (i.e. I'm shooting mostly with my non-dominant eye), any frustration from the day's shooting can't be blamed on the rifle.

A couple of posts kind of skirted this issue (especially the comments). In one (can't find it - I'm surprised to see that I have almost 300 posts in the three months I've been blogging), Random Acts of Patriotism left some great comments on ways to see better. I'm sorry to say that I ignored his advise, and it showed in my groupings. However, I have a bleg of sorts:

Any ideas about the effectiveness of prescription shooting glasses? There seem to be some on the market.

Anyone had any experience with these? Yes, yes, I know I should work on my technique, improve my skill level, yadda yadda. That said, are these gimmicks, or do they really work?