So then the question becomes "why"?
- Imagine the person holding the rifle has a bead on the brain and just has to smooth the trigger, without disturbing the aim, is that somehow a bigger deal with a lever than a bolt? If it all works out you nail that shot, and if it goes to hell, that is the only shot you had.
- So you are facing the second shot. So the undeniable advantage of the lever is that when it runs, it runs a lot faster than a bolt. Which is cool, but not entirely in character with what seems to be part of the claim that somehow the guy with a lever is rising to a higher challenge. Se Vince Lupo.
With the popular Marlins there can be a race to run the things fast, while there is a possibility to lock them up. And they aren't open topped, so they can be difficult to clear without a plasma cutter. "Unscrew the screw holding the lever in place..."
(The 1895 is controlled round feed, and seems to have done ok in whatever kind of hell the Russian front was in WWI. The 1886 is also controlled round feed (I have several, but I don't know how well it compares to a 98 bolt. I have several of those also. It certainly isn't any better and there are more moving parts than a cuckoo clock. 95s are very rare in a suitable caliber and 1886s are available, you can find one in the US easily in 50-110, or 45-90.
But the Marlins seemed to be more common, and I think there is a lot to look forward to in the new Rugers. The only thing is that the preference on these already underpowered guns is for 19 inch barrels for Alaska.)
At the end of the day it just seems like a stance. Some people like to be different. But not enough do to ensure the markets offers sensible options. When one can get a Blaser for what a custom lever costs, sensible isn't really on the menu. If one wanted to, one could get a 98 in in 9.3, 375, or 458, for what Marlins used to cost a few years back.
