JM Marlins

[FergusonTO35]

This is pure Balderdash! And the standard rule for "assume" Fits to a tee. I have seen and owned many of them and the machine work was terrible in all but the highest grade guns. The later guns from Remington were better made. The new guns from Ruger are much better than anything ever produced by JM Marlin or Remington with the exception of the Custom Shop guns which are very scarce and start at $3500!. I have a late JM 1894CB and 1895CB and both required extensive internal work to run right and function smoothly. I also have a 1958 336 which took much of the same hand work to get sorted out. JM Marlin sat on known problems with these guns for decades, which in turn carried forward to Remington. Not until Ruger taking over were they fixed. And all of them were simple fixes that would have cost nothing to implement but complacency in the case of JM and Bureaucratic Engineering resistant to any change at Remington prevented them all.

Ruger is making the best Marlin Rifles ever produced and when they get the Product Line completely filled out we will see nearly perfect guns right from the factory in every configuration..

Randy.

I think at the very least the new Ruglins will be on par with the better JM rifles, and definitely a better value given what the latter sell for these days. I've been thinking about used lever actions alot lately. Thing that bothers me is there is always a chance you'll get one with a bad barrel and your only options are take a chance on a used barrel (which may be expensive and hard to find) or pay big $$ to have a new barrel made and fitted. Back in the days of used 94's and 336's for $200.00 this was a very acceptable risk, but with these days you can easily find yourself over a grand in the hole buying a lever action and then having it rebarreled. I would be pretty unhappy if I just dropped a whole paycheck on a nice 94 or 336, discover it will only shoot halfway decent with jacketed, then have to shuck out even more for a new barrel or reboring to shoot boolits.

[john.k]

I would hope Ruger have increased the metal thicknesses around the barrel tenon and front of the action.....seeing a barrel tenon thread cut almost thru into the reciever magazine hole is not good ,and seeing the thin part cracked and apparently quite acceptable to QA.

[Rrusse11]

I would hope Ruger have increased the metal thicknesses around the barrel tenon and front of the action.....seeing a barrel tenon thread cut almost thru into the reciever magazine hole is not good ,and seeing the thin part cracked and apparently quite acceptable to QA.

Here's the case for bringing back the large frame original 1895 action. On the 450M, and I
believe also the 338M & 308M, they changed the barrel/receiver threads, leaving more meat in the barrel and action.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I think at the very least the new Ruglins will be on par with the better JM rifles, and definitely a better value given what the latter sell for these days. I've been thinking about used lever actions alot lately. Thing that bothers me is there is always a chance you'll get one with a bad barrel and your only options are take a chance on a used barrel (which may be expensive and hard to find) or pay big $$ to have a new barrel made and fitted. Back in the days of used 94's and 336's for $200.00 this was a very acceptable risk, but with these days you can easily find yourself over a grand in the hole buying a lever action and then having it rebarreled. I would be pretty unhappy if I just dropped a whole paycheck on a nice 94 or 336, discover it will only shoot halfway decent with jacketed, then have to shuck out even more for a new barrel or reboring to shoot boolits.

The new Ruglins are and will be so much better than anything ever made by JM Marlin in the last 40 years it will be scary. The 1895's I have seen have been excellent! This is mainly because the people building them actually care about their work, and they took the time to go out in the public and find out what needed to change, and then actually changed it!

I have looked at the inside of many of these older guns and as a Machinist/ Toolmaker by trade it is pretty hard to fool me. But what you are missing is that the barrel should probably be the least of your worries. The barrels are generally good unless they have been abused. It doesn't take much to shine a bore light down the hole and see what's inside, and unless it has got very noticeable flaws it will probably shoot fine. Keep in mind that guns of this type are generally speaking 2" guns or more. Add to that your "shooting inadequacies" ( we've all got them) and now you are talking a 3-4" gun which is still usable accuracy for a Levergun made to shoot meat.

All of my current guns are JM's made at the end of their reign. All of them, 1894CB .44, 1895CB.45-70, both from 2005 and a 1958 336/.30-30 have very nice barrels. The 336 is a Micro Groove and shoots cast just fine. both the CB's are Ballard style. The .45-70 has shot a 1 3/4" group at 100 yards with a Lyman 66LA for sights and the 1894CB is right there with it.

However the insides were a total abomination, and required about 2-3 hours of deburring and finessing to make them user friendly. The Lever on the .45-70 looked like they cut it's shape out with a Water Jet Machine and then Blanchard Ground both sides, leaving dead sharp edges, and the first time I picked it up (new gun) it cut my hand. That took 20 minutes to Fix/ Deburr. Neither Marlin or Remington had any idea what the word "Deburr" meant and virtually all of the internal parts need some kind of attention or another and all could have been fixed by simply Tumble deburring those parts. Ruger is doing that! And said it was a no brainer for them. DUH!

The problem at JM Marlin is that they were all old Union Employees that thought they knew what they were doing, and were set in their ways and not willing to change and didn't really care about the end product.. Cutters were used well beyond their service life which resulted in poor finishes on internal cuts, but since they were internal most people never saw them and didn't care. The gun would "Smooth out" in 2-300 rounds so peopel expected a long Break In period. Mine broke in in about 10 shots because I pre broke it in on the bench with sand paper and a file.!

Also simple fixes to common problems that were known about for 30+ years were ignored. Putting a small Radius on the point of the Snail Cam on the Lever which completely eliminates the dreaded "Marlin Jam" never happened until Ruger took over. That and many other simple fixes to well known problems were ignored by both Marlin and Remington. Remington's Engineering staff was so reluctant to change anything in the MFG process that they just kept pumping out the same old stuff, which resulted in the same old criticisms now being leveled on Remington instead of Marlin. That along with all the Disgruntled Ex Marlin employees posting their "Opinions" on every forum available talking about how wonderful JM Marlin Guns were and what Garbage Remlins are, pretty much tainted the market for Remington. and it was a shame that Ruger got outbid for Marlin when it was first up for sale, as they would already have all the models in production now at the same level because I and several others had already talked to Ruger about these fixes a long time ago.

My .02 on this subject!

Randy.

[Rrusse11]

Randy,
Your insights are worth more than $.02 in my book!
Cheers!
Richard

[JSnover]

What Randy Said!

[Rusty Goose]

I have 1894c in .357 circa 1982. While it is a lot of fun to shoot, accurate enough for bottles and swinging iron plates, it isn't the best of fit and finish. It needed quite a bit of de-burring and gentle stoning to make it comfortable and smooth. I have a Henry big boy in .357 that is so much smoother, really nice attention to detail... heavy as a pig. The Marlin is so nice and light easy to handle.

[3Crows]

I am new on this forum and though have been reloading for a long time I am beginning to explore casting bullets. However, I joined this forum to comment here and of course hope to learn much about casting bullets.

I was scolded on a well known Marlin rifle owner forum for pointing out a poster often purposely provided misleading information regarding Remington produced Marlin rifles (and now Ruger built). Some people have a vested interest and an agenda. Like Mr. Randy says here, thank you, most Remington built Marlins post 2015 are fine. Some may need some minor deburring of the bolt, loading gate and inside the lever radius (due to CNC manufacture and inadequate post process deburring). But functionally and cosmetically they are generally on par with most JM rifles I have owned going back into the 60s and I own two 50s era rifles as well.

My two Remington built rifles, a 336SS and a 1895SBL, come from 2016 and 2017 and they are beautiful, nearly perfect and fully functional rifles. And, the two Ruger built Marlins I also own, a new SBL and a new GBL, are amazing. In particular the metal work and machining up inside where nobody looks. And Ruger made a myriad of small (and large) improvements that in total result in rifles that are functionally superior to any made previously by Marlin.

Love my JMs, I will never trade or sell them. But the one rifle I might be buried with is my Remington built SBL I bought in Alaska. It shoots good, it looks good and I trust it 100%. For collecting, JMs are fine, for shooting and hunting the Remingtons are fine and for everything the new Ruger-Marlins are exceptional. I hope Ruger can keep the quality level up.

[hornetguy]

I have 1894c in .357 circa 1982. While it is a lot of fun to shoot, accurate enough for bottles and swinging iron plates, it isn't the best of fit and finish. It needed quite a bit of de-burring and gentle stoning to make it comfortable and smooth. I have a Henry big boy in .357 that is so much smoother, really nice attention to detail... heavy as a pig. The Marlin is so nice and light easy to handle.

I got one of the Henry Big Boys in steel, with a side loading gate. It's not overly heavy.... it feels about like my 20" Rossi in .45 Colt. I think both of them are under 7 pounds...

I just checked.... the Rossi is about 6 1/8 pounds, and the Henry is about 6 1/2 pounds.... The Marlin carbine is right at 6 pounds.

[Rusty Goose]

I just weighed mine, the Marlin 1894c (.357) comes in at 4.9 lbs. My Henry Big Boy with octagonal barrel (.357) is 8.4 lbs.

[Loudenboomer]

I just weighed mine, the Marlin 1894c (.357) comes in at 4.9 lbs. My Henry Big Boy with octagonal barrel (.357) is 8.4 lbs.

Yikes!!

[Rusty Goose]

The Big Boy is a bit of a husky feller, .38 Specials feel like .22 shorts.

[hornetguy]

For an average of $600 less, I MUCH prefer the Henry steel with side gate.... 6 1/2 pounds is no problem for me.... I'm sort of a "husky feller" myself....

[MrWolf]

I am new on this forum and though have been reloading for a long time I am beginning to explore casting bullets. However, I joined this forum to comment here and of course hope to learn much about casting bullets.

I was scolded on a well known Marlin rifle owner forum for pointing out a poster often purposely provided misleading information regarding Remington produced Marlin rifles (and now Ruger built). Some people have a vested interest and an agenda. Like Mr. Randy says here, thank you, most Remington built Marlins post 2015 are fine. Some may need some minor deburring of the bolt, loading gate and inside the lever radius (due to CNC manufacture and inadequate post process deburring). But functionally and cosmetically they are generally on par with most JM rifles I have owned going back into the 60s and I own two 50s era rifles as well.

My two Remington built rifles, a 336SS and a 1895SBL, come from 2016 and 2017 and they are beautiful, nearly perfect and fully functional rifles. And, the two Ruger built Marlins I also own, a new SBL and a new GBL, are amazing. In particular the metal work and machining up inside where nobody looks. And Ruger made a myriad of small (and large) improvements that in total result in rifles that are functionally superior to any made previously by Marlin.

Love my JMs, I will never trade or sell them. But the one rifle I might be buried with is my Remington built SBL I bought in Alaska. It shoots good, it looks good and I trust it 100%. For collecting, JMs are fine, for shooting and hunting the Remingtons are fine and for everything the new Ruger-Marlins are exceptional. I hope Ruger can keep the quality level up.

The Remlins did produce some pretty obvious failures. Was in a Sportsmans Warehouse in Altoona, PA when I was visiting my gf. Employee showed me three Remlins (don't remember which ones) whose barrels or sights were bent. He was clueless also.. Whether they came from the factory that way or were damaged in transit, no clue. Either way they should not have been put up for sale. Obvious issues like that hurt their reputation when it would have been better to just have returned them.

[3Crows]

The Remlins did produce some pretty obvious failures. Was in a Sportsmans Warehouse in Altoona, PA when I was visiting my gf. Employee showed me three Remlins (don't remember which ones) whose barrels or sights were bent. He was clueless also.. Whether they came from the factory that way or were damaged in transit, no clue. Either way they should not have been put up for sale. Obvious issues like that hurt their reputation when it would have been better to just have returned them.

The date code is on the left (usually) side of the barrel, the first letter is the year and the month and the second is the year. Generally K and onward is good quality. As to the sights I bought a Marlin in 1974 (maybe it was 72) brand new. My first CF rifle I bought myself. When I got it home and began trying to sight it in I found that the front sight was clocked well to the side. My grandfather mounted a Weaver K2.5 on it and I let it go for a few years before eventually sending it back to Marlin to have it repaired. Yes, Remington has some QC issues, especially during the transition but Marlin invented "Feeding Two" and the "Marlin Jam" and twisted sights and drooping barrels all without any help from Remington.

The two Remington rifles I have, a 336SS and a 1895SBL, are fine rifles. I am not going to defend a dead company, actually two dead companies (JM and Remington), Ruger has Marlin now and they are off to a good start, looking forward to a .44M and or .45C 1894 with a proper barrel twist rate and I want mine stainless steel please Ruger. Long Live the Lever Gun.

Merry Christmas to all.

[truckjohn]

Yep. JM is the "original" Marlin before the family sold out to Remington.

Before you blame Remington, remember that Marlin was SOLD by the family who owned it, and there were contractual requirements, such as supporting warranty, interchangeability of parts, and maintenance of legacy product lines. That limited design changes. Luckily, the designs were fundamentally pretty good. The downside is that changes and improvements were not well documented, and like much "Legacy" manufacturing everywhere, requires significant experience to make quality parts. Take, for example, Marlin's old screw machines. They could whomp out thousands of parts at blinding speed, but took people with serious know-how to change over and set up properly. A CNC machinist can't just walk up to an old screw machine and get it to make anything good. Remington eventually got rid of most of that stuff and was doing it mostly CNC by the end, but that took a lot of money and time to get right.

Ruger, buying the brand and manufacturing equipment out of Remington's bankruptcy, is not bound by any of this. They aren't required to keep Remington or JM Marlins going or make parts for legacy guns. On the one hand, that's a shame for those of us who own them. On the other hand, it frees Ruger to make improvements that needed to be made, but often results in non-interchangability. Such as designing the parts to run correctly AFTER being deburred or post-polished. Marlin parts weren't designed that way. They were designed to come off the screw machine and go into the rifle, roughness and burrs included.

As an aside, I've got an early 1948 336RC and a 1949 336A. The insides on both are rough as a cob and sharp enough to draw blood, but they run flawlessly. The bigger problem is when some ignorant but well meaning soul "Slicks up the actions," fully deburring and polishing them, and they jam like crazy. Won't run, won't headspace, etc. Unfortunately, the factory isn't around to sell us a pile of replacement parts to undo the damage done by some previous owner.

So... There is good and bad. HOPEFULLY, Ruger will allow the aftermarket to support legacy JM and Remington Marlins. Now that there's no factory support for the MILLIONS of rifles produced, we can get some of the secondary market parts manufacturers interested.

I'm looking forward to the new chapter,

[3Crows]

Yep. JM is the "original" Marlin before the family sold out to Remington.

Before you blame Remington, remember that Marlin was SOLD by the family who owned it, and there were contractual requirements, such as supporting warranty, interchangeability of parts, and maintenance of legacy product lines. That limited design changes. Luckily, the designs were fundamentally pretty good. The downside is that changes and improvements were not well documented, and like much "Legacy" manufacturing everywhere, requires significant experience to make quality parts. Take, for example, Marlin's old screw machines. They could whomp out thousands of parts at blinding speed, but took people with serious know-how to change over and set up properly. A CNC machinist can't just walk up to an old screw machine and get it to make anything good. Remington eventually got rid of most of that stuff and was doing it mostly CNC by the end, but that took a lot of money and time to get right.

Ruger, buying the brand and manufacturing equipment out of Remington's bankruptcy, is not bound by any of this. They aren't required to keep Remington or JM Marlins going or make parts for legacy guns. On the one hand, that's a shame for those of us who own them. On the other hand, it frees Ruger to make improvements that needed to be made, but often results in non-interchangability. Such as designing the parts to run correctly AFTER being deburred or post-polished. Marlin parts weren't designed that way. They were designed to come off the screw machine and go into the rifle, roughness and burrs included.

As an aside, I've got an early 1948 336RC and a 1949 336A. The insides on both are rough as a cob and sharp enough to draw blood, but they run flawlessly. The bigger problem is when some ignorant but well meaning soul "Slicks up the actions," fully deburring and polishing them, and they jam like crazy. Won't run, won't headspace, etc. Unfortunately, the factory isn't around to sell us a pile of replacement parts to undo the damage done by some previous owner.

So... There is good and bad. HOPEFULLY, Ruger will allow the aftermarket to support legacy JM and Remington Marlins. Now that there's no factory support for the MILLIONS of rifles produced, we can get some of the secondary market parts manufacturers interested.

I'm looking forward to the new chapter,

What he said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!

Of possible interest for what it might be worth, to early to be conclusive. But, I had my Remington SBL and my Ruger GBL apart for in the case of the SBL a long overdue cleaning and the GBL for a new rifle interior inspection (it was clean, smooth to a fault). I was able to interchange the lever, the carrier and the bolt slipped in and so did the locking lug. In the Rem-Marlin the parts seemed to function but in the Ruger-Marlin the reverse would have required some fitting so I did not force anything. Even if parts are interchangeable (with fitting), at this time, ordering a part for a Ruger-Marlin requires a serial number. I want a spare loading gate, extractor and ejector to store in a (drilled) hole in the butt stock. So without a serial number for a Ruger built rifle I do not think a part can be gotten right now. Maybe that will change?

[W.R.Buchanan]

Crows: Those parts you want for spares are not going to require any "Fitting" or other magic. Also you can go to Wild West Guns and get them. The extractor will be hard to install just because of how they are installed in the first place. Other than knocking the sharp edges off the interior parts there weren't any significant changes made that I know of. Ruger had no intention of Re Engineering the guns. They just wanted to put some TLC into them thru out the production process. This is where the original guns were sorely lacking as they were trying to correct minor production issues with hand work instead of using machines for Tumble Deburring. Hand work Would deal with some issues, but not all of the same issues would be addressed on every gun. (hit and miss) Where as tumbling a batch of parts would yield every part receiving the same treatment and also produce better looking parts.

Truckjohn: The only parts that Marlin made on Screw Machines were screws and small pins. These are the only kinds of parts made on Screw Machines. If they had some Swiss Screw Machines they were to make firing pins or other longer pins, but they are limited to certain kinds of parts as well.

Anyway suffice to say I think the Mark is in good hands now and the products they turn out will be well in excess of anything that has come before.

Randy

[3Crows]

Crows: Those parts you want for spares are not going to require any "Fitting" or other magic. Also you can go to Wild West Guns and get them. The extractor will be hard to install just because of how they are installed in the first place. Other than knocking the sharp edges off the interior parts there weren't any significant changes made that I know of. Ruger had no intention of Re Engineering the guns. They just wanted to put some TLC into them thru out the production process. This is where the original guns were sorely lacking as they were trying to correct minor production issues with hand work instead of using machines for Tumble Deburring. Hand work Would deal with some issues, but not all of the same issues would be addressed on every gun. (hit and miss) Where as tumbling a batch of parts would yield every part receiving the same treatment and also produce better looking parts.


Randy

Thank you. I understand the three parts I want for spare, extractor, ejector and loading gate, require no fitting to speak of. I was reporting that I was able to install the carrier, bolt, lever and locking block and that my opinion based on a sample of two bode well for future FOR JM and REMINGTON Marlins retro-compatibility. And Marlin will sell me those parts with a serial number and of course owning a Ruger Marlin pair, I have serial numbers.

As to the aftermarket for some parts, I have had mixed success with the aluminum RPP loading gate. I have had excellent success with their levers on two rifles. And I like the WWG Bear Claw ejector as I have had them break slamming fully loaded rounds out quickly to unload in a needless hurry. Of course, I could just push the gate in . Entirely my fault.

[gc45]

Both antique Marlins I have are flawless rifles and terrific cast bullet guns. Also have a 1950's model 39A that shoots bug holes and never an issue. have owned 39's, 39A's, 1894, and one 1895, all were and are non issue guns for me. I think later guns have been an issue though, QC fell way off at Marlin sometime after the 1950's is my guess. Let's hope Ruger makes them a better functioning firearm that is smooth, accurate and nice looking meaning; no cheap wood stocks, plastic and poor quality blue or stainless steel.