Remington vs Marlin, can you explain?

[Pete123]

So, I love the old Marlin lever actions.  Most people that are fans prefer a gun that has a JM stamp on the barrel as that indicates it was made in Marlin's barrel factory as Marlin turned out better barrels.  They feel that once Remington bought Marlin that the quality decreased.

 

The part that confuses me is that Remington barrels wouldn't be as good.  The Remington 700 is one of the most popular bolt actions of all time and is one of the guns used by the military for sniper rifles, leading me to conclude that Remington barrels are solid.

 

Can you all connect the dots on this?

[Garufa]

I don't think it's so much the barrel but the fact that JM being stamped on the barrel signifies a "true" Marlin.  Seeing that proof one generally knows that it was produced before Remington took over.

 

The overall quality of Remlins is the problem, not necessarily just the barrel.

 

I have no experience with Remington 700's but have heard grumblings of reduced quality in recent years...then there's the whole trigger debacle with the things.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Garufa

[Caster]

Remington has become more interested in building their corporate portfolio than building a quality product.
The problem with current Marlins IS Remington.

Remington blows. You take their flag ship: the 700. Comparing two 700's side by side, one made today and one made in say, 1960. Its the same difference in a Wilson Combat and a High Point. Both very serviceable and all, but really....

If you find yourself shopping for a Marlin lever gun, do your best to find one made in the 50's. They are arguably the best made Marlins out there....ever.

[Patton]

There is a combination of things to keep in mind here, and I am no means an expert but the Marlins are now more affordable. I recently bought a Glenfield 30a that still had the 1977 price tag of $237; that was a crap ton of money then. However, I think the issue lies in Remington quality suffering around the late 90's also. I even hear some say the quality has improved once again, and I often hear some say the last of the true JM Marlins may have quality issues as well. Edited January 30, 2016 by Patton

[CommsNBombs]

Remington has fallen off on their product and QC quite a bit.

The new "Remarlingtons" are cheaply made - not saying they dont work but damnit! If I want a lever action I want it to have a nice walnut stock on it and a heavy barrel

Got the opportunity today to actually feel the difference...all I can say is wow.

Remington is just like Audi or Bentley - their name and heritage commands the premium not the product.

Hell, even their PRIMERS suck! They dont do Marlin any justice at all

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[frankmako]

the remington made marlins are not well made.  just too many problems.  if you want a good marlin look for the one made before 1990.  look for the ones without the cross bar safety and jm mark on the barrel. those are the best.

[gregintenn]

Nothing wrong with the barrels. It's the rest of the gun that is hit or miss on quality. The JM stamp indicates the rifle was made pre Remington takeover, and denotes a quality gun. It has little to do with the actual barrel, it's just where the stamp happens to be located.

 

Personally, I'll go back a bit farther than that. I'll not own a lever rifle with an exposed hammer and a safety.

Edited January 31, 2016 by gregintenn

[Caster]

I know what you're saying Gregg, I tend to agree....with the exception of the Winchester 94AE .444 I just picked up. The exposed safety is its one and only detraction. It's purty enough to have a beauty mark though. Edited January 31, 2016 by Caster

[1gewehr]

Overall, American firearm quality has deteriorated.  The 1950's were the apex of quality.  After that, the focus became less expensive models and materials.  I can understand that a company needs to be competitive on price.  Remington has had a constant search since the 60's for a less-expensive bolt-action rifle that would sell well.  Finally, they also started cutting costs on their flagship 700.  Sales have plummeted.

 

Having a very high quality model in the lineup pays dividends for the reputation overall.  When Colt dropped the Python, their reputation suffered.  Rightly so.  I bought a new Gold Cup in 1982 that was incapable of firing two consecutive magazines without a jam.  I finally tired of trying to get it to work reliably and sold it.  I haven't bought a new Colt since.  And my story has cost Colt other sales as well.

 

The lesson is that a company HAS to provide a quality product even at the risk of being more expensive than the competition.  Look at Taurus.  A lifetime warranty is fine, but their reputation is not for a firearm that will provide a lifetime of reliable use.

 

As for Remington, it really hurts to see a company that had such an excellent reputation work so hard to destroy it.  After the R51 fiasco, and the hit that Marlin took after the Remington takeover, you would think that Remington management would make quality and customer service a huge priority.

[Oh Shoot]

Nothing wrong with the barrels. It's the rest of the gun that is hit or miss on quality The JM stamp indicates t.he rifle was made pre Remington takeover, and denotes a quality gun. .

 

Not that simple. There are plenty of JM marked barrels on guns released after the Remington buy out in '07. Indeed, some seem to have been stamped JM right up until closure of the North Haven plant in 2011. No one seems sure if these were "pre stamped" upon manufacture of the barrel or whether they just continued that proof mark with some lines until plant was closed, as yes there are also REM or RP markings on post '07 barrels on guns released from North Haven plant too. Also, there are lots of REM or RP stamped North Haven engraved barrels after the plant shutdown that came out of Ilion and Mayfield,  apparently from left over barrels.

 

-  OS

Edited January 31, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[ballz71]

The part that confuses me is that Remington barrels wouldn't be as good.  The Remington 700 is one of the most popular bolt actions of all time and is one of the guns used by the military for sniper rifles, leading me to conclude that Remington barrels are solid.

 

Can you all connect the dots on this?

Im pretty sure the military swaps the barrels out, all that they use is the action. The m24 i believe was a long action 308 while the m40 was a short action.  Now they are re barreling the m24 to shoot 300 win mag. 

[Pete123]

Nothing wrong with the barrels. It's the rest of the gun that is hit or miss on quality. The JM stamp indicates the rifle was made pre Remington takeover, and denotes a quality gun. It has little to do with the actual barrel, it's just where the stamp happens to be located.

 

Personally, I'll go back a bit farther than that. I'll not own a lever rifle with an exposed hammer and a safety.

 

Greg's comment brings up another question.  People in this thread and other ones have said that you want the older Marlin lever actions.  My question now is how to identify one.

 

Don't all of the Marlin's have an exposed hammer?  Frankmako said to get one without the crossbar safety.  How do you identify that?  Greg, when you say you don't want one with a safety, you mean a button or switch, correct.

 

Isn't the safety on the older ones a partial cock of the hammer?

[Garufa]

"True" Marlins are identified by a JM proof mark on the barrel. :lol:

 

Yes, all Marlin lever-actions have exposed hammers.  Methinks Greg is referring to Savage 99's.

 

You can Google for pics of the cross bolt safety.  They started in 1983 I think.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Garufa

[gregintenn]

Greg's comment brings up another question.  People in this thread and other ones have said that you want the older Marlin lever actions.  My question now is how to identify one.

 

Don't all of the Marlin's have an exposed hammer?  Frankmako said to get one without the crossbar safety.  How do you identify that?  Greg, when you say you don't want one with a safety, you mean a button or switch, correct.

 

Isn't the safety on the older ones a partial cock of the hammer?

http://huntforever.org/2012/10/05/marlins-256-winchester-levermatic/

This Marlin doesn't have an exposed hammer.

 

A safety is needed on a lever rifle without an exposed hammer. With an exposed hammer, half cock serves as a safety, as you've noted.

 

The push button, sliding hammerblock safety on these rifles is redundant and unneeded.

[Oh Shoot]

http://huntforever.org/2012/10/05/marlins-256-winchester-levermatic/

This Marlin doesn't have an exposed hammer.

 

A safety is needed on a lever rifle without an exposed hammer. With an exposed hammer, half cock serves as a safety, as you've noted.

 

The push button, sliding hammerblock safety on these rifles is redundant and unneeded.

 

The main traditional Marlin lever guns (336, 1894, 1895, etc) of course have exposed hammers and always have,  same as Winchester.

 

And all have the half-cock position whether they have the cross bolt safety or not -- it should be noted though, that they are perfectly capable of being placed in a "false half cock" position, and they can fire from that position with impact applied to the hammer same as if they were not cocked at all but just resting against the firing pin.

 

Can do with the Winchesters also AFAIK.

 

And btw, Marlin crossbolt safety got phased in durin 1983, so you have to go  back a good ways to get one without it.

 

- OS

Edited February 1, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[xd shooter]

I have a safe full of 39a, 1894, 336, 1894, 1895 & model 62 Marlin rifles.

With that being said I have a 1895 Remiln guide gun that is spot on. The quality of it is great(it's not a 1970's Marlin by any means) but at 100 yards off hand with iron sights I will still put it up against one.

[Pete123]

Great info from you guys.