What To Expect From Ruger/Remington/Marlin

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Plan2Live

Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,183
Location
Columbia, SC
Now that Ruger has bought Remington/Marlin, what should we expect to see happen? Will we see any new model releases? Will we see any re-releases, limited editions, etc. or will it be business as usual under a different comptroller signing the checks?
 
Plan2Live said:
Now that Ruger has bought Remington/Marlin, what should we expect to see happen? Will we see any new model releases? Will we see any re-releases, limited editions, etc. or will it be business as usual under a different comptroller signing the checks?
Click to expand...

Once Ruger gets Marlins rolling off the production line on a regular basis, I'm betting there will definitely be Lipseys and Talo editions of Marlin lever guns.

Could be very interesting. :cool:
 
I’d like to see another 16” 1895 in stainless.

I’m sure that would tick off the handful of 1895STP owners though.
 
Remington already did that with their later models. Although the factory retained at times the ship first, fix later mentality.
 
dh1633pm said:
Remington already did that with their later models. Although the factory retained at times the ship first, fix later mentality.
Click to expand...

I think Ruger has that mentality as well. Frankly I would think all gun manufactures do that now. It's cheaper to have c/s handle any issues vist QC taking the time to through My check every gun
 
I think it will be more like a couple of years (maybe three), to get Marlin up and running again. A new plant, a new workforce, new machinery, new sourced material, and so on. Don't think I want to be the first kid on the block to have their early production guns either. I have waited this long since my last Marlin, I can wait a bit longer. Just so they get it right!
 
I would just like to see the quality of the pre-Remington buy. Any Marlin I handled after had poor fit and finish compared to my 1970's model.
 
MEHavey said:
Knowing Ruger, the first thing they're going to do -- and for quite a while -- is re-establish trust in quality for the flagship 1885, 336, 39 and `94.
Probably starting with the 336 and 1885.
Click to expand...

Was gonna post similar and man oh man do I hope you’re right!
 
dh1633pm said:
Remington already did that with their later models. Although the factory retained at times the ship first, fix later mentality.
Click to expand...
I hope this isn’t the case. I’d like a Marlin in .357 but I may wait a bit to see how the roll out goes.
Stay safe.
 
MEHavey said:
Knowing Ruger, the first thing they're going to do -- and for quite a while -- is re-establish trust in quality for the flagship 1885, 336, 39 and `94.
Probably starting with the 336 and 1885.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the 39 has only been available special order from the ‘custom shop’ for several years. So, we shall see what Ruger does about that...
 
DocRock

I'm really hoping Ruger makes the Model 39 a regular item in their catalog. And I would want a Model 1894 in .357 to go with my Ruger Blackhawk.
 
DocRock said:
As I understand it, the 39 has only been available special order from the ‘custom shop’ for several years. So, we shall see what Ruger does about that...
Click to expand...

This is because Remington never figured out how to make the 39A. The Remington Custom Shop had what was left of the original JM Marlin stock of 39A parts and their gunsmiths were hand fitting and assembling each one. Hence the $3700 price tag, IIRC. I will be surprised if Ruger can resurrect the 39A for a market tolerable price. The only way I would personally be interested is if they bring back the 1891 (the progenitor of the 39A) rather than the 39A since we all know a true levergun has a side-gate loading port. :p:D
 
"The only way I would personally be interested is if they bring back the 1891 (the progenitor of the 39A) rather than the 39A since we all know a true levergun has a side-gate loading port."

I have a front-loading Golden 39A Mountie and loading twenty-five CCI CB .22 shorts and doing near silent plinking - hearing bullet hit the cans - is fun.

Stuffing .22 shorts in the sidegate of an 1891 sounds tedious. Or did I miss the sarcasm tags?
 
Carl N. Brown said:
"The only way I would personally be interested is if they bring back the 1891 (the progenitor of the 39A) rather than the 39A since we all know a true levergun has a side-gate loading port."

I have a front-loading Golden 39A Mountie and loading twenty-five CCI CB .22 shorts and doing near silent plinking - hearing bullet hit the cans - is fun.

Stuffing .22 shorts in the sidegate of an 1891 sounds tedious. Or did I miss the sarcasm tags?
Click to expand...

You know, I never thought about that. Not being able to load .22 shorts might have been a real deal breaker back in the day.
 
mcb said:
This is because Remington never figured out how to make the 39A. The Remington Custom Shop had what was left of the original JM Marlin stock of 39A parts and their gunsmiths were hand fitting and assembling each one. Hence the $3700 price tag, IIRC. I will be surprised if Ruger can resurrect the 39A for a market tolerable price. The only way I would personally be interested is if they bring back the 1891 (the progenitor of the 39A) rather than the 39A since we all know a true levergun has a side-gate loading port. :p:D
Click to expand...

I may be missing something in the last sentence. I have an original 1892, and it loads from the mag tube. No side gate. Did the original ‘91 have a load gate for 22lr?
 
I'm hoping for some nifty and possibly even stylish lever guns. Maybe something old and something new. Maybe a revolver and rifle combo featuring similar furniture of finish or something along those lines.
 
Carl N. Brown said:
"The only way I would personally be interested is if they bring back the 1891 (the progenitor of the 39A) rather than the 39A since we all know a true levergun has a side-gate loading port."

I have a front-loading Golden 39A Mountie and loading twenty-five CCI CB .22 shorts and doing near silent plinking - hearing bullet hit the cans - is fun.

Stuffing .22 shorts in the sidegate of an 1891 sounds tedious. Or did I miss the sarcasm tags?
Click to expand...

No sarcasm, I would like a side-gate even with 22 Shorts. I stuff 22 shorts in my single shot Winchester bolt gun past that mean little extractor and I can't see a side gate being any more difficult.

chicharrones said:
You know, I never thought about that. Not being able to load .22 shorts might have been a real deal breaker back in the day.
Click to expand...

I don't think a side-gate would preclude the use of 22 Long or Short. It might take more dexterity for the user but mechanically I see no reason a side gate designed for 22LR would not work for shorter rounds. 357 Mag ports work find for 38 Special and shorter cartridges. The issue with short cartridges is usually the lifter not the side-gate.

c016146fab62d05a5e1b030036df79e8.jpg
A Marlin 1891 with is side gate. That looks like a reasonably finger friendly side-gate to me.
 
mcb said:
No sarcasm, I would like a side-gate even with 22 Shorts. I stuff 22 shorts in my single shot Winchester bolt gun past that mean little extractor and I can't see a side gate being any more difficult.



I don't think a side-gate would preclude the use of 22 Long or Short. It might take more dexterity for the user but mechanically I see no reason a side gate designed for 22LR would not work for shorter rounds. 357 Mag ports work find for 38 Special and shorter cartridges. The issue with short cartridges is usually the lifter not the side-gate.

View attachment 961827
A Marlin 1891 with is side gate. That looks like a reasonably finger friendly side gate to me.
Click to expand...

Look at the distance from the front edge of that gate to where the tube magazine would be in the reciever. Plenty of room for a .22 short to tumble, losing orientation before making it to the tube magazine, while you try to stuff another .22 short behind it.


Just guessing though. If I had an 1891, I'd know for sure.
 
Last edited:
chicharrones said:
Look at the distance from the front edge of that gate to where the tube magazine would be in the reciever. Plenty of room for a .22 short to tumble, losing orientation before making it to the tube magazine, while you try to stuff another .22 short behind it.
Click to expand...
But remember the magazine tube in an 1891/1892/39A comes back through the receiver to a point just behind the front of the ejection port that would be right at were the front edge of the side-gate is on an 1891.

maxresdefault.jpg
You can see the end of the magazine plunger in this disassembled 39A. That would just about meet up with the front edge of the side gate in an 1891. I think even a 22 Short would have good support entering the tube. I believe the 1891 was rated for 22 Short, Long and Long Rifle though I can't confirm that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Speedo66
  • Locked
How Will Prior Owners of Marlins and Remingtons Fare Warranty Wise?
Replies
2
Views
451
Speedo66
Speedo66
S
  • Locked
Remington to Acquire Marlin Firearms
Replies
3
Views
597
Mal H
Mal H
Charlie Martinez
  • Locked
Disappointed with Remington Customer Service
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Obturation
Obturation
hso
  • Locked
Interesting to see Motley Fool comment on Ruger's acquision of Marlin
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Barry the Bear
Barry the Bear
B
  • Locked
Why can't gun companies make money?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Warp
Warp
Back
Top