Marlin announcement from Ruger

Status
Not open for further replies.
CraigC said:
I don't buy that crap at all. I've bought more Rugers than most people will ever even consider, nearly 80 guns total. No, Ruger is producing more guns than ever and the people who do experience problems are more likely to whine about it on the internet. The internet has always been the world's complaint department. Bad news gets more press and it makes it appear worse than it really is.
Click to expand...

CraigC said:
I stand by my statements.
Click to expand...

Then stand by your original statement. You 'don't buy that crap at all' and yet you have had a Ruger so bad you had to scrap it???

In reality... I think you and I are in general agreement. Some think JM Marlins are perfect... they aren't. Some think Rugers are perfect... they aren't. I'm not so worried about how a firearm looks, per se, but if the cylinder rattles on the cylinder pin... something is wrong. If the cylinder throats are mismatched... something is wrong. If there is a torque bulge in the barrel I can't get a jagged patch through the bore... something is wrong. If the pistol shoots so high I take the rear sight off and use the frame notch as a rear sight... something is wrong.

I always temper my criticism of Ruger with the opinion that they are a good company and make good firearms... their QC department leaves a little to be desired, however. I also acknowledge that I've just had bad luck with Ruger pistols... I drew short straw.
 
R.W.Dale said:
And how do you know it isn’t

what firearms does ruger make that involves complicated broaching and machining of the receiver? Vs the investment casting processes they’ve been famous for pioneering
Click to expand...
Why not answer my question ? HOW DO YOU KNOW TOUR STATEMENT IS FACT ? I am not the one making claims, I asked a SIMPLE question.
 
CraigC said:
I stand by my statements. Ruger has never been the pinnacle of fit & finish, which is why I have always thoroughly inspected new guns, regardless of manufacturer, before filling out the 4473. In fact, Ruger has improved a lot about their revolver production in the last 10-15yrs. You won't hear much chatter about improvements but the slightest little finish issue and it's the end of the world. There's a guy posted pictures of his new Ruger on a Facebook group last week. bawling about how bad it is. I still can't figure out what he's talking about. IMHO, the internet makes things seem worse than they are and I also think there are a lot of uninformed consumers.



Where did I say that? I've had a Ruger turd, one so bad that it had to be scrapped and replaced. I never said they never make turds.



False. As I said earlier, the JM guns weren't all that great to begin with. People speak as if they are but it always baffles me. They were always more crudely machined, fitted and finished than their Winchester counterparts. The newer Remington guns, if don't right like my 1895, are head and shoulders above the old JM guns.



The one area that has almost always been broached is the raceway for the hand/pawl. Even Colt doesn't do that any more. Why? Because EDM works better. Where do you get this idea that cast frames don't require machine work??? Have you actually looked at a raw casting as compared to a raw forging? Not much difference.
Click to expand...

did I say they don’t require machining?

no I did not

thet absolutely require less machining vs a steel blank. Especially if you are good enough with investment casting that many surfaces can remain as cast.

henry who is also mentioned makes a rifle that deviates significantly from the ones it’s patterned after.

as will these new rugers
 
Well, I think the first new product from Ruger owned Marlin will be a nice AR15 platform rifle because why not offer another AR platform rifle in a crowded marketplace? They can just stamp Marlin on the AR rifle Ruger already produces. :eek: :neener:
 
Charlie98 said:
Then stand by your original statement. You 'don't buy that crap at all' and yet you have had a Ruger so bad you had to scrap it???
Click to expand...
I'd suggest you go back and re-read the post I quoted and my response to it. You're arguing points I never made.
 
R.W.Dale said:
did I say they don’t require machining?

no I did not

thet absolutely require less machining vs a steel blank. Especially if you are good enough with investment casting that many surfaces can remain as cast.

henry who is also mentioned makes a rifle that deviates significantly from the ones it’s patterned after.

as will these new rugers
Click to expand...
You implied it.

Who is machining from barstock?

What is Henry patterned after?
 
R.W.Dale said:
did I say they don’t require machining?

no I did not

thet absolutely require less machining vs a steel blank. Especially if you are good enough with investment casting that many surfaces can remain as cast.

henry who is also mentioned makes a rifle that deviates significantly from the ones it’s patterned after.

as will these new rugers
Click to expand...

Then why buy Marlin? If you're going to make a lever rifle from scratch or heavily modify and existing design why by Marlin at all? The only thing of real value you got by buying Marlin other than the name was the technical data packages from Remington (prints, models, G-code etc). The used machines were also there but if you did not plan on using the engineering work from Remington why spend the money. If you were going to build your own design lever-gun you would have been better off using that money on a few new engineers and a bunch of new machines and programmers.
 
Last edited:
mcb said:
Then why by Marlin? If you going to make a lever rifle from scratch or heavily modify and existing design why by Marlin at all? The only thing of real value you got by buying Marlin other than the name was the technical data packages from Remington (prints, models, G-code etc). The used machines were also there but if you did not plan on using the engineer work from Remington why spend the money. If you were going to build your own designed lever gun you would have been better off using that money on a few new engineer and a bunch of new machines and programmers.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Ruger didn't need to buy Marlin to make leverguns. They could've done that easily. They didn't even need the designs. They could've copied the 336/1895 design like Henry did. They bought Marlin for the existing market share, the name and the tooling. I'd wager a hefty sum that Ruger would not have bought Marlin if the deal did not include the modern machinery that Remington had just procured. Even if Marlin fails, they still have the machinery which was bought for pennies on the dollar. It was a very, very smart financial move for Ruger.
 
mcb said:
Then why by Marlin? If you're going to make a lever rifle from scratch .
Click to expand...


The name and trademarks are probably worth more than all the physical assets combined. By buying these they also keep someone else from using them to complete against ruger. A very Disney like move.

why did Lowe’s want craftsman when they had kobalt.?
 
Disagree 100%. Ruger wouldn't have paid $30million for the name and trademarks. It's Ruger, not Walmart. They don't need the Marlin name to sell guns.
 
CraigC said:
Disagree 100%. Ruger wouldn't have paid $30million for the name and trademarks. It's Ruger, not Walmart. They don't need the Marlin name to sell guns.
Click to expand...
They didn’t pay 30 million for some already semi obsolete equipment that they won’t realistically be able to man with operators any time soon in this insane job market

A public traded company Ike Ruger could have paid 30million to do absolutely nothing with marlin but keep the name out of a competitors hands and not bat an eye.
 
Elkins45 said:
I can’t imagine why they would want to bring back a gun to compete with one they are already making.

Besides, as the owner of both a Camp Carbine and a PC Carbine I think the Ruger is the superior design. The Camp Carbine is prone to all sorts of failure modes even after replacing the deteriorated original buffer.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they make one in 45acp which is the only one I care about
 
R.W.Dale said:
The name and trademarks are probably worth more than all the physical assets combined

why did Lowe’s want craftsman when they had kobalt.?
Click to expand...

On one hand your probably right, despite the fact that I personally see no value to that name since none of the people/history came with it. Same for the new Craftsman, it seems over prices compare to Kobalt and Husky when you really look at the quality and features. I have not bought any of the new Craftsman despite all my original hand tools were mostly Craftsman.

Ruger buys Marlin, they get he name, some data packages and machines from Remington. They do not get any of the people from Remington (the very few Marlin people had long left Remington) that did the work at any level from marketing/sale, engineering, machine operators, or assemblers.

The fact that Ruger owns Marlin will make zero difference to me if and when I look for a lever-gun. I am going to judge a Ruglin on its own merits and the fact that it says Marlin on the roll stamp will carry zero weight for me (actual a slight negative for me personally) and it should carry zero weight for anyone that shops for a lever-gun.

Ruger made Marlin's will have almost nothing to do with the old Remlin or the original JM Marlin other than the logo and some of us assume the designs of the 1894, 1895, 336 etc. These new Marlin will be 100% Ruger firearms for better or worst and any relationship to Marlin will be in name only despite what the marketing people will try to tell you and despite the data package they got from Remington. The people running those machines and assembling those guns hold in their hands the fate of whether the new Ruglins will be piles of junk or something to rival the nicest Miroku built Winchester lever-guns. They will also have as much in common with the original Marlin as the Miroku Winchesters do with New Haven Winchesters. Nothing.
 
R.W.Dale said:
They didn’t pay 30 million for some already semi obsolete equipment that they won’t realistically be able to man with operators any time soon in this insane job market
Click to expand...
Exactly! They paid for the brand new machinery that came with it. THAT is why the deal was struck.


R.W.Dale said:
A public traded company Ike Ruger could have paid 30million to do absolutely nothing with marlin but keep the name out of a competitors hands and not bat an eye.
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks that doesn't know Ruger and it makes no sense anyway.
 
LoonWulf said:
.... No matter what Ruger does, I am at this point looking forward to see whose predictions were right... Or closest anyway...
Click to expand...

It's been a few months and Marlins site has changed.... I predict that the models left up are what Ruger is moving forward with.


Lever action calibers are not listed
1894
1895 big bore
336

Model 60
Model 795
XT Series

I predicted in the past the 1st 4.

We'll see... interesting to watch it all evolve, tho.
 
mcb said:
They will also have as much in common with the original Marlin as the Miroku Winchesters do with New Haven Winchesters. Nothing.
Click to expand...
I have never understood the logic that whenever a major change like this takes place, "it's no longer what it was". As if what it was is directly tied to what was originally. That Colt is no longer Colt because CZ bought them. That Marlin is no longer Marlin because Ruger bought them. As if the companies were still owned and operated by the founding families, like George Lucas selling the Star Wars franchise to Disney. It makes no sense. Lucas created the franchise. Sam Colt has been dead since 1862. John Marlin has been dead for 120yrs. People are putting sentimental value on something that hasn't existed in decades.
 
R.W.Dale said:
They didn’t pay 30 million for some already semi obsolete equipment that they won’t realistically be able to man with operators any time soon in this insane job market

A public traded company Ike Ruger could have paid 30million to do absolutely nothing with marlin but keep the name out of a competitors hands and not bat an eye.
Click to expand...
You never answered my question , please tell us how you know your claims are factual .
 
Dale Alan said:
You never answered my question , please tell us how you know your claims are factual .
Click to expand...
The last I checked nobody here is on the board of directors at ruger and privy to the immediate plans per the marlin acquisition.

as such every last response on this thread are of the same factual merit. Including yours.

AKA speculation at best.

so you can stop with the incessant self aggrandizing bumps partner. I’m done replying to you
 
Maybe the first batch of new Marlins will not be lever actions at all? Maybe they will be rebranded Ruger American rifles? Perhaps the Marlin line of bolt action centerfire rifles will be resurrected instead of lever actions?
:neener:
 
Ranger99 said:
Nah. . Like the old white haired neighbor
used to say, it is nothing senor, de nada

The cheapest and probably the best
Topper 12 I have. Locks up like a
safe door. KAH-CHUNK!
Click to expand...

A man so armed with a good single can take nearly any game about, and even defend hearth and home. I enjoy my Pardners a great deal. They also carry better than about anything else in the field. Great woods guns for many purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Carl N. Brown
  • Locked
Marlin .30-30s $13.21! Winchester .30-30s $13.98!!!
Replies
22
Views
4K
Nanook
Nanook
L
  • Locked
Marlin straight stock vs. pistol grip...why?
Replies
6
Views
4K
byf43
B
T
Ruger-made Marlin different twist rate from JM Marlins (?)
Replies
22
Views
964
CraigC
CraigC
Old Stumpy
  • Locked
Marlin 1895 CB and CBA - Should the Barrel Lengths be Different?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Old Stumpy
Old Stumpy
DouglasW
  • Locked
Marlin take-down lever-action???
Replies
8
Views
1K
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top