The sad quality of Marlin firearms nowadays

There had been years of chatter about remains, but has anyone else had this experience with current production? I almost ordered a 44 mag online for a very good price, but held off bc I couldn't inspect.

Cump wrote:
...has anyone else had this experience with current production?

Click to expand...

How recent?

When we went to buy my younger son his first 22 in June 2016, the local Academy showed availability of both the Marlin XT-22 and Savage Mark II. When we got there, the store had just sold the last of the Savage Mark IIs, so we bought a Marlin XT-22.

I inspected it in the store and there were no obvious problems. When we got to the range over the 4th of July, my son was shooting five shot groups at 25 yards from a sitting position a quarter would cover within an hour of getting started. By the end of the day most of his groups could be covered (or nearly covered) by a nickel. Clearly, nothing was wrong with the rifle. And clearly he inherited his great-grandmother's ability to shoot.

RWMC wrote:
Received a new 1894 Marlin last month...

Click to expand...

From that, can I take it that you ordered this gun sight-unseen and had it shipped to a nearby FFL and that's the first time you saw it?

What year production? Marlin HAD some issues, but in the last year or 2 seem to have done a better job. Just because you just bought it doesn't mean it hasn't been made for a while. I've seen brand new guns on dealers shelves that were made as much as 10 years prior. With MOST Marlins you subtract the 1st 2 digits of the SN from 100 to get year of production. If it were made in 2017 the 1st 2 digits would be 83.

I was looking at the 1894s, but I ended up getting a 336Y last month due to sale price at the LGS plus the rebate they had for $75.

Was the fit and quality less than older Marlins and Winchesters sitting on the used gunrack? Yes. But I wanted a 16 inch barrel on a budget so I went with the new Marlin.

Issues that mine have:
-Machining is crude so working the lever can hurt bare hands after a range day due to sharp edges.
-Action is gritty. Not terrible, but not butter smooth like older ones. Is it from use or because new ones suck, I dunno.
-Finish was unimpressive. It has a matte parkerized style finish with some fancy "Mar-shield" name or something dumb. After one day in the woods, it had fine little rust spots on it. Oil and a rag cleaned it up with no markings, and I oiled the surface heavily. I'm guessing the matte surface will hold oil well, but it is what it is.

Good things:
-It's a shooter. As accurate as I am.
-No issues with functioning with Federal and Remington ammo.
-It favors 150 grain ammo more than the slower 170 grain which I like for no real reason

My Model 1895SBL(purchased last year online) is flawless,perfect fit and finish,accurate as all hell. Oh.... and pretty as a picture

I have a new 45-70 and the stocks two different colors and one has deep nice looking checkering and the other looks as if someone colored it on with a sharpie. I called Marlin and they said send it in for new wood. I'm debating on doing it because I know good and well they will screw it up again. haven't shot mine yet cause amazon sent me the wrong rings. I tried cutting myself on the lever but couldn't so we are good there. sights are decent. for $400 its going to be a deer gun I'm happy.

Dang, I' really sorry to hear that, I've got several Marlin rifles purchased back in the early 70's and a few in the late 90's and they were all of excellent quality as far as fit and finish go. Had one in .44 Mag in the late 70's that was totally inaccurate, but other than that, all the others were extremely good to great quality.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the current situation with lots of items. People will talk about how they bought this or that brand 5, 10, 20 years ago, and see, it's still great. But the newer product is not made like the older product of the same brand, so there really is no comparison or continuity, and little hope the new product will perform, or be made to the same standards, as the old one..

[QUOTE
hdwhit said: ↑
From that, can I take it that you ordered this gun sight-unseen and had it shipped to a nearby FFL and that's the first time you saw it?
Click to expand...
Yes sir.][/QUOTE]

Send it back!! ,all internet sales have a 3 day inspection period(clock starts ticking from time of delivery. I have sent back a few used and new firearms that don't meet my expectations.)

If you agree to a no return auction/sale shame on you

I bought a SS Remlin 1894 357 mag rifle which I planned to convert to pistol grip. I knew going in I might find a body or two buried in the back yard, I wasn't disappointed. The good news is the poor fitment was confined to the magazine tube, something my gunsmith was able to correct.

But, I've seen virtually flawless Remlins too. I'd be inclined to personally inspect any specimen under consideration.

We've been hearing for years how the Remlis are crap. And then we hear they're better. Some are even fantastic. But if what the OP is saying is true (I have no reason to doubt him) how in the hell does a rifle like that pass QC? I'm being serious. There is no excuse for that. You aren't making fidget spinners. You're making firearms.

It's possible for a lemon to make it off any production line. Maybe the guy doing qc was going through a divorce, having an off day, or just really bad at his job.

There's still a lot of human involvement in the manufacturing process and sometimes humans make mistakes or are just lazy. I've read through reviews of gun make and models that are known for quality and there's always at least a single one star review from someone unlucky enough to get a rare lemon.

I remember hearing a rumor a couple of years ago about Marlin firearms. When Remington first took ownership of Marlin firearms a decision was made to ship manufacturing to another state. The craftsman at the original manufacturing facility were told that they would be losing their jobs and all the tooling and manufacturing equipment was going to be shipped to the new manufacturing facility. Some of these people were upset about losing their jobs and for some strange reason when the manufacturing equipment arrived at the new facility the machinery had been tweaked out of specs. Remington has spent the last couple of years trying to get the quality back at Marlin firearms.

I bought an 1894 in 45 Colt earlier this year. I ordered it so I had no way to check it out beforehand. I do have to say its not bad. Its accurate. I had one problem with some feeding early on. Took the lever out and polished the pivot point on the lever from sharp enough to shave to dull. All fixed. The fit of the wood isn't too bad. With the gaps being a little more than my 1895G that I purchased in 2003.

I was born in the town where they are now made. My grandfather and uncle both retired from "The Arms" as it is referred to locally. I was speaking with a friend who works at the plant on Sunday. From that conversation and conversations with others who work at the plant, management appears to have a "kill them all, let god sort them out mentality". Meaning ship everything, let the customers do proper quality control. He spoke of everything from the depth of the roll markings on the barrel to some 45-70 barrels that made their way into production and out the factory door with bores were not properly centered. Imagine getting a 45-70 with an off center bore? He spoke of a run of Marlins where a worker didn't tighten up the screws on the magazine cap properly. When found out, instead of checking the day's production, out the door they went. People in this area of New York are hard working blue collar types who value their hard work and are proud of what they do. Its hard when you get a company willing to sacrifice a good name in order to meet production goals, which seems to be happening at the factory. Maybe not on all product lines, but certainly on some. Are they all going out the factory flawed, not by any chance. But some are.

There were many problems with the Marlin line when it was moved. Yes, the machine tools appeared to be sabotaged to the point of being dangerous at times. A few had the wiring messed with causing an unsafe condition. The machines were also as old as the hills and it was a wonder how Marlin ever made a good rifle. The line has been re-tooled now.

I think the main problem now for Remington/Marlin is a culture in which when a problem appears, maintaining production wins over maintaining quality.

Looks like "quality control" has gone the way of the Buffalo.

dh1633pm said:

I think the main problem now for Remington/Marlin is a culture in which when a problem appears, maintaining production wins over maintaining quality

Click to expand...

Seems like that's happening a lot lately, on items that get popular.
Sorry you got a shoddy finished one RWMC. OTOH, it all sounds like stuff that can be fixed.
My evil twin wants a GBL. He dragged me to the LGS for the rebate, they had none in stock and I managed to resist ordering one. The potential hasssle
of dinking around with inspection and potentially sending it back and forth tipped the scale.
You're makin me feel better about it.

To some extent all US gun manufacturers let quality slip during the boom times and trying to restore a product line can be a major PIA in itself. My son's 1895 he bought last year in a good gun in both fit and function and my only advice when buying is to inspect a couple and choose the best fit wise the rest is a crapshoot.

BigBore44 wrote:
...how in the ... does a rifle like that pass QC? ... There is no excuse for that.

Click to expand...

We don't know that it did.

Businesses all over the world have to be constantly on guard against losses due to organized theft. None of us know the internal control processes at any of the firearms manufacturers, but it would not be beyond belief that someone in the QC department diverts a small number of guns that have been rejected due to defects in fit/finish or accessories to a distributor who is willing to liquidate the merchandise with the help of someone in the accounting department who alters the records so that the guns appear legitimate on the records sent to the ATF.

You aren't making fidget spinners. You're making firearms.

Click to expand...

The bearings in a fidget spinner are made to closer tolerances than most parts that go into a firearm.

BigBore44 said:

There is no excuse for that.

Click to expand...

The only excuse they'd need would be for missing last quarter's earnings estimate, which was pulled from the nethers of some golden parachuted kleptocrat.
The bigger the corp. the bigger the disconnect between QA/QC (whatever) and the short term bottom line.

IMHO, there is way too much Chicken Little thinking in this market. One guy gets one bad example and suddenly the whole world is about to end.

I bought a new 1895 a few months ago and it has better fit & finish than any of my older Marlins.

CraigC said:

IMHO, there is way too much Chicken Little thinking in this market. One guy gets one bad example and suddenly the whole world is about to end.

I bought a new 1895 a few months ago and it has better fit & finish than any of my older Marlins.

Click to expand...

Which is kind of my point Craig. But this isn't a "one guy gets" situation. This has been going on for years. Many people have gotten them. And yet you didn't. You got a great example of how they should be. So what changed from your rifle to the OP's?

I don't expect a $450 rifle to have the fit and finish of a $20K H&H. I don't even think it's realistic the have one be of the same standards of any mid/upper end lever rifle. But I would expect the sights to line up vertically on the barrel, metal to wood fit to not have massive gaps, barrel bands tight, and an action that doesn't require a night of working the lever with properly applied lapping compound to operate semi-smoothly. Obviously from your example, you purchased what what I'm referring to.