Ruger buys Marlin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ruger could have likely had a pump action 12 Gauge shotgun any time they wanted. If memory serves, the patent on the High Standard Model 200 (aka the Sears JC Higgins Model 20) expired back in the 1960s.
Really nice guns too, I have a Sears-marked model and she's such a nice shooter. I believe Armscor currently makes a copy.
I could definitely see picking up a Ruger-made version. Nice 3" chamber with a hefty cast receiver capable of eating the burliest of magnums. Ruger could even make spare parts for the older guns if such a market is viable.
Bough a JC Higgins 20 at a pawn shop for 50 bucks, missing the mag tube spring and follower. Good shooter.
 
That one is something that I never got. It seems like there is simply no point in a .444 and 450 cartridge while 45-70 was a thing. Was Marlin even currently producing the 444?
And Ruger has its own big magnums in the .375 and 416 Ruger and a couple of the compact magnums too. I'd be looking for those in the next generation of Marlin lever guns, fitted with the same barrels in the M77 and/or American lines.
And an 1894 in .480 Ruger to accompany a Super Redhawk or Super Blackhawk sounds like a winner to me. Sell them as a matched pair for under $2000.

Objectively you're right, but the 444 gained it's own "cult" during the period when getting a 45-70 lever gun was a custom affair, and there are still areas where 444 ammo is more available than the higher pressure 45-70 loads not everyone wants to/will buy ammo online even now.
there is a market there that's just big enough that Marlin still lists a single Mod 444.

Also i very much doubt the acquisition of marlin will lead to lever guns in the Ruger Rifle Magnum rounds, since Marlin doesn't/didn't offer box mags, those are spitzer rounds, and no one is going to bother with flex-tip loadings for them.

A 480 ruger lever gun on the other hand might see some traction.
 
That one is something that I never got. It seems like there is simply no point in a .444 and 450 cartridge while 45-70 was a thing. Was Marlin even currently producing the 444?
And Ruger has its own big magnums in the .375 and 416 Ruger and a couple of the compact magnums too. I'd be looking for those in the next generation of Marlin lever guns, fitted with the same barrels in the M77 and/or American lines.
And an 1894 in .480 Ruger to accompany a Super Redhawk or Super Blackhawk sounds like a winner to me. Sell them as a matched pair for under $2000.

Yes, the .444 was in production, I saw one on a shelf, not many made, and it was beautiful upon close inspection. I wanted to buy it but it had been ordered in and was sold. Folks can say what they want but the 2016 guns and on were quite nice. If Ruger does as well, we will see.

I wouldn't mind a .480 in the 1894, that would be a heavy hitter for sure. Not sure they could get the .375 in a lever action 1895 model due to length (and strength) but maybe the New Ruger Marlin will also introduce a rotary magazine modern lever to accompany the legacy guns, as you say, using the barrels from existing bolt guns.

Job number one for Ruger is to learn everything they do not know about lever guns, kinda like Remington.
 
Objectively you're right, but the 444 gained it's own "cult" during the period when getting a 45-70 lever gun was a custom affair, and there are still areas where 444 ammo is more available than the higher pressure 45-70 loads not everyone wants to/will buy ammo online even now.
there is a market there that's just big enough that Marlin still lists a single Mod 444.

Also i very much doubt the acquisition of marlin will lead to lever guns in the Ruger Rifle Magnum rounds, since Marlin doesn't/didn't offer box mags, those are spitzer rounds, and no one is going to bother with flex-tip loadings for them.

A 480 ruger lever gun on the other hand might see some traction.

Fair point about the 444.
The 416 Ruger comes in both pointy and flat/blunt nose varieties from Hornady and Buffalo Bore. I was thinking Ruger might use those new lever actions to show off its products, just speculation on my part. Perhaps the introduction of a Ruger lever gun will lead manufacturers to put flex tips and the like into the Ruger cases.
 
Yes, the .444 was in production, I saw one on a shelf, not many made, and it was beautiful upon close inspection. I wanted to buy it but it had been ordered in and was sold. Folks can say what they want but the 2016 guns and on were quite nice. If Ruger does as well, we will see.

I wouldn't mind a .480 in the 1894, that would be a heavy hitter for sure. Not sure they could get the .375 in a lever action 1895 model due to length (and strength) but maybe the New Ruger Marlin will also introduce a rotary magazine modern lever to accompany the legacy guns, as you say, using the barrels from existing bolt guns.

Job number one for Ruger is to learn everything they do not know about lever guns, kinda like Remington.
A Ruger rotary mag in a lever gun would be pretty cool. I'm assuming Ruger will begin casting new receivers after existing parts run out, which would give them an excuse to make a lever gun for their big magnums but I didn't realize just how much longer the .416 Ruger was than the 45-70 gov. It's almost a full inch longer! It would still fit in a standard length Mauser action but that's pretty long for a lever gun. I guess we'll see.
 
Fair point about the 444.
The 416 Ruger comes in both pointy and flat/blunt nose varieties from Hornady and Buffalo Bore. I was thinking Ruger might use those new lever actions to show off its products, just speculation on my part. Perhaps the introduction of a Ruger lever gun will lead manufacturers to put flex tips and the like into the Ruger cases.

It's possible. Probably not for a few years though.
A Ruger rotary mag in a lever gun would be pretty cool. I'm assuming Ruger will begin casting new receivers after existing parts run out, which would give them an excuse to make a lever gun for their big magnums but I didn't realize just how much longer the .416 Ruger was than the 45-70 gov. It's almost a full inch longer! It would still fit in a standard length Mauser action but that's pretty long for a lever gun. I guess we'll see.

As far as Rotary mag guns, that's a whole other diversion. I've often wondered if Ruger could get away with a near clone (considerably nearer than the 96 series) of the Savage 99, since any patents on that design are long gone. Heck Ruger as a company could be considered as having historical/lineage reasons to do so, since one of Bill Ruger's first patents was for a way to convert a fixed mag 99 into a semi-auto.
a mechanical resurrection of the 99 would have some traction, and Savage doesn't seem to have any desire to do it.

And you're right making functional lever guns chambered for long rounds has always been a problem, and the problem is not with action length, but with designing a mechanism that allows the long round to feed, and still remain ergonomically sound (ie lever throw is short enough and has enough mechanical advantage, to be comfortable to use). Winchester had to sick JMB on the issue to be able to get the 45-70 into a lever gun. been too long since i've been inside a Marlin 1895/444 action to see how they solved the issues, or if their design can be adapted to the likes of the .416 Ruger... but the Win 1886/71 could/can feed 50-110 Win and that's only 1/2" shorter, so it's probably doable in a traditional lever gun and very doable in a box fed lever gun (.416 Ruger is the same length as a 30-06 btw).
 
Last edited:
A Ruger rotary mag in a lever gun would be pretty cool. I'm assuming Ruger will begin casting new receivers after existing parts run out, which would give them an excuse to make a lever gun for their big magnums but I didn't realize just how much longer the .416 Ruger was than the 45-70 gov. It's almost a full inch longer! It would still fit in a standard length Mauser action but that's pretty long for a lever gun. I guess we'll see.

God, I hope they (Ruger) do not start casting parts! They just paid $30M for the CNC programing data that Remington developed to build traditional forged and machined Marlins!

The rotary magazine lever gun would be an entirely new design but I am sure it is within Ruger's capabilities to design one for the Marlin brand. Not to replace the legacy rifles which are frankly LEGENDARY but to supplement them.
 
Last edited:
It's possible. Probably not for a few years though.


As far as Rotary mag guns, that's a whole other diversion. I've often wondered if Ruger could get away with a near clone (considerably nearer than the 96 series) of the Savage 99, since any patents on that design are long gone. Heck Ruger as a company could be considered as having historical/lineage reasons to do so, since one of Bill Ruger's first patents was for a way to convert a fixed mag 99 into a semi-auto.
a mechanical resurrection of the 99 would have some traction, and Savage doesn't seem to have any desire to do it.

And you're right making functional lever guns chambered for long rounds has always been a problem, and the problem is not with action length, but with designing a mechanism that allows the long round to feed, and still remain ergonomically sound (ie lever throw is short enough and has enough mechanical advantage, to be comfortable to use). Winchester had to sick JMB on the issue to be able to get the 45-70 into a lever gun. been too long since i've been inside a Marlin 1895/444 action to see how they solved the issues, or if their design can be adapted to the likes of the .416 Ruger... but the Win 1886/71 could/can feed 50-110 Win and that's only 1/2" shorter, so it's probably doable in a traditional lever gun and very doable in a box fed lever gun (.416 Ruger is the same length as a 30-06 btw).
I saw an interesting Swiss rifle on Forgotten Weapons that used a spring loaded hammer/wiper thing that would knock the base of the cartridge out base first. Of course, being Swiss, it's ridiculously complex but it looked like a really interesting idea to handle long cartridges without needing longer actions.
 
Last edited:
I want to see if Ruger can do better than Remington did.

They could hard do worse! Remington can't stay in business themselves, and some of the quality glitches Remington had were pretty brutal. My 1894 SBL couldn't be fixed, it had to be replaced!
 
God, I hope they (Ruger) do not start casting parts! They just paid $30M for the CNC programing data that Remington developed to build traditional forged and machined Marlins!

The rotary magazine lever gun would be an entirely new design but I am sure it is within Ruger's capabilities to design one for the Marlin brand. Not to replace the legacy rifles which are frankly LEGENDARY but to supplement them.
And if they do use cast parts? And if these cast parts have the same fit-and-finish as the machined parts? And if the gun works as advertised?
 
I know what I’m hoping for: lever action carbine using a rotary magazine, with chamberings in 357, 44 Magnum, and 45 colt. As long as the mag capacity is greater than 4 and the price is less than $700, I’ll buy one, slap a scout scope or red dot and a weapon light on it.
 
Oh man, I completely forgot about Rugers takedown design that’s been used on the 10/22 and PC9. If they make a 30-30 that takes down that way, I’ll definitely need one of those too.
 
And if they do use cast parts? And if these cast parts have the same fit-and-finish as the machined parts? And if the gun works as advertised?

Again, fit and finish is not the the whole story. They must also be as strong or stronger without altering the dimensions. If the parts are equal or greater in strength with as you say the same fit and finish then I am okay with that. However, cast parts are not generally as strong as a machined forging alloy.
 
Inspected a brand new Remlin at the LGS yesterday. 1894 with octagon barrel and in .357 mag. $999 price tag... :eek:

The fit and finish was awful. The wood was a beautiful grain, but it was rough with open pores visible. Looked like they rough sanded it and slapped on some stain and that was it. And the gap between the wood and the receiver was embarrassing.

Not sure Ruger can do much worse than Remington, but then again, I have not been impressed with Ruger's finishes on their firearms. Not surprising since when I worked there, the mouth-breathers working in the finishing department got about a $1.50 more an hour than minimum wage. Those that scored the lowest on the entry aptitude test were placed in the finishing department.
 
I wonder if the BHP knows that being that the cast frame is widely accepted as being stronger.
That statement, that casting is stronger than forging, has so many unknowns it can't possibly be a true or false statement all the time. It is similar to the analogy of stating that the Chevy 1500 pickup is faster than a Ford F150 pickup. Too many unknows to make any conclusive arguments either way. There are many different 1500's and many different F150's which are we comparing and in what setting?

Investment casting (as Ruger is known for) vs forging (cold or hot) both serve that same purpose for a gun maker. Getting a lump of steel (or other metal) into a near net shape part quickly and cheaply to minimize the amount of machining and other operations required to make it a finished part.

Casting can get a parts closer to final shape in more applications than forging can. Forging is typically faster and often cheaper and with cold forging the forging results in a stronger raw part (compared to a casting of the same alloy) due to residual stressed and work hardening of the material. Sometimes this residual work hardening is sufficient for the parts application and no heat treat is required post forging. In the gun industry this is uncommon with steel parts. Casting, if not done right, can introduce flaws in the metal, voids, porosity and even alloying element separation in extreme cases. Forging tends to eliminate or at least reduce micro flaws and voids in the original billet of material during the forging process.

In most cases cast or forged parts are normalize after the casting or forging process. Normalizing eliminates internal stresses from the forging or freezing (with cast) process and helps keeps parts from warping during the machining step. Then machined to final shape. Then heat treated (quenched and tempered, austemper, etc) to achieve the desired hardness to give the needed strength or toughness to the part. So ultimately if we start with the same exact alloy, cast and forge them to the same net shape, normalize them the same, machine them to the same final shape, heat treat them the same. It will be hard to tell the difference between the two parts. They will have nearly identical mechanical properties.

That said some alloys cast better than forge and vice versa. There is a huge number of variables to selecting the alloy, process to get to near-net and final shape and the heat treating processes applied.

TL; DR: The blanket statement that casting is better or worst than forging cannot be sustain as factual.
 
Last edited:
That said some alloys cast better than forge and vice versa. There is a huge number of variables to selecting the alloy, process to get to near-net and final shape and the heat treating processes applied.

TL:DR The blanket statement that casting is better or worst than forging cannot be sustain as factual.
This sounds like the voice of reason. Ruger will suit the material and process to the intended product. That is what they have excelled at in the past. We know that folks who bemoan the fact that they don't make them like they used to are least likely to be satisfied by new production, and most likely to find happiness in the used gun market.
 
TL; DR: The blanket statement that casting is better or worst than forging cannot be sustain as factual.

Totally agree.

My comment was meant as an example of a cast part (frame) that is considered superior to the forged one as a way to dispel the myth that a forged part is always stronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
I don't understand those asking for a rotary mag on a lever gun. Those Marlin lever guns are pretty svelte. A rotary mag is pretty fat.

I don't think the two are going to work well together.

Yes. I'm aware of the Savage 99. It's not as thin as the Marlin.
 
All I want is for Ruger to get rid of the incredibly *stupid* crossbolt safety. Ain't no lever rifle need no stinkin' safety, 'cept half cock. Your too clumsy to handle a lever gun, go back to Ye Olde Single Shot.
 
All I want is for Ruger to get rid of the incredibly *stupid* crossbolt safety. Ain't no lever rifle need no stinkin' safety, 'cept half cock. Your too clumsy to handle a lever gun, go back to Ye Olde Single Shot.

Well, that would be okay by me as long as they do not replace the CBS with a transfer bar and then remove the half cock. The CBS is easy to remove or inop and fall back to half cock as the only working safety, not possible with a transfer bar, that would change the character of the rifle entirely. JMO.
 
I don't understand those asking for a rotary mag on a lever gun. Those Marlin lever guns are pretty svelte. A rotary mag is pretty fat.

I don't think the two are going to work well together.

Yes. I'm aware of the Savage 99. It's not as thin as the Marlin.

If Ruger made a rotary magazine model it would be a new rifle to augment the classics. The reason being to utilize pointed bullets and allow for a fully free floated barrel to improve accuracy. Such a rifle would not be a replacement for the 1894, 1895 or 336 or any other existing Marlin rifle platform.
 
That will never happen, imo, in our litigious society!
Just don’t think it ever will.

But they could change it! Plastic button on a steel receiver is like lipstick on a pig! They could make it a case colored flip steel lever.

I too, prefer the old half cock. Since it’s Ruger, maybe a transfer bar...? One can dream
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top