Ruger and the Marlin Levergun

I don't have anything new to add, but I also expect to see cast gun parts, a new cast receiver to fit the transfer bar safety. And if we're lucky, a better twist rate on the 44mag and a tighter chamber in the 45lc

I expect several distributors exclusives that will have some neat features, maybe even “matched sets” of a SA revolver / lever rifle in the same caliber with matching serial numbers, etc.

Stay safe.

I want a legit custom shop.

I want to be able to spec a gun from bottom to top and have it built for me within their production capabilities.

Such as the Texan that Marlin came out with in their final days. Only 30-30. I would have liked one in 35 Rem or 375 Win. Would have been pretty easy to do 35 Rem since they already made it in the 336 at that time. One could spec a Texan in 35 Rem then. Wouldn’t have to wait for special production runs or mega-arbitrary distributor exclusives.

slicksleeve said:

I always preferred Marlins. I longed for a Marlin in .41 Magnum, but the cost was always prohibitive for me, so I bought a Henry. I would love to see Ruger bring back the Marlin in this caliber.

Click to expand...

I am a big JM Marlin fan. Due to the current panic buy period, I bought my first Henry, which is a 45-70, and I am very happy with it. Seems to be a high quality firearm from what I am experiencing

Pat Riot said:

Do you think they are going to re-engineer the Marlins? That would make no sense at all.

Click to expand...

Partially, it depends on if the deal Ruger made included the machinery Remington was using. When Remington bought Marlin, they moved all the old equipment from Connecticut to Ilion. The machines were really old, most of it was worn out.This Model 1894 was built in 1895 on that equipment.






The reason Marlin was able to make good rifles from worn out equipment was long time employees knew how to coax the best parts out of it. When Remington bought Marlin, they offered a package to employees who would relocate to Ilion, but the package was not very attractive, so not many made the move. Using the old, worn out equipment, the employees in Ilion did not have the experience to get good parts out of it, that is why poor quality rifles were being made. Remington had new, modern equipment made and the quality of the finished product went way up. A friend bought a Model 1894 a couple of years ago and I tried it out. Could find nothing wrong with it.






Anyway, with modern computer 3D Solid Modeling software it would not be a big deal at all to start making frames and other parts with Investment Castings. You take an original part, measure the dickens out of it, then build a solid model in the computer using the measurements. A good CAD guy can do that in a few hours.

Do not confuse Investment Cast parts with sand cast or die cast parts. Worlds apart. Investment Casting has been around for centuries. Sometimes also called Lost Wax Casting. A wax pattern is made, the wax pattern is covered with refractory material. Heat is applied and the wax melts and flows away, leaving the refractory material as a mold. Then molten metal is poured into the mold. When the molten metal cools, the mold is broken away to reveal the part. Depending on the geometry of the part, it may need machining to bring it to its final shape, or it may be complete as it comes out of the mold. The 3D CAD model is generated slightly oversized, to allow for eventual shrinkage of the finished part. There are computer programs that take the guess work out of this, when I was employed as a mechanical designer many years ago the guy in the next cube was an expert at this. The geometry to make the mold for the wax pattern is generated from the outer contours of the 3D part in the computer. The actual mold is made of aluminum with conventional milling machinery. The wax pattern is cast from the mold, then all the other stuff happens. Prototypes can be made quickly and the 3D part can be tweaked if necessary to finalize the part before production. Transfer bars are complete when they come out of the mold. Frames will have finished outer contours, but will need to have holes bored to final size and tapped. For many years, jewelry and other small parts were made with Lost Wax castings. Ruger pioneered using it for firearms, making much bigger, stronger parts than jewelry. Ruger heat treats their frames for added strength. They have been doing this since the 1950s and are very good at it.

As far as I know, Ruger still makes barrels the traditional way. As a matter fact, I think Ruger buys barrel blanks from a barrel maker and cuts them to length and does all the contouring to final shape themselves.

Whatever Ruger does with Marlin, be it consruction methods or calibers offered, it will be what they consider to be the most profitable option for them. I'll not waste my time wondering what that result will be. It will be interesting when when it's known but until then it's just idle speculation.

earlthegoat2 said:

I want to be able to spec a gun from bottom to top and have it built for me within their production capabilities.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Part of why Ruger can make quality firearms for reasonable prices is because they can mass produce parts relatively inexpensively. Customization means building just one, or a few at a time, which costs more.

Driftwood Johnson said:

Good luck with that. Part of why Ruger can make quality firearms for reasonable prices is because they can mass produce parts relatively inexpensively. Customization means building just one, or a few at a time, which costs more.

Click to expand...

Well yes it does. I would be willing to pay though. I would like that option better than buying a gun and having a bunch of parts go to waste on a custom build.

Why do so many folks expect Ruger to redesign transfer bars into Marlin leverguns?

I can’t say I find this expectation to be anything but silly. Ruger has made many hammer fired guns without a transfer bar. They didn’t redesign the SR1911 to have a TB, didn’t redesign the AR-15 to have a TB. Nor did their P series pistols have TB’s, nor the LCP/9. Maybe it’s fair for someone to WANT Ruger to redesign the Marlins with TB’s and without hammer block safeties, but to expect Ruger would do so just for the fact their revolvers have TB’s is silly.

Don't know what to expect. My biggest hope is an end of the 1-38" twist.

Cheap wood stocks? That makes no sense. Marlin has been doing that for decades. Last I checked, Ruger makes plenty of walnut stocked rifles.

Ruger will only be casting receivers if that is what works best for the design. Why would Ruger buy Marlin's new equipment and not use it? Why would Ruger buy Marlin if they were going to completely redesign everything? That makes no sense at all. Ruger hammer forges barrels every day. It's not like they have no experience with forging.

And there won't be a Marlin .454 without a completely new design. Existing platforms cannot handle the cartridge.

jeff-10 said:

Likely see lever guns in calibers that they weren't previously chambered for such as 10mm, 327, 454, etc. Also, likely see a BLR type rifle come out at some point.

I somehow cannot imagine though we will ever see a Model 60 again. At one time it was the 10/22's main competitor.

Click to expand...

The Model 60 was/is the most popular and produced and iconic commercial rifle in history. It ain't going anywhere.

mac66 said:

The Model 60 was/is the most popular and produced and iconic commercial rifle in history. It ain't going anywhere.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if you're making both, you win either way. No reason at all to discontinue the model 60.

CraigC said:

Yeah, if you're making both, you win either way. No reason at all to discontinue the model 60.

Click to expand...

exactly!

Buckeye63 said:

Id like to see the 338 Marlin make a resurgence...
Ruger has always worked close with Hornady... hopefully..that will continue

Click to expand...

That necked down to 7mm would be nice.

Varminterror said:

Why do so many folks expect Ruger to redesign transfer bars into Marlin leverguns?

I can’t say I find this expectation to be anything but silly. Ruger has made many hammer fired guns without a transfer bar. They didn’t redesign the SR1911 to have a TB, didn’t redesign the AR-15 to have a TB. Nor did their P series pistols have TB’s, nor the LCP/9. Maybe it’s fair for someone to WANT Ruger to redesign the Marlins with TB’s and without hammer block safeties, but to expect Ruger would do so just for the fact their revolvers have TB’s is silly.

Click to expand...

Henry uses a transfer bar instead of a cross bolt safety and a half cock position. The transfer bar works well on the Ruger SA revolvers. It also works well on the Henry lever actions. It makes sense to streamline a system for the user: Hammer back will fire; hammer forward is safe. I'm not sure why you find that silly, but I find it practical.

WrongHanded said:

Henry uses a transfer bar instead of a cross bolt safety and a half cock position. The transfer bar works well on the Ruger SA revolvers. It also works well on the Henry lever actions. It makes sense to streamline a system for the user: Hammer back will fire; hammer forward is safe. I'm not sure why you find that silly, but I find it practical.

Click to expand...

And Marlin used a cross bolt safety. I don't think Ruger will/or need to redesign what Marlin was doing. "If it ain't broke" and all that.

mac66 said:

And Marlin used a cross bolt safety. I don't think Ruger will/or need to redesign what Marlin was doing. "If it ain't broke" and all that.

Click to expand...

If Ruger bought Marlin to reproduce and sell Marlins, that would make sense. But that doesn't sound like Ruger, to me. I've wondered if maybe their primary reason for buying Marlin was so that no one else could. It opens up market possibilities and allows them the option of using the Marlin name, or just using what they want from the design and producing a mostly new design under the Ruger name.

But hey, maybe you're right and all they intend to do is keep producing the same guns.

WrongHanded said:

If Ruger bought Marlin to reproduce and sell Marlins, that would make sense. But that doesn't sound like Ruger, to me. I've wondered if maybe their primary reason for buying Marlin was so that no one else could. It opens up market possibilities and allows them the option of using the Marlin name, or just using what they want from the design and producing a mostly new design under the Ruger name.

But hey, maybe you're right and all they intend to do is keep producing the same guns.

Click to expand...

Sturm Ruger & Co is a publicly traded entity. To spend $30 million to end production of the Model 60 by Remlin would not be justifiable to its shareholders, especially as there are no remaining patent protections in place to stop another manufacturer from producing a Model 60 clone (indeed Rossi has a suspiciously similar product on offer now). As to the rest of Marlin's line-up, how, pray-tell, would ceasing production of a line of lever guns that do not compete with the Ruger product portfolio, serve its commercial interests? And, if you can demonstrate that it would, so can the DOJ attorneys in the Anti-Trust division...

DocRock said:

Sturm Ruger & Co is a publicly traded entity. To spend $30 million to end production of the Model 60 by Remlin would not be justifiable to its shareholders, especially as there are no remaining patent protections in place to stop another manufacturer from producing a Model 60 clone (indeed Rossi has a suspiciously similar product on offer now). As to the rest of Marlin's line-up, how, pray-tell, would ceasing production of a line of lever guns that do not compete with the Ruger product portfolio, serve its commercial interests? And, if you can demonstrate that it would, so can the DOJ attorneys in the Anti-Trust division...

Click to expand...

Ruger may simply introduce their own line of lever actions. With the techniques they prefer to use, such as investment casting. If making money is the goal, why do it under a so-so name like Marlin, when they can do it under the name Ruger which seems to be more well known and I'd say has a better reputation?

Marlins coming back may draw some dollars. But Ruger coming out with a new line of lever action rifles is likely to make a bigger splash.

Bush Pilot said:

Am I right in assuming that gun kicked like a mule?

Click to expand...

Mine tore out the magazine tube after a couple shots. So yes.

Fixed now and a fun gun to shoot.

I hope they bring back the 39A.

And if so, PLEASE leave it be with NO modern “improvements” and if so, don’t even bother.

WrongHanded said:

If Ruger bought Marlin to reproduce and sell Marlins, that would make sense. But that doesn't sound like Ruger, to me. I've wondered if maybe their primary reason for buying Marlin was so that no one else could. It opens up market possibilities and allows them the option of using the Marlin name, or just using what they want from the design and producing a mostly new design under the Ruger name.

But hey, maybe you're right and all they intend to do is keep producing the same guns.

Click to expand...

In Ruger's public press release when they bought Marlin they say "long live the lever action". I would say that means they intend to continue that line of rifles, particularly since it is a market segment that is expanding (just look at Henry). They bought all the relatively new manufacturing equipment Remington invested in. Doesn't make sense to abandon that market or equipment. As for their non lever guns, they might trim some of their cheap bolt action 22s but maybe not. Look at the entry level market space taken over by imported guns. Ruger could economize manufacturing and own the entry level market with some of Marlin's cheap 22s (bolt and semis, i.e, 795/60)

Pat Riot said:

It would make no sense to change to cast receivers when forged is how they were made.

Click to expand...

Unless Ruger owned a huge casting company like Pine Tree Casting that was already casting a bunch of gun parts.