When Ruger starts cranking out the new Marlins...

someguy2800 · Mar 20, 2023

I havn't seen anything on pricing for the new 1894's and 336's, but based on the 1895 price I expect they will be very high, and as such the price for used JM and REM marlins will also stay very high. Maybe not as high as new ruger built guns, but still much higher than when remington was still in business. We will never see that low of pricing again.

red rick · Mar 20, 2023

IMO , the pre-safety JM’s will always bring a premium price . If the quality is good on the new Marlins I think the price will go down on the Remlin models and you could get a deal on one of them if its one after their teething problems .

Jimfern · Mar 21, 2023

I suspect the older rifles in calibers that Ruger doesn't make, or at least not right away, may keep the value.

CraigC · Mar 21, 2023

If the prices and features are the same, I'm taking the new Ruger. Beyond that I'll choose according to price, features and availability. The later JM guns are greatly overrated. Different story if it's 50-100yrs old. If they put standard 1-20" or 1-16" twist barrels on the new .44's and .45's, I'm automatically going that route.

Pat Riot · Mar 21, 2023

I bought one of the Remington / Marlin 1894s in 2019. It’s a .38 / .357. Works like a champ and accurate too.

I also have a nice JM stamped Marlin 336 in 30-30. I considered selling it, but decided I like it too much. Lots of great memories with that gun.

Pat Riot · Mar 21, 2023

Varminterror said:
From what I can see, the demographic of which want JM’s will continue to want JM’s, and will continue to NOT buy new firearms, because they’re older and don’t buy new guns anyway - they have what they need. But the demography of folks which actually make up the broadest buyers of firearms are NOT buying leverguns, and are far too young to give a damn about pre or post ‘64 this or that, or JM versus Remlin… The folks which want the JM’s and do buy will continue paying grossly inflated prices, because they want them, there are less and less of them available for sale (either surviving in market at all or avoiding solidified collector accumulation, which is effectively the same as being destroyed in terms of market volume), and because they’re of an age of disposable income to buy what they want because they want it.

Everyone that I have seen that were seeking JM Marlins were guys in their 30’s and 40’s. This would be in California, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Varminterror · Mar 21, 2023

Pat Riot said:
Everyone that I have seen that were seeking JM Marlins were guys in their 30’s and 40’s. This would be in California, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The average age of the first time gun-buyer in the US is 19yrs old for men, and 27yrs old for women. Documented statistics, not informal anecdotes of observer bias. You might imagine, however, how popular leverguns, especially used leverguns over 20yrs old, might be among 18 and 19yr old guys.

Pat Riot · Mar 21, 2023

Varminterror said:
The average age of the first time gun-buyer in the US is 19yrs old for men, and 27yrs old for women. Documented statistics, not informal anecdotes of observer bias. You might imagine, however, how popular leverguns, especially used leverguns over 20yrs old, might be among 18 and 19yr old guys.

Okay. What does this have to do with my observation / statement?

Varminterror · Mar 22, 2023

Pat Riot said:
Okay. What does this have to do with my observation / statement?

That your personal anecdote of the ages of would-be gun buyers in 3 particular states which you claim to have observed seeking JM stamped Marlins might not be terribly accurate to the actual market demographics of those buying firearms across our country.

Pat Riot · Mar 22, 2023

Varminterror said:
That your personal anecdote of the ages of would-be gun buyers in 3 particular states which you claim to have observed seeking JM stamped Marlins might not be terribly accurate to the actual market demographics of those buying firearms across our country.

Seriously? Are you calling me a liar? I made a statement about what I have witnessed and my observations. Period.

Varminterror · Mar 22, 2023

Pat Riot said:
Are you calling me a liar? I made a statement about what I have witnessed and my observations. Period.

No.

I made a statement that the limited scope of your personal observation and your implied conclusions about the popularity of leverguns among millennials isn’t consistent with national firearms sales data. Period.

Armored farmer · Mar 22, 2023

I was highlighting the leather work in these photos.

This is a Ruger 1895 45-70 belonging to my #1 son. I'm not sure if he has shot it yet. But it is looking good. I don't care for the forearm.....but hey, it ain't mine.
The fit and finish is excellent.

chicharrones · Mar 22, 2023

Armored farmer said:
I was highlighting the leather work in these photos. View attachment 1141521 View attachment 1141522 View attachment 1141524 View attachment 1141525
This is a Ruger 1885 45-70 belonging to my #1 son. I'm not sure if he has shot it yet. But it is looking good. I don't care for the forearm.....but hey, it ain't mine.
The fit and finish is excellent.

One foot in the past and one foot in the present. Looks good to me.

Pat Riot · Mar 22, 2023

Varminterror said:
No.

I made a statement that the limited scope of your personal observation and your implied conclusions about the popularity of leverguns among millennials isn’t consistent with national firearms sales data. Period.

Where do you find data that shows types of gun sales to various age groups? I would like to check that out.

BlueHeelerFl · Mar 22, 2023

hawg said:
There's nothing wrong with the later Remlins. They had some growing pains in the beginning. I imagine the new Marlins will be the same.

I agree. I have a late model 1894 and for the most part it's a better gun than the JM 1894 I bought used in the mid 90's

NorthBorder · Mar 22, 2023

Is there a way to determine the manufacture date of the Remlins be their serial #?

Pat Riot · Mar 22, 2023

Armored farmer said:
I was highlighting the leather work in these photos. View attachment 1141521 View attachment 1141522 View attachment 1141524 View attachment 1141525
This is a Ruger 1895 45-70 belonging to my #1 son. I'm not sure if he has shot it yet. But it is looking good. I don't care for the forearm.....but hey, it ain't mine.
The fit and finish is excellent.

I really like that sling and stock cover. It looks great.
Question: What is the hole in the sling for towards the butt stock end? I have seen this on other slings and have wondered about that.

Pat Riot · Mar 22, 2023

NorthBorder said:
Is there a way to determine the manufacture date of the Remlins be their serial #?

I found this. I have no idea if it’s accurate.

http://marlin-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26447

Armored farmer · Mar 22, 2023

Pat Riot said:
I really like that sling and stock cover. It looks great.
Question: What is the hole in the sling for towards the butt stock end? I have seen this on other slings and have wondered about that.

I'm not certain, but I think that is a thumbhole for comfort and would be down around waist level when walking?
Like I said, this is actually my son's rifle.

NorthBorder · Mar 22, 2023

Maybe a few Remlin owners could verify the accuracy of this.

KansasTrapper77 · Mar 22, 2023

I have a late model Remlin Guide Gun in 45-70. While it might not have some of the features the new Rugers do I’m stoked I got mine when I did now that I’ve seen the prices of Rugers and even Remlins at gun shows. Mine shoots just fine, I have yet to scope it to truly test it out but with a dot off a tripod at 50 yards it will keep everything within a baseball size group. I’ve taken 2 deer with it quite successfully.

NorthBorder · Mar 22, 2023

Pat Riot said:
http://marlin-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26447

Can some Remlin owners verify this?

chicharrones · Mar 22, 2023

NorthBorder said:
Maybe a few Remlin owners could verify the accuracy of this.

NorthBorder said:
Can some Remlin owners verify this?

I can't verify. My Remlin 1894CSBL has RN on the left side of the barrel and the serial number is MRxxxxxx.

I bought it in January 2020 and per my info gathered back then, the gun was made in 2019.

Regardless of the notion that Remington made better Marlins near the end, I had to do quite a bit to my 1894 to correct several things. Specifically; the mag loading, mag capacity, and redo the finish "brushing" on the barrel as it looked like 3 different people worked on it. Not to mention the rounded off factory checkering that still exists.

The remainder of the gun was good and it is accurate, so very much a keeper after my efforts to make it shooting ready.

From what I've seen so far, the Ruger Marlins have better fit and finish than my Remlin. Hopefully, Ruger has learned what to do to make a 1894 .357 load like it should.

hk940 · Mar 22, 2023

I guess I will keep my 1895 I got in 75!

chicharrones · Mar 22, 2023

Pat Riot said:
I found this. I have no idea if it’s accurate.

http://marlin-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26447

That looks about right. Except for the months have 2 with “D”s and the years stop short.

NorthBorder said:
Maybe a few Remlin owners could verify the accuracy of this.

I stumbled across this site. Scroll down to the Remington section. RN on the barrel of my 1894 suggests it was made in November 2019.

https://fhuckoutdoors.com/marlin-serial-number-guide/

https://www.remingtonsociety.org/manufacture-dates/

When Ruger starts cranking out the new Marlins...

Member

Member

Member

Sixgun Nut

Contributing Member

Contributing Member

Member

Contributing Member

Member

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Attachments

needs more ammo

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Contributing Member

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

needs more ammo

Member

needs more ammo

Similar threads