Dang it Marlin you got me again, can't you do anything right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
someguy2800 said:
I took it out with me to test some 9mm loads. It shoots like a shotgun. Will try a few different types of ammo before I give up.
Click to expand...
I have a Model 70 (same basic gun with box mag), which did that- the problem was the cheesey plastic trigger guard would not clamp the action into the stock sufficiently at the rear screw. A stack of washers between the guard and stock fixed it. Now the gun will outshoot any 10/22 I've ever owned.

My vintage Marlin 80e and 81dl are still my favorite .22s.:)
 
I have been reading about Marlins with crooked sights for years now. A rifle manufacturer that continues to build guns with crooked sights is like a tire company that builds a square tire every other time. As an engineer involved with product development and manufacture, if this happened it would be remedied that same day. There is absolutely no excuse for this. By the way I have a few JM marked Marlins that shoot very well without having to dismantle and rebuild before shooting them. Marlin is dead, look for a JM.
tj
 
Nice fix. I really like the gold bead front sight... my 10/22 has one and I really like it vs the black post of the Marlin.

If you stain up the stock, make sure you post pics... I've considered doing that to both my 60 and my model 15.
 
Maybe Marlin should go to octagon barrels exclusively. I would think that would eliminate sight alignment issue.

When winter weather keeps me housebound, I sometimes embark on a kitchen table 'smithing project.
Adapting an octagon barrel to my pawn shop orphan Model 60 would be a fun project.
I'll make a note on that.
 
It hasn't escaped my attention that in the process of making this $160 gun shootable, I had to take it apart to fix the trigger, a problem ruger 10-22's don't have, sand the paint out of the inside of the receiver to make the bolt operate smoothly, again a problem 10-22's don't have, and had to replace the worthless red rider BB gun sights at a cost of about $50. Thus bringing the total out of pocket to $210. Ruger 10-22's were also on sale for $199 :confused:

Well I just wanted to try something different than a 10-22, and after fixing the sights and trigger I actually quite like the rifle, but if anyone ever asks me which is the rifle to buy my answer will be without hesitation a 10-22. Even discounting the stuff that was wrong with mine the 10-22 is a much much better made rifle and comes with nice machined rear sight and dovetailed brass bead front sight. That alone is worth the cost difference. The front sight that came on this was a shapeless blob of paint and the rear is a piece of untempered sheet metal with a v notch cut in it. Good thing I never intended to use it :D
 
1KPerDay said:
Well no wonder, with you shooting 9mm through it!
;)
Click to expand...

rodregier said:
9mm? Another firearm in 9mm?
Click to expand...

I had to pound them in there with a rubber mallet but it worked.

No I was shooting my 1911. Here's the funny part. The groups from my 5" 1911 were smaller than the group the Marlin shot! :uhoh: Somethings wrong when your pistol out shoots your rifle!
 
Believe it or not, even the fabled 10-22 doesn't shoot that well with 9mm bullets.

But, seriously, I too really like the looks of the front sight you installed.
 
"Our soul stew is the baddest in the land, but one dollar's worth was all that I could stand ... Sometimes, sometimes bad is bad!"

Nice fix!
 
I was shooting my Krag this afternoon so I took the little marlin out with me to shoot as well. I was too lazy to set out a new target so I was just shooting it into my pistol backstop from the day before which is only 15 yards. I took some CCI blazers, Mini Mags, and CCI standard velocity. Its been my experience that if your gun doesn't shoot well with one or all of these 3 its broken. The mini mags shot terribly but the blazers and standards both stacked them into a little hole. I will see what it does at 50 when I get the peep sight put on it but I think it will be perfectly adequate for what I'm looking for. I'll have to try some of the other bulk ammo I have. Mabey it just doesn't like the copper washed bullets?
 
Last edited:
Friend of mine got to tour the Remington plant in Huntsville Alabama. He knows next to nothing about firearms other than they make a big noise. There were very few people in the plant, most everything that could be automated was automated. You might see a tech wandering around picking up a bolt or something that fell off an automated machining center. At the end of the production line was a bunch of 20 somethings, standing, no chairs, assembling the firearms. I asked Bud if he remembered seeing anyone with a file, and he did not. Based on what little he did remember, and that he did not understand important aspects of firearms, (for example, the sights have to be perpendicular and in line with the bore) I will say that at the end of the Remington production line, the guys simply screw parts together and do not have the means to adjust anything that is out of kilter. I am waiting for the day someone reports a Remington firearm where the front sight and rear sight are offset by 45 degrees. I also found, they don't shoot guns for accuracy, only for function. Based on a friend's talk with Remington Customer Service, Remington does not have any "pass" or "no-go" accuracy criteria for their firearms.
 
someguy2800 said:
It hasn't escaped my attention that in the process of making this $160 gun shootable, I had to take it apart to fix the trigger, a problem ruger 10-22's don't have, sand the paint out of the inside of the receiver to make the bolt operate smoothly, again a problem 10-22's don't have, and had to replace the worthless red rider BB gun sights at a cost of about $50. Thus bringing the total out of pocket to $210. Ruger 10-22's were also on sale for $199 :confused:

Well I just wanted to try something different than a 10-22, and after fixing the sights and trigger I actually quite like the rifle, but if anyone ever asks me which is the rifle to buy my answer will be without hesitation a 10-22. Even discounting the stuff that was wrong with mine the 10-22 is a much much better made rifle and comes with nice machined rear sight and dovetailed brass bead front sight. That alone is worth the cost difference. The front sight that came on this was a shapeless blob of paint and the rear is a piece of untempered sheet metal with a v notch cut in it. Good thing I never intended to use it :D
Click to expand...
For a 160 dollar gun, I think I would throw a Cabelas or Weaver rimfire scope on there, and see how smooth things got after a brick of 22. That way it doesn't matter about the front sight, and the rifle is more accurate to boot. Then you can simply break down and clean and lube.
As I look back on it some of my best rifles have had flaws; it is whether I chose to focus on those or not that matters.
Shame on me if some fellow comes along with a rifle not nearly as nice as mine, and then outshoots me with it.
 
Slamfire said:
Friend of mine got to tour the Remington plant in Huntsville Alabama. He knows next to nothing about firearms other than they make a big noise. There were very few people in the plant, most everything that could be automated was automated. You might see a tech wandering around picking up a bolt or something that fell off an automated machining center. At the end of the production line was a bunch of 20 somethings, standing, no chairs, assembling the firearms. I asked Bud if he remembered seeing anyone with a file, and he did not. Based on what little he did remember, and that he did not understand important aspects of firearms, (for example, the sights have to be perpendicular and in line with the bore) I will say that at the end of the Remington production line, the guys simply screw parts together and do not have the means to adjust anything that is out of kilter. I am waiting for the day someone reports a Remington firearm where the front sight and rear sight are offset by 45 degrees. I also found, they don't shoot guns for accuracy, only for function. Based on a friend's talk with Remington Customer Service, Remington does not have any "pass" or "no-go" accuracy criteria for their firearms.
Click to expand...

Remington no longer has any quality criteria for their firearms at all. They make garbage, and do not care.
 
“Friend of mine got to tour the Remington plant in Huntsville Alabama. He knows next to nothing about firearms other than they make a big noise. There were very few people in the plant, most everything that could be automated was automated. You might see a tech wandering around picking up a bolt or something that fell off an automated machining center. At the end of the production line was a bunch of 20 somethings, standing, no chairs, assembling the firearms. I asked Bud if he remembered seeing anyone with a file, and he did not. Based on what little he did remember, and that he did not understand important aspects of firearms, (for example, the sights have to be perpendicular and in line with the bore) I will say that at the end of the Remington production line, the guys simply screw parts together and do not have the means to adjust anything that is out of kilter. I am waiting for the day someone reports a Remington firearm where the front sight and rear sight are offset by 45 degrees. I also found, they don't shoot guns for accuracy, only for function. Based on a friend's talk with Remington Customer Service, Remington does not have any "pass" or "no-go" accuracy criteria for their firearms.”

You realize these rifles cost less than $200? You get what you pay for... and skilled labor costs more than minimum wage.
 
Expectations that sights on a new rifle of any manufacture will be properly installed and functional is not unreasonable - if you were “fooled” a hundred times by Marlin dysfunction, it does not fall to you - shame, shame, shame on Marlin for selling slapped-together junk.
 
I would have been happy as a clam if the front sight hole had just been drilled straight. I work in engineering and manufacturing, that not a hard thing to fixture to do perfectly repeatedly. I'm used to buying a gun and tweaking and tuning it to my liking, thats the kind of guy I am, but the gun should at least function as delivered. Sights that cannot be zero'd means its non functional. I really like the gun after just a bit of work to smooth everything out.
 
The Marlin Model 60 that my father got for me when I finished 8th grade was stolen. I have his Winchester .22lr that he got when he was 15. However, it has no provision for a scope and I don't want to mess with (modify for a scope mount) a gun from 1947. As such I am planning to get a CZ 455 American. Yes, I know it is a bolt action, not a semi'.

As far as general Quality (keep in mind, this was one made in the 70s') I don't remember any real complaints about it. I think I practiced my refinishing skills (or lack of) several times. I do remember the scope was junk; but that was a bargain scope that was included with a bargain rifle forty years ago.
 
someguy2800 said:
I would have been happy as a clam if the front sight hole had just been drilled straight. I work in engineering and manufacturing, that not a hard thing to fixture to do perfectly repeatedly. I'm used to buying a gun and tweaking and tuning it to my liking, thats the kind of guy I am, but the gun should at least function as delivered. Sights that cannot be zero'd means its non functional. I really like the gun after just a bit of work to smooth everything out.
Click to expand...

I agree that Remington can drill the sights holes plumb after the barrel is installed, but lets assume that the barrel is completely drilled and tapped before it is handed to the assembler. I think this is what happened, my friend told me that barrels were made by CNC machines and if the barrels are completed drilled, tapped, chambered before the barrel is handed over to the installer, and all he is can do is screw the barrel on. This would explain the continuing examples of offset sights. The installer does not have a means to adjust the sights for cant or to make them plumb.

Remember what Harvard MBA types say: "there is no difference between managing potato chips or computer chips, because chips are chips". I think this is an example where the business types in charge of the company do not understand the product, the end use of the product, nor the user's expectations. They do understand quarterly financial returns and how to get the maximize amount of public subsidies from the local Government!

Alabama's incentive package for Remington gun plant: $38M cash, tax breaks, extensive workforce recruitment and training
http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/alabamas_incentive_offer_to_re.html

The total investment by state and local governments is $68.9 million:
 
Last edited:
Slamfire said:
Remember what Harvard MBA types say: "there is no difference between managing potato chips or computer chips, because chips are chips". I think this is an example where the business types in charge of the company neither understand the product, the end use of the product, nor the user's expectations.
Click to expand...

The MBA program I attended (CSU Chico) would not have made that statement, except in mockery (and yes, there was a lot of mockery of "common sense" ideas). Yes, many lessons are transferable to other applications; but that is not to say that the two applications are identical. Unfortunately, in many cases it seems that there was a calculation made that compared the cost of high levels of quality control to the cost of returns. The problem is that many people who do this don't consider the long term impact of the value of the brand itself.

Much of this is the result of the churn of high level executives. I have also seen this in other industrious. It does not matter if the VP, and above, level is competent. What matters is that they realize that they won't be there for long enough for changes in brand value to impact them. Scott Adams, the author of the Dilbert comic strip had a word for these types of leaders, he called them "Bungee Bosses."


038843a09f85012f2fe600163e41dd5b.gif
image from here

Interestingly enough, now that I have left Canon and Toshiba behind me, I don't feel as compelled to read Dilbert every day.
[img]
 
Last edited:
Slamfire said:
I agree that Remington can drill the sights holes plumb after the barrel is installed, but lets assume that the barrel is completely drilled and tapped before it is handed to the assembler. I think this is what happened, my friend told me that barrels were made by CNC machines and if the barrels are completed drilled, tapped, chambered before the barrel is handed over to the installer, and all he is can do is screw the barrel on. This would explain the continuing examples of offset sights. The installer does not have a means to adjust the sights for cant or to make them plumb.

Remember what Harvard MBA types say: "there is no difference between managing potato chips or computer chips, because chips are chips". I think this is an example where the business types in charge of the company do not understand the product, the end use of the product, nor the user's expectations. They do understand quarterly financial returns and how to get the maximize amount of public subsidies from the local Government!

Alabama's incentive package for Remington gun plant: $38M cash, tax breaks, extensive workforce recruitment and training
http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/alabamas_incentive_offer_to_re.html

The total investment by state and local governments is $68.9 million:
Click to expand...

It’s not corporate managements job to make sure front sights are straight. It’s there job to hire a competent manufacturing engineer to make sure they can’t not be straight.

After the barrel is rifled and chambered it should go into a 4 axis CNC with a hydraulic clamp to hold it. Drill the front sight hole, tool change, tap the hole, tool change mill the slot for the rear sight dovetail. Next you rotate it 90 degrees and drill the retaining pin hole. Rotate 90 degrees again and mill the spot for where the mag tube goes, and finally slot mill the cutout for the extractor. Barrel comes out for the operator to inspect and deburr while the next one is running and then goes off to bluing. Done this way it would be impossible for any of the reference features to be misaligned or for the assembler to put it together wrong at final assembly, and the equipment isn’t that expensive. If you don’t want to do it all in one operation you clamp it in a fixture with 3 reference surfaces that goes with the part till all the machining operations are done.

This is how modern manufacturing is done. Colt has made millions of AR15’s and you can bet none of there assembliers have files or cutting tools because there is nothing good they can do with them.
 
You ought to go look for old pawnshop Model 60, clean the years of lead out of it, and give it a try. I think you'd be surprised by how accurate they used to be.
A Marlin model 60 was my 1st gun bought at age 12 in 1988. That gun was far more accurate than my current Ruger 10/22.
 
drobs said:
You ought to go look for old pawnshop Model 60, clean the years of lead out of it, and give it a try. I think you'd be surprised by how accurate they used to be.
A Marlin model 60 was my 1st gun bought at age 12 in 1988. That gun was far more accurate than my current Ruger 10/22.
Click to expand...
The only issue with the vintage 60s is the feed throats always wear out over time and replacing them is neither cheap nor easy....:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
How Do I Clean My Marlin 60?
Replies
23
Views
4K
aaronrkelly
A
G
  • Locked
I can't help it.
Replies
19
Views
1K
fistful
F
D
  • Locked
Marlin XL Pro Fire Trigger Safety
Replies
1
Views
538
FiveInADime
F
D
  • Locked
What Would You Do With This Marlin/Glenfield Model 60
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
DMW1116
D
BigBore44
  • Locked
Dang it Armslist....UPDATE:
Replies
2
Views
293
earlthegoat2
earlthegoat2
Back
Top