Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,763
Think a bit on this... Marlin was struggling, which put them in a position that they needed to be bought by the distressed asset management company which was running Remington at the time...
Mossberg lever action .30-30: Why discontinued?
- Thread starter peacebutready
- Start date
Think a bit on this... Marlin was struggling, which put them in a position that they needed to be bought by the distressed asset management company which was running Remington at the time...
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,849
That was, to be fair, a few years before assault weapons bans, fear of same, retro aesthetics, and Covid all came together to make levers cool again. In the course of a year, used Marlins and Winchesters that were literally $200-300 guns became $500-700 guns.
And they didn't have the money to replace worn out machinery. So if JM Marlins were made on worn out machinery , why do people act like they are so much better than Remington building them on CNC. I have two Rems and they are just fine.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,763
To be fair, it REALLY seems like you're muddling history pretty substantially here...
Chicago (functionally) banned handguns in 1982. California passed their Assault Weapons Ban in 1989. Chicago passed their Assault Weapons Ban in 1992. The Federal AWB was 1994 to 2004. Winchester collapsed in 2006, announcing their closure and subsequent licensing agreement with Browning. Marlin buckled under its own weight and sold out to Cerberus in 2008 - who had just bought Remington 6months prior. Obama took office in 2008. Mossberg released their leverguns in 2008. Sandy Hook was then 2012, New York State passed their Assault Weapons Ban in 2013, covid in 2019, Biden took office in 2020... We were building A1 and A2 civilian clones in the 1990's... And the renaissance of the AR-15 REALLY accelerated post 2010/12...
There really isn't a clear alignment of those cards as you're describing...
If anything, cowboy action was really at it's peak in 2008 going into the housing market collapse/Great Recession, and there was just nobody left to make leverguns, so Mossberg took an ill-fated stab to overtake marketshare from the recently black-listed Marlin and Winchester... The only company which really came out of that entire mess smelling like a rose was Henry. Suddenly the red-headed step-child of the levergun market was the best looking girl left standing at the dance...
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,849
You’re not wrong about Mossberg making an ill-fated stab at the levergun market. Their gun didn’t get a lot of traction and at that time for levergun enthusiasts, used guns from Winchester and Marlin were plentiful. Plus although many of us romanticize the .30-30, few actually seek one out as a hunting rifle these days.
But here’s what I mean about levers suddenly exploding in popularity.
I started slinging guns on Gunbroker in early 2018. At that time, things seemed to finally be coming down to normal from Sandy Hook/2016 election, and a time of plenty was at hand. We used to buy old lever guns all the time for $150-300. Those prices seemed reasonable because we’d turn around and Gunbroker them and get $300-500. I recall selling a very nice (like, perfect) pre-64 Winchester 1894 to a friend in late 2019 and he hemmed and hawed a bit at $650 because he really felt I was charging him top dollar. (I kinda was.) We all knew that Marlins made under Remington were junk compared to the old ones, but quality did seem to be getting better…
Then Covid happened, and by late 2020, the guns we used to get 300 for were suddenly selling for double or more. To be fair, maybe “assault weapons bans” per se weren’t the cause, but the remembrance of prior history sure was. Shortages, riots, looting were in the media, it was election season and blue candidates were and had been saying “yes we do want to take your AR15s,” (Beto O’Rourke, late 2019) everyone and their brother felt the time was right to buy a gun, and those forlorn levers were now sought after commodities. I had numerous customers tell me they were happy to buy a lever because it was “almost as fast as a semi auto” and “if it has to be used for self defense it’ll look better in court than one of those assault rifles.” “This will be the last one they ban.” “30-30 is so common it’ll always be available.” Adding fuel to the fire on lever prices, Remington went out of business at the end of July, 2020 and took Marlin with it to the grave, seemingly. People woke up one day and realized that now both of the two big lever manufacturers were no more, and started to buy the gun they’d always meant to buy but never gotten ‘round to (aided by the gratuitous government handouts of those days.) Rem 700s and JM Marlins were going for stupid money. The 1894s especially, exploded in price. I think once we got $2000 for a regular old .357 specimen.
peacebutready
Member
I wonder if Marlins made on worn out machinery isn't bad as long as whatever else needs to be done to put out a quality product is done.
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,849
Here’s my take as I understand it. Maybe someone else can correct me or shed more light.
The JM Marlins were not the cat’s meow from a finish standpoint. They were serviceable and not bad, but they were made to a price. The old Marlin company did not invest in new machines or methods. Levers were a declining market at that time. When acquired, the new owners (a corporate investment firm that owned Remington and had no real institutional knowledge of guns but plenty of ideas about consolidation, ensuring production efficiency, etc) promptly moved the factory to New York so they didn’t have to maintain two old factories. The problem was, most of the Marlin employees were older, long time employees (who knew how to get the most of their worn equipment and produce workable guns) and they opted to retire rather than move to another state. So Remington was left with equipment that it made no sense to use, and very few employees to use it. They persevered, and reengineered the Marlin guns from the ground up to be produced on new CNC equipment. At first though, the QC was very bad, canted sights, rough finish. People decided the new Remington-made Marlins were junk. Most probably weren’t but it takes a long time to overcome an initial bad reputation. I’d say by the end they were definitely better than late JM guns.
When Remington went belly-up, Ruger was able to buy the new designs, new equipment, and all the bugs worked out, for a pretty good bargain.
The JM Marlins were not the cat’s meow from a finish standpoint. They were serviceable and not bad, but they were made to a price. The old Marlin company did not invest in new machines or methods. Levers were a declining market at that time. When acquired, the new owners (a corporate investment firm that owned Remington and had no real institutional knowledge of guns but plenty of ideas about consolidation, ensuring production efficiency, etc) promptly moved the factory to New York so they didn’t have to maintain two old factories. The problem was, most of the Marlin employees were older, long time employees (who knew how to get the most of their worn equipment and produce workable guns) and they opted to retire rather than move to another state. So Remington was left with equipment that it made no sense to use, and very few employees to use it. They persevered, and reengineered the Marlin guns from the ground up to be produced on new CNC equipment. At first though, the QC was very bad, canted sights, rough finish. People decided the new Remington-made Marlins were junk. Most probably weren’t but it takes a long time to overcome an initial bad reputation. I’d say by the end they were definitely better than late JM guns.
When Remington went belly-up, Ruger was able to buy the new designs, new equipment, and all the bugs worked out, for a pretty good bargain.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,327
Because they are. I have handled many Remlins at stores, looking for something budget minded in a similar caliber. None compared to my Marlin made in the 80s. Fit, finish, and quality were nowhere near the same. Even during the last 3 years Remington was in business, their Marlins were shod quality.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 27,250
In business you want to make things that sell and you stop making things that don't.
There are Remlins and there are Remlins. By the end of the Remington production run, the guns were pretty decent. Sounds like you got a couple of those. However, it took them a while to get the hang of it and some of the early ones were dreadful. I remember seeing one where the wood didn't match the metal at all and the checkering looked like it had been put on in pitch dark with a fork.
someguy2800
Member
They came out at the time when Marlins were dirt cheap and left the market just before Marlins became a hot commodity. Unfortunate timing. If they would have stuck it out till the remington bankruptcy and maybe made a 45-70 as well they probably would have sold a bunch of them.
My opinion on the Remlins vs JM's is that I think the Remlin era where mechanically excellent guns made on modern machining equipment, but a lot of them had poorly fitted wood, canted sights, and sharp edges on stuff like the lever. JM's are pretty much the opposite, the machining on the metal parts is more crude, but they generally had nicer wood and better workmanship and quality control. Neither were high end guns.
My opinion on the Remlins vs JM's is that I think the Remlin era where mechanically excellent guns made on modern machining equipment, but a lot of them had poorly fitted wood, canted sights, and sharp edges on stuff like the lever. JM's are pretty much the opposite, the machining on the metal parts is more crude, but they generally had nicer wood and better workmanship and quality control. Neither were high end guns.
Last edited:
You are totaly correct.
I'll never defend Remington the maker of shotguns that fall over and shoot you. My 30 AR cartridge that jumped ship. What about fancy electronic primers. If I remember correctly.
But my walnut stocked 336 and 1895 from Scheels are very nice and two son in laws want the 45 70. So big shots that know so much can jump ship also. Or something like that. Safety first.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 17,763
Much of the production during the Remlin era wouldn't fit this description. As an example, my wife had wanted an 1895 SBL for quite some time, and being whimsical fans of dinosaurs as we are, when the Jurassic World movie came out, showcasing that very rifle, the last shoe dropped. The first one we received matched your description - just poorly selected laminate wood components, the forend was loose enough to rattle and the color of the two pieces just didn't match (buttstock pale grey, the forend nearly black), but the distributor and retailer were gracious when we rejected delivery, and they replaced it. The second arrived non-functioning - the bolt literally could not be closed fully into battery. The receiver was rough milled internally with hundreds of ridges deep enough to hang a fingernail. Obviously and mutually frustrated at that point, the retailer let me swap the forend from the second onto the first, and sent the second unit back, and we left relatively happy, after wasting a few trips into town over a couple of weeks, for what ultimately should have been one trip after Second Day shipping. It wasn't as slick out of the box as her JM 1895 GS Guide Gun, but it also wasn't going to be fired without being reworked anyway. I wouldn't give the majority of the REP or barcoded Remlins I have seen a grade of "mechanically excellent". "Operable" is probably apt for a majority of that era, but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say "mechanically excellent" about any Remlin I've seen.
Modern machining equipment can do amazing things, but not if the Quality Program doesn't ensure no parts miss any production steps, and not if the labor force aren't properly trained to ensure fit and function of the parts they're putting together. If we just allow parts to be put together and the only defect mode is "they don't fit together," we still end up with functional and aesthetic defects, even using quarter million dollar machines in between.
That said, the JM era was a long, LONG time, and it wasn't without eras of poor production reputation, and wasn't without its share of random lemons either. I've worked on a lot of JM guns with "two tone" forends and buttstocks, some almost blonde and some deep red, and I have a JM 1894SS 44mag which has the tail of the bolt hanging about 1/16" out of the back of the receiver when it's closed into battery - really not certain how that can happen - but it runs ok, despite obviously poor fitwork. And of course, the "Marlin Jam" wasn't a Remlin innovation. I'm also certain there are threads out on the internet already which describe functional and aesthetic flaws occurring in Ruger manufactured Ruglins. But the Remlin era was rough, for a long time and a lot of guns...
doubleh
Member
My experience with them is exactly one. Mine functioned out of the box but the stock was a bit short to suit me, trigger was somewhat heavy, it launched empties into orbit, and the magazine spring was overly long. A spring set from Steve'sgunz solved everything except the magazine spring and wire cutters fixed that. I added a Tourbon wrap-around leather recoil pad with an extra 1/2" of padding to fix the length of pull issue. As to the safety it took about 1 second to put it in the fire position and forget about it. Accuracy was improved with a tang peep sight and Lyman globe on front. It feeds any 38 special flawlessly. HP 357 can be problematic if the HP is large. Otherwise it's great. Accuracy is best with close to max reloads with jacketed bullets. I reload and don't buy factory ammo.
Last edited:
peacebutready
Member
Making .357 and .44 mag ones would have helped, too.
peacebutready
Member
I haven't seen any criticisms of Ruger manufactured Marlins. I'm curious what peoples' experiences with them will be.
Miami_JBT
Member
Tag for later
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
My Remlin 1895 is a nicer rifle than ANY JM Marlin I've owned or handled.
peacebutready
Member
Maybe the Remlins were hit or miss but the JM Marlins were more consistent. IOW, a person can wind up with a Remlin superior or inferior to the JM Marlins. Luck of the draw. Is that possible? Anyone?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I think it's a matter of timing. The later guns were very good.
Same here. And I have both JM and Ruger 1895 rifles including a SBL from Ruger and a Remington SBL. Frankly, the Remington rifle is the better rifle. Of them all. If I want to shave I would grab the Ruger, if I want to shoot something mean I would grab the Remington:
The problem with the Mossberg lever rifle is that it came along when everyone was in a heat to buy aluminum black rifles and it was really just not up to par. The tang safety for one thing but the quality was not what was expected, then or now. I think Mossberg could revisit their .30-30 rifle and make some improvements (.360BH) and have a viable product, especially to ensure it was an all steel and preferably USA made rifle.
Last edited:
peacebutready
Member
Also, more calibers as I think I mentioned.
Ruger tried to bring back their Red Label shotgun but gave up. I read they couldn't produce it for the price they wanted to sell at. Maybe they should have just raised the price on it. I'm not familiar with over/unders but I'd take a reliable Ruger over a European brand even if it is a bit crude. As long as it is reliable.
DM~
Member
Many of those Ruger's had mis fire problems, I don't think Ruger ever got the bugs out of them.
They were too heavy too, I had a few of them and with the problems and weight I didn't like them....
DM
They were too heavy too, I had a few of them and with the problems and weight I didn't like them....
DM
ThomasT
Member
I know someone who has one of the older Mossberg 30-30s. Its a good shooting gun and as accurate as the Marlins they were modeled after. I also had one of the Marine Cote Trapper Mossbergs. It was a very nice gun. I never shot it and sold it for a profit and now wish I still had it. I don't think it will ever happen but if Mossberg brought back their lever actions and did a good job on building them I bet they would sell. I can afford a Ruger or Henry but I just can't justify the cost. Thats why I bought the Rossi R95. A nice gun, as good as my Marlins for just over $700 total.
Now if Rossi would just chamber them in 360BH I would have to have one of those too. I have had a 45/70 and just don't need that much of a gun. It does drop deer right where they stand.
Now if Rossi would just chamber them in 360BH I would have to have one of those too. I have had a 45/70 and just don't need that much of a gun. It does drop deer right where they stand.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I agree that something in between would be real nice. The .360 would be good and I do like the .375's too.
I also think the new Rossi's are every bit as good as Henry, if not better. In fact, I traded my three Henry's for two Rossi's.
