Ruger and the Marlin Levergun

[DocRock]

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.

Or perhaps pigs will fly out of a certain cavity! I thought perhaps you had some thin veneer of logic to your suppositions and didn’t realize you were making an utterly unsupported, wildly unlikely, commercially unjustified speculation...

 

[chicharrones]

What is Marlin known for?

'Merican designed and made lever guns for well over 100 years.

 

[cdb1]

It may be pure ignorance on my part but I don’t care much whether a firearm I own is made from cast or forged parts. The type of safety or lack of one isn’t a big deal to me on Marlin lever guns either. When using my 336 I’ve never been inconvenienced by the safety on it.

 

[kidneyboy]

You guys hoping for an affordable 39a may as well be hoping for the summers of your youth to come back. Not saying there won't be a new and exciting 39a but the definition of "affordable" is vastly different now than it was decades ago.

 

[chicharrones]

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.

Most people I know don't know Ruger to be a lever gun maker, but they do know Marlin to be exactly that. Even Remington was wise enough not to rebrand Marlin lever guns.

 

[chicharrones]

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)

Ruger definitely went in for the lever guns. If all Marlin made was rimfire bolt actions and autoloaders, Ruger wouldn't have given the purchase of Marlin much thought.

As much as Marlin non-lever rimfires were bought and liked by millions, if those guns were never produced again the slack would be picked up by other makers. Such as Savage and even Ruger themselves with their existing economy lines of rimfire guns.

I'm not saying Ruger won't make the Marlin 60 (or other non-lever rimfires), I'm just saying that if the 60 survives it's because that design came along to Ruger with the Marlin lever guns. It certainly isn't the other way around.

 

[chicharrones]

You guys hoping for an affordable 39a may as well be hoping for the summers of your youth to come back. Not saying there won't be a new and exciting 39a but the definition of "affordable" is vastly different now than it was decades ago.

Yeah, I'm thinking if the 39 were to be made "affordable", they'd have to get some inspiration from the Chiappa version of the 39. The internals are vastly different between the two.

Otherwise, the 39 would simply continue to compete against the Browning BL-22 in price. I actually wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[someguy2800]

Where is the production actually moving too? I know the lever actions were all made in the remington factory in Illion New York and the Model 60 production was in a remington factory in Huntsville Alabama. The Huntsville plant is now closed. Ruger has quite a few production locations so I wonder if they will set up a new space or move it in with something else. Wouldn't it be funny if model 60's and 10-22's were made in the same building? I for one can't wait to buy a ruger built marlin. I sure hope no production or management people are coming with the equipment, no offense to them.

 

[3Crows]

Where is the production actually moving too? I know the lever actions were all made in the remington factory in Illion New York and the Model 60 production was in a remington factory in Huntsville Alabama. The Huntsville plant is now closed. Ruger has quite a few production locations so I wonder if they will set up a new space or move it in with something else. Wouldn't it be funny if model 60's and 10-22's were made in the same building? I for one can't wait to buy a ruger built marlin. I sure hope no production or management people are coming with the equipment, no offense to them.

Ruger did not purchase any facilities from Remington, only the name Marlin, the intellectual property (mostly developed by Remington) and a few tools. The production of all Marlin rifles is being moved or has already been moved to Arizona and productions cells are being established with new multi-axis CNC machines to build the rifles (using the CNC IP from Remington). This had all been posted by Ruger in various news releases or statements, though I have ad libbed it. Ruger did not acquire any parts either and this too is stated on their information releases. New rifles should start the later quarter of this year, maybe even by hunting seasons (I added that hunting season part).

 

[WrongHanded]

Most people I know don't know Ruger to be a lever gun maker, but they do know Marlin to be exactly that. Even Remington was wise enough not to rebrand Marlin lever guns.

Sure, it's true that Marlin is known for lever actions and Ruger isn't. But which company is better known in general? Which company has the better reputation? There's constantly a new consumer market coming of age, and particularly in the last year or so more new gun owners.

Remington may have made some alterations to the design (or maybe not, I don't know and don't care), but if Ruger is going to make major changes (which they certainly could) there's no reason not to put their own name on the guns. It's just a matter of marketing. Where do they think they can make the most money? How can they sell the most guns? Would a good quality Marlin that stayed true to the design sell more units that something Ruger designers could dream up whilst incorporating parts of the Marlin design? Where is the market heading and how can they stay ahead of the curve?

I'm only speculating of course, but there's a lot of innovation in the firearms industry these days. And staying still seems to be the new going backwards.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Ruger did try a line of lever actions. They are pretty neat rifles. I especially like the 96/44 and 96/22M.

However, they are an atrocity when it comes to traditional design. Unless traditional is like the Winchester 88. All long out of production for the same reason Ruger discontinues many of their offerings. Lack of sales.

There is little reason to sway too far from the traditional Marlin path for the next few years at least.

 

[jmr40]

I doubt the receiver will be cast. If a gun is designed from the beginning to be cast then there is nothing wrong with casting. But it would be near impossible to design the same receiver made with castings and be close enough to the original for parts interchangeability with the original. If they do go to casting the end result may look similar to the current rifles, but it won't be the same gun.

And don't expect an inexpensive rifle. Ruger builds some budget guns, but the ones they build that use decent quality wood and are nicely finished are as pricy as any other manufacturer making guns of the same quality. I expect prices to be in the same ballpark as the current Winchester levers being made in Japan. They may well offer price levels with some budget options with cheap wood and finishing.

 

[DocRock]

Sure, it's true that Marlin is known for lever actions and Ruger isn't...but if Ruger is going to make major changes (which they certainly could) there's no reason not to put their own name on the guns. It's just a matter of marketing. Where do they think they can make the most money? How can they sell the most guns? Would a good quality Marlin that stayed true to the design sell more units that something Ruger designers could dream up whilst incorporating parts of the Marlin design? Where is the market heading and how can they stay ahead of the curve?

I'm only speculating of course, but there's a lot of innovation in the firearms industry these days. And staying still seems to be the new going backwards.

There are $30 million reasons to keep the Marlin name on the guns they paid $30 million to produce.

Again, if Ruger wanted to make Ruger lever guns, they didn't need to buy Marlin, they only needed to buy a few Marlins and copy them to their satisfaction. Marlin is an established brand in the lever gun world. Ruger is not. If "It's just a matter of marketing" (and nothing to do with explaining to shareholders why they spent $30 million of their assets to acquire the Marlin product portfolio and tooling), then marketing tells us that you use the goodwill, brand recognition, and IP of the the established brand to add value to your existing portfolio. If you don't intend to do so, you don't spend the money to acquire those assets...

 

[Pat Riot]

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

Like I said before...We’ll see.

 

[Frulk]

From Wrong Handeds post above “Where is the market heading and how can they stay ahead of the curve?”

By purchasing Marlin, Ruger may have unwittingly put itself into an enviable position should (as most of us expect) new gun control legislation come down the pike targeting semi auto rifles. For sure we will see a Marlin ‘tactical’ lever. I think that’s a given.

 

[WrongHanded]

From Wrong Handeds post above “Where is the market heading and how can they stay ahead of the curve?”

By purchasing Marlin, Ruger may have unwittingly put itself into an enviable position should (as most of us expect) new gun control legislation come down the pike targeting semi auto rifles. For sure we will see a Marlin ‘tactical’ lever. I think that’s a given.

I agree. Though considering the political environment in recent years, "unwittingly" might not be entirely accurate

Again, if Ruger wanted to make Ruger lever guns, they didn't need to buy Marlin, they only needed to buy a few Marlins and copy them to their satisfaction. Marlin is an established brand in the lever gun world.

Agreed. But then Ruger would be competing with whoever DID buy Marlin. And whilst Marlin is certainly an established name in the lever action world, Ruger now easily could be. Both to new shooters, and to long time gun owners.

Be honest about it. If Marlin ceased to exist as a brand, and Ruger created a new line of lever actions using their preferred manufacturing techniques, taking whatever design aspects they wanted from the Marlin design, don't you think it would be popular?

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

My last few new Ruger purchases had QC issues. Loose sights and Roll pins were the main issues. Im not bashing Ruger, I own more Rugers than any other brand. All my Marlins i have not had any QC issues or problems down the road with them. Im looking forward to getting a 336 in the future.

 

[DukeConnor]

Some insider info

 

[chicharrones]

Some insider info

View attachment 988758

Lol. But of course.

 

[DocRock]

I agree. Though considering the political environment in recent years, "unwittingly" might not be entirely accurate



Agreed. But then Ruger would be competing with whoever DID buy Marlin. And whilst Marlin is certainly an established name in the lever action world, Ruger now easily could be. Both to new shooters, and to long time gun owners.

Be honest about it. If Marlin ceased to exist as a brand, and Ruger created a new line of lever actions using their preferred manufacturing techniques, taking whatever design aspects they wanted from the Marlin design, don't you think it would be popular?

But why spend $30 million above and beyond what it takes to start their own lever gun line? Nothing you have said squares with the fact that they have spent $30 million to buy the right to produce Marlin branded lever guns.

 

[DocRock]

Some insider info

View attachment 988758

No, it's RUGER, not Mossberg that bought Marlin

 

[chicharrones]

Be honest about it. If Marlin ceased to exist as a brand, and Ruger created a new line of lever actions using their preferred manufacturing techniques, taking whatever design aspects they wanted from the Marlin design, don't you think it would be popular?

If Ruger never bought Marlin and Ruger came out with their own lever gun, sure many gun owners were like it.

But Ruger did buy Marlin, and killing off an iconic brand after buying it in this situation doesn't make sense. Gotta remember that some defunct firearms names were brought back from the dead (or reinvented) because of name recognition and the sales that would create. Henry is one fine example, so is Springfield Armory.

Then there are other brands that were kept alive like Winchester, Dan Wesson, and now Colt. CZ certainly isn't going to rebrand all those classic revolvers and 1911s as CZs when they know there is still a huge amount of potential customers that want a "Colt".

There's always some kid or teenager that grew up seeing their dad's or grandpa's Winchester and that can plant a seed for when that kid grows up and has some spending money. Same thing has happened with Marlin even though Remington bought them years ago and the same thing will happen with Ruger owning Marlin.

I'm a prime example. I grew up knowing people with Marlin .30-30s. My first Marlin lever gun was/is a JM Marlin and I like the design and layout of the Marlins so much that I bought a Remington Marlin when the time came. If Ruger had bought Marlin years ago instead of Remington, my Rem-Marlin would be a Ruger Marlin. But one thing is for sure, it is highly probable that if that if Remington had rebranded all the Marlin's as Remingtons, I would have sought out a higher priced new Winchester, even though it would've been made in Japan.

And be sure that a Marlin lever gun is iconic. People that know lever guns know a Marlin at sight without having to read the rollmark.

 

[WrongHanded]

If Ruger never bought Marlin and Ruger came out with their own lever gun, sure many gun owners were like it.

But Ruger did buy Marlin, and killing off an iconic brand after buying it in this situation doesn't make sense. Gotta remember that some defunct firearms names were brought back from the dead (or reinvented) because of name recognition and the sales that would create. Henry is one fine example, so is Springfield Armory.

Then there are other brands that were kept alive like Winchester, Dan Wesson, and now Colt. CZ certainly isn't going to rebrand all those classic revolvers and 1911s as CZs when they know there is still a huge amount of potential customers that want a "Colt".

There's always some kid or teenager that grew up seeing their dad's or grandpa's Winchester and that can plant a seed for when that kid grows up and has some spending money. Same thing has happened with Marlin even though Remington bought them years ago and the same thing will happen with Ruger owning Marlin.

I'm a prime example. I grew up knowing people with Marlin .30-30s. My first Marlin was a JM Marlin and I like the design and layout of the Marlins so much that I bought a Remington Marlin when the time came. If Ruger had bought Marlin years ago instead of Remington, my Rem-Marlin would be a Ruger Marlin. But one thing is for sure, it is highly probable that if that if Remington had rebranded all the Marlin's as Remingtons, I would have sought out a higher priced Winchester. Even though it would've been made in Japan.

I see the point you're making. Personally I feel Marlin isn't that great of a name when considering the quality control issues of the past, the micro groove barrels, and the .45-70 kaboom images. Sure those are all just moments in time, but they stick in the mind. And where brand recognition is concerned, the bad is just as important as the good.

Perhaps Ruger will simply resurrect Marlin. I see the possibility of it going differently.

 

[3Crows]

There is no need to speculate, Ruger has stated they intend to keep the iconic Marlin brand alive and return the Marlin lever gun to market.

Why do you think that Ruger has been updating the Marlin website? To rename the rifles Ruger? Why not just pull the website down, since Ruger owns it?

If there was a Marlin that was ripe for a changeover to investment casting and MIM technology and some design/manufacturing process simplification, it is the 39A.

As to Remington changing the Marlin rifle, the main change they made was a wholesale switchover to actual drawings instead of tribal knowledge and CNC production methods. That their quality control was lacking and their rush to recoup investment before the product was matured in their process gave them a black eye, well, surely Ruger will not repeat that mistake.

 

[chicharrones]

I see the point you're making. Personally I feel Marlin isn't that great of a name when considering the quality control issues of the past, the micro groove barrels, and the .45-70 kaboom images. Sure those are all just moments in time, but they stick in the mind. And where brand recognition is concerned, the bad is just as important as the good.

Perhaps Ruger will simply resurrect Marlin. I see the possibility of it going differently.

Makes me think of S&W and "The Lock" or Bill Ruger's infamous statement on magazine capacities. Yet both brands are still strong.