Ruger and the Marlin Levergun
- Thread starter Buckeye63
- Start date
- Status
cdb1
Member
I easily could be wrong but I think I read somewhere that Ruger will not be doing any warranty work on Marlins.
MachIVshooter
Member
The Remlin issues are well known and certainly left a mark, but you're talking about a company that operated continuously for 150 years, who developed such good guns in the first 20 that they are virtually unchanged today, despite taking on much higher pressure smokeless rounds than the originals were built for. I have a first year 1889, which became the 1894, and it's still a perfectly functional gun. My 1893, which morphed into the 336, is 120 years old and still good to go. Also have a 2016 Remlin 1894CB .45 colt, and it works just fine, mechanically indistinguishable from my 1903 mfr 1894 .25-20.
I have 14 total Marlins, mostly levers, and they're all good guns, even the relatively cheap 81G.
As for blowing up 1895s, handloaders simply need to pay attention. There are 3 categories of .45-70 load; trapdoor, Marlin, and Ruger #1/bolt action. Modern lever guns are stronger than the originals, but 50,000+ PSI #1/bolt action loads that try to be .458 win mag are too much for them, whether Henry, Marlin, Uberti, Winchester or something else. .45-70 has a huge rim, which translates to tremendous bolt thrust with high pressure loads, more than a lot of "magnums".
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,130
Hopefully Ruger picks up all the popular models that Marlin was well known for, in the quality they were known for prior to Remington. Anything besides that is bonus as far as I am concerned.
danez71
Member
I get what you're saying however..... the flip side is.......
When GM, Ford, or even Toyota comes out with a new electric vehicle, they never get the attention as when Tesla does.
People think of Tesla as the EV car maker.
The reason why GM kept Hummer separate is because people identified Hummers as military tough offroad vehicles. Very different marketing than thier trucks.
Similar with Jeep and FCA
..... or RAM trucks. They're marketed as if they aren't even dodges any more.
The associated image that took decades to decades to earn can get drowned out or severely diluted when there is 50 other base models being marketed under the same brand name that are marketed very differently.
Yes, it has been posted on their website. They are not taking any responsibility for warranty work on any pre-Ruger products.
Screenshoted the warranty on it. They may, if they can get the experience in building them first. This could also mess with the customization though. In my mind, they could end up making them different enough where you'll have to select Remington Marlin or Ruger Marlin.
Attachments
I guess I do not see what you are saying here? The statement is clear that in the future they will service Marlin firearms made by Ruger. It says nothing about Marlin firearms made by JM Marlin or REP Marlin. I certainly hope that the Ruger Marlins like the REP Marlins will have high parts interchangeability with prior guns, otherwise there are an awful lot of rifles out there with no parts support. But, at this time, my guess is the parts will interchange with some fitting but in this case we will have to wait and see. I am not making any bets on it.
I took it as, at this point they don't have the parts or know how to service the firearms yet. I could be mistaken, but it would be really crappy of them to take over a division and screw over many Marlin owners over an acquisition?
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,935
It was crappy of Marlin to find itself in such a poor financial state that it could be acquired by non-firearms, distressed investment venture capitalists. It was crappy of Marlin and Remington to run a great American legacy brand into the ground through multiple bankruptcies. Ruger, another great American brand which has carved out its own legacy, capitalized on an opportunity to save Marlin by purchasing it out of bankruptcy, committed to transferring tooling, developing skills, and employing additional American workers to breath new life back into the Marlin brand, and God and Ruger willing, provide stability and consistency in its future, rather than letting it melt into obscurity (cough, cough, Bushmaster, cough, DPMS, cough, Remington). Why should they be expected to honor the burden of someone else’s poor manufacturing or poor QC/QA, even as long as over a hundred years ago?
You can look at other legacy brands and see the same behavior. Savage doesn’t touch anything produced prior to a few decades ago, nor does Springfield. Taurus largely only takes on warranty claims for products for which they have records, which is only back to the 1990s in many models. Ruger won’t service their Sec/Speed/Serv 6 lineup as they no longer have parts inventory or laborers familiar with the design, nor do they service their lever actions or shotguns, or even (most if not all of) their famed P-series. Nikon isn’t servicing or warranting any of their riflescopes any longer. Sig doesn’t service discontinued models even only a few years out of production... If a company can’t warranty a product, even their own, then they simply can’t. Ruger shouldn’t be expected to clean up Remington’s manufacturing and QC/QA messes any more than they’ve already committed by resurrecting the brand under their own horsepower. Frankly, the sheer volume of existing Marlin market to support would be overwhelming - warranty calls could easily swallow up a couple YEARS of early parts production, sucking away potential new product sales, with no upside revenue.
Am I itchy that none of my many Marlins have any warranty any longer? A little. But honestly, I wouldn’t have sent much back to Remington or Marlin for work before, so I wouldn’t send it back to Ruger now either. I expect Ruger will (eventually) catch up on parts inventory and will (eventually) live their typical generous life with customers to provide parts when called as they do for their existing models, and I do expect the Marlin designs will be held true at least in most ways to allow backwards compatibility. But the parts market for Marlins is already huge, so I’m not stressing much over any wear and tear and normal repairs I may need to do for my Marlins, with or without Ruger’s backstop.
I understand, I have a number of older Marlins. But, Ruger has no responsibility for what happened prior to their buying the name Marlin, a box of tools and most importantly the Remington developed IP. Frankly, there are certain improvements that Ruger could make that would improve function. That knife edge on the snail cam, a little more material in the receiver below the barrel threads on big bores (and truncating the threads there) and a few other things that could effect parts compatibility. If I were to be forced to wager, since Ruger paid a princely sum for the IP which is the CNC data developed by Remington, that is what you will see. And those parts mostly interchanged, but either way, Ruger is not screwing anyone and I am counting on them building a good rifle, I am saving my money for them now
.
Marlin ripped off its customers by being poorly run and going into bankruptcy. No fiscally responsible, publicly traded company would assume the un-measurable future cost of a lifetime warranty. Try collecting on pre-1992 Schwinn lifetime warranty at Walmart as another example.
danez71
Member
Blame that on Remington (and thier creditors and capitalism in general terms). Remington took the bankruptcy route that shed themselves of warranty liability.
Ruger didn't take over a viable company division with assets and liabilities. They bought a defunct company's assets at auction.
The warranty liabilities is a negative for a BK auction sell and the creditors want as much money back as possible so they will approve that with a smile.
If Remington hadn't gone BK with Marlin, typically the liabilities would go with it to the buyer (Ruger).
Based on my experience, it's telling that Ruger didn't buy the inventory too. That hints at a lot of suspect inventory and would support the idea that Marlin had a lot of worn tools/machines - resulting in a lot of inventoy stuck in MRB limbo before Rem revamped production.
The last cpl yrs Rem/Mar started putting out better product again and the levers were seeing a resurgence all while Rem was bleeding like a stuck pig. Instead of selling Marlin as a gun manufacturing company, they sucked as much cash out and went BK with it and kept as much cash as possible.
Executive bonuses gotta get paid, ya'know. And the creditors want as much of thier money back as possible to fulfill thier fiduciary duty to their shareholders. All at the expense of the consumer.
@Varminterror , well said.
I suspect Ruger will do what they can with the later Remlin built with the same data set Ruger bought. It would be in thier best interest to not self tarnish the Marlin name but no one should expect them to pick up the liabilities for something that had nothing to do with and didn't pay for.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Ruger did not need to buy Marlin to produce leverguns. They didn't need to buy it to produce a Marlin copy. Other manufacturers have been copying Marlin designs for years. Did they need to buy Bushmaster to produce AR's? No. They didn't need to buy Marlin to put them out of business either. By definition, they already were out of business. Ruger had already won that battle. They bought Marlin to own and market Marlin. An American icon that does not come with the baggage attached to Colt. Seems to me they got it pretty cheap too!
- Status