It would be fun to see the levermatic short-stroke lever system in a model 39 configuration. I wonder if Marlin doesn't have many other designs that never saw the light of day or were impractical then but not now.
No doubtRuger bought Marlin. Personally I think this is the best possible outcome for Marlin
So what's it gonna be, Ruglin? Marger? Rarlin? Not as good a ring as Remlin.
Just playing devils advocate below and being an engineer it skews my opinion in its on unique way.With the caveat that I'm not a world-savvy businessman and that a lot of what follows is largely a WAG: Ruger also gets all of the IP on which patents have not expired, customer lists, inventory, machinery, research, reputation & good will, etc., and control of one of its competitors. Which is the most valuable? I have no idea.
Competition is good .... for the consumer....Competition is good IMHO, competition keeps you honest and driven.....
I have mentioned this tangentially is some of the other Remington threads but why buy Marlin (or Remington for that matter)? The marriage of products between Ruger and Marlin makes sense. Ruger's Single action revolvers pair nicely with Marline lever guns. But why by Marlin? Ruger if they wanted to could simply start making Marlin (or even Winchester) lever actions. The patents and other IP on most of Marlin's models have expired many years ago. There is no reason Ruger had to by Marlin to make a lever gun. Seems like fixing Marlin is going to take more money and time than simple starting fresh and making a Ruger lever action from the ground up.
If Ruger didn't buy Marlin, someone else would. So yes, they could compete directly with a new line of lever actions, but that hasn't worked too well in the past. This means less competition and all the designs and specific equipment. It's probably just a case of turning the lights back on, and bringing the staff back in.
RulinSo what's it gonna be, Ruglin? Marger? Rarlin? Not as good a ring as Remlin.
Maybe we’ll start seeing lever actions in more calibers like with the BLRs. That would be neat af
I can easily see Ruger setting up a Cowboy line that is more traditional along with a discount line that is made to be inexpensive. Lever guns have been getting expensive the last 10 years.I find Ruger tends to take short cuts in some of their designs, i.e., using stamped parts, castings rather than forgings, aluminum parts, etc. They no doubt are strong enough, but to me, detract from a solid feeling in certain aspects.
Wonder if they'll employ these cost cutting methods in new Marlin production?
However, with Ruger's seemingly excellent capitalization, advertising, and distribution, if they're now going to be in the lever action marketplace, if I were Henry I'd be scared, very scared.
My guess is Ruger bought them to get the brand name as well as the design and manufacturing drawings. Remington had closed the old Marlin factory and moved all the equipment to their location. I have no idea how many people are left who were originally Marlin people. I don't know what facilities, if any, are dedicated to Marlin production.If it was that easy why did it take Remington 7+ years to figure out how to make a decent Remlin? And there are very few people left at Remington to turn the lights back on. As I said earlier Remington has lost ~90% of their engineering staff since the first bankruptcy in 2018, there have been similar losses and turn over in other division of the company too since the first bankruptcy. Nearly all the knowledge/people that manage to make a decent Remlin out of the mess that was Marlin have already left the company. It's not like this decline was unforeseen.
The modern Henry Firearms stood up a pretty successful company making leverguns (well a gun with a lever, it did not become a levergun until they added the side-gate loading port ) and did not buy a former company to do it. That seems better IMHO than buying the Marlin/Remington baggage. Not enough good to offset the bad IMHO. I personally would would be more tempted to buy a Ruger 1894 without the supposed Marlin history than a Ruglin 1894. YMMV.
If it was that easy why did it take Remington 7+ years to figure out how to make a decent Remlin? And there are very few people left at Remington to turn the lights back on. As I said earlier Remington has lost ~90% of their engineering staff since the first bankruptcy in 2018, there have been similar losses and turn over in other division of the company too since the first bankruptcy. Nearly all the knowledge/people that manage to make a decent Remlin out of the mess that was Marlin have already left the company. It's not like this decline was unforeseen.
The modern Henry Firearms stood up a pretty successful company making leverguns (well a gun with a lever, it did not become a levergun until they added the side-gate loading port ) and did not buy a former company to do it. That seems better IMHO than buying the Marlin/Remington baggage. Not enough good to offset the bad IMHO. I personally would would be more tempted to buy a Ruger 1894 without the supposed Marlin history than a Ruglin 1894. YMMV.
My guess is Ruger bought them to get the brand name as well as the design and manufacturing drawings. Remington had closed the old Marlin factory and moved all the equipment to their location. I have no idea how many people are left who were originally Marlin people. I don't know what facilities, if any, are dedicated to Marlin production.
I seem to recall Ruger making a lever action or two for a while then they disappeared. So I guess they weren't that popular. I'm confident they can handle bringing the Marlin name back as well as anyone else could. And considering how up until recently, the voices I heard suggesting brands of lever actions were mostly saying Marlin, I think the name is probably still pretty strong. Henry makes decent guns, but if it weren't for the flashy models, I doubt they'd be in business. The steel receivers are good guns in my experience, but that's not how they managed to achieve success. At least not from what I've seen. They offer pretty range toys more than bare bones serious rifles.
I could be wrong, but I think it's likely that if the factory (or factories) are part of the deal, they could get staffed up fairly quickly. All those workers had to go somewhere, they may well be willing to return under the much more successful management Ruger seems to have. If Ruger bought one of my old companies and I wasn't doing anything better, I'd give them a chance. But I might be in the minority.
Ruger wants to get in on making lever action rifles and Marlin has long been well known for their lever guns. Instead of tooling up, buying machines, paying design engineers, going thru the testing, and paying to expand the production facilities to accommodate all the necessary equipment to buy a company already set up and ready to produce is a much safer investment.
I expect Ruger will improve the customer service, the out the door quality... not right away.
What I expect in the future:
-The 795 is gone, Ruger already has the 10/22.
-The Model 60, iconic .22 rifle, lots of fans, I think it will stick around.
- A .327 lever action will be in the works.
My guess is Ruger bought them to get the brand name as well as the design and manufacturing drawings. Remington had closed the old Marlin factory and moved all the equipment to their location. I have no idea how many people are left who were originally Marlin people. I don't know what facilities, if any, are dedicated to Marlin production.
All this talk about “fixing” Marlin... I don’t get it. Yes Remlins sucked for a while but the most recent guns seemed to be back up to par from all reports I have heard with the exception of the occasional canted barrel. Seems there’s nothing to fix. Adjust roll stamp to remove any inkling that Remington may somehow be involved in the production of the guns, stamp the barrels SR where it used to be JM and keep the lines rolling. Any changes made should be slight and should be in the form of tighter tolerances. Running changes or minor changes may be acceptable, but otherwise there’s nothing to fix, nothing to fuss about, and nothing to get into the slightest uproar about. Rumor has it that Marlin was making money and keeping big green afloat for a while. Keep it going.
Yes and it goes beyond that in hunters who have a .44 Mag lever action and revolver made by the same company or the urban dweller who will likely be dealing with semi auto bans, the lever action .357 is the next best alternative to a semi auto rifle....and with the increased interest in gun games like Cowboy Action and SASS, being able to market a SA revolver and matching lever action under the same brand name would be a great advantage.
Starting from scratch has never been Ruger's strong suit, if you catch my drift.I have mentioned this tangentially is some of the other Remington threads but why buy Marlin (or Remington for that matter)? The marriage of products between Ruger and Marlin makes sense. Ruger's Single action revolvers pair nicely with Marline lever guns. But why by Marlin? Ruger if they wanted to could simply start making Marlin (or even Winchester) lever actions. The patents and other IP on most of Marlin's models have expired many years ago. There is no reason Ruger had to by Marlin to make a lever gun. Seems like fixing Marlin is going to take more money and time than simple starting fresh and making a Ruger lever action from the ground up.
Starting from scratch has never been Ruger's strong suit, if you catch my drift.
It will be easier and cheaper for Ruger to take over Marlin then to try and start their own lever action line. Ruger's been around for 70 years and never produced a lever rifle and it wasn't from lack of demand, the market in the 50s, 60s, 70s were all about lever rifles. It's a lot of investment in money, but also time. Marlin becoming available was an offer so good Ruger couldn't refuse it.