Well there's two main things I notice when I look at the new ones. 1) The bluing isn't very deep. Not like the old ones. 2) The wood doesn't look good. I have seen gaps. Upwards of 1/4" on the tang. No go. Now, to me, being a hobbyist in wood working, the finish is not really a huge deal because I can strip, sand, and refinish to make it look good. I can take some valve grinding compound and slick the action and trigger. I can do lots of things to make the rifle be how I want it to be. And make it look good. But I absolutely shouldn't have to work on a rifle to make it functional. Ever. When it leaves the factory, it should at bare minimum, work.
But all that costs money. Are people willing to pay $100 more for a rifle to get that? $200??? Some are, many aren't, which is why we're here in the first place.
Because craftsman have been supplanted by androgynous Facilitators and Associates, Personnel with Human Resources and engineers by CFOs.
I guarantee their manufacturing process is set up for minimal consumable replacements on machines and minimal inspection procedures, in order to have less machine downtime and less time on processes that are non value added. They most likely buy their materials as cheap as possible irrespective of defects. This is a false economy. You experience more machine downtime due to knackered components which should have been replaced far sooner and more defective products because components are worn, thus producing parts which do not meet drawing specifications. Lack of quality inspection would miss these defects which are passed onto the consumer which does not leave them very happy!
I'm not talking about preventing defects. I'm talking about offering a higher level of fit & finish than Marlin has historically provided. But there is also a blurred line here as well. Because of all the valid issues that have come up during the Remlin transition, people are much more critical than in the past. Flaws that would have been overlooked or not even seen as flaws in the past are now grabbing folks' attention. Which was the point I was trying to make in my first post. Marlin has never bothered to match forends to buttstocks. They have always left machine marks on receivers, had uneven finishes on the receiver sides and spotty wood to metal fit. It was always acceptable for their price point. Now that they are more critical, they think these issues are new when in fact, they were always there. They just didn't notice before, or care.
It's comical to me that people consider Henry to even be equal to a Marlin. They have always impressed me as a cut below and with ridiculous asking prices on anything but the entry level rimfires.
I don't consider Henry to be equal to Marlin. I consider them to be superior. The only reason people buy Marlins over Henry's is the loading gate. Or there's a rebate. I didn't need to send any of my Henrys back multiple time for stupid things. I didn't need to smooth the action up on my Henry's out of the box. They cycled smooth from the factory. If you ask most people about new Henry's I hear nothing but praise. Marlins seem to be hit or miss. Gun store owners selling both have told me the Marlins are hit and miss.
Every one I've seen was gorgeous. Much nicer than any new Marlin. Not that that's saying much. The big boy steels are only 8oz heavier than the comparable Marlins. You Tennessee guys must not be that tough. Lol. Probably all that extra material where the loading gate should be. I guess you like what you like. If Henry only made their brass versions I'd probably feel different. But I really love all of their new stuff. Can't wait until they introduce more new things.
Two pounds, not eight ounces and I hunt with a 10lb rifle every year. Leave the macho nonsense out of it.
