shootbrownelk
Member
I seriously doubt that Ruger will produce the model 39A. It'll be interesting to see what Ruger does with Marlin, as compared to how Remington managed to screw it up.
What To Expect From Ruger/Remington/Marlin
- Thread starter Plan2Live
- Start date
- Status
Project355
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 672
People make a big deal out of MIM. Colt's been using outsourced MIM parts for decades and nobody complains (hardly). Don't knock MIM, Its better than IC when it comes to small parts with fine finishes and surface textures. Think of MIM as evolved IC. IC works well on big parts that will be final machined at a later stage. It can come up with a 80percent part very quickly and inexpensively. If Ruger can IC a Mini-14 they can do any Marlin design they desire.
Forget "what machines and tooling they got". That is of bare concern to Ruger I'm almost certain. Oh, some they'll want, but I would not be shocked if some of it went on the surplus market before long. A multi axis CNC machine by Fadal... whoever... can do any task its programmed for, and has the tooling made for. If machines are decent, tight and current... Ruger will keep 'em. If they bought a load of old Bridgeports and such, and we don't know what Marlin was using, then expect Ruger to do it their way.
In manufacturing, you never want a machine to have down time. You keep it running making part X today, and part M3 tomorrow, and part 2AF221 the next day. The machine doesn't care. Maybe not a daily basis, but you run a batch of parts and the tooling is made by hand to fit that machine to make that part - over and over again. Manufacturing doesn't make all the parts all the time. They make runs of parts to fulfill foreseen needs. If they run out... well... it might be a wait. Things get a little looser during actual production. They say, we got the mache all set to run 400 parts a shift. That's 1000+parts per day. They might say, we only need 500 parts, but run the machine for two or three days "just because" the setup to run those parts took a while. With metallic parts, its not nearly as bad as with plastic parts that are molded... my direct experience in the injection molding trades... oh boy the stories...
At any rate, Ruger got the name, the trademark if you will, and the designs. What they do from there with production, hard assets, stock of already made parts... a total crapshoot to us, because we have no information on which to make a really valid probable course of action. Only educated "if this.... then that" sort of scenarios.
I have a 94c to match a GP100, and your right. Its a fantastic rife, and .357 out of a 16" barrel is a impressive. Buffalo Bore 158 JHP reached 2100 or so from mine, and 1550 from the GP. My JM was from around 2007. I paid $300 new for it, $330 out the door with tax. One thing Remington discovered, CNC, training, and working out the problems cost a lot more than dumping oil in worn out machines and paying skilled workers more than minimum wage. Why was Marlin able to sell really excellent rifles for 3-600 with worn out tooling and high labor costs, but Remington had to double the prices to sell junk? Apparently not to make a profit. Everyone has forgotten just how low the cost of marlins was before they were sold. My big hope is Ruger will bring the prices back down.
from what I heard, Remington abandoned most of the Marlin equipment, feeling somewhat cheated by the state of the equipment, so most of it should be fairly new. I remember reading up on the excitement of switching to all CNC production to make better quality rifles for cheaper. It didn't work out. But most of the equipment should be fairly good. Of course your right, they didn't buy for the equipment. They bought so they could sell licensed sunglasses and pop-guns at Bass-pro/Cabelas, and try to cash in on the remaining SASS, newly arriving generation of people getting bored of the black plastic 'tactical' era.
MacAR
Member
Honestly, I only have one request from Ruger/Marlin: do away with that @$&! Safety! I'd by a new 1894 in 357 today if it weren't for that. Probably ain't gonna happen though.
Mac
Mac
chicharrones
needs more ammo
If Ruger could figure out a way to make that safety also block the trigger, I could live with it.
MacAR
Member
Maybe so, Chich. But to me lever guns oughten to have safeties on them. That's what the hammer is for. Just my preference. To each his own, of course.
Mac
Buzznrose
Member
1. The last version of Remington sucked as a company...and the Remington that went out of business wasn’t the Remington that used to make excellent semiauto and bolt action rifles and shotguns and good ammo. Yeah, their own stuff went to crap too.
Heck, they went out of business after years of high prices on guns and ammo...and yes, they had a good ammo business too, but even that went to crap. I recently shot some old UMC (yellow box) 115 gr 9MM that wouldn’t even lock my Glock slide back. Accuracy was lousy too. Range fodder, but still.
2. I don’t think we’ve forgot...maybe just think those days will never come back and avoid the thought.
3. Ruger may bring prices back down, but you probably won’t like how they do it. Just saying...
Just my simple opinions...
yeah, rhetorical questions, but all right answers. I doubt Ruger will bring prices anywhere near pre-Remington days, but they could still drop them considerably if the old JM factory was any indicator. As for Remington ammo, I don't know, I love Remington brass, and the most accurate ammo for 223 was their generic white/green box.... of course that was 12 years ago, before the R51 fiasco, and the second generation of trigger problems.
Immediately after Remington bought the company, the value-line, which was basically the same but without checkering, doubled in price. A 100% price jump is insane, I don't know what they were thinking. If you can't do it without a subtle price rise, you need to take the loss for a few years. Of course they couldn't keep up with demand anyway.
As for Ruger, yea, I'm thinking aluminum and plastic, cheap wood(I can live with it) and MIM (can also live with it). What really scares me is that Ruger doesn't mind adding a lot of weight to make things safer, and cheaper. My 94c is about 6lb, I think Ruger will take it up past 7. I hope not.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I'm in the same boat but hoping roll out doesn't include roll marks.
You know, I was thinking Ruger was worse than Marlin in that regard. Looking at my early 1990s 39AS, now I'm not so sure.
View attachment 962384
Just what I think, what I have read, what I hope, what I predict. But I am not a Remington hater and will steadfastly state, the best Marlin I have owned thus far was built by Remington. Hopefully Ruger will come through with a fine Marlin that is true to the heritage of the brand.
Marlin already had all sorts of roll stampings on the barrel that Remington partly removed.
I do expect a "New" Model 39A.
I do not think Ruger will use investment castings for the receiver.
I do not think Ruger will remove the cross bolt safety as many people including me like it.
Marlin quality was on a downhill trajectory long before Remington entered the game.
Ruger makes good rifles, the Ruger Marlins will be fine guns but if you are expecting them to be pre 70s JMs, blued steel and walnut is not in fashion and they will market and build rifles for the folks who buy new rifles, not those who sit around complaining about the new rifles.
Ruger will not screw up or screw with the Marlin classics, they are proven designs with a loyal following and a useful purpose as produced previously by JM Marlin and Remington.
Per Ruger they are now setting up new manufacturing cells for Marlin which includes equipment gotten in the purchase of Marlin and new purchase multi-axis CNC mills to use the Remington developed CNC data as opposed to pencil drawings, tribal knowledge and scribblings on the factory bathroom walls that JM Marlin used. Expected initial production per Ruger is late 2021. And I fully expect (and hope) Ruger to start rolling lever guns out, model by model, by late 2021.
I guess I am not as infatuated with JM Marlin as some because the first new purchase gun I made back early 70s was a 336 and the rifle was so crooked I had to hold it sideways to shoot it, but heck, I did not know any different. But the "hardwood" stock fit nicer than my REM 336S.
Marlin already had all sorts of roll stampings on the barrel that Remington partly removed.
I do expect a "New" Model 39A.
I do not think Ruger will use investment castings for the receiver.
I do not think Ruger will remove the cross bolt safety as many people including me like it.
Marlin quality was on a downhill trajectory long before Remington entered the game.
Ruger makes good rifles, the Ruger Marlins will be fine guns but if you are expecting them to be pre 70s JMs, blued steel and walnut is not in fashion and they will market and build rifles for the folks who buy new rifles, not those who sit around complaining about the new rifles.
Ruger will not screw up or screw with the Marlin classics, they are proven designs with a loyal following and a useful purpose as produced previously by JM Marlin and Remington.
Per Ruger they are now setting up new manufacturing cells for Marlin which includes equipment gotten in the purchase of Marlin and new purchase multi-axis CNC mills to use the Remington developed CNC data as opposed to pencil drawings, tribal knowledge and scribblings on the factory bathroom walls that JM Marlin used. Expected initial production per Ruger is late 2021. And I fully expect (and hope) Ruger to start rolling lever guns out, model by model, by late 2021.
I guess I am not as infatuated with JM Marlin as some because the first new purchase gun I made back early 70s was a 336 and the rifle was so crooked I had to hold it sideways to shoot it, but heck, I did not know any different. But the "hardwood" stock fit nicer than my REM 336S.
Last edited:
WisBorn
Contributing Member
I don't know who ended up with the Remington ammo rights. I would like to see it on shelves as soon as possible. Green and white box UMC handgun loads and CORE-LOKs are a good place to start.
Yes some new rifles and return of classics would be great, but without ammo why bother.
Yes some new rifles and return of classics would be great, but without ammo why bother.
The Remington ammunition business was purchased by Vista Outdoors, the same group that owns Federal and CCI. They are making all they can and are not responsible in any way for the current shortage.
Thought I would put these 2 statements together. You guys longing for the rifle of your youth are not going to be main focus of production rifles.
Ruger will be competing with Henry in the lever action market. It is not a coincidence that Henry has added loading gates to most of their rifles.
mcb
Member
But Remington before Vista Outdoor bought it out of bankruptcy in October 2020 is partially responsible for the shortage ammunition/primer. Due to the Bankruptcy in 2018 Remington was on a cash upfront before materials/parts would be delivered by many of Remington suppliers. With minimal cash on hand this often meant that Remington's productions facilities were starved for parts and materials both on the ammunition side and the firearms side.
BlueHeelerFl
Member
The most recent version of Remington was saddled with a huge amount of debt from previous versions of Remington. Too much to survive let alone thrive
It appears that production never ceased, but was throttled as mcb indicates. https://www.startribune.com/anoka-s...from-remington-ammunition-purchase/573193001/
BlueHeelerFl
Member
I had assumed that they were still making ammo. All the bricks of Remington 22lr at Academy have to be coming from somewhere
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,087
Nuttin' wrong with MIM, the process in the gun industry is now time tested and proven. Folks praise Ruger CS, so what would the worry be? Since Ruger is into practical firearms, I see them expanding the stainless/synthetic models, especially in popular deer calibers.
mcb
Member
I agree the current MIM technology is very good. But the gun industry was a very VERY early adopter of MIM technology so some of the early MIM parts were pretty bad both due to the immaturity of the technology and the engineers using not fully understanding it current strengths and limitations. Many gun owners have not forgot about those bad parts and done realize how much the technology has matured since the 1980 and 90's. The MIM technology of today is an order of magnitude better* and a fully mature technology and most of the engineers currently in the firearms field grew up with the MIM technology from school onward.
S&W has made 380 Bodyguard barrels from MIM with no post MIM machining. Give where the tech started that is pretty impressive.
*A HIP'ed MIM part is nearly indistinguishable from a forged part made from the same material but can achieve finer features and more repeatable geometry.
Old Dog
Member
Speculating on what we'll see in new production Marlins post-Ruger acquisition is entertaining, but ultimately, a frivolous exercise.
If anything, I think Ruger will make Marlin firearms uglier, as the company has a propensity for turning out some very pedestrian and boring products (its revolvers excluded, of course).
Will we see more black plastic? More matte castings? Oh, yay!
If anything, I think Ruger will make Marlin firearms uglier, as the company has a propensity for turning out some very pedestrian and boring products (its revolvers excluded, of course).
Will we see more black plastic? More matte castings? Oh, yay!
Buzznrose
Member
Kinda scary that a large % of US made ammo and reloading components are all made by one corporation...isn’t it?
I was hoping a major Independant like PSA or Daniels Defense would buy the ammo business. Even Ruger would be a good company to expand into ammo.
Buzznrose
Member
To be totally honest, there was only one Marlin I was interested in, the 6+1 round 45-70. They are out there. Haven’t pulled the trigger yet.
I’ve stopped hunting for several years by personal choice. Nothing against it, and I may do a hog or exotic hunt at some point, but no longer make the annual deer hunts. My reason for owning a big bore lever would be for SD, and in that case, I want larger mag capacity.
Otherwise, my current lever gun desires (range shooting and plinking) can pretty much be filled with Henry and maybe a Browning (.308), especially now that Henry has both the side gate and tube feed on their magazine. I personally like that.
I could be interested in a .454 Casull lever rifle, and Ruger may well fill that niche.
Just my preference and opinion. YMMV
I’ve stopped hunting for several years by personal choice. Nothing against it, and I may do a hog or exotic hunt at some point, but no longer make the annual deer hunts. My reason for owning a big bore lever would be for SD, and in that case, I want larger mag capacity.
Otherwise, my current lever gun desires (range shooting and plinking) can pretty much be filled with Henry and maybe a Browning (.308), especially now that Henry has both the side gate and tube feed on their magazine. I personally like that.
I could be interested in a .454 Casull lever rifle, and Ruger may well fill that niche.
Just my preference and opinion. YMMV
That thought crossed my mind too, but if you read the article I linked, Vista's transition went much smoother than the others because they were in the same business and knew what they were doing. Unless offshore sources of ammo are shut down, there will be plenty of alternative sources.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
