Why the new Marlins suck.

[Cee Zee]

I got two Marlins in the 18-month period before the move.

You're talking about lever guns but the discussion has been wider than that. Marlin makes a lot of .22's. Every Marlin I've ever owned has been a .22. Those who want to bash Marlin for making inexpensive rifles that aren't made with walnut (i.e. "cheaply as possible") might want to look at the track record of Marlins of all kinds. Yes there were certainly problems with lever guns. Marlin admitted as much. But the posts I read said "all" rifles made outside the old factories were junk.

Yes Marlin makes inexpensive rifles. That doesn't mean they don't work. I have one with 150,000 rounds through it and it's still going strong. It's my #1 small varmint rifle still. It has fed everything I put in it for 25 years and it has remained accurate. Inexpensive yes. Cheap? Not in my book.

Just look at the OP. It doesn't single out lever guns. Marlin makes a whole bunch of rimfire rifles and they are extremely popular for a reason. Yes price plays a big part in that but if price were the only consideration people cared about then Savage semi-auto .22's would be leading the world in sales instead of Marlin. Marlin has admitted problems with their lever guns from the transition period. Not so with the rimfire guns. There were some problems with rimfires to hear people tell it but again I haven't seen them. Again my XT is extremely well made and better than guns that cost much more when it comes to build quality (like Savage which makes an extremely accurate rifle these days but they do not function as well as their rimfires once did).

My XT has a quality synthetic stock (I have a walnut stock .22 and I had to pay for it too), it's accurate and dependable. The trigger is excellent compared to almost all triggers in the history of rifles. Yes it was Savage that changed the trigger situation but Marlin has followed their progress quite well. My XT shoots shorts, longs and LR's also. It holds 25 shorts in the tube. Talk about a gun you load on Sunday and shoot all week! For a rifle that doesn't have a big mag hanging down to hold that many rounds is pretty amazing stuff. There's a lot of dead rats in a single loading.

What can I say? There's absolutely nothing wrong with my XT. Nothing. No it doesn't have a walnut stock with hand carved stuff and it doesn't look like a work of art. It's a working rifle and that's what a lot of us want. It has a fine finish and a solid stock and it hits what you point it at. And it cost less than $200. $180 actually. That's a lot of rifle for that price. It will do everything I want a rifle to do. I didn't really even need another .22 when I bought that. But I thought it would be a great hand me down for my great-grandchildren some day. And yes I think it will last that long. I have other .22's that are already into the 3rd generation of owners with a 4th and 5th generation possibly owning them someday very soon. I like inexpensive rifles that work. They do a job for me. I buy too many of them actually because I like them being inexpensive and high quality. And that's what my XT is.

 

[jmr40]

Old Marlin made a lot of turds as well.

Yup. I had a NIB lever in .45/70 in the mid-2000s that would not cycle at all with factory loads. It required two trips back to the factory to make it run.

I wouldn't call a mid-2000 rifle an "old Marlin". I've never noted a single problem with any made pre-1980 or so. In fact the 1970's era rifles are my favorites. Over the years the stock design and shape has been tweaked somewhat, they got it right during the 1970's.

 

[barnbwt]

"I wouldn't call a mid-2000 rifle an "old Marlin"."
The comment was clearly about pre-Remington Marlins, and how quality was declining prior to the sale. Old Marlin was used as a name, not an adjective. So a mid 2000 rifle is entirely relevant as an example.

TCB

 

[DPris]

CZ,
Of course I'm talking about leverguns.
That's where Marlin got the quality dive.
Denis

 

[Jackal]

You're talking about lever guns but the discussion has been wider than that. Marlin makes a lot of .22's. Every Marlin I've ever owned has been a .22.

Credit where credit is due. I've never had a problem with any rimfire Marlin except one excessively tight action on a 39 Mountie.

 

[Tirod]

This is the same old discussion - except it's about Marlin, not Winchester, and it's 2015, not 1962.

Winchester was long praised for it's "hand craftsmanship" and the pre '63's are considered examples of the gunmakers arts, almost in the same breathless prose as English doubles.

The reality of "hand fitted parts" is the Winchester was going down the drain from high labor costs attempting to make guns from old machinery that simply can't hold "tight tolerances." When the machines are old and sloppy, you make sloppy parts. Parts are needed to make products, you get the assemblers to try harder with a file here and there so more will fit properly.

Take that to an extreme and they are filing parts out of irregularly shaped lumps same as an Afghan mountain gun makers. And that means production time in labor skyrockets and profits go into the toilet.

Marlin was clearly having the same problems. As someone who had to coax parts out of a worn out 100 ton press brake just a few years ago, you really DO have to coax old machinery and watch them like a hawk - right down to double checking every tenth part, or even every part. You can scrap your own junk but the accounting department values it for a lot more once transferred to the next stage in production. That means you spend more in labor in your department to keep from being penalized even more if the next scraps your junk.

Use good machinery and build a quality part that adheres to specifications, everything runs more efficiently and product goes off the loading dock in higher quantities. That is what Winchester did from 1964 on - and a few prima donna gun owners started trash talking them because they had better parts that needed less labor to assemble.

A stamped part is not necessarily inferior to one machined out of bar stock - entirely the methodology of the Japanese Zero fighter. They couldn't afford and didn't have the machinerly to produce complicated billet parts, so they fabricated them from smaller sheet metal and plate components and riveted them up.

Nobody ever said the Zero sucked.

Only in American can a maker attempt to improve his processes, reduce costs, increase production quantities, and make a better product just to be called out for it. Winchester suffered from it to this day - and who do you have to buy them from now? The Japanese.

Keep it up, bad mouth Marlin, and Cereberus will sell that brand to them, too. Then you can buy all you want for $1,800 a piece knowing you are getting a high quality "hand fitted" firearm. Not. They just make the parts better to keep from actually doing it, too.

Built an AR rifle lately? All those horrible parts never touched up by a human hand to fit them together are what defend our nation. I can buy a barrel from LA, mate it to an upper from Washington state, add a lower from South Carolina, and the result is a working firearm with no defects.

Make the parts right the first time and you don't need someone fiddling around with files messing with them.

BTW, the scene from "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" where Eastwood assembles a revolver from different guns out of a glass case? Weren't they all hand fitted in the day?

Think about it.

I'm no fanboy for Remington, but they are fixing the problem and saying what they make "sucks" is beyond any semblance of an informed opinion. What Marlin handed to them is where you can see management running it into the ground. If Remington hadn't made the offer, could you buy a Marlin today?

 

[Bexar]

Are any of the parts cast or sintered now?

 

[red rick]

A friend of mine , that I hunt with bought a new stainless 336 30-30 in early Nov. 2014 . He has sent it back to the factory twice so far for the same problem . They still have it now . He got it back the first time in about 3 weeks , it's been about 4 weeks now on the second trip . He said it would not feed if he put in more than 2 rounds . Basspro handled the shipping for him .

Basspro called him today 4/14/15 , it's back again .

 

[Cee Zee]

Of course I'm talking about leverguns.
That's where Marlin got the quality dive.

I'd agree with you on that but the OP didn't make the distinction. That's what brought me into this thread. My points have all been about rimfire rifles. I know they had some problems with lever guns.

 

[Fatdaddy]

I've read of the "Remlin curse" but it is obvious when you pick up one of the earlier "buyout" guns that corners were cut in order to save $$. Rough, low grade stocks, bead blasted matt finish and that terrible SN etching on the side of the receiver.
Hearing that they are starting to turn out a decent product does spark hope in the old brand though.

 

[dvdcrr]

Here is my 2009 post takeover North Haven Marlin. Very nice.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

So this wonderful rifle I got that says Marlin on the side and came out of Kentucky isn't really as great as it seems to be? It isn't dead on accurate, totally reliable and built more solid than any Marlin I've ever seen before? Silly me. I should know better than to believe my own lying eyes.

Seriously. I own a bunch of Marlins. The best one came from the NEW plant in Kentucky. I swear I think people WANT to have something to complain about. There isn't one thing wrong my Mayfield built rifle.

My son bought me a new marlin .22mag that was made in the Mayfield plant. It is as good as the one I have had since I was 12 and just as accurate, and best of all it was made not more than 25 miles from my house. My eyes must be lying too, because I can see no problems with the new production models.

 

[Aragon]

The new Marlin Model 60s don't "suck."

Hello

I went to Nashville yesterday just to visit the exhibit. While there I talked to someone from Remington ( didn't get his name ) about why the quality of Marlins went south after the move out of CT. Perhaps ya'll have heard this elsewhere but it was the first time for me.

He explained that the parts to the old Marlins were deliberately made oversized and then handfitted by skilled craftsmen. When they set up the new production line they tried to assemble the new rifles like you do most new firearms nowadays with little or no fitting of parts and that didn't work.

To solve the problem they are investing in new CNC machinery so that the parts to the new Marlins can be made so close to specs that they will not need much if any fitting.


addendum: CZ He also said they were working on one model at a time. Could it be that your Marlin is now being made on a new production line with the problems resolved?
It will take some time but they are committed to the brand.

Pure bunkum! Only someone with no background in product design and manufacturing would buy that excuse for that product.

"Handfitting" as you describe for an inexpensive product screams to me of a poor design/poor quality parts/worn tooling that needed to be "massaged" on the shop floor to make them work. Talk about hideous product quality! That's hardcore nasty -- and it's a world away from the "hand-fitting" that H&H, Rigby and the rest do on five and six figure arms. Suggesting the Marlins were deliberately designed "oversized" made me laugh out loud.

FWIW, Marlin has employed CNC technology long before Remington bought them.

The Model 60's (not sure how other models have been impacted?) that Marlin was pumping out after they moved production from North Haven, CT to Mayfield, KY were indeed hideous from a functionality standpoint -- probably because they were unable to document and transport the "massaging" that needed to go on to make the guns actually work.

However Remington/Marlin clearly re-tooled the Model 60 a couple of years ago. The fit and finish are vastly improved even when compared to the older North Haven production.

I have a year old Marlin Model 60 with about 1500 rounds through it without any problems. I just bought a Glenfield Model 60 with a 22" barrel that holds 18 rounds (which means it was produced in the 1980's or earlier) and my new Marlin 60 compares very favorably to it in terms of fit, finish and function.

 

[Aragon]

My son bought me a new marlin .22mag that was made in the Mayfield plant. It is as good as the one I have had since I was 12 and just as accurate, and best of all it was made not more than 25 miles from my house. My eyes must be lying too, because I can see no problems with the new production models.

Yup...

I'm not sure you would have had as good an experience had yours been extremely early Mayfield production, but the stuff coming out of there now looks and works pretty darned good it seems.

 

[Aragon]

Actually, I would consider that statement to be an excuse, not a reason. Remington is a long-time gun manufacturer, conversant with parts specs for over a century. Do you mean to tell us that the entire QC department, as well as the group in Engineering, failed to notice the design parameters used by Marlin? Especially when Marlin Engineers were present for the start-up?

I suppose that QC never examined the guns before they left the plant? Really? This is the 21st century, not the 1700's. He made a nice try, though. No style points, but a nice try.

Blaming/mentioning "QC" as you did is tired 20th Century and earlier thinking...

 

[Mman]

How can you tell a new good remlin 336 or 1894 from an older poorly made remlin? Is there a serial number range for the first batches of remlins that were awful so we know what to avoid?

 

[Aragon]

Saw 2 1894's in cabelas yesterday that looked as good as anything I have ever seen. I think they finally got it right.

Jelly, while I appreciate the guy you talked to's explanation, oversized parts don't explain stripped screw slots from being assembled with the wrong type and sized screwdrivers, and the total failure of the QC department to stop the flood of garbage being released on the public. Or the due diligence on the part of remington before the buyout to see how are these guns made? can we make them the same way? no? what will it take to make them? Are we willing to do so?

When I $25 dollar daisy bb gun has better build quality and fit/finish than a $700 1894, you have a problem.

But, like I said, it appears to be all good now. or at least mostly good.

It's not the "the total failure of the QC department to stop the flood of garbage being released on the public." Whew! That's archaic thinking!

Sounds like the problems originate (and the responsibility rests with) in the design/production/procurement departments

 

[Aragon]

I understand they had no blueprints either, just worn out tooling. I think the real victim in all this was actually Freedom Group who was clearly sold a bill of goods in Marlin.

TCB

That I very much doubt. Part of the due diligence in buying such a company would be a formal review of the company's document control system and the original drawings -- be they on a disc or vellum...

 

[Cee Zee]

The Model 60's (not sure how other models have been impacted?) that Marlin was pumping out after they moved production from North Haven, CT to Mayfield, KY were indeed hideous from a functionality standpoint -- probably because they were unable to document and transport the "massaging" that needed to go on to make the guns actually work.

Gee I guess I need to look at my XT from Mayfield. Here I find out it's hideous after all that shooting without a single problem. What part is it that I'm supposed to look at to find the hideous stuff?

Again Marlin rimfire rifles have "not" been bad since moving to the KY plant. If anything they have improved. I've never seen anyone else say Mayfield rimfire rifles were hideous. One more time. It goes like this. The lever guns have had problems. The rimfire rifles haven't.

 

[alexander45]

Well that's their excuse for the garbage they put out under marlin, but what about the garbage they put out under Remington, para, aac, and every other company they have touched, some how I don't think the owners of marlin managed to lose the recipes for the 870s finish or the feed ramp angle on the double stack paras, or how to thread a Barrel on a Rem 700 aac.

 

[Salmoneye]

And here we are 2nd quarter 2015, and Ilion still can't turn out an 1894C...

 

[greyling22]

How can you tell a new good remlin 336 or 1894 from an older poorly made remlin? Is there a serial number range for the first batches of remlins that were awful so we know what to avoid?

if it's not new in teh store today, and it has an REP in an oval on the barrel by the receiver on the loading gate side, I'd inspect it closely.

usually the easiest way to tell if the gun is poorly made is by aiming the gun. if both front and rear sights are not at the 12 o'clock position walk away. (I know this sounds stupid, but you would be astonished by the number of 1894's I have seen that were off) Next I look at the wood to metal fit: if you can fit a dime between the wood and metal, or the bolt and the rest of the receiver, walk away.
Then I cycle the action. If you see rust or it feels like the gun is full of sand from poor machineing leaving tooling marks all over the insides, walk away.
Finally I look for crossthreaded screws, stripped screw heads, or missing screws. If found, I walk away.

I know that list almost sounds condescending, but the bad marlins are really bad and easy to spot.

 

[dvdcrr]

If you are talking Mayfield rimfires, Ive had 2 model 60's, one is straight and accurate the other had crooked rear sight and not so accurate. I think mostly they are OK

 

[Aragon]

Gee I guess I need to look at my XT from Mayfield. Here I find out it's hideous after all that shooting without a single problem. What part is it that I'm supposed to look at to find the hideous stuff?

Again Marlin rimfire rifles have "not" been bad since moving to the KY plant. If anything they have improved. I've never seen anyone else say Mayfield rimfire rifles were hideous. One more time. It goes like this. The lever guns have had problems. The rimfire rifles haven't.

When production of the M60 was first moved, there were a great deal of reported functionality problems on online forums. I really don't know how long that lasted but production from KY has been at least as good as the former CT production for quite some time.

Some of the manufactured myth (no engineering drawings, etc.) are simply absurd.

 

[Aragon]

This is the same old discussion - except it's about Marlin, not Winchester, and it's 2015, not 1962.

Winchester was long praised for it's "hand craftsmanship" and the pre '63's are considered examples of the gunmakers arts, almost in the same breathless prose as English doubles.

The reality of "hand fitted parts" is the Winchester was going down the drain from high labor costs attempting to make guns from old machinery that simply can't hold "tight tolerances." When the machines are old and sloppy, you make sloppy parts. Parts are needed to make products, you get the assemblers to try harder with a file here and there so more will fit properly.

Not really, no. It began with Winchester's designs. The Model 1912 shotgun for instance was a great design but it simply was more expensive to produce than Winchester's growing competition -- namely the Remington Model 870 in this case.

Use good machinery and build a quality part that adheres to specifications, everything runs more efficiently and product goes off the loading dock in higher quantities. That is what Winchester did from 1964 on - and a few prima donna gun owners started trash talking them because they had better parts that needed less labor to assemble.

No. Winchester fundamentally changed their product designs to be less expensive to manufacture than their older designs. They didn't simply change their manufacturing processes. The change in the product designs is what caused some to turn away from Winchester.

A stamped part is not necessarily inferior to one machined out of bar stock...

That's true. Nor are MIM parts necessarily inferior to machined, forged or IC parts. It all depends on the application and the design. Many on these forums don't seem to be able to go that deep in their thinking on this subject.

Only in American can a maker attempt to improve his processes, reduce costs, increase production quantities, and make a better product just to be called out for it. Winchester suffered from it to this day...

Winchester suffered mostly from what many believe to be poor post '63 product designs with respect to their competition. Had Winchester come out with cost-competitive designs that were better than Remington's M700 and M870 -- just those two lines, things would have gone considerably better for Winchester in the following years.

Built an AR rifle lately? All those horrible parts never touched up by a human hand to fit them together are what defend our nation. I can buy a barrel from LA, mate it to an upper from Washington state, add a lower from South Carolina, and the result is a working firearm with no defects.

Sounds like excellent product design to me and parts made to print...

Make the parts right the first time and you don't need someone fiddling around with files messing with them.

You also need parts that are designed well to begin with.

I'm no fanboy for Remington, but they are fixing the problem and saying what they make "sucks" is beyond any semblance of an informed opinion. What Marlin handed to them is where you can see management running it into the ground. If Remington hadn't made the offer, could you buy a Marlin today?

I would agree that MANY who opine on firearms forums have absolutely no clue about product design, manufacturing, product quality, etc. They often parrot erroneous information -- it's a virulent, destructive thing.