Marlin or not?

Stainless laminates were only made for a couple years prior to the takeover. Look for serial #'s starting with 95, 94, or 93. 92's are usually fine and 91's are hit n' miss. Anything with An "MR" serial or a laser etched serial number under the hammer was produced after the takeover.
 
I've read that the newer Marlins have had a lot of the post-buyout QC problems ironed out. I won a new 1895G in 45/70 at a DUC event and it seems pretty solid. Action cycles smoothly. Fit and finish seem good. Haven't had it out to the range yet, so no chance for a range-level evaluation.
 
JM marked. Marlin was purchased in 2007 but they were still making good guns. Mine is a 92 (2008) and it's great in fit and finish.
 
The JM thin is overblown. Near the end, the last 5 or 6 years, the JM guns were a shadow of their former selves. The newest remains are actually pretty good. The odd lemon, but most are better than the end of production JM stuff.
 
I thought that over at the Marlin owners forum (another forum site just dealing with Marlins) they said the worst ones were the early Rem ones when they moved all the old production machinery over to Remington in New York from Marlin in Kentucky just after they closed the factory there and laid off all the experienced Marlin production staff.

The reported as unskilled labour crew with no prior experience in assembling Marlins at Remington in NY were shown by diagrams how to build a marlin with old Marlin machinery which they had no experience with, with this type of production how could they expect that the early Remington made Marlins were ever going to be at the same level as the ones built by experienced Marlin staff!

It was not until Remington closed down and replaced the old Marlin production machinery and put more attention into training their Marlin production staff that trouble free quality production stated to return to the Marlins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom