JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Hope so too. I worry about so much of the rimfire rifle market, and separately the ammo, being controlled by fewer companies, could backfire for the consumer down the road. Initially though, it does seem good for Ruger, and I am a long time Ruger fan.
I'm with you. Fewer manufacturers generally lead to higher prices. Firearms manufacturers have seen that people seem to be willing to pay way over average retail for guns and ammo, especially if there's any kind of panic.
 
I wonder how long before I can send in my Remlin for some excellent Ruger customer service? My POS 1894 Remlin sure could use a makeover Ruger-style as far as getting it to feed reliably and replacing screws that shatter when you remove them.
 
I wonder how long before I can send in my Remlin for some excellent Ruger customer service? My POS 1894 Remlin sure could use a makeover Ruger-style as far as getting it to feed reliably and replacing screws that shatter when you remove them.
I wouldn't hold my breath on this. My brother-in-law once bought a Savage 110 in 7 mag or 300 mag that had a tooling mark in the chamber that would keep the case in the chamber unless you struck the bolt rearward with your hand (brass would flow into the gouge in the chamber). I called Savage and guess what? It was made before the current "owners" and we were bubblegum out of luck. It wasn't "their" gun and they wouldn't repair it.
 
If the new Rugerlin lever rifles are made without the dot-matrix code and the serial number running down the left side of the receiver I might be tempted to buy one.

Call me a stickler for details, but I want my rifles to be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional and accurate.

Move it back to the tang, under the hammer like my JM marked rifle, and you might have me as a customer.
 
It wasn't "their" gun and they wouldn't repair it.
Yep they bought the name - not the previous issues.

Experienced something similar in 2008 when Fleetwood RV went bankrupt.

Their warranty obligation ended with the bankruptcy and dealers were left holding the bag for the units they sold that were still under a year from date of sale.

What really affected some owners were the ones that bought in a different area, moved away etc. and were using non-selling dealers for their service needs - and then were being denied service.
 
Last Edited:
Statement from Ruger.


1601557373601.png
 
We need an 1894 in .327 mag. And I want a .22TCM while we're at it! Ought to be able to fit a 12-15 round mag tube on a 16-18" barrel.

The .22 TCM and the 5.7x28 are maybe too much pressure for the '94, but the '92 could handle them. I believe Marlin did at one time make a '92 but no longer does. It would be nice to see them start again.

Not sure about the .327 in the '94 - it is more pressure than .357 or .44 mag.
 
The quality, finish, and smooth operation of a true Marlin I believe will never be seen again. The first Remlins were nothing short of an abomination and excrement in the face of the Marlin name.

In recent years gun writers have fallen all over themselves in an attempt to convince prospective buyers that such manufacturing errors as missing parts, chattered barrels (and even barrels with NO rifling) were remedied, while overlooking the sharp edges of finished surfaces, poor polishing/wood to metal fit, and checkering that was somehow even less functional and less aesthetic than the pressed checkering prevalent of the 60's-80's on many brands. Certainly an even farther cry from the machine-cut checkering that literally was a God-send to the industry with respect to manufacturing economy combined with functionality and appearance.
The newest Pseudo-Marlins' checkering more resembled a cursory photograph of checkering pasted on the guns.

I would wish that Ruger would make an attempt to approach the true Marlin quality, and that people would be willing to pay for it. I would expect neither to fulfill my wishes.
 
Yes.. I would like a Marger 1895 in 460 S&W. That is all...... :D

Too much pressure for the 1895 which has a limit of about 40K at best and most .45-70 ammo for the 1895 is loaded to 35K as a maximum. The .460 mag OTOH operates at pressures up to 65K - far exceeding what is thought to be safe for the Marlin 1895.

The main problem not being the steel, but the lockup design.

The model 92 is a stronger lockup design than the model 94 or the model 94 - it is closer to a falling block lockup, not relying on bolt lugs locking to the barrel, but rather a falling block which is much stronger. The model 92 is a scaled down version of the model 1886 (designed to handle larger more powerful rifle cartridges) - the model 92 intended to handle smaller but higher pressure pistol cartridges.

Big Horn Armory took what they considered the best of the 1886 and 1892 and designed a lever action that shoots .460 Magnum and one that shoots .500 magnum.
 
The quality, finish, and smooth operation of a true Marlin I believe will never be seen again. The first Remlins were nothing short of an abomination and excrement in the face of the Marlin name.

In recent years gun writers have fallen all over themselves in an attempt to convince prospective buyers that such manufacturing errors as missing parts, chattered barrels (and even barrels with NO rifling) were remedied, while overlooking the sharp edges of finished surfaces, poor polishing/wood to metal fit, and checkering that was somehow even less functional and less aesthetic than the pressed checkering prevalent of the 60's-80's on many brands. Certainly an even farther cry from the machine-cut checkering that literally was a God-send to the industry with respect to manufacturing economy combined with functionality and appearance.
The newest Pseudo-Marlins' checkering more resembled a cursory photograph of checkering pasted on the guns.

I would wish that Ruger would make an attempt to approach the true Marlin quality, and that people would be willing to pay for it. I would expect neither to fulfill my wishes.
I owned a JM 1894 in .357 Mag that was a thing of beauty; well polished surfaces, deep bluing, smooth action, excellent wood-to-metal fit, sharp checkering, and just overall exuded quality. I bought it for $425 used in 2007. Got divorced a few years later and put it on Gunbroker and it sold for $1000. I was also working at Ruger in their Prescott plant as a temp at the time.

Got back on my feet and bought a brand new 1894 in .45 Colt in 2017 and it was a huge disappointment. The high polish was replaced with the typical grainy finish you see on Ruger semi-auto handguns. The checkering was an abomination, all the edges were razor sharp, it functioned maybe 50% of the time, the screws were junk, and the tube follower came from the factory cracked.

Yet people on gun forums were adamant that the new guns were just as good as the old ones. I don't get it.

I don't think we will ever see a return to the finish quality of the older Marlins, or the older Rugers for that matter. My dad has a beautiful old Ruger Blackhawk built in the 60's and the bluing is beautiful compared to the utility bluing that Ruger does today.

gZ2OXfG6TFWntabx_8hctQ.jpeg
 
"Yet people on gun forums were adamant that the new guns were just as good as the old ones. I don't get it."

I get it. They never saw, handled, worked or shot a 1948 336RC.
 
The article mentions Sportsmans Warehouse bought Tapco........why did they waste the money? :confused:
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top