I understand everyone gets dewey-eyed when they hear JM Marlin, but something to consider... the JM stamp is not a guarantee. The latter years of production are noted to have issues, as they were still being made on worn out equipment, and/or less than skilled, experienced labor. Marlin was in decline prior to Remington... everyone seems to forget that part.
Sold my Marlin 1895sbl and Marlin 444p on Gunbroker for $4125 for the pair.Waaaaaay crazy but Ill take it.
I understand everyone gets dewey-eyed when they hear JM Marlin, but something to consider... the JM stamp is not a guarantee. The latter years of production are noted to have issues, as they were still being made on worn out equipment, and/or less than skilled, experienced labor. Marlin was in decline prior to Remington... everyone seems to forget that part.
My point being, JM's are good... but buyer beware. Know what you are looking at.
The Marlin Jam, Letting In Two, crooked sights and incorrectly indexed barrels were all invented by JM Marlin with no help from Remington. And they had years to fix these known problems but either chose deliberately not to or ignored them. Ruger has corrected the barrel indexing issue which should also fix the crooked sights issue. And they have improved the timing of the action and they heat treat prior to machining which is more difficult and time consuming for post heat treat machining but it results in truer parts. And to top it off, they kicked MG rifling to the door and sent it packing !
My only thought is that it has a straight stock, and I kinda wanted a pistol grip style, so I still might be perusing the classifieds on occasion to find it a brother...just with a little less fervor this time.
If you mean the sanding scratches that run vertical on the sides of the receiver, there are those who would say that is how they are supposed to be. My JMs and my two Remingtons rifles have the sanding scratches. My two Ruger built 1895s do not or are comparatively nearly invisible. It looks almost as if Ruger uses as a final polish some sort of random vibrating polisher instead of a belt or wheel.Every JM gun I've ever handled had rough actions and machine marks left on the metalwork.
I was referring more to the parts that are blasted without removing the machine marks.If you mean the sanding scratches that run vertical on the sides of the receiver, there are those who would say that is how they are supposed to be. My JMs and my two Remingtons rifles have the sanding scratches. My two Ruger built 1895s do not or are comparatively nearly invisible. It looks almost as if Ruger uses as a final polish some sort of random vibrating polisher instead of a belt or wheel.