When I bought my Marlin 1894 new about three years ago, quality control was still hit and miss and mostly miss. All I know is that when compared to my JM Marlin, it was a joke.
I would go here and see if they are making them any better...
https://www.marlinowners.com/forum/marlin-rant-forum/
Comparing my new Remlin 1894 CSBL bought yesterday versus my 1993-94 Marlin 39 bought in 1994 I can report the following. Keep in mind I've only cycled .38 snap caps and .357 ammo through the 1894 to check basic function, so a range test is a comin'.
The Cons - The 1894's checkering is shallow, the trigger has sharp edges and is heavy compared to a good bolt gun, I'm going to need to smooth the edges of the mag tube frame opening to make loading cartridges easier, and looking at the MIM hammer is what it is.
The In Between - There are some mag capacity discrepancies listed on the net (6 or 8) and the box (7), but this 16.5" barreled gun does hold 6 rounds of .357 Mag in the tube for sure*.
The Pros - Wood to metal fit and wood to recoil pad fit is very good, the remainder of the external metal is smooth without burrs (the loading gate has no sharp edges either), the rifling looks good, the barrel isn't canted, the screw heads look perfect, and the lever motion is a bit less clunky than my 39.
Regarding the checkering, I do wonder if the checkering machines being used have a hard time with laminated wood? My Ruger GSR with laminated stock has deeper checkering than this 1894, but the GSR still has shallow checkering compared to my Marlin 39.
Overall though, I'm satisfied with this 1894 CSBL at this point.
*7 rounds of .38 special has been loaded, too.