Go For Broke said:
Are they unsafe to fire?
Are the chambers too loose or too tight?
Is the steel really plastic?
If you have actual example of why a JM is no good, please share.
DETAILS PLEASE!
As all have said, it isnt the "JM stamped" rifles that have received such bad press, but then, even the JM's had problems. I have a 1977 Marlin 336 with the barrel twisted halfway around too much or too little. OK... that's an exaggeration, but an aftermarket sight almost runs out of adjustment due to that error. I have a 1979 1894 that has a couple of flaws too.
I was all set to call BS on
some of the claims made by people about the new "REP" and "MR serial" Marlins, made by Remington. Not having access to shops where there are racks of Marlins on display and that you can inspect and verify this "shoddy workmanship", I have to rely on other experience. I was out at the range a couple of three years ago shooting a few stations down from a Marlin lever. We were the only two out there. I went over to talk and lo and behold, he's got a Remlin! I examined it, turned it over and upside down, and fired 4 rounds from it. I could not find a single problem that I can remember. Not one. Even the trigger was good! Was it beautiful and improved over JM stamped rifles? Nope. But it was just fine. So here I was, based on that one experience, ready to call "BS!".
But then.... but then!! .... (and again at the range) I had the experience of helping an older fellow out in (scope) sighting his new Marlin (Remlin) in. I could tell he was not a gun and shooting afficianado, but here he had this nice, new levergun. So I helped him get it sighted in. In doing so, without letting him know, I made some observations:
- there was considerable slop in the fit of the action (tang) at the stock wrist, both top AND bottom;
- the rifle was scoped and was being sighted in, so I couldn;t tell if the sight alignment was off or not, but there was a noticeable scratch in the front sight hood. Now the guy said it came that way, and I believe him, but it's possible he nicked it. Who knows...;
- the fit between the forearm and action was uneven between the two sides!! On one side, it was acceptably fit - on the other, there was a gap I would have been unhappy with. Maybe.... just maybe... if both side were to fit the same... maybe it could be acceptable. But not a catewompus fit between the two. How could that be???;
- the action was fine. Stiff yes but gritty no. It would work itself in.
- the engraving was fine;
- the muddy, milky finish on the walnut was just as muddy and milky as it has been on ALL Marlins since they started using their MarShield finish. They hold up real well - it's a good finish, I believe - but if you want your Marlin to look its Sunday best, you've got to refinish it yourself.
I didn;t say anything to the man about his rifle that wasn't complimentary. He liked the rifle - of course. The truth is, it was
close to being acceptable to me, but just not quite so. This one should have been referred back into the shop by Quality Control folks, but it escaped.
- I do NOT believe they are unsafe to fire. The Marlin action is strong and I didn;t see a problem with either one I fired.
- Who knows about the fit in chamber? Maybe a reloader/owner of a Remlin would know better.
- The steel is steel. It is not plastic.
I really do not believe it is the making (the construction) of the firearm that's the problem. Remington's probably building some pretty fine Marlins (that sounds weird). Rather, I think it's Quality Control. Any maker has crap filtering through the assembly line and punch-list shop, but who's job is that to catch and correct?
I would buy a new Marlin if I could inspect it first. I don;t believe I would order one unseen on a "no refund" type sale (if those exist). I don;t doubt that Remlin would fix it up if it needed it, but the time and hassle required to do it isn;t for me.
ON EDIT: Ok, just to add a little more: I think there's room for some variety in any rifle of the same model. I mean, if your new Marlin is perfect, but mine has a little variance in fit at this place or that, and still another guy's has a little too much twist-on the barrel, then so what? That's character. I build furniture (not for a living) and have built identical pieces for different people. I don;t want them going and comparing and saying "Hey! His hinge type is different than mine!" or "Hers has more desireable figure in the front panels!". These are
one-off pieces. The second one built is also a one-off piece. There is a lot to be desired for that.
Who knows? It's possible that in twenty or thirty years, guys will be harkening to the old days of MRXXXXXXX serial numbered Marlins, with the new crop being called "junk". Anyway, Marlin is bound to bring this rifle back around. I refuse to believe, flatly refuse any notion, that Remington bought Marlin with ill-intent. No way - they bought it as a possession to make money. Buying and selling companies has been a staple in America since God knows when, and it's usually turned out well.
And.... unless our current crop of communists get their way, Marlin will be making fine rifles for many years to come, regardless who actually "owns" them (as long as it isn;t the commies).
, that has bought out many grand old brands, and churns out mass produced, guns made to certain price points.
