Marlin put the CB safeties on their lever guns starting in 1983. Winchester did CB safeties, and also rebounding hammers, but I don't have dates on those. Seems like Rossi started putting bolt safeties on their model 92's starting in the 1990's.
Ruger Marlin 336 Is Here
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
Marlin put the CB safeties on their lever guns starting in 1983. Winchester did CB safeties, and also rebounding hammers, but I don't have dates on those. Seems like Rossi started putting bolt safeties on their model 92's starting in the 1990's.
Jeff olson
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2019
- Messages
- 935
As long as there are nice pre safety 336s around for less or close to the same msrp of the ruglin, the choice is simple for me.
The new Ruger/Marlin looks exactly like my $400, 1997 Marlin 336CS, except for the grip cap and different colored bullseye ( Red on Ruger ). I don't know why the new Ruger is $800 better.
JeeperCreeper
Member
I can't wait to get one and slap a Midwest industries rail on it. I really do think they improved it, even marginally, in every way.
Once I get mine, I'll be rattle canning and carving the stock on my old JM because the Ruger will be a working rifle and the JM will be used as a beater toy.
Once I get mine, I'll be rattle canning and carving the stock on my old JM because the Ruger will be a working rifle and the JM will be used as a beater toy.
Chuck R.
Member
Stainless and in 35Rem or 360 Buckhammer and I'll probably get one. The safety really doesn't bother me.
I wonder if the current ones will fit or of any modifications made by Ruger would warrant yet another design for those rails? I need to get one for my 336 as well as a different loading gate.
mcb
Member
Ruger should have kept their 30 million dollars they spent on buying the Marlin brand and just started making lever actions with their brand on them. Preferable clones of the Winchester 94 and 92 but I digress. None of the lever actions have any IP wrapped up in them that needs bought. Think like Rossi, they copied the Winchester 92 and put their name on it. Its a fine clone. Ruger could have done the same with Marlin and/or Winchester lever guns and never payed a cent to Remington or FN. I would rather have a Ruger logo on the gun than the Marlin brand that has been retreaded too many times. YMMV
Last edited:
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Whether Marlin or Ruger branded, I'll look at a 94 in either .44 or .357 mag. I'm not a huge lever action fan, but I'd still like a repeater in those cartridges.
Last edited:
Buzznrose
Member
I’m sure you have a great gun, but the new Ruger Marlin has tighter tolerances and more consistent manufacturing. Also, the cost for labor, steel, and machines is significantly higher today compared to 1997.
Finally, the market has changed significantly. Used lever action rifles are in high demand and expensive. New lever action rifles are also in high demand and much more costly to build.
Is todays Ruger worth $800 more than your ‘97 Marlin? No. But is your ‘97 Marlin worth $400 or is it worth $800-$1000 in todays market?
I defer to other on this forum for accurate answers for lever guns, but the reality is everything today is expensive compared to a few years ago, right or not.
.45Coltguy
Member
mcb's post above[#32] would possibly have been workable for Ruger, but, I believe Ruger wanted that Marlin name that so many lever shooters just wanted to see and have.
Sure do want to look at a couple when available.
Sure do want to look at a couple when available.
JeeperCreeper
Member
Lots of people theorized another reason of the marlin purchase was to own their .22, to keep it competing with their dominant 10/22
I think it really comes down to a nostalgia thing. When USA built Winchesters and JM Marlin both closed up shop within a couple years of each other, Lever gun demand shot up because of collectors.
But where was lever action demand in 2004- 2005?
It was pretty much deader than a door nail, except for collector demand for Pre-'64 Winchesters.
Back then a new budget Bolt action, or lever action were both in the $400 - $450 range. Even now, a decent budget bolt action is still the same price cost. So it doesn't make sense to me that a new lever action is 3x more.
I could see that price for a Browning BLR, or Henry Long Ranger, but not a budget tube fed lever action.
Tighter tolerances aren't always a good thing like many assume. Gun manufacturing tolerances are always a compromise. Tolerances that are to tight and a rifle won't reliably function or cycle smoothly. To loose and its sloppy, may not function, and may not be as accurate. The tolerances for old JM Marlins were just fine.
mcb
Member
$400 in 1997 has similar buying power to ~$750 of todays money.
I'm thinking about that also. I have an older JM 336 without the checkered wood, that is a little scratched up. I'm thinking a Satin Black paint Job to make it a "Dark series" clone. Could be my go-to Truck Gun.
Yep, it's hard to beat the 1960's to 2007 JM Marlin 336's for accuracy and reliability. I doubt the Ruglin 336's will be significantly "better".
Your $400 in 97 was "worth" a lot more that $400 today. Likewise, $1200 today is "worth" a lot less than it was worth in 97. In short, while today's Ruger does cost more than your old Marlin did its not that much more when consider how much less today's dollar is worth..
Marlins, going all the way back into the 19th century, were great guns compared to many of their contemporaries. Most people don't realize that back in the day Marlins were considered a "premium" rifle and were
often priced noticably higher than similar or comparable Winchesters that they competed with in the market place.
Last edited:
This seems like the guys who were chopping and sporterizing 03A3's 60 years ago. Wipe it down and put it in a safe. Your grandkids will thank you.
mcb
Member
But that has zero bearing on the current Marlin and Winchester retread brands on the market today. Both of those original companies have long been dead. Marlin and Winchester are simply trademarks and logos newer companies have purchased and slap on the guns and boxes.
troy fairweather
Member
That's what I want, I love the 35 rem but being so hard to get brass and ammo I'd like to get the 360 since it will be so easy to make.
someguy2800
Member
I'd love to have a new 336 in 35 rem, 375 winchester, or an 1895 in 444 marlin. Would also love to have a new 1894 in 44 mag. At the price they are now going for though I don't think I'll ever be willing to pay the entry fee. I just don't think the fun to cost ratio is there for me and I have all the rifles I'll ever need for serious uses. I'm glad I got my 1895 CBA when I did.
Your $400 1997 336cs is now an $800 336cs.
Not to be pedantic, but I see people saying this constantly. What you are talking about is not tolerances, it is clearances. A tolerance is saying X measurement should be 2.543" +/- .001". Clearance is the space between 2 parts. For example if you want a bolt to move freely inside a reciever, you would set a tolerance for the inside of the receiver to be 1.000" +.001 / -.000 and the bolt would have a tolerance of .998" +.000 / -.001. The clearance would then be .002-.004" depending on stacking tolerances. If you want more clearance you would set the tolerance to .990" +.000 / - .001 for a clearance of .010"-.012".
Your $400 1997 336cs is now an $800 336cs.
Not to be pedantic, but I see people saying this constantly. What you are talking about is not tolerances, it is clearances. A tolerance is saying X measurement should be 2.543" +/- .001". Clearance is the space between 2 parts. For example if you want a bolt to move freely inside a reciever, you would set a tolerance for the inside of the receiver to be 1.000" +.001 / -.000 and the bolt would have a tolerance of .998" +.000 / -.001. The clearance would then be .002-.004" depending on stacking tolerances. If you want more clearance you would set the tolerance to .990" +.000 / - .001 for a clearance of .010"-.012".
Sistema1927
Member
Guessing that they will sell every one that they make, but sure glad that there is a pre-safety JM 336 sitting in my gun safe.
It's more expensive to make a lever action rifle than a cheap, budget bolt action. Just consider the shapes of the steel parts and the types of machining processes involved.
Plus, like you said, when both Winchester and Marlin were in business they were both just old, outdated, rifles. Once they went out of business they became out of production "classics."
