Remlin Levergun Quality Updates for 2014: Put them here

U

Unlicensed Dremel

Moderator
OK, I handled that Marlin 1895 for a second time yesterday.

I don't know how long it's been on the shelf or when it was made, but I do know that it's not yet up to snuff. A LOT better than a year or two back, but not quite in the "acceptable" range (contrary to my first thoughts when I looked at it the other day).

The problem was still the wood to steel stock fit, which was mediocre at best. The stock edge was angled, not parallel, to the steel edge, at the front of the buttstock, where it meets the receiver, on each side.

The sights were straight and the action felt smooth, in fairness.

The wood touched the steel on the bottom/front, but then graduated back to a gap at the top/rear. Not nearly as bad as some from a year or two back, but readily noticeable. I'd venture a guess that the gap was around 3/32nds, give or take 1/32nd.

May be acceptable to some, but not for my money which I worked for. Keep trying please "Marlin" - maybe you'll get it right some day, and I'll buy that 1895 SBL.

Anyone else have a recent report or better yet, first hand experience like thise.

P.S. Marlin, if you read this, you need to go to every distributor and every retail shop in the country and pull and "re-do" guns like these.
 
Last edited:
The real test will be the quality level when the discontinued models come back later in the year. (I believe May is the first ship date [don't remember what for], June is the ship date for the 444s, and July is the first ship date for the .450s.)
The new tooling and equipment designed to bring back the discontinued models is supposed to be up and running right now. But, until those receivers hit the streets, we won't know what Marlin's future will be in Remington's hands.

--Several models, starting with the 444, were killed off in the transition to Ilion, because Remington opted not to move some specialized equipment that was needed for certain milling operations on some receivers. They recently upgraded the Ilion facility and tooling, partly to correct that deficiency.
 
Factory stocks are a waste of money IMO. Unless it looks like it would be at home on a fine Italian shotgun it might as well look like an SKS 2X4 as far as I am concerned. If you want a great looking stock then have one made IMO. I'd mcuh rather the gun come with a $50 stock I can throw away and replace with something great than a $150 stock that I am still going to throw away.
 
John, interesting take - that'd be all well and good except for the fact that the one I want - the 1895 SBL, which has other non-stock-related features I want - comes only with a laminated wood stock, which although not terribly expensive, is just expensive *enough* to make you cringe throwing it away and replacing it. It, along with the other features, but this gun up close to $900 new. It would be well worth it to me if the stock fit right. I actually like the pepper/gray laminated wood stock for this particular rifle / purpose. But point taken. Sure, if Marlin would offer action/bbl only for $200 less, sure I'd jump on it. But I'd rather they just make one right from the get go.
 
Does anyone have side by side pictures of the quality differences to share?

I'm itching for a Marlin 1894 in 44 mag but can't find one for cheap so may consider just buying it new. Do I wait or just buy another Browning 92 in 44 mag.

Already have one in 357 and have no complaints whatsoever.
 
I'm itching for a Marlin 1894 in 44 mag but can't find one for cheap so may consider just buying it new.
Click to expand...

IF you find one 'new', it was assembled before late 2012...Look it over very carefully, and if the dealer will not let you cycle the action, run...

The 1894 has not been made since 2012...

Promises were for the lines to be up and running by 4th quarter 2013...

Current promise is by 4th quarter 2014...
 
I looked at a stainless Marlin 30-30 the other day..in a local gun shop....It was pitiful....The owner said it came in last week....The checkering was impressed and then it looked like they tried to smooth it back out on the butt stock....The shop owner was gonna call and see what they would do about it.... I also looked at a youth model 30-30 recently....The stock was very thick and heavy....I don't get this on a youth model....?
 
I picked up a 336 Youth a couple of months ago. I took the pick of a couple, and took the one on the rack, as its sights were straight, the others werent, and the rear sight on one was really bad.

Wood fit was about the same on all of them, not bad really, although mine loosened up when I started to shoot it, and needed to be shimmed. It appears it was over inleted.

Out of the box, it would not eject or cycle. The extractor was never tuned, and the empty case would not clear the port, and then jammed the action until it was shook out. They had to have known if they test fired it, but it seems it was fine to be shipped.

Soon after I started shooting it, it also started to have issues with the shell carrier. It started blocking the round in the mag from feeding, and needed a little file/emery work to fix it.

The action as a whole wasnt terrible, but it was rough, and had/has the typical Marlin "klunk" to it, although while I had it apart to fix the carrier, I did smooth some of the rough spots up, and it is better now. Better than my 1895G, which is still pretty klunky.

I got my 1895 a couple of years ago, and its not been any problem. Its better since I replaced the recoil pad with a butt plate, and the LOP is now more correct for me. Its basically the same as the 336 Youth. Its action is still pretty klunky, and I think Im going to work on it some more. I think the biggest difference between them and the Winchesters I have, is how the hammer and underside of the bolt interact. That notch really screws up the "smooth" on the Marlins.

When I got it, I wasnt aware Remington had bought out Marlin, and there were issues. After I got it, I looked at a couple of others and saw a few with some badly canted front sights and poor wood fit.
 
Marlin fit and finish started years before being sold to Remington.

I was very disappointed with my Marlin 39A, but managed to fix most of the problems, which consisted of: misfires, failure to eject, crooked sights, crooked scope mount holes, poor crown, rough chamber, and headspace problem.

The bore was also quite rough, but has smoothed out after a few thousand rounds.
 
[QUOTEsalvadore, what's the long and the short of it? The bottom line? ][/QUOTE]

First the company had admitted the move to NY was a mistake. He mentioned that the rifle he shot in NY was greatly improved in fit and finish over the previous NY rifles and it functioned reliably and the company has spent considerable money on CNC machine tools. Pearce says he won't comment further until he gets a production model he can disassemble and shoot on his own range.

Pearce also says the 94 is currently beginning production in .357, 45 Colt and .44 magnum as well as the 1895 in 45/70.

I have a lot of respect for Brian's knowledge of firearms. 25 years ago I bought a Marlin 94cl in 25/20 that no matter what I did I wasn't able to get better than hubcap accuracy. A couple of articles Brian wrote convinced me to buy a 94cl 32/20 that Marlin reissued, I believe in 2004. I now have a very classy rifle in 32/20 that I have shot a 10 shot cast bullet 100yd group that measured 2 1/4" with 8 shots going into 1 1/4". His recommended gunsmith also turned my Winchester into a Tanker 94.


 
Marlin had issues long before they were Remlin. I have three Marlin made lever rifles. .30-30, .444, and .45-70. The .444 is top quality. The .30-30 will pass. The .45-70 is a piece of junk. It wont hit the broad side of a trash truck. The trigger was 175 pounds and 20 inches of creep. The action blew open once and skint the heck out of my hand. Still trying to figure out how I avoided getting hit in the face with the bolt.
 
Last edited:
I never heard about quality issues til Remington took over....There may have been some....I just never heard about them....
 
Does anyone have any proof that Marlin quality was in the dumps before Remington took over? I've checked the web..and only find proof of poor QC after the takeover....Videos..pics..etc....?
 
Last edited:
Full disclosure, my current 32/20 94 CL spent a few months at Marlin's service center because of feeding issues and the older 94CL 25/20 just wouldn't shoot no matter what I did. The 39A for I've had 30 years or so and has never given me a problem and is very accurate.
 
Keg,
I didn't bother to take detailed photos in anticipation of any future need to prove anything to you, but I've worked with & owned several Marlins over the years, including a .308 version & the .410 shotgun version that came out a year or two before the buy.

I saw QC sliding in the two closest to the buyout, personally, myself, right here in hand.
Not as bad as after the move, but definitely noticeable in wood to metal fit, and machining.

Denis
 
Would not consider any of the new offerings unless they would chamber a few in .41 Rem. Mag., I would buy one no matter how crappy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top