bet cha 20".......I just don't like the 'MR' S/N......

 

Fit and finish is nice, but if Marlin is still cutting the bolts, and using softer steel as Adam at Ranger Point Pricision reported some months back, I'm uninterested.

 

looks nice on the outside........

its whats on the inside that makes it go bang.......

 

It definetly was longer than 20". Maybe 22 or 24. I just didn't know Marlin made them like that. It definetly a remlin.

 

The octagon barrels look rounded off
Me personally would even consider a MR

 

if Marlin is still cutting the bolts, and using softer steel as Adam at Ranger Point Pricision reported some months back, I'm uninterested

Problem with that is as Paul Harvey would say, you never got the rest of the story. What Marlin does, as a lot of gun manufactures do is surface harden most of the moving parts in a gun. Probable ending up with a hardness about .010 deep which will last several life times if not tinkered with. When a gun smith like Ranger Point Precision starts removing metal from theses parts they stand a chance of screwing the pooch.

H&R owners run into this same problem when trying to lighten the trigger pull on their guns. When to much metal was removed to get to that joyful 2 pound trigger pull they discovered after several hundred rounds, the trigger pull was getting lighter and lighter. Eventually the gun becomes to unsafe to even load.

 

Your assumption is not an unsound, one. Surface hardening many parts was a matter of course at Marlin some years back. Those parts, like bolts, levers, and the like, would laugh at files and high speed cutters. Unfortunately this is no longer the case, and I have no reason to misreport it. Marlin work is the bulk of our business, and business would be even better if new 1894s, for example, were plentiful and of good quality. I wish that was the case...

AD

 

Your assumption is not an unsound, one. Surface hardening many parts was a matter of course at Marlin some years back. Those parts, like bolts, levers, and the like, would laugh at files and high speed cutters. Unfortunately this is no longer the case, and I have no reason to misreport it. Marlin work is the bulk of our business, and business would be even better if new 1894s, for example, were plentiful and of good quality. I wish that was the case...

Well.....all I know is twice I've talked to Marlin, second time just a few minutes ago and they assure me they have never changed the practice of surface hardening the bolts and other moving parts and they are still surface hardened. That's not internet conjecture so one can call them themselves and then decide for themselves which is correct. Me...well I still don't know who is correct and truthfully, I'm not really concerned about it at this point. Just passing information received directly from Marlin.

AD, just out of curiosity, have you run a hardness test on the Marlin parts and if so what was the Rockwell hardness results?

 

I haven't run a hardness test, so I'm afraid I don't have numbers for you. I have compared many rifles old and new though, and it's obvious the materials in the newer rifles are softer. In fairness, I believe at least some of these changes may have come about before Remington bought the company. I seem to recall working on at least a few later model JM rifles that had similarly softer steel, I just don't know what manufacture dates would have first been affected.

AD

 

One of our members that worked for Marlin before, during, and after the Freedom Group buy out said specifically that FG told the people in the plant that some operations that included hardening steel were being eliminated as a cost cutting decision. Ammunition handling components were among the hardening operations that were eliminated. Over the last several years, folks that frequent this site have reported having problems with ammunition handling after their rifle was been fired several hundred times. In particular, the Carrier. Other parts could also be affected as well, but I can only pass on what I remember reading.


Mike T.

 

The new octagon barrels are ugly!! Rounded edges and polished like the Henry's octagon barrels. I don't like the new CB rifles. Like I said in another post hold onto your JM octagon barreled rifles cause they won't ever make them like they used to! I would buy a Rossi octagon barrel before I buy any more new marlin octagons. I will not buy any new marlin lever action rifles ever. The wood looks like plastic and I am just not impressed or interest in the new ones. In my eyes Remington ruined the marlin lever rifle! Period!

 

AD, I applaud your honesty and will be looking forward to your test results when you get around to it.

 

Very informative. I Smiff rather new to the lever action platform, but not to Garands, 1903s and 1911s.
At wht point did the Marlin quality begin to suffer? Is there a know date or when the "JM" proof stamp ceased?

Thanks fellas....

 

Faawrenchbndr,
The FINAL "JM" PROOFMARKED NORTH HAVEN MARLIN RIFLES WERE MADE IN AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2010.

That's when we "Bagged & Tagged" ALL THE NORTH HAVEN MARLIN ASSEMBLY EQUIPMENT, and sent them off to Remington.

At that point Remington was ALREADY ASSEMBLING THEIR OWN "REP" MARLIN RIFLES using North Haven Marlin Made Parts, and Remington Made Parts.

 

I saw a brand new REP .44 the other day at the LGS. I looked it over carefully inside and out. Actually, I was impressed. They have come a long way in the past few years. The fit and finish was not bad at all. The internals looked fine. Of course I didn't get to shoot it.

That being said, opportunity presented a .44 JM. I'm glad I have the JM, it still has the edge as far as I'm concerned.

In the years to come, this will just be another debate, like the pre/post Win 64.

I will fully admit, a post 64 Winchester will never be a pre-64. I own several and cannot claim a post 64 has ever failed me. They are a fine firearm in their own right, but certainly not the same.

If they make one in .41 REP, you bet I'll step in line.

 

Here's my 1894 45LC 24" octagon barrel fun gun!

 

With regards to Andy from Ranger Point. Surface hardening, through hardening, and precipitating hardening a combination thereof are four different animals of metal characteristics. A comprehensive metallurgical study would have to be undertaken to determine the evolution (devolution) of Marlin's applications. You see the results and failures every day in your facility and it does not take a rocket scientist to determine that parts are failing in many of the new guns. It would be nice to know the definitive reason, but we may never know, Just by changing one little spec of the same garde of material can make a huge difference. An example is in the 8620 series. E8620 is electrical furnace grade, and E8620M, a newer kid on the block have their subtle differences.

Forging parts imparts totally different mechanical characteristics than investment casting, cold rolled or hot rolled material. I suspect the new Marlin, perhaps in a carry over of the failing Marlin may have made changes. You can case harden the lowest grade of steel so the surface is harder than a file, but under that case (.003-.018") thickness the material is still cheese. Picture an egg. I'm seeing historically that the 41XXX series of chrome moly and the 86XXX series of nickel toughened steels seem to work best in receivers, (barrel extensions) bolts and high stress parts. Most M16 barrel extensions are case hardened 8620 steel - a very common metal used in the gears of transmissions and differentials. An application that requires toughness, impact resistance, and anti wear that a cases hardened surface produces as long as the loads do not exceed the underlying material strength.

Using the wrong Rockwell scale on the wrong material will result in erroneous readings. Case hardened steel, for instance, requires a lighter load with a small diameter ball on the 'N' scale in order to not pierce the 'case depth'. The resultant reading is then converted to the 'C' scale to determine how hard the thin 'cased' surface is.

There are a myriad of other processes that if omitted can lead to premature failure. Tempering, stress relieving, shot peening, and cryogenic treatments add to the production costs, but if omitted will cause problems downstream. Overusing processes where not needed just adds cost making your product less competitive price wise. The savvy manufacturer will find that delicate balance to produce the most effective parts at the most effective cost.

I fear that many of these corporate takeovers do not fully appreciate what it takes to build a sound product, at a fair price, which results in a loyal customer base.

Companies with lacking ethical compass bearings or suffer from incompetence, ignorance, or even worse, disregard, will eventually fail in the market.

AC

 

algarete, once you get past the new gen haters and start looking around the forum a bit you'll notice a few things:

- "no where near as good as the old ones" - look into the stickies for "jams" or "triggers" - you'll see most dates PRECEEDING the new gen "devils"
- steel is not as good as the old one - look into replacing carriers posts - you'll see most dates PRECEEDING the new gen "devils"

just a "perspective sort of thing - I've got too many marlins (ask the frau) that are jm and - gasp - new gen.

and my new gen 94 which is a bit over a year and a half is approaching 2000 rounds - with no problems. must have won the lottery.

my 2012 guide gun is a honey and I won't get rid of it - but have been looking at one of the new stainless versions and they look pretty sweet, maybe, just maybe...

 

algarete, once you get past the new gen haters and start looking around the forum a bit you'll notice a few things:

- "no where near as good as the old ones" - look into the stickies for "jams" or "triggers" - you'll see most dates PRECEEDING the new gen "devils"
- steel is not as good as the old one - look into replacing carriers posts - you'll see most dates PRECEEDING the new gen "devils"

just a "perspective sort of thing - I've got too many marlins (ask the frau) that are jm and - gasp - new gen.

and my new gen 94 which is a bit over a year and a half is approaching 200 rounds - with no problems. must have won the lottery.

my 2012 guide gun is a honey and I won't get rid of it - but have been looking at one of the new stainless versions and they look pretty sweet, maybe, just maybe...

You're probably right, just by the average of numbers produced. When you manufacture a million guns and screw up 20,000 vs 100,000 guns and screw up 99,000, your still looking at a better gun from the original Marlin.

I'm with Mr Fixit, hopefully by 2021 things might be better....but the road their on, I doubt it.

 

Whoa nelly!! Remlin finally produced a good firearm? :biggrin:

"my 2021 guide gun is a honey and I won't get rid of it - but have been looking at one of the new stainless versions and they look pretty sweet, maybe, just maybe... "

 

Well as always an interesting discussion.
I currently own 4 Marlin lever guns, all of them JMs with cross bolt safeties. They all seem to be well built but none are perfect. At least two of them are unlikely to ever be produced again (444P and 1894 CB Ltd 24") so they will stay here as long as I do. That said, if a new Rem built Marlin was produced / chambered in some oddball / intriguing cartridge, I would definitely take a look.
Phil

 

I wonder what model of marlin, that you will be able to buy in 2021, one- two or none ??

 

Actually, by then, Remington will have probably absorbed the entire name and there will be no "Marlins". So get ready for a Remington 1894 in the future, unless they sell the line and someone re-establishes the Marlin Company.

 

So can anybody answer if the new 1894 cowboys are lighter than the regular round barrel rifles? I handled a new 1895 with 18.5 octagon barrel and it very light.

 

I was surprised by this too. I didn't weigh them, but its noticeably lighter than the 26". It still feels heavier than a round barrel to me, but not by much - maybe 1/2 lb. The balance is different; it feels further forward. It seems more compact, so it's kind of hard to tell. I do like it, but then I'm a sucker for any lever.

 

No one will overcome the bias that the JM purists hold against the new Marlins. I have recently gone through 5 Marlins. The two cowboys, one a 30-30 the other a 38-55 and my 94 32-20 CL are used as out of the box. One might want to do a trigger job or whatever but they work good enough for me. The 2 Waffletops gave problems from the start. While I have not tried it, I doubt if I could get a two consequetive good 5 shot groups from the 35. I ahd to loosen things up to get one good 3 shot group. Same for the 30-30 carbine. Also the carbine would not sight in with a receiver sight, I had to get a new front sight. I had the other 3 to get a height that works. Nothing major as they both funstioned well but had problems. When the comments were made about the JM's not being perfect, I can totally agree.

DP