Wondering how everyone who owns one is feeling about Ruger made Marlin quality. I want to add a 336 30-30 to my collection, but at this point will probably wait until they are available in stores to look at before buying one basis the ok quality I saw on the below 2 1895s.
I have 2, a 1895 trapper and SBL.
I’d say the laminated wood to metal fit is OK on both, but not great. A The fore ends on both look great , but the buttstock to receiver fit isn’t perfect (excess wood on both). I’ve seen worse.
The triggers on both were bad out of the box 6+ lbs and really gritty, feeling like it had 2 breaks instead of linear creep or a clean break. Had a local smith get them down to a clean 3.5 lbs for the Trapper and 4.25 for the SBL without having to go to a trigger kit or reduced power springs.
Some minor metal scratches from the factory. I bought a stainless Blackhawk this year that was quite marred new, so it could be worse I suppose.
The bore in both appears to be rough from tooling marks from the naked eye at the muzzle. I went through a barrel break in dance with the Trapper, which did seem to improve copper fouling some. I haven’t gotten there yet with the SBL. Still, from what I have read a rough bore from Ruger is typical, and removing copper fouling is a chore. I’m not expecting a hand lapped barrel, but this is on the worse end I’ve seen from my factory rifles.
Accuracy out of the trapper was good. I sighted in at 50, given the low power optic and expected hunting distances, and would say it’s probably a 1-2 MOA gun, which is fine for this type of gun. I did have one flyer shoot low 2 inches at 50, but I’m going to say I wouldn’t be surprised if I got a really low powder charge in factory ammo. I’m still doing a break in (shoot one and clean) on the SBL and haven’t mounted an optic, so don’t know how it groups yet.
Function seems to be fine, but IMO should be a baseline expectation vs something to rave about.
Overall, I’m not dissatisfied, but also not as wowed with the QA as the media coverage would indicate.
I have a couple of JMs in my safe from the 60-70s (336 in .44 and 1894 in 357), and would say the fit and finish are better on those two examples, but then my grandfather was a very picky gun collector so that doesn’t mean the JM samples on average compare more favorably.
There are a few manufacturers that you can order a rifle with both eyes closed and know it will be next to perfect (Tikka as an example, which isn’t fair given the materials, I know), but I’m going to place these in the “I’d rather see before I buy” camp, which is with most factory guns I’d want for more than a beater.
I have 2, a 1895 trapper and SBL.
I’d say the laminated wood to metal fit is OK on both, but not great. A The fore ends on both look great , but the buttstock to receiver fit isn’t perfect (excess wood on both). I’ve seen worse.
The triggers on both were bad out of the box 6+ lbs and really gritty, feeling like it had 2 breaks instead of linear creep or a clean break. Had a local smith get them down to a clean 3.5 lbs for the Trapper and 4.25 for the SBL without having to go to a trigger kit or reduced power springs.
Some minor metal scratches from the factory. I bought a stainless Blackhawk this year that was quite marred new, so it could be worse I suppose.
The bore in both appears to be rough from tooling marks from the naked eye at the muzzle. I went through a barrel break in dance with the Trapper, which did seem to improve copper fouling some. I haven’t gotten there yet with the SBL. Still, from what I have read a rough bore from Ruger is typical, and removing copper fouling is a chore. I’m not expecting a hand lapped barrel, but this is on the worse end I’ve seen from my factory rifles.
Accuracy out of the trapper was good. I sighted in at 50, given the low power optic and expected hunting distances, and would say it’s probably a 1-2 MOA gun, which is fine for this type of gun. I did have one flyer shoot low 2 inches at 50, but I’m going to say I wouldn’t be surprised if I got a really low powder charge in factory ammo. I’m still doing a break in (shoot one and clean) on the SBL and haven’t mounted an optic, so don’t know how it groups yet.
Function seems to be fine, but IMO should be a baseline expectation vs something to rave about.
Overall, I’m not dissatisfied, but also not as wowed with the QA as the media coverage would indicate.
I have a couple of JMs in my safe from the 60-70s (336 in .44 and 1894 in 357), and would say the fit and finish are better on those two examples, but then my grandfather was a very picky gun collector so that doesn’t mean the JM samples on average compare more favorably.
There are a few manufacturers that you can order a rifle with both eyes closed and know it will be next to perfect (Tikka as an example, which isn’t fair given the materials, I know), but I’m going to place these in the “I’d rather see before I buy” camp, which is with most factory guns I’d want for more than a beater.
. The bore is as smooth and shiny as a mirror and the wood fit is good, the fore stock is nearly as slim as the current Rugers and it will shoot MOA with HLR ammo and often with the Federal Hammer Down/Fusion.
