|
| DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL Replies to this email are not monitored. If you need to follow-up on this request, please use this link. |
| Thank you for contacting Ruger Customer Service. Your Customer Service Issue # is 10233110 Jeffrey: Our purchase of Marlin from Remington Outdoor Company was not for an operational firearms manufacturing company, but rather for the assets associated with the Marlin brand. Specifically, the product designs, intellectual property, machinery and tooling required to make these great products. At this stage, because we do not have the parts, equipment, or expertise required to service existing, pre-Ruger, Marlin firearms, we cannot honor any warranty offered by the Remington Outdoor Company. We hope you understand the constraints that limit our ability to service firearms made prior to our acquisition. In the future, we certainly will offer service of Marlin firearms produced by Ruger utilizing the same high standards we have had in place for over 70 years. If your Marlin firearm requires immediate repair or service, we recommend that you stop using it and contact a competent local gunsmith. You can also locate the independent service center closest to you at MarlinFirearms.com/owner-support. These independent service centers can help you with your ongoing repair and service requirements. Please note that Ruger is not affiliated with these service centers and we offer their contact information as a courtesy only. As such, you will need to work directly with the particular service center to arrange for payment of any charges associated with the service or repair. We recommend that you have a clear understanding of any charges before authorizing the work. Ruger Customer Service |
What happens with the Marlin and Remington Warranties ?
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Annnnnnnnd there you have it. Succinctly put, understandable and hopefully a starting point for a much better Ruger made Marlin.This is the reply I finally received today
![Ruger Customer Service]()
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL
Replies to this email are not monitored. If you need to follow-up on this request, please use this link.Thank you for contacting Ruger Customer Service.
Your Customer Service Issue # is 10233110
Jeffrey:
Our purchase of Marlin from Remington Outdoor Company was not for an operational firearms manufacturing company, but rather for the assets associated with the Marlin brand. Specifically, the product designs, intellectual property, machinery and tooling required to make these great products.
At this stage, because we do not have the parts, equipment, or expertise required to service existing, pre-Ruger, Marlin firearms, we cannot honor any warranty offered by the Remington Outdoor Company. We hope you understand the constraints that limit our ability to service firearms made prior to our acquisition. In the future, we certainly will offer service of Marlin firearms produced by Ruger utilizing the same high standards we have had in place for over 70 years.
If your Marlin firearm requires immediate repair or service, we recommend that you stop using it and contact a competent local gunsmith. You can also locate the independent service center closest to you at MarlinFirearms.com/owner-support. These independent service centers can help you with your ongoing repair and service requirements. Please note that Ruger is not affiliated with these service centers and we offer their contact information as a courtesy only. As such, you will need to work directly with the particular service center to arrange for payment of any charges associated with the service or repair. We recommend that you have a clear understanding of any charges before authorizing the work.
Ruger Customer Service
Joined
·
950 Posts
It doesn't have parts. Really? Where did the parts go? Maybe vendors? Were the parts considered junk? If so, why would someone else buy them? It seems like another way of avoiding assuming cost. It will probably be happy to sell parts in a few months, just my 2¢.
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Guns have warranty?
Ruger probably didn't buy any of the spare parts. Why would they? Ruger won't warrant the repairs and surely won't build guns with Remlin parts. Parts were probably auctioned off or sold in bulk to high bidder. When a new vehicle dealership is sold, the new owners almost never take any of the used car inventory.
Ruger probably didn't buy any of the spare parts. Why would they? Ruger won't warrant the repairs and surely won't build guns with Remlin parts. Parts were probably auctioned off or sold in bulk to high bidder. When a new vehicle dealership is sold, the new owners almost never take any of the used car inventory.
Joined
·
950 Posts
I figured that everything was not bad: stocks, forearms, barrels, and alike. Yet, who knows. I would not doubt the auction. But, that seems to support that the parts had some value. At any rate, things come, and things go. Nothing lasts forever. It just seems better to start a business with some inventory than no inventory. Then again, I have not worked in a manufacturing plant. So, getting rid of all inventory may be a good thing. However, it would seem like that it would take the business longer to start production again. If nothing else, the parts could have been used for practice. But, that is just me.
Joined
·
4 Posts
A few weeks back It was reported on another firearms forum that the bulk of the Marlin assets purchased by Ruger were the CAD Files/intellectual property for Marlin Firearms and possibly one piece of equipment, that being a machine used for or involved with rifling barrels (Still waiting on confirmation of that info) and that equipment was reported to be on the move out west to Ruger when that info was posted a few weeks back.
Ruger's Statement concerning warranty options for "Legacy" Marlin products does not surprise me one bit. I went through this about 8 or 9 years ago when Charles Daily went out of business and I needed some parts. Not surprisingly, Numrich bought all the spare parts & pieces during Charles Daily's bankruptcy. I went through the same thing with an older Rossi Lever Action.
You can bet somebody got their hands on all the spare parts that Marlin had in stock during the company's sale/breakup. They did not get tossed in a dumpster behind the warehouse.... although I have seen crazier things happen......... Anybody on this forum have a connection over at Numrich ?
Ruger's Statement concerning warranty options for "Legacy" Marlin products does not surprise me one bit. I went through this about 8 or 9 years ago when Charles Daily went out of business and I needed some parts. Not surprisingly, Numrich bought all the spare parts & pieces during Charles Daily's bankruptcy. I went through the same thing with an older Rossi Lever Action.
You can bet somebody got their hands on all the spare parts that Marlin had in stock during the company's sale/breakup. They did not get tossed in a dumpster behind the warehouse.... although I have seen crazier things happen......... Anybody on this forum have a connection over at Numrich ?
Two things that might help understanding the whys.
Ruger bought assets out of bankruptcy, from a company that failed, and was widely thought to be making inferior products. Taking on the warranties for those products would be a poor business decision, even if it would seem to be a nice thing for them to do. The other problem is assuming a warranty, for the failed previous company, could also expose Ruger to product liability lawsuits for those failed manufacturer's products,certainly any they repaired. It's just how warranty law works. It's why many manufacturers have a "service policy", rather that a warranty.
As far as parts, as was said before, it would be unwise to use any previously made parts by a failed company.. I myself bought a couple parts from Remlin that turned out to be all but unuseable, since they weren't to spec. Also, since they have been in bankruptcy, there likely wasn't that many parts lying around anyway. Not paying your bills, usually results in slowed or stopped shipments of raw goods or sub contracted parts.
Hopefully Ruger manufactures parts to the original and correct specs.At least replacement parts to fix older guns should be available then. I have a feeling Ruger may be at least helpful for those with previously manufactured guns, even if they don't have a written policy to do so.
Ruger bought assets out of bankruptcy, from a company that failed, and was widely thought to be making inferior products. Taking on the warranties for those products would be a poor business decision, even if it would seem to be a nice thing for them to do. The other problem is assuming a warranty, for the failed previous company, could also expose Ruger to product liability lawsuits for those failed manufacturer's products,certainly any they repaired. It's just how warranty law works. It's why many manufacturers have a "service policy", rather that a warranty.
As far as parts, as was said before, it would be unwise to use any previously made parts by a failed company.. I myself bought a couple parts from Remlin that turned out to be all but unuseable, since they weren't to spec. Also, since they have been in bankruptcy, there likely wasn't that many parts lying around anyway. Not paying your bills, usually results in slowed or stopped shipments of raw goods or sub contracted parts.
Hopefully Ruger manufactures parts to the original and correct specs.At least replacement parts to fix older guns should be available then. I have a feeling Ruger may be at least helpful for those with previously manufactured guns, even if they don't have a written policy to do so.
Joined
·
950 Posts
Marlin failed? I thought Remington filed bankruptcy? I don't know the details of the bankruptcy. I guess that is was to pay the victims' families and lawyers. Maybe, buying the wood and metal was at a high cost. But in the midst of the pandemic, it may be harder to come by.
Yet, Ruger does not offer a warranty. So, why start now? And, that is understandable and respectable. It just seem wood is wood, and metal is metal. There are probably only so many producers. It just seem like a good idea to have some material around. Especially, material that intended for the product being built. I am pretty happy with my 2016 336W and 2019 1894C. Yes, some of the screws seem cheap. But, the barrel, receiver, bolt, forearm, and stock seem fine. Plus, they shoot pretty straight as well, if I do my part.
As far as warranty, I don't expect the firearms will require service, in the near future. It just seem odd that a company would let material, intended for its product, pass through its hands. However, I am on the outside looking in. Nonetheless, it is what it is.
If I am really that concern about a warranty, a Henry would be a nice choice. My H009 shoots fine also. And, it is backed by a lifetime (life of the firearm) warranty. With the addition of the loading gate, Marlin may lose that advantage. Then, there is the no warranty. Marlin may have a hard time, just trying to survive. In my opinion, Ruger will really have to do something for people to consider a Marlin. But, that is just my opinion.
Yet, Ruger does not offer a warranty. So, why start now? And, that is understandable and respectable. It just seem wood is wood, and metal is metal. There are probably only so many producers. It just seem like a good idea to have some material around. Especially, material that intended for the product being built. I am pretty happy with my 2016 336W and 2019 1894C. Yes, some of the screws seem cheap. But, the barrel, receiver, bolt, forearm, and stock seem fine. Plus, they shoot pretty straight as well, if I do my part.
As far as warranty, I don't expect the firearms will require service, in the near future. It just seem odd that a company would let material, intended for its product, pass through its hands. However, I am on the outside looking in. Nonetheless, it is what it is.
If I am really that concern about a warranty, a Henry would be a nice choice. My H009 shoots fine also. And, it is backed by a lifetime (life of the firearm) warranty. With the addition of the loading gate, Marlin may lose that advantage. Then, there is the no warranty. Marlin may have a hard time, just trying to survive. In my opinion, Ruger will really have to do something for people to consider a Marlin. But, that is just my opinion.
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Doesn't seem hard at all to understand.
Joined
·
950 Posts
Maybe. But, how many would buy a new car, truck, SUV, boat, washer, dryer, house, A\C, chainsaw, etc. without a warranty? When things go south, most want them repaired. Not stating that Ruger will not address issues. I just am more comfortable with some type of reassurance (which is probably why a lot of people purchase a firearm). I don't own a Ruger. And, don't know if I will: S&W has a lifetime service warranty. Yet, time will tell. But, that is just me.
Joined
·
82 Posts
If you have to worry about what kind of warranty your gun has, maybe you need to buy a better gun!
Joined
·
950 Posts
That has not been my experiences. But, to each their own. A person is free to spend, what funds he or she may have, the way he or she chooses. Choices are what define us. It is best to choose wisely. Money can only be spent once. Once it is gone, it is gone.
Some plan for a rainy day, and others do not. Yet, rain will come. The one who plans has a good day, regardless what comes his or her way (Matthew 25:1-13).
Joined
·
124 Posts
Well, it is clear from the bankruptcy document that the buyers (Vsta, Roundhill, Ruger, etc) will have no liability for any warranties that Remington would have had to honor.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-11eb-842e-13eb29912fe2/5f7398aa26c61.pdf.pdf
Wording used throughout the court order approving the sale...
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-11eb-842e-13eb29912fe2/5f7398aa26c61.pdf.pdf
Wording used throughout the court order approving the sale...
From what I have read, the buyers assume no liability for health plans, etc, either. I suspect the non-transfer of liabilities included union contracts.
Joined
·
124 Posts
There has been speculation on some forums that Roundhill will not have the ability to use the Remington name in its manufacturing of firearms.
When it comes to the Remington name and trademarks, Vista owns them for the purposes of producing ammo, but Roundhill owns them for the purposes of producing guns. (Not unusual - Winchester guns and Winchester ammo are seperate companies that both use the same names and logos.)
The Roundhill Group LLC bought the "Firearms Business," not just Remington's physical assets. "Business" is defined in the court documents as follows:
It appears to me that the "firearms business" will be able to produce, for instance "Remington 870 Wingmasters" under the Remington name, and use all the Remington Trademarks that Remington Outdoors owned in it's "firearms business."
I don't think Vista could build guns under the Remington name because it would violate Roundhill's exclusive right to make guns under those names and trademarks. Likewise, I don't think Roundhill could start manufacturing ammo under the "Remington" name because it would violate Vista's exclusive right to make ammo under those names and trademarks. Roundhill owns "Remington" for the purposes of building guns. Vista owns "Remington" for the purposes of making ammo.
Ruger bought the "Marlin Firearms Business" and the Marlin names and all Marlin-associated trademarks.
This is a collection of the court documents totalling thousands of pages. It's all in there.
Prime Clerk
When it comes to the Remington name and trademarks, Vista owns them for the purposes of producing ammo, but Roundhill owns them for the purposes of producing guns. (Not unusual - Winchester guns and Winchester ammo are seperate companies that both use the same names and logos.)
The Roundhill Group LLC bought the "Firearms Business," not just Remington's physical assets. "Business" is defined in the court documents as follows:
It appears to me that the "firearms business" will be able to produce, for instance "Remington 870 Wingmasters" under the Remington name, and use all the Remington Trademarks that Remington Outdoors owned in it's "firearms business."
I don't think Vista could build guns under the Remington name because it would violate Roundhill's exclusive right to make guns under those names and trademarks. Likewise, I don't think Roundhill could start manufacturing ammo under the "Remington" name because it would violate Vista's exclusive right to make ammo under those names and trademarks. Roundhill owns "Remington" for the purposes of building guns. Vista owns "Remington" for the purposes of making ammo.
Ruger bought the "Marlin Firearms Business" and the Marlin names and all Marlin-associated trademarks.
This is a collection of the court documents totalling thousands of pages. It's all in there.
Prime Clerk
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!