Home Forums Lever Action Central Lever Actions - General Remlin - getting their act together?

Looked at a brand new Marlin 336XLR today, haven't seen them on the shelves for a while, and I have to say I was favorably impressed. Wood to metal fit was very good, trigger pull was typical for a lever action but broke cleanly with no creep and working the action was very smooth.

Had crossed Remlin off the list a few years ago after seeing the poor fit of stocks and other signs of poor quality, but I had heard they bought new tooling and apparently they are getting their act together.

What are you guys seeing in the most recent production - good quality overall or did I just happen to look at a Tuesday rifle?

From what I've observed and heard, they have made great strides in getting things together.

The manufacturing personnel have had time to get proficient. I work in manufacturing, and it's basically an evolutionary process for an individual to be hired, then trained, then gain the practical skills whereas he learns how he influences quality.

The ones with pride in their work are a joy to have on your team. Some of them get damn good about making a good product even with fussy machinery and anticipating batch-to-batch variations.

Truthfully, right now is a bad time to be buying a gun from any manufacturer. Gun sales are at an all time high and they're all pushing to put product out the door as fast as they can. Quality always suffers under such conditions. I'm convinced the years of the Obama administration will go down in the annals of firearms history as some of the worst ever for quality.

Especially a Remington product.Remington had had it's share of recalls and delays in shipping new gun offerings.

Doc

have many JM Marlins and 2 Remlins, the Remlins shoot better than any of the JM's. the fit and finish of the newer Remlins are nice in the better grades,not so much in the lower grades.
just worked on 2 336's for a friend. number 1 had a 14lb trigger. would lock up if it wasn't fast cycled. took about 5 hours and polishing of all contact points to get it real.
gave it back with a 5.5 lb pull. any less would have been dangerous.
number 2 took 4 hours of polish to make it smooth. the trigger felt like dragging backhoe teeth across blacktop.
these were w models

I have one in 45-70 and have had none of the problems that were there in the first ones produced.

Been playing with one that my bud bought this year in 44 mag.the only thing that had to be done to it to get it to group was to shorten the magazine cap screw some because it was to long.

They are as much fun as a 22,just a hoot to shoot.

Is there a quick easy way to tell if they are recent manufacture?

Well, Yogi Berra put it this way "you can observe a lot just by looking."

You have a point.

I'd say anything since 2014 is a good bet, but obviously the newer, the better. And, if you can have a look at more than one of the model you want, even better. Date codes are Remington's codes, and are online.

RemLin's S/N should begin with 'MR'

along with Ilion NY on barrel........less 'JM' stamp

too many real good Marlins out there F/S to take a chance

on a RemLin.....for me anyway......one of my fav's here..

'73 44M Octagon.....

Beautiful rifle, sir.

i checked out a 1896G this weekend and it looked really good except for the forearms checkering was fuzzy.

The new Remington manufactured Marlins look much better than the three JM Marlins I've owned. Won't buy a JM again.

No JM stamp on the barrel, serial number will begin with 92,91, 90, or MR.

http://www.gunvaluesboard.com/marlin-serial-numbers-dates-of-manufacture-1664.html

Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You could not give me any of the Remlins I have seen.

Here is a link to the Remington barrel date codes. This should be what all the current Marlin guns have for stamp marks.


http://www.leeroysramblings.com/Gun%20Articles/remington_barrel_date_code.html

+1. My hunting buddies and myself have owned many JM's. The latest Rem are better rifles.

More to a quality firearm than how it looks. I have to wonder if there's any truth to the talk on marlinowners that Remington isn't properly heat treating the levers and cartridge lifters in their rifles. Folks over there say they're not and the parts wear quickly. I'd like to run some through the hardness tester at work out of curiosity.

Blackheart, just run a file or stone even along a hidden part of the lever and you have the answer to that.
i worked on a pair of 336c's for a friend.
he bought them for his young sons. i had to put 5 hours each in them to get the trigger pulls down to 5+/- pounds form 12.5 and 14.5
you would get a cramp in your trigger finger on the 14.5

cycling one was decent out of the box. the other would lock up half way through the throw.
Rem has put some kind of finish on these guns that reminds me of a rino liner spray on. ant that is inside and outside.
granted these were bottom level models but they were so far below any JM ever produced it was sickening.

The way it was explained to me:
At the Marlin factory there were old hands that new how to assemble their rifles. When Remington and Marlin merged the old hands were lost. Marlin had poor drawings and I insufficient or in complete drawings. The first Remington Marlins were not so nice since Remington manufactures strictly on detailed drawings.
The new Remington Marlins are manufactured to corrected drawings.

There are few if any errors in the new rifles.

My first rifle was a Marlin 57 after a stint with a single shot 22. The Marlin was a 22 that looked a lot like Savage 99's. It was a very accurate rifle. The trigger pull was immeasurable. My dad, a mechanical engineer and a good gunsmith, was sure the safety was on. He wanted to send it back with comments. But my brother and I walked bean fields all summer and we wanted a lever action. So dad stoned surfaces and eliminated reverse angles and got the trigger to about 5 lb.
eventually the rifle shot hot powder back to the shooters eyes. I can't say I was impressed with old Marlin quality or design.

That's funny, I was always impressed with Marlins dollar value and I've probably owned 30 of them over the years. I currently have 5 and all have been exceptionally good performers. My 1992 336 in .30-30 will shoot honest MOA 3 shot groups with ammo it likes and has never malfunctioned in 24 years of regular use. My 1990 882 .22 mag. is the most accurate .22 mag. I've ever owned and I've had a dozen from several different manufacturers over the past 40 years, some of which cost more than twice as much as the Marlin. It has never malfunctioned or required repair with thousands of rounds down the pipe. My 1976 989m2 semi auto .22 shoots 5 shot groups under an inch at 50 yards and never jams with good qualty ammo so long as it's kept reasonably clean. I'd hate to try to estimate how many tens of thousands of rounds have gone down it's barrel in 40 years and yet the only part I've ever replaced is the synthetic recoil buffer. But hey, if there's one thing I've learned on the campfire it's that even though I started gunsmithing professionally in 1990 and am still earning a living building guns today there are many here whose opinions are FAR more informed than my own.

Not maybe informed, but definitely different experience. My first Marlin lever center fire was a 444. It was quite plain. I couldn't shoot cast bullets in it unless they were nearly inside the case. I shoot cast bullets a lot and cast bullets in a 444 would make sense, but not in that Marlin. Next Marlin was a 30-30 the cross pin that held the tube in place would bend until the tube would slide out. Later I found parts from a later Marlin that had a larger cross pin. That rifle is plain also.

To me Marlin JM's are a cheap cheap rifle. Granted they improved over the years, but I have not wanted to spend my jingle on them. I have an Model 64 30-30 and a Model 94 32 Special, both Winchesters. I like both. I still have a Marlin 30-30 but it's ugly in my eyes.

With this I just gotta ask, what was holding your mag tube spring plug in ? You know, that little screw that goes through the mag tube, through the mag tube spring plug and into a hole in the uderside of the barrel ? In my experience it'd be pretty tough to get the mag tube out with that screw in place and pretty unlikely to retain the mag tube spring if it's not.

It was the parts 28 and 29 -- from schematic from Numerich Arms. See above -- Part 43 would slide out and stop the functioning of loading. Also parts would fall to ground

But screw 46 that goes through part 45 and into a hole in the bottom of part 1 would still prevent part 43 from going anywhere if screw 29 were to skip it's slot.

The screw went into 45. It kept 45 from coming out of 43. However, 43 fell out of the receiver. Part 46 is on the opposite end of the receiver from 28. Thus the whole assembly slid out.
Before I could find the larger pin I tried several ways to keep that tube in.
Granted the new pin works and it is keeping the tube in the receiver.
I have the rifle on my lap and if you'd like I could take pictures of this assembly to prove what I'm saying.

I'm just saying that many of the early Marlins were not as good as later ones. The rifles have improved, but there was a lot of room for improvement. My model 57 was bought in the 60's or late 50's. That rifle had many problems.

The Remington Marlins look better (IMHO), they are made more consistently. The old Marlins were fitted by talented people but Marlin needed engineers to keep things consistant. They also improved the rifles by trial and error.
Again they had too few engineers for too long in my opinion. But that is my opinion based on my experience.
I have no issues with others that think the old Marlins were great. I don't.

Screw #29 does not touch part 45 at all. It goes horizontally through the barrel band {part 28} and through a slot in the underside of the barrel {part 1} and the upper side of the mag tube {part 43}. Screw #46 goes vertically through the mag tube
[part 43} and mag tube spring plug {part 45} and into a hole in the underside of the barrel {part 1}.

Sorry you are wrong. The screw does not go into the barrel. I will take a picture of this and post it. There is no hole in the barrel. No threads. No way to do what you say. Perhaps after you see the picture you will understand that Marlin was improving by trial and error.

By geezus I am not wrong. That screw goes through the mag tube, the mag tube spring plug and into a hole on the underside of the barrel, just like I said. You might as well remove yourself from this as you are clearly an idiot.

No hole in barrel, no way the screw can go into the barrel. Just another example of trial and error by Marlin if they had this screw into the barrel later.

You've either got the wrong screw in there or it's backed out several turns. I've had a bunch of these things from every decade from the 1950's to 2000's and have never run across one that didn't have a flush fitting, recessed mag tube spring plug screw that went through into a hole in the underside of the barrel.

That screw could very well be the wrong screw the original had failed and this one came from Numerich a long time ago. But, there isn't a hole all the way through to the barrel. I would have to drill a hole to get that done.

It's my experience that quality varied a lot. Also the engineering was poor on early Marlins.

I'm not happy with ones I've owned.

Like I said, I've never seen one that didn't have a hole all the way through the mag tube, the mag tube plug and in the bottom of the barrel for that screw. If that were my rifle I'd get the proper mag tube plug and screw and make it right rather than leave it goobered as is.

Still there's no hole in the bottom of the barrel for a screw to enter. Do you suppose someone replaced the barrel and put another barrel on that said Marlin on it?

I was thinking maybe some Goober shortened the barrel at some point and for whatever reason didn't drill a new hole after. What model does it say it is on the barrel ? Marlin made various models with 24" barrels in the past. Another possibility is that it may have been a half magazine model inexpertly converted to a full length. Whatever the case I'd make it right.

My point is that Marlin's rifles were not always that "good". I do have a 35 Remington model that I picked up that may be ok. I have not tried it out. The first one I had was sent to a gunsmith and he had a lot of work on his hands to make it right. The model 57 I had was filled with issues. trigger pull that was off the charts, powder being blown back into the shooters face etc.. This 30-30 lever action with the tube sliding out due to a weak cross pin (not the screw you want to keep bringing up)The screw has nothing to do with the tube sliding back. There is no screw into the barrel on my 35 Remington and there wasn't on the previous one. The barrel was not changed out. I through that out sarcasm. It is amazing to me that you will continue to try to make an issue out of this screw, when the problem was the tube sliding out. I replaced the weak cross pin with a larger one that Marlin evidently figured out the rifle needed.

It's not that I hate pre-Remington Marlins. It's that their quality (pre Remington Marlins) were all over the map. I blame this on individuals working on these rifles with little engineering support and drawings. A good builder built nice rifles. New or slack or maybe Friday builds were not so great.

Remington has straightened out these variations by providing drawings and standards. If there's issues with workmanship, it will have nothing to do with the workings of the rifle, but it will have to do with two things:

1. individuals building the rifle not paying attention to quality finish
2. lack of management review of quality work.

I believe that these too have been addressed, but on this I may be wrong. I don't think so though.

I hope you get over your 'screw' theory

Older Marlins were put together rather well. There is a period prior to Remington acquiring Marlin where quality was bad, especially towards the end. I bought a 444 Marlin in 2004 brand new. The screw hole for the front sight was drilled all the way through the barrel wall into the bore. Probably wasn't an end of the world issue, but regardless, I sent it back to Marlin to be re-barrelled. I carefully packed the rifle in foam so it would not be damaged or marred in shipping. Imagine my surprise when I got it back to find multiple scratches on parts of the rifle's metal when I got it back. I called Marlin and complained. I had them send me a new forecap and several other pieces so I could replace the scratched parts.

Go f*ck yourself then you rotten know it all bastard. There is too a f*ckin screw that goes exactly where I said it does. I've got my Marlin 336 in my goddam hand right now and I'm lookin right at the f*ckin thing you azzhole. I've had a bunch of these things and worked on a bunch more and know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You on the other hand, wouldn't know how to judge the quality and design of a firearm if you had it shoved up your azz. Now STFU and go find somebody who gives a shyt about your ignorant, uninformed opinion cuz it sure as hell ain't me.

Ain't a Remlin made today of the quality of my 1948 336 A-DL. [img:center][/img]

Ok, I guess I'm the butt of a joke. There's no screw going into the barrel. Good one, you got me. I dug out my 35 Remington.
Here's pictures.

j

I admit you had me going there. I even dug out my 35 Remington. Good joke. As you already knew the screw does not go into the barrel. Haha. The joke was on me.

Every damn one I've ever seen, including every one of the several 336's and 3 1894's I've owned it goes through into the barrel, just exactly like a model 94 Winchester. I don't know WTF you did to yours.

I bought them that way. AND there's no hole in the barrel and I believe you are pulling my leg. The last 35 Rem didn't have one either. Same with my 30-30.

Bugger - Blackheart doesn't know what he's talking about - I have three 336's and none of them have a screw that keeps the mag cap on that goes into the barrel. Mine look exactly like yours.

Granted - the pin/screw that goes into the barrel band DOES go through a notch in the barrel, but even it doesn't screw into the barrel....

The one I have here was made in 1992 and it definitely does go through and into a hole in the barrel. I checked the two my brother owns the other day and they both go through too. Both of his are also JM guns produced in the 90's. I made a point of checking them just because of this discussion. None of the screws are THREADED into the barrel and I never said they were. They are a two diameter screw that threads into the magazine plug and have an unthreaded section that sticks through into a hole in the underside of the barrel. Just like the Winchester 94's mag plug screws.

Mine are late 70's/early 80's....never seen the screw actually thread into the barrel.....

The screw is actually a safety device, if a round goes of in the mag tube, the cap is supposed to come off easily, releasing the pressure rapidly. Threading into the barrel would make it much harder to come off in the event of a round going off, defeating the safety that was designed into it.

Safety device my azz. I have two Winchester 94's here, one from 1949 and one from 1979 and both use the same type of screw my Marlin has. They all go through the mag tube plug and into an UNTHREADED hole in the underside of the barrel. I guess John Browning and Winchester didn't think of this safety feature ? Beyond that, my Rossi 92 also uses the exact same setup. Guess they didn't get your safety feature memo either. In the unlikely event {actually unheard of so long as round/flat nosed bullets are used as has been advised by the arms and ammo makers for over a century now} that a round did go off in the mag tube, the plug coming out a little easier wouldn't help. The mag tube is far too thin to contain much pressure at all and they rupture easily. I've seen pictures of more than one rifle that did have rounds go off in the mag tube and they were split wide open. One local gunsmith here kept one on display in a glass counter display for years and that tube was split wide open too. He had a sign in there stating something to the effect that this is what can happen if you don't heed the warnings to use only round or flat nosed bullets in a tubular magazine.