Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Two rifle factories, interesting contrasts

So FN gathers up the iconic Model 70, leaves New Haven, and starts building them in South Carolina. The reviews seem to be uniformly positive.

Remington/Freedom Group decides to move Marlin production, and the buzz is things are not so good anymore.

Sure would be interesting and educational to figure out what was done right, and wrong at both plants...

Freedom Group is owned by a private equity fund; all about the profits. Cut a buck in cost and it trickles down to the bottom line.

Wonder how long the good ole 39 will last? Pretty expensive little gun to produce.

Isn't every company, in a way? Every for-profit organization in existence is out there to make profit. The objective is to increase shareholder equity, and the way each company accomplishes that task is different for each. Some use a strategy of low cost, low price, high-volume goods, others invest more into the cost of their products, recognizing that quality sells, and they get their profits back by selling higher priced items.

I think that FN has made smarter strategic decisions than the Freedom Group, but both are an ongoing concern because they want to make profits and increase the equity of their shareholders.

I've been concerned with buying Remington firearms since the 1980s. Marlin went on that list after they were bought and moved a little while ago. I've never felt that way about FN though.

WRT Marlin, the impression I got was the equipment move and new machine operators have caused problems.

The only constant is change.

All of my Remington rifles are from 95 - 2002 and they have all been excellent rifles.

Can't speak for anything newer.

It sure seems that Marlin has taken a hit.


Hope they recover

Snake

I'm wagering FN also expects to turn profits on M70's. That's the nature of private business - you make stuff that people want to buy, and sell it for more than your cost - or else go under.

I was more referring to what technical issues FN mastered, that were fumbled in the Marlin move.

My hope is people will understand the VALUE of the model 39. I'm of the opinion that your .22lr ought to be one of your best rifles 'cause you're likely to shoot it more. In just under 25 years I actually wore a 39 out that I bought new. I was a bit bummed when I realized it was basically beyond economic repair, but then again, I was a little proud of having put that many rounds through that rifle. It was nearly smooth bore and there was a LOT of slop in the bolt which made ignition very spotty. I sold it off as parts, and bought a Browning BL-22 Grade 2 which is very nice, but not as good as a Marlin 39. Later I handed the Browning BL-22 down to my youngest daughter because she really liked it. I replaced the Browning with a Winchester 61 that I found in like new condition. I have to say, I very much prefer the pump action Winchester, but I�ll always have soft spot in my heart for the Magnificent Marlin Model 39.

Seemed to me that Marlin was suffering quite a bit before the purchase and move. I saw and experienced some real quality control issues for at least a couple of years prior to their takeover. I wonder if the workers know something was coming and their committment changed, and/or if there were some serious cost-cutting moves during this period to save a potentially failing company?

"Seemed to me that Marlin was suffering quite a bit before the purchase and move. I saw and experienced some real quality control issues for at least a couple of years prior to their takeover."

Agree, but a lot of Marlin fans seem to be conveniently forgetting this and blaming everything on the new owners. There were problems with Marlin before the buy & move.

I understand though that things got worse, I believe in part because a lot of the skilled long-time Marlin employees were let go - and their knowledge of how to work with the old machinery was lost. Just what I've heard & read though.

Re the new FN Winchesters... Yeah, those are some mighty fine rifles... No doubt!

WOW! You " actually wore a 39 out that (I) bought new". This means that put sure put a lot of bullets down the barrel. Any idea how many?

That's not a very good way of bragging up a 39...

My 10/22 was built in 1968 and my dad gave it to me after shooting a bajillion rounds through it.

It has needed all new springs, a firing pin and extractor. They sell for $249.99.

Based on your experience I'd say the 39 is totally [bleep].


Travis

I think perception is a large factor here. Remington/Freedom/Cerberus would have taken a lot less flak if Marlin had shut down before they bought them. I don't really know the company's financial status at the time, so I don't know whether that was a plausible reality or not. Either way, enthusiasts are almost always happy to see a favored brand 'revived' from the ashes, but are rarely happy to see someone 'come in and mess with' it.

Every 22LR ever manufactured would be my guess.


Travis

I doubt I could count that high. For the first 12 years it saw a horrendous volume of ammo. A friend had some basically swamp land with a bunch of dead trees; hundreds of them. We would go out with 3-4 bricks of ammo each once or twice a week and literally cut down trees with concentrated fire�it�s like we just never got tired of it. I�ve never done the math, but man it was a LOT of ammo, and due to the fact that it was receiving high volume of fire once or twice a week, it rarely got cleaned but around once a year. Actually repairing the action wouldn�t have been too tough. I could have either replaced the lever and bolt, or welded them up and re-fit. But the barrel was going to be well over $250.00. Being that I could get a new one for a little over $400 it just didn�t make sense to me.

Well you have to understand that the 39 is a locked breech, and the 10/22 isn�t, so there�s nothing to become peened with the 10/22.

Aesthetically, the gun looked in nearly new condition, all the bluing was still there and I had refinished the wood to look new. With the barrel severely worn, It still shot remarkably well. It was the misfires that were getting to me. I probably could have swapped the bolt and lever and put her back in business with the worn out barrel and be fine, but I knew I�d have to replace the barrel sooner or later, so I just figured it wasn�t much worth it. And honestly, I was ready to try something new.

AMF-American Machinist and Foundry, bought Harley Davidson from the family in the late 60 and are known for running a company into the ground, and just take profits out. When John Davidson bought it back, my father in law who was a VP at the Electric utility here was on the new board of directors for HD, john said at the first meeting that if "they would have known what AMF would have down to the company they would have never sold it". Now I was in collage then and working at HD when AMF owned it and saw the junk they were making, 30% valve leakage on a motor coming of the assembly line, ect and theft ran rampit, I knew some guys there that made more in stealing parts each week then there salary, and AMF did not care, it was a right off. My 2 cents.

AMF-American Machinist and Foundry, bought Harley Davidson from the family in the late 60 and are known for running a company into the ground, and just take profits out. When John Davidson bought it back, my father in law who was a VP at the Electric utility here was on the new board of directors for HD, John said at the first meeting that if "they would have known what AMF would have down to the company they would have never sold it". Now I was in collage then and working at HD when AMF owned it and saw the junk they were making, 30% valve leakage on a motor coming of the assembly line, ect and theft ran rampit, I knew some guys there that made more in stealing parts each week then there salary, and AMF did not care, it was a right off. My 2 cents.

No there is a fundamental difference. FN is seeking to build a brand and reputation. They are investing for the long term, and plan to still be runing the company in a few decades. They have made a commitmentand they have invested heavily in new technologies and hardware. The profits they are thinking about will last for decades. This is the hard way of running a business, and it is the approach that fosters innovation which has always been at the centre of american economi success.

The alternative approach is to maximise profits in the next year or two by trading on a reputation and brand loyality that someone else has already made for you, and then running the product into the ground to maximise short term profits. In the long term, you destroy the company, but in the short term you make greater profits than approach (1). And if you are only interested in short term profits, clearly approach (1) is the better option. But for the economy as a whole, in the long term, it is devastating......

thank goodness Kevin's experience is not shared by many Model 39 owners. My old Mountie still gives great service, with nary a problem.