Ruger/Marlin .30/30

S

smoothshooter

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
4,202
Location
SW Missouri
Saw my first 336 Ruger lever action Marlin-style .30/30 carbine Saturday.
Only had about 1 minute (literally) to look it over as I was leaving the gun store because they were locking the door to close.
It had a very dull matte finish that I did not care for, but otherwise it looked pretty decent. Action was smooth for a new gun.nice wood and inletting.

Would not be afraid to buy one if the example I looked at is typical.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
smoothshooter said:
Saw my first 336 Ruger lever action Marlin-style .30/30 carbine Saturday.
Only had about 1 minute (literally) to look it over as I was leaving the gun store because they were locking the door to close.
It had a very dull matte finish that I did not care for, but otherwise it looked pretty decent. Action was smooth for a new gun.nice wood and inletting.

Would not be afraid to buy one.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen Remlins with the matte finish. I prefer the JM blue, but happy to see they’re still being made.
 
That's really big news if it is current Ruger production. AFAIK all they are making is the .45/70.

Im hoping the 39 comes back.
 
Last edited:
eveled said:
.......
I'm hoping the 39 comes back.
Click to expand...

I said the same thing in another thread. I would buy one as soon as it's available.

Ivan the Butcher said:
(My opinion only) I don't see Ruger ever making the model 39 again. It would be in direct competition with their current production line!

Ivan
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Ruger really doesn't have anything that would be in direct competition with a .22 lever action rifle. Now, if you say that about the Model 60 maybe but then again, if they sell a rifle that is an original Ruger or one originally a Marlin they are still making a sale and they get the profits and possibly sell to someone who wasn't going to buy a Ruger.

They may just earn the loyalty of buyers who were originally Marlin fans especially if they stay as close to the original style of the Marlins.

Sorry, I seem to be rambling now lol. I'm just a Marlin fan. (as well as a Savage fan too)
 
OK - I admit to being a stubborn old fart stuck in my ways...... however when it comes to Marlin's (got a bunch of 'em) they must be the JM originals. I will not be buying any Marlin not stamped with a JM. Wouldn't touch a "Remlin" or a "Ruglin". Marlin was in business long enough that there are plenty of originals out there for the taking if one really sets out to get one and while a little pricy now days, the Ruger copies are no bargain either. While Ruger has done a much much better job than Remington did - I am not a fan of their new rendering and was disappointed when I saw one.
 
chief38 said:
OK - I admit to being a stubborn old fart stuck in my ways...... however when it comes to Marlin's (got a bunch of 'em) they must be the JM originals. I will not be buying any Marlin not stamped with a JM. Wouldn't touch a "Remlin" or a "Ruglin". Marlin was in business long enough that there are plenty of originals out there for the taking if one really sets out to get one and while a little pricy now days, the Ruger copies are no bargain either. While Ruger has done a much much better job than Remington did - I am not a fan of their new rendering and was disappointed when I saw one.
Click to expand...

I've asked this before but really didn't get an answer: my 1947 model 39A (D ****) has no JM stamp on it, but the D serial no. prefix supposedly means 1947 manufacture. I'm 65, and I know the gun was in our house as long as I can remember. If I were to sell this one, is someone going to give me grief about no JM stamp? It's still a great shooter though.
 
Ivan the Butcher said:
(My opinion only) I don't see Ruger ever making the model 39 again. It would be in direct competition with their current production line!

Ivan
Click to expand...

Not really. The 10/22 and I arrived in the same year. Way back in the day when I was young and the 10/22 was fairly new it was a mid to upper level .22 LR rifle or carbine. It was introduced at a price of $54.50 in 1964. In 2022 dollars that would be a $500 rifle, comparable to a CZ 457, not the current $290 for a 10/22.


By the time I was about 10, too young to buy one and too poor afford one on my allowance, Ruger started cheapening the 10/22 with a plastic butt plate and a birch stock. I was not pleased with the decline in quality.

By 1980 when I bought my first one, birch stock, plastic butt plate and all, sales had really taken off and the 10/22 was very popular and very common. And I had no idea how much lower Ruger would take it.

Today, the 10/22 with plastic trigger guard housing, and plastic stock isn’t bottom of the barrel but at $290 it’s compromising a lot on its former level of quality, fit and finish.

But that’s by design. The basic 10/22 is sold as a sort of an adult Lego starter set for owners to “upgrade” and “customize” with aftermarket parts. And for those that just to buy one and shoot it, Ruger has a lot of higher up the scale options that climb up into the $500-$600 range.


Would a quality lever gun compete with that? No. It’s a totally different market.


Ruger would be competing with the Rossi .22 LR lever action at around $285, as well as the Henry starting around $380, and climbing up into the $500-600 range for their higher grade .22LR lever guns.

They’d also be competing with the Browning BL22 which starts at around $680. It’s a bit more expensive than the higher grade Henry .22 LRs but it is a massive step up in materials, fit, finish and over all quality.

IMHO, that’s the area where Ruger would need and want to be competing with a well made reintroduction of the Model 39. And I think they could do it. They had the size and capital to absorb the tooling costs to make a lot of money on it long term.
 
Ivan the Butcher said:
(My opinion only) I don't see Ruger ever making the model 39 again. It would be in direct competition with their current production line!

Ivan
Click to expand...

The model 60 was always the 10/22’s biggest competitor. Both being semi automatic. The 39 being a lever is like nothing they already make.

Unfortunately I doubt they could make it at a price point that would be able to compete against Henry.
 
Last edited:
Yeah do recall the lever Ruger in 22 magnum and 44 magnum. I would love to see the Model 39 come out but guessing the price will not be cheap!
 
I need to retract what I posted about seeing a Ruger-made Marlin 336 type .30/30 8n a gun store Saturday.

10 minutes ago I called the store back to verify what I thought I saw

The gun in question WAS a Marlin 336 .30/30 carbine made in Connecticut, apparently shortly before Marlin shut down, according to the dealer.
As I said before , I only had less than a minute to look it over, and the new-looking condition and matte finish that I had never seen on a 336 before made me think it must be one of the new Rugers.
The action cycles much smoother than a 1958 model I bought a few months ago. The dealer knows the guy who traded it in personally and he had shot less than 50 shells thru it. The dealer wants $700 for it

I apologize for the error, and getting some people’s hopes up.
I felt I needed to quash any false rumors I may have caused as soon as I found out the truth.
 
Goblin said:
Let’s not forget Ruger tested the lever-action waters. Maybe they’re ready to take another dip in the pool.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that’s why they bought Marlin, in which they’ve subsequently invested quite a bit of money to improve QC and manufacturing processes, along with relocating.
 
Shark Bait said:
I don't think Ruger has started to make the 336 yet. They currently have three versions of the 1895 in .45-70, but that is all. I would love to be proven wrong about this.
Click to expand...

Do not know why Ruger started with the .45/70.
Looks like they would have wanted to have the more popular .30/30 out in time for the hunting seasons this fall.
Maybe they want to start out their new lines slowly.
 
smoothshooter said:
Do not know why Ruger started with the .45/70.
Looks like they would have wanted to have the more popular .30/30 out in time for the hunting seasons this fall.
Maybe they want to start out their new lines slowly.
Click to expand...

By Marlin and Ruger’s account, the 45/70 line was the most profitable and best selling, which is why they brought it back first.

It’s a lot easier to find a reasonably priced 30/30 than it is a 45/70. Ruger is exactly what Marlin needed, not some bean counters at a hedge fund.

But I will say why buy a 45/70 new when there are plenty of “only shot once” examples for sale?
 
I checked out a brand new Marlin 1895 in the LGS the other day.

It looked OK. But Ruger is pretty proud of those guns. I think that I paid around four bills for my clean early nineties production 1895 about five years ago. Paid about twice that for my 1895 XTP at about the same time. Bought it brand new and glad that I did. With it's 16" barrel it will definitely get your attention and I really like the fiber optic sights.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0633.jpg
    IMG_0633.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 28
Ivan the Butcher said:
(My opinion only) I don't see Ruger ever making the model 39 again. It would be in direct competition with their current production line!

Ivan
Click to expand...

Ruger didn't buy Marlin for nostalgic purposes, they bought Marlin to make money. If their marketing data indicates they can make money producing the Marlin 39 they will do so. I suspect the plans are ready to go and they're just waiting on production capability.
 
While it is frustrating to me as I am waiting on a .357 M1894, the good news is that it seems Ruger is ramping up in a gradual manner that allows for better QC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top