NEW Ruger Marlin 336?

[Glenn R. McMannly]

Now that the Ruger-made Marlin 336 has been out for a while, what’s the consensus?

I inspected a couple Remlin 336s on the rack a few years ago at a sporting goods store. Abysmal quality. Canted sights, very poorly made.

Are these new Rugers actually any better made? I am very, very skeptical. But I’ve wanted a 336 for a while and in my area people seem to think their used JM’s are forged from gold.

Thoughts?

 

[CH4]

Are these new Rugers actually any better made? I am very, very skeptical. But I’ve wanted a 336 for a while and in my area people seem to think their used JM’s are forged from gold.

Thoughts?

I never saw or handled a Remlin, but the current Ruglin examples I recently played with at SHOT and NRA, appear very well made. However, I’ll pay the $$$ for “JM” Marlins and pre lock Smiths. Nothing wrong with either, just personal preference.

 

[s&wchad]

I haven't handled a Ruger/Marlin 336, but MSPR starts at $1279. I don't know about your area, but you can buy a high condition JM marked 336 for well under $800 here in Michigan. It was a popular deer gun and there are a lot of them around.

 

[TheTinMan]

You may be sorry you asked…

I paid $1,029 for this Marlin made recently in Mayodan, NC.

IMHO it is made as well or better than older “JM” Marlins unless you go back before 1960. Fit and finish are very nice, and it is more accurate than most lever action rifles. The action is excellent. It has a hammer forged barrel with normal rifling. Marlin started introducing “micro groove” button-cut rifling in the 1950s. I have an 1894 made in the ‘70s with micro groove rifling. It shoots jacketed bullets OK but it is finicky about lead bullets. It also does not put bullets consistently in the same spot.

But what do I know about lever action rifles?

Note: top is a 1990s Marlin 1895 LTD - a fine rifle with 1/2 octagon barrel, but it’s not as accurate as my Mayodan-made Marlins. Bottom three also are Marlins: 1970s 1894, 1894 Cowboy Carbine made in 2001, and new-ish 1895 Guide Gun (also Mayodan).

Winchester 1892s made by Miroku of Japan are as good or better quality than even the new Marlins. However, they cost about $2,000. 2nd and 3rd from top are Miroku “Winchesters”. So is this little beast that joined the family after that group photo. It’s an 1892 Deluxe Trapper Takedown in .45 Colt.

 

[mauser9]

Reviews I have read are all very positive concerning the 336- 1894 models. Well fitted with walnut and nice bluing. Yep they sure ain't cheap though.

 

[mattallamerican]

just bought a 1894 44 way better than the old micro groove

 

[444 Magnum]

Ditto to the above comments. Reviews on the Marlinowners forum are all positive.

I am a Marlin collector and only buy JM rifles-without the cross bolt safety. No remlins or ruglins in my future; but that's just a personal thing- no reflection on the quality of the current ruglins.

If you want a JM rifle, buy it sooner rather than later-they just keep going up.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I had a 336 in 44 Mag (only made for less than 1/2 year) and a first year 1894 44 Mag (both had cut rifling) I also later had a few 1894s with Micro-groove rifling. I sized Cast wheel weight bullet and sized to .430 and .431" They took the rifling much better at .431"!

Ivan

 

[InTheWoods]

I had two JM 1894s and disposed of them both over the years. My new Ruglin 1894 is a far better made rifle than either of my previous JMs. Wood quality, checkering, and wood to metal fit put both of my JMs to shame.

 

[Bald1]

This is an interesting thread. A friend of mine has a Marlin from about 2009. I never thought it was bad. The “wood” however is blah.

 

[The Kid]

I have handled, shot, and worked on literally thousands of Marlin lever actions of all eras of production from the 1890s through about 2016. I have been witness to all manner of atrocities across every era from about the 1950’s on up. I handled a brand new 1895 from Ruger a month or two ago and as a sample of one I’ll say it was as well put together as anything else I’ve seen with the Marlin name on it. Hopefully it was an indication of overall quality because it was pretty nice.

 

[Doug M.]

I do not recall hearing anything bad about the new Marlins made by Ruger and in fact am waiting for a specific model to become available.

 

[Walter Rego]

I have not yet had a chance to examine one of the new Ruger made guns, but talking to some LGS employees they tell me they sell as soon as they get one in.

How is Ruger handling their Warning-Read Owners Manual rollmark ? When they started putting them on the bottom of the barrels of their Blackhawks next to the ejector rod tube I forgot about my reluctance to buy any newer Rugers.

If Ruger produces some special runs for distributors like Lipseys as they have done with the No. 1 rifles in the past, I'll bet they will sell well. Lots of hunters would love to see a .35 Remington with a 2/3 magazine for example.

 

[jeffrefrig]

I haven't looked lately, but a local shop had one (a Marlin 336 in 30-30) here with a scope & sling for way under $700, maybe closer to $4-550. I was tempted, but I have no need for one. And there's no money to be made at the price worth the hassle. But anyone looking for a 30-30 in PA would jump on that for his kid or himself.
Ruger should proceed with that design and calibers that work well in it.

 

[Buick]

Im hoping Ruger will introduce a 2/3rds magazine carbine in a new caliber....how about a .450 marlin necked down to .375? That would be some potent medicine for all manner of critters.

 

[Faulkner]

I never thought that JM Marlins were necessarily holy grail guns. I have a 1979 made 336C I bought in high school and it's a good solid rifle, reliable and accurate enough, and I've taken a lot of game with it but that JM stamp doesn't make it anything special.

I've handled both the Ruger/Marlin 336 and 1894 and they are indeed impressive. I admit I've not fired one yet, but I have been eyeing the new 1894 in .357.

I'm not a big Remlin fan nor apologist, but the later made Remlins are actually not bad rifles. I suppose because of the internet rhetoric I was able to buy a Remlin 336Y compact model new in the box marked down pretty cheap. I sent it off for a takedown conversion and action job and I have been very impressed with it.

 

[Drm50]

Haven’t experienced Ruger / Marlin yet but only thing I hear is crying about price. Remlins were junk. I had a few brought over to “adjust” glitches but told owners to take them back or send them back. I warned several and they bought them anyway.
Now I have no doubt Ruger will put out a good product. They are and have been leaders in investment casting. Also been into MIM and plastics for some time. I’m sure Rugers Bean Counters aren’t pulling prices out of the clouds.
Many of the newer entries into guns, shooting and hunting actually know very little about guns and their manufacture. If guns like the Marlin 336,
Savage 99, Win 94 or Rem 141 were made today using old school methods you would be paying $2k-$3K for one. So the new breed thinks nothing of $1200.
My question is why would you pay this for a new gun that is only the same in design? Like was stated there are thousands of these rifles out there. If you don’t want to pay crazy money for an original JM Marlin you got to get off line. Also all the above lever guns started downhill on quality, fit and finish before they went under. So having JM Marlin from end times of Marlin doesn’t mean you have a good one. It didn’t happen overnight either.
I traded or sold all my Post War Marlins except one 336 at crazy money. I have several nice turn of the century Marlins that don’t have the market of the Post War models.
I can see why when I see pictures of lever guns decked out with all kinds of bling. They look like something Buffalo Bill would tote in a Wild West show.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

The issues with Marlins and Remington were that Marlin's tooling was old and required replacing. The company simply couldn't afford to do so. If Remington didn't buy them there was a real chance Marlin would have closed their doors if someone didn't step up and buy them.

Remington's problems weren't only with Marlin...their own product line suffered. Defending themselves from litigation drained the company of cash reserves that could otherwise have gone into improving the products. When the company liquidated and split up into pieces it appears the consumers were fortunate that established gun companies bought the remains and are willing to invest into bring out out and improving the breed.

 

[Soless]

Having owned a JM 336, a Remlin 336 and now a RM 1894, without a doubt the Ruger made Marlins are quality above and beyond JM and obviously Remlins. This is not to say that the RM's are without fault. I passed on two of them because the barrels were clocked either toweards 11 or 1 o'clock. That's unacceptable. It's obvious after teardown, to see why the RM is top dawg. No machining gouges! Just perfect reminants of wonderfully CNC'd beauty. Can't say the same for the JM and certainly not the Remlins.

 

[TheTinMan]

Haven’t experienced Ruger / Marlin yet but only thing I hear is crying about price. Remlins were junk. I had a few brought over to “adjust” glitches but told owners to take them back or send them back. I warned several and they bought them anyway.
Now I have no doubt Ruger will put out a good product. They are and have been leaders in investment casting. Also been into MIM and plastics for some time. I’m sure Rugers Bean Counters aren’t pulling prices out of the clouds.
Many of the newer entries into guns, shooting and hunting actually know very little about guns and their manufacture. If guns like the Marlin 336,
Savage 99, Win 94 or Rem 141 were made today using old school methods you would be paying $2k-$3K for one. So the new breed thinks nothing of $1200.
My question is why would you pay this for a new gun that is only the same in design? Like was stated there are thousands of these rifles out there. If you don’t want to pay crazy money for an original JM Marlin you got to get off line. Also all the above lever guns started downhill on quality, fit and finish before they went under. So having JM Marlin from end times of Marlin doesn’t mean you have a good one. It didn’t happen overnight either.
I traded or sold all my Post War Marlins except one 336 at crazy money. I have several nice turn of the century Marlins that don’t have the market of the Post War models.
I can see why when I see pictures of lever guns decked out with all kinds of bling. They look like something Buffalo Bill would tote in a Wild West show.

I was surprised to learn that Ruger is forging the Marlin receivers instead of using investment casting. If there are MIM parts in there, I didn’t recognize them as such. The new ejectors are much more robust than older Marlins (which definitely were MIM done cheaply), and that was a failure point.

When Remington bought Marlin, they moved the factory and old machines from New Haven to Illion, NY without bringing the workers who knew how to get the best they could out of the old machines. Ruger, in contrast, built a “green field” factory in Mayodan, NC for Marlin production.

From a marketing standpoint, Ruger was smart to keep the 336 and 1894 designs virtually identical. However, there are 2 improvements in my Rossi R-95. Instead of Marlin’s traditional 19th Century design with a 2-piece firing pin to avoid out-of-battery discharges, Rossi uses a 1-piece firing pin and a spring loaded firing pin block that’s neatly pushed up and out of the way at the end of the locking block’s upward travel. Marlins also have a 19th Century style extractor. It’s a piece of spring steel that wraps around the bolt with an arm extending forward to grab the rim/groove of the spent case. It works, but Rossi incorporated a spring loaded claw extractor like most modern rifles and pistols. All that said, the Rossi is worth what you pay for it due to the jungle-wood stock, poor wood to metal fitting, and rough matching some places inside.